| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The sound system seems to have stopped working. I do not think that I can take personal responsibility for that. As it is a small Committee, perhaps we may continue.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Does Hansard have a recording?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: That is a good point; apparently it does not. If we adjourn for five minutes, perhaps Hansard will be able to send two shorthand writers to take down our proceedings. Members of the Committee can relax in the meantime and we will resume then.
[The Sitting was suspended from 4.17 to 4.27 p.m.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I think that the Minister had almost finished replying to Amendment No. 7. He had just a small point to pick up.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I had in fact finished replying, but I was mid-way through an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, on Amendment No. 9. I covered the issue in my speech, but perhaps it would be helpful if I went into a little more detail. Paragraph 5(1)(b) of Schedule 1 disqualifies a person from being an ombudsman if he or she "is a listed authority". The noble Lord's asked how a person can be a listed authority, given the nature of the bodies listed in Schedule 3. Paragraph 5(1)(c) states that a person cannot be the ombudsman if,
Hence we feel that Amendment No. 9 is unnecessary and the noble Lord's concern is already catered for in the Bill.
The drafting of paragraph 5(1)(b) derives from the fact that some bodies in Schedule 3 are individuals—for example, the Forestry Commissioners and the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education and Training in Wales. I hope that that satisfactorily answers the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts.
Lord Rowlands: I give my full support to my noble friend in resisting Amendment No. 7. It goes too far to suggest that the National Assembly for Wales must approve the appointment of the ombudsman. Such an appointment would give undue influence to the Assembly.
I should like to clarify that my noble friend intends to amend paragraph 4(1) to make it consistent with the amendment that he proposes in principle on the appointment—in other words, we make the appointment of the acting ombudsman in the
25 Jan 2005 : Column GC377
consultation process identical to the proper appointment. If he gives that assurance, I think that we would be more than happy.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I can once again please my noble friend Lord Rowlands by saying that that is precisely our intention.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister that the appointment of the acting ombudsman should "differ as little as possible"—I think that I have quoted his exact words—from the appointment of the ombudsman. I also thank him for the notice that he has taken of my Amendment No. 10, which relates to paragraph 6(2). As he will appreciate, in the context of this disqualification, sub-paragraph (2) does not read well, in that it implies a power that can be exercised by the Assembly at any time. I see no objection to a former ombudsman becoming a member of the Assembly. I am most grateful to the Minister for having another look at that sub-paragraph.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: I thank the Minister for those assurances. What really concerned me was the possibility that a serving ombudsman could also be a serving member of the Assembly. That will not be the case. I look forward to seeing the amended version on Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 not moved.]
Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 12:
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to emphasise that the terms of the ombudsman's appointment, as agreed by the Assembly, should be transparent, by which I mean that they should be open to public scrutiny. Presumably, such terms would be available under the Freedom of Information Act. I should be grateful for confirmation of that by the Minister if that is indeed the case.
Amendment No. 13, which is grouped with Amendment No. 12, seeks to clarify the terms under which the ombudsman delegates a function. It is very important that they should be in writing to avoid confusion. That is a difficult point to establish, but the ombudsman has very considerable investigative powers and it is important when he delegates a function. The functionary will be dealing with people outside his own organisation, and it is very important that his credentials should be firmly established. I believe that it would be helpful if that was done in writing. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We were not certain to what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, was alluding when he tabled Amendment No. 12. I am grateful to him for clarifying his intention. Both the Assembly and the ombudsman are subject to government accounting rules and audit by the Auditor-General for Wales. These accounts have to be published by the Assembly under the provisions of the Government of Wales Act. Any payment to the ombudsman could not
25 Jan 2005 : Column GC378
be anything other than transparent. For that reason we do not consider that this amendment is necessary. Of course, under the Freedom of Information Act it would be possible, if necessary, to find out what the salary was, but, as I have said, they will be published in the Assembly's accounts.
However, I should explain that, on salaries, the ombudsman will be paid in accordance with the appropriate point on the judicial scale and further discussion will be needed on what that point should be. As the noble Lord will know, changes to salaries of this type are perceived in the light of recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body, whose reports are published. So, again, there is no lack of transparency.
Amendment No. 13 would make it a requirement that when the ombudsman, or acting ombudsman, ceases to hold office and the Assembly decides to pay compensation to that person, the payment must be made in writing. I assume that that is an argument for transparency, but, in the Government's view, the amendment is not necessary. The Permanent Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales is the Assembly's principal accounting officer and he is personally responsible for ensuring the proprietary and regularity with which the Assembly's resources are spent. That is the normal mechanism for ensuring that such matters are conducted properly and appropriately. We do not see the need to make any special provision in this context.
I also believe that we can safely assume that the ombudsman would not delegate one of his functions by word of mouth. In the real world, if the real world exists, it is almost inconceivable to me that that could not be done without writing letters.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: The Minister has just made the point that transparency would appear in the audited accounts of the Assembly. Page 29, line 30 of the Bill says:
Would that imply that, if the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, were accepted, the transparency would be in the public domain much earlier than it would be if it were in the Assembly's accounts, perhaps in a rather detailed way, but at a much later date?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am not sure that that would be the case. The point of the amendment, which I fully support, is that in the appointment there should be absolute transparency and any member of the public should be able to find out what is the ombudsman's salary. It is perfectly reasonable to look at the accounts or use the rights under the Freedom of Information Act to find that out. We do not see the need to go any further than that.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments on these two amendments. Perhaps I may ask whether terms and conditions actually cover more than salary. I should have thought
25 Jan 2005 : Column GC379
that they do, although salary may of course come into them. I am interested in terms and conditions as a whole.
Presumably, as the noble Lord said, salary and any other expenses would be covered by the audited accounts. But terms and conditions would not necessarily be available to the public. I think that these terms and conditions should be available and possibly might be available under the Freedom of Information Act. So I would be grateful if he could cover that point.
We require transparency, and I think that the public requires it these days. With regard to the delegation of functions, I hear what the noble Lord has said. But I would ask him to bear in mind when he comes to give further consideration to these matters that the functions the ombudsman delegates may very well be exercised on listed authorities and so on. It should be very clear that the functionary has full authority, and I think that it should be in writing.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |