Printed for the Cabinet. October 1949
Page 6298662
SECRET
C.P. (49) 198
7th October, 1949
CABINET
Copy No.
31
THE MASTERMAN REPORT ON POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY CIVIL SERVANTS
MEMORANDUM BY THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
1. My colleagues will recollect that the broad effect of the recommendations in this report is to confer complete freedom to take part in all political activities (other than actual membership of the House of Commons) on all industrial and analogous grades (e.g., messengers, postal workers, &c.). This frees 450,000 people from restriction for the first time. On the other hand, it re-affirms the existing restrictions on all "office " grades from administrators to typists inclusive; thus it bans Parliamentary candidature, the holding of office in party organisations, canvassing and public advocacy of party views. People" above the line" and subject to these restrictions number 450,000. Local government activity is to be allowed in most Departments, but permission must be sought.
The recommendations are summarised on page 30 of the report (Cmd. 7718). 2. When the Cabinet considered the report on 21st June (C.M. (49) 41st Conclusions, Minute 4), there was general agreement that the proposals made in it should be accepted; and it was agreed that the report should be published and that at the time of publication I should state that the Government had decided to accept its recommendations. I made an announcement on 28th June. The Press comment on the report was almost entirely favourable, but soon after its publication unfavourable comments began to appear in the journals of Civil Service organisations. Following a request by the Chairman of the Staff Side that action on the report should be deferred until it had been considered by the Civil Service National Whitley Council, a full meeting of the Council (the first to be held for eight years) was held on 29th July. At that meeting the Staff Side made the following criticisms :-
(a) They objected to the Government having made a decision without consul-
tation with the National Whitley Council.
(b) They contended that the report imposed new restrictions and reinforced
old ones which have been allowed to fall into abeyance.
(c) They objected to any line of demarcation in the Civil Service in this matter; but, given that a line had to be drawn, contended that it had been drawn in the wrong place.
it.
The Staff Side ended by asking that the matter should be brought back for dis- cussion within the ambit of the National Whitley Council and settled by negotia- tions, not within the limits imposed by the report, but on merits. They made it clear, however, that they were not seeking to press at this stage for the full free- dom they still thought justified and desirable, but to reach a compromise somewhere between their original proposals and the Committee's recommendations.
3. The Chairman of the Council (Sir Edward Bridges) adjourned the meeting in order to seek instructions from Ministers, agreeing that in the mean- time effect wBage2given to the recommendations in the repPage 626 of 662
37676
1
A
2
PageToe PoMinister then considered the matter and, in66 minute dated 9th August, authorised Sir Edward Bridges to write to the Staff Side Chairman, referring to the indications that they might have some compromise settlement in mind and asking him to submit a written statement setting out the specific alter- native suggestions the Staff Side had in mind on the line of demarcation, together with any other suggestions arising out of the Committee's recommendations which they might desire to submit within the general principles of the report. This letter did not promise further discussion on these matters; neither did it completely close the door to further discussion. It asked for the statement "in order that Ministers might be able to judge whether further discussions on these matters would prove useful." In considering the matter the Prime Minister had expressed the view that the question of the political rights to be allowed to civil servants was in his view a matter of high State policy and that there could not be any question of negotiation on the general principles.
5. The National Staff Side have now submitted their proposals. They suggest :-
(a) That no new limitations should be imposed in practice within whatever
area of restriction may finally be decided upon.
(b) That sub-clerical, shorthand-typing and typing grades and the junior grades of the clerical class (and their equivalents in the professional and technical classes, Post Office supervising grades, &c.) should be granted the complete freedom of political activity conceded by the report to minor and manipulative grades. Their submission is not very clear, but they suggest that the junior executive grade might also be granted freedom. But this latter grade is a debatable area which might be the subject of discussion.
New Limitations
6. Sir Edward Bridges has now considered these suggestions very carefully in consultation with his senior colleagues. He is assured by Departments that (except in the Post Office, where a special set of rules different from that in other Departments has been in operation) the implementation of the Committee's recom- mendations would not result in more restrictive rules. That is, in no Department except the Post Office has authority been given for activities which would be banned under the Masterman Report; neither has a blind eye been deliberately turned to such activities. It seems clear from the protests following the Govern- ment's acceptance of the report that in fact unauthorised political activities must have occurred in a number of cases without Departments being aware of it. These activities have no doubt been canvassing in the main, but there have probably been cases of membership of party committees, &c. It seems therefore that, save in the case of the Post Office, the objection that new restrictions are imposed is unfounded, except in so far as civil servants have been doing what their Depart- ments would not have agreed to had they known. It has to be admitted that the old rules were very loosely drawn and open to varying individual interpretations. Nevertheless, in effect the Staff Side is asking that because people have, unknown to Departments, contravened the old rules in the past, or at any rate interpreted them in a manner which Departments would not have agreed to had they been asked, they should now be allowed to go on doing so with official blessing. This, I suggest, is quite inadmissible.
