| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I speak as a one-nation Conservative. The right hon. Gentleman talks at length about job insecurity in the civil service, but he has given no analysis of why that insecurity has arisen. Is it not due to the changing nature of the labour market, the introduction of technology, and all the factors that create job insecurity in the private sector? Furthermore, he has given a long list of things that Labour would stop doing. Can he tell us what Labour will do, other than have another review?
Mr. Foster: The Tories cannot wriggle out of the charge that they have created job insecurity by blaming the changing nature of the job market. They have created wave upon wave of changes in the civil service, and they have caused virtually everyone in the service to fear for their jobs and their future. That is the Government's responsibility, and they will suffer for it at the next election.
I believe that a sense of ownership among staff could transform the amount and quality of service throughout the civil service and across the public sector, but that will not occur with demoralised, undervalued and insecure public servants. It will not occur without skilled managers who believe in the quality of the work force and are determined to encourage the development of skills. It will not occur without a great investment in training, and, above all, it will not occur without politicians who believe in the public service and are committed to its success.
My party recognises the wealth of skill, expertise and experience within the civil and public services, and our success in office will largely depend on our ability to galvanise the Whitehall machine. Labour is keen to learn from the best of private sector management, and we see the need to reconcile the clash of cultures that has occurred in recent years. A new genre of public sector managers is required, who are eager to adapt the best of private sector practice and keen to enhance all that is best in the public sector.
Labour and the country are deeply indebted to the former Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and to the Nolan committee for the proposals that have been accepted by the Government. These are remarkable examples of independent committees building consensus where the Government were unable to rise to the task.
The consensus on the new civil service code would not have been possible without the seminal draft proposed by the Select Committee.
Although the code does not go far enough, it is an important step. It provides a unifying set of values to a dangerously fragmented service, and an independent appeal system. It requires Ministers to take cognisance of the code and to refrain from inducing civil servants to act outside the code. Labour will put the code on a statutory basis. Nolan has also made important recommendations.
Mr. Connarty:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration--which has a Conservative majority--recommended in its recent report on open government that we should have a freedom of information Act to ensure that the partnership between the public and the civil service is clear, by allowing information to be available to all by statute?
Mr. Foster:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had intended to refer to that development later in my speech. There now seems to be a consensus emerging that we need a freedom of information Act, but that consensus excludes parts of the Conservative party.
Nolan has made some important recommendations--on Ministers and special advisers taking up business appointments; on amendments to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"; on quangos, with respect to methods of public appointment; on the rules and procedures assuring probity and proper conduct of business; and, only last week, on local accountability. Those are important advances, which will make the task of the next Labour Government easier, but a wiser Government would have been leading rather than following.
There is, I think, a consensus on next steps agencies. By the end of 1996, 80 per cent. of civil servants may be in such agencies, most of which are working well. Where that is the case, Labour will see no reason to change the structure. Indeed, I have already endorsed the conclusion of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, which has stated:
Mr. Bernard Jenkin:
There will be a review.
Mr. Foster:
The hon. Gentleman may not be around to see whatever reviews take place in the future.
There is an important issue relating to ministerial responsibilities. According to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers",
That doctrine is very convenient for Ministers. Under such a dictum, it seems possible that no Minister ever need resign over anything. I am aware that perhaps that just ratifies current practice, but, as the reaction to the Scott report demonstrates, it has not satisfied the electorate, and has further damaged the credibility of the democratic process. Furthermore, it may put chief executives, not Ministers, in the firing line, as the Derek Lewis affair showed. Ministers are all too ready to claim credit for success and delegate blame for failure.
Mr. Freeman:
Let us be clear about the policy for agencies. The right hon. Gentleman just said that "careful consideration" would be given to allowing agencies such as HMSO--if it remained in the public sector--to compete with the private sector, in the private sector. I think that that was the essence of what he said. Will he confirm that, as a result of this careful consideration, there might well be circumstances in which agencies that were already in the public sector could compete fully in the private sector, with the private sector?
Mr. Foster:
I see no problem with that, provided that such careful consideration takes place. I understand that it happens elsewhere in Europe.
Let me return to the question of ministerial responsibility. It was Scott's view that, if Ministers were not to be responsible--in the sense of blameworthy--for all the actions and activities of their Departments and agencies, the corollary was that Parliament must be given fuller information, so that Parliament and people could judge where responsibility lay. I agreed with that; that is why a freedom of information Act is so crucial, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) pointed out.
In addition, however, Parliament should strengthen its Select Committees by extra staffing, and challenging the Osmotherley rules under which civil servants give evidence. Clearly, the Government need to improve the flow of interdepartmental information and decision-making. I look forward to the deliberations of the Select Committee on Public Service on all those issues.
In a recent article in The Times on the general theme of the public service, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition wrote:
Mr. Foster:
No, it is the same review. The challenge is to create a distinctive public service management philosophy, which adopts the best management techniques from the private sector, while enhancing the long-standing public service values of which we are so proud and which are so essential to good government, whoever is in power.
The Government are guilty of too little continuity and too much change--much of it ill-conceived, ill-considered and poorly managed. The Government have been driven by dogma to the point of recklessness in the exercise of their duty of care to the independence, impartiality and integrity of the British civil service. With 500,000 civil servants--many living in marginal seats such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich--a reasonable person would expect the Government to heed Voltaire's advice as the election approaches. [Hon. Members: "The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) has a 6,500 majority."] I am referring to the other seat in Norwich--that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett)--and I think that the Minister is thinking of that seat, too.
Hon. Members will recall that Voltaire--a noted atheist--was on his deathbed urged by a priest to repent and renounce the devil. Voltaire replied:
"We believe that the next steps agencies represent a significant improvement in the organisation of government. And that any future government will want to maintain them".
Let me make one thing clear, however. Under Labour, agency status will not be a step towards privatisation. In the case of bodies such as Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Recruitment and Assessment Services agency, which may need to borrow in the private sector and sell in wider markets, full commercial freedom in the public sector will be given careful consideration. The Parliamentary Secretary wags his head, but it has been given no consideration whatever by the Government, and that is to their shame.
"Ministers are accountable to parliament for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies",
22 May 1996 : Column 314
but Sir Robin Butler has drawn a distinction between Ministers' accountability and their responsibility for policies and actions.
"We seek to build sensibly on what is in place. We keep what is good and working. We change what isn't."
That strikes me as a balanced approach. Surely a period of calm reflection is required--an open, independent and thorough review of all the changes imposed in recent years and a proper assessment of effectiveness, efficiency and value for money because we do not believe what the Government tell us about those concepts. It should be a review that builds on the excellent work of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Nolan committee.
"This is no time to make enemies".
Perhaps the Government too are beyond redemption. It would be a kindness for them to be put out of their misery sooner rather than later, and the House can do it by voting for the Opposition amendment.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |