The Press THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1947. As Parliament Works

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25328, 30 October 1947, Page 6

The Press THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1947. As Parliament Works

The Leader of the Opposition protested with excellent reason against the stereotyped pattern into which the business of a Parliamentary session* falls: dawdle at first, and then “ cram threequarters of the work “into one quarter of the session’”. He anticipated, in part, the formal reply. But the Prime Minister did not say merely that things had always been done in that fashion in the past; he said—and he was right —that the past had been much worse, so much worse that he could not “ find it in his heart to pity “members of the House” to-day. But the -pattern is still the same, though less harshly impressed; and the evil of it is not essentially that, upon which Mr Holland, appealingly, and Mr Fraser, first ruthlessly and then relentingly, concentrated attention. The evil is not that members have to work long and late, as the pressure comes on, making their way home as best they can, paying for taxis if they must and when they are lucky riding in the cars provided free for messengers. That is not the real evil; and providing free cars for members, as the Prime Minister undertook to think about, is not the remedy. (For one thing, members of Parliament not long ago voted themselves a very handsome taxfree expenses allowance, and will be wise to leave well alone.) The, evil is that the country’s business is badly organised and therefore badly done; and it is, again and again, the most important legislative business which is thus mishandled. Free taxis may save members’ feet or their pockets but cannot convert a radically bad system into a good one. Nor can a meeting of the party Whips, as Mr Fraser suggested, work out a reform.

The Government can do that alone, if it is willing; but it would probably be better if representatives of both parties considered the chief principles and agreed on them. The first need is to break from the established system of a single long session, from late June till November or so, carrying the full weight of Speech from the Throne, Address-in-Reply, Budget and Estimates, and the legislative programme. The time has long passed when this is necessary or tolerable. An early session, enabling the Budget to be presented in April or at latest in May, and carrying a convenient instalment of the legislative programme, could be followed by a recess of one or two months. The seeond session should carry the main legislative burden. Ministers could, and should, be fully prepared for it; the spreading of the programme should relieve the Drafting Office, which, as Ministers now constantly plead, is overburdened with work—their work, piled upon without calculation or order. And the Parliamentary Order Paper could and should then be methodically drawn, giving members a fair chance to do their constituents’ work, their party committee and caucus work, and their work on standing and special consider their Parliamentary papers, and study and debate legislative and other issues like rational men. intent on their business and fit for it. The main lines of reform are, unquestionably, to be drawn as clearly as that. The volume of business to be done by Parliament has so increased and its character has so changed that, if it is to be done efficiently, Parliament must adopt new methods; and, as members of Parliament are now paid and allowanced, it is fair to call on them to assemble normally, and not in an emergency only, for two sessions a year.

But a reform based on the division of work between two sessions, primarily financial and legislative, could be frustrated, sound as it is, if Ministers—Ministers rather than members—refused to step out of an outworn political tradition. Administration to-day, at the highest "level, demands close concentration on essentials and close co-operation at the centre. Ministers run about too much on petty errands, inspecting, opening, commemorating, celebrating, working the ■ parish pump. Critics, in Parliament and outside it, would judge better if they protested against such excesses instead of sneering at ministerial missions oversea as “joy-rides”, which they very seldom are. Again, Ministers insist on dealing personally with far too many small affairs, personal, local, or departmental, and over-, whelm themselves with detail. It is not surprising that Parliament has to kick its heels, waiting. The Cabinet must £nd its own means of bringing Ministers to a better way of individual and collective administration. This is the necessary complement of the necessary reform of Parliament’s routine.