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

I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 18, line 4, leave out from 'are' to end of line 8 and insert

'those listed in section 12(1)'.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 30, in clause 25, page 18, line 37, leave out subsection (3).

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

We tabled the amendments to ask why there are various lists of bodies in the Bill. Amendment No. 29 would delete the four bodies that are listed in clause 25(3) and replace them with the nine bodies that are listed in clause 12(1). Amendment No. 30 seeks to delete clause 25(3) because we wish to establish why the four types of bodies receive different treatment. These have all doubtlessly been copied from existing legislation, which again highlights the wasted opportunity to consider the audit regime in Wales afresh. I look forward to hearing why those four have been picked out.

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

Amendment No. 29, by requiring all local government bodies to consider reports as soon as practicable, would relax the requirement on the larger bodies. There would be no specific deadline, either of one month or any longer period by which they would be required to consider reports. That would be a retrograde step. The one-month deadline for the larger bodies is also consistent with the tighter time scale introduced on an England and Wales basis by the Local Government Act 2003. It reduced the time scale for consideration from four months.

Furthermore, the safeguards provided by clauses 25 and 26 are dependent on the distinction between the larger bodies subject to the one-month deadline and the smaller bodies. If the amendment were agreed to and the distinction were removed, the safeguards in clauses 25 and 26 would cease to apply. Those clauses require the larger local government bodies to make specific decisions in response to a public interest report

within a definite time scale, and require minimum publicity for a meeting to consider the report and its subject matter.

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

I can see where the Minister is taking the argument about the sizes of bodies. Does he not feel that local authorities should perhaps have been included in that list of four?

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

I shall return to that point in a moment.

The requirements set out in clause 24 as drafted make robust and pragmatic arrangements for the consideration of reports in the public interest. Amendment No. 30 would have the opposite effect, by imposing on the smaller bodies a definite timetable and process for considering certain written recommendations from their auditors. The fact that the smaller local government bodies are not currently subject to such requirements recognises their comparatively small administrative resource base and the fact that they meet with less frequency. I hope that that covers the point that particularly concerned the hon. Gentleman and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

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

I am not sure, because I do not know the intimate details, whether an internal drainage board is larger or smaller than a local authority in Wales. I suspect that they are different in every case. Like most things in life there is no set of rules. The Minister's point that smaller bodies should not be under the same pressure as larger ones is a good one. I am not sure that we should be so generous in the Bill, but if that is what the Minister wants, there may be a better way of doing it. I am not suggesting that my amendments are perfect, but if the size of the body and the frequency with which it meets are the issues, we should perhaps specify those factors and force it to report in the way that the Minister has outlined.

In drafting the Bill, the Minister has obviously considered how things are today, but hon. Members will agree that we must think of most eventualities. I am not sure that he has done that. I would be grateful if the Minister could put my mind at rest. I am concerned that the size of the body and the frequency with which it meets are the only issues, because organisations such as police authorities, which are very important to people, should be as accountable as humanly possible. That is what we are trying to dig at.

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

The hon. Gentleman asked why there are various lists of bodies in clauses 24 and 25, but there are only two lists. One set of bodies is larger and better resourced and tends to meet more frequently. I should also stress that local authorities are subject to more demanding requirements in the Bill, and we are following the right route on that. The other list is of smaller bodies. I hope that that explanation addresses the hon. Gentleman's concern about the difference in sizes.

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

I am grateful for that reply, and it mollifies my concerns. We want to make progress this morning, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 25 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.