§ 45. Mr. BATEYasked the Prime Minister when the House may expect legislation to abolish the Department of Mines; and if he can estimate the amount of money which will be saved by this step?
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin)I can add nothing to what I have already said in reply to questions on this subject.
§ Mr. PALINGIn view of the interest taken in this question by a large number of Members, can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the time when we are likely to have the Bill?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIf the hon. Member recollects, I said yesterday that no such Bill would be introduced in the present Session. Such a Bill obviously would be introduced in the next Session, but it is impossible now to say whether in November or December or February.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSBefore the right hon. Gentleman finally concludes to bring in a Bill, will he receive representations as to why he should not abolish the Ministry of Mines?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIf the hon. Member or anyone interested will communicate with me on the subject. I will consider that suggestion.
§ Mr. W. THORNEIn consequence of the anticipated abolition of the Department does the right hon. Gentleman think that the same efficiency will prevail as prevailed before?
§ The PRIME MINISTERTime will prove that. We hope so.
§ Mr. BUCHANANWill the right bon Gentleman consider, while we are not asking for a Second Reading of the Bill, having the Bill introduced this Session, 1184 so that the interests affected can at least have the spare time during the Recess to study the principles of the Bill?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat is worth consideration, but it is impossible at the moment to say how long will be occupied by the inquiries that are being made as to what will be the best way of transferring the existing functions of these Departments to others.
§ Mr. BUCHANANIn view of the fact that the inquiries are prolonged and necessarily involved, is not that a further reason why the interests concerned must be very grave and why the Government should try to put the Bill before them at an early date?
§ Mr. MAXTONDoes the Prime Minister suggest that the decision to abolish the Ministries was taken before the Government had considered the difficulties arising out of the abolition?
§ The PRIME MINISTEROf course, the hon. Member has not been so long a Member of the House as to remember that this question has been raised many times. The continuance of these Departments has been under review certainly on three or four occasions, so that the advantages of making the change have been thoroughly canvassed. But it has never yet been decided as to how the functions should be transferred. That is a point which did not arise until the Government decided to abolish the Ministries.
§ Mr. LUNNIs it not a fact that, when the removal of these Departments has previously been considered, the opposition has been too strong for the Government to take action at that time? Would it not be advisable, instead of introducing the Bill this Session or next, to leave it until after the next General Election
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe are discussing a baby that is not yet born.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODSeeing that the Prime Minister considers that it is advisable to make that rearrangement as far as the mining industry is concerned, would he not consider now the advisability, seeing that the trouble is all over with the miners and that the miners are all back at work as far as the lock-out is concerned, of liberating the men and 1185 women who are in gaol as a result of the miners' lock-out? How did the Scottish Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order !"] They are still in gaol. [interruption.]
§ Mr. SPEAKERI must tell the hon. Member that I cannot allow this procedure to continue. I have been very patient with him, but he must conform to the Rules and resume his seat immediately I rise. I do not want to have to take any action.