TAXPAYER’S MAGNA CHARTA.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16701, 5 April 1922, Page 5

TAXPAYER’S MAGNA CHARTA.

THE GEODES ECONOMY REPORT, (Special to the tC Star.*’) LONDON, February 14. The Geddes axe is rinsed. Will it fall? That is the question. According to all precedent the issue of the Geddes report should have fallen quite flat- We had been treated to forecasts for months. The report indeed is no surprising document in itself, =»o much of it was known. It merely authenticates reell informed forecasts. What has thrilled and is indeed rocking the foundations of Whitechapel and ScStephen’s is the publication which followed immediately on its heels—the reply of the Admiralty to the. Geddes Report, Such a reply ia against all precedent, but is not the report itself of this character? Over the week-end. the Sunday papers wrangled as to the authority with which the Admiralty made this reply and Colonel Amery, now Parliamentary Secretary for the Admiralty, was accused of having issued this off his own bat in the temporary absence of his titular chief, Lord Lee. But Colonel Amery has been justified. The departments, it appears, liaci been authorised by the Cabinet to make such reply as they thought proper to the Geddes Report, the detail* of which were known to the departments involved. Now Colonel Amery is receiving publicly and in Parliament the official support of his action. That the Admiralty should resent the recommendations of the committee anu think most of them amateurish, was to be expected, but the correct procedure j would have: been, to tell the Government about it quietly, and the Government would then have decided whether or not to tell the public and the House of Commons. As it is, the Admiralty has criticised, with uncommonly little pretence at politeness, a report which, in the perhaps improbable event of its being accepted by the Cabinet, would represent the official, policy in naval matters. Whether or no the Geddes Report ’ * as great as the “ Times ” would have it the “ ATagna Charta of the Taxpayer,” it will remain a. landmark in our history. It does present a coherent picture of our administrative system, of every Government Department, and suggests measures by which some reductions can be made. The Geddes v Report recoramendo economies which . it says will save £21,000.000. £15.000.000 reduction having already been effected by the Admiralty. The Admiralty replies that it ha a on the stocks measures by which £20.000.000 may be saved, that in fact this reduction had already been agreed to by them on the coming Naval Vote It is not the report which is wrong, but the way it has been made. The Geddes Committee has taken on a joo the Government should, have done itself. Nevertheless it has done useful ■work and iu the very act of justifying themselves to the public the great State Departments will have to put their house in order. What the whole business brings very foreibly into prominence is that ir matters of finance the House of Cornmens had lost control. Tn attacking the urgent question of economy the Government said that there was no constitutional machinery which would work with sufficient speed and power. Even a Select Committee of the House of Commons, specially appointed for the occasion, would have lacked the drive and independence of the Geddes Committee. The Government simply could not persuade the Departments to reduce their own estimates sufficiently, and there was no properly qualified constitutional body with sufficient authority and experience to compel them. To such a stage of helplessness had the House of Commons. the Treasury and the Cabinet itself drifted that probably there was nothing for it but to appoint a, committee of business men, free from poli tical pressure and accustomed to deal with large questions of financial policy in their own affairs. This committee’s work was an emergency measure, and as such useful. But the old evils persist and will rear t licit beads when the Budget debate comes on. Then there will be all the old haggling over halfpence and bustled voting of millions, instead of any reasoned system of consideration of tin) estimates. The real lesson of the present crisis is that Departmental accountancy should be overhauled and proper systems of costing introduced. During the war, after immense opposition, some proper costing methods were introduced. but more is required. Tf in addition to that a standing committee of the House of Commons provided with a professional staff v re set up. they could consider the estimates n detail and present a preliminary report to the House before the Estimates were voted, there might he some chance then of the House and through them the public obtaining . effective control. The public too would have a real chance of seeing how its money is spent. At presnt it has none.