|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE national assembly for wales and house of commons MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE and house of commons WELSH AFFAIRS select COMMITTEE
JOINT SCRUTINY OF PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMAN (WALES) BILL
THURSday 13 JANUARY 2005 National Assembly for Wales, Cardiff, Wales
MS VIVIENNE SUGAR MR PETER JOHNS and MR TOMMY MORGAN MR STEVE THOMAS Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 85
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Uncorrected transcript of the meetings of the Local Government and Public Services Committee, National Assembly for Wales (enlarged by the Welsh Affairs Committee) held at the National Assembly for Wales, Cardiff On Thursday 13 January Members present LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE Ms Ann Jones, in the Chair Ms Lorraine Barrett Ms Tamsin Dunwoody-Kneafsey Ms Laura Anne Jones Mr Dai Lloyd
WELSH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Mr Martyn Jones Mr Martin Caton Mr Huw Edwards Julie Morgan Hywel Williams Mr Roger Williams
________________
Witness: Ms Vivienne Sugar, Chair, Welsh Consumer Council, examined. Q1 Chairman: I welcome you to this joint working of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee from Westminster and our Local Government and Public Service Committee here at the Assembly. Members can speak in either English or Welsh; there are interpretation facilities available via the headsets. Members of the Local Government and Public Service Committee of the National Assembly are invited to make any declarations of interest, in accordance with our standing order 4.5 and the code on standards for conduct for members and our guidance. There are no declarations of interest. I understand that members of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee do not have to do that, but if they wish to do so voluntarily, now is the time. We have received a number of apologies from both committees, a list of which will be added into the report, but they are: Glyn Davies, Alun Fred Jones, Mike German, Peter Law, Sue Essex; and from Westminster Albert Owen, Mark Prisk, Nigel Evans and Betty Williams. The purpose of our working is to look at scrutiny of the Public Service Ombudsman (Wales) Bill, which was published on 24 November, following the Queen's Speech, which set out the UK Government's legislative programme for the new parliamentary session. The aim of this Bill is to create a single office of Public Service Ombudsman for Wales to replace the current ombudsman for Welsh Administration Social Housing and the Office of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales. The UK parliamentary ombudsman will retain responsibility for investigating non-devolved functions such as social security, pensions, income tax and immigration. This Bill was introduced into the House of Lords on 24 November, received its Second Reading on 16 December; and so today's proceedings are to take oral evidence in connection with this Bill. There is also another session to be held in Westminster on Monday, 17 January. It is my pleasure no w to welcome Vivienne Sugar, who is the Chair of the Welsh Consumer Council, to give us evidence as to this Bill. You are welcome, Vivienne. Will you first introduce yourself for the record, and then give a brief overview of your organisation, because there is no written evidence? We will then go into questions. Ms Sugar: Thank you, Chair. My name is Viv Sugar; I am the Chair of the Welsh Consumer Council and was appointed in April 2003. The Welsh Consumer Council is the leading generalist consumer organisation in Wales, established by the Government in 1975 to represent the interests of domestic consumers of goods and services, but with a particular emphasis on the needs of disadvantaged and vulnerable customers. It is probably fair to say that we leave the territory of goods more to our colleagues in the Consumers' Association and Which magazine. We tend to concentrate on how groups of people are affected as consumers, communities, and groups of interest; and in particular research on public policy to look at how consumers' rights are affected. We are funded by the DTI and our main purpose is to promote action for furthering and safeguarding the interests of consumers; to ensure that those who take decisions which will affect the consumer can have a balanced and authoritative view of the interests of consumers before them; and to insist that the interests of all consumers, including people who are inarticulate or disadvantaged, are taken into account. Obviously, we are part of that network of the National Consumer Council, the Scottish Consumer Council, but in Wales we lay a particular emphasis on working within the international consumer movement and the consumer rights as embraced by the United Nations in their guidelines. Those rights are the right to satisfaction of basic needs, the right to safety, the right to be informed, the right to choose, the right to be heard, the right to redress, the right to consumer education, and the right to a healthy environment. Perhaps of those it is in a public services ombudsman context today; it is the right to satisfaction of needs; the right to be informed; the right to be heard, and the right to redress, that are particularly relevant. When the original consultation paper came out, we welcomed the proposals to bring together in one office the work of the various ombudsmen and commissioners in Wales. We believe that the Ombudsman system has provided an important service for consumers, having an essential role in ensuring that consumers do have redress, where redress is needed, and that complaints are investigated professionally and resolved by whatever means are appropriate. We stated then that we believed that people in Wales are likely to be better served if a single ombudsman's office was established, so we endorsed the argument for a service that would be more flexible and more comprehensive in the way that it dealt with complaints, supporting the idea of a joined-up way of providing service, the idea of a one-stop shop for better service. We also believed that that would give a higher public profile, because I am sure this joint committee will be aware that people's understanding and knowledge of ways of complaining is not as widespread as we would like it to be. In our original response to the consultation paper we also commented very favourably on the idea of an advisory board to assist. If that is not to be a statutory requirement, we would like to press for some mechanism in order that users of public services and people with knowledge of specific areas of public administration are regularly consulted by the new ombudsman. Here we are, therefore, with the Bill, which strengthens and widens the powers for resolving disputes, for handling complaints in a rationalised and clarified way. We think this is particularly important, as public services are moving towards jointly provided services by different agencies working together. The new single service should be a streamlined, efficient and joined-up approach. We are particularly keen on the role that the Welsh Ombudsman will have in issuing guidance on good practice. Q2 Chairman: I do not want to stop you, but there are specific questioning that we need to go into, and we can bring out what you are saying. I am ticking off the list and you have already in part answered some of the questions. Can I ask you to draw your opening remarks to a conclusion; then we can go into questions. Ms Sugar: I wanted to talk about the role of the Ombudsman in terms of good practice, the need to have an accessible service throughout Wales for all communities, and some specific comments about the clauses in the Bill, giving the Ombudsman flexibility in the way that he decides to process complaints. There is a question about how he might deal with service failure or failure to provide relevant services unless he has powers to question professional clinical judgment across the different agencies; there is something about standards, and then back to the issue of how he might consult users in the future. Chairman: I think most of those will be covered. If they have not been covered by the end of the session, we will allow you to give a final analysis of the session. Q3 Mr Lloyd: (Translated from Welsh) Thank you, Chair. Thank you also to Vivienne Sugar for that polished presentation. Following on from what you have just said, are there any other issues? I believe that you made some comments about other issues that you would have liked to have seen. Can you confirm what other issues you would have liked to have seen included in this Bill but which are not there at present? Ms Sugar: We would have liked to have seen the idea of the advisory board, but if we are not to have that, then we would want some kind of commitment from the Ombudsman about how he is going to consult users and service providers. We would want to question exactly how the co-ordination arrangements will work with the other ombudsmen on cross-border issues. For example, a lot of health provision is being provided by English hospitals across the border, and we would want to understand how that would work. In a Welsh context there will need to be a formal protocol with the Children's Commissioner, and the Older Persons' Commissioner to make sure that what we are getting from this Bill is a single route for people to have their complaints dealt with on a satisfactory basis. Q4 