Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if the union, which has no political affiliation with the Labour party--let there be no doubt about that--thinks that there is a problem, to the extent that it chooses to highlight it when it knows that the House of Commons is debating the matter, and chooses to refer to specific cases, that is enough evidence of real unease among a group of supporters of Government procedure who are not in any way political to warrant an answer very different from the one that he has just given?
Mr. Freeman: I hope that the First Division Association is behaving impartially and is politically neutral, and that it intends to continue to do that under Governments of whatever political colour. This is a sensitive area, and I hope that the FDA has no hidden political agenda. [Interruption.] I shall be happy to give way when I have finished the point.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked about the cases that had been presented; but they have not been presented to the civil service commissioners. I have said that the press release and this morning's press comment relate to about 20 cases in a very generalised fashion. If those cases are serious, the people who are bringing them should follow the procedure set out in the code, and the cases should be examined by the commissioners.
Mr. Mandelson:
If they dare to.
Mr. Freeman:
The hon. Gentleman says, "If they dare to." We devised the code after long discussions with civil service representatives, to provide a mechanism that would enable civil servants to report any concerns to their permanent secretary through the command chain, not through Ministers, and then to the commissioners. For the hon. Gentleman to imply that somehow there would be ministerial, political interference in that process is unworthy.
Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland):
I detect the beginnings of taking this matter seriously, and that is in stark contrast to the reaction of the Deputy Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time, when he said that there was not one shred of verifiable evidence. I understand that he has not yet seen the evidence, so how can he so dismiss it? The First Division Association--the mandarins' trade union if I may put it like that--consists of serious people. I am disturbed that a Minister who is known for his courtesy and consideration should cast aspersions on the FDA's motivations. I urge him to withdraw that, take the matter seriously, examine the evidence and return to the House to make a statement.
Mr. Freeman:
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will read the record. I regularly meet representatives of the trade unions for all civil servants, including the FDA. If the matter was of such dramatic and pressing importance, and if there were cases for which there was clear evidence, I would have expected to hear about them directly, not only from the FDA but from the other civil service unions.
The matter has been raised regularly by trade union representatives, including those of the FDA. To this specific, direct and dramatic issue, my only reaction, which I think is correct, is to say that the right procedure should be followed. I say that for the two reasons that I have already given, which are my direct personal experience and the fact that there is a correct procedure. I refute the allegations.
My third reason is contained in Lord Nolan's report. Paragraph 45 of Cmnd. 2850 states:
Mr. Freeman:
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I must make progress.
Mr. Dalyell:
I understand the need to make progress, but could we be clear what is being insinuated about the FDA? My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) asked the Minister to withdraw his remark. If it was a slip of the tongue, one could understand it, but is something being insinuated about the FDA--or will the Minister say that it has behaved impeccably?
Mr. Freeman:
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will reflect on my remarks when he reads Hansard. I have nothing to withdraw. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hartlepool wishes me to refer again to the remarks, I said that I hope that the FDA does not have a hidden political agenda. That is a hope.
Mr. Dalyell:
That is an insinuation.
Mr. Freeman:
Let me explain further to the hon. Gentleman that both the timing and content of the press release are disturbing.
Mr. Freeman:
The hon. Lady says, "Nonsense." I look forward to her contribution to the debate.
Mr. Dalyell:
It is deeply offensive to say of the FDA, "I hope that it does not have a hidden agenda". When a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and expresses the hope that the FDA, which represents senior civil servants, does not have a hidden agenda, he owes it to the House of Commons to be a bit explicit about what he means.
Mr. Freeman:
Perhaps some of those who contribute to the debate will allow my hope to be vindicated.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland):
I hope that the Minister understands that, just as civil servants do not speak politically for him, we do not speak politically for them, and any views that we may express in the debate will be our views.
Mr. Freeman:
Of course I accept that. I am talking about the disclosure of fact, not opinion or anyone speaking on the FDA's behalf. I am not aware that anyone does speak on its behalf.
Mr. Derek Foster:
I am sorry to intervene again, but it is clear that my hon. Friends are not satisfied, because the Minister is not prepared to clarify his remarks. The imputation of any hidden political agenda is a serious charge, which is totally uncharacteristic of the Minister. Will he either clarify that or withdraw it?
Mr. Freeman:
I will certainly study the text of my remarks. I stick by both the spirit and the detailed letter of what I have said this afternoon. I drew the House's attention to a specific press release issued by the FDA. I will quote it again, and then perhaps hon. Members will allow me to move on:
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the White Paper "Development and Training for Civil Servants: A Framework for Action", which I presented to Parliament on 1 July. This is the first White Paper devoted to the important issue of training and development of civil servants. Its White Paper status reflects the importance that the Government place on this subject.
This country has a world-class civil service. It is respected for the successful series of initiatives being carried through to improve efficiency and effectiveness. These initiatives are implemented, of course, by people. If the civil service is to meet the challenges of continuing improvement in a fast-changing environment, civil servants need the skills, knowledge and confidence to raise performance levels.
I need hardly say that the UK civil service has a long-standing and well-deserved reputation for its high standards of integrity and impartiality, and we mean to keep it that way. In the 1994 White Paper on the civil service, "The Civil Service: Continuity and Change", the Government made clear their commitment to maintaining those standards throughout our programmes of change.
This January, we published the civil service code, which summarises the constitutional framework within which all civil servants work, and the values underpinning their role.
The new White Paper on training and development emphasises the importance of civil service core values, and stresses that they should be brought to the attention of new entrants to the civil service at all levels. All civil servants should understand the relevance of the core values to their particular responsibilities.
Overall, the new paper builds on both the recently published third White Paper on competitiveness and the continuity and change White Paper, and brings forward a policy on the development of civil servants. It is evolutionary, not revolutionary--but it concludes that there is a need for a step change in training and development, to raise the skill levels of civil servants.
The development and training White Paper is about the people who work in the civil service and their development needs, which is why I addressed a foreword in the White Paper to all civil servants, of whatever grade. I want them to feel that the paper is of real importance and relevance to them.
The White Paper does not underestimate or denigrate the current abilities and professionalism of civil servants--far from it: I have great admiration for their abilities and their dedication to public service--but the need to raise levels of skills and knowledge is a challenge facing all organisations and all the people who work in them. That applies to the public and private sectors, and it applies within the civil service to all Departments and agencies, large and small. It applies to civil servants at all levels.
I frequently hear concerns expressed by civil servants and those who speak for them that they feel that they no longer have a job for life, and feel threatened by insecurity and change. In this day and age, no jobs--whether in the private or public sector--can be guaranteed for life. All of us in this economy and society are subject to changes unrecognisable and unforecastable 20, 30 or 40 years ago. As the Minister directly responsible for the civil service on a day-to-day basis, it is my job to make sure that civil servants can cope with that process of change and uncertainty, by improving their skills, training and development.
"We believe that standards of behaviour in the civil service as a whole remain very high . . . Nor have we received evidence that other important standards--political impartiality or the ideal of public service--are under systematic threat."
More importantly, paragraph 57 of the document states:
"From time to time there have been allegations . . . that civil servants were being asked by Ministers to undertake duties which were not appropriate to their non-political status . . . No evidence was offered to us that these are other than isolated cases. The existing guidance offered both to Ministers and civil servants has always been clear on the point that there is a boundary beyond which a civil servant should not be asked, or volunteer, to go."
I am taking this matter seriously, which is why I trespassed in the opening part of the debate by referring to it. I have put my position as clearly as possible. It will doubtless be referred to in the debate, and, if I am able to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the points not only of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), but of the hon. Member for Hartlepool, if he is going to wind up for the Opposition.
"The response"--
to a political survey of FDA members--
"we have already received"--
hon. Members will know that that refers to about 20 cases--
"suggests a continuing and widespread problem."
I have specifically rejected that conclusion in, I hope, crystal-clear language.
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |