Spectator's Notebook

HE Government has done well to agree, in I the House of Lords, to drop the stultifying amendment to the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill that would have prevented the Ombudsman from reviewing 'any decision taken by a Govern- ment department or other authority in the exer- cise of a discretion vested in that department or authority.' Had this gone through, as it went through the Commons, there would have been little point in having an Ombudsman at all. The Government's plan now, it seems, is to intro- duce a new amendment in the report stage of the Bill that will make it clear that the Ombudsman can investigate fully any decision in this key 'discretionary' field, but that he can only criticise it where he finds that there has been maladministration.

Two points here are absolutely crucial. The first is that it must be firmly established that there are no bars on investigation; since it is only once a decision has been investigated that the Ombudsman can properly satisfy himself that there has not been maladministration. The second is that it must be made equally clear that a 'discretionary: decision taken by a govern- ment department in full accordance with the rules of that department can still constitute mal- administration: quite simply, they may be bad rules.

The whole question boils down to that of what constitutes maladministration. Mr Crossman has given some vague general guidance of what the Government originally had in mind; but what matters is that an amendment has been dropped that might well have allowed the administrators themselves to decide this. Now, the task of defin- ing 'maladministration' has been restored to the Ombudsman himself, giving him the opportunity to build up a whole corpus of 'administrative law' as exists in France. A tremendous respon- sibility rests on the modest shoulders of Sir Edmund Compton. I only hope he will make good use of this eleventh-hour reprieve.

Second Opinion

Suppose, however, the Government had re- fused to drop the offending amendment to the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill, would their Lordships have had the guts to chuck it out? Even though this was manifestly a constitutional Issue, and one on which the peers would plainly have been acting in defence of the people, I doubt it. Twice since October 1964 they have been put to the test on a constitutional issue, and twice they have preferred survival to principle. The first occasion was the Burmah Oil affair, when the courts decided against the Government

and the Government introduced a bill to over- rule the courts. The second was the London Government Bill, when the Government decided to postpone key GLC elections beyond the date clearly set out by law.

Of course, it may be said that on the first occasion public opinion would not have sup- ported their Lordships, and on the second that the question had become a party political issue. This seems to me irrelevant: the constitution is the constitution, regardless of the vagaries of public opinion or the attitudes taken by political parties. Equally irrelevant is the charge that the House of Lords is an oddly constituted body to cast in the role of watchdog of the constitution. How- ever odd, it's the best second chamber we've got. In any event, the Lords will soon have an opportunity to redeem themselves over an even more important constitutional issue which is not party political and on which they would almost certainly be supported by public opinion. This is the Criminal Justice Bill, with its clause to abolish, after 600-odd years, and for no good reason, the unanimity rule for juries. It seems

likely, too, that the large majority of law lords, reflecting liberal-minded legal opinion generally, will be opposed to this ill-judged measure. If the peers don't chuck this Bill back at the Commons then it's difficult to see what they're afraid of: instead of being emasculated by the Govern- ment they will simply have emasculated them- selves.

It's all very well for the Opposition Leader in the upper house, Lord Carrington, to argue that

the Government will only let the peers use their delaying powers once before taking them away for good, and that therefore the right course is to wait for a cause worth dying for. The fact is that, like the Abbd Sidyts, their Lordships will never think anything worth dying for; they will always decide to wait for something even worthier. (And there's certainly not going to be anything worth while in the last session of a

parliament.) Let's have an end to all this non- sense. Let the peers challenge the Government on the jury issue, and see what happens. They might win. If they lose, and lose their theoretical delaying power, then at the very least they'll feel free to vote according to their consciences in future. And in the long run we might even get a better second chamber.

Jake for Veep?

The inexorable newspaper law that the worth of a letter varies inversely with the number of signatories has seldom been better exemplified than by Tuesday's letter to The Times from some six dozen assorted American politicians and university administrators. It seems that the moving spirit behind this well-meant declaration of Anglo-American solidarity was the aimiable Jacob Javits, liberal Republican senator for New York, whose life's ambition is to be the first Jewish vice-President of the United States. To qualify himself for this role he has long sought to present himself to his compatriots as a man with a standing and reputation that extends beyond the frontiers of America, and to this end he has determinedly made himself popular in Britain with a number of generous 'proposals' of Anglo- American co-operation.

I wish the likeable Senator the best of luck with his wholly honourable domestic political ambition. But 1 can't say the same for the notion implied in The Times letter. And if Mr Javits

is genuinely concerned—as I know he is—with Anglo-American friendship, let him ponder this: an intensification of the economic links between

Britain and the United States, leading as it in- evitably would to increasing domination of British industry by American firms and to total political subordination to Washington, is the surest recipe for a virulent outbreak of anti- Americanism in Britain.

Budget Secret

Mr Callaghan's inability to control Govern- ment expenditure, as evidenced by the stagger- ing rise in civil and defence estimates—Sf per cent, or 5 per cent in real terms: roughly double the likely rate of growth of the economy as a whole over the next few years—has ominous implications. Unless something is done we are faced in the years ahead with the prospect of steadily increasing taxation and an economy in which expansion is almost wholly concentrated on that sector which makes least contribution to exports.

What we aren't faced with, however, in spite of most newspaper comment, is the need for a nasty budget this year. In fact, I expect a pleasant surprise : the mildest budget since Labour re- gained office. With private industry stagnating, the public sector can forge ahead without any overall inflationary pressure. The real trouble will come later. Meanwhile, the likeliest bet at the present time looks to be a fairly neutral budget, with a substantial increase in family allowances for larger families (this costs remark- ably little) offset by, say, a gifts tax. If this is so, it's not hard to make a guess at the budget date: perhaps Tuesday, April I I—precisely two days, as it happens, before the Greater London elections.

Advertisement

Next week the SPECTATOR comes out in a new dress. A complete redesign from cover to cover will make it—we believe—both more attractive and easier to read. There will also be a wider range of editorial comment, and a new weekly series of unhurried essays to which J. H. Plumb, Simon Raven, Anthony Burgess, Auberon Waugh, Strix and others will be contributing their personal points of view.

NIGEL LAWSON