I completely understand that point and am grateful for that clarification. Indeed, as the Father of the House has just made clear, the purpose of the proposals was to deal with deficiencies in the oversight and scrutiny of two simple things—the expenses and the duration of appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. To deal with those two relatively minor aspects, however, we have this substantial piece of legislation, and a new panoply of corporate governance that will be injected into the NAO.
All I seek to do is point out to the Minister that we are establishing a panoply of corporate governance that could lead to confusion in the NAO, when all that is required is the scrutiny of those two aspects: the longevity of appointment, about which there is no disagreement at all; and, the board's oversight of expenses and NAO organisation, which may be rather more demanding than was intended of the organisation's time.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Philip Dunne
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 4 November 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
498 c940 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:36:40 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592034
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592034
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592034