§ 48. Sir John Mellorasked the Minister without Portfolio why the House of Commons was not informed in January, 1942, of the decision that 11 out of 12 members of the Beveridge Committee would not sign the Report?
§ The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt)I understand it was considered at the time that it would suffice if the decision were made known when the Report was presented to Parliament.
§ Sir J. MellorIs there any precedent for keeping the House of Commons in 293 ignorance for over 10 months of a decision of this character? In view of that fact, has the Minister asked his predecessor for an explanation of this omission?
§ Sir W. JowittNo, Sir, I have not asked for an explanation, because it is obvious that the explanation I gave is the true one.
§ Commander AgnewAre the 11 persons allowed to address public meetings in its favour, or does that apply only to Sir William Beveridge himself?
§ Sir W. JowittThe hon. and gallant Member had better put a Question down on the subject. Of course, the other members are civil servants.
§ Mr. PickthornIs there any precedent in the case of an inter-departmental committee for a decision that the civil servants on the committee should have nothing to do with the actual report?
§ Sir W. JowittThe Civil Service members had a great deal to do with the actual Report, but it was thought that they would be able to express their opinions more freely if they had not to sign the Report.
§ Mr. PickthornIs there any precedent for that situation?
§ Sir W. JowittReally, I do not know.
§ Mr. ManderIs it fair to say, as is stated in the Question, that these II persons would not sign the Report? Is it not the case that the question never arose at all?
§ Sir W. JowittThat is so.
§ Sir I. AlberyThis is a most important matter. Will the Minister give some answer to make a little clearer to the House in what circumstances the 11 persons did not sign?
§ Sir W. JowittI think the hon. Member might put a Question down about that. They did not sign. They were relieved of the duty of signing in order to leave them an opportunity to express more freely what their personal opinions were.
§ Sir J. MellorOn a point of Order. Does not the Supplementary Question of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), to which I understand the Minister gave his assent, cast a reflection on the fairness of the Question on the Paper, and is it not only right that the 294 Minister should give an explanation of why he assented?
§ Sir W. JowittI will do so readily. It is a fact, of course, that these departmental representatives did not refuse to sign. It is the fact that they were relieved in advance of the duty and obligation of having to sign.
§ Mr. Arthur GreenwoodIs it not the case, as is made clear in the opening pages of the Report, that, by agreement between the Minister and myself and in order not to embarrass Ministers, those persons were relieved of the obligation of responsibility for the findings?
§ Sir W. JowittThat is so. I think it was done with the object of not embarrassing Ministers and of not embarrassing the departmental representatives themselves.