HL Deb 20 July 1978 vol 395 cc483-95

35 Clause 20, page 9, line 34, at end insert— ("Provided that he has obtained the consent of the First Secretary and the Minister for the Civil Service for those appointments.")

The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:

36 Because the appointment of the officers and servants of Scottish Secretaries should be left to the Scottish Executive.

5.51 p.m.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 35, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 36, but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof: Page 9, line 31, leave out ("A Scottish") and insert ("The First") line 34, leave out ("him") and insert ("a Scottish Secretary") line 34, at end insert— ("Provided that he has obtained the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service as to the number of officers and servants in each grade") My new Amendments put forward an alternative to the original which was passed by this House. The Amendment which went to the other place was not discussed; it was simply put to the vote and, because of the guillotine, it received no discussion at all. However, in the vote, without discussion, there was a majority of only nine against the Amendment. The Amendments I am putting forward now in lieu are in the same sense as the earlier Amendment, but they are clearer in expressing what we intend. To begin with, I draw your Lordships' attention to the Reason numbered 36 for rejecting the Amendment: Because the appointment of the officers and servants of Scottish Secretaries should be left to the Scottish Executive". But as the Bill stands, or as it stood when it came to this House, it is not left to the Scottish Executive; the First Secretary, the head of the Scottish Executive, does not need even to he consulted. It is left to the individual Scottish Secretary, the individual equivalent of a Minister in Whitehall, to set up his Department and do the recruiting on an establishment which he has thought up himself, apparently without any consultation with his own chief, the First Secretary. I would say therefore that the wording of the Reason given to us does not really cover the objections to at any rate one part of our original Amendment.

Our Amendment would have required the consent of the First Secretary, the chief of the new Scottish Executive—that was not originally in the Bill—and in addition we would have provided for the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service in Whitehall and at Westminster. That is the total extent of the Westminster check which we proposed, other than the total amount of money which is to be available to the new Executive and Assembly. We still think it necessary that there should be some check from Westminster on the establishment from scratch of completely new departments and the filling of them, apparently with no limit, of civil servants.

The new wording of the Amendments which I now propose provides for the numbers and grades to receive the assent of the Minister for the Civil Service. The point there is that there was a misunderstanding at an earlier stage in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, when replying spoke as if he thought that our original Amendment meant that each individual appointment had to receive the consent of the First Secretary and the Minister for the Civil Service. Of course that was not the intention. Our intention is that the initial establishment for each of these new Scottish Departments—we still do not know how many there will be because that is not written into the Bill—should have some Westminster check on it. The other change which we have made in the new Amendments is that it is the First Secretary himself who is to lay down what the numbers and grades should be, so it is still within the new Executive's power to do this, but it is the Cheif Executive himself, whereas under the Bill as it originally came to us he had no say whatever.

It would be an anomaly bordering on the ridiculous if the Bill stands as the Government propose. If Ministers of Government Departments in Whitehall cannot significantly add to the strength of their Departments, which is the position today, without the permission of the Minister for the Civil Service, or the Treasury or Prime Minister if there is a dispute, why should these new Departments which are to be set up ab initio by the new new Scottish Secretaries be built without any check, curb or sanction from Whitehall or Westminster? We were told during the debates on the Bill in this House that these Departments would all be manned by members of the home Civil Service, precisely the same categories of person who man the Departments of the central Government in Whitehall, Edinburgh, Cardiff and elsewhere. They are to be paid for by the United Kingdom taxpayers.

We think the Commons should have the chance of discussing these Amendments, or Amendments on these lines, because they can propose variations if they wish to do so. Very large sums of money are involved, and the size of Departments is another subject which is eminently one for the Commons to discuss. I am not suggesting there would necessarily be deliberate empire building by the new Scottish Secretaries. It is a human weakness—it may not even be a weakness—that someone who is first appointed and given a portfolio by the First Secretary, as happens in Government when a Prime Minister appoints a Minister, may feel carried away by enthusiasm for the task he has been given. He may think it is one of the most important jobs to be done, and he may feel he has particular reforms or new ideas to introduce. He may well, in all good faith, then feel that he must set up an over-large or top-heavy Department to carry out those tasks. That is a human characteristic which is familiar to most people who have been in public life. In eagerness and good faith, a new Scottish Secretary may try to set up a new Department which many others, and the taxpayers in particular, may not think need be as large as he thinks it should be.

Without our Amendments there is nothing in the Bill to indicate there would be any direction or guidance from the First Secretary, the head of the new Executive, to the individual Scottish Secretaries. This is a matter particularly for your Lordships' House; it is customary for the Leader of the House to be the Minister for the Civil Service, and he is today. I am concerned with this because, as noble Lords may know, one of the matters with which from this side of the House I am charged to deal is the Civil Service.

In the absence of any provision covering this in the Bill, may I have an answer to three questions: First, how will the new Departments be established? Secondly, how will the recruitment or transfer of home civil servants be carried out? It is clear that some will be transferred from the Scottish Office, many of them probably carrying out the same functions because those functions are to be devolved, but the Manpower Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill indicates that there will be about 750 additional civil servants in Scotland as a result of the Bill. The Government estimate that number as being extra, and of course that could well be an underestimate if there is no curb on the enthusiasm of individual Scottish Secretaries.

My third question is: Must the Department for the Civil Service supply whatever is requested?—because that is how the Bill reads at present. If a Scottish Secretary decides he needs 5,000 home civil servants for his Department and he wants so many Under-Secretaries, so many Assistant Secretaries, and so many Principals, there is nothing in this Bill apparently to say that the Department for the Civil Service does not provide what has been requested if it is within the total amount of money which has been supplied to the Assembly in the block grant—and it is left to the Assembly and to the Executive as to how that money should be used. It is a very large sum of money. If the Assembly and the Executive were to decide to spend what many would think to be too large a proportion on the manning of Departments, there is nothing at present in the Bill to stop that going ahead. That is my third question: Are the Department for the Civil Service to supply the demands without any argument?

I hope that the Government will change their minds. They do not necessarily need to accept these Amendments although we have made changes in order to meet the views expressed by the Government. The Ministers in another place did not express any views because there was no debate at all. The chopper of the guillotine fell. I hope that the Government, having had time to think about it today, will give us a more forthcoming answer. In any case, I believe that this is an Amendment which ought to be discussed in another place.

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

My Lords—

Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 35, to which the Commons have disagreed but propose the Amendments in lieu thereof.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

My Lords, I apologise to the House for being as eager as one of the projected Ministers or Secretaries of the Scottish Administration who are going to leap in like some form of idiot—if I may say so with respect—and throw about money that the British taxpayer is providing. I think that one of the weaknesses of a whole series of Amendments put up from this side of the House is the assumption that the Scots will throw money about. It is a well-known fallacy that the Scots throw money about. The whole restraint on the Scottish Assembly is the fact that it is working from a Consolidated Fund which is set at a certain formula for a number of years. It is highly unlikely that in setting up the new Administration the First Secretary will not take the advice of the experienced people across the road in the Scottish Office or, indeed, of the Head of the Civil Service. Certainly it must be able to staff the Departments in the way it thinks it can afford, because otherwise it never will be responsible if it is to be told exactly how to staff its Departments. The constraint on it should be that of cash, and that constraint is there. Therefore, I think that this Amendment is entirely unnecessary. If the Assembly is to be of any use at all, then it should be allowed to spend its own money. If it throws money to the winds like chaff I shall be very surprised indeed. I must say that I think this Amendment is wholly unnecessary.

6.5 p.m.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

My Lords, without accusing anybody of throwing money about without proper thought, any reading of the clause as it now stands shows that it is too open-ended to allow it to go on. The wording is: A Scottish Secretary may appoint such officers and servants as he may think fit". That is too open-ended, too wide and too full of risk. One does not know who may have these appointments. One may not know what sort of special circumstance may cause things to happen which, on second and third thoughts, would not have happened. The Amendment, which ought to be accepted, in no way removes the power of the Scottish Secretary to advise and I have no doubt that on most occasions his advice would be accepted. But writing in this open-ended power carries too many risks and it ought not to be allowed.

There is no question that the Minister for the Civil Service should have a say at the very beginning both on the numbers and the types who will undertake these new offices which will involve spending a lot of money, and which carry with them a lot of power. However, I do not want to rehearse that argument again. We have had it before in this House. I merely want to emphasise to the noble Lord who will be replying that although we have had the argument in your Lordships' House, they have not had the detailed argument in another place, which exercises the power.

Quite apart from the merit of the argument and whether your Lordships agree with me that the present words are too open-ended to be accepted, or whether your Lordships think they are correct, we are in a position to make doubly certain by giving another place the chance to look at it with care. The last time this matter came in front of them they were restricted by having a guillotine. They had to neglect discussing other things in order to give the thought that ought to he given to this one. The result was that this was put to a vote without any arguments being presented, without the Members being able to form a judgment on the "pros" and "cons" that are involved in it.

The noble Lord and his friends on the Government Bench ought to take into account that it looks as though noble Lords on this side of the House, many of whom disagree with the Bill as a whole, are showing great restraint on the number of occasions where this House is disagreeing with another place in the number of Amendments it is going to send back to them. It looks as though there will be hardly any. At the outside four will be sent back to another place for further thought. That means that they will have a chance this time to give time to the Amendment because they will not then be under the constraint of the guillotine which prevented them from discussing it. If without discussion it had had an overwhelming majority, that again would have been a case to show that another place did not need argument, the thing was so obvious; and the vote shows they are overwhelmingly in favour of the words as they stand.

Here the majority was only nine, and since his noble and learned friend made great play of the fact that we ought not to push previous Amendments to a vote tonight because of the overwhelming majority in the other place and because they had been discussed time and time again, the reverse side of the same coin is that if they have not been discussed and if. when put to a vote, the vote has been a marginal one—and a majority of nine is just that—I should have thought that your Lordships had a duty to send it back again to another place which will now have time to give some thought to it.

If after that detailed thought, and if they can then get their majority, however small, I would think we could then accept the decision. But at this minute, with a very important, open-ended power that has not anything like a majority in another place because it has never been discussed there, quite apart from the merits—and I know the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has strong feelings on what he considers to be the merits—I believe that we have a duty to give another place a chance to give the detailed thought to this important point that, through no fault of their own—other than they passed the guillotine restraint—they should have given to it. If their next vote confirms the last, which was only a marginal vote, we should accept it. Without that other vote we ought to use our powers here—and I hope that all sides of the Chamber will do so—to send it back again even against the wishes of the Government Front Bench.

Lord BURTON

My Lords, I am at a loss to understand why the Government will not accept this Amendment. There is a fairly recent precedent of a similar kind. When the county councils were reorganised into regions all the local authorities in the Highland region got together and made out a draft structure plan for the new Highland region. The new Highland region came in and they totally ignored it and have appointed far more officials than ever were suggested to them by the old councils which had the experience behind them. Here you have an almost exactly similar situation, and I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

6.10 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill)

My Lords, upon reading the record it would not be improper for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, or myself, to draw from my remarks the conclusion that in my reply to the noble Lord's earlier Amendments I may in part have misunderstood the situation. However, I hope he will believe me when I say that I under stand fully the import of the Amendments which he how proposes in lieu of the previous Amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has explained, these Amendments, which require the consent of the Minister of the Civil Service to the numbers of officers and servants employed by Scottish Secretaries, are only slightly different from Amendment No. 35 which they replace. Here I paraphrase the noble Lord, but that was the emphasis of his remarks. Amendment No. 35 provided that individual Scottish Secretaries must obtain the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service and the First Secretary before making appointments.

The Government had three objections to the Amendment. First—and this was the most important one—the requirement for the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service would provide for an unwarranted interference by a United Kingdom Minister in the affairs of the Assembly. Secondly, the requirement for the consent of the First Secretary was unnecessary. In the Government's view, this was surely a matter which the Scottish Executive could be left to work out for itself. Thirdly, the Amendment, in addition to controlling numbers of civil servants, also sought to control individual appointments. Such control was unnecessary and inappropriate, as the staff concerned would be subject to the usual Civil Service procedures. This was certainly said very clearly by the Government at the time.

