Vote on Account 2001–02 (Hansard, 27 February 2001)

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms)
I beg to move,
That paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply on a day not later than 18th March as if the words '(aa) votes on account for the coming financial year;' were inserted after line 21. I have no doubt that we shall have an equally lively debate on this motion. Standing Order No. 55(2)(a) covers votes on account with questions to be put not later than 6 February. The purpose of the motion is to amend the Standing Order so that a vote on account resolution can be taken with the spring rather than the winter supplementary estimates.
The procedure is to meet the requirements of the House when it is necessary to take estimates at a different time than is normally allowed for in Standing Orders. This procedural change is part of the process of introducing resource accounting and budgeting to allow Parliament an additional three months to scrutinise 1999–2000 resource accounts before voting Supply for the first time, and to produce a more accurate reflection of Departments' needs for the early months of 2001–02 by basing the proportion on account for resources and cash on the anticipated provision for 2001–02 main estimates. I commend the motion to the House.

§ Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset)
We have no objection in principle to the change of date.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
Oh really!

§ Mr. Letwin
I speak for the official Opposition. I may represent forces unseen rather than those visible in the House.
We have no objection in principle to the alteration of the date, which was prefigured in either 1997 or 1998 and is a necessary consequence of resource budgeting. As the Financial Secretary is well aware, resource budgeting commands the support of and was originated by the Conservative party. While we are at it, resource budgeting is a matter of consensus between all parties, which is not something that recommends itself to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

§ Mr. Forth
My hon. Friend says that the alteration was prefigured in 1997 or 1998. Can he guess, imagine or speculate as to why such an important change to Standing Orders is being considered by the House now?

§ Mr. Letwin
No, I cannot. My right hon. Friend makes the good point that it would undoubtedly have been better had the House had time to consider the issue. Indeed, we could have had upwards of two years to do so. Although it is remarkable that we have been given only a few days, I would not wish to oppose the substance of the change of date.
I reiterate two points that emerged during proceedings on the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and which, alas, do not seem to be reflected in the documents that underlie the debate. First, the Supply estimates for 855 2000–01 remain wholly obscure to any ordinary intellect and it is impossible for any ordinary Member of the House to discern from them what on earth is going on. It was presumably Gladstone's intention when he devised the system that it should illuminate rather than obscure the nature of Government accounts. It has remained the case, however, that the presentation of those accounts obscures rather than illuminates. To put it mildly, that is regrettable.
It will take time to change the system under which we have all laboured for some years. Although I do not accuse the Government of having invented it, no Member of the House has the slightest idea of what is voted for what and why or the size of any increase, and the Select Committees that inspect those matters do so in a manner that unfortunately leaves much to be desired.

§ Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton)
Shameful.

§ Mr. Letwin
This is not a party matter and, as the hon. Gentleman says from the Liberal Benches, it is ultimately shameful that we all sit here, year after year, voting on account and, ultimately, voting on the estimates themselves without having the slightest idea of what we are collectively doing.

§ Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks)
As an extraordinary intellect, perhaps my hon. Friend can explain why he supports changing 6 February to 18 March in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 55? Why is such a change suddenly wholly defensible? Can he explain the significance of the extra 40 days?

§ Mr. Letwin
Yes, I think I can, although I cannot explain the substance of the Supply estimates, which is a more serious problem. My hon. Friend is a member of the Treasury Committee and I suspect that he cannot explain that to me, either. The 40 days, the Financial Secretary will agree, are occasioned by the fact that the timetable set for resource accounting some years ago envisaged a termination date approximately 40 days later than that used in cash accounting. I believe that that will occur only in the first year of resource accounting, although I am subject to correction.
As we began the practice of resource accounting and have supported it throughout, and as it is material to implementing certain of our most important policies—for example, restructuring the approach to pensions—we want to give a fair wind to whatever needs to be done to make resource accounting work.

§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
My hon. Friend said that most Members do not have the slightest idea of what Ministers intend. Does he think that the Minister whom he faces this evening is acting knowingly or from a position of nescience?

§ Mr. Letwin
If I may, I shall correct my hon. Friend, who is normally punctilious in his accuracy. I did not say that I thought that very few Members knew what was going on. I said that no Member did, and I meant that. I do not believe that there is any living Member of the 856 House of Commons—indeed, there has probably been no living Member for a long while—who has, or had, the slightest idea of what is really going on in the supplementary estimates.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is probably one of the most intelligent members of the Government, and I do not mean that ironically.

§ Mr. Forth
It wo uld not be difficult.

§ Mr. Letwin
I shall let my right hon. Friend's comment pass in silence.
I suspect that, despite having the advantage of—if I remember correctly—some 2,000 of the most intelligent officials in Whitehall behind him, the Financial Secretary also has not the slightest idea of what is in the estimates, because no living human being could understand them. They were not invented to be understood; they were invented as an art form. There is a serious administrative problem here, which is not being faced.
Before I end what I had intended to be a rather briefer speech, let me mention another problem, which I think could be cured much more quickly.

§ Mr. Fallon
Before my hon. Friend deals with that problem, may I point out that some Back Benchers try to keep up with policy that is made on the Front Bench? Obviously, it involves us from time to time.
My hon. Friend seemed to say that he supported this change because it was a one-off. I see no reference to that in any of the four estimates already presented for the next year in the Vote Off ice. Is my hon. Friend saying that he supports this change resource accounting just for the coming financial year, as a one-off change, and does not support a permanent, change in the Standing Order?
Let us be clear. We are not being asked to change a Sessional Order; we are being asked to change a Standing Order, which is a serious matter.

§ Mr. Letwin
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I understand—although I am subject to correction by the Financial Secretary—that in either 1997 or 1998, when the matter was first raised, it was intended that the change of date should apply to the first year's preparation because of the delay entailed in the original programme for resource accounting I believe it is intended that thereafter resource accounts should be produced according to the timetable that previously applied to cash accounts, which would permit—and I suppose, therefore necessitate—a reversion of the Standing Orders to their original form after the event.

§ Mr. Edward Davey
I think I can elucidate. The Financial Secretary may wish to intervene, but the Order Paper specifically refers to a "Vote on Account 2001–02". I understood that to mean that the change in the Standing Order would apply only to that vote.

§ Mr. Letwin
That is what I, too, understand the effect to be—the Standing Orders will subsequently revert to their original form.

§ Mr. Fallon
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It might be helpful if the Chair clarified one point. The phrase to which both my hon. Friend and the 857 hon. Member for Kingston and Subbiton (Mr. Davey) have referred—the title of the motion, "Vote on Account 2001–02"—does not feature in the motion. The motion simply translates the words "votes on account for the coming financial year"—and, once we have changed the Standing Orders, that will apply to any financial year—from Standing Order No. 55(2) to Standing Order No. 55(3), thus allowing for the extra 40 days.
As far as I can see, nothing in the motion specifically relates it to the year 2001–02. I should be grateful if you, Madam Deputy Speaker, could clarify whether we are changing the Standing Orders simply for the accounts in the coming year, or whether we are doing it for every financial year, as the current Standing Orders suggest.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal)
We are merely changing the Standing Orders

§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your understanding—which is also mine, from my reading of the Order Paper—seems to contradict what the Minister indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), from a sedentary position. The Minister indicated that, as far as he was concerned, this was a change to the Standing Order only in respect of the accounts for the financial year 2001–02. It might assist the House if the Minister told us whether your understanding and mine, Madam Deputy Speaker, is incorrect.

§ Mr. Timms
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I help the House by making the position a little clearer? The intention is that the change will apply to this year only. The vote on account, which would normally be based on a proportion—45 per cent.—of the current year's figures, cannot be so based this year because there is no set of resource accounts to use. Therefore, exceptionally, the 45 pet cent. proportion is based on the projection of spending next year. Therefore, the measure needs to be used only once. When we get to the winter accounts next year, we will be—

§ Mr. Fallon
Further to that poir t of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order The Minister was replying to a point of order. I would prefer him to conclude his remarks before taking a further point of order from the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Timms
Next year, it will be possible to construct the vote on account in the normal way. It will then be taken with the winter estimates, as has always been the practice.

§ Mr. Fallon
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister's explanation is absolutely correct and assists the House. However, the motion cannot be right because it amends our Standing Orders, not a Sessional Order. The changes apply permanently. Standing Orders are not changed from Session to Session and will incorporate the words votes on account for the coming financial year". That will apply for every coming fin mcial year. If it is a one-off motion—I think that the Minister has made it clear that it is—the title of the motion should have been 858 incorporated in the motion. I therefore ask you whether it would be possible to defer the matter until the Financial Secretary has reworded the motion and cleared the matter up.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
The matter cannot be deferred. Those are matters for debate.

§ Mr. Forth
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely if the Minister's intention were to be reflected in the motion, it should have said, at the very least, "on a day not later than 18 March 2001", to put it beyond doubt that it was a one-off and time limited. What the Minister has stated as his and the Government's intention is not reflected in the motion. That obviously causes the House some confusion. Are we to believe the Minister' s explanation, or the words on which we will be asked to vote? That is what we need your guidance on.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
The points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised are not points of order, but matters for debate.

§ Mr. Gerald Howarth
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It seems that you understood, and I and my hon. Friends understand, that the motion is to change Standing Orders.

§ Mr. Fallon
For any year.

§ Mr. Howarth
For any year. If the Minister's intention is that the motion should apply only to the accounts relating to the coming year, it will be necessary, once those are disposed of at some later date, for the House to be invited again to change the Standing Orders. Therefore, it seems to us that the motion, in the terms in which the Government have moved it, is defective.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
The motion that we are discussing is as on the Order Paper. Whatever the interpretations or implications of that are, they are a matter for debate.

§ Mr. Bercow
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but the position is now gloriously unclear and hon. Members will, I think, require clarification. If the practice that is proposed this year to embody the Government's intention is to be discontinued in a future year, will a motion of revocation be required—yes or no?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
I have already dealt with the point of order.

§ Mr. Bercow
No, you have not.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have given a ruling on the point of order. The motion that we are debating is as stated on the Order Paper. The other points that have been made are matters for debate

§ Mr. Letwin
I come back to the Dispatch Box a humbler and a wiser man. I think that it is clear that the debate—which was not a debate but rather a series of 859 points of order—has brought out an important point that is a point of debate: that although the intent of the change is entirely innocuous, it is so drafted that it will necessitate, as I first speculated, a further change at a later date to achieve the intent. I take it that, later in the debate, we shall receive an assurance from the Minister that the change in relation to the following year will be forthcoming on a subsequent occasion. If so, I can return, but wiser, to the proposition that, in principle, we have no objection to what the Government are seeking to achieve.

§ Mr. Fallon
Madam Deputy Speaker has surely ruled absolutely correctly. The Minister is trying to change the Standing Orders and has tabled a motion so to change them. However, as a consequence of Madam Deputy Speaker's ruling, he has made it clear that he will have to change the Standing Orders again. I submit to my hon. Friend that that is an abuse of Standing Orders. The purpose of Standing Orders is to be standing—they should govern our conduct Session after Session. The Minister has said that he is changing a Standing Order but will have to have to change it again for the next financial year. Therefore, he should not be pursuing this particular procedure today.

§ Mr. Letwin
I agree with my hon. Friend that, now that the debate which was not a debate has revealed that the motion is less well worded than it should have been, it would have been better if the Minister had arranged for it to be properly worded initially.

§ Mr. Timms
The procedure that we are following is an entirely normal one. As I understand it, a subsequent change will be needed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the intent of the motion. However, to achieve that intent, we have had to proceed as we have. There is no other way of achieving that intention.

§ Mr. Letwin
I am learning more and more, but, unfortunately, I am learning conflictingly from my hon. Friends and from the Minister. I know not whether this is the ordinary way of proceeding. Regardless, as we are agreed that the intent is reasonable, I shall rest there for a moment.
860 I should like, however, to draw attention to what is not in the right order at all—the matter of how we are to reconcile the colum, ns in the vote on account that are to be the subject of the vote to which the change in Standing Orders refers. In our consideration of the Government Resources and Accounts Act, we very carefully and—I am sure that the Financial Secretary would agree—at inordinate length spelled out the dangers and difficulties of operating simultaneously a cash and resource accounting system. We made it completely clear, and abundantly clear to the Financial Secretary, that, to enable any sensible discussion of those votes on account to occur, it would be necessary for the House to be able to reconcile the cash figures with the resource accounting figures.
Even a cursory inspection of the figures in the columns will show that, as is not unexpected, the cash requirement is in many cases si gnificantly in excess of the resource accounting figure. The difference between those figures will lie, presumably, in that part of expenditure that is investment and which is not therefore a loss, in profit and loss terms, and so does not enter into the resource accounting figures. That is understood.
However, there is an oddity. In principle, in a steady state, the cash expended in one year as investment should replace depreciation from a previous year. It is of the utmost importance that we are able to understand the relationship between the excess cash going into investment and the depreciation in the resource accounting figures. Otherwise, we will not know what is happening to capital expenditure and its relationship with the assets being depreciated.
That is a severe, and odd, deficiency. I have not checked Hansard, but I seem to recall that we were given assurances during the passage of the Government Resources and Accounts Act that the problem would not arise and that reconoiliations would be shown. I hope that the Financial Secretary will ask his officials, at a more opportune time of day, to provide reconciliations. In that way, when the accounts come up for voting, we will at least be able to understand the broad headings and their reconciliation one with another.
As I said earlier, no one in the House will understand anything about the supply estimates. That is a much greater problem but one that can be remedied over time, as we develop a system of accountability that enables the House of Commons to hold the Government to account in a knowledgeable and pellucid way, rather than in a form that is opaque and lacking in knowledge.

§ Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)
I apologise to the House that I was not present at the start of the debate, but I have been watching it in my office. I hastened here before retiring to make a considerable point.
If the Government intend that the provision should apply only for the limited period of this year, they should introduce a Sessional Order, which will fall. They have introduced an alteration to Standing Orders which they will have to change again. Can anyone imagine anything more crazy than that?

§ Mr. Letwin
I have moved from ignorance, through a wiser state of confusion, and now the clouds have parted and I emerge into the light. My right hon. Friend knows more about the House's procedures than almost any other living person. He has explained for the first time how the Government should have acted. I hope that the Minister will take due account of that preferable way of achieving his intention.

§ Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton)
We have heard some fairly poor arguments in the debate, and especially in respect of the motion. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that Standing Orders cannot contain temporary provisions, and that Standing Orders relating to financial matters cannot be changed by Sessional Orders.
If Standing Order No. 55 were not amended in the way proposed, the House would not be able to receive votes on account for the coming financial year based on resource accounting. The arguments that have been advanced tonight therefore fall at their first examination. We should put aside what we have heard so far, and address the substance of the motion.
Like the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), Liberal Democrat Members have nothing against the proposal. The proposed timing charge is exactly right, and the proposal has not been foisted suddenly on the House. I was a member of the Select Committee on Procedure that considered the issue We published the second report, HC 438, for the 1997–98 Session. All these issues, particularly the need to have resource-based accounts for 2000–01 in the spring, were foreshadowed in Treasury memorandums to the Select Committee inquiry and were reported on by the Committee.
The Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, in evidence to the Select Committee, referred to that change, as did the chief officer for accountancy, Professor Andrew Likierman. Therefore, nothing should come as a surprise to right hon. and hon. Members if they have followed the process carefully.
I am concerned about two issues at the heart of the argument and what lies behind it. The first is how the House changes its Standing Orders. The Government propose changes to Standing Orders. Although that has been the case for a number of decades it did not used to be. The Chair used to propose changes to Standing Orders until, in the 1920s or 1930s, the Government took over that power. I believe that it was a major constitutional change that slid by the House. We should revert—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)
Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman there. This is not an occasion for a wide-ranging debate on how Standing Orders work. It is a very narrow motion and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members who were thinking of contributing would confine their remarks precisely to the motion before the House.

§ Mr. Davey
Of course I will do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely seeking to argue that the process of changing the Standing Orders that is before us is not a good one. I think that I have made that point.
My other concern is that the reason for this change that was foreshadowed in the Procedure Committee report has not been met. Paragraph 30 of the report shows that the Treasury said, and the Committee accepted it, that the reason for this specific change was that Since parliamentary approval for the Vote on Account would not then be sought until March 2001, that would allow Parliament an additional three months to scrutinise the first set of published Resource Accounts"—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) says from a sedentary position that the Financial Secretary has already said that. He did not say that in specific terms—he gave a separate excuse for that point. I am going back to the reason that was given to the Select Committee—the real reason. As I was saying, paragraph 30 of the report says:
Since parliamentary approval for the Vote on Account would not then be sought until March 2001, that would allow Parliament an additional three months to scrutinise the first set of published Resource Accounts before voting Supply on a resource basis for the first time. I took the liberty earlier this evening to talk to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I asked him whether, to his knowledge, either his Committee or a Select Committee had scrutinised the first set of resource accounts.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman again that the motion is to do with a simple change to a date in a Standing Order. That is all. I would be grateful if he would confine his remarks to that.

§ Mr. Davey
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am doing that. I wish to explain myself. The quote to which I referred was about that change. I am concerned that the reason that was originally given to the Select Committee for the change has not been met.
I am concerned that the House and Select Committees have not scrutinised the first set of published resource accounts—the reason we were given for the need for delay. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury might argue that that is the fault of Select Committees. That may be so, but why have they failed to take those measures? I have raised the matter previously in debates on the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. If I went into the reasons for what has happened, I should be out of order, so I will not take that route—

Hon. Members
Go on!

§ Mr. Letwin
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the idea that such scrutiny could be conducted effectively between now and 18 March is ludicrous?

§ Mr. Davey
I concur with the hon. Gentleman on that point. Indeed, I agreed with what he said during his opening remarks—that the accounts and estimates produced on the resource basis are not as clear as we were promised in the Standing Committee on the legislation that foreshadowed this proposed change in the Standing Orders.
The House spends much time debating such matters as Standing Orders and procedures, but spends little time on the substance—the cash and resources that we are sent to this place to scrutinise. That is a major problem—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is again wandering off the subject. I should be grateful if he would now conclude.

§ Mr. Davey
I have done so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the motion presents the House with a difficulty that your predecessor in the Chair this evening was able to clear up. Madam Deputy Speaker reminded the House that we can debate only the specific motion before us.
We are in a difficulty for two reasons, however. The title of the motion, which is not of course part of the motion, is "Vote on Account 2001–02". Madam Deputy Speaker ruled and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury clarified that the alteration of the Standing Order cannot possibly apply simply to the vote on account 2001–02, because we are altering a—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. May I make it plain to the hon. Gentleman that, this evening, we are simply changing a Standing Order in the way set out?

§ Mr. Fallon
I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that was the purpose of some of the earlier points of order. I was drawing the attention of the House to the title of the motion—"Vote on Account 2001–02". As Madam Deputy Speaker implied, something is wrong; if we are changing a Standing Order, it cannot be related to a vote on account for a particular year.

§ Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might help the House if we try to clarify the exact status of the rubric—the title of the motion. Surely, the title "Vote on Account 2001–02" is an error. That indicates the Government's intention, which is that the vote is for this year, but the title should simply read "Vote on Account". If the motion were to go to a deferred Division—as is possible—might the offending figures, "2001-02", have been removed by the time the voting paper appears? I believe those figures to be an error.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. That title "Vote on Account 2001–02" is not 864 an error. If he reads the Standing Order that is being changed, he will see that it refers to the "coming financial year".

§ Mr. Fallon
The House is in some difficulty. The present Standing order refers to the "coming financial year", but the provision for votes on account for the coming financial year is being translated from the paragraph applying to 6 February to the paragraph applying to 18 March. By changing the Standing Orders, that will apply to every subsequent financial year. Am I not correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say that the change in Standing Orders will apply to every subsequent financial year?
Perhaps that change has to be classified in House of Commons business as a vote on account for 2001–02, but shortly before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister conceded that he will have to change the Standing Order again for the future year, so something else is wrong. Of course the date of 18 March should only apply to the current year. The motion should state 18 March 2001, because the Minister has already made it clear that he will have to change it for the future year.
I hope that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that something is wrong; either the rubric is slightly misleading, or the date is incomplete, because the Minister has conceded that he is changing a Standing Order, but only on a temporary basis, and that he will return to the House to change it again the following year.

§ Mr. Bercow
The possibility of 18 March being a Sunday obviously needs to be adequately addressed.

§ Mr. Deputy Spe aker
Order. That intervention is irrelevant.

§ Mr. Fallon
I had not considered the possibility of 18 March occurring on a Sunday.

§ Mr. Bercow
rose—

§ Mr. Fallon
I shall, of course, give way if my hon. Friend wants to make a separate point.

§ Mr. Bercow
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I was making only the first of two points, and I know that he will be attentive to that fact. Does he not agree that to be told, in effect, that changing the Standing Order involves changing the Standing Order is not only a tautology, but about as useful as Heidegger's "nothing noths"? Does he agree that we need to know—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must be very careful if he is attempting to criticise the Chair in any way. It is very ill-advised.

§ Mr. Fallon
I shall not pursue the phrasing of the motion any longer; I simply leave the House with my suggestion that it would have been better entitled, "Alteration to Standing Orders", rather than, "Vote and 865 Account 2001–02", and that it might have been more complete if it had included reference to the year after the date in line 2, but I shall not pursue that matter any more.
We have some further difficulties, given what the Minister has said. I now fully understand, although there is no reference to this in the motion, that the change is intended to accommodate the greater change to resource accounting and budgeting. The Minister has not quite explained that to me, and I am further baffled by the reference made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) to three months because I understand that the change involves approximatetly 40 days. I do not understand how it somehow allows the House or its Committees a further three months for scrutiny.

§ Mr. Edward Davey
Under Standing Order No. 55(2), which relates to a date in February—

§ Mr. Timms
It refers to 6 February.

