§ Mr. Nicholas EdwardsI beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 11, line 3, at end insert:
'Notwithstanding the general limit imposed by this subsection, the Agency shall not be authorised to spend more than £50 million on the exercise of their powers under section 1(3)(c) until a report has been submitted to Parliament on the record and achievements of the Agency in this regard and the report has been approved by both Houses of Parliament'A similar amendment to this was moved earlier this week during the debate on the Scottish Development Agency (No. 2) Bill. It imposes a limit on the expenditure that can be undertaken by the Agency in its commercial activities and gives Parliament the opportunity to examine the performance of the Agency in this field and the results it has achieved before authorising any further expenditure.We made clear at earlier stages of the Bill that we had a fundamental objection to the Agency being permitted to carry on industrial undertakings. The object of the Government in introducing this power is to save and create jobs, but we 818 believe that, in varied ways not least in its competition with other concerns in the private sector and its impact on confidence, the Agency could destroy jobs. The greatest destroyer of jobs and the prime cause of economic disaster, which will be the principal topic of the short debate which follows the Third Reading of this Bill, is the reckless increase which is taking place in public expenditure.
We sought in Committee to impose a general limitation on the expenditure of the Agency. Here we are seeking to put a specific restriction on a particular area of expenditure. The prime duty of a Government is to create conditions in which businesses can prosper and we should like to see a concentration on infrastructure and matters of this kind. There is a danger that resources will be misdirected.
It is hard to see the Government's objections to this amendment. The limit provided is very high—perhaps too high—and the Government say they are confident that enterprises established by the Agency will be a success, judged on a commercial basis. I cannot see why they should be afraid to report to the House before asking for more money, or why they should doubt that the House will grant more money. The amendment is 819 another attempt to make sure that we retain some measure of control over the executive, which has taken wide powers of direction, and the Agency. As the Government seem unable to control their own expenditure, the House should do it for them.
§ Mr. Barry JonesThe Agency's main financial limit is £100 million and this cannot be exceeded without the authority of the House of Commons, given in the form of an affirmative resolution. Since this is a financial matter, it is not appropriate that the House of Lords' authority should also be necessary. There is no time limit in the Bill on the Agency's expenditure, but before Parliament is called upon to approve a raising of the limit, we shall have before us several annual reports of the Agency including details of the exercise of its industrial enterprise function. I hope I can persuade the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) that it would be quite wrong to impose yet another restriction within that overall limit. I have to advise my hon. Friends to resist the amendment.
§ Mr. Nicholas EdwardsI should make clear that in normal circumstances we would have pressed this amendment, which we regard as important. However, on the previous amendment we established the importance we attach to financial control. We are working in very difficult circumstances and there is an important debate to follow. For that reason alone, I beg to ask leave to with draw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.