HC Deb 19 March 1963 vol 674 cc311-28

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

I wish to offer a few comments on this Supplementary Estimate. The total amount involved is £175,000, of which £11,000 is for the Office of the First Secretary of State, Salaries, etc. It is true that lower down, on page 13, there is a saving of £8,000 on a new telephone installation that is not now required until 1963–64. Nevertheless, the charge upon the Exchequer of £11,000 to the Office of Chief Secretary of State and his staff is worth a little time of the Committee.

To get this new post—an innovation in Ministerial office—into proper perspective, it is necessary to go back to the dramatic event that occurred last July, when one-third of the Cabinet was sacked and there was an exchange of asperities between the Prime Minister and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the day before the famous Black Friday-13th July, 1962 —the Conservative candidate at the Leicester, North-East by-election had dropped 24 per cent. of the Tory vote compared with 1959. In three by-elections in the previous month of June the Conservative vote had fallen by 21 per cent. in Middlesbrough, West; 25 per cent. in Derbyshire, West, and 28.3 per cent. in West Lothian. The Prime Minister resolved upon drastic measures to reinstate the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary of State was one of the few survivors of the "purge" of Friday, 13th July. Far from going out, the First Secretary of State went up. Since the Cabinet changes of October, 1961, the right hon. Gentleman has been, one, unofficial Deputy Prime Minister; two, Home Secretary; three, Minister for Central African Affairs; four, Chairman of the Cabinet Committe on Common Market negotiations. In July last he left the Home Office and took on a more official description as Deputy Prime Minister. Though having no constitutional style, this Office was used to describe the situation in which the right hon. Gentleman was to relieve the Prime Minister of many of his responsibilities for home and overseas affairs. His constitutional style was, First Secretary of State.

I think that the Committee should know whether this means that he is first among equals or principal of all the principal Secretaries of State. This constitutional innovation is worth a few moments of explanation to the Committee and we shall be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will give it in person. We see so little of him these days that the Committee is looking forward to hearing the most engaging chortle on the Treasury Bench. To avoid any suggestion—

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)

rose—

Mr. Houghton

No, I am right in the middle of my discourse, and it will admit of no interruption at this stage. It is too good to miss.

To avoid any suggestion that this Office was created under Parkinson's Law, the additional Secretary of State, or so it seems, is the consequence of merging the Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs. The additional post was paid for, so it seems, out of savings. Now, what does the First Secretary of State do? As Home Secretary, he had some body and substance to his Ministerial existence. With other responsibilities on top, the right hon. Gentleman had the appearance, on paper, of being a hard-worked, if not overworked, Minister. He now seems to have only one task which offers any challenge to his considerable gifts. I do not underestimate the gravity or the complexity of the problems with which he is now dealing. The Times newspaper, almost on the anniversary of his appointment to be in charge of Central African affairs, has delivered a little homily to the right hon. Gentleman only this morning. It suggests that he will have to get tough.

Up to the present the name of the right hon. Gentleman has been associated with the Education Act of 1944, and the tax on pots and pans in 1955. I think that the name of the right hon. Gentleman would go down in history if he could present to the House of Commons, in due course, a triumph over the bewildering and exacting complexities of Central African affairs. But at least I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the general supervision of the Common Market negotiations—while doubtless a strain while it lasted—is scarcely occupying his time now. There is nothing more to supervise, and all his uplifting words at the Conservative Party Conference at Llandudno are floating in the mists over the Welsh hills.

In fact he seems to be looking for outside work. I noticed in the Guardian of 11th March that: Mr. R. A. Butler, the Deputy Prime Minister and M.P. for Saffron Walden, may be the next High Steward of Cambridge. Not even Essex. The city council will be asked at its next meeting to approve a recommendation by its general purposes committee that he should be given the post. Why does the right hon. Gentleman want to be High Steward of Cambridge? Is it not enough to be Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State? Why does he want to go scratching round for a High Stewardship when he occupies the most exalted position of First Secretary of State? When the right hon. Gentleman was appointed, the Guardian, which is now a little left of the Daily Herald, was rather scornful, and said To have a new First Secretary of State is all very well—to have had a new First Lord of the Treasury would have been better. Of course it would. The electoral consequences of not having a new First Lord of the Treasury have meant that the Conservative vote in subsequent by-elections dropped lower than ever before and that probably it will drop catastrophically further.

Mention of the First Lord of the Treasury brings to mind another innovation of the Government, that of the Chief Secretary. We find a most imposing list of Treasury Ministers. There is the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, No. 1, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary—asterisk, blank—the Chief Secretary is also Paymaster-General and his salary as such is paid under Subhead O, the Lords Commissioners, 5, the Parliamentary Secretary, the Financial Secretary, the Economic Secretary, Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, the Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard—

The Temporary Chairman (Commander C. E. M. Donaldson)

I hesitate —it is my natural inclination to hesitate —to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is going well outside the Vote before the Committee. I hope that he will come back to that Vote.

Mr. Houghton

Yes, Sir. I am coming right to it if you will bear with me for a moment, because when I have completed the list of Treasury Ministers I am going to ask why the right hon. Gentleman is not one of them. We have the Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard, the Lords in Waiting, the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household—

The Temporary Chairman

I must ask the hon. Member to desist. We are concerned with a Vote which specifies the people who are included and not with those who are not included in the Vote. I must ask the hon. Member not to carry the argument further at this point.

Mr. Houghton

I am very much obliged to you, Commander Donaldson. I was just about to observe that there is plenty of room at the top. I notice that while the First Secretary of State is charged to the Treasury Vote he is not listed as a Treasury Minister. That is the point I was trying to make. He is carried on the strength like the Lord Privy Seal. One would have expected that the First Secretary of State, carried on the Treasury Vote, would at least be among the number of Treasury Ministers. Alternatively, one would expect that as the only visible job which the right hon. Gentleman now has is Minister in charge of Central African Affairs he would be charged to the Central African Office, but he is not even found there.

The Supplementary Estimate is for £11,000. For all we can tell it might be dear at the price. This is the only opportunity we have of discussing for a short time this new appointment because the proliferation of Ministers requires no statutory authority. One often wonders what any Minister is doing as Deputy Prime Minister when he is never spoken of as a future Prime Minister. One also wonders what any Minister is doing as First Secretary of State when he is now mostly, if not exclusively, the Secretary of State for Central African Affairs. This Supplementary Estimate is for our Ministerial Pooh-Bah and his staff, a staff of two. We might also say "two men and a dog", but only the two men are in the Supplementary Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman has veritably the smallest Department in the public service today.

There are rumours going round of changes in Ministerial offices since the Lord Privy Seal is himself looking for other fields to conquer. It may be that before we have scarcely passed this Supplementary Estimate the right hon. Gentleman will have been put into some new responsible office of Government.

There are a few serious points in this light-hearted approach to the right hon. Gentleman's office. The Committee would be glad to hear from the right hon. Gen- tleman a first-hand, personal account of his present activities. I am sure that it will be most impressive, and when the hour of 9.30 strikes I have no doubt at all that the Committee will be willing to approve this modest sum of £11,000 for one of Her Majesty's most distinguished Ministers.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett (Torquay)

I am unable this evening to follow the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in his light-hearted and admittedly fascinating discourse. It is appropriate at this stage to say something on a more serious note about what must be one of the most difficult tasks any Minister has to face. I hope the hon. Member for Sowerby will agree that, whatever party was in power and whatever the personality of the person occupying the office under discussion tonight, the incumbent of that office would have some of the gravest possible problems to deal with in Central Africa.

Looking back to the situation which existed before my right hon. Friend was appointed to his present position, we all recall that things were then certainly in a much more confused State in Central Africa, since in addition to the difficulties, there was a lack of co-ordination—this must be admitted—in our dealings in Central Africa. The Colonial Office was responsible for the Dependent Territories. The proper function of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations was to look after the interests, so far as that was compatible with his duty to the House of Commons and to the country, of independent or semi-independent Southern Rhodesia. It was widely felt out there—none of us knows with what truth or otherwise —that because of this—I will not say "conflict of interests", but difference of interests—Central African affairs were not being adequately dealt with. There was a degree of mistrust and misunderstanding in Central Africa which obviously Her Majesty's Government felt it was right to dispel.

In these circumstances, the only possibility was to appoint a senior Minister with sole responsibility for the whole area. It was suggested by some at the time that it should be handed over either to the Secretary of State for the Colonies or to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. If the responsibility had been handed over to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, those who had previously been looked after by the Commonwealth Relations Office would have been indignant. If the responsibility had been handed over to the Commonwealth Relations Office, those who had previously been looked after by the Colonial Office would have been indignant. Therefore, my right hon. Friend was appointed to what must have been, and still must be, one of the most difficult tasks he has ever had to undertake or ever will have to undertake.

It is true—I speak as one who visited the Territories many times before my right hon. Friend took on his present onerous duties, and I have visited them since—that, even though there may be considerable disagreement, and there is likely to be still more disagreement, in all circles with the steps we are compelled to take during the next few months, nevertheless there is now a very considerable degree of personal confidence and trust in my right hon. Friend. This applies both to the Africans and to the Europeans Living in the area. Even those Europeans in Southern Rhodesia and in the area of the Federal Government most hostile to our handling of Central African affairs during the last few months invariably concede the complete integrity of purpose of my right hon. Friend.

Therefore, if we are dealing purely in financial terms, as the hon. Member for Sowerby was, I cannot see any sign, looking through these Estimates, of money better spent than the £11,000 which has brought about some reduction of tension in Central Africa. In saying all this I am not pretending for one moment that all is well out there or that difficult tasks do not lie ahead. Nyasaland has already had agreement to secede from this country and at least two of the other territorial Governments have concurred, although it is fair to admit that Sir Roy Welensky and his Federal Government have accepted it with only a sort of de facto reluctance.

My right hon. Friend now has ahead of him the much more difficult task of what to do about the two Rhodesias. Any hon. Member who knows this part of the world would readily admit that it would be a terrible tragedy economically and politically and to harmonious race relations if some form of association, the stronger the better, did not remain between the two Rhodesias. Nevertheless, one must admit that the prospects do not look too good at the moment because as the months unfold their somewhat unhappy story it is seen that none of the Governments concerned—let alone the populations; and it is anyone's guess what they think—are keen on the continuance of Federation, at least in its present form. Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government must now face that situation.

It is no good abusing my right hon. Friend or the British Government on this issue because the Governments there were freely elected, the most recent one being in Southern Rhodesia. Thus, within the limits of what my right hon. Friend can still accomplish, I suggest that he should, as far as possible, concentrate in the first place on maintaining the economic links because in this direction there should be common ground, irrespective of anything else. When one has two territories, one of which has built up largely the production of raw materials and the other the production of secondary industries—with, therefore, a natural complementary market between the two—it would be a tragedy if unnecessary walls were erected between them.

Politically one is undoubtedly less sanguine, if only because the Governments there do not seem politically keen on having political links between the two territories, although it is fair to say that Mr. Winston Field has not ruled this out. One must admit that the difficulties are intense and that they will not grow easier as the tensions there grow because of events in both Northern and Southern Rhodesia.

If we are to achieve any kind of political solution it will have to be—that is, if there is to be any kind of central Government—a solution in which the decisions of that Government are not in themselves binding without the consent of the Governments of the two territories concerned, particularly on any issues of importance. There are examples in history—I will not list them, for many other hon. Members wish to speak—in which Federal Governments have built themselves up on the basis of the consent of the component parts on major issues. I suggest, therefore, that my right hon. Friend might follow this suggestion up at the forthcoming conference. I hope that despite the disagreements we have had—and, I suppose, are bound to have—with Sir Roy Welensky, none of us will forget the enormous service he has rendered to both the Commonwealth and his own country.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

On a point of order. Does the salary of Sir Roy Welensky enter into this matter and the Vote before us?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir R. Grimston)

The salary of Sir Roy Welensky is not on the Vote. I hope that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) is making only a passing reference to the matter.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn (Carlton)

Further to that point of order. How far is it in order, in discussing the sum of money in this Vote, to discuss how much of the activities of the First Secretary is directed to Africa?

The Deputy-Chairman

It is now part of the responsibilities of the First Secretary.

Sir K. Pickthom

Not as First Secretary.

Mr. Loughlin

Further to that point of order. Do I take it that we can now have a general debate on Rhodesia arising out of this Supplementary Estimate? I must submit that the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) has dealt with Rhodesian problems.

Mr. Deputy-Chairman

The responsibilities of the First Secretary are chiefly concerned with Central Africa now and I think that it is proper to discuss that matter, although I hope that the hon. Member for Torquay will not go too far.

Mr. Bennett

Thank you for your Ruling, Sir Robert. The reference to Sir Roy Welensky that gave rise to those points of order was only a passing reference, but I submit that it is within the purview of my right hon. Friend's duties to make the best settlement he can in Central Africa. I therefore think that I am entitled to suggest various methods by which he can best justify the salary we are voting him tonight. One of the ways in which he can best justify that salary is to provide a settlement that will take account of the very Teal need for the services of one of the most prominent statesmen in that part of the world to continue to be available in the future.

When too the time comes for my right hon. Friend to deal with the conference within the purview of his duties as First Secretary, responsible for Central African affairs, I hope that he will realise that many of us think that in coming to a solution he must pay very great attention, not only to the needs and demands of Northern Rhodesia but to the parallel needs for the advancement of Southern Rhodesia towards independence.

9.11 p.m.

The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler)

If I intervene for a few minutes in response to the good-humoured introduction of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) I hope that I may still leave time for others to take part in the debate. I have very little to say, but I hope that what I have to say will be of good humour equal to that of the hon. Gentleman.

It seems to me quite natural that the House should wish some account of what appears to be a new office. To the first point made by the hon. Member for Sowerby I would reply by saying that, in fact, there have been in British history—as he will see by reference to the pages of Anson—previous examples of the title of Principal Secretary or First Secretary being used. The first occasion was in 1476, when the title of First Secretary was used, largely to distinguish its holder from the amanuenses who accompanied the King, or the scullions who served in his kitchen.

The further history of the office, which I shall put very shortly so as not to take up too much of the Committee's time, continues in the time of Elizabeth I. During the greater part of that reign, there was only one Secretary, but at its close there were two, and the Principal Secretary, Sir Robert Cecil, who shared the duties with another Secretary, was known in those days as "Our Principal Secretary of Estate". There have been occasions when there has been a title similar to this—

Sir K. Pickthorn

Will my right hon, Friend permit me—

Mr. Butler

Yes, I was just coming to my hon. Friend's point.

Sir K. Pickthorn

Is my right hon. Friend doubting that the office of the Secretary of State was always in Elizabeth's time, and ever since has been, the same office in the hands of each Secretary of State, and is he telling us that in the title "First Secretary of State" the word "First" is imported merely to underline "Principal", and not to distinguish one Principal Secretary from another? Which is it?

Mr. Butler

I had in my notes "H.M. for Carlton," and having heard him growling behind me I had inserted in my speech the passage from Anson which makes perfectly clear, in answer to my hon. Friend, who is probably the greatest constitutional lawyer in the House, that Secretaries of State are, in fact, equal. Whatever may be the title—"First Secretary" or "Principal Secretary," or anything else—the duties are, under the constitution, interchangeable, and can be performed by one Secretary in the absence of another, as is frequently the case. For example, I performed certain duties for another Secretary of State who was recently abroad because I was entitled as much as he was to use the title of Secretary of State in signing documents. So I hope that I have calmed my hon. Friend—

Sir K. Pickthorn

Not a bit.

Mr. Butler

—by telling him that Secretaries of State are equal and coequal before the law.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) referred to the principal duties that I am performing at the present time and, without detaining the Committee for too long, I would simply reply that these duties are, I think, some of the most onerous, at any rate, that I myself have carried out in the course of over 30 years in this House. They are depicted today, as the hon. Member for Sowerby has said, in a leading article in The Times, which I do not think under-estimates the difficulties which I, Her Majesty's Government, the country, and the peoples of Central Africa face at the present time.

It is quite natural that in the debates that have previously taken place in this House and in the Committee I have explained the difficulties, particularly on 28th February last, when I went into all the problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay drew special attention to the problems of Northern and Southern Rhodesia. On Thursday of this week, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, accompanied by his Minister of Justice, arrives in this country for talks. He is followed by eight representatives of the Northern Rhodesian Government on Monday, and by the Federal Prime Minister and two of his Ministers in the next day or two after that. I shall, therefore, be involved in particularly important negotiations with a view to finding a basis for a conference.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay also drew attention to the importance of a link between the two Rhodesias. It is quite clear that the two Rhodesias have depended upon one another in the past, and it is equally clear that Her Majesty's Government desire to find the most adequate and suitable basis for the conference and the most adequate and suitable basis for association between these Territories.

My hon. Friend referred to Nyasaland. The secession exercise in Nyasaland is proceeding under a British chairman, Sir George Curtis, appointed for the working party with which the Federal Government and the Nyasaland Government are at present co-operating. I can, therefore, report that this aspect of my duties is well in hand and likely to become even more intense in the course of the next few days. I shall also take the opportunity of meeting Mr. Nkomo, who has arrived in London for the purpose also of seeing me and I shall have an opportunity of interviewing him.

The Central African portion of my duties, although taking up a considerable portion of my time, is, I think, in operation and I have nothing further to add to the Committee tonight.

I have nevertheless other duties to perform. The hon. Member for Sowerby referred to the Common Market. But I think that it would be rather naive of the Committee if it imagined that just because we had not gone into Europe there are less duties to perform in what can be described as the post-Brussels epoch. I should like to say that it is not in order or usual for an announcement to be made about the chairmen of Government Committees and so I am not going to transcend those rules of constitutional behaviour which we understand in this Committee. But I can say that I deputise for the Prime Minister in relation to the great quantity of work which has very much come upon us since the Brussels decision was taken. That adds considerably to the duties that I have undertaken in relation to Central Africa. There are many other duties which, in deputising for the Prime Minister, I perform in the Government, and I should like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in a Government of whatever complexion it is rather useful to have Ministers without Portfolio who can perform duties within that Government of correlation, co-ordination and chairmanship of committees.

I tried doing this as Home Secretary and I have had considerable experience as a Minister, which I can share with the Committee. I found that it was not altogether to the advantage of a coordinating Minister to have a great Department of State. A great Department of State takes up a great deal of one's time; it must of necessity do so. My experience is that, together with my duties in Central Africa, I can do better coordination in the present Conservative Government, placed as I am as First Secretary of State, than I could in charge of a great Department of State. This is a highly-controversial matter which is set out in full in Ivor Jennings' book on the constitution and which I could quote to the Committee if it so desires. But my own experience is, I think, of value in saying that this co-ordination work can best be done by an independent Secretary of State with powers to co-ordinate and to look after things as best he can as deputy for the Prime Minister. This is the best answer that I can give to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that it satisfies him that my modest salary and my one or two officials are well worth the money spent on them.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson (Penistone)

I think that with regard to the part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which dealt with his duties in Central Africa, one could say, probably with the support of all hon. Members of the Committee, that it is to be hoped that the work which he is carrying on on behalf of Her Majesty's Government will lead to the satisfaction of the aspirations of the African majority and to a situation in which the Europeans can live peaceably together with their other fellow countrymen out there. I am sure that we all wish the right hon. Gentleman well in that work.

I should like to spend the remaining few minutes, however, in asking a few more questions concerning his constitutional position in the Cabinet. I rather regret, from that point of view, that I was unable to speak before he addressed the Committee, but as the right hon. Gentleman said in his concluding remarks that this is a subject which exercises many minds, this might not be the last occasion on which it can be discussed. We may have future occasions on which the right hon. Gentleman might be able to speak again about his own position.

There are still problems left in the minds of many of my hon. Friends after listening to the right hon. Gentleman. First, there is the position of Deputy Prime Minister. It is certainly not clear to me whether or not we are in the midst of a new convention which is growing up. I was not clear after listening to the right hon. Gentleman whether he was performing the duties of Deputy Prime Minister only when the Prime Minister was out of the country or when he was otherwise unable to perform his duties. I was not clear whether we are not witnessing the growth of a new convention, and it would be interesting and important from the point of view of constitutional development if it were possible for hon. Members to know a little more about this.

It is well known to all students of constitutional history that when Sir Robert Walpole was in office, the office of Prime Minister was growing up without many people being aware of the fact. It may well be that on this occasion we are seeing certain changes coming about without our knowing very much about them. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he is purely performing the formal functions of Deputy Prime Minister, or is he as First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister in a position of influence and constitutional power within the Cabinet which makes him different from any other Secretary of State? I have sympathy with the question put by the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) who was obviously interested in this point.

There is another important question which arises from what the right hon. Gentleman has told us. He said that it was important to have a Minister who had no major Department to administer and therefore was in a better position to run Government Committees and to have a general supervisory function. The question that arises is whether the right hon. Gentleman is telling the Committee that there are certain functions of Government which he supervises beyond the tasks concerning Central Africa which he mentioned. If so, what are those functions?

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has said that it is not customary under our constitutional conventions to name the committees over which he might preside, but it is important that we should know where the right hon. Gentleman is exercising his influence and where he might be responsible for policy-making. It is not good enough to say that he ought not to announce the names of the committees over which he presides. There should be clear evidence of responsibility at the Dispatch Box and in this Chamber. This was the consideration behind the good-natured argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).

There is a serious point in all this. It is important to know, and it is not easy with the present Government to put responsibility where it belongs, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has improved matters by what he has told us tonight. It is important that we should be able to tell the electorate and that hon. Members should know that such-and-such a Minister is responsible for this or that function and that if things go wrong he should stand up and answer and defend his policies. If the right hon. Gentleman is carrying responsibilities which have not been revealed to the House of Commons, we are entitled to know what they are.

My next point concerns the justification which the right hon. Gentleman has given us for his salary. It is clear that he can justify the salary and that one is not particularly concerned about the modest sum involved, but one must be concerned about the kind of responsibilities which he carries in relation to the Treasury and other Departments.

The right hon. Gentleman said that not being concerned with a major Department leaves him more free time, and he referred to himself as—I do not know whether he meant to say this or whether it was a slip of the tongue—an "independent First Secretary of State". That leaves me in more doubt about the constitutional position than before. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he refers to himself as an independent First Secretary of State? Of whom is he independent? Is he in a position in relation to the Prime Minister different from that of other Secretaries of State? Is he in a position which makes his power and influence in the Cabinet different and independent from other members of the Government? All these questions have remained unanswered tonight, and the Committee is entitled, before agreeing to this Vote, to have a clear explanation of what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

This is not the occasion on which to go into the wider implications of the position which has arisen, hut it is well known that in the recent changes and in the changes introduced in the Treasury there has been a blurring of responsibility. It is bad for democratic Government that this should occur. This is the first occasion on which we have made some inquiries into this matter. We promise the right hon. Gentleman that we shall return to this subject, and he should have some more detailed answers ready when we do so.

9.26 p.m.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn (Carlton)

I deeply regret being tiresome on this occasion, and I regret even more deeply agreeing, to a very large extent, with the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). I have never been reconciled to the notion of Deputy Prime Ministers. However much mistaken I may be about that, we are tonight confronted with a series of questions and no time in which to get an answer to them. One question is this: does my right hon. Friend base his defence on the argument that "first" and "principal" are, to all intents and purposes, identical words, which seemed to be half his case, or on the contrary principle that "first" distinguishes one principal Secretary of State from the others? We should know which is the argument.

We should also know how a Secretary of State, of all animals, can be without a portfolio. It is possible to have cows without horns and all sorts of other animals many of which I would not wish to mention, without what are generally assumed to be their characteristic marks, but how one can have a Secretary of State without a portfolio completely defeats me.

Another question which I should wish to have answered on some other occasion is this. Was all the stuff which we have had about Rhodesia and Africa in order? I say that with no intention of criticising the Chair. It may be true—no doubt it is—that my right hon. Friend is, by direction of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, in charge of certain subjects which are not parts of what we would call a portfolio. But all that is alterable at a moment's notice at any time. I am not arguing the contrary, I am honestly asking for information: was it in order, on this Vote for the first Secretary of State, to discuss the administration or policy in Rhodesia or Africa or generally?

Obviously, when discussing the Secretary of State for War, the War Office is more directly relevant than any other office, although one Secretary of State can do the work of any other. But I simply do not understand how that principle either applies or does not apply to the case before us, and I am not convinced that most of our time has not been spent on what, strictly speaking, was not relevant to this Vote. If the Vote is to be put down again in successive years, it is very important that it should be made clear by Her Majesty's advisers, first to themselves and afterwards to those who have intellects which can communicate with theirs, what are the answers to these questions. I am sure that the answers have not been plain in the mind of my right hon. Friend or in the minds of any of us who have spoken this evening.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

May I ask my right hon. Friend one question? Since he has stated what appears to me to be the common constitutional doctrine that there is really one—

The Deputy-Chairman

Order, order.

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

On a point of order, Sir Robert—

The Deputy-Chairman

I cannot hear a point of order now. Under the Standing Order, I have to put the Question. I will hear the hon. Member when I have disposed of the Votes.

It being half-past Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £175,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments and of the First Secretary of State, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister without Portfolio.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts outstanding in such Estimates for the Navy and the Army Services for the coming financial year as have been put down on at least one previous day for consideration on an allotted day, and the total amounts of all outstanding Estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as have been presented seven clear days and of all outstanding Excess Votes be granted for the Services defined in those Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Statements of Excess.