| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Wiggin: One of the difficulties that my hon. Friend has touched on is the cost, and he will be aware that a money resolution for the Bill appears on the Order Paper. If I am right—the Minister will correct me if I am not—it provides for any relocation to be paid for out of this Parliament's budget, and that is another example of waking the beast of English nationalism that my hon. Friend rightly mentioned. It might create a real problem for Wales.
Mr. Evans: There appear to be additional costs in all this, and that is why I am baffled that efficiency savings are not being made. Some £20,000 is being made available for publicity to tell people all about the scheme, and some £41,000 has already been put aside to meet the estimated cost of an increase in the number of complaints. Surely, efficiency gains could have resulted in savings that mitigated the impact of some of the costs. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
Will the power of the ombudsman to name and shame be sufficient? The Government say that they believe that it will be, but my noble Friend Lord Roberts
4 Apr 2005 : Column 1153
successfully moved an amendment in the other place to ensure that a case could go to the High Court if the ombudsman's recommendations are ignored. The Government are not keen on that, but do they believe that the naming and shaming of someone in a report will be enough or do they think that the ombudsman's powers should be stronger?
I will finish as I started, by saying that we are moving into general election mode. I shall be interested to hear the Government's response. We need to ensure that the Bill continues to receive the good will of the House. As a result of its sensible nature, we must ensure that it is not held up because of little local difficulties—some tidying procedures—otherwise known as a general election.
5.25 pm
Mr. Touhig: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate.
I am grateful for the support of colleagues and for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked about the location of the office for the ombudsman. The separate offices were co-located and relocated to new premises in Pencoed last month in preparation for establishing a unified service. I am sure that he will welcome that information.
Let me clarify something for the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). He asked whether the ombudsman could issue guidance on planning delays across the 22 unitary authorities. As I made clear, the local planning authorities are within the ombudsman's jurisdiction. If he considers it necessary, he could issue guidance to local authorities, generally under clause 31. That could cover best practice in avoiding unacceptable delays in exercising planning functions. The ombudsman is required to consult listed authorities or such persons who represent them as he considers appropriate before issuing such guidance.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) welcomed the Bill and touched on a number of things. In particular, he mentioned clause 5 and the limit of one year. He asked when the notice period begins and what power the ombudsman has to extend it. The period of one year in clause 5(1)(b) begins when the complainant first has knowledge of the matter, or when the complainant ought to have been aware of the matter giving rise to the complaint. By virtue of clause 2(4), the ombudsman may disregard that time limit if he considers it reasonable to do so in a given case. That might be because a listed authority has dragged its feet in dealing with a complaint.
The hon. Gentleman and others mentioned costs. I assure him that they are intended to be minimal, but there are no quantifiable savings. The purpose of the reform is not to make efficiency savings per se, but to recognise that it makes sense to create one unified ombudsman service. The co-location and relocation of the ombudsman office is a one-off cost of £250,000, but it was not intended as a cost-saving exercise.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government refused amendments to keep Members informed of ombudsman reports. He has wide powers to send copies of his reports to such persons as he considers
4 Apr 2005 : Column 1154
appropriate and/or to publish his reports. I am sure that the ombudsman designate, Adam Peat, who gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, will have taken note of the comments made.
Mr. Evans: Is it a possibility that all the reports could be made available on the internet so that people can access them for themselves?
Mr. Touhig: I am sure that that will be a possibility. I cannot answer for definite, but if there is any doubt, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Leominster and others raised concerns about the length of the appointment mentioned in the Committee's report and the call for a five-year appointment renewable after five years. I certainly hear what was said, but the imperative for the Government is that we maintain the independence of the office, free from any actual or perceived pressure from the Executive. At the same time, we want to attract candidates of a suitable calibre to apply for posts. A seven-year fixed-term appointment achieves that. A five-year renewable appointment does not. That is the basis for our decision thus far.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned cross-border matters and said that we need to ensure there is no gap in jurisdiction regarding regional flood defence committees. There is no gap. The Bill ensures that all regional flood defence committees are within the jurisdiction of the new ombudsman or the local commissioner in England. It ensures that the new ombudsman will investigate matters relating to the discharge of committee functions in relation to Wales, and that the local commissioner in England will investigate matters relating to the discharge of committee functions in England, so there really is no gap.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the general approach of the Opposition in the other place and the amendments that they tabled. He expressed concern that the Government might seek to reverse any of those amendments. We noted the comments made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley about the time frame that we may face. I can assure the hon. Gentlemen and the House that the Government have no intention of seeking further amendments to the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) referred to the report of his Committee, which was most welcome. The hon. Members for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and for Ribble Valley raised a number of matters relating to the report. I have explained why the Government take the view that seven years is the proper length for the appointment. The Welsh Affairs Committee reported on 21 February, and I hope to respond to the report shortly. I am grateful to the Committee for its detailed work in considering the Bill. At present, however, the Government are not minded to make any further changes to the Bill in response to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee supported calls for the Secretary of State to be required to consult the National Assembly on the appointment of the ombudsman, in addition to consulting it on his removal from office. As the Committee noted, the Government amended the Bill to that effect on Report in the Lords. As I say, I will be responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South and his colleagues shortly.
4 Apr 2005 : Column 1155
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) welcomed the Bill and spoke of the confusion that we have at present with a number of separate ombudsman offices. He also raised cross-border matters; he thinks that these will be greatly improved by bringing those offices together under one ombudsman.
I regret the fact that I was unable to take the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). He said that this is an excellent Bill, and he will be pressing for something similar in England. I can tell him that the Government are in discussions with the ombudsman in England to see what measures can be taken to allow the ombudsmen to work jointly. I am sure that through his work with the Public Administration Committee my hon. Friend will continue to press for something similar for England, and I am sure that that will be noted. I do not wish, or feel able, to go as far as saying what measures my fellow Ministers will introduce for England, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will ensure that the matter is on their agenda.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon welcomed the Bill but expressed concern that Welsh language matters may fall between the two stools of the ombudsman and the Welsh Language Board. I do not think that there is a risk of that. I am also of the view that failure by a listed authority to comply with its own Welsh language scheme could well amount to maladministration or service failure. Hon. Members will be pleased to note that by virtue of clause 8(3), when a listed authority discharges any of its functions, even in relation to England or elsewhere, if that function relates to the Welsh language or Welsh culture, it will be within the ombudsman's remit.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley raised a number of issues about the appointment. He welcomed the independence of the ombudsman. I can tell him that the Bill now provides for a single term of office of seven years, so there is no possibility of someone serving 14 years—two terms. I cannot add much more to the points that I have already made about that.
The hon. Gentleman asked what is meant by consulting the Assembly on the removal of the ombudsman. The duty to consult means a proper and effective consultation. It would mean that the Assembly's views needed to be taken into account before the Secretary of State made the recommendations to Her Majesty. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the location of the offices, which I have covered. They will be at Pencoed, which means that some posts previously located in Cardiff will now be moved to Pencoed. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Members of this House not being eligible to become ombudsman, and referred to Members of the other House. I will have to reflect on that; I will write to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
4 Apr 2005 : Column 1156
To close the debate, let me repeat some key messages. The Bill is about ensuring that the Welsh public sector ombudsman services reflect and can evolve in step with the changing face of public sector service delivery in Wales. It has been warmly welcomed by everyone who has been consulted and who has considered it, and I believe that it is immensely worth while. It will give Wales a first-class ombudsman service in the 21st century. I commend it to the House.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |