Let the people know
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHATEVER the number of Green Papers and White Papers published as precursors to a piece of legislation the Parliamentary Bill that finally emerges is the sole handiwork of the political party in power and probably only of the section within that party.with a special interest in the subject. The line-by-line explanation of the Bill is the responsibility of the Minister concerned.
On the face of it the Parliamentary procedure seems to provide ample opportunity for discussion. In practice the use of such devices as the guillotine may mean that large and important sections go through virtually on the nod. This certainly happened with the Transport Act 1968 in spite of the hundreds of hours of Parliamentary time devoted to it.
Subsequent regulations have even less hope of scrutiny at Westminster. There have to be exceptional reasons for MPs to demand a debate. On the other hand, because the regulations normally do not involve matters of political principle a wider range of interests can be brought into the preliminary drafting.
Consultations Examples of this practice at work can be seen clearly in the aftermath of the Transport Act. The civil servants and on occasion the Minister himself have frequent consultations with representatives of those sections of the transport industry that will be directly affected when regulations come into force.
It may be claimed that the Ministry of Transport are working along the lines commended by the Fulton Committee in the report on the civil service published in 1968. "We welcome the trend in recent years," said the report, "towards wider and more open consultation before decisions are taken-, and we welcome, too, the increasing provision of the detailed information on which decisions are made. Both should be carried much further; it is healthy for a democracy increasingly to press to be consulted and informed."
The committee recognized that "there must always be an element of secrecy (not simply on grounds of national security) in administration and policy" but suggested that some of the secrecy maintained hitherto was unnecessary and that there should be an enquiry into possible ways of getting rid of it. The Government carried out this inquiry and has summarized the results in a White Paper Information and the Public Interest published last June.
Needless to say the Government agrees with the committee that there should be more public explanation of administrative processes, more consultation before policy decisions are reached and more participation by civil servants in explaining the work of the Government to the public. According to the White Paper much progress has already been made and "departments are adopting a more liberal attitude towards the release of information than in the past". The Government "are determined to carry these developments further".
Useful support may be found in this for operators and their representatives who be lieve that the Minister and his officials are being unnecessarily secretive about their plans. They can at least be called upon to give reasons.
Several escape routes are provided in the White Paper. Economic information as well as defence and foreign policy matters may affect national security. Other information may have been given in confidence by individuals whose interests could be harmed by disclosure. Where Ministers and civil servants are discussing possible courses of action among themselves they ought not to be restrained by the fear that their individual views would become known to the public.
The White Paper makes no specific reference to the Ministry of Transport. Operators or at least their representatives may feel there is little cause for complaint. So far the usual procedure has been followed with regulations arising from the Transport Act. They have been made freely available in draft and time has been made available—although not always sufficient time to please everybody—for criticism and discussion.
Well in advance of the important regulations governing operators' licensing the Ministry even issued an experimental licence application form and invited 1,500 operators to complete and return it. As a result the information now likely to be required will be less specific in particular in the description of the maintenance facilities available.
No encouragement Apart from the chosen 1,500, operators were not encouraged to express their opinion on the draft form. In general the Ministry prefers to discuss its proposals with representatives of the industry. As far as road transport is concerned this means representatives of the associations.
Clearly some such limitation is essential. It would not be practicable to canvass the views of every operator. In some sectors of road transport the arrangement works reasonably smoothly.
This is not always the case. Many operators are indignant when the first news they have of a Government proposal is the publication of draft regulations. At this stage it is usually difficult to obtain a substantial amendment. The associations whose views have been rejected in the prior discussions will take the opportunity to reiterate them but with little expectation of success. There is still less hope for the individual especially if his opinion happens to contradict that of his representatives.
Where so diverse an industry as road transport is involved the public debate ought to be allowed to begin further back. There may be substantial interests apart from the eccentric or the maverick who would be seriously affected by what is proposed but have no chance of protesting because what is proposed is known only to the Ministry officials and a small group of representatives from the industry.
Government's view It might be thought the duty of those representatives to spread the news. The White Paper—within the context, it should be noted, of a disquisition on the Official Secrets Acts—has something to say on this point. The Government's view is that "any person who has access to official information should not be allowed to publish it at will".
This position is well defended in the White Paper. No business organization, it is pointed out, allows its employees to make unrestricted use of information about its internal deliberations, policies and processes. Even stronger considerations apply to Ministers, who are responsible to Parliament and to the public for among other things the fair and effective conduct of Government business generally.
The White Paper relents to the extent of agreeing with the Fulton Committee that the range of information of which the release is authorized should be widened as far as possible. This declaration should strengthen the hand of the road transport representatives who believe that official information given to them should be regarded as privileged only in exceptional circumstances and that they should normally be free to pass it on to the people they represent and to the public.
The increased volume of argument that such a procedure would provoke would have its compensations. Operators would feel more obliged—even if no more inclined —to accept a decision against their interests if they had had every opportunity to put forward their point of view from the outset. They would be less disposed to regard the civil service as an alien master race.
The comparison in the White Paper with the need for secrecy within a business organization can be stood on its head. The representatives of operators are not the employees or servants of the officials. The Ministry should be expected to justify its proposals and to meet objections from all sources.
A limit must be set to consultation. This could reasonably be achieved by stipulating that the objections should still come through the appointed representatives who could be depended upon to leave out points that were trivial or irrelevant. The general practice should follow the guiding principle—which according to the White Paper the Government has adopted—that "the prior publication of information about the considerations involved in policy matters should form a continuing part of the decision-making process whenever reasonably possible".