Political Commentary
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Information, Please
By JANL
ri4.4EARLY everybody appears at some time or
another to have grappled with the problem of
ri4.4EARLY everybody appears at some time or
another to have grappled with the problem of keeping Parliament and the public informed_ of what the nationalized industries are doing. In November last year the. House of Commons went so far as to appoint a Select Committee which has just issued a report. The Committee held 17 meetings, examined a number of important witnesses, and came to the con
clusion that another committee should be set up. It would have not more than 21 members, il/o be nominated at the beginning of each Parliamentary session, and their terms of reference would be, not to control the work of the nationalized corporations, but to inform Parliament about their aims, activities and problems.
Perhaps we have had a surfeit of committees. At any rate, it is hard to imagine that the recommendation, if accepted, Will do much good, or. much harm. It did, however, bring out sharp differences of opinion between some of the witnesses before the Select Committee.
• Lord Reiff' eipressed the view that Parliament had deliberately taken from itself the right of direct interference with the nationalized industries. To him the 'proposed committee was a terrifying prospect
On the other hand, the suggestion foundlavour with -Lord -Hurcomb. Characteristically, he had firm ideas about the sort of committee that should be appointed and about the -way in which it should work. There should be continuity of personnel, "a group of members who took a special and Continuing interest in a particular activity, not merely because it was nationalized." The same committee should not necessarily deal with all the industries concerned. "I am not in sympathy with the view that because an industry is nationalized it therefore faces a field of common problems."
Arcadian Relationship Possibly with a certain wistfulness in view of his impending retirement, Lord Hurcomb proceeded to outline the Arcadian relationship that he imagined might be established between the British Transport Commission and such a committee as he had in mind. There would be no probing into financial detail, nor barren investigation with a challenge to the efficiency of the Commission as its main object. The aim of the committee would be to find out what the, undertaking was trying to do. Suggestions would be made on points where it "might be giving insufficient weight to some trend of public opinion, or perhaps overlooking some important public aspect of its work."
The research carried out by the committee, Lord Hurcomb continued, would help Parliarrient during the debates on the nationalized industries. "Everyone who has listened to debates on annual reports, and so on, comes away with the impression that a great part of the evening has gone on comparatively trivial details."
Lord Hurcomb evidently regards himself as a man greatly misunderstood. He considers that "one of the very greatest handicaps under which anyone in my position suffers is that he gets no opportunity of stating his own case or of explaining what are his difficulties direct to M.P.s." At another point he says, "I take a fairly gloomy view of what is likely to satisfy the public."
It is surprising that he should hold this opinion, as so 146 often the complaint has been that neither Parliame nor the public can find out what is happening insi. the Commission, and, in fact, the Select Committee w set up to deal with this point. The Commission ai many of their Executives have elaborate machinery f publicity and "propaganda of all kinds. Their atm reports provide the ideal medium for explaining ai justifying their policy. Lord Hurcomb makes an accura appraisal of the Parliamentary debates on those repor but it seems wildly optimistic to suppose that t unimpassioned clauses of a. committee's 'report wou make any possible difference to the course of t debates.
There are, on the face of it, many channels throul which it should be possible to obtain information on t activities of the nationalized undertakings. The pi . decessor of the select committee expressed the ()pink nearly a year ago that no major extension of t machinery of questions to Ministers was desirable. T report of the present committee enumerates a numb of other methods that Parliament may use. They inclu the debates on annual reports, debates on public a! private Bills, arid debates on Orders and other Statute Instruments made by Ministers under the vario nationalization Acts.
Every Seven Years Some time ago, Lord Hurcomb undertook to deal wi inquiries sent to him by M.P.s, and the Sociali: promised a full-scale investigation into the work of t nationalized industries once every seven years. T -public have for their protection the Transport Use Consultative Committees, and from time to time spec bodies are set up such as the committee at prese inquiring into London transport under the chairmansh of Mr. S. P. Chambers. A good deal of information al emerges from the evidence heard by the Transpc Tribunal.
In spite of all these facilities, neither the public n the Commission seem to be satisfied that the true sto is being told. The proposed new committee is unlikE to go far towards solving the problem. Lord Reith ss perhaps not far wrong in his fear that, although t committee might start as a friendly, communicati body, it would end by investigating and controlling. IV Herbert Morrison also gave the warning that Parliarne should not be entrusted with the " alteration of the actt management of the complex industrial concern."
The clamour for more information will continue ev if it cannot be assuaged. The Socialists themselves ga it a tongue by the very act of nationalization. Th hoped to combine the best features of State control ai of private enterprise, by retaining the vigour al efficiency of the latter while purging it of the baser pro element. The often-quoted phrase about the " provisii of an efficient, adequate, economical and propel integrated system " was a kind of incantation, as if t words could of themselves produce the desired effe Parliament takes the words at their face value, ai insists on finding out whether they have been fulfillt As a result of the Transport Act, 1953, they no long burden the conscience of the Commission, but t desire for information remains, together with t problem of how that information can be obtained.