HL Deb 08 August 1917 vol 26 cc238-58

[SECOND READING.]

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

VISCOUNT SANDHURST

My Lords, according to the arrangement which your Lordships will remember was made yesterday afternoon, it is now my duty to ask you to give a Second Reading to the New Ministries Bill. It is a Bill, as your Lordships will see by Clause 1, for the establishment of a Ministry of Reconstruction to promote the work of organisation and development after the close of the war; and Clause 2 says that— It shall be the duty of the Minister of Reconstruction to consider and advise upon the problems which may arise after the termination of the present war. This Bill is one of the results of the state in which we find ourselves. At the termination of the war, after the universal upheaval and dislocation of the previous system, it will be readily understood that many new questions and intricate problems must arise which, perhaps, if not as vital as many questions which have arisen during the war, will at any rate be almost as vital, and will be of the greatest possible importance in every direction of our national life. In every phase of thought—political, social, economic, industrial, and administrative—questions of the greatest complexity will arise. I therefore submit with great respect that it is our duty to begin betimes to prepare for peace.

The late Government, recognising this, set up a Reconstruction Committee, from which sprang a number of sub-committees and consultative bodies. Considerable progress was made, and much preliminary work was accomplished by various Departments. Over the extensive ground and the long list of subjects I think your Lordships will forgive me for not entering. New Departments, as your Lordships know, have been added to existing Departments. The latter have widened out and developed into various ramifications, which indeed have become Departments in themselves; and in the opinion of His Majesty's Government it is necessary that there should be a coordinating power which shall be able to draw together the various Departments, primarily to collect their views and harmonise and combine the advice of the many, aiding in the solution of these various problems.

As a first step the Reconstruction Committee set up by the late Government was reconstituted. The Prime Minister became its chairman, and the gentleman who is now Secretary of State for India, Mr. Montagu, was the vice-chairman. A great deal of extremely useful work was done, but in the opinion of the Government the power to co-ordinate must be made still more real. There would appear to be two points specially to be aimed at—(1) restoration of normal conditions in commerce and industry, and trade development in the light of experience gained by the war; and (2) restoration of the normal life of persons affected by war conditions, and improvements-in conditions affecting them, which again have largely been suggested by war experience. Both these points or heads not only suggest but demand limitless consideration and endeavour.

As an example, I will enumerate a few of the subjects on which a variety of Committees have worked. The Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policy, which was presided over with his usual patience and efficiency by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has, I believe, already issued a very valuable Report. Then there are the subjects of Army demobilisation, of munition factories, with their wealth of machinery, of enemy aliens, of coal conservation, of the employment of women, of forestry, of employers and employed, and so on. I mention these merely to show the extreme range of subjects, and it is obvious, I think, that a number of Departments must be concerned in the solution of each of these questions. To meet this mass of problems, to render effective the work of the various Committees, to make really helpful the experience and knowledge of Departments, to draw together the results of all this labour, and, in short, to bring about effective co-ordination, is the subject of this Bill.

The new Minister will, of course, be responsible to Parliament. His functions will not to any substantial extent be executive. His Department will be mainly advisory. He will not act in opposition to, or in competition with, existing Government Departments. The Minister will appoint Committees or take over existing Committees, and receive their Reports. He will institute on his own initiative experiments in matters connected with his functions. He will frame schemes for after war action, or for action with a view to conditions which will arise after the war, and submit them to the War Cabinet; and he will indicate the Department by which those schemes could best be carried out. He will have conferred upon him certain powers now vested in other Departments of State. His powers will not be exclusive. They will not shut out the action of other Departments. They will be concurrent, and will be exercised in co-operation with the other Departments. In short, it will be his duty to assist the other Departments, to provide them with information and with proposals, and to help them to build a bridge which will safely carry us over from war to peace conditions. It will be, further, the duty of the Minister to make his Department the centre at which information is collected in regard to action taken by Departments or individuals, and he will endeavour thereby to facilitate the work of preparation by ensuring that a given problem is not approached from various aspects by authorities who are unaware of each other's activities. Herein should come the coordination which is the object of this Bill. It should tend to minimise the confusion which may arise, which does occasionally arise, from the statement of conflicting views by different Departments or authorities, and will give real opportunities of harmonising the different views expressed. The threads will be all in the hands of the Minister, who will have access to the War Cabinet. Such a Minister will make it his duty, if necessary, to submit to the Government or the War Cabinet questions of policy which may arise at any stage of the various inquiries being made, and the answer given to such questions will enable inquiries to be conducted with the minimum of wasted effort.

