| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Oldham: I shall certainly reflect on that but I am afraid that I do not have the intellectual capacity or knowledge to deal with these issues at the level the noble Baroness rightly expects me to, given her own background with regard to these technical terms. I have made the best shot of it I can for today. I shall of course take steps to improve on my response in due course.
Baroness Noakes: Let me not torture the Minister further today and allow the committee to move on. As to Amendment No. 19, I was unmoved by the Minister's explanation. I always find that when Ministers resort to wheeling out the fact that judicial review can always be used to settle what something means, we can hear the sound of barrels being scraped. This happens where the Government cannot give a clear explanation for what has been drafted and it is all left to judgment followed by a remedy which we all know is of no real use to man or beast—that is, judicial review.
As to the basis on which fees are to be charged, I raised the substantive issue of the different ways in which the Bill has been drafted, which implies different fees for different things. I also asked—I shall not press for an answer today—about who will consider the matter to ensure that the provisions are complied with and whether the Assembly will have any role in that.
I know that the Minister will ask his officials to consider those issues outside the Committee. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Accounting officer]:
Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 21:
- Page 9, line 28, leave out "Audit Committee" and insert "Crown"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 22. Both amendments relate to Clause 10, which inserts new Section 94A into the Government of Wales Act and makes the Auditor General the accounting officer for the Wales Audit Office.
Amendment No. 21 deals with a situation where the Auditor General is incapable of discharging his duties as accounting officer or the office is vacant. He is of course a Crown appointment and it seems odd that his replacement—admittedly only wearing his accountant officer hat—should in those circumstances be decided not by the Crown but by the Assembly's Audit Committee.
That seems to beg the question of the relationship between the Auditor General and the Audit Committee. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) refer to his
responsibilities as accounting officer for the Wales Audit Office to be specified by the committee from time to time. So the committee clearly has some supervisory power over the Auditor General, as accounting officer, who is charged by it for the propriety and so on of the Wales Audit Office. Be it noted that his responsibility as specified by the Audit Committee may also extend to the House of Commons and the Public Accounts Committee.That is a very tricky clause in which all concerned appear to be compromising their independence to some extent. That brings me to Amendment No. 22, which seeks to replace "shall" for "may" in subsection (6) so that if the Public Accounts Committee in another place requests the Assembly's Audit Committee to take evidence and report to it, the Audit Committee must do so.
I am conscious that we are treading on thin ice here but it seems to me that, bearing in mind that the Assembly's power are subject to the will of Parliament, we should be clear that if Parliament requests, the body should oblige. If it did not, that would, to put it mildly, put the cat among the pigeons with regard to the devolution settlement. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: On Amendment No. 21, let us be clear that we are talking about a limited period and a temporary basis. I hear what the noble Baroness says about the inappropriateness of the provisions in the Bill and how her amendment would improve things. However, we are not talking about long-term permanent arrangements but simply what would happen in exceptional circumstances over a limited period of time. Nevertheless, issues of principle can be debated however short the time, and the noble Baroness has take this opportunity to identify an issue.
Amendment No. 21 would require the Crown, rather than, as proposed in the Bill, the Audit Commission to designate an accounting officer for the Wales Audit Office on a temporary basis. Clause 10 adds a new Section 94A to the Government of Wales Act. It designates the Auditor General as the accounting officer for the Wales Audit Office. As accounting officer he would have responsibility for signing the accounts of the office, the regularity and propriety of its finances and the economic, efficient and effective management of its work.
His responsibilities as accounting officer will also include any task specified from time to time by the Assembly's Audit Committee and can include responsibilities owed to the Assembly or its Committee, or to the House of Commons or its Public Accounts Committee. To prevent the Audit Committee from making a temporary—I stress that word—appointment would result in an unwieldy process for a limited measure. Giving the Assembly Audit Committee the power of temporary designation is consistent with the fact that the National Assembly part funds the Auditor General and that its Audit Committee has the power to examine and modify the Auditor General's annual estimate of income and expenditure.
Amendment No. 22 would remove any discretion of the Assembly or its committee in dealing with a request to undertake work for the Committee of Public Accounts. It would make the former subservient to the latter. The noble Baroness said that she thought she was treading on thin ice. We both are when it comes to the question of the relative powers between Parliament and the devolved Assembly. But the Government's position is clear: to make the former subservient to the latter would diminish the existing status of the Assembly Audit Committee. As drafted, the clause mirrors the relationship of the Committee of Public Accounts and the Audit Committee set out in Section 102 of the Government of Wales Act. That Act states that, if requested, the Audit Committee "may"—the noble Baroness seeks to insert "should" or "must" there—undertake work on behalf of the Committee of Public Accounts.
That arrangement has been put into effect satisfactorily on one occasion since the setting-up of the Assembly. The amendment would therefore create an inconsistency in the relationship between the Committee of Public Accounts and the Assembly Audit Committee in respect of taking evidence from the accounting officer of the Wales Audit Committee—where the Audit Committee would have no discretion—and other accounting officers in Wales, where discretion would remain.
Given the existing functions of the Assembly Audit Committee and the existing relationship between the Committee of Public Accounts—which we all hold in high regard as a most important committee in Parliament—and the Assembly Audit Committee, I believe that, although they raise interesting issues, the amendments are unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lady will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. I accept that the part of the clause to which Amendment No. 21 is directed would involve only a temporary gap before a new Auditor General is appointed. But, of course, sometimes a temporary appointment can continue for rather a long time. That would be unfortunate if the Audit Committee was appointing its own man in that period.
As to the relationship between the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee, I was not aware—although I am now—of Section 102 of the Government of Wales Act. I can see drafting similarities in the Bill, but it is a rather curious drafting given that the Assembly's powers, and therefore those of the Audit Committee, are subject to the will of Parliament.
Doubtless the drafting satisfies people's sensibilities and probably means little in practice. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Access to Information, etc by Auditor General]:
Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 23:
- Page 11, line 6, at end insert—
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 23 seeks to introduce a new paragraph into subsection (3) of Clause 11. The clause is important because it is designed to ensure that the Auditor General has full access rights so that he can follow public money in his audits. It builds on the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, in his report, Holding to Account, some two years ago. We support the basic aim of the clause.
The problem with the clause is that while its underlying aim is to ensure that the Auditor General has complete information about how public money has been used, it is drafted in a rather odd way. It does not focus on information but on documents. In particular the Auditor General can get information, assistance and so on from people who hold or control certain documents. I am sure that, in the majority of cases, following the paper trail of documents will give the Auditor General what he needs in terms of powers.
However, let us suppose that the Auditor General has run out of steam as regards finding people with documents to interrogate. For example, the Auditor General might want to question the staff of a person whom he thinks might hold or control a relevant document, but either the person or the document has disappeared. The Auditor General might believe that a member of staff would be able to help with the inquiries even though that member of staff may not himself hold or control a document. My amendment would ensure that the Auditor General's inquiries would not dry up simply because he could not follow a document.
I do not claim that the drafting of the amendment is perfect, but it is put forward as a genuine attempt to improve the implementation of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, so that public money is properly followed in the public audit process. If this finds favour with the Government, which I hope it does, they may also want to consider amending Clauses 18 and 52 since my amendment extends only to Clause 11 for the purposes of our debate in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I propose to lift my relationship with the noble Baroness on to a new plane by saying that she has largely convinced me with her argument. It is a constructive proposal, although not drafted in quite the form that we could accept at this
"( ) require any other person who the Auditor General for Wales has reason to believe has information about any of the persons or documents mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection to provide any facility or information which he may reasonably require for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1);"
6.30 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page