MINISTRY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE BILL

HC Deb 10 November 1944 vol 404 cc1654-710

Order for Second Reading read.

11.11 a.m.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne (Kidderminster)

On a point of Order. May I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be for the convenience of the House and a great help to hon. Members if you could indicate the scope of the Debate which is possible under the proposal for the setting up of this Ministry. Otherwise it may be difficult for Members to know to what extent they will be able to cover matters which were raised in the previous Debate when the House welcomed the social security scheme. If, for example, there should be any Member who wishes to oppose the setting up of this Ministry, it would be difficult to prevent him giving his reasons for that view, and those reasons might cover the conditions of the general scheme. Therefore, I would respectfully ask you, Sir, to give an indication of the scope which will be allowed in to-day's Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker

This is a machinery Bill, and therefore the subjects which were discussed when the scheme came before the House, are not appropriate for Debate on this occasion. In fact, I think the limits of the scope of this Debate are very well set out in the Amendment which has been put down in the name of two hon. Members, which shows clearly that this is a machinery Bill and not a policy Bill.

11.13 a.m.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I do not think the House will need from me any long speech commending the purpose of this Bill. During the past two weeks the House has discussed and approved, in broad outline, the proposals of the Government on social insurance which have been set out in two White Papers, In due course these decisions of the House will be implemented by the introduction of legislation dealing with the actual provisions of the schemes, or rather of the scheme, because although two separate White Papers were laid, the object of the Government is to bring together in one comprehensive scheme the various provisions which have been made over a long course of years indeed, for insuring the citizens against a number of the changes and chances of this mortal life. The present Bill, therefore, is a necessary piece of machinery, designed to transfer to a single Minister of Social Insurance, powers which are now divided between the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Labour and the Home Secretary. Those powers are contained in no fewer than 14 Acts of Parliament, and in a great many Regulations made under them.

The House will remember that the Government, in the first Debate on social insurance, reserved the question of whether or not it was desirable to create a new Ministry. Since that time, the Government have given prolonged examination to the schemes, and to the question of how best those schemes could be implemented. In the course of those examinations, they became convinced, as is stated in paragraph 152 of the White Paper, that the appointment of a Minister and the transference of existing powers in this field to him, would ease the transition period between the old scheme and the coming in of the new, and would enable the new scheme to be brought more quickly into legislative form. The new Minister will have the task of framing legislation and of working out the administrative changes. It will be obvious to all that it is desirable that, for these purposes, he should have at his disposal the experience of the trained staff which is now dispersed between various Departments.

I now turn to the general framework of the Bill. Clause 1 deals with the appointment of the Minister and gives a broad description of his functions. Clauses 2 to 5 are machinery Clauses, in common form. I observe that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has put on the Paper an Amendment, which raises certain technical points.

Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, South)

Constitutional points.

Mr. Attlee

Technical points. The hon. Member is afraid that the Bill provides for the appointment of an irremovable Minister. I that this fear is based on the fact that the Bill does not, m set terms, state that the Ministers shall all hold office during His Majesty's pleasure. It is true that, up to 1939, almost all, but not all, Acts constituting new Ministries contained these words, but they do not appear in the three most recent Acts—the Acts referring to the Ministers of Works and Planning, of Town and Country Planning, and of Education. The reason for their omission is simple. They are quite superfluous. All holders of offices under the Crown, hold those offices during the pleasure of the Crown, unless an Act specifically provides otherwise.

Sir H. Williams

When did His Majesty's present advisers discover something that was not known to any of their predecessors?

Mr. Attlee

I think it was discovered shortly after 1939; but whether it was a question of the discovery of something new, or merely the discovery that there was no need to waste words, I cannot say. The hon. Member also fears that the Bill will provide for an unlimited number of Under-Secretaries. Here again, precedent has been followed. I am sure that this will appeal to the conservative instincts of the hon. Member. In the last 25 years, four Acts which have specifically provided for a limitation of the number of Under-Secretaries have been drafted in the same way as this Bill. We are following precedent, and also, as democrats, we are following the principle of majority rule. In any event, the point is not one of real substance. No one imagines that a lot of Under-Secretaries will be created. If they are created, the House has it within its power to make their lot unhappy by refusing to pay their salaries.

In his final point, the hon. Member suggests that the Bill makes possible the appointment of a Minister who will be debarred from voting in the House of Commons, owing to the provisions of the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937. Here, I think he has not read the Statute with sufficient care. That Act applies to certain Ministers, who are named in the First and Second Schedules. It can apply only to those who are set out in those Schedules. It is worth recalling the purpose of that Section of the Act. I can remember the passing of that Act very well. I did not take much part in it, because I was, as Leader of the Opposition, a beneficiary under one of the Sections, but it so happens that I took an interest in this particular Section. Indeed, I think the Section was put in partly owing to representations that I made to the Government of the day. The old rule was extremely inconvenient. It laid down that only a limited number of Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries of State could sit in the House of Commons, but that rule did not apply to other offices of parallel importance, such as those of Lord President of the Council, Lord Privy Seal and First Lord of the Admiralty. The result of this archaic rule was to cramp a Prime Minister in the allocation of Ministries between the two Houses. In effect, the purpose of that Act, and the purpose of the law before that Act was brought in, was, by limiting the number of certain categories of Ministers who could sit in this House, to secure that there should be a certain number in another place. By that Act the categories were widened, to bring in Minsters other than Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries of State and to remove this artificial distinction which had grown up through long years between different Ministries.

The Minister of Social Insurance is outside these categories altogether. As that Act applies only to those named in the Schedules, it cannot apply to him. It is a fact that when the Ministry of Supply was set up, the Minister of Supply was added to those in the Schedules. It might be asked, Why is not this being done now? It has not been done in the case of several recent additions. I think there is no particular point in adding Ministers every time. A number of new Ministries have been created during the war, some of which may survive, others of which may go. Therefore, it will be better to clean up the whole question after the war, when things hove settled down. Meanwhile, I can assure the hon. Member that his fears that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister-Designate of Social Insurance is going to have to pay up£500 a time are quite unjustified.

I come to Clause 6, the main operative Clause. This provides for the transfer to the Minister of certain power and duties hitherto belonging to other Ministers. This is to be effected by Orders in Council, which will be operative from the date named in those Orders. This Clause lays down very definitely which powers are to be transferred, and which are to be retained by other Ministers. Those that are to be retained, although they are contained in Acts that deal with insurance, do not deal with these functions which are to be transferred. For instance, those conferred by the National Health Insurance Act relate to medical benefits, and the provision of medical benefits in this new form remains with the Minister of Health. Similarly, the functions retained by the Minister of Labour, relating to courses of instruction and the provision of training, will not be transferred. The Clause is designed to transfer only those functions dealing with insurance. There are certain powers relating to the enforcement of the law, which will be needed both by the Ministers from whom the functions are being taken, and by the new Minister. This is merely a matter of enforcing the provisions of the Act, and, therefore, will remain in the power of those Ministers. The Act is specific in ordering the transfer of certain powers by Order, and the reason for that is very obvious. If one set out the whole of the powers that are being transferred, one would require an enormous Bill setting out the various Sections of these 14 Acts of Parliament, which would be a great waste of time and a great waste of paper.

Mr. A. Bevan (Ebbw Vale)

As the old principle is that what you do not put in, you assume to be left out, it would seem to me that it is unnecessary to put any in, because they are all covered by Sub-section (2).

Mr. Attlee

It will be done from time to time, but it is a question of getting the time right. The Orders will be laid before Parliament, but will not require a substantive Resolution, nor will they be subject to a Prayer. I am sure the hon. Member for South Croydon will be relieved to know that precedent is being followed.

Sir H. Williams

A very bad precedent.

Mr. Attlee

My hon. Friend is very interested, as we all are, in the question of the proper control of the House over Orders. There is a great range of Orders giving powers to Ministers, and some of them obviously need to be kept under the close supervision of the House, but, in effect, the Orders here do no more than carry out exactly what the Bill says must be done. It is merely a piece of machinery to avoid setting out a large number of appointments in a long Bill, and there is, obviously, no reason why that should be prayed against, or should require an affirmative Resolution. I think that point is, therefore, a false one. There is no real analogy between these and other powers. I know it was done with regard to the Ministry of Supply, but the powers there were different.

There are other points to notice. Subsection (3) provides for the alteration of the constitution and functions of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee. That, in effect, merely substitutes for the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Social Insurance. The Minister of Health for Northern Ireland remains. There is also provision being made for making the necessary adjustments in the case of Northern Ireland. That comes in under Sub-section (5).

Sir H. Williams

Sub-section (3) provides for alteration of the constitution and functions of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee. We do not know what that may mean. Is there no control whatever over this?

Mr. Attlee

It is merely a shifting from certain Ministers to others.

Sir H. Williams

Has not the right hon. Gentleman read the Bill?

Mr. Attlee

Perhaps my hon. Friend will make that small point in Committee. Meanwhile, while preserving the rights of the Government of Northern Ireland, by agreement with the Government of Northern Ireland, an adjustment is made in the contractual relationships between Northern Ireland Ministers, and Ministers of the Crown here. This is obviously necessary owing to the transfer of functions. I have now dealt generally with the Clauses, and I hope I have shown that there is no substance in the technicalities raised by the hon. Member for South Croydon. I believe the House and the country expect the Government to make all possible speed to get the scheme of the White Paper pushed forward, and this little Bill is a kind of pilot engine to clear the line. I hope, therefore, that the House will give it a Second Reading.

Mr. W. J. Brown (Rugby)

Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, will he give some information on Clause 3 (3) which says: The Minister may appoint such other secretaries and such officers and servants as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine… I mentioned the other day a point about the staffs of approved societies. I would like someone, speaking for the Government, to tell us what steps are being taken to equate the claims of these staffs with the claims of the civil servants from the Ministries, with a view to justice being done.

Mr. Attlee

I think that would hardly arise on this Bill. I think we must await the main Bills on the subject before dealing with that point, but I will see if my right hon. Friend who is to reply can give any information on the point.

Mr. Brown

It is a question of machinery, rather than of policy.

11.31 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood (Wakefield)

I rise for the purpose of making two main points, but, before I come to them, I would like to say a word about the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams).

Sir H. Williams

On a point of Order. Is it customary for Ministers and ex-Ministers to reply to a speech that has not yet been made?

Mr. Greenwood

I think it is a common practice for hon. Members to refer to a reasoned Amendment which is down on the Order Paper, and, believe me, I have no intention of wasting any time on this Amendment. What I have to say on it will be in two short sentences. This is my hon. Friend at his old tricks, with which the House is perfectly familiar, and the exercise of which we thoroughly enjoy. Secondly, I would say that the Amendment has been effectively disposed of by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and one may hope, in these circumstances, that the hon. Member will forgo his right to make a speech on the Amendment, if it should be called. In any event, it would seem to me that the Amendment is primarily concerned with points which might well be threshed out during the Committee stage of the Bill.

My first main point, which I think is of some substance, is this. The social insurance scheme is not merely a scheme for co-ordinating the payment of insurance benefits. The spirit behind the scheme, if I may say so, and I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed {Sir W. Beveridge) takes my point of view, is that of doing something which was conceived in the original Insurance Act but was never carried out, that is, the close association of constructive treatment, with payment of benefits. If this scheme of social insurance is to produce the fruits which we hope for, it is quite clear that there must be the closest relationship between those who are engaged on this constructive task—whether rehabilitation, or the prevention of disease, or the prevention of mass unemployment, or ensuring the efficacy of the services for school meals and milk and so forth—and those who have to pay out the money for the defects in our system, in order to carry out the constructive tasks effectively.

As I gather from the Bill—and it is accepted that it is a machinery Bill—the Minister-Designate will not be primarily concerned in these tasks. It would be, I should have thought, fantastic to place in the hands of one Minister the responsibilities for the development of rehabilitation services, school meals and so on, and, apparently, that is not contemplated, judging by what my right hon. Friend said in his speech. But there ought to be some organic connection between Departments pursuing what I would call the constructive services associated with social insurance, and those dealing primarily with the insurance side. I hope that my right hon. Friend, in his reply, may be able to deal with that point. I do appreciate that in the Bill the proposals made on the administrative machinery side are flexible and are open to alteration in the light of experience.

My second point is that this is a machinery Bill, which broadly will be acceptable to the House. My right hon. Friend called it a pilot engine but a pilot engine has some steam in it This is an engine without any fuel and power as yet, and while my right hon. Friend has said that this is the first necessary step in implementing the scheme, we have not had much yet in the way of firm commitments about the fulfilment of the proposals which have been shown to be broadly acceptable to the House of Commons, as a result of the recent four days' Debates. I did not hear my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury yesterday speaking on industrial injuries insurance, but I understand from the Press that he did give some indication that there was to be legislation to give effect to those proposals. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though I asked a very pointed question last week about implementing these proposals, did not say a word about it. My right hon. Friend this morning wound up his speech by saying that it was necessary to proceed with "all possible speed." The last two or three years have not shown the Government to be in any frantic hurry. We have had discussions from time to time, but surely we now have arrived at a stage when there is broad agreement, on principles anyhow, and everything should be done to get the Measures drafted and placed before the House. When we meet in the new Session Parliament ought to be in a position to deal with definite proposals in the King's Speech as to legislation which will enable my right hon. Friend the Minister-Designate and his colleagues to carry out their great duties.

11.38 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)

The House is in some difficulty in discussing this Bill, which is drawn very much in the form of a blank cheque, and all the more so since hearing the Deputy Prime Minister say that the Orders in Council which are to carry out these purposes are not to be subject to affirmative Resolution and cannot, as I gathered him to say, be prayed against. The proposals that the right hon. Gentleman laid before us will need to be elucidated a little more. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) indicated that there should be some organic connection between this great Department and the other great Departments from which portions are to be torn out, to make the new Ministry. It is too early to call this the bringing together of a number of scattered pieces. That would be Step 2. Step 1 is the tearing out of the scattered pieces. All who have experience of Ministries know how long it takes to put together these pieces and make them into one organic whole.

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) asked what would be the scales and positions of those civil servants who will have to be transferred, and he knows, as any Minister or ex-Minister knows, how long it takes for these relations to be thoroughly stitched up. The first effect of such a thing is not organisation but disorganisation. The next step, of reorganisation, is no doubt one which will bring benefits to the people of the country, for such is the intention of the Bill, but it is one which the House will need to scrutinise, in order to see what the proposals as to the Ministry really are. I take it that one effect is, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, that insurance is to be divorced from the payment of health benefit, or at least the handling of the insurance finance is to be divorced from the payment of health benefit. It is a little obscure. I read the Bill with some care to see if I could make out what its results would be, but perhaps the Minister, in his reply, will make the matter a little more clear.

What is the relation going to be between my right hon. Friend the Minister-Designate, who is, apparently, to administer the general insurance relating to the country, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health? It is not an idle matter, because one of the original purposes of health insurance was, if possible, to press forward this particular question of rehabilitation—a question over which the House spent some time in the last two days in the Debate on industrial injury insurance. That great ideal has never been properly carried out. One of the first things done under the Ministry of Health Act when the Ministry of Health was being set up was to tear out one of the pieces originally put into the insurance scheme—the scheme of medical research. That was torn out and put under the Lord President of the Council. There is no proposal, I understand, that that should be integrated again. You still have three Ministers handling the matter—the Lord President of the Council, whose responsibility is medical research; the Minister of Health, who will be handling the matters of paying out individual bene- fit, as I understand it, and the Minister of Social Insurance, whose field is apparently still a little vague and has to be worked out more clearly.

Mr. Buchanan (Glasgow, Gorbals)

How is the Minister of Health to pay health benefit?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

If that point could be cleared up even now, I should be very glad indeed. I do not wish to waste the time of the House. Perhaps the Minister-Designate or the Deputy Prime Minister could make a further statement on that just now. How is the payment of health benefit to be done by the Minister of Health?

Mr. Attlee

The medical benefit will be retained by the Minister of Health and the payments out of benefit will be done by the Minister of Social Insurance.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Certainly we need to elucidate this a little more. I am still not very clear on the proposal. There is to be divided payment and treatment, as far as I can see, or at any rate a dividing of finance and treatment. This is what happens when one sets up a new Ministry. One very frequently finds that in getting rid of one set of anomalies, one produces another set.

I am more particularly concerned here with the case of Scotland. Here it is not merely a passing thing that is being done, or some casual piece of machinery which is being put through. It is the taking away of powers from an office in an outlying portion of Great Britain, which is the Northern Kingdom of Scotland, and concentrating responsibilities in London. That is what is proposed here and I certainly intend to pursue the matter further on the Committee stage to see whether it is really necessary to do so. We all remember that when the Insurance Commission was originally set up it was drafted as the insurance authority for the whole of the island. Then, both in Wales and Scotland, the tendency to self-government and the desire to handle local affairs locally, led to the setting up of commissions in Wales and in Scotland, and that local administration has persisted from that day to this. It is therefore not simply a matter of mere machinery that can be effected by an Order in Council but a piece of vital administration which has worked so long. Once destroyed the House is to have no opportunity of reversing the decision.

The difficulty is that every time one of those reforms is brought in, it is hailed with acclamation simply because it is a change. When sickness, health insurance and local government were brought together, a cry of acclamation went up, more particularly from the Ministers concerned but generally echoed to some extent by the House. When, under the Ministry of Health Bill, health insurance was united to local government—to housing—it was hailed with great delight by no less an authority than Lord Addison, who was Minister-Designate for that office. Now another cry of delight—at their separation—goes up from my right hon. Friend the Minister-Designate of Social Security. This is a kind of concertina—it emits a musical note whether you are pulling it out or pushing it together. We should not be led away merely by our delight in the sounds made by the Ministers responsible. We should examine what is being done, and the things which are being injured as well as the things which are being improved.

As I say, this is a machinery Bill whose purpose is to improve the health and social conditions of the people, a purpose with which we have all the greatest sympathy. I think, however, that the Deputy Prime Minister used a slightly unfortunate metaphor in saying that it is a pilot engine, because the point of the pilot engine is that it does not pull the train. This is an engine scurrying ahead of the main line of wagons, blowing its little whistle and emitting a pleasant plume of steam. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if we say that we shall devote more of our excitement to the subsequent inspection of the great haulage locomotive or the long train of trucks it has to carry than this Measure.

The points I would like to raise would more properly be raised in Committee. The point particularly with regard to Scotland, although a great point, is not in the Title of the Bill, which simply says: To establish a Ministry of Social Insurance and for purposes connected therewith. Under that Title, I think it will be possible for us to deal, as a Committee point, even with the great question as to decentralisation of administration—whether the tendency in past years towards decentralisation of administration should be reversed and administration now carried out in Scotland, should be concentrated again in London. That, and many other points, will be examined in the later stages of the Bill.

I certainly think that some form of organic connection, between the new Departments and the old, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield has said, should in some way be conceded, either in the form of a Clause or in the form of a pledge. I see no reason, for instance, why the Chief Medical Officer of Health, who is a joint medical officer under the two great Departments of Education and Health, should not in some way or other be found a further place in the structure of the proposed legislation. I view with great apprehension this divorce of payment from treatment. The rehabilitation purpose of insurance has not been carried through, and to that extent the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland have fallen down in their jobs. I have held both these jobs, so to that extent I am blameworthy, but I have always felt, when holding these offices, that we were largely wasting much of the information available to us under these insurance Statutes. There is an interesting broadcast by Sir Wilson Jameson, Chief Medical Officer of Health for Great Britain, in this week's "Listener" in which he says: We do not know. There is no means of assessing the day-to-day health of over 40,000,000 people. But after all he is getting medical certificates in every day about millions of these 40,000,000 people. I have always felt that we accumulate enormous quantities of medical certificates, taking up shelf after shelf, of which we have never made proper use. This is not going to improve our use of those medical certificates; if anything, it will push them still further into pigeon holes.

I do not wish to dilate upon these points at present because this is a Bill with a very large number of aspects but it is only by debate in the House of Commons that we can elucidate it. I repeat that the figures in this cheque ought to be filled in with a great deal more detail than is at present proposed, before the House can properly part with this Measure.

11.52 a.m.

