Part of Orders of the Day — Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill. – in the House of Commons am ar 9 Gorffennaf 1928.
I have listened with interest to this Debate, as I am sure have all Members of the House. If I felt for a single moment that I was taking an action which would denationalise my country, any action which would deny to the Scottish people the right and freedom to take part in forming the machine which governs their country, I should not be standing at this Box bringing this Measure before the House of Commons This Bill does not spring from a Cabinet desirous of inflicting injury upon Scotland. Its origin is with those who are responsible for the government of Scotland, and I take my full share in that responsibility. The proposition was put before the Cabinet by myself and those who advised me, and I desire to put very plainly to this House, and through the House of Commons to Scotland, the reasons why I am asking the House to assent to it. What is it that we are all concerned with? Surely it is in moving with the circumstances in which we live and making such changes in the machinery as we may think will make for greater efficiency.
I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), who has had experience of government by boards on a fairly large scale in Ireland, and one of the first things I did on taking office was to go over to Ireland and consult with some of those who were carrying on the administration in Ireland to ascertain what they thought of the system. I probed into the reasons which actuated them in abolishing the system of boards and putting in departments. Of course, all this would not have been sufficient. It was clear that I had to make these propositions to Parliament upon grounds which seemed good to me as responsible for the administration as I found it. What did I find? In the first place, whether hon. Gentlemen like it or not, the essential fact to remember is that the real controlling power lies in this House, and that as long as you have a United Kingdom and Parliament it is bound to lie in this House. The responsibility must be with the Government of the day to Parliament, and the Minister must be responsible to Parliament. Whether it is a board system or a departmental system that is the essence of our Parliamentary system of Government. It seems, however, to have been forgotten by some of the hon. Members who have spoken.
If that is the case—and I think it is indisputably the case—what is the problem that lies before us? You have your Scottish Office at Dover House. In that office you must have a number of officials who are capable of advising the Minister upon certain aspects of the problem. To that office must come from the departments in Edinburgh, working in Edinburgh as boards or departments, on the problems with which we have to deal from time to time there must come to London those who speak with knowledge of the local circumstances. It is, of course, obvious that in the working out of that system there will be access to the Minister not only by those who are beads of departments or boards, but by technical advisers and officers. I say frankly that since I have been in my present position I have found that there was nothing which debarred any single technical officer who had any question or problem which he thought ought to be put to the Minister—nothing to prevent his putting it to the Minister.
Let me take one of the points which it is of importance to remember—the problem of housing with which the Board of Health are entrusted. It is one of the most important problems. The Director of Housing has not been a member of the Board of Health, but everyone who knows what has been going on knows full well that the Director of Housing has had access to myself and to the Under-Secretary, not only here in London but in Edinburgh on many occasions. Under the system of departments which I am setting up, there is nothing to prevent an arrangement by which the technical officer shall come into the closest possible touch with myself, with the Under-Secretary, or with the heads of that department. I have said before that in my judgment a responsible head, with the full responsibility of his office and with the knowledge that he has to give advice to his Minister, is infinitely preferable to a system of boards. That is borne out by every inquiry and commission which has studied this matter. Therefore, I am not moving in this matter without a very great measure of support.
Some hon. Members have said to me that I have not said to this House or to the Committee upstairs that there have been deliberate matters of inefficiency on the part of members of the boards. Those who understand in the smallest degree the responsibilities of a Minister in my position, who has to answer to this House for all the acts of those who are under him, whether a board or not a board, knows full well that it is I who take full responsibility both for good deeds and for any mistakes, and I am bound to take that responsibility. It is impossible for me here to do other than speak in generalities on these matters. It would never do, it would be highly improper, if I were to make any direct references to the things of which I am cognisant. But it is quite right that I should say that, judging these things in general, I have found that when a decision was required on a matter of urgency it was infinitely preferable to have a head of the department to whom I could go with the feeling that he could advise me, after consultation, no doubt, with those working with him, but advising me directly on his own responsibility, what steps I should take.
Under a system of boards you go to the chairman of the board and you say to him: "I think that so-and-so should be done, and it is very desirable that it should be done as rapidly as possible, in the interests of the State and of the service." and he is bound to call his board together and discuss with them whether this particular method of solving the problem is the right or the wrong method. What happens? Because of that system you have a problem debated by a board and possibly a division of opinion arising on the board. It may be either that a compromise is reached, and the result is that the recommendation to the Minister is a compromise of which he is not able to judge the pros and cons; or he gets a recommendation from the board in which there may be a majority report and a minority report, and then the Minister has to make up his mind which side of the board he would support, the majority or the minority, whether with the chairman of the board in the minority or with the chairman of the board in the majority. That is a system which, I think I can demonstrate to the House, is fundamentally unsound. It leads to delay, and it is not the most efficient way of dealing with these problems.
What are we proposing to do? We are proposing to substitute for this board system—which was established to meet other circumstances in other times—a system which is common to every one of the departments in England, which has existed, and with satisfaction, in regard to education in Scotland, where you have had the official at the head of that department responsible to the Minister. There have been all sorts of things said about efficiency or non-efficiency—contradictory statements as to whether the general public in Scotland have had reason to complain of this or that department—but as the Minister responsible I know full well that there has never been a week in the years that I have held my present office that I have not received criticisms or complaints about this department or the other. In the circumstances, what justification is there for hon. Gentlemen, who have pelted me with questions about the inadequacy of this or the delay of that, saying to me that I had no right to come to the House and suggest to them a method by which we shall obtain greater efficiency?
How are we to obtain it? I believe that we will obtain it, first of all, by abolishing the direct system of patronage. I do not want here to say that the use of patronage in making these appointments has been unfair, but I do say that if you are to have any measure of patronage it ought to be a limited measure of patronage which shall be subject to the Civil Service Commissioners. We have worked hitherto under a policy of patronage which had none of these restrictions. People talk to me about finding men who are in touch with local feeling and with a knowledge of agriculture, or of education, or of health matters, but what you want in these departments are people who have some knowledge of administration. Will anyone tell me that in the case of agriculture for instance, you are going to get people, drawn from even the highest farming class in Scotland, who can bring into the board concerned sufficient knowledge to deal with all circumstances of all types in Scotland, or that a man can make himself a "know-all" in regard to any of these subjects? That is not possible, and any attempt at a method of government of that kind will fail utterly. What you want is a man of sound judgment with a knowledge of administration and a training in administration, who, when various interests come before a government department, can weigh and sift the arguments pro and con and give his judgment without bias towards one side or the other, and recommend to the Minister the course which he thinks right.
We have heard much about the technical experts. I am not averse from, nor will any regulation which I make prevent, intercourse between the experts and those responsible for administration. But is the House of Commons to give up its right to the final word? Parliament must direct policy and control the experts. We know that the expert is often carried beyond the bounds of what is possible in finance or in relation to actual affairs. Is the expert always to have his way? I know many hon. Gentlemen opposite who would be the first to deny the right of the military or naval experts to carry out what they would desire, if they had their way. So it would be with the man of science. If the medical man had his way, he might possibly impose upon Parliament and the country a system—eminently desirable no doubt in itself—but so extravagant or so much in advance of the time that Parliament could not tolerate it. I challenge hon. Gentlemen opposite to show me that what they are asking for is practical. We are prepared to give the technical expert every opportunity of expressing his views, of being in close consultation with the head of his Department and with the Minister, and of putting fully his point of view, but the final word must be with the Minister responsible to Parliament.