HC Deb 06 May 1952 vol 500 cc188-97

At the end of Questions—

The Prime Minister

I will now make my statement in reply to Questions Nos 45, 46, 47 and 48.

Every Departmental Minister is responsible to Parliament for the policy and administration of his Department. This is a fundamental principle in our system of Parliamentary democracy. But it is an equally respectable and necessary principle that Ministers as a body are collectively responsible for Government policy as a whole. This means that a Minister's personal responsibility for his Departmental policy must be exercised in harmony with the views of his Ministerial colleagues.

The work of the so-called "co-ordinating Ministers" is an aspect of collective responsibility. In former days all reconciliation of Departmental policies was done in the Cabinet, of which all Departmental Ministers were members, or by the Prime Minister himself. But for many years past Prime Ministers have from time to time entrusted to a senior colleague the duty of keeping a general oversight, on the Cabinet's behalf, over subjects of special importance not falling wholly within the jurisdiction of a single Department of State.

These tasks have usually been assigned to holders of the old offices involving no heavy Departmental duties, notably the offices of Lord President and Lord Privy Seal. An early example of this was the arrangement by which in 1929 Mr. Ramsay Macdonald assigned to Mr. J. H. Thomas, as Lord Privy Seal, a special responsibility for co-ordinating measures for dealing with unemployment.

With the growing complexity of Government business, and the increasing extent to which policies have to be administered jointly by two or more Departments, Prime Ministers have found it increasingly convenient to ask senior Ministers to act in a co-ordinating role. And in recent times this arrangement has been more regularly adopted because, under modern conditions which have called into existence so many new Departments of State, the Cabinet no longer normally includes all Ministers in charge of Departments.

This has led to the development of the system of standing Cabinet Committees, which assist the Cabinet in discharging its collective business and include Departmental Ministers who are not themselves members of the Cabinet. The chairmanship of these standing Committees has normally been assumed by senior Ministers without Departmental duties; and it is mainly in their capacity as Chairmen of these Committees that these Ministers have exercised their co-ordinating functions, subject to Cabinet review. This is a natural evolution in the processes of conducting the collective business of Government, and there is nothing new about it.

During the war the Lord President of the Council, in particular, discharged extensive co-ordinating responsibilities on this basis; and it is well-known that similar arrangements were in force during the period of office of the late Government. The responsibilities assigned under the present Government to Lord Woolton and Lord Leathers carry this development a stage further in one respect, and in one respect only, namely, that the specific area of co-ordination assigned to each of them was publicly announced on his appointment.

Indeed, so far as concerns my. noble Friend, Lord Leathers, it was made explicit in his title. Coal, gas, electricity, oil and transport represent a homogeneous group of subjects which call for co-ordination. Moreover, it includes the basic services which have passed under public ownership under Socialist schemes of nationalisation; and there is clear scope for co-ordination—I am sorry to use that hard-worn word so often—of the Government's relations with the public corporations administering those services. Lord Leathers' co-ordinating functions do not differ, in the constitutional sense, from those of my noble Friend, Lord Woolton.

The co-ordinating Ministers have no statutory powers. They have, in particular, no power to give orders or directions to a Departmental Minister. A Departmental Minister who is invited by a co-ordinating Minister to adjust a Departmental policy to accord with the wider interests of the Government as a whole always has access to the Cabinet; and, if he then finds that he cannot win the support of his Ministerial colleagues, he should accept their decision. No Departmental Minister can, of course, be expected to remain in a Government and carry out policies with which he disagrees.

Thus, the existence and activities of these co-ordinating Ministers do not impair or diminish the responsibility to Parliament of the Departmental Ministers whose policies they co-ordinate. Those Ministers are fully accountable to Parliament for any act of policy or administration within their Departmental jurisdiction. It does not follow that the co-ordinating Ministers are "non-responsible. "Having no statutory powers as co-ordinating Ministers, they perform in that capacity no formal acts. But they share in the collective responsibility of the Government as a whole, and, as Ministers of the Crown, they are accountable to Parliament.

In conclusion, I should perhaps make it clear that the Minister of Defence is not in the same sense a co-ordinating Minister. His appointment was authorised by a Statute—the Ministry of Defence Act, 1946—which defines his powers and duties in general terms. Broadly speaking, his responsibility is to apportion between the three Services the resources—in men, materials and money—which are made available for them all. And, on this apportionment and on all the questions which arise from it, he is directly accountable to Parliament in the same way as any Departmental Minister is responsible for matters within his jurisdiction. But it is the Service Ministers, and not the Minister of Defence, who are responsible to Parliament for the use which each of them makes of his share of those resources and for the administration of the Service under his charge.