It is proposed that the general principle of demarcation should be that the Minister should accept and be primarily responsible for investigation and schemes in their preliminary stages, during which the lines of procedure and limits of the inquiry are laid down. It is not proposed in general to take over any staff employed by existing Departments for the purposes of investigation or schemes. The reasons for this are, first, that the full concurrence of the existing Departments in the early stages of the inquiry must be secured, and secondly, that when the inquiry is devoted to securing an increase of material and production, such as in the case of oils or minerals, &c., it is undesirable to separate those engaged upon preliminary work from those who will be in charge of the productive stage of the scheme. Then an Annual Report will be issued. It is further proposed to give extended publicity to the progress made in the work of reconstruction wherever that is consistent with the public interest, and it is intended to devote special attention to the collection of statistics bearing on trade, industrial, and domestic questions, and to invite the representatives of trading and industrial interests to participate fully in the deliberations of the Ministry and in the proposed schemes.

Your Lordships will sec that Clause 7 of the Bill has to do with the right of certain Ministers to sit in Parliament. It provides that what we know as a Minister without Portfolio may sit without re-election. The two Ministers in question are well known to your Lordships. Both are without portfolios, and it is proposed that they should receive salaries. Questions have been raised as to whether they should vacate their seats. It is an important point, and I submit that it is desirable to settle the matter. Therefore Clause 7 of this Bill provides that these Ministers shall not, by reason of their appointment, be deemed to have been or to be incapable of being elected to or of voting in the House of Commons. The provision is carefully limited to the Ministers appointed before the passing of the Bill, so that it can affect only the two Ministers concerned. I have stated to your Lordships briefly the duties of the new Ministry; and in submitting the Bill for Second Reading, I suggest that it will be a prominent part of the machinery by which effective efforts may be made to reduce difficulties and to aid us generally in remodelling the country when the happy days of peace shall come. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2*.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I am sure that the House is much obliged to my noble friend opposite for the very lucid way in which he described the provisions of this Bill, but he will forgive me for saying that, although he clearly described its provisions, he did not say a very great deal in defence of the principles which are involved in it. I think I shall not be exaggerating when I say that the announcement of this Bill came as rather a shock to the public. Everybody said, "What! Another new Ministry! Another crowd of officials! Another gigantic building! Surely there must be a limit to these things! "And people said that, notwithstanding the enormous wealth of this country and notwithstanding the lavish way in which it is necessary for us to spend money at this crisis, there must be some limit; for this multiplication of officials and of agencies for spending money must bring us ultimately into the Bankruptcy Court if we do not take care. That was the general view with which this proposal was received.

I do not want your Lordships to think for a moment that I underrate the importance of reconstruction. Reconstruction is a real necessity, which will arise immediately after the conclusion of the war—a necessity on a very large scale, involving vast interests. The question before your Lordships to-day is not whether reconstruction is important, but whether you require a Minister of Reconstruction in order to preside over that process. It is quite true that the problem is a new one in degree, but reconstruction of a kind is a very old matter with which Governments have had to deal. It is part of what they always have to do, part of the policy of the Government; and in normal times the Minister who, in the words of my noble friend opposite, co-ordinates the policy of the Government and sees that the various Ministers do their work and do not tread upon each other's toes, is the Prime Minister. It is one of the functions of the Prime Minister; indeed, it is his particular function. Beyond his great position of responsibility to the Crown and to the country, you may say that the function of the Prime Minister is to co-ordinate the activities of his colleagues. At the present moment the burdens thrown upon the Prime Minister are so overwhelmingly heavy that it is not surprising that he should want to devolve part of his functions upon somebody else. That has been carried to a very wide extent in the character of the present Government. The War Cabinet is itself really an extension of the Prime Minister. It is putting, as it were, the office of Prime Minister into commission.

