| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): Is Amendment No. 11 still grouped with Amendment No. 7?
Baroness Noakes: I shall not move it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I was confused when I came in; I apologise.
Clause 5 [Studies relating to registered social landlords]:
Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 12:
- Page 6, line 27, leave out from "The" to "one" and insert "Auditor General for Wales may carry out"
The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. The amendments concern Clause 5, which inserts proposed new Section 145C into the Government of Wales Act to deal with value for money studies in relation to registered social landlords.
Under subsection (1) of new Section 145C, the Auditor General and the Assembly are to agree on a programme of studies. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 would mean that the Auditor General could himself determine what value-for-money studies on registered social landlords were carried out. In addition, the Assembly and the Auditor General can agree on a programme of studies. So we move from agreeing to the Auditor General having independence to do what he thinks should be carried out.
New Section 145C unnecessarily restricts the Auditor General to studying only in effect what the Assembly wants, thus turning him into a sort of hired hand. The Auditor General should be in the driving seat to determine what studies to carry out, although of course he should also carry out studies where the Assembly has a particular concern. As the Auditor General does not have freedom, we may find that the scope of his work will be settled to meet some political imperative of the Assembly, perhaps avoiding some political hot potato. That would be wholly inappropriate.
Amendment No. 14, which is probing, is less weighty. Subsection (2) of new Section 145C talks about the Auditor General ensuring that studies are carried out by or on his behalf. My amendment simply knocks out "on his behalf" to find out who would be carrying out such studies and under what statutory power. I assume that the Auditor General will not be using his powers under new Section 96C to enter the arrangements that we discussed in the earlier group. Will the Minister say who could carry out the studies on the Auditor General's behalf, and under what power he would appoint them? I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Amendment No. 12 and, to a more minor extent, Amendment No. 13 involve discussion of an issue of principle. They would extend the Auditor General's powers, which would diminish the National Assembly's existing statutory powers in respect of registered social landlords. I hope that the Committee will agree that that would be inappropriate.
As a matter of principle—it is important that we have clear principles underpinning the legislation—we seek to ensure that nothing in the Bill should restrict or take away an existing power of the Assembly. That is a very important point for the Government and is relevant to the two amendments and other amendments that will be discussed later.
Amendment No. 12 would enable the Auditor General to undertake programmes of study in respect of registered social landlords in Wales at his discretion, and independently of agreement with the Assembly. Amendment No. 13 would merely enable the Assembly to request that the Auditor General undertake such studies. The National Assembly already has the power to agree on a programme of economy, efficiency and effectiveness studies in respect of registered social landlords with the Audit Commission, by virtue of Section 40 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 and the National Assembly of Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999.
Clause 5 would preserve that power on the basis of agreement between the Assembly and the Auditor General. The amendments would give the Auditor General complete discretion regarding the economy, efficiency and effectiveness studies in a sector for which he would not have statutory audit functions. RSLs are responsible for appointing their own auditors. As with the amendments on studies in respect of educational bodies under Clause 4, which we discussed earlier, that could lead to confusion over the respective audit roles. As with the related amendments on educational bodies, it would not be appropriate to give the Auditor General a free hand in undertaking studies related to bodies for which he does not have wider statutory audit functions.
I reiterate that our major consideration is how the amendments would affect the existing powers of the Assembly.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I thank the Minister for giving way, and for the principle that he has stated. However, does he not agree that this is a further example of the complexity of the constitutional base with which we are dealing? In other words, we have the Government of Wales Act 1998 and occasional other pieces of legislation—for example, the Education Act 1996, which refers to higher education—and the transfer of functions orders. To understand this complex area, one must carry copies of all the transfer of functions orders along with one, unless one is very carefully advised as matters progress.
Is the Minister not clearly making the case for a new devolutionary principle? Although that is beyond the scope of the Committee, it is worth remarking that that is yet another example of the complexity of legislating and maintaining principles that do not diminish the Assembly's powers, because the power base itself is so legislatively complex.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.26 to 5.39 p.m.]
Lord Elis-Thomas: I was about to sit down to enable the Minister to respond to my general comments. While he is perusing his papers on the matter, I should like to emphasise my point. Legislation that provides the constitutional base for the activity of the Assembly is very complicated. We have not only the Government of Wales Act and other relevant legislation, such as the Education Act 1996, but also transfer of functions
orders, which can change the extent of powers and activities of the Assembly in specific areas. That makes it very difficult to legislate.Obviously, I approve the principle that nothing should lessen the powers of the Assembly or reduce its flexibility, particularly as regards the role of the Audit Committee in these circumstances. As the main democratic body, it currently works in partnership with the Auditor General and will work in partnership in a different way—not involving local government so directly—with the new body or the health services body, to which we will turn later.
Lord Davies of Oldham: As ever, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for his consideration in arranging for a Division to give me time to think about how I handle stage two of the devolution debate in Wales. I have confessed already that I am stretched on the crucial issue of accountancy, without getting myself deeply involved in constitutional issues. Therefore, if that is the examination that the noble Lord sets for me, I must confess that I have not really begun the first paragraph of the paper in response to him.
I hear what the noble Lord says; he intervened most appropriately. I sought to identify that the amendments would detract from the powers of the Assembly, which is an effect that, on principle, we are set against. We intend to protect the powers of the Assembly, whether or not we intend in the very near future to go down the path of devolution, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, invites me. As the noble Lord probably recalls, one or two other constitutional matters are in the offing in Parliament, and they will probably take priority. Nevertheless, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the obvious implications for the Assembly with regard to the proposals contained in the measure.
Amendment No. 14 would require the Auditor General to undertake programmes of studies in respect of registered landlords. The wording of the amendment makes it clear that the Auditor General would have the discretion to arrange for the work to be undertaken by a member of his staff or for it to be contracted out. The amendment would limit the Auditor General's operational flexibility and, potentially, the value for money obtained in undertaking the study programmes. If the programme of work were undertaken by a staff member or a private sector auditor approved by him for that purpose, he would still be responsible for the end result. Therefore, the amendment appears unnecessary. Where the clause states, "on his behalf", it would be either a member of the Auditor General's staff or a person providing services to him. Clause 9 makes that clear in relation to new subsection (8) of Section 90 of the Government of Wales Act.
I hope that we have taken on board the salient points made by noble Lords. We are clear about the relationship between this Bill and the Government of Wales Act. I am eschewing the opportunity to push the boat any further down those waters. I hope that the
noble Baroness will consider that I have given a sufficiently full response to the amendments, albeit some time ago.5.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The answer that the Minister has given to the amendment is that it detracts from the powers of the Assembly under the Government of Wales Act. Why does it not detract from the Government of Wales Act that the Auditor General for Wales has the same discretion that is being criticised under Clauses 3 and 4? What is the difference?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page