HL Deb 13 December 1945 vol 138 cc656-70

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The VISCOUNT MERSEY in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

The Building Materials and Housing Fund.

(5) The Minister shall, as respects each financial year beginning with that in which sums are first advanced to him under this Act and ending with that in which the Fund is closed, prepare an account of receipts into and payments out of the Fund in such form and manner as the Treasury may direct.

Any account prepared under this subsection shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November next following the expiration of the financial year in question, be transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who shall examine and certify the account and lay copies thereof, together with his report thereon, before Parliament.

4.11 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (5), after "Fund," where that word occurs for the second time, to insert "and such trading accounts, profit and loss accounts and balance sheets as are normally provided by commercial undertakings."

The noble Lord said: I am well aware that power is vested in the Treasury, under Section five of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, to make another Government Department submit accounts of the nature mentioned in my Amendment. That has been the law since 1921. However, when we are dealing with a Bill of this sort, which enables so large a sum of £100,000,000 to be devoted to the making of fitments and other things for houses, I think that we ought, in the Bill, to make it clear that the Departments responsible for this manufacture should submit these accounts. I think it necessary that we should have that provision in the Bill itself. This is a far more extensive State trading than any contemplated at the time the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act was passed in 1921. It is only reasonable that what has been the custom under that Act should be a definite obligation when dealing in such large sums as those with which the present measure deals. For those reasons I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 40, after ("Fund") insert ("and such trading accounts, profit and loss accounts and balance sheets as are normally provided by commercial undertakings.")— (Lord Lleweilin.)

THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)

I should like to start by assuring the noble Lord opposite that we do share his desire that all financial transactions—and of course they will be considerable—under the present Bill should be fully disclosed to Parliament and that nothing we do with the money provided by the Treasury should be withheld. I hope that what I shall now say will satisfy the noble Lord and, in fact, achieve the object which he set out to achieve by tabling this Amendment. I should like to give details of the machinery for the rendition of precise accounts to Parliament, and I should also like to say what is the intention of the Government in relation to the use of that machinery. I will then leave the noble Lord to judge whether I have been able to satisfy him.

In another place my right honourable friend the Minister of Works explained that the accounts to be presented under this Bill will be in the nature of a cash account. They will show, on the receipts side, the balance in hand at the beginning of the year, the issue from the Consolidated Fund, the payments by the Health Department under Clause 3, the proceeds from the sales of complete structures and of building materials, and all repayments by local authorities for work carried out on their behalf. On the payments side, they will show, again under separate headings, repayments to the Consolidated Fund, interest paid on advances from the Consolidated Fund, money spent on the purchase of building materials and of complete structures, capital expenditure and expenditure on work done on behalf of local authorities, distribution and transport costs, departmental expenses and the balance in hand at the end of the year. Of course, the actual detailed list of items cannot be settled until we have some experience of the operations of the Fund, but it can be stated here and now that the accounts will certainly show, under separate headings, all the items listed above. I hope that that will go some distance towards convincing the noble Lord opposite that the cash account is going to be pretty exhaustive.

The Minister of Works also mentioned in another place that under Section five of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1921, the Treasury may direct—"may," I think, is the operative word—the preparation by Departments of commercial accounts in respect of commercial undertakings carried out by those Departments. Those accounts have, of course, to be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and presented to Parliament in the usual way. My right honourable friend pointed out in another place that the Treasury do intend to lay it down that the Ministry of Works shall prepare commercial accounts in pursuance of the 1921 Act.

Now I come to the intention of the Minister which, I hope, will satisfy the noble Lord opposite that all is in order. I should like to state on the Minister's behalf that trading accounts, profit and loss accounts and balance sheets in commercial form will be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1921. As the necessary machinery whereby the Minister can carry out his intention is provided by the Act to which allusion has already been made, the Amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite is redundant. I hope he will accept the undertaking of the Government as implementing what he had in mind.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. The Minister in another place said the accounts would probably contain those items, but as the noble Earl to-day has said the accounts will contain them, and that they will not only be prepared but issued, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.20 p.m.

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (5), to substitute "June" for "November." The noble Viscount said: The Minister has met us very reasonably over the form of the accounts which are to be presented. I think two things are particularly important: first of all, that these accounts should be as full and as clear as possible; and secondly that Parliament should have them as early as possible. The Minister has said: "We wish to give the fullest information possible to Parliament." That is very right and proper. As I said on the Second Read- ing, the ordinary procedure in a case like this would be to produce an Estimate and a Vote, and then the plan would be debatable upon the Vote in the ordinary way during the current year. That is not going to be done here. Under the powers which the Bill will give to the Minister, he will be able to engage in these very large transactions during the whole of the financial year, although he will not have presented an Estimate. Therefore at any rate a great deal of what he is doing will not properly be debatable in another place on his Vote. In place of the Estimate, we are to rely upon these accounts, the form of which (the Minister has given as an assurance) will be as clear and as full as possible. Obviously if during the whole of the current year information which would have been available on an Estimate is not available to Parliament, Parliament ought to have the accounts as soon as possible. The Bill as drawn provides that those accounts shall be transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General "on or before the thirtieth day of November next following the expiration of the financial year in question." The only reason why November 30 is put in is that that is the last possible date under Parliamentary procedure by which any Vote can be presented.

I think that I am right in saying that the period allowed was originally three months. It was then extended to eight months more particularly in the interests of the Service Departments, and perhaps of others, such as the Foreign Office, that have their activities in a great many parts of the world, and where the accounts have to be sent in and correspondence may have to take place upon them. The extended period was therefore provided in order to give a certain latitude to Departments conducting large operations or having large expenditure in different parts of the world. That does not apply here at all. Here the whole of the expenditure is to take place in this country. It is ordinary commercial expenditure, almost on a cash basis, as the Minister has said, and I am sure it will be agreed that the Minister will always know where he stands in relation to these accounts. It is not a case of finding out what some Command in India has done at the close of the financial year; the ordinary commercial practice will be carried out, and week by week the Minister will know exactly where he stands in the conduct of this business.

I imagine that there will be no difficulty in those circumstances—and I should like the noble Earl, who has been so very fair and frank on this Bill, to confirm this—in the Minister presenting-his accounts within a month of the close of the financial year. The form in which he keeps them is settled. We know that the Comptroller and Auditor General has his officers in the Department, working with the Department's Accountants throughout the year. I quite agree that during the initial stages there may need to be some discussion with the Treasury as to the precise form which the accounts will take, but that will all be settled very soon after the operations start, and there will not be the least difficulty in the Minister presenting the accounts to Parliament within a month of the close of the financial year.

We come in a later Amendment to the tabling of these accounts, but what we propose in this Amendment is that the accounts should be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General within three months of the close of the financial year. That, I think, is a very reasonable request to make, and I hope that the noble Earl, who has been so reasonable in charge of this Bill. will assent to the proposition that the accounts can easily be ready in time—I am sure that he will not deny that for a moment—and that they should be presented within three months. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 43, leave out (" November ") and insert ("June").— (Viscount Swinton.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

Here again I hope that I may be successful in convincing the noble Viscount that we do intend to render these accounts at the earliest moment which is administratively practicable, without necessarily tying our hands by agreeing to the earlier date which is given in his Amendment. I hope that the purpose which he has in mind may be achieved in a more elastic fashion. The intention of the Amendment, as the noble Viscount has clearly described it, is to secure that the accounts under the Bill shall be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General on or before the thirtieth day of June in the year follow- ing the financial year to which they relate, instead of by November 30—that is, five months sooner than the final date contemplated in the Bill.

November 30 is the normal date which has been for many years prescribed for the submission both of the ordinary Appropriation Accounts of Civil Departments and under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1921, for the submission of trading accounts. Indeed, under the 1921 Act, the date given in respect of Royal Ordnance factories and certain naval accounts is that they must be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General by January 31, which is two months later than the date mentioned in the Bill. If the accounts under this Bill were to be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General by June 30—the date chosen by the noble Viscount—Parliament would not in fact get the complete financial picture, because the commercial accounts—and, of course, there are two sides to the global accounts—under the 1921 Act would not have to be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General before November 30 The noble Viscount's Amendment in its present form would not achieve exactly what he has set out to obtain.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I think that the noble Earl will agree that there is no reason why the commercial accounts should not easily be ready very early, and should not also be sent within a three months' tolerance.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

It would not be mandatory, and I thought that the object of the noble Viscount was to make this mandatory. I should like to point out that the wording both in Clause 2 (5) in this Bill and of the Exchequer arid Audit Departments Act of 1921 is "on or before the thirtieth day of November."