And the proposal now before your Lordships is only a further extension—namely, to take the function of co-ordinating the other Ministers off the shoulders of the Prime Minister and to put it upon another Minister. I think that is a sufficient theoretic defence for the Second Reading of the Bill; and, for my part, I am not standing at this Table to oppose the Second Reading. But I think that we must approach the creation of this new Ministry with great caution. We do not want a great Department. We do not want a host of clerks. We want nothing of the kind. Let us keep in mind that this is, as I have said, a function of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has no Department; he has not a great body of clerks, though, of course, he has access to all the Departments when he requires it. If I may be allowed to say so with great respect to the gentleman who is to be, as I understand, the new Minister, the Minister of Reconstruction is going to be a glorified Under-Secretary of the Prime Minister. He does not require a Department either. If there is a fresh great Department created all you will have will be a great system of overlapping, with the consequent friction and waste of time. I have had a little experience of this matter, because I had the honour, at the request of the Government, of accepting the position of a member of the Reconstruction Committee which has existed up to now, and I know from that experience the immense danger of overlapping which this business of reconstruction involves. It is impossible to take the functions of the various Ministers out of their hands. You may have a Committee, if you like, upon housing, for example. The Reconstruction Minister will have to look into housing, but he is not going to take housing out of the hands of the Local Government Board. If he does the only result will be that there will be friction, opposition, difficulty at every turn, waste of money, waste of effort, and general loss of temper.

The first conclusion which I would like to draw is that though we may have a new Minister of Reconstruction we do not want a new Department; and I should like—I do not say to-night, for I know the difficulties under which the debate has to be conducted this evening owing to the absence of a number of Ministers—but before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House, I should like a pledge from the Government, if they will give it to us, that there shall be no Department created. There will have to be a personal staff, of course, attached to the Minister of Reconstruction. Secretaries he necessarily must have. But anything in the nature of a large Department ought to be avoided.

The next point upon which I should like to make an observation is this. The noble Viscount who has just sat down told us of the enormous scope of the reconstruction problems which lie before us. He was perfectly right. They are very wide indeed. But do not make them wider than is necessary. There is a tremendous tendency to expand them quite unnecessarily. They are wide enough now, in all conscience. All the questions of demobilisation—demobilisation of the Army, demobilisation of the munition workers, demobilisation of all the stores and equipment which have been collected for carrying on the war—those are enormous subjects. Then there is housing. The whole process of new housing during the period of the war has been arrested. As your Lordships know, a certain deficiency of housing arises every year. Nothing has been done to I meet that. All those arrears have to be made up. When the troops come back from the Front there will be a tremendous difficulty in regard to housing the men and their families. That has to be met, and it is a vast problem. Then there is the fiscal policy of this country. That will have to be settled. Then there is the military policy of this country. Something probably will have to be done with regard to that. Lastly, and much more important than all the others, there is the labour policy of this country. There are the immense difficulties which confront us in the matter of labour at this moment. I need not dwell upon them. All your Lordships know their extent, I may even say their gravity. An atmosphere of suspicion exists in the labour world, of profound suspicion, suspicion that they are not going to be fairly treated, suspicion that they are going to be got the better of. All of these, I believe and hope, are utterly unfounded; none the less they exist, and it is a problem of the greatest importance and of the widest extent to eradicate that feeling from their minds. That, in all conscience, is an enormous mass of material on which reconstruction has to work—not by the Reconstruction Minister alone, but by the great Departments of the State. Then do not let us add to it.

The late Government, if the members of it who are present will allow me so far to criticise them, failed to satisfy public opinion because they would not settle anything. The present Government bid fair to come to shipwreck because they try to settle too much. With a programme such as I have ventured to sketch to your Lordships, is it not insanity to raise other vast problems as well? Why should we revolutionise the electoral system of this country? Why should we revolutionise your Lordships' House? Why should we have a new education system? Why should we try entirely to alter the laws relating to licensing and drink? None of these matters arise immediately out of the war. They have nothing to do with the war. I am not pronouncing, of course, any opinion upon them. I agree that there is a case for the reform of our electoral system, not so wide as the Government think but still certainly a case of some kind. There is a crying necessity for the reform of your Lordships' House. Possibly something ought to be done in regard to the drink traffic. I am inclined to think that there are changes which ought to be carried out in the matter of education. But for goodness sake let us wait until we have time to consider them. There is an old proverb which says, "Never swap horses while crossing a stream." The Government are trying, not merely to change horses, but to build entirely from the very beginning the carriage they are driving. There never was a more reckless policy in the world than to start on these vast changes in the middle of a great war. I should have thought that the extreme example of Russia would have convinced everybody that you cannot do two things at the same time. You cannot have a social revolution and a great war, at any rate not successfully, at the same moment.

