Part of Orders of the Day — Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill. – in the House of Commons am ar 9 Gorffennaf 1928.
I am sorry that it is not a language belonging to the British Isles. We have not been able to cultivate a language capable of expressing the depth and degradation of Toryism. There seems to be a concerted and
determined effort to destroy what is left of administration in Scotland. What was contained in the King's Speech shows that the Cabinet have made up their minds that, now they have got a man who will do it, to use every means in their power to do it. We are told that there is no ill-feeling between the three nations that make up Great Britain. I accept that as a phrase, but how can I accept it when this kind of thing is introduced into the King's Speech? The King's Speech is supposed to be an Address from representatives of all parts of the island, and yet we have in it an intimation that one part is to be decapitated, as far as certain offices are concerned. The Secretary of State has implied more than once that the change sought was merely an addition. In Committee on this Bill, the Secretary of State said:
When people talk about bureaucracy, what does it really imply? The responsibility which I have to Parliament is not, in fact, going to be altered in any way by this Measure. All I am asking is for a more efficient machine. Somebody said that access to responsible officials or to expert officials would be denied. That is not the case. These offices will be organised with a responsible head, responsible to the Minister and responsible for the advice which he gives to the Minister. There will be the various Departments in the offices just as there are now dealing with this or that aspect of health or of housing, and the beads of each of these Departments will be drawn from the Civil Service as they are drawn to-day.
When the right hon. Gentleman said that, he did not mean that the Civil servants as they were drawn to-day were the heads of these Departments, and that others were subordinate to them. He went on to say:
They will have access not only to the bead of the Department who advises the Minister, but if there is any difference of opinion or contrary view expressed, they will have access to the Minister himself. In fact, while you abolish the Board system you will retain within the offices as the departmental ordinary procedure just as it takes place in other offices to-day, those consultations between the heads of Departments which are essential."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills), 21st March, 1928: col. 10.]
The Secretary of State knows that this is not in keeping with what is taking place. He has had representations in regard not only to the alterations that are to be made by the change, but also
to the change that is to be made in the conditions, and he has probably received a communication from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants. They draw attention to that to which I drew attention in Committee, namely, the subordination which is to take place. Reorganisation, if it meant reorganisation, would not have meant that something new was to come in and to be over the rest, and so bring in this subordination. It would seem by what has taken place and by the right hon. Gentleman's speech that there is some little irregularity, and the evidence of that irregularity is contained in this document, which says:—
This subordination has recently been challenged by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, but reference to the Lord Advocate's speech on the Second Reading shows that the intention is to apply rigidly the permanent secretary system as it obtains in England, under which the technical experts will be reduced to the position of mere consultants with no executive authority or right of appeal to the Minister where their advice is being over-ruled.
I am not contesting that if the administrative side is to over-ride the technical side, the technical men should have the right to put their case to the Minister direct. Not only on this subject, but on every subject in the House when the question of the technical men has come up, I have fought for this. There is no use in a Government paying large sums to technical men and then keeping them like cows in a shed to milk information from them when required. I object to the continual running between the Front Bench and the Government advisers behind the Speaker's Chair. These men with real knowledge are asked for their opinion by the heads of the Department on the political side, who are supposed to be above them. The man on the Front Bench is supposed to be a man with an unbiased mind—that means an empty mind. This technical man, with full knowledge, is asked to explain something, and he explains it, but they do not understand him, and so they turn him down. That is what happens 99 times out of 100 in Government affairs. I know it because I have tested it out in this House. Surely the Secretary of State will have something to say on that point, because if the technical adviser is going to be crushed and kept down, and never to get to the head of a Department, it will mean that we shall never get the harmony which is
absolutely necessary in a Department before good work can be done. Why should we lay down conditions which treat the officials of a Department as though they were a row of doors—No. 1 is the boss, and No. 2 is the fellow next to him. I know from experience of public work that whenever you try to follow on those lines you get friction; the machine will not work smoothly, and that must produce bad results. All this is to take place "on the appointed day."
During the Committee proceedings there was some contention in regard to this question of subordination. At first the Secretary of State was not quite clear on the matter. He did not think he was going to have any defence such as I am describing, but either he or the Lord Advocate is wrong, and I will leave them to fight it out. During the Second Reading Debate the Lord Advocate said:
the existing members of the various Boards are retained in the Departments and will find their place under the changed form of administration. They will not have the same responsibility which they had, along with the Chairman, as members of the Board; they will be subordinate to the permanent head of the Department, but they will be there.…These experts will still be retained in the Department, but they will only be acting in a subordinate or advisory position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1928; col. 917, Vol. 214.]
All that has been said at public meetings outside about not taking away this or that is not supported by the facts which are to be found in reports of the proceedings in this House. I know there are many other hon. Members who will be taking part in the discussion to-night——