Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

The Father of the House makes a good point—the CAG is further ahead. On the whole, we believe there should be greater transparency in public spending, and the CAG could be yet further ahead. I accept that he submits expenses to the Father of the House in his role as Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, but by putting them in the public domain we would prevent any repetition of what happened with Sir John Bourn, even though such information goes into the public domain every six months. Our proposal is a matter of going further. As a rule, we think information on how public money is spent should be in the public domain and published online. The CAG in particular needs to be above suspicion. To avoid—I hope—the need for a separate stand part debate, clause 40 states:""P's package is to be determined jointly by the Prime Minister and the"" Chairman""of the Committee of Public Accounts before the start of the appointment."" There is a great deal of flexibility within the clause, which is welcome and sensible, because there are dangers in being too prescriptive, depending on the nature of the CAG candidate. However, we are lucky enough to have the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in the Chamber, and perhaps he is in a position to say something further on the thinking behind the package. For example, there has been talk about linking it to the salary of the Treasury permanent secretary or the Lord Chief Justice. Historically, there was a link with High Court judges. We have to recognise that we want to get the right person, and pay in the private sector for audit work has increased substantially over the past 20 or 30 years or so. If the CAG is not paid enough, it will have a knock-on effect on everyone else working in the NAO. It is important to get the figure right so that we get the right people. It is also right that no performance-related pay is included. It was recommended by the Tiner review, but it could lead to some sort of influence being put on the CAG. The proposals do everything they can to preserve the independence of the CAG and that is welcome. Subject to those queries, we have no objection to the clause, other than to say that it would be strengthened by amendment 57 to put on a statutory basis the publication online of details of the remuneration, allowances and other expenses of the CAG.