and explain the administrative reasoning behind existing policy. (A distinction could be
drawn between explaining policy behind certain expenditures, and explaining HMG's policies in certain international situations, the Committee being more properly concerned with the former.) The view has normally been taken that it is not a proper part of the Committee's role to enter into the process of formulating policy which is a matter for the Government of the day, nor to put forward alternative policies to those embodied in the public expenditure figures. Thus officials normally wish to avoid being drawn into discussion covering this sort of ground.
4.
As you will see some of the questions which the Sub- Committee might choose to pursue do enter into the field of alternative policies (particularly in relation to Hong Kong). If the Committee wish to pursue such lines of enquiry, I would propose to instruct our officials to give a simple answer but if pressed further by the Committee to reply that such matters are for Ministers to consider in that they involve a departure from present policy. Similarly I propose that officials should reply if necessary to close questioning about British policy on the substance of e.g. the Cyprus dispute, by saying that this goes beyond matters which Ministers have authorised them to
discuss.
It would obviously be preferable not to shelter behind this type of defence earlier than can be helped,. but I should be grateful to know if you agree that officials should have authority to take the line suggested in paragraph 4 if the Committee begins to press awkward policy question on them beyond a certain point. I have in mind not merely the present session arising from the Committee's tour, but also the prospect of other areas of policy being investigated by the Committee later on if we do not take a
firm stand this time.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.