To ask the Minister for the Civil Service on how many occasions since January 1986 civil servants who felt that actions they have been required to take were fundamentally against their consciences, have gone ultimately to the head of the home Civil Service or the head of the Diplomatic Service, under the terms of the Armstrong memorandum.
Precisely. So if the Armstrong memorandum was at all realistic, why is it that a civil servant should, at great risk, send the briefing that the Secretary of State for Education and Science had in front of him to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—the matter is referred to in column 788 of Hansard for 17 May—revealing the extent of the cold, calculated deceit of the Commons in the Secretary of State's answer to me.
The hon. Gentleman is a colourful character, although his questions get a bit tedious and repetitive. I was asked how many civil servants had used the existing guidelines procedures on grounds of conscience. The answer is that none have done so. They have a right to do so. Under the Armstrong guidelines recently produced, they have a right to go through certain procedures if they think that they have a grievance on ethical grounds or grounds of conscience. They can go to their permanent secretary and ultimately, if they so wish, to the head of the home Civil Service. The hon. Gentlemen asked how many had used that right, and the answer is none.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the existence of the procedure and the fact that no civil servants have used it in the time scale referred to, there can be no justification whatever of the underhand leaking of documents by civil servants in breach of the terms of their contracts of employment?