I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 27, line 18, leave out 'seven years' and insert

'five years, renewable for a further five years'.

There was only one aspect of the Bill that I thought required amendment. To achieve the best for the people of Wales, we still think that the most appropriate length of term for the ombudsman is a renewable five-year term. The length of the ombudsman's term of office is of the utmost importance. A concession was made in the other place to reduce the original suggestion of a 10-year appointment to one of seven years, which was clearly preferable, although far from ideal.

A seven-year term for a single post certainly has advantages over one of 10 years, but we want to keep the post invigorated and keep incentive alive, while ensuring that proper performance is key at all times. The greatest merit would be to have a five-year term that was renewable for a further five years. Of course we do not want the term to be too short because the ombudsman must be able to build up experience and expertise and have the time to bring about real change. However, there must be accountability and such qualities must be able to be refreshed as the priorities of the job change over time.

Might there not be more sense in having a seven-year appointment initially because the ombudsman in Wales will have a new role and thus might need a little extra time? However, perhaps the appointment could be made for five years, and renewed for a further five, when the office is well bedded down. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will think about what he wants to do with his amendment on that basis.

The Government will have heard the hon. Gentleman's sensible suggestion. However, if we pass the Bill, I do not think that we will be able to amend it at a later date to change the length of the term. I suspect that that might become a matter for the Assembly. The important thing today is to clarify exactly why the Welsh Affairs Committee suggested a "five plus five" solution.

The point about an initial seven-year period is valid and helpful. A seven-year term is still too long, but such guaranteed longevity does not provide the ombudsman with the best circumstances in which to operate in the long 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. I hope that an ombudsman who is likely to be influenced by the prospect of not having his term renewed will not be appointed to begin with.

If the post does not attract high-quality candidates, what does that say about the 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. I can see no reason why five years should not be the time period. Nor do I understand why the difference between a five-year term—in all likelihood to be renewed for a further five years—would make a great deal of difference to the calibre of candidates. That the term of office should be long enough to attract the "right kind of person" to the post, as suggested in the other place, raises the question: what does the "right kind of person" refer to? Surely those deterred by the fact that they may serve only a five-year term instead of seven years might not be the right kind of person in the first place.

The best candidates for the position of ombudsman should be dedicated to the job of being an ombudsman regardless of the length of tenure of office. If he or she is of the highest calibre, in practice they will serve a term of 10 years anyway, which is even better than the seven years. The arguments against that are not sufficient to explain the Government's inflexibility. It is simply a poor argument to suggest that good-quality candidates would be deterred from applying for the office if the term is only five years long.

New Zealand set the precedent for ombudsmen, establishing the first ombudsman in the English-speaking world more than 40 years ago in 1962. Its system is similar to ours and the appointments are made for five-year terms, with the possibility of reappointment. The situation is the same in other Commonwealth countries, and the ombudsman Act in Alberta, Canada states:

"a person appointed as Ombudsman holds office for 5 years . . . until the person is reappointed, or the person's successor is appointed".

Other ombudsman appointments across the UK show a similar pattern. The chief inspector of schools is appointed for five years. No parliamentary and health service ombudsman has served for longer than five years. All appointments to the Independent Police Complaints Commission are for five years, with the possibility of a five-year extension. It does not seem that the length of term of office for such posts has deterred high calibre applicants. Indeed, I wonder why so many other ombudsman schemes would use that pattern if that were the case.

The Scottish public service ombudsman—perhaps the closest model to that proposed for Wales—is an appointment of five years with the opportunity of reappointment. It is clear that the working of the arrangement has been successful as part of the clearly beneficial establishment of a single ombudsman service for Scotland. It achieves what is effectively to be a 10-year term if all goes well, as Mr. Eric Drake, the Scottish deputy public service ombudsman, said in evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 17 January.

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. To achieve the original aim of a 10-year term, while also making the ombudsman accountable and the role reinvigorated, an appointment for five years, with a five-year renewable option, is clearly best. That is by far the most appropriate way to proceed in achieving a balance between an accountable and flexible term of office and the need for stability.

The Welsh Affairs Committee agreed with that, stating that a reduction in the length of the ombudsman's tenure, from 10 years to seven, would not improve the Bill, and it agreed with the renewable five-year appointment. Page 9 of the Select Committee report states:

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

A recently published report on the Bill by the National Assembly's Local Government and Public Services Committee similarly 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 the issue in the other place, in the Select Committee and in the Assembly are clear. Furthermore, it was clear in our debate on Monday that there was widespread support for a renewable five-year term. As the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, Mr. Jones, said:

"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."

Mr. Williams commented:

"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 . . . Seven years is a halfway time period, but the Bill does not provide the opportunity for reappointment, so that provision has all the faults and none of the virtues."—[Hansard, 4 April 2005; Vol. 432, c. 1146–47.]

I think that the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right.

The Government must accept that a renewable five-year-term appointment is greatly preferable to the proposed seven-year tenure. Although it is clear that there is general consensus in favour of the Bill becoming an Act, were it amended to provide for a renewable five-year term for the ombudsman, it would be even better.

I support the amendment and the arguments of Mr. Wiggin. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the evidence presented to the Welsh Affairs Committee was, on the whole, in favour of a 10-year term on the ground that that would result in a stable appointment that would be beyond the reach of political or other external influence and would be truly independent. The Committee weighed up that evidence and decided that it wanted a more flexible approach; it recommended a term of five years, which has been proposed again today in the form of the amendment.

I echo the words of my hon. Friend Mr. Williams, which the Conservative spokesman quoted a minute or two ago. A seven-year term is neither one thing nor the other: it would provide neither the long-term stability of a 10-year appointment nor the flexibility of a five-year appointment. To pick up the point made by Mr. Griffiths in his intervention, when making an appointment for the first time, one might not want someone who will be in the post for a very long time, because if one has made a mistake or the individual in question finds that the nature of the job is different from the one that he or she undertook, one may well want to revisit the decision in five years rather than wait for seven years, which is a long time to carry on with a mistaken appointment.

It seems to the Liberal Democrats that the right approach would be to follow the recommendation of the Welsh Affairs Committee and adopt the five-year appointment with the possibility of renewal for a further term. The proposal in the Bill as it stands is neither one thing nor the other. I hope that the Minister will try to explain the potential benefits of having a seven-year term, bearing in mind that the evidence received was that a 10-year term would have some benefits, as would a five-year term, whereas a seven-year term offers the benefits of neither. Seven years is an arithmetically neat compromise, but it would achieve the objectives of neither of the other two proposed terms of appointment. I hope that the Minister will think again and decide, by accepting the amendment, to accept the proposals made by the Welsh Affairs Committee and by my noble Friends in the other place.

The amendment tabled by Mr. Wiggin would provide for a fixed-term appointment of five years that could be renewed for a further five years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the tenure of the ombudsman's appointment was the subject of extensive debate in the other place. As I said on Second Reading, our priority is to ensure that the ombudsman is, and is seen to be, independent of government and to protect the office from any perception that that is not the case. At the same time, the Government believe that it is important that there should be regular opportunities to inject new blood to reinvigorate the office. That is not an easy balance to strike, as we are mindful of the need to attract candidates of the highest calibre when vacancies arise.

We are not suggesting that an ombudsman who is subject to reappointment would be swayed by the Executive in the performance of their functions, but we are firmly of the view that a renewable appointment creates the risk of a perceived lack of independence for the office. If the amendment were accepted, decisions about the renewal of the appointment would clearly be a matter on which the Secretary of State would advise the Queen after consultation with the Assembly. However, the Assembly is one of the bodies within the ombudsman's jurisdiction, which is not quite right if we are to attach, as surely we must, considerable importance to the independence of his office.

It is not only the Government who are concerned about that. We consulted widely on the question of tenure of office, and the responses that we received were mixed. Some people argued for a single fixed-term appointment, some for a renewable appointment or even an appointment up to the age of 65. However, all the responses impressed on us an overwhelming concern that the office should retain its independence and should not be seen to be influenced by the Executive. A single fixed-term appointment of seven years delivers that objective. The Government believed that their original proposal for a non-renewable fixed-term appointment of 10 years delivered our objective, but on reflection we conceded that seven years more accurately struck the balance that we sought.

It may assist colleagues if I remind them of what happened in the other place and what was said by Opposition spokespersons on Wales. The Government amendment reducing the ombudsman's term of appointment from 10 to seven years followed detailed and extensive debate. On Second Reading, the 10-year appointment was a cause of concern to their Lordships, who felt that it was too long. In Grand Committee on 25 January, Lord Roberts tabled an amendment on behalf of the Conservative Opposition to introduce a five-year term renewable for five years. Baroness Gale with, Mr. Stunell may be interested to learn, the support of the Liberal Democrat Lord Livsey and others, tabled an amendment to reduce the term of appointment to seven years. It is sometimes important that we speak with the same voice, even though we are in different Houses.

