| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As I understand terms and conditions, the two major items would be the length of contract and the salary. Of course in any job at this level there will be other matters that have to be discussed; for example, secretarial help, expenses, cars and so on.
I would not expect these matters to be in the public domain. The major items should be in the public domain. Does the ombudsman have access to a computer at home, paid for by the taxpayer? These are important issues in a contract of employment, but I really do not think that they are major enough for us to say, "Yes, we can display all the terms and conditions for this job".
Having said that, we shall have a look at the matter and, if necessary, I will come back to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. But I think that salary and contract length are the two critical things in conditions and employment at this level.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful again to the noble Lord and particularly for the further consideration that he is going to give to the point that I made. After all, this is a very important public office and people are entitled to know what benefits holders of such an office actually enjoy. There could be a lot of public pressure to know the terms and conditions of the appointment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call the next amendment, I should inform the Committee that it is my understanding that the microphone lights are coming on, which indicates that the Committee is being recorded by Hansard upstairs. That is fine, but it does not mean that we are being amplified. Therefore, bear that in mind. If anybody thinks that they can whisper, it may not be heard by everybody present. But
25 Jan 2005 : Column GC380
we are a small Committee and I do not think that it means that we need to shout at each other. If that is understood, I call Amendment No. 14.
Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 14:
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 both ensure that we in both Houses of Parliament are kept informed.
Members of the Committee are well aware of the difficulties some of us have had in keeping track of Assembly documents and publications. I referred to the point at Second Reading, and I brought it to the personal attention of the First Minister, Mr Rhodri Morgan, when he attended a meeting in this House. I am bound to say that he did not appear to have been previously aware of our difficulty. I attach no blame to him or to his civil servants for that, but it is a fact that is well known to the Library of the House of Lords and to our Printed Paper Office.
This is a piece of legislation to which we shall have devoted hours of our time and it will eventually result in annual and extraordinary reports, in which we shall be interested. While the legislation does not provide that either House of Parliament should have a formal role in such reports, nevertheless we are entitled to ask that they be provided to us. Some noble Lords will certainly be interested to see how the ombudsman's work is carried out. The sure way to ensure that is by passing these amendments. There is no obligation other than to supply us with the reports. We cannot rely on assurances. The ombudsman is obliged, under paragraph 14(4) of Schedule 1 to send copies of the reports,
This is an order for him in advance of his appointment to supply such papers to ourselves in the House of Lords as "other persons", whom we hope he considers appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, says, it has been difficult to get hold of all the relevant information in the Assembly. It is quite clear that the ombudsman in his report will make a number of investigations and outcomes known, but some of the issues raised may be of great interest, not only to Welsh Members of Parliament, but also to Parliament in general. There may be some very important issues and points of principle that people ought to know about early on rather than receiving the information second hand.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, made very strong representations at Second Reading about the difficulties that he and other noble Lords experienced in getting sight of the relevant policy documents that preceded this Bill. As I said at the time, I regret that. On investigation, we
25 Jan 2005 : Column GC381
discovered that copies of the consultation document had been lodged in the Libraries of both Houses, so the situation was not quite as bad as I had thought.
We accept the principle that on matters like this, background documents should be available. In this case it appears that they were. I believe it is a matter of whether noble Lords are passive or active. Do they wish papers to be sent to them or should they be expected to make low-level inquiries themselves? The Assembly's website, for example, has all the information that is needed. However, we cannot see any rationale for making it a statutory requirement that the ombudsman must lay a copy of any annual or extraordinary reports that he lays before the Assembly before both Houses of Parliament. No such provision exists for the current offices in Wales and I am not aware of it having been a concern or having caused difficulties for Parliament.
I also wonder what benefit that would have when there is no requirement for either House to consider or to respond to such reports. That quite rightly rests with the Assembly. One could even argue that the amendment flies in the face of the spirit of devolution, but perhaps that is going a little too far.
I am sure that the ombudsman will have noted this amendment and I encourage him to be proactive in providing copies of these reports to the Libraries of both Houses. If at some point in the future it is demonstrated that there is a need for this to be put on a more formal basis, then the Assembly may wish to use its power under Paragraph 14(6) of Schedule 1 to give directions to the ombudsman in relation to the annual report. But I am very confident that that will not prove necessary, certainly after the discussions which the noble Lord mentioned with the First Minister.
Given that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I did not make my complaint at Second Reading without having checked beforehand with the Library and the Printed Paper Office. They verbally confirmed the difficulty that I referred to then and have referred to again now. However, I obviously take the Minister's explanation and comment to heart. I also appreciate the fact that the ombudsman will have heard our words on this subject. As he does have the power to send copies of reports to any other persons he thinks appropriate, I can only reiterate my view that he regards both Houses of Parliament as being appropriate for the receipt of his reports. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Power of investigation]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 16:
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 17, which is on much the same lines as Amendment No. 16, and Amendment No. 18, which is slightly different, are grouped with Amendment No. 16. The point of all these amendments is to highlight the concern that we ease the path of the aggrieved person and do not make it too difficult for him to complain.
The qualification that Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 seek to remove, while questionably necessary, does have a very forbidding look about it. The message seems to be, "Complain only if you must". Similarly, the statement in Clause 2(5), which Amendment No. 18 modifies, gives the ombudsman absolute discretion on whether to begin, continue or discontinue an investigation. He should, I suggest, act within the spirit as well as the letter of the Bill.
I am sure that the Minister has already grasped the point that I seek to make. We wish the ombudsman to bend over backwards and be helpful to complainants rather than frighten them off, possibly to reduce his own workload. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should very much like to support Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. The words "but only if" have, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has explained, worrying overtones. It seems to me that it is implicit in the words "but only if" that there is a constraint and limitation. Surely it should be possible for the ombudsman to consider a complaint that comes to him along a route that is perhaps different from that spelt out in the Bill. If a complaint comes to him along a different route and he believes that an investigation would be justified by the evidence, then he ought to be able to do so.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister to explain to me what would be the position where the complainant lodges a complaint with a listed authority, and the listed authority takes more than 12 months to consider the complaint and then rejects it. Would it be possible for the complainant then to lodge a complaint with the ombudsman? If the words "but only if" remain in the Bill, then it seems to me that he would have no discretion whether to consider such a complaint. Indeed, when one thinks about it, there are numerous situations where a complaint would come to the ombudsman along a different route. So I would be very grateful if my noble friend could offer some guidance on whether those routes are available to him.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |