Clause 5 - Studies relating to registered social landlords
Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords]
10:00 am
Mr Bill Wiggin (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Local and Devolved Government Affairs; Leominster, Conservative)
This is the largest group of amendments. Amendment Nos. 14 and 15 would ensure that the Auditor General could determine what studies he carried out on registered social landlords. As clause 5 stands, he is restricted to carrying out the studies that the Assembly wants, but we believe that he should determine his studies, as well as those where the Assembly has a concern. That is consistent with what we were questioning at the beginning of this morning's sitting: we want to ensure that no political imperative of the Assembly would influence his work, which would be totally inappropriate.
Amendment no. 16 would delete the words ''on his behalf'' from subsection (2) of new clause 145C, in order to find out who would carry out studies on the
Auditor General's behalf, and under what power they would be appointed. The Auditor General should have complete independence in deciding what to examine. However, the Bill is not constructed in a way that would make financial audit and value-for-money audit of public money in Wales consistent and coherent. The Bill should be—although it is not—built on the principle of effective audit of public money in Wales.
Amendment No. 8 would delete subsection (4), which deals with value-for-money audits of registered social landlords are similar to those under subsection (3) of clause 4. If, while carrying out his studies, the Auditor General discovers that a body's objective is causing inefficiency or ineffectiveness, he should be able to question and report on its policy. Amendment No. 8 would ensure that he was free to do his work without being constrained by policy considerations.
Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 are designed to make the powers against non-compliance consistent throughout the public audit regime in Wales. Amendment No. 17 would remove subsections (6) and (7) from proposed new section 145C of the Government of Wales Act inserted by the clause, which would make it a criminal offence not to comply with the requirements concerning access to documents. That offence is punishable by a level 3 fine. That is not consistent with compliance under clause 11, which covers the Auditor General's rights of access to general information. That is why we tabled amendment No. 20, which we shall discuss later, and which, for consistency, would include such criminal offences in clause 11.
At present, the Bill states that it is a criminal offence if registered social landlords or local government are involved in non-compliance, but not otherwise. Can the Minister explain the logic behind that? Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 would also bring consistency into how the penalties are calculated, as they repeat the extended fining provisions of clauses 19 and 53.
We are striving to ensure that there is internal consistency in the Welsh public audit regime. We do not believe that criminal sanctions are necessary and would like assurances from the Minister that they are required. I have no doubt that the Minister will reply that the criminal sanctions in clause 5 must be retained because they are consistent with criminal law in England. However, the Assembly already has the power and, in clause 39, is given the ability to create criminal offences. Therefore, the basis of the Minister's probable reply—that the amendments would create inconsistency in criminal law between England and Wales—is false because, as soon as the Assembly uses its power under clause 39, that consistency will be lost.
If the Government concentrated on making the Bill consistent, Wales would have a far more logical audit regime. However, it seems that the Government do not want to change what already exists in England, and consequently are creating layers of complexity for Wales.