423
PECORD OFFICE
Arference -
1111C.O.882/12
| PUBLIC, RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC.
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TỚI
68
on the subject of preferential tariff, was careful to explain that he only did so in order to place certain facts before them, and did not of course (sic) wish in any way to influence their decision. I have frequently heard him make a similar disclaimer, and he appears genuinely to think that he would be acting unconstitutionally if he made, any attempt to persuade the Committee to accept his views on any question. The Minister of Local Administration goes one better, and it is a bald statement of fact that I have never heard him express an opinion in his Committee on any subject whatsoever. Your Excellency will remember that on one occasion he asked for an interview with Your Excellency in order to explain (under pledge of secrecy) that he thought a certain recommendation made by his Committee was entirely wrong, and hoped that Your Excellency would not accept it. He had not previously given, nor did he subsequently give, any indication to his Committee that he disagreed with them.
But if the Ministers have failed in leadership (and I am afraid that they have failed in Council as well as in their Committees, though not keeping in sufficiently in close touch with the rank and file) they have, on the whole, supported their Heads of Departments exceedingly well. I was always hopeful that the assumption of real responsibility would lead to an appreciation of the difficulties of administration. My hopes have been more than fulfilled, and the change of attitude of the three Ministers who were among the most prominent assailants of "the Government" under the old Constitution has been so pronounced as to arouse considerable criticism in the Press and in the State Council itself. Ministers who were members of the Legisla- tive Council freely admit that close contact with the administration has caused them The educational value of the completely to change their views on many matters. new Constitution in so far as the Ministers are concerned has been enormous.
2. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES.
The way in which the Committees are tackling their work depends entirely on the efficiency of their Chairmen. Easily the best Committee, from the point of view of disposing of the work, is that of Agriculture and Lands: The Committee of Labour, Industry, and Commerce is the worst, with that of Local Administration leading it by a short neck only.
The outstanding feature of the Committee system is the inordinate delay caused in administration. The Committees meet once a fortnight regularly, but a good many of them meet more often. It is very rare for a day's agenda to be got through at one meeting. A disproportionate amount of time is often spent discussing matters of no importance whatever, while major questions are shelved from meeting to meet- ing for lack of time. Many of the Committees have worked hard and keenly, but the amount of work they have got through is very small. The amount of executive work which has come before the State Council is ridiculously small. Only 33 reports (16 from the Ministry of Agriculture) have been made under Article 45 (1), 29 (28 from the Ministry of Agriculture) have been made under Article 45 (2), and 9 under Standing Order 57, i.e., upon private members' motions, and yet several Committees are heavily in arrears with their work. The number of reports actually made to the Council does not of course fairly represent the actual work done by the Committees. A number of recommendations as regards appointments have been sent to the Public Service Commission. A number of recommendations advising Your Excellency as A number of negative to the exercise of your statutory powers have been made. decisions, involving no action, and consequently no report to the State Council, have been reached. And lastly, a considerable number of decisions which should have been reported to the State Council have not been so reported. I must plead guilty to having failed to call the attention of Committees to a number of cases in which under the letter of the law, their decisions should have been submitted to the Council for approval, or reported under Article 45 (2). Decisions of this nature fall into
two main classes :-
(a) Decisions on matters in regard to which, under General Orders, Financial Orders, or Depart- mental Codes, a more or less formal reference to "Government" was necessary. By far Works estimates" for works coating over the bigger class of such cases is composed of Rs.1.500. A number of departments are concerned. Theoretically it would be possible to cancel the requirement for a reference to Government in these cases. Practically, it would In fact, one Committee went so be quite impossible, as the Committees would never agree.
far as to consider reducing the amount from Rs. 1,500 to Rs. 150, and it would of course be within their power to do so. The point I wish to make is not that there ought to be a reference to Council in these cases Such a reference (or even a report under Article 45 (2))
69
is clearly undesirable, and there must obviously be a reasonable elasticity in interpreting the Order in Council in this regard. My point is rather that the reference of these cases to the Committees involves much delay and extra work. The Committees will never regard any reference by a Head of a Department as purely formal. Works estimates of their Heads of Departments are, for example, always circulated to all members of the Committee for Communications and Works. There is considerable delay in every case, and in many cases the time of the Head of the Department is wasted over unnecessary correspondence ur discussion in Committee.