The new Amendments would provide that officers and servants of the Scottish Executive should be appointed by the First Secretary, rather than by individual Scottish Secretaries, and that he must obtain the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service to the numbers of civil servants appointed. The Amendments do not therefore overcome the Government's principal objections.

The Assembly would be quite justified in regarding the control proposed in the Amendments as an unwarranted interference in its affairs. We reiterate this point from this side. The Assembly is being given substantial powers and it is in the Government's view for the Assembly and the Executive to decide how many staff the Executive needs to carry out its powers. The manpower implications of any policy will need to be weighed as an important component in the exercise of responsibility for devolved matters, and an important constraint will be that staff costs will have to be met out of the block fund—a point which was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, a few minutes ago. To provide for the consent of the Minister of the Civil Service as to numbers carries with it the implication that the Government could frustrate the policies of the devolved Administration and would be constantly monitoring performance and efficiency, and the Government believe that this could be a recipe for conflict. The Amendment also provides that the number of individuals appointed should be subject to the consent of the First Secretary. The Government consider that this also is a matter which the Scottish Executive can be left to work out for itself. The Government believe that the best safeguard is that of finance, as well as the pressure of public opinion.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, put three specific questions to me. First, he asked how the Departments will be established. The Scottish Office Departments are non-statutory. They are to be set up and changed administratively. The same will apply to the Departments of the Scottish Executive. The noble Lord also asked how the transfer will he carried out. I can tell him that it will be carried out by administrative means, and the Government do not anticipate difficulties in this regard. With regard to recruitment, I can advise the noble Lord that the block fund will control the enthusiasm for staff increases. When staff are sought they will be recruited through the Civil Service Commission, and they will be subject to the rules of the Civil Service, as at present.

I should mention to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that the United Kingdom Government will determine initial staff levels. The Scottish Executive will have control of staff matters only when it has taken full control of devolved matters. I hope that this information is of use to the noble Lord.

The Government are opposed to the Amendment for the reasons I have mentioned. We believe that the other place, in rejecting the original Amendment did so principally on the grounds that control of this kind from Whitehall was unacceptable, and we therefore trust that the House will not press the proposed Amendments. Before I resume my seat, I should like to put one more point to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. The matter was debated earlier in the other place. I agree that it was not debated the last time round, but it was debated earlier; and the House should be made aware of that fact.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, I know that there was a debate some months ago when the Bill first entered the other place, but this Amendment was voted on without any debate at all, and the Amendments which I am proposing in lieu would give the other place an opportunity to discuss the matter, which is essentially a matter for the Commons. I propose to reply very briefly. I am afraid that I do not regard the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, as satisfactory. The brief which he has given simply does not explain why the Bill has this omission, and he has not answered my point about whether the Ministry for the Civil Service will have to supply civil servants to meet any demand from a Scottish Secretary.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that the sanction of funds would be available, but the block grant is massive, and it will cover expenditure on education, health, housing, roads—indeed a huge range of services in Scotland. With an Assembly which will not be raising taxes itself the danger is that it can spend a lot of money on personnel and offices, and then complain that it has not been given enough money by Westminster for undertaking health, housing, education, social services and other matters which sound praiseworthy—

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

My Lords—

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I must continue because we are running behind

time. I should agree with the noble Lord here if, on the one hand, there was a break down within the block grant—but the idea is not to have a break down—of how expenditure should be allocated, or if there was a limit set to the amount of expenditure that could be allocated to personnel or offices. But there is nothing of that kind in the Bill—

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

My Lords, the noble Lord really must permit me to intervene. Does he think that the Scottish Assembly, the First Secretary, and the Executive will be unable to apply modern budgeting methods before they start to spend £3,000 million? If he thinks that they are incapable of doing that, he should oppose the Bill root and branch !

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, I do not think that; and the noble Lord has not read either the Amendment which went to another place or the Amendments which I am suggesting now. It is only these Amendments of ours which bring the First Secretary in at all. As the Bill is drafted, the First Secretary is not consulted and his consent is not required. The individual Scottish Secretary can build his own empire. That is one of the two points in our Amendment—that the First Secretary should have some say. The second point is that the Minister for the Civil Service should be consulted. I will not pursue this matter further in view of the Government's intransigent attitude towards it. I believe that the Commons should be given the opportunity to discuss it, and therefore I do not intend to withdraw my Motion.

