HC Deb 13 May 1952 vol 500 cc1110-3
49. Mr. Arthur Henderson

asked the Prime Minister whether he will specify the matters on which the Secretary of State for Co-ordination of Transport and Fuel and Power may take the initiative; and how far the Ministers of Transport and Fuel and Power must defer to such initiative.

The Prime Minister

Neither I nor anyone else can specify in advance what matters may assume from time to time such importance as to engage the collective responsibility of the Government. The second part of the Question was fully answered in the statement which I made on 6th May.

Mr. Henderson

Are not the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fuel and Power subordinate to the Secretary of State for the co-ordination of their Departments?

The Prime Minister

Certainly they occupy lower ranks in the hierarchy of the Government and are not members of the Cabinet, but they have their duties and their functions and their responsibilities to Parliament. Remembering the unfortunate intervention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman last time we discussed these matters—

Mr. Henderson

Not at all.

The Prime Minister

—and how painfully he stultified the Leader of the Opposition, I think the warning nod he got then was quite called for. The second part of the Question was very fully answered, and I really do not think it is possible to lay down detailed rules for all the conversations which may take place between Ministers, and for the exact share of responsibility for any particular act or decision which they have to make. They settle it among themselves, and Parliament is the judge of the results.

Mr. Henderson

Is the Prime Minister aware that he is quite wrong when he suggests that there was a difference of viewpoint between myself and the Leader of the Opposition? The Leader of the Opposition was asking the Prime Minister about the unwisdom of making a statement with regard to the co-ordinating powers of Ministers without having portfolios. My question was directed to the appointment of Ministers with specific responsibilities—of a co-ordinating Secretary of State for co-ordinating those Departments. Is it not entirely without precedent in the history of this country that a Secretary of State should be appointed without having any powers of direction in respect of matters under the control of his Department?

The Prime Minister

Having known the right hon. and learned Gentleman's father in the old days, I am very glad to learn that he has got out of his difficulty all right.

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Henderson

Will not the Prime Minister answer the second part of my Question? Is there any precedent in the history of this country for the appointment of a Secretary of State without any powers of direction in respect of matters coming within the purview of his Department?

The Prime Minister

These are, as I said, almost metaphysical questions: the refinements are very great. However, if there is a difference between the Minister responsible for the Department and the supervising Minister in the Cabinet, who has a group of Departments, that matter is, naturally, settled in the Cabinet, by a decision of the Cabinet.

Mr. Herbert Morrison

Are we now to take it quite definitely that the Departmental Minister is subordinate to the supervising Minister? I gather that that is so, from what the Prime Minister has said. But will he be explicit—that the Departmental Minister, for the first time, as far as I remember, is subordinate to the supervising Minister, and that, therefore, he cannot be responsible for his Department to Parliament?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman is trying to darken counsel.

Mr. Morrison

No.

The Prime Minister

Yes, he is. He knows perfectly well from when he sat in the War Cabinet that he and the members of the War Cabinet had all kinds of overriding powers over Ministers holding great Departments, and no difficulty of a serious character occurred, as all were able to state their case, and the matters were finally decided by the Cabinet as a whole.

Captain Richard Pilkington

On a point of order. In view of the fact that the Questions to the Prime Minister once again have not been completed, would it not be advantageous if they could be taken at from No. 40 instead of No. 45?

The Prime Minister

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not give a final ruling on that point without mature consideration.

Mr. Speaker

I can assure the House that I have no intention of giving a Ruling on the point without mature consideration. I call the attention of the House now to the hour. It is after 3.30.