New clause

HC Deb 22 July 1998 vol 316 cc1123-9

Lords amendment: No. 125, after clause 112, to insert the following new clause—Welsh Administration Ombudsman— .—(1) There shall be an office of Welsh Administration Ombudsman or Ombwdsmon Gweinyddiaeth Cymru. (2) Schedule (Welsh Administration Ombudsman) (which makes provision about the Welsh Administration Ombudsman and, in particular, enables him to investigate administrative action taken by the Assembly and certain other public bodies in Wales in response to complaints claiming maladministration) has effect.")

3.42 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 26, 69, 126, 144, 146, 155, 169, 186, 187, 190, 192, 194, 195, 199, 201, 203, 207 and 210.

Mr. Griffiths

The National Assembly for Wales will be a new, open and accountable form of government for Wales. The Assembly will enable the voice of the people of Wales to be heard at last, through the representatives they elect through the ballot box next May.

The creation of the office of the Welsh Administration ombudsman will ensure that that voice is not only heard, but listened to. The ombudsman will be a strong and independent figure, able to call the Assembly and other public bodies in Wales to task when needed.

The ombudsman will have jurisdiction over a range of non-departmental public bodies and the Assembly. However, the functions of some bodies, such as the Environment Agency, extend both sides of the border. We are not suggesting that the ombudsman should have jurisdiction over those functions of the Environment Agency that relate to England, but only, like the Assembly, over those functions relating to Wales.

The parliamentary commissioner currently has jurisdiction over certain executive non-departmental public bodies in Wales. Those will fall to the Welsh ombudsman to investigate. We are giving the Assembly powers by order to add the other bodies to the ombudsman's jurisdiction. If the Assembly is given responsibilities in new areas in which non-departmental public bodies operate, those too could be brought within the ombudsman's jurisdiction.

We have also made provision to extend the jurisdiction of the health service commissioner for Wales to cover the Assembly's exercise of its health functions. Perhaps I might outline the way in which the ombudsman will operate.

If an individual or body is aggrieved as a consequence of alleged maladministration, it will be open to them to make a complaint to the ombudsman, who will have effective powers to investigate such allegations. Complainants will be able to go direct to the ombudsman if they wish, rather than via their Assembly Member. That mirrors the position between the health service and local government.

The outcome of the investigations will be reported to all concerned, including the complainant, any Assembly Member who assisted the complainant in submitting the allegation, and the individual against whom—or the body against which—the allegations have been made. It will also be reported to the Assembly First Secretary.

If such allegations are upheld, the body must notify the ombudsman within three months of the actions that it proposes will remedy the matter. If no response, or an inadequate response, is forthcoming, the ombudsman may recommend in a further report what action is to be taken. If the Assembly is the subject of the further report, the amendments provide that the Assembly First Secretary must lay the report before the Assembly and give notice of a motion that the recommendations be approved.

The amendments provide a strong and effective means for pursuing complaints against the Assembly and public bodies in Wales. I might add that the approach has the full support of the parliamentary commissioner. As I said earlier, the ombudsman's jurisdiction will extend only as far as the exercise of functions of the Assembly or a public body in Wales. The office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration already has jurisdiction over matters outside Wales, and will retain jurisdiction over matters in Wales outside the Assembly's remit. The functions of the two offices will therefore not overlap.

The amendments are important, and substantially improve the Bill. The Government tabled them in response to points made by hon. Members on Report. I hope that they will be widely supported.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

It is good to have the Bill back from the other place. It has been so long since we have been able to speak on these measures, I was almost having withdrawal symptoms. I am sure that all hon. Members share that sentiment.

We welcome the creation of the wholly separate position of the Welsh Administration ombudsman. It was requested during earlier proceedings. If anything, it proves how useful a revising chamber can be in considering what we say and giving the Government the chance to amend legislation, as they have admirably in many parts of the Bill.

We welcome the fact that individuals will be able to take their complaints to the Welsh Administration ombudsman without the need to go through their Assembly Member—after, of course, ensuring that all the other avenues open to members of the public have been exhausted.

We welcome the clear procedure on allowing bodies against which a complaint has been made a strict three-month time limit to respond. If the response is late or insufficient, the ombudsman has the power to make a further report. In that report, he can make recommendations on what action should be taken. Will the Minister clarify the course of action to ensure proper redress if no action, or insufficient action, is taken following the ombudsman's second report?

The range of bodies over which the Welsh Administration ombudsman will be responsible is extensive. Although I welcome that, I have one or two concerns.

First, the time that people will have to wait before receiving a full response to their complaint must be kept to a minimum. The area of responsibility is now wide, and one can imagine all sorts of complaints coming to the ombudsman, especially if his existence is made well known. That is not a plea for the Minister to spend a six-figure sum advertising the fact that the new position exists, so that everybody knows how to get in touch with the ombudsman. However, we are keen to see some form of information campaign to ensure that members of the public, through their local libraries and other organisations, know that the Welsh Administration ombudsman will be there, and how to use that person.

I shall not prejudge the number of complaints that the Welsh Administration ombudsman will receive, but there could be many, and we need to know that he will have sufficient staff to handle them all. There is provision in the Bill to consider the staffing arrangements, but we need to know that, when the complaints start coming in, they will be dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible.

My second concern is connected with the first. What percentage of the cost will be taken from its current budgetary position and added to the Welsh block? Will any additional costs be taken from within the current block budget? Obviously, if any of the money comes from within the block, that money will not be available to spend elsewhere. I know that discussions are now taking place with the Welsh Office about where the money will come from.

We understand that the ombudsman will have the power to repay, from time to time, money spent by a complainant—expenses and so on. It is difficult to estimate now how much money that will entail, but we need some assurance from the Minister that sufficient money will be made available from elsewhere and added to the Welsh block, so that none of it has to come from front-line services.

The health service commissioner will be able to look into a failure in a service provided by the Assembly in the exercise of a function of the Assembly relating to the National Health Service and also a failure by the Assembly to provide a service the provision of which is an Assembly health service function". He could therefore be extremely busy looking into the areas of the NHS relevant to the powers of the Assembly.

Many complaints may be related, through the health service commissioner, to action taken before the Assembly came into being. I am looking for clarification of that, too. We know that the Minister is involved in an enormous consultation process about the reorganisation of the trusts. We heard about that during Welsh Questions today. Adjournment debates have also been held about it, and many questions have been tabled.

My question, therefore, is: is it not rather unfair to rush all that through? After all, the Minister's party believes that devolution is its Government's flagship legislation. Labour Members have trumpeted it all—so is it not right that the Assembly should have an opportunity to consider the proposals, especially if the health service commissioner will thereafter have questions and complaints put to him?

Why does the Minister have to rush everything through and get it on the statute book by 1 April, a few weeks before the Assembly comes into being? Has he considered—if not, I ask him to do so—carrying on with his investigations, but passing all the information to the Assembly, so that its members can make the recommendations? If the Government believe in devolution, surely it is up to the Assembly members to examine health provision in Wales and make the recommendations.

I have asked the Minister a few questions, and I hope that he will be able to reassure me about at least some of the points that I have raised.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

I welcome the changes to the Bill. The Minister was kind enough to say that the Government were responding to representations made on Report, and Plaid Cymru's new clause about an ombudsman for Wales was relevant in that context, so we are glad that the Government have moved in that direction.

However, there are one or two areas of uncertainty concerning how things will work out, especially with regard to the possible overlap between the functions of the ombudsman relating to the National Assembly for Wales and those of the central Government ombudsman. When the Minister opened the debate, he tried to reassure the House that there should be no overlap, but I wonder what the position will be when there are orders that can be exercised either by a Secretary of State in London, who is a member of the British Government, or by the Assembly.

If people have a grievance because neither the Secretary of State nor the Assembly has fulfilled their responsibilities, which either of them may exercise, for undertaking actions by order—we shall hear examples of those later—where should they seek redress? Will the Minister respond to that question when he closes this short debate?

Secondly, there is a general question as to the seriousness with which the National Assembly will regard the work and reports of the ombudsmen. The complaints that constituents frequently make, whether they relate to the local government ombudsmen—which are, perhaps, more common—or the central Government ombudsman, are that, although their case was investigated, nothing happened. They sought redress and changes in policy following an investigation, and sometimes a positive report by an ombudsman, but there was not an adequate mechanism to ensure that such changes took place.

Thirdly, I hope that there will be a regular debate in the National Assembly, not only about specific complaints but about the general patterns of complaints in the ombudsman's reports. The National Assembly must take those on board regularly, not only when it is kicked hard enough to make it sit up and take notice.

Having made those three points, I welcome the change to the Bill. It builds in an additional safeguard for citizens, and I am glad to support the amendment.

Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)

The Liberal Democrats also welcome the amendment. Ombudsmen have been around since 1967, and the local government ombudsmen were created in 1974. People with a grievance against a public body are now necessarily entitled to have their complaint investigated by an independent person at no cost to the complainant. The success of that principle is demonstrated by the extension of the concept of ombudsmen to the private sector, to include organisations such as banks, building societies and insurance companies.

We welcome the fact that people will be able to make their complaints directly to the Welsh Administration ombudsman. The need to go through a councillor before making a complaint reduces the number of people using the service. That stipulation was removed in 1988, and the number of complaints increased significantly. That shows that a requirement to submit a complaint via an elected member would cause a barrier to many potential complainants. However, complaints to the parliamentary ombudsman still have to be made through a Member of Parliament. That may deter some people from using that service.

It is essential that the ombudsman is adequately resourced to allow complaints to be investigated thoroughly and without undue delay. Otherwise, encouragement to use the system would be an own goal.

We are pleased that some of the problems encountered by other ombudsmen have been taken on board by the Government. The Welsh Assembly will be able to amend the list of bodies within the jurisdiction of the WAO, which is welcome. The local government ombudsmen have been unable to deal with complaints about newly created bodies that should logically fall within their jurisdiction, but that will not be a problem for the WAO.

The WAO will have stronger powers following the publication of a further report against the Assembly. I understand that, if the Assembly is subject to a further report, the First Secretary must lay the report before the Assembly and give notice of motion that its recommendations be approved. I should be grateful for confirmation of that in the Minister's closing remarks.

4 pm

Mr. Win Griffiths

I shall deal first with the points made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). Like the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Welsh ombudsman will not have formal enforcement powers, but if the Assembly fails to comply, that will be because it has formally and publicly rejected a motion put down by the First Secretary to approve the ombudsman's recommendations. That point was also raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). The Assembly will have publicly to reject the motion. Ever the optimist, I do not think it likely that the Welsh Assembly would reject a motion relating to the recommendations of the Welsh ombudsman.

There will be a transfer from the Cabinet Office vote to the Welsh block to cover the costs of the office; but if the Welsh ombudsman is the same person as the parliamentary ombudsman, no salary will be payable—not that I would want that to influence the way in which we make progress.

Once the office has been created, all NHS complaints will go to the Welsh ombudsman. Up to that point, they will have been dealt with by the health service ombudsman. Therefore, we do not want to muddy the waters; it is the date that will make the difference.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley may think that the Government have rushed the NHS reconfiguration, but considering that the process will have taken almost two years to complete, during which there has been wide consultation in Wales, it would be inappropriate to hold up the possibility of saving some £7 million a year, which will go from administration into health care, to await decisions from the Assembly. The Assembly will thank us for going ahead with these changes, so that it has additional money to allocate to the health service in Wales.

Mr. Evans

Lack of speed is not one of the allegations that I would throw at the Welsh Office, but we are talking about only a few weeks. I understand what the Minister says about the savings that may occur as a result of the reconfiguration, but the Administration may not welcome the changes that the Minister may then be making, and it would have to overhaul some of them, which at the end of the day may be more expensive.

Therefore, would it not be better to wait a few weeks until the Assembly is up and running, bring it into the consultation procedure, and convince it that the changes that the Minister wants to make are the right ones, but allow the Assembly to have its say? In a spirit of inclusiveness—as someone who did not parade the wonders of devolution, that is fairly new to me—I am now saying that we should let the Assembly have its say.

Mr. Griffiths

Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not quite got to grips with all that this will mean. It is not a question of hanging on for only a few weeks. We shall have been consulting the Welsh people for three months on the actual proposals. Anyone who has expressed a desire to stand for the Assembly will have had three months, and will still have two months in which to make observations on the trusts reconfiguration proposals. We want the new trusts to be well prepared on 1 April, so they will have five to six months to prepare themselves for the new regime and order of the day. To hold everything up until next April means holding things up not for a few weeks but for six or seven months.

We have already spent more than a year consulting on the principle and practice of the new trusts, so I do not think that anyone would thank us for hanging on much longer and creating all sorts of uncertainties in the health service. As I have said before in the House, some people have told me that I have moved too quickly, others have told me that I have moved too slowly, and others still have said that I have moved both too quickly and too slowly. I think that we have got it about right.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

Does not my hon. Friend agree that we are talking about a substantial point? If the Assembly is to be the all-singing, all-dancing body that it has been promoted as over the past year, surely it would be better to have a delay of five or six months to allow the new fount of democracy to make a decision than to make any decision now. I presume that he will not deny that the Assembly will have the right immediately to overthrow any decision that he may take towards the end of the year.

I find it most peculiar that the Welsh Office is advertising for chairmen for the new trusts while the proposals are still out to consultation. If the Welsh Office has already decided what the new configuration will be, why bother to consult on it? The Assembly will contain a corpus of informed opinion, so it will be ready to make a political decision. I should have thought that waiting a few months for the 60 brains to be brought together in the new Assembly would be far more democratic, inclusive and of benefit to the people.

Mr. Griffiths

My hon. Friend does justice neither to himself nor to his constituents, who have made vigorous representations to me about the proposals on NHS reconfiguration. I can only repeat that the consultation has been very wide and detailed. Anyone who is thinking of standing for the Assembly could already have made a contribution to that consultation process.

Staff in the health service want us to come to some decisions on the proposals. If we do not, those decisions will have to wait longer than six or seven months, as the Assembly will not be able to decide to do everything completely differently; it, too, would have to consult properly on any changes that it wanted to make. I think that everyone in Wales—both those working in the health service and those being cared for by it—will want us to save money in administration so that we can spend more on health care. Moreover, I am sure that the Welsh ombudsman will be able to deal very satisfactorily with any problems in the health service.

The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned joint orders and the overlap of jurisdictions between different ombudsmen. Schedule 9 provides for consultation and co-operation between ombudsmen, so that any overlap can be sorted out by agreement. If the ombudsmen decided that the complaint was equally important to their activities—if they felt that neither the Minister of the Crown nor the Assembly had acted appropriately, or that they should investigate allegations—they could work together to deal with the issue.

I think that I have covered all the points raised, so I commend the amendment to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.