6.20 p.m.

On Question, Whether the House doth not insist upon their Amendment No. 35 to which the Commons have disagreed but propose the Amendments in lieu thereof?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 93.

CONTENTS
Ailesbury, M. Auckland, L. Brookeborough, V.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Belstead, L. Brougham and Vaux, L.
Allen of Abbeydale, L. Bessborough, E. Burton, L.
Alport, L. Bolton, L. Campbell of Croy, L.
Ampthill, L. Boyd of Merton, V. Carrington, L.
Cathcart, E. Halsbury, E. Polwarth, L.
Clitheroe, L. Harcourt, V. Rankeillour, L.
Cockfield, L. Harmar-Nicholls, L. Rathcreedan, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Henley, L. Rawlinson of Ewell, L.
Colwyn, L. Hereford, V. Reigate, L.
Cork and Orrery, E. Home of the Hirsel, L. Robbins, L.
Croft, L. Hylton-Foster, B. Rochdale, V.
Croham, L. Kemsley, V. Romney, E.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Killearn, L. Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.
Daventry, V. Kinnaired, L. St. Davids, V.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Lauderdale, E. Sandys, L.
Digby, L. Linlithgow, M. Selkirk, E.
Drumalbyn, L. Long, V. [Teller.] Spens, L.
Dulverton, L. Lothian, M. Stamp, L.
Dundee, E. Lyell, L. Strathclyde, L.
Ellenborough, L. Malmesbury, E. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Elles, B. Margadale, L. Sudeley, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Marley, L. Swinfen, L.
Elton, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Tenby, V.
Emmet of Amberley, B. Massereene and Ferrard, V. Teynham, L.
Faithfull, B. Minto, E. Torphichen, L.
Falkland, V. Monk Bretton, L. Trenchard, V.
Ferrier, L. Monson, L. Tryon, L.
Forbes, L. Morris, L. Tweeddale, M.
Fortescue, E. Napier and Ettrick, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Gisborough, L. Newall, L. Vernon, L.
Glenkinglas, L. Noel-Baker, L. Vickers, B.
Gray, L. Northchurch, B. Vivian, L.
Greenway, L. Nugent of Guildford, L. Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Gridley, L. O'Hagan, L. Westbury, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Pender, L. Wilson of Langside, L.
Penrhyn, L. Young, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Amherst, E. Hampton, L. Phillips, B.
Ardwick, L. Hanworth, V. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Aylestone, L. Harris of Greenwich, L. Plant, L.
Balogh, L. Henderson, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Banks, L. Hood, V. Raglan, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Howie of Troon, L. Redcliffe-Maud, L.
Birk, B. Hughes, L. Rhodes, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Hutchinson of Lullington, L. Ritchie-Calder, L.
Brock way, L. Jacobson, L. Rochester, L.
Brown, L. Jacques, L. Sainsbury, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Janner, L. Samuel, V.
Burton of Coventry, B. Kilbrandon, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Byers, L. Kirkhill, L. Shinwell, L.
Collison, L. Leatherland, L. Simon, V.
Crook, L. Leonard, L. Sligo, M.
David, B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Snow, L.
Davies of Leek, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Diamond, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. Stone, L.
Donnet of Balgay, L. Lockwood, B. Strabolgi, L.
Douglas of Barloch, L. Loudoun, C. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.) Lovell-Davis, L. Wade, L.
Energlyn, L. McCluskey, L. Wall, L.
Evans of Claughton, L. McGregor of Durris, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Gaitskell, B. Mackie of Benshie, L. Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]
Gardiner, L. Maelor, L. White, B.
Glenamara, L. Melchett, L. Wigg, L.
Gordon-Walker, L. Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L. Wigoder, L.
Goronwy-Roberts, L. Noel-Baker, L. Willis, L.
Granville of Eye, L, Northfield, L. Winstanley, L.
Gregson, L. Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.) Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]
Hale, L. Perth, E. Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.