| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Horam: The clause is a relic of the halcyon days, from the Government's point of view, when they thought that life in government was simple. The plan was obvious--they were hoping to win the next election, and if they did, legislation would be introduced to hold a referendum shortly thereafter. They would hope immediately to win a yes vote for entry into the euro. All would follow, so there had to be a national changeover plan.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) made the point that the national changeover plan contains a lovely chart, which sets out clearly where we proceed from one point to the end point, where we end up with notes. I noticed that it also said "end cash", which, in these circumstances--as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will agree--is rather symbolic. Nevertheless, a timetable of three and a half years was established.
Sadly, from the Government's point of view, those halcyon days are over--there are no more glad mornings. Since the European elections, the process has become etiolated, and it has been put ever further into the distant future. Should the Government win the next general election, will there even be a referendum in the first half of the next Parliament? Will there be a referendum at all in the next Parliament? How long will the process take? Even the Prime Minister must realise that the process will take much longer, and that it is much vaguer than it was
a year ago when the national changeover plan was proposed. The process has become extraordinarily vague, but clause 122 encapsulates the sense of certainty that the Government have lost.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said, there is also the matter of the blank cheque. How much will be required? The Government have mentioned tens of millions of pounds for the process, although Tim Congdon and other economists have calculated that, if we were to go into the euro, the total changeover cost would be £2.5 billion; and that, even if we do not go into the euro, the cost will be £750 million. Those figures are being bandied about, and they cannot be totally irrelevant to the Government--who purchase 40 per cent. of everything purchased in the United Kingdom. The Government have huge purchasing power. Although they have vouchsafed to the House a potential changeover cost of tens of millions of pounds, the extent of their own procurement ensures that the changeover will have a far greater effect on them than that.
I remember when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire and I were in government, and we were castigated by the then Opposition for signing an allegedly blank cheque for the private finance initiative; yet the PFI was operated wholly within departmental--in my case, the Department of Health--budgets, which could not be exceeded without the Treasury's agreement. However, clause 122 would go beyond any agreement between the Treasury and a Minister. It deals not with a certain unspecified sum that would have to be agreed between Departments, but, literally, with a blank cheque.
The fact is that we are now so far down the line--it is a year since the changeover plan was proposed--that Ministers must have some estimate, even a guesstimate, of the sort of figures involved in the changeover plan. The House should be told that estimate. I agree with my hon. Friends that we should be failing as parliamentarians, not to mention as Opposition Members, if we did not press for that information.
The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, made the fair point that Opposition Members are not attempting to limit the spending provided in clause 122--and we are not. It would be foolish to try to limit the spending, as we do not know--any more than the Government do, apparently--the correct figures. We are simply trying to expose the information that is available. It is a matter of accountability, not simply of disagreeing with the figures proposed. We simply want the House and the public to know what is likely to be spent, what is being spent, and even what will be spent--as my hon. Friends have said--retrospectively on those very important matters.
Mr. Love:
I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments, and he has finally got to the nub of amendment No. 31--parliamentary accountability. However, as Labour Members and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) have said, there is already such parliamentary accountability in debates in this Chamber
Mr. Horam:
First, that is an annual accounting. The National Audit Office examines matters annually, after which the Public Accounts Committee has to decide whether to deal with a specific expenditure item. The Committee has to choose from a crowded list of matters, and it may not have the time, even annually, to examine a specific subject in depth--as the changeover should be examined.
We are not asking for something that the Government are not already doing. In the Government's own document on the national changeover plan, at the very end they state:
Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset):
My hon. Friend is making the most interesting speech. Does he agree that--unless we have that canard come back to us from the Minister--there is a third reason for the House to be provided with the information? The National Audit Office could justify the expenditure as wholly effective and proper--as it would be achieving the very result that the Bill was trying to make it achieve--even if huge sums were spent with the sole purpose of driving us into the euro.
Mr. Horam:
Indeed. The other point is that, by definition, the National Audit Office will take a non-political view on the matter, but does not always have the access to Government papers that it should. Perhaps it should have further powers. Moreover, the Public Accounts Committee, with a Labour majority, may or may not decide that it wishes to investigate the matter in depth.
We are right to want to consider the matter separately. There should be an audit trail so that we can examine the matter systematically and discover how the expenditure is being used. We need to know not merely the total amounts involved, but how the money is being spent. I assume, from what the Government have said, that the national changeover plan deals not with private sector expenditure but with expenditure by the public sector for its own purposes. It also provides for information to be provided to the private sector so that it may prepare for a putative national changeover to the euro. That is the content of the changeover plan.
Mr. Loughton:
What possible confidence can we have in the Government's accountability to this House when every time Opposition Members have asked Treasury
Mr. Horam:
My hon. Friend is right; we will get no estimate this evening from the Economic Secretary. I give full credit to the hon. Lady for her words on green and environmental matters, but on this matter she will be bound tightly by Treasury rules and will not be able to say anything about possible expenditure. However, we are some way down the track on these matters, and we should by now have some idea of what is likely to be spent.
Mr. Luff:
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a question not just of the amount of money but, how the money is actually spent? The lack of any definition of categories of expenditure is extremely worrying and could have wide-ranging implications. The clause, as drafted, is capable of wide interpretation.
Mr. Horam:
My hon. Friend is right. I have looked through the reports on the national changeover plan and I can find nothing other than two vague categories in this area--public expenditure on its own purposes, and measures to inform the public of what is happening. We need more definition, clarity and exposure to parliamentary scrutiny.
Mr. Swayne:
Were I an evangelical advocate of the abolition of the pound--and, despite the Prime Minister's belief that such a position is daft, I understand that such people exist--I would nevertheless advocate that the Government accept the amendments. The existence of clause 122 demands such scrutiny. The clause states:
"The Treasury will report on progress on this further work in the euro preparation unit's next six-monthly report and produce a further plan in around a year's time."
We are simply asking for the EPU's six-monthly report to the Treasury to be reported also to the House. In their own document, Ministers state that they believe that six months is the right interval in which to report on that expenditure stream. I therefore think that it is not unreasonable for hon. Members to ask for any progress to be reported to them in a sensible way. I also do not think that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee are the right forums to deal with that six-monthly report.
"Customs and Excise may incur expenditure".
I am afraid that I did not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) in his assertion that tens of millions of pounds were involved. Any amount of money might be involved over any period of time.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |