These amendments are a direct consequence of the transition to resource accounting and budgeting, and they are the most significant to be considered today. They will put in place a statutory basis for the control of resources by the Assembly, together with an associated fail-safe mechanism in the event that the Assembly fail to authorise the use of resources for any year.

I previously mentioned the raising of the level at which the control of cash will apply. Amendment 7 balances that higher level of cash control by introducing in subsection (1) a control on the use of resources by Departments. That is a more stringent control than the previous cash-based approach, since it is possible that resources can be consumed without the use of cash.

In effect, this bases the control on departmental activity rather than on spend. I propose that the interpretation and application of this requirement should be the subject of discussion with the Assembly and especially with the Finance and Personnel Committee over the next few months.

For the Vote on Account the structure of the distribution of resources has been set at broadly the same level as in the former cash vote structure. That preserves the Assembly's control in that Departments are unable to spend more on a particular set of purposes than the Main Estimates provision without seeking a Supplementary Estimate. However, I want to provide an opportunity for the structure of the new resource Estimates to be discussed more fully. We should take the opportunity to satisfy ourselves that we have a practicable and acceptable structure that helps to show the relationship between the objectives for each request for resources. This work should be tied closely to our work on public service agreements and should help us to develop a better and more transparent financial planning system.

It could be argued that it is not necessary to introduce powers with regard to the authorisation of resources for use by Departments, leaving the Department of Finance and Personnel to bring forward resource-based Estimates as a matter of policy and convention. That is, in effect, the position in Westminster. The Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 has no provision corresponding to that. However, the Executive have decided that this fundamental aspect of control by the Assembly should be firmly and specifically embodied in statute. It is important to note, however, that the new control should apply only to specific expenditure in the scope of the resource budgeting envelope.

Consequently, there is a need to provide for some exceptions. That is the purpose of subsection (2). It is no different from the position under the previous cash regime when the funds mentioned were outside the cash control. Subsection (3) is a reference to amendment 8, which I will turn to shortly. Subsection (4) simply defines the Departments and bodies to which this new control applies as those bodies for which an Estimate is approved. They are currently the main Departments - the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas (OFREG), the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Amendment 7 will have the effect of making actions by Departments that commit resources subject to authorisation by the Assembly. That will apply even if they do not immediately require cash.

Making a commitment to a contractor would be immediately recognised in the accounts of the Department. Under resource accounting and budgeting, that would have to be within the constraints set by the relevant Budget Bill. Therefore, amendment 8 contains a fail-safe mechanism, which parallels that in section 59 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to allow for the possibility that the Assembly might not approve a Budget Bill in time. Section 59 relates only to cash control. The creation of this safety net is a prudent but, it is hoped, redundant step in respect of public expenditure. I emphasise that it is the responsibility of all Members to ensure that this provision remains redundant. However, if it does not, for whatever reason, the mechanism is essential in that it will ensure the continuity of public services in Northern Ireland.

I hope that Members will readily acknowledge that we could not tolerate a situation where the absence of authority for Departments to act would mean a break, however brief, in the provision of essential public services, which include vital protections for us all and include meeting the needs of the most disadvantaged in the community.

I have nothing to add at this stage.

Amendment No 8 made: After clause 5, insert the following new clause:

(b) in so far as not so used, it shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund." - [Mr Durkan.]

As no amendments have been tabled to clauses 7 to 17, I shall, by leave, put the Question on these clauses en bloc.

I beg to move amendment No 15: In page 9, line 27, leave out "take full" and insert "consult with and take".

During the first Consideration Stage of this Bill last week, I advised the House that if my amendment relating to this clause was successful, I would move a further amendment this week to effect the necessary changes. I was aware that some tidying was needed in the drafting. In the subsequent period, I consulted with rather more skilled draftsmen than myself, and consequently the amendment should take care of the outstanding issues. The effect of the amendment will not be in any way to reduce the extra power of

which was the thrust of the amendment last week. The substance of the matter there is that the Department shall take account of all recommendations - that remains intact.

Members may note that the word "full", which was in the amendment last week, is being deleted. The reasoning is that there is no distinction in drafting between "account" and "full account". Taking account is taking account, and therefore there is no need for the word "full". It is superfluous, and I have therefore removed it.

The words "consult with and take" are suggested in order to ensure that clause 18(1) corresponds with clause 18(2), which uses the words

That is required to ensure consistency of language, but in doing so it does not in any way take away from the powers reserved to this group by the amendment last week. Therefore this amendment does the necessary tidying up in the drafting but preserves the import of the amendment that we passed at the Consideration Stage. I trust that the House will support this amendment.

I want to address a few remarks to amendment 17, standing in the name of Mr Dodds. I will not pre-empt Mr Dodds's own remarks, but I want to focus on the significance of "substantially" in the clause at line 26. Members should recall that this entire clause was inserted at the behest of the Public Accounts Committee and supported by the Finance and Personnel Committee. The Comptroller and Auditor General was also satisfied with it when consulted. I was very happy that this clause was passed last week, as I felt it added considerably to our ability to keep a check on where public money was going.

The question posed by the amendment is whether the Comptroller and Auditor General can properly survey all the relevant money. I invite the Minister to dwell on what he considers the words "substantially funded from public money" to mean. It is possible that the wording of the clause will, in practice, cover the wording proposed in the amendment, but that is a matter, to some extent, of interpretation. I hope that the Minister will enlighten the House when he addresses this clause.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Before addressing the Committee's amendment (No 16), I want to comment on amendment 15, which relates to Mr Leslie's new clause 18, adopted by the Assembly at the Consideration Stage.

This clause introduces the requirement to have a body to oversee the issuing of guidance by the Department of Finance and Personnel to other Government Departments. It has been argued that Mr Leslie's amendment was flawed because it assumed that the Department of Finance and Personnel would consult with the new body. This perceived weakness has been corrected in the amendment that has been proposed by Mr Leslie and which the Committee supports.

Regarding the Committee's amendment 16, Members will recall that the Assembly adopted an earlier amendment intended to lift restrictions on the Comptroller and Auditor General and his access to documents during an audit investigation. The Minister has kindly pointed out that there is now a contradiction between the Comptroller and Auditor General's access powers when pursuing an audit and when undertaking an inspection under the new clause 20. I thank the Minister for drawing that to the Committee's attention.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General has unrestricted powers of access when undertaking an inspection of the accounts of any body covered by clause 20. The Committee concluded that it was particularly important that the Comptroller and Auditor General should not be subjected to inappropriate delay when inspecting the accounts of bodies that are remote from the core Civil Service.

Finally, I want to comment briefly on amendment 17, which stands in the name of Mr Dodds.

At Consideration Stage, the additional wording proposed by Mr Dodds was first included in the Committee's original amendment to extend the C&AG's powers of inspection. The Committee accepted the Minister's amendment to extend the powers of the C&AG to investigate bodies receiving public funds. However, the Committee made it clear that the amendment did not go as far as Members wished in order to ensure full public accountability of how public money is used by all bodies that receive significant public funds.

We welcomed the additional amendments made by the Minister to strengthen the C&AG's power to inspect in advance of the Sharman Report on the audit and accountability of public money. The Sharman Report has now been published and will be considered by the Committee. I am sure that we will endorse many of its findings and recommendations. We will pursue them vigorously in collaboration with the Audit Committee and the Public Accounts Committee when the audit reorganisation Bill arrives in the autumn.

The Committee has not considered Mr Dodds amendment formally and has not formed a view on it. I would welcome an indication from the Minister that he will take the Sharman Report into account when dealing with the audit reorganisation Bill later this year.

As regards amendment 17, the issue concerning the Comptroller and Auditor General's powers of inspection has had more than a fair airing in the Finance and Personnel Committee and in the House during the Consideration Stage last week.

It is fair to say that during consideration by the Finance Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the Audit Committee and the Assembly, the Minister has taken on board some of our concerns relating to the inadequacy of the G&AG's powers of inspection in respect of private, non-governmental bodies that may be in receipt of public funds. He has moved some way on that issue.

However, concern still exists, and it has been reinforced by the publication of the Sharman Report. This necessitates our coming back to this issue and looking at it in more detail. I will be interested to hear the Minister's definition of these words in clause 20(3)(b):

To put that into context, we are talking about the ability of the C&AG to follow public money, to inspect how a government body, a non-governmental organisation, a private body or a community organisation spends public money. It is a fundamental principle that we are all agreed on. The question is: how do we approach it? The Minister has suggested that clause 20(3)(b) is not the most appropriate way to deal with it, and has suggested to the Committee that we leave it to be dealt with by another piece of legislation.

However, the principle is that wherever public money is granted, allocated or appropriated, the C&AG should have a responsibility to follow that money, to inspect how it is spent, to ensure that it is spent in accordance with the wishes of the Assembly and in accordance with the purposes for which it was allocated.

