DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68025#0128
Mr. H. J.
McIntosh.
3 Jan., 1908.
122 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE:
but circumstances arise when it is necessary to make a
temporary arrangement. As a rule, I should think it
was undesirable to transfer an officer.
17412. Do you think that officers are retained too
long in the Imperial Secretariat?—My view is that
the more officers pass through the Imperial Secretariat,
the better for the Local Governments, because they
will have a number of experienced officers who will
have seen things which are dealt with in the Imperial
Secretariat, and on the whole it is good for the
Government of India to have a fairly large number of
men passing through it and getting new ideas. It
prevents them getting into a groove.
17413. During your three different appointments in
the Imperial Secretariat, did you have opportunities of
seeing whether officers were kept there for a long time ?
■—Yes. I do not think there were any kept for an
excessively long time, while I was there. There is a
three years’ tenure now, but it is a comparatively new
rule.
17414. Has the alteration of the rule been to the
benefit not only of the Imperial but of the provincial
Governments ?—I should think so, so far as it has
been applied. I believe more officers pass through the
Imperial Secretariat nowadays than was the case eight
or ten or twelve years ago.
17415. Is the rule which has been laid down observed
or not ?—No.
17416. Did you yourself come in under the three
years’ rule ?—Yes.
17417. Does it apply to Under-Secretaries?—Deputy
Secretaries and Under-Secretaries are appointed under
the three years’ rule, but I do not think there used to
be any rule with regard to Secretaries.
17418. Would you like to give Inspectors-General
higher powers than they enjoy at present ?—It would
be a very good thing if they were in closer touch with
the Local Government.
17419. You have been Financial Secretary to the
Government of Bengal. Speaking as an officer of the
provincial Government, would you like to see more of
the Inspectors-General ?—Yes.
17420. From your experience in the Imperial
Secretariat do you think Inspectors-General interfere
in any way with the administrative machinery of the
provincial Governments ?—I think not. It would be
advantageous, if the Local Governments had more
opportunities of discussing their proposals directly
with the Inspectors-General before they address the
Government of India.
17421. As a matter of fact, do the Local Govern-
ments see the criticisms on proposal made, before the
orders are issued ?—I think as a rule they do not.
17422. Would it be advantageous if they did so, or
at all events if they saw the pith of them ?—Yes, that
would be sound.
17423. Does the existence of Inspectors-General tend
to make the provincial officers look to them for promo ■
tion, distinction or reward of some sort or other rather
than to their own Local Government ?—I think not.
17424. It has been suggested that Commissioners
might have greater control over their expenditure ;
would you give a Commissioner a separate budget ?—
It would be a good thing to do.
17425. Do you want to see him in every respect the
financial Head of the division ?—I am not quite sure
about every respect, but I should like him to have
power to spend money on his own authority. He has
the authority now only as to a very trifling amount.
17426. Have you not ten thousand rupees to spend
in your division ?—I do not know what the amount is,
but the division is 26,000 square miles in area, and
therefore that amount is very small. As a matter of
fact, when I took over charge of the division, I was
told that it had been all spent.
17427. It has been stated that Commissioners are
given this sum of money every year to spend as they
liked. Do they spend it through the Collectors ?—
Through the Collectors mostly. When they go round
on tour, the Collector brings to their notice some little
improvement that he would like, perhaps in a hospital
or some other institution, and the Commissioner gives
him authority to make it.
17428. Then practically the Collectors have been
spending all this sum, and the amount that is to be at
the disposal of each Collector depends on the discretion
of the Commissioner ?—Yes. I think that is putting
it fairly.
17429. Might it not save a good deal of time and
trouble if the money was split up between the
Collectors instead of its going direct to the Commis-
sioner ?—I think some of the Commissioners do that
now, and I certainly approve of making each Collector
an allotment.
17430. And pro tanto it diminishes the allotment of
the Commissioner ?—I am not quite sure about pro
tanto ; I am not sure I would not give the Commis-
sioner a larger allotment.
17431. What, as a matter of fact, does he distribute
now in his own unaided, discretion ?—I have distri-
buted none myself, so I cannot answer that question.
This is my first appointment as a Commissioner.
17432. As regards the right of appeal, you do not
wish to see anything altered in that particular ?—No.
I suggest that there might be a maximum of two
appeals as regards Government servants.
17433. Would you draw no distinction between
grades of Government servants ? To what officers
would you restrict the two appeals ?—Certainly to all
ministerial officers and menial officers. I presume a
member of the Civil Service would always have an
appeal up to the Secretary of State. But with regard
to the Provincial and Subordinate Services two appeals
would be sufficient.
17434. You say there is a constant growth of
departmentalism due to the influence of the Heads of
Departments ; how does that interfere with the power
of the Commissioner ?—It makes so much work ;
there is so much correspondence always going on with
these departments by the Commissioners and Collectors
and by their subordinates.
17435. Has the Head of the Department the ear of
the Government to the disadvantage of the Commis-
sioner ?—I think a great deal of the matter comes up,
at the instance of these departments, which might
possibly be disposed of by the Commissioner or by the
Collectors themselves.
17436. Did the evils of this system strike you when
you were a Secretary to Government ?—I have always
thought there was more work in the departments than
was necessary.
17437. Did you ever make any representation to the
Local Government on this head ?—No formal repre-
sentation. In my own humble capacity I have always
endeavoured to shorten the work as much as possible.
17438. You have held quite recently an important
post in the Secretariat where you corresponded with
the Heads of Departments whom you now condemn,
or whose actual influence you condemn ?—I regard
the Heads of Departments as absolutely necessary ;
I do not condemn the system.
17439. Then is the way you put it that their influence
is detrimental to the good working of the Commis-
sioner system ?—No, not exactly that.
17440. Then what do you mean ?—I mean that
more might be left to be done locally by the Commis-
sioner without the intervention of the Heads of
Departments.
17441. You say that things are regarded too much
from a departmental standpoint ; then I ask you
whether that is detrimental to the influence of the
Commissioner, and you tell us it is not ; I want to
know your views exactly ?—I consider that by reason
of there being these departments, there is a tendency
for too much work to go up to them or to go up from
them to the Government, which might well be disposed
of locally by the Commissioner, or by the Collector
and the Commissioner.
17442. You say that the influence of these Heads of
Departments is too great, and I want to know if you
think it affects the powers of the Commissioner ?—
I think it involves a great deal of unnecessary
correspondence.
17443. Is one of your remedies for reducing the
routine work the appointment of Joint-Magistrates ?—
Yes.
McIntosh.
3 Jan., 1908.
122 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE:
but circumstances arise when it is necessary to make a
temporary arrangement. As a rule, I should think it
was undesirable to transfer an officer.
17412. Do you think that officers are retained too
long in the Imperial Secretariat?—My view is that
the more officers pass through the Imperial Secretariat,
the better for the Local Governments, because they
will have a number of experienced officers who will
have seen things which are dealt with in the Imperial
Secretariat, and on the whole it is good for the
Government of India to have a fairly large number of
men passing through it and getting new ideas. It
prevents them getting into a groove.
17413. During your three different appointments in
the Imperial Secretariat, did you have opportunities of
seeing whether officers were kept there for a long time ?
■—Yes. I do not think there were any kept for an
excessively long time, while I was there. There is a
three years’ tenure now, but it is a comparatively new
rule.
17414. Has the alteration of the rule been to the
benefit not only of the Imperial but of the provincial
Governments ?—I should think so, so far as it has
been applied. I believe more officers pass through the
Imperial Secretariat nowadays than was the case eight
or ten or twelve years ago.
17415. Is the rule which has been laid down observed
or not ?—No.
17416. Did you yourself come in under the three
years’ rule ?—Yes.
17417. Does it apply to Under-Secretaries?—Deputy
Secretaries and Under-Secretaries are appointed under
the three years’ rule, but I do not think there used to
be any rule with regard to Secretaries.
17418. Would you like to give Inspectors-General
higher powers than they enjoy at present ?—It would
be a very good thing if they were in closer touch with
the Local Government.
17419. You have been Financial Secretary to the
Government of Bengal. Speaking as an officer of the
provincial Government, would you like to see more of
the Inspectors-General ?—Yes.
17420. From your experience in the Imperial
Secretariat do you think Inspectors-General interfere
in any way with the administrative machinery of the
provincial Governments ?—I think not. It would be
advantageous, if the Local Governments had more
opportunities of discussing their proposals directly
with the Inspectors-General before they address the
Government of India.
17421. As a matter of fact, do the Local Govern-
ments see the criticisms on proposal made, before the
orders are issued ?—I think as a rule they do not.
