MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT: FOREIGN OFFICE REFORM.

HL Deb 13 December 1944 vol 134 cc283-320

2.5 p.m.

THE EARL OF PERTH rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now prepared to make a statement with regard to the future machinery of government, which a Committee of the Cabinet was appointed to examine, and in particular with regard to the central reform of the Foreign Office; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the debate which took place in your Lordships' House on July 22 of last year on the Foreign Service Bill, I placed before your Lordships certain considerations about the machinery of government, and in particular about the need for the centralization of the activities of various Government Departments in respect of our foreign policy. When I indicated that I might at a future date again return to this subject, the noble Viscount who leads this House, speaking for the Government, said that he would be delighted if I returned to the charge, and advised me to "keep pegging away." He said also that the Government would "keep pegging away" as well. After the lapse of more than a year, I feel that the time has come to follow the advice then given to me, and I therefore submit to your Lordships the Motion which stands in my name. Owing to the exigencies of war-time—and I realize that these are very great—I hardly expect to receive a full declaration to-day of the decisions of the Government, but I trust that as they have had this matter under review now for about two years they will at least be able to report on the progress so far achieved.

Before I pass to my main theme, which relates to the central reform of the Foreign Office, there is one matter to which I would wish again to draw the attention of your Lordships. It is one which concerns the machinery of government. Your Lordships may remember that in November, 1942, there was a debate which lasted for two days on the question of the headship of the Civil Service. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, speaking on behalf of the Government, made some statements of first-class importance about the functions of the holder of that office and their scope. While he did not give me and the noble Lords who supported me full satisfaction, because we held, and we still hold, that the office is unnecessary, and that the duties pertaining to it were admirably performed by the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury in the years in which the title lay dormant—I am trying to he as uncontroversial as possible—and before its formal revival in 1919, yet what the noble and learned Viscount said did definitely allay the uneasiness which, rightly or wrongly, was felt in many quarters. That being so, I would ask whether as a consequence of that speech any fresh circular, bringing up to date those of 1919 and 1920, has been issued to the various Government Departments. I feel certain that the issue of such a circular would be a wise measure, as considerable confusion still exists about the extent of the authority of the holder of that office. I hope very much, therefore, that a circular will be sent round, if indeed it has not already gone.

The second question which I should like to put is this. Assuming that the Govern- ment have decided that the title "Head of the Civil Service" shall be maintained, will the Head of the Civil Service be also regarded as the head of the Foreign Service which has recently been established? I put that question to the noble Viscount in the debate some little time ago and he asked for notice of it. There is one last question in this connexion which I want to ask before I pass to my main subject. Has the Committee on the machinery of government, about which the noble Viscount spoke in the debate on July 22 of last year, had under review the desirability or otherwise of the continuance of the post of Head of the Civil Service, and, if so, has any conclusion been reached on the subject?

I now turn to the problems which have a special relationship to the reform of the Foreign Office. I was very glad to learn from the recent speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, of the steps which have been taken to establish a strong Economic Branch of that Office. The information which he gave us ore November 30 was certainly encouraging, and was satisfactory as far as it went, but perhaps the noble Earl was not sufficiently explicit. He stated that the Economic Relations Department of the Foreign Office would be responsible for advising the Secretary of State on the probable political consequences of any action taken in the economic field, and of the probable economic consequences of any action taken in the political field. He mentioned also the political consequences of economic events. I think the situation requires a little further elucidation, and I should be very glad if the noble Viscount could throw some more light on it. For instance, do the arrangements made provide for the study of the effect on our foreign policy of economic proposals which a Government Department may wish to put forward? It is certainly clear that such a study should take place before the proposals are translated into action, and thus become events. Far more co-ordination of the foreign activities of the various technical, economic and financial Departments and agencies is required in order to enable the Foreign Secretary to formulate a strong and efficient foreign policy, after having taken into consideration all the interests involved, and in particular economic, financial and defence factors.

That brings me to the necessity of coordination at Ministerial level of all activities affecting our foreign policy, a co-ordination which I hold to be essential in the national interest. In connexion with this particular problem there are two subsidiary matters to which I should like briefly to refer. The reforms introduced into the recruitment and the training of the Foreign Service will, in due time, ensure that all the members of that service will become commercially minded. Incidentally, I do not think that the accusation which is too often made that members of the Diplomatic Service in the past cared little, if anything, about trade questions, can be justified. It is true we were not trade experts, but a considerable portion of my time when I had the honour to be His Majesty's Ambassador in Rome was taken up with endeavours to promote our foreign trade. Indeed I remember one time when I went direct to Mussolini in order to secure, if possible, that our Welsh coal trade should have an adequate share of the Italian market, and, if I remember rightly, I had some little success.

But nevertheless it is true, as I have said, that time will be required before the Economic Branch of the Foreign Office can be fully developed by the intake of new recruits. With this in mind I suggest that some staff for this branch should be drawn from the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the big business organizations. If this were done—and I see no reason why it should not be done—then not only would the Economic Branch of the Foreign Office be greatly strengthened, but the objections which have been raised to a transfer of that part of the Department of Overseas Trade which deals with foreign countries, would very largely be met. Your Lordships will no doubt have noted that the officers of the Department of Overseas Trade, whether stationed at home or abroad, are to form part of the new Foreign Service; the rest of it comes under the direct authority of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

The second point I want to make in this connexion is the question of accommodation. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke of the economic section being within the four walls of the Foreign Office. But that really is not a practical proposition. The old Foreign Office building is already crammed and filled to bursting point. In fact, I am not sure that there is not a serious case of overcrowding there; and your Lordships will no doubt have in mind the statement made by the Minister of Information, speaking recently, when he said that a large part of the duties of his Department will be taken over when peace comes by the Foreign Office. I think your Lordships will all agree that efficient administration requires that the three branches of the Foreign Office, which I may term the Political, the Economic and the Information Branches, should be housed under one roof. They interact continuously, and the closest consultation between the members is necessary. Bat the present Foreign Office building cannot hold them. What is the solution? In considering the problem we must bear in mind—and here I speak from considerable experience—the necessity of the Foreign Secretary working in the nearest vicinity to No. Io Downing Street. He must be able to reach the Prime Minister at a moment's notice. I am therefore driven rather reluctantly to the conclusion that the only method of reconciling all the needs of the case is that the Foreign Office should expand into the domain of one of the great neighbouring Departments, indeed it will have to obtain complete possession. I shall not pursue that point further for the moment, but I trust that the Government will not overlook this paramount administrative need.

Now I come to my final and by far the most important subject—the coordination at the Ministerial level of all activities of the various Government Departments and of the Bank of England likely to affect our foreign policy. The Government Departments which I have specially in mind are the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the Defence Departments. I may have already wearied your Lordships on different occasions by my insistence on this subject, but it is to my mind of such weight that I cannot refrain from again urging that the pre-war organization was seriously deficient and must be reviewed and strengthened. The more I read and the more I learn of what happened in the period between the two wars, the more I am convinced that the foreign policy of different Secretaries of State was seriously hampered, and sometimes even deflected, by the independent action of Government Departments in matters which impinge deeply on our foreign policy. I will give two particular illustrations. First, the trouble which arose at The Hague Conference on Reparations when the action taken by Mr. Snowden very seriously upset our relationship with France, and confronted Mr. Henderson, the then Foreign Secretary—an admirable Foreign Secretary—with very great difficulties as to how to restore it; second, the private financial assistance accorded to Germany, which undermined the considered policy of Sir Austen Chamberlain and ultimately made it possible for Germany to rearm.