Mr. Mander (Wolverhampton, East)

I heartily support the introduction of this Measure, and I am only sorry it did not come to us at a very much earlier stage. I hope it will be followed early in the new Session by further instalments of this social security plan, and the country certainly wishes for it. There was some discussion the other day in the House about the reputed parentage of this Measure. We have come now, however, to the christening stage; we have to give the scheme a name. That is very important because a child is often greatly handicapped in after-life by an ill-chosen name, and, while the House may not be the parent, we certainly are the guardians of the child for the time being, and therefore we have to look carefully at its name. It does not seem to me that the term "social insurance" is an adequate one. It seems to me cold, unenthusiastic and quite inaccurate. What the people of this country are looking for is not an insurance scheme, but a national minimum based on subsistence level and related to the cost of living. The Measure itself does not deal solely with insurance. It deals, for instance, with the Assistance Board and the public assistance committees now going in with it, expending£69,000,000.

Mr. Buchanan

May I raise a point of Order, Mr. Speaker? You gave a Ruling earlier, on the scope of the discussion. I would like to know whether, if I am called, I shall be allowed to discuss all the ramifications of this Bill and health insurance, and subsistence levels?

Mr. Speaker

I thought I had made it clear that those matters are outside the scope of the Debate to-day; otherwise we would get a rambling Debate which might extend over all the subjects debated during the previous four days and there would be no new issue to debate. I think speakers ought to keep to the machinery of this Measure.

Mr. Mander

I have only made a passing reference, which I thought was in Order. I was pointing out what the scope of this Bill covers, and that the Assistance Board which spends£9,000,000 has nothing to do with insurance at all. Then there are the children's allowances—an enormous new social venture of great expenditure, entirely from the national Exchequer, which has nothing to do with insurance. This will come under the new Ministry. Therefore the term "social insurance" is quite inadequate, and I hope that when we come to the Committee stage, we shall persuade the Government to adopt some term which more properly describes what the Minister is going to do. Perhaps the best phrase would be "social security" as that is what we are pledged to by Article V of the Atlantic Charter. An alternative would be "social welfare." There may be a still better one but certainly "social insurance" is not suitable. Something has been said about training, rehabilitation and medical treatment. It is true that these are not to be administered by the Minister-Designate, but he will be closely associated with them. The right step is shown in Paragraph 385 of the Beveridge Report, where it is urged that there should be close collaboration between the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Health and the new Minister of Social Insurance, in the administration of this work. It suggested that joint committees should be set up. It is vital that that should be done, and I hope we shall be given precise information as to the Government's ideas on that subject.

The Assistance Board is to be taken over by the new Ministry, and it is said that that Board will be responsible to the new Minister. What I am anxious to know is whether the Minister will be completely responsible to this House for the work of the Assistance Board. Theoretically, it has not been so in the past. The work has been kept away from the House of Commons.

Sir Percy Harris (Bethnal Green, South-West)

It was impossible to ask questions.

Mr. Mander

We remember the new scales which were set up about 1934, and which created a great storm. The House of Commons insisted that they should be taken back and the Minister responsible left office. It is, therefore, impossible to keep a matter of this kind, affecting nearly every person in the country, away from the control of the House of Commons. What many of us want is the same advantage for Members to intervene in individual cases, as exists now in the case of the Ministry of Pensions. Questions can be asked of the Minister of Pensions about any particular pensioner; information from the Minister can be obtained from him at the Treasury Box. Undue advantage has not been taken of that privilege and it has not been abused, and I think careful consideration should be given to extending the same kind of facilities to questions in connection with the Assistance Board in the future. I have heard it suggested in certain quarters that, perhaps, at some stage, all this work should be handed over to some remote board, detached from Parliament. That will not do; the House cannot accept a position of that kind. We want to be kept in the closest possible touch with a matter which concerns our people.

Mr. A. Bevan

I understand that the Minister-Designate made it clear that the new Minister would be directly responsible to the House of Commons for the administration of the Board.

Mr. Mander

We want to be quite clear about it. I understand that the position is not changed and that the Board, from the legal point of view, will be in just the same position as hitherto. I hope it will be made clear that that is not so, and that any Amendment necessary to that effect will be agreed to so that contact with the House of Commons can be maintained. That is a vital point, and there is no clarity on it at the present time.

I want to make reference to another subject which is not included in this Measure, although it might have been, and that is the question of the Ministry of Pensions. Arguments for and against bringing war pensions inside this Measure arc set out in Paragraph 385 of the Beveridge Report, and there are arguments both ways. There are certain advantages in that you would avoid duplication in payments being made from different Departments to an individual. One Minister would be responsible for everything of that kind. But on the other hand, I think it is the general feeling throughout the country that Servicemen are in a special category. They are in a contributory scheme, but the contribution which they make is the spending of their life's blood. I believe it will be felt that there are strong arguments for keeping the Ministry of Pensions, which is working so satisfactorily now, and which is subject to Parliamentary criticism, as it is, at any rate for the time being. We hope that with the carrying out of the policy embarked upon at Dumbarton Oaks there may be no more wars in the future. Certainly, that is my hope and belief. In that case, the work of the Ministry of Pensions would die a natural death, because there would be no more pensioners. It may be that we could hand over the Ministry of Pensions not at the end of its life, but half way through it, and embody it in the new Ministry which is now being set up.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has, as usual, put down an interesting Amendment to this Motion, and although he objects to comments on his undelivered speech, I want to say a word or two on the matter. He is always bold and courageous, and I well remember in the Debate we had on the Beveridge Report nearly two years ago he made a speech, in his usual exuberant manner, from which I will make two brief quotations. He said: I have no hesitation, in reply to the appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman … in saying that I think that the Beveridge Report as a whole is a very bad Report. It is very badly written. In no place do you get a convenient summary of the proposals. It would be interesting to know whether he still thinks it is a very bad Report, and whether he is going to tell his constituents it is a bad Report.

Sir H. Williams

I have done so.

Mr. Mander

My hon. Friend also said: If this scheme is postponed until six months after the termination of hostilities, the then House of Commons will reject it by a very large majority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1943; Vol. 386, c. 2016–7.] Does he still think that? I do not think his foresight was quite as good as usual. At any rate, for one, wholeheartedly support this Bill and—

Mr. A. Bevan

Will my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) be allowed to defend himself? If so, the Debate will be exceedingly wide.

Mr. Mander

I support this Measure and I believe that our people, whether in the factories of Britain, or in the forests of Burma, are determined that when Hitler goes down the giant of want shall go down too.

12.5

Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, South)

I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add, instead thereof: this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which provides for the appointment of an irremovable Minister, authorises the appointment of an indefinite number of parliamentary secretaries, provides no parliamentary control of the Orders in Council which may be made under it, and makes possible the appointment of a Minister who under the provisions of subsection (3) of section nine of the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, will be debarred from voting in the House of Commons. I should like to make one comment on the speech that we have just heard. As far as I can make out, the hon. Member thinks that the Bill is an illegitimate baby anyhow; he has doubts about its parentage. I should like to express my gratitude to the Deputy Prime Minister, who devoted the bulk of his speech to my Amendment before I had moved it, which indicates that he is feeling a little rattled on the subject. There are four points in the Amendment and I will base myself, in part, on the Act to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939. Section 1 (1) reads as follows: It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of Supply, hereinafter in this Act referred to as the Minister, who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure. The right hon. Gentleman said those words were unnecessary because they had been omitted in recent Acts for all of which he was responsible. It is a new theory that, if you commit murder three times running, you are justified in doing it a fourth time. I think it is highly objectionable to leave these words out of the Act. First, they mean in practice that His Majesty, on the advice of the Prime Minister, can dismiss the holder. So far as the Prime Minister is concerned, of course it is clear that His Majesty can seek no advice, but the Royal Prerogative remains unchallenged, though rarely, if ever, exercised. But this is an invasion of the Royal Prerogative. I think it is totally improper. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman used the arguments that he did, and I can only express profound regret that none of us were sufficiently vigilant two or three years ago to raise the issue when the first offence occurred. The right hon. Gentleman based his defence on the fact that we have been neglectful, and I hope that in Committee, the Amendments which some of us have put down will be inserted in the Bill, and that, in due course, steps will be taken to correct other Acts which offend a sense of fitness, quite apart from the legal aspect.

I come to the next point, about the indefinite number of Parliamentary Secretaries. Again I come back to the Ministry of Supply Act, which has a special Subsection dealing with the matter: The Minister may appoint a parliamentary secretary to the Ministry of Supply. —only one. This Bill does not even create the office of Parliamentary Secretary, so badly is it drafted. There are printed in italics certain words which are not yet strictly in the Bill as we have not passed the Financial Resolution. They are: There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament … to any parlialiamentary secretary appointed by the Minister an annual salary not exceeding fifteen hundred pounds. The Bill does not even create the office. It provides the salary for an office to be created by the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he becomes Minister. It is he who creates the office, not the House of Commons. The House of Commons authorises the salary of an office to be created by the Minister-Designate. It is a monstrous invasion of the rights of the House of Commons in controlling the appointment of Ministers. I do not think any Act of Parliament has ever contained a sentence so monstrous. It is contemplated that there shall be more than one of these people, for the Bill proceeds: Neither the Minister, nor any parliamentary secretary appointed by the Minister"— not appointed by the Crown, not approved of by the Crown, created by him and not by Parliament— shall by reason of his office as such be incapable of being elected as a member of the Commons House of Parliament or of sitting or voting as such a member, but only one such parliamentary secretary shall sit as a Member of that House. That is the only restriction. In days gone by we have often seen the spectacle of a portly gentleman walking up from the Bar supported by the Chief Whip of the Labour Party, and, as a rule, another portly gentleman. The first portly gentleman being a retired trade union official who has become useless for his job and has a pension, has been elected to this House. I am not reflecting on anyone now present, I am dealing with the past.

Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)

Has the hon. Gentleman also noticed even more portly gentlemen who were Members of other parties?

Sir H. Williams

The outstanding characteristic of new Conservative Members is their youth and not their antiquity. The gentlemen of Whom I speak come in when they are quite useless, and take the oath and sign the book, and you, Mr. Speaker, with your customary courtesy, welcome them and they retire to the place dawn-stairs which looks like a Turkish bath, and which is the lower smoking room, from which they emerge only when the Division bell rings.

