Book Reviews
| Author | EDWIN PLAYFAIR,J. W. GROVE,A. H. HANSON,D. L. MUNBY,H. V. WISEMAN,K. H. B. FRERE,F. H. SPRATLING,S. C. LESLIE,GILBERT WALKER,H. PARRIS,L. J. SHARPE,J. W. ORFORD,C. H. DODD |
| Published date | 01 September 1964 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1964.tb01831.x |
| Date | 01 September 1964 |
Book
Reviews
The
Treasury
Ry
The Rt. Hon. L.ord Bridges. George Allen
&
Unwin,
1964.
Pp.
248. 30s.
Lord Bridges on the Treasury: merely
to
say
it
is to promise oneself
a
treat.
No
one else can bring to the subject
such
a
combination of experience,
objectivity and clarity,
as
his
lectures
on
the subject have shown. To all this
IS
added the interest of something
completely new: this is the first time
that the organization of the post-
Plowden Treasury has been explained
in detail to the public. But Lord
Bridges writes within the straitjacket
of the New Whitehall Series, which has
its
defects. It is
a
series of expository
books,
one
to
each department; the
aim
is
to describe, in considerable
detail, the organization of the depart-
ment; the authors are past or present
heads of the department. This formula
inevitably leads to an authoritative,
md therefore slightly official, guide-
book. History, analysis, comparison
and criticism tend to get crowded out;
the scheme of the series
is
to describe
departments
as
they are today. J,ord
t3ridges escapes from time to time
from the straitjacket; but he is
a
little
unfortunate in his timing, since the
post-Plowden (and, be it said, post-
Bridges) Treasury
is
not yet run in;
and the pattern of the series precludes
any
deep analysis.
If
one wants to
know exactly how the Treasury of
today
is
organized, this
is
the book: if
one wants
to
know
how
it really works,
turn
to
writers
like
Professor Beer-
or,
even bcttcr, to
Lord
Rridges’
lccturca
I
Hut
we
must
not
blame
an
~LI~INJI
for
writing
the
book which he
was
asked to write.
On
New Whitehall lines,
this
is
perfect.
It
contains
a
lot of new
information, and everything is
accurate. The description
of
the new
reforms
is
most interesting, but leaves
little to say except to wish them well.
They sound very sensible, but need
longer trial before one can judge them.
For deeper interest, one must look
to the points
-
fortunately fairly fre-
quent
-
where Lord Bridges’ personal
views peep out. He is
a
firm upholder
of the view that the Treasury official
should be an informed amateur; but
he is also in favour
of
economists
playing an active part in the Treasury’s
work. One of the good things about the
new organization
is
that economists
and administrators are
far
more closely
integrated than they were before. Nor
are the higher administrative ranks
of
the Treasury
as
ignorant of economics
as is often thought. Lord Robbins
recently told
a
surprised world that
more than half of the senior officials
of the Treasury had been trained
as
economists.
But economics are the stuff of the
Treasury’s work, and
it
is
natural that
economists should play their part.
Equally, the Treasury
is
the depart-
ment which deals with computers and,
as
is right and proper, the adminis-
trative head of that division is an
electronic engineer. But should the
Treasury staff have other expertise, in
fields
where
their
function
is
the
classical one
of
financial
control
?
Luicl
Bifdgca
doc6
AQ~
cvcri
mmtion
the suggestion, often made, that there
303
PUB
I,
I
C
AD
M
1
N
I
S
TR
AT1
0
N
should be scientists in the Treasury.
It
is clear what his answer would be:
there should be none, as scientific
advisers to the Treasury. But the
thesis is worth answering:
if
scientists,
u
hy not soldiers, agriculturalists and
SO
forth
?
And,
if
the Treasury had
these experts, what would be our
assurance that their knowledge of
science would be better than that of the
scientific departments, who are respon-
sible for carrying out their pro-
grammes? They would only have one
superiority, that of belonging to
a
more
powerful department. Some years ago
there was
a
noteworthy example
of
this danger. The service departments
were advised by their land valuers;
where the consent
of
the Treasury was
needed to
a
sale, they consulted their
own experts;
if
the two experts did
not agree, the lay administrators of the
two departments could do nothing but
glower at each other; the Treasury
always won, not because they had
better professional advice,
but
because
they were the top dogs.
One of the advantages
of
staffing the
Treasury by amateurs
is
that
they are
not amateurs at all: as Dale pointed
out many years ago, they are profes-
sionals in administration, and parti-
cularly in financial control. They know
how to deal with their opposite num-
bers in other departments. The statis-
tics of interchange between the Trea-
sury and other departments which
Lord Bridges gives are hcartening.
Nevertheless, one is left with
a
feeling
that the Civil Service as
a
whole is
still too much
of
an enclosed order.
It
would gain if
it
were easier to bring in
people of all sorts from outside for
a
period less than life
(as
is
rightly done
for
economists). Here one touches a
point
of
doubt. Lord Bridges feels
strongly that the organization
of
the
Civil Service must stay in the Treasury.
That there are advantages in this is
clear; but for hard-worked Ministers
it
is
a
secondary subject, which tends
to be left to experts; and therefore the
old establishment side
of
the Treasury
(as distinct from the new and hardly
304
tried-out management divisions) is
perhaps, in spite of salutary changes,
the least reformed part of the whole
show. Might it not be worth trying the
experiment, at least for a frw years,
of
putting the establishment side under
a
full-time reforming Minister, only
serrli-
dependent on the Chancellor
?
For
some reason,
at
present,
t11c
distribution
of
powers between parti-
cular Ministers is
a
fashionable subject.
It
is doubtful if
it
is
really important;
it is certainly easily changed, as
it
ought to
be,
so
as to meet the needs
of
different governments.
It
is hard for
an old hand to get very enthusiastic
about whether the Treasury shoubd
stay as one department
or
whether
bits
of
it
should be taken
off
and given,
for example, to
a
Minister for the Civil
Service or a Minister for Economic
Co-ordination or the like
(Lord
Bridge.;
does not even mention this possibility’:.
But one thing is clear:
if
wc are to
have.
good co-operation between depart
-
ments in the modern style, tlicre musi
be an Official Head of the Civi.1
Service. Further,
it
should not be tht
same man as the head
of
the Cabinct
Office. One wishes that
Lord
Rridges.
who briefly held both jobs, had coni-
mented on this question. Later experi-
ence seemed to show that, however
devoted the incumbent, the two post
P
are incompatible.
The
task
of the
Cabinet Office is to make the life
of
the Prime Minister
and
the Cabinct
easy, here and now; the task of thr
Head of the Civil Service
is,
on
occasion,
to stick up for the machine even
if
it
causes momentary inconvenience.
There are two chapters
of
the
book
which
shoulcl
be read with especial
care, because they deal with matters
in which Lord Rridges has most parti-
cularly made
his
mark. The first is
the,
chapter
on
the post of I’emianenl
Secretary. Nothing need be said about
it, except that
it
is
a
delight
to
read
and should be studied by
all
who wish
to know how the Civil Service
is
held
together. The second is the chaptel
dealing with the Treasury’s respon-
sibility for the universities
and
th(x
.
To continue reading
Request your trial