7. So far as the Post Office is concerned, it is true that acceptance of the Masterman Report does involve more restrictive rules. The Post Office rules have allowed staff of practically all levels to canvass and to serve on local councils without obtaining permission from the Department. Under the Masterman Report those above the line would be forbidden to canvass, and permission would have to be sought to serve on local councils. Further, the holding of office in local political parties is at present forbidden, but the Post Office is aware that this rule has been widely disregarded (mainly by manipulative staff) and, no practical difficulties having arisen, no steps have been taken to enforce it.
8. It would not be impossible to allow this to go on in the Post Office, though forbidden elsewhere. But clearly this would only be a pis aller, and we should not ligagy abanab the attempt to lay down rules applicable to the whole Civil Service and based on sound general principles.
3
309
9. I therefore2&opfo66 that the reply to the Staff Sidegrestothat no new limitations should be imposed in practice should be to the effect that while it is agreed that new restrictions would be imposed in the Post Office, we do not agree that this would be so elsewhere, as the rules proposed by the Masterman Committee are no more restrictive (though they may be clearer) than those in force hitherto; and we cannot accept a proposition that, in so far as the rules have been broken or wrongly interpreted without authority or official collusion, those rules should now be modified with official blessing. As regards the Post Office, it is true that adoption of the Masterman Report will result in more restrictive rules, but it is undesirable that one part of the Service should continue to be treated differently from the rest.
Line of Demarcation
10. On the line of demarcation the Staff Side's proposal to free the junior executive grade from all restrictions is made very tentatively, obviously with the realisation that it is most unlikely to be acceptable. It is indeed self-evident that without abandoning the principles of the Masterman Report there could be no question of granting freedom from restrictions to a grade which not only assists in a minor degree in the formation of policy, but exercises considerable discretion in its interpretation and which includes, for example, the basic class of inspectors and managers in charge of local departmental offices. It is therefore necessary to examine only the Staff Side's firm proposal that the line should be drawn so as to free the clerical, sub-clerical and typing grades (and corresponding pro- fessional and technical grades);
11. From the point of view of duties the clerical and sub-clerical staff (which includes typing grades) do not form a single homogeneous block. On the one hand there are clerks engaged on routine work, quite remote from policy formation and from contact with the public. On the other hand a considerable proportion of clerical staff is employed in local offices of, for example, the Ministry of Labour, Ministry of National Insurance, the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Food, where they form the main contact between the public and the Depart- ment and are required to exercise discretion in relation to the individual cases they handle. Even sub-clerical staff in some Departments perform this type of duty. It is clearly essential that all these people should be above suspicion of political bias. It is therefore impossible to place these classes as a whole below the line. Permanent Heads of Departments are most emphatic about this.
12. I believe therefore that it would be a grave mistake for the Government to attempt to draw a fresh line instead of the Masterman line. Such a line would have to discriminate between Departments and it would be a constant source of irritation and friction. It would only enable us to free a comparatively small additional number of people, which would be regarded by the Staff Side as a quite inadequate concession. Moreover, it would involve the Government itself in taking and defending, in a difficult field, practical decisions which would inevitably appear somewhat arbitrary. We set up the Masterman Committee in order to have these matters examined by a strong and impartial non-political body. We thought at the time (and I still think) that the report, which frees from all restrictions very substantial numbers of civil servants, was both liberal and sensible and that the Government should decide either to accept the report as a whole as it stands or to reject it. We decided on acceptance and events subsequent to that decision have not shown that we were wrong. To go back on this now would be to take back upon the Government, and perhaps upon individual Ministers, the odium of making, just before an Election, practical decisions which could not depart substantially from those recommended by the Committee. And having rejected the report in one important respect we should once more open the way to continuous pressure which might well imperil its general principles which we believe to be right.
Procedure
13. My view is therefore that the original decision to accept the report should stand. There is reason to believe that the Staff Side attach very great importance Ragiscussion through Whitley channels of thagmatter of the Prime Minister's minute of 9th August, while ruling out negotiations on the general
806
4
principlese des rule out discussion on the dpbatable area within those principles. I suggest, therefore, that while we should not authorise any concession to the Staff Side on either of the two points which they have raised, we should agree that the adjourned meeting of the Whitley Council should be resumed. I cannot hold out any hopes that these discussions would be other than fruitless, but in view of the importance which the Staff Side attach to discussion of this matter through Whitley channels, I think it would be politic to agree that such discussion should take place for the purpose of explaining our attitude to the points which the Staff Side have made.
Treasury Chambers, S.W. 1,
7th October, 1949.