| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Letwin: Our debate comes at the end of a long sequence of debates on this subject. On an earlier occasion, I was teased rather amiably by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for having contributed at too great a length to a previous debate. However, it is inconceivable that we can make the accusation that tonight's debate is too wordy--at least until I begin.
We heard powerful contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), the right hon. Members for Swansea, West and for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel)--perhaps the four most notable members, past and present, of the Public Accounts Committee who are still Members of the House. We heard also from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), whose absence from our proceedings we regret. We would have liked to have heard from him endlessly on this subject. We even called forth from the depths my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who felt compelled to come to the House, and we had a silent contribution from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), whom some of us hope to see in another position on another occasion. We find that there is cross-party agreement.
Why is all this happening? The Economic Secretary eloquently read out yet another of the splendidly mellifluous briefs that she has been given throughout the proceedings. Why, following that, do we hear a universal chorus echoing the word "no" around the Chamber? It is because, I regret to say, the mellifluous prose read out by the Economic Secretary lacks logic, as it has on previous occasions. It also, alas, contradicts the tradition and spirit of our parliamentary democracy. Those two lacunae give rise to frustration in the House.
I shall take head on three arguments at the centre of the Economic Secretary's rhetoric. The first relates to drafting. As other contributors have said, that argument is the last refuge of the Sir Humphrey figure in Whitehall. It is being made after months of investigation in which repeated amendments and offers of redrafting of amendments have been put forward. The hon. Member for
Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), the right hon. Member for Swansea, West and I--and, for all I know, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden--have produced four, if not five, variants of these amendments. In addition, the House of Lords has made its own amendments.At each of those stages the combined might of the intellects in the Treasury, including the Treasury Solicitor, and of parliamentary draftsmen could, surely to goodness, have been brought to bear on the deficiencies about which the Economic Secretary waxed lyrical. This is not a drafting problem. Drafting is the not particularly adequate shield behind which the Economic Secretary seeks to hide from the slings and arrows of argument.
The Economic Secretary's major argument concerns intrusion. Ministers have been making this argument from the beginning of the debate. I understand the essence of the argument and it is not without merit, until one pursues it to its conclusion. Ministers argue that it would be horribly intrusive for the private sector to have the NAO coming down on it because that would be an unpremeditated additional audit and a huge regulatory burden. The hon. Member for Newbury and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden pointed out that it is unlikely that a body as small as the NAO could be highly intrusive in auditing the many thousands of recipients of public funds the length and breadth of Britain.
My right hon. Friend also pointed out that at an early stage he and his colleagues on the PAC conceded the principle that the access should reach only as far as the Government themselves seek to reach. I, personally, regret that concession because it may restrict the scope of the NAO's activities. I do not know whether this point has penetrated the ministerial or official mind, and it has never been reflected in any statement that Ministers have made to the House, but this is a killer concession for their argument.
It cannot be held by the Government that the Government are too intrusive, because the Government could do something about that; they could restrict their own access. Nor can the Government logically argue that if they have a right and, I suppose, therefore, a duty to inspect the accounts of various bodies, Parliament should not be concerned with them. That is to suggest that the scope of Parliament is intrinsically inferior to, and more reduced than that of the Government, and even in the wildest imaginings of the Leader of the House the Government could not conceivably espouse that constitutional doctrine. The intrusion argument is another shield behind which Ministers seek to hide from the slings and arrows of the House.
I turn now to the real point, which is that the Treasury wants to keep the initiative. It wants to continue to be able to decide where the PAC, the NAO and the Comptroller and Auditor General will have access and where they will not. It wants to take advice from Lord Sharman and other quarters, but in the end it wants to decide access. The Executive want to decide which parts of the Executive are open to inspection and which are not. That is the purpose of the Government's amendment in lieu, and it has been their signal purpose throughout these debates.
It is not right for the Executive to decide how far the Executive should be open to inspection any more than it would be right for any of us to decide how far we should be open to inspection by the courts or the police. These matters have to be decided by law, and not by administrative Acts of the Treasury. That is a point on which every speaker in the debate is unified, bar the Economic Secretary.
I make that point specifically to put it on record for their lordships, to affirm their decision, which I hope they will make in a few days, to send this amendment back to this House. I hope that they will send it back again and again, if necessary, until at last the Government concede the point, or see fit to use the Parliament Acts to defeat Parliament--an irony that will not escape the media or the nation--or the Lords triumph. I hope that we will find that the Lords, ironically, defend Parliament against the Executive.
Mr. Cash: Is my hon. Friend inclined to adopt the view that I expressed in a previous intervention? It is indeed incongruous that we should need to use the appointed Lords to achieve an important principle, namely, the preservation of accountability and democracy. Therefore, in the light of the clear cross-party consensus expressed by extremely distinguished members of the Public Accounts Committee, should not Government Back- Benchers be encouraged to defy the whip?
Mr. Letwin: New as I am to Parliament, I share the scepticism that has been expressed by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West.
It is a sad state of affairs that, in such an important matter, because of the power of the Whips, the House of Commons has to rely on another body--one that is not so subject to the Executive--to defend its privileges. Does that not prove that we need to be extremely cautious about allowing the Executive to exercise the very powers that they seek to re-obtain through their amendment in lieu?
Miss Melanie Johnson: I shall start with a couple of general points, the first of which is that I do not seek to reduce the powers of Parliament in any way. In respect of the issues raised in the debate, especially by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), my desire and that of the Government is to ensure that the right sort of accountability, probity and financial properness is found in the affairs of Government, and that the Public Accounts Committee is able to carry out its job with the full support of the National Audit Office.
Many of the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have emphasised some difference between the Government and the House, but it is important to note that, as often happens, only those who disagree with the Government have spoken. They are entirely within their rights to make their points--
Mr. Brooke: Will the Economic Secretary give way?
Miss Johnson: I am trying to develop a general argument, but I shall give way on this occasion.
Mr. Brooke: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a noticeable feature of the debate that nobody other than herself has spoken for the Government's point of view?
Miss Johnson: I am sure that I do not have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the picture painted this evening
is not an unusual one: it is often those who want to disagree with the Government who come to the Chamber to express their views, whereas those who agree are silent.The debate has run together three main issues to an extent that the resulting elision is unacceptable. The first issue is access for audit purposes by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which provided the focus of debates during previous stages of the Bill's passage. I draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden to his description of the problems arising from the Bill. Without dwelling on the difficulties that he explored at some length on 1 March on Report, I simply point out that he repeatedly mentioned the CAG's access rights. That was much of the focus of his comments. That issue is different from some of the others that have been raised.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton- under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) raised the question of value-for-money audit, which is different. Indeed, I made that point--although not in any way to usurp the rights of the Speaker. The Speaker and Deputy Speakers will always decide, quite rightly, which matters a Bill covers. Issues on access for value-for-money studies were discussed fully during the passage of the National Audit Act 1983, but have not been the subject of debates on this Bill. In fact, it has been agreed until now that the issues surrounding clause 8 concern access needed for audit of departmental accounts alone. Issues concerning access for value-for-money studies will be considered by Lord Sharman during the review.
I turn to the points made about inadequate drafting. The scepticism of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) about whether something could easily be done was unhelpful. Several attempts--unsuccessful ones--have been made to draft an amendment to define a non-departmental public body, which illustrates just how difficult it is, as I said. NDPBs form a wide and disparate group. The most sensible way in which to deal with the issue would therefore be to designate them by order, as proposed in the Government's amendments to the Lords amendments.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |