CAPITAL SUMS (Hansard, 5 May 1983)

§ Mr. Macfarlane
I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 20, line 6, leave out clause 33.
This is another of the two or three not so much contentious as important aspects of the Bill. Clause 33, which would provide the commission with a capital endowment of £10 million, was added to the Bill in Committee against the Government's advice. The concept of providing a dowry in this way has great superficial attractions but it also runs directly counter to the basic concepts of parliamentary control of expenditure. This amendment therefore deletes the clause. The Government fully understand the widespread desire to ensure that the new commission gets sufficient funds to establish itself properly and to fulfil its important remit to make improvements in the presentation of monuments —including capital projects to provide or enhance visitor facilities. I not only understand but fully endorse that need.
Assurances have been given, both here and in another place, that the Government will provide the resources 487 necessary to set up the new commission properly, and that those setting up costs will not be allowed to diminish the resources available for programme expenditure on monuments and grants. I am happy to repeat those assurances now. The Government fully accept the need for the commission to be set up in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
I also fully accept that it is important to the success of the commission that adequate funds are provided to enable it to improve presentation and facilities at monuments, as well as preservation and grant work. However, the Government do not believe that that requires a formal and specific statutory endowment, that conflicts with the normal grant mechanism. There are many other important projects and programmes in the public sector where precisely similar arguments might apply. The required objectives are achieved by Parliament voting the necessary money in response to properly considered bids — an approach which this House has been most anxious to impress upon the Executive for many years. Giving the commission an endowment, would effectively exempt it from these well-tried and established procedures laid down by Parliament for the provision of funds. The Government see no justification for that.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund, which has been held up as an example of an endowed body, is not a genuine precedent here. The fund took over from an existing fund—the National Land Fund—and its work is different in concept from that of the new commission. The NHMF is not an executive body but a provider of capital sums and assistance to others. Hence the fund approach is appropriate and highly successful for the NHMF whereas it would not be appropriate for financing the day-to-day executive expenditure which the commission will incur.
The commission's initial task in improving the presentation of monuments to the public is to plan what it wishes to do, develop the necessary schemes and programmes, thinking through the justification for them —for we all expect public expenditure to be thoroughly planned and justified—and for the Government to seek from Parliament the necessary funds to put those plans into action. That is the right way to operate, and the Government undertake to provide, subject only to the overall requirements of public expenditure, the reasonable resources needed. There can be no guarantee that all bids will be met all the time, but the House would not wish any such guarantee to be given. However, so far as possible, the Government will provide the resources necessary for the commission to undertake the task that it has been established to perform in its programme and infrastructure. That is a firm assurance.
Given my assurances on the two issues covered by clause 33, the fact that there is nothing in the functions of the commission to warrant a capital dowry and the fact that clause 33 runs counter to the parliamentary control of expenditure, I hope that the House will agree that the clause should be removed from the Bill. I have given categorical assurances, and I hope that the House will consider what I have said.

§ Mr. Cormack
I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend the Minister, especially at this hour and on a Bill for which I have such wholehearted support, but we are now 488 debating the result of a new clause that I moved in Committee. It was accepted by the Committee but the Government now wish to delete it.
We must accept the realities of political life in the House or we would become a laughing stock outside it. It is obvious that we are debating the matter on a difficult day, but I do not complain about that. Government business managers must decide, when there is the possibility of a dissolution, that some Bills must be disposed of. We want this Bill on the statute book, so I do not complain about the fact that we are debating it on a day when most of our colleagues are involved with local government elections. However, during a recent Division, the Opposition were not even able to muster double figures. Again, I do not complain about that, but it would be futile, unsatisfactory and wrong to divide the House again this evening. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) will not divide the House, because the low figures would be misunderstood and misinterpreted by those who did not know the context of the Division.
It is a pity that my hon. Friend the Minister has moved an amendment to delete the new clause, because there is great merit in a capital sum. However, our debates have enabled him to place firmly on the record the Government's intention that the new body should be properly and adequately funded at all times. Without the debates in Committee, and without his reiteration from the Dispatch Box tonight, many people in the heritage world would have been a little worried lest the resources should not match the task. I hope and believe that they will. I accept the earnest and good intentions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister in that regard, and, although I am naturally sorry —there is a difference of opinion on this matter—that the capital sum will be deleted, I accept the position having regard to the parliamentary circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend can live up to the high standards that he has set himself by ensuring that the body is adequately funded and that the first sums voted to it meet the tasks that it must carry out.

§ Dr. David Clark
My first speech in today's debate followed that of the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), who talked about a learning curve. We have learnt much during our debates on the Bill, but the Government seem to have gone backwards. This is one example where they have forgotten the lesson that we taught them in Committee, and I regret that we shall not have the capital sum.
I do not follow the Minister's argument that there is no comparison with the National Heritage Memorial Fund. There is a direct comparison that will be made. I pay tribute to the National Heritage Memorial Fund, as did all hon. Members in Committee. It has done a splendid job and has caught the imagination of the public. It could do that because it had a capital sum. I am glad that because we defeated the Government in Committee we have forced them to give a categoric assurance tonight that money will be available for the commission to do its job. I welcome that.
However, we are still concerned, because we have noticed the change of status in the Countryside Commission. It has literaly stopped replying to letters. It does not reply to those who write to them. I could give the 489 Minister many examples. It is running out of steam and into the sand. I would hate that to happen to the new commission. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) tabled the amendment in Committee and so I bow, with regret, to his wishes. However, we shall watch the Government carefully to ensure that that categoric assurance is adhered to.