---

Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Order 2009

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for introducing this Motion and giving us the opportunity to hear from the Secretary of State about this statutory instrument and the creation of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. We also welcome the Secretary of State back from Rotherham. He has had a long day. Among underlying technical issues, we note how little say Parliament has over changes made to the structure of government. In 2007 the House of Commons Public Administration Committee noted that changes to the machinery of government are a royal prerogative, which the Government are very unlikely to want to give up. The report went on to note: ""There needs to be a mechanism to ensure that changes are fully considered before implementation, and that the reasoning behind them stands up to scrutiny"." The Government argue that they must be able to act quickly to respond to urgent needs, but while speed may be important, as the committee noted, speed and parliamentary scrutiny are not incompatible. It stated, ""if government has a sensible and defensible rationale for changes then it should have no reason to be wary of debate"." Can the noble Lord shed some light on the process by which the changes were decided and on the levels of consultation which took place with stakeholders? There are also many administrative issues to consider. The reorganisation of departments is a costly business, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, explained. In 2007, DBERR and DIUS were set up as new departments. DIUS alone was reckoned to have cost £9 million to set up. In two short years, both departments have been found so defective that they have been scrapped. Has anyone been held accountable for such a costly exercise? What lessons have been learnt and passed on from this change to the machinery of government, both good and bad, for future changes to take into account? Can the Secretary of State say how much DBIS cost to set up, where the money was found at a time when public spending is so stretched, and how the cost has been evaluated? There will be direct costs, such as signposts, graphic designs, stationery, websites, and so on, but reorganisations also carry less obvious costs—confusion both internal and external, establishing who is responsible for what, where queries should be directed, and uncertainties which lead to loss of efficiency. There is a danger that expertise will be lost in a reorganisation. It takes a considerable time for a knowledge base to be built up. What steps have been taken within the department to ensure continuity in key areas? What impact has the merger had on the morale of staff in the department, and what methods have been employed to gain feedback from staff about the merger? Given the emphasis that the Government place on education, it seems that it has been poorly served in these changes. We wonder what arrangements have been made over the working relationship with DCSF, particularly regarding shared policies and programmes which span the two departments. Science, too, seems to have been passed around departments. It has been proved beneficial to have responsibility for science and universities within the same department. Science spending and policy is central to this country’s future. We hope that within this wide-ranging department, neither universities nor science is neglected. In passing, we regret that the concept of "Universities" has disappeared from a departmental title, along with "Education". In the transfer, what has happened to the work which DIUS was undertaking to improve its efficiency, following criticism of its structure? What evaluations have the Government undertaken of the value of the creation of DBIS? The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee reported on the DIUS departmental report in December 2008, and judged it to be, ""by most standards a poor read ... written in an impenetrable style and peppered with jargon"." It also contained, ""unsupported assumptions and claims designed to promote DIUS"." My honourable friend in another place, Phil Willis, the committee's chairman, said: ""We were less than satisfied with the DIUS report"—" which is an understatement— ""which we found unhelpful and too reliant on promoting a positive tone rather than providing us with clear and comprehensive information. While we appreciate that it will take some time for DIUS’s work to be realised, this must not be used as an excuse to produce a sub-standard report. A more concise report written in plain English with independently verified statistics would be of far greater use next year"." That may be of greater use, but not as useful as preserving the department's life. Can we be assured that DBIS reports will be clearer and more helpful? DIUS was to make £1.5 billion efficiency savings by 2010-11. How will these be carried over to DBIS? How have they been re-evaluated in the bigger department? In answer to a question in June, the Secretary of State referred to the commitment of DBIS and said: ""We will provide help to businesses, universities and colleges, and to UK workers and students through training, skills, lifelong learning, first-class science and technology, further education and research policies".—[Official Report, 9/6/09; col. 528.]" We wonder why that was not already being done through existing departments and whether finite resources would not have been used more profitably in supporting these aims, rather than in the disbandment and creation of government departments. We recognise that DBIS is now with us, for how long who can say. I hope the noble Lord may offer reassurances and clarify the thought, analysis and wisdom which influenced the changes. I look forward to his reply.