Letter: Whitehall confusion

Sir: I read the front-page article 'Whitehall in crisis' (15 November) with an increasing sense of disbelief. Did this really represent the thoughts of the same Sir Peter Kemp who, when in charge of contracting out in the Civil Service, refused a review of the process to ascertain whether the exercise was delivering what was claimed for it, or just 'cost cutting?'

Was it the same Sir Peter who told me that the duties of confidentiality and loyal service which a civil servant owes the Crown were for 'all practical purposes owed' to the government of the day?

Was it, indeed, the same Sir Peter who could have introduced contracts for the top ranks of civil servants, as indeed he did for agency chief executives, but whose own departure then proved contracts would be unnecessarily expensive as ministers can and do get rid of civil servants when they choose?

It seems that there is confusion; but whether it is confined solely to those who still serve in Whitehall is a matter of debate. What is clear, however, is that the judgement of Vernon Bogdanor, reader in government at Oxford University, in calling for a Royal Commission on the civil service, is right.

Yours sincerely,

ELIZABETH SYMONS

General Secretary

The Association of First

Division Civil Servants

London, SW1