§ Mr. Davey
I am grateful to the Minister for that comment. Under Standing Order No. 55(2), votes on account were traditionally put before the House in November. That is why the change was suggested, and why it would allow an extra three months to scrutinise the resource accounts, but that has not taken place.

§ Mr. Fallon
I hesitate to correct my hon. colleague on the Select Committee on the Treasury, but, in effect, the Minister is, as I think I have now said four times, translating the provisions of paragraph (2) to paragraph (3); he is changing the date from 6 February to 18 March, which allows an additional 40 days. Of course the House allows an additional 40 days under Standing Order No. 55(3) in certain circumstances—for votes that relate to defence services, and there may well be good reasons for that; for supplementary estimates and equally I can understand why there may well be good reasons for that; and for excess votes, but only provided that they have been scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee. In other words, the additional 40 days are allowed and provided for under our Standing Orders, but that is subject to certain safeguards and they are allowed only for a certain category of votes.
In proposing the change, the Financial Secretary is, in effect, classifying all estimates for the subsequent financial year under the category covered by Standing Order No. 55(3). All those estimates will fall under what was previously screened off for three particular categories alone. The change deserves a greater explanation than he has given us tonight.
The Financial Secretary should have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)— perhaps he will when he responds to the debate—why the change is being made so long after the move to resource and account budgeting was first traded. He has had a number of years in which to make the change to the Standing Order, and I am slightly puzzled why he is doing it this year.

§ Mr. Davey
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Fallon
Yes, but I hope that this intervention will be a little more fruitful than the previous one.

§ Mr. Davey
I shall not rise to that bait. The change could not be made earlier because the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 had to become law before it could be made. Until that happened, this change to Standing Orders could not be put before the House.

§ Mr. Fallon
I am not particularly satisfied by that explanation, either. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 has been law for some time.

§ Mr. Davey
This is a new Session.

§ Mr. Fallon
The hon. Gentleman says that it is a new Session but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) reminded us, we are not dealing with Sessional Orders. We are dealing with the Standing Orders of the House, and they are not produced or revised every Session at the whim and convenience of the Government. Any change to them is a very serious matter. These Standing Orders were reprinted a month ago, so I am puzzled as to why we are now being asked suddenly to amend them. Why did the Financial Secretary not introduce the change a little earlier in the Session so that we would not now be rushed into making the change after the period beginning in February had already begun?
Once the Act to which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton referred had become law, the Financial Secretary could have come to the House to make the change. He is making it at a very late stage in the proceedings and, in the normal course of events, the estimates that he is trying to translate from Standing Order No. 55(2) to 55(3) would be presented in the next couple of weeks in any event. He could and should have made the change very much earlier in this Session.

§ Mr. Forth
Is my hon. Friend aware that, between now and March 18—which is a Sunday by the way—only 12 parliamentary days are available. Of them, a number will be taken up by the Budget and the Budget debate. Is he not rather worried by that fact?

§ Mr. Fallon
I am concerned about that. My right hon. Friend has anticipated my remarks, because I was about to refer to the votes that are currently available in the Vote Office. At the moment, only four have been presented and they are all dated February. The first is for £120 million and is for the central Government supply estimates. The second is a vote for £212 million, which is the vote on account for the House and its running costs. The third—the vote on account for the National Audit Office—is for £46 million. The final vote is the supply estimate for the Electoral Commission, which is £4 million. Only four documents are before the House. My right hon. Friend may well want to explore when the remaining documents will be presented and how we will have sufficient time to conclude our deliberations on them before 18 March because, as the Leader of the House has indicated, there is substantial business to discuss before then.
867 As for what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was struggling to say, the purpose of the Standing Order, as I understand it, is to ensure that everyone—including the PAC and the departmental Select Committees—has sufficient time before the beginning of the financial year to subject the estimates to reasonable parliamentary scrutiny. However, if we classify them as matters that do not have to be considered before 6 February, we will weaken the scrutiny of the departmental Select Committees and the control of the PAC.

§ Mr. Davey
The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. The Treasury and the Procedure Committee decided that we needed three months to consider the first set of resource accounts so that the House would have some knowledge of how they were used and of their structure. As a result, we could then scrutinise the estimates that would be covered by the Standing Order. It is the accounts that are relevant, not the estimates.

§ Mr. Fallon
The motion refers to the estimates, not the accounts. We are not dealing with them.

§ Mr. Davey
The Standing Order was changed to enable departmental Select Committees to get used to the new system by studying the first set of resource accounts. That is what the Procedure Committee was told and it is what Her Majesty's Treasury set out in memorandum to justify the change.

§ Mr. Fallon
I hope that the hon. Gentleman has studied the motion. It refers to the voting of estimates, not of accounts. We are discussing the estimates and asking for the departmental Select Committees and the PAC to be given time to consider them. We have been subjected to a confused procedure. The Financial Secretary has been caught out trying to amend a Standing Order on a temporary and sessional basis. He has been honest enough to concede that he will return to the House—presumably next November or December—to amend the order again so that it does not apply to 2002–03.

§ Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)
The reciprocal argument is that we should give the Government the power to commit a future Parliament to the provisions of a Standing Order. Surely it is only right that we pass an order that is relevant for the time being. A future Parliament must have the right to change it. The Financial Secretary cannot make that commitment, however good he is, and I respect him greatly.

§ Mr. Fallon
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon will speak. The whole point of a Standing Order is that it has been considered by the Procedure Committee and is adopted not for a Session, but for the long-term conduct of business.

§ Mr. Miller
Is it unamendable?

§ Mr. Fallon
It can be changed at a later date, but it must be distinct from a Sessional Order. There is no point in having orders that can simply be changed by any Government motion.

§ Mr. Bercow
We all understand the point about parliamentary sovereignty, but does my hon. Friend take the view, in so far as he can interpret Government thinking, that Ministers intend that the change should be subject to automatic expiry and the requirement for representation, or rather that it will continue ad infinitum—

§ Mr. Deputy Spt aker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is at it again. We are debating changes in the Standing Orders before the House, not what may or may not happen in future.

§ Mr. Fallon
That must be right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps my hon. Friend has been misled by the already stated intention of the Minister that the motion is not really a change to the Standing Order. It will be replaced by a subsequent change, which may or may not be a Sessional Order, a standing Order or whatever.
The change weakens the authority of the Public Accounts Committe e. It will make it more difficult for the departmental Select Committees to do their work because it completely changes the time scale. It does so at a late stage in the process. After all, we are already between 6 February and 18 March. If the change were to be made, it might not be unreasonable to conclude that it should have been made before we entered the period after 6 February. The House is entitled to a better explanation.

§ Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)
I do not like to find myself in difficulty when dealing with matters of procedure. I have no doubt that the motion, which is to insert (aa) votes on account for the coming financial year", to be "inserted after line 21" on page 35 of the new Standing Orders, would be a permanency. It would apply for this year and every coming year. As I understand it, that is not the Government's desired intention. That was made clear when the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who has left the Chamber, said that he would introduce an alteration to the new Standing Order that we are being asked to pass.
If the Government had wished the change to apply only to the coming year, it would have been possible to have introduced it by means of a Sessional Order. I am being told that that is impossible, but the new Sessional Orders that we have had since 7 November last year have introduced programme motions, Programming Sub-Committees, a different procedure for amendments and deferred Divisions. Against that background, I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of the House, if it desired the change to be made only for the year, to introduce a 869 Sessional Order, which would fall at the end of the the Session. Apparently, that is what the Government desired to do.

§ Mr. Edward Davey
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Sir Peter Emery
Yes, I suppose so.

§ Mr. Davey
I think that I can help the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand it, the Sessional Orders to which he has referred are not designed to change anything that is currently in the Standing Orders. If a change were made by Sessional Order, there would be a conflict with Standing Orders, and the occupant of the Chair would understandably have difficulty in interpreting the will of the House with respect to Standing Orders.

§ Sir Peter Emery
If the hon. Gentleman, whom I thank for his intervention, believes that it was not a change to Standing Orders to introduce deferred voting on a Wednesday, thus altering the whole structure of voting, I can only say I do not know what would be.

§ Mr. Fallon
In the appendix to the Standing Orders, it is made clear—I do not know whether it refers to a Sessional Order or whether, since it is in the appendix, it is a Standing Order—that the order referring to deferred Divisions applies only for the next Session of Parliament. Surely that is the route that the Government should have chosen for this change.

§ Sir Peter Emery
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is what a Sessional Order is: it applies only for a specific Session.
The difficulty is that we shall introduce the words on the Order Paper as a permanent part of Standing Orders. There is no doubt about that. The doubt is whether the Government intend that. They have already had to admit that they must introduce an alteration to the motion that they are asking us to carry tonight. That is not the most sensible managerial way in which to deal with Standing Orders. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have to interpret the Standing Orders, and I am sure that you cannot believe that to be the best way in which to proceed.
It should be clear to the House that if the Government insist on carrying the motion, they will have to make an alteration soon to prevent it from applying in the next Session. Perhaps it would be more sensible of them to withdraw the motion and reintroduce it as a Sessional Order. Everyone could then agree to it. The Government would get what they wanted, but in a sensible way as regards Standing Orders and Sessional Orders. That is what I recommend them to do.

§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)
I, like you, I suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, voted consistently against televising the proceedings of this place. However, we have just heard a good reason why televising the House has brought some advantage. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) was able to observe our proceedings from his office and then come to 870 the Chamber to deliver himself of a lucid speech explaining why the Government have made a mistake in the way in which they have sought to present the motion.
Two issues face us. One concerns the arrangements regarding the motion. The other is the presentation of accounts. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made clear, the accounts are extremely difficult to follow.
On the motion, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) was helpful in reminding us of how matters stood before resource accounting was introduced. The votes on account would then have come forward in November, giving the Public Accounts Committee and the House plenty of time to consider them in advance of 6 February, the cut-off date by which the votes on account must be presented to the House for consideration.
The Government have been unable to produce those accounts in time for 6 February. Indeed, they have brought them forth tonight, so they are already, in a sense, out of time in respect of Standing Orders. I am happy to give way to the Minister if I am wrong on that, and I hope that he will say something when he winds up. Already, the accounts are out of date, and the Government must therefore amend the Standing Orders, either by Sessional Order or by changing Standing Orders, so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) said, the arrangements for votes on account for the coming financial year can be moved from paragraph (2) to paragraph (3). However, as my hon. Friend points out, that leaves only 12 working days in which the accounts can be considered by the House, and the clock is ticking.
The Standing Orders before us are brand new. They were printed not last year, but as recently as 23 January. The Government seem to have mismanaged the business. They allowed Standing Orders to be printed a month ago, yet they are now inviting the House to amend Standing Orders.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The date on which the latest edition of Standing Orders was published is not relevant to the changing of the Standing Order before the House this evening.

§ Mr. Howarth
My point was that as we have so recently re-published the Standing Orders, the Government should have realised that they were due to present accounts to the House by a certain deadline—in the case of votes on account, by 6 February—and that to amend Standing Orders so soon after producing new Standing Orders was nonsensical, or at least a mismanagement of the arrangements. I am not sure how far the Government are responsible for the printing of the Standing Orders; I imagine that the Leader of the House has responsibility for that and must communicate with other Ministers.
I shall not labour the point, but it is worth noting that the documents before us are already out of time. Unless the Government do something quickly to change Standing Orders or by way of a Sessional Order, there is no way that the House can consider the documents that the Government have presented to us. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon is right to say that the change should have been made by way of a Sessional Order.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We are not discussing alternative ways of doing these things. We are discussing 871 the Standing Order which, if the House so decides, will be altered this evening. We are not here to discuss other ways in which we might have dealt with the matter.

§ Mr. Howarth
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that my right hon. Friend had suggested that that should have been done by means of a Sessional Order. We are being invited to consider a change to Standing Orders, a matter which the House should consider carefully, as Standing Orders are designed to maintain a certain continuity in the House and should not be changed at whim by Governments, willy-nilly.
There should be an element of continuity. The House should be invited to change Standing Orders only when there is a serious reason for doing so. In the Government's view, the introduction of deferred votes was sufficient reason for Standing Orders to be changed. We disagree, but I accept that the Government were entitled to do that. To change the Standing Order in respect of votes on account is wrong.
My second point relates to the accounts themselves and to the clarity thereof. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said that they were not entirely illuminating, and he doubted whether anyone understood exactly what they meant. Without disputing the amounts involved, I invite the Minister to explain the accounts. I do not understand why, for example, when there is in the central Government supply estimates reference to the Postal Services Commission and the Royal Mint, there appears under the heading Total forecast net resource requirement at Main Estimate on which provision on account is based"—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that we are not here this evening to discuss the details of the accounts. We are here to discuss the change in the Standing Order before the House, and I should be grateful if he would direct his remarks to that.

§ Mr. Howarth
I am most grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
One of the reasons advanced by the Government for the change in Standing Orders is resource accounting, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. We discussed some aspects of the presentation of accounts earlier. The Financial Secretary will have noticed the discrepancy between the £1,000 net resource requirement and the £101,000 cash requirement, which is 100 times that amount, in respect of the Postal Services Commission. Perhaps he can briefly explain that.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Perhaps the Financial Secretary cannot briefly explain that, as it is not in order.

§ Mr. Howarth
I used the word "briefly", but I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We should all be grateful for the vote on account in respect of hon. Members' salaries. We all at least want to ensure that matters relating to hon. Members' salaries are not out of order, or our bank managers might be very unhappy campers.
872 The Government have clearly had some difficulty with the application of resource accounting within the timetable that was envisaged for the more generally established cash-accounting mechanisms. Indeed, they have made an error in tabling the motion. I believe that the means by which they have sought to implement the proposal—a change in the Standing Orders—is not appropriate, but I accept that some change must be made. The votes on account are dated 27 February, but it is clear that they should have been presented to the House for consideration before 6 February, so I accept that some action is necessary.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
It has become obvious that the motion is largely about time and timing, so it is also inevitably about Government competence. The crucial times have become clear during the debate. The clock started running as far back as 1998 or 1999, when, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) pointed out, resource accounting was launched on at unsuspecting world. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, we all knew what parliamentary—and therefore procedural—response was required in respect of the introduction of resource accounting. That much seems clear and relatively uncontroversial, but then we come to the mystery.
The next crucial dates are 6 February, 27 February and 18 March. We know that existing Standing Orders require that these matters should have been dealt with by 6 February. Presumably, the Government knew that way back in 1998 and 1999. One would have thought that a competent Government would make proper provision and come to the House in plenty of time to give it an opportunity to reflect on the time scales. We should have been allowed to consider what was required, especially as this was a new process that we would all have to get used to. A competent Government would have looked ahead, planned, consulted and then made a proper alteration to Standing Orders or Sessional Orders.
However, none of that happened: 6 February came and went and we now find ourselves on 27 February with this badly drafted motion on the Order Paper. It asks the House not only to approve a change to Standing Orders, but to accept that these important matters, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) pointed out, involve billions of pounds, must be considered between now and 18 March. My diary tells me that there are 12 parliamentary days between now and 18 March. As that day is a Sunday, it is of no use to us, and neither is 17 March, unless the Government intend to suggest that we start sitting on Saturdays and Sundays to help them out of their mess. However, the situation is worse than that because those 12 parliamentary days also include the day of the Budget and the Budget debate.
So, unless the matter will be tacked on to or subsumed by the Budget debate—I would have thought that that would be procedurally unacceptable—the Government are saying to us, "As at 27 February, we will give the House of Commons a very small amount of leeway and time in which to consider matters that involve billions of pounds of expenditure, covering a wide range of issues." As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, that includes defence issues, matters relating to the House of Commons itself, a very long list of detailed items of departmental expenditure, and so on. 873 This is extremely unsatisfactory to say the least, and how we have got ourselves into this position is self-evident: the Government are either incompetent, or, worse—this is a more sinister explanation—they have conspired to bring the matter before the House so late as to give it insufficient time to consider not just the procedural matter but the substantive matter.

§ Mr. Edward Davey
I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this point, much as I should like to. I have here a document dated 24 March 1998, which contains the phrase: Since parliamentary approval for the vote on account would not then be sought until March 2001". The House was told more than two years ago that we would not be asked for approval for the vote on account until March 2001. Therefore, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's argument seems to Fall.

