PUBLIC BODIES (Hansard, 24 January 1978)

§ Mr. Gow
I beg to move Amendment No. 412, in page 31, leave out lines 25 and 26.
The clause gives to a Minister of the Crown power, by order, to make provision for imposing any limits in addition to or in substitution for existing limits on the 19 statutory bodies which are set out in Schedule 13. Subsection (4) provides: A statutory instrument made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. The provision for further parliamentary control of the limit of borrowing of these 19 bodies confers upon the House of Commons the least authority. It is the most cursory of all provisions.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled this amendment because we are deeply suspicious of a power which will enable Ministers, by order, to increase the borrowing powers of these 19 statutory bodies. We meet at a time when the control of Parliament over the Executive is passing from the House of Commons to the great advantage of the Government of the day. If ever there were a time when we needed to assert the supremacy of Parliament and to be vigilant about granting to Ministers power to increase, by order, the borrowing capacity of statutory bodies, it is now. The overriding need for the House of Commons to exercise increasing control over the Executive is demonstrated by subsection (2)(d) of Clause 66 because, without any explanation, the Government are seeking to confer upon themselves the power by order, subject only to annulment, to have an unlimited capacity to increase the borrowing powers of 19 statutory bodies.
There are three reasons why we believe that these powers are undesirable. The Government have said that they wish to control public expenditure. In the letter of 15th December 1976 from the Chancellor to Dr. Witteveen it was stated in the plainest terms that it was an objective of the Government to secure a 1324 substantial reduction in the share of the nation's resources for the public sector. Yet if Dr. Witteveen reads the reports of these debates he would expect the Minister warmly to applaud this amendment. Anyone who is anxious about the control of public expenditure should welcome this amendment. Even if a case could be made out for Government powers to increase the borrowing capacity of 19 public bodies the case certainly cannot be maintained for giving the Government power to increase these limits by order subject only to the annulment procedure.
There is another astonishing feature of Schedule 13. Many of the bodies listed in this schedule have no relationship to Scotland. We start off with the British Waterways Board. Why do we need to include in the Scotland Bill a power which will enable the Government by order to increase the ability to borrow off the British Waterways Board? Certainly, as the Bill is drafted, any increase in the borrowing capacity of the Waterways Board could be wholly unrelated to Scotland. I believe that this is a device, which has not been thought through by some of the profligate members of the Government, to give by way of the back door powers which are wholly unrelated to Scotland and devolution. Only the vigilance of my right hon. and hon. Friends has identified the mischief which could be done by Clause 66(2)(d). There is no mention in that clause of financial limits. Indeed, the clause is reverse of specific, and yet, what else can it mean if it does not mean that these 19 statutory bodies are to have power to increase their borrowing limits if the subsection is not to be meaningless?
If we move on we find that the Forestry Commissioners, the Housing Corporation and the Inland Waterboards Amenity Advisory Council are listed.

§ Mr. Fairbairn
Before my hon. Friend moves further down the list, we should stop at item 2, the Forestry Commissioners. The Forestry Commission, which is a United Kingdom authority, was devolved to Scotland on the sort of pressure for employment which one hears from many sides of the House. It is one of Lord Taylor of Gryfe's marvellous achievements as head of the Forestry Commission that its headquarters was 1325 moved to Scotland. Now there is to be the magnificent effect for Scotland that there will be two Forestry Commissions and that one of them will have to be moved back to England as part of the benefit of devolution.