Mr. J. Griffiths

May I ask you, Sir, what relevance this has to the Amendment or to the Bill?

Mr. Speaker

On Second Reading one is allowed to go pretty wide. The hon. Member, however, does seem to me to be going very wide.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Will it be in Order for hon. Members to defend people who have been maligned and insulted?

Mr. Buchanan

The hon. Gentleman has made statements which reflect not merely on individuals but on the conduct of a party. May I ask you, Sir, now that the statement has been made, if in common courtesy you will allow a right of reply?

Mr. Speaker

It is always the case when a statement of that kind is made, that a reply is allowed.

Sir H. Williams

Perhaps we can get a new edition of "Guilty Men" published. I am pointing out that the Bill will have the merit of bringing the process to an end. I cannot understand why a party which has risen to fame by its vigorous denunciation of others is so sensitive to a little leg pulling. Of course in future they will not have to do this when a trade union has decided that its president or secretary has reached the pensionable age. They will be made peers, and will be appointed Parliamentary Secretaries under this Bill, and they will get£1,500 a year without doing any work. It is an interesting possibility. We sometimes insert provisions into a Bill to prevent things that may happen, though not because we think they are likely to happen. When we say the Lord's Prayer we ask not to be led into temptation. I do not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be led into temptation. We do not know what he might do if he was.

Then we come to the important constitutional issue of Parliament and Orders in Council. The Deputy Prime Minister took up an extraordinary attitude. He said that we, the elected representatives of the people, ought to have no power whatsoever about this matter. The document is placed in the Journal Office, which is the formal act of laying it, and we get copies in the Library and in the Vote Office, and that is all there is for Parliament. I am not very comfortable about the way in which Government Departments put things on the Table, and in the Vote Office. We all remember what happened to the Home Secretary last July. The Home Office had forgotten to lay 21 Orders in Council, so careless have officials become of the respect due to Parliament. They beat the record the other day. I have a Question about it down for Tuesday, I think. On 27th June, 1935, the late Mr. Blindell and the present Minister of Pensions signed an Order in Council, called the Pensions Injury Warrant, and it arrived in the Library of the House of Commons on 2nd November in this present year of grace.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake)

My hon. Friend will forgive me if I cannot anticipate the answer he will get to his Question, but I can inform him, without any qualification, that he will be completely crushed when he gets my answer.

Sir H. Williams

Since his promotion my right hon. Friend has become rather fierce, but I observe that the Stationery Office, according to mystic symbols at the bottom of the document, did not print it until November of this year. It is dated 1944. My right hon. Friend may have a marvellous explanation of why a Statutory Rule and Order made in 1935 should have the date 1944 on it, but I think everyone will excuse me—

Mr. Speaker

rose—

Sir H. Williams

I apologise. I was led into temptation by the new Financial Secretary, who is a little enthusiastic about his new job. The Deputy Prime Minister said there was no need for the House of Commons to have any control over these Orders, because what is in them was really prescribed by the Bill. Is that necessarily the case? It is certainly to some extent the case under Clause 6, paragraphs (a) to (g), but there always arises the question whether the Order was made at the appropriate time, and that is surely a matter which can be discussed. The initiative as to when the Order is made Must lie with the Government, except in so far as Members, by asking Questions, press them to make an Order at a particular time. Suppose the judgment of the House about an Order for transferring any of the powers conferred or duties imposed on the Minister of Labour and National Service by the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1940 differs from that of the Government. It might very well be that at the time in question a serious unemployment situation existed and that a larger number of Members might desire that the powers should not be transferred but should continue to be held by the Minister of Labour. That, surely, is a debatable matter, one upon which the House ought to be entitled to express its opinion. So it is not merely a question of "what" powers shall be transferred but "when" that is of importance. Let me go on to Sub-section (3) of Clause 6, which says: His Majesty may also by Order in Council, to such extent as may appear to His Majesty to be necessary or expedient do certain things. There the scope of the Order is left to His Majesty's advisers and is not prescribed by the Act. And with what does that Sub-section deal? The constitution and functions of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee. I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman when he was speaking and his reply made it perfectly clear that he had not read or, having read, had not appreciated the significance of the interruption, because here we are altering both the membership and the functions of the Committee. Surely that is something on which the House, as representing the insured people, is entitled to say its word.

Then may I point out that under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (4) of Clause 6 the Order in Council may repeal, modify or adapt. This is extraordinary language. Here is an Order in Council which not merely gives effect to powers under the Act but might amend the Act. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think the Government of the day are entitled to change existing enactments without this House having an opportunity to say a word? I do not think those words ought to be inserted there. If we want to "repeal, modify or adapt" any enactment the proper way to do so is by a Bill and not by an Order in Council.

I know that in the Emergency Powers Act we conferred that power during wartime. I have always doubted whether it was a wise thing to do, but we all remember the history of that Act. We saw it at about nine o'clock in the evening of 24th August, 1939, and it received the Royal Assent at midnight. I agree that those words are in that Act, but I do not think they ought to be in our ordinary legislation, because it is a monstrous invasion of the rights of Parliament to confer upon the Executive the power to make legislation. This is not varying the details of something that has already been authorised; this is repealing, modifying or adapting an enactment. I feel certain that in Committee a very large number of Members will demand that there shall be inserted in the Bill a provision for an affirmative Resolution or Prayer—for the moment I think a Prayer will meet the case—so that the House shall retain effective control over the Executive.

The real truth of the matter is that the tyranny of Government is becoming too great in this country. The powers of the Executive, to use the old phrase, "have increased, are increasing and ought to be diminished." The sole justification of Parliament in the old days was to control the power of the Monarchy; to-day it is control over the Monarch's advisers. With regard to the last part of my Amendment, I am willing to admit that in the technical sense it is wrong—Bills are brought forward in haste and we have. not as much time to study them as we should like, and it is not the case that the Minister would be debarred from sitting—but from the constitutional point of view I am not wrong. The account which the Deputy Prime Minister gave of the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, was very incomplete. If hon. Members look at Section 9 of that Act they will see that it says: The number of persons entitled to sit and vote in that House while they are Ministers of the Crown named in Part 1 of the First Schedule to this Act shall not exceed fifteen. Then in Part 11 and Part 111 there are added: the Lord President of the Council, who may be in another place, the Lord Privy Seal, who may be in another place, the Postmaster-General, the First Commissioner of Works and the Minister of Pensions. The object of Part 1 was not merely to provide that the other place should have its quota of Ministers, but to provide that this House should not be overwhelmed by the number of Ministers, and that is becoming a real danger. The other day the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) asked how many Ministers there are now as compared with 1939. The increase is very large. We have recently created, including this Bill, at least five new Ministers. For Town and Country Planning there are two. In the case of Civil Aviation, it is true that the present Minister is in another place, but he is a new Minister and at any future time a Minister for Civil Aviation may be sitting here. That is two more. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Ministry of Home Security."] That is a war-time Ministry and I am dealing with permanent Ministries. We have created five new permanent Ministers. I hear an hon. Member near me reminding me that there is also the Ministry of Fuel and Power, in regard to which there was an increase of two Ministers: there are three Ministers, but there was one before, who was Secretary for the Mines Department. When we add up all the Ministers, all the Parliamentary Private Secretaries and all the young Tories who hope to be Ministers we get nearly half the House. It really is a danger.

We all know the immense influence of patronage; how people who disagree with something, nevertheless go into the Lobby to vote for it, because they do not wish to offend the Whips or the Minister, or hope to get a free trip to the United States, or a peerage or baronetcy, or something like that. The power of Government is colossal; indeed, the benches are so crowded that some of the Ministers have to sit over here. I call them the "straddle-bugs", the Ministers who sit on both sides; and they draw salaries for it. The Deputy Chief Whip nearly always sits here. Occasionally he goes over to the other side to join his colleagues when he is feeling lonely. The one most recently appointed sits on both sides of this House. That conceals the numbers which now exist, because we cannot count them, as we do not see them all in the same place at the same time. I think we must impose some check upon the number of Ministers; it is a major constitutional issue; and though I agree that I slipped up in the drafting of my Amendment, I am not in the least sorry that I did so, because it has enabled me to draw attention to what I regard as a major constitutional matter—patronage, jobs.

Many years ago a Bill was introduced to abolish sinecures. We read in the novels of 150 years ago how the great thing was to get Billy a job in the Excise or something, where he got a good salary and did a bit of black market work in addition. I think any Conservative would pay a great tribute to Mr. Gladstone, who, more than anyone else perhaps, swept away those abuses. Now they are coming in again in a new form. I hope that at a very early date the Government will introduce a Measure to amend the Ministers of the Crown Act so as to lay it down that not more than a certain number of Ministers shall be permitted to sit in the House of Commons. Though it is customary now to treat with disrespect the Government which was presided over by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, at least when they introduced the Ministry of Supply Act, they realised that it would add one to the number of Ministers in the House of Commons and provided in that Measure that the list of 15 should be increased to 16. They realised the constitutional significance of the Ministers of the Crown Act, which the Deputy Prime Minister apparently does not. I hope this is the last time we shall have a Bill containing provisions of the kind which I have criticised this morning.

12.28 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan (Ebbw Vale)

I think the House will appreciate the substance of a great deal of what the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has said, although I thought he was unnecessarily offensive in certain of his references. I, as one who never offends in that respect, think that perhaps the hon. Member ought to have desisted. The difficulty about this Bill is that it both says too little and says too much. It is very hard to visualise the effect of certain provisions except against a background of the main Bill. One does not know what is meant by many of these references, and I would have preferred, as think the House would, the Ministry to he set up at the same time as the main Bill was brought before the House. There is no real need to have a Bill of this sort, if subsequently we are to have the main Bill, because it would have been possible to have the main Bill and the actual setting up of the Ministry undertaken simultaneously.

