§ 2.43 p.m.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they propose to publish the finally audited accounts of ECGD for the year ended 31st March 1981.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne)My Lords, the audited accounts were laid before Parliament on 2nd March 1982.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that was some little time after I put down my Question? Is he also aware that this delay is completely unacceptable? Is the noble Lord aware that, under the Companies Act 1976, his right honourable friend is responsible for the enforcement of disciplines on public companies to file their accounts within seven months after the end of the financial year? Does he not think it high time that he imposed that discipline upon himself? Had the Government themselves been subject to the 1976 Act, is the noble Lord further aware that they would by now have been liable to some £5,000 in penalties? Moreover, as an act of penance would the noble Lord's right honourable friend consider paying that sum into the Exchequer in reduction of the public sector borrowing requirement?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the delay in preparing the accounts on this occasion was because a fundamental review of the form of the accounts involving ECGD, Treasury, the Exchequer and Audit Department naturally took some time to complete. ECGD were involved in considerable work in preparing figures for the new form of accounts and unfortunately much of this preparatory work was delayed by industrial action in the Civil Service earlier last year. It would certainly be the intention to finalise the accounts for 1981–82 at a much earlier date.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister be so good in this context as to clarify a Question which I asked about the same subject last week, with regard to the exact position of ECGD in relation to Zambia? There appears to be some confusion about this.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, as I recall from the noble Lord's Question last week, the position with regard to Zambia is that there is no general cover available to Zambia, but certain cases are considered on their merits and sometimes authorised.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his answer to my supplementary question is also unsatisfactory? The production of audited accounts for the year ended 31st March 1981—which are the accounts to which we are referring—has no connection at all with the reorganisation of the system that has since taken place. Will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that the delay has nothing to do with the reports that appeared in the press some couple of months ago that there were difficulties about the audit of the accounts themselves and that the auditors had not received satisfactory replies to all the queries that they had raised?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the reports to which he refers were indeed without foundation. The reasons for the delays were precisely those that I described—namely, the change of the form of the accounting and the industrial difficulties in the Civil Service last year.