he LOD have no objection to this passage being passed on to the Hong Kong authorities.)
5. Accordingly (and notwithstanding such vintage passages as paragraph 14 of the Code) management now bases its action on the proposition that the relationship between the Crown and civil servants is basically contractual. Not to do so would, in my opinion, be unwise quite apart from the separate but closely related fact that UK civil servants can now bring proceedings for unfair dismissal (whether direct or constructive). As for the "contents" of the contract of service which arises when a person becomes a home civil servant, we say that they are to be found in the individual's letter of appointment read together with the Departmental Staff Handbook and the Code (which are now expressly incorporated by reference in the letter of appointment).
6.
It would be untrue to say that the question of status has not caused legal difficulties. But these abound in many areas, and one has to adopt the best stance and act accordingly. I see no need for legislation in the UK nor would I put much faith in the legislative approach as a magic cure-all particularly in the fluid area of modern employment relationships even if there was such a need. The real problem at present facing UK civil service management would appear to be not the state of the law on the question of the status of civil servants but the constraints imposed upon management, by both the general law relating to employment and recent employment legislation, in responding to the sophisticated kinds of industrial action which we have recently experienced. But this is a problem shared by all employers.
7. I am afraid that I have been unable to find the time to go through the Hong Kong papers as carefully as I would like, but in the light of one or two statements on the UK civil service which have caught my eye I think I ought to make the following comments:-
(a)
(b)
Estacode (which was an unholy mixture of terms and conditions of staff on the one hand and guidance to establishment officers on the other) has now been almost entirely replaced by the Code (the full title is the Civil Service Pay and Conditions of Service Code) which is available to staff, and the Establishment Officers' Guide, which is not;
while it is true that each prerogative Civil Service Order in Council (the latest is the Civil Service Order in Council 1978) had/has the character of primary legislation, it is now considered to be the better view by most that the instructions etc issued by the Minister for the Civil Service under Article 4 do not have legislative force in the sense that they directly provide a means for unilaterally altering the terms and conditions of existing civil servants. Article 4 is, I suggest, best understood by realising that it was first introduced (in the Order in Council of 22 July 1920) in order to confirm the newly-won authority of the Treasury (the precursor in this context of the Civil Service Department) to impose central control over the terms and conditions of all civil servants, notwithstanding
2