§ 3.25 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SIIACKLETON)My Lords, in announcing the Government's acceptance of the main recommendations of the Fulton Committee in the House of Commons on June 26, the Prime Minister said that further measures were being prepared to ensure the fullest scrutiny and control of Civil Service manning. With your Lordships' permission I should now like to inform the House of two measures to this end which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is announcing in a Statement to-day. First, the Prime Minister has asked Sir Robert Bellinger to become Chairman of a panel of businessmen and industrialists who will, in the light of their industrial and business experience, guide and assist a number of inquiries into particular areas of work in the non-industrial Civil Service. The main purpose of these inquiries will be to scrutinise staff complements, and, if appropriate, the need for undertaking certain tasks, with a view to finding immediate and progressive savings in manpower. Sir Robert and his colleagues will not be given detailed terms of reference, nor is it envisaged that they will act as a conventional Committee of Inquiry. They will be left to develop their own procedures and to carry out their task, in conjunction with Departments, in whatever manner seems to them most appropriate.
Second, the Prime Minister has asked Mr. J. F. Mallabar to conduct an inquiry into Government industrial establishments with the following terms of reference:
To examine whether the existing organisation and systems of control and accountability 321 of large-scale establishments in the Ministries of Defence and Technology engaged in production offer impediments to the achievement of full efficiency; and to recommend how such impediments should be removed".The Prime Minister is grateful to both Sir Robert Bellinger and Mr. Mallabar for their ready acceptance of the tasks they have been invited to undertake. It is hoped that the names of their colleagues can be announced soon. The National Staff Side have already been made aware of what is proposed, and Departments will in due course be discussing the individual reviews with their own Staff Sides.
§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORMy Lords, I think that this double anouncement will be welcome not only to your Lordships but to the public generally. May I ask three questions arising out of it? First, the noble Lord has said that the National Staff Side have been made aware of what is proposed. Can he tell us whether the Staff Side have expressed agreement or have expressed any other views on the matter? Secondly, he has said that the task would be carried out in conjunction with Departments. Can he say who is really in charge in each Department and what will be the position of the Minister and the Permanent Secretary while these outside investigations are going on? Thirdly, is it quite clear that the remit on the non-industrial side extends not only to recommending possible savings of manpower by applying new techniques and modern methods but also to suggesting that some functions now peformed by Departments may no longer be necessary and could be altogether terminated?
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, may I also, on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, welcome the prompt establishment of these two commissions? May I put basically the same questions as have been put by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor; namely, would it be within the terms of reference of these commissions at least to consider questions of manpower and indeed the questions of redundancy and would they be in order to report on and recommend whether there is any possibility of running the institutions concerned with equal efficiency with a smaller staff?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I hope that I have the noble Lord's question correctly. First of all, the Staff Side 322 has been made aware in advance of what is intended, and we shall carefully consider any representations that they may have to make. It certainly is the wish of the Government—indeed, it would be very unwise if it were not—and I know it is Sir Robert Bellinger's wish, to proceed with the full understanding and co-operation of the staff at every stage, and that does imply that in regard to particular inquiries made it will be appropriate to consult the Staff Side.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, asked me about the relationship between the businessmen conducting the inquiry and Departments. Of course, each individual review of a Department will be instituted by the Minister and the Permanent Secretary. Obviously, they will discuss it together. The businessmen to be associated with it will be chosen by the Department after consultation with Sir Robert Bellinger, and in due course the conclusions of the review will be reported to the Minister and the Permanent Secretary.
The range of these inquiries certainly presupposes that it may be possible to find certain tasks which can be dispensed with. Whether it is a total task or merely an aspect of a bigger task, it would be quite wrong just to cut the Civil Service and leave the task, and there is no proposal to do so. Indeed, it is unlikely that there will be any cut. There is the need to contain the manpower against the background of the extra demands put upon it, and we may even in the end be able to make my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor happy if successful inquiries are carried out elsewhere.
The inquiries will not be directly concerned with working methods to improve productivity and efficiency, although it is quite likely that they may trigger off investigations of that kind. I think it is difficult to separate it off entirely. However, that will be a matter very much for the existing management. I hope that the streamlining of existing management structure and organisation will give greater scope for improvements in working methods; and, of course, a lot of action has already been taken on these lines. But my own experience in working in the O. and M. field tells m that it is at times difficult to draw a hard line between organisation and methods.
§ LORD MITCHISONMy Lords, since these are really inquiries into the machinery of government, will my noble friend, and possibly the commissions themselves, consider the growing variety of these governmental auxiliaries and their relation to the Civil Service side, the strict governmental side, of the machinery?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am sure that my noble friend's question contains a great profundity, but I am afraid it rather escapes me. I do not think that this is directly concerned with what might be called machinery of Government, although again it is one of these omnibus expressions, like "amateur" and "generalist", which can mean a number of different things. I take the noble Lord's point that there is perhaps, as he suggests, a proliferation of ancillaries to Government. But I believe he is falling into error in confusing inquiries conducted by outsiders, whether Royal Commissions or any other form of inquiry, with the Government itself.
§ LORD MITCHISONMy Lords, may I express the hope that this is the kind of departmental commission that the Government will not forget all about?
§ LORD PEDDIEMy Lords, I hope that my question will not be too profound. I should like to ask my noble friend in what way the new proposals that he has outlined will tie in with the responsibilities of the new Civil Service Department.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I think that perhaps this answer will help to relieve my noble friend Lord Mitchison's mind. He is afraid that perhaps these inquiries will be forgotten. I can assure him that they will not be forgotten. Although I must stress that the responsibility will rest with the Ministers and Permanent Secretaries, there is a central co-ordinating role which at the present moment falls to the pay and management side of the Treasury under my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should point out that the new department has not yet been set up, but that when it is it will take over this work. This is the normal development of Civil Service management. What is now proposed is separate from, but I think very much in tune with, the Fulton proposals. It shows, incidentally, 324 that contrary to some fears the Civil Service Department will start off with a firm orientation in the direction of economy and better management.
§ VISCOUNT HANWORTHMy Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether at the same time he would consider and constantly keep in mind the possibility of simplifying existing and future legislation so that its demands on the Civil Service can be kept to a minimum. I should like the noble Lord's confirmation that this point will not be overlooked.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, this is such an interesting question, and so pregnant with possible points, that I think I will only say that I have noted what the noble Lord has said.
§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORMy Lords, perhaps I might ask one more question. At the conclusion of these inquiries by these businessmen and industrialists, is it intended that their findings shall be made public?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I should have thought not. It seems to me that this is a form of management inquiry. If you call in a consultant, you do not necessarily publish his results. It may be interesting to the noble Lord to know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister proposes to discuss the procedure for the control of expenditure in Departments with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, to see whether any arrangements can be made for associating the Committee with the inquiries, with the object of advancing their knowledge of Department procedures for expenditure control. But I should not have thought that in a matter where you call in consultants to advise you, which is in effect what is being done, their reports would necessarily be in a form appropriate for publication. Indeed, to undertake that in advance—and I know that the noble Lord with his great experience will appreciate this—might hamper their work.
§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORMy Lords, while I should not wish to press that every word that the consultants might wish to convey to the Ministers or to the Government should he made public, nevertheless, will the noble Lord 325 bear in mind that this is an important matter to Parliament, and that it is desirable that some means should be worked out for keeping Parliament informed as to progress?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I would only say that there is a great deal of other work going on in different fields. There are a large number of surveys which are being conducted, so to speak, within the house. I think there are some interesting ideas in what the noble Lord has said. Whether there is a possibility —and I certainly cannot give an undertaking—of general reforms which might pick out certain aspects so that Parliament can be informed is an interesting idea, but I should not wish to guarantee that a particular inquiry would necessarily be reported upon. However, I note what the noble Lord has said.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Government have yet taken any decision about the establishment of a Civil Service College?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, the Government have already twice announced their intention to establish a Civil Service College.
§ LORD ALPORTMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to whom the inquiries will be reported—whether to the Prime Minister, the Departmental Ministers concerned or to the noble Lord himself? Secondly, will the reports be available to a Standing Committee of the House of Commons concerned with the Department that is under inquiry?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I must be being singularly obscure to-day. I thought I had already answered all those questions. If the noble Lord will look at what I said, he will see that, in effect, the reports will go to the Minister and the Permanent Secretary who will be in charge; and I had made a reference to the possibility of discussions between the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, with a view to seeing whether some association could be achieved.