Mr Bill Wiggin (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Local and Devolved Government Affairs; Leominster, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 11, line 4, at end insert—

'(6A) A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse he fails to comply with a requirement imposed under this section.

(6B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4A) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'.

Amendment No. 20 is an alternative to amendments Nos. 17 to 19, which seeks to bring consistency to clauses 5 and 11 with regard to criminal sanctions. It would add a criminal offence for non-compliance with the Auditor General's right of access to general information, to make it consistent with the criminal sanctions in clause 5. I repeat that we do not believe that criminal sanctions are necessary, but the amendment is an attempt to highlight the inconsistencies in the Bill and to try to resolve them. If the Government think that criminal sanctions are necessary for non-compliance by registered social landlords or local government in clause 5, why is it not a criminal offence in clause 11?

Mr Don Touhig (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Wales), Department for Constitutional Affairs; Islwyn, Labour/Co-operative)

Amendment No. 20 would apply criminal sanctions to non-compliance with clause 11 access rights. This would apply to persons connected with the National Assembly, its sponsored public bodies, NHS bodies in Wales and other public bodies funded by the Assembly. These bodies are covered by accounting officer conventions. It would also apply to those who hold documents and information relating to the exercise of the Auditor General's functions in relation to bodies such as the Assembly-sponsored public bodies and health bodies in Wales. In the first instance the matter would be brought to the attention of the relevant body's accounting officer and then the National Assembly's Audit Committee.

The Committee would be able to call witnesses to seek an explanation. The Committee could issue and publish a report on the matter. The principal accounting officer of the National Assembly and the accounting officers of other public bodies in Wales are also required to give evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, if invited. Ultimately, an instance of non-compliance could result in the removal of accounting officer status. Withdrawal of that status could well result in the individual concerned not being able to continue in his or her job. There are no equivalent accounting officer conventions in the local government sector.

I am not aware of any instance in Wales where the imposition of criminal sanctions would have led to any more satisfactory resolution of access difficulties in the

context of clause 11 bodies. Criminal sanction provisions were not incorporated in the Auditor General's original access rights provision in the Government of Wales Act 1998. Lord Sharman also did not recommend the creation of criminal offence provisions in this context in his report. The Government are satisfied that the extended rights of access to documents and information under clause 11 could be secured either under the accounting officer conventions or by way of an application for judicial review.

In judicial review proceedings, where available, the Auditor General could seek a mandatory order, compelling the person, persons or body to comply. Alternatively, he could apply in the civil courts for a mandatory injunction to compel the performance of a duty to provide access. We consider those potential remedies to be formidable. For instance, a subcontractor would think twice about refusing to comply with the Auditor General's rights of access if faced with the prospects of litigation and the costs that would inevitably ensue. On that basis, the Government consider that it would not be appropriate or necessary to apply criminal sanctions in respect of the provisions of clause 11, which would create a criminal offence that would not exist in England. We have again sought a degree of consistency, recognising that there were differences in the earlier debate, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Local and Devolved Government Affairs; Leominster, Conservative)

I should like to be satisfied, but the truth remains that if everything that the Minister says is right, why is it necessary to apply it to social landlords or local government? There is an inconsistency here: we either need criminal sanctions or we do not. I would expect a judicial review to be a long and difficult process, so it makes it much easier to have, if necessary, criminal sanctions throughout the Bill, or not.

At present, there is a difference between social landlords and local government, and the amendment. That is the problem that the Government face, and I do not think that the Minister answered that. He must understand why I am concerned about this, and unless he receives any divine inspiration, it will be difficult for him to answer the point. It is important to be consistent in legislation. Many Members have turned up this morning to contribute to our debates, and they would want, just as much as I do, a consistent Bill for the people of Wales, not different rules for different people according to how they are pigeonholed. I am not at all happy with the Minister's reply at this stage.

Mr Don Touhig (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Wales), Department for Constitutional Affairs; Islwyn, Labour/Co-operative)

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not happy— [Interruption.] I am mortified. It will keep me awake for most of the night. I point out to him that in a later debate, which I do not want to anticipate, he will be arguing against criminal sanctions. The Opposition should exercise a degree of consistency as well. In my response to him, I sought to point out a number of provisions that will be in place in order effectively to deal with his problems, short of applying criminal sanctions. I am sure that in our later

debate, we shall hear much about the need not to have criminal sanctions in respect of other matters to be considered by the Committee. On that basis, I hope that he is prepared to accept the points that I have made.

Mr Bill Wiggin (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Local and Devolved Government Affairs; Leominster, Conservative)

I take the Minister's point about criminal sanctions. I think that I emphasised enough that I do not believe that criminal sanctions are necessary. On that basis, I should like to see them removed for the other classes. We are not going to agree on this, and I want to make progress. It is an important Bill, but this is another of those little wrinkles that need to be ironed out, and we are doing our best to do so.

Mr Don Touhig (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Wales), Department for Constitutional Affairs; Islwyn, Labour/Co-operative)

We have talked today about the Second Reading debate in the other place, which helped to improve the Bill. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that one of his colleagues in the other place regarded criminal sanctions as a blunt instrument. Why should we want to extend them?

Mr Bill Wiggin (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Local and Devolved Government Affairs; Leominster, Conservative)

I do not mind if we remove criminal sanctions from the Bill, but the problem is the inconsistency. Either they are good for registered social landlords and local government employees, or they are not. That is the sticking point for the Committee. I have sought to remove them, I have sought to put them back in, and I shall probably seek again to take them out, because I am not going to let the Minister, with such an inconsistency—[Interruption.] The Minister is accusing me, from a sedentary position, of being like a Liberal Democrat. That is something that would give some people a sleepless night; what a very low and dirty insult that must be, and I am deeply hurt.

I was about to withdraw my amendment, but I shall now push it to a vote on the basis of that rotten insult. No, Mr. Griffiths, I am joking, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.