HL Deb 13 October 1969 vol 304 cc1237-45

1. The main changes in the Machinery of Government, announced by the Prime Minister to-day, are as follows:

  1. (i) The Ministry of Technology will take over the responsibilities of the Ministry of Power, and will become a single Department under the Minister of Technology.
  2. (ii) The expanded Ministry of Technology will assume responsibility for certain additional functions in relation to industry which were previously in the Board of Trade and the Department of Economic Affairs.
  3. (iii) The work of the Board of Trade will be concentrated upon exports and overseas trade, and trade and commerce in the United Kingdom.
  4. (iv) A Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning is appointed.
  5. (v) The allocation of the functions of the Department of Economic Affairs is as set out in detail below.

Technology, Industry and Trade

2. The Ministry of Technology becomes the Government Department with the main responsibility for industry both in the public and private sectors.

3. The merger with the Ministry of Power will bring together in one Department responsibility for all primary fuels and plant industries for electricity generation, together with other power and energy supply and plant industries.

4. The expanded Department will also be concerned with the structure of industry and with industrial productivity. It will therefore assume responsibility for the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.

5. The industries concerned with mineral development in both the public and the private sectors (except those which are closely linked with the construction industry) will also be brought together under the Ministry of Technology. The Ministry will thus have the main responsibility for all general questions relating to mineral development.

6. The Ministry of Technology will assume the Department of Economic Affairs' responsibilities in the field of regional economic development and also the related distribution of industry functions of the Board of Trade. The regional organisations of the Ministry of Technology and of the Board of Trade will be adjusted so as to reflect the new division of responsibilities between the two Departments.

7. The Ministry of Technology will assume responsibility for investment grants.

8. In addition, the Department of Employment and Productivity will assume responsibility for a number of bodies concerned with the provision of certain of the productivity services to industry hitherto handled by the Board of Trade.

9. The Board of Trade will concentrate on overseas trade and export promotion, including the many activities which contribute invisible earnings to the balance of payments. Thus, in addition to its responsibilities for external commercial policy (including tariff policy) and export policy and services, the Board of Trade will retain responsibility for civil aviation, shipping, tourism, hotels and insurance.

10. The Board of Trade's other field of responsibility will relate to trade and commerce in the United Kingdom. It will continue to be responsible for the distributive and service trades, including retail distribution, newspapers, printing, publishing and films. It will also retain a number of general responsibilities in relation to commerce including the administration of (he Insurance and Companies Acts, Patents and Copyrights.

11. As has been announced, the Government is urgently reviewing the question of the public accountability of firms in industry, including the role of the Monopolies Commission and the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The future departmental responsibility for monopolies, mergers and restrictive practices will be decided in the light of the Government's decision which will be announced shortly.

N.E.D.C. and the National Economy

12. The Prime Minister will remain Chairman of the N.E.D.C. Responsibility for coordinating advice on the content and priorities of the Council's business and for supervising the Vote and staffing of the N.E.D.O. will pass to the Cabinet Office. The Government's consultations with the "little Neddies" will now pass to the relevant sponsoring Departments.

13. Responsibility for medium and long term economic assessment will pass to the Treasury as part of the reorganisation; and that Department will assume co-ordinating responsibility for those aspects of the work of the N.E.D.C. which relate to the continuing process of preparing, producing and following up planning documents and for co-ordinating the consultations between Department and industry on these.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING, AFTER THE MAUD REPORT

14. The new Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning will coordinate the work of the Ministries of Housing and Local Government and Transport. He will be particularly concerned with following up the recommendations in the Maud Report. He will take personal charge of the negotiations for carrying through the reform of Local Government in England. Responsibility for the Regional Planning Councils and Boards will pass, with their staffs in the regions, from the Department of Economic Affairs to the new Secretary of State.

15. The Secretary of State will also have special responsibility in relation to all aspects of environmental pollution. He will coordinate the activities of the executive Departments in this field. The Prime Minister has asked him as a matter of urgency to submit recommendations for improving the machinery for dealing with pollution problems. The Secretary of State's responsibilities in this field cover England, but he will have the task of securing co-ordination with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, whose responsibilities and statutory functions remain unchanged in this and in all other matters.

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS ORDER

16. The creation of the new post of Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning and the re-distribution of the functions of the Department of Economic Affairs take effect at once; and the Minister of Technology will for the time being become Minister of Power. But the actual merger of the Ministries of Technology and Power, and the transfer of functions from the Board of Trade, as well as the transfer of responsibility from the Department of Economic Affairs for the I.R.C., have to be effected by an Order in Council, which requires Parliamentary authority. For this purpose it is intended to lay a draft Transfer of Functions Order as soon as possible after the two Houses resume.

3.48 p.m.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, the House will want to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating that Statement, and congratulate him on his stamina in reading it. All I can say is that even though I had a copy before me I was as bewildered as I was before he started. It is one of the most complicated Statements that I have ever heard read in this House. I only hope that it will not take those in the Departments as long to understand what they are all supposed to be doing now, and to whom they are responsible, as I am sure it will take your Lordships to get into the habit of referring to different people by different names, working for different Departments.

We shall obviously have an opportunity to debate this matter when the Orders are before this House. All this really leads me to wonder whether, at this stage in a Parliament, it really is very sensible to make radical changes of this character. However, the Government have decided to do it, and we must see how it goes. At first blush, I should have thought there was a great danger in creating two enormous Ministries which will be so big that they will really be unmanageable. But here again we must see how it goes.

Before I sit down, I should like to associate myself with the congratulations which have been voiced, following these changes, to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and to the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, on their promotion; and also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on his very well deserved honour. It gives much pleasure to everybody in this House, as I hope it does to the noble Lord.

3.50 p.m.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, particularly in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on the honour which he has received, and to thank him particularly for all the courtesies which we in many parts of the House have received from him during his term of very difficult office. As to the Statement, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I am a great one for change, but for change in its right place. I think that as a piece of political reorganisation, a piece of political rationalisation, this reconstruction may well go down as being extremely beneficial, but I have some grave misgivings about its timing. I should have thought that a radical reorganisation of this kind ought to be brought about when a Government can look forward to three or four years of office, and not in the fag end of a Parliament. I do not know whether the Leader of the House would like to say what positive achievements he hopes to see between now and the General Election, or how many months will be required for this machine to be running in.

In addition, there are only two points I should like to ask the noble Lord. Can he say what is the new relationship between Mr. George Thomson and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who up to this point, I believe, had quite a number of responsibilities in relation to Europe? The other point is: what has happened to the Coal Board in all this?

3.52 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for what they have said about certain of my noble friends. I had myself thought to say this, but I thought it came less appropriately after a very long Statement, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to pay these tributes. I understand that a number of tributes have already been paid to my noble friend Lord Stonham. Nevertheless, I am bound to pay my own personal one. He has been a colleague of mine in this Government for five years now, and to speak of his energy, his thoroughness, his devotion, his courtesy, makes him sound almost like a very unlikely paragon; and I am sure that noble Lords opposite would say that it is almost impossible to find such an individual in a Labour Government. But I must say that he is outstanding among my colleagues, and I am absolutely delighted that he should have had this very notable honour—and it is a very notable honour—and a very just reward for his services. I do not doubt that he will continue to be as active and energetic in a number of fields where his interests will still continue. Much as one regrets his going, I am sure he will continue to help us very much. Of course, we particularly recognise his work in Northern Ireland.

May I also say how pleased I am regarding the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. He has laboured very long and we are delighted that he is a Minister of State. And those who know the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, from his time in another place will know that we have had an access of very high ability to our Front Bench.

If I may turn to the noble Lord's points. I agree that it is a complicated Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has been away from Government for a long time. Government can be complicated, and whenever the Government explain something in detail of course we are attacked for telling too much; if we had not explained this we should have been told that we had not explained it enough. None the less, his remarks were kindly. But I assure him there is a very determined attempt to rationalise the functions of Government, which is a very complicated business, and complication always arises particularly in relation to the borders of different bodies. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for suggesting that in fact this reconstruction: should yield benefit.

As to whether this is the right time, this question seems to be based on some vague misconception that there may be a Government of a different colour after the next Election. It so happens that I think that after the period of experience we have had with Government it is right now to initiate changes which have been considered for a very long time. I am quite certain that, in the unlikely event of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, finding himself in Government, these changes will stand in good stead any Government of this country who are seriously setting out to face the problems that confront us.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who asked what my noble friend Lord Chalfont will do. I do not think he is here.

LORD CHALFONT

Yes.

LORD SHACKLETON

The noble Lord is here. The noble Lord will have an opportunity to deal with this matter in the debate on the Queen's Speech. As to my right honourable friend Mr. Thomson, I have explained what he is doing and his particular responsibilities for Europe. I understand that my noble friend Lord Chalfont will take over some of the duties Mr. Mulley has been doing, particularly in the field of disarmament, as well as having certain territorial responsibilities.

May I say just one thing on size? It is very easy to get this out of perspective. The actual numbers of staff are not increasing very much. The Ministry of Technology goes up by about 4, 000; the Board of Trade goes down by 2, 000, and the Ministry of Power and the D.E.A. disappear, except that certain D.E.A. functions go elsewhere; so there is enormous variation in the size. Of course, none of these Departments is remotely as large as the Ministry of Defence, which the previous Government very rightly created.

Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE

My Lords, would the Minister be so good as to clarify one point? It will be within the memory of the Leader of the House that some years ago, when civil aviation was transferred from the Ministry of Transport to the Board of Trade, the argument was very strongly put that it was necessary that manufacturing and operation should be under the same Department. Now I understand that the functions of civil aviation will remain with the Board of Trade, but from what the Leader of the House said I gather that what I call the manufacturing and technical aspects of production will go to the Ministry of Technology. If that is the case, we shall then get back to the very position the Government were saying they wished to avoid in the past.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, the manufacturing responsibilities for aviation have been with Technology for some while now, and this is one of the areas where there is in fact no change. I assure the noble Lord, because when I was at the Ministry of Defence I did my best to prevent it from going to the Ministry of Technology, so I know the argument very well. But there are powerful arguments either way and the basic argument is that sponsorship of the aircraft industry should not be confused with sponsorship of civil aviation; and I think there was a real danger of schizophrenia. There are, I agree, powerful arguments, but this was a decision taken probably two years or more ago, which seems to have escaped the attention of the noble Lord.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, which Minister will be responsible for the siting of airports?

Lord SHACKLETON

My Lords, the siting of airports will continue, as I understand it, with the President of the Board of Trade.

LORD ERROLL of HALE

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could give the House an assurance that these very important changes were fully discussed democratically in the Cabinet as a whole before being implemented.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I can only say to the noble Lord that I regard that as a somewhat improper question.

LORD ERROLL of HALE

My Lords, surely there is nothing improper in asking. I was only hoping that as the noble Lord said he is in difficulty if he gives too much information, and in a difficulty if he does not give enough, he might at least vouchsafe to us this piece of most important information.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, there is impropriety in the question's coming from somebody who himself is a former Cabinet Minister and President of the Board of Trade. The noble Lord knows that the machinery of Government is the responsibility of the Prime Minister and the consultations he chooses to have with his colleagues are for him.

LORD LEATHERLAND

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether there was prior and democratic consultation in the Cabinet when Mr. Macmillan sacked seven of his Ministers overnight?

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, may I ask one supplementary to the question I put previously? In the interesting Statement that the Leader of the House read to us he used the word "pollution" to cover, I think, various threats to the environment. Is it clear that he includes in what he said pollution by noise?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I am never quite sure whether the roads themselves do not constitute a form of pollution. Let me say that I am speaking personally. It may well be that in another two hundred years' time we shall not need roads and they will be as difficult to deal with as are all the runways from the last war. I would agree with the noble Lord that, if one is going to look at the environment, it covers a very wide range, but I should not like to specify before my right honourable friend the new Secretary of State has looked across the board at these questions. I know that Mr. Greenwood was interested in problems of noise, and I think the important thing is to place the responsibility; and thereafter it will be a matter of consultation as to where the limits are drawn.

LORD BALOGH

My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend for his Statement and also in congratulating both the noble Lords who have been promoted and the noble Lord who has resigned. Does not my noble friend feel, however, that as a result of the concentration into one sponsoring Department with conflicting interests—it is not so much a question of the size of the Department as of conflicting interests among the sponsored—the quality of decision-making may suffer and certain democratic control over decision-making will be weakened? Moreover, does he not feel that as a result of the inevitable immense increase in the control of the Treasury over decision-making as a result of these changes we shall tend to get back to a situation from which we have emerged?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, my noble friend has raised an interesting point. The extent to which one makes use of creative tension in Government raises interesting philosophic aspects, and there are times when there are arguments that the responsibilities should be separate, and there are other arguments that if we put them all together and provide the right representation within a Department, we shall arrive more effectively at a decision with somebody with responsibility across the board, thereby diminishing the amount of work that has to go to inter-departmental committees. There are such arguments—and I think possibly modern thinking is going in that direction—but I should not like to be dogmatic and say that this is a principle which should be followed in all circumstances because we should then have only one Department of State for the whole of Government. I could not accept what (he noble Lord said about the Treasury, but I noted it with interest.