Conclusions and recommendations
1. We
recommend that, should the current private member's bill fail
to become law, these provisions should be included in any Civil
Service Act. (Paragraph 4)
2. We disagree with
the Government on this point and maintain our view that the Civil
Service Commission should be given the power to undertake such
inquiries. The Government's argument against the involvement of
"outsiders" in such staff matters would also be an argument
against the long-established involvement of the Civil Service
Commissioners in the recruitment and promotion of civil servants.
The power to undertake such inquiries would be an entirely logical
and modest extension of the powers already successfully exercised
by the Commission, and we are surprised at the Government's opposition
to this proposal. (Paragraph 19(i))
3. We believe that
the Government must clarify this issue during the passage of the
Bill. (Paragraph 19(ii))
4. We acknowledge
the force of the Government's argument that the nature of the
functions and responsibilities of special advisers is far more
important than their overall numbers. We do not accept the case
for an arbitrary cap on numbers, but maintain our support for
parliamentary approval of the total number. Our recommendation
would, we believe, increase transparency and help to maintain
public confidence, without in any way drawing Parliament into
detailed management questions. (Paragraph 19(iii))
5. We continue to
believe that it would be entirely appropriate for Parliament to
debate and have the opportunity to amend the Code. This is at
the heart of the role we envisage for Parliament as guarantor
of the values of the Civil Service. At a time of radical change
in public services, such a role is even more important, and Parliament
needs to be able to discharge it properly. We maintain our belief
that our approach is the only one that would be effective. (Paragraph
19(iv))
6. We continue to
believe that our recommendation of a statutory instrument procedure
has merit. The parliamentary procedure we propose is not elaborate
and would not involve any debate; it is simply a way of ensuring
that both Houses are properly informed about the operation of
a Service for which they vote the funds. It is hardly an accurate
reflection of the case to suggest that the operations of the country's
Civil Service, in which the public has such a strong interest,
are equivalent to a normal "employer-employee relationship".
(Paragraph 19(v))
7. We accept the logic
of that decision. (Paragraph 20)
| 
