---

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I strongly support the new clause brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. My experience as a constituency Member in the other place of the expeditiousness, or lack of it, of listed authorities, which I know are listed here, has not been at all satisfactory in my view. If the ombudsman is to have real power and if he is to bring in rogue elements in a few listed authorities, this will give the ombudsman the greater power which is required in this area.

If these powers had been available previously, and if we had had an ombudsman, I can think of at least a dozen cases in which I was involved where I was most frustrated by their progress. Under this provision they would have had to be expedited. The people concerned very often come from poorer communities and do not have the power to achieve redress. However, under the powers in this suggested new clause, they would be able to do so. Further, the ombudsman would be given more teeth. As an independent ombudsman, surely that is what is required in these circumstances.

The citizen must be able to get redress. This clause would strengthen the powers of the ombudsman, which for me would be a very good thing.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The common thread running through this group of amendments is that they appear to be aimed at the issue of enforceability of the ombudsman's recommendations. It may assist noble Lords if I first set out the Government's general views on the issue of enforceability.

The Government do not believe that it is either necessary or desirable to give powers to the ombudsman to enforce his recommendations through any of the methods envisaged in these amendments. The Government are satisfied that the naming and shaming of listed authorities, including the Assembly, is effective in ensuring that the ombudsman's recommendations are acted upon. This is reinforced by the excellent record of authorities in Wales when it comes to complying with the existing Welsh ombudsman's recommendations. However, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is shaking his head.

I turn first to Amendment No. 37, which seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 19. The effect of the proposed clause would be to enable the ombudsman to certify to the High Court that a listed authority has
 
25 Jan 2005 : Column GC409
 
wilfully disregarded the ombudsman's report—presumably a report made under Clause 16—without lawful excuse.

Amendment No. 40 would amend Clause 23 which makes provision in the case of a special report issued by the ombudsman in relation to a complaint against the Assembly. In such a case the First Minister must lay the report before the Assembly. Further, unless action is taken to the satisfaction of the ombudsman, or has been taken or proposed, the First Minister must give the Assembly notice of his intention to table a Motion asking the Assembly to approve the ombudsman's recommendations as contained in the special report.

The policy intent of Clause 23 is absolutely clear. It is that where the Assembly has failed to respond satisfactorily to the ombudsman's report, the ombudsman's special report is required to be brought to the attention of the whole Assembly in plenary session. This would bring extra pressure to bear on the Assembly to comply with the ombudsman's recommendations by ensuring that all Assembly Members are aware of the actions complained of, and further publicising the Assembly's failure to respond adequately.

It appears that the intended effect of the noble Lord's amendment was to ensure that the First Minister's Motion must ask the Assembly to approve the ombudsman's recommendations as set out in the special report; in other words, the Motion itself could not ask the Assembly to approve anything other than the full set of recommendations made by the ombudsman without any amendments to them. However, the Government are confident that the clause as drafted achieves this. Clause 23(2)(b) already requires the First Minister to give notice of his intention to move that the Assembly resolves to,

"approve the recommendations contained in it";

that is, in the copy of the report laid before the Assembly. If the Motion sought the Assembly's agreement to anything other than the recommendations as they appear in that copy of the report, the Motion would not comply with the duty set out in Clause 23(2)(b).

When speaking to Amendment No. 48, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, stated that the power in Clause 33(2) is a curious one. Perhaps it would help if I explained the intention behind the provision. This subsection would ensure that all listed authorities have the power to make compensation payments. Some may not have such a power in the case of an ombudsman's report. The noble Lord regards this as a power to buy off the complainant, but under Clause 2(5) the ombudsman has complete discretion to continue the investigation if he so chooses.

I hope that noble Lords will find my explanations convincing, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Livsey of Talgarth, for their words in support of my proposed new clause. I certainly appreciate the argument against it in that, according to the Government, over the past five years the record of the listed authorities has been extremely
 
25 Jan 2005 : Column GC410
 
good so far as ombudsmen's recommendations have been concerned. However, in my view there is always the possibility of a recalcitrant listed body which refuses to observe the ombudsman's recommendations. While for the time being I am prepared to withdraw the new clause, I may return to it at a later stage.

I am glad of the noble Lord's assurance with regard to the Assembly. His clear implication was that the First Minister would not change in any way the recommendations of the ombudsman when the Motion is brought before the Assembly for its approval. I am content with that assurance.

However, I am not so happy with the situation regarding Amendment No. 48, covering the payment of compensation as a result of the ombudsman's recommendation. As things are, and if my understanding is correct, it is for the listed body to make any compensatory payment irrespective of the power or influence of the ombudsman. Therefore, while I am again prepared to withdraw the amendment, once we have had an opportunity to consider in rather more detail what the Minister has so helpfully set out, we may come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 [Reports: alternative procedure]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 38:

Page 11, line 28, leave out "an agreed period" and insert "a period agreed with the person aggrieved"

The noble Lord said: The intention behind this amendment is to bring the consent of the person aggrieved into any agreement between the listed body and the ombudsman, and into decision-making by the ombudsman himself. At present the aggrieved person is noticeably absent, not only from this clause but also generally throughout the Bill. Everything seems to be decided for him or her between the ombudsman and the listed body or by the ombudsman alone.

Clause 20 refers to the alternative, abbreviated procedure available to the ombudsman, and subsection (2) refers to its use in the specific circumstances of where the person aggrieved has sustained an injustice or hardship and the listed body has agreed to implement the ombudsman's recommendations,

"before the end of an agreed period".

I take that phrase to mean a period agreed between the ombudsman and the listed body; then the alternative procedure may be used.

The aggrieved person does not feature at all. It may be argued that it does not matter to him whether the full procedure or the alternative procedure applies, so long as his injustice or hardship is acknowledged and such remedies as are available are agreed. On the other hand, the aggrieved person may take a very public-spirited view and wish to ensure that what happened to him should not happen to others. He may therefore wish to see the body that has wronged him subjected to the rigours of the full procedure and the ensuing publicity. As the Bill stands, the aggrieved person has
 
25 Jan 2005 : Column GC411
 
no say in the matter. He might make representations to the ombudsman when he receives the report, but by that time it will be too late. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, would be to expressly state in the Bill that, where the ombudsman has concluded that the person aggrieved has suffered injustice or hardship in consequence of maladministration or service failure, and the ombudsman has agreed with the listed authority the period within which the authority must implement any recommendations that he has made, the aggrieved person must be a party to that agreement.

The Government's view is that it is implicit in the clause as currently drafted that the period is agreed between the ombudsman, the person aggrieved and the listed authority. However, we accept that it may be helpful to state clearly in the Bill the parties to the agreement. We will consider that point with a view to tabling an amendment on Report. With that undertaking, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

---