| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1001
"divide and rule" mentality. People who are now working in a large professional group in which the structures and financing are generally understood may find that, once they are working in small, isolated units, they are not only vulnerable for reasons of costing and funding, but isolated from colleagues in similar professions all over the country. Such financial pressures could worsen the conditions of staff gradually, group by group.I have worked for large corporations--including the British Steel Corporation, before it showed me the door--and remember similar financial arrangements. Staff were organised into groups with their own operating plans, which they had to abide by in order to survive. I was working in research. My colleagues and I found ourselves in a financial straitjacket which, eventually, made us less efficient and less professional ; as a result, the confidence and morale of the whole department became lower and lower. The agencies and funding organisations for which the Bill provides must not be isolated and forced to make decisions that will be detrimental not only to staff conditions but, eventually, to the entire service.
Many of us criticise some of the actions of the Civil Service, but it is still seen throughout the world as perhaps the most professional service anywhere. That did not happen by accident ; it is the result of years of experience. Governments of all persuasions have used and appreciated the service in the past, and, we hope, will be able to do the same in future. I do not see the point of changing the system, but the Government are plainly determined to do so. All that we can do is to ensure that professionalism, efficiency and, of course, the work force are protected.
New clause 2 would ensure that that protection was provided through some form of national agreement. The Government do not have a very good record on trade union relations, and I hope that their aim is not to break down the organisations and then pick them up one by one, thereby lowering not only wages but professional standards.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : I sympathise with the objectives of the new clause. It is designed to reassure civil servants who are involved in new and, in some respects, experimental developments in Departments in which many have worked for years, and to ensure that major changes are made only in consultation with them.
It is inevitable that the trading fund approach will--as it should--invite greater inventiveness by both management and staff in regard to how jobs can be done most effectively. In some circumstances, that is bound to mean larger rewards being ofered to attract staff to difficult jobs, or to give more recognition to effective performance than traditional Civil Service systems have tended to allow.
Anyone who doubts the need for such action should consider the experience of the tax inspectorate, which--as has been revealed in successive tranches of evidence to Committees of the House--has found it difficult to retain staff in the present competitive environment. Although the tax inspectorate is not a "next steps" agency, its experience demonstrates the difficulty of holding qualified staff with marketable skills when plenty of other employers are prepared to pay much more for those skills.
8.15 pm
I was surprised and concerned to find that Civil Service management had been so hamstrung in the past : a private operator has to act as a matter of urgency to avoid losing
Column 1002
trained staff. If the training agencies do their job, there is bound to be more diversity. Like the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I do not want whole areas of the country to be designated low-pay areas, and to become centres of primarily part-time employment, just because the Government suddenly see the possibility of a quick cost saving. Much could be lost, especially in the more sensitive spheres. Many of the bodies concerned are either dealing directly with the public on matters of great individual concern involving constitutional rights, or dealing with security matters or confidential information held by Government Departments about individuals. We do not want to lose the valuable concept of a public service.The question is, can we marry two concepts? I should like to believe that we can obtain greater efficiency in every sense--not just economic efficiency, but an efficient service for the consumer. That may mean a Government Department--and hence the generality of taxpayers--or an individual obtaining a licence, a service, information, a map or a charter from the Government agency. It is essential to carry public sector workers with us, and the new clause is directed to that end. Whether it is slightly too cumbersome to achieve its object, or should be incorporated immediately in the Bill, is a matter for discussion, but I strongly support its general aims and hope that the Minister will find some way of meeting them.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) spoke of the need for assurances in line with the seven points cited by the CPSA which were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I feel that those assurances are likely to be required in legislation. I, too, would like an assurance : that the Government, if they do not accept the new clause because of drafting problems, will be willing to introduce suitable amendments later. I do not really trust general statements that this, that and the other will be protected when they are not written down in statute. Statute applies to the future and, although a future Labour Government may change a good deal of it, much will undoubtedly remain for a long time. There is nothing wrong with getting things right now.
I also hope that the specific assurances that we require will apply to all grades in the Civil Service, and not just to executive grades. Let me stress that the new clause requires a ballot on any planned variation in the conditions of civil servants. The Government are keen to introduce ballots, often of a peculiar nature, in certain circumstances--when they feel that it will benefit them to do so. If there are to be ballots, they should allow civil servants some say in, and control of, transfer arrangements as a consequence of any change in the agency in which they happen to work. It would be a healthy development if such provisions were added to assist the membership of Civil Service unions, by contrast with the kind of ballot provisions that are often brought before the House with the purpose of hemming in organised workers and restricting the development of their collective interests.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley) : I shall respond first to the points made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), and in doing so, I hope to answer the questions of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), before referring to other contributions.