Hywel Williams: (Translated from Welsh) Thank you very much, Chair. May I ask a similar question? Where would you envisage the Welsh Language Board's complaints procedure fitting into this new system? The language board has a procedure which allows you to make a direct complaint about organisations which do not comply with their language schemes. Ms Sugar: I cannot comment on that from a Welsh Consumer Council point of view, but perhaps I can recall some past experience in local government. Complaints about the implementation of Welsh language schemes were not often solely a technical complaint but were related to some aspect of public service. It was that employment opportunities were not being advertised by local government bilingually or that public documents were not being translated to the extent that they should have been; and there was a question as to whether the Welsh language scheme was an approved scheme and was being implemented properly. I can imagine that there will be some questions about whether somebody has suffered an injustice from the way in which the Welsh language scheme has been implemented; so the Welsh Language Board will have the role of looking at the scheme that a body has and whether it is operating satisfactorily, but there could be cases where somebody feels there is mal-administration or a service failure. In many parts of Wales there are not enough social workers who speak Welsh, and there is not a lot of evidence that local government is planning succession for future generations of social workers to make sure that older people who want to use their first language, particularly people who have had a stroke who only have the use of one language, are not getting the support that they need in local community hospital from social services everywhere in Wales, because there are not enough social workers who speak Welsh. That is a cross-over between the area of responsibility of the Welsh Language Board and the area of responsibility of the Ombudsman to ensure that people are getting the level of service that they should get. Q5 Hywel Williams: (Translated from Welsh) For your information, the language board notes that the failure to make provision through the medium of Welsh in this regard counts as maladministration. In this regard, it is clear that you and the board see the world in much the same way. Ms Sugar: For the record, I do not think I was saying that. I think there is a distinction. Q6 Julie Morgan: You said in your response to the question about what you would wish to see included that there should be some kind of protocol for the Children's Commissioner. As you probably know, we have been concerned certainly in the Welsh Affairs Committee and other committees about how the Children's Commissioner will relate to the English Children's Commissioner with the non-devolved issues. I think it is very important that the routes to the Children's Commissioner should be as clear as possible. You think that something should be included in the Bill about the different routes that the consumer could take to the Children's Commissioner. Ms Sugar: I do not want to say whether it should actually be in the Bill, or whether there should be some formal agreement between the respective organisations, but the Welsh ombudsman will need protocols with a variety of different bodies, and whether that needs a statutory footing I think is for a lawyer to answer. Q7 Mr Jones: I am not sure whether I should be welcoming you to our side of the Committee, but I do anyway. I believe we have met before, Ms Sugar. Can I apologise for my delay in arriving, which resulted in your delay in starting, on behalf of Westminster City Council, which managed to jam up an entire part of Chelsea because of their temporary lights! Can you tell us what role you have played, if any, in the consultation on the Bill? Ms Sugar: We were consulted, and our council submitted a formal response. Q8 Mr Jones: Do you believe that that response has been taken into account in the draft Bill? Ms Sugar: The only aspect that I picked out was this issue of the advisory board. I would just add to that and say that in the lead-up to these meetings we have had discussions with colleagues in the Welsh Local Government Association and various other bodies to see whether there were any common areas of concern that we should all speak about. Q9 Ms Dunwoody-Kneafsey: The Bill states that the Ombudsman will have an appointment, a tenure of ten years; do you feel that is appropriate, and if so why, or if not, why not? Ms Sugar: I do not think that is a matter for the Welsh Consumer Council to comment on. We would only look to ensure that the Ombudsman were seen by the public as independent, vigorous in their approach and energetic in their pursuit of people's complaints. Their terms of employment I do not think are in our remit. Q10 Ms Dunwoody-Kneafsey: I would like you to take you to the broader issue - not terms of employment. You say the role of the Consumer Council is to ensure that communities view the Ombudsman as being independent. If communities do not view it in that way, the tenure has a direct impact on your ability to maintain that perception. Has that been considered by your organisation? Ms Sugar: We have not considered that, but I can give you a personal opinion that I do not think it does matter. I think that people can maintain their independence and integrity even if they are in the same job for forty years. Q11 Ms Jones: The Bill states that Ombudsman Office staff will not be civil servants. Do you welcome this approach? Ms Sugar: Again, this is not something that the Council has formally considered, but I would say it is important that the Ombudsman's office is seen as separate from the normal machinery of government, and that the fact that they are separately employed will help build that public image of distance. Q12 Mr Caton: Are you satisfied with the accountability of the Ombudsman's office both to the National Assembly and local authorities as outlined in the Bill? Ms Sugar: I cannot think of anything that I could propose to you that would change what is there for the better. I think it is a question of the experience of it, and perhaps as with all other bills looking back after a few years and seeing whether the practice is as was envisaged when it was written. However, I do not have any suggestions to make about that. Q13 Mr Caton: It is interesting because you were a member of the Richard Commission when it was being, which made the recommendation, which you supported, of separation of the executive and the legislative role of the Assembly. That was raised in the Lords by the Government, which said that it expects that to happen. It says that instead of the appointment of the commissioner being by the Secretary of State, even though in practice the Assembly will do it, at that stage you could transfer the power to the Assembly as long as it was the parliamentary side of the Assembly. Do you welcome that? Ms Sugar: I look forward to coming to a future scrutiny committee to be questioned about the powers of the Assembly in any new bill that might come forward eventually! To try and answer your question, my understanding was that the Ombudsman was appointed by the Queen, and that although the Assembly administered the process of recruitment and appointment, it was a royal appointment to ensure that there was that degree of separation. I had not understood that that was changing, but maybe I misunderstand your question. Q14 Mr Caton: You are quite right that it is proposed that the appointment is made by the Monarch, but the Bill states: "The Secretary of State must consult the Assembly if he or she wishes to dismiss the Ombudsman", but there is no requirement for the Assembly to be consulted on the appointment at the moment. During the Second Reading debate, the Government responded: "In practice, appointments procedure for recruiting the Ombudsman will be run by Assembly officials on behalf of the Secretary of State. In the longer term splitting the Assembly between its executive and legislative elements, as the Richard report recommends, would allow for the possibility of the National Assembly advising Her Majesty on the appointment." Ms Sugar: Good! Q15 Hywel Williams: (Translated from Welsh) Are you satisfied that the measure as it stands provides the ombudsman with a higher profile among the Welsh public? Ms Sugar: The Bill itself is an opportunity to start a process of publicity and awareness-raising. I hope that as things go through the Ombudsman will come forward with a programme for raising the profile of the service across Wales, not just to the public, but to all those people in advice agencies, people who work in the public sector, so that they know what the powers are and the referral mechanisms, and how to make sure that someone has got that Bridgend phone number, if it is a Bridgend phone number and so on. This is the start of an opportunity over the next six months, or however long it is going to be, to get that publicity campaign moving. For example, I would hope that if there were to be any press coverage of your meeting today, that again just getting something into the media - the newspapers and a mention on the news - all helps to build that awareness that something new is going to happen and that people should have higher expectations of it being easier to make a complaint in the future. Q16 Hywel Williams: (Translated from Welsh) May I ask, further to that, from your experience as a council-and as a North Wales member, I have an interest in a northern presence for southern organisations, as it were-do you have any practical suggestions to make which would be of interest to the committee with regard to how the profile could be raised across Wales? Ms Sugar: It is important that the Ombudsman has sufficient staff to be able to give universal coverage of all areas of Wales, so that they are able to go to the people, rather than the people coming to them. He will need to make sure that he has caseworkers, suitable facilities and contact points in every area of Wales. As I understand it, in the past they have used local government premises to carry out interviews and investigations, but for all public services the more local a service delivery can be, the better. Equally, it is very important that he has sufficient staff that can deal with cases through the medium of Welsh, but also other languages, because there are people from different cultures and backgrounds, particularly in South Wales, who would find it very difficult to raise their complaints in English and would need to have access to other languages. Q17 Mr Caton: In your opening remarks, Viv, you mentioned that redress is one of the eight fundamental consumer rights endorsed by the UN and campaigned for by consumer groups throughout the world. Do you think that this Bill gives the Ombudsman, or should give the Ombudsman, stronger powers to enforce her or his decisions? Ms Sugar: I do not think there is anything wrong with the powers to enforce decisions, because if all else fails, naming and shaming the body in the past has been enough for the different ombudsmen and commissioners to get what they wanted. I am more interested in the scope for intervening at an early stage to try and get resolution, and in particular promulgating good practice to get people to learn to say "sorry". Our research says that if somebody has had a problem, if somebody says "sorry" early enough in the process, and can say, "we are sorry this has happened to you, or your family, but we are also going to make sure it does not happen to anybody else, because we have learnt from the mistakes that have happened" - if we can get more of that, there would be less people getting to the point where they needed formal redress. If you look at the statistics for the number of complaints that come forward at the moment for the commissioners and the ombudsmen, in their hundreds, very, very few - only double figures end up as being proved/found cases, where there was mal-administration or whatever. That means there are hundreds of unhappy people who did not get the formal investigation that resulted in a formal redress situation, but they needed something before then. I am very keen on seeing how the idea of the Ombudsman spreading good practice and improving understanding of customer care in public bodies is going to develop. Q18 Hywel Williams: (Translated from Welsh) Thank you. As a member, I fairly regularly receive requests to go to the ombudsman. In my opinion, members of the public do not always understand the basis on which complaints can go forward. Looking at the Bill, there are a number of conditions under clauses 4, 5 and 6 for taking complaints forward. Would you like to comment on that-how to formulate arrangements which are adequately robust, so that the public understands that the internal complaints procedures must be followed in the first instance, for example, and that they can make verbal as well as written complaints? Do you have any comments on a robust complaints procedure? Ms Sugar: The first thing is to make sure that the body providing the service in the first place has a good complaints procedure that is easy to use and gives swift feedback to the individual, and heads these complaints off at the pass, as it were. If they are going to then move forward to the Ombudsman because somebody is dissatisfied, as I understand the Bill, there are clauses that would allow him to exercise his discretion. If someone is not technically compliant with the time limits or the procedures for submission, there is more flexibility in the way that this is written so that he can use his discretion and say that while they may not have dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" there is still a basis to move forward. There is even a provision that where something might have affected a group of people, if the lead complainant drops out for whatever reason, the Ombudsman can still say there is something worth pursuing and take it forward. Q19 Julie Morgan: What are your views on the Ombudsman's power to review complaints without proceeding to formal investigation? You have already touched on that, but I do not know whether you have anything else you would like to say. Ms Sugar: The only thing I would express a bit of concern about is that we are moving towards encouraging more resolution of disputes at an earlier stage, at the same time as we are living in a more litigious society. We all have lawyers standing behind us saying, "whatever you do, do not admit any liability for anything". I still hope that what is here will make more of a difference than has been possible previously. It depends as much as anything on the willingness of the public bodies that the Ombudsman is looking at, whether they can be flexible enough and generously spirited enough to try to find something which does settle something to somebody's satisfaction without going necessarily to the expense, complication and time of a formal investigation. Q20 Julie Morgan: I think there will be some difficulty, because authorities are very reluctant to say "sorry" for the very reason you have given, that there are lawyers breathing down their necks. You think it is possible to get some way of moving forward that would avoid that dilemma. Ms Sugar: Mediation is proven to work in a lot of other areas of life. Most people are reasonable. If they feel that somebody is listening to them, paying attention, and wants to do something to help them, albeit it is within the constraints of the money available or whatever the problem might be, most people are satisfied with what they think is a fair deal. They do not want something impossible. I am optimistic. Q21 Julie Morgan: I think it is true of the consumer, but it is the authorities that have legal advice which cause difficulty in moving towards what the consumer is looking for, in my experience at least. Ms Sugar: It is about trying to get prompt action so that it does not get to the stage where somebody is thinking about putting things in the hands of solicitors. Q22 Ms Dunwoody-Kneafsey: I agree that previously that was the basis of most complaints being dealt with in the Health Service, for example, that a private meeting would be arranged with the complainant and the organisation. Communication at that stage would often resolve the issue so that it would not go forward into a litigious situation. Do you think that the very fact that the Ombudsman can take action in private could assist that process, because Julie's point is very valid, that the hearing of the complaint in private without the whole rigmarole of public evidence would assist in that early resolution? Ms Sugar: It is always worth trying that softer approach. It will deal with some complaints and make people feel that they have had a fair hearing, and that there has to be closure. Other people will set out on this process determined to see it through to whatever extent and will never accept that their case has been dealt with satisfactorily, and will go on to complain about the way in which the Ombudsman dealt with it. I am sure that all of you in elected office have the experience of people coming to your surgeries on a regular basis who are serial complainers. Q23 Mr Roger Williams: In your introduction you mentioned cross-border issues, but in reference mainly to people living in Wales making use of health services in England. There are other occasions, for instance the proposed closure of a leisure centre in my constituency, which led to me getting more letters from England than from Wales. There are also parents sending their children to school in Wales, with problems about special needs and whatever. Are you satisfied that the Bill clarifies how these issues should be dealt with, or have you any suggestions as to how improvements could be made? Ms Sugar: As I understand it, there is the requirement for the Welsh ombudsman to liaise with his colleagues. The difficulty will be about who is responsible, so in a Welsh context it is often difficult for the public to understand whether it is their local council or local NHS trust, or whether it is the Assembly or a non-devolved body that is responsible for a particular issue of concern. With cross-border things it is even more complicated for people to know whom they should be trying to make representations to, and that is before they even think about ombudsman level cases. There are some examples down the border of joint provision across English and Welsh local authorities and health, which add another degree of difficulty. I think it is about making sure that the Welsh ombudsman and the English ombudsman co-ordinate their literature and their information to the public, so that people know who to go to and what they can expect. There will be occasions that they need to agree between themselves who will take the lead in the particular case, so that it can be quite clear that it is either Mr Peat or one of his colleagues dealing with the issue. Q24 Mr Roger Williams: You believe that that could be best resolved with a memorandum between the different people, rather than on the face of legislation. Ms Sugar: I will say what I said about the Children's Commissioner. I am not a lawyer, but I would hope that protocols should suffice, but you would need to take advice from somebody else about that. Q25 Mr Roger Williams: Another issue relates to the amount of time people have to make a complaint to the Ombudsman and the amount of time authorities have to respond to any adjudication that the Ombudsman might make. Do you have any views as to whether those time periods are realistic or helpful? Ms Sugar: If I remember correctly, the individual has a year to the day that the problem first came to their attention to make a complaint; but, again, the Ombudsman has discretion if there are extenuating circumstances, or if he wants to pursue it, to be able to waive that one-year requirement. I am sure that the Welsh Local Government Association will want to comment on how long local authorities are being given to respond. I would only urge speed in this process because for the ordinary member of the public these timescales seem incredible. Most people can imagine next week or next month. Once you get beyond their next birthday it just feels a though something is disappearing into the mists of time. Also, we have to remember that every time it comes back, every time there is a stage of this process, people have to re-live the agony of the problem. It will make them recall the pain of the circumstances of whatever has led to the complaint. Therefore, the shorter the timescale, whilst being fair to people's ability to take part and give considered responses, the better. Q26 Mr Roger Williams: Are you saying that there should be a shorter timescale in the Bill? Ms Sugar: I am describing what I think is general good practice. Q27 Mr Roger Williams: But from the point of view of the complainant, sometimes a problem may build up over a very long period of time, and we would not want to see anybody who felt that continuous bad service by an authority might disbar them from making a complaint because it had built up over a long time. You think the discretion that the Ombudsman has to address that issue might be satisfactory. Ms Sugar: There might be two separate issues in your question. One is the issue of at what point cumulative poor service constitutes service failure, when each incident on its own might not go over that threshold. There is then a separate issue, which is how long-standing a complaint could be before the Ombudsman rules it out and says, "no" - and he is not going back twenty years. The Bill gives the Ombudsman flexibility above the one-year level to say, "I will look at this". It is entirely a question of your judgment as to whether giving somebody a year with a bit of flexibility is long enough for somebody to realise that they have a problem and that they should be able to come through and get a price. Most people, when they have a problem and they start to talk to others would go to their local councillor or advice agency, or MP's surgery, or whatever. I cannot personally think, going back over previous ombudsmen's reports, of many cases where there was a problem over the timescale. Q28 Mr Jones: You talk about flexibility; do you see this as being different to the way that the English ombudsman works? Are you asking for greater flexibility within Wales than other ombudsmen have? Ms Sugar: I was assuming - and I might be wrong - that this gives a little more flexibility than currently applies on the other side of the border. Q29 Mr Jones: So was I. Are you happy with that? Ms Sugar: Yes, I am. Chairman: That concludes this session. Thank you for coming along to give us your thoughts. Memorandum submitted by Community Health Councils and the Board of Community Health Councils in Wales Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr Tommy Morgan, Chair, and Mr Peter Johns, Director, Board of Community Health Councils in Wales, examined. Q30 Chairman: Can I now welcome to the table Peter Johns and Tommy Morgan. You are both very welcome to our session this afternoon. Can you introduce yourself for the record, and we will then go straight into questions by the joint working panel, which consists of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee from Westminster, and the Local Government Public Services Committee here at the Assembly. Mr Morgan: I am Tommy Morgan, the Chair of the Board of Welsh Community Health Councils. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing us to speak here today. We welcome the opportunity to make this submission, and we have some general points to make as well as some specific points. Mr Johns: I am Peter Johns, Director of the Board of CHCs in Wales. Q31 Ms Dunwoody-Kneafsey: Do you in principle welcome the aims of the Bill? Mr Johns: Most definitely, yes. Q32 Ms Dunwoody-Kneafsey: Would you like to expand on that? Mr Johns: I thought you liked direct answers. Q33 Ms Dunwoody-Kneafsey: We do, but just a little bit more! Mr Johns: We welcome it because one of the difficulties we have identified in our submission to you is the fact that there are often cross-boundary issues which create difficulties. Having one agency that deals with complaints through the whole process is a great advance as far as we are concerned. Q34 Mr Lloyd: (Translated from Welsh): Thank you, Chair. Are there any other issues that you would like to see contained in this Bill which are not currently included? Would you like to see any additional points added to what is already there? Mr Johns: First of all, I apologise that I cannot respond in Welsh because I am a Cornishman, not a Welshman. The points in our submission cover the bits and pieces that we felt were appropriate to bring forward from our point of view, and I do not have any comments to make other than that. Q35 Mr Jones: Did you play any role in consultations for the Bill? Mr Johns: I personally did not. I have been in my job for two years, and I do not recall having had any opportunity to respond to that previously. I may have overlooked it, but not as far as I am aware. Q36 Mr Jones: As far as you know, were you approached by government? Mr Johns: I cannot recall that I was, but it may be an oversight on my part as much as on anybody else's. Q37 Mr Jones: Did you take part in consultation anyway? Mr Johns: No. Q38 Mr Jones: You have not been consulted. Mr Johns: No. Q39 Mr Jones: Are you happy with the Bill as it stands? Mr Johns: Yes, subject to minor points we have picked up on, generally, yes. Q40 Chairman: The Bill states that the Ombudsman should have a fixed-term appointment, a tenure of ten years. What are your views on that: do you think that is appropriate? Mr Johns: I think you need stability, and I think that is appropriate. Q41 Ms Jones: The Bill states that the Ombudsman Office staff will not be civil servants. How do you feel about that? Mr Johns: To be perfectly honest, I do not have a great view on that. The main thing from my point of view is the complainants and how their complaints are dealt with. It is the process from the complainants' end which we, as CHC representatives, we are particularly interested in. I do not have a strong view on that. Q42 Ms Jones: Do you believe that it will help create a public perception of distance and be good in that respect? Mr Johns: I think it will help, but I am not sure that it will make a huge difference to people who are preoccupied with making sure they get their complaint dealt with in a timely way. Q43 Mr Caton: Are you satisfied with the accountability of the Ombudsman's office, both to the National Assembly and local authorities, as outlined in the Bill? Mr Johns: Broadly, yes. I would not have any problems with that. Q44 Hywel Williams: (Translated from Welsh) Thank you, Chair. I want to ask you about the specific points in your presentation, namely numbers two and three, where you talk about the organisations that should be included under schedule three. You say that you want to see the inclusion of organisations such as your board of community councils, and also the primary care trusts in England. We have already discussed cross-border issues. Would you like to explain why you believe it to be important that you and these other organisations from England are listed under schedule three? Mr Johns: As far as our own body is concerned, individual community health councils, being independent legal entities, are already to be covered, and I think that is good. The Board of CHCs - it is possible for people to make complaints against us as well of course, and we do have a statutory status under the Health (Wales) Act 2003. It seemed appropriate to me that there should be the opportunity for people to take a complaint the full distance against us, the same as against anybody else. We should be equally accountable. That was the reasoning behind that. As far as primary care trusts are concerned, we are concerned because we are aware that across the border there may be some difficulties with people accessing complaints services on occasions. There are problems with people going to health services in England when they may be living in Wales and vice versa. Primary care trusts obviously have a role to play in the provision of those services in England, and we felt it was appropriate that there should be some cross-reference between the two. I hope that helps. Q45 Hywel Williams: (Translated from Welsh) Yes, certainly. Do you have any comments on problems or practical ways of solving problems that you have come across as a board or as community health councils with regard to these cross-border issues? This is a reasonable cause of concern to many people in Wales who depend on public services-especially health services-in England. Do you have any practical lessons that you have learned which would be of interest to the committee and, perhaps, to the new ombudsman when he or she is appointed? Mr Johns: From our point of view, we would hope to ensure equal recognition of the role of community health councils in assisting patients with complaints and other matters, whether they be English organisations or Welsh organisations. I think that is the important thing for us. As far as the Ombudsman service is concerned, we would hope that the two would work closely enough together and that there was never going to be a gap through which people could fall. How you achieve that, I am sorry I am not expert enough to say, but I do think that is quite important. Q46 Hywel Williams: (Translated from Welsh) Have you noticed any difference since the community health council system changed in England, and since the fora were established ? Has there been any change in the way in which you can take cases across the border, for example? Has that affected your work in any way, and would that have any implications for the ombudsman? Mr Johns: I have to say that I do not have details of individual cases with me, and I do not have a clear steer that there are major problems. In making the points to you, we are saying that we do not want to leave any doors open where this sort of thing could happen. Q47 Ms Dunwoody-Kneafsey: In his written evidence, Adam Peat states that he is particularly keen to be able to consider synoptically complaints about the actions of multi agency, multi-disciplinary teams, which are common nowadays, and particularly pertinent in your field because now, instead of being simply in Wales LHBs you now have local authorities and various other things. Do you think that the Bill should be improved in terms of drafting, or in terms of the implications in there for that type of multi-agency working? Mr Johns: The wording of the Bill is down to the drafting experts. The points that we tried to set out here were areas where it seemed to be relevant to us to make points that there was an opportunity not to see clearly how this would work. Whether that is covered in a commentary or whether it needs an amendment to the Bill, I would not be prepared to say, because I am not competent; but it is important that the points that we have tried to identify, where there is a potential for misunderstanding or failure to pick something up, are covered. Q48 Ms Dunwoody-Kneafsey: On the failure to pick something up, one of your key points is obviously timing, and a multi-agency approach could exacerbate that timing situation. Mr Johns: Absolutely, yes. Q49 Ms Dunwoody-Kneafsey: I just wondered if you felt there should be more strength to that. Mr Johns: It would be helpful, certainly. We have said that we felt there should be a time limit beyond which, once the listed authority or authorities have had notice, that the Ombudsman should be able to intercede if things are not moving. That would certainly be helpful. Q50 Julie Morgan: Your written evidence highlights concerns over the delays in the processing of complaints, where continual failure to deliver the service has a huge impact on someone's life, such as a very young person or a very old person, and you argue that the Bill should be strengthened to allow the Ombudsman to act quickly. Is that in reference to the time limits that you have already referred to, or do you feel the Bill should be amended to prevent delays? Mr Johns: The other one that we mentioned in (i) at the bottom of the page was in section 11, which talks about the exercise of discretion, and we were concerned about how that would be interpreted. Exercise of a discretion can cause delays on occasions as well, when people are arguing the toss about whether there is discretion or not. That is relevant in the same context, because if a service is not being provided the authority can simply claim "we have exercised our discretion not to provide it" and yet that is having a major impact on the well-being or development of a young person, and particularly the health of an elderly person. That links with the timing issue because prevarication can occur then quite severely, and we would be concerned to avoid that happening. Q51 Julie Morgan: What powers could be put in the Bill to prevent that which are not there? Mr Johns: Again, somebody may well tell me that the wording is sufficient, and that may well be the case, but having read it as a layman it would seem to me that there was room for manoeuvre under the exercise of discretion, but unless it is fairly well defined there is the possibility of prevarication. Q52 Julie Morgan: So you think something should be done there to prevent the possibility of prevarication. Mr Johns: We would like to see something done, yes. Q53 Chairman: Do either of you have any general points you would like to make, it would be useful for the Committee to hear those to help in preparation of the report. Now is the time to express those views. Mr Morgan: You have read the Bill, Peter, and I have not, so you are the one ----- Q54 Chairman: That is a good chair! Mr Johns: The important point is that we come at it from the point of view of patients and the public, who come to us, and from the anecdotal experience that we have gained. I have tried to identify from that real base the sort of interpretations that might cause us difficulties, and that is why we have made the points we have to you. I hope that I have picked them all up. It was quite a detailed bill and I am not expert in reading parliamentary language, but I believe I have picked up the points that are relevant to us, and I do not think we wish to make any other points. Q55 Mr Roger Williams: We heard earlier from Viv Sugar that the ability of organisations to say "sorry" is very important in settling complaints and disputes because very often people do not want to go through the process of litigation. Is there anything that you feel could be put into this to encourage organisations to accept responsibility for fault and to make that known to the complainant and thereby bypass a lot of the extremely expensive litigation that takes place in the Health Service? Mr Johns: You have made a very good point. There is obviously an advantage, if that can be achieved. Unfortunately, a lot of "sorry"s are "sorry, but" and you get lots of justification for things having happened after the "sorry", and when you finish reading the letter it does not look as if they are sorry at all. That has always been a problem. There is a lot out there already advising organisations to be prepared to face up to their mistakes and to say "sorry", and I am not sure that it is necessary for this Bill to contain anything on that. Q56 Mr Edwards: Would you agree that often the public are quite mystified by bodies like the community health council, which they confuse with other trusts and boards? They may be confused about the existence of a Health Service ombudsman as well. These are mystifying bodies which those who work in the field may be familiar with, but they are not generally known to a great many people. If people have complaints about the Health Service, they will often go to their Assembly member or their MP. How do you think that the new public services ombudsman could have a public profile which would be understood and known universally by the public? Mr Johns: That is a good question, and one that has taxed us as community health councils, as you rightly point out. We have been trying to improve our profile over the last few years. One thing I would say is that most times, people who are in difficulties and need help seem to find the way to our door. That is through the good offices of MPs and AMs and CABs and the like, who will be aware of our existence generally. That happens. We will do whatever we can to promote the Ombudsman service in that respect, and I am sure that will happen in many other ways. We can only rely on those people who do know to make sure the word is passed on. There is an awful lot of publicity material out there about community health councils at the present time - we have spent a lot on it this year. I am not sure that we have raised the profile, if we did a street poll now, very much. I am comforted to some extent by the fact that an awful lot of people find their way to our doors when they need help and advice. As I said, that is really through your good offices and others like you. Mr Morgan: When there was an NHS Ombudsman and an ombudsman looking after local government and social services, now that the NHS and social services are very much more closely linked, whereas in the past people were falling into that grey area, things have changed dramatically. One person is looking after the service of public service ombudsman, and the feedback from people who have had their cases referred to the Ombudsman is that it has very much improved. Chairman: You have obviously given us a lot to think about there and to put into our report. Thank you both for coming along this afternoon and for your contribution to this evidence session. Memorandum submitted by Welsh Local Government Association Examination of Witness
Witness: Mr Steve Thomas, Director, Welsh Local Government Association, examined.
Chairman: Our last evidence session for today is from the Welsh Local Government Association, and it is my pleasure to invite Steve Thomas to join us at the table. Steve is a regular attendee of the Local Government Public Services Committee - not quite a member, but we will see what we can do! Thank you for giving up your time, Steve. As you are aware, this is a joint session between the Welsh Affairs Select Committee from Westminster and ourselves as the Local Government Public Services Committee, into the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill. Your written evidence is very comprehensive, so we will go straight into a set of questions. Q57 Ms Dunwoody-Kneafsey: Do you, in principle, welcome the aims of the Bill? Mr Thomas: We do indeed. The Bill and the consultation has been reported to all the 22 local authorities in Wales. It was reported when it originally came out as consultation. We have done some subsequent research on authorities' intentions and views on the Bill in recent months, and we have not had any authority saying they oppose this principle. In broad terms, it is very welcome. Q58 Ms Dunwoody-Kneafsey: You have said that was in broad terms, but have there been any specifics? Mr Thomas: There are always some specifics. I do not want to present it as a cosy relationship because it is not, but we have a good relationship with the current Ombudsman Office, the Local Government Ombudsman. We would not want to see any dilution of that service in Wales. From our point of view, it is a vitally important service. It deals with a range of public inquiries and links very much into the local authority complaints procedures at the moment, and we want to ensure that there is a clear line of continuity there. Q59 Mr Lloyd: (Translated from Welsh) Thank you, Chair. Would you like to see any other issue included in this Bill? In your opinion, is there any issue that you would have liked to have seen included which are not currently there? Mr Thomas: The Bill is very comprehensive from our point of view. A bill cannot encapsulate some of the concerns that we have got, concerns that have gone on in the background, which we have put into our evidence. That is the current profile of not only the Local Government Ombudsman but the Ombudsman Office in general. We have some evidence from local survey work that people do not understand what the Ombudsman Office is and do not understand the concept of an ombudsman. There are some issues in terms of awareness-raising and the role the Assembly can play and the House of Commons in raising the profile of this. We have not necessarily got a great culture of complaint within the wider UK, and some of the mechanisms we have in place are not very user-friendly at the moment. I accept that that cannot be encapsulated into the Bill, but the spirit of the discussions you are having and the type of evidence we want to put in would try and push for a greater profile in terms of the service. Bringing these organisations together will partly achieve that, but it is not the end of the story. Q60 Mr Jones: Mr Thomas, I can see from your paper that you have been consulted by the Welsh Assembly Government over ombudsman services in the past. Were you consulted about this draft Bill? Mr Thomas: We were. We have seen the draft Bill and we have seen much of the supporting evidence. Q61 Mr Jones: Do you think that the consultation has been effective? Have you got what you wanted in it, in your consultation with the Government? Mr Thomas: From our point of view, as an organisation, definitely. We have no problems with the consultation on this. The feedback we have had from the 22 local authorities and our associate members has been very good. Q62 Ms Barrett: The Bill states that the Ombudsman will be a fixed-term appointment of ten years. Do you think that is appropriate? Mr Thomas: We have said in the evidence we have submitted that it is. We did consider a contractually based process. From our point of view, part of the reason why we supported the ten-year time-frame - and it is not always a good reason, but I am going to state it anyway - was the experience we had built up under the previous ombudsman, prior to Adam Peat, Mr Elwyn Mosely, was one of continuity and real value to local authorities and to citizens. I am sure that Adam will also provide that level of expertise, and that takes time to build up. I think this is a position that does not necessarily lend itself to a contractual arrangement. Q63 Ms Barrett: That is fine, and in some ways we should look at whoever the Ombudsman might be rather than individuals. I appreciate what you say about Elwyn Mosely, because I have had lots of experience over the years with him as the Local Government Ombudsman. I am not sure if there are mechanisms to curtail the appointment at any stage. I know the others were in place for an awful long time, but ten years does seem a long time and I am sure there must be mechanisms in place to deal with it. Do you know of any, and what do you think of them? This may not be a question for you. Mr Thomas: My understanding is that the position is advertised as a public servant as such, and as a public servant it could be a lifelong position. It is slightly different to the position of myself and other chief executives in local authorities at the moment, which is usually on a four-year basis. Q64 Ms Dunwoody-Kneafsey: I had read it as there being an ability to cease the appointment at any stage, and that the serving of the ten-year tenure could not be repeated. Mr Thomas: I am not aware of that. You will have to put that question to Adam Peat. Ms Dunwoody-Kneafsey: Am I correct in that? Chairman: That is something we need to follow up when we take evidence from Adam Peat and the Under Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government. Q65 Julie Morgan: The Children's Commissioner post was for seven years, and I think the Children's Commissioner in England is going to be five years as I remember. Do you have any comments on that, because in some ways it is a similar type of post? I believe that the Children's Commissioner in Wales cannot repeat the tenure. Are they different types of posts? Mr Thomas: I think they are different types of post. I have some views on the tenure of the Children's Commissioner post, not least because that post does lack some accountability in the Welsh context. From our point of view, however, in terms of the Ombudsman post, by definition it is less controversial than the Children's Commissioner's post. It clearly has a linkage in to many controversial subjects, but the Ombudsman clearly comes forward with a veil of objectivity on all the things that he or she does. The Children's Commissioner is a fare more objective post, pushing the rights of children, which is why the Assembly has pushed that post forward. There are distinctions between the two, and the differing timescales should not be seen as problematic in that regard. Q66 Ms Jones: The Bill states that Ombudsman Office staff will not be civil servants. Do you welcome this approach? Mr Thomas: Good! I think because the Ombudsman Office is characterised by a degree of independence and because it will be examining areas under the remit of the Assembly, they cannot be civil servants. Chairman: We have checked, and it is a ten-year appointment without re-appointment. Q67 Mr Edwards: What do you feel about the level of accountability within the Bill of the Ombudsman to the Assembly and to the local authorities? Mr Thomas: We have put specific proposals in, in terms of the Ombudsman's accountability. From our point of view, we have a number of informal accountability mechanisms in place. We think that the Public Services Ombudsman should regularly report to the Partnership Council mechanisms within the National Assembly. As you know, the Partnership Council is a partnership between local government, the National Assembly, the fire authorities, community councils and a range of other public bodies. It is vital that those mechanisms are seen as accountability mechanisms; and I think that the new ombudsman must clearly have a role in that regard. We seek informal dialogue as well with the Ombudsman; we generally have an annual meeting, where the Ombudsman reports back to the Association, particularly on the new members' code of conduct and the role that he plays in that. That is very useful. From our point of view as well the Ombudsman generally attends councils around Wales and there is a level of accountability there. There is a need for some sort of formal reporting to the Partnership Council in Wales, which would add a new dimension. Q68 Mr Edwards: Do you think the Bill needs to be amended with respect to the first point you made? Mr Thomas: I think it should be a statutory consultation with the Partnership Council, yes. Q69 Mr Edwards: Have you submitted evidence precisely on how that can be achieved? Mr Thomas: We have put that forward as a suggestion. We have not put detail behind the suggestion. Q70 Hywel Williams: (Translated from Welsh) Thank you. I would like to ask a question about raising awareness of the ombudsman's function. You have partly answered this in your reply to Dai Lloyd. Do you have any creative ideas about how we could use this Bill to raise public awareness about the ombudsman? Mr Thomas: I think there are some things that could be achieved. Firstly, local authorities do point towards the Ombudsman in their complaints procedures. In fact, I dealt with a lady yesterday on a planning inquiry, and she was seeking the address of the Ombudsman, which tends to suggest there is a staging post approach. We would like to see far more publicity around the role of the Ombudsman Office. We do not seem to get that in the media or the press at all. Most Ombudsman reports, other than mal-administration reports generally do not get coverage. Many of them do not deserve coverage but some of them do; but there is a need for upping the media profile of the Ombudsman. One of the things we have discussed with the Assembly - and this ties in to the Making the Connections report is the possibility of a survey of public sector bodies in Wales under the badge of Local Voices. That was initially going to be solely a customer satisfaction survey about local government, but now we are starting to talk about integrated public services in Wales, there is clearly the opportunity to use a vehicle such as that, again to check on a regular time series basis people's views, awareness and perception of the Ombudsman service. There are plenty of mechanisms there. The problem we have by definition is that the bread and butter of the Ombudsman service is not particularly exciting unless you are an individual complainant, but at the same time, as a method of redress, it is vital in terms of democratic accountability; so both the Assembly and local government and other public sector agencies in Wales have a role in promoting the Ombudsman Office, but I think the Ombudsman himself could be more proactive in that regard. Q71 Hywel Williams: (Translated from Welsh) Thank you. I see from your presentation that you talk of making the service citizen-centred, and on the basis that everybody starts by looking at his or her own situation. Do you see that as a way of raising public awareness? I note that you state here that only 45 per cent of people in England are aware of the health service ombudsman, and 44 per cent aware of the local government ombudsman, and so on. Would making the service more citizen-centred be one way of making it more real for people? Mr Thomas: To follow that statistic through, the point made about the awareness of the Citizens' Advice Bureau clearly suggests that, does it not? If you have 94% awareness of CAB, it suggests that a voluntary sector body can generate more interest and more legitimacy than a public body, and there must be some lessons to be learned there. From our point of view, it is a question of appropriateness. Many of the things that get to the Ombudsman perhaps should not, and that may be down to the inadequacy of complaints procedures in local government; it may be down to a misunderstanding of the ombudsman role, and there is a role to perform there. I have to say - I would say this, wouldn't I? The dealing of complaints in the public sector has improved dramatically over recent years. From my personal experience as a consumer that has improved, and dealing with the private sector has gone down somewhat. At the same time, there is a greater role in terms of awareness-raising, and we all have a responsibility in that regard. Making it a more citizen-focused service may be the way forward, making it more readily understandable. I am not convinced that the term "ombudsman" engages people. Q72 Ms Dunwoody-Kneafsey: Steve, on the media profile and the reporting of the Ombudsman, you will be as aware as I am that frequently the media reporting of local government ombudsman findings is not always accurate, and does not accurately reflect the findings of those reports. However, there is an issue, is there not, around to whom the Ombudsman provides the report and when, particularly in view of elected representatives and their role at any stage in casework. Do you have anything to say on that because you do not bring that out? Mr Thomas: In terms of local government, there is a varying practice in the way that ombudsman reports are treated. Most ombudsman reports that are dismissed do not see the light of day in local authorities; it is generally through the committee process - mal‑administration reports or the more controversial reports that come forward. There is, as you know, some press interest on some reports - classic in your constituency the Bluestone issue, which has rolled on for a period of time. In the vast majority of cases, that interest is not generated. How you go about doing that must be part of the mandate of the new service because, clearly, one of the things you want as elected representatives is a much higher profile service by bringing these four services together. That, by implication, should be one of the real effects of this merger. That also means an ombudsman with more profile than the current individuals have, an ombudsman more in a consumer champion mode than the current civil service portrait of an ombudsman. In local government we have to support that process. Q73 Ms Dunwoody-Kneafsey: Do you think that a memorandum of understanding would suffice to cover those people who should be receiving the reports - and I am thinking very much in line with the Estin practice of automatically putting those out? Mr Thomas: I think a memorandum of understanding would be useful. What we could do as an association is some further work on the reporting of ombudsman reports, and whether there is merit and common treatment in that regard, because I am sure there is varying practice from authority to authority. Q74 Mr Roger Williams: You have already made mention of the code of conduct for local authority members, and in your evidence you state that the existing code of conduct for members has placed some strain on the relationship between Welsh local government and the Ombudsman, not least because of a lack of clarity in the current framework. Are you satisfied that the Bill provides sufficient clarity on these issues? Mr Thomas: I do not necessarily think it provides clarity in terms of adjusting the code of conduct, but we are doing that anyway. The current code of conduct we have in local government - it is rather foolish to say this in front of you, but I will say it anyway - I think it is probably the most rigorous code that any set of politicians faced within the UK political environment. There are problems however with that code. It was put into place in a very rushed process, and one of the things that the Association was very keen to do when it accepted the code was to review it after 18 months to two years because we do have some problems with the nature of that code. The Ombudsman has contributed extensively. Adam Peat has been one of the major drivers in the review of the code because he and his office appreciate that some of the grey areas are causing real problems, not only for members but for people who want to take part in the ethical and standards framework for local government and have an imprecise understanding of what that means. From our point of view we want to continue to develop the code of conduct. What we want to ensure in the new Ombudsman Office is a clear government flavour that can take that forward because, clearly, ombudsmen have two main roles in terms of local government and the members' code of conduct is one of those. Q75 Mr Roger Williams: If I can take that a little bit further - and forgive me because I am only just getting to grips with the Bill - the function of the Local Government Ombudsman in Wales is to look at mal-administration but also complaints against individual members. Mr Thomas: Absolutely. Q76 Mr Roger Williams: Is that included in this Bill because when I look at section 7 and matters that are investigated, it does not include complaint against individual members of local government. Mr Thomas: My understanding of this - and I suspect Adam Peat can elaborate on this tomorrow - is that we have a team of people, including local authority lawyers, the Ombudsman Office, and people from other sectors, including the Consumer Council, looking at the current code of conduct. That is a separate exercise to the Bill. The code of conduct that exists currently will be the code that the Ombudsman works to. We will however be seeking revisions to that code over the forthcoming period. I understand that the report will go to the Partnership Council in March, which will show those areas where key revisions will occur. I have no doubt that some of those revisions will be based on the definitions of personal interest and some of the criminal clauses within the current code of conduct, and around declarations. Q77 Mr Roger Williams: A member of the public may have a complaint against the way a member of a local authority conducts himself, without that resulting in mal-administration, so do you think that would be covered? Mr Thomas: A member of the public has the recourse at the moment to refer a complaint like that to the Ombudsman, who may examine the complaint and in first instance refer it to the local standards committee. That committee is independent of the council. In all 22 cases they are chaired by a layperson. As a result, that standards committee will undertake an initial investigation. Part of the problem with the current code of conduct is that certain vexatious claims have gone to the Ombudsman, and that has led to real problems in terms of the code and the credibility of the code. From our point of view, clearer definitions would lead to more local judgments in terms of the standards regime. Q78 Mr Roger Williams: I was going to ask you about the relationship between the standards committee and this, but you are happy that this Bill deals with it. Mr Thomas: Yes. Q79 Mr Roger Williams: I know it is not your responsibility, but how do you think this legislation would impact on town and community councils and their members? Mr Thomas: You are right that it is not my responsibility. I think in broad terms many town and community councils have found the members' code of conduct very difficult to implement because of the scale of their operations and the extensiveness of that code. There were examples of some town and community councils not adopting the members' code of conduct and some councillors resigning before they did that. There is a new association in place for the town and community councils in Wales, One Voice, and I have no doubt that they will be looking at that. If they want to be members of the WLGA of course, we would accommodate them! Q80 Julie Morgan: You say in paragraph 12 that it is vital that the new management structure of the Public Services Ombudsman Office retains a clear local government flavour with specialised knowledge of your service. Are you satisfied that that will happen with the Bill as it stands? Mr Thomas: I hope so. I am still not clear on the management structures that were put in place. I have referred to paragraph 12 there. We were not supporting a collegiate structure where there would be a division of powers within the office, but we want to ensure that there is clear local-government based expertise within the new Ombudsman service. We want to see a more integrated service, but the balance between integration and specific knowledge is something that the Office must be able to accommodate. From our point of view, many of the complaints that go into the Ombudsman service are very technical complaints, and to lose the level of expertise that we have got would be a problem for us. There is no suggestion of that in the Bill, and we are satisfied with the proposals coming forward; but until I see the organisational charts ----- Q81 Julie Morgan: If you do not have a collegiate structure, what structure could you have that would ensure that this happened? Mr Thomas: The Ombudsman's annual report talks about an integrated service, but with flavours within the service. That would mean that there are dedicated experts in that. I suspect that when it comes to things like back office services, and the support that goes into that, there is clear integration across the service, so it is a bottom-up process. We support that, but we want to make sure there is a deputy for local government within that office. Q82 Ms Barrett: That leads nicely into my question, which is about a dedicated deputy particularly with responsibility for local government. Why do you think that that is so important? What about the other strands of local government? Mr Thomas: My personal view is that I would have no objection to somebody based on the Health Service side because I think the complaints process in the Health Service is Byzantian in its complexity. At the same time, from our point of view, the weight of functions that local authorities have in Wales demands this type of approach. If you just think about the planning function alone, there is so much controversy in the local planning function that you could almost have a deputy for planning. We are suggesting people with over-arching corporate views of local government, and people who can bring that necessary expertise in. Planning and housing are the two key areas, but there is clearly a growing set of complaints around social services, education and highways, and we cannot lose the expertise for dealing with the profession of local government and political administration of local government, and also in terms of public accountability. Q83 Mr Caton: In the same paragraph where you call for the dedicated deputy for local government, you also argue for the full independence of the Ombudsman Office. Are you satisfied that the Bill will achieve this? Mr Thomas: Yes. It goes back to the question of whether the officials in the Office should be civil servants. I think there is a degree of independence that currently exists, and I am sure that by bringing the offices together that that independence can be maintained. My view is that in my own personal dealings with the Ombudsman and the experience I get from talking to other chief executives that that independence is hugely valued, and we must not dilute that. Q84 Mr Roger Williams: Without being political in this matter, I agree that the devolution settlement in Wales is becoming more complicated as ad hoc elements are devolved to the Assembly; but also there are ways in which, through articles of memoranda, the Assembly takes up particular functions that are still reserved to Westminster but are actually delivered through the Assembly. How do you think the ombudsman system outlined in this Bill will tackle that? I am told that there is no central register of articles of memoranda, and you have to trawl through every department in Westminster to find where they have been issued. Mr Thomas: I was rather hoping your Committee would give me the answer to that. I think it is a very complex process. There are also issues within Wales about the complexity of the process, where a complaint cuts across both the Health Service and local government. I have alluded to delayed transfer of care - which is the body that must examine that complaint? There are some lines of demarcation there. I have always felt that one of the things you must do with devolution is learn to love the contradictions, and I suspect that this is one of them. Q85 Chairman: Steve, is there anything that we have not covered that you would like to put on record? Mr Thomas: No, but I would stress the point I made at the outset. This, to the local government community, is a non-controversial Bill. I would not say the same about the other piece of Welsh legislation going through at the moment, but this is non-controversial, and from our point of view we can sign up to the processes that you have set out. Chairman: Thank you very much for giving evidence today and for sharing your thoughts and the thoughts of the WLGA with us. |