CO885-11 — Page 521

95

516

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TLC.O.882/11

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

94

(3) Allocation of Departments.

0. 73280/8/30 [No. 1].

No. 51.

THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

(Received 1.26 p.m., 11th March, 1930.)

TELEGRAM.

[Answered by No. 52.]

11TH MARCH. Confidential. Allocation of Departments under the new Constitu- tion. (1) It seems to me of first importance to secure that allocation of duties to Officers of State cannot be interfered with by the State Council. I propose therefore that this should be laid down in Order in Council. (2) Allocation to Executive Committees on the other hand, though important, is a matter in which it would appear reasonable to allow the State Council to have a say. I propose therefore that this should not be laid down in Order in Council but that Order should provide that this allocation should in the first instance be effected by Proclamation by the Governor and that the State Council should have power to reallocate if necessary. Decision of the State Council would of course be subject to general provision for assent of the Governor and to his power to refer back for reconsideration. (3) Allocation suggested by the Commission appears on examination to have certain defects. For example Committees charged respectively with Public Works and Communications will have very little work in view of large mass of technical work in these Departments and small number of questions of policy involved. Land Commission made strong recommendations as to grouping together of Agriculture, Irrigation, Land, Survey, Settlement, Forests, and, with due regard to the necessity for avoiding overloading of any one Committee, I should like to meet these recommendations as far as possible. I hope that I may be permitted considerable latitude in departing from allocation suggested by the Commission if such departure appears necessary in the interests of (a) co-ordination of connected Departments, (b) equal distribution of work amongst the Committees. (b) should, I consider, within reasonable limits, be subordinated to (a). (4) I am not clear where the Commission intended Customs, Excise, and Salt to go. They are not allotted to any Committee, but on the other hand it is not specifically stated that the administration of these Departments will be under the Treasurer. I should be grateful for your views. I incline to the opinion that Excise and Salt should be under one of the Committees but am in some doubt as to the Customs. Income Tax Department may also have to be considered. (5) I should be grateful for early reply which will enable me to formu- late preliminary proposals and obtain the views of Heads of Departments thereon before Johnson's arrival.

C. 73230/8/30 [No. 2].

No. 52.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR.

(Sent 5.15 p.m., 21st March, 1930.)

TELEGRAM.

approve the YOUR telegram of 11th March.* Allocation of Departments. I allocation of duties to Officers of State being laid down in Order in Council and shall be prepared to consider draft Clause for this purpose. I agree to your proposal that allocation of duties to Executive Committees should be effected by Proclamation and draft Order in Council should be amended accordingly. I do not attach importance to following strictly allocation suggested by the Commission and shall be prepared to consider your alternative proposals. Subject to your observations I consider that Customs and Income Tax Departments should be under Treasurer. With regard to Excise and Salt Departments I am disposed to think the routine work of collecting these revenues also should be under Treasurer as Conmission seems to have intended. I will telegraph further after consulting Woods.-PASSFIELD.

* No. 51.

C. 73230/8/30 [No. 4].

No. 53:

SIR W. W. WOODS to MR. H. R. COWELL (COLONIAL OFFICE).

MY DEAR COWELL,

2, Vicarage Gate,

Kensington, W.8, 27th March, 1930. Your letter of yesterday.* I think the objections to placing the Customs and Income Tax Departments under a Committee are very great. They must then be placed either under the Chief Secretary or under the Treasurer. Apart from any question as to whether the control of the Chief Secretary or the control of the Treasurer would be more effective, there is a strong argument for assigning these two Depart- ments to the Treasurer in the fact that reasons which are both plausible and non- provocative can be adduced for this course. I therefore agree that they should be placed under the Treasurer and I think it should be made clear that he will exercise general ministerial control over them.

In my opinion the Treasurer should not have ministerial responsibility for the Excise and Salt Departments. He will of course be responsible for exercising financial supervision of their operations, as of the operations of all departments, but it is not desirable or even feasible to make him responsible for the actions of these departments outside the sphere of finance.

The Government Agents and Assistant Government Agents are, and presumably will continue to be, responsible for giving effect to the law and the policy of Govern- ment in regard to all aspects of the liquor question. The Excise Department has (i) police duties (prevention, detection, and prosecution of excise offences); (ii) tech- nical duties (purchase, storage, testing and bottling arrack and supplying it to tavern renters); (iii) advisory duties (advising Government in regard to the formulation of liquor policy and its embodiment in laws, regulations, &c., and advising Government Agents in regard to their executive acts in liquor matters). If the Excise Department has to be assigned to one of the Ministries in the list on pages 49-51 of the Donoughmore Commission's Report, it would fall naturally under the Department of Local Adminis- tration, but this Ministry is already overloaded. The next most suitable would be "Home Affairs," but it seems impossible at this stage to say anything more definite than that the Excise Department should be placed under a Minister and Committee.

The Salt Department "consists of a Salt Adviser who is responsible for manu- facture and storage of salt in the two or three modern Government Salterns and the Government Agents who are responsible for the purchase and collection of "country" salt (collection of naturally formed salt is a sort of peasant industry) and for the sale of all Government salt. Both the Salt Adviser and the Government Agents work under the Controller of Revenue in Salt matters. I think the Salt Department, like the Excise Department, should be placed under a Committee and that Treasury control over this department should not differ either in character or degree from Treasury control over other departments.

C

I shall be near the Colonial Office to-morrow afternoon and will look in about 3 o'clock in case there are any points on which yon would like to question me.

C. 73230/8/30 [No. 5].

No. 54.

Yours, &c.,

W. W. WOODS.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR. (Sent 4 p.m., 10th April, 1930.) TELEGRAM.

No. 9. My telegram of 21st March,† allocation of departments. After con- sultation with Woods I adhere to view that Customs and Income Tax Departments should be under ministerial control of Treasurer. The Treasurer should have no such control over Excise and Salt Departments, activities of which are largely concerned with questions of local policy, but he should exercise financial supervision over their operations to the same extent as over other departments under control of committees of the Council.-PASS FIELD.

* C. 73230/8/30 [No. 3]: not printed..

† No. 52.

C. 73230/8/30 [No. 7].

96

No. 55.

THE OFFICER ADMINISTERING THE GOVERNMENT to THE SECRETARY

(No. 379.) MY LORD,

OF STATE.

(Received 2nd June, 1930.)

[Answered by No. 57.]

On Tour, Ceylon, 9th May, 1930. I HAVE the honour to submit to Your Lordship certain suggestions arising out of the allocation of duties to the three Officers of State under the new Constitution. A copy of a note by Sir Robert Johnson in which the suggestions are discussed is enclosed.

2. I agree with the first of the three alternatives mentioned in the note, namely, that each Officer of State should have a Deputy with the pay and status of the Head of a Department who would relieve the Officer of State of part of his routine duties and also act for him whenever the necessity should arise and during his absence on leave and thus ensure continuity of policy.

3. It is perhaps unnecessary to amplify the reasons given in the note for recom. mending the creation of these three posts. A statement of the proposed allocation of duties to the Colonial Secretary, the Attorney-General, and Treasurer is attached. I would however, in particular, draw Your Lordship's attention to the heavy increase contemplated in the already exceedingly onerous duties of the Treasurer, and in this context I would suggest for Your Lordship's approval that this officer should be designated Treasurer and Financial Adviser in view of the fact that the title Treasurer" by itself does not connote the full extent of the duties to be attached to his office.

4. I would also refer to the position and designation of the officer holding the post of Auditor. It is obvious that the Auditor's position should be such that he will be free to function without being in any way open to the suspicion or suggestion of undue influence from any quarter, and for this reason Sir Robert Johnson and I agree that the Auditor should be a servant of the State Council responsible to them alone and independent of all Executive Committees and Officers of State. We would accordingly modify in this respect the suggestion on page 51 of the Report of the Special Commission to place the Auditor under the Chief Secretary; to do so would be to perpetuate a feature of the present constitution that is theoretically at least open to some objection. It is moreover difficult to see how the Auditor could be under " one authority but answerable for his work to another. In establishment and staff questions however, the Auditor's relations to the Treasurer will be like those of a Minister, i.e., he will have to agree with the Treasurer as to the numbers and grades of pay of his staff for inclusion in the Budget. His designation should be changed to Auditor-General for the reasons given in paragraph 68 of Sessional Paper 1 of 1930-Report of the Salaries Committee copies of which accompanied Sir Herbert Stanley's despatch No. 292 of the 7th April, 1930.† He should, I con- sider, be appointed by the Secretary of State.

5. I request Your Lordship's approval of the foregoing recommendations; the question of the salary to be attached to each of the Deputies might be left to the Salaries Commission to decide as part of the general question of the salaries of Heads of Departments.

I have, &c.,

B. H. BOURDILLON, Officer Administering the Government.

* Not printed.

+ No. 13.