Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords]

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): I, too, enjoy Committee work under your chairmanship, Mr. Griffiths—

Mr. Wiggin: When you are here.

Mr. Williams: Yes, and it is a pleasure to contribute to the examination of this Bill.

I support the points made by the hon. Member for Leominster, because since the local government reorganisation in Wales and the establishment of 22 unitary authorities, comparisons between local government within Wales have been made more difficult. For example, my local authority area is rather large and very sparse in population, so it is not easily compared with other local authorities in Wales. Indeed, when I ask people what they think is the most sparsely populated local authority area in England, they usually decide on Cumbria. However, Powys is three times more sparsely populated than Cumbria.

It is difficult to decide on a family of local authorities with which to compare the delivery of services. It would be helpful if the Auditor General for Wales had the power to make comparisons between certain local authorities in Wales and others in England, as that would be beneficial for local authorities that are anxious to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of delivery of their public services. I support the new clause.

Mr. Touhig: New clause 1 would enable the Auditor General for Wales to undertake studies involving English local government bodies for the purpose of comparison with local government bodies in Wales, but it is unnecessary. Nothing in the Bill will prevent the Auditor General for Wales from incorporating into his studies, for comparative purposes, data on English authorities collected by the Audit Commission. Indeed, the Audit Commission Act requires the commission to publish the results of its studies.

2.45 pm

The commission, for its part, will undoubtedly equally value its ability to use data collected by the Auditor General on local government bodies in Wales for comparative purposes in England. However, as a fail-safe, the consultative provisions in the Bill have been strengthened, as a result of Opposition and Government amendments in another place. The Audit Commission and the Auditor General will now be under a mutual obligation to provide each other with information for the purpose of making comparisons

Column Number: 46

between Welsh and English local government when they are undertaking studies in accordance with their respective functions.

The Audit Commission retains the power under the Audit Commission Act 1998 to undertake cross-border studies in respect of local government bodies in England and Wales. I hope that that is acceptable to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). Before doing so, the commission must consult the Auditor General for Wales and take account of any relevant work being done by him. The expectation is that cross-border work will involve joint working between the Auditor General and the Audit Commission, and the co-operative provisions in clause 2 are designed to achieve that.

The Bill does not, however, make cross-border working mandatory. That could unnecessarily fetter the Auditor General and other audit and inspection bodies in progressing work and, as a result, have a restrictive rather than facilitative effect. Under the arrangements, the Auditor General will have sufficient access to information relating to English local government bodies without specifically undertaking studies in respect of them. Hon. Members who served on the Committee on what is now the Health (Wales) Act 2003 will recall that we had similar discussions about the workings of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the health inspectorate unit in Wales, which are required to work together closely.

The hon. Members for Leominster and for Brecon and Radnorshire both talked about cross-border studies. The Audit Commission's ability to undertake such studies was emphasised as a positive in the pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation. It ensures continuity of approach rather than a silo approach, which we all want to avoid as organisations can learn from each other. I reflect on my time as a county councillor in Gwent. The cross-border comparative studies that were undertaken among Gwent, Mid-Glamorgan, Durham and Nottingham were greatly beneficial in informing the county council and its audit family in devising and implementing policies.

The Bill fosters cross-border co-operation between the Audit Commission and the Auditor General. Having explained that, I hope that the hon. Member for Leominster will not press his new clause.

Mr. Wiggin: First, I thank the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire for his support for the new clause. We share the concern that the Auditor General will not have the same cross-border abilities that the Audit Commission has, which the Minister said clearly in his reply is true. He also emphasised that the Auditor General would be able to use Audit Commission information, but will the Auditor General also be able to ask the commission to conduct the research that he would be able to do himself if new clause 1 were accepted? My understanding is that the Auditor General will have access to information but, if the Audit Commission were less than helpful, would not be able to conduct inquiries himself. I am sure that that will not happen, but I would be grateful if the Minister could throw some light on that.

Column Number: 47

I can see that divine inspiration is on its way to the Minister, so I will continue on one point. Is the Audit Commission as accountable to the Assembly as the Auditor General? The depth and ability of the Auditor General may be restrained, so I would be grateful if the Minister answered that question.

Mr. Touhig: The Auditor General has the power to make comparisons between English and Welsh bodies. He will be able to use the information collected by the Audit Commission on English bodies to inform and facilitate his own researches, audits and investigations. The Auditor General cannot oblige the Audit Commission to obtain information on commission, but again I stress our hope, which is shared by colleagues in the Assembly, the Audit Commission and the Auditor General's office, that there will be close cross-border working so that we can deliver the best for the audit service and public bodies that are being audited in both England and Wales.

Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. As I suspected, the Audit Commission does not have to be accountable to the Auditor General. That is a shame. It would have been one of the advantages Wales might have enjoyed. Like the Minister, I am quite calm about relying on the good nature of the Audit Commission to provide the Auditor General for Wales with the information that he may need. We do not need to press this further. This is a missed opportunity but there is time before the Bill becomes law for the Government to reconsider the matter. I suspect that they will remain satisfied with the good nature of the Audit Commission.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

Studies at request of local government bodies in Wales

Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 30, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

The clause deals with the recommendations to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness at the request of local government bodies. Subsection (2) states that associations of employees must be consulted by the local authority before making the request for a study. To consult unions before a study, regardless of whether the study affects employees, seems unnecessary and could cause employees needless worry. Could the Minister explain the rationale behind the subsection?

Mr. Touhig: Amendment No. 35 would remove the requirement for a local government body in Wales to consult appropriate associations of employees before making a request to the Auditor General for him to undertake or promote an economy, efficiency and

Column Number: 48

effectiveness study in respect of it. Consultation is existing practice and therefore the amendment would be seen as draconian. It could seriously impede the conduct of a study and, as a consequence, devalue the results. Moreover, the absence of any requirement to consult would be in stark contrast to continuing practice in England.

This measure gives employee organisations the opportunity to express views that would be valuable to the conduct of the study, even if the association had concerns over its conduct. Such concerns may in themselves be informative to the study. I think the hon. Member will agree that consultation, even where an association may not necessarily agree with its rationale, is more positive than no consultation at all. I therefore believe that the amendment would be detrimental.

Mr. Wiggin: The important thing is that the Auditor General may consult, and having consulted will go ahead irrespective of the results. While I agree that any consultation is better than none, this is perhaps not the tidiest bit of the Bill. It could cause employees some needless worry. However, I take the point that the purpose is to allow some consultation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Benefit administration studies for Secretary of State

Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in

clause 45, page 30, line 22, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

This amendment is similar to amendment No. 46 in the name of the hon. Member for Caernarfon, and would replace the word ''may'' with ''must'' in subsection (6). It would make it a requirement of the Secretary of State to publish a study of benefit administration carried out under the clause. It should be obligatory for the outcome of a study into benefit administration to be published, rather than it being left to the Secretary of State's discretion. We would be content with the discretion being with the Auditor General, but it should not be with the Secretary of State. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's justification.

 

---

Prepared 29 June 2004