Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

I do not agree. Although we are reforming it and making the NAO more accountable, there is still a very powerful role for the commission, which will be holding these people to account. We have demonstrated what the commission has done to enable us to get to this stage. I still envisage that it will play a powerful role in the future. May I move on to amendment 78? We all recognise that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have access to the information that he needs to be able to access documents. I think that we have heard that he already has a considerable power to get to the documents that he needs, but amendment 78 would result in a considerable extension of his reach that is not necessary or justified at this stage. The CAG already has a statutory right of access to documents held by, or under the control of, not only Government Departments but also a wide range of other public bodies and bodies that are in receipt of substantial Government funds. However, the purpose of this access is to allow him to audit effectively the accounts of Government Departments and to carry out value-for-money examinations with access to all relevant information. These powers allow him to ensure that public money has been used for the purposes approved by Parliament and report on whether it has been well used. Allowing the CAG access to the books of thousands of individual suppliers in the way proposed is another matter altogether, and would require very clear justification. Thousands of non-governmental organisations and private companies provide services to the Government. The amendment could harm the relationship between the Government and their suppliers. Many Government suppliers are small businesses or charities that are financed to fulfil Government policies. Others are larger accountancy and consultancy firms that are used to provide expertise that the Government do not have in-house. Suppliers of goods and services have already been through an extensive tendering process, not just to check whether the goods and services can be provided at best value for money but also to ensure that the suppliers are reputable and can fulfil the order. If public bodies are failing to achieve value for money in their dealings with the private sector, the CAG already has the powers to examine and report on the use that such bodies are making of public funds. I am always willing to listen to concerns that the powers of the CAG are inadequate, but I do not think that is the case in this instance. The amendment runs the risk of being an unwanted intrusion, without offering any clear improvement to the ability of the CAG to perform the task that Parliament has given him. I listened very carefully to the arguments presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North, but I am not convinced that they are necessary and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.