§ Mr. Gow
I can only hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fair-bairn) will catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Murton, because I am sure that his argument needs developing at considerable length. It is only the outrage of the guillotine that will prevent my hon. and learned Friend from making a very long and cogent speech.
We have reached only the fifth of the statutory bodies which will have their borrowing requirement extended by order. I come to the Advisory Committee for Scotland. I believe that 18 out of the 19 bodies here could happily be dispensed with without material damage to the United Kingdom or Scotland. We have a great superfluity of councils, authorities, tribunals, colleges, gaming boards and the rest. All the best libertarian instincts of the Tory Party are offended by this galaxy of nonsense.
Let us just reflect upon the cost to public funds of providing headquarters for these boards, commissioners, corporations and councils, and let us reflect upon the number of unproductive, wealth-consuming civil servants who man them. Let us then measure the expenditure involved against the value to the community. Even under the existing arrangements there is a sorry imbalance between cost and true output or value.
However, that is not enough for the Labour Party. The Government say that even the amount which these 19 bodies are able to spend is not enough. They are inviting the Committee to enable any Minister of the Crown to come to the House and, through the negative resolution procedure, extend the borrowing powers of each of these 19 authorities. It would be possible even for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his new incarnation as protector of small businesses to do so, perhaps to the very great detriment of precisely that part of the nation's activity—small businesses—which has been so grievously wounded by this Administration in its attempt to 1326 give more money to bodies such as those in the Bill. Will the Minister of State say why the Civil Aviation Authority should be included in the Bill?
Let me say what pleasure it gives me to see the Lord Advocate occupying the Front Bench below the Gangway, a pleasure rivalled only by the pleasure it will give you, Mr. Murton, to see him there. I hope he will catch your eye and reply to the debate. I see that he has now been joined by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) whose constituency has a great interest in the aircraft industry. I should like the Lord Advocate to tell the Committee why the Civil Aviation Authority and the British Airports Authority should be included in the Scotland Bill, and why the borrowing powers of those authorities should be subject to increase by ministerial order. We are discussing devolution to Scotland. There is nothing in this clause to tell us even that the borrowing must relate to Scotland.
10.30 p.m.
It is a trick. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West has come into the Chamber, because it may have been a trick implanted in the Bill by the most profligate overspenders on the Government side.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I am no substitute for the Lord Advocate, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the problem is that the civil aviation experts have said that the result of the Bill will be a shambles for their expertise.

§ Mr. Gow
The hon. Gentleman—I almost called him my hon. Friend—adds to the weight of the argument. It is a patent absurdity to include a prospective increase in the borrowing powers of these bodies which have nothing to do with the Scotland Bill.

§ Mr. Fairbairn
My hon. Friend has raised an important point which the Minister should not overlook. I direct attention for a moment to the precise provisions of subsection (2). Let us assume that we give the British Airports Authority the right to spend another £1,000 million. The provisions which may be made in relation to that United Kingdom body are provisions enabling powers to be exercised 1327 we need not trouble at this stage with duties to be performed"— by a Scottish Secretary instead of by a Minister of the Crown. Thus, if the Westminster Government wished to get out of the embarrassment of spending a lot of money on building the Channel Tunnel or a new airport, or whatever it might be, all they would need to do would be to say "We shall give the money to the United Kingdom statutory body and put on a Scottish Secretary the responsibility to spend it".

§ Mr. Gow
The Committee will be grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that pertinent intervention.
I turn now to the next item on the list, the Council on Tribunals and its Scottish Committee. May we be told why it is necessary to confer power to impose in respect of that body limits in addition to or in substitution for existing limits"? We have been denied the guidance and assistance of the Lord Advocate. I think it right to put on record that the Committee has heard the Lord Advocate once only during the whole of our proceedings. I can only assume that he fails to address us on this occasion because it is beyond his comprehension how this clause and Schedule 13 got into the Bill at all.
We can all now heave a sigh of relief because into the Chamber has come the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. I do not wish to damage his brightening political career by paying tribute to him, but we all know that he is a very capable Minister. I was referring to his Department a moment ago. As the Lord Advocate has now left us and the hon. Gentleman has joined us, perhaps he can assist the Committee, and I shall address some brief remarks to him.
The British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority come under the Under-Secretary's Department's hand—

§ Mr. Raison
No, Trade.

§ Mr. Gow
That is the Department of Trade. Oh dear. What about water? That is Environment. I see. Well, we welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport although those matters are outside his responsibility.
Reading on down the list, we find that the Horserace Totalisator Board is to 1328 have its borrowing powers increased. Nor do we stop there. The same applies to the Housing Association Registration Advisory Committee. What is the budget for that body? Why is it necessary to increase its borrowing powers?
It is quite astonishing that these 19 entities should be presented to the Committee as being ripe for further borrowing powers.
I wish to deliver a short word of advice to the Government Front Bench about borrowing—particularly now that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport is present. I know that I have the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West with me in this matter. One of the evils that has fallen upon this country since 28th February 1974 is the way in which, in the view of the Labour Party, every problem that presents itself can be solved if only one borrows. Of course, the national debt has virtually doubled since the Labour Party last came to power. It is borrowing that is regarded by the Labour Party as the solution to all problems.

§ Mr. Ron Thomas (Bristol, North-West)
Does the hon. Member agree that the Opposition believe that every problem that we face can be solved by cutting public expenditure?

§ Mr. Gow
I do not subscribe to that view myself—not every problem. But certainly we shall not solve our problems by giving unlimited powers to the Executive and to Ministers—particularly when they are Labour Members—to increase without limit borrowing powers by order. It will need all the vigilance of my right hon. and hon. Friends—we shall not get much help from below the Gangway—if we are to prevent a massive increase in borrowing powers. The only way in which we can prevent it is by the negative procedure under subsection (4).
I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to address the Committee on this crucial amendment. We can look for no support from SNP Members. We have no support from the Liberal Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] There are present one or two representatives of the Tribune Group. They had a very interesting party meeting earlier today, but it would be out of order to go into that matter. The 1329 only source of vigilance is to be found among my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I want to summarise the reasons why the amendment is of such fundamental importance, and I do so in the presence of the Shadow Secretary of State.

§ Mrs. Winifred Ewing
The hon. Member has made a very witty and amusing speech. He has tried to ridicule, in a blanket fashion, the inclusion of the list of bodies. However, he should be a little wary of doing that in the spirit in which he did. The whole future of the Forestry Commissioners of Great Britain depends on land in Scotland, because in England no land is left for forestry development. Given the situation that the development of forestry will basically be in Scotland, on the millions of acres left in Scotland—give or take a little elsewhere—it is reasonable that the body responsible for such a massive expansion should be credited with some particular powers. Simply to blanket all these bodies in the list and to ridicule it in the way in which the hon. Member has done may be amusing to hear but is a little unworthy of the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Gow
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that the Forestry Commissioners do a very good job. I shall not argue about their worth. I was arguing against giving them power to borrow more money on the say-so of a Minister, subject only to our negative Statutory Instrument procedure.
There are three basic reasons why this part of the clause is objectionable and why we wish to leave out the lines with which the amendment deals. It is the House that should be able to control public expenditure, and to increase the power to borrow by order subject only to the negative procedure is a denial of the right of this place to control the executive.
Secondly, there are many items of expenditure which could be covered by these bodies which will all be south of the border. For this matter to be included in the Bill is an affront to its common sense and purpose.
Finally, we regard it as deeply offensive to include a provision to increase the 1330 borrowing capacity of 19 bodies when this is nothing to do with the legislation before the Committee.
I hope that the Minister will calm all our fears and endear himself to his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian and to me by accepting the amendment, which has been designed to carry the Government along the path plotted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the famous letter to Dr. Witteveen of 15th December 1976.

§ Mr. John Parker (Dagenham)
I should like to take up what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said about the Forestry Commission. He made an amusing speech, but forestry is not an amusing subject to the great mass of people who are interested in it, particularly in Scotland.
For once I agree with the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). Forestry is rightly centred in Scotland. Most of the land required for forestry is there and most of the work done by the Commission is there. The Commission has done a fine job over the years in bringing a great deal of this country into cultivation, helping to cut imports of timber. We want it to go on doing that job, and for that it needs to be able to borrow money and have funds made available to it to buy and plant land.
Among the strongest critics of devolving the Forestry Commission are the woodland owners of Scotland, who are helped by big grants from the United Kingdom Government. They fear that if the nationalists ever came to power in Scotland they would not be able to obtain the support that they have had in the past.
Two years after Scottish National Party Members first appeared in the House in any considerable number, I asked the Library what Questions about forestry they had tabled and what forestry issues they had raised in the House. They had not tabled one Question or initiated one debate on the subject in that whole period. When I made fun of them because of this, they poured forestry Questions on to the Order Paper, and it was only then that one SNP Member who is a former employee of the Forestry Commission took an interest here in the subject.

§ Mrs. Winifred Ewing
May I correct the record and say that I asked many Questions concerning forestry when I was in the House between 1967 and 1970. I did so again when I was elected in 1974. If the hon. Member looks at the record, he will find that to be the case. More seriously—because that was obviously not meant to be a serious point—although successive Governments of different political complexions have given the Forestry Commissioners powers of compulsory purchase, not a single acre has been acquired in this way. Can the hon. Gentleman explain this, bearing in mind how important this power is since there are 1 million acres producing a quarter of an ounce of grass per acre per year suitable for forward planting?

§ Mr. Parker
If the hon. Lady looks at Hansard, she will find that there was not one Question tabled by any Member of the SNP in the period I have referred to.
On the question of compulsory purchase, when Tom Williams was Minister of Agriculture, he introduced such powers to acquire land for forestry purposes but, because of the resistance encountered from many farmers, the powers were never exercised. Much land has been purchased by the Commissioners, but the rise [...] price has limited it in recent years.
Many of us interested in forestry are not satisfied with the scheme for devolution. While the Forestry Commission will carry out the will of the House, it is not happy and nor are those who own private woodlands in Scotland. I have found only one woodland owner in Scotland who supports the devolution policy on forestry.
While there is unity in the Forestry Commission at the top, the financial arrangements are split into three, with money allocated separately to England, Scotland and Wales. That means that the funds for Scotland's forestry work will depend upon the amount given by the Assembly. Upon that will depend the number of people employed in Scotland on forestry work. How can the Forestry Commission plan its programme properly if it does not know where the finance is coming from?

§ Mr. Fairbairn
The hon Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and I have been 1332 on forestry visits together. Under Schedule 10, forestry and afforestation is devolved under Group 15. We have heard that one of the benefits for Scotland has been that those who work in the Commission's headquarters were transferred to Scotland to create employment. If forestry in Scotland is devolved to the Assembly while forestry in England remains the responsibility of the British Government, the Forestry Commission—which has been devolved to Scotland to create employment in Edinburgh and because of the extent of forestry work there—will have to return to England since it will no longer have any relevance to Scotland.

§ Mr. Parker
That is not the case at all. The Commission will, rightly, remain in Edinburgh. It will run forestry for the whole of the United Kingdom from Edinburgh. The employees of the Commission will be appointed by the Government here but the running of the work in Scotland, the financing of Scottish planting, and the harvesting of the timber will be done at the expense of the Assembly. The finance will be divided in an unsatisfactory way between the different parts of the United Kingdom but the central organisation will remain in Scotland. How can the Commission work effectively if it does not know ahead where its money is coming from? The organisation should not be devolved. All the finance should come from the United Kingdom Parliament. Each part of the country would then know what moneys it had to spend as part of a national policy. [Interruption.] I am objecting to the financial split at the centre. Most of the people engaged in forestry in England, Scotland and Wales disagree with the whole policy of devolution. They do not want it.

§ Mr. Russell Fairgrieve (Aberdeenshire, West)
Will the hon. Gentleman agree that forestry in this country, devolved or undevolved, in Scotland or in England, compared with Europe and Scandinavia, whether public or private, has been a disgrace for the last half a century?

§ Mr. Parker
I fully agree that we have a far smaller area under plantations in this country than there is in any of the other important European countries. Ireland and Iceland are, I believe, the 1333 only exceptions. I am strongly in favour of a much bigger planting programme, certainly in Scotland, but also in parts of England and Wales.
The Scottish nationalists have complained in the past that some of the activities in Scotland were out on a limb as compared with those in England. There is a danger here that forestry in England and Wales might be out on a limb because it is centred in Scotland. I think that the Assembly, if it is to have these powers, should have authority to ensure that funds are made available for the Forestry Commission to carry out its activities and to assist private forestry in any way that is thought necessary in the years to come.

§ Mr. John Smith
I should like to answer—

§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)
On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Surely it would be right for one of my hon. Friends to speak next in this important debate.

The Chairman
The hon. Gentleman must not presume to instruct the Chair. The Chair must use its own discretion. If the Minister rises to reply to the debate, I shall call the Minister.

§ Mr. Fairbairn
On a point of order, Mr. Murton. How can the Minister reply to a debate before it has occurred?

§ Mr. Adley
Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) made his entire speech on the assumption that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was trying to devolve the Forestry Commission. The speech in no way related to the amendment. You did not, in your wisdom, Mr. Murton, see fit to intervene. As a result, those of us who wish to discuss some of the matters arising from the amendment are precluded from doing so.

The Chairman
These are not points of order.

§ Mr. John Smith
My purpose in seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Murton, was in order to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who moved the amendment. With respect to some hon. Members, I think it is the 1334 duty of the Minister to seek to catch your eye so that he may endeavour to answer the points made on the amendment which is under discussion. The discussion has been wide-ranging, and the mover is entitled to a comment on it from the Government before the House moves to a Division. I will seek to be brief, although the hon. Gentleman expanded himself a little in moving the amendment. If there is some complaint about lack of time for other matters, I fail to see why the responsibility for that should be laid at my door.
The hon. Gentleman moved the amendment on the basis that he felt that the House of Commons would lack control over financing. I understand that point, but the effect of the amendment, I believe, would be that orders made by United Kingdom Ministers would not be able to alter the borrowing limits for public bodies operating in devolved fields in Scotland. The ministerial power is in the Bill, and we take the view that the House of Commons should remain responsible for approving the major financial limits on developed expenditure, in particular the annual block funds, dealt with in Clause 46, and the amounts—[Interruption.] We believe that—

§ Mr. Jasper More (Ludlow)
On a point of order, Mr. Murton. The Minister's reply is totally inaudible.

§ Mr. Smith
I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I am sorry if I am inaudible. I shall try to be audible.
I was referring to other clauses where there is a general control by the House of Commons. I refer also to Clause 47 which relates to total levels of advances from the National Loans Fund to the Scottish Loans Fund for on-lending to State bodies such as the Housing Corporation and the British Waterways Board.
Under the amendment, Ministers would not be allowed to alter the financial limits. That would be unacceptable because it would prevent any change in arrangements for setting financial limits for individual public bodies, some of whose activities fall within devolved areas.
I remind the Committee of the general limits in other clauses. That is the effect of parliamentary control on the matter and it is not affected by the power of 1335 Ministers to make individual requirements.
I understand that some hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Murton. Therefore, that is my explanation of the Government's reaction to the amendment.

§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)
Before he sits down, will the Minister consider this point? An order can be made by the Scottish Secretary because under subsection (2) (a) a Minister of the Crown can give the Scottish Secretary power to make orders. How can they come before the House under any procedure in subsection (4)? The whole procedure is a shambles.

§ Mr. Smith
Parliamentary control is in general limits and not in individual matters.

§ Mr. Adley
Many of my hon. Friends will be disappointed that they cannot expand this matter further. I should like to ask the Minister whether I am wrong in assuming that Part V on page 29 of the Bill to which the amendments relate refers to matters other than merely financial matters? Part V is entitled: Devolved Matters and Determination of Questions Relating Thereto". You would tell me quickly, Mr. Murton, that I was out of order if I sought to discuss tourism. The Secretary of State for Scotland, on a previous amendment, sought to curtail debate on tourism and rate support grant, because, he said, we could discuss those matters under Clause 67. It is clear that in the next three minutes we shall not reach Clause 67.
I want to question the Minister on matters relevant to this amendment and referring to the Civil Aviation Authority. I refer back to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) in a previous debate.
Clause 38 was not discussed because of the guillotine but it relates to the power of revoking subordinate instruments. I am not wholly hostile to the general proposition of devolution. The Minister must realise that those of us who have tried to conduct this debate in a reasonable manner are being driven against the wall because we are finding we are not able to discuss seriously and briefly some matters which are relevant.
1336 That is a criticism of the guillotine and not necessarily of the principle of devolution. I ask the Minister when the Committee will be able to discuss the activities of the Civil Aviation Authority in relation to this Bill, particularly in relation to the powers in Clauses 37 and 38.
The Minister will be aware that the subject of air services—considering new ones or terminating current services—arouses strong feelings. If he cannot do it in reply to this debate, I hope he will take the opportunity to write to me and tell me what would happen in the by no means hypothetical situation illustrated in the last debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart. We could have a Conservative Scottish Assembly and a Labour Government at Westminster, and the Conservative Assembly might want to license, through the CAA or its Scottish counterpart, a new private enterprise airline in Scotland. What powers will he invoke to prevent the Assembly giving powers to establish a new private enterprise airline in Scotland?
Alternatively, let us suppose there were a Socialist Administration in Edinburgh and a Conservative one here at Westminster. How would they physically expect to get through.—