§ 48. Mr. Jayasked the Prime Minister whether, in the interests of public economy, he will now terminate the system of co-ordinating Ministers.
§ The Prime MinisterThe practice of assigning co-ordinating functions to Ministers without Departmental duties has been found by practical experience over many years, in peace and war, to be a valuable aid to the efficient conduct of 650 Government business. I see no reason to exclude such arrangements from our system of Government.
§ Mr. JayAs this system of overlords in the Upper House is an acknowledged failure, will the Prime Minister not restore the more normal arrangement by which responsible Ministers are accountable to the House of Commons?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not admitting the highly controversial assertion with which the right hon. Gentleman began his supplementary question. It is quite true that when the Government was formed I presented in a formal aspect the co-ordination of certain Departments by Ministers, having in mind the great advantages which had resulted from that system in time of war. But the late Prime Minister, in a moment of exceptional candour, suggested to me that I could have achieved all these results without any publicity by the mere ordinary process of particular Ministers in the Cabinet being made the heads of Cabinet Committees. Of course, everyone can form their own opinions on whether that method of concealment was preferable to the more definite one which I adopted.
§ Mr. ShinwellCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the regrettable absence of Lord Woolton due to ill health, there has been any lack of coordination between the Departments for which he assumed responsibility as co-ordinating Minister?
§ The Prime MinisterNo. As it turned out, there was not the same need for the control of food and agriculture as there was in the war. In practice, the two Ministers have agreed so completely and easily with one another, and have worked together with such loyalty and co-operation, that everything has gone quite smoothly. Though Lord Woolton's absence is regretted very much, I am bound to say that I am not prepared to admit that the public service has suffered in any way, because of the good relations prevailing between these Ministers.
§ Mr. ShinwellDoes not it follow from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that now that Lord Woolton has recovered there is no reason why he should continue as a co-ordinating Minister?
§ The Prime MinisterI think I fall back on the line of defence adopted by the late Prime Minister, that some Member of the Cabinet should deal with any differences that may arise between these two Departments, and that is the process which we are following now.
§ Mr. AttleeDoes not this show that the practice that was followed not only by the Labour Government but by previous Governments—of keeping these matters informal between Members of the Government—is better than an announcement to the public by the right hon. Gentleman of the appointment of co-ordinating Ministers, the only effect of which has been to blur the responsibility of Ministers to this House?
§ The Prime MinisterI am always ready to accept the general support of leading Members of the party opposite, and also to take advantage of any good acts I might have learned that they have committed.
§ Mr. JayIs not the Prime Minister aware that in previous Governments the co-ordinating Ministers were at least in the House of Commons?
§ The Prime MinisterThat has not always been the case. In the late Government several Ministers who presided over groups of Departments were, I believe, in the House of Lords, but as this was not announced or made public the opportunities of drawing sharp and controversial distinctions between the two Houses did not present themselves.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonCan we take it that the doctrine of supervising Ministers as distinct from co-ordinating Ministers—as announced in the Press at the time when the Government was formed—has now been abandoned?
§ The Prime MinisterNo. I think that would be going too far. But I think it may be admitted that the need which I found so very important in time of war has not presented itself in the same precise form now that we are at peace.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanSince it has been made clear that it is the intention of the Government to abolish the Ministry of Food, can the right hon. Gentleman say what is left for Lord Woolton to coordinate, and can he say how many other Ministries the Government propose to co-ordinate in the same way?
§ The Prime MinisterWhen we reach the point where the Food Ministry is no longer necessary, the whole aspect of the relations of the Food Ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture will deserve reconsideration. I await that moment.
§ Mr. ShinwellWill the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House what Lord Woolton is now doing?
§ The Prime MinisterI am very thankful that he has recovered from an ordeal which might well have exhausted the fortitude of any man of his age. He is now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a post which does not involve any immediate severe daily duties—as I can testify because I have occupied it myself—but which nevertheless enables the Minister concerned to be specially available over the whole field of Cabinet business and in any groupings and committees that may be required.