I find great difficulty in understanding what some of the Clauses of the Bill actually mean. For example, I notice, as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said, that the new Ministry is to have responsibility for the Assistance Board; in other words, the powers of the Assistance Board are to be transferred to the new Ministry. The words do not make it quite clear, indeed they have clearly the opposite sense, that the Ministry is to be directly responsible to the House of Commons for the functions of that Board. This is a very serious matter in a number of respects. Hon. Members will recall that the Act which set up the Assistance Board was a very comprehensive one. I remember taking part in the Debates upon it, in 1934 and 1935, and making quite an obscene number of speeches in opposition to it. The Bill was commended to us very largely on the ground that the Assistance Board was to be responsible for rehabilitation and general social welfare. I remember the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) defending the Bill against my opposition at that time largely on those grounds. We spent many months on those provisions. The fact is that they are a dead letter. They have never been operated. The Assistance Board has been merely a paying out agency all the time—yes, and a pay-resisting agency in many respects—and has never at any time used the powers which Parliament conferred upon it and which, in the first instance, commended the whole Measure to the House.

Why is that? The reason is very largely because the Assistance Board is not directly represented in the House of Commons. At that time we took strong constitutional exception to the idea of taking unemploy- ment out of politics. What happened was that the House of Commons ceased to have any effective responsibility for the welfare of poor people and of the unemployed generally. Had the Minister of Labour remained liable to answer day by day in the House of Commons for the discharge of the functions conferred upon the Board, the Assistance Board might long ago have been compelled, by Parliamentary pressure, to use the powers which we intended it to use. I hope that when we consider this matter it will be possible to make it clear that the Minister of Social Insurance will be responsible to the House of Commons for all the functions of the Board.

I am a little anxious about the extent to which, when we come to consider the main Bill, we shall be limited in discussing it by the provisions of the Bill which we are now discussing. Certain Amendments which we may want to make to the main Bill may be ruled out of Order because we shall have limited ourselves in the first instance by the present Bill. That is my difficulty. We cannot at the moment visualise what many of these categories mean, because they will come to life and reality only in relation to the content of the main Bill itself; but we may find out, when we come to the main Bill, that we shall have hamstrung ourselves, prevented ourselves from considering this matter realistically and intelligently. We ought to consider that point.

May I suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that a very large amount of the Bill is redundant? I agree that we ought to have a Minister armed with these powers, but the reason for that is not technical, it is political. The reason why I want a Minister of Social Insurance appointed now is because I want to have somebody inside the Cabinet fighting for this principle. My fear is that unless we have a Minister of Social Insurance we shall never get a Bill; we must have a man who has been appointed and whose job it is to jerk his colleagues into action and secure from them facilities for a Bill and subsequent Parliamentary time for considering it—to overcome. by the usual tug-of-war, the resistances inside the Cabinet. A Minister of Social Insurance is absolutely essential, but for political reasons only.

There is no reason why he should have all these powers for the drafting of his Bill. These are powers necessary for the administration of the Bill after it becomes an Act. They are not necessary for preparing the Bill in the first instance. Indeed, it means that all these powers will be enjoyed in their full panoply before ever the Bill is made. We are not to have the Bill for many months, perhaps for at least six months. If all these transfers have to take place, all these officers have to be considered and all these Departments have to be reorganised before we get the Bill, I am frightened when I think how long we shall have to wait for the Bill. Therefore, it is not necessary to do all those things in order to have the Bill; and if that is the case, why have them in this Bill at all? These are things that ought to be in the main Bill, when we shall he able to discuss them very much more intelligently and realistically.

Although I desire on this occasion to support the Government, and I do support the main principle of setting up a Ministry, I am not satisfied that a case has been made out for most of the Bill. I would much prefer to have all these things considered as part of the texture of the main Bill. I do not think I am giving political secrets away, as probably it is known as much to hon. Members as to myself, but I understand that some of the Bills necessary have already been half made.

Sir H. Williams

Half baked.

Mr. Bevan

Many Bills are like that, but I hope these will emerge rather better done. I understand that they are in process of formation: If so, it is not necessary to have the present Bill in order to make them. I do not think we ought to get ourselves into trouble merely in order to have a Minister inside the Cabinet.

Sir H. Williams

Does the hon. Member realise that Clause 6 gives the Minister an opportunity to serve his apprenticeship by running all the existing social services without bringing in a new Bill?

Mr. Bevan

I was coming to Clause 6 in a moment or two. I understand that the lawyers like that sort of thing, but as a legislator I find it awfully hard to understand. We are asked to transfer a large number of existing powers to the Minister and then to give general powers to the Government to change any of the powers in the items; then why have the items? We could confer general powers of transfer by Orders, or particular powers of transfer by Orders, but when we put particular ones in and then add a general provision to add any other power, I get muddled. I can see the necessity of building up the Ministry slowly. This will be a very important Ministry and it will not mature for three or four years. Although it may be able to do its simplest job of paying out benefits and collecting contributions, very many of the other advantages which we hope will follow from it will depend largely upon its slowly dovetailing into its structure functions now discharged by other Departments. It will be necessary to consider the Ministry organically, because it will grow organically, once it is formed. This is where I join issue with the hon. Member for South Croydon on this business of Orders.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)

On a point of Order. We hear that the hon. Member is now going to make an attack upon the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) who moved the Amendment which is now before the House. Is it not the case that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) is seconding that Amendment?

Mr. Speaker

The Amendment does not need seconding, as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), sitting on the Front Bench as an ex-Minister, has the privilege to move Amendments without a Seconder.

Mr. Bevan

I hope I have not been so unclear as to mislead the House about my point of view. I was about to take the hon. Member for South Croydon to task. If it is necessary, as I conceive it to be, that this new Ministry will slowly be assembling itself over the course of three or four years and detaching from other Departments certain functions and integrating them into itself, I do not see how that process can be accomplished except by Orders.

Sir H. Williams

Certainly.

Mr. Bevan

The powers must be transferred from one Ministry to another, but not by means of a Parliamentary Bill, which is much too cumbersome.

Sir H. Williams

Hear, hear.

Mr. Bevan

But I understood the hon. Member was—

Sir H. Williams

I quite agree that the Order procedure is necessary, but I say that this House ought to have an opportunity of discussing Orders.

Mr. Bevan

I agree with that and I am coming on to that point. Let us see how far we can agree. It can be done only by Orders.

Sir H. Williams

Yes.

Mr. Bevan

The next point is, How are those Orders to be considered? I have taken part on many occasions in Debates on this method of legislating by Order in such a fashion that we do not know what is happening. The main difficulty is that the Member of Parliament is overwhelmed by the deluge of Orders, and cannot follow them. I suggested two years ago—the suggestion was eventually taken up by the Tory Reform Committee without any acknowledgment—that we should have a Sessional Committee whose function should be to examine Orders, with a view to putting them into one of two main categories. One category would be Orders so important as to qualify for a positive Resolution by the House of Commons before they came into operation, and the other category, those in the nature of administrative Orders, of a lower rank, which could be made the subject of a Prayer if any hon. Members wished to move one. That Committee is in existence, and is most valuable. I should have thought this was precisely the sort of job the Committee ought to be doing.

I agree with the hon. Member for South Croydon. The language of the Bill in this case is exceedingly wide. may repeal, modify, or adapt any enactment. Any enactment, over the whole field of legislation, is open to be the subject of an Order. That is very wide indeed.

Mr. Peake

I do not think it will go quite as far as that, without qualification.

Mr. Bevan

The language here is very wide language indeed. If it is qualified in any way, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will state the qualification or limitation when he replies. The language is exceedingly wide, and I am not certain whether it is not too wide. Anyhow, it seems to me that the House ought to have the protection of that Committee in preventing the Government from doing anything other than what is absolutely essential in order to bring the Ministry into full exercise of its powers. Therefore, I commend the Bill because of the principle of setting up a Ministry, but I still doubt whether it is necessary to have so full a Bill ahead of the main legislation.

12.46 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Holderness)

May I preface my remarks by explaining that when, last week, we were debating the main White Paper proposals, I put my name underneath that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) to a reasoned Amendment, believing that we ought to know a great deal more than we do about the country's post-war financial and trade position, and that the nation in general, and the Servicemen in particular, should have the opportunity of being consulted at the polls before their friendly societies are overridden and a heavy burden of triple taxation is laid upon them. The House showed itself to be almost unanimously of the contrary opinion. It therefore seems to me that the proper function for a Member in a small minority is to make every effort to make the scheme workable, while preserving, as far as we can, the maximum of individual freedom and the minimum of State control. I approach this Measure from that angle. For it was none other than the Prime Minister who said, in his famous broadcast of 21st March, 1943, which is frequently quoted nowadays: Of all races in the world, our people would be the last to be governed by a bureaucracy. Freedom is their lifeblood. Unhappily, the Government have chosen the bureaucratic path in this matter. Here we are setting up yet another Ministry. Only the other day I listened with approval to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) complaining about the multiplicity of Ministries. Yet here we are setting up another, presumably with a staff running into thousands. The Deputy Prime Minister was not very clear on that point this morning, and I shall be glad if the Minister who replies will tell us to what extent additional staff is required, apart from those taken over from other Ministries, I would also like to know the estimated cost, because it is still our duty in the House of Commons to look into that, although it is frequently forgotten. Here we are creating probably thousands of new bureaucrats, and it will be necessary for them to be paid and housed. Whether the cost be large or small, we as representatives of the taxpayers are entitled to ask the question, How much?

Clause 1 of the Bill sets up a merger, The new Ministry is to take over various functions, such as widows' and old age pensions, unemployment insurance, and so on. If we are going to do it this way, a merger, of course, is necessary, but I would like to add a word of support to what was put forward by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), with whom I rarely find myself in agreement, when he said that it would make sense in due course if the new Ministry also took over the work of the Ministry of Pensions. Obviously, that cannot be done during the war, but I think it will become practicable after the war. I mention it for another reason. I want to place it on record, in the hope that it may be of some possible value to the economy committee, which some future Government will undoubtedly have to set up when our financial situation becomes revealed in its stark reality after the war. So much for the Ministry.

