---

Mr. Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that if the Auditor General found an anomaly in relation an NHS trust or social housing, the Audit Commission would have to audit the Auditor General to check that his figures were right, so that in the Audit Commission role he could take action on the Auditor?

Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes an important point and I look forward to hearing his contribution in Committee, which I am sure will be valuable. The difficulty with this part of the Bill is that the Auditor General is not allowed to appoint himself. If he is allowed to appoint himself to audit NHS trusts, surely he should be able to appoint himself to audit local government expenditure. My hon. Friend sensibly points out that we need consistency; otherwise the purpose of the Bill is diminished. The Bill is a good one, by and large, and it will improve matters, but not as much as I would have liked.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): While my hon. Friend is on inconsistency and disclosure of information, can he say whether, in his judgment, the failure to disclose information could be in conflict with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, about which we heard from the Minister?

Mr. Wiggin: I shall have more to say about clause 54, but there is indeed a problem. The Government Whip seemed surprised by my opening comments about the timetabling, and I shall try to explain why I am bothered. The Government's amendments to clause 54 through amendment of section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, will not take place until after the Bill is on the statute book. We are therefore being asked to legislate on trust. Surely it is the job of Parliament to ensure that we legislate as well as we can, rather than by remote control or trust in the Government. That is why the Committee stage should take place after the Government have tabled their amendments to the other legislation.

Lembit Öpik: Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's suspicion about taking the Minister's assurance on trust, does he accept that given the explicit
 
17 Jun 2004 : Column 937
 
statements made in another place and by the Minister today committing the Government to introducing the appropriate amendments before the end of 2004, the Government are unlikely to have much room for manoeuvre or delay?

Mr. Wiggin: I am tempted to remind the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State just told us that everybody lost the European elections. When one came first in those elections, it is difficult to believe the Government all the time.

Mr. Robathan: I do not wish in any way to impugn the Minister, who is a decent soul, but until about two months ago we were told categorically that there would not be a referendum on a European Union constitution. Now we are told that there will be a referendum. Does that not reinforce my hon. Friend's point that we should not take assurances on trust?

Mr. Wiggin: I agree. The problem in the present case is that there is no option. We shall deal with that in Committee. The Bill is a good piece of legislation and the Government are trying to do their best, but the problem—I address this to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) as well—is that even though the Government have promised to make changes, we still have not seen a draft or detail of those changes.

Mr. Alan Williams: The House will have the opportunity to discuss the Government amendments when they are tabled, and that is when we will make the decision. Since we are giving a subordinate power, which could not be used to introduce changes in Wales as it is contingent on what happens in England, the Bill is utterly logical.

Mr. Wiggin: I do not agree. The right hon. Gentleman implies that whatever is later debated will be perfectly adequate for Wales. That is fundamentally at odds with the Select Committee report. Everyone who has criticised the clause is deeply unhappy about it. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I accept that he is doing his best by intervening.

If I can make some progress, perhaps I can shed some light on why I am concerned about clause 54. It restricts disclosure of information held by the Auditor General in respect of local government unless consent is given by the relevant body. The Government have conceded that the clause is not satisfactory, but their amendment does not go far enough to protect against those who mishandle their duties to public bodies. It blocks the proper presentation of findings in the public domain that would embarrass those involved.

The Government amendment would allow but not require the Secretary of State to amend clause 54, but only if section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 is amended under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, the Government have not proposed to change section 49, except in what we heard today, so I have reservations about the possible use of clause 54 against whistleblowers. Anyone who doubts that should consider what happened to James Cameron. I was extremely disturbed to read about that.
 
17 Jun 2004 : Column 938
 

Those who support a free society will also have concerns about clause 54, as it would deter potential whistleblowers, who would be treated far more harshly in local government audit than in any other public sector audit environment. That is one of the inconsistencies that concern us. We believe it is wrong in principle to apply criminal sanctions to the disclosure of audit information. That was the conclusion of the Welsh Affairs Committee too, and of the Assembly Committee that considered the draft Bill. The Auditor General has made it clear that he did not request those provisions. It is the Government who wish to undermine the accountability and responsibility of public bodies for their actions.

Under what circumstances do the Government consider that criminal sanctions would be appropriate for the disclosure of information? In his opening comments the Minister suggested that criminal sanctions would be appropriate if someone released information a little earlier than they should, but I do not believe that James Cameron would ever have found it too late to deliver the information that he did.

Mr. Touhig: I shall try to be helpful. The Government take the view, as I said, that there should be no inconsistency in criminal justice between England and Wales. That is why we thought clause 54 should be retained. Following discussions in the other place and with colleagues, we amended the clause in the other House, as the hon. Gentleman understands. As a Member of Parliament in the 1992–97 Parliament, I introduced a Bill to protect whistleblowers. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) was very helpful in the debate—we may have converted him in the course of it—and he made an important contribution to that debate. I may have been sitting on the Opposition Benches as he is now, but that is the will of fate.

Clause 54(2) lists a number of exceptions to the restriction on disclosing information. Those exceptions explicitly allow disclosure on matters relating to best value, fraud, the work of the ombudsman, the discharge of social service functions, education best-value matters, matters affecting social landlords and matters of a criminal nature. So on a raft of matters set out in subsection (2), disclosure is allowed as the clause stands.

Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister, and I am keen to emphasise that at no stage did I think that he was one of those on the darker side of this business who would suppress whistleblowers. Nevertheless, we must be careful. One can only imagine the fear and trepidation felt by someone before they blow the whistle.

Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): If the hon. Gentleman does not consider criminal sanctions suitable, what sanctions would be suitable?

Mr. Wiggin: If whistleblowers are to be allowed to tell the truth, criminal sanctions may not be the best way to deal with them. We are talking about people releasing information, not stealing or committing acts that are traditionally known as crimes. They could be fined or dealt with in other ways, but the clause allows imprisonment. Even fining may be too harsh. I am concerned not so much about the scale of the
 
17 Jun 2004 : Column 939
 
punishment as about the whole principle of how we legislate and the manner in which the Government are promising to change the Bill after it is on the statute book. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.

On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting announced that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister had instructed the Department for Constitutional Affairs to incorporate an amendment to section 49 of the Audit Commission Act and to amend clause 54 accordingly, although that will not happen until the end of this year. Clause 54 represents another example of the Bill following English precedent instead of taking the opportunity to create something new for Wales. As the Welsh Affairs Committee said, it is a shame that the Bill is not better for Wales instead of no worse than for England.

As it stands, the Bill represents many wasted opportunities. I fear that the changes that it introduces have not been properly costed. The Government have admitted to an inaccurate estimate of start-up costs, with the most recent regulatory impact assessment raising the initial cost from £500,000 to £987,000. However, that does not account for additional budgetary costs, even though there will be no scale economies in establishing the Wales Audit Office. It would be helpful if the Minister informed the House of the current running costs, and I hope that he will do so when he winds up.

Although the Bill will make a difference, it is rather disappointing that it is the only piece of Wales-specific legislation, despite the National Assembly for Wales having proposed five Bills. We know that Lord Morris of Aberavon was disappointed when, much to the Minister's embarrassment, he said on Second Reading in the other place:

"I know the pressures on the Government's business managers . . . and"

I have

"seen many Ministers' worthy legislative proposals thrown aside for lack of time. But that is the purpose of the Secretary of State for Wales—to fight for Wales in Cabinet; he has hardly any other real functions."

He must have forgotten that the Secretary of State has another job, as of course we could not forget, as he answered questions this morning. He continued:

"By any standards, this is pretty poor reward for his efforts."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 717.]

Overall, we welcome the Second Reading of the Bill, which will create a single audit body in Wales to the benefit of the people of Wales. The Bill has been greatly improved by the hard work of Conservatives, but inconsistencies and concerns remain. I do not wish at any stage to forget the input of the Welsh Affairs Committee.

The challenge in Committee will be to amend clause 54 so that the Government can ensure that it satisfies modern tests of transparency. I know that they and the Minister want to deliver that result, but I am still not happy that they have completely succeeded.

How can we possibly pass the Bill until section 49 of the Audit Commission Act has been amended? I cannot believe that the Government would want it any other
 
17 Jun 2004 : Column 940
 
way, given that they propose to uphold the accountability of public bodies and to protect those who blow the whistle on corruption.

We will strive in Committee to resolve the inconsistencies in the criminal sanction provisions with regard to rights of access to information. There is an underlying concern that the Bill simply imports the current audit regime for England and Wales, thereby ignoring the chance to make the audit regime in Wales sharper and more suitable than the English version. Instead of making Wales the beacon of good audit practice, the Government have chosen to duplicate the Audit Commission Act. That is short-sighted. We shall endeavour to improve the Bill further in Committee.

2.3 pm

---