National Audit Office (Extension of Powers) (Hansard, 13 February 1991)

§ Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the powers of the National Audit Office so as to permit the Office, on an application by a national political party, to cost that party's election commitments. Last year my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) introduced a similar Bill. It was, rather curiously, spoken against but not opposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). However, he did us a service in that he reminded the House that the Opposition do not have available to them the advice necessary properly to cost their policies? I have listened to that plea, and that is why I am sure today that the Opposition will welcome the help that I am trying to bring to them through the Bill. Let me make it clear that the Bill is intended to help the Labour party.

The National Audit Office is described as Parliament's financial watchdog. It has an acknowledged political role and is not supposed to be impartial. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has said: To say that the NAO … should not get involved in politics is like saying the Church should not get involved in politics. If the NAO is to be the parliamentary watchdog, why should we restrict its work to the Government's policies. I want it to be a full watchdog and to scrutinise the Opposition's policies as well. If it found that some Labour policies were unaffordable, ill thought out, out of date or just plain daft, I am sure that the Labour party would be grateful. But if it could not bring itself to be grateful, I am sure that the electorate would be.

The NAO might care to examine the proposed payroll tax that would cost so many jobs. It might seek to examine renationalisation plans, the harmful effects of a national minimum wage or the repeal of trade union legislation which would bring back intimidation, secondary strikes and flying pickets. But the main question that the NAO should consider is the cost of Labour's programme.

I recognise that it is difficult to estimate the cost of Labour's programme. The Labour party has been not so much coy on the subject as mute. It may be that this afternoon the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will turn Queen's evidence and tell us the cost of Labour's programme; or he may be waiting for this Bill to give him the help he needs in order to cost Labour's programme so that he can then tell the House and the country how much it will cost.

What evidence do we have about what a Labour Government would cost? The document "Looking to the Future" has 81 uncosted spending pledges. UBS Phillips and Drew calculate the cost of that to be £19.5 billion, including the promises made in "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change". Professors Patrick Minford and Paul Ashton of Liverpool university, whom the Labour party might not think are the most unbiased assessors of its policies, calculate a similar price of £21.5 billion. Midland Montagu has gone for the jackpot. It says that Labour's policies would cost a maximum of £50 billion.

The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has being trying to restrain Labour party spokesmen, but she has been failing of late, and the promises keep on rolling. 857 The last Labour party conference made spending commitments totalling £36.46 billion. I recall three further pledges that I heard made in this Chamber. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) referred to no-fault compensation as an idea whose time has come."—[Official Report, 1 February 1991; Vol. 184, c. 1274.] The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said: We will increase the science budget."—[Official Report, 6 February 1991; Vol. 185, c.346.] When asked whether extra spending on training would be a priority, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said: The answer is obviously yes."—[Official Report, 6 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 295.] Those three commitments were made in the space of one week, so how much more would Labour spend if it were given a few months?

One can add to such statements the off-the-cuff comments made to encourage Labour supporters, and the fact that no Labour Member of Parliament makes a speech without promising a massive council house building programme, a large increase in school budgets, or a substantial improvement in housing revenue support. One recalls that, last year, Labour described £3 billion of revenue support as peanuts. You name it, Mr. Speaker, and Labour has promised to spend more of the taxpayers' money on it.

The worst feature is that Labour promises to fund its programme without raising the general level of taxation. Regardless of whose costings one takes, Labour's programme would sting every family and every wage earner, young and old alike. If the National Audit Office could find a way of funding such expenditure without increasing the basic rate of taxation, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to know about it.

858 I would like to come clean, because it might be that I am being unfair to Labour, and that its calls for higher public expenditure are just hot air designed to win votes. I will quote from an article that I found in a photocopier: Far from getting something out of the next Labour Government, it looks as though we can expect cuts … All previous Labour Governments … introduced some reforms. Very soon afterwards, they started to attack those reforms—starving them of money, introducing cuts in the social services generally, and imposing wage restraint. Those are not the minutes of the supper club, but come from an article in the Morning Star of 29 January. At least it knows what to expect from a Labour Government.

Either Labour's programme is a complete work of fiction, or by order a Labour Government would abolish the rules of arithmetic, or every family would pay a high price for Labour's rag-bag of dusted-off 1960s policies, topped up with Mussolini-style statism, and repackaged as being electorate-friendly and cheap to operate.

I know that Labour will welcome my Bill, and will look forward to the National Audit Office's recommendations. I am certain that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and the hon. Member for Derby, South will help me in drawing up the Bill's details. I look forward to working with them on a Bill that will do so much to help Labour and the electorate.