As the House will be aware, we have been having discussions for some time about the economic and financial situation in Greece with two members of the Greek Government who came to London for this purpose. These discussions have now been concluded and letters were exchanged between myself and M. Tsouderos, the Vice-President of the Greek Council of Ministers, yesterday afternoon. The text of these letters is being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I do not therefore propose to go through the agreement in detail.

The main purpose of the agreement is to enable the Greek Government to draw up and put into effect a comprehensive plan for Greek economic recovery. His Majesty's Government are very ready to assist in this task and are giving Greece very substantial help. We are providing a credit of £10,000,000 for the stabilisation of Greek currency. No interest will be charged on this credit and repayment will not begin until 1951. In addition, we are waiving repayment of the £46,000,000 which we lent to Greece in 1940 and 1941. Of this sum, £19,000,000 is still held by the Bank of Greece and will therefore be freely available as additional cover for the Greek currency and for the purchase of essential imports. We are also prepared to give Greece all the assistance in our power in carrying through a programme of reconstruction. We are finding consumer goods, including clothing, to the value of £500,000. We will make available material from our military stocks for the repair of Greek land communications and for other essential tasks, such as the rebuilding of houses and the restoration of port facilities. We also hope to improve the position of Greek coastal shipping, since this plays an essential part in the Greek system of communications.

All this assistance will only be of value if it forms part of a general stabilisation and reconstruction plan to be undertaken by the Greek Government. It is intended to grapple with the problem of inflation. Accordingly, steps will be taken to control prices and the use of production, and to adjust wages with a view to assuring real wages, thereby reducing the budget deficits. We are prepared to give the Greek Government such technical assistance as we can in carrying out this programme. A highly qualified mission on financial, economic and industrial matters has been formed under General Clark, and we are also ready to appoint advisers to work in the Greek Ministries if the Greek Government so desire.

This agreement is in line with the policy, which His Majesty's Government have consistently pursued, of concentrating on the economic recovery of countries like Greece which have suffered so heavily during the war. In my first speech to the House on Greek affairs last August, I expressed my conviction that the one desire of the common man in Greece was to return to work under normal and settled conditions. It was with the same object that I asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to go to Greece last November. It was during his visit that the basis of a reconstruction programme was laid and a Government was formed pledged to undertake such a programme. It was to settle the details of this programme that the two members of the Greek Government with whom we have been holding the present discussions came to London at the end of last year.

I am very glad that these discussions have led to such a fruitful conclusion, and I should like to express my thanks to the Greek Ministers, M. Tsouderos and M. Kartalis, for the assistance they have given throughout these negotiations. We have also received the utmost help and support from the Government of the United States. Although the present agreement is between His Majesty's Government and the Greek Government, the Government of the United States have been kept fully informed, and members of the U.S. Embassy in London have been present throughout our talks. I must also mention the part played by the Greek Government in Athens during this anxious period. The negotiations in London have, of necessity, taken time to conclude, and meanwhile the situation in Greece itself, which was already serious enough, could not be allowed to deteriorate. It is a great tribute to the Greek Prime Minister, M. Sophoulis, that he has succeeded in this most difficult task. I am confident that he will now succeed in the no less difficult, but more fruitful, work of recovery and reconstruction.

It is my profound conviction that democracy cannot be imposed from above, but must grow from below. It must be firmly based on the people and it cannot flourish unless the common man is assured of a reasonable standard of living. The Greek people have suffered untold hardships during the war, but it is my hope that the present agreement will offer them a fresh start and will open the way to recovery. Greece's record is unsurpassed, and I am sure that the Greek people will show the same courage and determination in rebuilding their shattered country as they showed in battle against the enemy. In spite of our own difficulties, we are giving financial and economic assistance gladly, for we will not desert our friends, and we have not forgotten the help given by Greece to the Allied cause, and especially to British and Dominion troops who fought in Greece in 1941. I hope the Greek Government and people will make the best use of this assistance and that the Government and people will co-operate in the great task of reconstruction.

I should like briefly to welcome, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House, the statement made by the Foreign Secretary. There is no doubt that the contribution which His Majesty's Government are hereby making to Greece is one that can be made only at considerable cost to ourselves. At the same time, fully realising that, we support what the Government have done, for we share the right hon. Gentleman's view that economic perplexities have certainly sharpened political antagonisms in Greece, and that by these methods he can contribute, as he is trying to contribute, and as we all wish to see, to a solution of those problems. I have only this to add. There is no country—not one of the Allied countries—which the people of this country are more anxious to see restored to happiness and prosperity than our Greek Allies. I think what the right hon. Gentleman has done is a wise contribution to that end, and we wish all success to his efforts.

Is my right hon. Friend aware with what very real pleasure this agreement will be greeted by the bulk of the public both in Greece and in this country? The suffering in Greece is as bad as can be found anywhere in Europe. I wish to ask the Foreign Secretary whether he has impressed upon the Greek Government the necessity for economic controls such as M. Varvaressos tried to impose some months ago to ensure that the very best use is made of our aid, which is given at no small amount of sacrifice to this country; and since Greece's economic troubles have, as the whole House is aware, a political basis, has the Foreign Secretary impressed upon the Greek Government the necessity for rigid economic controls and the restoration of ordered democracy?

Is it a condition of the credit that it should be spent in Britain?

No, Sir. If they have to spend sterling, I do not know where else they can spend it. I did not lay down that condition. Though I had the assistance of the United States in this matter, I desired to secure even further support from that country, and I do not think the raising of that issue would have been wise. With regard to the statement of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Major Wilkes), I have impressed upon the Greek Government the imperative need for economic controls. I have placed at their disposal very eminent people, manufacturers and other experts who are right up-to-date, to give them the benefit of our technical advice. I am particularly anxious that the inflation shall be brought to an end, as nothing is so devastating as when a workman draws his wages and does not know what he will be able to buy with them by Monday morning.

Following are the letters referred to:

Foreign Office, S.W.I.

24th January, 1946.

His Excellency,

Monsieur E. Tsouderos,

Vice-President of the Council.

Your Excellency,

I have much pleasure in placing on record the agreement which has been reached between His Majesty's Government and the Greek Government in regard to the decision of the Greek Government to put into force a detailed and comprehensive programme to re-establish confidence, to restore industrial and agricultural production and to make it possible to take progressive steps to reduce the deficit on the Greek Budget; and also the financial and economic assistance which His Majesty's Government have, as part of this programme, decided to give to Greece.

2. I have the honour to confirm that the financial and economic assistance which His Majesty's Government have decided to give to Greece as part of this comprehensive plan will be as follows:—

( a ) His Majesty's Government will ask Parliament to approve a credit of £10,000,000 for the stabilisation of the Greek currency which, as described below, will have a definite and specific cover of £25,000,000 in all. This cover will be held in a special account of the Bank of Greece at the Bank of England and will be invested in agreement with the Bank of England. The credit of £10,000,000 will be repaid without interest in 10 equal annual instalments beginning on the 1st July, 1951.

( b ) His Majesty's Government will waive repayment of the sum of £46,000,000 loaned to Greece in 1940–1941. This will enable the reserves of the Bank of Greece to be available free of all charges or encumbrances as additional cover for the Greek currency and for the purchase of essential imports.

( c ) The two governments have agreed in principle on the release of property in the two countries which has been the subject of special regimes during the war, and will concert together with a view to such release.

( d ) His Majesty's Government will make available immediately, for sale to the Greek Government consumer goods at a cost price of £500,000. These goods which will be provided in spite of the acute shortage in the United Kingdom will comprise clothing and certain agricultural implements.

( e ) His Majesty's Government will make available for service in Greek waters additional shipping and also dock and salvage material in order to restore the Greek coastal trade and to ensure that both U.N.R.R.A. supplies and local agricultural and industrial produce are rapidly and efficiently distributed.

( f ) His Majesty's Government will release from British military stocks, for sale to the Greek Government at disposal prices, material for the reconstruction of Greek land communications. His Majesty's Government have particularly in mind the provision of Bailey Bridges for the repair of the road system.

( g ) His Majesty's Government will endeavour, in consultation with the Government of the United States and U.N.R.R.A., to make available without delay the necessary spare parts and tyres to enable the 4,000 lorries imported into Greece by the military authorities and by U.N.R.R.A., to be kept on the roads. In addition, His Majesty's Government will endeavour to provide materials for sale to the Greek Government to overcome certain other shortages which may be holding up the immediate reconstruction programme. His Majesty's Government have particularly in mind the rebuilding of houses, the repair of industrial plant and the restoration of road, rail and sea communications and of port facilities.

( h ) His Majesty's Government will provide to the Greek Government technical assistance over a wide field. A highly qualified consultative mission on financial, economic and industrial matters has been formed under Lieutenant-General Clark, C.B., M.C. In addition, on the invitation of the Greek Government, British advisers will be appointed to work in certain Greek Ministries and be responsible to the Greek Ministers concerned. The two governments agree that this assistance should be of a temporary nature and should not extend over more than 18 months or, by agreement between the two governments, two years.

( i ) His Majesty's Government are ready, in concert with the French Government, to negotiate with the Greek Government with a view to the termination of the International Financial Commission of 1898.

3. The Greek Government have stressed the need for a longer term reconstruction plan covering a period of say 5 years and they estimate that to carry through such a plan Greece will need foreign financial assistance on a large scale. His Majesty's Government do not dispute this need and they suggest that the Greek Government should submit proposals to the Bretton Woods Reconstruction Bank to cover the period when U.N.R.R.A. supplies will have ceased.

4. The Greek Government have emphasised the great importance of increasing the supplies of food to be imported into Greece. His Majesty's Government while they have stressed the acute difficulties of the world food position, will examine with sympathy any possibility of increasing these supplies.

5. The Greek Government for their part will take the following measures:—

(1) An early announcement will be made by the Greek authorities fixing a new rate of exchange between Greek currency, on the one hand, and sterling, United States dollars and other foreign currencies on the other hand.

(2) The Greek Government will deposit as cover for the currency in the special account referred to above £15,000,000 or the equivalent thereof from the foreign exchange resources of the Bank of Greece in addition to the £10,000,000 to be contributed by His Majesty's Government.

(3) The Greek Government, as a further measure to establish confidence in the currency, will by Greek Law set up a Currency Committee which will have statutory management of the note issue. The Committee will consist of the Greek Minister for Co-ordination as President, the Greek Minister of Finance, the Governor of the Bank of Greece, a member of United Kingdom nationality and a member of United States nationality, whom the Greek Government will invite to act as members of the Committee. New issues of currency will only be made with the unanimous approval of the Committee. The two governments agree that the functions of this Committee will not extend over more than 18 months or, by agreement, two years.

(4) Foreign exchange received from exports and in respect of remittances will continue to be offered for sale of the Bank of Greece.

(5) The Bank of Greece will convert Greek currency into foreign exchange for imports and for other approved purposes including approved capital transactions.

(6) The Greek Government will frame a programme for progressively reducing and as soon as possible eliminating the Budget deficit by increasing the proceeds of taxation and reducing non-productive expenditure. The Greek Government will publish monthly statements showing the progress made in carrying out this programme.

(7) Wages and salaries will be readjusted in the light of the new rate of exchange and will be kept stable.

(8) A system of price control over rationed items and allocated materials will be established.

(9) The Greek Government will work out in agreement with U.N.R.R.A. plans for increasing the price of U.N.R.R.A. goods and reducing the number of indigents who receive free rations. So far as possible, the Greek Government will require indigents to work in exchange for their U.N.R.R.A. rations.

(10) All possible measures will be taken to restore industrial and agricultural production, so that the standard of living may be improved and a basis may be afforded for adequate and equitable taxation.

6. I suggest that this letter and Your Excellency's reply thereto shall be regarded as constituting an agreement between our two governments.

I have the honour to be, with the highest consideration.

Your Excellency's obedient Servant,

(Signed) Ernest Bevin.

24th January, 1946.

The Right Honourable

Ernest Bevin, M.P.

His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Your Excellency,

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of Your Excellency's letter of to-day's date which reads as follows:—

[ Then follows text of above letter. ]

I have the honour to confirm to Your Excellency that your letter and this reply will be regarded as constituting an agreement between our two governments.

I have the honour to be, with the highest consideration.

Your Excellency's obedient Servant,

TSOUDEROS.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This is a machinery Bill, primarily designed to give greated elasticity to the machinery of government. The tasks of government are so complex and develop so rapidly that Ministers can fairly ask Parliament to grant some little latitude in adapting the executive machinery to administrative needs from time to time. We have, however, a proper respect for the rights of Parliament in these matters, and the Bill makes no very startling constitutional innovations. Nevertheless, within the rather close limits which the Government have thought it right to retain, it should prove a useful Measure both to this and to succeeding Administrations.

As the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill points out, a great many ministerial functions are not regulated by statute at all and these functions can be redistributed among Ministers as administrative needs may, from time to time, require. The Bill makes no difference to this position. But those functions which have been assigned to particular Ministers by statute cannot, under the present law, be transferred to another Minister without full-dress legislation, unless they happen to fall within the scope of temporary emergency provisions.

With the developing responsibilities of Departments, it often becomes expedient to make readjustments of this kind; but since legislation is needed, the natural tendency is to put them off, particularly when there is heavy pressure of business, until they can be conveniently included in legislation which has become necessary for other purposes. The efficiency of government undoubtedly has suffered in this way in material respects in the past. In the Government's view, it is much more reasonable that the simple issue whether a particular function should be transferred from one Minister to another should be presented to Parliament for their yea or nay in the form of an Order in Council subject to negative Resolution. This is provided for in Clause 1 (1) and Clause 3 (2). The view we have taken is that the distribution of particular functions between the various Departments is primarily a matter of domestic convenience in the administration of the Government of the day. Nevertheless, the view is also taken by us that these changes in the distribution of functions as between Ministers—of functions, that is, which are within the existing law—are a matter of interest to Parliament and there ought to be a system of Parliamentary checks and supervision. We have taken that course so that if the House at any time, or any hon. Member, should disagree with the step the Government propose, it will be competent for a Prayer to be moved against the Order.

Clause 1 (2) provides that a Department may be dissolved and its functions transferred elsewhere by Order in Council. This is not a case of transfer of some of the functions of one Ministry to another; it is the greater issue of the dissolution of a Ministry and the distribution of the powers of that Ministry among other Departments of State. We thought, and I think the House will agree, that the complete disappearance of a State Department is a rather more serious matter than a mere transfer of function. Therefore, Clause 3 (1) provides that these Orders in Council shall be subject to affirmative Resolution procedure; that is, they cannot come into force without the specific approval of the two Houses of Parliament.

The remaining parts of these machinery Clauses make the necessary consequential provisions and the House will see that Clause 3 (5) preserves the constitutional position in regard to functions which are not regulated by Statute.

Clause 2 enables the title of a Minister to be changed by Order instead of by full-dress legislation. This is a mere change of designation, of title and style. Such a change may be desirable in consequence of a transfer of functions, but there is no reason why it should not be made at any time. There are several rather ungainly titles which might well be improved, and there is an opportunity here for hon. Members to exercise their ingenuity. The Government will be open to suggestions. We have, I think, degenerated in modern times on this question of Ministerial designations. I have become rather weary of "Minister of—"; apparently we cannot think of any other form. I made inquiries and found that there was not a single Minister in the British Government before the 1914–18 war, with the title "Minister of"—whatever the Department might be. In those days, the designations of Ministers had some charm about them. There were all the nice old titles, such as "Chancellor of the Exchequer," "Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster," and "Secretary of State." Secretaries of State are becoming rather numerous now, and there is a danger of the currency dropping a bit and some inflation creeping in, but "Secretary of State", is a fine title. Then there is the Lord Chancellor, whose title, strictly speaking, was "Lord High Chancellor"—apparently we have rationalised that too. I must warn the House that I am advancing a very conservative argument. It is, nevertheless, right and it would be a great pity if there were no truth in conservative traditions; there is some. But centuries ago men were imaginative and devised fine sweet-sounding titles for Ministers. It is this modern capitalist age that has made them utilitarian.

We then get the title "Minister" without Portfolio a designation from which my right hon. Friend the present Lord Privy Seal suffered formerly as also did the present Lord Chancellor. I do not like it. It is literally "Minister of Nothing," and I do not think it is a good title. A great deal of work was found for the Ministers who bore that title, and it is therefore misleading. I am not too happy about "Minister of Fuel and Power"; there is something very earthy and material about it. I do not know whether we should go so far as to recommend that my right hon. Friend "Minister of Fuel and Power" should become the "Angel of Sweetness and Light," or something like that, but I wish we could think of something better. A lot of the good old titles have gone, such as "President of the Board of Education." To me it was a great sorrow when that title became "Minister of Education," presumably because there was some theoretical difficulty in defending a Board which did not exist. But that is one of the charms pf the British Constitution; there are a lot of things about it which one cannot explain. The "President of the Local Government Board" became "Minister of Health;" I prefer the original title, though I do not know if my right hon. Friend the present Minister agrees; and the "President of the Board of Agriculture" has become "Minister of Agriculture." In making these observations about Ministers' titles, I am speaking personally and not for His Majesty's Government. One of the worst changes is that of "First Commissioner of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings"—a nice, dignified title—to "Minister of Works." This is another piece of dull modern rationalisation and I think it dreadful.

Therefore, if Members can think up some bright ideas of more dignity for Ministerial designations, or some great newspaper would like to run a competition on the subject, I assure them that I, at any rate, will consider their efforts, and I hope the Government will also do so. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Lord President of the Council?"] I think that is a good one. "Lord Privy Seal" is also a very good title, though I do not know what it means, and I doubt whether my right hon. Friend who holds the office knows. I have been told, but I cannot vouch for it, that the one thing he is not permitted to touch is the Seal, and that if he does he is liable. I have heard it suggested that "President of the Board of Trade" should become "Minister of Industry and Commerce." I hope that change will not be made. I see no virtue in it. The Board of Trade has interesting historical associations stretching right back to the Stuarts. The Boards of Education, Agriculture and Local Government were, I admit, Victorian innovations. As far back as 1889 there was a Debate about the title of the head of the Board of Agriculture. Somebody wanted to change it to "Minister of Agriculture," as we have now done. I am glad to say that in 1889 such a change was resisted by the Government of the day on the ground that it would be an undesirable innovation in official phraseology. What a pity this view was not maintained by later Governments. Having uttered those unorthodox and highly conservative observations, I had better get back to the details of the Bill. But I hope that what I have said will stimulate thought.

Clauses 1, 2 and 3 contain the substance of the Bill. Their scope is comparatively narrow and it is perhaps helpful to point out, in order to avoid any misapprehensions, what they do not authorise the Executive to do by Order in Council. First, an Order in Council under this Bill cannot set up a new Ministry, nor yet recreate a Ministry which has once been dissolved. Second, though it may reduce, it cannot increase, the number of Ministers entitled to sit in the House of Commons or to draw salaries—a matter in which the House very properly takes a close controlling interest. Third, though the power to transfer functions applies of course to temporary functions as well as permanent functions, an Order in Council cannot make a temporary function permanent nor add in any way to its duration. Fourth, it cannot grant to any Minister any new function which would require statutory cover and is not already on the Statute Book. Nor, on the other hand, can it abolish or modify any statutory duty or restriction which Parliament has imposed on Ministers in the exercise of their statutory powers. Fifth, the Bill deals only with Ministers, and therefore could not be used to reallocate any of the functions of those statutory boards and commissions which have been deliberately set up by Parliament from time to time on a rather different footing from ordinary Government Departments. If the Government should ever desire to do any of these things I have just mentioned, they would, as at present, have to come to Parliament with specific legislation.

The remaining Clauses of the Bill contain miscellaneous provisions regarding particular Government Departments. It is convenient to explain here that one of the reasons why the Bill is being brought forward at this moment is that it enables the position of the temporary wartime Departments to be cleared up on a permanent basis. These Departments were brought into being by Orders in Council under the Ministers of the Crown (Emergency Appointments) Act, 1939. In that Act as originally passed there was no definite limit on its duration, but in 1941 a Select Committee under Sir Dennis Herbert, as he then was, very properly suggested that such a time-limit should be provided. Accordingly the Ministers of the Crown and House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1942, provided that the 1939 Act should be repealed by Order in Council when the emergency which was the occasion of the passing of the Act had come to an end. When the 1939 Act is repealed everything which depends on it for its validity will come to an end unless it has been saved either by this Bill or by other permanent legislation. The passing of this Bill, therefore, clears the way for the repeal of the 1939 Act very shortly after Royal Assent.

The 1939 Act was applied altogether to ten Ministers, if we exclude the Minister of Shipping who was later superseded by the Minister of War Transport. They were, I gather, known to cynics in this connection as the "ten little nigger boys." Now we will see what happened to them. A review of the fate of each of these ten may be of interest to the House. Two of the Ministries concerned—the Ministry of Works, formerly "Office of Works," and the Ministry of Fuel and Power—have already been the subject of permanent legislation, and neither this Bill nor the repeal of the 1939 Act will affect them at all, except that there is a temporary provision in the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act, 1945, for a second Parliamentary Secretary to that Ministry: the provision is not now being used; there is only one Parliamentary Secretary; it is expressed as having effect only so long as the 1939 Act is in force, and the repeal of the 1939 Act will accordingly remove it from the Statute Book. Three others—the Ministry of Home Security, of exciting but on the whole happy and inspiring memories so far as I am concerned, the Ministry of Economic Warfare and the Ministry of Production—are not now in existence and the temporary provisions authorising their creation will lapse without any replacement.

The Minister of Food announced, to the House on 7th November the Government's decision to make his Ministry a permanent Department. Clause 4 and the First Schedule make the necessary provisions. The House will observe that there are no corresponding provisions in respect of the Ministry of Information, which will accordingly cease to exist when the Act of 1939 is repealed. The Government's decision on this point was announced to the House by the Prime Minister on 17th December. The Minister of National Service is rather a peculiar case. The relevant temporary provisions contemplated that the functions of the Minister of Labour and the functions of the Minister of National Service would be exercised by the same person, and authorised the use of the title "Minister of Labour and National Service." Clause 5 keeps this position in being until it is brought to an end by Order in Council under Clause 1. Whether that is likely to happen in the foreseeable future the Government are not today in a position to say.

The Prime Minister announced on 29th October last that the Ministry of Aircraft Production would be amalgamated with the Ministry of Supply. This will be legally effected by an Order in Council under Clause 1 (2) of the Bill, which will be presented to the House after the Bill is passed, dissolving the Ministry of Aircraft Production and transferring the functions of the Minister to the Minister of Supply. The two offices are, of course, already held by the same person, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production. I come to the Minister of War Transport. This colleague of mine is going through quite an exciting process of metamorphosis, dissolution and re-creation. The case is somewhat similar to that of the Minister of Aircraft Production. The peacetime office of Minister of Transport is at present, unfilled. When this Bill is law, the Prime Minister will make a recommendation to His Majesty about the filling of this post. If the Prime Minister's choice falls—and this seems a reasonable guess—on the holder of the office of Minister of War Transport, that Minister will for the moment hold two offices; but an Order in Council will immediately be presented under Clause 1 (2) dissolving the Ministry of War Transport and transferring all the Minister's functions to the Minister of Transport. This may seem rather a com- plicated procedure, but it is quite rational and simple in practice and it is the proper way of unravelling the wartime position.

The House will appreciate that one important effect of this procedure will be to equip the Minister of Transport with those functions relating to mercantile marine which, before the war, belonged to the Board of Trade and have been exercised during the war by the Minister of Shipping and the Minister of War Transport in succession. It is for this reason that the Minister of Transport, unlike the Minister of Supply, requires a Clause to himself in the Bill, because there are certain provisions in the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, which are not formally suitable to a Ministry with these extended functions. Clause 6 and the Second Schedule are necessary to enable the appropriate adjustments to made. Only three, therefore, of the ten Ministries set up under the 1939 Act will survive as separate entities—the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and the Ministry of Works, and since the Ministry of Works is in replacement of the old Office of Works, the net addition is only two. It is not too bad to come out of a war with only two new temporary Ministries made permanent. Three other new Ministries were set up during the war—the Ministries of Town and Country Planning, Civil Aviation, and National Insurance; but these were dealt with from the outset by permanent legislation and are outside the field now under discussion.

Turning now to Clause 7 of the Bill, the House will recall the Prime Minister's statement about the future of the Department of Overseas Trade, on 17th December. The Department will cease to exist as a separate entity and the functionary now known, to my surprise, as the "Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade (Development and Intelligence)"—to give him his full title—will in effect be replaced by a new functionary with the less cumbrous title of "Secretary for Overseas Trade," who will be a Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Certain consequential Amendments to Statutes are called for and specific provision has been made for them in Clause 7.

The House will see that the general scheme of the Bill with regard to the Ministries which are to disappear is to effect as much as possible by way of Orders in Council under Clause 1 (2), the later Clauses being confined to such matters as cannot for one reason or another be provided for in those Orders in Council. Hon. Members may be disposed to ask why these changes should not be dealt with entirely by fully drafted Clauses in the Bill, instead of being largely left to Orders in Council which will have to be made as soon as the Bill is passed. There are good reasons for this. First, the Bill would be much longer and would be overloaded with a lot of detailed and common-form provisions. Second, the Orders in Council will all come before the House for Affirmative Resolution, having first of course been examined by the Scrutinizing Committee. This will bring a little more labour to the Scrutinizing Committee. It is much more business-like to give the House the opportunity for the examination of each particular project as it comes along than to have long and heterogeneous debates on the Bill itself.

But the most important reason is a legal one. If the general Order-making powers conferred by Clause 1 are to be of full force and effect hereafter, it would be wrong to cast doubt on their effectiveness by snatching away from them, so to speak, certain things which are within their scope, and dealing with them by specific legislation. The Government are advised that such a course would seriously interfere with the elasticity which Clause 1 is intended to provide, not only for this Government but for its successors.

The Bill is, on the face of it, rather dull and technical; but it deals with an important subject. Faced as we are with an administrative task which grows steadily more complex, we are bound to pay attention to the efficient deployment of our executive machine. The Bill will not increase but diminish the present size of that machine, and it also provides a method by which further reductions can be made in future as soon as they are expedient. At the same time it enables the load to be redistributed as necessary in the light of changing circumstances. The Government can fairly claim that these proposals are both moderate and useful and we commend the Bill to the House accordingly.

That is the purpose of the Bill. I think it is a reasonable and a sensible one. I anticipate that in the future it will save a good deal of Parliamentary time. It will enable the lay-out and organisation of the Government to be modified, within limits, by Order, but subject in all cases to proper Parliamentary safeguards, so that the matter is at all times within the control of Parliament. Having explained what I think is a sensible and rational Bill, I ask the House to be good enough to give the Bill the Second Reading.

11.41 a.m.

I am sure the House is very indebted to the Home Secretary—[ Interruption ]—to the Lord President. The reason why I said Home Secretary, if I may interpose, was because I thought it was so odd, when the right hon. Gentleman gave us his very interesting personal views about the nomenclature of Ministers, for a Home Secretary to suggest a newspaper competition about anything. My recollection of my time at the Home Office was that that was very much frowned upon, and I was so thrilled by those remarks that I gave the right hon. Gentleman the wrong title in acknowledging my indebtedness to him for this Bill. As he says, it is a Bill of some importance. The question of Ministerial functions is, of course, always of interest to the House of Commons, particularly because there are so many aspirants to Ministerial office. Hon. Members are, therefore, interested to know what might or might not happen should they get upon the Front Bench. We all know that any changes in Departmental chiefs, or even in Under-Secretaries, are apt to cause a commotion in the Press, and to lead to general excitement, and hopes—which often are not realised—in the breasts of their colleagues who sit on the same benches. Therefore, it is not unnatural that anything to do with Ministers of the Crown should be scrutinised by the House with some care. To the real constitutional historian, it is a matter of great consequence, but even to those who are dilettante in historical research there is nothing more interesting than to see the rise of Departments and the rise of control by the House over Ministers. All that is very fascinating.

The Lord President gave us his views on the names of Ministers, and I would be tempted to go into that line of country this morning, but it is a Friday and perhaps the House would not be very patient with me if I did. I think I could make this point, that without going back to the position in the reign of Edward II, Queen Elizabeth or the early Georges, which were the landmarks in these affairs, the last 30 years have seen very remarkable changes in the layout, if I may use a colloquialism of Ministerial responsibility. That is largely due to the fact that we have had two wars. The Governments of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and Mr. Asquith before the last war were probably as compact bodies as existed for the purpose of government for many centuries. Then the war came and we had the two experiments in that war, that of Mr. Asquith and that of Mr. Lloyd-George, of different kinds of War Cabinets. We had the great extension of Departments up to the end of the war. We never got back to the smaller Administration in the period between the wars, and it is interesting to take note of the actual figures with which we are dealing. I have, I am glad to say, been supplied with the result of some returns on the subject.

In 1914, the total number of Ministers, Secretaries of State, that is, Ministers of Cabinet rank, and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries and Whips, was but 52. In spite of the cutting down of the temporary war Departments by May, 1939, that figure still remained as high as 67. Then the war came, and, inevitably, many more changes, including two further experiments in the War Cabinets—Mr. Chamberlain's and the Cabinet of 1940 formed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). Not only were there great extensions of the Departments which were called into being, but also a very interesting experiment—whether it will ever be repeated I do not know—of Cabinet Ministers resident in other parts of the world than the metropolis, with the result that there were Ministers in Washington, West Africa, the Middle East and attached to Allied Headquarters. That was completely novel in our constitutional procedure, but it served its purpose, so far as I know, admirably. Naturally, with the end of the war, and with the contractions which the present Prime Minister has been able to make, the number of Ministers is somewhat reduced, but it still remains, according to the latest calculations, at the high figure of 81.

Including Parliamentary Secretaries?

Yes, the whole sphere—Ministers, Secretaries of State, Under-Secretaries and Whips. That is the calculation I have got—that it was 52 in 1914, 67 in 1939 and 81 now. But, if we merely take the number of Ministers, that is, Secretaries of State and Ministers of what is called Cabinet rank designation, we find quite a change. They rose from 25 to 31, and the figure is now 36. It is partly because of this present high figure that it is necessary for Parliament to keep careful watch over any possibility of increase. I am, therefore, very happy to have heard the Lord President make it clear that, whatever else this Bill does, it cannot, of itself, create any new Ministers. The dissolutions and changes of functions all start from the datum line of today, and if there are to be any new Ministers created, it will require legislation and cannot be done under this Bill. That, I know, will be welcome to my hon. Friends, because, while I took that view on reading the Bill, there appears to have been some doubt about it, and, so long as it is completely established, it is very satisfactory.

In our view, it is of great importance that there should be no easy way either of increasing or multiplying posts. The figure of 81 is too high, I think, taking the composition of this House and all that is involved. We consider that this is a matter on which the House should maintain, as far as possible, strict control at all times. I was interested to see in the Report—if I may briefly allude to it without quoting—of the Debate on the machinery of foreign affairs in another place the day before yesterday, that the Lord Chancellor incidentally remarked that there was in being a Cabinet Committee dealing with the machinery of government. He very properly neither said who was on it nor what it did, and it would be improper for us to try to probe that, but, from the very fact that there is such a Committee we can deduce that some of the functions of Departments, and, particularly, the wartime functions, are still under consideration and in the melting-pot.

I can well imagine some of the problems which must be under consideration in the very nature of the case. One I imagine is that of civil aviation, which should be, and must be, the subject of consideration. Only yesterday we were discussing the White Paper which will establish, when the legislation is passed, a certain organisation of civil aviation, and it is not a very bright thought on anyone's part to wonder what will be the role of the Minister and the Department after that becomes law and they are charged merely with that problem. It is clearly the sort of thing which has to come One can quite imagine, and, indeed, one has seen rumblings in the semi-technical Press on the subject, doubts whether the present arrangements for supply both to the Army and the Royal Air Force will remain as they are now or go back to the kind of arrangements which existed before the war. I do not know what are the answers to these questions, and I do not want to know, but they are the sort of problem which, in the next year or two, must be looked at by the Government.

That being so, I would be quite prepared to concede what the right hon. Gentleman asks in this Bill—that, for a certain transition period, there ought to be a rather easier way than the intrduction of a Bill to effect these transfers of duty. I do not think that it should be permanent, and my hon. Friends do not think so either. We are quite willing to accept the view that there must be, in the next year or two, and in a manner convenient to Parliament, a comparatively easy way for exchanging and altering functions, but it should only be for a certain time, and that, when we have got over this war ebullience, we should get back to the normal practice under which, if there are to be transfers of statutory functions, and, as would be the case, the creation of a new Department, we should go back to the ordinary legislative programme.

We shall, therefore, propose, while being generous and conceding that there is a case for the temporary arrangement in this Bill, that there should be some limit to it. What that limit should be we would like to discuss on the Committee stage. If one goes by the analogy of our own proposals, it will be two years; if one accepts the Government view that their programme is a long and wearisome process, because they cannot bustle it through, it might be five years, but there should be some limit, in our view, and we shall table an Amendment on the Committee stage. That is not, however, sufficient objection to make us vote against the Second Reading, and, if any hon. Member wants to go, I may as well tell him now. Normally, the trains from King's Cross run roundabout one o'clock. That is all I have to say on the length of time during which the Bill should function.

There is a second point which I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman. I was rather interested in his remarks when he was explaining to us how, under the Bill, things were to be done by Order in Council, and how, when it was a case of the dissolution of a Department it should be done by affirmative Resolution, but, when it was merely a transfer of functions, it should be done by the negative Resolution procedure. It was rather interesting that the right hon. Gentleman conceded the fact that the affirmative Resolution was the more important of the two. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman presented us with the argument that, if the matter is of real importance, we must have an affirmative Resolution. I am very glad to hear that from him. I do not think we had it so crystal clear before. The right hon. Gentleman believes the dissolution of a Department to be the most important. My hon. Friends and I do not; we think the question of the transfer of functions is far more important than the demise of a Department. We all want to see them rapidly reduced and for the last 30 years everybody in this House has said so. Surely, it is of small importance at this stage to envisage the death of the Ministry of Information which has been anticipated and forecast for years, though it still goes on living even though the Minister has transferred his affections to Canada for the time being. The demise of that Department is nothing like so important as would be—supposing this were a Government decision—the abolition of the Ministry of Supply and the retransfer of the whole of the ordering and work it does back to the War Office, where it was prior to 1939. That would be a far more important thing, both for this House and the country, than the disappearance of a Department whose death has been announced months ago and to which everybody is reconciled, and most are longing to see happen.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think a little more about that and see whether he does not think the transfer function is more important. Having put in an affirmative Resolution for the dissolution of a Department, if he comes to the conclusion that the transfer is the more important, then he will have to put in an affirmative Resolution for that. That is the point I wish to submit to him. It would be simpler and better for the House if all Orders in Council under this Bill were subject to the affirmative Resolution. What he has put in for the negative Resolution is the more important of the two. Why he should not give an affirmative Resolution on this, I do not know because, in the long run, if there are to be a great many transfers and dissolutions, which otherwise would require legislation, it will save a great deal of time during the transfer period. I hope, therefore, he will look at that again and come to the conclusion which, on the Committee stage, we shall invite the House to come to, that affirmative Resolutions should apply to all Orders in Council under this Bill, which we hope to make a temporary Bill.

The only other point I wish to make is about the latter Clauses, dealing with Departments which are to be made permanent. They are made permanent in this sense. Having been made so by this Bill, the Ministry of Food, for example, under Clause 4, does still, like everything else, remain subject to be abolished by Order in Council, if necessary, afterwards. I am glad to have that quite clear because we all recognise the necessity of the Ministry of Food today, but it may be that in three, four or five years' time, when existing shortages come to an end, it will not be necessary to retain its functions and to have a separate Department for that purpose. It might be subject to a transfer. Clause 1 makes it possible that it should not be permanent.

Then there is the Department of Overseas Trade. I suppose the view on both sides of the House is that it depends very much on whether any Member present on the Front Bench has been Foreign Secretary or President of the Board of Trade as to where he thinks the Department's interest should lie. I know there are an ex-Foreign Secretary and two ex-Presidents of the Board of Trade who sit here, but whatever the solution come to, I take it it will be reached from the purely practical point of view—that the present President and his colleagues in the Government consider the complete integration of the Board of Trade is the best way of securing the full effect in developing the export trade in those years which are so vital. It must be so on the face of it. If that is the reason, there is little exception to be taken to it. But there is this caveat, which I hope the Lord President will bear in mind, that in the White Paper, Command 6420, 1943, to which he gave his assent, like the rest of us did, for the creation of the new foreign service, it was provided by my right hon. Friend, who was then Foreign Secretary, that there should be an amalgamation of the Commercial with the Consular, Foreign Office and Diplomatic staffs. That was agreed to and began to be carried out. It is very important, therefore, that even though we sever under this Bill the connection with the Foreign Office of the Department of Overseas Trade—and I am sure the Lord President will agree—members of the Foreign Service should be, at all times, commercially as well as diplomatically minded. We consider that is a matter of real importance, and that if that were to be lost by this transfer it might then be wise to look again and see whether the development of the export trade was considered more important than the general atmosphere by all our representatives overseas, bearing in mind this commercial question as one of their paramount duties.

I am not quite clear what is meant by the reference: contained in Orders in Council, and on that point we shall press him in the Committee stage. We will not divide today on the Second Reading, but we reserve our right to do so on the Third Reading unless he concedes the point to which we attach such importance.

12.4 p.m.

We are indebted to the Lord President for making so dull a Measure interesting and understandable. I do not think he was altogether in character, for one does not expect to see the Lord President in this streamlined age exercise a flight back to the historial romances suggested by these new names. Probably his flight across the Atlantic had something to do with it. The Lord President raised the question of new functions and I am more interested in that than in the transfer functions, because it seems to me that in one or two Ministries, particularly, there will have to be new functions if they are to become permanent. I was rather surprised to hear that was a matter which would have to come before the House. Anybody who has been a head of a Department knows how such a man goes round seeking to pick up unconsidered trifles.

I am particularly interested in the Ministry of Food. I hope it will not be thought that I am an aspirant of any kind in that direction, but I should like to know whether it would be regarded as a new function if out of that Ministry—which the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) said has been entirely concerned with rationing and with questions of where things come from, where they went to, in what amounts, how and why—the whole question of nutrition were to grow. There is a great future for the Ministry of Food in connection with nutrition and with all that has resulted from the Hot Springs Conference. The work of the Ministry of Agriculture also is very important in this connection. I do not know whether such an extension of its activities would be regarded as a new function of the Ministry of Food, and would have to come before this House in the way that has been mentioned, or whether the extension would be regarded as something which has grown out of what is admittedly a wartime Ministry. I am glad that the Ministry is to be made secure for the time being, but I hope it will be made permanent. It is a very good Ministry. It has done its work jolly well, and I hope that its functions will be extended. I do not want long Parliamentary Debates to arise out of extension of its functions. I would prefer to see something growing gradually out of them. The Ministry has an important job to do in the future. I should be glad of some further enlightenment on this matter.

12.8 p.m.

The hon. Lady has, in her innocence, been beguiled by the technique of the Lord President of the Council. I suggest to her the idea that the Lord President of the Council is jocular only for some good reason or some bad reason and that, in this case, that technique, apparently so successful with the hon. Lady, was designed to induce hon. Members to believe that the Bill merely involved an amiable competition in guessing titles for Ministers; whereas the first three Clauses, at any rate, involve a permanent and substantial transfer of authority from this House to the Executive. I would ask the House to consider seriously the substantial transfer of authority which the House is being asked by the Bill to make permanently from this House to the Executive. To hon. Members opposite who seem to be so ready to brandish a mandate, I would say that they were not given by the electors of this country any mandate to hand over to the Executive the authority which the electors gave to them as Members of Parliament. The Bill seeks, for no better reason, as I understand the speech of the Lord President, than grounds of convenience, to permit the Executive to do by Order in Council what previously could be done only by legislation. That argument of convenience is a very old one. King Charles I and King James II found the interference of this House highly inconvenient. It is not without a certain satirical humour that one observes the right hon. Gentleman following those monarchs in his attitude. I would remind him that both those monarchs lost their heads, one literally and the other metaphorically, and I would counsel him to beware of that precedent.

The Bill is extremely widely drafted. Even at this stage I would invite the House to consider the stringent and extreme powers which are being given by Clause 1 (3). The very dangerous provision is in it that an Order in Council may contain such provisions b and c ), the Executive propose to take power by Order in Council to vary unspecified Acts of Parliament. That is not the legislation by reference of which there have been so many complaints. It is legislation without reference. Extremely wide power is taken to vary any Act of Parliament that may, as the right hon. Gentleman has put it, be inconvenient to the Executive.

My right hon. and gallant Friend has made the point that, except in the case of the dissolution of a Ministry, the only Parliamentary safeguard for the exercise of these wide powers is a negative Resolution. In view of what was said yesterday by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern (Sir C. Mac Andrew), as Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, to the effect that that Committee is already swamped and unable to carry out its functions, I would commend to the right hon. Gentleman to whom that point was put to consider whether it is wise and expedient to put, by means of this Bill, with its necessity for a negative Resolution, this further burden upon that Committee in its capacity as watch dog of this House. I would ask hon. Members to consider whether the safeguard of the negative Resolution that appears in the Bill is real, in the circumstances, or whether it is not something in the nature of a sham to preserve the facade of parliamentary control while the reality of power under the Bill is transferred to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite.

There is only one other aspect of the Bill to which I would invite attention. In Clause 3 (4) general power is again taken to overrule unspecified Statutes. That again is in principle a most dangerous and improper provision. I understand that the Solicitor-General may reply, and I would be grateful if he would deal with one matter. It was said by the Lord President of the Council that no power was taken under the Bill by the Executive to create new Ministries. That may well be so, but it would satisfy several hon. Members on this side if we could have our attention drawn to the provision of the Bill providing that limitation. I am sure that the Solicitor-General will agree that that is a matter upon which not even a scintilla of doubt should be allowed to remain. This Bill is yet another example of the many that we have had in the last few months of an attempt by the Executive to take away power from the Legislature and the House of Commons. I would say to hon. Members opposite, and particularly to those who are so prone to suspect Fascist and totalitarian tendencies in individuals and in parties whom they happen to dislike, that I commend to them, as interesting and informative weekend reading, a study of the technique by which dictatorial, totalitarian, Fascist régimes obtained power in other countries. I venture to hazard the guess that in every case they will find that totalitarian régimes dug themselves in in the first place with the aid of broad Measures of this kind, and by subservient Legislatures conferring wide powers upon the Executive.

With the aid of the Conservative Party.

I was certain there would be at least one hon. Member on the other side of the House who would not be able to restrain himself from attempting to abuse a party with which he disagrees, even on a Measure of this kind. I am delighted to see my speculation was right, but I would commend to the hon. and partisan Member who made that observation a study of the way in which dictatorships are fastened upon countries. I would suggest to him, and hon. Members who sit with him, that while they are so busy casting the motes out of the eyes of other people they should notice the substantial beam in their own, in the person of the Lord President.

12.17 p.m.

The last two remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Major Boyd-Carpenter) introduced, I thought, a rather unfortunate note after what has been said by the Lord President and by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Opposition. This is essentially a House of Commons matter and he was obviously developing that until there was an interruption from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce). To my mind there is a lot involved in this Bill, particularly in the matters referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the question of the proportion of Members of Parliament who are, in some way or another, dependent on the Executive for favours or pay, or whatever it may be. He referred to the fact that there are 81 Ministers, excluding Parliamentary Secretaries, Under-Secretaries and Whips. To be added to those there are, of course, all those hon. Gentlemen who act as "dogs' bodies," popularly known as Parliamentary Private Secretaries. They get certain perquisites, into which I need not go now. Many of them have had experience in the last Parliament and in this; some having had the experience of Parliamentary Private Secretaryships, now sit on the Front Bench as right hon. Gentlemen. They know exactly what I am talking about, therefore I will not mention anyone.

If I may say so on behalf of Parliamentary Private Secretaries, they do a lot of work and are useful to the House. If my hon. Friend is going to say they are getting perquisites, or mysterious material advantage, I think he ought, as a matter of justice, to specify what he means.

The right hon. Gentleman has either lost his sense of humour or is asking for something I would rather avoid saying. I will tell him afterwards if he likes—I will tell any hon. Member. It is perfectly clear I know what I am talking about. In spite of his request, I would rather not disclose what I know perfectly well happened in the last Parliament. I do ask him not to press me; it would be better if he did not. There were other people in the last Parliament who were also connected with the Executive which, to my mind, put them in an awkward and embarrassing situation when it came to exercising their functions as independent Members of Parliament. I refer in particular to those hon. and gallant Gentlemen who were members of His Majesty's Forces. There were very honourable exceptions, but it was quite clear when the Prime Minister was also Minister of Defence it was not easy for an hon. and gallant Gentleman who was, let us say, a major, readily to vote in a Vote of No Confidence against the Government of which the Minister of Defence—his real leader so far as Parliamentary service was concerned—was also Prime Minister and who might, if necessary—I do not say the right hon. Gentleman would have done for a moment—have seen that no further promotion was possible so far as military service was concerned.

Another development of a rather unfortunate nature—and many protests were made in the last Parliament—was the appointment of various gentlemen, usually right hon. Gentlemen, to governorships abroad while still retaining their seats in the House of Commons. It was started by a Bill that, fortunately, has to be renewed every year. But, as time went on and appointments continued for what looked like permanency, the House of Commons showed perfectly clearly that it did not like it at all. Those appointments and those of governorships abroad were really a form of expulsion of people not wanted here.

Is the hon. Member within his rights in making these statements about gentlemen, some of whom are not in this House any longer? He is apparently giving his own version why the Prime Minister of the day recommended them for appointments to the Crown, which seem to have been various and are in the recollection of many hon. Members.

I thought the hon. Member was addressing himself to the general argument with regard to the increase of the Executive by objecting to this Measure. I thought he was using that as an illustration.

I certainly was. When I used the expression "form of expulsion" I was trying to be light-hearted. My right hon. and gallant Friend has destroyed any light-heartedness I may have had. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Ministers resident abroad, but there were others, also Members of Parliament, who were Ambassadors or High Commissioners abroad, not resident at all.

Ministers of the Crown

Not necessarily Ministers of the Crown. Many of those right hon. Gentlemen were also Members of Parliament. Therefore, in that sense in the last Parliament the right hon. Gentleman will remember there was a tremendous proportion of Members of Parliament who were in one way or another dependent on the Executive. They were members of Government directorates, members of His Majesty's Forces, Members of Parliament abroad in positions of Governors-General or High Commissioners. To my mind a dangerously high proportion of Members of Parliament were, in one way or another, dependent not on the hopes of getting office, but on the receipt of some kind of remuneration or favour directly from the Executive. I say, quite frankly, that was developing into a serious consideration. I feel that very strongly, and I welcome the point made by my right hon. Friend the Lord President with regard to increasing the number of Ministers. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has an important limitation which he wants made clearer at some later stage in the Bill. I think probably the last Parliament went in this direction to a much more dangerous extent than is likely when we have, as we have to-day, a recognised Opposition.

I would like to follow on the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Thames with regard to the question of the control that we as Members of Parliament have in matters of praying against Orders and Regulations which we do not like. I happen to be a member of the Scrutinising Committee, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Ayr and Bute Northern (Sir C. MacAndrew), referred yesterday after Question Time. He flourished an envelope very full of Orders and Regulations which we are to go through next Tuesday. I have had that, of course, like everybody else, and I got a lot more this morning. I have them here, but I do not want to flourish them. The point made by the hon. Gentleman is one of great substance. It is impossible to go through the hundreds or more of these documents each week or even each fortnight. Although I recognise fully the importance of the question of delegated legislation, and realise that the Government cannot possibly carry out their programme without a tremendous amount of legislation, and although I am a sincere supporter of the policy of the Government, I am primarily a House of Commons man, and I believe we must maintain Parliamentary control as far as we can. We might require to have three or four Scrutinising Committees. I do not know what the solution will be, but it is obvious that the Committee we have at the moment cannot possibly deal with the matter. With Bills like this, which visualise the laying of a great number of new Orders in Council and new regulations, the House of Commons job is becoming more and more difficult. Parliamentary work is getting harder and harder. Some solution must, in the interests of Parliamentary democracy, be found in order to maintain House of Commons control over the Executive, and that is the basis of what I have been trying to say this morning, I feel that what I have said will appeal to the ordinary Member of Parliament, as a Member of Parliament.

12.27 p.m.

I welcome the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). He warns us that we are perpetually giving more and more power to the Executive, and that less and less power remains in the hands of the ordinary Member of the House of Commons. That is evident. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Major Boyd-Carpenter) seemed to be rather suspicious of the Lord President. I have never been suspicious of the Lord President, I have always thought that he had a very open character and a first-class political mind. Today he made an appeal to the House which I certainly welcome very much, although I saw some of the people behind him looking frightfully suspicious. I would like to tell the hon. Members behind him that because, over a long period of years, the right hon. Gentleman is gradually becoming a little bit mellower than he was, and because his mind is widening in a slight degree, that does not mean that he is yet mellow enough or wide enough in outlook to become a real Tory. But I think he is advancing. On this question of Ministers' titles there is a great deal in what he said this morning, from a Socialist point of view, about wanting the Departments to have some distinct appeal to the public mind outside, instead of shifting Ministers about in such a way as to suggest that the thing is to be a Minister and that the Department does not matter. There was a personality about the old Board of Trade, and people used to think it was a Department which counted. Perhaps at some appropriate stage, something might be inserted in the Bill to give power to offer a reward for suggesting names for new Ministries.

I am not as happy about this Bill as some people are. What is really proposed is that the Executive should be given power to make their own changes in the machine. They are being given more power to do things by Order in Council, or something of that kind. The hon. Member for Nuneaton told us how overworked he was, and he is, doubtless, a very industrious Member of Parliament. We have heard from the chairman of the Scrutinising Committee that these orders are coming out in such numbers that the work of the committee is becoming absolutely impossible. This is where I am suspicious, not of the Lord President, but of some of the real political brains in the Government. They are saying "We do not like to have to go to the House of Commons when we change a Minister. We will pile on innumerable Orders in Council"—which just lie on the Table, are very easy to forget about, and go through automatically after a short time. Very few hon. Members, if any, have the time to read them, and the more there are, the more work of that character falls on the ordinary Member, and the less he is able to cope with it.

That is what is happening at the present time. Parliament is being killed because it is prevented from legislating openly on these matters, in the House and in Standing Committees upstairs as well. Orders in Council are coming out in a perfect flood. I can see Ministers sitting there now, thinking of how they will have more and more Orders in Council. We have had at least one other Bill this week which does that. That is the real danger in this Bill. It does not matter whether it is a question of power to deal with the transfer of functions from one Minister to another or whether it is some other matter. I think it is about time that the House of Commons made it clear that they are getting tired of these Orders. Of course the Minister said that it would save time, and that he did not want to worry the House with another Bill, but there are very few occasions when we get a real chance to criticise the Executive itself. We have nearly always been tied down to a particular Minister or subject, and it is when these changes take place that colossal increases in the number of Ministers are apt to occur.

The Lord President this morning was very discreet in saying that only two new Ministers were provided for in this Bill. But then I think he said that there were three more who did not come under the Bill. I have no doubt that, on looking round, we might even find others. The fact remains that the beginning of this great increase in the number of Ministers was shortly before the last war. There were small reductions between the two wars, and then a very big increase, and that in a country which, as I understand it, is very much less able now than formerly to support the cost of keeping as Ministers people who really do not produce very much. There is a good deal also in the details of the Bill which needs explaining. I would not have dealt with this point, which is only a small one, were it not that the Lord President himself made a reference to one of his colleagues and to the question of sealing. Just what, precisely, does this mean? Can the Lord President explain? In the First Schedule it is laid down that:

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I am not at all sure he does not really know he is wrong. I referred specifically to the Lord Privy Seal. I was not making any general reference to Ministers.

Oh, no. The right hon. Gentleman let the cat out of the bag—one cat, because there may be other cats and he may let them out on other occasions. That is why I thought I would raise this matter on this occasion. This is a Bill which, as has been said, gives more power to the Executive and takes away one of the few opportunities we get in the House—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Nuneaton is back again—for a Member of Parliament to exercise his proper functions. A Member is not here just to go into the Lobby as he is told or to take orders from the Executive, but to give orders to the Executive. There never was a Government which seemed less inclined to take orders than this present one.

12.37 p.m.

A new Member who is not a lawyer finds it difficult to know what he can say and what he cannot say on certain occasions in the House. The other day I suffered from a Minister for saying something that was, apparently, not in Order. I wish to make one small point on the understanding that on Second Reading a Member is allowed to refer to what is left out of the Bill, as well as to speak about what is in the Bill. Is that in Order?

Yes.

The Leader of the House took some pride in the fact that after a long war there were only three additional Ministers. Then it was stated by someone else that we should be very pleased with ourselves that no new Ministries can be created. The thought that struck me was—and this has nothing to do with the House of Commons, or with the legal side, but is concerned with the practical side as it affects the country—that as the result of two wars we are infinitely worse off economically and infinitely poorer. I believe that whether the country is administered under private enterprise or under some Socialistic idea, we must have fewer Ministries, because the more manpower we put into administration, the less manpower we have for productive purposes. The tendency today, in normal business, is to have this and that extra administrator—[ Interruption. ]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is in Order.

It is not for the hon. Member to say. The tendency is to build up Ministries upon Ministries, and what I should like to see in this Bill is, not a pat on the back for ourselves because we have retained only three, but a proposal to get rid of six, and an announcement that we were sending some of the people who are now doing administrative work back to the productive work which needs being done. I think it is time that that note was struck in this House.

12.40 p.m.

The Bill before the House has, I think I may justly say, been received generally as a necessary Bill, subject to qualifications of substance which were intimated by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and to other points of lesser substance which have been developed during the speeches which followed. I should like to deal in the reverse order with the various points that were made and proceed back to the speech which contained what I regard as the two major criticisms. The Bill has been described as a machinery Bill. The Government of the day, and any Government in modern times—by modern times I am talking of 1945 onwards—is faced with a task infinitely more complex, more urgent, more many-sided than the task which faced previous Governments. It was said by a number of speakers that a serious criticism which could be levelled against this Bill was that it was taking authority from Parliament and vesting it in the Executive. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Major Boyd-Carpenter) were particularly insistent on that aspect of it. To them I would say this. Admittedly in theory it would be desirable that Parliament should have the opportunity of debating every word of every Executive Measure on the Floor of the House. It would then be most certain that the will of Parliament and the will of the people through Parliament would be expressed and precisely ascertained.

That, in modem times, I submit, is absolutely and finally impossible. Parliament has devised and accepted the procedure by way of affirmative and negative Resolution, and that procedure was necessarily devised because it was recognised and accepted that it was impossible to debate fully on the floor of the House every Measure which the Executive of the day found it necessary to introduce and to put into force. I would say to those Members that if they feel that that is a state of affairs to which we should go back, the only way to do it is by simplifying the task before the Government. If the Government are to face up to their task and do what any modern Government have to do, it is bound to result in a greater or lesser measure of legislation, subject to control by negative or affirmative Resolution. I commend this Bill to the House as the case par excellence of this kind of legislation. As long as the tasks of Government are as complex as they are at the moment, it will be necessary to resort to this type of delegate legislation. That is a conclusion it is impossible to escape.

I agree that Parliament has, after the process of time, used this, and given this power to the Executive, and it is necessary; but what I am complaining about is that though it is necessary for some people to have a whisky and soda, the Executive in this case is not taking merely a whisky and soda but proceeding to take a whole bottle at a time. That is what I am complaining of.

It is a question of degree. Have we gone farther than the degree which is necessitated by the circumstances? I would ask the House at a later stage to say we most certainly have not.

I should like to deal in detail with the other points raised which I ventured to characterise as points of less substance. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) was complaining that we have too many Ministries and Ministers. The effect of this Bill, if it is put into operation, is not to increase Ministries, but to decrease them. A number of speakers, and in particular the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Thames asked whether it was certain that upon the terms of this Bill there was no power to increase Ministries. I would assure him that there is not any such power. He asked me to point to the Clause which prohibited any increase in the number of Ministries or Ministers. The reply is self- evident, the Bill only gives power to dissolve Ministries or transfer functions. That must be the answer to his question. If it does not give power to increase the number of Ministers, then, no such power exists in the Bill.

The point on which I should like reassurance is this. The Bill is so drafted as to confer power to transfer functions. Does it limit the transfer of these functions to existing Ministers or Ministries, or may it not be interpreted as power to transfer them to a Department which is at present not in existence?

It authorises the transfer of existing powers, and goes on to make it possible for existing Ministries to be dissolved and their functions redistributed. The net result of these two provisions is that you may transfer an existing power and suppress an existing Ministry, but that is all you can do. Therefore, the answer to the question whether this Bill gives any power to create a new Ministry is unhesitatingly "No, it does not." It gives powers to transfer existing functions and suppress existing ministries, and nothing else whatever. I can, without hesitation, give the assurance that on the true construction of this Bill the danger which the hon. and gallant Member anticipated and which was anticipated by the hon. Member for Louth is non-existent. This Bill is limited to those two objects, apart from the provisions relating to specific ministries in Clauses 4 to 7.

There is another point which caused certain interest in the minds of two speakers, particularly the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) who is a Member of the Select Committee. Subject always to the criticism of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Torquay that there is too much delegated legislation, this Bill does not operate so as to burden the Committee much more than it is already burdened. The Committee, by its terms of reference, has to consider delegated legislation. Admittedly, this Bill gives power to make Orders in Council and pass delegated legislation. But the Select Committee's burden is not the fault of this Bill. It is no more the fault of this Bill than of any other single Bill which creates power to make delegated legislation. It is due to the terms of reference of the scrutinising committee, and those terms were approved by this House and can be altered by the House. It is not the fault of this Bill any more than it was the fault of the Statutory Instruments Bill, which did not impose any fresh burdens on the Scrutinising Committee beyond those of any other Bill which gave power to make legislation in a delegated form. I submit that it is a question of altering the terms of reference of the Scrutinising Committee limiting it, or having more than one Scrutinising Committee, or something of that sort. No criticism of this Bill is justifiable on that score. The hon. Member shakes his head. In so far as this Bill creates fresh delegated legislation, "Yes", but that is a criticism which you can level against any other Bill which creates delegated legislation. Once one accepts delegated legislation as necessary, it follows that from time to time it may be necessary to make further use of those facilities. I ask the House to say that this is not an objection that can be levelled against this Bill.

May I proceed to the points made by other speakers? My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) raised a point which does not arise precisely on this Bill. She was concerned about the Ministry of Food, and, as I understood her, she asked when new functions attributed to the Minister of Food would be regarded as such. That is to say, when would the Minister of Food in exercising his jurisdiction be regarded as exercising a new function? I should have thought that the answer was that you would have to look to see if a new function had been created and allocated to him. If some fresh power were vested in him, a new duty, he is thereby given a new function. So far as this Bill is concerned that does not arise. It simply deals with the question of transfer of existing functions.

The Lord President definitely said that the question of new functions of the Ministry would have to come before the House.

Undoubtedly, but what the right hon. Gentleman said was that this Bill dealt only with existing functions. It cannot create a new function, and it cannot vest in any Minister a function not already being exercised by some other Minister and, therefore, if the executive wanted to vest in a Minister a function which was not already in exist- as my right hon. Friend said, that proposal would have to come before the House and be considered by the House, in the form of the Statute, if created by Statute, and, in the form of an Order, if created by delegated legislation; but it could not be done by this Bill.

That brings me to the point, raised by the right hon. Member for Gainsborough, who based his criticism on two grounds. He intimated that he and his hon. Friends were disposed to the view that the Bill should be limited in time. The Bill is really in two parts. The latter part deals with specific ministries—the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Transport and so on. This part of the Bill, when it has taken effect, has exhausted itself and that is that. It is only of limited and temporary application in the sense that its provisions are put into effect immediately, once and for all. The earlier provisions of the Bill provide for the transfer of functions and the dissolution of unnecessary ministries. This, I suggest, is not only useful to the present administration, but is likely to be useful to future administrations, and as such should find a place as part of the permanent legislation of this country. It is designed to do this. Faced with the problem that the Government of the day has to discharge, the highly difficult task of administering a Government machine whose relationships have become infinitely more involved, and the stresses and strains of which are infinitely more pressing than they were at any time in the past, they have to make use of delegated legislation to do those things which are not vital to the life of the community but are more administrative in character. The transfer of functions as between Minister and Minister comes within that category. The Bill, which makes the transfer of these functions the subject of Orders in Council, is useful and will remain useful and necessary, so long as the tasks which the Government have to face remain as difficult as they are to-day.

That is a state of affairs which is likely to remain for many years. We will face it and overcome it, and great benefit will ensue from our endeavours to future generations; but the problem, the task, is there and will remain so long as this country is a country with a highly crowded population, in a world which is becoming bound together by closer relationships, and in which countries react on one another more strongly than they have ever done in the past. I ask the House that this should be a permanent Bill because it is permanently useful. If it should be the view in future that it has ceased to serve a useful purpose, Parliament can in future repeal it, but at present it is useful and is intended to be permanent in character. The matter, no doubt, will be discussed fully on the Committee stage. All that it is necessary for me to say at the moment is that the Bill is in no sense harmful but simply makes it more easy to deal quickly and effectively, subject to proper control by the House, with those things which every Government must do in order to function efficiently. I ask the House to say that this Bill should be permanently kept. It can always be repealed if it is found that that is a mistaken view.

The other criticism that was made against the Bill was that it reversed the order of importance, that it was more important to ensure that transfers of functions should be subject to affirmative Resolution than that the dissolution of Ministries should be subject to affirmative Resolution. In other words, that we had put our provisions for negative and affirmative Resolutions the wrong way round. That was a point which I am bound to say surprised me. I can conceive of all sorts of functions of a minor character which it will be necessary from time to time to re-allocate as between one Minister and another. To give the House a kind of example I have in mind, let us take the Home Office which has a number of functions under the Factory Acts and similar Acts. They are functions of importance, but they are minor when considered in relation to the big tasks which the Government have to undertake. If such functions are to be transferred from one Minister to another, it is a minor administrative proceeding, and to make it subject to affirmative Resolution would be to attribute to it an importance with which it should not be vested. I ask the House to say that it is a matter of more importance to suppress a Ministry than to transfer, for example, between one Minister and another minor functions under the Factory Acts. This point, again, I take it, will be tabled in the form of an Amendment and discussed more fully on the Committee stage. To some extent it is possibly a matter of off-hand opinion which is the more important of the two; but I ask the House to say that the importance attributed to it has been properly and accurately estimated in the Bill as it stands and, therefore, it should be left as it is.

One final point was as to what was the object of preserving the Prerogative power under Clause 3, Subsection (4). As hon. Members know, and indeed as was stated by my right hon. Friend, a number of functions, indeed, a great many, are derived from the Royal Prerogative and not from Statute, particularly those attached to the office of Prime Minister, and in respect of those it is simply a matter of extra precaution to have it stated in the Bill that nothing in it shall be deemed to affect the position regarding the transfer of functions under the Prerogative. The object of the Bill is to deal with those functions allocated by Statute. Statutory provision is necessary to enable functions of this class to be re-allocated by Order in Council, and the provision with regard to the Prerogative power is a precautionary declaration and no more. I think that I have dealt with the various points raised, and I ask the House to say that this Bill is useful and harmless—completely harmless in principle and very useful in practice—and that it should be accorded a Second Reading.

1.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General has already replied to the Debate and, therefore, he cannot, unless with the permission of the House, make any comments on the remarks I wish to make. The particular points which I wish to raise may not call for a reply, but if they do, perhaps the permission of the House may be given to my hon. and learned Friend to say something further. The points to which I wish to refer to are contained in Clause 1 of the Bill which provides:

That applies rather specially to those Ministers who are in charge of what may be termed the socialising Ministries or Departments. It applies to the Board of Trade, to the Ministry of Fuel and Power and to the Minister of Civil Aviation. It would not, therefore, seem to me to be a good thing to allow the transfer of functions as could occur under this Bill, for it could happen that new functions would be given to certain Ministers who would not be in the opinions of this House suited to that particular type of work. One specific point here is particularly strong in my mind and that is, that if a Minister is appointed to a position from the Benches of this House, he is an individual who has been democratically elected by the electorate. What can now occur is that a Member of another place could be made a Minister who has not recently been democratically elected and he could be placed in the position of being a Minister of the Crown and more or less autocratically carry out some re-organisation, or in particular some scheme of socialisation. The only way in which Members of this House can mark their disapproval of this action would be, in the extreme case of bringing pressure to bear over a long period to have that Minister changed. That to me seems a rather unhealthy way of doing things, and also it is not in accordance with the democratic spirit which actuates this House. The thing that has brought this into strong relief at the present time is the prospect of certain appointments which will be made by the Minister of Civil Aviation. That is just as an illustration.

The hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Major Boyd-Carpenter), who spoke a short time ago but who is not here at present, recommended a certain amount of gratuitous reading to hon. Members of the House. I may go further than that and say that if there are feelings of uncertainty as to what democratic socialisation can really mean, let Members of this House refer to that admirable, and I might almost say inspiring book, "T.V.A.—Democracy on the March," by David Lilienthal. From this we can see that the executive need not be cumbersome and overweighted, but can be something very much alive and quite small in size. I would mention by way of illustration that, to cover the whole of the land reclamation and agricultural policy of the Tennessee Valley, which covers an area the size of England and Scotland, only 53 Federal officials, who are the equivalent of our Civil Servants, were required. That gives us a reassurance that socialisation does not mean a big bureaucracy.

Finally, we are being pressed by the Lord President of the Council to carry through a very extensive programme of legislation. Hon. Members will have to work extremely hard to get through all the essential work that will be entailed. It seems to me that unless, at the same time, we take steps to see that the executive instrument itself is up to the standards of 20th century Socialism, the Measures which we are trying to pass for the benefit of this country will largely fail to achieve their objectives.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Monday next.—[ Mr. Pearson. ]

This is the second occasion this week on which the question of the building programme, with which the whole country is concerned, has been raised in the House. Last Wednesday there was a Debate on the supply and distribution of materials, which was opened by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Wing-Commander Cooper). I believe it is recognised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and by hon. Members that that Debate, which received wide publicity in the Press, served a very useful purpose. Although I realise that two Debates in one week to be answered by one junior Minister places a bit of a strain on him—I say this with all respect for his abilities—I believe he will recognise that these Debates are of a constructive character and are useful in the development of the work of his Department. It is also interesting to note, in passing, that these constructive Debates are being initiated from these Benches and not from the Benches opposite, and that backbenchers on this side are contributing in that way to the measures of the Government in rebuilding the country.

The whole House is deeply concerned about housing. From the point of view of actual construction, there are several problems to be noted. First, there is the shortage of materials, which was referred to last Wednesday. Secondly, there is the shortage of labour, due not only to the rate of demobilisation—about which there have been criticisms, but about which we had a very favourable report earlier in the week—but to the decline in manpower in the building industry over a number of years before the war, and due likewise to the fact that nowadays we require an even greater number of building operatives than we did in 1939. There is, thirdly, the non-cooperation by the manufacturers of building materials, many of whom are organised in rings, and also by quite a number of building contractors. These problems are being tackled. We may have differences as to whether they are being tackled with greater or less vigour, but they are being tackled to some degree.

An essential condition of progress, however, is the function of the building operatives. I regret to say that in the various Debates that have taken place on housing and building, the function of the operatives has received very small notice. It may be said that is a matter for the trade unions and for the various Ministries in their negotiations with the trade unions, but I believe that in all parts of the House hon. Members have opinions on the matter and should state them. The function of the building operatives was recognised amply during the war. In many cases they did heroic work which was recognised by the awards which they received. I submit that today the problem of building reconstruction is no less urgent than it was during the war.

I want to indicate some of the deficiencies in the industry as a result of which, as I believe the Minister will recognise, output has fallen. First, many of the best workers and technicians have not yet returned from the Services, with the result that many gangs of workers are working inadequately. Secondly, there is the war-time strain and the overtime which many workers did during the war, the effects of which are now showing themselves. Thirdly, there is the character of the work which building workers, particularly during the last year and a-half, have been called upon to do. I speak with close knowledge and experience on this question. At the present time there are nearly 3,000 building workers employed in the Borough of Stepney. They are required to work on dilapidated houses. They cannot put their full effort, and certainly not their full interest, into this work. The nature of the work is such that very often after they have gone some way with a job they have to start again from the beginning, because further defects are discovered as the work progresses. I believe that this sort of thing has been a contributing factor to the lack of output.

Fourthly, there is the dislocation of supplies of material, leading to a feeling of "fed-upness" among the workers. We hear many rumours about workers standing idle on the job, but investigation shows very often that those workers are waiting for the materials. This dislocation may be the result of a general deficiency, or it may be due to faulty distribution. It has a psychological effect on the workers and causes them to lose interest. Fifthly, there are the demoralising effects of the cost-plus system, as it has operated, particularly in connection with war damage repairs. Sixthly—and probably this is one of the most important factors—there are the bad welfare conditions which prevail on many building sites. This is a matter which at this stage troubles building operatives very much. They compare their conditions with those of the workers in engineering factories and other industries where there are factory welfare arrangements very often on quite a fair standard. Building operatives suffer from the lack of these arrangements, and the result is that their morale is low.

During the war, on building sites which were being operated for Service Departments, organisations known as joint site committees were established. These joint site committees have an excellent record of achievement. They were composed of representatives of the employers and of the operatives. They increased output by providing the workers on the job with a responsibility for results. That is a feature which capitalist economy, a society we are now about to change, I hope, has not been able to instil among working men. The only sense of responsibility that has been instilled is that of earning their livelihood. The efforts of the workers in pulling their full weight on the job can only be encouraged if they are convinced of the value of the work they are doing, and of the need for that work. During the war this was achieved not only among building workers, but among others, firstly, through propaganda, in which the Ministry of Information played an important part at many factories and, secondly, by the example and the efforts of the men's elected leaders on the job. I want to give an example from a report of a committee on a building site which I will quote:

We are now engaged on the housing programme, and it has been stated that millions of houses will be required in the next few years. I am confident that the Minister of Health in his schemes will show a tremendous advance on the effort made after the last war, but no avenue of assistance should be ignored and this suggestion is one avenue. In the housing programme there will be certain facilities instead of the difficulties which the joint progress committees on war damage work encountered and the most important is that new permanent houses will be planned ahead on fixed sites, working to a definite time programme, with materials supplied. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give consideration to setting up joint site committees to help execute the housing programme. The position at the moment according to the "Daily Herald" on 10th December is that regional production committees were to be set up with regional production officers. The unions would have responsibility for appointing these officials. These committees would have the job of finding out and advising on the means of speeding up building; hacking down and smashing bottlenecks; maintaining morale among workers; clearing up disputes and difficulties; and reporting on shortages—or gluts—of materials.

I want to commend wholeheartedly the first step taken in that direction, the setting up of such regional organisations, but it was only a report in the "Daily Herald" of December and I want to ask whether that is the case or not. If it is, I would like to see an extension of the scheme to the building sites. I have had experience in engineering factories, and during the war this was the problem we encountered. We set up joint production committees and at the same time, with Government authority, regional production committees were set up in various parts of the country, and one covered greater London. It is well known among trades unionists and employers in the engineering industry that regional production committees in general did not function very well. They were unable to deal with the actual problems which arose factory by factory, and had not adequate powers to deal with the problems on a regional scale. They were not able to deal with the problems of the men and women down below and it was left to those men and women on the job to deal with their own problems. In many factories production was increased several times as a result of the example, and lead given to the workers by their representatives on the joint production committees. This experience would be useful in the setting up and functioning of joint site committees in building jobs.

I have heard several arguments against it. It is said that there might be a dozen or 20 housing sites in one borough, and that the joint committee would find it difficult to operate. Secondly, it is said that the men are not sufficiently respon- sible and require the disciplining method rather than the consultative method. Thirdly it is said, and this I can well believe, that the managements of the building concerns are afraid of interference with their managerial rights.

On the question of there being too many housing jobs in an area, in my opinion there should be a site committee on each housing job. In the engineering factories we had joint progress committees in factories of 10,000 workers, but I can recall joint progress committees in factories of only 50 to 100 workers and they were as effective as those in the larger works. The problems were simple and therefore the committees were able to tackle them. On the question of disciplining the men, I think we know this House will have to face this problem in many industries. We are now facing it in the coal industry, and the problem here is that if this Government are going to ensure that working men get a living wage, and that there will be employment for all, no longer will the fear of unemployment be an incentive to workmen either to do jobs they dislike or to work at a pace at the foreman's behest, which is a strain on their capacity and physique.

The incentive will now have to be a very different one. I suggest that the incentive should now be the welfare of the nation, and now that we have a Government representing the people this approach is desirable and the result attainable. It will not be the raucous foreman who will get results any more than it was the raucous sergeant-major who won the war. Giving the workmen responsibility, taking them into consultation, giving them scope for the initiative and intelligence which they have but which a capitalist economy has not utilised, will get results.

The question of interfering with managerial rights can be treated in a number of ways. There is the fact that managers, employers, building contractors, etc., are becoming used to a measure of interference, and they will have to become used to a greater measure of interference. However, the point I want to press is not that, but that given the factors I have mentioned earlier, this problem can be overcome by understanding and good will. We had the same problem in the engineering factories. In many cases the managers were apprehensive, but after a while, when they had felt their way, and their terms of reference were not statements on paper but were living embodiments of the methods and work of the joint production committees there were no cases of infringement of managerial rights, except where the workmen felt it right to bring to the notice of the Ministry concerned deficiencies in management. Fortunately these were not numerous. That is the answer I give to those who oppose the proposition I am making.

I close by repeating my request to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government should make a declaration in favour of the principle of joint site committees, and at the same time should help to provide facilities for those who would function on those committees in order that they can do so to the best of their ability. I believe that that would be an excellent contribution to the achievement of our housing programme.

1.28 p.m.

I take this opportunity of protesting against what I regard as a definite hold-up of the development of housing in one of the towns in my constituency, namely, Rawtenstall. There we are ready with a housing programme, and the reason why we cannot get on with it, and why the houses have not been started already, is because of the shortage of staff in the borough surveyor's office. The man we want on the spot, the assistant engineer, is serving in the R.A.F. at Waterbeach near Cambridge. The town council have been appealing for this man's release for a considerable time—since as far back as last June. Their last applications for his release were made in October and November last year. I have here a letter from the town clerk of Rawtenstall, which has been written to me on the authority of the town council, asking me to use my best endeavours for the release of this individual in the interests of getting houses built in Rawtenstall. The town clerk tells me that the position in the borough surveyor's office is very bad, particularly as the only qualified engineer on the staff was to leave on the 22nd of this month. Now he has gone. Therefore, there is no responsible official to take charge of the impending housing pro- gramme that we wish to get on with. The town council desire that every effort shall be made to secure the release of this one particular official, so that their housing programme can be started and the houses eventually completed for people to live in.

In this particular town, as in every other community, there is a great need for the speedy erection of houses and there are many applicants who have had their names down for considerable periods. Houses cannot really be built by building operatives alone. There have to be people to draw up the plans, supervise the building arrangements and certify all that is going on. These officials are necessary, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take into consideration what I am saying with regard to the necessity for the release of this individual, so that we can get on with this particular work. It is to me a great sorrow to have to come here and make a demand of this description, but I feel that by a little arrangement, a little generosity and a little understanding of the position, in which not only Rawtenstall but many other towns are concerned, we could forward our housing arrangements and get the houses erected, by getting the necessary men released from the positions which they occupy today. I am not at all satisfied that this particular official for whom I am pleading is at the moment doing the kind of work that any number of men would not be able to carry out. I maintain that he could be doing infinitely more useful and valuable work of far greater importance if he came back to his own town to help the local council to get on with this particular work of getting these houses built.

I agree with the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) that this is a very important piece of work for the Government to pursue. I want them to get on with it and to be able to say in a short period that we have erected a considerable number of houses all over the country. I do not want to feel that this great scheme for the rehousing of our people is being held up because important officials and essential men are being retained in work which has ceased to have any importance for them. Therefore I beg to support the case that has been put forward by the hon. Member for Mile End. I make an appeal to the Ministry of Health through the Parliamentary Secretary that the most earnest consideration will be given to the demand I have made for the release of this official so that these houses can be begun in Rawtenstall.

1.34 p.m.

The hon. Member who initiated this Debate has raised the matter of the organisation of joint production committees on building jobs. I welcome the opportunity of saying something about the present Government's attitude to the general question of joint committees in the building industry, but before I do so I should like to make a short reference to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Walker). As a Member for another constituency in the same county, I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that anything which is holding up housing in that county, or anywhere else, is, of course, a matter of very great concern. I share with him the knowledge he has referred to about the acute and serious shortage of houses in our part of the world, as in very many other parts. With regard to the particular point he mentioned, I am sorry that, as he did not give me any notice of what he was going to raise, I was not able to contact my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and get his views. I do know that my right hon. Friend has been going very carefully and very vigorously into the whole question of the release of officials who are necessary for the preparation of housing plans, and I know that a considerable amount has been achieved. Unfortunately, as I did not have notice of it, I have not been able to get the figures, which I should have been glad to give to the House, as to the success which my right hon. Friend has had in getting such officials out of the Forces in order that this work can go forward. However, I will assure my hon. Friend that I will pass on to the Minister of Health the point which he has raised with a view to it being taken up. I should not be at all surprised to find they have it in hand already, but I cannot, of course, say without notice whether they have or not.

To go to the question of the joint committees in the building industry, let me begin by saying that the Government is fully behind the policy of maximum consultation with the men who are doing the job, and with their representatives, nationally, regionally, area by area, and on the job, in building no less than in any other industry. We on this side of the House, and I know many hon. Gentlemen opposite if they were here have never subscribed to the view that technical knowledge, experience, and what they call across the Atlantic "know how," is a monopoly of one side of any industry. This is particularly true in the case of building which in one sense of the word is not really an industry at all but a craft or, more correctly, a series of crafts. It is impossible to discuss many aspects of the housing situation without referring pretty bluntly to the legacy we inherited from our predecessors, but in this matter of consultative committees, and similar methods of contact with and between the two sides of the industry, I think I should say we have inherited a very useful legacy, much of it developed during the war due, so far as the Government is concerned, to a number of Ministers, particularly of course to my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks). It is our intention to develop that inheritance and greatly to expand its use. Hon. Members might have gained the impression from the speech made by my hon. Friend though I am sure he did not mean to convey this impression that during the past few months the Government and the industry seem to have cooled off in their enthusiasm for joint committees on building sites which, as he showed, made an important contribution to the achievement of many of those great building and civil engineering works which took place in war time.

It is true that there are far fewer of these committees now, and that the site officers, who were trade union representatives specially appointed to deal with labour difficulties and complaints at the big wartime sites, are far fewer in number now than three years ago. This is, of course, due to the fact that the number of large building and civil engineering jobs is very much smaller now than it was then. Site officers were appointed to all contracts employing more than 2,000 men and there were at one time some 54 such officers. Now, with the fall in the number of such jobs, there are only seven, and the fall in the number of site committees, which I am sure is causing my hon. Friend some concern, is due to the same cause. Site committees in wartime were found generally on the very big jobs. A survey made in 1943 showed that there were such joint committees on 67 per cent. of all the very large jobs of over £100,000, but on only 11 per cent. of those below that number.

Our problem now is to deal with a very different kind of building job where thousands of sites all over the country are being manned, but where the total number employed on each job will, of course, be very much smaller than in the great wartime schemes. This is not to say that we think joint committees are inappropriate to the new conditions. Far from it. We are encouraging a much greater development of joint committees and a far greater participation of building trade workers in dealing with the affairs of their industry than has ever before been known. Perhaps I might give a brief outline of what is being done. First, there is the machinery for national consultation and for discussion of building industry problems. The National Consultative Council, which was established in 1942, has been regularly meeting under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend. This includes representatives of the building industry in its widest aspects, covering not only operatives and employers, but also architects, surveyors and representatives of the other professions concerned. This Council considers and advises the Minister on all the wider questions affecting the industries. Then, for consultation on important day-to-day questions affecting the industries, particularly matters directly affecting the operatives and employers, there is the Building and Civil Engineering Joint Committee, consisting of representatives of the four employers' and operatives' federations in those two industries, and which meets under my chairmanship.

This committee was established under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich to review the progress of the wartime building programme, and it achieved very great success in that connection. Since we took office, it has been dealing with the many problems of transition from war to peace, and the development of the housing programme. It has met seven times during the last three months and the matters freely discussed as between Government, operatives and employers on these occasions included a very wide range of subjects. Among them were the organisation of regional joint committees, arrangements for bringing the regional organisations and the Government in closer touch with the industries in the regions; arrangements to facilitate the return home of provincial operatives employed on repair of war damage in London, including the withdrawal of the Essential Work Order from that work; measures necessary in connection with the winding-up of the cost-plus system referred to by my hon. Friend; measures to increase output in the building industries; the employment of prisoners-of-war on civil engineering work and of military labour on building work; progress made with the release of building trade operatives from the Forces, including Class B releases; labour controls in the building and civil engineering industries; and the arrangements for the organisation of a direct Government building organisation. Also at the national level, representatives of both workers and employers have recently been added to the Scientific Advisory Committee, which is assisting in the very important work being done by our scientific department in finding new ways of applying science and research to the problems of the building industry.

The National Joint Committee has recently arranged for the establishment of regional joint committees, to which work we attach the greatest importance. There were of course very active regional committees in wartime dealing with the work of the emergency organisation, and we are really again, in that respect, at the national level, building on the work which has been done during the war. These new regional joint committees will consist of representatives of employers and operatives in the two industries, and they will consider and advise on problems arising in connection with the execution of the building programme in the regions. They will have powers to advise on such matters as the relationship of the building programmes, the labour and material resources, the control of licensing, the control of the release of materials, and also other matters affecting the achievements of the building programme.

The hon. Gentleman who began this Debate said, I think, that his experience, particularly in the metal industries, was that the regional committees were some- what too remote from the job to be of very great use. I think in the case of the building industries we are going to find them much more useful than in a number of other industries.

I did not suggest for a moment that regional committees would be of no use. All I asked for was that they should be supplemented by joint site committees.

I am sure that is what the hon. Gentleman said, but I do want to suggest that the regional committees we set up are going to be of great value. The hon. Member said that in talking about the "Daily Herald". They will be particularly valuable in connection with the movement of manpower from one job to another, which is probably of greater importance in the building industry than in any other industries to which the hon. Member referred. There will also be the very closest association between the national and regional committees, and I hope shortly to go round, with the employers' and workers' representatives from the national committee, to meet the regional committees and sit with them at their work. We are relying on them to give great assistance through their knowledge of local problems to the mobilisation of building labour on the more important work and for dealing with every problem, large and small, which arises on the thousands of building sites throughout the country which are capable of being dealt with on the regional level.

It will be for them to make arrangements, and here I am dealing with the main point raised by the hon. Member, for joint committees in every housing authority area where this is considered desirable and helpful, and also to consider and arrange for the extension of joint committees to the actual building sites wherever this is appropriate. Naturally, we cannot expect anything like 100 per cent. of the building jobs to be covered by such committees. We do not want to interfere with the existing arrangements for dealing with grievances and complaints, and it should be remembered that, in such an intimate job as building, where, in many cases, workers and employers are constantly together on the same job, problems can often be settled immediately as they arise, and it might be unwise to leave too many things for the next meeting of a com- mittee Many jobs, where the numbers employed are very small or where there is continuous coming and going of men of different crafts, may not be appropriate for such development, and, on many bigger jobs, where we are still only at the preparation or development stage, it might be too early to go in for such site committees in a big way. We are fully behind the principle of encouraging the man on the job, through his representatives, to give the benefit of his advice and experience in the solution of all the difficulties to which such a programme is bound to lead.

There is also one other development to which we attach great importance. In a recent agreement signed between the two sides of the building industry, the fullest assurances were given to the determination of both sides to strive for increased output. Nothing is more urgent in the building industry today. The fall in output, to which the hon. Gentleman referred and of which he gave a full explanation was, of course, a very real factor, and I was glad to see that the hon. Member stressed, as one reason, the character of the work on which many building trade workers have had to be engaged in the last two or three years. It has certainly been proved, from the experience in my own constituency as well as his, that the building trade workers who have been patching up dwellings and homes, in which they did not consider their fellow-citizens should be asked to live, have not had their hearts in their jobs, and it has not led to the gain in output which had been expected by people not familiar with the conditions under which the operatives have been working. We are looking forward, hopefully and confidently, to a great increase in output by those employed in the industry as they turn to the new job of house building in which they can feel they can really put their hearts and pull their weight.

The industry has arranged, as part of a recent agreement, for the establishment of national and regional production committees, and, following discussions at National Joint Committee, the Ministry proposes to supplement these arrangements made by the industry themselves by a scheme to ensure the most direct contact between the Government, the national and regional leaders of the industry and the men actually engaged on the job. For this purpose, the Ministry has invited the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives to appoint a national production officer to organise and direct a campaign for maximum output. Under this officer, there would be two, perhaps, later, more than two, full time production officers in each region who, under the direction of the national production officer, would devote their whole time to the work of stimulating output and assisting the industry to remove obstacles to increased production. They would have free access to housing and other building sites throughout the country. It is intended that they would consult with contractors' representatives on the sites. They would have access to time-and-progress schedules and would be given facilities to address meetings of the men employed on the job. Where they found a hold-up caused by difficulties or delays in the supply of labour or building materials, they would have access to the appropriate regional officers of the Ministry, and, of course, to the joint meetings, and they would provide regular reports to the regional joint committees. The final details of the scheme are not yet complete, and, in point of fact, I am going straight from this Debate to a meeting in the Ministry with representatives of both sides of the industry in order to settle these details.

I hope I have given the House a fairly complete picture of our plans for improved consultation and for the full participation and advice of the men who are doing the job within the framework of private industry. I should add, however, that, in the direct building organisation which my right hon. Friend is establishing, it is intended that there shall be not only the fullest consultation and participation on the subjects I have mentioned, but that there shall be also direct participation of representatives of both the operatives' and employers' federations in the actual running of the organisation.

Would the hon. Gentleman give some attention to the providing of facilities, where committees are set up, in order that men can carry out their work in the case of a joint progress committee?

I should be very glad to give the fullest attention to that. The next step is for the establishment of the regional committees, which I hope will soon be ready, and they will then carry provisional consultations further and we will discuss with them what facilities are required to give effect to the points raised.

I must apologise for bringing the House back so soon to the subject of civil aviation, but there are, of course, in connection with it certain matters which are so restricted in scope that it is not always correct or desirable to bring up in a Debate on policy discussions on general organisation or administration. I, therefore, propose to deal with what is a restricted aspect of the subject and one which, as is so often the case in a Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment, is a matter of local interest to the city which I have the honour to represent.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 21 of the White Paper on British Air Services, wherein it says: the purposes of this country, but also in the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole. That exceedingly reputable magazine, "The Aeroplane," of 30th November, 1945, says:

The flying boat needs comparatively little space in which to land. I pause here to remind the House that one of the difficulties of providing a terminal airport in this country has been the fact that very long runways have to be provided for land planes with a tricycle undercarriage, and the length of runways for large aircraft is becoming one of the chief problems in providing airport facilities at any reasonable cost. In the case of the flying boat, however, the airports necessary are largely ready made. The surface of the water is already there in its natural state. The flying boat itself presents less problems of maintenance en route. I am reminded of the case of the York plane in which the Minister of Civil Aviation recently flew to Capetown. All the way along the route spare tyres had to be provided because each time the York landed the wear on the tyres was so great that they had to be changed.

Of course, there are certain difficulties in connection with flying boats. For instance, there is the difficulty in regard to speed. The speed of the modern flying boat is roughly 20 per cent. slower than that of the land plane, but I am assured that, technically, there is no reason why the modern research which is being made into these matters should not considerably improve the position, possibly by the use of retractable farings. There are other objections such as that passenger handling is not so expeditiously and conveniently carried out in the case of the flying boat. In the past, the method of conveying passengers to flying boats has been by motor launch, often over somewhat disturbed seas to the inconvenience of the passengers. But the modern tendency in this direction is to build floating docks by the water's edge. On the economics of the position, I am assured that the proportion of dead weight to load, which has been one of the principal criticisms of the flying boat, diminishes as soon as the larger types are reached.

I am not contending that the flying boat is in any way better than the land plane, but only that there is a permanent place for it in civil aviation. Indeed, some indication of this fact was given in the Debate yesterday, when I was extremely pleased to hear—as I am sure the whole House was—that more flying boats were actually on order, and that they were at the moment in use from Poole and on the trans-Atlantic routes. We have a far-flung Commonwealth which, although consisting of large land masses, is essentially a sea Empire and the principal cities of which are largely maritime. We have to bear this in mind when considering civil aviation in the future, particularly in its international aspects. If this development is going to proceed on a purely land basis there may be many cities of great importance in our Empire which will not be able to afford the erection of large land aerodromes of a sufficiently high standard to meet international airways requirements, whereas the vast majority of them are in a position to provide flying boat facilities by means of marine airports. At the present time there is no marine airport of a magnitude and importance to meet peacetime international air traffic needs in the British Isles. Poole still operates on a wartime basis, and its traffic is, of course, secondary to shipping.

At this point I must introduce a constituency note into my remarks. I believe that on these occasions it is permissible to do so, but, in any case, the needs of the nation, as I see it, in terms of flying boats fully justify my intervention on a purely geographical basis. Ten years ago Imperial Airways looked for a site on which to build a combined land-marine airport with two principal requirements. Those requirements were that it should be as near London as possible and should have a good weather record. Langstone Harbour, between Portsmouth and Hayling Island, was selected because it had, first, a suitable expanse of water completely sheltered from the sea, and, secondly, because it had an adjacent site for a land airport which could be developed with the "fill" dredged in the process of deepening the water runways. Negotiations took place between the city corporation and the Air Ministry and surveys were undertaken at considerable expense. However, after financial discussions—which reflected no great credit on the Air Ministry at that time—the scheme as it stood was dropped.

I have no desire to boost a local scheme out of all proportion to its national importance, but I believe that the country needs a marine terminal air-base. Langstone Harbour, lying to the east of Portsmouth and between Portsmouth and Hayling Island, is a sheltered water stretch and is entirely unique. The meteorological conditions are as good as anywhere in the United Kingdom. I would elaborate that a little by saying that fog in Langstone Harbour or anywhere else near Portsmouth is practically unknown. That cannot be said about Croydon, or even about Heathrow. A constant water level can be secured by the construction of a small barrage across the mouth of the harbour, after which there would be no tides or currents, which would make it very easy for taxiing or beaching. There is no flotsam: which means that safe landing can be secured. There would be no shipping in the harbour, needing complicated organisational arrangements such as are sometimes necessary where shipping and flying boats use the same waters. The harbour has land-port facilities adjoining, and adequate runways up to 10,000 feet could be accomplished. There is adequate room for light industries and for similar accommodation; and last, but not least, there is very easy access to London, which is 1¼ hours distant by electric railway, comparing with the five hours necessary to reach Prestwick.

I do not wish to speak on this proposition indefinitely, but I would point out that the Americans are extremely fortunate on the other side of the Atlantic in having large expanses of sheltered water adjacent to any sites they need for large airports on Long Island. For example, La Guardia airport has its own complementary marine terminal as does Idlewild also. Langstone Harbour could be the complementary marine terminal for Heathrow. Moreover, it could act as an alternate land terminal in the event of bad weather at Heathrow making the landing of aircraft impossible.

The plans are already made. They have been in the hands of the Ministry and of the technical experts for a considerable time. The first stage of the plan, if the necessary priorities can be accorded, can be completed within one year, after which, on the land-port side of the airport, Dakota type planes could land, as could, on the water runways, a good number of our existing flying boats on the various Empire routes. We in our city ask our pride of place in the civil aviation scheme as a whole, believing that it would be in the interests of the nation, as well as of Portsmouth, that a combined marine and land terminal airport should be established at Langstone Harbour.

2.8 p.m.

It is always satisfactory when the conclusions to which an hon. Member has been led by his independent research coincide with the interests of his constituents. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend upon being in that fortunate position. I can do so with sincerity, because I am able to agree with almost everything that he said. The future of flying boat bases naturally depends upon the future of flying boats. When my Noble Friend took office, he found that the flying boat had been temporarily eclipsed by the land-based aircraft in the eyes of operators almost throughout the whole world. He was not satisfied with that position. It may be little more than what is called a hunch, but he believes that the flying boat has still a great future. The comfort which it can offer, because of its large capacity, has been rightly emphasised by my hon. and gallant Friend.

My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned also that the flying boat at present suffers the disadvantage of a lower speed than the best land-based aircraft, but my Noble Friend believes that this disability can be overcome when flying boats are fitted with gas turbines. If that surmise proves to be correct, it will lead to a conclusion which will be very satisfactory not only to my Noble Friend, who is an old Naval man, but to the British Commonwealth as a whole. As my hon. and gallant Friend has emphasised, there are many natural marine bases throughout the British Commonwealth which could be employed greatly to our advantage, should there be the promising future which we expect for the flying boat. As I indicated yesterday in the Debate, we have given practical effect to this policy. A number of flying boats are already in use and we have given orders for new flying boats. My Noble Friend has also stimulated work on flying boat research, and in particular upon the fitting of gas turbines as the power unit in the flying boat.

As aircraft become bigger, they present many problems to the designers. It is our experience that those problems are not so formidable in the flying boat as they are in the land-based aircraft. That is one reason why we believe that the flying boat, with the increasing size of aircraft, will come back into its own. Two designs for big flying boats have been submitted and are now being examined technically by the Ministry of Aircraft Production. These designs invite comparison with that of the huge Brabazon I, now being constructed at Bristol. These questions must all be gone into with extreme care and in great detail. I can promise the House that they will be gone into with that care and in that detail.

On the assumption that there is a future for the flying boat, it is necessary for us to consider the question of marine bases. I can say readily to my hon. and gallant Friend that Langstone Harbour has many advantages. He has enumerated them and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. He was very fair in his analysis and I do not think, so far as my recollection serves me, that he claims any advantages for Langstone Harbour which it does not possess. He mentioned the proximity to London. That is certainly the case. Various ideas have been put up for flying boat bases to be constructed, say, in Essex, alongside the Thames, by flooding great basins from the Thames. Even if such schemes were practicable, it is still the case that the approaches to London from that direction are not good, and that that part of the country is very liable to fog. On the ground of proximity to London, Langstone Harbour has strong claims, therefore, as a marine base. The Portsmouth Corporation's scheme has been given a great deal of consideration already, but I undertake to my hon. and gallant Friend that I will have full consideration given to these schemes and to the future of flying boats generally, as a matter of urgency. I hope that we shall be able to reach a decision in a short time.

2.15 p.m.

I would like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary the point that the personnel employed in the Fleet Air Arm should be borne in mind in connection with future developments in civil aviation. A good deal of emphasis was placed yesterday on the importance of fitting R.A.F. personnel into the scheme of things. I felt during the course of the Debate that a word should be raised on behalf of those who have served in the Fleet Air Arm throughout the war.

If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I can readily give that assurance. It is another advantage of the fact that my Noble Friend has had naval experience. I can inform the House that one of his first actions on taking office was to ensure this point, that recruitment to civil aviation in the future should take account of the Fleet Air Arm as well as the Royal Air Force.

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is aware that one of the advantages of the scheme to which I referred is that no extra land is necessary, in contrast to the other schemes which have been mentioned in connection with the flooding of land.

I am aware of that advantage. It does, of course, involve a great deal of expense in regard to dredging, and I ought not to conceal from the House that that would be fairly expensive.

I desire to call attention to the present position of the London Museum and its immediate future, which I believe to be a matter not without public interest. For the benefit of those Members who are not familiar with the subject, I should explain that the London Museum was instituted in or about the year 1912, somewhat on the lines of the Carnavelet Museum in Paris, for the conservation of the antiquities and other objects associated with the history of London. It began in a characteristically British fashion, by a number of general and informal arrangements that have never yet been completely regularised. The collection was housed for a time at Kensington Palace, but was then transferred to Lancaster House, St. James's. The Museum is administered by a Board of Trustees under a somewhat loose and nebulous constitution, most of the trustees being appointed by the Prime Minister.

The Museum has existed on a modest maintenance grant of some £7,000 or £8,000 a year from the Treasury, with even more modest funds available for acquisition purposes. With that rather exiguous financial assistance the Museum was able, during the period down to the war, to accumulate a most valuable collection of exhibits and a great deal of material of first-class historical importance bearing on the life and history of London. Descriptive catalogues were issued in respect of the various collections housed at the Museum, the Roman, the Saxon, the Viking and medieval periods, and its fine collection of costumes was a notable feature. The Museum had become a recognised place for educational visits from school children on a small but growing scale, and a number of the exhibits there, such as the Coronation robes, panoramic scenes of early London, and the Roman ship found in the Thames mud and one of the Newgate cells were constant and popular attractions. Thus the Museum had obtained an acknowledged and recognised position in the cultural and educational life of London. During the war the Museum was closed, and its exhibits were stored in a place of safety.

My reason for calling public attention to the matter today is that I understand the future habitation of the Museum is now under discussion, and to some extent the entire future status of the Museum is at stake. As a building Lancaster House, although a distinguished and attractive building, has never been ideal. It suffers from the disadvantage that it was never intended as a Museum, and was shared by the Trustees with another Government Department for the purposes of Government hospitality. At the present moment the building is the headquarters of the Council of Foreign Ministers, which looks like continuing for a considerable time. Therefore, I want to ask: Where is the Museum to be housed in the immediate future, and what is its eventual destination and status? Perhaps the latter question is the more important because if that is satisfactorily solved, the immediate future can be adjusted to take care of itself.

I hope the Government will approach this matter with vision and imagination. It is true that London, as the capital city of the Empire, houses the great national collections, the British Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the National Gallery and so forth, with their treasure houses of art, sculpture, ornament and learning. In addition to that, there is a great and a growing need for a civic museum in London devoted to the history and life of London in all its many facets from the days, 1,200 years ago, when Bede already described London as collection of books dealing with London and London history now possessed by the London County Council, a collection which has recently been enriched by the addition of the John Burns collection, but which is very little used and very little known by Londoners. I should also hope that there would be associated with this institution not only the London County Council library and the John Burns collection, but also the Council's unique collection of prints, photographs, drawings, plans and records relating to London.

What I envisage is a worthy civic cultural centre for London, which would be a focus for visitors to the Metropolis, whether from the provinces or from abroad, setting a standard for civic museums throughout the country. It should be closely integrated with London's educational system, providing standards of taste in the everyday things of life, and inspiring future generations of Londoners with that civic pride which we want to encourage. Therefore, in considering an appropriate site for such a London institute or cultural centre, I would suggest that the Government should make arrangements with the London County Council to ensure that a site is earmarked for this purpose on the South bank of the Thames. The London County Council have recently earmarked a site there for a national theatre, and in the reordered and re-planned London to which we are looking forward, the South bank will be developed so as to be a worthy counterpart to the North bank. This is the appropriate place for a London museum or institute of the kind which I have described, which is to be worthy of London—a museum intended to be not primarily for the expert but for the general public.

I believe it would be difficult to overemphasise the importance which should be attached to a conception of this kind in the cultural life of the capital—and in days when visual education must play an increasingly important part. A building planned for the purpose on modern lines, with appropriate spaces and galleries, equipped with the materials I have referred to, adequately staffed and provided with one or more lecture rooms, with which the London educational system was closely connected, would be something worthy of the capital and a fitting memorial to the greatness of London, which with all its imperishable history has added further lustre to its name during the recent war. I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for having arranged to be present today to enable me to raise this question, and I hope he will be able to give a sympathetic and encouraging reply to those of us who are interested in this matter.

2.31 p.m.

It is true that the Treasury has the task of answering for the London Museum, but strictly speaking we are not the only Department interested in this matter. The principal point raised by my hon. Friend deals with the building in which this museum should be housed, and that properly speaking comes under the Ministry of Works rather than the Treasury. Nevertheless, as the cost of the London Museum normally is borne on one of the Votes, it falls to me as the Minister responsible to answer my hon. Friend.

The position of the London Museum is rather peculiar. It does not really belong to the State in the strict sense of the word, although the cost of its upkeep is mainly borne out of State funds. The history of this collection is rather interesting. Its nucleus originally belonged to the late Lewis Harcourt, who was for some years a Member of this House and indeed was, I think, at one time First Commissioner of Works before the war of 1914–1918. He got together a very interesting collection of London relics, which was housed for a time in Kensington Palace. Some time between 1911 and 1913 the King appointed trustees of this collection. He appointed the Right Hon. Lewis Harcourt, Lord Esher, and the then First Commissioner of Works, as trustees. In 1913 these trustees executed a deed under which the collection was placed at the disposal of the Government for so long as it was exhibited in Stafford House—now known as Lancaster House—to which it had been removed, or in some other equally suitable building. It was left to the trustees for the time being to decide whether the building chosen at any given time was suitable or not. If it were not suitable, and no suitable building in their judgment was available, the collection was to revert to the donors. In the meantime the late Lord Joicey provided a sum of £25,000 on trust, the income of which was to be used for the purchase—and the purchase only—of additional exhibits. Therefore, although the Government take an interest in this Museum, its destiny lies in fact ultimately in the hands of the trustees, and part of the money for the collection and additions to it comes from private funds set up by the Joicey trust.

Today, the trustees are appointed by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. They are appointed for seven years, and are 12 in number. The present chairman of the trustees is the Earl of Harewood. The museum has no charter. In so far as the trustees are bound, they are bound by the deed which was executed in 1913. Among the 12 trustees London is certainly represented. The chairman of the Education Committee of the London County Council is a member, the Minister of Works for the time being is an ex officio member, the President of the Society of Antiquaries is also a member, and the Lord Mayor of London is ex officio a member during his term of office and for the year following.

The exhibition went from Kensington Palace to Lancaster House, as it is now known, because it was then thought to be a suitable place in which to house it, but I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend when he suggests that a more commodious, perhaps more central, building should be found. The difficulty is that although the Ministry of Works now holds the lease of Lancaster House from the Commissioners of Crown Lands that building is at the present time fully occupied in other directions. I have been in touch with the Minister of Works himself on this matter since this question was put down for discussion, and he assures me that, with the utmost regret, he is not able at the moment to liberate Lancaster House for this purpose. At the present time, the Council of Foreign Ministers is using the place, and it is also being used for other purposes as well. He is fully seized with the need for finding a suitable home for this Museum, and he is also—I think we all are—very taken with the suggestion that accommodation built specially for the Museum should be provided. It has always seemed to me wrong that a museum dedicated to the history and greatness of London should not be in the hands of the appropriate authority which rules and governs London. It is, I think, an excellent sugges- tion that at some future time, I hope not too distant, when the South bank of the Thames comes to be laid out as it ought to have been laid out many years ago, room should be found for such a centre. When that time arrives I am sure my hon. Friend will find the Government of the day will have great sympathy with the suggestion. At the present moment the difficulty is that we cannot rehouse the London Museum in Lancaster House.

Active search is, however, being made for alternative accommodation. On that, I am glad to say the possibility of using part of Kensington Palace again temporarily for this purpose is being considered, and His Majesty has been graciously pleased to indicate that he would be very willing to grant permission for the Museum to be reopened there as a temporary measure until the plans my hon. Friend has outlined with such felicity this afternoon are realised or the Ministry is able to find some other site to house it. The exhibits should be on exhibition and people should be able to go to see what is already a wonderful collection. I can assure my hon. Friend, therefore, that we have this matter under consideration, that there is a suggestion it should go temporarily to Kensington Palace, and that the other observations that he has made for the future will be very fully and sympathetically considered. For my part I hope something will come of them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes to Three o'Clock.