Clause 2.—(ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT.) (Hansard, 31 March 1950)

§ Mr. A. Edward Davies (Stoke-on-Trent, North)
This Clause, according to the Financial Memorandum, … simplifies and modernises the accounting enactments relating to the services of the Post Office. It refers to the trading accounts of the telephone and telegraph services. I take it that it has some concern with the manner in which the Post Office shall bring to the notice of the House or of the authorities its transactions during the year. I want to ask whether it deals also with the presenting of more coherent statements of accounts to the public—more intelligible telephone bills, for instance.
From my own experience, and from the experience of my friends, I know that it is a challenge to the imagination to undo the Chinese puzzle of a telephone account. I challenge any ordinary man receiving one of those accounts, especially for the first time, to understand what it is all about without making inquiry. I am not speaking of the general service which the Post Office renders. I have no complaints about that. I think the Post Office does an excellent job. However, I ask the Postmaster-General to tell us whether this matter is being looked into, so that our telephone accounts may be simpler and more intelligible.

§ Sir W. Darling
The right hon. Gentleman commented on my lack of financial capacity to appreciate the Financial Memorandum; but, believe me, Sir Charles, I am still anxious to learn anything I can in that field, if my knowledge is deficient. My curiosity is also provoked by Clause 2. If I may read out part of it, I shall, I hope, preserve the Rules of Order strictly and yet make a very surprising statement. What I shall read will surprise the Postmaster-General, too. No account or statement— Clause 2 says— …. shall be required to be prepared or audited. It is the City's prayer. Every City man would love to be in such a position and not be required to prepare or have audited accounts or statements. Is that, however, the position for a reckless, extravagant Postmaster-General—

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
Read on.

§ Sir W. Darling
The right hon. Gentleman asks me to read on. I am content to read as far as I have gone. What the Postmaster-General asks in solemn words is that he shall be free from the restraints and limitations put upon, for instance, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis) and me, and from which he and I have to suffer in our ordinary business. The right hon. Gentleman says that no account or statement shall be prepared or audited. What a gift. What was wrong with the former system of accounting and auditing? I have no doubt that it disclosed things that the Postmaster-General and his predecessors did not want the public to know. Like any other person financially embarrassed, he proposes to pull down a screen, to substitute another method of accounting, or otherwise to avoid it altogether. I get no information—at least, of an encouraging character—from the Financial Memorandum, which says, Clause 2 of the Bill simplifies and modernises the accounting …. of the Post Office. What lovely words. How many balance sheets could be improved in the interest of those who produce them if they could be simplified and modernised. I am not sure that these words do not contain something very subtle. What was wrong with the system of accountancy that so long prevailed in the Post Office? Is it in the public interest to change it? Is the change, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) wanted, going to give greater clarity in the accounts, and help the understanding of the public? That is what I want to know. Clause 2 gives me no encouragement to think so. On the contrary, something apparently is to be suppressed, something is to be concealed, something is not to be disclosed, and instead of accounts giving disclosure, we are apparently to have a system of "iron curtain" accounting. I think the Postmaster-General must explain this matter and explain it in detail, and I look forward to the ingenious way the explanation will be given.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
I think the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) has certainly maintained, if not enhanced, his reputation, for he has certainly given us great entertainment. I regret that his curiosity did not take him a little further down the Clause—but 740 there it is. He has shown us in this Committee—not for the first time in this Chamber—that he has his own way of dealing with problems that he wants to make obscure.
The position is simply that in 1939 the Public Accounts Committee gave attention to this problem. The Post Office used to provide its accounts for Parliament in three different ways. In some cases, parts were not audited at all by the Auditor-General. The Public Accounts Committee, having looked at this, in 1939, made a recommendation to the Government of the day that the accounts should now be brought into conformity with the general accounts that are placed before Parliament, and that they should be subject to the scrutiny of the Auditor-General, and be presented to Parliament in the usual form, so that they would be easily understood by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, and other hon. Members.
That is all there is to it. There is nothing more in it than that. The intention is that all Post Office accounts shall be audited by the Auditor-General and shall be reported to Parliament in common form. This Clause has been drafted in conjunction with the Treasury, the Auditor-General, and the Public Accounts Committee. In view of all these safeguards and scrutinies, I think that the hon. Gentleman can be pleased with what we are doing.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), I appreciate his point of view, and although it may, strictly speaking, be out of order to say so, I can give him the assurance that the annual report will be made available.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I want to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the helpful contributions that have been made in the course 741 of the Debates. I thought that we might have had the Bill sooner in view of the clamorous demand for the services which it provides. I am grateful, however, for the way in which the House has treated it, and I shall endeavour to try to redeem some of the promises which I have made.