26 JUNE 1964, Page 13

Crick-Crack Reform

By HENRY FAIRLIE

es not for me to suggest why, but it is a long

time since we heard anything of Dr. Brain- drain. He was obviously a man of even slighter mettle than I thought at the time: one sharp sally, and he returned to the obscurity from which he should probably never have emerged. But there is a half-brother of his who is asking for a whiff of grapeshot.

Ever since the 'State of England' question was left to die—exactly a year ago, if I remember rightly—those who were making the most song and dance about it have re-formed on a narrower issue. It is our institutions which need reform, they say, which is certainly a little more plaus- ible than hoping for a resurrection of the whole country. The leader of these reformers, at the moment, is Dr. Bernard Crick, lecturer in govern- ment at the London School of Economici, but the whole breed may best be identified by the collective name of Dr. Crick-crack.

A crick-crack, according to my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, is 'a representation of a repeated sharp sound,' which is exactly what the demands for reforms of Parliament, of the Departments, and of the Civil Service, often are. The idea of a braindrain, as I said at the time, was a perfect example of a sound repeated with- out thought. Crick-crack demands for reform are exactly the same.

Dr. Crick himself leaped on to the front of the bandwagon recently with a book entitled The Reform of Parliament, which on the whole has been very well received by his poor rela-

lions, the Mister and Master Crick-crackS of the literary pages: We know, of course we all know, he implies, that it is not the. 'State of England' which should be worrying us, but the reform of Parliament. There lies the road to national re- generation.

A remarkable example of what happens to the arguments of Dr. Crick, when they are repeated by Master Crick-crack, appeared in the Daily Herald this week. What is wrong with sport in this country? We could have guessed :

Of course the Government are to blame. So are MPs for not twisting the Government's arm. A Parliamentary debate on sport, such as yesterday's, is a rarity.

It is an elevating thought that Edrich made his century on Monday, and Pickard beat the No. 5 seed at Wimbledon, because they had been en- couraged by the debate on sport which was then going on in Parliament. But how, then, do we account for Wilson's defeat at Wimbledon? Perhaps he does not read Hansard. Someone, surely, might have handed him the Orders of the Day before he went on to the Centre Court.

There is nothing, apparently,•that a reform of our institutions cannot, in these days, be ex- pected to achieve. But Dr. Crick himself, although a little more lugubrious, can be just as ridiculous. The example which I take from his book is only one of many that might be ex- tracted to show how crick-crack reforms are usually based on entire misconceptions.

In order to get round some of the obvious im- practicabilities of his proposals for the reform of Parliament, Dr. Crick comes up with this sug- gestion:

The present distinction between full-time and part-time Members could to great advantage give way to the more natural distinction between Members with Ministerial aspiration, who would seek to remain in Parliament after each General Election, and men from the pro- fessions, from business and from the unions who would enter Parliament for a limited time and return to their colleagues. (My italics.) It really is a very funny idea that we should recruit a full complement of the House of Commons from people enjoying a sabbatical leave from their businesses.

There seem to me certain facts of life which have not penetrated to Dr. Crick before he made this Heath Robinson proposal. (There is a lineal relationship between crick-crack reforms and Heath Robinson inventions. Both, it will usually be found, are held together by bits of string and pulleys.) For one thing, what pro- fessions, businesses or trade unions are going to free good men for a period of at least five years, and give them an assurance that their chances of promotion will not have been dimin- ished? And, if this assurance is not given, what men will then decide to take so long a sabbatical term in the House of Commons, without any compensation or guarantee of re-employment?

But there are misconceptions, too, about the facts of political life. Most people who enter politics have specific motives for doing so, usually a great deal stronger than the desire to do a short stretch in the House of Commons, and this applies to the back-bench Member as well as the Member with 'Ministerial aspiration.' Most Members, too, become keenly attached to the House of Commons, to the life of politics, and would not willingly give up their seats after they had served for one or two Parliaments. After all, it is my observation that Members do not usually look forward to losing their seats, and some are even known to fight bard to retain them.

Moreover, if they fight hard to get returned, their supporters in the constituencies fight equally hard to get them returned. These would not wil- lingly give their 'free, fiery and selfless toil,' as Sir Alan Herbert wonderingly described it, if their Member was only going to be a temporary office-holder, on leave from his job. Constituency workers get to know their Member (and his wife), and they develop a personal loyalty to him (which can even survive disagreement). The relationship between a Member and his con- stituents is difficult enough as it is. It would be impossible, and meaningless, if the Member were only there, so to speak, for the ride.

BBC Policy Frank Gillard, John Stanley South Africa and Sanctions Mary Benson Down a Peg Terence Rattigan Steel Nationalisation Mrs. Eirene White, MP The Halfpenny Culture Lincoln Hallinan A Task for Youth J. G. Smith The National Theatre Kenneth Tynan Two Histories Peter Wait

A Political Trial Keith McHale and Hilary Cartwright