The Government agreed to table an amendment reducing the period of appointment to seven years on Report. That was welcomed by some peers, including Lord Roberts, who said:

"I am certainly not one to quibble with a compromise. I am very happy to accept the seven-year period."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 January 2005; Vol. 668, c. GC 372.]

Quite properly, Lord Roberts returned to the issue on Report on 10 February, as he still thought that a five-year term was the best option. However, the Government amendment, which reduced the term of appointment to seven years, received support from Lord Livsey among others. After listening to the debate, Lord Roberts did not in fact move his amendment for a five-year renewable term.

During the debate, Lord Roberts acknowledged that a seven-year period was an improvement on the original 10-year period. The hon. Member for Leominster said that an ombudsman who could be influenced by the possibility of the renewal should not be appointed in the first place. I entirely agree, but I am trying to make the point that there could be a perception of influence, so it is important that we tackle that. My hon. Friend Mr. Griffiths asked about varying the term of appointment at a later stage, but there is no provision in the Bill to allow that, and we would need another piece of primary legislation to do so.

If, at a later stage, the House of Commons gave the Welsh Assembly law-making powers, surely it could amend the Bill on the Floor of the Assembly at an appropriate time?

I shall not be tempted down that road. I have no crystal ball and I would not like to speculate whether there will be any changes to the government of Wales legislation at some time in the future. What my hon. Friend says would be accurate, but I would not wish to be tempted at this stage.

Much has been said in the House and in the other place about the virtue of the public service ombudsman in Scotland being a five-year appointment, with an option of a further five years. But Scotland has not yet reached the end of its first five-year term, so we do not know whether it is a better model than the one that we are proposing.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Leominster referred to the Welsh Affairs Committee report and its response to the Bill. The Committee recommended:

"That the Government reconsider its decision to reduce the length of tenure of the Ombudsman in the light of our evidence", but added:

"Should the Government believe that a balance needed to be made between security of tenure and the opportunity to reinvigorate the office," the Committee recommended that the Government

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

I formally responded to that report earlier today, setting out the Government's position.

In view of the comments made by the hon. Members for Leominster and for Hazel Grove, I should draw attention to the fact that when taking evidence the Committee did not, to my knowledge, directly pose the question to all witnesses as to whether the appointment should be for a single fixed term or a fixed term renewable. In most instances witnesses were asked whether they thought a fixed term of 10 years was appropriate. If asked again, those same witnesses may be content with a fixed-term appointment of seven years. We simply do not know.

Finally, it is not entirely clear whether the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Leominster is intended to have the effect that, if renewed, the ombudsman's second term would flow straight after his first term. I think that is probably the intention, but if it is not, the amendment would have an unintended consequence. Paragraph 4(4) of schedule 1 provides that any person who has been appointed as an acting ombudsman is eligible for appointment as the ombudsman, unless he has already held office as the ombudsman. That was drafted on the basis that the ombudsman's appointment would be a single fixed-term appointment.

If the amendment does not have the effect that I described, it would mean that a person who had been the ombudsman for five years and who had stepped down and taken up the post of acting ombudsman could not seek a renewal of appointment as the ombudsman for another five years because of paragraph 4(4) of schedule 1.

I hope that, after that brief explanation, the hon. Gentleman feels reassured that we are trying to strike a difficult balance. I believe we have made the right decision. Time will tell. I hope that, in the light of my comments, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond.

I notice that Huw Irranca-Davies is in his place. On Monday, when I was reading Hansard, it appeared that I had said that I had visited his constituency, which I had not. I take the opportunity to set the record straight. I referred to "hon. Members", and the record identified him. That is where the misunderstanding arose, and this is my opportunity to put it right.

I am grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation of the thinking behind the seven-year term. Particularly important is the point that he made about perception, because of the influence of the Assembly and the influence of the ombudsman over the Assembly. I found the Minister's comments helpful.

I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Roberts of Conwy, who has been tremendous in his attentiveness and his assiduous appreciation and critique of the Bill. He rightly said that he would not quibble over seven years. Having knocked three years off the period of the appointment, he felt that he had done extremely well, and I am inclined to agree with him. He is a wise man. He had correctly identified the correct term and I should follow his example and not quibble. What helps me further is the point that the Minister made about drafting.

I am not a great draftsman and it is extremely difficult to pen a quick amendment that is perfect in every way. I am sure that the real experts, wherever they may be, are capable of identifying drafting errors, but the point about the ombudsman being able to be reappointed despite his term of office not running concurrently would be singularly unhelpful and undo the purpose of the five-plus-five amendment, as the Minister rightly said. Having made those points and having paid tribute my noble Friend Lord Roberts, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedules 2 to 7 agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

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

At the outset, I pay tribute to Members in the other place and in this place, colleagues in the Assembly and officials who have worked hard in a very short time to bring forward this worthwhile Bill. Our consideration of the matter at an earlier stage means that it has widespread support across the House.

The Bill will bring together the offices of the commission for local administration in Wales, the health service commissioner for Wales, the Welsh Administration ombudsman and, when established later this year, the social housing ombudsman for Wales into a unified jurisdiction led by one person, the public services ombudsman for Wales. It will establish a public services ombudsman for Wales for the first time in a unified situation, providing a modern, flexible and accessible service for members of the public who wish to complain about most public service providers operating in relation to Wales.

The Bill contains a number of new provisions. It gives the ombudsman important powers of investigation in his own right, but it also allows him to seek to resolve disputes between complainants and the relevant public bodies without the need for a formal investigation. It provides for him to issue guidance to all bodies within his jurisdiction on the requirements of good administrative practice—a matter on which we touched on Second Reading—a power that only the local government ombudsman had previously. It provides powers to permit him to work jointly with other ombudsmen, including the parliamentary commissioner and the health service commissioner for England, for the investigation of cross-border complaints.

Finally, the Bill makes express provision to ensure that, in the area of health and social care, the ombudsman can look synoptically at complaints about the consequences of decisions made by social care professionals while working alongside clinical colleagues.

This is an immensely worthwhile Bill, which will give Wales a first-class ombudsman service for the 2lst century. I am very pleased that it has had widespread support in the House and in the other place, and with those few remarks I commend it to the House.

Not for the first time this evening, I agree with the Minister. I was concerned that should my amendment have been carried, the Bill would not have made it on to the statute book. As the Minister says, this is a worthwhile Bill, and I, too, pay tribute to the Committee in the Assembly as well to my colleagues and my noble Friends in the other place.

As I stated on Second Reading on Monday, this is a helpful Bill with clear potential to improve the standard of public services for the people of Wales. I have previously raised my concerns over the need for us to be certain that Welsh taxpayers' hard-earned money is spent wisely in the implementation of the changes that the Bill outlines, and through my amendment I have also touched on areas where the Bill could have been improved. However, the Bill is helpful in achieving the best for the people of Wales, and while it might have been more constructive had the term of office been a little shorter, it is still acceptable.

We have also seen considerable improvements as a result of the amendments tabled by my Conservative colleagues in the other place. My noble Friend Lord Roberts of Conwy achieved the inclusion of the provision ensuring that the Secretary of State must consult the Assembly before recommending a person for appointment as the ombudsman. That will assist in securing a more accountable and impartial appointment. I am also thankful that the ombudsman will have a level of political independence because of the fact that he can be removed only on grounds of ill health or misbehaviour, and that he can in the last resort seek the view of the High Court. That gives him the legal power that will remove any possibility of his decisions being ignored by the authorities involved.

In seeking to achieve the very best for the people of Wales, we are happy that the Bill will make it on to the statute book. It is a helpful Bill and I am glad that I have been able to play my very small part, along with all those whom I have mentioned.

I add the support of the Liberal Democrats, who welcome the Bill. When we review the Bill's purpose, we have to say that it is an important tidying-up provision, making it much easier for residents in Wales to understand how they might make a complaint. All of us who serve in this House know that the general public are well aware of the ombudsman service, but are often not well aware of which particular ombudsman they should approach to deal with specific complaints. It is good to see a public service ombudsman Bill before the House, and I hope that it will now complete its passage quickly.

The Bill has been improved in the debates at this end of the building and at the other end. I welcome the fact that the Welsh Assembly will have a role, through consultation, in the appointment of the ombudsman, and I note that it will have the capacity to amend the remit of the ombudsman service, with the social housing provision coming quite soon.

I regret that we have not got exactly what we wanted on length of tenure, but there is no doubt that the Bill as a whole is worth while, deserves the support of the House and will benefit the residents of Wales.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.