|
Mr. Touhig: Clause 45 relates specifically to benefit administration studies requested by the Secretary of State as opposed to a study that the Auditor General decides to undertake under clause 41. Amendment No. 36 would remove any discretion the Auditor General has, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, to publish a report of a study designed to improve the economy, efficiency, effectiveness and quality of performance in housing and council tax benefit administration by local councils in Wales.
In deciding whether a report requested specifically by the Secretary of State should be published, there is a need to consider its contents and the circumstances
Column Number: 49
of the study to which it relates. The report may, for instance, include information that might be helpful to fraudsters by highlighting a weakness in the benefits system. It may contain certain confidential information or identify individuals.
In practice, such reports are very likely to be published. For example, the benefit fraud inspectorate publishes reports although there is no requirement for it to do so. An absolute requirement to publish a report would be inadvisable given that studies undertaken under clause 45 are likely to be more detailed than those under clause 41. The potentially sensitive content, to which I have referred, and the fact that the study could relate to a single authority, support my arguments.
Mr. Wiggin: I suspect that the Minister, like me, has faith in the current Secretary of State—in my role, I have faith in at least one future Secretary of State. The purpose behind the clause is to give discretion, and I accept that avoiding fraud is essential. I am surprised that the transparency that the amendment seeks to bring about is not factored into the Bill more, but I recognise that the amendment is not necessarily the best way to do so. As we legislate, we should continue to focus on ensuring that there is proper transparency at every opportunity.
Mr. Touhig: Before the hon. Gentleman considers whether to withdraw the amendment, I advise him that the Auditor General can produce more general studies relating to benefit administration under clause 41 and would have to publish that information.
Mr. Wiggin: That was a kind and helpful intervention. I am grateful to the Minister for the clarity with which he has dealt with the issue, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Performance standards: relevant bodies
Amendment made: No. 49, in page 30, line 39, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
'(e) a fire and rescue authority in Wales constituted by a scheme under section 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 or a scheme to which section 4 of that Act applies.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]
3 pm
Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in clause 46, page 30, line 39, at end insert—
'(f) a port health authority;
(g) a conservation board;
(h) a local probation board;
(i) an internal drainage board'.
Amendment No. 31 relates to amendments Nos. 29 and 30, which we discussed earlier. It is a probing amendment, to discover why those four types of body have been excluded. Could the Minister explain why a local probation board is not included in the bodies set out in clause 46, which will be covered by clauses 47 to 49?
Column Number: 50
Mr. Touhig: The amendment would extend the requirement to comply with the provisions in respect of the publication of information related to performance standards set out in clauses 47 to 49 to all the local government bodies listed in clause 12(1). The practical effect would be to require port health authorities, conservation boards, local probation boards and internal drainage boards to publish such information for comparative purposes. Extending the requirement to publish performance standards information to a range of Government bodies specified in clause 12(1) would risk imposing an unnecessary burden on comparatively small local government bodies with a limited range of functions, for which comparison may be difficult and not particularly informative.
Extending the scope of the performance standards provision in the Bill would also cut across the discretion of the National Assembly. As drafted, the clause gives the Assembly the power to add to the list of bodies not currently covered by clauses 47 to 49. There is some leeway for change in the future, as the hon. Gentleman accepted in an earlier debate, so I ask him to reflect on the amendment and to consider withdrawing it.
Mr. Wiggin: Ever since I entered the House I have been allergic to red tape and increasing burdens, even on Government bodies. The Minister made some valid points; as he rightly said, we have been over this ground before. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Publication of information as to standards of performance
Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 31, line 15, at end insert
'and may include references to standards of performance achieved by similar authorities outside Wales'.
We are going over ground that we may have covered before. The amendment relates to the publication of standards of performance by local authorities. It would enable comparisons to be made between the standards in Welsh authorities and similar authorities elsewhere in the UK, which would give access to more comparative data. The amendment would put such comparators beyond doubt, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
Mr. Touhig: After wide-ranging consultation, the Audit Commission concluded that it would not exercise its powers under sections 44 and 46 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 to require the publication of performance indicators, in recognition that it would be best to focus on the development of statutory best-value performance indicators that were set by the National Assembly under the Local Government Act 1999.
Column Number: 51
The commission has worked with the Assembly in developing a robust performance management framework for best value. The commission retains the power to require publication, however, and will keep the position under review. It is therefore appropriate to retain the powers for the Auditor General in the Bill, so as not to close off future options.
Amendment No. 37 would raise ambiguities concerning what a particular local government body regards as being a similar authority. It could be open to the Auditor General for Wales to publish his own comparisons in the form of section 41 studies, which could include comparative information available on English or other local authorities which, on an objective basis, are considered to have similar profiles. Under section 6 of the Local Government Act 1999, best value authorities must publish an annual performance plan, known in Wales as an improvement plan. The same requirement applies in England. The publication of such plans would allow cross-border comparisons if authorities so chose. For that reason, the amendment would not achieve what the hon. Gentleman intended, and I invite him to withdraw it.
Mr. Wiggin: I listened carefully to the Minister, but I am not quite sure that I have got what I was after in this case. Comparisons have been made by reference to the criteria of cost, economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The amendment would add the words:
''and may include references to standards of performance achieved by similar authorities outside Wales.''
I am happy to accept the Minister's criticism that the concept of ''similar authorities'' could cause some difficulty; I have always maintained that my drafting, although well intentioned, is not perfect. However, the purpose behind the amendment is to ensure that people do not invent their own standards. The references to the criteria of cost, economy, effectiveness and efficiency suggest that that is what the Government want: they want proper comparison and standards, and they are right to do so. However, unless comparisons are made outside Wales, the Auditor General's job will be more difficult.
As I said earlier, I believe that the Auditor General will have access to information from the Audit Commission, so it should be possible for him to carry out those comparative studies. I hope that the Minister will tell me that that is what will happen—and once that is on the record, his statement can stand instead of my amendment.
Mr. Touhig: As I said, it would be open to the Auditor General for Wales to publish his own comparisons, in the form of section 41 studies. That could include the comparative information available on English or other local authorities. I think that that addresses the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The facility is there for the Auditor General to do so, but we do not believe it to be appropriate to accept the amendment, for the reasons that I gave.
Column Number: 52
Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Given that the Auditor General will wish to make comparisons with similar authorities elsewhere, we do not need to press the amendment to a vote. I hope that that is how things will proceed, although there is always the possibility that the Auditor General may choose to do something completely different; he has the flexibility to do so. However, the Minister's criticism of my amendment suggests that it might not address that eventuality, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48
Permitted methods of publishing information under section 47
Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 32, line 5, at end insert—
'(2A) The relevant body may publish the information electronically in any way which is accessible by local government electors of the body.'.
Clause 48 is concerned with the methods of publishing information about standards and performance under clause 47. The amendment would insert a new subsection to allow local authorities to publish information electronically. I am aware that the drafting of the clause is based on the Audit Commission Act 1998, and it is surprising that although that Act is hardly more than five years old, it does not refer to electronic publishing. I do not see any danger in allowing electronic publishing, so I wait with excitement to see what the Minister will have against this constructive amendment.
| 
