NEW TOWNS BILL (Hansard, 6 December 1966)

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill. The Question therefore is that I report the Bill to the House without Amendment.

LORD INGLEWOOD
Are we not going to have the clauses put one at a time so that we can raise questions on the clauses?

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
That can certainly be done, if that is the wish of the Committee.

LORD INGLEWOOD
I am absolutely astonished—£250 million of public money is involved in Clause 1 and apparently this House is not going to say anything in regard to that. I can remember in the earlier New Towns Bill that, in the opinion of many of us on both sides of the House, it was a weakness that large sums of money could be spent simply by the action of the Minister and that the public could be committed to spending £50 million at a time, with Parliament virtually impotent in its control over these sums of money. May I ask the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill whether in fact Parliament has any immediate control—not ex post facto control—over the expenditure of this £250 million, or whether it is in the power of the Minister, as it were, to anticipate the 1143 expenditure of this money in such a way that Parliament has no alternative other than to accept it? The noble Lord will remember that it is possible for the Minister to designate a New Town without as much as a request to Parliament first, and that an action of that sort represents something like £50 million. I feel that I am not unreasonable, and I do not wish to be unreasonable to-night; but I should like, and I think the country deserves, some explanation of the implications of Clause 1 of the Bill, because even in these days of unlimited extravagance £250 million is still a large sum.

§ LORD KENNET
The noble Lord has said how remarkable it is that your Lordships propose to pass such a large sum without debate. I notice that not many noble Lords on the other side—I may as well say for the record that there are two noble Lords sitting on the Opposition Benches—have thought it worth while to come and challenge this matter on the Committee stage. If I understand the noble Lord's objection, it is to the spending of public money on New Towns, or spending it on the present scale. This was debated at fair length, I think it is right to say, on the Second Reading of the Bill last week. Such noble Lords as are present might think that it would have been more appropriate to raise this major matter of public policy on the Second Reading of the Bill rather than on the Committee stage.

LORD INGLEWOOD
Surely it is quite unheard of to be reproached in that way. The Committee stage is an important stage of a Bill, and £250 million is a fairly large sum of money. The fact that the noble Lord has twice as many of his noble friends on those Benches as we have on this side does not, I suggest, justify what I think is something approaching insolence. I asked a simple question, and that is what control Parliament has over the spending of a sum of money of this size. I do not want to prolong this debate. I asked a simple question and I hoped that I might receive a simple answer.

§ LORD KENNET
I was coming on to the simple answer when I was interrupted. The simple answer is that the amount of money which the Minister is authorized 1144 to advance for those purposes by Parliament increases from time to time when the Minister comes to Parliament and asks for the money in question. A limit is fixed by Statute and the Minister comes to Parliament and asks Parliament to raise the statutory limit. This Bill asks Parliament to raise it from the sum which I mentioned in the Second Reading debate by £250 million for use during the next three or four years. If the noble Lord has any specific objection to that expenditure of this sum for the purposes of housing people in New Towns and providing them with work there, then I should be grateful it he would say so.

LORD INGLEWOOD
I really do not see why the noble Lord should be so insolent. I never had the smallest intention of objecting to housing for the people of this country, and I should like to make that quite clear. I asked a Parliamentary point, which apparently the noble Lord does not understand—namely, what control Parliament has over the expenditure of this money. It was well known a few years ago—of course, I am not hostile to this—that under the New Towns provisions it was possible for the Minister to anticipate the spending of very large sums in such a way that the control of Parliament was virtually taken away. A sum of £250 million is a large sum. All I am asking is whether the noble Lord can say whether there is any difference now, or whether we are perpetuating the system that we have had for many years. If we are, then I think it is a pity. It is a cherished right of Parliament to have control of expenditure, as the noble Lord will agree. That is all I asked, and what the noble Lord has said is really no answer to the question at all.

§ LORD KENNET
There is no proposal for changing the system of Parliamentary control over money spent on New Towns. It is the custom to have a general debate on New Towns policy when my right honourable friend the Minister comes to Parliament and asks for a rise in the statutory ceiling. These are occasions when Parliament can express misgivings, doubts, or perhaps praise, for past policy and hopes and fears for future policy. This is one of those occasions.

LORD INGLEWOOD
As an old member of the Public Accounts Committee, I wonder whether the noble Lord could help me on Clause 3. I see that here the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General is being changed and the Explanatory Memorandum says that the necessity for these notes to be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General apparently no longer existed since they are presented to Parliament each year by the Minister as part of the annual reports of the development corporations". The great value of the Comptroller and Auditor General is that he comments on these accounts in quite a different way from that in which Ministers traditionally comment on accounts. I wonder whether the Government could give a little more of the background of this change and what advantage they see in excluding the Comptroller and Auditor General in this way.

§ LORD KENNET
As I said on Second Reading, the advantage which the Government see in Clause 3 is that the accounts are submitted to Parliament once each year instead of twice. I will willingly give the noble Lord some background. Clause 3 removes the requirement in Section 46(6)(b) of the New Towns Act 1965 relating to England and Wales, and Section13(5) of the New Towns Act 1946 with regard to Scotland. on the Minister and the Secretaries of State to transmit to the Comptroller and Auditor General the audited accounts of development corporations. This requirement which is removed by the Bill is a relic of the past when the Comptroller and Auditor General used to present the corporations' accounts to Parliament. He was relieved of that duty by the New Towns Act 1958, which made it obligatory for the corporations to include their accounts in their annual reports, thus making the presentation to Parliament of the corporations' reports by the Minister the vehicle for presenting also the annual accounts.
The Comptroller and Auditor General can get the audited accounts from the departments whenever he wishes. It should be noted that no requirement was 1146 included in the New Towns Act 1959 for the transmission to the Comptroller and Auditor General of the accounts of the Commission for the New Towns. I hope that this gives the noble Lord the background.

LORD INGLEWOOD
I hope the noble Lord does not think that I am being unduly difficult about this. I can remember when I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee and we endeavoured to have evidence from the chairman—it was an eminent member of the noble Lord's Party. She sent us a telegram from Moscow saying she could not come, and great consternation was caused in the Committee on that occasion. In those days the Public Accounts Committee concerned itself, on the advice of, or at least in close relations with, the Comptroller and Auditor General, with the accounts of New Towns corporations. What is not clear from this is whether the Public Accounts Committee is still concerned with those accounts, or whether they are completely excluded from the ambit of the Public Accounts Committee.

§ LORD KENNET
We have heard a lot to-day about Commons privilege and about not exercising in this House duties which fall squarely on the House of Commons. With that reservation I would say that, as I understand it, this Bill will make no change in the relationship with the Public Accounts Committee and the House of Commons as a whole.

LORD INGLEWOOD
I thank the noble Lord very much.