Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

This amendment is grouped with Amendments 158B, 159ZA, 159ZB, 159ZC, 159ZD and 159ZE, which are all tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tope, and Amendment 159, which is tabled in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. They take us to the chapter on the audit of entities connected with local authorities. My amendments, which I am happy to have grouped together, are relatively minor and of a probing nature. I would not seek to challenge the clauses in principle for a number of reasons, one of which is that they are the legislative encapsulation of recommendations made by the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Sharman and I am sure that he got it right. Amendments 158A and 158B relate to Clause 32. Subsection (6) provides that: "““Before making an appointment under this section in relation to an entity the appointing audit authority must consult the entity””." My amendments provide for that to extend to the appointment of a replacement auditor under Clause 33 and provide for consultation with the local authority. Amendment 159ZA takes us to the access to information provision in Clause 41. It may look as if I am taking up the cause of wrong-doers, but I am not. It probes the penalty for an offence that may be a lump-sum fine and an additional fine levied on a daily basis for each day on which the offence continues after the offender has been convicted. It is not perfectly drafted—I would be the first to hold my hand up to that—but it does raise issues about the propriety of levying a fine. Given that in this country one is not guilty until found guilty, can there be a prospective conviction? Under Clause 41(9), the offence is failing to comply with an auditor’s requirement, obstructing the exercise of a power conferred on the auditor. That is not necessarily a black and white situation. The offender, as it were, may be guilty of an offence up to a given point but feel that he could quite reasonably argue that after that point he had a good reason for saying no to an auditor that would not amount to obstruction under subsection (9). Obstruction is quite subjective, I suggest; it is not neatly defined. It is not even clear to me that the obstruction that could give rise to a daily fine would necessarily be the same thing as amounting to an obstruction. Amendment 159ZB is to Clause 42. Clause 42(4) says that certain things may be decided at a meeting. My amendment would change that to ““following”” a meeting, simply because, as I understand it, the entity that would have to decide would normally mean the board and the meeting that is the subject of this clause would be one of shareholders. They are not actually the same group of people. Amendment 159ZC would remove from Clause 44(8) the provision that a Secretary of State must consider it ““desirable or necessary”” before making regulations. Does any Secretary of State make regulations which he or she thinks may not be desirable or necessary? I do hope not. The same position applies to Welsh Ministers in Clause 44(10). Finally, Amendment 159ZE is to Clause 47, which deals with the making of regulations. I propose that before the regulations are made the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers must consult, as I have set out in the amendment.