May I say a word about the Minister? I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister-Designate for being in his place, because I gave him notice that I had a few remarks to make about him. We are proposing to appoint a Minister of Social Insurance who is to be paid at the current trade union rate of£5,000 per annum, which appears to me to achieve a reasonable subsistence level and to be sufficient to secure freedom from want. The Parliamentary Secretary or Secretaries have to rub along on£1,500. These are the current rates. I think that in this matter the Government have missed a tremendous opportunity. To my mind, there is only one man for this job—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge). After all, the Government are adopting his proposals practically in toto. He has lived with this problem for the past four years. He has been studying unemployment and insurance matters for a much longer period. He knows all the answers, and an even mere potent reason for putting him into the Government is that he knows all the questions as well. Why not follow the technique so successfully followed in 1942, when the most dangerous potential critic of the Government returned from Moscow, was absorbed into the administration and has been safely tucked away for the past two years at the Ministry of Aircraft Production? One is inclined to lament with the late Lord Tennyson: But O for the touch of a vanished hand, And the sound of a voice that is still! Why not bring into the Government the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed as the Minister of Social Insurance, thus at once obtaining an expert administrator and silencing a potential critic? If all goes well, who is more entitled to wear the laurel wreath than the hon. Member, and if all goes ill, who is more entitled to stand in the pillory?

Now I come to the Minister-Designate. Let us not turn up our noses at what we have got. The right hon. Gentleman is also a learned Gentleman, and there will be many a legal tangle arising out of the social insurance scheme. But he has a far greater qualification than that. He brings to his tasks a far wider field of political experience than is vouchsafed to hon. Members who have thought it proper to remain faithful to one party in their public life.

Mr. Bowles (Nuneaton)

What about the Prime Minister?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

I anticipated that interjection.

Mr. A. Bevan

On a point of Order. I would like to ask whether the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in the Bill, and whether, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member's remarks are in Order?

Mr. Speaker

I was just about to remove my rug and rise. The hon. and gallant Member's remarks seem to me to be quite irrelevant to the Bill. The question of the individual concerned is not very relevant to the Second Reading discussion.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

May I put it to you, Sir, that the name of the Minister-Designate has been published by the Government and we are authorising his appointment by this Bill?

Mr. Speaker

The Minister-Designate might unfortunately die to-night and so another would become the Minister.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

No one would regret that more than me, and I would like him to go to a better place with my words ringing in his ears. If I am not entitled to comment on the appointment, I must apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for taking up his time by asking him to be present. Whatever Minister may take up this office, it will be a good thing to have one who has had experience of more than one political party. If we could select as Minister of Social Insurance one who was returned to the House as a follower of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), one who was schooled in the beginnings of social insurance; if such a man could be available and if he combined with that quality that of having taken a stroll down the road to Damascus in 1929, having seen the light and found that not Liberalism but Socialism was the true faith; if he could have held office as a Law Officer in the Socialist Government and by that means come face to face with the grim unemployment problem, remembering that for every minute that Government were in office somebody was added to the melancholy roll of the unemployed; and if, having had that experience, he was one who in 1931 jumped just in time into the National Government lifeboat—

Mr. Bowles

On a point of Order. I do not know whether you, Sir, have been listening to the last few remarks, but it seems to me that the hon. and gallant Member is disobeying your Ruling by subtle means.

Dr. Russell Thomas (Southampton)

Is not the hon. and gallant Member merely setting out the qualifications that are necessary in the Minister?

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid that I was not listening at the moment.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

I am drawing to a conclusion. My list of qualifications is almost complete. I would ask for one who has travelled life's road somewhat on those lines and who, in 1931, had the further experience in the National Government of one who, like a sort of inverted Casabianca, fled the burning deck upon which his comrades re- mained standing. Having made these remarks as to the type of Minister one would like to see, I will draw to a conclusion with a final regret that the Government have chosen officialdom in preference to making use of the existing machinery of friendly and approved societies. I hope that they may yet stroll along the banks of the Tweed, where they will find the right man for the job.

12.58 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown (Rugby)

I want to deal with a point which touches the people for whom I am responsible in this House and to whom I owe a special duty. I hope that I may be allowed to make a reference to the speeches of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). Unlike the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, I do not think this is by any means a premature Bill. Anyone who knows anything about public administration will recognise that the creation of this new Ministry is a very big task. It involves ripping pieces out of other Ministries and bringing them together, and transferring staff on a large scale from one district to another. I should feel much more confident of the prospects of seeing the Beveridge scheme in operation if this Ministry were rapidly created than I should be otherwise. For that reason, I heartily support the general purposes of the Bill. The hon. Member for South Croydon took the view that this Bill would increase the number of placemen in this House. I must say that I share his dislike for the immense increase in the number of placemen in the House during the course of this century. We have now reached a stage when something like one half of the Members of the House are either directly or indirectly in the pay of, or under the influence of, die Government, and that is a very grave situation. It prevents decisions on merit, it determines decision of the House in advance, and they are influenced by patronage, exercised on a very wide scale.

My difficulty is that if we are to do anything about that matter we must do it, not on this Bill, which proposes the creation of a Ministry, but on a Motion similar to that moved some 60 years ago, to the effect that at no time ought the total number of Ministers in this House to exceed a certain number. If ever we get a Motion of that kind before the House I shall join with the hon. Member for South Croydon in very hearty support of it, but I do not see how we can deal with that issue now. The hon. Member had some very unpleasant things to say about retired trade unionists on this side of the House. There may sometimes have been justification for such a criticism, but the hon. Member ought not to make that criticism, for if there is any party in the House to which that criticism applies with greater force, it is the party to which he himself belongs. Perhaps it would be wiser for him not to inject that element into the discussion of this Bill.

The particular point I wish to raise concerns paragraph (3) on page 2 of the Bill, which says: The Minister may appoint such other secretaries and. such officers and servants as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine and there shall be paid to the secretaries, officers and servants so appointed such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may determine." I do not know whether the House realises in detail what is involved here. I have already mentioned that under this Bill the new Minister will have to draw away sections of a number of existing Departments, and I have no doubt that the people he does so draw away will form a nucleus of his new Ministry of Social Insurance. That is as it should be, because he has a big pool of trained public servants on which to draw. I raised the other day in the discussion of the main proposals the question of the staff of the approved societies. I received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer an assurance, for which I was very grateful, that either he would try to accommodate them in the new Ministry to the extent it might be possible or, to the extent it was not, he accepted the broad principle of compensation for loss of office. In so far as he uses the principle of compensation these men will pass out of our ken and need not be considered to-day, but to the extent that he draws on that field he must relate his drawing from it to his drawing from the existing field of the public service.

It is very important that that double draw upon different fields should be corelated. I am not at all sure that we are to get that result. I know, for example, that discussions are proceeding with the Treasury, which is one of the authorities here, in regard to the transfer of staff from existing Ministries to the new Ministry. I can see the possibility of approaches being made from the staffs of the approved societies to the Minister-Designate. I will accept that as likely to be the case. I want to know at what point and through what Orders those two lines of approach are to be brought together and co-ordinated to the best advantage, from the point of view of the new Ministry. It is an important point, and I will be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he replies at the end of the day, will tell us as much as possible on that point.

1.7 p.m.

Mr. Petherick (Penryn and Falmouth)

I join with the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) in his plea for consideration from the Government for the officers who are to be transferred to the new Ministry. I would be happier still if I felt that so far as friendly and approved societies were concerned that necessity would not arise. One of the reasons I object to the general scheme is the transference of the powers and functions at present fulfilled by these two forms of societies. I think the Government have been quite wise, contrary to what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said, in introducing this Bill first, that is to say, in setting up the Ministry and arranging that the Department concerned can start fairly soon, because on the whole it is a wiser procedure than waiting and then putting the whole scheme into operation.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Petherick

It will not have escaped the attention of the House that in calling a count the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) was perhaps relating his action today to what happened yesterday. Not for the first time he has exposed to the House something of a character which we all expect.

To return to the subject of this Debate, I would like to say how much I agree with various hon. Members who have spoken, who have voiced their misgiving on the subject of too many new Ministries being set up. In this particular case it is obviously necessary to have one Ministry, and perhaps a new Ministry, responsible for national insurance. But none the less I think that on every occasion when Parliament is invited to set up a new Ministry we should examine the proposal very closely before by our votes, or by silent assent, we accord the power which the Government desire us to give them. I would not go so far as my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) in suggesting that this Bill ought not to be given a Second Reading. I think it undoubtedly ought, though there are certain aspects of it which I think are highly undesirable, to one or two of which the hon. Member for South Croydon has drawn attention in his Amendment. It may be a minor matter, but it seems rather wrong that this Bill should give the power to His Majesty to appoint another Minister, but apparently no power to dismiss him, I feel we ought to be extremely jealous of any infringements of the Royal Prerogative, which in these modern days is generally an infringement on the part of the Executive, and we ought to watch them rather carefully. This form of words, it seems to me, is not suitable, and the fact that a precedent has been created in favour of it is no strong argument why it should continue so to be used.

I come to what to my mind is a rather important matter. The reason we are asked to appoint a Minister instead of leaving it in the ordinary way to the King's Prerogative, is, I understand, that if a Minister is to be appointed he has presumably to be paid, and Parliament, being the custodian of the public purse, has to be asked whether it is willing for a new Minister to be appointed. Similarly, when we come to the question of Under-Secretaries, Parliament has to be invited to endorse or approve their appointment. I agree with previous speakers that it is absolutely wrong that we should be invited in this Bill to give the carte blanche to the Government or the Minister concerned to appoint as many Parliamentary Under-Secretaries as they like. That may be common form, but I can see no conceivable reason on the face of it why more than one Parliamentary Under-Secretary should be necessary for a Ministry of this kind. I very much hope that between now and the Committee stage the Government will think over this form of words again, and see if they cannot accept the Amendment which will certainly be moved to limit the number of Under-Secretaries to one, or possibly two at the utmost, certainly not more.

I come to the main reason I had in trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. It is to my mind a very serious infringement of the rights and proper functions of this House to put into this Bill, an extremely important Bill, the right of the Executive to make Orders in Council without corning to this House to give us an opportunity to pray against them. These Orders in Council cannot be discussed in this House at all. It seems to me a very serious infringement of the rights of Parliament. I should not so much object, though I should object to a certain degree, if the matters on which these Orders were to be made were of minor importance. They are not. Let me take a simple case. If the Assistance Board was to be taken over, are we to understand that Parliament would have no say in such a matter? Another very important aspect is that under Clause 6 the Minister is to take over a large number of functions which are at present administered by other Ministers, but it only gives him power to do so, and does not say that he has to do so. It seems to me that Parliament might at any moment very much object to his taking over various of these functions.

