The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Jane Hutt.

Item 7 today is the Welsh Conservatives debate on the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, and I call on Sam Rowlands to move the motion.

Motion NDM8537 Darren Millar

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Notes the resignation of the Head of Investigations at the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales.

2. Expresses its concern that the political impartiality of the Office of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales has been compromised.

3. Notes that:

a) the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales has appointed a senior barrister to investigate allegations of political impartiality; and

b) the person appointed is James Goudie KC.

4. Does not believe that the appointment is appropriate given that James Goudie KC is a former Labour parliamentary candidate, a former chairman of the Society of Labour Lawyers, a former Labour spokesman for Legal Affairs in the House of Lords, and a former Labour leader of Brent Council.

5. In accordance with Standing Order 17.2, instructs the Finance Committee to urgently review the operations, processes and investigations carried out by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales to ensure:

a) that impartiality and fairness are present throughout the employment of the former Head of Investigations; and

b) that the Senedd can have confidence that the office is able to undertake future investigations with impartiality and fairness.

6. Calls upon the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales to disclose the terms of the departure of the former Head of Investigations, in the interest of public scrutiny.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the motion in front of us today in the name of my colleague Darren Millar.

Frankly, this is a debate we shouldn't have to have. The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales is supposedly in place to be an impartial and unbiased arbiter of cases involving elected councillors and public services across Wales. It should have the confidence of the people and be utterly dedicated to the truth, in a rigorous and impartial and fair way. Unfortunately, we now know that this simply has not been the case. After revelations that the head of investigations had been, over a long period of time, making torrents of politically motivated, hostile, aggressive comments on social media, it's clear that the ombudsman has a real problem.

The media coverage has focused on the overtly anti-Conservative comments, including the use of obscene language, but it is worth remembering that non Conservative politicians and parties—aside from Labour—were also in the firing line. Independent councillors, of which there are many in Wales, also feel like they've been unfairly treated by the ombudsman. This includes several independents on Bridgend County Borough Council, who've gone public with their concerns, and it has now even led to the independent chair of Monmouthshire County Council standards committee resigning, as he feels undermined. So, with the top investigator having been exposed for her pro-Labour bias, is it any surprise that non Labour councillors feel like they've been stitched up?

I had been heartened to hear that there would be an investigation, but who was originally chosen to lead it? A man who was a Labour leader of a council, a Labour parliamentary candidate and the chairman of the Society of Labour Lawyers. It's almost beyond belief, but then you do remember we are in Labour-run Wales, where this behaviour is just par for the course. I am pleased that eventually the individual in question has been removed from this role, and I'm sure that someone else can be found to take up this role, who hopefully isn't a former Labour council leader.

But two things must happen for the ombudsman to build back credibility, which has currently been squandered during this entire sorry episode. Firstly, the ombudsman must reopen every single investigation during the five years this person worked for the ombudsman to ensure that the correct decisions were reached, and if that's not the case, that justice is actually served instead of whatever benefits the Welsh Labour Party. Secondly, there must be a full and thorough investigation by a Senedd committee into the ombudsman and the way the whole organisation operates from top to bottom. We must understand the terms of the departure of the former head of investigations. We need to know the exact extent of how deep the rot is. This Senedd, which, after all, is central to the appointment process of the ombudsman, must send a message loud and clear that bias of this nature is totally unacceptable, and that, as a Chamber, we'll stand up and back fairness, back impartiality, and stand up for what is right. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I have selected the Amendment to the motion. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Amendment 1—Jane Hutt

Delete all and replace with:

1. Notes:

a) the resignation of the Head of Investigations at the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales;

b) that the Ombudsman has appointed a senior barrister to investigate allegations;

c) that as a ‘listed authority’ subject to the supervision of the Ombudsman, it would not be appropriate for the Welsh Government to comment on the investigation; and

d) the expectation of the Senedd for the Ombudsman to report back to the Senedd in due course with the outcome of the investigation.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

I'm contributing today in my role as Chair of the Finance Committee. As Members will be aware, it's not common practice for committee Chairs to make contributions during Opposition debates. However, given that this motion seeks to instruct the Finance Committee to urgently review the operations, processes and investigations carried out by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, I would like to briefly outline the committee's role and responsibilities in holding the ombudsman to account.

The committee is responsible for oversight of the work of the ombudsman under Standing Order 18A, and the committee conducts annual scrutiny sessions looking at the ombudsman's performance, as well as approving the annual budget and requests for supplementary funding. The very nature of the ombudsman's work means that its ability to undertake investigations independently of political interference is essential. This is a long-standing principle for ombudsmen internationally and is essential in order to provide an effective, respected and robust investigations system.

I would also urge caution in the Senedd considering operational matters within the ombudsman’s office. It is not our role to monitor the day-to-day running of the office, nor should we be challenging the ombudsman's decision, as that would undermine the integrity of the office and investigations process. However, the ombudsman is ultimately accountable to the Senedd, and it is right for us to take action when serious concerns arise. [Interruption.]

Will you take an Intervention?

Go on.

I appreciate the point that you make about the independence of the role, but surely it is the duty of every elected representative in this Senedd to challenge the ombudsman when they make blatantly wrong decisions, as was the case with the appointment of the KC, who had clear political party links, to investigate a concern about political party views of an individual in an inappropriate office that was paid for by the public purse. Surely it's our duty to challenge those things, not just to allow them to go unchallenged, which is what you're suggesting.

If you'd let me finish, I would have got to that bit, so bear with me a second. 

In this instance, it is clear that there are questions to answer, particularly around fairness and impartiality, as set out in the motion before us today. I would therefore like to reassure Members that the ombudsman spoke to me as soon as possible as the news of the story broke about the member of staff in question. We've also received correspondence from her outlining recent events and the next steps, which has been published on our webpage and shared with Members. I also want to let Members know that the committee will be discussing this matter at our meeting next Wednesday, including deciding on any further action to be taken. This follows the correct and proper channels to take in this Senedd when concerns regarding the ombudsman are identified and require further consideration. Diolch yn fawr.

The ombudsman provides an excellent service to the people of Wales. It investigates concerns raised by individuals regarding the service they have received from public bodies, especially from councils and health boards. I, like many Members, refer constituents to the ombudsman. The result of an ombudsman investigation in ABMU led to the following changes: 

'We fully accept the recommendations made by the Ombudsman, and can give assurances that several important changes have been put in place over the last three years.

'It remains that because of the small number of adult congenital heart disease...patients in Wales, the surgical service continues to be provided in specialist centres in England, like the one at Bristol.

'However, the management and processes supporting these patients have now been considerably tightened, and access to pre-surgical tests within Wales much improved.'

A success for the ombudsman and, much more importantly, for patients in Wales.

Political neutrality is difficult to find. My biggest surprise was that the person concerned was a supporter of the Labour Party as opposed to the large number of Plaid Cymru and Conservative Party supporters holding a number of positions. The previous ombudsman, Nick Bennett, was a former Liberal candidate. The wider question is: should the ombudsman investigate complaints against elected councillors? My view is that the service, which is excellent at dealing with complaints about the provision of services, is not suited to dealing with complaints about politicians. Speaking as someone who was complained about, the people undertaking the process had little understanding of the political nature of councils. As we know, many complaints are politically motivated, and the number increases as you approach local elections, and they're often by people standing against sitting councillors who then make complaint after complaint about them in order to try and muddy the water.

The Senedd has the office of the standards commissioner to investigate complaints against Members. I believe we should have the same type of office that deals with complaints about council members. In Scotland, if you're not happy with the action of an MSP, councillor or member of a public body, you can make a complaint to the Ethical Standards Commissioner. The Senedd needs to look at creating an ethical standards commissioner who would only deal with complaints against councillors and members of public bodies. Whether this would also include dealing with Members of the Senedd is a matter, I think, that's worthy of debate.

But having a group of people who are very good at one thing, investigating complaints against public services—and we've all had results from our constituencies that have been very good results when the ombudsman has investigated those—to then investigate actions by politicians is fundamentally wrong, and does not work. There's the lack of understanding of how robust discussions can be in a political environment. And I still hold concerns about what happened here regarding Leanne Wood, who made a reasonable comment about probably the most obnoxious man in Wales, and she was then reprimanded for it. So, I think it really is important that we have somebody investigating politicians who understands what we go through and what we do. 

Firstly, I'd just like to say I'm pleased that Sinead Cook, the senior investigator in this question, has resigned, and it is beyond doubt that this is the correct decision. I'm also pleased that the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales has decided against their appointment of former Labour council leader, James Goudie KC, to lead the review—a choice that was so inappropriate, I think many assumed it was probably a joke. I won't spend time explaining why the appointment was inappropriate, but it's pretty plain for everyone to see that the review would have been a total charade, with Labour politicians marking their own homework.

I think all of us were dumbfounded by these outrageous appointments, but I'm interested to know from the public services ombudsman whether this was coincidental or deliberate. And if it was the latter, did they seriously think that no-one would notice? Most importantly, this is not a flash-in-the-pan scandal. This has seriously eroded trust in what is supposed to be an independent watchdog. I have referred constituents to the public services ombudsman for redress, so how are my constituents supposed to have confidence that their grievances will be taken seriously if they were represented and referred by a Conservative politician, for example?

