---

Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge): Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the matter? Is he saying that the NAO should have a statutory right of access to the books of any supplier to the public sector?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Not necessarily to any supplier; it depends on the nature of the supplier. If a bread manufacturer supplies bread to a Government Department, I do not think that the NAO would necessarily want to study that manufacturer's accounts--the contract between the manufacturer and the Department

6 Dec 1999 : Column 615

will be an open-market contract--but, if the Department had to employ the bread contractor to carry out some catering internally within its own organisation and it had to employ people, there may have to be a statutory right of access. If someone is using public money--taxpayers' money--the taxpayer should have a right of access to ensure that the money is spent properly.

I take the question of the new Learning and Skills Council. Money will be allocated nationally by the Department for Education and Employment tothe national council. On the basis of the White Paper "Learning to Succeed", which was published earlier this year, I presume that the council will then allocate money to regional skills and training councils. Those will allocate money to training providers. I understand that money will also be allocated to lifelong learning partnerships. Wherever public money goes, the taxpayer has a right to follow it, through a statutory right of access, to the organisation that is given that money.

I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about the arrangements for Railtrack. I do not know whether the PAC has found some remit--he might be able to tell me--under which it could look at the way in which Railtrack uses money, some of which starts with the taxpayer and passes through train operating companies. I do not know what the arrangements are, but I presume--indeed, I hope--that, under the arrangement, any public subsidy to manage Britain's railway system--any public money--should be traceable. An audit should lead to the area where it is ultimately spent.

I argue a simple principle, in which I have always believed--if public money is to be spent, the taxpayer should have a right of access to ensure that that money is properly spent.

7.8 pm

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): It is an interesting debate. I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is noting, as no doubt the Chief Secretary did, that there is a certain amount of concern about the Bill and criticism of it from hon. Members on both sides and from all political parties in the House.

I was particularly interested in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). He said that, after 35 years in this place, his career had not yet peaked. It gave me great encouragement. I hope that, after 28 years in this place, my career has not peaked either, although--he is well aware of it--it has not even yet taken off, unlike his. He has held important offices in past Labour Governments.

The leadership of the Liaison Committee by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is much appreciated. As he will know, the Liaison Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the relationship between Select Committees and the Executive--the Government. Many of the remarks made today by him, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis)--who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee--and by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) have served to make the point that Select Committees are able to play a very valuable role in monitoring the Government.

How right the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was that Select Committees should be able to amend the estimates, to allow for virement within total expenditure

6 Dec 1999 : Column 616

of a particular Department, to highlight the Committee's interests and priorities. I think that, if that became the House's order of procedure, the role of Select Committees--which are vital--would carry much more weight, many more hon. Members would want to serve on Select Committees, and Select Committee reports would be much more meaningful. I hope that not only will my Committee continue to make recommendations in that sphere, but that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden will ensure that the need for such change is taken on board by the Government.

I should like today to make only a short speech, in my capacity as Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I do not intend to examine in detail the Bill's provisions, as that is a matter for those who know far more about the subject than I do, and is also the responsibility of the Standing Committee. However, I should like to put down two markers arising out of the Procedure Committee's recent work--one is an expression of dissatisfaction with the way in which the Government have handled the Bill's introduction, and the other is an aspiration of how the Government should proceed in future.

As the House will know, the Procedure Committee has taken a very close interest in proposals to introduce resource accounting and budgeting into the public service. On that, we have worked in close liaison with the Treasury Committee and with the Public Accounts Committee.

We have also produced two reports of relevance to the Bill. In March 1998, the Committee's report entitled, "Resource Accounting and Budgeting" appeared and, in July 1999, we published a connected report, "Procedure for Debate on the Government's Expenditure Plans". We have received a Government reply to the first of the two reports, but not, as yet, to the second.

I am happy to say that, broadly speaking, the Committee has welcomed the proposed shift from cash-based to accruals-based accounting within government. In March 1998, the Committee commented that

"resource accounting and budgeting should not be oversold as a miracle cure but can be viewed as a useful contribution both in terms of improving value for money from public expenditure and of enhancing accountability to Parliament".

The report "Resource Accounting and Budgeting" contained a recommendation to which the Committee attached very great importance. It was that

"the most extensive version of the amendments which might be made to the Exchequer and Audit Acts should be published in draft as soon as possible".

I direct that quote to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

The Government reply to that report, published in June 1998, was quite unequivocal on that point, stating:

"The Government accepts the Committee's recommendation. The Government agrees that there are advantages in publishing the suggested amendments to the Exchequer and Audit Departments Acts in draft to enable Parliament to give the proposed legislation thorough consideration, and will publish its proposals as soon as possible".

In March 1999--nine months later--we received a short memorandum from the Treasury, setting out

"the Government's policy proposals for the legislative changes needed to implement Resource Accounting and Budgeting".

Although useful in itself, that very modest paper was only six pages long.

6 Dec 1999 : Column 617

The paper certainly did not amount to the "most extensive version" of the draft legislation which the Procedure Committee had asked for and the Government had undertaken to provide. Indeed, the Treasury itself described its paper as

"an initial basis for considering the legislative proposals for RAB in advance of publication of"--

and I emphasis this--

"the draft Bill".

It is therefore clear that, in March 1999, the Government still intended to introduce the Bill in Parliament in draft form. That commitment was repeated as recently as July 1999, in a report by the Treasury to the Procedure, Treasury and Public Accounts Committees, which stated:

"a draft Bill will be published later in the current session".

After that date, however, we heard nothing until two weeks ago, when the Clerks of the three Committees that I mentioned received a letter from Mr. John Breckenridge, of the Treasury's RAB legislation team, stating:

"I am afraid that it took much longer than expected to draft the Bill and a complete version only became available shortly before introduction. I apologise for not having been able to send the Committees a draft of the Bill when we had undertaken to do so."

I wish to put on record my strong disappointment that the Government have not been able to honour their clear undertaking to the Procedure Committee--which is not only a Committee of the House, but an important Committee of the House--that the Bill would be published in draft form.

The Government have been a strong supporter ofthe principle of pre-legislative scrutiny. In evidence to the Modernisation Committee, the previous Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) wrote:

"the Government firmly believes that the quality of legislation can often be improved by consultation with informed opinion on both the substance and the drafting of legislative proposals, before the introduction of a bill into Parliament or at a stage in its passage through Parliament".

In the present case, with a Bill that is both important and highly technical, surely the most appropriate form of scrutiny would have been at the pre-legislative stage. The accumulated expertise of three Select Committees could then have been brought to bear. Instead, it seems that the interests of Whitehall have prevailed over those of Parliament, and Committees of the House are effectively being sidelined in consideration of the Bill's contents.

How right the right hon. Member for Swansea, West was when he said that, when he was a Minister, his priority was still to act as a Member of Parliament. He also talked about the primacy of the House of Commons and the important role that we play in holding to account the Government of the day. How better could the House do that than through control of the vote of Supply? That is the way that it should be done. I hope that, in reply to the debate, the Economic Secretary will be able to give the House a fuller explanation than that in Mr. Breckenridge's letter of why the Government have failed to honour their clear undertaking.

Given that the Government have failed to allow Parliament--in the words of the former Leader of the House--to "consult with informed opinion" at the

6 Dec 1999 : Column 618

pre-legislative stage, is there not a strong case for such an opportunity to be given during the Bill's passage? As Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I propose to the Government that the Bill should be referred to a Special Standing Committee, as that would enable the Committee to hold Select Committee-style evidence sittings before considering the Bill clause by clause. It would be up to the Committee to decide which witnesses to invite, but I should have thought that evidence from Treasury civil servants--who have come in for some remarks and even criticism in this debate--from the Comptroller and Auditor General and from appropriate outside experts on financial procedure would help to inform the Committee's deliberation.

Those three evidence sessions would not add hugely to the timetable for enacting the Bill. Under Standing Orders, the Select Committee stage must be completed within

"a period not exceeding 28 days".

The Bill has been introduced at an early stage in this Session, so it certainly cannot be argued that there is not enough parliamentary time for the procedure to be activated.

I draw the Economic Secretary's attention to the fact that a motion to commit a Bill to a Special Standing Committee can be moved without notice, immediately after Second Reading. I very much hope that she, or the Chief Secretary, will move such a motion. That would be appropriate for a Bill which is technical and important, and about which it ought in principle to be possible to achieve cross-party consensus.

---