So that the next condition which I suggest to the Government should be imposed upon the new Minister of Reconstruction is that he should exercise self-restraint, that he should be moderate, and that he should not attempt to go into vast after-war problems which do not arise immediately out of the war. The formidable list which I gave your Lordships a minute ago of matters which will arise immediately out of the war cannot be avoided. These other matters have nothing to do with it, and ought to be postponed until the war is over and until public men in all parts of the country have time to attend to them. I urge the Government to consider the points which I have laid before them. I do not know whether it will be possible—we will consider between now and the Committee stage—to represent in the form of Amendments any of the points which I have ventured to lay before your Lordships' House. If such a course is proposed, I might venture to put them down upon the Paper. But in any case, whether it is done in that or in another form, the broad fact remains that unless these limitations are pursued, unless there is self-restraint in the scope of the activities of the Minister, and unless he is prevented from having a vast Office and a vast Department, the Bill, instead of being useful, will be nothing but a curse.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, I desire to express full agreement with a great deal that fell from my noble friend who has just sat down, although not with the whole of what he said, especially in the latter part of his speech, in which I thought in some respects he overstated his case. Some of the subjects which he indicated among those which might have been left alone until our return to normal conditions cannot, I think, be so treated in the interests of our national life. In particular I would mention the subject of education, which my noble friend seemed to think might be set aside for the time being until we were able to resume our more ordinary existence. There I completely differ from my noble friend. I think that of all the problems of reconstruction, that of education in all its branches, especially technical and industrial education, is perhaps the most important of any. The terrible drain that has been made upon the young men of the nation by the war makes it imperative that, if we are to hold our own among the countries of the world, all those who are just coming to maturity, both boys and girls, should obtain a new conception of what is necessary for them if they are to take their proper part in the national life, and that can only be brought about by large, and also—I fear it cannot be denied—most costly changes in our system of education, particularly in its higher branches. So far, therefore, I am not in complete agreement with my noble friend.

But with the whole spirit of the earlier part of his observations, which, if he will allow me to say so, he expressed, as I thought, with singular force and also with great moderation, I most entirely concur. My noble friend opposite, the Lord Chamberlain, who, as has been said, stated his case most fairly and clearly, has certainly not brought to my mind—I do not know how it may be with the rest of your Lordships' House—any kind of conviction of the necessity for the appointment for this purpose of a Minister with a Department. I can quite understand—of course, we all should—the creation of a Committee to inquire into reconstruction, and the necessity of making that Committee as strong as possible, with as competent and influential a chairman as could be obtained. There is no doubt a great deal to be done in preparing the work of reconstruction of the different departments. But I entirely agree with what the noble Marquess behind me said, that the moment you create a special Department for this purpose you positively invite friction between each of the heads of the other Departments with whom the new Minister has to deal. He might be, of course, a Minister of such overwhelming experience and authority that he would be almost a double of the Prime Minister, and therefore able to exercise the powers which, as the noble Marquess most truly said, belong to the Prime Minister and to him alone. Now it is no disparagement to my right hon. friend who is designated for this appointment, whom I have had the pleasure of knowing as colleague and for whose capacity I have the highest admiration, to say that he at any rate is not in that position. It would not be easy to name more than one or two in the ranks of the whole Government, including the Cabinet, who could be said to hold such a position as that. Therefore it is not to depreciate my right hon. friend to say that he does not. I entirely agree with the noble Marquess that to fit out the right hon. gentleman with a large apparatus of clerks and typewriters and the whole paraphernalia of a gigantic modern Department, occupying probably some colossal hotel or other public building, would be a great error.

Why it was necessary to transform the Reconstruction Committee into a Ministry I confess I in no way understand; but perhaps some noble Lord, either now or on a future occasion when my noble friend raises the matter again, will be able to give the fuller explanation for which he asked of the principle on which this proposal is made. As Lord Salisbury so truly said, the public have become dubious about the creation of this great number of new Departments. To each of those Departments a special departmental function has, whether their creation was necessary or not, been assigned. But to this new Minister no such special departmental work is, by the nature of the case, assigned. He is, as Lord Salisbury pointed out, simply to be a shadow of the Prime Minister, executing functions which for the moment the Prime Minister cannot, as we should all agree, possibly undertake. For that reason I cannot help regretting that it has been thought necessary to add to the number for this particular purpose.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY)

My Lords, I rise to say a few words with regard to the observations which have been made upon the Bill by the noble Marquesses who have just addressed the House. I listened with great satisfaction to what Lord Salisbury said when he told your Lordships that he thought a case was made out for the Second Reading of this Bill, and one appreciates that all the more from the fact that in the first sentences of his speech he expressed a feeling which is common in the country against the creation of a new Office. The expression of that feeling renders all the more valuable the statement which the noble Marquess made to the House that on his examination of the Bill he agreed that such a measure as this was necessary, and he was prepared to support the Second Reading. I hope that, whatever prima facie expression may be made against new Offices, all those who examine this question will come to the same conclusion as the noble Marquess has done.

There is no doubt that there will be a vast amount of inter-departmental work in connection with the problems of reconstruction. A great number of Departments will be concerned with a great many questions that will come up for settlement when the day of peace arrives; and it is highly necessary, in order to prevent overlapping, that you should have some Minister to co-ordinate, to organise, and to prevent waste of effort and possible conflict between different Departments. Lord Salisbury said that he would object to the creation of a great Department, but a Department I think he felt there must be. The Minister must have some assistance. There must be a Department, and I hope that the noble Marquess who spoke second will, on reflection, not grudge the new Minister the modest assistance of a typewriter. You must have a properly equipped Department, not one occupying a palatial hotel, and not more officials than are wanted for the work; but to my mind it would be the worst possible economy to grudge the little expense that is necessary to give the new Minister the proper assistance he requires for the efficient carrying out of his work.

I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that the co-ordinating power in every Ministry must be the Prime Minister. That is true. But the problems which will present themselves when the time of peace comes are so vast and complicated that the Prime Minister will certainly want help in disentangling the issues and in having the facts cleared up and presented in such a shape as to enable him to exercise that co-ordinative influence and that control which belong to him by right of his office. I cannot at all agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, as to its being much better to have a Committee than a Ministry. You can have work of this kind much more effectively done by selecting one man, not giving him too large a staff but a proper staff, and by putting upon him the responsibility of preventing overlapping between different Departments, and thereby rendering to the Prime Minister that help which he is entitled to expect in the discharge of duties so onerous as those which will devolve upon him at the termination of the war. It was said that Governments have had to face questions of this kind before. Yes. But there never was in the history of the world such a war as this through which we are now passing, and according to all the omens the questions which will crowd upon the attention of the Government when peace is declared will be more serious than any that have ever presented themselves for solution on similar occasions in our past history.

I do not deny that we have passed through great crises, but I do not think that anybody would say for a moment that the questions which presented themselves, even at the termination of the Napoleonic Wars, were on the same scale as those which we shall have to solve when peace is declared after this struggle is over. Do let us be ready in time. Do not let us have the unedifying spectacle of hurrying up at the last moment endeavouring to deal with problems which ought to have been considered long before. It has been said, I think, in another place, Why not win the war first and talk about reconstruction afterwards? I agree that the one duty of the moment is the winning of the war and thoroughly defeating the enemy. But we know perfectly well what problems will arise when that most desirable end has been achieved, and to my mind it would be the height of unwisdom not to take the opportunity of considering at present what should be done.

I am not going in any detail through the list of objects to which attention was called by the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. Of course, there is the great question of our commercial relations, upon which we have had from one of the Committees referred to a most interesting and valuable Report. There is the great question relating to the demobilisation of our Forces and enabling those who have fought for us to resume their positions in civil life advantageously to themselves and to the country, which will badly need their labour. There is the most important question—in reference to which I believe one sub-committee has been nominated—of getting more easily Parliamentary powers for public works which will undoubtedly be wanted in many parts of the country. There is the great question of coal conservation—how coal may best be used, how we can improve the methods of getting it, and where it is possible that new mines may be opened. There is the great question, with many ramifications, of alien enemies. What are you to do in the way of repatriating those who are within our gates, a great many of whom at present are interned? What are you to do in the future with regard to the admission of aliens, and is our law of naturalisation to remain in the state in which it is at present, by which a man can become a citizen of this country without renouncing at once and for ever his allegiance to another and possible hostile country? There is the question of forestry, the question of the relations between employer and employed, and the other matters which have been referred to, of which I will mention only one—namely, the great problem that will arise with regard to shipping. There you have a crop of questions affecting a great many Departments which eminently require co-ordination so as to prevent overlapping and waste of effort.

I am not going to say anything about the Bill itself, which has been so clearly explained by my noble friend who introduced it. With regard to the Office, this Office will be what the man who holds it makes it. It is a very great opportunity for effort in the interests of this country on the restoration of peace, which is almost as great an occasion, almost as difficult an occasion, as the beginning of the war. The Minister will not be an executive officer; this will not be an executive post; it will be an advisory and co-ordinating post. He will not oust the present Departments at all. He will prevent overlapping; he will prevent friction; and I think that we may in this matter take a lesson from our enemies, because Germany is already preparing for peace. Let us be wise in time, and do not let us be outstripped by Germany in preparing for the battle of peace which lies ahead of us when the sterner battle through which we are passing is over.

LORD SOUTHWARK

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the explanations he has just given, because looking at the Bill, I found it so vague and indefinite that I could not conceive what functions this new Ministry was going to perform. We have now heard from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack of a list of duties that will be imposed upon this Department, and I rise simply to make the suggestion that these might be set out in a Schedule, so that we might not omit any powers which perhaps the Minister at the head of such a Department ought to carry out. I am not one of those who have followed very closely what has been done with regard to reconstruction. In fact, I have hardly understood what it has meant. But now that the noble and learned Lord has told us what the duties of the new Ministry will be, if they are set out in a Schedule at the end of the Bill it might occur to the minds of noble Lords that there are other duties that ought to be performed besides those named.

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, I am in the unfortunate position that, so far from being reassured by the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I admit that I have been greatly alarmed. Is it true that this new Department is to take under its control the consideration of every political question that is now upon the horizon of our political outlook? Is it to consider questions of afforestation in the future, the conservation of our coal supply, and a myriad other questions that have no direct or intimate relation with the war at all? Is it to be, in other words, not in truth a Reconstruction Department for the purpose of piecing together the broken and shattered fabric of our national life, but to be a kind of Exploratory Department which is to investigate the whole area of political controversy and recommend to the Prime Minister the measures that are to be undertaken? If that really be in the contemplation of the Government, then I agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down that it would be wise to define the powers of this Ministry in a Schedule, and we may be able in Committee to see how much should be included in the ambit of his authority and how much might profitably be left outside. Surely nothing can be worse than that you should take a Ministry, formed, no doubt, expressly and primarily for the purpose I have mentioned, and then overload it with a number of questions with which such a Ministry has no direct concern.

I admit that I am entirely unconvinced that there is any need of a Ministry at all. Nor can I find, from what the noble and learned Lord said, that there is any special reason why it is now required to perform through the intervention of a Minister what has been hitherto done, and what I believe all people would admit has been extremely effectually done, by a number of Committees. After all, what this new Minister is going to do is this. He is going to take a number of entirely undefined portions of the work of other existing Government Departments. What they are to be, nobody can tell. What he is to do, I think, is not quite certain. Apparently he is to advise the Prime Minister what each of these Departments ought to do in the special direction which he selects. I cannot see why a Ministry is required for that purpose. I may be a little prejudiced in this matter, because I must admit that I have a profound dislike of every form of officialism. I admit my view in that direction, but at any rate there is some justification for the view that I hold.

Although the industrial unrest in this country has, for reasons for which I suppose the Government are responsible, been excluded from consideration and discussion in the Press, everybody knows that it exists, and the Reports of the Commissions that were appointed to inquire into it have in many cases attributed it to the interference of officialdom with the industrial life of this country; and although unrest is at all times a matter to be regretted, I must state that I am pleased to think that the cause of the unrest lies no deeper than in the independent resentment of British workmen against the interference of officials with their daily life. I sincerely hope, for the future of this country, that this feeling will continue. I shall certainly not do anything in the nature of active opposition to this Bill, but I am not convinced that it is necessary, and I regret greatly that this Government have thought it wise to multiply the Departments which already exist in such large numbers, instead of availing themselves, as they very well might have done, of the existing organisations of other Departments and other Offices for the purpose of carrying on work which everybody admits, to the extent of reconstruction, is of vital importance in the circumstances.

LORD BURNHAM

My Lords, I do not for a moment suggest that this Bill ought to be rejected, and I should not have troubled you with any remarks had it not been for the provocative speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He spoke in defence of a Bill the very title of which required a defence very different from what he made. It is called the New Ministries Bill. I believe that the gorge of this country is rising against the creation of these new Ministries. When Labour speaks regarding it—and there is hardly an exception to the rule—it alludes to the fat berths that are being found for those who serve the Government in one capacity or another. I therefore think that the principle of this Bill required a defence very different from that which the noble and learned Lord was pleased to make.

Your Lordships will recollect that in a famous speech made by Burke at Bristol he declaimed against the Household troops entering Parliament in their battalions to support the Government of the day, and he suggested that the White Wand of the Lord Treasurer ought to be used to keep back the applicants for office and to keep them in their proper places. There is no country in Europe where there is anything like the number of political offices we now have here. A Frenchman of authority observed to me the other day that it would be a great convenience to the Government of France if they were able to distribute posts of emolument as they are being bandied about in Great Britain and Ireland. I do not suggest for a moment that there is any corrupt motive, nor any corrupt result, but I do say that it is open to objection that there should be ninety Ministers sitting in both Houses and in receipt of Government salaries, and therefore, being necessarily attached to the Government, incapable of taking independent action on any public question that may be submitted to either House. It cannot be said to be a healthy thing in the growth and development of our Constitution.

The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I think, rather underrated the public spirit of this country. It is not true that the spirit of voluntary service is dead. On the contrary, I believe there is more readiness to give voluntary service at the present time than there ever was, and the facts of the case in regard to reconstruction bear me out. The noble and learned Lord went through the various functions assigned to the new Minister. There is hardly one of those which is not being covered at this moment by a Committee serving from voluntary motives, and on which each member gives much time and thought to the consideration of the various subjects upon which this new Minister has now to draw up schemes. The noble and learned Lord spoke of the demobilisation of the Army. In every district demobilisation committees are in course of formation, not one of which will be paid. Yet they are effecting exactly the same object for which the new Minister is to receive his salary.

I take another subject—the colonisation of the land at home and abroad within the Empire by the soldiers who will be discharged. That is already covered by a Committee on which I have had the honour of serving, and which is just presenting its Export to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In fact, there is not one in the whole category of the issues raised by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack which is not now being covered by voluntary labour. I think the great glory of this country has been the voluntary service of its citizens. I confess that it is hateful to me to see these things all made the matter of pay and office. I should much have preferred to allow these Committees to present their Reports to Parliament, and then for Parliament itself to judge of their effectiveness. The word "co-ordination" is brought in, and is being used to cover every sort of waste and redundancy in the service of the State as I have had occasion to find out in connection with another blessed word, the word "propaganda."

Whilst wishing to raise no factious opposition to this Bill, I hope it will be the last of the kind we shall see. The "New Ministries Bill" has a very silly sound. I trust myself that in the answer he may make the Leader of the House will be able to tell us that we are not going to dispense with voluntary service in every direction. If it be necessary to create this Office, which has been hedged round in a curious way—I think with regard to further Under Secretaries a pledge was given in another place—I hope, as I have said, that it will be the last of its kind. We want no more placemen in either House. It is a mistake to think that they will come to an end with the ending of the war. I am afraid that, without any wish on their part perhaps, their functions will be continued, and I say that it is a danger in these days to our Parliamentary system, which is being threatened on many sides, that there should be such a large number of Members pledged at all costs to support the Government of the day. That is the meaning of other bodies outside clamouring to exercise functions which Parliament alone ought to discharge. It is the feeling that in Parliament you do not get the independent expression of opinion and conscience which you had, and I can think of nothing less calculated to secure a reversion to the old order of things than the Bill which is now under the consideration of your Lordships' House.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

