HL Deb 08 March 1977 vol 380 cc911-4

2.50 p.m.

Lord BOOTHBY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would now agree that the amalgamation of a number of separate Departments of State, which were working efficiently, into several huge Ministries has proved to be a costly mistake; and in particular whether the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and for the Environment, have had imposed upon them a burden which no single individual can hope to bear; and whether they will take immediate steps to remedy this unfortunate state of affairs.

Lord PEART

My Lords, in considering the allocation of ministerial responsibilities, which, of course, bears directly on the structure of Government Departments, the Prime Minister takes account of various factors. These would include, on the one hand, the range of responsibilities that a single Minister can reason ably be expected to discharge and, on the other, the organisational and operational advantages to be gained from grouping inter-related functions within a single Department. Noble Lords may take it that the Prime Minister intends to make no changes in the allocation of ministerial responsibilities unless and until he makes an announcement to that effect.

Lord BOOTHBY

My Lords, arising out of that Answer, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that the recent departmental amalgamations have resulted in both a reduction and an increase in the bureaurocracy; that they have imposed far too heavy a burden on too few and far too light a burden on too many, and that an inquiry into the machinery of Government is now urgently required in order that the transaction of the volume of public business in the modern world may be carried out more efficiently and economically?

Lord PEART

My Lords, the noble Lord must know that it was a Conservative Administration that produced the White Paper, The Reorganisation of Central Government, in 1970. I have it here and I will send it to him. It was argued then by a Right-Wing organisation that this movement towards larger Departments would lead to greater efficiency. I do not think it imposes the strains implied in the Question.

Lord BOWDEN

My Lords, are not the Government aware of the fact that constant changing of the nature of large Departments of State—and, if I may, I will give particular examples: the successive transformations of what were once the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Aviation, the Ministry of Energy and the Department of Industry which have amalgamated and split several times—has posed intolerable burdens on those responsible for them to the extent that it has made it impossible for the people supposedly responsible for policy to devote any time at all except to matters of routine administration? It seems to me that this has been a source of great weakness in Whitehall since I first met it; it has been a cause of great anxiety and has imposed a great burden on the senior civil servants responsible. Cannot some steps be taken to prevent this?

Lord PEART

My Lords, I sympathise with the desire of my noble friend to see that no unnecessary extra burdens are placed on the heads of Departments and that efficiency should be encouraged and should not be frustrated. But I do not believe in the argument put forward by my noble friend. I remember that when I was involved in agriculture I believed that it was a good thing that we should have combined with Agriculture, the Ministry of Food, a larger Department, and that it would be better for policy and other reasons. I found no difficulties when administering it.

Lord AVEBURY

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what organisational advantages have resulted from the amalgamation of Health and Social Security?

Lord PEART

My Lords, I think that we shall have to give it time before making a final judgment. I think it is important that there should be Committees in both Houses to watch carefully the procedure of Government. This is a continuing process and it is inevitable that there will be problems here and there.

The Earl of HALSBURY

My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware of the stricture by the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, delivered at an oration at the London School of Economics, that constant reorganisation at the top is a characteristic of a badly-managed industrial enterprise?

Lord PEART

My Lords, I never thought that he followed that advice for the railways.

Lord INGLEWOOD

My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that the old Ministry of Transport was happily at home in the Department of the Environment?

Lord PEART

My Lords, I think it was appropriate when it was part of it. It is not appropriate now.

Lord BOWDEN

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this problem of successive reorganisation was complained about by a Roman Consul named Caius Petronius? I think that the tradition of constant reorganisation has been with us for far too long.

Lord BOOTHBY

My Lords, am I to understand from the noble Lord that the Government will not even inquire into the matter?

Lord PEART

My Lords, I think that there should be, and are, Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords which could make recommendations. There should be vigilance on this matter. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to it.

Lord PANNELL

My Lords, will my noble friend look at this question again? Is he aware that the expenses of this House appear on the Vote for the Department of the Environment? Would he not agree that this was a very unfortunate juxta-position?

Lord PEART

My Lords, that is another question. We shall look at that.

Lord DERWENT

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am now asking the eighth supplementary question?

Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE

My Lords, is it not a fact that when the alteration was made it was made in order to ensure that the smaller local authorities would find it easier to appoint better and higher paid officials? Is it not a fact that, whatever the difficulties—and there are always difficulties in new arrangements—many of the smaller local authorities have been able to operate more efficiently because they have had more efficient officials?

Lord PEART

My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness is on another question.