RESPONSIBILITY OF CO-ORDINATORS (Hansard, 1 May 1952)

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree with the view expressed by the Lord President of the Council in the debate yesterday, and reported in Column 475 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of April 30, that: the work of the co-ordinators is not a responsibility to Parliament; it is a responsibility to the Cabinet.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)
My Lords, what my noble friend had in mind was that the co-ordination of the work of Departments is a function within the Government, an allocation of duties by the Prime Minister for purposes of administrative convenience. It does not affect the direct responsibility to Parliament of Departmental Ministers, which, as before, remains with these Ministers once the Government have taken their decisions: nor, equally, does it affect the long-established ministerial responsibility to Crown and Parliament.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Marquess for the courtesy of his reply, may I ask him whether what he has now said would also refer to the Minister of Defence, who might make a decision covering the Departments coming under his care, or to the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power? I think there is a distinction between certain Ministers, and in these two cases what the noble Marquess has said will cause us grave reflection.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I do not complain in the least that the noble Lord should have asked this Question, but I am both too cautious 524 and too conscious of my own limitations to pontificate on these extremely difficult points at the very short notice which I have received. What I have tried to do—and I think I have done it—is to give the House a broad answer about the functions of co-ordinators. I would prefer not to amplify that; and, indeed, I should have thought that others who have had some experience of government would probably agree that one might do more harm than good by trying to define this matter too accurately. The broad central view is that all the Ministers jointly are responsible for Government policy. That is the essence of Cabinet responsibility.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, may I ask this further question? If the Minister of Defence makes a decision which affects one of the Ministries under him, is the Minister of Defence answerable to Parliament for that decision, or is it the Minister who carries out the instruction?

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I think the noble Lord himself would agree with what I have already said. This question was raised with me just before lunch, at 11 a.m.; that was when notice of it first reached me. These are important points, and I would prefer him not to press me to-day, when I cannot give a completely informed answer.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
Perhaps the noble Marquess would indicate whether he would be willing to give consideration to the points raised and come to the House at some other time with a more considered opinion on these questions.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I shall be delighted to do that.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, did not ask for time before he made his statement. He made the most amazing statement: that not only he but also the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power, were not responsible in their functions to Parliament—that is to say, a new class of Ministers is created who are not responsible to Parliament. I should like to ask the noble Marquess how Parliament can bring to book the noble Lord, the Lord President of the Council, if he has made a decision, which is a final decision, since he is in the Cabinet, but which is against the wishes of Parliament.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, that is the responsibility of the Government as a whole. The noble Viscount knows as well as I do that when a decision is made in the Cabinet, it is not made by an individual Minister. The reason why co-ordinators have been brought into existence—and I think, on the whole, they fulfil very useful functions—is that very often some problem which concerns more than one Department arises, and there is need for somebody to link together, to weave together, the policy which affects both Departments. As I have tried to explain to the noble Lord, that does not affect the direct responsibility to Parliament of departmental Ministers which, as before, remains with these Ministers once the Government have taken their decision.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
The noble Marquess, if he will forgive me for saying so, is going much further than the present constitutional practice. Everybody knows that Cabinet Committees are private affairs, and that the Cabinet as a whole are responsible. But three Ministers have been appointed who have the right to give orders to other Departments. Supposing they give an order, how can the departmental Minister be held to be responsible to Parliament when he himself has received an order from a Minister who himself declares that he is not responsible to Parliament?

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
That is where I feel the noble Viscount is begging the question when he speaks of "giving orders" to other Ministers. I do not admit that. The object is to co-ordinate, not to give orders. Otherwise, the other Ministers would become merely Under-Secretaries. That is not the position to-day. As I have said, I am speaking at short notice on an intricate constitutional point. If the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, cares to put down another Question (I will let him know when), I shall be delighted to go further into the matter.

§ THE EARL OF LISTOWEL
My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether, when he comes to give another reply on the point, he will kindly clarify the precise degree of the responsibility to Parliament of the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power. Is it the case that the noble Lord the Secretary of State is not 526 responsible to Parliament for what is commonly regarded, in Parliament and outside, as his principal function? I do not ask for an immediate reply, but I should be obliged if the noble Marquess would look into the point, because I think it is of the utmost importance, from the point of view of Parliament and of the general public.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I shall be delighted to look into the matter, and I will include that point.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
One cannot help but observe that the Lord President of the Council made a constitutional announcement yesterday, without asking for the consideration for which the noble Marquess now quite rightly asks. The noble Lord the Lord President told us yesterday that the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power is not responsible to Parliament. That is a serious statement, of which the public is taking notice, and which should be clarified by the Government at the earliest possible moment.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, what the Secretary of State is responsible for is co-ordinating transport, fuel and power. That does not mean that he has power to give orders to the Minister of Fuel and Power or the Minister of Transport. But I do not think we shall get much further by arguing this question to-day, and I do not think it is of great value. I am quite willing to look into the matter again. I will let the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, know when I have done so, and he can then put down a further Question.

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON)
My Lords, in view of the last remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, I feel that I must intervene. No notice was given to me of this "grave constitutional question." I was called upon to answer it without any notice at all. I thought that I stated a quite clear Parliamentary principle, which I should have thought the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has been in Parliament for so long, would have welcomed.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
I am obliged to the noble Lord. We fully understand, as does the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—although apparently the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, does not—that this 527 touches on a central point in our Constitution. The noble Lord says that he had no notice. Apparently he required no notice to announce that one Minister at least, and possibly three, claimed the right of irresponsibility in their offices.

§ LORD WOOLTON
I made no such statement.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
You said that they were not responsible to Parliament. That is a clear negation of the Constitution of this country.

§ LORD WOOLTON
That is not what I said.