§ Mr. Forth
I am not sure that it does. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to help me; his expertise in and influence on these matters is beyond doubt. If we knew about the matter all along, why has it been brought before the House on February 27, late at night, in a rush, not allowing the House to give it proper consideration? That is the difficulty in which we find ourselves.

§ Mr. Letwin
Does my right hon. Fiend agree that the genesis of the change is that the Government believe, as, regrettably, Governments have for a long time, that votes on account and, indeed, the whole of the rest of the panoply of the Gladstonian system, are formalities and that we should be asked to vote through £250 billion with hardly a nod or a wink?

§ Mr. Forth
I fear that my hon. Friend is all too correct in his analysis. Yet again, we have an example—this is a very glaring and expensive one—of the Government genuinely believing that parliamentary scrutiny, whether of financial or any other matter, is so marginal and irrelevant that it can be reduced to the proposed process for both the motion before us and Standing Orders generally. I do not want to get too distracted by the debate—

§ Mr. Fallon
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

§ Mr. Forth
Furthermore— [Interruption.] It is very gratifying to address such a lively House at this hour and I trust that that interest will continue for quite some time. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No.") Oh yes, for quite some time. We were discussing Standing Orders. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, 100 Members are required to vote on a closure motion so the Government Deputy Chief Whip would have to magic up another 38 Members if he wanted to try to truncate the debate, which I am sure is far from his mind. We can relax, enjoy a full-length debate with no threat of Government truncation and explore the important matter before us.
We were talking, were we not, about time—which is very appropriate, given what has just happened. In this instance, "time" relates to how the Government can possibly expect the House to be able to give proper consideration to the billions of pounds to which we have referred, in the brief period remaining between today and the date of 18 March that is mentioned in the motion.
As I have said, there are few enough parliamentary days, and many of those will already be committed. How can the Government expect us to do justice to the items in the accounts? They involve detailed matters, and matters requiring considerable debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has already indicated their opacity; that would be bad enough, but their length, breadth and depth suggest to me that, in all conscience, we should give them much more time than the motion allows.
This is yet another matter—not the first that we have encountered this evening, and perhaps not the last—that places a substantial question mark over the Government's competence. It certainly places a question mark over their attitude to the House of Commons and the role it has played through the centuries, acting on behalf of the taxpayer in scrutinising accounts and satisfying us that matters are as they should be. It cannot be right for the 875 Government seriously to suggest that this pathetically inadequate amount of time can do justice to that job of scrutiny and accountability.
Confusion has featured throughout the debate. There has been procedural confusion; confusion has also been created by the fact that the Minister's version, rulings from the Chair and the text of the motion all seemed to be at odds. The only proper way out, surely, is for the Government to withdraw the motion and table another that reflects accurately what the Minister tells us is his intention and that of the Government. I hope they will do so, because that would contribute in a small way to correcting what all of us who have spoken consider to be a grotesque error on their part.

§ Mr. Timms
I have rarely felt such pride in the stamina and commitment of my hon. Friends. We have had a thorough discussion, although I am not sure that thoroughness has always been matched by illumination.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for reiterating his party's support for the changes, which might otherwise have been in some doubt, and for his kind remarks. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) for his expert comments—he was able to shed important light on what had been said. I will certainly take up the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for West Dorset about the reconciliations.
As the debate has made clear, it has been said for the past three years that—for reasons I explained earlier—we need to take the vote on the account in March 2001. The procedure we adopted is entirely conventional; changes in Standing Orders are very common. I understand that the motion affects this year only, although it may well be necessary in future to change Standing Orders so that we can handle resource accounting and budgeting expeditiously.

§ Mr. Fallon
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Timms
I will give way once more.

§ Mr. Fallon
The Minister has honestly and honourably conceded that the motion may apply only for this particular year. Where does it say that in the motion?

§ Mr. Timms
It is, of course, a matter for the occupant of the Chair if the question is one of order, but my advice is that the form of words that has been adopted is to have effect for this occasion only. However, as I say, a change in Standing Orders in future may be necessary to ensure that the House handles resource accounting and budgeting expeditiously. There was some discussion about when the Standing Orders were most recently printed. The Government are not consulted about when Standing Orders are printed; that is a matter for the House.
The change that we are considering has been referred to repeatedly in discussions of resource accounting and budgeting over the past three years. It was set out again, for example, in the Treasury memorandum of January 2000 to the parliamentary Committees dealing with 876 resource accounting and budgeting. It is in the interests of the House that the motion be agreed. On that basis, I commend it to the House.

Division No. 137]	[1.55 am
AYES
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Tellers for the Ayes:
	Mr. Eric Forth and
	Mr. Gerald Howarth.

NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Cann, Jamie
Austin, John	Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Banks, Tony	Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Clelland, David
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Coaker, Vernon
Burgon, Colin	Coleman, Iain
Butler, Mrs Christine	Cox, Tom

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Mudie, George
Davidson, Ian	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Dobbin, Jim	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Drew, David	Öpik, Lembit
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	Pearson, Ian
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Pope, Greg
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Purchase, Ken
Hendrick, Mark	Rendel, David
Hepburn, Stephen	Roy, Frank
Heppell, John	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Hill, Keith	Sawford, Phil
Hood, Jimmy	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Hope, Phil	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)	Timms, Stephen
Hurst, Alan	Tipping, Paddy
Jenkins, Brian	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Kilfoyle, Peter	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Leslie, Christopher	Ward, Ms Claire
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
McAvoy, Thomas	Wood, Mike
McNulty, Tony	Woolas, Phil
Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Michael, Rt Hon Alun	Tellers for the Noes:
Miller, Andrew	Mr. Graham Allen and
Moffatt, Laura	Mr. Clive Betts.