Skip to main content

Code Of Conduct

Volume 170: debated on Monday 26 March 1990

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

75.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received from the Civil Service unions about the proposed new code of conduct.

Surely the Minister is aware of the First Division Association's representations on behalf of senior civil servants? Will he take careful note of its concern about the unqualified assertion in the new code that the duties of civil servants to the Crown are, for all practical purposes, owed to the Government of the day? When a Minister asks to see the papers of a previous Administration and is told by a civil servant that he cannot have those papers, is not the civil servant showing a duty to the integrity of Government as a whole? Is not that one of several instances where the duty extends beyond that to the Government of the day?

I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that there was any broad quarrel in the discussions with the union about the fact that civil servants are, broadly speaking, acountable to the elected Government of the day. That must be right, although one point of discussion with the union was that specific categories of civil servants, including lawyers, are more widely accountable under certain statutory provisions. That is understood. However, no one can undermine the concept that civil servants are accountable to the elected Government of the day.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that when Sir Robin Butler appeared before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee I asked him the point blank question whether he thought that the new code made it more difficult for a civil servant to be faithful to his conscience and to the country, and he said, no? The reason for his answer was that a civil servant's duty must be to the Government of the day—not as a slavish follower but because any civil servant must serve the master of the day. If the master changes, his loyalty can change, not because he is a sycophant but because, if he does not carry out the will of the electorate whose will does he carry out?

My hon. Friend is right. It must be constitutionally right that civil servants are responsible to the elected Government. As he implied, if there is a problem of conscience, the procedures are clear. The Armstrong guidelines have made it clear since 1987 that a civil servant can appeal first to his permanent secretary and then, if he is not satisfied, to the professional head of the Civil Service. That is the right course to pursue.