Financial Provisions (Hansard, 29 March 1979)

§ Mr. English

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 27, at end insert: 'provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorise anyone to contravene section 29(1) of the Act of 1973'. At this late hour, when there is other business to come, the House will not wish me to go into the details of this amendment. The hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) and I have been in correspondence with Sir Brian Young of the 662 Independent Broadcasting Authority. The hon. Lady will recall that during the previous debate I was distinctly critical of the fact that the Second Reading of this Bill took place one day before the accounts of the IBA were published. I regarded that, in the proper sense of the word, as opposed to the financial sense, as corruption on somebody's part. I do not accuse the IBA of determining the business of the House. That business was determined for other reasons and in other ways. But the fact that those accounts were nearly 12 months late is inefficient.

5.15 p.m.

Sir Brian Young tells me that this is inaccurate and unfair. It is not inaccurate, because there is tremendous inefficiency in any organisation the accounts of which are 12 months late. Great multinational companies, oil companies and conglomerates can produce their accounts, from all over the world, in three months.

I am told by the Home Secretary that the draft accounts of the IBA reached him on 6 December, so not all of the delay was caused by the broadcasting authority. Some part of the delay seems to have been on the part of the Home Office and I do not understand why that should be. The cause of the trouble is section 29(1) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973. The section seems to provide that the IBA should apply any surplus in specific funds, as directed by the Minister, now the Home Secretary with the approval of the Treasury after consultation with the Chairman or in his absence the Deputy Chairman of the Authority.… There is no provision in section 29 that everybody must await such a direction before the publication of accounts.

The Secretary of State has said that he will always consider it his duty to issue a direction. That is fine. We suggest that he does that on 1 April each year. Is the IBA's accounting system so poor that it does not know just before the end of the year whether it is going to have a surplus? The Secretary of State and his officials should discuss the matter with the [BA before the end of the financial year. That would mean that they need not spend their time after the year end discussing what is to happen to a surplus.

There is inefficiency. Apparently I was wrong to say that it is wholly the IBA's 663 fault. It is the fault both of the IBA and of the Home Office. May we have an assurance that this will not happen again and that within three months—a reasonable time by private industry standards—the IBA accounts will be published? Let Ministers and officials have their discussions, but we should not delay the public's knowledge of the Authority's financial proceedings.