HC Deb 30 May 1933 vol 278 cc1797-804

7.37 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE

I beg to move, in page 19, line 7, after the word "may," to insert the words "by order."

I have three other Amendments on the Order Paper dealing with the same point— In page 19, line 26, after the word "may," insert the words "by order. In line 29, after the word "may," insert the words "by order. In line 29, at the end, insert the words: (4) Any order proposed to be made by the Treasury under this Section shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be, and shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of that House"— —and I suggest that they might be discussed together.

Viscount WOLMER

On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Member proposes to deal with the whole question of Treasury control on this Amendment? Should we be in order in discussing on this Amendment the whole question of Treasury control, which is referred to in a series of Amendments, or should it be taken on another Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to discuss the hon. Member's four Amendments as one, because I think, in effect, they are one Amendment. If the first Amendment is carried we should then proceed to deal with the others formally; if it is not carried, the others will fall.

Mr. ATTLEE

The question of Treasury control comes up again on Clause 30. Here we are really concerned with control by this House. I have in mind more particularly Treasury control inside the Post Office, which would more naturally arise on Clause 30.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member will deal with Treasury control so far as is provided for in this series of Amendments.

Mr. ATTLEE

The object of these four Amendments is to give the House full control over the method of preparing these accounts. Under the Clause the accounts are to be prepared in such form as the Treasury may direct, and there is nothing to say that they should not alter the form year by year. The result is that the Post Office surplus, which is the fund we are going to deal with under Clause 30, remains to be decided, in effect, by the Treasury. On this general question of the Post Office Fund I hold that the relationship between this House and the Post Office should be that whereas this House lays down the broad lines of policy and the lines of finance, that within those broad lines the Post Office should have the fullest possible control. Further, I would like to see the accounts laid before this House in such a way that we may know clearly what is the contribution of the Post Office to the Exchequer—of what the contribution consists; what is due, let us say, to interest on Capttal; what is due to payments for work done; what is due to monopoly value, and so forth. We should know then what is the additional sum being taken from the Post Office, which really amounts to a form of indirect taxation on the Post Office users. If we leave that to the Treasury we have no guarantee that the accounts may not be varied from time to time, and that may alter the basis of this Post Office Fund.

The scheme as we have it before us is to get out what is the net surplus of the Post Office and lay down a definite sum above which the Treasury shall not be entitled to raid the funds of the Post Office, saying that all above that figure shall remain in the hands of the Postmaster-General. It is of vital importance to discuss in the next Clause not only what the actual datum line should be, but we should be quite clear as to how that datum line is going to be drawn. The suggestion in the Clause is that this whole matter is to be left in the hands of the Treasury. The duty of the Treasury is to look at everything from the rather narrow angle of an institution concerned with getting the greatest amount of revenue it can and keeping expenditure as low as possible. I am hoping that in these two Clauses we shall make a beginning in freeing the Post Office from this control, but that point may arise later. I want this House to lay down by Order what shall be the Post Office net surplus, and therefore it is proposed that the Order made by the Treasury under this Clause shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may he and not come into force until it has been approved by Resolution of this House. This is not the biggest point that arises on this Clause, but I think it is important that this House, and not the Treasury, should lay down the basis of the future finance of the Post Office.

7.44 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER

The point which my hon. Friend has raised is really rather a narrow one. It is a question of how these accounts shall be made out. He is familiar with the commercial accounts of the Treasury, which are in the form which has been approved by the Treasury. I presume that the accounts referred to in this Clause will be very much in the same form as the commercial accounts of the Post Office, with which we are all familiar. The point is only that they should be an accurate presentation of the amount by which the revenue of the Post Office, during the last preceding financial year, has exceeded the expenditure on account of the Post Office during that period. That is a matter which can very properly be left to an arrangement between the Postmaster-General and the Treasury. I do not believe that this House is competent to set itself up as a sort of auditor or chartered accountant to tell the Treasury in what exact form these accounts should be presented. It is a piece of technical work which lies within the provInce of any competent chartered accountant or actuary, and it must be dealt with on those principles.

I cannot visualise any useful discussion taking place on the Floor of this House as to the terms of the Order which the Treasury has to make, according to this Amendment. If there is any question—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman suggests that there would be any wangling, or false amounts being shown—it can be raised either on the salary of the Postmaster-General or on the salary of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The House has ample opportunities of raising any serious point in that way, in regard to what is a purely technical and a rather expert question of the exact form in which the accounts should be drawn. That is not a fit and proper subject for laying a Paper on the Table of the House, and for debating a Motion after eleven o'clock. We get a great many Motions after eleven o'clock. I think that that is a very useful form of procedure for many purposes, but that this is not the sort of purpose for which that procedure is best employed.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND

It is perhaps rather impertinent on my part to follow two ex-Postmasters-General. There was some variation between them as to whether the point raised was a wide or a narrow one. In my view, the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) raised a very important issue as to parliamentary control, and in Budget matters particularly it is necessary that we should keep an eye on that aspect of things. The point raised in one part of this Debate, that the Treasury should not be able to raid the Post Office, is met by the very Clauses which set up the Post Office Fund. It may be that the hon. Member for Limehouse is not satisfied with the amount which has been fixed as the annual sum which has to be paid over by the Post Office to the Treasury. But there is no raid here; there is a restriction. I was gratified to find that he was in agreement with the general proposal that the Post Office should have some definite control over its surplus fund.

I look at this question from the point of view which is raised by the hon. Gentleman in these Amendments, and I think it must have consideration, not only with regard to this proposal but with regard to subsequent proposals, in order that we may get a proper bEarlng on what the fund purposes to do. It is a proper question to ask whether the establishment of this fund takes it outside the purview of Parliamentary control, and it is a very important question. So far as I can judge, there is no intention of removing it from Parliamentary control, and again, so far as I can judge, the revenue will continue to be paid into the Exchequer, the expenses of the Post Office will continue to be voted annually by Parliament, and the annual Capttal expenditure will be reviewed or authorised by Parliament by periodical money bills, as and when occasion arises.

At first sight it may seem that that is not quite true in regard to this particular fund. May I give in three short sentences what this fund purports to do? In the first instance any money in the fund can be paid into the Exchequer in order to make good a deficiency in the fixed contribution to the Exchequer. That is provided in Clause 30 (5) and (6). There is no question there of any restrictions of Parliamentary control. In the second place, the fund can be used towards Capttal expenditure in the develop- ment of the postal, telegraph and telephone systems, authorised by any Post Office Act then in force. What is more, the setting up of this fund relieves the Post Office of the burden of paying interest which, in the absence of a fund of this kind, it would have to pay upon money borrowed from the National Debt Commissioners. No additional spending power to the Post Office is implied, and obviously there is no suggestion of Treasury restriction, but rather a greater degree of freedom to the Post Office, in the control of its affairs.

The third point is that the fund can be used in aid of current expenses of the Post Office by being appropriated in aid of the Post Office Vote. The Post Office is the subject of a Parliamentary Debate every year. Details are submitted and discussed, and it would therefore seem that the whole proceedings will come under Parliamentary control in a perfectly full way. The doubt that this fund has aroused is the same kind of doubt that was aroused in the days gone by when other funds of this character were created; for instance, the National Health Insurance Fund, the Widows' and Orphans' Fund, the Old Age Pension Fund, the Road Fund and one or two other funds of that kind that were, in the ordinary sense, outside Parliamentary control. Here, definitely and distinctly, Parliamentary control is in no sense infringed in regard to this fund. It is a fund which is overdue. The Post Office has rather suffered from not having paid sufficient regard to the establishment of a fund of this kind, which in the long run will not only be of great use, but will add materially to the development and advancement of the activities of the Post Office. I am satisfied that there is no relaxation of Parliamentary control over the fund.

7.54 p.m.

Sir ALFRED LAW

I do not agree with the insertion of the words "by order." Clause 2 (4) says: Any statement prepared under this Section shall, as soon as may be, be laid before Parliament. That seems to cover any objection that has been made in this Debate. I do not think that the Amendment should be pressed.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—

7.57 p.m.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood)

The Clause and the Amendments do not raise the question of Parliamentary control or Treasury control but deal with a very minor matter. The Clause simply makes provision as to the method and form of the statement which is to be prepared and fiNaily put before the House of Commons, and which is to be the means of ascertaining the Post Office net surplus. It provides that the ascertainment shall begin in the current financial year, that the Treasury shall determine the method of calculating the particular items, and that when that particular method of ascertaining them has been found, a definite statement shall be presented to the House of Commons. The Clause involves no more than that. If hon. Members are interested in looking at precedents, and of course there are a number of Acts of Parliament under which calculations have to be made in a particular form, there is a useful precedent in the Colonial Development Act, which I have before me. In it, hon. Members will find an almost similar provision that the Treasury is to make an account which has to be presented to the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) will be able to put his point of view much better, as he himself suggested, a little later upon another Amendment which he has upon the Paper. It will be impossible for the House of Commons to deal with the statement as one that is to be debated, because there is nothing to debate; it is simply a matter of presenting to the House of Commons a statement of the method by which the fund is to be ascertained. Obviously, the Treasury are the proper people to do it, and when the Treasury have done it, we make provision for them to report to the House of Commons under another Clause. The bigger question of Parliamentary control in which hon. Members are interested will no doubt arise on a later Amendment. In those circumstances, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not press this matter further.

Mr. ATTLEE

There is only one point. There is no indication that from year to year there should be any change in the basis. Would it be possible to bring in overhead Government charges so as to diminish the amount of the surplus?

Sir K. WOOD

No. This is purely an academic matter of putting certain items on the credit side and certain items on the debit side. The only matter to which I need call the attention of the Committee is that the sum which the Post Office receives for wireless licences is not included in this calculation, as obviously it is not a Post Office matter: that has to be admitted. There is nothing else in this, except the method which is used in the Post Office in calculating the amount which it receives for services to and from other Departments. Those are the calculations involved.

Mr. ATTLEE

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.