§ 55. Mr. LEIF JONESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the National Committee on Expenditure of 1918 declared that the inquiries of pre- 1379 vious Estimates Committees had been to a great extent haphazard for the want of expert technical guidance, and that they recommended the appointment of an Examiner of Estimates who should be an officer of the House, and should stand in much the same relation to the Estimates Committee as the Comptroller and Auditor-General stands to the Public Accounts Committee, and whose duty would be to collect from his own study of the Estimates, and from information obtained from public and private sources, facts which would indicate to the Estimates Committee useful lines of inquiry; and whether he will reconsider the desirability of setting up an Estimates Committee without an Examiner of Estimates?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAs I stated in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) on the 20th February, the Government consider that the analogy drawn between the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the proposed Examiner of Estimates is fallacious, and that they do not propose to appoint such an officer.
§ Mr. JONESDoes not the right hon. Gentleman realise that a refusal to give the Committee expert assistance means that its proceedings are foredoomed to failure?
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKIs it not the case that the appointment of such a permanent officer, with powers analogous to those of the Auditor-General, would not only control the discretion of the Government, but also the discretion of Parliament?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat really is the point of my reply. It is obvious that there is no analogy between the two officers.
§ Sir J. MARRIOTTIs it not the case that in this matter the Government are not really anxious to give the Estimates Committee powers which will be of real value to the House?