| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Couchman: I am fascinated by what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Why, then, did some hon. Members the other day demand the resignation of the Home Secretary because of dirty equipment in a forensic laboratory?
Mr. Beith: Although I often demand the resignation of the Home Secretary, for reasons that I shall elaborate on in a moment, I did not do so on that occasion--although I thought it reasonable to criticise the Home Office for not ensuring that such tests were carried out with equipment that could be shown to be satisfactory. The Home Secretary, as hon. Members will hear, is crucial to my argument and I shall come to him in a moment.
I want to dispose, first, of the spurious notion--I am sorry to see it put about by a civil servant of the experience and ability of Sir Robin Butler--that there is a distinction between a Minister's responsibility and his accountability. The political process judges whether to exact the resignation of a Minister, but his responsibility remains the same at all times.
It is not just constitutionally repugnant but, in terms of modern management practice, inefficient to give people duties to carry out while leaving an aura of confusion about who is responsible if those duties are not properly carried out. There have been some terrifying examples of this in recent Government actions. From the day of the Westland case, when Lady Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, declined to accept the political consequences of what had happened or to discipline any civil servant for it, there opened up a gaping hole in our constitution. In such a situation, either a civil servant had acted improperly and should have been disciplined, or a Minister had given a civil servant instructions that ought not to have been given. In that case, the Minister should take the political consequences of so doing. That also applies to the Home Secretary. The greatest confusion surrounding the doctrine of ministerial responsibility has been created by Ministers who like an aura of fog and mystery around who is responsible for anything as it enables them to deny ever having been responsible for anything that is to their detriment.
A classic example is the Home Secretary, who interferes extensively in the policies and activities of the Prison Service agency. He defends doing so on powerful
grounds. He believes that there is a public interest in his intervening to make sure that a particular governor is removed or to decide what the salary of a particular governor should be. In at least some cases, he can probably sustain his argument. However, he cannot then say that anything that goes wrong in the Prison Service cannot be his responsibility as he is concerned only with broad policy.
Not only do Ministers make specific interventions that may lead to mistakes for which they subsequently disavow responsibility, but agency staff know that they are expected to act in ways of which of the Minister would approve and the Minister's periodic interventions serve to reinforce that belief. The pretence that the Government have created a cocooned series of institutions in which Ministers' interventions are confined to the broadest matters of policy--clearly understood and easily set down on a piece of paper--is unsustainable. The doctrine of ministerial responsibility and Ministers' accountability to the House is being destroyed to protect individual Ministers in particular circumstances.
Under every Government of any party, Ministers will come to Dispatch Box and attempt to explain away a particular action and their responsibility for it. We all know that we have to deal with that and join the political argument. However, it is not acceptable for a Government to destroy the entire doctrine on which Ministers are held responsible to the House to protect individual Ministers in particular circumstances. That is exactly what they are doing when they pretend that agency status allows Ministers to insulate themselves against the day-to-day operations of Departments. That is not the case. As long as Ministers engage in such intervention, they preserve a culture in which it cannot be true. The Minister's explanation of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility in the debate on 12 February maintained that fiction and furthered the damage that has already been done.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West):
Just when one thought one understood a point that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was making, he would contradict himself so that his speech became completely opaque. When he studies Hansard tomorrow, at least privately, he will be forced to accept what I say. However, he is a Liberal, and one expects that from Liberal policy formation.
I shall make three points. First, we need an open civil service. People need to know what the civil service is doing, how it is doing it and what the guidelines are. Of course, civil servants need to know what their responsibilities are and what the guidelines are. Therefore, the code that has been discussed is most welcome, particularly in the way that it has been put together--with consensus.
Everyone knows what the code is, as it is published. It is characteristic of the Government to publish information that has not been published before and to acknowledge organisations such as Cabinet Committees that past Labour Governments were not prepared to admit existed. However, to put a legally enforced code on the statute book would achieve absolutely nothing. It would be a field day for lawyers--and for barrack-room lawyers as well--but it would achieve nothing constructive, and would damage the institution that it was supposed to serve.
Mr. Derek Foster:
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government were against the code for a long time?
Mr. Hughes:
The right hon. Gentleman will accept that the Government said that most of what is now in the code was already in place. That is why, at the time, some far-sighted Ministers accepted that a code should be published.
Secondly, we need a civil service that recruits the best, and fairly promotes them. It is reasonable to say that the civil service has a pretty good record in recruiting and promoting women. However, I am not suggesting that it is perfect.
Mr. Garrett:
Except permanent secretaries.
Mr. Hughes:
The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, "Except permanent secretaries." I am not sure whether that is true.
Mr. Garrett:
How many are there?
Mr. Hughes:
There is one specific permanent secretary, others have the rank of permanent secretary, and there are many others in deputy positions. The position is improving. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but I believe that the systems are open, and the recruitment of good-quality women civil servants is going very well.
I am also pleased that the civil service continues to attract an increasing number of people from our black and Asian communities. It is by no means good enough yet. I hope that, before my hon. Friend replies to the debate, his civil servants will inform him of the points that I am making.
Mr. Hughes:
We all have to leave the Chamber sometimes. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say something about the further progress that is being made in that regard.
One problem is that people from black and Asian communities do not have role models in the civil service to make them regard it as a place where they would succeed in making a good career. That is a real stumbling block. I recall being told by RAS that one of the reasons why there were not many black or Asian people in the fast stream entry for a particular year was that those who applied were not good enough. So I went through the applications, and RAS was right. We have to find a way to provide role models to attract bright young black and Asian people into the civil service.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |