Y Pwyllgor Cydraddoldeb, Llywodraeth Leol a Chymunedau Y Bumed Senedd

Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee - Fifth Senedd

31/01/2019

Aelodau'r Pwyllgor a oedd yn bresennol

Committee Members in Attendance

Carwyn Jones
Gareth Bennett
Huw Irranca-Davies
Jenny Rathbone
John Griffiths Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor
Committee Chair
Leanne Wood
Mark Isherwood
Mohammad Asghar

Y rhai eraill a oedd yn bresennol

Others in Attendance

Anna Hind Cyfreithwraig, Llywodraeth Cymru
Lawyer, Welsh Government
Bethan Davies Clerc y Pwyllgor Cyllid
Clerk to the Finance Committee
Gareth Howells Y Gwasanaeth Cyfreithiol
Legal Service
Llyr Gruffydd Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor Cyllid a'r Aelod sy’n Gyfrifol
Chair of the Finance Committee and Member in Charge
Rebecca Evans Y Gweinidog Cyllid a’r Trefnydd
Minister for Finance and Trefnydd
Robert Thomas Rheolwr y Bil, Llywodraeth Cymru
Bill Manager, Welsh Government

Swyddogion y Senedd a oedd yn bresennol

Senedd Officials in Attendance

Lisa Griffiths Dirprwy Glerc
Deputy Clerk
Naomi Stocks Clerc
Clerk
Samiwel Davies Cynghorydd Cyfreithiol
Legal Adviser
Stephen Davies Cynghorydd Cyfreithiol
Legal Adviser

Cynnwys

Contents

1. Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datgan Buddiannau 1. Introductions, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of Interest
2. Y Bil Ombwdsmon Gwasanaethau Cyhoeddus (Cymru): Trafodion Cyfnod 2 2. Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill: Stage 2 Proceedings
Grŵp 1: Drafftio (Gwelliannau 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 172, 173, 174, 149, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 49, 182, 218, 219, 220, 221, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 100, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205 , 206, 208, 209, 210, 211) Group 1: Drafting (Amendments 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 172, 173, 174, 149, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 49, 182, 218, 219, 220, 221, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 100, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205 , 206, 208, 209, 210, 211)
Grŵp 2: Anghymhwyso (Gwelliant 171) Group 2: Disqualification (Amendment 171)
Grŵp 3: Diddymiadau a chanlyniadol (Gwelliannau 141, 142, 144, 145, 129, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 130, 140) Group 3: Repeals and consequential (Amendments 141, 142, 144, 145, 129, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 130, 140)
Grŵp 4: Ffioedd (Gwelliant 143) Group 4: Fees (Amendment 143)
Grŵp 6: Dileu cyfeiriad at ‘cwyn a atgyfeiriwyd at yr Ombwdsmon’ (Gwelliannau 2, 3, 73, 74) Group 6: Removing reference to ‘complaint referred to the Ombudsman’ (Amendments 2, 3, 73, 74)
Grŵp 7: Pŵer i ymchwilio i gwynion sydd wedi’u gwneud neu wedi’u hatgyfeirio (Gwelliannau 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79) Group 7: Power to investigate complaints made or referred (Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79)
Grŵp 8: Ymchwiliadau ar ei liwt ei hun (Gwelliannau 9, 10, 11, 12, 80, 81, 110) Group 8: Own-initiative investigations (Amendments 9, 10, 11, 12, 80, 81, 110)
Grŵp 9: Pwy sy’n cael gwneud cwyn (Gwelliannau 13, 14, 15, 82) Group 9: Who can make complaints (Amendments 13, 14, 15, 82)
Grŵp 10: Gweithdrefn gwyno (Gwelliannau 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89) Group 10: Complaints procedure (Amendments 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89)
Grŵp 11: Materion y gellir ymchwilio iddynt (Gwelliannau 23, 24A, 24B, 24, 137, 138) Group 11: Matters which can be investigated (Amendments 23, 24A, 24B, 24, 137, 138)
Grŵp 12: Penderfyniadau a wnaed heb gamweinyddu (Gwelliannau 227, 228) Group 12: Decisions taken without maladministration (Amendments 227, 228)
Grŵp 13: Rhoi’r gorau i ymchwiliadau (Gwelliannau 25, 26, 27, 28, 90, 91, 92) Group 13: Discontinuing investigations (Amendments 25, 26, 27, 28, 90, 91, 92)
Grŵp 14: Gweithdrefn ymchwilio (Gwelliannau 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 109) Group 14: Investigation procedure (Amendments 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 109)
Grŵp 15: Adroddiadau (Gwelliannau 39, 45, 46, 47, 53, 99, 103, 104) Group 15: Reports (Amendments 39, 45, 46, 47, 53, 99, 103, 104)
Grŵp 16: Camau gweithredu ar ôl cael adroddiad (Gwelliannau 40, 41, 42, 54) Group 16: Actions following receipt of a report (Amendments 40, 41, 42, 54)
Grŵp 17: Caniatáu i’r Ombwdsmon ystyried materion lle mae person yn debygol o ddioddef anghyfiawnder (Gwelliannau 43, 44, 48, 50, 51, 52, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108) Group 17: Allowing the Ombudsman to consider matters where injustice may be sustained (Amendments 43, 44, 48, 50, 51, 52, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108)
Grŵp 18: Awdurdodau rhestredig (Gwelliannau 226, 150, 151, 55) Group 18: Listed authorities (Amendments 226, 150, 151, 55)
Grŵp 19: Egwyddorion Nolan (Gwelliant 223) Group 19: Nolan Principles (Amendment 223)
Grŵp 20: Digolledu (Gwelliant 224) Group 20: Compensation (Amendment 224)
Grŵp 21: Egwyddorion ynghylch ymdrin â chwynion (Gwelliannau 56, 57, 58, 59) Group 21: Complaints-handling principles (Amendments 56, 57, 58, 59)
Grŵp 22: Gweithdrefnau enghreifftiol ar gyfer ymdrin â chwynion (Gwelliannau 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72) Group 22: Model complaints-handling procedures (Amendments 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72)
Grŵp 23: Diffiniad o ofal lliniarol (Gwelliant 225) Group 23: Definition of palliative care (Amendment 225)
Grŵp 24: Cydweithio ag eraill (Gwelliannau 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 152, 153) Group 24: Working jointly with others (Amendments 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 152, 153)
Grŵp 25: Datgelu gwybodaeth (Gwelliannau 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123) Group 25: Disclosure of information (Amendments 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123)
Grŵp 26: Difenwi (Gwelliannau 124, 125, 126, 127, 154) Group 26: Defamation (Amendments 124, 125, 126, 127, 154)
Grŵp 27: Panel Adolygu Annibynnol (Gwelliannau 229, 230) Group 27: Independent Review Panel (Amendments 229, 230)
Grŵp 28: Gofynion y Gymraeg (Gwelliant 222) Group 28: Welsh language requirements (Amendment 222)
Grŵp 29: Adolygu’r Ddeddf (Gwelliant 128) Group 29: Review of Act (Amendment 128)
Grŵp 30: Dehongli (Gwelliannau 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136) Group 30: Interpretations (Amendments 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136)
Grŵp 31: Pwerau gwneud rheoliadau (Gwelliant 139) Group 31: Regulation-making powers (Amendment 139)
Grŵp 32: Trosolwg (Gwelliant 1) Group 32: Overview (Amendment 1)

Cofnodir y trafodion yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir trawsgrifiad o’r cyfieithu ar y pryd. Lle mae cyfranwyr wedi darparu cywiriadau i’w tystiolaeth, nodir y rheini yn y trawsgrifiad.

The proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken in the committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the transcript.

1. Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datgan Buddiannau
1. Introductions, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of Interest

May I welcome everyone to this meeting of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee? Item 1 on our agenda today is introductions, apologies, substitutions and declarations of interest. We haven't received any apologies. Are there any declarations of interest? No. 

2. Y Bil Ombwdsmon Gwasanaethau Cyhoeddus (Cymru): Trafodion Cyfnod 2
2. Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill: Stage 2 Proceedings

We will move on to item 2, which is the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill: Stage 2 consideration of amendments. The purpose of this meeting, then, is to undertake Stage 2 proceedings on the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill, and Members should have before them the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings of the amendments for debate. The marshalled list of amendments is the list of all amendments tabled marshalled into the order agreed by the committee at its meeting on 9 January. So, for this meeting, the order in which we will consider amendments will be as follows: section 2, Schedule 1, Schedule 3 to 13, Schedule 2, sections 14 to 30, Schedule 3, sections 31 to 42, Schedule 4, sections 43 to 74; Schedule 5, sections 75 to 80, section, 1 and the long title. 

You will see from the groupings list that the amendments have been grouped to facilitate debate. The order in which amendments are called and moved for a decision is dictated by the marshalled list. I will advise Members when I call them whether they are being called to speak in the debate or to move their amendments for a decision. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. Members who wish to speak in a particular group should indicate this in the usual way. I will call the Member in charge and the Minister to speak on each group. For the record, in accordance with the convention agreed by the Business Committee, as Chair, I will move the amendments in the name of the Member in charge and the Minister. For expediency, I will assume that the Member in charge and the Minister wish me to move their amendments, and I will do so at the appropriate place in the marshalled list. Llyr and Minister, if you do not want your amendment to be moved, please indicate this at the relevant point in the proceedings. In line with our usual practice, legal advisors to the committee, the Member in charge and the Minister are not expected to provide advice on the record. If Members wish to seek legal advice during the proceedings, please do so by passing a note to our legal advisor. 

Grŵp 1: Drafftio (Gwelliannau 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 172, 173, 174, 149, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 49, 182, 218, 219, 220, 221, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 100, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205 , 206, 208, 209, 210, 211)
Group 1: Drafting (Amendments 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 172, 173, 174, 149, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 49, 182, 218, 219, 220, 221, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 100, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205 , 206, 208, 209, 210, 211)

Firstly, group 1, which deals with drafting. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 212 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 212 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 212 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 212 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd and call him to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in this group. Llyr. 

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd, a gan mai hwn yw'r cyfle cyntaf i fi gyfrannu i'r trafodion heddiw, efallai y byddwn i'n cael cyfle gennych chi, efallai, jest i wneud cwpwl o sylwadau agoriadol. Mi leiciwn i roi diolch ar y record i randdeiliaid ac Aelodau'r Cynulliad am eu diddordeb parhaus wrth ddatblygu'r Bil yma. Yn benodol, leiciwn i ddiolch i'r Aelodau am eu gwaith craffu hyd yn hyn. Dwi'n ddiolchgar, hefyd, am hyblygrwydd y pwyllgor yma wrth ddelio ag amserlen ar gyfer y craffu, ac mi leiciwn i hefyd ddiolch i Lywodraeth Cymru am eu hymgysylltiad a'u cyfraniad nhw hefyd wrth ddatblygu'r Bil. 

Fel yr Aelod newydd sy'n gyfrifol am y Bil Pwyllgor Cyllid hwn, dwi yn gobeithio dangos ein bod ni wedi ystyried yn ofalus y dystiolaeth sydd wedi cael ei glywed yn ystod Cyfnod 1, ac, wrth gwrs, yn ymateb yn gadarnhaol i argymhellion pwyllgorau'r Cynulliad, yn cynnwys, wrth gwrs, y pwyllgor yma.

Dwi'n gwybod bod hwn yn Fil pwyllgor, sef, fel roeddwn i'n dweud, Bil y Pwyllgor Cyllid, ac rŷn ni wedi bod yn ofalus i sicrhau na fydd ein gwelliannau ni'n arwain at gostau uwch. Ni fydd y rhan fwyaf o fy ngwelliannau i'n arwain at unrhyw newidiadau i'r amcangyfrif o oblygiadau ariannol y Bil. Fodd bynnag, efallai y bydd rhai o'r gwelliannau, wrth gwrs, yn arwain at gostau ychwanegol bach, a dwi wedi ceisio mynd i'r afael â'r rhain yn y dadleuon perthnasol. Mi fyddaf i yn sicrhau, wrth gwrs, fod ein hamcangyfrifon ni yn cael eu hadlewyrchu yn y memorandwm esboniadol diwygiedig y byddaf i yn ei osod yn dilyn Cyfnod 2, ac, wrth gwrs, cyn trafodion Cyfnod 3. Fodd bynnag, ar hyn o bryd, dwi ddim o'r farn y bydd fy ngwelliannau arfaethedig i yn cael effaith sylweddol ar oblygiadau ariannol y Bil yn gyffredinol. 

Felly, i symud ymlaen i siarad yn benodol am y gwelliannau yn y grŵp cyntaf yma—mae'r gwelliannau hyn yn welliannau sy'n gwella'r ffordd y mae'r Bil wedi'i ddrafftio, mewn gwirionedd, drwy, er enghraifft, ddileu cyfeiriadau at ddeddfwriaeth iechyd nad yw bellach yn berthnasol, yng nghyd-destun ymchwiliadau'r ombwdsmon, fel yng ngwelliant 149. Mae gwelliant 49 yn dileu geiriau diangen. Mae yna newid cyfeiriadau sy'n anghywir yng ngwelliant 100, ac mae gwelliannau 172 i 206, a gwelliannau 208 i 221, yn mynd i'r afael â rhai gwelliannau i'r Gymraeg a nodwyd. Mae hyn yn cynnwys defnyddio enw cywir rhai awdurdodau rhestredig a gafodd eu cyfieithu'n anghywir yn y lle cyntaf. 