Now I have already suggested a possible remedy for this defective state of affairs—namely, the constitution of some organ analogous to the Committee of Imperial Defence; but if that were not found practicable, we should at least have a Standing Committee of the Cabinet, presided over by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on which the various Government Departments concerned, including the Fighting Services, should be represented at the Ministerial level; and, by some method or other, the Bank of England should be included in any such arrangement. There should further be a special Secretariat for this Committee. The staff of the Secretariat might well be drawn from different Government Departments, in particular from the Foreign Office. The noble Viscount previously seemed to display some sympathy with these suggestions, and perhaps he may be able to tell your Lordships whether there is a likelihood of their being adopted by the Government, or at least assure us that progress is being made along these or similar lines.

The question has been put to me by somebody in a responsible position, "Why do you worry about these matters at the present time when the co-ordination between the Government Departments is excellent?" My Lords, I am sure it is and I am very glad that it is so, but this was equally the case during the war of 1914 to 1918. It was not until some time after peace had been concluded that these independent tendencies revealed themselves, and the sooner machinery is set up to ensure that such dangers shall be avoided in the future, the better served will be the national interest. It may be that the noble Viscount will tell me that the examination of all these problems is not yet completed and until it is finished a partial announcement of the decisions of the Government cannot be made. If that is so, I must of course accept it, but I would point out that the Government have had these questions under examination for a period of at least two years. However, I shall press him for an assurance that once the conclusions of the Government have been come to, there will be no delay in placing them before Parliament, so that they may, if necessary, be discussed there. It is surely only right and proper that Parliament should control and be fully aware of the machinery of government. I sincerely trust that if the final solution is through a Standing Committee or Committees of the Cabinet, we shall still receive full information and shall not be told that all that concerns the doings of the Cabinet and Cabinet Committees are in the nature of constitutional secrets which cannot be revealed. I say this because I have already noticed a tendency in certain replies given to me and, I may add, to members in another place, that this line is being pursued.

In putting forward these proposals for reform of the central organization, I have, I know, the support of the noble Lords who sit on these Benches, but I have hope that this will not be treated in any way as a Party matter. Before now I have ventured to urge that our foreign policy should, in its main lines at any rate, be lifted outside the scope of Party politics. I know that in some quarters this is considered to be a counsel of perfection, but I would most earnestly plead that the Government should consider whether, through the use of the Committee of Imperial Defence or by some other method, the leaders of Opposition Parties cannot be kept informed and consulted when a serious issue occurs in foreign affairs. I believe that in matters of such vital import to the nation there is not likely to be any serious divergence of opinion among men of good will who have before them all the relevant facts of the case, and I am convinced that the highest national interest requires that there shall be a national foreign policy. I beg to move.

2.27 p.m.

LORD ADDISON

My Lords, I am sure the House will agree that the noble Lord has exercised commendable patience in that he has waited quite a considerable time before bringing this subject before the House again, and I would like to lend him what support I can in emphasizing its immense importance. It is rather technical, it is true, and it is not a subject which lends itself to outside presentation in an attractive form; but it is of first-rate consequence in determining national policy and, better still, in guiding it. I think we have to recognize that, apart entirely from the war-time growth of Ministries, which is unavoidable, there is a growing scope of Governmental control and activity, whatever Party is in power. With regard to matters like housing, national insurance, marketing food supplies and all sorts of subjects which affect the community at large, there is a growing and inevitable extension of Government control or direction in one form or another. We have to try and secure that it is not accompanied by excessive departmentalism on the one side or an overgrown bureaucracy on the other. Both are dangers to be avoided.

I would like heartily to agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down, that these are not wholly matters which should be shrouded in unnecessary secrecy. They are matters that can be discussed openly and frankly, and the more they are discussed the better. It does not involve the revelation of Cabinet secrets. It is purely a matter of discussing what is the most appropriate machinery for dealing with the State's affairs. I think we have to look to two things in this connexion, and they are, first, how best to secure the Government's proper formulation of policy; and secondly, the guidance and supervision of its application. With regard to the formulation of policy, I suspect we all have in mind the historic Report of the late Lord Haldane, but there is nobody alive to-day, unless it be Mr. Lloyd George, who has a greater and more intimate experience of the machinery of the Cabinet and the Government than the existing Prime Minister. He has had a unique experience of government in various forms, both in times of war and peace.

I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to tell us, so far as the matter has gone, something more of the Cabinet machinery. I remember many years ago when it was found necessary, owing to congestion of the Cabinet agenda, to have a Cabinet Committee on Home Affairs which was staffed by the appropriate Ministers. Similarly we should have—though that was not developed in my time—a Cabinet Committee on trade and economic affairs. I associate myself very heartily with what the noble Earl has said as to the immense importance of a Standing Cabinet Committee in some form dealing with foreign affairs. In the old days, (and not very old either), foreign affairs were isolated from other Cabinet work. The Foreign Secretary seemed to be a sort of Secretary of State apart. I can well remember when foreign affairs were by some undeclared consent left to be dealt with by the specialists who were concerned with them while others stood on one side. Whether that might ever have been desirable or not I will not say, but I am quite sure it is extremely undesirable as things are developing.

The noble Lord has suggested a Standing Committee, no matter what its form, of the appropriate Ministers and associated with them a Secretariat staff. Perhaps I might be permitted to say a word on that. There is a Secretariat staff necessarily associated with the War Cabinet. Such a staff gradually grew up around the Committee on Home Affairs. Frankly I have some misgiving on this point. I think a special staff of the Committee of Defence tends to become rather separated from the Departments which have to give effect to policy, and I am not quite sure whether the Economic Staff (as I think it is called at present) which is attached to the Cabinet Secretariat is quite the best arrangement. I have some apprehension of the growth of hierarchy above the ordinary Civil Service of the Department and attached to the different Cabinet Committees, developing their own separate staff, their own traditions, their own methods of obtaining information and so on. The person responsible for advising the Cabinet Committee is the Minister, and it is the Minister's business to inform himself and the business of his staff to help to inform him. I am afraid sometimes that this practice to which I have referred may develop into a Cabinet Committee being informed and guided by its own Secretariat rather than by the Ministers who comprise it being advised and guided by their own Departments. That is the distinction I am trying to bring out and it is that which in my view creates so much misapprehension.

Associated with that I should like to say something about the stock criticism of the Civil Service. We have to avoid excessive bureaucracy. The conduct of his Department depends on the Minister who, naturally, is the person held responsible if anybody makes a blunder. Unfortunately he himself may have known nothing about the blunder at the time and it may be hard sometimes on a Minister—I have suffered myself that way—when he is held responsible for the misdoings or blunders of subordinates. At the same time I think it is right that that should be so because it is the only way of managing the business. It is therefore incumbent upon the Minister to see that departmentalism and bureaucracy do not get out of hand; it is his business to see that it does not. That is one thing. But anything more damaging than the stock criticism of the Civil Service I cannot imagine. It is altogether wrong. My experience of the Civil Service is that, taking it as a whole, it is composed of highly competent, exceedingly trustworthy and thoroughly honest people. This shallow talk about government by bureaucracy has a ricochet effect of discrediting the Civil Service which is most harmful. I believe that a lot of young men who would like to enter the Civil Service and would be very useful in it, may be deterred from entering by this kind of shallow criticism. Although it does not perhaps relate to the subject of the Motion of the noble Earl I once more take the opportunity of voicing my protest against this sort of criticism.

I am quite sure the noble Earl's plea for a reform of machinery connected with the conduct and supervision of our foreign affairs is urgently needed. I do not know how far it has gone in recent times, but I believe it is still a very powerful tradition in the Foreign Office that its sphere is something rather apart from the other activities of the Government, something perhaps a little superior. That is wrong. I am not quite sure whether the method of recruitment, particularly for the Diplomatic Service hitherto, has not been responsible for that result. At all events I am glad to know that there is now in contemplation a much wider machinery of recruitment for the Foreign Service. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply can tell us something as to how it is going on. Apart from recruitment we want a complete breaking down of any barriers that there may be between the different branches of the Foreign Service and the men who staff them. Therefore I think we require a long training for the men who are to be recruited into the Foreign Service—training with regard to trade and social conditions and close contact with the many branches of activity that are closely related to the conduct of our foreign affairs.

I hope that there will be developed inside the Foreign Office, for the immediate assistance of the Foreign Secretary, a representative body of experienced public servants who will be knowledgeable in respect of the different branches of trade and finance and other matters that impinge on the conduct of our foreign policy—a body of persons inside the Foreign Office to guide and help the Foreign Secretary. Hitherto the advice to the Secretary of State, (and it is the same in other Departments), has very largely come finally through one channel in the end. I think myself that that may probably be improved. Whilst the Permanent Secretary must be responsible as the chief civil servant, I cannot but think that the Foreign Secretary would be better off if he had round him in his own office a body o men competent to advise on economic, trade and other questions with regard to which he has to take action abroad. The two remarkable cases to which the noble Earl referred—the lending of money to Germany to the harm of our own foreign policy, and Mr. Snowden's activities at The Hague—I think would not have been conducted quite as they were if the Foreign Secretary of the day had been advised by the kind of body I am talking about. Certainly they would not have been if we had had a Standing Committee of the Cabinet to which such things would be submitted before final decisions were taken.

I would like most heartily to support fie noble Earl's plea with regard to the Standing Committee of the Cabinet. I know very well that our machinery of government has got to be adjusted to the exigencies of the time, and therefore it may well be that different procedures are adopted at the present time, but the essential plea that there should be a concert of Ministers acquainted with all the different aspects and all the facts of our policy, to be brought together regularly and serve as a standing piece of our machinery of government, is, I am sure, of the first importance. I certainly hope that that will be accompanied by a much wider range of training of men to serve in the Foreign Department. Finally, and most important of all to my mind, we should make it our business to see that the service of the State is not detracted from but is made more attractive, so as to offer increasing scope for competent men and women of all classes.

2.43 p.m.

LORD VANSITTART

My Lords, I venture to offer some observations of a general character about Foreign Office reform. I think indeed I might have offered them before had I not been precluded from attending earlier debates. As it is, what I have to say is very closely linked to the words which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Addison, and I think that if these particular points of a general character are not borne in mind we may find that reforms, both of men and of machinery which are now contemplated, will perhaps fail to bear the anticipated fruit.

When I joined the service over forty years ago the bar of the examination was neither unduly high nor unduly low. Let us say it was fixed at 5 ft. 6 in. If you cleared that you were a certain winner. You could get a place at 5 ft. 5 in. Moreover, the Ambassadors of the day enjoyed great dignity. Though some of them admittedly were men of no peculiarly outstanding attainments yet they were the personal representatives of the King, they were not commented on in the Press—or very rarely—they were never assaulted in Parliament and they were practically all professionals. At that long range I think I can only remember one exception. Moreover, I think my noble and highly distinguished friends, the Earl of Perth and Lord Tyrrell, would probably bear me out when I say that these men had rather more initiative in guiding policy than the extension of the Cabinet system has subsequently allowed to their successors. I think that is a broadly true proposition. In other words, in those days the entry was fairly easy and the attractions, once in, were considerable.

During the intervening period that has undergone a slight change. The bar was put up peg by peg to about 5 ft. 8 in. and simultaneously the number of outside appointments increased very considerably. I remember very well Lord Curzon, whose private secretary I then was, asking me to say frankly what I thought would be the reaction of the Service to the appointment of Lord D'Abernon to Berlin. I said frankly I thought the results to the Service would be disastrous because we had our own men who were very amply equipped to do the job, as Sir Horace Rumbold, Sir Ronald Lindsay and Sir Eric Phipps afterwards demonstrated. In the same period there was a very marked increase in the evil habit of attacking those who cannot defend themselves. I am the last person in the world to wish to indulge in reminiscences, but I had some experience of that myself on account of my known views as to German intentions. I mention the point merely to say that that has a further tendency to increase the difficulties and reduce the attractions.

During the period of the war some of these tendencies have increased. Nearly all the great posts have been in outside hands—Washington, Madrid, Paris and, at one time, Moscow. At the same time the evil habit to which I alluded just now has not been dropped. On the contrary, there was an instance of it only the other day in another place. I think those who have kept in step and in tune with the march of time must realize that the initiative of modern Ambassadors is severely circumscribed. If that is to be the tendency on the one hand and on the other hand they are to be belaboured in public, that would be the ruin ultimately of any Service.

After the war the bar apparently is not going to be put up peg by peg. It will start somewhere about 5 ft. 10 in and I think you are going to demand a race of walking encyclopædias who, owing to the very just and legitimate amalgamation of the Service, will be required to take their turn as Vice-Consuls at places like Jeddah, Trondhjem and Pernambuco. Some of these posts may not appear at first blush very attractive. If, into the bargain, you are going (a) to restrict their initiative, (b) to put in a number of out- siders over their heads, and (c) to attack them in Parliament as well, I think a good number of your walking encyclopædias will exercise their ambulatory powers by walking out on you. They will do that with all the greater alacrity and celerity in that you will have insisted on their jumping and aiming so high. It has been said that every country has the Government it deserves. That, I suppose, is broadly true. I submit that to-day it is perhaps even truer that every country has the public service it deserves. I submit also that this country has, on the whole, been very well served. If you want it better served then I think you will in the future have to treat your public servants somewhat better.

I revert for a moment to the case of Mr. Leeper. I am not going into the merits or demerits of that case. I merely suggest this to your Lordships' minds. The Government defended him, but, on the very morrow, we saw in the Press that Mr. Macmillan had been appointed to go out to Athens, no doubt, as all charitable minds would have thought, to assist him in his difficulties, but as all uncharitable minds would not only have thought but have said, to supersede him, to wipe his eye. Well, fortunately, that was all put right. No harm was done because Field-Marshal Alexander, possibly the most brilliant soldier of this war, was sent out at the same time, and nobody could possibly cavil at that action. On the contrary it is a very welcome one, but I venture to suggest to the Government that if they had sent out Mr. Macmillan alone that would, in effect, in many minds, have undermined and impaired the prestige and utility of our own Ambassador. And then, in due course, what more natural, more just in a way, than to say that the public interest now makes it advisable that he should be transferred or removed. That would pan out as art extremely odd form of defence.

In other words, I think that if you are to get the best out of the new machinery and the new men, you will, once you have got your new paragons, have to treat them with complete trust and respect. And you will have to allow them not less but a great deal more latitude; and when they have taken it, as I hope they will, why then you will either have to back or sack them. I think it will be very rarely that you will have to resort to the latter alternative. I feel fairly convinced, too, that if you are going to get the best out of them, and the best out of the new machinery—it is all part of one whole—you will also, in the course of time, and not too long a time at that, be driven to reduce these outside appointments to the point where I found them when I entered, in other words to practically nil.