Mr. C. R. Attlee

Is it not clear that the difficulty has arisen in the naming of certain Ministers as co-ordinators? As the Prime Minister has pointed out, the Minister of Defence is responsible for a definite sphere of defence, as are the Departmental Ministers who serve under him—

The Prime Minister

A statutory responsibility.

Mr. Attlee

A statutory responsibility —but hitherto the practice of co-ordination, whether through chairmen of committees, or senior Ministers, has always been one which has been kept within the Government circle and not announced in public. The right hon. Gentleman has announced in public that certain Ministers have co-ordinating powers, and that has led to the difficulty of deciding where the responsibilities of one end and those of another begin. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has made it in the least clear who actually makes decisions on policy on such matters as these where they are co-ordinated by other Ministers. Who takes a decision on the transport question?

The Prime Minister

On the general question, I gather that the Leader of the Opposition thinks that all these difficulties would have been smoothed away if, for instance, my noble Friend, Lord Leathers. had been appointed Minister without Portfolio?

Mr. Attlee

indicated assent.

The Prime Minister

That, I think, is a much less precise and clear-cut solution than that which I have ventured to place before the House. The other question was on responsibility for transport. I have described quite clearly that all administration of the Transport Department is, of course, under the Minister and he is the prime mover in suggestions of policy. But transport is a much bigger thing than one Department alone. It has become a matter for which the whole Cabinet are responsible, and I am extremely glad that at an early stage in this business I entrusted the general supervision, including initiative in many ways, of this complex matter to my noble Friend. Lord Leathers.

Mr. Attlee

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this attempt at over-precision is a source of the difficulty? if we attempt to be precise in laying down the exact responsibility in a Government where there is collective responsibility, we run into difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, excepting certain well-defined cases, such as defence, mention was never made as to what Minister presided over a Cabinet Committee, because Questions should be put to Departmental Ministers and not to senior Ministers, and we do not yet know what the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, does in respect of transport. No one can question him, and we cannot find out what he does; and so far as we can find out, decisions on transport are not taken by him nor by the Minister of Transport, nor by the Cabinet, but by the right hon. Gentleman.

The Prime Minister

If the gravamen of the charge against me is that I have not succeeded in hushing it all up as well as the right hon. Gentleman did, I can bear that with composure. I am of the opinion that one of the greatest things that lie before us at the present time is to try to effect a solution of our transport difficulties over the whole field of road and rail I thought that it would give it greater prominence in the public mind if it was assigned to the sphere of a Minister who had the powers of a Secretary of State, and the rank of a Secretary of State, and who was specifically associated with this effort which, I trust, will eventually be considered not of interest only to one party but to the country as a whole.

Mr. Arthur Henderson

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the indiscretion of the Lord President of the Council in another place indicates that he himself is not certain and clear as to his own duties, and would not all this difficulty have been avoided if the Prime Minister had followed the example set in 1936 when, I believe for the first time in this country, a Minister of Co-ordination was appointed, and when the Government of the day specified his duties in a White Paper which was published at the time of his appointment?

The Prime Minister

I hardly know how to accept guidance from the party opposite. The Leader of the Opposition was extolling the advantages of keeping it all vague and blurred, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is calling for a White Paper.

Mr. Henderson

As the Prime Minister is a very old Parliamentarian, we may, I hope, do what he has done himself in the past and ask him if he will not answer my question.

The Prime Minister

I thought I had answered it. I will not pursue the matter too far, or I might cause further differences on the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. George Thomas

I sympathise with the Prime Minister in the constant embarrassment which the speeches of the Lord President of the Council seem to cause him, but will he not say whether his statement this afternoon indicates that Departmental Ministers are not really the masters in their own house, and that the ultimate authority rests with the coordinating Ministers?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman has not, I believe, served in any Cabinet so far. [HON. MEMBERS: "He will."] I am glad that is already arranged. If he had, he would realise that no Departmental Minister is entitled to run his own Departmental policy, except in proper deference to and contact with the Cabinet as a whole.

Mr. James Callaghan

May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that. although we are not clear what coordinating Ministers are supposed to be answerable to Parliament for, we are at least grateful to him for saying that they are answerable to Parliament? May I ask him whether it is not an astonishing fact that the holder of an ancient office, Lord Woolton, should not be aware in this respect that he is answerable to Parliament, and if he so misunderstands his duties is that not another reason why he should resign?

The Prime Minister

I have the greatest confidence in Lord Woolton. [Interruption.] I am certainly not likely to throw him over because of the hue and cry started on the benches opposite.

Mr. Herbert Morrison

As the Prime Minister has indicated, the case of the late Mr. J. H. Thomas was publicly announced, and he was held responsible to Parliament in respect of the broad policy regarding unemployment. As in the case of Lord Woolton and Lord Leathers their duties were publicly announced, including the implication that they were not only co-ordinating Ministers but, certainly in the case of Lord Leathers and, I think, of Lord Woolton, supervising Ministers, will the Prime Minister clearly tell the House that, as these have been announced as was done in the case of Mr. Thomas, he rejects the statement made by the Lord President in another place to the effect that in this respect he, the noble Lord, was not accountable to Parliament? Will the Prime Minister definitely uphold the doctrine that once it is announced that Ministers are responsible for certain things, it follows that they must accept responsibility to Parliament?

The Prime Minister

I am quite sure that Lord Woolton fully accepts accountability to Parliament. If any misunderstanding arose, it was in no way a challenge to that broad principle which is understood by all. It was in connection. as it were, with technical differences which arose between the co-ordinating functions and the statutory functions of Ministers. There was no intention of any sort or kind of disclaiming full responsibility to the authority of Parliament.

Mr. I. Mikardo

Did the right hon. Gentleman read what Lord Woolton said?

The Prime Minister

I assure the House that that is so. We should not waste our time in plunging into the metaphysical refinements of the exact meaning of particular words in particular places. I am quite ready, as an old Parliamentary hand, to admit that there were some advantages in the hush-hush policy of the party opposite, and no one derives more benefit from it than the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), whose all-pervading influence on all sorts of matters was happily concealed from the public gaze.

Mr. Attlee

Does not the Prime Minister realise that what he calls the hush-hush policy of the Labour Government was precisely the policy followed by him when he was Prime Minister, by which exactly the same rules were laid down with regard to the chairmanship of the Committees and the responsibility of Ministers? It is not a new policy; it has always been the policy. May I ask him one other question? He said he had confidence in Lord Woolton. Was it as Lord President or as organiser of elections? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister

My confidence in Lord Woolton grew up in the days when the Leader of the Opposition and I watched with admiration his conduct of our food supplies during the whole of the war. He had, up till the end of the war, not taken any part in party politics. My confidence in him was not at all diminished when, confronted with the dismal scene which closed our victory, he chose to associate himself with the Conservative Party. [Interruption.]

Mr. Callaghan

May I ask the Prime Minister a question in relation to my second Question on the Order Paper? As he has described to us the functions of Lord Leathers and the important nature of the duties which he carries out, will he tell us what is the difference between them and the very minor role which Lord Woolton says he plays in co-ordinating food and agriculture?

Mr. Cyril Osborne

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you appeal for silence so that we can hear the answers?

Mr. Speaker

I have appealed for silence.

The Prime Minister

Will the hon. Gentleman give me his question again?

Mr. Callaghan

My question is this, if I may repeat it for the Prime Minister: he has described to us that Lord Leathers exercises very important functions, but Lord Woolton says that his duties, on the other hand, are of a very minor character. May I ask how the Government reconcile those two things, and may I further ask the Prime Minister—

The Prime Minister

Try one at a time.

Mr. Callaghan

The last is a rhetorical question and will not need an answer.

The Prime Minister

There is no difference in principle between the duties exercised by Lord Leathers and the duties exercised by Lord Woolton, but it is a fact that the amount of work and business which has to be contemplated and advised upon and formulated by the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power covers far wider and more immediately controversial fields than the general adjustments of the relations between food and agriculture, which certainly ought to be the study of someone who is looking at both; and no one could be better chosen than Lord Woolton.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

If the House wishes to pursue this interesting topic, I think hon. Members must arrange another opportunity.

Mr. Ellis Smith

On a point of order. My point of order is based upon Mr. Speaker's duties. Am I correct in understanding that the duties of Mr. Speaker are to protect private Members against changes which may be introduced by the Government or by another place? If so, I want to ask Mr. Speaker whether he does not agree that there is a very dangerous tendency in these developments which are taking place? Will he remember that this is the people's elected Chamber and that the other place is a non-elected Chamber? Has Mr. Speaker taken note of the very serious statements made by the noble Lord in another place, and, if so, does he not feel that they conflict with Mr. Speaker's duties of protecting private Members in this House? Has Mr. Speaker considered this very serious development with regard to its effects upon the people's elected Chamber?

Mr. Speaker

I have thought of all that, and I have not in the least presumed to say that the House should not discuss this matter. All I have done is to say that if a debate is desired on this subject, it would be more convenient and in the best interests of the House if a proper time were arranged for it and if it were not conducted by supplementary questions and answers.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Mr. Speaker knows that I have the greatest respect for him, but we also have certain rights, and I am using one of those rights now. Further to my point of order, may I ask that, if it is arranged that a debate should take place on this subject, Mr. Speaker will be good enough to consider the implications from the point of view of the elected representatives in this House?

Mr. Speaker

I shall take into consideration, as far as I can, all things that are proper for me.