PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference:
COPYRI
C.O. 885
8
RD OFFICE, LONDON
CED PHOTOGIEPHIC- PERMISSION OF THE
HOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
;
8
The same question was raised by Lord Lingen,
as a member of the Ridley Commission, when Mr. Meade was examined as a witness by the Commis- sioners in 1888. (See Minutes of Evidence, Questions 12,430-443.)
Lord Lingen pointed out that there were then three Assistant Under-Secretaries and four Principal Clerks, and observed that prima facie "this number of Under-Secretaries would be rather an anomally in the constitution of a public office, which gene. rally, he said, is like a pyramid—it is broad at the bottom and tapers to the top. He asked whether there was full work for both classes, and suggested that one Assistant Under-Secretary to every two Principals would be enough,
to
Mr Meade would not admit that either class could be reduced; but since then, although a fourth Assistant Under-Secretary was added in 1898, the proportion of Assistant Under-Secretaries Principal Clerks has, owing to the increase in the work, and the consequent additions to the staff, been reduced to what Lord Lingen suggested. There are now four Assistant Under-Secretaries (including a Legal one) and eight Principal Clerks (including the Chief Clerk).
Before 1847 there was only one l'ermanent Under- Secretary, with a salary which from 1810 to 1822 was 2,000l. rising to 2,5001. a year, but was fixed in 1822 at 2,000 a year.
In 1847 an Assistant Under Secretary was appointed at 1,5001. a year.
· In 1867 a Legal Adviser was appointed at 1,2001. a year, who was transformed in 1870 into a Second Assistans Under-Secretary at the same salary. The salary of the Senior Assistant Under-Secretary was at the same time reduced to 1,2001. á year, but was placed in 1872 on its present scale of 1,2001, rising after five years to 1,5001, a year.
In 1874 a 'Third Assistant Under-Secretary wAS appointed at 1.0001. rising after five yesis to 1,2001.; and in 1898 ' Fourth Assistant Under-secretary was appointed at the same rate.
The proposal of the Treasury that either the Anulatant Under-Secretaries of the Principal Clerks should be abolished would seem to be based upon the assumption that the function of the Assistant Under Secretaries in the Colonial Office is the same as that of the Principal Clerks in the Treasury; but this is not the case. The basis of the organisation in either case is, as already mentioned, the distri- bution of the consultative and deliberative work between departments or divisione, each of which is managed by ● Principal Clerk, and in both cases the business of these divisions or departments is intended, or controlled and supervised by a or Under-Secretary before being sub- Parliamentary Head of the Office. puhas would seem tộ be that, while in presumably been possible until
she supervision to be exercised
imi Subruláry, in the Colonial thé increasing amount of the 1047
11 isoismay for the
"
9
431
Permanent Under-Secretary to be assisted by Assistant Under - Secretaries (including one for legal work, which is otherwise provided for in the Treasury), whose number has gradually been raised as the work increased until it now stands at four.
Moreover, it should be noted that there is in the Treasury an Assistant Secretary with a salary of 1,5007, a year, who might be regarded as corre- sponding to an Assistant Under-Secretary in the Colonial Office. It is true that that officer is also the Head of a Department; but the Department under the Assistant Secretary is the First Division, which deals with finance generally, and is not only the most important of the divisions, but also con- trols the others, since (see Treasury. Memorandum on page 443 of the Ridley Commission Report) "it belongs to the First Division to suggest and enjoin the principles which the other Divisions are to apply in their dealings with the spending depart- ments." It would seem from this that the work of supervising the divisions is not exercised solely by the Permanent Secretaries, for there are now two.
In any comparison between the Treasury and the Colonial Office it must be borne in mind that in the Treasury there are only about 20,000 papers a year to be dealt with as against 50,000 in the Colonial Office, and that, while the Treasury has only to deal with questions from the point of view of finance and expenditure, the work of the Colonial Office is much more varied (as admitted by Sir R, Welby in his evidence before the Ridley Commis- sion), embracing as it does all the questions which can arise in any community. If, therefore, two Permanent Secretaries are required in the Treasury to supervise work represented by 20,000 papers, it might be contended that there should be at least five in the Colonial Office for 50,000; but, as a matter of fact, there are only one Permanent Under- Secretary and four Assistant Under-Secretaries, and one of the latter has half his time taken up with legal work.
It must not, however, be supposed that the functions of an Assistant Under-Secretary are limited to securing consistency in the practice of the several Departments, and in passing on with his comments all the papers which come to him from the Departments. To do this would be to throw on the Secretary of State a burden which it would be impossible for any man to bear. By far the greater portion of the papers which come before! an Assistant Under-Secretary are finally disposed of by him and returned to the Department for action. By an intimate knowledge of the Secretary of State's policy he is enabled to anticipate his decision and thus to exercise a wider discretion than is, as a rule, possible for a Principal Clerk. More- over in the absence of a Principal Clerk, although the bulk of his work falls on the First-Class Clerk who sets for him, the responsibility of the Superin- tending Assistant Under-Secretary becomes for the time being far obvious reasons greater.
To abolish the class of Assistant Under-Secretary would be to throw upon the Principal Clerks
B 25444