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Yes.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

There is nothing, therefore, to prevent the earlier rendering of both accounts, which is exactly what the noble Viscount wants. I should like to assure him, on behalf of my noble friend the Minister of Works, that we shall make every possible effort to present the accounts to Parliament well in advance of the final date, November 30. I am sure that I need not remind the noble Viscount, who has had so much experience of dealing with Government Departments, that it is an advantage to the Department as well as to Parliament to know what its precise financial position is. I do hope that with that assurance, and knowing, as the noble Viscount does far better than I do, the immense administrative difficulties in fixing an early date, he will be satisfied that we intend to present these accounts at the earliest possible moment.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am much obliged to the noble Earl, and he is so persuasive that it is difficult to resist him. Of course there is a tendency in Departments, particularly when they are hard worked, if there is a final date to put something off until it approaches. I have been the permanent head of a Government Department as well as a Minister of the Crown. There is a tendency to put off what can be put off until the last possible moment, and I am not sure that I would altogether agree with the noble Earl that you will always find in every Department a passionate desire to get the accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General at the earliest possible moment. I hope that in the Post Office that spirit of acceleration will always prevail under the noble Earl's inspiration. In commercial practice, and under the Companies Act, the accounts of a company have to be presented within whatever the period is—twelve months, I think it is, with a possible extension to fifteen months. That does not mean that every reputable company does not try to get its accounts out a great deal earlier if it can.

Although on the earlier Amendment I thought that what my noble friend said was quite reasonable, and it was right that there should be a bit of time for the Treasury to agree with the Department on the form of accounts—and I and my noble friend fully accepted that the accounts would take that form—I would, frankly, rather have had a direction to the Department to have the accounts presented by June 30. But in view of the undertaking that the Postmaster-General has given that the accounts will be presented—I was particularly interested in the words he used—" presented to Parliament as early as possible," I will not press this Amendment. But I will press the noble Earl very strongly upon the next Amendment, which becomes all the more important, in order to fulfil his expressed desire that Parliament should have these accounts as soon as possible. I beg to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.32 p.m.

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (5), after "be", to insert "laid before Parliament and be ". The noble Viscount said: I do hope that the Postmaster-General is going to meet us over this Amendment. He has rightly said that it is the desire of the Government to present these accounts to Parliament as soon as possible. This Amendment proposes that when the accounts are sent to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, they should also be submitted to Parliament. In another place an argument was put forward to this effect: "Oh, we could not do that, because we should be presenting to Parliament unaudited accounts." I dealt with this matter on the Second Reading, and the noble Earl will have had the opportunity of confirming what I then said as to the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I would ask him explicitly whether he does not confirm that what I said about the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is correct. The noble Earl signifies his assent, and I am very much obliged.

That does dispose of all arguments which were raised in another place to the effect that this would be a case of "unaudited accounts." That argument completely misconceived the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He is not an auditor in the sense of being the sort of auditor who audits companies' accounts. He makes his report, and he sees that the Parliamentary authority has not been exceeded. I agree that if some awful scandal has occurred or some gross extravagance has been committed, it is his business to draw the attention of Parliament to it. I hope that in this case there will not be either. But I was right when I said on the last occasion that the form in which the accounts go to the Comptroller and Auditor-General will be exactly the same as when they come before Parliament. The Comptroller and Auditor-General merely forwards, ultimately, to Parliament the identical accounts which he has received, with any comments he may choose to make. Therefore there is no question of unaudited accounts, and there is no question but that the accounts will be one and the same as are presented to this great dignitary.

The Postmaster-General said that Parliament should have these accounts as soon as possible. I am sure that we all agree. I have given way on the three months' point, and the period now is up to November. That is, eight months after the close of the financial year. If Parliament is to wait to see these accounts until the Comptroller and Auditor-General has made his report, it will certainly be eight months more. In the circumstances of the present day, he is very seldom able to make a report, I understand, in less than eight months, and with the pressure of work increasing upon him, as it is bound to do, perhaps it will be as much as a year before these accounts come to Parliament. Observe what that means. Instead of having an Estimate, there is no Estimate. The whole business is conducted before the financial year closes. Unless the Amendment is accepted, it may well be that it will not be until fourteen or fifteen months, perhaps more, after the close of the financial year that Parliament will have any knowledge at all of how this business has been conducted. I cannot believe that that is the intention or the desire of the Government. It surely is, as the noble Earl said, the desire of the Government that Parliament should know what is going on, and have the accounts as soon as possible.

I think I should be doing the Government an injustice if I attributed this argument to a member of the Government, but it was suggested in another place that you might be doing the work twice, that Parliament might consider it when they got the accounts, and then consider it again when they got the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. But really, it would not be too scandalous if Parliament did consider it twice. If there is nothing new in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, there will be no need to go over the accounts again. I submit that there can be no possible argument against giving Parliament these accounts at the time the Comptroller and Auditor General receives them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 44, after ("be'') insert ("laid before Parliament and be.")— (Viscount Swinton.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I may not be able to give the noble Viscount as much satisfaction on this Amendment as I was fortunate enough to do on his previous Amendment. But there are certain arguments which I think deserve consideration and which I shall venture to put forward. The object of the Amendment, as I conceive it—and it was very clearly described by the noble Viscount—is to ensure that the account shall be laid before Parliament, that is, laid before another place, at the same time that it is presented to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and in that way to prevent the delay which results from allowing this official sufficient time for its consideration.

As your Lordships are aware, the Comptroller and Auditor-General is an officer of Parliament, though not a civil servant in the ordinary sense, whose special duty it is to examine all Appropriation Accounts and commercial accounts of Departments and to draw the attention of Parliament to any matters arising on these accounts which merit particular attention. I should like to confirm that what the noble Viscount said in the Second Reading debate is entirely borne out by my inquiries. He said that the officers of the Comptroller and Auditor-General watch throughout the year the operations of a Department, and that the accounts as sent by a Department to the Comptroller and Auditor-General are not altered at all in form by him—none of the figures are modified by him—before they are presented to Parliament. Nevertheless Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons, through the agency of the Public Accounts Committee, is not really in a position to examine the accounts critically until it has received the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

That is, I imagine, the reason why this gentleman was originally appointed, and I must say I think the average member in another place would be expressing himself in the dark if he lacked the guidance of the expert financial adviser who is appointed to tell him whether a Department is doing well or otherwise so far as its accounts are concerned. I am inclined to think that the average member in another place who would have to deal with these matters would prefer to wait until he was in a position to exercise fully instructed judgment. We none of us like making public speeches without a little expert advice in advance and I cannot help thinking that that feeling would be shared in this case. There is one other point I should like to make. The procedure laid down in this Bill is the one followed not only in the case of Appropriation Accounts, but of all commercial accounts of Government Departments. There does not seem to be any special reason for introducing in this particular case alone a departure from long-established and recognized Parliamentary procedure.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I must submit that I am far from satisfied. I am amazed to hear from the Bench opposite this old-time argument of "as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be." It is not even "the inevitability of gradualness." It is an absolute refusal of any change. We really have got quite a new situation here in which, as the noble Earl himself said—I use his own words—Parliament ought to have these accounts as soon as possible. He said it advisedly; I am sure it was not a slip. So it should. I want to emphasize again that these accounts are all that Parliament is going to get. There is no Estimate in this case although, as the noble Lord told us the last time, the Estimates are there, in the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Health, and in all the other hierarchs who are going to engage in this. They have made their plans but they are not to be disclosed. The scheme is hereafter to be revealed. So there is no chance of an Estimate, only the accounts. Why on earth should we not have these accounts? He says that no Member of Parliament could understand them unless he had got the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

THE EARL OF; LISTOWEL

What I suggested was that he would not be able to assess them, not that he would not be able to understand them.

VISCOUNT SWINTO

Well, to assess the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. That seems to me to be putting a very low standard of intelligence upon Members of Parliament in another place and certainly upon your Lordships. It may very well be that the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General will contain no information and is merely a presentation of the accounts. If the Minister has been doing his job properly and has not exceeded his Parliamentary authority and not been guilty of some gross scandal, the Comptroller and Auditor-General will merely present his accounts to Parliament without any comments at all. We might even wish to congratulate the Minister if he has done his work in accordance with the admirable principles enunciated by the Postmaster-General, which was in such contradistinction to those enunciated by the Minister of Health. Why on earth should we not assess the accounts? I have often heard members of his Party criticize the accounts of ordinary commercial companies. They are all perfectly competent to express a view on the accounts of a company, the profit and loss accounts. These accounts are going to be informative in. the best commercial sense. They will really set out the conduct of the business so that he who runs may read. It is the every-day practice of 90 per cent. of the members of another place and of this House to assess, appreciate and criticize, if need be, the accounts of a public company when they are presented in that way.

There is, I think, no case made out by the noble Earl on this. We may have to wait for fifteen months. I know the noble Earl is speaking on instructions, but I am sure he does not want to conceal things. I am sure he does not want to, but I wish he would not give the appearance of doing so. If there is nothing to conceal, why cannot we have these things? Why cannot Parliament have these accounts as soon as they go to the Comptroller and Auditor-General? I am sure it will be felt that to withhold them is unreasonable. I feel, frankly, and I do not think that I am a biased critic, that that is unreasonable. I think that Parliament ought to have these accounts and I am sure it will be said, quite rightly, that this is an unreasonable withholding of information from Parliament until fifteen months after the close of the financial year. Moreover, I do not believe that by doing things in this way the Minister is making things easier for himself. Parliament will wish to know how this business is being conducted and it will inquire into it. The result may very well be that there will be a spate of questions and debates on the Adjournment. and that there will be debates in this House in order to obtain what we have a right and a duty to have—information on how this business is being conducted—which might well be dispensed with if the accounts can be presented to us. I shall not press this to a Division, but I profoundly regret that the Minister has not been able to give this information. I think that will cause him a great deal more trouble than if he had given it. He will certainly leave on Parliament and the country the impression that Parliament is not being given this information. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

4.50 p.m.

Clause 5 [Increase of sums available for defraying expenses under 7 & 8 Geo. 6.c. 36]:

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

There is a drafting Amendment to this clause. The Minister is referred to elsewhere as the "Minister of Works," and, therefore, it is proposed to leave out the words "of Works." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 6, leave out (" of Works ").— (The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Extension of powers of local authorities to give financial assistance towards acquisition, construction, etc., of houses]:

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

The two Amendments to this clause are also drafting Amendments. The first Amendment is to bring the wording of the Bill into line with the wording of the 1935 Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 16, leave out ("limits") —and insert (" limit ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

The next Amendment proposes to leave out two words which are redundant. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 20, leave out ("or given").—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

Application to Scotland.

(6) For subsection (2) of Section six there shall be substituted the following subsection:— (2) Subsection (4) of Section seventy-five of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, as amended by Section sixty-seven of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935 (which subsection as so amended provides that an advance or guarantee under the said Section seventy-five shall not be made or given in respect of a house the value of which exceeds eight hundred pounds), shall in relation to an advance or guarantee made after the date of the passing of this Act have effect as if for the limit of eight hundred pounds there were substituted a limit of twelve hundred pounds and the provisions of the said subsection relating to flats shall have effect accordingly.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (6), in the substituted subsection (2) of Section six, to substitute "fifteen hundred pounds "for" twelve hundred pounds." The noble Earl said: This is the only Amendment. of substance, and I foreshadowed it when this Bill was discussed on Second Reaching. It is, in fact, an Amendment consequential on the alteration made in another place to Clause 6 of the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that Clause 6 was amended so as to substitute £1,500 for £1,200 as the maximum value of a house in England and Wales in respect of the purchase or construction of which a local authority may make advances under the Housing Act. The present Amendment to the Scottish Clause simply extends this increase in the maximum sum to Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 46, leave out ("twelve") and insert (" fifteen ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question,- Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.