HC Deb 16 October 1968 vol 770 cc388-93
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices.

On the 15th March my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring about the amalgamation of the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office and in a statement on 28th March he explained to the House the reasons for this.

It was announced on 18th September that the new Office would be called the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and that it would come into being on 17th October this year.

This change, therefore, will take effect from tomorrow, and for the first time in modern history the external affairs of this country will be in the charge of one Secretary of State and one Department. For good historical and political reasons we have been the only country in the world to maintain separate Foreign and Commonwealth Offices.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in April, the time has now come to amalgamate these two Departments. We shall continue to do everything possible to promote good relations with the world community, whether through the United Nations or with individual countries and groups of countries.

We shall continue to play our full part as a member of the Commonwealth, and to maintain our close association with other Commonwealth Governments. In forming the new Office we have made certain that the interests of the dependent territories will receive the close and sympathetic attention which our responsibility for them requires.

We have not merely put the two existing Departments together: we have examined the tasks of both and constructed a new Office to perform those tasks.

In the planning of the merger, and in the work of both Departments over many years, the country is greatly indebted to the devotion, industry, and skill of its permanent civil servants.

The handling, under Parliament, of the external affairs of this country over the years has called for sensitive judgment, continuous hard work in numerous fields, and the initiation of, and response to, peaceful change—all this in a restless and sometimes violent world. It is in this progressive spirit that the new Department of State will meet the challenge of the future.

Mr. Maudling

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in principle, we on this side of the House welcome this change? May I ask questions on two points? As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the interests of the dependent territories and of foreign policy could at times conflict, for example, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. Now that the dependent territories are no longer to have their own office in the Cabinet, will the right hon. Gentleman say how he can ensure that they will be properly looked after? For example, will their representatives have direct access to him personally, and will he make sure that Questions asked in this House on dependent territories will not be swamped in the generality of foreign policy Questions?

Secondly, on the question of the Ministerial structure, I think that the Prime Minister hinted that the Foreign Secretary might say something about this. Will there be any reduction in the number of Ministers?

Mr. Stewart

I think that the very fact that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that problems of dependent territories and foreign countries often come together is one reason for having the merger. One is better able to deal with these problems in a single Department, but we shall have a dependent territories administrative division in the Office. The spokesman in the Cabinet for the dependent territories will be whoever holds the office which I now hold.

The amount of Question Time available for foreign and Commonwealth affairs is for the House to decide from time to time, and this can be considered through the usual channels, but I think that there are no grounds at all for supposing that the dependent territories will lack attention either in the Office or by the House.

With regard to the Ministerial structure, the number of Ministers in the combined office will be one fewer than those in the two offices at present. I should perhaps mention, though it is going a little beyond the right hon. Gentleman's question, that with regard to the number of civil servants, between the date of the merging of the two services in 1965 and March, 1968, there has been a reduction of 398 posts, and a reduction of a further 100 from March until now, and that I expect further rationalisation to occur.

Mr. C. Pannell

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new Ministry appears to have got off to a bad start with a clumsy title, as "Foreign" and "Commonwealth Affairs" do not follow alphabetically, and carry the connotation that somehow a foreigner is rather ahead of a Commonwealth citizen? Would not it have been better to call it, rather shortly, the Ministry for External Affairs?

Mr. Stewart

It was suggested to the House some time ago that hon. Members might like to put forward views on this, and a large number of views were put forward. I think that my right hon. Friend will find that he is in a minority. We considered such a title as External Affairs, but it seemed to me that, as the names Foreign Office and Commonwealth Office were known worldwide, and that as the term Foreign Office had a long history it would have been a somewhat colourless alternative to have had "External Affairs". On the other hand, it would not have been right to have left the words "Foreign" or "Commonwealth" out of the title of the new office.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

I think I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that this was not to be a question of putting the two Departments together, but of creating a new office. Will he consider giving Parliament information about the new office by means of a White Paper, or in some other way?

Mr. Stewart

There is available now in the Vote Office an official paper giving something both of the history of the merger and of the organisation of the new office.

Mr. Frank Allaun

My right hon. Friend referred to the problem of a violent and restless world. Several questions have been asked about Question Time. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) and others have, during the last few months, been pressing for an increased allocation of Question Time for foreign affairs Questions which are reached only once every six weeks? Will my right hon. Friend move in that direction, and not in the other?

Mr. Stewart

I was aware of that, but, as my hon. Friend knows, this is not a matter for me alone. It is a matter, in the end, which the House must decide. There is pressure for increased time for Questions to nearly all Departments.

Sir G. Sinclair

I welcome this amalgamation of the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken this opportunity of considering two matters? The first is the development of the experiment of bringing in from the business field people on secondment to the Foreign Service to act as commercial attachés at our posts in our major trading areas abroad. Trade promotion is an important duty of such posts and many of us feel that experience from business could be well used there.

Secondly, as this amalgamated office of State is now to cover all the developing countries of the world, will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to the appointment of more agricultural advisers in our posts overseas—as he has done in Kenya, where the effect has been extremely good—because it is to the agricultural and rural sections of these developing countries that much of our aid goes, and where skilled advice on the spot to our high commissioners or ambassadors is important?

Mr. Speaker

Order. Questions must be brief.

Mr. Stewart

I note what the hon. Gentleman says about agricultural advisers, but he will notice that we have been under pressure from the House earlier in Question Time to keep down the number of officials.

With regard to bringing people in from outside, a similar question was asked earlier. I think that one must accept that this must be an exceptional procedure. I have found that that part of the Diplomatic Service which is concerned with commercial work does its job very well indeed. This has been drawn to my attention repeatedly while I have been in office, and by experienced businessmen, so, while I do not rule out entirely the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman, I think, in general, that if people enter the Diplomatic Service as a career they must feel that the whole range of jobs is open to them.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

As the Minister is hoping to save money by merging with the Commonwealth Relations Office and reducing the number of civil servants, will he turn his attention to taking over the Ministry of Defence as well?

Mr. Stewart

I do not think that my hon. Friend has paid sufficient attention to the economies that have been achieved in that Ministry already.

Mr. James Davidson

On the principle that minorities are sometimes right, may I say I agree with the suggestion put forward by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that the title "Ministry of External Affairs" might have been a better one?

May I also take this opportunity, on behalf of Members on this bench—and probably many other Members—to pay tribute to the work of the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, who will be relinquishing his post? I very much hope that this thoughtful and humanitarian attitude will be available to the future Ministry.

Thirdly, can the Minister confirm that appointments within the new office will be made on the basis of the most suitable man for the job, regardless of his antecedents, and which Office he formerly belonged to? Can we be sure that it will be the most suitable man available for each post as it falls vacant?

Mr. Stewart

With regard to the last point, that is already done. The Service have been merged for some time. I appreciate what the hon. Member said about my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary and I am sure that the whole House will agree with him.

Mr. Anderson

Following the merger and the welcome reassessment of policy east of Suez, will there be a consequential reduction in diplomatic personnel overseas, on the lines of the defence cutback? Will my right hon. Friend say something about the implications of the Fulton Report for the new diplomatic service?

Mr. Stewart

It does not follow that if we reduce our military commitments overseas there is necessarily a reduction in diplomatic representation. It might well be argued that the reverse was the case. I have pointed out the reduction in the number of posts that has already occurred, and the House will be aware that a review is now proceeding of our overseas representation.

Mr. Peyton

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whatever welcome there may be for these proposals it will at least be tinged with some regret that there is to be no diminution in the number of Ministers and no relief of the horrible congestion which only too often exists on the Government Front Bench?

Forward to