It is very important that, when considering this legislation, we give the C&AG the power to follow public money. We are looking at powers of inspection, not powers of audit. We are talking about the right to inspect; we are not talking about giving the C&AG wholesale power to audit private organisations.

We have now had the benefit of seeing the report made by Lord Sharman. It is a detailed report, and the Finance and Personnel Committee will be looking at it in some detail. The Sharman review of audit accountability was established to examine current audit and accountability arrangements for central government and to make recommendations.

In page 13 of the report Lord Sharman says,

We can all heartily agree with that.

Lord Sharman goes on to give examples of arrangements for access in other countries by their equivalent of the Comptroller and Auditor General and by national audit offices. He points out that there are arrangements in other countries to allow auditors to inspect how public funds have been used. For instance, in France all private bodies that receive money from public funds can be examined by the appropriate body. Where public funds exceed 50% of turnover, all the funds can be examined. In Germany, the appropriate body is able to examine the financial management of private entities that receive grants or guarantees. In Denmark, a similar statutory right of access to bodies - private or otherwise - that receive grants is available, and similarly in Holland.

I draw attention to the Sharman Report because it backs up the points that have been made by many of us concerning the need to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General has the necessary powers. He himself admitted, when he gave evidence to the Committee, that the original draft of the legislation was not going to give him those powers. The famous example is that of the football club because that happened to coincide with an announcement by the Minister of grant moneys. Certain football clubs, as private organisations, were going to be in receipt of substantial public funds. Under current law - and as originally drafted - the Comptroller and Auditor General would not have the right of inspection to see that that public money was being spent in the way that it should be. That is clearly a loophole, and it needs to be closed. I have tabled an amendment that will address that. At the Consideration Stage last week, a reference to bodies that are

was inserted into the Bill.

I will listen carefully to the Minister, but it is important that at the earliest opportunity we, as an Assembly, insert in legislation the right of the Comptroller and Auditor General to inspect the accounts of any organisation in receipt of significant public funds. The right to follow that money is all-important, and we must ensure that that right is not fettered in any way.

I support all three amendments. I do not know whether the proposers of the amendments will be happy about this or whether they will regard it as the kiss of death.

I will deal first with the two least controversial amendments. Mr Leslie's amendment was certainly a very good step forward, and it was accepted. It had the power to tighten up the independence of the advisory body and to ensure that the Department of Finance and Personnel takes account of that body. Mr Leslie's amendment today keeps within the spirit and the letter of his previous one, but tightens up the wording to ensure that it is compatible with the rest of the clause. It is a worthwhile amendment, and there should be no controversy about it.

Similarly, the amendment in the name of the Committee to remove the words "at a reasonable time" was established last week as a principle in another clause, but makes it compatible with the provisions of the Bill. A test of reasonableness will be applied by the courts in any case, but that need not be explicitly included in the Bill. This amendment would make the Bill consistent and bring it into line with what was proposed at Consideration Stage.

There may be great division on Mr Dodds's amendment. I welcome the changes proposed by the Minister last week because they moved much closer to addressing some of the concerns raised. At that stage, I said that I was looking for an amendment to further tighten control, and this amendment does that.

As a general principle, it is important that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have inspection powers to allow him to follow public money. At the outset, it should be noted that we are talking about inspection powers rather than audit powers. I do not, therefore, believe that the powers impose too great a burden on non-governmental bodies. They fulfil the key principle that one must be able to follow Government money. It is an important check and balance to ensure that public money, which is voted through by the Assembly, is not abused in any way.

The key question posed by both Mr Leslie and Mr Dodds is the definition of the terms "substantially funded" and "receipt of significant public funds". I am keen to hear the Minister's comments on this matter, but it strikes me that there is a clear and qualitative difference between those two phrases - they cannot be compatible. The wording encompasses a body that is entirely funded from public funds - that meaning is clear to everyone - yet it also encompasses a body that is "substantially funded" from the public purse.

The term "substantially funded" refers to the proportion or percentage of a body's finances that are derived from the public purse. For example, a voluntary group might have an annual budget of £50,000, of which £40,000 comes from the public purse. That represents about 80% of its budget and, consequently, there can be no argument that it is not "substantially funded" from the public purse. In contrast, the phrase "in receipt of significant public funds", when used to describe a group that has received public funds, refers to the quantity of money involved rather than to the percentage of public money received. Therefore, one could have a private body that has an annual budget of £10 million, of which £1 million comes from the public purse. That is a significant amount of money, yet it represents just 10% of the body's budget. It is arguable that the body could not be described as one which is "substantially funded" from the public purse.

