§ Q3. Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to make arrangements to extend the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner to include the reports of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneWould the Prime Minister look at this again, because now that the Board has taken to using its privileged reports to utter unverified, unjustified and possibly libellous criticism of individuals, surely it is essential that the Ombudsman should be brought in to remind the Board of its responsibilities?
§ The Prime MinisterI understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I have seen the correspondence in which he and others have been engaged. I think that the hon. Gentleman made a fair point in that correspondence. He will recall that, as a result of Questions put by him, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), the Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, expressed his views and the Board's views about this issue. I think that we all feel that it would be wrong for reports even to appear to make charges against individuals when those individuals had not been confronted with the evidence used. But this is no reason for bringing in the Ombudsman.
§ Mr. BrooksWill not my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to consider a general review of the Parliamentary Commissioner's powers and, in particular, in the event of a reorganisation of local government in terms of much larger units, it will become extremely important to have a system of regional Ombudsmen?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. I have already told the House that we are looking at the possible extension of the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner. At the beginning, it was right to confine his powers pretty strictly until he got into operation and we could see the work load on him and the way it was working. I know that there is a feeling that there 1265 might be some Ombudsman responsibility, either for him or for others, in respect of local government. Other suggestions have also been put forward for widening the duties of the Ombudsman service. Certainly this is being looked at.
§ Mr. HeathDoes not the general point arise out of my hon. Friend's individual point that if a citizen feels aggrieved by the reports of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, even unintentionally, he ought to have some right of redress? Is there any reason why the N.B.P.I. should be kept out of the Schedule to the Public Commissioner Act? If the Prime Minister is looking at the whole question, will he modify his original answer of "No, Sir" and consider whether the N.B.P.I. might not come under the Schedule?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think that is appropriate to the Schedule or to the Ombudsman, because the Schedule deals with questions affecting executive action, the use of discretion by officials and related questions. I would have thought that the general point as well as the particular one has been covered by the answer of my hon. Friend and by my answer today. The hon. Gentleman can feel that, in so far as his constituent feels any sense of grievance about this somewhat arguable matter, it has been adequately aired, and that his constituent has, very much in public, received some pretty clear assurances as a result of the hon. Gentleman's two Questions.
§ Mr. LubbockWill the Prime Minister tell us the total number of staff employed by the Parliamentary Commissioner to deal with his present terms of reference and, before considering any extension of his powers, will the Prime Minister consider the cost-effectiveness of making proper assistance available to hon. Members of this House to do the kind of jobs which might be passed on to the Parliamentary Commissioner?
§ The Prime MinisterThis is a much wider question. Certainly this, together with questions of staff, the cost of staff and all associated matters, will be considered in any possible review of the Parliamentary Commissioner's sphere of duties.