§ '.—An authority or other person to whom a grant is made under arrangements under section 1 shall be required to keep such proper accounts and audit arrangements as the Secretary of State may from time to time prescribe.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Don FosterI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I moved a similar clause when we discussed this matter in Committee. At that time I said that the matter was relatively simple and that I did not need to delay members of the Committee for long. There is no reason why it should delay the House now. I know that the Minister will have reflected carefully on his words in Committee. The new clause is merely a small addition to the Bill to require that bodies in receipt of grants as a result of the legislation will be required to maintain proper audit arrangements.
When we debated the matter in Committee, the Minister shared my concerns. He said:
I recognise and share the hon. Gentleman's concern which prompted the amendment. We are of course dealing with a large amount of public expenditure and it is right that taxpayers' money should be properly audited and accounted for. That is a principle to which the Government attach the utmost importance, and the voucher scheme is no exception." —[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 20 February 1996; c. 305.]I entirely agree with the Minister. He should accept what has been accepted in other legislation that has included references to the need to keep proper audited accounts, and should agree to the inclusion in the Bill of a mere 38 words that will ensure probity in arrangements for the nursery voucher scheme.No doubt the Minister will say that the new clause is unnecessary and cumbersome and that it adds to bureaucracy, but ensuring probity, especially by the addition of only 38 words, is no great encumbrance. The Minister may also say that it will remove flexibility, but it would do nothing of the sort. It merely states that there must be a requirement that such arrangements be made and it gives the Secretary of State power to determine the nature of those arrangements. I hope that the Minister will accept what the Government have accepted many times and will appreciate the strength of the argument.
§ Mr. RichardsI agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Sadly, he lost his way somewhere in the middle, as the Liberal party is prone to do. I agree that it is essential that public money is properly used and properly accounted for. We must be confident that the grants that are paid to providers—public, private and voluntary—will be used to provide good-quality education for our four-year-olds. However, there is no 233 need for the Bill to specify auditing arrangements. I had thought that the leader of the Liberal Democrats would intervene, but he has sensibly backed off.
Local education authorities and maintained schools are already subject to audit and the requirements that we are imposing on private and voluntary providers will include provisions for accounting and auditing: they are a requirement of the grant. They will include a right for the Department's internal auditors and the National Audit Office to examine the books of any such provider. On those grounds, I urge the House to reject the new clause.
§ Mr. Don FosterI am not entirely convinced by the Minister. Nevertheless there will be an opportunity in another place to take the matter a stage further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
§ Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.