WORKING TO RULE
I N his end-of-term report this week Charles Fletcher-Cooke points with satisfaction to the amount of work that was done at Westminster— the institution, not the school—before it broke up for the grouse-shooting. It is a record with which the Home Secretary, the Chief Whip, and all those whose job it is to lubricate the legislative tread- mill can justifiably be satisfied. Whether the pub- lic should feel quite so happy about it is less certain. With the growth of state intervention and the growing complexity of the law (owing to the increasing ingenuity of the men who make it their business to find loopholes in it) there hap- pens to be more parliamentary work to do. Par- lialnent has to run faster in order to keep in the same place.
How many of these fifty-five bills really re- quired the thorough scrutiny which they received? Mr. Fletcher-Cooke vouches for the care that the'committee of which he was a mem- ber took over the Charity Bill—nine long morn- ings of it; and it is nice to know our interests are being so conscientiously protected. But might not Mr. Fletcher-Cooke and his colleagues have spent their time more profitably on other affairs? Are they allowing themselves to be engulfed in a morass of detail, to the exclusion of important business?
The parallel that suggests itself is the work of customs officers. Their job is to prevent contra- band entering the country; but if they did it really conscientiously, they would dislocate the country's trade and tourist traffic. Working to rule' is no longer a matter for congratulation in the Customs and Excise Department—or in any business; yet what the Government supporters are now patting themselves on the back for is, in effect, a form of working to rule—the expendi- ture of unnecessary amount of time and trouble on trivial issues. To boast about the amount of work they have got through is consequently foolish; as well might a customs man boast of having ransacked every suitcase put before him. How the Commons can extricate itself from unnecessary routine is a problem which has long been exercising some of its members. The obvious difficulty is that delegated legislation, convenient though it is, has already grown too rapidly for comfort. But MPs should realise that while their energies 'and abilities are being (as they believe) fully extended in wrestling with the Caravan Sites Control and Development Bill, or whatever it may be, the electorate is beginning to take them less and less seriously. The lack of public (as dis- tinct from, press) concern about the appointment c,t Lord Home is only one example: what dif- ference—the feeling is—does it make which House he is in? It is even possible to suggest, as Lord Boothby has done, that more searching • questions can be put to a Foreign Secretary if he is in the Lords than if he is in the Commons— because in the Commons the Whips can exercise their powerful deterrent powers to prevent inde- pendent sniping (except from the party wings— and nobody takes them seriously).
The debate on Europe, which causes Mr. Fletcher-Cooke some understandable concern, is another symptom. If a poll were to be taken of British industry today there would be a sizable majority in favour of Britain's joining the Com- mon Market; and that she should, is the view expressed by almost every responsible .natiOnal journal. What was pathetic about the Commons discussion of the subject was not that this view was rejected—for the Government could claim, say, that on the basis of inside information it has good 'tactical reasons for wishing to delay the step—but that arguments in its favour were hardly even considered by the main speakers„ ministerial and shadow-ministerial, on either side. Instead all the old irrelevant and discredited arguments agaiost joining Europe were advanced yet once again. A Conservative Government which finds itself enthusiastically supported by both Harold Wilson and Lord Beaverbrook might reasonably be expected to take a long look at its policy, to find out what is wrong with it; but the present Government has been unable to face the reappraisal.
This means, Mr. Fletcher-Cooke suggests, that Britain's participation in Europe has been buried 'for the lifetime of this Parliament.' He is surely being too pessimistic. It would not be out of character if the Prime Minister suddenly decided to execute a sudden about-turn. To judge from its recent performances, the entire cabinet would turn with him, without a murmur, and begin to employ all the arguments that have been used in favour of the Common Market as if they had bcen convinced believers in it all their lives. But if this should happen—as we must hope it will— among the joy over the repentant sinner there will also, inevitably, be a sour note. It will not have been the will of the nation, expressed through Parliament; but the whim of the Prime Minister, expressed through the whips. And Parliament will not get the credit—why should it?
Previous page
