BUDGET OF THE COMMISSION. (Hansard, 9 April 1968)

Mr. Chanson
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)
With this new Clause the House can discuss Amendment No. 3, in Clause 2, page 3, line 18, leave out: 'with the approval of the Minister'; Amendment No. 7, in Clause 4, page 5, line 21, leave out ' approved by the Minister'; and Amendment 8, in line 27, leave out from beginning to the ' in line 28.

§ Mr. Channon
Those Amendments are consequential on the new Clause. It is vital to get some picture of how the Commission will emerge, what its budget will be, how much independence and initiative will remain with it, and in how many cases it will have to seek the approval of the Ministry for its projects. It is vital that the Commission, which will be a very important body, should have powers and status comparable with its new duties. We have discussed the question whether it should have more executive functions. The Government, with the approval of many hon. Members, did not wish to give the Commission any more executive powers than those provided for in the Bill.
1194 However, there is a case for dealing with the Commission's budget in the way suggested in the Clause. I hope that the Minister will either accept the Clause or give us an outline of how the Commission's budget will work. The Clause is an amalgam of two Sections, one in the Science and Technology Act, 1965, and the other in the Agriculture Act, 1967. It would ensure that the Commission would be given by the Minister certain moneys, as provided for in subsection (1), and the Minister would then give certain directions in accordance with which the Commission would act. The Commission would then have to bring forward a scheme which would have to be approved by both the Minister and the Treasury. Naturally, accounts would have to be kept, as provided by subsection (2), and there would be the usual financial control by the Comptroller and Auditor General. From time to time, no doubt, the Estimates Committee or, perhaps, the Public Accounts Committee, would keep an eye on the Countryside Commission.
9.15 p.m.
The Commission ought not to be so tightly controlled that it has no independent powers at all. I have put down the new Clause in the hope that we shall learn that it is to have a certain discretion in all these matters in relation to its direct expenditure. The Commission should not have to come to the Ministry every time to seek approval of small matters such as travelling expenses, minor questions of staff salaries, and so on. It will have to deal with a host of important problems in the future. It will have to deal with inquiries and research, it will have to deal with experimental projects, with grants and loans to nonpublic bodies, and it will have to provide a great many services for visitors. It is right that the Commission should do all those things within a scheme broadly approved by the Government but should not be required to come to the Government for specific approval of every small idea, although such approval might well be appropriate in major matters.
There ought not to be such strict Ministerial control as to thwart initiative. I have nothing against the Ministry of Housing, save that it is already overburdened with decisions. It has a vast number of planning decisions to deal 1195 with. In Southend, for example, the Minister has just issued his decision on the development plan review. It has taken him more than three years to do it. It would be wise for the Commission not to have to come for detailed control of every scheme to the Ministry of Housing. I accept that it would be an exaggeration to say that it would always have to wait three years, but it is not such an exaggeration as all that. The Ministry of Housing has an enormous amount of detailed planning and other work to do already.
The Clause would enable the Government to accept that, perhaps, the Commission knew better than the Minister of Housing in many respects. It would be likely to have better priorities, and in many cases a requirement for strict control over all its activities might well lead to wasteful and inefficient duplication of effort. I feel rather strongly about this. The Commission will have a great task to do, and it must measure up to it. It will measure up to its task and will work far more satisfactorily if it is a quasi-independent Commission not at the beck and call of the Ministry on every tiny decision.
I hope that the argument of administrative convenience will not be put against this proposal. I accept that some recasting of the estimates may be required if some such proposal is accepted, and this could cause certain amount of inconvenience to Ministers. But it would be outweighed by an improvement in efficiency and an enhancement of the status of the Commission. The House is anxious to get the Commission off the ground and see it make a good start. To this end, the Commission should not be burdened by day-to-day interference in its work but should be, as I say, quasi-independent, entrusted to carry on its day-to-day activities, working within a broad scheme laid down and approved by the Government.
I hope that the House will accept the purpose which I have outlined, and will look upon either the new Clause or something very like it with favour. The consequential Amendments which I have put down would merely remove at the appropriate points the requirement to obtain the Minister's approval.

§ Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields)
I welcome the intention behind the Clause, because it is desperately important that the new National Parks and Countryside Commission shall have real authority. One of the great weaknesses of the National Parks Commission has been that it has lacked that independence. It has had neither executive authority nor any real financial authority of its own, or so limited a financial authority as to be quite unreal.
I very much hope that the Clause will at least bring from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State a statement, such as has been requested. We are very anxious that as wide and independent powers as possible shall be given to the new Commission. I am not sure that the Clause would be workable as it stands, but we want something nearer to independence than the Nature Conservancy has been able to achieve. We want quite a considerable independence in its action such as has enabled the Natural Environment Research Council to go ahead under a clear plan over a period of years, whereas the National Parks Commission has never been able to do that. It has never been master in its own house in any proper sense.
I hope that the new Commission will have a wider executive authority. A small amount has been given, which I welcome, but I should like it to be even greater. One thing we can try to achieve is to give it a limited amount of financial independence so that it will have at least some powers to deal with its budget in its own way, leaving it a sense of choice which otherwise it might not have. If my hon. and learned Friend can help us from that point of view, we shall be very grateful.

§ Mr. MacDermot
Since I moved from the Treasury to a spending Department, I have begun to experience the smarting under Treasury control which my colleagues used to complain about. No one likes having to be controlled in his expenditure, but I am afraid that it is one of the facts of life that if one is to keep a coherent system of government, one needs a fairly strong system of financial control, for otherwise things get out of hand.
Bodies set up by the Government may be grant-aided or they may be bodies 1197 whose expenditure is carried on the Vote of their sponsoring Department. In the first category are bodies like the scientific research councils, such as the Medical Research Council, and in another field there is the Arts Council. They are bodies which are themselves bestowing munificence on others, which are making grants, and for which it is particularly desirable that there should be no question of Ministerial dictation as to the way in which the moneys should be distributed. That is the basic principle underlying those grant-aided bodies.
It would not be right to grant that degree of independence to the Countryside Commission, because it is so intimately bound up with the whole expenditure and the determination of priorities in expenditure, not only of Exchequer moneys but indirectly of local government moneys. I should say that the Commission's most important rôle in financial matters consists of its powers and duties in relation to Exchequer grants under Clause 29. In a sense we have put an unusual fetter on the Minister, because we have said that not only will he seek the Commission's advice as to which are the projects for which he should agree to give grant within a certain overall budget but that he shall not depart from that recommendation without consulting the Commission about his disagreement.
It is not merely that he has to give reasons, as it were, but he must discuss the matter further with the Commission. This is a recognition of what we intend to be the real influence which the Commission will have. We would regard it as an exceptional circumstance if, in matters of determining priorities of expenditure, the Minister should depart from the Commission's advice. I think that this is the big new factor and it makes a difference between the position of the present Commission and that of the new Commission.
As regards the Commission's own expenditure, we propose to follow the precedent of the National Parks Commission. It will be borne on the vote of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. This means that, like all branches of this Ministry and of others, when Estimates time comes, it will have to put up its own schemes and priorities for expenditure and that these will be presented through the Ministry to the 1198 Treasury, and will have to be agreed with the Treasury. Certainly, under each head of expenditure that seems right, we will do all we can to argue for and assist the Commission to attain the priorities it thinks right. But ultimately, of course, as in all Estimates matters, the final say rests with the Treasury. One cannot take every matter of dispute to the Cabinet. So, as a constitutional matter, this will be the position.
Otherwise, of course, as regards keeping accounts and reporting, etc., the new Commission will be obliged under Section 4 of the 1949 Act to make its annual report to the Minister, who must lay it before Parliament. That does not include the financial statement but, of course, the accounts of the Commission will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and subject to the control of the Public Accounts Committee in the ordinary way. For these reasons and because the Commission will be primarily advisory, I would advise the House that it is right that we should continue the system of control which exists for the present Commission.

§ Mr. Channon
I find the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer a little disappointing because I think that the Commission will have too much day-to-day control imposed upon its activities. I hoped that it might be possible to devise a system to enable it to have a little more independence than that envisaged by the Government. However, I accept that a step forward has been announced in Clause 29, and at this stage I should like to study what the Minister of State has said. If necessary, my noble Friends in another place may wish to pursue the point, which is of interest to those concerned.
At this stage, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.