HC Deb 24 February 1982 vol 18 cc943-59

10 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten)

I beg to move,

That the draft Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 9 February, be approved.

Since taking office, while we have no wish to see direct rule continue indefinitely, the Government have been determined to ensure that the administration of direct rule is fair and impartial. I hope that that is also the wish of the Opposition.

Furthermore, the Government are absolutely deter-mined to ensure that the implementation of policies and the running of government in the Province is as efficient and as effective as possible under direct rule. To improve efficiency and to make the machinery of government in the Province more accountable to ministerial direction and control while direct rule continues, my right hon. Friend who is now the Lord Privy Seal but was then the Secretary of State announced in March 1981, in reply to a parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson), that he proposed to merge the control functions of the Northern Ireland Departments of Finance and of the Civil Service. On 30 July 1981, again in answer to a parliamentary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton, my right hon. Friend said that he had decided to set up a consolidated Department of Finance and Personnel in the Province.

In pursuit of the Government's objective of achieving more effective use and control of public sector financial and manpower resources—I hope that all hon. Members will regard that as a laudable aim—the Department will be responsible for resource planning across the whole range of functions exercised by all Northern Ireland Departments. If the order is approved, the new Department will also be responsible for personnel matters in exactly the same way as the Department of the Civil Service which will cease to exist. At the same time, most of the wide range of miscellaneous functions which the Department of Finance has collected over the years will be transferred to other Departments. I shall return to that in a moment.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that discussions are taking place on ways in which it might be possible to transfer to the people of the Province a greater degree of responsibility for their own affairs and a greater degree of power over their own affairs. While the discussions are going on, we must at the same time ensure that the pre-existent mechanisms for government in the Province are as efficient as possible.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

So you must.

Mr. Patten

I am glad to have the support of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). During the period in which direct rule continues, which we all recognise as second best, we must ensure that an essentially temporary form of government which no one would have wished to see is made to work as well as possible and to make the best possible use not only of financial resources but of the human resources of the excellent Northern Ireland Civil Service with its proved traditions.

It is therefore important that Northern Ireland should benefit and be seen to benefit from any administrative changes which can make for a more cohesive system of management within central government. Therefore, the Secretary of State has decided that it is right to proceed now with the reorganisations provided for within the order. The order gives effect to that decision.

Perhaps I may pick out some significant points of detail in the order which will be of interest to Northern Ireland Members. Article 3 re-names the Department of Finance as the Department of Finance and Personnel, while Article 4 dissolves the Department of the Civil Service and transfers its functions to the new Department of Finance and Personnel.

Article 5 transfers miscellaneous functions of the Department of Finance to other Departments. These are functions which, in the Government's view, are not appropriate to continue to be exercised by a Department which is concerned with the central control of resources and manpower within the Province. They include responsibility for matters such as the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland and the Public Record Office, which are to be transferred to the Department of the Environment, together with responsibility for the collection of rates and the registration of titles and deeds. Responsibility for the General Register of Northern Ireland and certain licensing functions are to be transferred to the Department of Health and Social Services. Responsibility for the collection of tithe rent charges—I must admit that I found it curious that such charges still exist in that form in Northern Ireland—and land purchase annuities will be transferred to the Department of Agriculture.

I have given a brief resumé of the effects of the order and I commend it to the House—

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Patten

The hon. Gentleman has intervened at a rather late stage in my speech. I had begun what passes for my peroration, but I give way to him.

Mr. Kilfedder

What reduction will the order bring in the number of civil servants at Stormont?

Mr. Patten

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question as it allows me to announce what manpower reductions are possible. The sole reduction so far is one post at permanent secretary level. I should also say that this exercise in consolidating the Department of Finance and the Department of the Civil Service was not intended as a manpower reduction exercise. It was intended to enable greater efficiency in planning and disposition of manpower and financial resources in the Province.

In the hope that I have explained the position sufficiently for the hon. Gentleman, I return to my peroration which has only a few words to go. I commend the order to the House as a measure which I believe can only assist in the better government of Northern Ireland.

10.10 pm
Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith, North)

The Opposition, of course, identify themselves with the Minister's aim that the government of Northern Ireland should not only be impartial but should above all be seen to be impartial. However, I do not see what that has to do with the order.

Having heard the Minister, one could form the impression that he was not a member of a Government one of whose favourite blood sports was civil-servant bashing, which is what much of this matter is about. One does not need to look far into the background to find the Prime Minister and her aide in this respect, Sir Derek Rayner, with their comments on the Civil Service on this side of the water, to see what the Government's attitude is towards civil servants. There is an underlying implication that in some ways the Civil Service is a parasite on the economic body politic. I do not accept that, and I do not think that the Governments of most countries would accept it now. But there is a deep desire in the Conservative Party—the Prime Minister seems to exemplify it more than most—to have a go at civil servants and in some way cut them down to size.

Much of the order is about public expenditure. The Minister has just said that it will not reduce the number of posts. I am not sure whether he means that in the long run it will not reduce the numbers, because there are a number of ways in which one can reduce them. One is by not recruiting when vacancies occur. Did the Minister take that into account when he answered the intervention of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder)?

This is a classic case of the Government, both here, and now in Northern Ireland, trying to hit at Civil Service manpower over the long run, and at public expenditure in so doing. That might be logical in the Government's mind, but the curious point is that although they have been very effective in knocking local authority expenditure they have never knocked Government expenditure. Government expenditure rises. It is a classic case of the Government's saying "Don't do as we do; do as we tell you." That is what they say to the local authorities.

One of the reasons why Government expenditure is constantly so difficult for the Government to keep down is increasing unemployment, which is very relevant in the context of Northern Ireland. The Government are not trying to split the personnel functions. Those will be centralised within the Department of Finance and Personnel. I welcome that as an improvement on what has been introduced on this side of the water. It is one of the differences between the Government's policies here and their policy in Northern Ireland. It is a step in the right direction, but is is only a step.

There is a strong case for a separate Department of personnel. In 1968, when the Fulton Committee reported on the Civil Service, it stated: Personnel management and career planning are inadequate. If we pursue the policy that the Prime Minister is pursuing here, and the Minister is pursuing in Northern Ireland, we shall return to that problem, which Fulton highlighted in 1968.

Those of us who cast our minds back to the political discussions at about the time of Fulton and to the discussions on the Civil Service will remember that there was much criticism from all parts of the political scene that the Civil Service was not as good as it could be, and that one of the crucial reasons was recruitment, training and career development within it. I see this change as a backward step, and not as a forward step.

Both finance and personnel are important enough to justify separate Departments. The main danger is that progressive personnel policies will be subordinated to financial matters, because the Department's financial push will, for obvious reasons, take priority, and the manpower needs will become secondary. That is what Fulton persuaded us to break away from.

There is another problem. Given the Government's high-handed treatment of the civil servants in recent years—not least their latest outburst about the lower-p; id sections—the Government may well run into difficulties with industrial relations within the Civil Service. If that happens—if there are more strikes, working to rule or whatever as a result of the Government's policies—senior management will be wrapped up in questions of industrial relations and finance may well take second place for that period.

The Minister might also give an assurance when he is winding up about staff transferred from the new Department of Finance and Personnel to other Departments. There is a difficult problem involved—she possibility for promotion for staff transferred from the Department of Finance which has caused anxiety and concern among civil servants in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister could give some indication to the House of how he intends to handle that.

The abolition of the Department of the Civil Service is in conflict with the Fulton recommendations of 1968. What is the reason for changing the system now? the Minister has told us that it is to make the machinery of government more efficient and more accountable to the Secretary of State and that the new Department will concentrate on the management of money and manpower. That makes many assumptions, none of which the Minister dealt with.

It assumes that there is inefficiency now. If that is correct, why did the Minister not tell us what the inefficiencies are? The House has a right to know. Perhaps he could give us the evidence to show what the inefficiencies are.

Mr. John Patten

Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that one can be reasonably content with the way in which affairs are being conducted but that one might wish to achieve greater efficiency rather than wipe out inefficiencies?

Mr. Soley

I recognise that, but it puts all the more onus on the Minister to tell us what the improvements will be. He has not told us how the order is going to lead to improvement. He has told us what is going to happen; he has told us what we can read for ourselves in the order, but he has not told us how it will improve matters. I hope that the House will keep a close watch on the efficiency of the Civil Service to see whether it improves or whether the constant bashing by the Government does not lead to a more inefficient and sadly demoralised Civil Service. That is one of my primary concerns.

I am concerned about the Government statistical service which, although not directly involved, draws much of its information from some of the groups involved. The Government have declared that 1982 is the year of information technology. What do they do straight away? They banish the information service when they attack the Government statistical service. Will the situation he made worse by the cuts which will be imposed on the collection of important statistics in regard to social and economic factors?

Can the Minister also tell us what the long-term aim is for Ordnance Survey? I hope that the Government are not still thinking of hiving it off to the private sector, with this being the first step by shunting it off to another Department. Perhaps he can assure the House on that.

Overall, I am concerned about the order because it is another exercise by the Government in civil servant bashing. There is no advantage to be had from that for the Government or for the Civil Service, and least of all for the public in Northern Ireland.

10.19 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

The Minister recommended the order to the House because reorganisation will make government more efficient. I am not certain that he has made that case. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) and question whether the Minister has put before the House anything which ought to lead the House to accept the order.

I asked the hon. Gentleman what reduction there would be in the number of civil servants. His answer was that there would be a reduction of one senior official. I am not convinced that Government expenditure on bureaucracy will be reduced by the order. I think it will lead to an increase in expenditure. I fear that it will lead to inefficiency. There is no talk of the order leading to any savings. The Government should hold the order back. They are committed to the establishment of an elected assembly at Stormont before the end of the year. Surely it makes sense to leave discussion of the reorganisation of Government Departments to that elected body, which will have the onus of devising a system of devolved government in Northern Ireland. I do not know why the Government are rushing the order forward.

I have a suspicion that there may be an ulterior purpose. Unionists are entitled to consider the order against the background of the Anglo-Eire talks. We must analyse carefully what the order is proposing to do. It may not be as simple as the Minister has made it out to be. Article 6 confers on the Civil Service the new rank of undersecretary. It gives to persons holding that rank the power to sign regulations and administrative minutes and to appoint persons to various public bodies such as departmental advisory bodies, bodies which have an executive role and bodies whose functions are investigatory. The Minister may argue that the new name of undersecretary is merely to bring the nomenclature of Northern Ireland civil servants into line with London counterparts. Officials of the rank of senior assistant secretary are to be renamed under-secretaries.

Mr. Patten

Article 6 does not do what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. It gives the new rank of undersecretary, which was formed by joining together the old ranks of senior assistant secretary and deputy secretary, the right under pre-existent law to seal and sign documents on behalf of their department. That is all that the order does in article 6. It gives that power to the new class of person, the person who will act under a new name.

Mr. Kilfedder

That is what I have just said. A new name has been given to senior assistant secretaries, and that is the title of under-secretary. I suspect that in practice a few Northern Ireland civil servants, newly called undersecretaries, will be attached to the London headquarters of the Northern Ireland office at Great George Street, or to other London-based departments, and that from this new vantage point they will take part in the Anglo-Eire talks. Until now the Government have been able to claim that no Northern Ireland civil servants have been engaged with English civil servants in the various meetings of officials that have taken place with the Dublin authorities.

I understand that only a change in name will lead from the order. However, the salary of the new grade of Northern Ireland civil servant was increased by £400 a year last year entirely as a consequence of the change of name. I am astonished that a Conservative Government could provide such financial largesse at a time when they are lecturing people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom to save money. They are telling people to work harder and to be more productive before they can expect to obtain an increase in their wages. How did it come about that following a change of name £400 was added to a salary of about £20,000 a year? It is remarkable. The people in Northern Ireland are entitled to know how such an increase is justified.

Let us examine another part of the order. Why, after all these years, should the central position of the Department of Finance in relation to the purchase of land and other property under the enactments in Schedule 1, be dispersed among three Departments? I have no wish to go into detail, but some of the changes make me wonder where the dividing lines have been drawn. For instance, why should the Public Works Loans Act go to the Department of Agriculture, while the Public Works (Ireland) Act goes to the Department of the Environment? Why has that division taken place? Is there not sense in the same Department being responsible for overseeing public works and the way in which they are financed?

I am not satisfied that the Government have made out a case for the order. The Government have proved neither that the order will make administration in Northern Ireland more efficient, nor that it will produce any savings in the cost of the bureaucracy. As the Government are committed to establishing an assembly at Stormont by the end of the year, it would be better to leave to the newly elected representatives the task of advising on what is the best system of administration for the Province.

10.26 pm
Mr. Wm. Ross (Londonderry)

I was pleased to hear the Under-Secretary of State say that the Government wish to make direct rule fair, impartial, effective and more efficient than it has been in the past. I am not so clear about how the order does that. I assume that it arises out of the Rayner scrutiny of the financial administration within Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office. If that is so, in the light of what the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has just said, I direct the Minister's attention to the summary of the Rayner scrutiny which says that Northern Ireland formerly operated under a 'mini-Whitehall' system of Government, with a local Minister and Ministry of Finance recognisably responsible for central resource (both finance and manpower). The summary concluded that the present fragmented arrangements operated by disparate departmental organisations prevented the Northern Ireland Office from maximising the administrative advantages which should accrue from the relatively small size of the 23,000 non-industrial staff.

Northern Ireland was efficiently organised and administered under the old Stormont Parliament. One of the principal reasons for that was that the administration was not in this House. It worked well. There were no fancy schemes and no way-out ideas. It was a simple, straightforward, majority rule system. If the Government intend to put the control of Ulster back into the hands of the people who live there, perhaps the Under-Secretary will take a more careful look at the efficiency of that system—the same system that works so efficiently and well here—and restore that system rather than the system that they are trying to foist upon us.

It is apparent that once local control was removed the whole system went slack and everything started to slide. We are back to trying to make changes and to get the central Treasury Department, with no direct spending functions, to operate in a new economic environment.

I am not sure what the new economic environment is, unless it is that 100,000 people are now unemployed. Leaving that aside, it is clear from the explanatory document issued with the order that the intention is to concentrate on having tighter control of the miscellaneous Executive functions of the Departments. The question is whether the operation in which we are engaged this evening will accomplish that.

This is not the first attempt to do this. Clearly the thing slid down the hill from 1972 onwards. On 23 July 1976, the Department of the Civil Service was set up by splitting an existing Department into two. At that time, it was said: The basis aim of the exercise is to free the head of the Northern Irish Civil Service for functions of co-ordination."—[Official Report, 23 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 2433.] One must assume that as we are now, five-and-a-half years later, destroying that very Department and, apparently, the very post that was set up, the system introduced by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle), when Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, has been an abject failure. May we have confirmation of that when the Minister replies? There is no reason to destroy a system five-and-a-half years old unless it has been proven to be a failure. It seems strange that it is now necessary to dissolve the Department of the Civil Service.

Parliamentary questions in March and July again brought this matter to the surface, but I assume that it was rumbling around in the Northern Ireland Office for a considerable time before that, and that this is a further effort to bring revenue collection and revenue spending into balance through tight control.

Have these measures been opposed by the Civil Service unions in Northern Ireland? I believe that they have been. No doubt they have their own proposals, and whether one agrees with them would depend on how extensive was the individual's detailed knowledge of the workings of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I have a high regard for those who work in it. They are a fairly efficient lot. If the machine is not up to scratch after 10 years of direct rule, it is long past the time when it should be brought up to scratch.

Will the Minister also say whether the proposals in the order have been welcomed by the legal pofession, either inside or outside the Civil Service Department? From where did these powers come? Did they come from the one source or from a variety of sources?

My experience of change is largely limited to the changes in local government in Northern Ireland 10 or 11 years ago, and the past few years have made me extremely cynical of change, especially if it is only for change's sake and a cosmetic exercise. If there is to be change, it should be considerably for the better. There should be a vast improvement in the administration of the Province.

The order seeks to transfer miscellaneous powers under the control of the Department of the Civil Service to other Departments without public outcry or tremendous public opposition, yet the public will be affected by all these things.

The practice after transfer may not be as carefree as the exercise of transferring these functions. For example, the Department of the Environment will be the principal customer of the land registry, the registry of deeds and the ordnance survey, all of which hang together in a Northern Ireland context for historical reasons. Some people have suggested to me that the Department of the Environment will now be seen as the judge and jury and will also Jay down the charges for the various functions.

I am concerned about the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, which is enormous. It takes up about 40 per cent. of the functions in Northern Ireland. It' it becomes much bigger, we shall not need any other Departments. The Department of the Environment seems to control almost very function that one can think of in Northern Ireland.

I am also advised that the land registry and the registry of deeds are semi-judicial bodies and that a Chancery Division judge directly supervises many of their functions. I wonder why—this is tied up historically with the ordnance survey and the registery of deeds—we are now taking those functions away from the courts. Would it not be better to move towards them rather than in the direction that we are moving now?

The problem is that the effort to separate the collection and the spending of moneys is not clear-cut in the way that the powers are being distributed. The functions that Ire transferred to the Department of Agriculture range from the various land laws, the land purchase Acts, the Public Works Loan Act, 1888, the Tithe Rentcharge (Ireland) Act 1888, through to the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972. One can see that those measures can be tied to agriculture.

Then we come to the functions that are transferred to the Department of the Environment. The Boundary Survey (Ireland) Act 1854, the Public Records (Ireland) Acts 1867 and 1875, Public Records (Northern Ireland) Act 1923, and the Registration of Deeds Act 1970 are all included. Some of those measures, such as the Public Records (Ireland) Acts 1867 and 1875, concern only historical records, which should be put together with ancient monuments and museums. I wonder whether the final home of all the functions has been properly thought through. The Department of the Environment is a vast organisation in Northern Ireland and I would hate to see it become much bigger. I am worried that matters that should perhaps be fitted in elsewhere are being transferred to the Department of the Environment, which experience will prove to be the wrong place.

Then we come to the enactments of functions that are transferred to the Department of Health and Social Services. That includes shop Acts, dog races, auctions, horse racing and betting, which seems to a be a queer mixture to be fed into the DHSS. There may be good reason for it, but we deserve an explanation.

Despite the clear efforts made to separate the functions, if we consider the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 19'77, we find that the Department of the Environment and the Department of Finance and Personnel seem to be tied together. Perhaps my reading of the order is wrong, but I wish the Minister to explain how he sees the problem of two Departments in friction over the same functions.

Perhaps I am overstating the case, but I believe that the problem of tight financial controls andthe separation of the functions of collecting and spending seem to be being tied together. I am worried about that. I cannot see how that will work in practice.

It is clear that the experience of the Department of the Civil Service has been unhappy. If that is so, we must have a clear explanation why the system that was set up five and a half years ago is now considered to have failed. If the Minister cannot give a full explanation tonight, perhaps he will write to me. However, as he has brought the order before us tonight, he will be able to give us a full explanation for the failure of the system set up by the previous Government. Many people in Northern Ireland think that, instead of the administration being improved over the years and becoming more effective and efficient, it has steadily become less effective and efficient, more remote and more annoying to the general public who must deal with it.

Let the Minister be in no doubt that, while we were unhappy with the changes made in 1976, now that it has been found that our forecasts and fears have been proven, we should like to be sure that what is being done this evening will not have to be reversed five and a half years hence.

10.42 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

I do not want to detain the House, but there are some matters on which I should like to question the Minister.

Will there be a large transfer of people to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health and Social Services to look after the various matters listed in the schedules to the order? Has agreement been reached in the Civil Service about those transfers? Are the civil servants happy with the arrangements made for the various transfers?

In Northern Ireland we are living in times when employment is important. We cannot afford to have any more unemployed. The Minister must tell us exactly how many people will be transferred. Will they be assured of their place of work, in carrying out the duties transferred to the various Departments?

I echo a remark made by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). I wonder why at this time the order has been laid before the House and why it seems so imperative that the change should be made. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Secretary of State is discussing with parties in Northern Ireland the setting up of an elected assembly and devolved government there. I say, with the hon. Gentleman, that surely it would be wiser, if the Government are to proceed along those lines, for that assembly, which will appoint the executive—the way in which it will do that is unknown—to have some say in what the departmental responsibilities should be and how they should be divided. Is the order a move towards saying that there will be a limitaton to Departments and that in future Northern Ireland will have X number of Departments?

The Minister should tell us something about the improvements that he envisages as a result of the order. Everyone agrees that Northern Ireland should be run and governed efficiently. I do not believe that anyone would disagree with the Minister about that. In what way do the Minister and his right hon. Friend consider that the present arrangement does not work adequately? Where has inefficiency been discovered? How will those inefficiencies be removed by the steps that he is taking, whereby we shall have more efficient government? The Minister has not explained the improvement that will result. So I hope that he will tell us about the improvements that he believes will take place.

I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). The split of functions seems rather strange. I wonder, for instance why drainage goes to the Department of the Environment and not to the Department of Agriculture. No doubt the Minister can give us a reasonable answer.

The registrar for births, deaths and marriages was always part of the Department of Finance. Is that whole section now to be handed over to the Department of Health and Social Services? I hope that the Minister will say something about that.

The Minister said that the one post of permanent secretary is the only real saving that will take place. When the Department of Finance becomes the Department of Finance and Personnel, will the personnel part still retain a separate entity, or will there be a total merger? I hope that the Minister will explain how that will work in practice.

I finish by saying that it is strange to have this order before us and for the change to be made in this way and at this time.

10.47 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

One of the Minister's remarks was surprising. It was that the manpower consequences of the order were restricted to the elimination of one permanent head of a Department. It is remarkable, because it is contrary to nature. There is a parameter effect or structure in Departments whereby the creation or existence of the head of a Department automatically attracts with it the performance of other functions such as secretarial functions, personal functions, taking off his hat and coat, putting on his hat and coat. Without jocularity, services of that nature tend to multiply around persons of high estate in the ministerial or bureaucratic structure.

I had always believed that one of the best forms of economy in Government expenditure was the abolition of as many ministerial posts as possible. Of course, an interest acts in the contrary direction in the Whips' Office, where the magnification and multiplication of patronage is part of its business and necessary to its trade. Nevertheless, if we are looking for economy, I would say, like the lightning, strike in the highest places. The more heads we remove at the top, the more we can probably dispense with lower down.

I have been accused lately of dealing in paradox. I detect yet another paradox in that point—that point only—of the Minister's speech. Otherwise the order is legislation of a character which, with the passage of time, we come more and more to recognise, and that is legislation to put right our past mistakes.

A fashion is usually set by the work of some very distinguished commission. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) reminded us of the Fulton commission's function in stimulating this error, just as it stimulated many other errors and misconceptions about bureaucracy and the Civil Service. Having made that error in Great Britain—and as Britain is responsible, under direct rule, for the administration in Northern Ireland—we duplicated that error in Northern Ireland in 1976. Having repented of the error and having corrected it after several years, we are now putting things right in Northern Ireland.

Most hon. Members would probably be unemployed if we did not spend so much time reversing the things that those before us—or even ourselves, in earlier years—so confidently but now apparently mistakenly did. We are now all happily agreed that we were mistaken about having a separate Department of the Civil Service. [Interruption.] Perhaps I have misunderstood the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North. I thought that he was against a separate Department of the Civil Service and was in on the new fashion.

We are back to square one. Since my eye fell upon them, I cannot resist quoting certain words from Hansard. As a matter of fact, I was speaking then. I said: I must say—and I suppose that I am betraying all the evidences of Anno Domini in saying it—that there was a great deal to be said for the old arrangement in the Civil Service."—[Official Report, 23 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 2432.] We are substantially returning to the other arrangement. What was taken out of the Department of Finance is now being restored. However, the Minister did not tell us about any modifications.

There is cause for undiluted satisfaction in the element in the order that refers to the separation of executive and financial functions. I can bear personal witness to the desirability of that. Twenty-five years ago, as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I found myself responsible for two or three dozen minor Executive spending Departments. In endeavouring to restrain the growth of public expenditure there was a tension, which I managed to survive and an anomaly—I dare not say a paradox—between the functions of the Financial Secretary, particularly under the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Thorneycroft, and his functions as departmental Minister for spending Departments, however minor.

Therefore, the extension of the separation to Northern Ireland is correct. I am reminded of my responsibility for one of those Executive Departments, which I shall not specify. I shall entertain the House with an anecdote that is strictly in order. In those days, we endeavoured to keep expenditure for the coming financial year within the limits of the outturn for the past financial year. In the second half of any financial year, Treasury Ministers find themselves in that position. As the spending Minister for the Departments, as Financial Secretary, I used to send for the heads of the Departments and say "Sir so-and so"—I found that they were nearly always knights—"you will be aware that the Chancellor's policy is that there should be no increase in your small Department's expenditure compared with that expected in the current year."

I then went on to say that clearly this would mean some reduction in services to the public and clearly the Chancellor would need to know what defence he would have to make if there were to be a reduction of service as a result of this economy. I asked the gentlemen to go away and let me have, in a week or two, if they could, a note of the reduction in public service which would follow if they were able to comply with the guidelines of the Chancellor.

I remember one particular case where Sir so-and-so went away like the young man in the Gospel, very sad. But he came back a much happier man, after 10 or 12 clays. On being wheeled in, as the expression went, by my private secretary, he could hardly wait to sit down before saying that he could do what I had asked and could fully comply with the policy of the Chancellor. I told him that this would surely mean a reduction in staff and that there would not be the service to the public from his Department that there then was. He replied that he could assure me that in those respects there would be no cause for complaint and nothing to defend.

I was very pleased, but was surprised when the assistant secretary in that branch of the supply division of the Treasury came to my room wearing a look of anything but pleasure. He said that he understood that Sir so-an 1-so had told me that his Department: could be reduced by 14 staff without any loss of efficiency or services to the public. He said "We think that you ought to know, Financial Secretary"—which was a phrase to which one became very accustomed, and he went on to tell me that the Department had been subjected to a careful examination by the organisation and methods section of the Treasury, which had recommended that there should be an increase of two in the staff of this Department.

So, the old two-headed combination in the person of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury now exploded into three of four Treasury Ministers under the new dispensations. That was not invariably inimical to economy, but I agree in principle that it is inimical to economy and financial control, and I think that it is right that that anomaly should be removed also from the structure and administration of Northern Ireland.

10.58 pm
Mr. John Patten

I shall reply in reverse order to the points raised, and begin with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I hope that he was not including me as one of those Ministers who is simply the product of the patronage of the Whips' Office. It would have been the first offensive thing that he has ever suggested, in any intervention or speech. I do not want: to involve myself with him in the hunting of paradoxes, which has been a sport much noted in the public press in the last two or three weeks, with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's speeches. I enjoyed the anecdote with which he regaled the House, and which I am sure was entirely in order, about the period, 25 years ago, when he was what is now called, in fashionable shorthand, in the Treasury, FST.

However, circumstances change and the methods of Government that were deemed proper five and a half years ago, or 25 years ago, are not necessarily suitable in the circumstances of today. Flexible Government has, of course, to alter and to trim to changing circumstance, to make Government more, and not less, efficient. I have to refute the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government are attempting to go against the laws of nature in their suggestions for the amalgamation of these two Departments. I never thought that the straightforward plan put forward in order to amalgamate the Department of Finance and the Department of the Civil Service could give rise to an accusation of going against the laws of nature simply because it does not lead to a substantial reduction of staff. The order is not a staff reduction exercise.

The intention of the order is to increase the efficiency of the control of Government over resources and manpower, to make the organisation of the control of Government in these sectors more, rather than less, efficient by amalgamating two Departments and to hive off from them certain functions that go to other Departments. This is not a sinister Civil Service bashing and manpower reduction exercise.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I did not say that the amalgamation of two Departments goes against the laws of nature. Their re-amalgamation in this case receives my approval and support. What I said was that to abolish the head of a Department without finding it possible to abolish other positions was, if not against the laws of nature, at any rate contrary to the results of experience.

Mr. Patten

It is true that one senior post of permanent secretary has been suppressed, dispensed with or found to be no longer necessary. Doubtless certain consequential changes will flow from this. Staff reduction in the Civil Service in Northern Ireland has been going ahead satisfactorily to plan. The fact that a substantal number of other posts are not consequentially suppressed as a result of the order pays right and proper tribute to the efficiency of the Northern Ireland Civil Service as it is, at the moment, properly constituted.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked one or two specific questions that I shall endeavour to answer specifically before turning to a more general point with which I should like to deal. The number of civil servants transferred in the categories the hon. Gentleman requested are 10 to the Department of Agriculture, 1,800 to the Department of the Environment and 117 to the Department of Health and Social Services. I am also pleased to give the assurance that staff will be integrated into their new Departments and treated in relation to promotion and other staff conditions exactly as they would have been in the Departments that are being suppressed or altered.

I am pleased to report that the Civil Service is reasonably content with the proposals in the order. I should like to elaborate on this matter in concluding my remarks. I have been asked why the Government are proceeding at this stage to implement the order when they are also attempting, at the same time, a process of discussion with political parties in the Province to bring about the devolution back to the Province of some powers and responsibilities. The right hon. Member for Down, South might, I suppose, spot a paradox there.

I do not think that it is at all paradoxical because at the moment there is direct rule. The process of the revision of these Departments was begun about 18 months ago. The proposals contained in the order go a long way to standing on their own merit. They will increase efficiency. They will not increase efficiency by stamping out pre-existing inefficiencies or getting rid of many unnecessary civil servants who help people on with their coats and take Ministers' hats. In my 14 months in the Northern Ireland Office, I have never been treated to such service, although it may have been current in the more polite days of 25 years ago when the right hon. Member for Down, South was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I wonder whether today's FST receives that kind of treatment.

If the order is approved, it will improve efficiency by taking away a large number of extraneous tasks and allowing the new Department to concentrate on the disposition of financial resources and manpower across the whole range of Departments in the Province. That is the basis for the introduction of the order.

It would be pointless for me to speculate today about what is likely to happen in terms of the political development of the Province over future weeks and months. In a sense, the progress of devolution in the Province is in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. In the meantime, direct rule continues and we must continue to make it as efficient and effective as possible.

In answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), no one has said that the structure of Departments of the Northern Ireland Civil Service set up five and half years ago has been a failure or has gone wrong or has not produced results, but any system is a potential subject for improvement. We are seeing today the refinement of a system. We are trying not to do anything revolutionary but simply to bring together a pre-existent Civil Service set-up in two Departments to work more efficiently and to be more subject to ministerial control and direction.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that this would introduce friction between Departments. I am pleased to tell him that there is little or no friction between the Departments in Belfast today. There are already, and there will continue to be, considerable areas of overlap, but he may rest assured that friction will certainly not be caused by the transfer of the responsibilities listed in the schedules to the order.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman asked specifically what the legal profession made of the proposals. It is true that there have been representations from some members of the legal profession to the effect that the order would introduce unnecessary costs and inconvenience to the legal profession because many changes in primary and secondary legislation would flow from it. We considered those representations, but we did not feel that they were adequate or sufficient in themselves to make us hold back from laying the order before the House.

Mr. Wm. Ross

May I surmise from what the Minister has said about large costs accruing to the legal profession that all the functions disappearing from the Department of the Civil Service, which is being abolished, will not return to where they were previously?

Mr. Patten

The Official Report will show what I said, but I do not think that I referred to "large" costs. I simply said that some sectors of the legal profession in the Province had suggested that there would be some costs and some inconvenience. In any reorganisation, there are inevitably transitional costs, and I am sure that there are transitional costs in the legal profession.

The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) also asked some specific questions as well as raising one important general point. Perhaps I may try first to satisfy him on the specific question with which he concluded—the paradox, as he saw it, that control over public works would to some extent be split between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture.

The public works and buildings functions are concerned with the upkeep and maintenance of Government offices, as with the Property Services Agency on this side of the water, and, as with that agency, those functions have been transferred, reasonably enough, to the control of the Department of the Environment. The other functions which are being transferred to the Department of Agriculture relate to matters which are much more suitable to its control—land purchase, land improvement, tithe rent charges collection functions and similar matters. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman at greater length setting out the exact functions which are being transferred, and why they are being transferred in the case to which he referred.

The hon. Gentleman asked about why we had the new breed of civil servant in the Province called an under-secretary. He seems to think that he smells a rat, thinking that something underhand is going on and that it needs to be brought out into the open. He seems to think that the order gives life and legitimacy to that new breed. In fact, under-secretaries have been in post under that title for nearly a year. No new posts of under-secretary will be created as a result of the order.

The people who are happily and contentedly working at their tasks at that important grade in the Departments will not suddenly be directed in an underhand way to come across to the Northern Ireland Office in Great George Street and perform nameless tasks to do with relations with the Republic of Ireland. I am happy to give a clear assurance that within the limits of the changes in the order those people stay put and will not be up to any malevolent and underhand activities.

Last, and not least, in what has been a very interesting and probing debate, I turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), the Opposition spokesman, who asked about the Ordnance Survey and the statistical services. There are no proposals for any changes in the Ordnance Survey in Northern Ireland flowing from the order. The Government will not be introducing changes in future weeks and months.

There is no reason why the Government's statistical services should suffer one iota from the side-effects of the order. We all recognise the great importance rightly given to accurate statistics, whether in social planning, in the planning of housing or in making us better informed about penal regimes—the sort of subject about which the hon. Gentleman bombards me with questions week after week. I do not think that I have ever failed to give him adequate statistics. I assure him that those statistics will continue to be available.

In what is essentially a debate on a Northern Ireland issue I do not want to indulge in cross-party warfare between the Government and the official Opposition, but I must say that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman has not got it right. He cannot reasonably say that we are indulging in Civil Service bashing by the order. I can see no evidence of that. We are not reducing staff, except for the one permanent secretary post, and the gentleman concerned has already left the service, having retired and not having been made redundant.

In the run-up to the order my noble Friend Lord Gowrie, the Minister of State responsible, has had full consultations with the trade union side. On this issue we have gone step by step with the trade unions. There was a bilateral meeting on 13 November, when the Civil Service side discussed with my noble Friend the problems which it foresaw in the amalgamation of the Department of Finance and the Department of the Civil Service, should that amalgamation come about. In those discussions they quite rightly put forward their legitimate interests. During the discussions, the Government made to the trade union side some explicit concessions, such as transferring the Public Record Office to the Department of the Environment rather than to some other home, because the trade union side thought that would be the correct course to follow.

We were able to reassure it in two ways about a legitimate worry as to whether the important personnel function of the Department of the Civil Service would be downgraded. First, we told the trade union that it would continue to have the access it always had to senior management and, if necessary, to the Minister himself on Civil Service issues. Secondly, we were able to say that the head of the new Department, if it is set up, would become chairman of the Central Whitley Council. The trade union side had reasonably pressed for this. We were happy to agree because it is clear evidence of our good faith to allow the head of the new Department to carry on at the same level as he has always done in regard to the personnel function by which we set such great store.

Mr. Soley

Can the Minister explain his rationale to have more effective deployment of manpower resources? If that has any meaning, surely it must mean that at the end of the day some people will have more time on their hands as a result of doing the job more efficiently or effectively. If so, will the Minister shorten their working week? Will he give them jobs which ate not being done? Or at the end of the day will we end up with posts not being filled that would otherwise have been filled, with all the implications that that would have for employment?

Mr. Patten

I cannot speak in detail about an amalgamation which is about to happen, if it gets the approval of the House. I thought I had made it clear in my earlier remarks that it is not the intention of the order to reduce radically the number of people employed in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I did not get in the hon. Gentleman's intervention any recognition of the fact that I put before the House that the trade union side seems content, because no representations about the effects o f the order have been made, to my knowledge, since 13 November. No one in the trade union has been in contact with my noble Friend, myself or anyone else concerned. Therefore, whatever else the order is doing, it is not bashing civil servants. If it is, the Northern Ireland. Civil Service, which is always vigorous in its own defence, is being uncharacteristically quiet about the effects of the order.

I do not intend to be drawn down the path of a full discussion of the transfer of functions and whether it is right or wrong to amalgamate the financial and personnel functions in a theoretical sense. As right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will know, this was the subject of a full debate in the House only a few weeks ago on 20 January. I would commend to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North a full reading of the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury. He dealt more than adequately with these points and I have nothing to add to what he said.

Fulton, who has been decried in some quarters of the House and praised in others, was concerned with the efficiency of the Civil Service. So is this Administration. We believe that this order will promote that efficiency. It will litte by little bring better government to Northern Ireland. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 9 February, be approved.