My Lords, I certainly did not come into the House with the idea of taking any part in this debate, and I am almost disqualified from doing so by the fact that I have heard only the last ten minutes or quarter of an hour of the discussion. But the two speeches to which I have listened—namely, that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, and of the noble Lord who has just spoken—appear so directly to impugn the conduct, policy, and intentions of the Government that I feel it almost my duty to say a word in reply. It appeared to me from the speech to which we have just listened that what the noble Lord objected to was not so much the constitution of this Ministry for the particular purpose which it is intended to subserve, nor the appointment of Dr. Addison—there was clearly no reflection against that gentleman in the remarks of the noble Lord—but the multiplication of Ministries. The noble Lord used the word "placemen." He seems to think that this Ministry has been created in order to provide an increase of posts and salaries for certain people, and he said that in this multiplication of public offices you have a danger to the independence of the House of Commons, if not to the independence of the State. Surely, the noble Lord does not imagine that it is with any particular pleasure that this Government, or any Government, undertakes the multiplication of Ministries or the increase of posts and salaries. They know the kind of objection which they are certain to meet with in both Houses of Parliament.

Really what the Government are looking to—and I must bring the House back to the point—is the manner in which the work can best be done. The noble Lord said, " You are getting all this work excellently discharged by Committees of admirable volunteers. Why not rest content with that?" I do not know whether the noble Lord has had as much experience of these Committees working on the war as my duties have led me to have myself. I know the difficulties of getting the members to meet. I know that owing to the enormous press of business they cannot meet regularly. I know that business has frequently to be postponed. And without disputing for a moment the personal assiduity of those who sit on these Committees, this work of reconstruction could not be done if it were left to volunteer Committees alone. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack conclusively showed your Lordships how wide is the range of operations to be covered. The noble Lord who has just resumed his seat alluded to the coming back of the soldiers from the different theatres of war, several millions of men. I wonder if he has any idea of the length of time demobilisation alone will take. I wonder if he seriously thinks that the work of putting these men back into their old employment or finding new employment for them, the work of creating new relations between Capital and Labour, of constructing new industries, and of reconstituting the relations that existed between Capital and Labour in industries already existing, can be undertaken by volunteer Committees? That work is the responsibility of the Government, and it must be undertaken by somebody responsible to the Government.

Let me put the case in another way. These problems will relate to a great many different Departments of the State. Now what is my experience of the Departments of State, and even of the different Ministries under this Administration? It is this—that, conscientiously as they do their work, they are habitually, daily, coming into collision with each other, disagreeing with each other. What is the good of having half-a-dozen volunteer Committees or a dozen Departments disagreeing unless you have somebody to hold the scales equally between them and to advise the Cabinet which line to take? Half the business of the members of the War Cabinet at the moment is devoted to that blessed word, of which the noble Lord disapproves, "co-ordination"—co-ordinating the relations between the Departments and composing disagreements where they arise. That is the object of the creation of this Ministry. It is when different plans are proposed by this or by that Department that the new Minister should be able to advise upon them and suggest to the Government what line it should take. In reply to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said, I really do not think that there is the slightest intention—it certainly never entered my head—that this Minister should explore the whole field of political and social activity and devise a new policy for the Government or for the nation.

LORD BUCKMASTER

The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack distinctly suggested the things I mentioned.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

Quite so; and the problems which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack mentioned are problems directly arising out of the termination of the war and the commencement of peace. That I understand to be the limitation which will be placed upon the new Ministry.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Afforestation!

LORD BUCKMASTER

Conservation of coal!

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

As a matter of fact, I did not hear the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, so I had better not refer to it further. I will only say this in conclusion. We are still waging the greatest war in which this country has ever been involved. That war will have been ill-waged, whatever its result in the field of action, if it is not succeeded by a peace as great, as lasting, as beneficent as any that has previously occurred in the history of the world. It is to the construction of that peace that our efforts ought to be just as much directed as to the successful prosecution of the war; and, looking at it from that point of view, I am sure that your Lordships will give your general agreement to a Bill appointing a Ministry and a Minister who will assist us in that object.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.