My Life

My Life - Oswald Mosleyallocation of supply days as at present, and by the preservation of Parliament's right todiscuss and to vote on the details of a Budget. 'The power to abuse the latter rightwould, however, be removed, and every Budget would be introduced under a strictguillotine procedure.4. Argument'Argument and further detail in support of these proposals if desired can be advancedverbally before the Committee. It is only necessary here to observe that at most two orthree main measures can be passed through Parliament in the course of a Sessionunder the present procedure, and that consequently such procedure must be utterlyinadequate to the necessities of an emergency situation. No other proposals have yetbeen advanced by which that situation can be materially altered. In fact, the view isoften expressed that the present delay and check upon legislation and the action ofgovernment is in itself desirable. Such opinion differs fundamentally from the viewhere presented. 'We start from the premise that action is desirable; our opponents startfrom the premise that action is undesirable. There can be no reconciliation betweenthese two opinions. All who believe that rapid and drastic action by government isnecessary must first face the necessity for a fundamental revision of Parliament,whatever their opinions upon the nature of the action to be taken.'Only those can reject the principle of profound changes in the parliamentary structurewho believe that no necessity exists for such action in the present situation. The onusrests upon those who reject those proposals of showing either that alternative andpreferable plans for securing rapid action by government can be adduced, or that nonecessity for such action exists.'Reading thirty-six years later the ensuing debate in the Committee, with the impartialeye which is time's gift to the partisan, it seems to me that this policy was unshakenby opposing argument to a quite remarkable degree. Far the ablest contributions camefrom the Liberal Chairman, Ernest Brown— afterwards well known as a wartimeMinister—and his Liberal colleague, Leslie Hore-Belisha, who adduced a ripeDisraelian wisdom in his intimate knowledge of British constitutional traditions. TheConservative and Labour members had changed places in their attitude to me, for theformer were relatively friendly and the latter hostile to a point which I found sad, assome of them were old friends; neither evinced the capacity to illuminate in any wayour discussion of the subject.I would today add a suggestion to those proposals which might in any situation beapposite. Any such plan for effective action by government or Parliament is liable toleave the private member with the feeling that he has nothing to do. In the modernsituation, I believe a Prime Minister bent on action would be well advised to mobilisethe M.P.'s desire for activity in a useful purpose. Why not a committee of all partiesattached to each department for a continuous survey of detail? True, a special Ministerand some Civil Servants would have to be detached to look after it, and that wouldcost time and money. Yet they would dig out facts of neglect and inefficiency whichwould be invaluable to a dynamic Prime Minister in his drive to get things done.Information is invaluable because it is the basis of action. A Prime Minister shouldnot thwart, but should use the M.P.'s desire for activity, it could be a nuisance, but auseful nuisance. He should measure exactly and gradually ration the time given indirect access to himself against the benefit derived, and the consequent concentration223 of 424