As I understand it, morale in the National Audit Office is now very high. It went through a sticky patch—there is no point denying it—and there was bad publicity, much of it unfair, but that is now past us. Morale is high and people feel that the structure is fair and open, that people are appointed entirely on ability, and that their career is judged by a number of people sitting on the board, the chairman and the non-executive directors. I believe that we have got it right, and for that reason, I oppose the amendments, as they serve to define the Comptroller and Auditor General's audit purpose and to open up discussion of his access rights, neither of which was covered by the review commissioned by the Public Accounts Commission that led to this part of the Bill.
We do not need to define the Comptroller and Auditor General's access rights. He has all the access he needs. Make no mistake: the National Audit Office can interview any civil servant, open any filing cabinet, and report on anything it likes. Having been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I assure the House that no restraint or inhibition is placed on the Comptroller and Auditor General doing his job. Clause 37 is right, and gives him the power he needs.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Edward Leigh
(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.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
498 c931-2 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:36:38 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592007
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592007
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592007