Column 1003
The establishment of a trading fund will not in itself affect the terms and conditions under which civil servants are employed. Departments and agencies are increasingly tailoring their arrangements for personnel to meet their business needs. That process must include the possible introduction of changes in conditions other than those that apply to the Civil Service generally. I stated in Committee that Departments, like all good employers, should, and do, take every step to consult their employees when considering any changes that could have significant implications for them. Announcing the next steps initiative, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said :"The Civil Service unions will be consulted about the setting up of particular agencies. They will also be consulted if any change in terms and conditions of civil servants is contemplated."--[ Official Report, 18 February 1988 ; Vol. 127, c. 1149.]
I reinforce my right hon. Friend's comments by confirming that we shall consult and seek consultations with Civil Service trade unions in sufficient time to allow for meaningful discussions before the introduction of any new agency or trading fund status.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Wrexham welcomes the developments and negotiations in respect of Her Majesty's Stationery Office and its employee representatives. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it will serve as a model for other agencies and trading funds. Clearly it will be up to their managements to make their own proposals. They will not share the same specific problems, situations and opportunities as have arisen in respect of HMSO, but I am sure that the spirit manifest in respect of the negotiations for that body will--in particular because of the warm response that it has received from the Opposition--be emulated by other managers. I am delighted that things have gone well for HMSO, for which I was responsible when it became an agency.
The views and comments of staff and trade unions are an important component in considering change--but ultimately management must take the decisions on how that challenge is met.
The hon. Member for Wrexham asked a number of specific questions, particularly about the Employment Services Agency. He inquired whether it will be transformed into or have a trading fund. At present, it does not fall within the powers of the existing legislation, or as it will be modified by the Bill. Therefore, it will not be possible for the ESA, as it currently operates, to have a trading fund.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there will be sufficient time for consultation with the unions on the framework document that is the precursor to the establishment of an agency for the employment services group. There have been several discussions with the trade unions since February 1988 on the intention to establish an agency. I am confident that there will be further consultation in line with the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in time for the completion of the framework document.
The hon. Member for Wrexham asked why the framework agreement does not mention trade union consultation. The Employment Services Agency and the framework document are matters for my right hon. and
Column 1004
learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Although I acknowledge that the framework document does not refer specifically to trade unions, it makes the chief executive responsible for conducting "effective employee relations". I expect the hon. Gentleman to agree that that includes consulting staff and trade unions.Dr. Marek : It will be helpful if the framework document refers specifically to that aspect. The problem is that it does not. If the Government's intention is as the Minister says, they will save themselves a lot of problems, and dispel many rumours, if they will state it clearly.
Mr. Lilley : I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The important point is that the framework document spells out the chief executive's responsibility for ensuring "effective employee relations", which right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House want to see. Discussions are continuing between management and trade unions on the consultation document, and I am sure that the remarks made during today's debate will be considered in the course of them.
Dr. Marek : Unless a specific reference to trade union consultation is made in the framework document, after April no structure will exist for it. I repeat that it will be useful if that aspect is included in the finalised document.
Mr. Lilley : I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the absence of a specific reference to trade union consultation does not alter the substantive position and the natural relationship between management, employees and trade unions in any Department, which I hope will continue in a constructive and co-operative way.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) said that we have the finest Civil Service in the world and that we do not want to undermine it in any way--I entirely agree. My experience as a Minister has revealed and confirmed that we have a very good Civil Service, of which we as a country can be proud. I cannot agree that it should necessarily be petrified and not be subject to change to take advantage of the best management thinking and practice. I am sure that the Civil Service would not wish to be fossilised. The development of agencies is entirely compatible with the Civil Service's fine traditions.
The hon. Member for Heeley asked whether the Government are planning to erode the conditions under which civil servants work. We want the management of agencies and trading funds to enjoy flexibility. It is not our intention that that should be used to lower standards but to make standards and conditions more appropriate, where necessary. In many circumstances, change may not be necessary. In others, such as with HMSO, it may be desirable to make conditions more relevant to the type of agency and its function.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) supports the general objective of new clause 2, even if he thinks it is a little heavy-handed. I sympathise with the underlying principles that motivate the Opposition in tabling the new clause, but I have even stronger reservations about its effectiveness in achieving the Opposition's objectives and about its desirability. Therefore, I cannot recommend that the House accepts new clause 2.
Column 1005
8.30 pmMr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : I apologise to the House because, although I was put on the Standing Committee, for reasons that the Government Whip understands, it took place at the same time as the Committee stage of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill, so I did not attend the Committee. The House should understand that if an hon. Member has been extremely active, and has taken up two thirds of the time in Committee, as I did on the PSA Bill, one cannot absent oneself.
I was curious as to what answer the Minister would give to the pertinent questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I want to ask two short questions and a long question. First, may we have clarification as to why the measure, like so many others, is being dealt with by the Treasury? What has become of the Minister for the Civil Service? It is not my nature to complain about the discourtesy of not being here. I am not in any way sniping or getting at the Minister for the Civil Service, who is one of the most courteous Members in the House, but I am curious about what has become of the Civil Service Department.
Am I right in assuming that, by degrees, control of all matters in relation to the Civil Service has gone back to the Treasury, that the Minister for the Civil Service is a Minister only in name on Monday afternoons to answer parliamentary questions, and that his real function and role are as Minister for the Arts? [Laughter.] Because of the ministerial mirth, I suspect that is about right. We should have explained to us why, over the months and years, the Civil Service Department has been eroded and, as so often before, power has returned whence it came and whence it always will come, the Treasury. Incidentally, I do not say that it is a bad thing, but I think it should be clarified.
Mr. Lilley : If I may clarify it briefly, the Bill is a trading funds Bill, although you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have allowed us to range more widely and to talk about agencies. That is only an indirect aspect of the Bill. The Bill is about Government accounting and trading funds. It has much to do with accounts and
accountability. That is why the Treasury has taken the lead. I would have been only too delighted to hand the matter over to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Civil Service.
Mr. Dalyell : I take that with a pinch of salt. I do not think that the Treasury is ever delighted to hand over power, but we shall let that pass.
My second question is a gentle one. The Minister has said that every reasonable step is taken to consult, and I have no doubt that he meant it, but he also talked about consultation in sufficient time. One lesson that I have learnt from the saga, if I may put it that way, of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers is that consultation, where it has taken place, has been rather sudden.
Is the Minister sure that there is sufficient time for proper consultation on decisions that affect the lives of individuals? Trade unions do not complain for fun about not having time properly to consult. There are great difficulties for people who have to move, often in groups, from one part of the country to another. People have mortgages and children at school. Human problems arise. May we have the absolute assurance that there is sufficient time for consultation?
Column 1006
My third question was prompted by Professor Peter Hennessy, a professor at Strathclyde. On 9 February, when referring to the Public Accounts Committee and the performance of Parliament, he told a large audience in Glasgow :"performance is very patchy and, in one case, that of the Public Accounts Committee, is invariably far superior to the rest. Why? Because the PAC has superb back up in the shape of the National Audit Office and the rest do not. I think it was the former MP for Canterbury, David Crouch, who said the difference between the PAC and a standard department-shadowing select committee was the difference between a management consultancy and a pressure group. He's exactly right. I hope the Procedure Committee under Sir Peter Emery, which is currently looking at the power and the back-up of select committees, will have something robust to say about this when they report--and about the ludicrously restrictive Osmotherly Rules' which give civil servant witnesses 60 ways of saying I can't answer that' when they appear before select committees."
I want to take the opportunity to ask about the protection of civil servants appearing before Select Committees of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the new clause before us. I do not think that it relates to that. I have given the hon. Gentleman quite a bit of licence.
Mr. Dalyell : I just hoped, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would give me even more rope. I was straying into a question that interests me greatly. I suspect that I shall have to write a letter, drawing the attention of the Minister to the guidelines for giving evidence to departmental Select Committees.
Without going over paragraph 4 of the guidelines, I want to ask the Minister one question. Is he sure that civil servants, from agencies or anything covered by the Bill, have the protection that they should be given? The Osmotherly rules came at a time when Select Committees were less developed. There is a problem. I am not persuaded that the Opposition or I have a better answer because there is a question of flexibility. Has the Treasury given any thought to allowing civil servants to be more forthcoming and not to take refuge in those rules? I am not thinking particularly of the Select Committee on Defence and Westland, in which I am particularly interested. I am concerned about general flexibility for civil servants to answer questions as candidly as they would wish.
I see help coming to the Minister from the Officials' Box. I hope that the Parliamentary Private Secretary is fleet of foot. I suspect that the House may learn something interesting on the subject. As the PPS has arrived, I can sit down and await those words of wisdom.
Mr. Lilley : In response to the question about sufficient time for consultation, obviously the time needed will vary from case to case, but there would be no point in consulting if there were not time to carry out the consultation. Therefore, it is in everybody's interest to ensure that there is sufficient time for consultation. As for the second point about evidence to Select Committees, I fear that my response to that is the mirror image to the first question put by the hon. Gentleman about whether I should be the Minister responding to the debate. I am not equipped to respond to questions about the accountability of civil servants to Select Committees.
Dr. Marek : We have had an interesting debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr.
Column 1007
Michie) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) for the pertinent points they raised, which demonstrate the Opposition's concern about the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made some intriguing points. When he writes to the Minister, perhaps he will send me a copy of the letter, because I should like to see what points he has in mind. I am sure that they are pertinent and should be considered carefully by the Government. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for his support for the principle of the new clause. We fear the Prime Minister's heavy hand and the Conservative dogma of cutting public expenditure and privatisation. There are some good points, however. The negotiations with HMSO are a case in point. The Minister gave useful assurances in Committee about consulting the Civil Service trade unions and about the movement of civil servants between agencies and other parts of the Civil Service. It would therefore be wrong for the Opposition to divide the House on the new clause. There is still concern, but in view of the assurances that have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.New Clause 4
Prohibition of privatisation (No. 2)
No part of a Government department where a Government Trading Fund has been established shall be privatised within five years of the establishment of the fund.'.-- [Mr. Battle.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Our main concern about the next steps programme is that Government trading funds should not become a simple and quick staging post for privatisation. I hope that the Government will allay our fears by accepting that there should be a period of five years after the establishment of a trading fund within which it cannot be privatised. The eighth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in July 1988 says :
"We confess to being slightly confused by the relationship between the Next Steps and the Government's privatisation policy." I remind the House that privatisation is still a hallmark of the Government's policy. In his speech to the Audit Commission in June 1989, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said :
"Privatisation will continue as an essential part of our policy. There is a major programme in the pipeline and other parts of the public sector will become candidates as they develop a more commercial approach."
The phrase
"as they develop a more commercial approach"
is crucial to the setting up of Government trading funds and agencies. We wonder what the Government mean by "a more commercial approach."
In the White Paper published in December 1989--"The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies"--we read :
"Next steps is primarily about those operations which are to remain within Government. But it cannot be ruled out that after a period of years, agencies, like other Government
Column 1008
activities, may be suitable for privatisation where there is a firm intention of privatisation. When an agency is being set up, this will be made clear."I hope that the Financial Secretary will make that absolutely clear tonight. He ought to specifiy the period that is suggested in new clause 4.
The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report also said : "The essential thing in any individual case is to avoid uncertainty. If an announcement that part of a department is to become an agency is greeted with the suspicion that it might be privatised, such uncertainty could well damage efforts to improve efficiency and the quality of service. If the organisation is to be privatised, it should be made clear at the outset that this is so." We must ensure that the damaging effects of uncertainty do not devalue the quality of service that is provided. Therefore, the Bill ought to be amended to specify a clear period within which privatisation cannot take place. We owe it to civil servants to give them a clear reassurance.
In the Standing Committee, the Financial Secretary made the interesting remark, "We certainly do not dig up the roots the day after planting." That is a wholesome image which is in tune with current green thinking, but there is evidence in other policy areas that the day after planting, the Secretary of State for the Environment, for example, as a result of pressure from certain parts of the country, came to believe that the poll tax ought to be uprooted, or looked at, root and branch, for next year. I know that you would rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I were to pursue the Financial Secretary's analogy any further. However, it appears that what is set down one day as a policy is uprooted the next. We want the Financial Secretary to assure us that in this case that will not happen.
8.45 pm
More pertinent to the debate is the comment of Sir Peter Middleton, the permanent secretary to the Treasury, in the evidence that he gave to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee :
"As part of the process of seeing whether these organisations should be agencies, it is perfectly natural to look at the three things I suggested : privatisation, contracting out and simply dropping the activity. Secondly, becoming an agency may be a step to privatisation later ; it is all part of getting a more commercial attitude. I think this is particularly true of the various trading funds. It is very difficult to privatise things that do not charge for their output. That is the basic problem."
