| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. St. Aubyn: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and I agree with what he says about those fundamental rights. Is not the problem the fact that the
Treasury, having discovered the dark arts of stealth taxes, is now practising to perfection the art of stealth accounting?
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend puts it well. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) wish to intervene?
Mr. Ivor Caplin (Hove): I certainly do not.
Mr. Brady: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to intervene, but he was not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford makes an important point. The Government are clearly seeking to avoid proper scrutiny of public expenditure and of the way in which public funds--taxpayers' money--are pushed out through the public sector in various guises. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), one must ask why. Why do the Government refuse to accept an eminently sensible new clause, which has support on both sides of the House and from distinguished members of the Public Accounts Committee?
The Government have accepted the new clause in principle in their amendment, yet, for their own reasons, which the Minister will no doubt try to explain, they seek to avoid the discipline that new clause 2 would impose on them. There would be a presumption that there was a right to proper public audit unless the Government could demonstrate a compelling reason why that should not be the case.
I shall not detain the House, but, in the light of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, and given that we are debating the most fundamental role of Parliament and the most fundamental duty that we must discharge by calling the Government to account, it is supremely ironic that if the motion is pressed to a Division, the Government will whip Labour Members to support their stance, and to oppose a new clause that would extend the right of Parliament to scrutinise what the Executive does. That is at least an irony and possibly a perversion of the purpose of Parliament. That is unfortunate.
The Government have an opportunity to show that they have nothing to hide and that they wish to be open and allow proper scrutiny of all aspects of public expenditure and the public sector. They have an opportunity to demonstrate that, contrary to recent criticism, they are not arrogant. They have an opportunity to show that they are not interested in grubby fixes or withholding information and to move towards proper openness and accountability. They have an opportunity to strengthen the role of Parliament and to show, as good Governments have done in the past, that the Executive can recognise that their activities should properly be limited.
The Minister should accept that tonight. I hope that he will bow to the arguments of senior colleagues on both sides of the House. I cannot understand how the Government can devise a cogent, reasonable argument for not accepting the new clause.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire):
I had not intended to speak in the debate, but I have been stung by the attitude of Labour Members. As a Shropshire Member
It was outrageous that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) had prepared a speech on new clause 2--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman should confine his comments to the new clause.
Mr. Paterson:
The hon. Member for Workington had prepared on new clause 2 and did not make it out of pique. Nothing could have been more interesting than his comments on new clause 2, which goes to the heart of our role as Members of Parliament who hold the Government to account on the way in which they spend moneys that do not belong to them in their temporary executive role, but to the people.
After listening to the debate, I feel naive. I honestly believed that the Comptroller and Auditor General audited all Departments, as established in the 1866 Act. I had not realised until I heard my hon. Friends' speeches that there were extraordinary gaps in auditing public expenditure and holding the Executive to account. It is astonishing that 200 bodies, which deliver public services and are funded by Departments from money that Parliament provides, are not fully audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Mr. Fabricant:
It is even more surprising that it is not up to the Comptroller and Auditor General whether he audits those 200 companies. The Government tell him that he cannot audit those companies and organisations.
Mr. Paterson:
With his usual prescience, my hon. Friend has made my next point. According to the Public Accounts Committee's fourth report, my hon. Friend is right. Eighty bodies spent £3 billion, but their auditors are appointed by Ministers and they report to Ministers. That is extraordinary. I almost feel guilty that, as a Member of Parliament, I did not know about that.
Mr. Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East):
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the previous Conservative Government established bodies without accountability and that this Government ensured that 19 out of the 21 bodies that might not have been audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General are so audited?
Mr. Paterson:
I find that a bizarre intervention. Numerous Opposition Members have made it clear that they are not happy with the status quo. I am making it clear that I am not happy with the status quo, that I am astonished by the status quo, and I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments that a new regime should be introduced. Surely the Bill gives the very opportunity. This is the time and place to debate it. This is a clause that he should support, because it would bring in every body:
Mr. Paterson:
That point is forcefully put and quite correct. I am reading evidence from reports from an all-party Committee which is led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) specifically to hold the Government's expenditure to account. We have the new clause proposed by three leading Members of the House, and the Government oppose it. They will have to come up with some very good reasons.
How can it be that the Housing Corporation, spending £1 billion pounds a year, and the Environment Agency, spending £150 million, are outside the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General?
Mr. Hayes:
I do not want to put my hon. Friend off, but I would like him to return to the issue of the relationship between the Bill and the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. I spoke earlier of the 1921 Bill, which was based on the recommendations of that Committee. I do not want to go as far as the hyperbole of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), but it is true that this Bill is quite different from those of 1866, 1921 or 1975, in that it does not simply ignore the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee; it frustrates them.
Mr. Paterson:
That is an excellent point. With similar foresight to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, my hon. Friend has also moved on to the next point that I was about to make.
In its fourth report, the Public Accounts Committee said quite clearly, in recommendation (vi), in paragraph 7:
Every public service agency shall prepare accounts in respect of each financial year and shall send them to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
29 Feb 2000 : Column 306
That is in new clause 2(3). How can the hon. Gentleman not support that? He apparently is not happy with the regime left by the previous Government. It is quite clear that several of us are astonished by the lacunae. So why does he not support it?
Mr. Fabricant:
My hon. Friend will recognise that it is a tradition in this House that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is always drawn from the Opposition party. He will also be aware that the Public Accounts Committee is an all-party Committee. Is it not extraordinary in the history of the House that the Committee is putting forward a new clause which is being opposed by the Executive? Is not this a major constitutional conflict between Parliament and the Executive?
We urge the Government to extend this [audit] to all existing executive non-departmental public bodies.
It could not be a clearer recommendation from an all-party Committee, which goes on to say, in recommendation (vii):
We consider that it is questionable, in principle, whether those whose accountability is being examined should appoint the external auditor of non-departmental public bodies. We recommend that the Bill should address this issue by specifying that all such bodies established in the future will be audited on behalf of Parliament by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Also the Bill should amend existing legislation to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General as auditor to those bodies for which he is not already statutorily appointed.
It could not be clearer.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |