| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wayne David): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 43.
Mr. David: New clause 24 will confer legislative competence on the National Assembly for Wales. Such provisions are commonly known as framework or measure-making powers. I want to apologise to the Committee that this framework power was not included in the Bill on its introduction, as the Government have committed to doing in respect of all framework powers. I regret that the technical nature of the provision meant that it did not prove possible to finalise it in time. The Government have, however, introduced the new clause at the first available opportunity and I am pleased that so many Members attended the briefing session on the provision that I held yesterday with the Welsh Minister, Andrew Davies.
Mr. Gauke: The Minister says that the delay was due to a technical difficulty. Will he reassure the Committee that it was not due to Wales being forgotten? We know that the Government's relationship with the Principality is not what it was-Labour is no longer the most popular political party in Wales-and I fear that this is an example of Welsh neglect.
Mr. David: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. Incidentally, the Labour party is back on top, as the recent opinion polls show.
This measure is very technical, and we wanted to ensure the maximum amount of consultation. That has now taken place, and we are satisfied with what we are proposing.
Mr. Gauke: I shall make a less partisan point. Does this measure have any budgetary implications and, if so, where are the resources coming from?
Mr. David: There are no budgetary implications for this Government. Any budgetary implications would be in the hands of the Welsh Assembly Government.
The new clause adds a new Matter 14.1 to part 1 of schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 in the field of public administration. It also inserts new paragraph 6A into part 2 of schedule 5 to the 2006 Act to modify the general restrictions on the Assembly's competence.
The competence conferred by Matter 14.1 would allow the National Assembly to pass legislation, known as an Assembly measure, to put in place new arrangements for the Auditor General for Wales and the Wales Audit Office. These arrangements are comparable to the ones set out in part 7 of the Bill for the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office. However, the Assembly may decide on different arrangements within the scope of the competence conferred.
In particular, the competence covers the Auditor General's terms of appointment relating to tenure and remuneration, the number of times that a person may be appointed Auditor General, the efficiency and effectiveness of the Auditor General, the other positions that a serving or former Auditor General may hold, the authorisation of other people to perform the Auditor General's functions on his or her behalf, oversight and
supervision of the Auditor General, and the provision of resources for the Auditor General and the charging of fees or other amounts.
It is right that the National Assembly should have the power to decide what arrangements are appropriate in relation to the public auditor for the devolved bodies operating in Wales. The structure of public audit is different in Wales compared with England, and the new clause gives the Assembly power to put in place arrangements for the more effective oversight, supervision and accountability of the Auditor General for Wales. At the same time, it makes sure that the independence of the Auditor General's operational audit work is maintained.
The Assembly will not be able to modify provisions in the Government of Wales Act 2006 that provide that the Auditor General is not subject to the direction or control of the Assembly or the Assembly Government. That strikes the right balance between allowing the Assembly flexibility to put in place arrangements that it considers appropriate for Wales, and preventing any erosion of the important principle of audit independence.
New paragraph 6A in part 2 of schedule 5 provides for an exception to the prohibition on the ability of Assembly measures to modify certain provisions of the Government of Wales Acts 1998 and 2006. That will enable those Acts to be amended by Assembly measure, if the purpose of the amendment is about putting in place the new governance arrangements for the Auditor General.
The competence would also enable the Assembly to transfer functions currently undertaken by its Audit Committee relating to consideration of the estimate of the audit reports of the Auditor General by another Committee of the Assembly. However, it could do so only if the Committee to which the functions are transferred is, like the Audit Committee, composed in a way that is independent of Welsh Ministers and the ruling Administration.
The consequential Government amendment 43 amends the long title to include the proposed amendments to the Government of Wales Act 2006.
I commend the new clause and the amendment to the House.
New clause 24 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
'(1) The Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 13(1) after "applies", insert ", subject to section 15A,".
(3) In section 14 at the beginning insert "Subject to section 15A".
(4) In section 15(1) after "applies", insert ", subject to section 15A,".
"15A Authorisation by relevant committee of the House of Commons
Notwithstanding any Act of Parliament or Resolution of the House of Commons, the Auditor and Comptroller-General shall not grant any credit to the Treasury under this Act unless he is satisfied that a relevant committee of the House of Commons has examined and approved the expenditure concerned for the relevant year,"'.- (David Howarth.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
David Howarth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is something of a shame that a new clause that looks modest but would have the effect of changing our system of Government entirely comes before the Committee with only seven minutes to go before the knife. I therefore do not expect that it will get a proper airing or any proper debate tonight.
The new clause deals with the control of expenditure by the House before that expenditure is made, as opposed to the auditing of expenditure once the money has been spent, which we tend to be rather better at. It is emblematic that most of this afternoon's debates on this part of the Bill have been about the Comptroller and Auditor General in his role as an auditor, rather than in his very important role as Comptroller.
The Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866, which is one of the great Gladstonian reforms of the 19th century, puts on the Comptroller the job of making sure that Government expenditure drawn from the Consolidated Fund is authorised by statute or by a resolution of the House. It is fundamental to the system of supply whereby the House, in theory, controls Government expenditure that the Comptroller has that job.
This should matter because policy debates are intimately connected with expenditure. A great American political scientist, Aaron Wildavsky, once said that policy is expenditure and expenditure is policy. That is because a policy that does not have any resources attached to it is generally just hot air, and any spending decision is, in reality, a decision about what to spend money on, as opposed to not spending money on something else, and therefore is a policy decision.
Over the past couple of centuries we have seen a great decline in the practical control of the House over that sort of expenditure decision. There is no time tonight to go through the detailed history of the decline of the supply procedure of the House. By 1896 most of the remaining power of the House was removed by the Conservative party when Mr. Balfour, who was Leader of the House, decided to change the procedure so that all the Government's supply requirements would be decided on one day in August, just in time for the grouse shooting season to start.
The main purpose of the clause is to suggest to the House-I am sure that the Government will not be interested-that it is now time to try in some way to wrest back our control over Government expenditure before it happens. An important consequence of the House's giving up of its power over supply and expenditure is that it spends all its time talking about legislation instead. This problem is part of the wider problem of there being far too much legislation. What has filled the time that in previous centuries was taken up with discussing Government expenditure before it happened is legislation-new laws. That is what we talk about instead.
I admit that the new clause would not make a vast difference in itself. We need to get hold not just of the annual process of Government expenditure, but of the comprehensive spending review-the multi-year framework which is generally a process from which we are entirely excluded. Select Committees find themselves excluded from that as well.
In local government, the systems for controlling expenditure in advance are far better. Even the smallest parish council gives the elected representatives better information and more power over spending decisions than happens in the House. In the end that lack of control leads to worse policy. There is not time to go into the details of what would be different if control were different. I simply leave hon. Members with the thought that the House is withering in its power and in public esteem, and that it will continue to wither until it takes back a role in the setting of policy. That is what the control of expenditure in advance is all about.
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) for his contribution, which reflects his passionate views that the House should have better scrutiny of Government spending for future years. I know that that was one of the themes of his speech on Second Reading, in which he said that serious reform was required of the way in which Parliament relates to Government on money issues.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government published a memorandum in March containing formal proposals to Parliament for better alignment between budgets, estimates and accounts. The memorandum explained the plans to simplify the Government's financial reporting to Parliament, ensuring that they report in a more consistent, transparent and straightforward fashion on spending plans, estimates and expenditure outcomes.
The hon. Gentleman will know that an important plank in moving towards alignment is covered by part 8, on the transparency of Government financial reporting and, in particular, the inclusion in departmental estimates of resources used by designated bodies.
On 3 July, the Liaison Committee responded to the memorandum on behalf of the other Select Committees, and in its response it covered some of the same ground as the hon. Gentleman has. In particular-
7 pm
Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 3 November).
The Chairman put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83D), That the new clause be added to the Bill.
The Chairman then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again (Programme Order, 3 November).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft Saving Gateway Accounts Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.
That the draft Saving Gateway Accounts (No. 2) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 7 July, be approved.
That the draft Welsh Ministers (Transfer of Functions) (No. 2) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 20 July, be approved.
That the draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Consequential Modifications, Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 20 July, be approved.
That the draft Provision of Services Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.- (Mary Creagh.)
Regional Select Committee (lONDON)
Motion made and Question put ,
That Ms Karen Buck, Jeremy Corbyn, Clive Efford, Siobhain McDonagh and Mr Andy Slaughter be members of the London Regional Select Committee.- (Mary Creagh . )
Regional Select Committee (West Midlands)
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (2 November),
That Mr David Kidney be discharged from the West Midlands Regional Select Committee and Mrs Janet Dean be added. -(Mary Creagh .)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Regional Select Committee (South West)
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (29 October),
That Linda Gilroy be discharged from the South West Regional Select Committee and Roger Berry be added.- (Mary Creagh.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Petitions
Waste Plant (North East Derbyshire)
7.2 pm
Natascha Engel (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): I should like to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Dronfield. The petition is supported by more than 700 individual letters.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |