Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendment 49, which relates to the four-month flexibility period the Wales Audit Office is able to grant for the public services ombudsman's accounts, which was inserted at Stage 2. While the Auditor General for Wales asked for this change at Stage 1, there are some questions as to how this would apply to other public bodies outside of the Bill's scope. Clearly, the constraints, the reasons and justification for the change, apply to most, if not all, public bodies, and the issue here is clarification where a body with oversight of those other public bodies may be granted something not available to those other public bodies. 

It was clear from the auditor general's written evidence that flexibility was needed due to the fact that problems arising from such a deadline had happened with the annual accounts for Natural Resources Wales in 2016-17. We agree that such an approach is needed. However, because of the nature of the Bill, this will only apply to the ombudsman and not other bodies. 

During Stage 1, the Equalities, Local Government and Communities Committee stated that they had asked the Member in charge whether he would consider amending the Bill in relation to the four-month deadline. The Member in charge said it was good practice to have audited accounts within four months, but admitted that the missing tool was the ability to vary it in particular circumstances. However, he was not sure if it would be appropriate to change it with regard to one body when the auditor general audits a range of bodies across Wales. As such, although it is clear there is worthwhile intent behind the lifting of the fourth-month deadline, the Minister must provide some information on the precedent this will set for other publicly managed bodies. So, I'd be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether she intends that this clause should set a precedent for the lifting of the four-month deadline to apply to other public bodies, and, if not, what is the reasoning behind the Minister's intention to only include the ombudsman in this exemption—not only within this legislation, but as we move forward?