Cultural and ideological left-wing bias in our institutions is nothing new. It has been a feature of British public institutions since at least the 1970s. There is a wealth of evidence for this across academia, the BBC and the civil service, such as the biased King’s College counter-terrorism course for civil servants that was condemned earlier this year. But partisan, party-political bias as flagrant as this is rare, and it is concerning, and it goes without saying that this falls way below the standards expected of a body like the ombudsman. It demeans and debases the important work that they are assigned to do.

The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales should represent everyone in Wales, but aside from bias, the vitriolic and abusive language used was incredibly concerning, with bigoted language aimed at a sitting Member of Parliament by the head of investigations at the watchdog. Their position of seniority and the attempted whitewash investigation begs the question of how deep the rot is in this body. What sort of culture exists within the ombudsman if these are the attitudes that exist in the upper echelons of the body, if this is the language being used by senior officials?

Impartiality is important for senior officials in any civil service role, but it is paramount in a body like the ombudsman, which is supposed to investigate maladministration. Public trust in the public services ombudsman has collapsed, and the only way this can be rebuilt is by dissolving the watchdog and replacing it with a new body that puts safeguards in place to stop this from happening again. Thank you.

We're supporting this motion, and I was with you part of the way, but I lost you then in the second part, I have to say, because—. I'll say 'thank you' for bringing this motion forward. I think, in an age of declining trust in these kinds of institutions, it's more important than ever that we uphold the highest possible standards, particularly in those bodies that are meant to scrutinise conduct in public life. It's never been more important. And that does include a strict adherence by such bodies to the principle of political impartiality, and in that respect recent revelations surrounding the office of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales have been deeply, deeply regrettable and damaging.

I welcome the fact, though, that the PSO has promptly committed to an independent investigation into the allegations, and whilst there were very legitimate issues around the suitability of their chosen candidate to lead that investigation, it's good to see that the ombudsman has now responded to those concerns. She made it clear, and I heard her say this on the radio, that she wasn't aware of the extent of Mr Goudie's links with the Labour Party prior to his appointment as the head of that investigation, and once those became evident I think it's right that we acknowledge that the correct decision was made. Yes, there should have been more diligence—I get that—but when it did come to light, she acted, and we should at least recognise as much.

Now, more generally, I think it would be helpful if the Minister in her response could actually clarify whether the terms of departure of the former head of investigations would have been covered by the UK guidance on public sector exit payments. I would be good to hear whether that is the case. We, here, also believe it is appropriate, as is reflected, actually, in the motion, that the Finance Committee undertakes a comprehensive review of the operations of the PSO in the interest of restoring public confidence in the body, and I understand, from hearing what the Chair said, that that is something that they will be considering at their very next meeting.

But unlike the characteristically unhelpful interventions of the Secretary of State for Wales on this matter, who has called for the PSO to be wound down—and we've heard that again from the Member for the Vale of Clwyd—I don't think that the best course of action is to rashly throw the baby out with the bath water. In fact, I would like to pay tribute, and let's pause here for a minute. I would like to pay tribute to the hard-working staff, the wider staff team at the PSO, who have been dragged into this unfortunate episode through no fault of their own, and it's vital that we don't allow this issue to completely tarnish the reputation of the PSO—a reputation that's been cultivated over almost 20 years. The Welsh public will be best served by careful and measured scrutiny and refinements to the service, rather than this scorched earth policy that we're hearing coming from the Tory benches, and particularly from the Secretary of State.

Would you take an Intervention?

Very briefly, then, because I've got two seconds left.

I wouldn't disagree with you about the hard work of the ombudsman's office, in particular—

Well, let's hear it then. Nobody has said it yet.

Well, I'm saying it now. In terms of their support with individual cases, which all of us in this Chamber have had to engage with them about, and of course it has been refreshing to see the speed at which there has been action. Clearly, there are issues with social media policies et cetera that need to be addressed, and there obviously has been a problem with the due diligence in terms of Mr Goudie KC's appointment. I will say, though, that I'm very surprised that James Goudie himself did not disclose those things, and I think there ought to be a duty on him or anybody else who is appointed to undertake such investigations. Would you agree with me on that point?

The Llywydd took the Chair.

Yes, I would; yes, I think that's a fair comment. But I suppose the PSO would say we are where we are and she did what she felt she had to do, but there is a wider question about diligence et cetera, which I referenced earlier.

I'm out of time, I know, Llywydd. I was going to regret that the Conservatives haven't shown this degree of scrutiny and angst around some of the actions of their own Westminster Government when it comes to appointing BBC chairpeople who set up loans for former Prime Ministers and the like, but there we are, we know it now, don't we? That's form, isn't it?

The Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice to contribute, Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Welsh Government is one of the bodies in Wales that falls within the remit of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. We have no role in their appointment, the funding of their office or any oversight of their operations or funding. It would not be appropriate for the Welsh Government to comment on any of those issues. So, the specific question Llyr Huws Gruffydd asked me: we don't oversee the ombudsman, we had no say in or involvement in the departure terms of the member of staff, and perhaps it is something that the Finance Committee could explore at a future date. However, the ombudsman does play a key role in the investigation of complaints against councillors under their ethical code of conduct. This is a function that Welsh Ministers determine and place upon the ombudsman. Therefore, Welsh Government has an interest in the function being undertaken to a high standard and free from political bias.

The Welsh Government strongly supports the work of the ombudsman as an independent investigator of complaints where something has unfortunately gone wrong with public services in Wales. We have our own complaints policy, which has been improved by the ombudsman, and where complainants are still dissatisfied, having gone through the process, and refer their case to the ombudsman, we work openly and constructively with the ombudsman to try to resolve matters. That is absolutely as it should be.

The Welsh Government also strongly believes in the importance of public servants in Wales, whether they are officers, officials or civil servants, behaving with complete political impartiality in their responsibilities. This includes not doing anything in their lives outside of work that might cause that impartiality to be called into question. So, we share the concern that has been expressed regarding recent events. We would not seek to advise the ombudsman on how she should respond to those events.

Although there have, of course, been further developments since the original motion and the Government's Amendment was put down, the Welsh Government's position remains the same. We would, however, want to be reassured the ombudsman has taken the matter very seriously and she has set appropriate action in hand to prevent a recurrence.

We also believe it is important that the ombudsman should report back to the Senedd, through the Finance Committee, on the action taken and the outcome. This will then enable the Finance Committee, on behalf of the whole Senedd, to be satisfied with the results of their action. Our proposed amendment to the motion is designed to achieve this objective. Diolch.

James Evans to reply to the debate.

My hand doesn't work that fast writing, Llywydd. Diolch, Llywydd, and thank you very much to everybody who has contributed to our debate today.

In public office, it is vital that all public officials are held to the highest possible standards. The public must be assured that when complaints are made about people, they will be investigated impartially, and it's unfortunate that we've come to a situation where we've had to table this debate today, because the standards in the ombudsman's office fell far below the standards that we expect and that, also, the wider public expect.

Sam Rowlands opened the debate highlighting the biased views and the obscene language that was expressed by one investigator at the ombudsman's office, and some people feeling across Wales that their cases have been unfairly looked at and they have been mistreated, and people having to resign because of that mistreatment. Sam also highlighted the review that is taking place and that the QC that was appointed to lead that review was also a leader of a Labour council and also quite prominent in the Labour movement, and I'm pleased that the ombudsman has taken action to remove that individual.

Peredur Owen Griffiths highlighted to us then about the work that the Finance Committee does in its scrutiny of the work of the ombudsman, and he highlighted that it is their role to scrutinise them, but not their operational decisions. But Darren Millar then intervened about that and challenged that, but Llyr Gruffydd did also clear that up as we went further on.

Mike Hedges thinks this ombudsman is a good thing, and I don't dispute—a lot of people do think the ombudsman is a good thing—but I think you slightly missed the point of what this debate is about, around the impartiality of the ombudsman. But I do think the point you did make about an independent body looking at political figures and councillors and Senedd Members is perhaps something that is worth investigating and looking at perhaps at a future date.

Llyr Gruffydd, I'd like to thank you for your thoughtful contribution, yet again highlighting political impartiality. You highlighted that the ombudsman is aware of these problems, that they acted when they had to, especially around when the QC was appointed as well, when the ombudsman was aware of everything that was taking place, and that she took action to remove that individual and actually put somebody in place now who is going to be impartial and not of any political bias at all. But you also highlighted the staff who work at the ombudsman's office, and I think that's something that's really important for all of us to recognise. A lot of hard-working people work in these offices to do a great job for the people of Wales, and just because there's one bad egg in the group doesn't mean that everybody else should be tarred with the same brush.

Gareth Davies also highlighted the impartiality of the office, and also political bias across society. The Minister stood up there and probably reaffirmed a lot of things that are in our motion anyway, about how you speak to the ombudsman regularly about their impartiality and how it's improved, actually, the Welsh Government's processes of how you deal with complaints. And also it was quite pleasing to hear that the Government will be asking for the ombudsman to come back to the Senedd to report on what they found and how they can improve their processes.

So, in conclusion, Llywydd, I think it is good to get these things highlighted on the floor of the Senedd. We need to make sure that our institutions that are here to protect people and protect councillors and protect Senedd Members are free of impartiality, so that anybody who does raise a complaint feels they can do so without any recourse that things won't be done successfully. I do agree with what some contributors have said in this debate. I think the First Minister made this point in his actual parting remarks: on issues like this, I think it's important that we actually shine a light on these issues and actually take some of the heat out of them as well, because that is what we're here to do, to improve the public services that we all represent here across Wales.

The proposal is to agree the motion without Amendment. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.