They were, at one time, regarded as more or less accidental. I am going to be very frank about them. I think they are no more an accident; I think that they have been tending to become a system. They have been tending to become spare Ministerial appointments. I do not criticize one of the appointments of this kind which have been made during the past quarter of a century that the practice has been growing. On the contrary, in many cases, these appointments have been crowned with great success. But not even for the sake of old acquaintance will I say that I consider the system—for it is now a system—to be compatible with the much higher aims which we are setting for the professional Foreign Service. To sum them up they are to get the full fruits of all the improvements that are in the air. I feel sure that if we desire an improved service we trust neither beat our servants in public nor cheat them of the higher appointments. All that we can do and should do, if necessity arises, will be to give them notice, and then they will leave—I think this is the consecrated phrase—"to improve themselves." Very likely, I should think, you will find that they will go into politics. If these considerations are borne in mind, I think you will get the full fruits, but if you overlook them I am sure that you will not. I will detain your Lordships no longer.

2.53 p.m.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has framed his Motion on somewhat broader lines than those who have spoken upon it this afternoon have entirely followed. He refers to the whole machinery of government, and I would like, in the course of a few moments, to touch upon that aspect of the Motion. There seem to be two ideas, which do not exactly square, as to how our future machinery of government should be constituted. In the first place, we find it advocated, and advocated very powerfully in many quarters, that in the future, as necessity grows and the work of the Cabinet becomes more and more heavy, there should be a grouping of Departments—such as the Service Departments under a Ministry of Defence, and others which I need not particularize at the moment. That may be a very useful suggestion. Personally I think it is one that might be carried out with advantage. It would be a matter of some difficulty, I foresee, to group the Departments, and it would require very considerable study to prevent overlapping and other inconveniences, but I think it could be done.

Certainly, I think it is preferable to one system which has been put in practice especially during this war and the last war. Suddenly, and at a moment of need, new Departments have been created. Well, that may be necessary in time of war, for you cannot wait for things to happen and you cannot spend time studying matters carefully. But I think it has been pointed out that between the two wars Departments which have been created ad hoc have become permanent. Whether that is a satisfactory solution of the problem or not I do not know, but it is one that involves factors which need the greatest possible consideration. One consideration which I mention in that connexion—and it has been alluded to by the noble Earl, Lord Perth—is that of accommodation. I have, in a certain sense, some experience of that matter because, at one time, I had the honour to represent in your Lordships' House the Board of Education, the Home Office and the Ministry of Health. It was not very easy to keep in touch with the three Departments, but the task was made simpler by reason of the fact that they were practically under one roof so to speak. The Board of Education and the Ministry of Health were actually under one roof, and the Home Office is connected by a bridge, as your Lordships will know. It was quite easy, or fairly easy, to be in touch with the three Departments together.

But, some years later, when I became Under-Secretary of State for War and at the same time had charge in your Lordships' House of the Colonial Office, which at that time was also the Dominions Office, I found a very different state of affairs compared with that which I had experienced when the Departments with which I was connected were under one roof. To get to the Dominions Office, as it was then, from the War Office, although the distance is very short, was a matter of much more difficulty than it would have been had those Departments been under one roof. I think, with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that even if you do not regroup the Departments in the way he has suggested when the Foreign Office expands—a suggestion which seems to find favour in all quarters of your Lordships' House—the Foreign Office, which is divided among different buildings, will be a most difficult place to run efficiently. I was for a short time at the Board of Agriculture, and I remember that we were scattered about in various buildings. That was not a very satisfactory arrangement, and did not tend to make our work easy. When we reconsider the whole machinery of government, therefore, the question of accommodation will be one of paramount importance if we are to avoid overlapping and keep the various subdivisions of the Departments properly in touch with one another.

There is another point which I wish to mention. It was referred to by my noble friend Lord Vansittart, and is the question of the itinerant Ministers. Frankly, I do not understand what their particular functions are. What, for example, are their relations with the accredited representatives to the foreign Powers in their area? What is their connexion with the Home Government, and especially with the Foreign Secretary? All the noble Lords who have spoken have insisted on the necessity of the control of foreign affairs by the Foreign Secretary, but if there is a number of other Ministers, whose functions no doubt are clear to my noble friend the Leader of the House—and I hope he will tell us what they are —is the Foreign Secretary responsible for them, and are they responsible to him, or equally responsible with him? The position requires considerable explanation.

There will be general agreement that a dual authority, especially in foreign affairs, is not convenient. During the war we have seen, as my noble friend Lord Vansittart has pointed out, a growth in the appointment of these Ministers, who have been given responsibilities not only for foreign affairs but also for Colonial and Dominion affairs. In wartime that may be convenient and even necessary, and it may work satisfactorily; but I venture to say that if we have Ministers of the Crown—whether Cabinet Ministers or not—who are resident abroad, we shall get into a state of confusion. I noticed in a newspaper—I do not know whether it was accurate or not —that my right honourable friend Mr. Macmillan was described as a Cabinet Minister who was going to Athens. At the beginning of the war, when my noble friend Lord Stanhope was leading the House, the question of the War Cabinet was brought up, and some noble Lord said that there was both the War Cabinet and the ordinary Cabinet. My noble friend got up at once and contradicted him. He said that there was only one Cabinet, and that the other Ministers were not members of the Cabinet. I do not see how a man who lives abroad can be a member of the Cabinet. He may be a Minister, but he cannot have the full responsibility of a Cabinet Minister when he does not live in England and is not in a position to attend the Cabinet.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CHANBORNE)

(Lord Cecil): Perhaps I may put that matter right immediately. Mr. Macmillan is not a member of the Cabinet. He is a member of the Government, but the only members of the Cabinet are the members of the War Cabinet.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am much obliged to my noble friend. I am glad to hear that the statement to which I referred is inaccurate, and that the responsible members of the Cabinet are the regular Cabinet Ministers—namely, those in the War Cabinet. I need not trouble your Lordships any more on that point, because I have had a perfectly satisfactory answer. For the rest, I should like to associate myself with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and with the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, in their various observations, and to support them in every way possible. I would especially support what my noble friend Lord Perth said about the Head of the Civil Service. I noticed the other day that a pamphlet was published by the Liberal Committee (I think it was) in which the views of my noble friend Lord Perth were fully endorsed. I hope that this anomaly will be put right. It is an anomaly. There may have been a Cabinet Minute fifty or a hundred years ago on the subject, but I understand that that has never been found, and that it is not now in the archives of the Treasury or in the Public Record Office. When I was a member of the Civil Service the Head of the Civil Service may have been known in the Treasury, but he was not known to many outside it. I strongly support my noble friend in thinking that this office should be abolished altogether, or at any rate modified on the lines which my noble friend Lord Perth recommended.

LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE

My Lords, I do not pretend to speak with any great knowledge of the Foreign Office. I speak as a simple soldier with some little experience of international associations, and also as a politician. I think that in dealing with the question which my noble friend Lord Perth has raised, it is as well for some of those outside the Foreign Office to express their views as well as those who have spent their lives inside the Foreign Office. I heartily endorse all that my noble friend Lord Perth has said. I doubt very much whether the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, will be able to give him very much satisfaction to-day, but if there is a Committee of the Cabinet sitting to examine these very important questions they will no doubt take into consideration anything which is said in your Lordships' House. This debate may serve to bring points to their notice to which they may not have attached much importance or which they may have overlooked.

It seems to me that for many years the Foreign Office has been getting into a position of less importance than it used to have. The Treasury has become more and more powerful. Possibly what in part led up to the weakening of our Armed Forces before this war was the pressure of economic control by the Treasury rather than any reports from the Foreign Office. NO doubt my noble friend Lord Hankey will have something to say on the subject when he speaks later. A procedure which began at 10 Downing Street in the last war has extended right through into this war, and many of the functions of the Foreign Office have gone over to the "Garden City" at 10 Downing Street. Whether that is a good thing or not I do not know, but I feel sure that the Foreign Secretary has not at present the great position which he used to have in the counsels of the nation.

There is no doubt that before the war we suffered to some extent from dual con- trol. My noble friend Lord Vansittart would have been able to emphasize that. We had dual control among the civil heads in the Foreign Office; we had one of them advising the Prime Minister and another advising the Foreign Secretary. That cannot be good. The power of the Treasury has increased, while that of the Foreign Office has diminished. It was said in the debate last year that the chief civil officer in the Treasury is now Head of the Civil Service. That is bad. The pressure on the various heads of Departments in the Government, including the head of the Foreign Office, is bound to be increased by this control by the Head of the Civil Service in the Treasury. Until this pernicious system, which was introduced in 1919 by a Cabinet Minute, is done away with there will always be that trouble. I suggest that the Committee of the Cabinet should consider very carefully how the Civil Service in this country is to be controlled, and whether it is a good thing for the head of a Department like the Treasury to exercise the power which he has at present.

Even before the war our international relations were becoming more and more dependent not on pure foreign policy but on economics, industry and finance, and it is perfectly clear that if we are going to make progress we shall have to bring into the Foreign Office some Department to deal with international industry and with finance. In order to do that you have to bring in an adviser to the Foreign Secretary, who would be a Minister under him with the special duty of considering the financial and commercial aspects of all our policies in the various countries of the world. In order to get personnel with the necessary equipment for the task, I think you have to go outside the ordinary entrants to the Foreign Office and bring into the Foreign Office men from the banking world and large concerns in the commercial world, to advise the Foreign Minister on these subjects. For our international relations are, and will in future be, so bound up with financial controls, business arrangements and commerce generally that it seems impossible otherwise to have a policy directed towards those particular things in countries abroad.

There is another point. I think that the Department concerned with commercial treaties and general commercial relations, which is now directed by the Board of Trade, might very well be moved from that Department to the Department which I have suggested at the Foreign Office. The Board of Trade has quite enough to do with our trade at home and with its reactions on our export trade, whereas matters of commercial relations and treaties would be much better if put definitely under the Foreign Office. That is my suggestion, made with the advice I have received from my commercial friends. Such a change of course would mean a reconstruction of the Department of Overseas Trade which indeed is a corollary of such a move. I think the Department of Overseas Trade might be strengthened and reconstructed. For there is no doubt at all that in trying to re-establish this country after the war we shall have to give long credit to various countries in Europe. We shall have to give credit to Russia, we shall have to give credit for periods of four or five years. We shall get it all back later on when these countries are re-established, but in order to re-establish these countries I am perfectly certain it would pay us to give the necessary credit, so that the outflow of trade to these countries would be followed later on by an inflow of imports into this country. That again depends very largely on the policy of His Majesty's Government, and if we have a Foreign Office properly equipped to look ahead, and men with real knowledge to deal with these things, then I think we shall get something of great advantage to the country.

The last thing I should like to refer to is the question of Germany. There is no doubt at all that after this war is over the control of Germany will be not so much a control by armed forces as a financial and economic control over a period of many years. It may go on for ten or fifteen years until something arises in Germany, but until that time comes we shall have to control her war potential, and to control that war potential we shall have to have it examined very carefully by a Department in this country, and at the same time by economic advisers who will be placed abroad. I cannot imagine any possibility of divorcing foreign policy from such a control, and the Foreign Office must get first-hand information of what is going on in Germany. What happened after the last war? We know very well what happened. I paid many visits to Berlin at that time when Lord D'Abernon was Ambassador there. Although things were going on under our noses, and we knew very well about them, the real information never reached our Government at home. Unless we have some sort of control, with the necessary information —which means the spending of money—we shall be in the dark again after a period of probably ten or fifteen years. For that reason I think our Foreign Office does require to be reorganized and put in a position whereby it will take over certain functions from other Departments which those Departments are probably not doing so well as the Foreign Office could do them if given the necessary trained personnel. For that reason I have great pleasure in supporting the noble Earl, Lord Perth.

3.17 p.m.

LORD HANKEY

My Lords, I am not going to attempt to cover the whole of the ground of this Motion to-day partly because, to my great regret, I arrived rather late, and for another reason because I really said nearly all I want to say in earlier debates, one in 1942 on the headship of the Civil Service, another in 1943 on the reform of the Foreign Office, and a third on my noble and gallant friend Lord Chatfield's Motion in March, 1944. Just as I took my seat, however, I heard my noble, friend Lord Onslow speaking about the arrangements whereby members of the Government, like Lord Halifax and at one time Mr. Casey when he was in Egypt, are members of the War Cabinet. I do not know that I feel any very strong objection to that as a war measure. I do not know any precedent for it, but just as an Ambassador is strengthened by being a Privy Councillor, so I should have thought that in war-time there was a case for giving certain representatives abroad this special status as members of the War Cabinet or of the Government, especially now that air communications enable them to keep a closeness of contact such as did not exist in the past and to come home for consultation.

My main reason for rising, however, is to expand a little the point that I made in some of the earlier debates—namely, a plea for a still closer association between the Foreign Office and the Committee of Imperial Defence. There has, of course, always been a fairly close association. For example, the secretary of the body that preceded the Committee of Imperial Defence, and on which it was founded really, a Defence Committee of the Cabinet, that was started by Lord Salisbury, I think, in 1895, was a member of the staff of the Foreign Office. In my view that precedent might be followed with great advantage by appointing a member of the Foreign. Office staff as an Assistant Secretary for a term of years, just like the other Assistant Secretaries from the Service Departments, to the staff of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Of course, a much closer link than that is the fact that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from the very first right up to the beginning of the present war was a regular member and a regular attendant at the Committee. In addition, the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, as my noble friend Lord Tyrrell would confirm, was in the very closest touch with the Committee and was the custodian of its archives in the Foreign Office.

In addition to that, very important questions of foreign policy were frequently discussed at the Committee in their defence aspects. For example, as is shown by many of the memoirs, including those of Lord Oxford and Asquith, our defensive preparations for 1914 were largely governed by our treaty obligations as formulated by the Foreign Office, including, of course, very notably, the Belgian Treaty of Guarantee of 1839. Many other examples could be given up to the most recent times. But, in spite of that, there have been many occasions on which our foreign policy has got out of step with our defence policy: I go back to 1856 for a case, when Lord Clarendon signed the Declaration of Paris on the ground that "We can never again establish our ancient doctrine concerning neutrals," and dealt thereby a blow at our maritime rights which was destined to prove very embarrassing nearly sixty years later in the Great War. That mistake was repeated again in much more modern times in the Declaration of London of 1909. Although the House of Lords rejected the legislation to give effect to that instrument, nevertheless the Declaration of London, on top of the Declaration of Paris, hampered our sea power most grievously in the Great War, and it was long before the enemy's breaches of the laws of war enabled us to get rid of them for the rest of the war.

Those examples are in glaring contrast to Lord Castlereagh's action under Cabinet instructions, no doubt prompted by the Navy of that day, in insisting at one of the meetings before the Conference of Vienna that the question of maritime rights must be entirely excluded from discussion; and they are in glaring contrast to Mr. Lloyd George's corresponding action, also under War Cabinet instructions and also, I feel sure, prompted by the Admiralty of that day, in securing the reservation of the interpretation of the question of the freedom of the seas in the second of the Fourteen Points. Several examples of a loss of contact between defence and foreign policy should be mentioned between the two wars. For instance, there was that sequence of a Treaty of Mutual Assistance, a Treaty of Mutual Guarantee and the Geneva Protocol, all of which, if my memory serves me aright, were drawn up at Geneva without there being any opportunity for them to be discussed from the point of view of our own defensive requirements, with the result that they proved unacceptable and had to be rejected. And the same was true, in a way, of the Treaty of Locarno, although that did get through and was ratified, but it was really so unworkable—I am sorry to see that Lord Cavan is not here; I am sure he would support me—that it was impossible to put teeth into it.

The fact is that this long-drawn-out disarmament episode is the most striking instance you can find of the unbalancing of defence policy and foreign policy. It was fatal to the Fighting Services and, as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack who was then Foreign Secretary said in another place on November 28; 1934, "disarming ourselves in advance, by ourselves, by way of an example, has not increased our negotiating power in the disarmament discussions at Geneva." I have said enough, perhaps too much, to show that the close and very valuable association of the Foreign Office with the Committee of Imperial Defence has not prevented an unbalancing at times of foreign policy and defence, to the detriment of both. It needs to be strengthened. I would submit to your Lordships that two principles ought to be adopted: first, that the strength of our Forces, as well as our plans and preparations for their use in emergency, should always be adjusted primarily to our international commitments, as well as, of course, to other defensive considerations; second, that no new international commitments should ever be undertaken without prior discussion at the Committee of Imperial Defence. I believe that if those two principles could be closely followed, it would prevent the trouble we have got into so often.

Now as to the ways and means, the machinery for carrying out those principles, a number of valuable suggestions have been made in the course of the debates I have mentioned. My noble friend Lord Chatfield's suggestions, his proposals for securing unity in defence policy by the adoption of a national defence programme accepted by Parliament for a term of years, if adopted and carried out, would go far to secure the desired result, since his long-term defence plan would have to be founded largely on policy and, I understand, would be modified from time to time to meet changes in that policy. Then there are quite a series of proposals in a new book that has just been published by Sir Victor Wellesley, a very distinguished former Deputy Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, entitled Diplomacy, in Fetters, in which is assembled a vast amount of information on this subject. The book only reached me last night and I do not pretend to have conned it properly. I do notice, however, that he proposes not only important developments of organization within the Foreign Office but also outside the Foreign Office, including a Cabinet Committee on Foreign Affairs, which he says has been advocated by Mr. Amery and others. He also discusses a great number of other suggestions that ought to be very carefully weighed and I hope will be weighed by the War Cabinet Committee before the question is finally settled, if it is not finally settled already.

Again the whole matter is admirably presented in a closely reasoned pamphlet called Problems of Foreign Policy, published I think by the Liberal National Party. I hope I have not got the title wrong; these things are rather confusing, but it is no doubt familiar to your Lordships. That reaches the conclusion that the Committee of Imperial Defence already provides the machinery for better consultation in matters of foreign policy and that the solution lies in the direction of the already existing machinery being more extensively used than it has been in the past. For my part I prefer the Committee of Imperial Defence to a Cabinet Committee for this reason, that it would enable one or two high officials of the Foreign Office and the Chiefs of Staff or their representatives to be present and would thus give a more permanent element to the organization which would go on from Government to Government. That suggestion I submit at present holds the field.

3.32 p.m.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in the speech with which he opened this debate, implied, at least so I understood him, that he had again raised this subject of the machinery of government, with special reference to the reform of the Foreign Office, as a result of my encouragement. I almost got the impression that he had done it as a personal kindness to me. That I think was going a little too far. So far as I am aware I have never encouraged any noble Lord to raise any subject in this House. Indeed, so active are your Lordships' minds and so wide your interests that it seems to me you never need such a stimulus from me. At The same time, I would fully agree that this is a subject very suitable for discussion in your Lordships' House and I would also agree with him that your Lordships' House was a very suitable body to discuss it. After all, we do contain within our ranks many eminent public servants, who have had a lifelong experience of this particular subject. The last time this question was raised and discussed I claimed, what is indeed perfectly true, that there is no difference between His Majesty's Government and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the other noble Lords who have spoken to-day as to the main objects to be achieved—namely, the desirability of ensuring the closest co-ordination that is possible between foreign, commercial and economic policy. We all agree about that.

As I think Lord Addison said in the speech he delivered this afternoon, this is a matter of the very first importance to our country. The whole problem is one of method and, I would add, it is not possible to isolate the problem of foreign policy from other aspects of the machinery of government. When I spoke last, I think I also stated—a reference has been made to it to-day—that there is a Cabinet Committee already sitting to consider this broad general problem. The main question that the noble Earl has asked me this afternoon is whether I can now say how the deliberations of that Committee are progressing. He recognizes, and I am grateful to him, that no final decisions are probably yet possible. What lie asks for is an interim report. He has been supported, as the House has heard, by other noble Lords, all of whom have stressed the importance of setting up the necessary machinery.

I feel it is desirable, not so much from the point of view of your Lordships, who know the facts, but of anyone outside this House who may read the debate, that I should first remove the impression, which some of the speeches may have created, though I am sure it was unintentional, that at present there is little or no coordinating machinery between foreign and economic policy. That of course is not the case. It was not the case before the war and it is still less the case now. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, in his opening speech said—I think I have got his words—that he had become more and more convinced that, in the years between the wars, the policy of the Foreign Secretary was hampered and deflected by the action of other Departments. No doubt that, on occasion, was perfectly true, in the sense that the policy of the Foreign Office and other Departments did not always coincide and that the Foreign Secretary was often obliged to make concessions to meet the views of other Departments. But it does no: necessarily imply, though it may have seemed to imply, that there was not full consultation between the Foreign Office and the other Departments concerned. Where consultations did not take place—I think the noble Earl, Lord Perth, quoted one or two instances in his speech—that was not necessarily the fault of the machinery. It may well have been the fault of individual Ministers, who did not operate that machinery as it should have been operated; I am afraid that no machinery however perfect could completely avoid that danger.

I do not intend to suggest to your Lordships that the machinery which existed before the war was anywhere near perfect. Clearly there was room for improvement. But, actually, elaborate machinery did exist which was built up, as I think Lord Hankey said, under the Cabinet Offices, for the purpose of coordinating the various aspects of public policy. Lord Addison said to-day that when he first came into politics the Foreign Office was isolated. That is certainly not the case now, and I think your Lordships all know it. Within recent years, innumerable meetings have taken place, day after day and week after week, both at the Ministerial and at the official level, to discuss the various aspects of policy. And if that was already true before the war, I am glad to think it is even truer now. If I may give my personal experience as Dominions Secretary, I constantly attend meetings of my colleagues on commercial and economic subjects in regard to matters which concern the Dominions, and it was exactly the same when I was Colonial Secretary. At those meetings, in my experience, the Foreign Office was always represented on any subject where their interests were concerned. Often at those meetings—sub-committees of the Cabinet or whatever you wish to call them—complete agreement was reached: and where it was not, the matter had to be taken up to the Cabinet for final decision. That is the machinery. I do not say it is complete and perfect machinery, but it would be a great mistake for anyone outside this House to feel that there was no machinery in existence.

The question which the Committee on the machinery of government has to consider is, Can that machinery be improved? I am not yet in a position, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Perth, anticipated, to tell the House the point which the discussions of that Committee have yet reached. If it be pointed out to me, as he did very gently this afternoon, that the examination of this problem has already been proceeding for over two years, I would answer—and I think quite fairly—that that does not necessarily imply that the time is yet ripe for final decisions. Under the impact of war we are all of us learning lessons the whole time. Discussions which are now taking place with other countries—discussions on financial and economic questions—are likely to, and almost certainly will, bring into being yet more organs of international collaboration. These must be taken into account in framing our own machinery of government. As I understand it, there is no desire in any quarter that the Foreign Office should dominate economic policy merely because economic affairs have an international aspect. The noble Earl put forward no such pretentions to-day and indeed it would obviously be quite ludicrous to put forward such a point of view as that.

The Foreign Secretary has made it quite clear that there is no question of the Foreign Office trenching on the responsibilities of other Departments. What is required, and what of course we shall try to provide in any reforms which may be instituted, is that the Foreign Office should be an efficient partner in the formulation of Government policy as regards the economic, commercial, and political aspects of international affairs. For this purpose, it may be found desirable to constitute machinery in a very definite form, machinery of the type suggested by the noble Earl this afternoon, or it may, on the contrary, prove preferable to allow greater elasticity to enable the business of government to be arranged as may be most convenient from time to time.

The noble Earl himself put forward two very interesting suggestions to-day as to how our common purpose may be achieved. One of them, I think, he mentioned in your Lordships' House during the last debate and the other was a new one. First he suggested the constitution of some organ similar to the Committee of Imperial Defence but dealing with external affairs; and secondly put forward the idea of a Standing Committee of the Cabinet—in this I think he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Addison—which would be presided over by the Foreign Secretary and would include the other Ministers concerned, with a special Secretariat. He also suggested that there should be on that Committee a representative of the Bank of England. I thought that was rather a surprising proposal. I do not see how there could be such a representative on a Ministerial Committee unless, possibly, it is now the policy of the Liberal Party to nationalize the Bank of England.

THE EARL OF PERTH

May I say that I suggested that the Bank of England should, in some way, be included in these arrangements because I think the fact that money was poured into Germany without the knowledge of the Foreign Secretary was a very serious thing?

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

I do not know whether my noble friend has discussed the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Catto, who used until lately to ornament the Liberal Benches; but surely the best liaison between the Cabinet and the Bank of England would be provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I think he would be in fact the representative. We have had other alternatives put forward this afternoon. There was an extremely valuable contribution from my noble friend Lord Hankey, who speaks with unrivalled experience. As I understood it, he rather favoured a closer integration, for this purpose, of the Foreign Office and the existing Committee of Imperial Defence. He suggested, for instance, that the Foreign Secretary should always be present at meetings of the Defence Committee. So far as I am aware, that has been the practice ever since the beginning of this war.

LORD HANKEY

I did say that.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

The noble Lord would, I understand, like that to continue. He also made other valuable suggestions. As regards all these proposals, I can give an assurance that I will pass them on and that they will be given the careful consideration which they deserve by the Committee on the machinery of government. I can also assure the noble Earl on a point to which he obviously attached considerable importance, that the fullest practicable information as to the machinery ultimately decided upon will be given to Parliament when the time comes. I agree with him that there is no reason for complete secrecy on a matter of that kind.

In the meantime, I feel that your Lordships' House will agree that considerable progress has been registered by the setting up of the Economic Department of the Foreign Office, which was referred to by my noble friend the Earl of Listowel last week. The function of this Department is exactly what was defined by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, as being necessary. It is to advise the Foreign Secretary as to the bearing of economic developments at home and abroad on foreign policy and as to the bearing of decisions made by the Foreign Office, in the political sphere, on the economic position. It will act in fact as a liaison between the Foreign Office and the Economic Departments. That is, I think, the answer to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, as to whether there would be provision for the study of proposals put forward by other Departments before they were translated into action. That is one of the main purposes for which the new Department has been Great d. It is also proposed that the Foreign Office should contain a Foreign Economic Intelligence Department to collate information as to economic developments in .foreign countries. I think that this should prove a very valuable piece machinery. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Hankey indicated there had been a lack of precisely that type of machinery in the years before the war.

I know what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will say. He will say that all this is not bad, but that it is not enough. I agree that that may very well be so, but, for all that, it is a very considerable advance in the right direction. It is hoped by the Foreign Secretary that, as soon as man-power considerations become easier than at present, it will be possible to arrange for a considerable interchange of staff between these two new departments of the Foreign Office with the Treasury and the Board of Trade. I would not like to go further, but that is what is hoped. This, I think, provides the answer to another question asked by the noble Earl this afternoon. He also asked whether business men of suitable experience will be taken into consultation. So far as I know, that is not ruled out. At any rate, I will pass on what he has said this afternoon.

There is one other question asked by the noble Earl, which it may he convenient that I should deal with now. He referred to the remark made by my noble friend the Earl of Listowel, that the Economic Department should be situated within the four wells of the Foreign Office and he asked how this was to be achieved. As I understood him, he suggested that the Foreign Office should take over the buildings of one or more of the neighbouring Departments. Here the noble Earl touched on an extremely tender spot. As he knows, the problem is not an easy one. I think it is common knowledge that all Government Departments to-day are suffering from exactly the same handicap—namely, shortage of accommodation. I have been in turn Colonial Secretary and Dominions Secretary and I can tell your Lordships that both Departments are lamentably short of space. Indeed the staff of the Colonial Office is already scattered over wide areas of Western London. All these Departments, every one of them, have the same need. They need to be concentrated in one building near the centre of Government. The noble Earl, I thought, looked at the problem, quite naturally, from the point of view of the Departments with which for years he was connected; but in his present detached and more Olympian position, I hope he will not take too departmental a view of this matter. All I can say this afternoon is that the Government are very aware of the urgency and the complexity of this problem. Negotiations are already proceeding and it is hoped they may lead to a solution of this very real difficulty.

So much for what I may call the main subject of the debate; but inevitably some more extensive issues have been raised about which I may perhaps be allowed to say a word. First, there was the point put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, as to the relationship between the various Resident Ministers who, at present, represent His Majesty's Government in various parts of the world, and the Foreign Secretary. Quite clearly, the noble Lord did not at all like these new ornaments of the body politic. He, apparently, looked forward with the keenest relish to the day when they would, he removed from it. This new category of Ministers of the Crown is certainly a somewhat novel development. It has been brought into being, in accordance with the natural adaptability of the British Constitution, in order to meet a completely new set of circumstances. But I do not think it would be right to assume, as I thought the noble Earl did, that they necessarily overlap the functions of existing diplomatic representatives of the King. Indeed, they were appointed, as your Lordships know, and as I think Lord Hankey said to-day, to fill a gap created by abnormal war-time conditions.

Take the positions of Minister Resident in the Middle East and Minister Resident in the Central Mediterranean. This is a complicated question, and, as the noble Earl was good enough to give me notice, I have obtained accurate particulars for the House. The essential business of the Minister Resident in the Middle East is to co-ordinate issues of general importance affecting more than one territory in his area, to settle matters in dispute which would otherwise have to be referred home—especially when several local authorities or Departments are concerned —and to give guidance to the Commanders-in-Chief on matters of concern or interest to them, as, for instance, the administration of occupied enemy territory. On political matters, where, in his own sphere, concerted action is required regarding foreign policy, he corresponds with, and reports to, His Majesty's Government through the Foreign Office. His normal channel of communication is through the medium of His Majesty's Embassy in Cairo and the Foreign Office. He communicates direct, however, with other Departments on matters which are their concern. That is the position of the Minister Resident in the Middle East.

Now I come to the position of Minister Resident in the Central Mediterranean. This member of the Government, this Minister, serves in two capacities—first, as Resident Minister; and second, as Acting President of the Allied Commission. In his first capacity, his general function is to represent the views of His Majesty's Government, on political and economic questions relating to the territories within his sphere, to the Allied Commander-in-Chief. This normal channel of communication is through the Foreign Office. As Acting President of the Allied Commission, to which he has been appointed by the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, his channel of communication with His Majesty's Government and with the Government of the United States is through the President of the Commission—that is the Supreme Allied Commander in the Mediterranean—and the Combined Chiefs of Staff. I think that what I have said makes it clear that, so far as any matters in the field of foreign policy are concerned, the channel of communication of Resident Ministers is through the Foreign Office, and the functions discharged by them are entirely without prejudice to the functions normally discharged by His Majesty's representatives in the various territories with which they are concerned. As to the duration of these posts, of course, I cannot tell the House anything. That lies in the lap of the future. I take it that these appointments are likely to come to an end when the emergency for which they were created no longer requires their continuance.

There were also one or two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. He spoke from a very long and distinguished experience of foreign affairs, and he made what I thought were some extremely interesting remarks with regard to the present situation of the Diplomatic Service and its possible reforms. I say reforms, my Lords, but broadly speaking nearly every reform that was proposed by the noble Lord aimed at going hack and not forward. He wanted, as I understood it, to return to what he regarded as the older and better methods of the past. It seems that he regrets almost everything that has happened in the last twenty or thirty years. He expressed regret at the fact that there was less responsibility thrown on the shoulders of diplomats than used to be the case. He regretted the tendency of Governments to appoint as Ambassadors men who are not professional diplomats. He regretted that there was more publicity than there used to be about the actions of diplomats. With regard to these last two points, I am bound to say that I thought the noble Lord was a little too rigid. It would surely be impossible for any of us to say that in no circumstances ought His Majesty's Government to appoint to an Embassy a non-professional. Names like those of Lord D'Abernon and Lord Bryce spring to one's mind. At the same time, it is quite clear that if all the plums of the profession were given outside the Diplomatic Service, the evil effect on the Service itself would be serious and lasting, and I hope, personally, that that consideration will be very high in the minds of the Foreign Secretaries in the future.

The appointment of non-Service Ambassadors and Ministers should be very much the exception, and should not become the rule. In that respect, I find myself in strong agreement with Lord Vansittart. Similarly—to come to Lord Vansittart's second point—I think it is inevitable that less personal responsibility should be given to diplomats than used to be the case in past days. The very simple fact of the invention of the postal telegraph, the telephone and now wireless make it possible for Governments to keep in touch with events in other countries from day to day, almost from hour to hour, and that gives them an additional direct responsibility from which, I feel sure your Lordships will agree, they cannot: in practice divorce themselves. Lord Vansittart mentioned Greece, which is very much in all our minds at the present time. Supposing I were to get up in your Lordships' House and say that His Majesty's Government could accept no responsibility for recent. developments, that the affairs of Greece were in the hands of His Majesty's representative in Athens, and that the main responsibility rested on him. That would be an impossible position for me to take up, and your Lordships would, quite properly, laugh Me to scorn. The new means of communication which have telescoped space have, inevitably, entirely altered the speed and methods of diplomacy. It is quite useless for us to ignore this.

But this very fact, I suggest, makes it more unjustifiable—and here I find myself in very strong agreement with Lord Vansittart—that His Majesty's diplomatic representatives abroad should be subject to public attack here. It cannot, I think, be made too clear that the Government, and the Government alone, are responsible for our policy towards foreign countries, and that the function of diplomatic representatives is merely to carry out that policy under instructions from the Government at home. For uninformed people—and I am afraid that there are all too many of them—to hurl abuse at devoted public servants is surely indefensible and liable to break the heart of the Diplomatic Service.

Reference has been made by several noble Lords to the position of the Head of the Civil Service. I do not propose to deal with that question now. Two years ago, we had a very full debate in your Lordships' House on this subject, a debate which lasted for two whole days. That debate was notable for a very remarkable speech by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, which will, I believe, go down as the classic exposition of this subject, and I have certainly nothing to add to it. It appears from some of the speeches made to-day that the necessity for a Head of the Civil Service is still disputed; but at any rate the noble Earl, Lord Perth, himself said that the Lord Chancellor's statement had allayed many of the anxieties which were felt. He asked me whether, as a result of that speech, a further circular, bringing up to date those of 1919 and 1920, has been or is to be issued to Government Departments. So far as I know such a circular has not been issued; but the principles enshrined in that statement are being applied in practice in all Departments. If the noble Earl has any evidence to the contrary, I shall be very glad if he will let me know, and I will pass on the information to the appropriate quarter.

He asked two other questions. The first was, whether the Head of the Civil Service will also he head of the new Foreign Service. From what my noble friend Lord Hutchison said, there is a genuine and serious misunderstanding about this, and I am glad to be able to give a clear and unequivocal answer. The answer is that he will not. The White Paper on the Foreign Service states quite definitely that the new Service "will be entirely separated from the Home Civil Service and will be treated as a self-contained and distinct Service of the Crown." The Head of the Civil Service, therefore, will not be the head of the Foreign Service. Secondly, the noble Earl asked whether the Committee on the machinery of government had considered the question of whether the position of Head of the Civil Service should continue, and, if so, whether they had come to any decision. That was a very fine fly which the noble Earl threw over me; but I feel sure that he will not really expect me to give the House information as to the proceedings of a Cabinet Committee which has not yet completed its deliberations and which has certainly not yet reported to the Cabinet. Even if I were to be so indiscreet, the information which I gave your Lordships would be utterly without value at the present stage. I hope, however, that the noble Earl will not take this to mean that His Majesty's Government are contemplating any departure from the views expressed by the Lord Chancellor two years ago; to do so would be very rash on his part.

In conclusion, to revert for one moment to the main question of the debate, I should like most cordially to support the plea of my noble friend Lord Perth that foreign policy should be kept outside Party politics. That is not always as easy as it sounds, as we may see from the events of this last week. But, though no doubt divergencies of view are sometimes inevitable, and nothing can prevent them, at the same time we shall all agree that they are deplorable and can only tend to weaken our influence in the councils of the world. We should take every possible step to reduce them to a minimum. I would agree with the noble Earl that the best way to avoid such differences and divergencies is, first of all, to see that there is the closest possible co-ordination of policy between the various Departments, so that we may ensure that this country has a foreign policy which is firm and undeviating, and secondly to ensure that the fullest information possible should be given to the leaders of all the main Parties of the State, in order that they may be able to guide their followers with a full knowledge of the facts. On those two basic principles I should imagine that we are all agreed, and to that end all our deliberations, whether on the Committee on the machinery of government or elsewhere, should be devoted in the crucial months and years which are to come.

4.5 p.m.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, I should like first of all to express my appreciation of the support given to me by the various noble Lords who have spoken, and in particular by Lord Addison. I also wish to say how grateful I am to the noble Viscount for what he has just said. I feel that there is very little difference of opinion between us except that I (speaking with all humility) have had more experience of foreign affairs in the past, and perhaps of the machinery of government, than he has had; but that is owing to age, and I am not at all sure that that is an advantage. I am much relieved to hear that the headship of the Civil Service does not include the headship of the new Foreign Service, but I would still ask whether it would not be opportune for a circular to be issued in the sense of the admirable speech made by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, for otherwise, knowing Government Departments as I do, I know that the circulars of 1919 and 1920 will certainly hold the field.

There is one constitutional point raised by the noble Viscount to which I should like for a moment only to refer. He said, and rightly, that it is intolerable that servants of the Government, official diplomats, should be criticized by name in the public Press. I entirely agree, but what is the position as regards people like Mr. Macmillan? Is the same rule of exemption from criticism to be applied to them or not? It is a very nice constitutional point, and perhaps the noble Viscount will think it over.

LORD ADDISON

They are open to criticism.

THE EARL OF PERTH

The answer which I have received from the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, is that they are open to criticism. On the main question, my rather pessimistic anticipations have been justified, but the noble Viscount attributed that to the war, and I cannot dispute that plea. I am very grateful to him, however, for the announcement that the decisions of the Government about the machinery of government will be placed before Parliament as soon as definite conclusions are reached, and I am so grateful for that that I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.