I suggest that that is exactly at the heart of the debate. We must examine that statement about developing a more commercial attitude, particularly as we are dealing with publicly divided services. In the 1980s, the Government embarked on a great economic experiment. The policy watchword for nearly a decade has been "Privatise". There has been total addiction to what some people would describe as the myth of the arithmetic of the workings of the perfect free market model. During our consideration of the Bill, the Government have moved the emphasis slightly, but it still does not contain the limited guarantees that would make clear to civil servants where they stand, or would make clear to the public that we are talking about preserving, extending and improving the efficiency and quality of services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) referred in the debate on new clause 2 to the Government having isolated people into units. The word "units" is
Column 1009
interesting. It is not a question of looking at people as individuals. The word "units" leads us directly into the accountancy language of economic management. Great claims are made for the "next steps" initiative. We are told that it will lead to improved services. However, all the emphasis is placed on financial performance. That emphasis masks the shift in Government thinking from quality to quantity. How can efficiency and improved quality of service be accurately measured? It is difficult to devise objectives and empirical tests for service industries that prove that the service has been delivered.I recollect that the Treasury instructed local government to implement a programme called urban programme monitoring initiatives. Although spending on the urban programme for the inner cities was less than 1 per cent. of the total budget, the Government instructed local authorities to monitor those programmes in such detail that, when the planting of trees took place, council officers or voluntary groups were instructed to count the number of trees that had been planted and to return to the site six months later and count them again to find out whether they were still there. They were also instructed to measure the distance travelled when vans or minibuses took elderly people to their luncheon clubs. The accuracy of the figures was all that mattered, regardless of the fact that that might damage the services provided.
Documents have been submitted while the National Health Service and Community Care Bill is being considered in Committee, and emphasis is placed in the medical audit documents on input, output, throughput and episodes of patient care. The emphasis is on quantity measures that have been lifted from accountancy models, using target indicators. However, such models have a habit of cutting out those parts of the service that cannot be measured in detail by mathematical models, although they provide a crucial service to people.
Paragraph 3.19 of "The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies" under the heading "Impact on Agency financial management" states :
"The general framework for providing and managing Civil Service resources described above will give a range of choices. These include--whether an Agency's running costs current expenditure is allocated and monitored gross or net and thus whether its receipts influence or determine the amount it can spend".
That reminded me that the rationale behind the critique of state-planned economies was precisely that gross output measures did not exactly work. It reminded me of the story of electric lamp factories where the plans were to measure only in aggregate watt power, so they could not produce any low- power lamps. It also reminds me of the story of women unloading bricks from a truck and smashing many of them because if the unloading were done more carefully they would produce less and be paid less, the driver of the truck would make fewer runs in the day and finally, his enterprise would clock up fewer tonne-kilometres. Those are recorded episodes of what happened under state-planned economies.
In an article on industrial management in "The Soviet Economic System" Alec Nove writes :
"In every case the essence of the problem is that the centre is trying to set up an incentive system designed to achieve more efficiency, but, because it does not and cannot know the specific circumstances, its instructions frequently contradict what those on the spot know to be the sensible thing to do."
Yet that is precisely what the Government are doing.
The great irony of our time is that, precisely when the Soviet and other planned economies are moving away
Column 1010
from that model, our Government are insisting that it should be the model for the public sector. I hope that there is still time to say that it might not be the best one. It seems strange that the Government are turning to such evaluations precisely when the Soviet Union is desperately struggling to move away from the straitjacket approach. It is not sufficient simply to mimic the organisation and methods of private business, because they may not be appropriate to the circumstances.It would be unfair to put to the Financial Secretary all the recorded cases of the Government urging Labour and Conservative local authorities to contract out street cleaning to the private sector only to find that the job was not done properly and the on-cost had to be taken on board again. In Leeds, the local authority contracted out the laundry services only to discover that they ran at a loss when previously they had been fine.
More recently, the Government have been obsessed with pushing various services into the private sector. That is mirrored by the community care proposals put before the House which demonstrate precisely the problem. The London borough of Barnet contracted out its services for the mentally handicapped to an agency and then had to rescue the agency because it was running into insurmountable financial problems as it could not cope with the capital costs of running the services. In other words, some of the costs have to be absorbed by larger organisations and shared around.
The Government know precisely that the proposals are an attempt to control costs from the centre while disowning responsibility for the quality of the service provided once the fund is set up and we move towards the agencies. What will be the Minister's overriding concern when he sets the performance targets? We suspect that it will be to control the costs from the centre with a view to reducing them. The measures that will be used are those that can be most easily measured but which will drive out vital unmeasurable considerations. We are entitled to ask to whom the public will complain when they feel that the services are not adequately delivered. An interesting phrase is used in the White Paper when it refers to the Minister and his Department as
"the owner of the service".
It is ironic that the service is being handed to the agency chief executive who is being made responsible and the Government will disown the service and take no responsibility for its functions. Paragraph 4.3 of "The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies" stated :
"Parliamentary control is maintained through--the affirmative Order establishing each fund--the scrutiny of statutory annual accounts, and the power to examine the fund Accounting Officer."
Paragraph 4.5 continues :
"Because a fund's detailed cashflow is removed from normal Parliamentary Supply controls, Parliamentary approval is required, by affirmative resolution Order, to the setting up of each fund and the overall limit on its borrowing."
Once they are set up, they are then disowned and passed to the responsibility of those agency chief executives.
In some areas of public policy, we have been there before. We have only to look at the organisation of the health authorities, the development companies and the authorities that deal with water. It will not be sufficient for
Column 1011
the Financial Secretary to reply to the debate by saying that in three years' time there will be monitoring to see how it is working out.We cannot leave the Bill and the proposals for the trading funds as if there were a bonded warehouse or a holding operation--holding the functions for privatisation in the near future. The threat of privatisation continues to hang over those functions that have been assigned for agency status. One way in which the Government could allay those fears would be to accept the new clause and remove that threat once and for all by removing the ambiguity and by making it absolutely plain to the Civil Service staff and to the public who need the services where the Government stand.
Mr. Beith : I do not want to go into detail on performance indicators, on which the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made some comments, because I have tabled a new clause on that subject.
New clause 4 bears directly on whether the trading funds are a bonded warehouse on the trade route to privatisation. That is a perfectly legitimate concern. The Government have the reputation of being the privatising Government. When a similar allegation was made on another occasion, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that there was a grain of truth in that. Obviously there are probably candidates for trading fund status which might also be on the list as candidates for privatisation.
The Government must have realised by now that privatisation is rather unpopular, and the experience with water and electricity should convince them of that. Some of the merits of the more commercial approaches to some aspects of the work of the organisations involved are lost in the general sense on the part of the public that they are being done--that their assets are being taken away from them and that they are losing any control that they had over services that are important to them.
They would certainly have that feeling if that threat were to hang over some of the key services that are possible candidates for trading funds. I am thinking of services such as passports, the licensing of patents, and other matters where people's basic right to do something is at stake. It is important for the Government to dispel the impression, if it be false--of course, it may not be false--that trading funds are a halfway house to privatisation. It will not do the business of setting up trading funds any good if they are seen in that light, because it will not be a route to ensuring that we can have an effective operation going on within the public service. What is the motivation that we need to give the staff involved? We want them to know that it is possible to be a public servant providing a public service. but doing so in a way that is more cost-effective and more conscious of the member of the public as a customer of the service than some of the traditional methods may have been. If those two factors are to be married, the last action to achieve it will be for the staff involved, and some of the public, to feel that the Government are preparing the way for privatisation. It seems that the purpose of the amendment is almost met by the reality that it is almost inconceivable that the Government could get a privatisation off the ground within five years of setting up a trading fund. So it would not hurt the Government to make it clear that they have no intention of seeking to do so, and thus avoid the necessity for the amendment.
Column 1012
It would help even more if the Government would say that in most areas of the public service--particularly in those areas in which the Government are a monopoly provider of some right, opportunity or privilege which, if withheld, would be a great disadvantage to a member of the public--they do not contemplate privatisation. If they did that, they would give a fairer wind to the trading fund proposals and the next steps initiative, which are all about providing a service to the general public or, in some cases, to Government Departments in a more efficient way.9 pm
Mr. Dalyell : I preface my remarks--I am sure that I shall be in order in doing so--by saying that in my Scottish constituency experience, the civil servants with whom I deal, including those in the Inland Revenue at East Kilbride, are people of high quality who are obliging. I wish, as the constituency Member, to register my view that overwhelmingly they do an excellent job in my constituency. I believe that civil servants are caring people who, when asked properly, go to infinite trouble, especially where there is a good case to be answered.
But there is a problem to which I draw the attention of the Minister. In Scotland--and, I suspect, elsewhere outside London--to get promotion, often civil servants are expected to move to London. The Civil Service unions which have been considering the measure say that too many promotions have involved moves to London and that such moves are increasingly unpopular, for obvious reasons, with civil servants from Wales, Scotland and the English regions. The unions say : "To management's credit, after many years of union pressure"-- Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. Member again, but I wonder whether he is dealing with the clause that is before the House, which is entitled "Prohibition of privatisation".
| Next Section
| Home Page |