---

Mr. Davidson : There is a consensus in favour of delegation and better management of public services, but anxiety is often expressed by Opposition Members about the hidden agenda behind the Bill. As the debate has gone on, the agenda has become far less hidden. I find myself in the almost paradoxical position that I must vote against

---

Column 396

the Government's proposals because they do not go far enough. [ Hon. Members :-- "Ah."] I know. It causes me some difficulty, I must confess.

I am in favour of delegation to management within the civil service, but the Bill does not go far enough, because it does not allow managers freedom to manage without the fetters of Government policy on a series of matters on which we believe that these policies are driven by dogma.

The public services should operate to agreed agendas, free from dogma. I recognise that we need consensually driven policies for the civil service. For example, I wish to see the flexibility of public service constrained by agreed policies on issues such as dispersal. But I am opposed to constraints such as the thrust to regionalisation of pay, which is designed to drive down pay levels, and contracting out.

Are we serious about injecting private sector methods into the public sector? Let us take the example of the National Savings bank in Glasgow. I ask the Minister to give me an example of a private sector organisation which is obliged to contract out its typing services, messenger services, reprographic services, agency accounting, internal audit and training. The private sector does not operate in that way. If we want a decent public sector, it should not be fettered by dogma-driven policies. That is why I oppose the Government's proposals.

9.53 pm

Ms Hoey : I regret the need to oppose the Bill. Although it was initially heralded as a poor, misunderstood little Bill, the detailed debate on Second Reading and the examination in Committee, as well as the scrutiny in the House of Lords, have highlighted the importance of the measures proposed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) reiterated the central and overwhelming area of agreement between the Opposition and the Government, but we are not able to offer support for the Bill because of what it lacks. It lacks a conscience. It lacks safeguards to prevent the abuses and errors that may be side effects of the measures that it contains. It lacks a commitment to consulting the unions, even though the Minister has conceded the importance of such procedures. What is more, we shall be left to rely on the Minister's discretion over consultation, when the Bill was sprung on the staff of the civil service without a day's notice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) has been terrier-like in his pursuit of the Government for a commitment to proper consultation. The failure of his efforts is testimony to Government intransigence.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar has pressed the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to put the Government's commitment to maintaining and developing equality of opportunity in the Bill, by allowing modest amendments to safeguard the civil service's co-ordinated practices. Our civil service has an excellent reputation in that field, and the Government's reluctance to amend slightly the Bill bodes ill for Government policies, including Opportunity 2000. The hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), in an earlier discussion, hit a raw nerve on the Conservative Front Bench when he pleaded in the recent debate on public services for a period of reflection so that we could

---

Column 397

look first at ways of making our civil service more efficient in its present form before we reach too readily for the privatisation lever.

The Bill does nothing to allay our fears that the Government's hidden agenda is the privatisation of the civil service regardless, on the dogmatic grounds that the private sector necessarily does things better than the public.

Opposition Members have reached out to the Minister with olive branch amendments to cover our concerns, and they have spurned them. My hon. Friends have coaxed and cajoled the Government in search of guarantees to cover the famous impartiality, objectivity and discretion of the civil service. The Minister has turned a stony-- [Interruption.] Madam Speaker, do we have to try to speak when people are gabbling over there beyond the Bar?

Madam Speaker : I am sorry, but I thought that the hon. Lady was capable of making herself heard.

Ms. Hoey : I am, but I wish that hon. Members who come in for the last two minutes of the debate might sit wherever they have been a little longer and not come in until the Division is called. The Minister has turned a stony face on those pleas. Sadly, his commitment and motivation must be questioned, and we shall therefore oppose the Bill.

9.57 pm

Mr. Robert Jackson : The House has had an unparalleled opportunity to discuss the civil service in the past few weeks--an opportunity which we have not perhaps had before. There was a statement on the citizens charter White Paper, a debate on the public service, and the Second Reading, Committee and Report stages of the Bill. It has been an interesting experience, which has shown that there is a good deal of common ground between both sides of the House, which is welcome. In particular, it is clear that the Government and the Opposition share a view of the importance of ensuring that the civil service can give best effect to valued commitment to serving citizens. It is easy for us to take our British system for granted. Apolitical, impartial incorruptible civil services are not altogether common throughout the world, and we are lucky to have what we have here. It is also common ground that it is equally important that the civil service should change and evolve to meet new challenges ; otherwise, there will be stagnation and decline, and that is the threat that faces all large organisations.

I am sorry to hear that the Opposition intend to vote against the Bill. No doubt it is their duty to oppose, but it seems unfortunate that they are thereby forced to oppose better management in the civil service.

Let us remind the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) of her words in Committee :

"We have no difficulty with decentralisation ; we have no difficulty with management decisions being taken close to the place where the work force are".--[ Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26 November 1992 ; c. 75.]

It sounds to me as though the hon. Lady is happy to favour delegation, provided that all managers take the same decision. It is exactly the same as her attitude to market testing--she is in favour, provided that the private sector is not allowed to compete. The fact is that the hon. Lady is willing to wound but afraid to strike.

---

Column 398

I pay tribute to the valiant support for the Bill given by Earl Howe in the House of Lords, and to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who said that the sole aim of the Bill was to remove a legal technicality in order to help the civil service to organise itself in the best way to deliver services to the citizen in an effective and efficient manner. There is no hidden agenda behind the Bill : it is simply an attempt to remove a technical impediment to delegation and decentralisation, where there is common ground between us. The Bill will bring positive benefits, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time : The House divided : Ayes 297, Noes 234.

Division No. 104] [10 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Aitken, Jonathan

Alexander, Richard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Amess, David

Ancram, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Ashby, David

Atkins, Robert

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Baldry, Tony

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bates, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Bellingham, Henry

Bendall, Vivian

Beresford, Sir Paul

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Body, Sir Richard

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Booth, Hartley

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Bowden, Andrew

Bowis, John

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Brandreth, Gyles

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Budgen, Nicholas

Burns, Simon

Burt, Alistair

Butcher, John

Butler, Peter

Butterfill, John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Carrington, Matthew

Carttiss, Michael

Cash, William

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Churchill, Mr

Clappison, James

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Coe, Sebastian

Colvin, Michael

Congdon, David

Conway, Derek

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cormack, Patrick

Couchman, James

Cran, James

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Day, Stephen

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Devlin, Tim

Dickens, Geoffrey

Dicks, Terry

Dorrell, Stephen

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dover, Den

Duncan, Alan

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Dunn, Bob

Durant, Sir Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Eggar, Tim

Elletson, Harold

Emery, Sir Peter

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Evennett, David

Faber, David

Fabricant, Michael

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Fishburn, Dudley

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Forth, Eric

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Freeman, Roger

Fry, Peter

Gale, Roger

Gallie, Phil

Gardiner, Sir George

Garnier, Edward

Gill, Christopher

Gillan, Cheryl

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Gorst, John

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Hague, William

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Hannam, Sir John

---