It would be a ridiculous situation if bodies receiving large amounts of public money were to fall outside the remit of the Bill because of the percentage of turnover a grant represented, while small groups that are entirely funded from the public purse were subject to inspection. If we are to avoid the abuse of public finances, we need to cover both situations - a body that is entirely or substantially funded from the public purse and a body that is receiving significant funds.

If the amendment were accepted it would cover both those situations and ensure that public funds are properly spent. The Minister could question the exact meaning of "significant funding", yet the definition of "substantially funded" could also be queried because the percentage of a body's finances referred to is unclear. Clearly, the two terms have different meanings - one refers to proportion, and the other to amount. These matters should be decided by a test of reasonableness applied by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The amendment adds to the strength of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but, what is most important, it enshrines the key principles that public money should be allocated properly and that there should be redress by way of inspection. This amendment, as the other two, is worthy of the Assembly's support.

I oppose the amendment put forward by Mr Dodds, not because of the principle behind it, but because of the recent publication of the Sharman Report. It is necessary for the Audit Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and, no doubt, the Finance and Personnel Committee to study the report in order to bring accountability of the public auditor forward to the next stage. There is, of course, the audit reorganisation Bill which has to be considered in the future as well.

We should also bear in mind that we have an undertaking from the Minister to co-operate with the three Chairpersons. He has given us assurances that he will give serious consideration to the issues that were raised today by Mr Dodds. I welcome that, and support any extended powers that will give greater accountability without having an adverse effect on people who apply for public money, particularly for the community projects referred to. I am worried that if we pass the amendment in the name of Mr Dodds at this time, without due consideration, we may create the very opposite of what we all wish to achieve, which is to ensure that money actually gets to the people who need it most. In no way do I question his sincerity in matters relating to audit issues. Indeed, I thank him for his support this morning when he added his voice of concern to my worries about the procurement procedures and conflict of interest issues involving the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, contained in last week's audit report. I want to hear more Members speaking out, particularly those who have taken public accounts as a specialist subject.

As Chairman of the Audit Committee, I wish to put on record my gratitude for the remarkable degree of co-operation between the Finance and Personnel Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee. I wish to put on record my appreciation of the Minister's desire to encourage an open approach to financial accountability. The relationships within the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee are a model for other Committees to emulate.

It is essential that we maintain that partnership because there is no doubt that this is the way forward if we are to address the undesirable practices that have crept into Departments and other agencies that spend money on behalf of the Government. I am sure that real progress has been made in the whole field of public accountability. The public are watching very carefully how we bring that forward in a managed way. At long last, after 30 years of non-accountability, there is a new awareness that this Assembly is beginning to create change, and nowhere is this more evident than in the field of finance and public expenditure.

It is critical that we continue to sing from the same hymn sheet and deliver real change, rather than aspire to change. This Bill, as amended, gives us the scope required to begin the process of extending powers of scrutiny. From that secure base, we can take the process forward, bearing in mind that the Minister has given us an undertaking that he will consider further powers for the public auditor.

We should wait until we have considered the Sharman Report before considering the amendment put forward by Mr Dodds, because we do not want to do anything that would discourage those in greatest need from applying for public funds. Apart from that, I have no fundamental disagreement with it.

I am happy to follow the remarks made by Mr Weir. He put his finger on the key issue, and I will follow on from his speech in a moment. I am not so happy to follow Mr Dallat, who seems to have an identity crisis that we need to resolve. He stood up, purporting to be acting as Chairman of the Audit Committee. Those were his very first words, as the Official Report will show. He then said that he was opposing the amendment in the name of Mr Dodds. I will be interested to hear of the decision of the Audit Committee to take such a position. As he was speaking in his capacity as Chairman, it is a strange position to adopt. Even more strange - [Interruption].

I was simply making a plea for an opportunity for my Committee to discuss the Sharman Report and then perhaps take on board everything that has been said.

The record will show very clearly that Mr Dallat stood up, purporting to speak as Chairman of the Audit Committee, and said that he opposed my Colleague's amendment. Mr Dallat is shaking his head, so he obviously does not even remember what he said a few moments ago. His justification for that position was even wilder - he said that he was opposing it because of the Sharman Report. I do not know whether he has read the Sharman report, but he certainly could not have understood it, because that report justifies the position that we have adopted.

I am sure that the author of the briefing note for the Committee will not mind if I quote from it:

The Sharman Report is therefore a justification for our amendment rather than a reason for opposing it. That means either that the Member was being mischievous in simply attempting to support his party Colleague, the Minister, or that he did not understand the Sharman Report, or simply that he did not read it.

It is clear that the Sharman Report goes further than the proposed legislation. It seeks to create broader rights of access than those allowed under the legislation. Therefore, we cite the Sharman report as evidence in support of our amendment.

Reference to the football analogy was made in the briefing note. It may be worthwhile to outline this analogy for Members who are not familiar with it. It just so happened that on one of the days on which the Finance and Personnel Committee met to discuss this matter, the Culture, Arts and Leisure Minister made a statement to the Assembly about funding for football clubs in Northern Ireland. He said that the funds would be distributed among several clubs, but that, as a pre-requisite to drawing down the Government grant, each club would have to cover 25% of development costs from its own funds. This was a reasonable and sensible proposal on the part of the Minister.

However, the Minister then said that two football clubs were unable to take up the funding, because they could not cover 25% of the costs of the development work. Several football clubs may have on their boards of directors a building contractor who, it is suggested, could quote a higher price for work and then give the club a 25% discount. That would mean the Government paying the whole sum. The Minister, from his standpoint, was not able to involve himself in that degree of detail. However, if the Comptroller and Auditor General were able to follow money right down to the point where it was actually spent, he could make sufficient enquiries to gauge whether the Government were paying 100% or 75% of the money actually spent on development work.

Initially, the Comptroller and Auditor General said that he was satisfied with the wording of the legislation proposed by the Minister. However, when this football analogy was presented to him during the Finance and Personnel's evidence session, he recognised that he had not taken account of that set of circumstances and that the situation could be guarded against by implementing a proposal such as the one which is contained in our amendment. That is merely an example of one set of circumstances, but since then I have been able to let my imagination stretch to many other cases in which the Comptroller and Auditor General would not be able to follow the pounds to check that they were being spent in the way in which the Assembly, or a Department, intended.

We must not pass this legislation only to have to come back to it, as will be the case. One day we will read in the headlines of 'The Belfast Telegraph' that money voted by the Assembly has been used for the wrong purpose or in some way that was not intended.

And we will all throw our hands up and say "This is terrible. We must do something about it." I contend that we can do something about it now by giving powers to the Comptroller and Auditor General that will allow him free access to follow the pounds that are voted by the Assembly, no matter where they go. We have specified a significant amount of money.

We now come to the issue that was raised by the Member for North Down. If we simply say, as the legislation does, that the body in question exercises functions of a public nature, or is entirely or substantially funded from public money, the body's annual accounts will show that a substantial proportion of its funding comes directly from Government sources.

However, if it is a one-off grant, the body will not be classified under this legislation as substantially funded from Government sources. The grant might be a substantial amount in one financial year. There might also be an argument about whether substantial funding is for both revenue and capital spending. Under our amendment, if passed, if a significant amount of money is given even on a one-off basis by the Department, the Department will be significantly funding that body in that one year, and the Comptroller and Auditor General will have the power to pursue the money.

I will mention another factor. To a community organisation in east Belfast, £10,000 might be a substantial amount of money - in fact it might be enough to run the show for a year. However, to a larger organisation, a grant of £10,000 might amount to a very small part of its funding. Are we saying that it is not the amount of money we vote through this Assembly nor the amount allocated by a Department to a body that matters? Are we saying that it is the scale of the body that determines whether the Comptroller and Auditor General should pursue it? That is the gist of the legislation that is being proposed today: the size of the organisation and its budget will determine whether an amount of money is substantial or not. That is entirely wrong. If the amount is significant of itself, it should not matter what proportion of the overall expenditure or funding of the organisation it may constitute.

Therefore for all of those reasons I support the amendment in the name of my Colleague. I believe that it is in line with what Sharman would wish us to do. Indeed, it may be that he took his lead from the Finance and Personnel Committee and decided that it was necessary to have his report toughened up to deal with this set of circumstances.

I hope that the Minister will not want to push a piece of legislation through the Assembly because he has gone firm on it, or simply for the sake of it. I hope that he is prepared to recognise that Sharman wants the toughest possible role for the Comptroller and Auditor General to enable the man to see what is going on. I trust that the Minister will not try to curtail this amendment for the sake of holding on to his own piece of legislation and attempting to get it through the House unscathed. I regret very much the action taken by the Chairperson of the Audit Committee on his own behalf; I suspect that his Committee has not come to that conclusion.

Three amendments have been addressed in this group, and I intend to deal with each of them in turn.

I accept the amendment tabled by Mr Leslie. It removes a technical deficiency to the amendment that was passed at Consideration Stage, and it is acceptable to the Executive. The insertion of the requirement to consult makes good the technical deficiency that I pointed out in the Chamber.

I am pleased to note that Mr Leslie now accepts that to "take full account", as in his original amendment, would essentially have been unworkable because it was impossible to define. A reference to "having regard to", which is the formulation used elsewhere in the Bill, could have been used, but the Executive consider that "take account of" is acceptable.

In light of earlier comments, I stress that it was always my intention that the independent views of the Financial Reporting Advisory Board (FRAB) should genuinely influence and inform the Department of Finance and Personnel on accounting matters. Some Members have pointed out that this was not covered in the original Bill. However, I did address it at the Second Stage of the Bill and said that I wanted views from relevant Committees on how that independent advice could best be provided. The advice was that it should come from FRAB, and that has been accommodated. It is important to underline that.

I am disappointed that there is a perception that some issues need to be made more explicit. However, I accept the Assembly's view. I am satisfied that my original purpose has been served and that the Department of Finance and Personnel should consult with an independent, expert body before issuing formal directions on accounting matters. Subject to the addition of three words, the clause now stands as I originally submitted it to the Finance and Personnel Committee.

I thank the Committee for its deliberations and thoroughness.

I accept amendment 16 tabled by the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, Francie Molloy. As I said during the Consideration Stage of the Bill, the Wednesbury test of reasonableness will apply in any case. The work of the Comptroller and Auditor General will not be made any more effective by the deletion of the words "at any reasonable time". In case there is any misunderstanding, I stress that the test of reasonableness and arbitration on what is reasonable time never lay with the Department of Finance and Personnel. The Wednesbury test clearly falls to the Comptroller and Auditor General; the Department of Finance and Personnel is not the arbiter, contrary to the impression that some Members have given. The amendment is technical and makes the wording in the Bill consistent, as Francie Molloy and I have pointed out. Again, I thank the Chairperson and his Colleagues on the Finance and Personnel Committee for their careful and persistent work in the scrutiny of this Bill.

Amendment 17 raises several points, and several Members have spoken on it. One of the points concerns the stress laid on ensuring public accountability, something we would all like to see. Questions have been asked on how the Executive intend to achieve this. The main way to ensure accountability is for each Department to put in place and to operate effective conditions for grants and for checks to be made on how these are being spent. There seems to be a misapprehension that, once allocations have been made, the Comptroller and Auditor General is the only person who has the power to check on how moneys are being spent and if they are being spent on the purposes for which they were intended.

It is important to underline the duties and functions that Departments have in that regard and not simply to say that it is entirely up to the Comptroller and Auditor General to find those things out. Due diligence and proper management by Departments needs to be followed through. I hope that all the departmental Committees take an interest in that. In opposing amendment 17, I point out that the amendment accepted from me last week secures access for the Comptroller and Auditor General to all bodies substantially funded from public funds. The question of what that means has been raised. It means 50% or more. Many bodies receive significant funds well below 50%. In an urgent or particular case, the Comptroller and Auditor General can be given access by order of the Department of Finance and Personnel, which I will deal with later.

I now wish to raise some further points on the amendment. It is an important principle that those who are governed clearly understand the circumstances in which they will be held to account. Those who exercise functions of regulation should not be provided with unfettered discretion unless that is absolutely necessary. As the term "significant" is not defined, the proposed amendment could allow the Comptroller and Auditor General full access to the documents, books and records of virtually all organisations that do business with Government. If amendment 17 is made, the consequences may inhibit people who might otherwise participate through work with voluntary sector organisations. If the Comptroller and Auditor General - [Interruption].

The Minister said that the term "significant" is not defined. Apart from the verbal assurance that the Minister has given that "substantial" means above 50%, can the Minister say where "substantially" is defined in the Bill?

I will continue with the point I was going to make. I was asked to state what "substantial" means, and I said that it means 50% or more. I also said, on the basis of the amendments already adopted, that the Comptroller and Auditor General's access is not unnecessarily restricted. It is fairly clear that it is only restricted where funding is above that level.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>