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.

None, Sir.

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.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the First Division Association; and what matters were discussed.

I have not done so recently.

Did my right hon. Friend read the report in The Times on 19 March of an interview with Sir Robin Butler? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is another example of the open government that was promised as policy by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? Will he confirm that he will consult the First Division Association about the disestablishment of the Church of England now that His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury has announced his resignation and—

Order. That is a little wide of Civil Service questions.

It is a constitutional reform—

Perhaps, but one question at a time.

It is a constitutional reform, Mr. Speaker, which I think will be very popular.

It may be, but that has little to do with the First Division Association.

I am most flattered that my hon. Friend considers that I have such a wide range of responsibilities. Having taken a keen interest in the establishment of Government agencies, he will know that it gives scope for much more open government, because the chief executives of those agencies can give evidence to Select Committees if they wish. Through that procedure, performance targets and measurements can be assessed by Parliament.

Does the Minister realise that what he has just said about appeals has long been accepted, but was seriously damaged when the head of the Civil Service admitted that, at Ministers' behest, he had been economical with the truth? That statement did an enormous amount to undermine the integrity of the Civil Service. Does he accept that since then civil servants have, understandably, had great misgivings about what they used to consider a reliable appeals system? Many now believe that they need an outside and impartial point of appeal.

The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views. However, I should point out that the procedures that allow civil servants to appeal on matters of conscience—ultimately to the professional head of the Civil Service —have been in operation only since late 1987. I do not believe that it is true that confidence in the professional head of the Civil Service, Sir Robin Butler, has been in any way undermined—it is strong. I consider him an outstanding civil servant, and the vast majority, if not all, of the Civil Service feels the same.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next intends to meet Civil Service trade unions; and if he will make a statement.

I meet the Civil Service unions from time to time to discuss a range of matters.

Will the Minister confirm that high-ranking civil servants from Oxford and Cambridge have been called upon to change the poll tax regulations about 12 times since the system came into operation? Will he give a guarantee that civil servants will not be called upon to bend the rules in a partisan political fashion to bring about the charge capping of Labour authorities, while finding a method by which to leave out Tory authorities? Will he also guarantee that the complaints procedure will be adequate for people to make the appropriate appeals?

What with questions about the Archbishop of Canterbury and about the poll tax, the assumption seems to be that I am the Minister for everything. On this occasion, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that civil servants —as we said earlier—are accountable to Ministers, and Ministers are accountable to Parliament. That is our constitutional system, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is being asked such a wide variety of questions because the Civil Service has claimed such omniscience for so many years? The famous title given to civil servants—GCMG —was always known as "God calls me God", which seems very appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was recommending me for that as well. Let me make it plain that I believe that we have an outstanding Civil Service, which has a great sense of duty. Civil servants owe that duty to the elected Government of the day, and they serve those Governments with great loyalty and impartiality.

What developments can we expect in the provision of workplace nurseries for civil servants?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has rightly responded to representations asking him to encourage the employment of more women in not only the Civil Service but all employment sectors. With many other people, I welcome that: in the next few years—especially in the 1990s—many more women will be needed in the Civil Service.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what recent representations he has received regarding the candidatures of passport offices to become next steps agencies.

The Passport Office is one of the 42 announced candidates for agency status. The main aim of the next steps initiative is to deliver Government services more efficiently and effectively, within available resources, for the benefit of taxpayers, customers and staff.

As we approach the season of cherry blossom, Easter holidays and Passport Office strike mayhem, will my hon. Friend consider bringing into the discussion some of the private organisations that are well experienced at making the necessary checks for the credit agencies and the banks, on the grounds that they turn round applications, having made all necessary checks, within a maximum of 10 days and at a cost of less than £2 an inquiry? Will my right hon. Friend give me his opinion on that possibility?

My hon. Friend will be aware that although it is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, plans are well advanced for the establishment of an agency within the passport service. However, my right hon. and learned Friend has made it plain that he will use relevant private sector expertise where that would help to improve standards of service. Of course, the decsion to establish an agency, along with all the other agencies that we now have, is to help to improve services to the public. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what plans he has to encourage Government Departments to adhere to the quota system in order to ensure that better opportunities are available to enable disabled people to be recruited into the Civil Service.

All Departments aim to employ a 3 per cent. quota of staff who are registered as disabled. We will shortly be publishing a revised code of practice on disability to help to increase employment opportunities for disabled people in the Civil Service.

It is nice to hear the Minister, who is sitting next to the Minister with responsibility for the disabled, say that the Government are trying to ensure that the quota is met, but they are not achieving much. Not a single Government Department, including the Cabinet Office, adheres to the 3 per cent. quota. Is that because it is really the Government's intention to phase out the 3 per cent. quota?

The latter part of the question is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that no Department has met or exceeded the quota of 3 per cent. At 1 June 1989, five Government Departments were above the quota and four had reached 2·5 per cent. Overall 1·3 per cent. of Civil Service employees are registered disabled, which is a little more than the figure for the national work force.