| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for the way in which she approached this discussion. She is 100 per cent correct in everything she said about the freedoms that people have to shop or, indeed, to work in a shop on a Sunday. All shopworkers in England and Wales except those who are specifically employed to work on Sundays have the right to refuse to work on Sundays and to be
protected against dismissal or detriment. It is correct that those rights are contained in the Employment Rights Act 1996.I very much enjoyed the description by the noble Baroness of the great changes that have taken place over the years and the ways in which some things which were thought to be a very great risk have turned out not to be. As someone who does not watch the omnibus edition of "EastEnders" or even, indeed, listen to the omnibus edition of "The Archers" but certainly on occasions goes shopping on Sundays, I know the benefits.
I share with the noble Baroness some interest in the revelation about methylated spirits and call to mind novels in which people seek out not only methylated spirits but even boot polish and other things which contain alcohol that could be extracted. I note only that progress now means that many drinks tinted purple are regarded as a fashion accoutrement. Methylated spirits plainly now only really panders to the needs of those with Primus stoves.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for that. I am grateful for her contribution to this brief debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
- House adjourned at ten minutes before nine o'clock.
Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
Public Audit (Wales) Bill [HL]
(First Day)
Monday, 23 February 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, perhaps I may remind your Lordships of two points of procedure. Noble Lords will speak standing and the House has agreed that there will be no Divisions in Grand Committee. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed, it should be withdrawn. If there is a Division—and I am advised there is likely to be—in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 1 [Transfer of functions of Assembly]:
Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 1:
- Page 1, line 7, leave out "with the consent of" and insert "after consultation with"
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy is unable to join us in the Grand Committee because of a family bereavement. I shall therefore be speaking to the amendments that stand in the joint names of myself and my noble friend. He hopes to join us later in the proceedings of the Bill.
Amendment No. 1 is the first of a series of probing amendments intended to clarify various points. It seeks to amend new Section 146A of the Government of Wales Act as inserted by Clause 1 of the Bill.
The amendment raises the question of the relationship between the Assembly and the Auditor General in the matter of his supervisory functions over public bodies and registered social landlords. The Bill proposes that the Assembly should seek the consent of the Auditor General, which implies a degree of superiority on his part and a power to refuse consent. Is this what is intended? What if the Auditor General were to refuse? The Assembly would at the very least be embarrassed.
On the other hand, the Assembly could in theory transfer functions that might be inappropriate for the Auditor General to exercise, such as oversight of sponsored bodies. His independence and objectivity have to be safeguarded and so, I concede, there is much to be said for the wording of the Bill.
Our probing amendment proposes to substitute consultation between them, which is a much more egalitarian and open procedure. They could still have their disagreements but they would be within the framework of the Act and might not cause so much of a stir.
As to the preparation of reports, the Assembly appears to have the whip hand because, under subsection (3), it may direct the Auditor General to prepare a report on his supervisory functions. That sits oddly with the need to seek his consent to exercise the function in the first place. We do not have a specific amendment on that point, but it illustrates the complexity of the relationship between the Auditor General and the Assembly and I hope that the Minister will be able to illuminate it. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Given that the noble Baroness said that this is a probing amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister what lies behind the use of the phrase "with the consent of".
Before continuing, I should like to be associated with the sympathy expressed towards the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, in his bereavement. I have known the noble Lord for a very long time indeed. I am very sorry and I wish to pass my party's condolences to him and his family.
I should like the Minister to assert exactly why the phrase "with the consent of" is used. "Consultation with" sounds better but I suspect that there is a reason behind the use of that phraseology.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford will be leading for my party on the Bill but, unfortunately, a train actually left on time and he is not able to be here at the moment. I am expecting him to be here in about an hour and a quarter.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I complete the list of apologies to the Committee, as I am also a poor, sorry substitute for my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, who has been struck down by an illness that will keep him away from the House for the next two or three days or so, for which he apologises.
Obviously, we want to be associated with the condolences to be extended to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. He is greatly respected in the House, and we all feel for him at this very difficult time and fully understand why he cannot be with us today, although we will miss his contributions.
I was grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness moved the amendment. I find it extremely difficult to respond in a harsh manner to a proposal defined by her as both egalitarian and fair, so it is with some reluctance that I indicate that it does not quite meet my definition of what is going on in the clause.
Amendment No. 1 would obviate the need for the National Assembly to seek the consent of the Auditor General before making an order to transfer to, or to make exercisable by, the Auditor General its supervisory functions in respect of a public body or a registered social landlord in Wales. The amendment provides for consultation, but his consent to any exercise would not be required.
My answer to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is that the consent of the Auditor General to any exercise of the Assembly's functions is essential. The Office of the Auditor General is a Crown appointment. As the statutory auditor of the National Assembly, it is very important that his independence is not in any way called into question. The Auditor General must be satisfied that, in assuming any such functions, his independence is not compromised. The requirement for his consent in Clause 1 ensures that safeguard.
What we are talking about is in no way a comment on the legitimate powers of the National Assembly, but recognises that the Auditor General has a separate, distinct and important function in parallel. The clause is phrased as it is, leading me to resist amendment to it, to safeguard that essential independence of the Auditor General.
A further safeguard is that any order to be made under the clause, either transferring supervisory functions on a "once and for all" basis, or asking the Auditor General to exercise them on the Assembly's behalf, would be subject to scrutiny under the National Assembly's subordinate legislation procedures. The National Assembly would not witness change effected by only the Auditor General without having the capacity to scrutinise and examine it under those procedures. On that basis, I hope that I have assured the noble Baroness that we want the clause to stand as it is.
Baroness Noakes: I thank both noble Lords for their condolences to my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy. I am sure that he will be grateful when he reads that in Hansard. I also thank the Minister for his reply, which we shall need to think about carefully. He did not answer on what would happen if the Auditor General did not agree—on whether the procedure was actually robust in the event of disagreement. I know that my noble friend will want to consider that carefully, but for today I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 2:
- Page 1, line 15, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 27, which is grouped with it. The amendment seeks to leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (2) in new Section 146A of the Government of Wales Act 1998 to be inserted by Clause 1. Our amendment is inspired by the loose definition here of a "public body" as one,
- "exercising functions of a public nature".
- "substantially funded from public money".
However, the phrase "substantially funded" lends itself to a wide range of interpretation, which is the reason why we have tabled Amendment No. 27 to delete the words "or substantially" from the identical definition of public bodies set out in Clause 12. We might have tabled the same amendment for Clause 1, but I hope that the Minister will treat Amendment No. 27 as one also standing proxy for a probing amendment on Clause 1.
Such wording is difficult to define. What I would call a "substantial contract" might be small fry for a major multinational concern, while a much smaller sum of public money may be the lifeblood of a minor company; that is, the main source of its finances. Can the Minister explain exactly what the Government mean by,
- "substantially funded from public money",
I am aware that the definition of "public body" is consistent with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. That is relatively new legislation and I wonder whether the Minister can say something about how that definition has been applied in practice. For example, what specific bodies have been classified as public bodies for the purposes of that Act and have any issues of definition arisen in practice? If so, how were they resolved? I beg to move.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page