[Relevant document: The Third Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2004–05, on the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill [Lords], HC 234.]

Order for Second Reading read.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It might it helpful if I begin with a few words setting out the background to the Bill. The local government commissioner for Wales—commonly known as the ombudsman—the health service commissioner for Wales and the Welsh Administration ombudsman have all served the citizens of Wales well in the past, but each office operates under different legislation with separate staff, which inhibits the development of a coherent service that would reflect the ways in which public sector service delivery in Wales is evolving.

Today there is increasing emphasis on the provision of services through partnerships between different public bodies, securing better services more efficiently. But if a person is not happy with some aspect of a service provided, it may not be easy to identify which of several public bodies is responsible, and therefore to which ombudsman a complaint should be submitted. It might even be that different aspects of the same complaint would have to be considered by different ombudsmen. The Bill will address that and allow a properly integrated ombudsman service for Wales to be created.

My hon. Friend mentioned that three offices are to be brought together. He will know that the local government ombudsman is based in my constituency, Bridgend. Has any thought been given to where the new ombudsman will be located? Bridgend would seem to be a very good place.

That will not be my responsibility, but my hon. Friend's comment will no doubt have been noted.

The ombudsman will be known as the public services ombudsman for Wales. The Bill has been carefully developed over the past couple of years. In 2002, a consultation entitled "Ombudsmen's Service in Wales: Time for Change?" sought views on the principle of bringing the three offices together into a unified service led by one person. The unanimous support received for that proposal led to a second round of consultation in 2003 on the detailed powers and jurisdiction of the new office. That was entitled "A Public Service Ombudsman for Wales: Powers and Jurisdiction".

Together, those consultation exercises provided us with the foundations for the Bill before the House this afternoon. They also allowed the Government to take advantage of an opportunity that arose when all three offices simultaneously fell vacant to appoint a single individual to hold all three offices. That proved a useful interim step to achieving the longer-term objective of a unified office. As a result, Mr. Adam Peat holds those three offices now, but he continues to operate under legislation that applies to each separate office that he holds. That is wholly unhelpful. The Bill addresses that.

The Bill has already been the subject of consideration in another place. As a result, it has benefited from a number of amendments, including important changes on appointments to, and the tenure of, the ombudsman's office. The Bill has also been considered by the Welsh Affairs Committee, which held evidence sessions jointly with the Assembly's Local Government and Public Services Committee. Both Committees issued their reports on the Bill on 21 February.

Along with the Assembly's Minister for Finance, Local Government and Public Services, Sue Essex, I had the opportunity to give evidence to the two Committees. I am grateful to them for their detailed consideration of the Bill. Although they raised a small number of issues for further consideration, both Committees were generally very supportive of the Bill and its provisions, and considered it to be a comprehensive and well thought-out piece of legislation.

I now turn to the Bill itself. The legislation applicable to the three offices needs to be rationalised and brought together into a coherent whole, if the benefits of a unified office are to be achieved. The Bill is therefore about creating a coherent jurisdiction, administered by a team that is already working increasingly effectively together, but which now needs the backing of a sound legislative framework. The Bill will bring together the offices of the Commission for Local Administration in Wales, including the local commissioner for Wales, the health service commissioner for Wales, the Welsh Administration ombudsman and, when it is established later this year, that of the social housing ombudsman for Wales, into a unified jurisdiction led by one person—the public services ombudsman for Wales.

The Bill will provide a modern, flexible and accessible service for members of the public who wish to complain about most public service providers operating in, or in relation to, Wales. I say most public service providers because services delivered under the auspices of the Government which are not devolved matters in Wales—for example, social security—will not be within the remit of the public services ombudsman for Wales. They may, however, be subject to the jurisdiction of the parliamentary or health service commissioner. However, that is an exception to the general principle that, in respect of public services on which people in Wales rely in their daily lives, the new ombudsman's office will provide a single channel for receipt and investigation of complaints of maladministration or service failure. So local government—within which we include community councils—health bodies, the Assembly itself and its sponsored public bodies, are within, or may be brought within, the new ombudsman's jurisdiction.

The Bill provides powers for the National Assembly, for example, to amend the list of bodies within the ombudsman's jurisdiction to reflect changes in the structures of government in Wales. It gives the ombudsman important consistent powers of investigation across a range of bodies within his remit. It also allows him to seek to resolve disputes between complainants and the relevant public bodies without the need for a formal investigation. That is a new provision for the Welsh ombudsman, but it is one that has been generally welcomed. The parliamentary and health service commissioner has commented that this provision is "welcomed as long overdue" and will

"enable the Welsh Ombudsman to have the explicit ability to facilitate the resolution of complaints by any means appropriate to the circumstances of each complaint".

Another new provision is the power, previously available only to the local government ombudsman, to issue guidance to all bodies within his jurisdiction on the requirements for good administrative practice. This provides a mechanism to enable all parts of the public sector to learn from the experience of particular authorities that may have been the subject of complaint and investigation. Public bodies need to regard complaints as a basis for improvement, and the ombudsman's guidance should assist in that.

Will the ombudsman have the power to consider, for example, planning delays by all 22 unitary local authorities to find out which is doing the best and which is doing the worst, and then to issue guidance on best practice, so that the worst have to follow the practices of the best?

Such guidance would probably not be within the ombudsman's remit, but depending on the issues that he is asked to investigate he will make reports that have a similar impact.

The Bill also provides powers to permit the ombudsman to work jointly with other specified ombudsmen, including the parliamentary commissioner and health service commissioner for England, in relation to complaints or parts of complaints over which the new Welsh ombudsman and another ombudsman have jurisdiction. That might arise, for example, in the case of cross-border complaints. Cross-border provision of services, particularly in the health field, is not uncommon for Wales and England, and the Government have sought to facilitate joint ombudsman investigations to cover precisely that situation.

A particular provision that I should draw to the attention of the House is that concerning the ombudsman's jurisdiction in health and social care matters. Nowadays, we take a holistic approach to the provision of health and social care. The Bill as introduced in the other place provided, in line with existing ombudsmen legislation, that the new ombudsman could not generally question the merits of a decision taken without maladministration. However, the Bill did provide that the ombudsman could question the merits of any decision taken in consequence of the exercise of clinical judgment, irrespective of whether it was taken with maladministration. That reflected the existing provision of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993.

The Government reflected on whether it was right or appropriate that the ombudsman should be able to question the merits of a decision taken only in the exercise of clinical judgment—that is, by a doctor—but not decisions, for example, of social care professionals who may be part of the same team delivering a health and social care package to an individual. We concluded that there was no reason to differentiate between decisions taken in consequence of clinical judgment and the judgment of, for example, social care professionals in this context. The Bill therefore makes express provision to ensure that, in health and social care matters, the ombudsman can look synoptically at complaints about the consequences of decisions made by social care professionals who are working alongside clinical colleagues. For example, the ombudsman could consider a complaint that had arisen about a multi-disciplinary team's decision to discharge a patient from hospital on the basis that the patient's remaining health and social care needs would be provided at home by the relevant health and social care professionals. In that example, the decision to discharge the patient and the decision to provide further care at home are dependent on each other and might well form the basis of a single complaint. Under clause 11, the merits of the decisions can be questioned by the ombudsman, whether they were taken by health or social care professionals, or both.

I am sure that colleagues will want to enter into the debate. I think all will agree that this is an immensely worthwhile Bill, which will give Wales a first-class ombudsman service for the 21st century.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I commend the Bill to the House. I regret that it was too late to give way.

I am sorry that the Minister did not have a chance to give way; I am sure that the intervention would have been most interesting.

The Bill is commendable in its objective of establishing one public service ombudsman for Wales, replacing three separate offices for Welsh administration, the health service and social housing. I hoped that the Government would find time for the Bill, and I am glad that we have finally been given the chance to debate the improvements that need to be made to the legislation. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that that chance has been squeezed into the same day as our important opportunity to debate Welsh affairs. With our so-called St. David's day debate and Second Reading of this Bill packed into one day, it is a shame that the Government cannot afford Welsh business priority on their agenda.

We welcome the Bill as a measure with potential to improve the standard of public services for the people of Wales. We also welcome the rationalisation of ombudsman services in Wales. This is an opportunity to define clearly and uniformly their jurisdiction and powers, which must be a benefit. Yet there are still details that must be tackled if we are to secure what I am sure we all want—only the very best for the people of Wales. I only hope that the Government will act on our suggestions to improve further the deal that Wales will get from the Bill.

It is somewhat worrying that the explanatory notes highlight the fact that there will be initial set-up costs, borne by funding from the Assembly. The notes also warn in paragraphs 115 and 116 that it is prudent to plan for a modest increase in resources. I hope that the Government remember that this is Welsh taxpayers' hard-earned money, and that a rationalisation of the Wales ombudsman service will involve economies of scale. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us that the initial set-up costs will be minimal, and give us some indication of when the savings that should result from this move will actually be seen.

The Minister should also confirm the details of the situation underlying clause 5 and requirements about complaint to the ombudsman, as set out in subsection (1)(b). While a line needs to be drawn in the sand, it is feasible that a one-year time limit on making a complaint to the ombudsman could be difficult for some people to meet. It could take longer than a year for a situation warranting a complaint to the ombudsman to develop. We need further clarification of when notice of matters alleged in the complaint is deemed to begin. If that happens when the complainant suffers a problem that they bring to the attention of the authority, it is possible that ensuing correspondence from the authority could drag on for longer than a year. Perhaps the Minister will substantiate the precise details of the clause and reassure us that the ombudsman's discretion will always apply.

We must also be certain that cross-border issues are sufficiently dealt with in the Bill. Thankfully, we see provisions to ensure that there will be no gap in ombudsman jurisdictional coverage for bodies such as regional flood defence committees. Similarly, I am pleased to see provisions in clause 25 for consultation with other ombudsman services. The Government must ensure, however, that cross-border issues are sufficiently provided for in proposals for interaction between all UK ombudsmen.

The Bill comes to us already considerably improved by the actions of my Conservative colleagues in the House of Lords. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Roberts of Conwy. With regard to the appointment of the ombudsman, which is dealt with in schedule 1, an amendment tabled by Lord Roberts led to the inclusion of the provision that the Secretary of State must consult the Assembly before recommending a person for appointment as the ombudsman. A similar insertion has been made regarding the Assembly's role in the process of appointing an acting ombudsman. That has cured inconsistencies in respect of the appointment and removal of the ombudsman, removing the confusing situation whereby he could not be removed without consulting the Assembly, but could be appointed. That move will clearly assist in securing a more accountable and impartial appointment. Since the ombudsman will be financially and practically dependent on the Assembly, it is only sensible that the Assembly should play some role in his or her appointment.

The proposed length of the ombudsman's appointment is of greater concern. Certain concessions have already been made as a result of pressure in the House of Lords, reducing the term of office from 10 years to seven years. That is, of course, preferable, but it is not sufficient, and it is far from the best deal for the people of Wales.

The Welsh Affairs Committee stated that a reduction in the length of the ombudsman's tenure from 10 years to seven years would not improve the Bill. It agreed with Conservatives in the other place, who proposed a far more sensible, renewable five-year appointment. A seven-year term would still be long, and such guaranteed longevity would not provide the ombudsman with the best circumstances in which to operate.

Several concerns were raised in the other place about a five-year term. The objections that a five-year term is too short, that it would not attract top-quality candidates and that it could affect the ombudsman's decisions towards the end of his term are particularly cynical.

If that point about the appointment of the ombudsman is true, what does it say about people who seek election to this place? Hon. Members are appointed for up to five years—invariably some of us are appointed for less time than that—so I can see no reason why five years should not be the period.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A renewable five-year period is ideal. It would keep the incentive alive, while ensuring that proper performance was key at all times.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want inadvertently to misrepresent the views of the Welsh Affairs Committee. Mr. Jones will confirm that the majority of witnesses thought a 10-year appointment appropriate. The Committee said that if the Government want to take another course, the five-year term is a way out.

Hywel Williams is right that I would never want to misrepresent the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I was a member. I draw his attention to page 9 of the Select Committee report, which states in bold:

"we recommend it reconsider appointments on a five year basis with the possibility of reappointment for a further five years."

I have not misrepresented the Committee. However, we recognise that concessions were made in the other place and that the term is currently seven years.

I hope that an ombudsman who is likely to be influenced by the prospect of not having his term renewed would not be appointed to begin with. Other ombudsman appointments across the UK are generally not for a fixed term. The Scottish public services ombudsman is appointed for five years, with the opportunity of reappointment, which is the system that we would like to apply to the Welsh ombudsman. Under our proposal, those who consider a 10-year term most appropriate would still achieve that objective, yet the ombudsman would also be accountable at the halfway stage.

In seeking a balance between an accountable and flexible term of office and the need for stability, a renewable five-year length of tenure is by far the most appropriate way to proceed. The Welsh Affairs Committee is not the only body to have agreed that point; a recently published report on the Bill by the National Assembly's Local Government and Public Services Committee recommends that

"the bill be amended to make the Welsh Ombudsman's term of office five years with the ability to reappoint for a further five years."

The opinions of those who have debated this issue in the other place, in Select Committee and in the Assembly are clear. Now the Government must accept that a renewable five-year appointment is far preferable to the proposed seven-year tenure.

The Government should not change the amendments introduced by Conservative peers in the other place, which would reverse the progress that has been made. Thanks to Conservative pressure in the Lords, clause 20, "Non-action following receipt of a report", will ensure that an authority cannot defy the ombudsman and disregard his report without lawful excuse. That move is extremely welcome and will considerably improve the standard of ombudsman services in Wales. That the ombudsman can, in the last resort, seek the view of the High Court gives him legal power that will remove any possibility of his decision being ignored by the authorities involved. I hope that the Bill, complete with the stronger position of the ombudsman for which our colleagues in the other place have fought, will prevent such occurrences, which have, sadly, been known.

Clause 21, on alternative reporting procedures, has also been greatly clarified. It is now clearer that the ombudsman, the authority and the complainant must all agree to the period within which the listed authority agrees to implement the ombudsman's recommendations. However, the ombudsman has the authority to specify a period in writing if no other agreement can be reached, which will greatly empower him in such situations.

Furthermore, thanks to the probing amendment of my noble Friend Lord Roberts, the disqualification of the ombudsman from holding certain responsibilities has been clarified. We welcome the elucidation in schedule 1 on the disqualification of the ombudsman from being a Member of the Assembly. Previously, it appeared that the Assembly could resolve that such disqualification be disregarded, which evidently smacked of preferential treatment. However, the amendment has greatly clarified the situation. We accept that the Government of Wales Act 1998 already deals with the event by saying that an ombudsman may be elected an Assembly Member provided that they relinquish the office of ombudsman once they are elected.

We also welcome the clarification of the extent of excluded matters in schedule 2. The provisions on educational bodies relating to which authorities are excluded are extremely helpful. Misinterpretation that might narrow the ombudsman's jurisdiction in relation to other authorities is now unlikely, and the Bill provides clear descriptions on the subject of the parameters within which the ombudsman can act. That is commendable and has been further improved by the clarifications secured in another place and by the Committee.

The greater powers allowed to the ombudsman as a result of amendments in the other place are a considerable asset to the Bill. First and foremost, it is our wish that the Bill improve the treatment of those who make a complaint of maladministration in Wales. The Government must guarantee that the progress already made will in no way be jeopardised by amendments at this stage. I remain concerned that the Government will attempt to back out of the advances made as a result of Opposition pressure in the other House; for example, they may attempt to reverse the controversial decision to give the ombudsman legal options—the power to apply to the High Court. I am sure that the Minister will want to allay those fears in his closing comments and I shall be grateful to him for doing so.

Another issue brought up in the other place was documentation. Despite the problems experienced at Westminster in keeping track of certain Assembly documents and publications, the Government refused amendments that would ensure that we were kept informed of the ombudsman's reports. Rationalising the ombudsman service should be a good thing. Nevertheless, there are still a number of proposals, and improvements could be made before we pass legislation that truly delivers the very best for Wales.

The Bill is the latest piece of Welsh legislation to be scrutinised by the Welsh Affairs Committee. My Committee not only undertakes pre-legislative scrutiny where possible, it also scrutinises Bills that are already under consideration by Parliament. That is an important task, which we take seriously.

The role of Select Committees is to offer criticism of the Government where it is warranted and praise where it is deserved. In the last Session, we scrutinised the clauses of the Children Bill that affected Wales. It is no secret that we were unhappy with provisions that had an impact on the Children's Commissioner for Wales and we published a report to that effect. This debate gives me the welcome opportunity to highlight a report that welcomes a good piece of legislation.

My Committee's report, which is a relevant document for the debate, welcomes a Bill that has the potential to provide a modern, flexible and accessible service for members of the public. In its current form the Bill represents good legislation, but the Committee's report recommends several amendments that would make it even better.

As we have heard, the Select Committee's scrutiny of the Bill was carried out in partnership with the Local Government and Public Services Committee of the National Assembly for Wales, and we took advantage of our power to hold formal joint meetings to take oral evidence. The first evidence session was held under the Local Government and Public Services Committee's procedures at the National Assembly on Thursday 13 January, and the second evidence session was held under our procedures on Monday 17 January. Although our joint working powers do not extend to the publication of a joint report, our report and that of the Local Government and Public Services Committee made recommendations along similar lines.

Joint formal working offered the opportunity for us, as Committees, to scrutinise both the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government on legislation that would directly affect Wales. It was a success, as we could question both Governments from the dual perspective of the legislators and the implementers of that legislation. Despite that success, formal joint working has been permitted only on an experimental basis until the end of this Parliament, so I look to the Minister to reiterate his positive view of formal joint working, and I hope that he will give a commitment to make those powers permanent in the next Parliament, if he has the power to do so. If he does not have the time to give such a commitment in this debate, I will offer him a second bite of the cherry in the next debate on Welsh Affairs, when I will return to the issue if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

As we have heard, in its original form the Bill set the length of the ombudsman's tenure at 10 years, which was subsequently reduced by the other place to seven years. We were not convinced that the reduction in the length of tenure added to the Bill's quality. Although I recognize the fact that some peers were concerned that 10 years was too long, seven years is not long enough in our collective opinion. For that reason, my Committee recommended that the length of tenure should be five years, with the possibility of reappointment for a further five years. I believe that the five-year plus five-year appointment plan, which is used for the Scottish ombudsman and thus has the benefit of consistency, represents a better balance between the need for stability in post and the need to reinvigorate the office periodically. It also offers opponents of a 10-year appointment a statutory moment for reflection.

The Bill sets out all those authorities that may be subject to investigation by the ombudsman. Individual community health councils are included in that list, but the Board of Community Health Councils is not. When we took evidence from the board, it argued that it should be subject to the same scrutiny as individual councils. That is probably the first time that a witness before my Committee has argued for greater scrutiny of themselves, so I feel obliged to say that we should adopt that view and argue in its favour. Including the Board of Community Health Councils in the list of authorities is a sensible recommendation and I hope that the Government will look favourably on it.

My Committee also looks in its report to the Government to provide further information on the possible overlap between the ombudsman's responsibilities with respect to an authority's failure to comply with its obligations to the Welsh language and the Welsh Language Board's responsibilities. Although that is not a fundamental problem with the Bill, greater clarity would significantly assist the working relationship between the two institutions.

The final issue to which I wish to draw the House's attention is that of co-operation between the English and Welsh commissioners. The Bill, as currently drafted, will remove the power of the ombudsman in England to transfer cases to the Welsh ombudsman. Although the Bill contains many provisions to facilitate joint working between ombudsmen, we believe that the retention of that power is necessary. There is nothing to be gained by the removal of that power. Close working relationships between the Welsh and English commissioners are to be welcomed, so I look to the Government to retain in the Bill the power of the ombudsman in England to transfer cases to the Welsh ombudsman. I hope that, with those provisos, the Bill will find favour in the House.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches also welcome the Bill in its broad context. No doubt there is a greater understanding in Wales that people can complain to ombudsmen if they believe that they have been the victim of an injustice or if an authority has committed maladministration in carrying out a service of which they are in receipt. There is confidence in Wales in the various ombudsmen's work, but complications and misunderstandings can arise because people can complain to so many ombudsmen. No doubt if people complained to the wrong ombudsman they would be advised to go to the right office to make their complaint. However, simplicity and clarity are important when people are dealing with public services because that gives them confidence, so we welcome the fact that a single ombudsman will be set up, to whom the Welsh people can take their complaints about public services.

Having been a member of a local authority, I know that there was initially mistrust of the ombudsman process, but as time went on people looked at ombudsmen's rulings for guidance and ways of improving services. It has been especially noticeable that ombudsmen not only make decisions about specific cases, but give advice about how authorities should set about improving their ways. The Bill provides that an authority will not be able to ignore the ombudsman's decision without due cause. That is a big improvement because nothing is more discouraging to complainants whose cases are investigated by ombudsmen than for local authorities or services to ignore recommendations that are made.

I, like other hon. Members, am disappointed that the Government cannot accept that the term of appointment for the ombudsman should be five years, with the possibility of a five-year reappointment. I understand that it should be possible to have a 10-year appointment period so that people with the necessary quality and commitment have the incentive to apply for such an important job. However, if the initial appointment were made for 10 years, it would represent a commitment to a person that might not be entirely appropriate. There should be a break point after five years to allow reflection and scrutiny of the ombudsman's work so that it can be determined whether there should be a reappointment. Posts often need re-energising so that new commitment and perhaps a different direction can be achieved, so I am sad that the recommendation of a five-year appointment has not been adopted. Seven years is a halfway period, but the Bill does not provide the opportunity for reappointment, so that provision has all the faults and none of the virtues.

I am pleased that the Government say that the process will be cost-neutral, but I would be even more pleased if they said that savings could be made. There must be an opportunity to make economies of scale, and thus bear down on public expense, during the process of bringing bodies together. However, I understand that there will be set-up costs and I do not complain about them, because they are bound to arise.

I was a little disturbed earlier when Mr. Griffiths asked where the ombudsman will be situated. We do not know one of the key elements of the relocation cost because we do not know today where the ombudsman will go. Does Mr. Williams agree that we are thus writing a rather open-ended cheque?

Yes. The process would be more transparent and open, and we could scrutinise the costs that will be incurred during the set-up, if we knew how it will be managed and how and where the new ombudsman and his staff will be physically housed. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

I shall come on to my last point because I think that we agree that the Bill is good and should go ahead, although we could make some improvements to it. I represent a constituency on the English-Welsh border, so I know about the complexities of the health system that serves some of my constituents. I am pleased that the Bill will give the ombudsmen the power and duty to work together. I cite the example of constituents who live in Wales and are served by a general practitioner practice in England. Such people might go to a community hospital in Wales, but be transferred to a district general hospital in England.

Clearly that could happen. There was an announcement today about Welsh prescription charges. If people living in Wales go to an English GP, will the GP be able to issue a Welsh prescription at a lower cost, or will those people be told, "I'm sorry; I can only issue English prescriptions, so you'll have to pay the higher rate even though you live in Wales"? Would that be something that the ombudsman could look into?

I am afraid that I cannot answer on that matter on the Assembly's behalf, but such a situation could generate a number of complaints to the ombudsman.

We have welcomed this Bill from the start. Some improvements have been made and more could be made if the Government had the will to do so, but all in all we support this legislation.

I apologise for intruding, very briefly, into discussion of a Welsh Bill. I remember that you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, used to sit on the Select Committee for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration many years ago, and while you have gone on to dizzying heights of parliamentary significance, I am still worrying about the same kind of issues that we worried about some 10 years ago.

I want to say something about this Bill, which is excellent on all counts, because it does the kind of things in Wales, and for the people of Wales, that many of us have been pressing for in England for some time. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary described all the benefits that integrating the different complaints systems would bring to people in Wales who want to make complaints against various bodies. Those arguments have been used in England for a number of years in arguing for greater collaboration between the local government ombudsman and the parliamentary ombudsman; indeed, an official review of the whole system recommended such modernisation. So it is extremely pleasing to find that modernisation is marching ahead in Wales, with all the benefits that my hon. Friend described. But it is therefore slightly puzzling that it has not been possible to make equivalent progress in England, despite all the preparatory work that has been done, and despite recommendations from successive ombudsmen in England that the same progress should be made.

So although this is an excellent Bill for Wales, in so far as it shows the benefits of devolution, one such benefit is that it enables mutual learning and stimulus for reform across the whole United Kingdom. I therefore simply urge my Welsh friends to urge on their English colleagues, to the maximum extent that they can, a similar will to reform the system, so that the benefits described for Wales today can be brought to England, too.

My hon. Friends and I also welcome the Bill and the unification of the four ombudsmen: the Welsh Administration ombudsman, the health service commissioner for Wales, the Commission for Local Administration in Wales, and the social housing ombudsman for Wales.

When I was a child, I used to enjoy taking my bicycle to pieces, and I remember that if I came across a recalcitrant nut—I am not looking in any particular direction—I used a wonderful liquid called "3-In-One". Here we have "four in one", and I am sure that it will prove just as efficacious in ensuring people's rights. The people of Wales are likely to be much better off as a result of this Bill, and better served by establishing this ombudsman, which is a very positive step forward. A means of redress outside the normal procedures is an essential mark of good government, and the services that the current ombudsmen have provided for the people of Wales are fine testimony to their commitment to providing ordinary people with a way to challenge—and, indeed, to beat—the official machine.

The Welsh Affairs Committee was able to examine this Bill jointly with the Local Government and Public Services Committee of the National Assembly for Wales. Indeed, we heard evidence from the Under-Secretary, and I had the pleasure of asking him questions in Welsh—that does not happen that often—and of receiving very fair answers. We produced a report and it was published in February. It could be that I have been remiss, but I have not yet seen any reply from the Government. I am sure that the Chairman and other members of the Committee are looking forward to that reply, as there are a number of points in the recommendations that the Government should answer.

One issue has already been raised in our earlier debate and the Committee's recommendations on that matter repay very close reading. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will read the recommendation in full:

"There appeared to be a general level of agreement in the House of Lords that a seven year period of appointment was appropriate. However, that was not the views and experience of our witnesses, who considered a ten year appointment as appropriate."

That was the view of the witnesses. It continues:

"We recommend that the Government reconsider its decision to reduce the length of tenure of the Ombudsman in the light of our evidence."

Thirdly, the recommendation mentions an issue that Tony Wright referred to earlier:

"Should the Government believe that a balance needed to be made between security of tenure and the opportunity to re-invigorate the office, we recommend it reconsider appointments on a five year basis with the possibility of reappointment for a further five years."

The Committee is thus making a threefold point in its recommendation and I look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary clarifying the Government's response.

Finally, I want to mention briefly the eighth recommendation, which deals with the Welsh Language Board. There is a possibility of people's complaints falling through the cracks between the Welsh Language Board and the ombudsman. We have received reassurances that that will not happen. In fact, the Welsh Language Board submitted written evidence on the possibility of developing a protocol between it and the ombudsman. I am sure that that would provide a way of dealing with that potential difficulty of complaints regarding the Welsh language falling down the cracks.

I was gratified that in the evidence that we received from the ombudsman—it is set out in page 54 of the evidence—it was made clear that failing to adhere to a Welsh language scheme could of itself be viewed as a matter of maladministration. That point was confirmed by the Welsh Language Board's evidence later. Welsh citizens will be given a further opportunity to look for redress, which I believe will be valuable. With those few words, I look forward to debating the Bill in Committee and to hearing the Under-Secretary's response.

I, too, look forward to debating the Bill in Committee, but I am not certain when that Committee will meet. If all the rumours are true, the Prime Minister will be on his way to the palace by tomorrow and I suspect that the Bill might not get the scrutiny in Committee that it otherwise would have received. From what I have heard in the Chamber so far, it is clear that there is a general consensus that the Bill should become an Act. I certainly heard what Tony Wright had to say about the Bill's applicability in Wales, but not in England. We led the way with the Children's Commissioner for Wales and England subsequently followed, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait too long, under the next Conservative Administration, before the good effects of the Bill are rolled out more widely.

I assume that with four bodies being reduced into one, it means that four quangos are being reduced to one. It could be argued that this is the bonfire of the quangos, but I am not sure whether the Government are going to sell the Bill in that way. Quite frankly, it is a common-sense measure.

Much has been said about the appointments, and I want to comment on the appropriate length of service in the post of ombudsman. I was joshing with my hon. Friend Mr. Wiggin that with a five-year appointment there might be a danger of not getting the right people for the job, but that is the term for which we are elected as Members of Parliament, so I am not sure whether we get the right people for the job. Perhaps the Government are trying to argue for an extension of Parliaments to seven years, as under the Septennial Act 1715. The President of France serves a seven-year term—[Interruption.] It has been reduced to five.

There are pros and cons. A seven-year term is probably sensible if, as the schedule states, the ombudsman cannot then be reappointed, but if we want the post to be reinvigorated, there is merit in having a five-year term renewable for a further five years. However, if a seven-year term could be extended to 14 years that would be too long because there will be a lot of work for and a lot of pressure on the ombudsman.

I am pleased that the ombudsman can be removed only on grounds of ill health or misbehaviour because that provides independence and if they decide that they want to be critical, perhaps of the Government, they must have that independence so that they are not always looking over their shoulder in case the Government decide to remove them from office. Independence is absolutely necessary.

Paragraph 3(5) of schedule 1 states that the ombudsman can be removed only after consultation with the Assembly. Does that mean that the Assembly will be told that the ombudsman is being removed for misbehaviour or ill health, or will the Assembly have an input in the decision?

On disqualifications and ineligibility to become the ombudsman, paragraph 5(1)(a) of schedule 1 states that a Member of the House of Commons cannot be appointed, but that leaves open the possibility of a Member of the House of Lords being appointed. Have the Government thought that through? A Member of the House of Lords could have parliamentary, Government or Executive influence.

The Bill states that the ombudsman will be unable to comment on policy, and that is appropriate. Governments are elected to create policy and, whether the ombudsman likes it or not, it is up to him or her to look into the administration of Government policies. I shall not prejudge the debate that we are about to have on the Adjournment of the House, but the ombudsman could be very busy.

Mr. Williams talked about the cross-border issue in the national health service. We were told today that the cost of prescriptions in Wales is being reduced to £4 and will eventually be reduced to zero. There is fear of NHS tourism and that people from England will waltz into Wales with their prescriptions. That could provide a substantial saving for some people living on the border if they are having treatment, for example, for cancer and so on. The First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, has said that the Assembly will ensure that prescriptions will be written in such a way—in the Welsh language as well as English—as to ensure that people cannot come from England with their prescriptions and pay only £4 and eventually nothing, but I would welcome clarification on that.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire posed an interesting question about people who live in Wales but have a general practitioner in an English village across the border. Will general practitioners near the border have a stash of bilingual prescription pads so that such people qualify for the lower prescription charge? That is an interesting question. When the charge moves to zero, having access to such prescriptions will become even fruitful.

Irrespective of the merits of the provision, it blows open the fact that English taxpayers will pay money into central coffers and that money will then be redistributed. Their money will ensure that Welsh people will eventually be able to pay nothing for their prescriptions whereas those in England will have to pay the going rate. I assume that the ombudsman will not be able to consider that anomaly, but many people living in a village neighbouring the Welsh border will have to pay the full whack for prescriptions when those across the border get them for nothing. None the less, the interesting point for the ombudsman is to work out whether someone living in Wales is treated badly by the system because they go to an English GP—who might be the nearest one—and are denied access to the lower charges. I imagine that that might be one of the first issues that the ombudsman considers, but I am not sure that the First Minister has thought it through properly.

When I first considered the costs, I assumed—stupid me—that the proposal was designed to save money, but I am not sure that it will. We all want streamlining to take place, and it should result in efficiency gains and savings that, I hope, would be returned straight to front-line services. That is what we have asked for. However, £250,000 is now being made available for the relocation of the offices, and I heard what was said at the beginning of the debate about where the new offices should go.

A bit of transparency at this juncture would have been nice. I want to ensure that not everything that happens in Wales happens in Cardiff. There is no reason why it should. If devolution is to mean anything, it should mean that everyone in Wales benefits from it and from the distribution of governmental bodies throughout the whole of Wales. Perish the thought, but such bodies could actually be relocated to north Wales. Why not? I would welcome that. They are bureaucratic in nature and could end up almost anywhere.

One of the difficulties that my hon. Friend has touched on is the cost, and he will be aware that a money resolution for the Bill appears on the Order Paper. If I am right—the Minister will correct me if I am not—it provides for any relocation to be paid for out of this Parliament's budget, and that is another example of waking the beast of English nationalism that my hon. Friend rightly mentioned. It might create a real problem for Wales.

There appear to be additional costs in all this, and that is why I am baffled that efficiency savings are not being made. Some £20,000 is being made available for publicity to tell people all about the scheme, and some £41,000 has already been put aside to meet the estimated cost of an increase in the number of complaints. Surely, efficiency gains could have resulted in savings that mitigated the impact of some of the costs. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

Will the power of the ombudsman to name and shame be sufficient? The Government say that they believe that it will be, but my noble Friend Lord Roberts successfully moved an amendment in the other place to ensure that a case could go to the High Court if the ombudsman's recommendations are ignored. The Government are not keen on that, but do they believe that the naming and shaming of someone in a report will be enough or do they think that the ombudsman's powers should be stronger?

I will finish as I started, by saying that we are moving into general election mode. I shall be interested to hear the Government's response. We need to ensure that the Bill continues to receive the good will of the House. As a result of its sensible nature, we must ensure that it is not held up because of little local difficulties—some tidying procedures—otherwise known as a general election.

With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate.

I am grateful for the support of colleagues and for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked about the location of the office for the ombudsman. The separate offices were co-located and relocated to new premises in Pencoed last month in preparation for establishing a unified service. I am sure that he will welcome that information.

Let me clarify something for Mr. Evans. He asked whether the ombudsman could issue guidance on planning delays across the 22 unitary authorities. As I made clear, the local planning authorities are within the ombudsman's jurisdiction. If he considers it necessary, he could issue guidance to local authorities, generally under clause 31. That could cover best practice in avoiding unacceptable delays in exercising planning functions. The ombudsman is required to consult listed authorities or such persons who represent them as he considers appropriate before issuing such guidance.

Mr. Wiggin welcomed the Bill and touched on a number of things. In particular, he mentioned clause 5 and the limit of one year. He asked when the notice period begins and what power the ombudsman has to extend it. The period of one year in clause 5(1)(b) begins when the complainant first has knowledge of the matter, or when the complainant ought to have been aware of the matter giving rise to the complaint. By virtue of clause 2(4), the ombudsman may disregard that time limit if he considers it reasonable to do so in a given case. That might be because a listed authority has dragged its feet in dealing with a complaint.

The hon. Gentleman and others mentioned costs. I assure him that they are intended to be minimal, but there are no quantifiable savings. The purpose of the reform is not to make efficiency savings per se, but to recognise that it makes sense to create one unified ombudsman service. The co-location and relocation of the ombudsman office is a one-off cost of £250,000, but it was not intended as a cost-saving exercise.

The hon. Gentleman said that the Government refused amendments to keep Members informed of ombudsman reports. He has wide powers to send copies of his reports to such persons as he considers appropriate and/or to publish his reports. I am sure that the ombudsman designate, Adam Peat, who gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, will have taken note of the comments made.

Is it a possibility that all the reports could be made available on the internet so that people can access them for themselves?

I am sure that that will be a possibility. I cannot answer for definite, but if there is any doubt, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Leominster and others raised concerns about the length of the appointment mentioned in the Committee's report and the call for a five-year appointment renewable after five years. I certainly hear what was said, but the imperative for the Government is that we maintain the independence of the office, free from any actual or perceived pressure from the Executive. At the same time, we want to attract candidates of a suitable calibre to apply for posts. A seven-year fixed-term appointment achieves that. A five-year renewable appointment does not. That is the basis for our decision thus far.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned cross-border matters and said that we need to ensure there is no gap in jurisdiction regarding regional flood defence committees. There is no gap. The Bill ensures that all regional flood defence committees are within the jurisdiction of the new ombudsman or the local commissioner in England. It ensures that the new ombudsman will investigate matters relating to the discharge of committee functions in relation to Wales, and that the local commissioner in England will investigate matters relating to the discharge of committee functions in England, so there really is no gap.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the general approach of the Opposition in the other place and the amendments that they tabled. He expressed concern that the Government might seek to reverse any of those amendments. We noted the comments made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley about the time frame that we may face. I can assure the hon. Gentlemen and the House that the Government have no intention of seeking further amendments to the Bill.

My hon. Friend Mr. Jones referred to the report of his Committee, which was most welcome. The hon. Members for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and for Ribble Valley raised a number of matters relating to the report. I have explained why the Government take the view that seven years is the proper length for the appointment. The Welsh Affairs Committee reported on 21 February, and I hope to respond to the report shortly. I am grateful to the Committee for its detailed work in considering the Bill. At present, however, the Government are not minded to make any further changes to the Bill in response to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee supported calls for the Secretary of State to be required to consult the National Assembly on the appointment of the ombudsman, in addition to consulting it on his removal from office. As the Committee noted, the Government amended the Bill to that effect on Report in the Lords. As I say, I will be responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South and his colleagues shortly.

Mr. Williams welcomed the Bill and spoke of the confusion that we have at present with a number of separate ombudsman offices. He also raised cross-border matters; he thinks that these will be greatly improved by bringing those offices together under one ombudsman.

I regret the fact that I was unable to take the intervention of my hon. Friend Tony Wright. He said that this is an excellent Bill, and he will be pressing for something similar in England. I can tell him that the Government are in discussions with the ombudsman in England to see what measures can be taken to allow the ombudsmen to work jointly. I am sure that through his work with the Public Administration Committee my hon. Friend will continue to press for something similar for England, and I am sure that that will be noted. I do not wish, or feel able, to go as far as saying what measures my fellow Ministers will introduce for England, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will ensure that the matter is on their agenda.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon welcomed the Bill but expressed concern that Welsh language matters may fall between the two stools of the ombudsman and the Welsh Language Board. I do not think that there is a risk of that. I am also of the view that failure by a listed authority to comply with its own Welsh language scheme could well amount to maladministration or service failure. Hon. Members will be pleased to note that by virtue of clause 8(3), when a listed authority discharges any of its functions, even in relation to England or elsewhere, if that function relates to the Welsh language or Welsh culture, it will be within the ombudsman's remit.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley raised a number of issues about the appointment. He welcomed the independence of the ombudsman. I can tell him that the Bill now provides for a single term of office of seven years, so there is no possibility of someone serving 14 years—two terms. I cannot add much more to the points that I have already made about that.

The hon. Gentleman asked what is meant by consulting the Assembly on the removal of the ombudsman. The duty to consult means a proper and effective consultation. It would mean that the Assembly's views needed to be taken into account before the Secretary of State made the recommendations to Her Majesty. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the location of the offices, which I have covered. They will be at Pencoed, which means that some posts previously located in Cardiff will now be moved to Pencoed. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Members of this House not being eligible to become ombudsman, and referred to Members of the other House. I will have to reflect on that; I will write to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

To close the debate, let me repeat some key messages. The Bill is about ensuring that the Welsh public sector ombudsman services reflect and can evolve in step with the changing face of public sector service delivery in Wales. It has been warmly welcomed by everyone who has been consulted and who has considered it, and I believe that it is immensely worth while. It will give Wales a first-class ombudsman service in the 21st century. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.