Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T10:24:49.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Accountability of the British Nationalized Industries*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Eldon L. Johnson
Eldon L. Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Great Britain's giant nationalized industries pose unprecedented problems for a free nation. Are the old governmental forms appropriate? Can the new forms be held accountable to the public? Can public accountability and business efficiency be reconciled? The five key industries, formed out of thousands of former enterprises, employ almost two million workers—almost three times the number of civil servants. Even the strictly “business” problems are unprecedented. In personnel, the transport industry is double the size of American Telephone and Telegraph. Coal is three times the size of General Motors. Admitting that the final answers on accountability had not been found, Herbert Morrison, then Lord President of the Council, well stated the prevailing British attitude: “We are in the early years of novel constitutional and social experiments of great long-term significance, and we can be certain that as experience grows the methods which are in use at present will need to be modified and additional methods will be evolved.”

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , June 1954 , pp. 366 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Smith, J. H. and Chester, T. E., “The Distribution of Power in Nationalized Industries,” The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 2, pp. 275–93, at pp. 275–76 (Dec., 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 “Mr. Morrison's Views on Public Accountability,” Public Administration, Vol. 28, pp. 176–78, at p. 176 (Autumn, 1950)Google Scholar.

3 Problems of Nationalized Industry, ed. Robson, William A. (London, 1952), p. 53Google Scholar.

4 Milligan, Frank, “Ministerial Control of the British Nationalized Industries,” The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Vol. 17, pp. 164–83, at p. 164 (May, 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Ibid.

6 Winter, Charles, “Parliamentary, Ministerial and Judicial Control of Nationalized Industries in Great Britain,” Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 16, pp. 670–701, at pp. 684–90 (Autumn, 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Quoted in Robson, op. cit., p. 36; italics added.

8 Milligan, op. cit., pp. 168–69.

9 Acton Society Trust, The Power of the Minister (Claygate, 1951), pp. 6–7Google Scholar.

10 See cases cited by Winter, op. cit., pp. 684–86.

11 457 House of Commons Debates, Nov. 4, 1948, written answers, col. 128.

12 452 H. C. Deb., June 17, 1948, col. 643.

13 499 H. C. Deb., April 28, 1952, col. 1037.

14 Davies, Ernest, “Ministerial Control and Parliamentary Responsibility of Nationalized Industries,” in Problems of Nationalized Industry (cited in D. 3), p. 114Google Scholar.

15 Ibid., p. 111.

16 Morrison, Herbert, “Public Control of the Socialised Industries,” Public Administration, Vol. 28, pp. 3–9, at pp. 4–5 (Spring, 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 497 H. C. Deb., March 17, 1952, col. 1916; see also March 10, cols. 1016–19.

18 499 H. C. Deb., April 21, 1952, col. 38.

19 Ibid., col. 39; April 28, 1952, col. 1049.

20 Ibid., April 28, 1952, col. 1035.

21 Ibid., cols. 1163–64.

22 Ibid., col. 1080.

23 Ibid., col. 1049.

24 Ibid., col. 1056.

25 See remarks of Messrs. McAdden and Harris, ibid., cols. 1103, 1113.

26 Norman Cole, ibid., cols. 1091–92.

27 Acton Society Trust, The Power of the Minister (cited in n. 9), Appendix, pp. 16–20Google Scholar.

28 498 H. C. Deb., April 9, 1952, col. 2731.

29 Acton Society Trust, Accountability to Parliament (Claygate, 1950), p. 6Google Scholar.

30 See Bradshaw, Kenneth, “Parliament and the Public Corporation,” Cambridge Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 707–26, at p. 713 (Sept., 1950)Google Scholar.

31 History reviewed in 508 H. C. Deb., Dec. 5, 1952, col. 1994.

32 451 H. C. Deb., June 7, 1948, col. 1636.

33 Acton Society Trust, Accountability to Parliament, p. 21Google Scholar; see Sir Edward Boyle's standard of “intrinsic importance” and number of interested M.P.'s, 508 H. C. Deb., Dec. 5, 1952, col. 1997.

34 Acton Society Trust, Accountability to Parliament, pp. 7–8, 14Google Scholar.

35 Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, Report, Oct. 29, 1952 (House of Commons Papers, 332, 1951–1952), p. ixGoogle Scholar.

36 Ibid., p. viii.

37 508 H. C. Deb., Dec. 5, 1952, col. 2002.

38 Ibid., col. 2004.

39 H.C. 332, op. cit., p. xxii.

40 Acton Society Trust, Accountability to Parliament, p. 15Google Scholar.

41 Bradshaw, , “Parliament and the Public Corporation” (cited in n. 30), p. 715Google Scholar. Mr. Crookshank, Conservative leader in the House of Commons, cites seven debates in 1950–52. See Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, Report, July 23, 1953 (H.C. 235, 1952–53), p. 115.

42 See 457 H. C. Deb., col. 683 et seq.

43 Acton Society Trust, Accountability to Parliament, pp. 18–19Google Scholar; Winter, , “Parliamentary, Ministerial and Judicial Control of Nationalized Industries in Great Britain” (cited in n. 6), pp. 679–81Google Scholar, also gives examples.

44 470 H. C. Deb., Dec. 1, 1949, cols. 1343, 1354.

45 Bradshaw, op. cit., pp. 718–19.

46 479 H. C. Deb., Oct. 25. 1950, col. 2807.

47 H.C. 332, p. iii.

48 H. C. 235, p. ix.

49 Ibid., p. xii. The word “control” here presumably connotes meticulous supervision, contrasting with the use of the term throughout this article as, chiefly, that part of the accountability relationship exercised by the body to which accountability is owed, regardless of degree.

50 Ibid., p. x.

51 Ibid., pp. xi, xii.

52 Ibid., p. xi.

53 Ibid., pp. 75ff.

54 523 H. C. Deb., Daily Report, Feb. 8, 1954, cols. 841–44.

55 Ibid., cols. 865–66.

56 Ibid., col. 918. On the same date, Feb. 8, 1954, The Times (p. 7) editorially advised against strapping on the harness of government departments, which could possibly give accountability and information, but never efficiency.

57 Ibid., col. 859.

58 508 H. C. Deb., Dec. 5, 1952, col. 2006.

59 The Times (London), June 19, 1953, p. 3Google Scholar.

60 For more complete analysis, see Johnson, Eldon L., “Consumer ‘Control’ in British Nationalized Industries,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 15, pp. 88–113 (Feb., 1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Editorial, “The Consumer's Voice,” The Times (London), July 22, 1950, p. 5Google Scholar.

62 See Central Transport Consultative Committee, Annual Report, 1950 (H. C. 126, 1950–51), pp. 5–7Google Scholar; Eastern Electricity Board, Third Report and Accounts, 1950–1951 (H. C. 272, 1950–51), p. 17Google Scholar; British Electricity Authority, Fourth Report and Accounts, 1951–1952 (H. C. 262, 1951–52), p. 79Google Scholar; The Gas Council, Third Report and Accounts, 1951–1952 (H. C. 309, 1951–52), p. 5Google Scholar.

63 British Transport Commission, Report and Accounts, 1950 (H. C. 210, 1950–51), p. 7Google Scholar.

64 See suggested reforms through a Central Consumers' Council, armed with a research staff, for all the industries together, Florence, P. Sargant and Maddick, H., “Consumers' Councils in the Nationalized Industries,” Political Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 259–71 (July-Sept., 1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Other proposed improvements are discussed in Johnson, op. cit., pp. 107–11.

65 For more complete treatment see Johnson, Eldon L., “Joint Consultation in British Nationalized Industries,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 12, pp. 181–89 (Summer, 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Acton Society Trust, The Future of the Unions (Claygate, 1951), pp. 2–3Google Scholar.

67 Hopeful improvement is described in the 1951–52 Report, British Electricity Authority (cited in n. 62), p. 69.

68 Hanson, A. H., “Report on the Reports: The Nationalised Industries, 1950–51,” Public Administration, Vol. 30, pp. 111–30, at pp. 177–21 (Summer, 1952)Google Scholar.

69 Ibid., p. 113.

70 Acton Society Trust, Relations with the Public (London, 1953), pp. 13–14, 18Google Scholar.

71 Ibid., p. 28.

72 H. C. 235, p. 113.

73 Ibid., p. 57.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.