Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Wales; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 1 is purely inspired by the so-called bonfire of the quangos, which has not escaped the notice of many people in Wales. It has caused some controversy, and in the new clause I seek to put the Assembly firmly back in the driving seat so that if at any stage it wished upon itself the demise of the commissioner’s office it would be able to effect it. It may be, for example, that the Government in their wisdom want to appoint a commissioner for England and Wales jointly because it has proved such an excellent idea in Wales. In that case, the Bill would need to be removed from the statute book and a new Bill perhaps introduced. Or the Auditor General, using his powers under paragraph 13 of schedule 1, might carry out an examination and report that resources have not been used efficiently or effectively. The new clause would give the Assembly a sanction against the organisation in that eventuality.

The new clause would put the Assembly back in control. I do not mind if the Minister thinks it is not fit for purpose and wishes to table his own amendment on Report to ensure that the Assembly has the power to set light to this particular quango without too much controversy if it so wishes.

Nick Ainger (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Secretary of State for Wales; Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire, Labour)

While I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady has made, the effect of the new clause is pretty draconian to say the least. It would result in the Act ceasing to have effect if the Assembly so resolved or if the Auditor General produced a report concluding that the commissioner had

“failed to use his resources efficiently or effectively.”

Should the Assembly conclude that for some reason there was no longer a need for the commissioner—the hon. Lady suggested the example of a merger and a UK-wide commissioner—it would be able to relieve the commissioner of office, simply fail to reappoint him or seek to secure the repeal of the supporting legislation. If an incumbent commissioner’s contract still had time left to run, there is a provision in paragraph 3(3) of schedule 1 for arrangements to be made for any necessary early severance payment to be made.

If the hon. Lady is concerned about financial mismanagement or misconduct by the commissioner, I tell her that the Assembly takes the view that in such circumstances it should be able to relieve him of office. As noted in its statement of policy intentions, it is intended that regulations will include the power to do so on the grounds of misbehaviour.

The second part of the new clause deals with the impact of an unfavourable audit report from the Auditor General. It seems a somewhat draconian response to provide that the Act shall automatically and immediately cease to have effect if the commissioner is judged by the Auditor General to have failed in any respect, however minor, to use his  resources efficiently or effectively. There are safeguards built into the Bill to enable the Assembly to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used effectively by the commissioner. There is a requirement of audit in paragraph 12 of schedule 1 and provisions for examinations into the use of resources in paragraph 13. Before public money is committed at all, the Assembly Government will set the commissioner’s level of funding by negotiation with him on the basis of a forward work programme. The proposed allocation will be subject to the approval of the Assembly.

The Assembly Government have made clear in paragraph 69 their statement of policy intentions that they intend to require the commissioner, by regulation, to make an annual report to the Assembly giving an account of his actions in the discharge of his functions over the previous financial year and a summary of his proposed work programme for the current and next financial year. Following the custom and practice in the case of the Children’s Commissioner, the Assembly would hold a debate on the report, which would provide an opportunity to give a view on the value for money that the commissioner has given the public. That would in turn inform discussions about the appropriate level of funding for his planned future activities. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the motion.

Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Wales; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I have listened to the Minister, and I am sad to hear that he does not want to put the Assembly firmly in control. However, on this occasion I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.