§ 4.4 p.m.
§ Lord SHACKLETONMy Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement on the extension of the ombudsman principle which is being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in answer to a Question in another place.
The Statement is as follows:
"At Questions on June 24 I told the House that the Government were considering urgently whether there should be an ombudsman for local government and also what similar arrangement might be considered for the National Health Service, and that I hoped to be able to make a statement shortly.
"I am now able to inform the House that the Government accept in principle that an ombudsman system should be by law established for investigating complaints of maladministration by local government. The activities of local authorities impinge upon the daily life of the citizens directly and over a wide range and the introduction of a system analogous to that of a Parliamentary Commissioner into the local government scheme would be a major extension of the citizen's right to seek redress. We envisage hat a local ombudsman system would be separate from the Parliamentary Commissioner system; that its scope in relation to local government affairs would be similar to the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in central Government affairs; and that the independent reports would be considered by the appropriate local authority.
"The Government will therefore enter into discussions with the local authority associations and other bodies concerned with a view to introducing the necessary legislation; and will then present detailed proposals in the context of local government reorganisation.
"As to health service administration, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services informed the House on May 19 that he 795 was convinced that there was a substantial case for a health commissioner, though such an office should not be confused in its functions with the new hospital advisory service he is now in process of setting up. It will be necessary to consider, in consultation with the professional and other interests, how far the new service, when it is established, meets one side of the problem; the relationship of any commissioner to the new service; and also other problems of definition, for example where complaints may involve clinical matters. These are questions which the Health Ministers will be considering as part of the proposals now being worked out for the future administrative structure of the health service.
"I think that the House will be glad to have this Statement of the Government's intentions in this matter, which represent a further important step in the consistent line of policy which we have followed on grievance machinery for the citizen."
Earl JELLICOEMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. I am glad to hear that the Government are going ahead with the idea of a Health Commissioner. May I put two questions to the noble Lord on the extension of the ombudsman system to cover possible maladministration in the field of local government? In the first place, could the noble Lord explain rather more fully why it is intended to separate the local ombudsman system from that of the Parliamentary Commissioner? There may of course be very good reasons for this: it may be inevitable. But on the face of it it would seem to be rather a pity that it is not possible to graft the new system in some way on to the office of Parliamentary Commissioner, especially in view of the prestige that the office has acquired under the administration of Sir Edmund Compton.
Secondly, it is said in the Statement that detailed proposals regarding the introduction of the system of a local ombudsman will be presented in the context of local government reorganisation. Does that mean, as I take it to mean, that we shall not get the local ombudsman 796 until we get Maud? If that is so, without back-tracking on all the arguments of the last few weeks, I would only remind the noble Lord that we may be waiting for the local ombudsman for quite a long time.
§ Lord AMULREEMy Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. I am particularly interested in the proposal for a local authority ombudsman. I think that I am right in saying that my noble friend Lord Wade proposed such a post quite a long time ago, but there was then thought to be some objection to it. I am very pleased to find that any objections have now been overcome, and that we shall see our local government ombudsman in time. But I share the noble Earl's fear that, if we are going to wait until the recommendations of the Maud Committee are implemented, it may be quite a long time.
I am interested to hear about the ombudsman for the Health Service. I have never myself been particularly happy about the way in which matters are handled at the present moment; from the point of view of the person making a complaint, there is not a very satisfactory method of doing this. I am pleased to see that in future a person making a complaint will be able to feel that his case will be considered by somebody not directly involved. I am sure that this will make for better relations between the Health Service and the person most concerned—the patient.
§ 4.12 p.m.
§ Lord SHACKLETONMy Lords, perhaps I may deal first, as is customary, with the questions from the two Front Benches. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, asked: why not give the work to the Parliamentary Commissioner? I agree with him that this is, on the face of it, a simple and attractive idea. We discussed this at considerable length when the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill was before Parliament. It was always envisaged that at some stage this ombudsman principle would be extended more widely. Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, in passing, that the Government have never been hostile to the idea. We merely wanted to proceed by sensible stages, and I think most noble Lords would agree that it is right to carry it out in stages. It will be some time, because this will mean a great deal of adaptation. The basic fact 797 is that reports of maladministration must be made to those who can put right what is found to be wrong; and in this case it must be the local authorities, who are responsible to their electorates and not to Parliament for their administration. This is the basic principle; but clearly there will have to be a lot of discussion to make the machinery satisfactory. It is to announce the beginning of these consultations that we are making this Statement.
As to the date when this extension will begin, I do not think one can say more than is in the Statement. I do not think that I shall be able to convert noble Lords opposite in their obstinate refusal to believe that it will be possible to introduce Maud at a reasonably early date. They have their date, and we have ours. But, without going over all the arguments on that, clearly, if there are to be these major reforms it will be much easier to apply the system on the basis of these unitary authorities, and it fits more naturally and easily into the Maud concept of local government. That is the Government's thinking in this matter.
Perhaps I should say one further word with regard to the Health Service. There is a substantial case, we believe—and the Secretary of State for Social Services has said so—for a health commissioner. But that does not imply that a final decision has been taken on it at the moment. The precise role must be worked out in relation to other developments, like the new hospital advisory service, the general procedure for handling complaints and the new administrative structure of the Health Service, on which the revised Green Paper has been promised. Consultations will be necessary with the doctors, nurses and others, and these must be held before a decision is announced, because difficult clinical issues could be involved.
Earl JELLICOEMy Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, but could I clarify one point with the noble Lord the Leader of the House? As I said, I did not wish to bring up the Maud timetable again. All I was anxious to establish by my question was whether the mention in the Statement that detailed proposals regarding the local ombudsman system would be presented in the context of local government reorganisation meant that we should not have the local ombudsman until the new 798 Maud local authorities are set up. The noble Lord in his reply has, I think, confirmed that that is the meaning of the Statement. Am I right in thinking that that is so?
§ Lord SHACKLETONMy Lords, I do not want to be too definite, because we shall have to see how the discussions go. It is too early to give a definite answer, but the intention is that the Government will pursue consultations as a matter of urgency and introduce legislation as soon as possible. I should not like to be absolutely hard on this point. Obviously, if there were a change of Government things would be different—
§ Lord SHACKLETON—but this is the Government's present intention in this matter.
§ Lord KILMANYMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Scottish local government will come within the scope of these proposals?
§ Lord SHACKLETONYes, my Lords. I understand that this will be a general proposal covering the whole of the United Kingdom, except Northern Ireland, where, of course, they have already advanced far along the line in setting up an ombudsman for local affairs. But, here again, there will have to be a great deal of discussion.
§ Lord DRUMALBYNMy Lords, following on that question, is it intended that there will be a separate ombudsman system for Scotland, and possibly a separate ombudsman system for Wales, or will it all be one single system?
§ Lord SHACKLETONMy Lords, that is a question that I cannot answer at this moment. There are a number of ways in which one could set it up. It is even possible that if the Provincial Councils were set up (and no decision has been taken), there might be some link there. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will not speculate further; but obviously what he has said sounds like natural development.
§ Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that, even if this is early notice, his Statement will give great satisfaction? Is he 799 further aware that this was the one sphere—and I refer to the local authorities and the National Health Service—which many of us felt was missing from the responsibilities of the Parliamentary Commissioner? Lastly, is he aware that we are glad that the apparent willingness of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when this subject was discussed some two years ago, to say that it would be looked again in so far as local authorities and the Health Services were concerned, has borne fruit? We are most grateful.
§ Lord SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness, especially in view of her position in relation to the Council on Tribunals. I am grateful to her for reminding us—because memories are short in this matter—that my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack has played a big part in driving forward in a direction which the Party opposite had previously rejected.
§ Lord MITCHISONMy Lords, I sat for a good many years for a constituency which included seven local authorities in a new town, and none of them, therefore, was a large authority. I think this proposal is a very good one indeed and that it requires a lot of political pluck to do this at the moment. I hope that, so far as possible, the various Parties will try to co-operate on a matter of this kind, which does not seem to me to touch directly on Party politics but which does affect the good government of the country and, to a large extent, the lives of the ordinary men and women in the country. I speak with all the impartiality I am capable of but do not always show, and I say to the Government that I am very glad indeed that they have the pluck to do this.
§ Lord AUCKLANDMy Lords, could the Leader of the House say whether the proposed health commissioner is likely to have powers to deal with clinical trials, disciplinary and pay matters concerned with the National Health Service? If so, will there be discussion with the Regional Hospital Boards, and the Whitley Council so that all these bodies can be consulted before action is taken?
§ Lord SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his 800 question because it indicates that I had not made clear what I thought I had made clear; namely, that there will be the most exhaustive discussions in what is a very complex and difficult area, and I am in simply no position to say what pattern will finally emerge. No final decisions have been taken in this area. I welcome this question, because I think it is important that all those concerned in this matter should not get the idea that everything is cut and dried. Nothing in this particular area of the Health Service is cut and dried, other than the statement of the intention to proceed in this direction by discussion.
§ Lord DRUMALBYNMy Lords, may I ask one more question, which I think is a crucial one in setting up an ombudsman? Have the Government yet decided what the channels of communication are going to be? Will they be through Members of Parliament and local councillors, or what?
§ Lord SHACKLETONMy Lords, these are all fascinating questions, and I wish I knew the answers to them. In this matter the Government are right to come forward, state their approach and the principles, and allow discussions to take place. This is part of the right approach to participation in this area. There are a number of possible solutions. I have my own ideas, but it would be a mistake to refer to these until we can see how the structure and procedure can be worked out. The Government would be very interested in the views of local authorities, and of any noble Lord who has views on this matter. There is no doubt that at a suitable moment we shall come forward with proposals, which I hope will be the subject of discussion and examination, rather than a dikt-at in this matter.
§ Lord KILMANYMy Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind the possibility of Members of your Lordships' House being a very useful channel for communication when the ombudsman is concerned, certainly in local affairs?
§ Lord SHACKLETONMy Lords, this is an area where there are a large number of willing candidates. I fully accept what the noble Lord has said about the experience of noble Lords in this matter. In relation to Scotland, my right honourable friend the Secretary of 801 State for Scotland will be very thorough in his consultations. These consultations will take place direct with the local authorities and the local authority bodies. If any noble Lord wishes to put forward ideas they will be welcomed; and we can even, in due course, debate the matter in this House.