Mr. Buchanan

On the point about the Assistance Board. Is it not a fact that we shall have to deal with the question of whether the Assistance Board is to be taken over or not by the Minister in the Bill that is introduced, and that that Measure will determine the functions, not the powers given under this Bill? The question of the intentions of the Government about assistance will have to be defined in the general social security Measure.

Mr. Petherick

I am very much obliged to the hon. Member. I am inclined to think that he is right but it certainly is not clear in this Bill whether that is to be so or not.

Captain Cunningham-Reid (St. Mary-lebone)

On a point of Order I must protest. I think it is disgraceful that there are only 15 Members here during the discussion of this important Bill, and I desire to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there is not even a quorum present.

Mr. Speaker

I satisfied myself that there was a quorum a few minutes ago, and it is now just a Quarter past One; so we cannot have another count.

Captain Cunningham Reid

According to the rules and regulations I am aware it is within your discretion, Sir, not to call a second count provided you have recently satisfied yourself about the numbers present. I have looked up precedents on this matter and I should like to draw your attention to the latest reference in Erskine May. On 25th February, 1887, which is the last reference on the question of how long is "recently," Mr. Speaker allowed two counts within three minutes, and after two minutes a third was disallowed, on the ground that he had recently satisfied himself that there was a quorum present. If we go by precedents at all, I suggest that considerably more than three minutes have gone by since the last count and therefore a second should be allowed.

Mr. Speaker

I have satisfied myself that there is a quorum present. It may have been more than three minutes ago, but I do not think that the House should be unnecessarily counted in this way. In any case I feel sure that there are further precedents, and the Speaker has refused to have a second count within a few minutes of the first.

Dr. Russell Thomas

As the hon. and gallant Member has called attention to the performance of their duties by hon. Members of this House, may I point out that since the last Recess, I have not noticed the hon. and gallant Member in his place more than a few times?

Captain Cunningham-Reid

If you are going to allow remarks like that, Sir, I would like to state that the reason the hon. Member has not seen me is that he has so rarely been here.

Mr. Speaker

We will leave that subject now.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden (Doncaster)

"The Children's Hour."

Mr. Petherick

I have noticed that hon. Members who are rarely here, have often called attention, when they happened to be here, to the fact that there were very few Members present except themselves.

Captain Cunningham-Reid

A serious principle has arisen. I desire to discuss that. May I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that Strangers are present?

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw."

The House proceeded to a Division, but no Members being willing to act as Tellers for the "Ayes," Mr. SPEAKER declared that the "Noes" had it.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Mr. Petherick

I was under the impression that it was important, in the discussion of a serious Bill like this, that we should give it our most careful attention but, unhappily, it has been rather difficult to do so during the last few minutes. I was discussing the right, which the Government seek to take under this Bill, of doing a number of very important things by Orders in Council, which Orders will not come before the House at all for confirmation or for objection. We cannot discuss in this House various matters of immense importance to many millions of people. In addition to those broad objections that I have mentioned, I would like to call attention to the recurrence in its old form of the Henry VIII Clause, which gives power to the Government to repeal, modify, or adapt any enactment, Order in Council, and so on. Under this Bill the Government, if they wish, without coming to the House at all, can repeal any part, or indeed the whole, of a previous Act of Parliament. That, again, seems to me highly undesirable. Such matters ought to be discussed in this House, and the Commons House of Parliament should not have its power filched from it.

On this point, I would like to call attention to Clause 6, Sub-section (6), which gives power to the Government, again by Order in Council, to vary or revoke by subsequent Orders earlier Orders that they may have made. I think that that is extremely important. Suppose that the Minister of the Crown who holds the position of Minister of Social Insurance is so incompetent in his earlier actions, in issuing Orders in Council and in taking over very important functions, that he finds that he has made a mess of it, and then he wants the Orders to be invalidated. He does not come to the House of Commons at all. The House of Commons is totally debarred from saying what it thinks of the Government of the day, and of their incompetence. This means that, under this Bill, the Government of the day can do anything, within a certain specified area, without consulting the House of Commons. That is an extremely dangerous thing, and I do not think the House ought to part with this Bill, before it goes to another place, without seeing that in those particulars it is very stringently amended.

It is no good, I am afraid, suggesting that the Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, of which I happen to be a member, should watch these Orders in Council, which are going to be brought out, because they would be ultra vires. They are presented to Parliament, but it is extremely doubtful, as there is no power of the House to amend or reject them, whether that Committee could or should draw the attention of the House to them. Even if they did, it would be quite useless, because Parliament could not do anything. For those reasons, although I would not go so far as my hon. Friend the Member who sits for South Croydon, who suggested that we should treat this Bill as a bad cheque and send it back, I think that, before we part with the Bill, we should look with great care into the whole of the questions which have been raised about the arbitrary powers that have been given to His Majesty's Government. I see the reason for the Bill, and, indeed, I think it is necessary, but very serious Amendments ought to be made before we allow it to go to another place.

1.26 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe)

Before I come to the points in this Amendment with which the House would want me to deal, may I run through, very quickly and very briefly, the other points which have been raised, and indicate that they will receive the close attention of His Majesty's Government? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) made two points with regard to the proposals. First, he expressed his anxiety for a clearer and closer co-ordination between the Ministry of Social Insurance and the other Departments which would be engaged in working, for example, the rehabilitation proposals. It is our earnest desire that that co-operation and co-ordination should take place. But I suggest that this Bill is not the appropriate moment for that to be put into form. With regard to speed—his second point—everyone who has spoken on this subject from this Box had indicated the desire of the Government to move with all possible rapidity in this direction. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) made two points. He breathed a sigh of regret about the wrenching of the insurance provisions from the Ministry of Health, but he recognised the necessity of the Ministry of Social Insurance being there and being able to function. With regard to the other points, he was good enough to say that it was really a matter which should be considered hereafter. He referred to the question of devolution and regional functioning. I can give him the assurance that what he said will receive the careful attention of His Majesty's Government, and that the importance of the point is agreed.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Can my hon. and learned Friend elucidate a little more fully the provision as to health benefit insurance? I am not quite clear about it, and I think that the House is not clear either.

The Solicitor-General

Let me put it quite broadly to my right hon. and gallant Friend as I understand it. The benefits which are medical benefits are the benefits of a service. They are the provisions of the National Health Service, for which the Minister of Health will continue to be responsible, and which must lie within his purview. What is being transferred under the Bill, and it is set out quite clearly in Clause 6, are the powers and duties with regard to the administration and payment of various pensions and insurance benefits which, at the moment, are given to the Ministry of Health. As I understand it—I hope I have appreciated what my right hon. and gallant Friend had in mind—it was the exception to Clause 4, Subsection (1) (a), which relates to the administration of medical benefits, which was the point he had in mind. That, as I appreciate and understand the matter, refers to this provision of services, as I have explained.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

May I take it that, roughly speaking, services in kind come under the Ministry of Health and services in cash are transferred to the Ministry of Social Insurance?

The Solicitor-General

Yes.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Kilmarnock)

Does that apply to children's allowances as well?

The Solicitor-General

Children's allowances are rather a different point. My right hon. Friend is dealing with the medical services under the National Health Service, and, in order to provide that, the Ministry of Health must keep the control and administration of the medical services that I have mentioned. I am not sure what my hon. Friend has in mind regarding children's allowances.

Mr. Lindsay

I was following on the distinction between services in cash and in kind.

The Solicitor-General

My hon. Friend can broadly take it that children's allowances will come under the new Minister. What he has in mind, I imagine, are the functions of the Board of Education and the way in which they will be coordinated, but I would like to look into that and get the exact information for my hon. Friend, if he so desires.

Mr. Lindsay

Do I take it that this Ministry is concerned solely with the paying out of money? The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) raised very pointedly the question of the Assistance Board. Some of us hoped in 1934 that it would do creative work, but, as a matter of fact, it does not, and has only a paying-out function. It looks as if all this new Ministry will have is a paying-out function.

The Solicitor-General

I cannot, of course, go into detail. There will obviously be legislation dealing with children's allowances, and this matter is being fully considered at the present time. But I rather deprecate the idea that this Ministry will only be concerned with payments out, because, as I said yesterday with regard to Part II and I do not want to repeat it, I envisage that this Ministry will be engaged continuously in trying to co-ordinate the services that are provided by other Ministries with the information and experience which this Ministry gains in its work. I should not like the otherwise helpful interjection of my hon. Friend to give the impression that this Ministry is merely a paying-out machinery.

Mr. Lindsay

If I may interrupt once more, I am wondering why the White Paper says that when the scheme is in operation the position will be reviewed. We remember that, in February, 1943, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were convinced that this Ministry was not necessary. This is a conversion, but is it a complete conversion?

The Solicitor-General

I do not know if my hon. Friend heard the Lord President of the Council introduce this Bill, but though it is difficult to pick up every point, if he reads again the words with which my right hon. Friend introduced it, I do not think he need have any fear on the score which he has mentioned. My hon Friend who has asked these questions has mentioned one point which has exercised other hon. Members, the question of the Assistance Board. At present, under a decision of some ten years ago, the Minister of Labour is responsible only for general directions to the Unemployment Insurance Board, and it is responsible for particular cases. I want to make it quite clear that this Bill makes no change in that position. It is simply a transfer of existing functions, and it is not within the terms, which I know are rather shortly expressed by reference to other Acts. It is simply transferring the existing position to the Ministry of Social Insurance. I do not think it would be in order for me to discuss the desirability of that at length at this moment, in view of Mr. Speaker's ruling as to this being a machinery Bill.

That brings me to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). My hon. Friend makes four points, and he bases himself largely on the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939, which I have beside me here. The first point is the omission of the words "during His Majesty's pleasure." The House may take it that, if there is one thing that is perfectly clear, it is that any servant of His Majesty only holds his office at the pleasure of His Majesty and is, in the absence of statutory words, liable to dismissal.

Mr. W. J. Brown

That has been laid down by the Courts many times.

The Solicitor-General

It is a principle, and I hate to think how long it goes back in our law. Therefore, it is unnecessary to put in a provision of this kind—"during His Majesty's pleasure." It was put in on some occasions a few years ago, but it was thought that it was unnecessary to repeat the insertion. There is no doubt about that position, and, in fact, I should have put the argument the other way to that used by the hon. Member for South Croydon. He suggests that the omission of these words is an inroad on the Royal Prerogative. I submit that their insertion is, if anything, an inroad on the Royal Prerogative, because they seem to doubt the principle that His Majesty can dispense with any of his servants. My hon. Friend's second point was that this Bill provides for an indefinite number of Parliamentary Secretaries. The Deputy Prime Minister pointed out the precedents. Let me put, it on the ground of the realities of the situation. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that only one such Parliamentary Secretary shall sit as a Member of this House. That leaves the possibility of a Parliamentary Secretary being appointed who would sit in another place. This House has its answer to that, in that it could, if it disliked that idea, refuse to vote his salary. Really, when we come to the realities, and knowing what the possibilities are, I suggest that that point goes.

Now we come, if I may say so without disrespect to the hon. Member for South Croydon, to a more serious point, to which the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) has referred, about Orders in Council. The control of the House over all subsidiary legislation, and, indeed, over Ministerial action, is a vital part of our constitution, and one which we all value, but the position here is that there is a transfer of powers. This House, by passing the Second Reading, is approving of the general principle of the transfer of powers. It is, then, a matter for the Government during what period and at what time these powers will be transferred. I do, however, join issue—I very seldom do on points of procedure—with the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth when he says that the provisions of the Orders in Council cannot be debated in this House. Is not the real point this—that a Prayer cannot be moved, but that any hon. Member can put down a motion with regard to the Order in Council, though his real difficulty—I am trying to face realities—would be in getting Parliamentary time. He would have to go through the usual channels in order to get Parliamentary time, and I agree that, in substance, that might be a difficult matter. But I put it absolutely positively to the House that, if there were a sufficient body of opinion against the timing of the transfer of any of these powers, and a sufficient number of names to the Motion, hon. Members could get the time and Parliamentary action could be taken.

Mr. Petherick

May I interrupt my hon. and learned Friend on that point? The argument which he is using in favour of not making these Orders subject to a Prayer could be used with regard to all forms of delegated legislation. If his argument is that every single piece of delegated legislation could be dealt with in this way, it need never come before the House at all.

The Solicitor-General

I take it that my hon. Friend agrees that, as a mere matter of procedure, my argument is right. I cannot see any answer to it, and nobody has suggested that there is one. If I may try to meet his point, I would say it is a perfectly fair argument, but my answer to it is that this is merely the putting into force of specific powers laid out in the Bill, the transfer of which has been approved by the House, and that, as regards the timing of the transfers, it is really an administrative matter which can be left to those essential powers of the House that I have mentioned, and does not need the special requirement of an affirmative or negative Resolution. That is the answer to that point. I am very glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon has come back.

Sir H. Williams

I apologise.

The Solicitor-General

My hon. Friend will understand that I had to go on to deal with his points. Both my hon. Friends raised the portly ghost of his late Majesty, King Henry VIII, and regretted the provisions of Clause 6, Subsection (4, a). I should like my hon. Friends to consider the introductory words to Sub-section (4): His Majesty may by Order in Council make such incidental consequential and supplemental provisions as appear to His Majesty to be necessary or expedient having regard to any provision included in an Order in Council by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this Act, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision"— which is what I have just read— any such Order in Council may. "Such Order in Council" refers to the Order in Council dealing with the incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions, and these are, therefore, limited to provisions which are either incidental or consequential or are necessary to an Order in Council making the transfer. It is only for that limited purpose that the power to repeal, modify or adapt an enactment may be brought into force. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon does not think that I am going to burke the point. He has in mind that in regard to an Order in Council the courts do not interfere and they cannot say as to whether it is incidental, consequential or supplemental. I should like to tell my hon. Friend that during five years and a quarter there is no example of the House reproving the Minister for overstepping vires. I put this for his consideration. I do not think that when we are limited to incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions there can be a very formidable inroad into the privileges of the House, and what we are really doing—and my hon. Friend discussed this matter on the Works and Planning Bill some time ago—is the task of tidying up the stray ends. I ask my hon. Friend to consider this because it is an important matter. If it is limited to tidying up stray ends, it is going to save an enormous amount of the time of this House and increase its ability to produce the legislation that the country wants.

Sir H. Williams

One of the difficulties I have in mind—and I do not think I emphasised the point properly in my speech—relates, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will see, to Sub-section (1) of Clause 6. It is not a proposal that all the powers are to be transferred, but that any of the powers can be transferred, which means that executively the Government can select which powers to transfer. In the partial transfer of powers all sorts of difficulties will arise. The transfer of some powers of the Ministry of Health to the new Ministry and some powers from the Ministry of Labour to the new Ministry means doing all sorts of things of a legislative nature in repealing or modifying an Act. It is that which worries me.

The Solicitor-General

I have considered the point my hon. Friend has put, but I find it very difficult to envisage the state of mind of one who, having approved of the transfer of the powers, thinks that it requires separate legislation, with all the time that that involves, to deal with the timing of the transfers of the powers, whether taken together or separately. However, my hon. Friend has made his point and I have given him my answer with regard to timing. I do not know whether he heard it all, but I know that he will consider that point, and there will be another opportunity for considering the matter if he is not satisfied.

Sir H. Williams

We are very near the end of the Session and I understand that His Majesty's Government want to get the Bill through. There have been a large number of Amendments already tabled. Some of them the Government might decide to accept but I hope that they are not going to say on Tuesday, "We would accept this, but we want the words altered." If they are going to accept our Amendments I hope that they will let us know about any difficulties in drafting—I know that this is an unusual request—so that the Amendments can be put on the Order Paper in proper form.

The Solicitor-General

My hon. Friend's point will be duly noted and considered. That leaves only one point in his Amendment and that is that, if a new Ministry is created it ought to be put in Part 1 of the First Schedule of the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937. We have during the war been compelled to have many war-time Ministries. They have been accepted by this House, and whether my hon. Friend agrees with them all or not, he loyally accepts them in that sense. We have now to set up certain Ministries, looking to the post-war period. If my hon. Friend will go through a difficult course, starting with the Ministers of the Crown Act and coming on to the Emergency Powers Act during war and various Defence Regulations, he will find that the clear-cut conception of the Act of 1937 has gone. I ask him to consider—I do not reject his view and I shall consider it, and I know that he will consider what is put to him—whether the appropriate time to amend the Schedule and bring it up-to-date is not at the end of the war, when the war-time Ministries disappear. That is the answer to the real point which he desired to make.

Sir H. Williams

Do I understand that when my hon. and learned Friend says that war-time Ministries will disappear he is announcing a statement of Government policy or his own aspirations?

The Solicitor-General

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for not leading me to the edge of the hideous cliff. Obviously, certain Ministries which have been created for war-time purposes will, in the nature of things, go and I am not making any announcement as to what Ministry will go.

Mr. Buchanan

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us any inside information?

The Solicitor-General

I am afraid I cannot pursue that fascinating subject any further. I want to say one or two words with regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). I think that in the end his speech came to this. "I do want a Minister to fight for these schemes but I do not think the Minister needs all these powers at the moment." I agree with him heartily that we do want the Minister, and as far as the Minister-Designate is concerned—and I am sure this would apply to anyone who would be Minister—his desire would be to get to work as soon as possible, to get these new powers as soon as he is ready to take them over and do the work. Therefore, on the premise that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale takes up, the logical answer is that suggested by the Government, that the powers should be taken for transfer by Order in Council as soon as they are ready. I do not want to spend time on the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) because Mr. Speaker ruled that his attack on my right hon. Friend the Minister-Designate was not in Order and, therefore, it would not be in Order for me either to defend my right hon. and learned Friend or even to comment on the taste of the attack made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. Buchanan

Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman attack somebody?

The Solicitor-General

I think that in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has asked and of what was said by Mr. Speaker earlier, when an attack is made some reply is permitted, I should be allowed to say that my right hon. and learned Friend has now worked for three years on the hard and ill-appreciated task of preparing for these problems coming into the light of discussion with a view to their being incorporated in Bills. His colleagues at least know what he has done and how he has worked. I leave the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on other matters to the appreciable fall in even to-day's cold temperature with which they were greeted by the House when they were made.

That leaves me with the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) made with regard to the question of staffs from both the Civil Service and from outside. At this stage all I can say is that my right hon. and learned Friend, on the 'assumption which perhaps he can make, will certainly give full attention to that point and consider it. I hope that my hon. Friend thinks that I have dealt sufficiently with the points he has raised. I think I have covered them all in dealing with the Amendment. I have tried to do so and to put the view of the Government on these points. After that consideration of the very interesting points raised in this Debate, I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.

1.59 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan (Glasgow, Gorbals)

The House need not be afraid that I am going to embark on a discussion of this Measure. I really came here this morning thinking that I might find something upon which to criticise the Government, but after hearing almost every speech I find myself once more in a way in entire agreement with the proposals of the Government. May I say to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) that as one who believes in Parliament and takes some interest in Parliamentary procedure, I appreciate a good deal of what he does. One does not need to agree with him in regard to Orders in Council and all that, but one does agree with him in his watchfulness over certain particular matters. Might I ask him, on the next occasion when he goes for my Labour colleagues, to choose a better opportunity so that we can reply in kind, on the question of how big business and money interferes with the Tory Party, and all sorts of other things. I did not think this was quite an appropriate time—

Sir H. Williams

All the big money to day is in the hands of the co-operative societies and the trades unions. There is none in the Tory Party.

Mr. Buchanan

I am the chairman of a small union of skilled workers and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have very little money even after five years of war. As regards the Measure itself, I was concerned with one aspect of it but I understand that the question will come up in general legislation. I welcome the Measure to-day for two reasons: one is that it has been brought in properly; the second is that it certainly denotes the Minister who is responsible for this task of social insurance. To that extent, I welcome it, and now that we shall soon have the Minister, I hope he will vindicate himself on what has been said to-day. I am a little disappointed at the attendance to-day—not that I am a critic on that score because I am often absent myself, but I would have liked to see this Bill passed with a proper attendance in the House of Commons giving it a better start. I wish the new Minister well in his performance of his task.

Sir H. Williams

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Pym.]

Committee upon Tuesday next.