COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 8 September 2004)

§ Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. It would be appropriate to speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 together. They correct minor errors in Clauses 28 and 56. Clause 28(3)(b) enables a member of the public to obtain on payment of a reasonable sum a copy of a non-immediate public interest report prepared by an auditor, under Clause 22, in respect of an audited body's accounts. Clause 28(3)(b) states that a copy of the report should be supplied by the audited body. The reference should have been to the body's auditor.

Clause 56(2) should have said: The information that may be published under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c)", and not, subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d)", as originally drafted. The exclusion should relate only to the information about public interest reports, not to information about contraventions of the accounts and audit regulations to be made under Clause 39.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

§ Lord Roberts of Conwy

My Lords, Amendment No. 3, which applies to Clause 28, is a distinct improvement. The duty of supplying a non-immediate report to a member of the public is quite properly taken away from the body reported on and given to the auditor who has produced the report. One can imagine such a body finding all kinds of excuses for not supplying a report that is critical of itself.

Amendment No. 7 applying to Clause 56, which would leave out subsection (1)(d), is a little more complex. As I understand it, it would prevent the Auditor General for Wales publishing information about a body that contravenes regulations made under Section 39. Those regulations made by the National Assembly relate, for the most part, to local government accounts.

We have been over that ground before. It is whistleblower territory. A person who contravenes such regulations may find himself or herself committing an offence. In such circumstances, which may be sub judice or close to sub judice, it may be sensible not to encourage the Auditor General to publish information about a contravention. That is my understanding of the effect of leaving out Clause 635 56(1)(d). It is an understandable position for the Government to take. We do not intend to make a big issue of it.