(6) Decisions un mutters which are really within the competence of the Head of the Department, but which have been referred by him to the Committee. Before the new Constitution came into force I held a conference of all Heads of Departments in order to discuss with them their position under the new Constitution. One piece of advice which I gave them was to remember that they could not feel quite so sure of the support of the Government as they had in the past, if any of their decisions were called in question. I therefore advised them to make a practice of referring to their Committee (or discussing with their Ministers) ques. tions which it was in their competence to decide, if they had any reason to suppose that their decisions would cause dissatisfaction to any section of the public, or would be liable to be called in question by the Committee itself in connexion with any major question that might come before them. I consider that this was sound advice, and it has generally been followed, with benefit, by Heads of Departments. There have been one or two cases of this nature in which there has been an agitation against a decision of a Head of Department. The Committee having been consulted beforehand, have supported him. Had they not been so consulted, they might have taken a very different line. Here again I do not wish to emphasize the fact that no report is made to the State Council. What I wish to emphasize is that references of this nature, which I regard as very necessary under the Committee system, inevitably waste time and cause extra work.
To recapitulate, I have enumerated several classes of cases coming before Executive Committees :-
(1) Cases in which there is a report to the State Council. In all these cases delay, and often very
great delay, is inevitable.
(2) Appointments cases. I have elsewhere given very cogent reasons for considering that appoint- ments should be taken out of the hands of the Committees. I should not have anything like the same objection to consulting Ministers as regards appointments. The Donoughmore Commission held that the Committee system had decided advantages in matters of patronage. It has proved to have every conceivable disadvantage and no advantages. I do not, how ever, wish to repeat what I have said elsewhere in this regard, but merely to emphasize that the delay inevitably consequent on the reference of questions of appointment to Committees is very serious indeed, und often results in grave inconvenience to Heads of Departments and the officers immediately concerned. Most Ministers and a great many members of the Council would be delighted to get rid of all responsibility in connexion with appointments. (3) Cases in which an Executive Committes advises Your Excellency as to the exercise of statutory functions. Here, in cases where Your Excellency used to be advised by the Executive Council, there is probably not much more time wasted than under the old system. In other cases there is very often delay owing to the matters being postponed once or more. But in other cases, which are many, there is often very great delay. I would instance the case of nominations to the various Urban District Councils.
(4) Negative decisions involving no action. Most of these arise from inquiries instituted by
the Committee, auo motu, or prompted by representations from outside, into existing prac tices. Such inquiries are inevitable under any new constitution which gives increased executive power to elected representatives. Intensely annoying as they must often be to Heads of Departments, and greatly though they must add to their work, they cannot be condemned as undesirable. Sometimes they produce results, and even when they do not, they give the Committees an insight into the work of departments. But here again the fact that seven or eight men instead of one are, under the Committee system, in the position of feeling it their duty to make such inquiries, multiplies the number of such inquiries to an undesirable extent.
(5) Other miscellaneous cases, including those classified under (a) and (b) on pages 2 and 3.
In must of such cases there is considerable delay.
All this brings me back again to the statement that the outstanding feature of the Committee system is the inordinate delay in administration for which it is respons- ible. It is true that a good deal of that delay could be avoided if the Ceylonese politician were blessed with a sense of proportion. Unfortunately a lack of that sense (coupled with a delight in the sound of his own voice) is one of his most pro- minent characteristics. Another factor which contributes at present to the delay is the fact that the Committees will take nothing on trust. I do not mean to say that they are suspicious of their heads of Departments. On the whole they are not. They are in many cases quite ready to accept the advice of the head of the depart- ment, because he is obviously the man who knows best. But they are not ready to accept it without full reasons. They will never, in fact, or practically never, sign blind."' One reason for this is the still lingering suspicion that, if a head of a depart- ment does not give very full reasons for an opinion, he is trying to rush them into a decision. Another is that they have not the administrative experience which teaches the absolute necessity for signing blind" on occasions, nor the knowledge horn
4
64