17422. Would it be advantageous if they did so, or
at all events if they saw the pith of them ?—Yes, that
would be sound.
17423. Does the existence of Inspectors-General tend
to make the provincial officers look to them for promo ■
tion, distinction or reward of some sort or other rather
than to their own Local Government ?—I think not.
17424. It has been suggested that Commissioners
might have greater control over their expenditure ;
would you give a Commissioner a separate budget ?—
It would be a good thing to do.
17425. Do you want to see him in every respect the
financial Head of the division ?—I am not quite sure
about every respect, but I should like him to have
power to spend money on his own authority. He has
the authority now only as to a very trifling amount.
17426. Have you not ten thousand rupees to spend
in your division ?—I do not know what the amount is,
but the division is 26,000 square miles in area, and
therefore that amount is very small. As a matter of
fact, when I took over charge of the division, I was
told that it had been all spent.
17427. It has been stated that Commissioners are
given this sum of money every year to spend as they
liked. Do they spend it through the Collectors ?—
Through the Collectors mostly. When they go round
on tour, the Collector brings to their notice some little
improvement that he would like, perhaps in a hospital
or some other institution, and the Commissioner gives
him authority to make it.
17428. Then practically the Collectors have been
spending all this sum, and the amount that is to be at
the disposal of each Collector depends on the discretion
of the Commissioner ?—Yes. I think that is putting
it fairly.
17429. Might it not save a good deal of time and
trouble if the money was split up between the
Collectors instead of its going direct to the Commis-
sioner ?—I think some of the Commissioners do that
now, and I certainly approve of making each Collector
an allotment.
17430. And pro tanto it diminishes the allotment of
the Commissioner ?—I am not quite sure about pro
tanto ; I am not sure I would not give the Commis-
sioner a larger allotment.
17431. What, as a matter of fact, does he distribute
now in his own unaided, discretion ?—I have distri-
buted none myself, so I cannot answer that question.
This is my first appointment as a Commissioner.
17432. As regards the right of appeal, you do not
wish to see anything altered in that particular ?—No.
I suggest that there might be a maximum of two
appeals as regards Government servants.
17433. Would you draw no distinction between
grades of Government servants ? To what officers
would you restrict the two appeals ?—Certainly to all
ministerial officers and menial officers. I presume a
member of the Civil Service would always have an
appeal up to the Secretary of State. But with regard
to the Provincial and Subordinate Services two appeals
would be sufficient.
17434. You say there is a constant growth of
departmentalism due to the influence of the Heads of
Departments ; how does that interfere with the power
of the Commissioner ?—It makes so much work ;
there is so much correspondence always going on with
these departments by the Commissioners and Collectors
and by their subordinates.
17435. Has the Head of the Department the ear of
the Government to the disadvantage of the Commis-
sioner ?—I think a great deal of the matter comes up,
at the instance of these departments, which might
possibly be disposed of by the Commissioner or by the
Collectors themselves.
17436. Did the evils of this system strike you when
you were a Secretary to Government ?—I have always
thought there was more work in the departments than
was necessary.
17437. Did you ever make any representation to the
Local Government on this head ?—No formal repre-
sentation. In my own humble capacity I have always
endeavoured to shorten the work as much as possible.
17438. You have held quite recently an important
post in the Secretariat where you corresponded with
the Heads of Departments whom you now condemn,
or whose actual influence you condemn ?—I regard
the Heads of Departments as absolutely necessary ;
I do not condemn the system.
17439. Then is the way you put it that their influence
is detrimental to the good working of the Commis-
sioner system ?—No, not exactly that.
17440. Then what do you mean ?—I mean that
more might be left to be done locally by the Commis-
sioner without the intervention of the Heads of
Departments.
17441. You say that things are regarded too much
from a departmental standpoint ; then I ask you
whether that is detrimental to the influence of the
Commissioner, and you tell us it is not ; I want to
know your views exactly ?—I consider that by reason
of there being these departments, there is a tendency
for too much work to go up to them or to go up from
them to the Government, which might well be disposed
of locally by the Commissioner, or by the Collector
and the Commissioner.
17442. You say that the influence of these Heads of
Departments is too great, and I want to know if you
think it affects the powers of the Commissioner ?—
I think it involves a great deal of unnecessary
correspondence.
17443. Is one of your remedies for reducing the
routine work the appointment of Joint-Magistrates ?—
Yes.