The amendments relate to discrepancies between the contents of the Bill and the Public Accounts Commission report. I want to give the Government an opportunity to explain the difference between the two.
Amendments 29 and 30 are simply about who is to be consulted before the Comptroller and Auditor General is allowed to undertake any further employment after the end of his period in office. The commission said that the Advisory Committee on Public Appointments had to be consulted, whereas the Bill says that some "specified person" who will be""specified from time to time by the Commission""
must be consulted. The Bill is therefore less specific than the recommendation from the commission.
Clearly, the provision is important, and public confidence in the office of Comptroller and Auditor General must be maintained. It is possible for conflicts of interest apparently to arise in almost any sort of future employment—not just in organisations previously subject to the audit powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General, to which the rest of the clause applies, but those in the private sector. My first question is "Why has that change been made?"
My second question relates to an even bigger difference between the commission's recommendation and what is proposed in the Bill. It concerns circumstances in which the Comptroller and Auditor General, after leaving office, proposes to take up employment with a body that has previously been within his or her jurisdiction for the purposes of audit. The Bill imposes an absolute ban on such appointments for a limited period of two years.
The commission, taking a much stricter view, suggested a lifelong ban, stating:""It is obviously essential that subsequent employment could not be seen as a reward for actions taken while C&AG, and for that reason there should be a lifetime prohibition on a C&AG or former C&AG accepting any post in any body which the NAO has audited or which is in the gift of the Government.""
Given the very proper concerns that have been expressed throughout the debate about the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the commission's clear recommendation of a lifetime ban, I simply ask the Government why they have opted for such a short period.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Howarth
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c950-1 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:36:33 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592056
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592056
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592056