Political Commentary

With One Voice

By DAVID WATT

'YOU see what eloquence

will achieve,' said Mr. Quintin Hogg to his neigh- bours on the Treasury Bench as the tellers an- nounced a government majority of sixty-two in the Education debate on Monday. Some kind of ex- planation was perhaps re- quired of the fact that in a debate on a motion of censure the Government was about thirty-five below its normal strength and there were certainly plenty of ministerial supporters who were prepared to say that if anything could have prevented them voting for the Govern- ment it was Mr. Hogg's speech which wound up the evening. Poor Mr. Hogg. He had taken an infinity. of pains—indeed he had notes enough for a three-hour performance. If he had been opening a debate on a quiet day his speech might have passed muster, but he was addressing an unsym- pathetic House after its dinner on a specialist subject in which probably the majority of mem- bers present had only the mildest interest. In these ,circumstances schoolroom whimsy ('he presented us with a Motion which, like some other articles, had two barrels') and limping Victorian didactics ('school education is lower only in the sense the roots of a tree are lower than the topmost branches') were precisely the wrong mixture. Mrs. Bessie Braddock, handy as ever with the blud- geon, told him afterwards that he needed a course in 'further education,' but the main question in everyone's mind was whether, after this, he was going to get his tutoring as Secretary of State for Education.

There seems no doubt that in fact the Prime Minister has made up his mind on the big ques- tion. There will be one Ministry of Education, 'Arts and Science, and whatever disasters may befall Mr. Hogg in th:: House of Commons he will be the Minister. The reason for postponing the announcement until after the debate is partly that the Cabinet had not yet discussed the matter, but, more important, the question of the present Edu- ,cation Minister's future was still not clear and is not likely to become so for another week.

Throughout the long controversy since the pub- lication of the Robbins Report Sir Edward Boyle has taken the line that the principle that there 'should be one Minister and not two is more im- portant than the personalities involved. It looks as if he has stood on principle too firmly for his , own interests, for it has been pretty clear all along that if it came to a straight choice between Mr. Hogg and Sir Edward the Prime Minister would , have to choose the man with the higher seniority and the greater backing within the party.

' The ideal one-Ministry solution, as pressed by • Sir Edward and others, has always been that of a Secretary of State supported by two Ministers of State, one roughly responsible for primary and secondary education, the other, probably in the Lords, responsible for the research councils and time-consuming duties like receiving delegations and going to conferences abroad. Under this scheme the universities (and Lord Robbins) would be kept happy by the device of making the Secretary of State directly responsible for the University Grants Commission which would maintain its present independent status. But if this

solution is accepted, of course, the problem of what to do with Sir Edward Boyle becomes acute. Suppose he is kept on at Education under Mr. Hogg, what is to be his status? To throw a highly successful and well-liked Minister out of the Cabinet for no better reason than administrative tidiness is more or less unthinkable, but to keep him in the Cabinet and thus have two Education Ministers of Cabinet rank is a cumbersome solu- tion and would undermine the authority of the new Secretary of State in his new department. It is highly doubtful, in any case, whether Sir Edward is willing to serve under Mr. Hogg. The alternatives, therefore, are to let him resign or to have a Cabinet reshuffle and find him another job (the Home Secretary has surely earned his peerage by now). Neither thought is very attractive just before a general election.

The Opposition would of course be best suited and delighted if the Government could be shown ti have compromised a good principle for the sake of short-term political convenience. There was even a glorious twenty-four hours when the word from Labour headquarters was that the Government proposed to have two co-equal Mini- sters of Education in one Ministry taking their, powers alternate days, presumably, like Paulus and Varro before Cannae. For the fact which emerged most clearly in Monday's debate was that on Education the two parties have fought each other into a state of almost total unanimity.

Again, it is possible that Labour viould spend slightly more on education than the Conserva- tives, but precisely the same warning lectures about 'paying our way' will be read by Mr. Callaghan to Mr. Crossman as are now read by Mr. Maudling to Sir Edward Boyle. Labour has made some threatening noises about forcing local authorities by legislation to abolish the eleven-plus but since one of Labour's chief aims (and perhaps one of Mr. Wilson's main achieve- ments) has been to win back some of the con- fidence of the professional classes, it is highly unlikely that a Labour Government would rule education by fiat in this way. The same applies to the most explosive issue of all—the account- ability to Parliament of the University Grants Commission. Both sides are equally aware that as the responsibilities of the UGC grow—it is just about to take in the Colleges of Advanced Technology—the pressure to make it account in detail through the Ministry of Education for the public money spent will mount. But both sides know that the row which would follow any such attack on the independence of the universities would make the argument over Robbins look like ah old folk's spelling bee. For some years neither a Labour nor a Conservative govern- ment can afford to start this rumpus.

In short, political controversy about educa- tion is now reduced for election purposes to the old, dreary historical accusations—by Labour that the Conservatives have played stop-and-go with education, by the Conservatives that Labour hasn't had two constructive ideas to rub together on the subject since 1951. Only a major blunder by the Prime Minister over the new Ministry can break this boring but blessed deadlock.

Connoisseurs of political muddle will find rare interest in a close study of the Case of the Unaddressed Letters. The story begins a year ago when the Post Office became alarmed by the drastic falling-off in the volume of posted mail. (In the event the postal services lost about a million last year.) Casting around for a way of increasing the traffic again, some ingenious official hit upon the notion of challenging private enterprise for the business of pushing through every letter box in a given area such important material as catalogues, advertisements, appeals for charity and soap coupons. Mr. Ron Smith, the General Secretary of the Post Office Workers, was consulted and agreed that it was a bright idea. His followers, however, differed. And when Mr. Smith and his executive came to put the proposition that the union should co-operate in the scheme to their annual conference in May it was turned down by the rank and file.

The Post Office, however, was undismayed, and after months of thought on January 7 the scheme was announced. Within twenty-four hours Mr.

Edward Martell, the hammer of the trade unions, had announced publicly that he would use the service for propaganda, while Aims of Industry, the anti-nationalisation publicity firm, had privately applied to the Post Office. On January 14 Aims of Industry sent the Post Office a printers' proof of their leaflet whose slogan was, 'say no to nationalisation.' At no stage did the Post Office express any misgivings. On January 20 Mr. Roy Mason, Labour's spokes- man on Post Office affairs, although himself unaware of the Aims of Industry leaflet, put down a parliamentary question asking about the possible use of the service for political ends. On January 22 the assistant Postmaster-General was told by a, Fleet Street journalist of the Aims of Industry pamphlet, apparently the first he or any other politician had heard of it. On January 23 Mr. Mason and Mr. Smith both complained to the Post Office and were informed first that the Post Office was considering a censorship cutting out political material from the service and later that the entire service would be suspended.

The Government now face a motion by the Opposition annulling the regulations and if they

push that through to save face, as they intend to do, they are also confronted with a real possibility that the Post Office workers will ' refuse to operate the scheme. Mr. Smith, who originally sent a masterly instruction to his branches telling his members to follow the con- ferertce's decision and refuse to co-operate with the scheme but on the other hand not to obstruct it (by refusing to operate it), can no longer help Mr. Bevins out, for his members are enraged. No doubt the scheme will die quietly at the election—but then perhaps the letter rate will have to go up from 3d. to 4d.