Day-to-Day Devolution
By DESMOND DONNELLY, MP Sor years ago, I was talking to a friend who was then a senior Minister in the Labour Cabinet. 'What do you think of this Abadan crisis?' I asked : at that time the Persian oil dis- pute had been featured in the British press for several weeks. 'What Abadan crisis?' asked my friend blandly. I pointed to an evening paper with screaming headlines on the chair beside us. 'Oh,' explained my friend, 'I haven't had much time to follow that lately.'
This striking—and frightening—incident is not peculiar to any one government or individual in recent years. Tories have told me of similar incidents. There have also been the well-known cases of Ministers who have kept up with affairs and who have broken down in health as a result.
Therefore the Prime Minister's announcement, that he is examining 'the present system of govern- ment with a view to reducing the burden on Mini- sters and securing the more efficient working of Parliament,' is particularly welcome. The practical problem is how to create sufficient mental elbow room at the top for the country's political leaders to read, to think, to discuss and sometimes to re- fresh their minds by travel. The long-term answer is unlikely to be found in some 'overlord' govern- mental gimmick; but by actually reducing the number of decisions that have to be taken by the Cabinet or by Cabinet Committees. This, in its turn, means a reduction in the number of Govern- ment decisions that have to come before the cen- tral Parliament—the burden on Ministers and the burden on Parliament are inextricably associated. There is also another aspect to the Ministers' problem : the need to have ready access to better technological and scientific information than is at present generally available within the ranks of the Civil Service. All these matters have to be con- sidered together.
The immediate question that arises-is how to achieve the desired object without undermining the democratic process of keeping the executive in check and accountable to the public's elected representatives. The problem, as Mr. Macmillan rightly pointed out, involves 'very large questions' and it may be necessary to look generally at the whole British governmental structure. The last comprehensive review of the problem was undertaken by a sub-committee of Lord Addison's Reconstruction Committee set up in July, 1917. This sub-committee, under the chair- manship of Lord Haldane, produced a report entitled 'The Machinery of Government.' Its terms of reference were, 'To inquire into the responsi- bilities of the various Departments of the central executive Government, and to advise in what manner the exercise and distribution by the Government of its functions should be improved.'
Circumstances have largely superseded the Haldane report. In some respects its recommenda- tions make quaint reading.. For instance, it sug- gested as a permanent feature of the Cabinet sys- tem the appointment of a Secretary to the.Cabinet, to arrange the agenda, provide background material to Ministers and to see that the Cabinet's decisions were acted upon. Today, the terms of reference need to be wider than those for the Haldane Committee. because the incidence of government on the nation's daily life is immeasur- ably greater than it then was even during the emergency of the Kaiser's war. But the• principle of a new Haldane Committee composed of some of our elder statesmen is good, provided that the Committee also contains some younger icono- clasts.
Now, as to what they might do—it has been suggested by some commentators that the actual burden on Parliament and therefore Ministers can be reduced by greater use of Standing Commit- tees. But these Standing Committees have to be • manned; and the current difficulty is to find MPs with the time to man them. It may be argued, quite logically, that this difficulty would be over- come if the MPs were to be•paid more; and un- questionably Parliamentary salaries must be raised in order to enable the right kind of young man to enter the House of Commons—but this is another matter. The decision to increase the number of Standing Committees would 'inevitably mean that Parliament would lose some of its part-time character—and one of Parliament's chief merits is the manner in which part-time Members make expert contributions. Furthermore, this suggestion would be of little help to Ministers, for attendance at a Scottish or Welsh Grand Committee is even more exhausting than attendance to matters on the floor of the House.
Others have made the suggestion, as Fred Jowett and his ILP followers did, that we should adopt the principle of the American Congres- sional Committee, in which the Committees them- selves accept some responsibility for policy. But this course would remove the British system of collective Cabinet responsibility, and for that reason it would be undesirable. Nor do we want to create a galaxy of veto societies.
What, then, is the answer? One ultimate answer may 'be the political adaptation of the accepted pattern of large industrial organisation—executive decentralisation, with functional co-ordination. In the General Motors organisation, for instance, executive decisions are usually taken at the lower level : but similar functions are broadly co- ordinated at the higher level at which the major policy is decided. It may be that what is good for General Motors is also good for us, but the problem about translating this pattern into politi- cal machinery is to define the precise point at which the elected representatives of the public have their right to challenge the decisions reached thereby. Otherwise it is going to be merely 'over- lord' co-ordination with overall responsibility to Parliamint, and little will be gained.
My view is that we need to consider the pos- sibility of doing three things at the same time.
1. In reducing the burden on Ministers we shall have to free many of them of the responsi- bility of taking their present volume of executive decisions. This can be done in two ways. The devolution of some of Parliament's functions, such as housing, health services and education on to elected regional authorities would reduce the burden at the centre and it would not impair national efficiency, provided that the higher policy remained a matter for the Cabinet. Thus a decision like the Oxford road system would be made at regional level, instead of going to the Cabinet because it happened to be politically ex- plosive. In practice, devolution in day-to-day administration has considerable advantages. Secondly, whilst remaining answerable to Parlia- ment for his department, the Cabinet Minister will have to delegate greater responsibility to his Parliamentary Secretary, in exactly the same way as the chairman of a company leaves day-to-day matters to his managing director. This process is already being carried out in the Treasury and Foreign Office; other departments would benefit if they were to follow suit.
2., The Civil Service, whose higher levels have much to commend them administratively, is nevertheless ill-equipped technologically. Apart from a •few notable exceptions, the chief scien- tific and technological officers of the ministries are below the calibre of the men in industry; for the obvious reason that the greater financial re- wards in the latter are always skimming the cream. One answer would be to adopt the war- time practice of enabling Ministers to make greater use of scientific and technical men from outside the bureaucracy whilst leaving the actual administration to the permanent officials.
3. The allocation of functions of the Govern- ment department needs to be re-examined, in the way in which the Haldane Committee examined them. The obvious example is the Treasury. As things are now, the Treasury is often placed in a position to decide the detailed policy of other departments when it is not equipped so to do. Is this either right or efficient? Perhaps the best solution would- be to reduce the status of the Treasury to that of a national accounting depart- ment. Its economic policy functions would then have to be transferred to a Minister of Economic Affairs who would be one of the most senior men in the Government. A second 'Haldane Commit- tee' should be empowered to reconsider all such departmental arrangements.
Thus the case is made out for the inquiry and these observations are only indicative of some of the problems involved. The short point is that whilst the French people have been handicapped by the instability resulting from their govern- mental system, we are being crushed by the weight of ours. If justice is to be done to the country, we must take action.
Previous page