Thank you very much, Chair. As this is my first contribution to today's proceedings, perhaps you might indulge me with a few opening remarks. I'd like to put on record my thanks to the continued interest of stakeholders and Assembly Members in the development of this Bill. In particular, I'd like to thank Members for their scrutiny to date. I'm also grateful for the flexibility shown by this committee in relation to the timetable for scrutiny, and I would also like to thank the Welsh Government for its engagement and contribution in this Bill's development. 

As the new Member in charge of this Finance Committee Bill, I do hope to demonstrate that we've carefully considered the evidence received during Stage 1, and are responding positively to the recommendations of the Assembly's committees, including this committee, of course.

I know that this is a committee Bill, as I said, a Bill of the Finance Committee, and we have been mindful of ensuring that our amendments will not result in increased costs. The majority of my amendments will not result in any changes to the estimate of the financial implications of the Bill. However, some of the amendments may result in small additional costs, and I've attempted to address these in the relevant debates. I will, of course, ensure that our estimates are reflected in the revised explanatory memorandum, which I will lay following Stage 2, and prior to Stage 3 proceedings. However, at this stage, I do not consider that my proposed amendments will have a significant impact on the overall impact of the Bill. 

So, moving on to talk specifically about the amendments in this first group—these amendments seek to improve the drafting of the Bill, if truth be told, by, for example, deleting references to health legislation that no longer applies, in the context of the ombudsman's investigations, such as in amendment 149. Amendment 49 removes superfluous wording. There are changes to incorrect references in amendment 100, and amendments 172 to 206, and amendments 208 to 221, address some Welsh language improvements that have been identified. This includes using the correct name of some listed authorities that were translated incorrectly initially. 

09:20

Diolch yn fawr. Are there any other Members who wish to speak? No. Well, I call on the Minister, then. 

Thank you, Chair. I'll keep my comments in this group short, because, as the title suggests, these amendments are drafting corrections, which aren't intended to change the policy intent of the Bill. However, I do want to take this opportunity to put on record our thanks to the Member in charge, and the clerk and lawyers supporting him, for the excellent work that they've done, in collaboration with the Government, to ensure that these technical changes are picked up, and that the Bill will be properly able to achieve its intent. 

I won't be speaking in detail to every group of amendments, because many of them do include further drafting and technical changes, which, again, don't change the policy intent of the Bill, but they do ensure that it will function properly. 

The scale of these technical changes is a testament, I think, to the hard work that officials have put in to identify the areas where the Bill should be otherwise drafted, and to propose the solutions that we will debating throughout today's proceedings. I'm very grateful for the collaborative and the constructive way that the Finance Committee has approached this Bill, and I hope that this committee will today support their amendments, which aim to make the Bill into good and effective law. 

Wel, newidiadau drafftio yw'r rhain. Does yna ddim newid polisi, felly dwi'n hapus inni symud yn ein blaenau. 

Well, these are drafting changes. There is no policy change, so I'm content to make progress. 

The question is that amendment 212 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 212 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 213 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 213 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 213. The question is that amendment 213 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 213 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 214 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 214 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 214. The question is that amendment 214 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 214 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 215 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 215 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 215. The question is that amendment 215 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 215 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 2: Anghymhwyso (Gwelliant 171)
Group 2: Disqualification (Amendment 171)

Group 2 relates to disqualification. The lead and only amendment in the group is amendment 171 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 171 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 171 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 171 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd, and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment. 

Thank you, Chair. Members will know that paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 1, as currently drafted, provides a list of offices that an ex-ombudsman is prevented from holding, and it includes a provision that the Assembly Commission can approve otherwise. Amendment 171 removes this provision and gives the power to grant this approval to an Assembly committee. Now, whilst I'll ask for a vote on this amendment, I should inform the committee that I have discussed this with the Assembly's Chief Executive, particularly that the Commission may actually wish to add a provision to the Bill at Stage 3 to provide clarity over the appointment of the ombudsman. The restated provision carried over from the 2005 Act is quite vague in terms of the appointment, and I actually agree that greater clarity around that would be beneficial. There's currently no provision for the Assembly through Standing Orders in the way that there is, for example, in relation to processes relating to the Auditor General for Wales. And legislation in the 2005 Act isn't explicit in specifying that the Assembly's responsible for setting the ombudsman's salary, arrangements for recruitment et cetera, and I think it would be useful to use that opportunity at Stage 3 to address some of that.

But, anyway, amendment 171 and amendment 128, which we'll come to later, may possibly, subsequently, need to be amended again at Stage 3 in light of what I've just said, but I would like Members to support these for the time being, subject, then, to further discussions at Stage 3.

09:25

Okay. Diolch yn fawr, Llyr. Are there any Members who wish to speak? Minister.

Thank you. So, this change ensures that it is a decision for Members of the National Assembly whether an ombudsman leaving office is able to take on a role at a listed authority before the normal time period has elapsed, and we think that this is a proportionate level of scrutiny to ensure the Assembly is content with a departure from the normal provisions in the Bill.

The question is that amendment 171 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 171 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 3: Diddymiadau a chanlyniadol (Gwelliannau 141, 142, 144, 145, 129, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 130, 140)
Group 3: Repeals and consequential (Amendments 141, 142, 144, 145, 129, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 130, 140)

Group 3 relates to repeals and consequential. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 141 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 141 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 141 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 141 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd and call on him to speak to his amendment and other amendments in this group.

Thank you, Chair. This group is, again, primarily about making technical changes to the Bill, and whilst amendment 141 is the lead amendment in the group, the first substantive amendment is 129, which changes section 74 to include specific provisions from the 2005 Act that relate to the Superannuation Act 1972, the Local Government Act 2000 and various other Acts. The 2005 Act amended those Acts, and those amendments need to continue to apply if, and hopefully when, the Bill becomes an Act. The amendment also preserves any subordinate legislation made under the 2005 Act, again because that subordinate legislation needs to survive and continue to apply when this Bill becomes an Act.

Amendments 141 and 144 are consequential on amendment 129. Amendments 142 and 145 are consequential on amendments 141 and 144. 

Amendment 130 clarifies which sections come into force when the Bill receives Royal Assent and which sections and Schedules come into force when the Welsh Ministers make commencement regulations. Commencement provisions lie with the Welsh Government, and I imagine that discussions will happen between the Welsh Government and the current ombudsman to ensure the swift commencement, once the ombudsman has the appropriate internal arrangements in place.

Amendment 140 deletes the requirement for references in legislation to the ombudsman established under the 2005 Act to be read as references to the ombudsman in what will become, I hope, the 2019 Act. The effect of this amendment will be that references to the 2005 Act are specifically dealt with in greater detail by amendments 155 to 170. Amendments 155 to 170 make consequential amendments to update references to the 2005 Act in the various other pieces of primary legislation that reference the Bill. These other Acts will specifically reference the public services ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019. This will ensure that primary legislation continues to operate seamlessly when the Bill comes into force.

Anything further you would want to say, Llyr? No. Do you then, Llyr, wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 141?

The question is that amendment 141 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 141 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 142 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 142 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 142. The question is that amendment 142 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 142 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 4: Ffioedd (Gwelliant 143)
Group 4: Fees (Amendment 143)

Group 4 relates to fees. The lead and only amendment in the group is amendment 143 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 143 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 143 (Llyr Gruffydd).

I move amendment 143 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd and call on him to speak to his amendment.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Gadeirydd. Yr hyn mai'r gwelliant yma yn ei wneud yw galluogi'r ombwdsmon i gadw ffioedd y caniateir i'r ombwdsmon eu codi o dan y Bil. Caiff yr ombwdsmon, o dan rai amgylchiadau, godi ffi resymol am ddarparu copïau o adroddiadau i bobl o dan Ran 3 a Rhan 5 y Bil. Fel y cyflwynwyd, roedd y Bil yn caniatáu’r ombwdsmon i gadw'r ffioedd hynny yn hytrach na'u talu nhw i gronfa gyfunol Cymru mewn perthynas â chopïau o adroddiadau a ddarparwyd o dan Ran 3 yn unig. Mae'r gwelliant hwn yn caniatáu, nawr, i'r ombwdsmon gadw'r ffioedd mewn perthynas ag adroddiadau a ddarperir o dan Ran 5 yn ogystal.

Thank you very much, Chair. Amendment 143 enables the ombudsman to retain fees that the ombudsman is allowed to charge under the Bill. The ombudsman can, in some circumstances, charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of reports to people under Part 3 and Part 5 of the Bill. As introduced, the Bill allowed the ombudsman to keep those fees rather than pay them into the Welsh consolidated fund in respect of copies of reports provided under Part 3 only. This amendment allows the ombudsman to retain the fees in respect of reports provided under Part 5 as well.

09:30

Whilst we fully recognise the merit in this proposal, I just seek clarification regarding the impact on the Welsh consolidated fund, which is essentially Wales's bank account for administering the block grant, with the Welsh Government spending the moneys through the draft budget. Will the retention of fees mean that the Welsh consolidated fund is reduced by the amount the ombudsman keeps, and if so, will that create a gap in the fund, and if a gap is created, how will that be filled?

Thank you, Chair. My understanding is that this amendment corrects an oversight in the original drafting to ensure that the fees that are chargeable for providing copies of statements and reports to cover administrative costs can be retained by the ombudsman in the same way for Parts 3 and 5 of the Bill. I'm happy to support the amendment.

Thank you, Chair. In response to Mark's comments, the reality is that the ombudsman has never actually charged for providing copies of reports, so the short answer to your question is: no, there won't be an impact. But the feeling is that the provision is still required, because it may be necessary at some point in the future to do that.

Yes. The question is that amendment 143 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 143 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 144 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 144 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 144. The question is that amendment 144 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 144 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 145 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 145 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 145. The question is that amendment 145 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 145 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 216 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 216 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 216. The question is that amendment 216 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 216 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 5: Adroddiad Blynyddol a Chyfrifon (Gwelliannau 146, 147 ac 148)
Group 5: Annual Reporting and Accounts (Amendments 146, 147 and 148)

Group 5 relates to annual reporting and accounts. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 146 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 146 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 146 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 146 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd and call on him to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in this group. Llyr.

Thank you very much, Chair. This group of amendments relates to Schedule 1 to the Bill. Amendment 146 relates to the restriction on including the details of a person in an annual or extraordinary report. It clarifies that the words

'in respect of a matter which may be investigated'

relate to the listed authority, care home provider, domiciliary care provider or independent palliative care provider and not the person mentioned in an annual or extraordinary report.

Amendment 147 deletes the term 'other than the first financial year' in respect of the ombudsman preparing his annual estimate. Clearly, this provision applied to the first financial year of the ombudsman's office back in 2005, when it was established, but now is no longer relevant.

Amendment 148 allows the Auditor General for Wales flexibility to submit certified accounts and reports after the default four-month deadline. Now, this amendment seeks to address conflicting statutory duties placed on the Auditor General for Wales. Firstly, to lay a copy of the certified accounts and report no later than four months after they were submitted, and, secondly, to meet the requirements of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2013 to abide by the code of audit practice, which requires that the opportunity is given to third parties and audited bodies to comment on audit findings.

Members might recall that the incompatibility of these provisions prevented the auditor general from meeting the statutory four-month deadline for certifying and reporting on Natural Resources Wales's accounts in 2015-16. If it's not reasonably practicable for the auditor general to lay a copy of the certified accounts and report before the Assembly within four months, then this amendment would allow the auditor general to lay a copy of the certified accounts and report after the four-month deadline. If the auditor relies on this flexibility, then the auditor would then have to explain to the Assembly why a copy of the certified accounts and report will not be laid before the four-month deadline, and the auditor general must then proceed to lay a copy of the certified accounts and report as soon as reasonably practicable. The amendment also requires the auditor general to be satisfied that the ombudsman has made appropriate arrangements for the economic, efficient and effective use of the ombudsman's resources.

The amendments in this group seek to address recommendation 9 of this committee's report to take account of the issues raised by the auditor general in relation to the audit provisions in Schedule 1. 

09:35

In the interest of ensuring the Assembly and the auditor general have the right information available to scrutinise the proper and effective use of public funds, I'm happy to support this proposal. 

Okay. Was there anything further you wished to say, Llyr? No. Llyr, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 146? 

Yes. So, the question is that amendment 146 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 146 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 217 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 217 (Llyr Gruffydd).

I move amendment 217. The question is that amendment 217 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 217 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 147 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 147 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 147. The question is that amendment 147 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 147 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I just want you to clarify, because during Stage 1 this committee found that, quote: 

'We asked the Member in Charge whether he would consider amending the Bill in relation to the four month deadline. He said it was good practice to have audited accounts within four months, but admitted that the “missing tool” was the ability to vary it in particular circumstances.'

Adding that:

'However, he was not sure if it would be appropriate to change it with regard to one body, when the Auditor General audits a range of bodies across Wales.'

If the previous Member in charge wasn't sure it would be appropriate to change the time limit with regard to one body, why has this been included and what reasoning does the Member in charge have to now include the ombudsman in this exemption, where I'm sure many public bodies subject to audit by the auditor general would argue that their pressure of work and resources would justify a similar provision?  

We can only deal with the public services ombudsman, of course, in this particular Bill, and there is a point to be made, and hopefully maybe the Welsh Government will consider amending in the same way in relation to others in future. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 148 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 148 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Okay. I move amendment 148. The question is that amendment 148 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 148 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 6: Dileu cyfeiriad at ‘cwyn a atgyfeiriwyd at yr Ombwdsmon’ (Gwelliannau 2, 3, 73, 74)
Group 6: Removing reference to ‘complaint referred to the Ombudsman’ (Amendments 2, 3, 73, 74)

Group 6 relates to removing the reference to ‘complaint referred to the Ombudsman’. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 2 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 2 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 2 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 2 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd, and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in this group.   

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Gadeirydd. Mae'r gwelliannau yn y grŵp yma, wrth gwrs, yn cyd-fynd â'i gilydd. Maen nhw'n faterion sy'n ei gwneud hi'n haws croesgyfeirio yn y Bil. Mae gwelliannau 2 a 3 yn sicrhau y bydd adran 3(1) yn gwahaniaethu rhwng cwynion a wneir i'r ombwdsmon a chwynion a atgyfeirir at yr ombwdsmon, tra bod gwelliannau 73 a 74 yn gwneud yr un newidiadau o safbwynt Rhan 5 y Bil.  

Thank you very much, Chair. Amendments in this group go together, of course. They are issues that make it easier to cross-reference in the Bill. Amendments 2 and 3 ensure section 3(1) will differentiate between complaints made to the ombudsman and complaints referred to the ombudsman, whilst amendments 73 and 74 make the same changes in terms of Part 5 of the Bill. 

No, other than, originally, both were tended to be put together or lumped together, and I think this would give us greater clarity and it would allow us to be more precise. 

The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 2 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 3 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 3 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 3. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 3 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 7: Pŵer i ymchwilio i gwynion sydd wedi’u gwneud neu wedi’u hatgyfeirio (Gwelliannau 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79)
Group 7: Power to investigate complaints made or referred (Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79)

Group 7 relates to the power to investigate complaints made or referred. The lead amendment is amendment 4 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 4 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 4 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 4 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd, and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in this group. 

Thank you, Chair. The amendments in this group don't change the purpose or intent of the Bill. Amendments 4 and 5 reflect that the ombudsman is able to investigate health-related services that are captured under the proposed new section 16, which will be inserted by amendment 24.

Section 3(5) allows the ombudsman to decide whether to begin, continue or discontinue an investigation. Amendment 6 adds a signpost to the new provision, under 8(5)(a) of the Bill, inserted by amendment 19, which we'll discuss later in group 10, around the complaints procedure.

Amendment 7 has the same effect as amendment 6, signposting to the restriction being inserted, again, by amendment 19, when the ombudsman is deciding whether to begin or continue an investigation, even if the complaint, or the referral of the complaint, has been withdrawn.

Amendment 8 tidies up the changes inserted by amendments 6 and 7.

And amendments 75, 76 and 77 provide more specific cross-referencing, to improve the clarity of the Bill.

And amendments 78 and 79 have the same purpose as amendment 6, but in respect of Part 5 of the Bill.

09:40

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Are there any other Members who wish to speak? Minister.

The question is that amendment 4 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 4 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 172 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 172 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 172. The question is that amendment 172 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 172 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 5 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 5 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 5. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 5 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 6 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 6 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 6. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 6 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 7 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 7 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 7. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 7 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 8 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 8 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 8. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 8 is also agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 8: Ymchwiliadau ar ei liwt ei hun (Gwelliannau 9, 10, 11, 12, 80, 81, 110)
Group 8: Own-initiative investigations (Amendments 9, 10, 11, 12, 80, 81, 110)

Group 8 relates to own-initiative investigations. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 9 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 9 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 9 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 9 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd, and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in this group.

Thank you, Chair. Amendment 9 improves the drafting of the Bill by removing superfluous wording.

Amendment 10 reflects that the ombudsman is able to investigate health-related services that are captured under the proposed new section 16, which will be inserted by amendment 24.

Amendments 11 and 12 amend Part 3 of the Bill. Now, the Bill as introduced included criteria that needed to be satisfied before the ombudsman could commence an investigation on his own initiative. These were included to restrict how the ombudsman used the powers, to prevent it coming down to the personal approach of the ombudsman, and how he or she decided to use these powers if they were available. The amendments remove these criteria, and replace them with a duty for the ombudsman to publish criteria, as well as setting out requirements for the consultation and approval of them. So, it retains the empowerment of the ombudsman regarding these kinds of investigations, but it's still underpinned by robust process for publishing, consulting and approving the criteria.

Amendment 11 sets out on the face of the Bill requirements that must be satisfied before the ombudsman can use the own-initiative power to investigate. For example, the ombudsman must have regard to the public interest in beginning an investigation; have reasonable suspicion that, firstly, there is systematic maladministration, or, alternatively, in the case of a complaint about the merits of a decision taken in consequence of professional judgment in relation to health or social care, that systematic injustice has been sustained; the ombudsman also must consult such persons as the ombudsman considers appropriate, with a signpost to the consultation provisions under section 65; and have regard to the criteria for own-initiative investigations published under section 5.

Amendment 12 requires the ombudsman to publish own-initiative criteria, which must be laid before the Assembly, and will follow a procedure similar to the negative resolution procedure—that is, if the Assembly doesn't object within 40 days, the ombudsman can publish and must then apply the criteria. And this type of negative resolution procedure is a common procedure, of course, that applies to documents such as codes made under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014.

The Welsh Ministers will have a power to change the criteria by regulations, but that will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that any Welsh Government changes will be subject to debate in Plenary. It's hoped that this backstop—this kind of backstop, not the other kind of backstop—will ensure that the Welsh Government, of course, works with the ombudsman on the criteria, ensuring as well the ombudsman’s independence.

Amendments 80 and 81 have the same effect as amendments 11 and 12, but with regard to investigations under Part 5, relating, of course, to social care and palliative care. Amendment 110 is consequential on amendments 11 and 80.

09:45

Thank you, Chair. The amendments in this group highlight the central requirements of the power for the ombudsman to conduct own-initiative investigations and they give the National Assembly the flexibility to consider how well the criteria are working and to change them as appropriate. Amendments 11 and 80 also ensure that, whatever the criteria for an own-initiative investigation, the public-interest test will form the basis of any investigation. This must always be the central reason for which these powers are used.

I am pleased that the Member in charge has responded to what could be perceived as a flaw in the criteria for own-initiative investigations as originally drafted. These would not have empowered the ombudsman to be able to investigate an issue that occurred before this Bill received Royal Assent. I'm also grateful to the Member in charge for retaining a role for the National Assembly to determine if it is content with the proposed criteria for own-initiative investigations, including the power for the Assembly to resolve and amend them by affirmative regulations.

The original criteria for own-initiative investigations were rightly focused on vulnerable or disadvantaged people suffering injustice or hardship and complaints giving rise to a suspicion of systemic failure. I hope to see a similar focus from the ombudsman in the revised criteria. I'm sure there will be robust debate in the National Assembly, once the criteria are proposed, to ensure that they accurately give effect to the Assembly's intention for own-initiative investigations if this Bill becomes an Act. These criteria will need to strike a balance between empowering the ombudsman to proportionately investigate in certain and specific circumstances and protect against the risk and perception of the over-regulation of public services. They should also minimise the risk of duplication and ensure that no uncertainty is introduced over which regulators are entitled and obliged to investigate any suspected service failure.

Yes. So, the question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 9 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 10 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 10 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 10. The questions is that amendment 10 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 10 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 11 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 11 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 11. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 11 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 12 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 12 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 12. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 12 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 9: Pwy sy’n cael gwneud cwyn (Gwelliannau 13, 14, 15, 82)
Group 9: Who can make complaints (Amendments 13, 14, 15, 82)

Group 9 relates to who can make complaints. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 13 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 13 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 13 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 13 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Thank you, Chair. Amendment 13 reflects that the ombudsman is able to investigate health-related services that are captured under the proposed new section 16 of the Bill, which will be inserted by amendment 24.

Amendment 14 clarifies that the persons entitled to make a complaint to the ombudsman include a person authorised in writing to do so by the person aggrieved. Now, this amendment clarifies that a person needs to be authorised in writing by the person aggrieved to act on that person's behalf. But, if the person is not capable of authorising another person in writing, the ombudsman can still accept a complaint from a person acting on behalf of a person who claims to have suffered injustice or hardship—so, effectively, in any way that the ombudsman feels is appropriate. 

Amendments 15 and 82 remove references to 'his' or 'her' to ensure that references to the ombudsman in the Bill are gender neutral, which, of course, reflects current drafting style. Now, my amendments to change the drafting style to gender neutral apply only, of course, to the new provisions that we're inserting in our amendments—it isn't restated from the elements that are carried over from the 2005 Act. Now, should these amendments, and there'll be a few of them as we proceed today, be agreed, then it is my intention to amend the Bill at Stage 3 to make sure that the entirety of the Bill is gender neutral. 

Yes. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 13 is agreed.

09:50

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 14 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 14 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 14. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 14 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 15 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 15 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 15. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 15 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 10: Gweithdrefn gwyno (Gwelliannau 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89)
Group 10: Complaints procedure (Amendments 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89)

Group 10 relates to the complaints procedure. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 16 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 16 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 16 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 16 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd and call on Llyr to speak to this amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Thank you very much, Chair. Section 8(1)(c) of the Bill requires that the complaint must be made to the ombudsman before the end of one year, starting on the day on which the person aggrieved first had notice of the matter. Amendment 16 adds the words 'alleged in the complaint', to the subsection, clarifying that the 'matter' in this section is actually a reference to the matter alleged in the complaint in question. So, it's clarity more than anything.

Amendment 83 has the same effect as amendment 16, but only in respect of investigations under Part 5, which relates, of course, to social and palliative care.

Amendment 17 requires the ombudsman to explain the implications of making an oral complaint to the person who made the complaint. This amendment changes reference to 'person aggrieved' to the 'person who made the complaint' because the 'person aggrieved' may not be capable of communicating with the ombudsman. Therefore, the ombudsman should communicate with the person acting on behalf of the person who suffered injustice or hardship.

Amendment 18 has the same effect as amendment 17, but amendment 18 also removes reference to 'he or she', again reflecting current drafting style.

Amendment 84 has the same effect as amendment 17, but in respect of Part 5 of the Bill. 

Section 3 subsection 5 allows the ombudsman

'to decide whether to begin, continue or discontinue an investigation'.

Amendment 6 adds a signpost to the new provision under 8(5)(a) of the Bill, inserted by amendment 19.

Amendment 19 clarifies which investigation powers are available to the ombudsman in the event that a person who makes an oral complaint does not want the complaint to be treated as a formal complaint under the Bill. If the person who makes the oral complaint says they don't wish it to be treated as a formal complaint, then the ombudsman cannot use the section 3 power to begin an investigation. However, if the ombudsman has already begun an investigation into the oral complaint, then the ombudsman will be able to continue the investigation.

Amendment 86 has the same effect as amendment 19, but with regard to Part 5 of the Bill.

Amendments 20, 85 and 87 again remove references to 'he or she' to ensure that references to the ombudsman are gender neutral.

Amendment 21 removes references to recording complaints in section 8, because amendment 22 creates a new section requiring the ombudsman to maintain a register of complaints. This includes complaints made or referred to the ombudsman in respect of a matter which the ombudsman is entitled to investigate under Part 3.

Amendments 88 and 89 have the same effect as amendments 21 and 22, but in respect of investigations under Part 5.

Thank you, Chair. The only policy change in this group relates to the way the ombudsman's office must record the complaints they receive. The committee recommended in their Stage 1 report that the duty to record complaints be expanded to cover all complaints received rather than just those taken orally, and I'm pleased to see this amendment giving effect to that, and I'm happy to support all amendments in this group. 

The question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 16 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 17 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 17 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 17. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 17 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 18 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 18 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 18. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 18 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 173 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 173 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 173. The question is that amendment 173 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 173 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 19 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 19 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 19. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 19 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 20 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 20 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 20. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 20 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 21 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 21 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 21. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 21 is agreed.

09:55

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 22 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 22 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 22. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 22 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 11: Materion y gellir ymchwilio iddynt (Gwelliannau 23, 24A, 24B, 24, 137, 138)
Group 11: Matters which can be investigated (Amendments 23, 24A, 24B, 24, 137, 138)

Group 11 relates to matters that can be investigated. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 23 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 23 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 23 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 23 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment and other amendments in this group—Llyr.

Thank you very much, Chair. Amendment 23 removes from section 10 the power to investigate certain aspects of private healthcare. Now, the provisions being removed are then replaced by a new section 16, inserted by amendment 24. Amendments 137 and 138 are tidying-up amendments based on this change to remove definitions of private health services and private health service providers. 

Amendment 24, then, means that people will be able to make a complaint about, and the ombudsman will be entitled to investigate, those other health-related services, such as medical, dental and nursing services, as well as any other service provided in connection with a person's health, except special procedures such as acupuncture, body piercing, electrolysis and tattooing. 

This means that if a local health board is being investigated and the person who received treatment by the local health board has also received private medical treatment, if needed, the ombudsman can investigate the health-related service as part of the investigation. Amendment 24 doesn't change the intention of the Bill as introduced; it merely approaches the investigation of private health services from a different angle.

So, turning to Mark Isherwood's amendments 24A and 24B, these amendments seek to restrict the meaning of providers of other health-related services to such providers who receive public funding. Now, these amendments, in my view, would severely restrict the private health providers that the ombudsman could investigate under the power included by amendment 24.

These amendments would mean that, if a person received poor treatment from a private provider that was then remedied by the NHS in Wales, the ombudsman could only use the ancillary power to investigate the private provider where the private provider had received public funding. Now, that, in my view, would severely restrict the ombudsman's power to use the ancillary power to investigate private providers under the new power inserted by amendment 24, which is the new section 16 of the Bill. So, I believe these amendments would undermine what the Bill seeks to achieve, in ensuring that private health providers are not subject to the review of the ombudsman, and, where public and private healthcare have both been used, I believe that it's essential that the ombudsman is able to consider both. 

Further, although public funding is relevant to independent palliative care providers captured under Part 5 of the Bill, it's not appropriate to apply the same public funding test to private health providers under Part 3 of the Bill. Independent palliative care providers are very different to private health providers—for example, independent palliative care providers may receive grant funding from Welsh Ministers or local health boards, where, of course, other private providers would not.

Thank you. Well, in fact, the intent of amendments 24A and 24B is to bring the definition of independent health services under the new section 16 more in line with the palliative care services provider definition—it's actually to broaden rather than limit the scope and extend the number of people who might be reached by the ombudsman's powers. 

These points have been raised with us by the sector, and I should perhaps remind Members that I chair the cross-party group on hospices and palliative care—not that that's influenced our position on this, but it should go on record.

The proposals strike a balance between the previous Member in charge's position that the definition of palliative care providers could not be changed as it was a restatement of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 provisions and the points raised by Hospice UK in Stage 1 of the Bill about limiting the access of the ombudsman to users of a small group of palliative care providers.

This amendment seeks to establish assurances on what the ombudsman's powers will be able to reach, as currently drafted. The evidence provided by Hospice UK to this committee stated that there was a disconnect between the definition of palliative care providers and the definition of private healthcare providers within the original Bill. The definition of private healthcare providers providers was based on the NHS pathway and not limited to providers who were solely funded by the NHS. By comparison, the palliative care providers definition is linked to NHS funding only, which takes out a large portion of the palliative care sector, as many are linked to charities. In fact, charitable hospices across Wales, according to Hospice UK's 2018 annual report, have a combined revenue of £36 million, £5 million of which comes from statutory sources, primarily via the NHS in Wales. Core clinical roles in adult hospice care in Wales are funded by health boards using the Welsh funding formula with the ambition of ensuring that there's equitable provision of clinical resource on a per capita basis.

By bringing the two definitions together, Hospice UK notes that, 

'as long as a person who is receiving care...is able to present a complaint that may or may not draw on NHS social care or statutory funded provision, and as long as that investigation can be investigated fully, and, actually, that the burden of bureaucracy lies with the ombudsman’s office and not with the person who is presenting that complaint.'

This, it is argued, would broaden access to the ombudsman to all people receiving palliative care.

In response to the concerns outlined by Hospice UK at the evidence stages, the previous Member in charge merely reiterated that the definition of palliative care providers was consistent with the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. It was explained in Stage 1 evidence by the previous Member in charge and his accompanying official that there were no comparable provisions between private healthcare and palliative care as the provisions on palliative care were restated from the social care and well-being Act. Furthermore, it was stated that the private healthcare element is limited to use within the NHS pathway and therefore is always tied back to the public NHS element of a complaint, so it is linked with the public bodies part of the Bill. However, palliative care providers are termed ‘purely private’.

The answers given by the previous Member in charge do not satisfy the issues raised about how the Bill’s provisions are intended to work for palliative care providers and, more importantly, the people who use their services. Essentially, palliative care users and their families can access hospices that are not NHS funded, and the Bill does not address this point as drafted. The evidence from Hospice UK further noted that they did not mind whether the two regimes—independent and palliative—were kept separate, but, as long as service users

'have equal access to recourse from the ombudsman, that they have the same rights, that the complaint can be pursued fully in the same way that someone receiving palliative care from the NHS would be able to present a complaint'.

Ultimately, we, as Members, must consider the implications of denying access to the ombudsman on behalf of those who need their help. The fundamental foundations that the Bill is based on—those of improving social justice, increasing equal opportunities and contributing to the Welsh Government’s commitment to create a fair and equitable Wales, reference PSOW Bill explanatory memorandum—are in danger of being contradicted through this imbalance. The Bill as passed surely should not exclude a large proportion of people who are vulnerable from receiving redress from the ombudsman. Hospice UK succinctly put it in their evidence as taking an equalities approach and that it is,

‘about the person’s access to the service of the ombudsman, rather than what the Bill itself looks like’.

Furthermore, it is imperative for the Member in charge to explain whether the definitions between the two services can technically be brought together, or whether a new amendment can be brought forward to ensure that palliative care services are widened out under the Bill, for example, through the deletion of section 43(2). I invite the Member in charge to advise whether he is prepared to consider this.

And, I'll finish by just quoting what Hospice UK have told us in the lead-up to today's session. They supported the palliative care elements to the Bill, they noted that this delivers equality of complaint services and they're all about championing people who are receiving palliative care. The model complaints procedure would be helpful for the smaller hospices, as they would not have to spend time and money coming up with their own complaints pathway, and the chief executives of hospices are also supportive of the Bill, they're proud of the service they deliver and they say they've got nothing to fear from the Bill and that they literally only have a handful of complaints a year, anyhow.

So, it's actually about broadening this to ensure that all recipients of palliative care, through the hospice sector particularly, fall within the scope of the Bill, but noting that almost all hospices, nonetheless, do receive an element of statutory funding, as I described earlier.

10:05

It's interesting that you've given us a lengthy explanation about the impact you think it might have on people who are receiving palliative care, but your amendments do not even mention the words 'palliative care'. I would be very concerned about supporting amendment 24B because it would limit the ombudsman's ability to investigate the botch jobs in private care that the NHS regularly has to clear up, and it's vital, therefore, that the ombudsman can pinpoint where a mistake may have been made. So, I don't think that the way in which you have tried to limit it to those who've received public funding within the last three years is at all helpful, because the individual who's had inadequate care—the ombudsman needs to be able to investigate where that inadequate care took place. 

It's just a similar query, Mark. I'm not clear why we'd want to restrict the ability of the ombudsman in the way that seems to fall from 24B—why we'd want to constrain the ombudsman in that way. If we want them to pursue their avenues of investigation through private healthcare as well, very much in line with what my colleague has just said, that's my worry—that your amendment actually constrains the ability of the ombudsman. But perhaps you can clarify.

I'm afraid there's no opportunity to clarify, Huw. Mark has spoken and that was his opportunity as far as this group is concerned. Any other Members? No. Minister.

Thank you, Chair. Amendments 23 and 24 are a crucial change to ensure the policy intention of giving the ombudsman power to investigate public/private healthcare is enacted as intended. Once again, I'm grateful for the work of the Finance Committee and its supporting officials in collaboration with the Welsh Government to ensure that the Bill can achieve its policy intent.

Removing the definition of 'private health services provider' will help to avoid any confusion about which parts of the Bill apply to which bodies—for example, to primary care, which could have fallen under that definition as previously drafted. 

Amendment 24B, tabled by Mark Isherwood, would place a requirement that a private healthcare company must have received public funding within the preceding three years to be investigated. The ombudsman is already able to investigate private healthcare where it has been publicly commissioned. The requirement for public funding would limit the small number of cases that this is expected to affect. 

Part 5 places a similar requirement on independent palliative care providers. They would need to have received public funding within the previous three years for the ombudsman to be able to investigate. However, that Part of the Bill does not have the same restrictions as the sections on private healthcare, needing a complaint into a related public service to be able to investigate. If this amendment was passed, this restriction would mean that the ombudsman could not, for example, investigate a complaint that encompassed care provided by a private GP and claims against an NHS GP, because private GPs do not, generally speaking, receive public funding. On this basis, I am pleased to support the Member in charge's amendments, which aim to achieve the intended effect of the Bill's policy on private healthcare, but I am unable to recommend support to the amendments tabled by Mark Isherwood.

Thank you, Chair. My understanding of what Hospice UK said is that they wanted to widen the palliative care aspect, but not, of course, to narrow the private health aspect. So, I'd repeat the point I made earlier, really, that private healthcare providers are different to palliative care providers, and it doesn't seem helpful to me that we treat them in the same way. So, I've got an issue with the amendments that Mark has tabled as they stand. I'm not persuaded that the amendments would actually achieve, necessarily, what in principle I'm sure is very valid. So, I would urge Members not to support the amendments, but certainly to support our amendments in the group.

The question is that amendment 23 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 23 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 174 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 174 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 174. The question is that amendment 174 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 174 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 149 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 149 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 149. The question is that amendment 149 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 149 is agreed. 

10:10

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 12: Penderfyniadau a wnaed heb gamweinyddu (Gwelliannau 227, 228)
Group 12: Decisions taken without maladministration (Amendments 227, 228)

Group 12 relates to decisions taken without maladministration. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 227 in the name of Leanne Wood. I call on Leanne Wood to move amendment 227 and speak to her amendment and other amendments in the group. Leanne. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 227 (Leanne Wood).

Amendment 227 (Leanne Wood) moved.

Diolch, John. I speak on these amendments on behalf of Plaid Cymru's leader and the Assembly Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr. And these matters have come up in relation to casework. Section 14(1) of the Bill as introduced prohibits the ombudsman from questioning the merits of a decision taken without maladministration by a listed authority in the exercise of a discretion. Currently, therefore, when the ombudsman investigates complaints, he may not question the merits of a decision taken without maladministration by an organisation in the exercise of discretion. The one exception to this is in relation to the merits of a decision taken in the exercise of professional judgment in cases concerning health and social care. 

Although health and social care cases are often of fundamental importance, it's not clear on what logical basis the ombudsman can question the merits of a decision reached in the exercise of professional judgment in the health and social care cases beyond alleged maladministration in a narrow sense, but not in equally important cases, such as planning or housing. This reflects section 11(1) of the current Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005, meaning that if a professional, apart from health and social care professionals, has weighed up all relevant matters, and comes to a particular decision, then that decision is unimpeachable even if it appears to fly in the face of available evidence. 

In a particular case in Carmarthenshire, relating to a decision taken by the local authority planning department, to give one example, the ombudsman's case report noted, and I quote, 'The role of the ombudsman is to consider complaints that public authorities have acted maladministratively or have been responsible for a service failure whilst performing their function. However, he may not question a decision or finding by a public authority where that decision is one over which the authority has discretion. Equally, the ombudsman may not question the professional judgment of planning professionals employed by public authorities where there has been no evidence of maladministration.'

The principle is that were the ombudsman to have questioned why a planning professional reached the conclusion he had, just as the ombudsman is permitted to question the judgment of medical professionals, the ombudsman might have reached an alternative conclusion. Therefore, while the process followed by the authority may have been proper, the decisions the authority reached while following that process may well have been flawed, causing potential injustice or hardship to individuals. The distinction here between the process and content of decision making is not always clear, especially to members of the public. Also, it should be remembered that the ombudsman role, in its broadest sense, as highlighted in the job description, is to, and I quote

'investigate complaints made by the general public that they have suffered hardship or injustice as a consequence of maladministration or service failure by a range of public bodies in Wales'.

Stage 2 of this Bill presents an opportunity to look again at this and consider the case for extending the principle that already exists in health and social care cases to other areas. 

Amendments 227 and 228, removing the clause explicitly preventing the ombudsman from questioning professional judgment outside of health and social care, would allow the ombudsman greater latitude in applying the established principles in case precedent widely used in judicial review of Wednesbury reasonableness. This would allow the decisions of public authorities and professionals working for those bodies to be deemed unreasonable, and therefore, illegal, even when maladministration proper does not apply. This would be in recognition of the possibility that even when due process has been followed in certain cases, the outcome, in the form of the decision reached, is clearly perverse, in view of the evidence on which that decision was made. 

I'm very concerned about amendment 227, because it appears to make it impossible for local authorities to manage their budgets effectively. Because if they're not in a position to exercise discretion, to say, 'It would be nice to be able to do this, but we can't afford it, and we have to unfortunately limit access to this service', then they could then have the ombudsman coming along and saying, 'Well, we think you ought to have provided it'. And they've then got a massive hole in their budget. So, I have major concerns about deleting the word 'not' in that subsection 1. I'm not completely following the arguments you're making, which are legal arguments, around maladministration in relation to the exercise of professional judgment. Subsection 2 already explains that the ombudsman is able to challenge professional judgment, which, not having been exercised correctly, presumably affecting the human rights or the well-being of an individual. So, I have concerns about the way in which this amendment has been presented to us.

10:15

I think I understand the spirit behind Leanne's amendments, but I'm worried about what they do to the remit of an ombudsman. Because we all have within our offices instances where people come in, and they present very passionate arguments about what they allege are professional judgments—professional judgments that have gone wrong. And if it's an issue to do with procedure, process, maladministration and whether the correct procedures have been followed, then we would instantly say to them, 'I think I might be able to help with that, but I'll tell you who can help—it's the ombudsman'. But if it's an issue, for instance, within social services—a professional decision has been made—then there is an inspectorate out there, the care inspectorate. And I'm worried what this amendment will do in extending the remit of an ombudsman into those areas that are covered by regulatory bodies, by inspectorate bodies as well, and what this does in stretching the remit of the ombudsman away from that issue of public service failure, away from that issue of maladministration, into a much wider context. I do get the intent with this, because I equally get frustrated sometimes, when somebody comes through the door, and says, 'Why can't somebody step in now and do this?' But, actually, I think the ombudsman's role is distinctly different in this. Of course, the added thing is, if we were to take forward this, what would this do not only in terms of the remit, and whether that would overlap with other regulators and inspection bodies that are out there, but what would it do to the resourcing implications, and would you have two or three different organisations—ombudsman included—chasing after the very same issue? I get the intent of it, but I worry that this actually muddies the water, rather than clarifies it.

Thank you, John. My concern is that—. The purpose of the ombudsman was always to look at maladministration. What amendment 227 does is to extend that into the realm previously occupied by the courts. So, for example, any decision taken by a local authority, where they have a discretion, could potentially be subject to a complaint to the ombudsman. Now, that's a huge range—from deciding not to resurface a road, to the provision of social care where there might be other options. The first thing that strikes me is the ombudsman will be utterly swamped by complaints. And I also think we should be very careful about straying into areas that are properly the purview of judicial review. Because, for example, Leanne is right to say that administrators are governed by the rules in the Wednesbury case, which effectively mean that a decision has to be rational, in effect. The bar is very, very high—you have to show a decision is irrational in order to succeed at judicial review, not that there was another decision that could have been taken, and nor will the court impose its own decision; the courts have no power to do anything other than refer the decision back to the original authority. So, my worry is we end up creating what is, in effect, a court process. Now, there may be an argument for saying, 'Well, it's easier than judicial review and cheaper than judicial review', but I don't think the ombudsman's equipped to deal with what is, in effect, a quasi-judicial review. And the reality is that judicial review is very, very difficult—very, very difficult—and the ombudsman, in effect, would be in a position of having to hold hearings, as a court does, in order to determine whether (a) there's a case at all, or (b) whether the ombusdman should hear arguments on both sides. Now, we are then talking about creating, effectively, a tribunal, so I think that does take us well beyond where the ombudsman's remit is at the moment.

On the second amendment that Leanne proposes—amendment 228—as I read it, it says the ombusman may question,

'The exercise of professional judgement...in connection with the provision of health or social care.'

Well, that takes us very deeply into the realms of professional conduct. So, for example, if a doctor takes a particular decision, the ombudsman could look at that decision. Now, there are two dangers there for me. First of all, I don't think the ombudsman's equipped to make that kind of judgment on a medical decision. And secondly, it strays into not just the legal field, but it strays into professional discipline, for example, as exercised by the General Medical Council. So, again the ombudsman takes on the role of being the interpreter and the disciplinarian when it comes to professional conduct potentially. I think that goes well beyond where the ombudsman should go or indeed is equipped to go. 

10:20

Thank you, Chair. The ombudsman's role is focused on investigating service failure and maladministration, currently on the basis of complaints received. This Bill would expand that remit to include systemic issues that the ombudsman has identified. Allowing the ombudsman to investigate any decision taken at a public authority's discretion without process failure would, as we've just heard, be an enormous widening of the ombudsman's remit. This would vastly widen the regulatory oversight without any clear criteria for the grounds on which the ombudsman may question decisions. This is a particular area where I'm concerned that this proposal would make the ombudsman vulnerable.

To effectively perform their role as an independent, impartial complaints handler, the ombudsman must be seen to be independent. Limiting their remit to maladministration and service failure ensures that the ombudsman is only involved in cases where a serious incident has occurred and where people have not been able to resolve the issue through an organisation's normal complaints process. The ombudsman is not being asked to express an opinion about a decision a listed authority was reasonably entitled to take. I am concerned this amendment would open the ombudsman to allegations of partiality. The specific role ensures the ombudsman is able to remain impartial and retain the confidence of both the public and public services.  

Finally, I'm concerned about the additional pressures any expansion in the remit would place on the ombudsman's office. Without significant increase in resources, which could only come at the expense of other Welsh public services, as the ombudsman is funded from the Welsh consolidated fund, this would divert attention and resources from the very public services that the ombudsman is charged with investigating. For these reasons, and as this Bill is already proposing significant expansion in the ombudsman's powers, I would ask the committee not to support these amendments. 

Thank you, Chair. Well, these amendments, as we've heard, would give the ombudsman power to question the merits of almost all decisions by listed authorities in Wales, even where there is no maladministration. That would amount to a significant change of a general principle that has applied to various ombudsmen for decades. Indeed, this is a significant change to the general principles of the Bill as agreed by the Assembly, and would also result in a vast increase in costs associated with the Bill.

Amendment 227 would allow the ombudsman to investigate and report on the merits of decisions taken by the Welsh Government, the National Assembly for Wales Commission, local authorities, fire and rescue authorities, police and crime commissioners et cetera, even when they have not acted in poor character or in a biased way or a neglectful way.

The explanatory notes to the Bill say, and I quote,

'Where a listed authority has, without maladministration, reached a policy decision in which it has weighed up all relevant matters (including, for example, resources), the Ombudsman is not entitled to question that decision.'

And this is, of course, subject to the carve-out around health and social care.

Now, the rationale for allowing the merits of decisions taken in the areas of health and social care to be investigated is that these are matters where people are particularly vulnerable to suffering injustice or hardship. There were references to planning earlier on. Well, planning decisions have their own appeal processes, and if a planning decision does ultimately result in maladministration or injustice or hardship, then it can be then, of course, investigated by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales.

The wording in the Bill copies the wording in the 2005 Act, and, as the 2005 Act was passing through the UK Parliament, the then ombudsman designate, Adam Peat, requested the specific wording in this area, requesting that the power to investigate the merits of decisions be extended so that it covered all aspects of health and social care, but no further. I don’t believe there is any evidence to support these amendments, and I don't support the changes as proposed.

10:25

I'd like to say thank you to Members for their contributions. There have been some interesting and pertinent points made, I think. I'm not going to push this to the vote at this stage. I think this has been a useful probing amendment. We maintain that there's an anomaly here in that the ombudsman is able to question the professional judgment of clinicians where, arguably, the level of expert knowledge is greater, compared to that of planning officials, as I argued in my opening remarks. This would not in any way extend the ombudsman's jurisdiction into the realm of public policy per se. I welcome what Members have said about recognising our intent with this, and I and Plaid Cymru colleagues would welcome the opportunity to have further discussions around how the policy objective behind the amendment can be taken forward at Stage 3.

Okay. So, Leanne, you do not wish to proceed with a vote on amendment 227. Does any Member object to the withdrawal of that amendment? No. Then that amendment is withdrawn. 

Tynnwyd gwelliant 227 yn ôl gyda chaniatâd y pwyllgor.

Amendment 227 withdrawn by leave of the committee.

Does any Member object to the withdrawal of amendment 228? No. Then that amendment is also withdrawn. 

Ni chynigiwyd gwelliant 228 (Leanne Wood). 

Amendment 228 (Leanne Wood) not moved.

Before disposing of amendment 24, we will deal with the amendment to that amendment. Mark, do you wish to move amendment 24A?

It was essentially a probing amendment. If the Member in charge can confirm he will have continued dialogue with us over how we can ensure that palliative care services are potentially widened under the Bill, I will withdraw.

Okay, does any Member object to the withdrawal of amendment 24A? No. Then that amendment is withdrawn. 

Ni chynigiwyd gwelliant 24A (Mark Isherwood).

Amendment 24A (Mark Isherwood) not moved.

On the same basis. Okay. Does any Member object to the withdrawal of amendment 24B? No. Then that amendment is withdrawn. 

Ni chynigiwyd gwelliant 24B (Mark Isherwood).

Amendment 24B (Mark Isherwood) not moved.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 24 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 24 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 24. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 24 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Okay. I would like to propose that we have a short break at this stage and reconvene at 10.35 a.m. Is that okay? A short comfort break. We will continue at 10.35 a.m. Thank you very much.

Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 10:28 a 10:37.

The meeting adjourned between 10:28 and 10:37.

10:35
Grŵp 13: Rhoi’r gorau i ymchwiliadau (Gwelliannau 25, 26, 27, 28, 90, 91, 92)
Group 13: Discontinuing investigations (Amendments 25, 26, 27, 28, 90, 91, 92)

We'll continue with group 13, which relates to discontinuing investigations. The lead amendment is amendment 25, in the name of Llyr Gruffydd.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 25 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 25 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 25, in the name of Llyr Gruffydd, and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment and other amendments in this group.

Thank you, Chair. This group of amendments are mainly tidying-up amendments. Amendments 25 and 26 should be read together, and the effect of the amendments is to improve the clarity and drafting of section 15. These amendments don't change the policy intentions of the Bill as introduced.

Amendment 11, which we debated earlier in group 8, adds a requirement to section 4 for the ombudsman to consult when beginning an own-initiative investigation. Amendment 27 requires the ombudsman to give reasons for not beginning an own-initiative investigation or discontinuing an own-initiative investigation where the ombudsman has already consulted under section 4. Should the ombudsman decide to either not begin an own-initiative investigation or discontinue an own-initiative investigation, he will be required to prepare a statement of reasons for that decision. This provision only applies if the ombudsman has consulted a person under section 4.

Amendment 28 requires the ombudsman to send a copy of his statement of reasons for not beginning, or discontinuing, an own-initiative investigation to any person who made a complaint to the ombudsman—now, that may be the person aggrieved or the person who made the complaint, of course, who can be different people. The relevant listed authority will also receive a copy of the statement. In respect of any person consulted under section 4, the ombudsman may send them a copy of the statement if it's appropriate to do so—for example, if the ombudsman has consulted extensively with a person under section 4 then it would be appropriate, I believe, to give them a copy of the statement.

Amendments 90 and 91 have the same effect as amendments 25 to 28, but in respect of investigating under Part 5 of the Bill. Amendment 92 amends section 51 to ensure that when preparing an investigation proposal under Part 5, the ombudsman shares a copy of this proposal with any person who is identified in a negative way. This will allow that person to comment on the proposal. This is in addition to sharing with a listed authority.

Okay. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 25 is agreed.

10:40

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 26 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 26 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 26. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 26 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 27 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 27 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 27. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 27 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 28 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 28 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 28. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 28 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 175 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 175 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 175. The question is that amendment 175 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 175 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 14: Gweithdrefn ymchwilio (Gwelliannau 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 109)
Group 14: Investigation procedure (Amendments 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 109)

Group 14 relates to investigation procedure. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 29 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 29 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 29 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 29 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd, and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in this group.

Thank you, Chair. Amendment 29 amends section 16, and the amendment clarifies that this is the listed authority to which the investigation relates. Amendment 30 also amends section 16, to ensure that when preparing an investigation proposal under Part 3, the ombudsman shares a copy of this proposal with any person who is identified in a negative way. This will allow that person to comment on the proposal, and this is in addition, of course, to sharing with a listed authority.

Amendments 31 and 32 clarify the circumstances when the ombudsman does not have to prepare an investigation proposal. If the ombudsman has begun an investigation under sections 3 or 4 and then begins an own-initiative investigation, he does not have to prepare an investigation proposal in respect of the later own-initiative investigation. Amendments 93 and 94 have the same effect as 31 and 32, but in respect of Part 5 of the Bill.

Amendment 33 clarifies the procedure that applies to investigations, in particular when the ombudsman must give listed authorities and persons identified in a negative way an opportunity to comment on the investigation. Amendment 33 replaces the provisions deleted by amendment 35.

Amendment 34 requires an investigation proposal to identify how it meets the criteria published under section 5.

Amendment 36—well, the purpose of this amendment is to clarify that the procedure for conducting an investigation under both section 3 and section 4 is left to the ombudsman, subject to what the Bill requires in respect of such procedures. This means that the ombudsman can, subject to what the Bill says, determine the procedure that applies to own-initiative investigations under section 4, as well as investigations under section 3.

Amendments 37 and 97 improve the drafting of the Bill by removing superfluous wording.

Amendment 38 requires the ombudsman to publish the investigation procedure that applies to investigations under section 3 and own-initiative investigations under section 4.

Amendment 95, amendment 96 and amendment 98 have the same effect as amendments 33, 34, 36 and 38, but in respect of Part 5 of the Bill.

Amendment 109 requires the person who made the complaint to receive a copy of the special report in respect of Part 5 investigation, relating to social and palliative care. This means that any person who made a complaint will receive a copy of a special report, and not just the person aggrieved.

I'm happy to support these appropriate and proportionate amendments, Chair.

Okay. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 29 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 30 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 30 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 30. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 30 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 31 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 31 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 31. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 31 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 32 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 32 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 32. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 32 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 33 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 33 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 33. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 33 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 34 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 34 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 34. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 34 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 35 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 35 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 35. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 35 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 36 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 36 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 36. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 36 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 37 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 37 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 37. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 37 is agreed.

10:45

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 38 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 38 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 38. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 38 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 176 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 176 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 176. The question is that amendment 176 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 176 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 177 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 177 (Llyr Gruffydd).

I move amendment 177. The question is that amendment 177 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 177 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 15: Adroddiadau (Gwelliannau 39, 45, 46, 47, 53, 99, 103, 104)
Group 15: Reports (Amendments 39, 45, 46, 47, 53, 99, 103, 104)

Group 15 relates to reports. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 39 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 39 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 39 (Llyr Gruffydd).

I move amendment 39 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in this group. 

Thank you, Chair. Amendments 39, 47, 53, 99 and 104 place a requirement on the ombudsman to send copies of reports to the person who made the complaint, not just the person aggrieved.

Amendment 45 has the same effect as amendment 29, which we debated in an earlier group. Amendment 45 amends section 26, which states that when the ombudsman is investigating, a listed authority must be given an opportunity to comment on the allegations, and the amendment clarifies that this is a listed authority to which, of course, the investigation relates.

Amendment 46 defines 'permitted period' to include a period that may be agreed between the ombudsman and the listed authority and any person who made a complaint. This means that any person who made the complaint may be involved in agreeing the permitted period, as opposed to just a person aggrieved.

Amendment 103 has the same purpose as amendment 46, only in respect of Part 5 of the Bill.

Thank you, Chair. These amendments include further examples of updates the Member in charge has made to ensure that the provision intended, to give people who would otherwise struggle to make a complaint to the ombudsman another route by which to progress their complaint, can function effectively without that person needing to be involved in the further steps involved in handling their complaint. I'm glad to be supporting the Member in charge today to make these amendments, which will ensure that vulnerable people are better able to access the services provided by the ombudsman. 

Thank you, Minister. Anything to add, Llyr? No. Okay. Llyr, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 39?

Okay. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 39 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 178 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 178 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 178. The question is that amendment 178 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 178 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 179 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 179 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 179. The question is that amendment 179 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 179 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 180 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 180 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 180. The question is that amendment 180 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 180 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 16: Camau gweithredu ar ôl cael adroddiad (Gwelliannau 40, 41, 42, 54)
Group 16: Actions following receipt of a report (Amendments 40, 41, 42, 54)

Group 16 relates to actions following receipt of a report. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 40 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 40 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 40 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 40 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd and call on Llyr to speak to this amendment and the other amendments in this group. 

Thank you, Chair. Amendment 40 expands the reference to injustice or hardship from that which has been sustained to include future injustice or hardship that is likely to be sustained. 

Amendment 41 removes section 24 from the Bill. Section 24, which is entitled 'Action following receipt of a report: investigation of a private healthcare services provider', included a requirement for listed authorities, when considering whether to enter into a contract for services with a private health provider, to have regard to a report published by the ombudsman. This amendment removes that duty.

Similarly, amendment 54 deletes subsection 28(7), which required listed authorities to take account of ombudsman special reports before entering into contracts with private health providers.

Now, while amendments 41 and 54 remove the duty for listed authorities to take certain steps before contracting with private health providers, such as the steps of checking whether the ombudsman has reported negatively on a private health provider, the Bill still allows the ombudsman to have some oversight. For example, if the ombudsman criticises a listed authority for the way it has contracted with a private health provider, and the ombudsman is not satisfied with how the listed authority has acted in response to that criticism, the ombudsman can publish a special report about the matter. The ombudsman can also issue guidance to listed authorities about such matters.

Amendment 42 deletes section 25 of the Bill, which gives the ombudsman power to refer a listed authority to the High Court, where the listed authority has willfully disregarded an ombudsman report without lawful excuse. In January of last year, my predecessor wrote to this committee, explaining that this section was included in the 2005 Act in error and, as such, this amendment seeks to remove this redundant section of the Bill, which had never been brought into force because the section doesn't work.

10:50

The question is that amendment 40 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 40 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 41 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 41 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 41. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed. Does any Members object? Then amendment 41 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 42 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 42 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 42. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 42 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 17: Caniatáu i’r Ombwdsmon ystyried materion lle mae person yn debygol o ddioddef anghyfiawnder (Gwelliannau 43, 44, 48, 50, 51, 52, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108)
Group 17: Allowing the Ombudsman to consider matters where injustice may be sustained (Amendments 43, 44, 48, 50, 51, 52, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108)

Group 17 relates to allowing the ombudsman to consider matters where injustice may be sustained. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 43 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 43 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 43 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 43 in the name of Llyr Grufydd and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in this group.

Thank you very much, Chair. Amendments 43, 44, 48 and 50 reflect that the ombudsman may conclude that a person is in future likely to sustain injustice or hardship, and not just that a person has sustained injustice or hardship. In Part 5, relating to social and palliative care, amendments 101, 102, 105 and 106 have the same effect.

Amendment 51 works on the same principle—that a person may in future sustain injustice or hardship—and this amendment allows the ombudsman to include in a special report recommendations to prevent a person from suffering injustice or hardship in the future. Again, in Part 5, amendment 107 has the same effect as amendment 51.

Amendment 52 clarifies that a special report can recommend that action be taken to prevent injustice or hardship being caused to any person in the future. And amendment 108 has the same purpose as amendment 52, but, again, in respect of Part 5 of the Bill.

The question is that amendment 43 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 43 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 44 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 44 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 44. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 44 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 45 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 45 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 45. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 45 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 46 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 46 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 46. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 46 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 47 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 47 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 47. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 47 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 181 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 181 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 181. The question is that amendment 181 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 181 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 48 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 48 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 48. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 48 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 49 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 49 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 49. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 49 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 50 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 50 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 50. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 50 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 51 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 51 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 51. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 51 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 52 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 52 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 52. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 52 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 53 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 53 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 53. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 53 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 182 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 182 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 182. The question is that amendment 182 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 182 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 54 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 54 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 54. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 54 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 18: Awdurdodau rhestredig (Gwelliannau 226, 150, 151, 55)
Group 18: Listed authorities (Amendments 226, 150, 151, 55)

Group 18 relates to listed authorities. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 226 in the name of Mark Isherwood. I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 226 and to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in this group.

10:55

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 226 (Mark Isherwood).

Amendment 226 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Thank you. Amendment 226 provides a clearer definition of the listed authorities included within the Bill by breaking down what 'local authorities' means. Although we note that community councils are already included within the definition of local authorities on the face of the Bill, this is essentially a probing amendment, as there are some concerns about the enforceability of the Bill’s provisions on community councils, and we wish to clarify this before Stage 2 is complete.

Our concerns are supported by the fact that there are sections within the Bill that impose time limits on submitting the model complaints-handling procedure. For example, section 37 includes a six-month time limit for listed authorities to submit the model. Additionally, amendments 61 and 63 update those provisions so that the ombudsman is able to see how listed authorities have updated their complaints-handling procedures when he has revised the model complaints-handling procedure.

While supportive of the provisions' application to community councils, we see from the perspective of both the ombudsman and the community councils how they could become burdensome and onerous to undertake. The current count of Welsh community councils stands at well over 730, with 8,000 community councillors, and, as evidenced by the Wales Audit Office in its most recent report on town and community councils, they're already facing difficulty in applying the most basic of statutory duties.   

For example, the Wales Audit Office found that nearly 100 bodies had not submitted their audits by the cut-off date of 30 November 2018, and that over 340 individual councils received a qualified audit opinion for 2017-18, up from 170 the previous year. The audit office further found that this increase was mainly due to a lack of understanding of the statutory timetable for accounts and audit. Twenty-four councils have yet to make proper arrangements for online publication of documents, despite this being required by the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013. Auditors also identified issues in the accounting statements of 180 councils, and 270 did not complete the annual return fully before submission for audit. 

In their evidence during Stage 1 of the Bill, Cardiff Council raised some concerns about the Bill’s provisions, highlighting the risk of the ombudsman’s guidance being too prescriptive and not allowing for a degree of flexibility for local authorities to handle and investigate complaints that suits their size and structures. Additionally, the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales were concerned about the impact the provisions may have on smaller organisations. That view was also held by Blaenau Gwent council, which stated in evidence that,

'some smaller Councils do not have sufficient resources to have complaints officers whose sole task is to take and log complaints'. 

As such, it is difficult to see whether smaller community councils with relatively limited resources are able to keep up with the provisions outlined under the Bill. While we agree that they should adhere to the model complaints-handling procedure, we want to establish whether there is any scope within the Bill to enable larger local authorities to share their resources and collect data for community councils in their locality, to help both community councils adhere to their duties and to take some of the pressure off the ombudsman’s office.

As to the other amendments tabled by the Member in charge, we are supporting these today. As I said, this amendment can be withdrawn if the Member in charge agrees to making some of these provisions less burdensome on community councils or to engage with us in establishing whether and how that might be addressed.

I'd like to probe this a bit further, because it seems to me if it has a place anywhere, it would be in the explanatory memorandum, because it seems to me that the original wording is perfectly clear; it seem all-encompassing. Whilst I appreciate that some community councils are hotbeds of dissent and discord, it would have to be a pretty serious case of maladministration for us to want the ombudsman's time to be taken up with investigating a community council. I appreciate there may well be some issues around who should be handling the complaints arising out of the acts of community councils, but I'm not sure that this is the right place to explore those. It seems to me that we need to focus on what the ombudsman could do, if required, in a very extreme case of maladministration by a community council.

11:00

Thank you, Chair. Speaking first to amendment 226, tabled by Mark Isherwood, I can appreciate the intention to clarify that all levels of local government fall under the ombudsman's jurisdiction. Currently, the provision is clear: all local authorities, whatever their level, are listed as authorities under the 2005 Act and this Bill. But I wouldn't be comfortable introducing a definition on the face of the Bill that references some local authorities and not others. This is only likely to introduce more confusion over whether other local authorities are covered or not. If the committee is concerned that people are not aware that they can complain about some types of local authority, then I hope the ombudsman will ensure in their guidance that it is clear about which authorities they can accept complaints from. This would be a more appropriate way to ensure this is clear and widely understood by the public without needing to amend the Bill. 

Moving on now to amendment 55, the original section 31 referred to fields in which the Welsh Ministers have functions. This reflects an outdated devolution settlement and needs to be updated. The provision proposed by the amendment would futureproof this section of the Bill against updates to the powers devolved to the Assembly, replacing a complex section with a simple provision that the Assembly may only add bodies to the ombudsman's jurisdiction if it has the competence to do so. On balance, this is a more clear and effective provision for this section of the Bill and I hope the committee will support it. This change does mean that there will be no definition on the face of the Bill of what qualifies a body as a public service as far as the public services ombudsman is concerned, and I hope the committee, as part of their ongoing scrutiny of the ombudsman, will give some consideration to how this should be defined. So, to conclude, I would ask Members to reject amendment 226 but support the others in this group.

Thank you, Chair. I'll talk first of all to amendment 226 from Mark Isherwood, and I'd concur with the comments of the Minister. As a definition of local authority already exists in the Bill, I'm not able to support this amendment. It's already there, as I say, and my approach is consistent with the approach taken under the 2005 Act, and the Finance Committee has been keen to keep the structure and approach of that Act as best we can. The approach we've taken, of course, also reflects the general drafting of all Assembly Acts, and, again, the Finance Committee were keen to ensure the legislation reflected other Welsh legislation in that respect. Of course, what we have to remember as well is that, in this Bill, the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales may include community councils, and it would be up to the ombudsman to specify which community council he wants to oversee as regards their complaints-handling procedures. So, I would argue that the flexibility actually is there and that the amendment as proposed isn't required.

Moving to the other amendments that are tabled in my name, earlier in proceedings we debated amendments 23 and 24, which made changes to the investigation procedures around private healthcare. Amendment 150 is a tidying-up amendment based on this change, removing private health service providers from the list of listed authorities.

Amendment 151 acts on evidence received during the committee’s Stage 1 consideration regarding the inclusion of the Wales Audit Office in the listed authorities specified in Schedule 3. In evidence, both the Wales Audit Office and the ombudsman said its inclusion would create confusion and frustration, as the Wales Audit Office, of course, doesn't undertake audits; its functions are limited to providing resources to, and monitoring and advising, the auditor general. Therefore, both felt that they couldn't envisage a case that could legitimately call for a review of the Wales Audit Office's actions. The amendment removes the Wales Audit Office from the listed authorities in Schedule 3 to the Bill, meaning that the Wales Audit Office, therefore, will not be a body that can be investigated by the ombudsman. 

Amendment 55: this amendment removes provisions restated from the 2005 Act that provide an unnecessary restriction on the power to add persons to the list of listed authorities in Schedule 3. The amendment means that a single test will apply to regulations that add a person as a listed authority, and the test will be whether adding a person would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly.

Thank you. Thank you for everybody's responses. As I indicated, we welcome and support the fact that community councils are already included within the definition of local authorities. This probing amendment was entirely focused on the practicality and deliverability of the provisions relating to the burden put on smaller community councils, some of whom we know are already struggling to comply with the current duties that they have. I'd be grateful if the Member in charge, if I do now withdraw this, would agree to at least have some dialogue on this, either to improve our understanding or see whether further minor tweaks might address the concerns.

11:05

Well, I'm not going to say that I won't talk to you, but I honestly believe that the flexibility's there already. But, certainly, I'm happy to discuss.

Okay. Is the committee content for amendment 226 to be withdrawn? Yes. Okay. Then amendment 226 is withdrawn.

Tynnwyd gwelliant 226 yn ôl gyda chaniatâd y pwyllgor.

Amendment 226 withdrawn by leave of the committee.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 218 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 218 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 218. The question is that amendment 218 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 218 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 219 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 219 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 219. The question is that amendment 219 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 219 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 220 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 220 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 220. The question is that amendment 220 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 220 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 150 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 150 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 150. The question is that amendment 150 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 150 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 221 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 221 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 221. The question is that amendment 221 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 221 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 151 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 151 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 151. The question is that amendment 151 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 151 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 55 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 55 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 55. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 55 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 183 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 183 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 183. The question is that amendment 183 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 183 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 184 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 184 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 184. The question is that amendment 184 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 184 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 19: Egwyddorion Nolan (Gwelliant 223)
Group 19: Nolan Principles (Amendment 223)

Group 19 relates to the Nolan principles. The lead and only amendment in the group is amendment 223 in the name of Mark Isherwood. I call on Mark Isherwood to move and speak to amendment 223.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 223 (Mark Isherwood).

Amendment 223 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Thank you. Amendment 223 ensures that the ombudsman can view every complaint he receives against a listed authority through the prism of the Nolan principles. This amendment serves to highlight something that may be missing from the Bill’s ethos as well as the scrutiny of public authorities as a whole. While the ombudsman is currently able to investigate cases that have lines of demarcation, such as alleged maladministration, alleged failure in a relevant service provided by a listed authority or an alleged failure by a listed authority to provide a relevant service, there is little to determine how the behaviour of public authorities themselves can be monitored within the course of a complaint. There is currently only one piece of Welsh legislation that refers to the Nolan principles in their entirety. The Conduct of Members (Principles) (Wales) Order 2011 does outline the Nolan principles, but this only applies to the conduct of elected local authority members in Wales.  It is therefore concerning that there may be complaints that deal with a breach of the principles but currently fall outside the apparent scope of the ombudsman’s remit. While the ombudsman can also view the Nolan principles as overriding, he's unable to hold public bodies to account via the principles, as evidenced within correspondence I have received from a member of the public, in which the ombudsman states, quote: 

'I recognise that you have framed your complaint with reference to the Nolan principles but the Ombudsman, whilst obviously recognising that adherence to these principles is necessary for higher standards in public services, would not, given his role and their general nature, use them to determine complaints about public bodies.'

In another piece of correspondence, the ombudsman said:

'So I hope this provides an explanation of our approach and the context in which we operate. It is not that Nolan is inapplicable, more that our interest is in ensuring administrative justice to the people of Wales is not best served by simply restricting or satisfying ourselves by these overriding principles alone.'

Now this, we believe, seems to be a contradiction in terms. The Welsh Government also abides by the Nolan principles, as do elected members of public office. Publicly employed individuals may also be accountable to Nolan principles, but there is no recourse for complainants to use the principles other than through the expensive and cumbersome route of judicial review. Furthermore, the Nolan principles are summed up as follows.

The ombudsman provides no alternative set of principles. Yet, in judging issues such as good standards of administration to determine complaints about public bodies, it is important to judge against an accepted standard of reference. The Nolan principles provide that standard. Among other things, they meet the criteria of law. Produced by the UK Government Committee on Standards in Public Life, they set a UK-wide benchmark. They apply to all in public life—officials and elected representatives. They're endorsed by the Welsh Government, not least in a statutory instrument, and they're endorsed by the standards committee of Welsh councils.

The ombudsman states that the Nolan principles are 'general', but they're not. Principles are guides; they're not intended to be detailed instructions. The Nolan principles are very clear and specifically designed to be relevant to the public sector. It could even be argued that the Bill before us has been itself partially based on the Nolan principles of public life, including selflessness, integrity, accountability, openness and leadership. From widening public access to the ombudsman’s complaints process, to having a model complaints-handling procedure—as referenced by the ombudsman himself in evidence—it is clear that the strands of Nolan run through the fabric of the Bill’s intent, as well as its application to the ombudsman’s investigations of listed authorities.

At its heart, this Bill is centred on the citizen and the complaints process they have recourse to. However, it appears that there is a gap in how this serves to improve the behaviour of public authorities in relation to the Nolan principles. It is of note that the Finance Committee has already considered the Nolan principles in relation to the ombudsman’s investigations and, therefore, it would be of use to learn the reasoning behind refusing to place the principles firmly on the face of the Bill and firmly within the ombudsman’s investigations.   

11:10

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm absolutely certain that the Nolan principles will be like a stick of rock through the person spec and the job description of the public services ombudsman as well as being part of the job description of anybody holding public office. I don't understand how bodies can be adherent to the Nolan principles, because bodies—it's the individuals who exercise authority who have to adhere to the Nolan principles, not the bodies themselves. So, I wonder why you think this is a necessary amendment. And it'd be interesting to hear from the Minister and the Member in charge, because I just think this in the wrong place. It seems to me all public bodies have to adhere to Nolan principles, including the public services ombudsman, and why it would be in a Bill about the way in which the ombudsman operates is confusing to me.

Thank you, Chair. This amendment would require the ombudsman to consider the Nolan principles when undertaking its functions in relation to a listed authority. The Nolan principles set out the behaviours expected of people who hold public office. They set out clear expectations about conduct and how people are expected to contribute to delivering public services. The Nolan principles apply to individuals in public office and not to organisations. The principles focus on behaviour and culture rather than processes, and they are enshrined in the relevant codes of conduct for the behaviour of individuals in public service.

The ombudsman investigates service failure and maladministration. This focus ensures that they comment on the actions of an authority rather than giving a view on individuals, except in the ombudsman's role in relation to the councillor code of conduct. This allows the ombudsman to retain the trust of public bodies and the public as an impartial independent complaints handler and regulator. Adding the Nolan principles as a separate set of criteria against which the ombudsman must consider their investigations would create confusion over what is a clear role and a potential duplication in their responsibilities. So, I would urge Members not to support this amendment.

Thank you, Chair. This amendment places a duty on the ombudsman to have regard to how a listed authority has had regard to the Nolan principles. I'm struggling with it, to be honest. It isn't clear what the ombudsman, for example, is intended to do if he reaches any conclusions as to whether a listed authority has had regard to the Nolan principles. As we know, they apply seven principles to anyone who works as a public officeholder. This includes people who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in, amongst others, the civil service, local government, health, education, social and care services. The principles also apply to all those in other sectors that deliver public services, and I therefore believe that an onus already exists on listed authorities to have regard to the Nolan principles, and it's not the ombudsman’s role to monitor this.

The ombudsman’s role is to investigate whether a person has suffered, or may in future suffer, injustice or hardship. It's not the ombudsman’s job to investigate whether public authorities are complying with general principles of selflessness and leadership, et cetera. For example, if the ombudsman concludes that the Welsh Government has not had proper regard to the principle of openness but that no person has suffered injustice or hardship, then what's the ombudsman supposed to do?

So, for those reasons, I can't support this amendment. I certainly wouldn't consider putting it on the face of the Bill. I might consider referring to the Nolan principles in the explanatory memorandum, if that would be helpful, but as this amendment stands I will not be supporting it. 

11:15

Thank you. I think the key points raised in response were that the Nolan principles do apply to all in public life, whether officials or elected representatives, but, under the remit of the ombudsman currently, he can accept complaints against elected members, but not consider the conduct of officials when determining complaints about public bodies. And, as I stated in a quote directly from the ombudsman, he

'would not, given his role and their general nature, use'

these principles

'to determine complaints about public bodies.'

So, it's not about the applying of Nolan principles to public bodies, but about being able to apply the Nolan principles to determine complaints about public bodies, as does happen with elected members, and I'm sure we're all aware—certainly, I am—of cases where complaints involving elected members have been accepted, investigated and determined by the ombudsman. Given that Nolan is so important within the complaints process, it would be worthwhile if this could be discussed further with the Member in charge, possibly with the ombudsman, and see if a compromise needs to be reached, and that, rather than having the principles on the face of the Bill, as the Member in charge suggests, a commitment to including them within the model complaints handing procedure for listed authorities, or, as the Member in charge suggests, otherwise, might be a way to take this forward, in which case we withdraw. 

Is the committee content for amendment 223 to be withdrawn? Yes. Then amendment 223 is withdrawn. 

Tynnwyd gwelliant 223 yn ôl gyda chaniatâd y pwyllgor.

Amendment 223 withdrawn by leave of the committee.

Grŵp 20: Digolledu (Gwelliant 224)
Group 20: Compensation (Amendment 224)

Group 20 relates to compensation. The lead and only amendment in the group is amendment 224 in the name of Mark Isherwood. I call on Mark Isherwood to move and speak to amendment 224. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 224 (Mark Isherwood).

Amendment 224 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Thank you. This amendment introduces a direct power for the ombudsman to recommend financial redress on the face of the Bill. The ombudsman has directly requested this power to be included to shield his office from potential legal proceedings. His reasoning is as follows.

When the ombudsman considers that a person has suffered injustice as a result of maladministration or service failure, he or she makes recommendations that are intended to return the person or their family to a position they would have been in if the maladministration or service failure had not happened. The ombudsman’s recommendations may include a wide range of actions that the ombudsman considers the public body should take, including the payment of financial redress to the person aggrieved.

As the ombudsman has wide discretion to make any recommendation to remedy injustice he considers appropriate, he often recommends the payment of financial redress if it is appropriate in the circumstances. Such a recommendation will often sit alongside other recommendations aimed at preventing any systemic failures identified from happening again. This has been the approach of the office of the Public Sector Ombudsman for Wales since its establishment in 2006. 

Where the ombudsman makes a recommendation to pay financial redress either in a report or to reach a settlement in any case, section 34 of the 2005 Act, and the Bill, authorise public bodies to make a payment to compensate a person aggrieved in respect of a matter that the ombudsman has considered. Whilst section 34 does not directly provide the ombudsman with a power to award financial redress, it does therefore authorise public bodies to spend public money to compensate a person if the ombudsman considers this to be appropriate.

Generally, complainants who approach the ombudsman are primarily seeking answers to what has happened to a family member or in relation to their own treatment, as opposed to seeking purely financial compensation that is available through the courts. The ombudsman has an important role in ensuring they have access to justice as an alternative to the courts. Other ombudsmen in the UK have recently faced legal challenges in the courts in relation to financial redress recommendations they have made, such as Miller and Howarth v. Health Service Commissioner for England (2018) and the application by JR55 for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) (2016). To avoid any similar legal challenge in Wales an amendment to section 34 that specifically provides the ombudsman with a direct power to award financial redress would put the matter beyond any doubt in Wales. It would ensure that the ombudsman is able to continue to provide financial redress if he considers this to be appropriate when an individual has suffered injustice as a result of any failings by a public body. Such an amendment would also assist the ombudsman in resisting any similar legal challenge in Wales that could involve lengthy and costly legal proceedings such as those faced by ombudsmen in England and Northern Ireland. 

The ombudsman considers that any legal challenges have the potential to limit his ability to provide just and fair remedies for citizens in Wales. In view of the current wording of section 34 of the 2005 Act and the ombudsman’s wide discretion to make recommendations, the ombudsman considers that any such challenge would be at odds with the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005. However, an amendment giving the ombudsman a direct power to award financial redress would place the matter beyond any doubt and would protect the office from legal challenge, such as that experienced in England and Northern Ireland.

11:20

I'd just like to explore this, because, clearly, it shouldn't be possible for the ombudsman to insist that a particular sum of money should be paid. Surely the authority complained against has to have some discretion as to whether that full amount should be as recommended. As the ombudsman already makes recommendations for compensation, I'm surprised that this clause is necessary, but I'm interested to hear from the person taking forward the Bill.

Thank you, Chair. The Bill as drafted, as in the current legislation, affords the ombudsman a wide discretion to make recommendations following their investigations. The ombudsman currently exercises this power, including to recommend compensation payments be made. Any provision in this Bill that specifies types of recommendation the ombudsman is entitled to make would introduce a presumption that the ombudsman needs specific powers to do so. This amendment would not provide the ombudsman with a new power to recommend compensation be made, and could potentially lead to confusion around what other recommendations the ombudsman can make.

I support the ombudsman's wide discretion to make appropriate recommendations to listed authorities based on their investigations, and as such would ask the committee not to support this amendment today.

Thank you, Chair. I agree: the ombudsman can already make such recommendations as part of his investigations into listed authorities. In fact, in a very recent public interest report published by the ombudsman, the ombudsman points to an example where a local health board offered the person aggrieved financial compensation as a result of the ombudsman's findings. Also, the ombudsman has the power, under both Parts 3 and 5 of the Bill, to take any action the ombudsman thinks appropriate with a view to resolving the matter. Now, that's a very broad power that would allow the ombudsman to recommend a listed authority compensates a person.

The Member bringing forward this particular amendment referred to the case of Miller v. Health Service Commissioner for England. The Miller case doesn't restrict the ombudsman from recommending compensation where it's appropriate to do so, and the Miller case, of course, was about the powers of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, who operates under different legislation.

And for the assertion that it would provide the ombudsman with a direct power to award financial compensation, the amendment doesn't say that. The amendment says that it gives the power to the ombudsman to recommend paying compensation, and I think that's an important distinction. But as I say, it's one that I believe is already within the gift of the ombudsman as the legislation stands. So, for those reasons, I don't think that this amendment is required.

11:25

Thank you. With respect, I think the responses have somewhat missed the point. With equivalent discretionary powers to make recommendations in other parts of the UK, ombudsmen have still found themselves subject to legal challenge that has involved high cost and time resource to address. And all the ombudsman in Wales seeks to do is avoid exposing his office to a similar circumstance here, not to broaden his power or turn his discretionary power into a mandatory power. 

In the Miller and Howarth case, Justice Lewis found that ombudsman was entitled to recommend a payment of financial compensation. They also noted that the power to award financial compensation was not for the court to decide upon, but the courts discussed that the real complaint was whether a complainant who wants financial compensation should seek that as a remedy in legal proceedings, unless unreasonable for the complainant to have to resort to the same. It was discussed that if the complainant is primarily seeking financial redress, it points to a legal remedy being appropriate, but if the person is primarily seeking an apology or systematic change, it points to a legal remedy being inappropriate. However, this is a sliding scale, whereby all the circumstances of the person, including financial remedy, should be considered.

In other words, the court upheld the ombudsman decision, applied appropriately through the discretionary powers available to them, but the ombudsman, nonetheless, had to put the time, effort and resource into defending that case in the courts. Therefore, so that the Welsh public services ombudsman is not exposed to a situation in which they have to allocate time and resource to prove that the award of financial redress is appropriate, his existing power should be confirmed on the face of the Bill to place this beyond any doubt, and protect him and his office from the sort of legal proceedings we've now seen conducted elsewhere. 

Okay The question is that amendment 224 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, a Member has objected. We will therefore take a vote by show of hands. May I ask that Members clearly raise their hands and keep their hands raised until the count has been completed? So, the question is that amendment 224 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. Any abstentions? So, with regard to amendment 224, there voted in favour two, against six. So, amendment 224 is therefore not agreed.  

Gwelliant 224: O blaid: 2, Yn erbyn: 6, Ymatal: 0

Gwrthodwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 224: For: 2, Against: 6, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 185 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 185 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Group 21—. Sorry, I move amendment 185. The question is that amendment 185 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 185 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 21: Egwyddorion ynghylch ymdrin â chwynion (Gwelliannau 56, 57, 58, 59)
Group 21: Complaints-handling principles (Amendments 56, 57, 58, 59)

Group 21 relates to complaints-handling principles. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 56 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 56 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 56 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 56 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd, and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in this group. 

Thank you, Chair. This group of amendments are all linked to Part 4 of the Bill, in respect of the complaints-handling process. Amendment 56 changes the procedure in relation to the ombudsman’s statement of principles. The amendment requires that the first statement of principles be laid before the Assembly and be subject to a process similar to the negative resolution, in that the Assembly has 40 days to resolve not to approve the statement of principles, in a similar way to the process I described earlier in relation to amendment 12 relating to publishing own-initiative criteria. This procedure reflects a better balance between the ombudsman's freedom to draft the statement of principles and the Assembly's ability, of course, to reject the statement of principles if it feels that is necessary. 

If the ombudsman subsequently wishes to revise the statement of principles in a material way, then the Assembly procedure will apply all over again to the revised statement of principles. If amendment 56 is agreed, then amendments 57 and 58 remove a reference to a subsection that is no longer needed in the Bill, and amendment 59 changes subparagraph 12 of section 35 to reflect that the ombudsman is able to carry out investigations under section 3, and own-initiative investigations under section 4. This means that listed authorities will be required to have complaints-handling procedures. That is, that that's there to deal with matters that the ombudsman can investigate under the whole of Part 3.

11:30

Anything to add, Llyr? Llyr, do you wish, then, to proceed to a vote on amendment 56?

The question is that amendment 56 be agreed. No. [Objection.] Oh, you object, Mark? Okay. We will then proceed to a vote. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed. Would those in favour please raise your hands? Okay. And those against. And there are no abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 56, there voted in favour six, against two. Therefore, amendment 56 is agreed. 

Gwelliant 56: O blaid: 6, Yn erbyn: 2, Ymatal: 0

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 56: For: 6, Against: 2, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been agreed

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 57 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 57 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 57. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 57 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 58 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 58 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 58. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 58 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 59 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 59 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 59. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 59 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 22: Gweithdrefnau enghreifftiol ar gyfer ymdrin â chwynion (Gwelliannau 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72)
Group 22: Model complaints-handling procedures (Amendments 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72)

Group 22 relates to model complaints-handling procedures. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 60 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 60 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 60 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 60 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd, and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in this group. 

Thank you, Chair. Amendment 60 replaces a similar provision that is deleted by amendment 72. So, amendment 72 deletes section 41, and amendment 60 then places a duty on the ombudsman to ensure that model complaints-handling procedures do not create a conflict for listed authorities, including ensuring that duties imposed are within the powers of the listed authority, and that model CHPs, complaints-handling procedures, don't conflict with legislation, codes, guidance, schemes et cetera that apply to a listed authority, and these requirements also apply should a model CHP be revised. 

Amendment 60 reflects recommendation 5 of this committee's report at Stage 1. It confirms that model CHPs cannot conflict with any legislation that applies to the listed authority, and it cannot conflict with any code, guidance, scheme or any other document that applies to a listed authority as well. Amendment 61 requires a listed authority to submit its CHP to the ombudsman within six months of the ombudsman revising a model CHP. This will allow the ombudsman to see how listed authorities have updated CHPs as a result of changes to the model. 

Amendment 62 clarifies what happens when the ombudsman withdraws a model CHP. Namely, the ombudsman must inform each listed authority that the CHP will be withdrawn, and when it will be withdrawn. Additionally, the amendment specifies that section 37(1) ceases to have effect, and 37(3) ceases to apply when the CHP is withdrawn.

Amendment 63 requires listed authorities to submit their CHPs to the ombudsman within six months, rather than submitting a description of the CHPs. Amendments 65, 66, 68 and 70 are linked to amendment 63. If amendment 63 is agreed, the Bill will no longer refer to a description of a CHP. Therefore, amendments 65, 66, 68 and 70 remove reference to a description of a CHP.

Section 37, related to the specification of listed authorities, and amendment 64 clarifies what happens when the ombudsman changes the specification as to which listed authority a model CHP is relevant.

Amendment 67 provides further detail around the procedure that applies when the ombudsman declares that the CHP of a listed authority does not comply with the model CHP or the statement of principles. If the ombudsman makes such a declaration, he must give notice to the listed authority and publish his declaration. The listed authority must revise its complaints-handling procedure within two months. The amendment also clarifies that the ombudsman can withdraw a declaration, and the procedure that applies to such a withdrawal.

Amendment 69 simply clarifies the scope of section 39. Section 39 concerns only the time limits contained in sections 37(3) and 38(5) in terms of submitting a CHP, not everything contained in those two sections.

The purpose of amendment 71 is to clarify that the ombudsman cannot require a listed authority to co-operate with the ombudsman under this section if the listed authority does not have the power to co-operate, or if co-operating would be inconsistent with any legislation that applies to the listed authority. The effect of this amendment is that the ombudsman will have to be aware of how a requirement to co-operate under this section will affect listed authorities.

11:35

Thank you. Legal advice we've received from Assembly lawyers says this amendment just ensures the listed body is not made subject to a legal duty that it cannot comply with under the complaints-handling procedure, because it doesn't have the legal power to do so. As you know, most of the listed authorities are public bodies, and therefore creatures of statute with specific powers. They cannot act beyond those powers or they will be acting ultra vires, or beyond their power, and that would be subject to judicial review challenge. They couldn't identify any specific examples. So, on amendment 60, I'd be grateful if the Member in charge could provide an example that they or his committee had in mind when drafting this amendment. I'm advised there's nothing from a legal perspective that is controversial about this amendment—simply clarification sought over the need and what examples exist to justify that need.

As regards amendments 61, 63, 65, 66, 67 and 68, providing specific time limits for local authorities to abide by when returning model complaint-handling procedures, as I noted earlier, regarding amendment 226, there are continued concerns about the ability of community councils to keep up with their current statutory duties. Therefore, grateful if the Member in charge could advise what reassurances they have obtained or will obtain that community councils and the ombudsman's office have the capacity to conduct or carry out the complaints-handling procedures that will be required by these amendments.

Thank you, Chair. I'm very grateful for the work that the Finance Committee has done in partnership with the Welsh Government to ensure that we can support the Bill, and these amendments, particularly amendment 60, are a helpful assurance that complaints-handling processes set by the Assembly, including those set out in law, must always take precedence and that the onus is on the ombudsman to ensure that their procedures are aligned with them.

Serious concerns were raised during Stage 1 scrutiny about the way in which model complaints-handling procedures would interact with those processes set by the Assembly, with a particular focus on the Putting Things Right process in the NHS. In the original drafting, a model complaints process could be applied to an organisation, but only to the extent it didn't conflict with existing complaints processes. This would have led to confusion at the listed authority's legal risk about the extent to which a body would have to follow different procedures. With potentially conflicting requirements about how complaint should be handled, this would have been more confusing for complainants trying to understand how their complaints should be dealt with. These amendments and this part of the Bill are intended to improve complaints handling across the public sector in Wales, and it's hoped that, as a result, fewer complaints will need to go as far as the ombudsman to be resolved. This change should help achieve this aim by providing greater clarity about each organisation's obligations.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Well, the Minister has referred to the NHS Putting Things Right guidance, which is, effectively, a statutory complaints-handling procedure. So, this amendment shifts the onus onto the public services ombudsman and away from the listed authority, which would be compromised. So, clearly, the ombudsman would need to be aware of the risk of creating that conflict, and that's what we're trying to clarify here. And, of course, we're doing it in response to a recommendation from this committee asking us to address that particular point. 

11:40

Okay. So, Llyr, do you wish, then, to proceed to a vote on amendment 60? 

The question is that amendment 60 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 60 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 61 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 61 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 61. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. We will then move to a vote. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. Any abstentions? In relation to amendment 61, there voted in favour six, against none, abstentions two. Therefore, amendment 61 is agreed.

Gwelliant 61: O blaid: 6, Yn erbyn: 0, Ymatal: 2

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 61: For: 6, Against: 0, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been agreed

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 62 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 62 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 62. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will, therefore, move to a vote. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed. Would those in favour please raise their hands? Those against. Any abstentions? In relation to amendment 62, there voted in favour six, against none, abstentions two. Therefore, amendment 62 is agreed. 

Gwelliant 62: O blaid: 6, Yn erbyn: 0, Ymatal: 2

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 62: For: 6, Against: 0, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been agreed

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 63 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 63 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 63. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] The question is that amendment 63 be agreed. Would those in favour please raise your hands? Those against. Those abstaining. On amendment 63, there voted in favour six, against none, abstentions two. Amendment 63 is, therefore, agreed. 

Gwelliant 63: O blaid: 6, Yn erbyn: 0, Ymatal: 2

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 63: For: 6, Against: 0, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been agreed

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 64 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 64 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 64. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 64 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 65 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 65 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 65. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will, therefore, move to a vote. With regard to amendment 65, would those in favour please raise your hands? And those against. And those abstaining. In relation to amendment 65, there vote in favour six, against none, abstentions two. Therefore, amendment 65 is agreed. 

Gwelliant 65: O blaid: 6, Yn erbyn: 0, Ymatal: 2

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 65: For: 6, Against: 0, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been agreed

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 186 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 186 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 186. The question is that amendment 186 be agreed. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 186 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 66 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 66 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 66. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will move to a vote in relation to amendment 66. The question is that that amendment be agreed. Will those in favour please show your hands? Would those against please raise your hands? And any abstentions? On amendment 66, there voted in favour six, against none, abstentions two. Therefore, amendment 66 is agreed. 

Gwelliant 66: O blaid: 6, Yn erbyn: 0, Ymatal: 2

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 66: For: 6, Against: 0, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been agreed

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 67 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 67 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 67. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will move to a vote in relation to amendment 67. Will those in favour please raise your hands? And those against? And those abstaining? In relation to amendment 67, there voted in favour six, against none, abstentions two. Therefore, amendment 67 is agreed. 

Gwelliant 67: O blaid: 6, Yn erbyn: 0, Ymatal: 2

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 67: For: 6, Against: 0, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been agreed

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 68 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 68 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 68. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will move to a vote with regard to amendment 68. Will those in favour please raise your hands? And those against. And those abstaining. In relation to amendment 68, there voted in favour six, none against, two abstentions. Therefore, amendment 68 is agreed.

11:45

Gwelliant 68: O blaid: 6, Yn erbyn: 0, Ymatal: 2

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 68: For: 6, Against: 0, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been agreed

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 69 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 69 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 69. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we will move to a vote in relation to amendment 69. Would those in favour please raise your hands? And those against. And any abstentions. In relation to amendment 69, there voted in favour six, none against and two abstentions. Therefore, amendment 69 is agreed.

Gwelliant 69: O blaid: 6, Yn erbyn: 0, Ymatal: 2

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 69: For: 6, Against: 0, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been agreed

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 70 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 70 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 70. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we will move to a vote. In relation to amendment 70, would those in favour please raise your hands? And those against. And those abstaining. Therefore, in relation to amendment 70, there voted six in favour, none against, two abstentions. Therefore, amendment 70 is agreed.

Gwelliant 70: O blaid: 6, Yn erbyn: 0, Ymatal: 2

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 70: For: 6, Against: 0, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been agreed

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 71 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 71 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 71. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 71 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 72 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 72 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 72. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 72 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 73 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 73 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 73. The question is that amendment 73 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 73 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 74 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 74 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 74. The question is that amendment 74 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 74 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 187 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 187 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 187. The question is that amendment 187 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 187 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 75 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 75 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 75. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 75 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 76 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 76 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 76. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 76 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 77 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 77 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 77. The question is that amendment 77 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 77 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 78 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 78 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 78. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 78 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 79 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 79 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 79. The question is that amendment 79 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 79 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 80 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 80 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 80. The question is that amendment 80 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 80 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 81 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 81 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 81. The question is that amendment 81 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 81 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 188 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 188 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 188. The question is that amendment 188 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 188 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 82 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 82 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 82. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 82 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 189 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 189 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 189. The question is that amendment 189 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 189 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 83 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 83 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 83. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 83 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 84 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 84 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 84. The question is that amendment 84 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 84 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 85 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 85 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 85. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 85 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 86 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 86 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 86. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 86 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 87 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 87 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 87. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 87 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 190 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 190 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 190. The question is that amendment 190 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 190 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 191 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 191 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 191. The question is that amendment 191 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 191 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 88 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 88 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 88. The question is that amendment 88 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 88 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 192 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 192 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 192. The question is that amendment 192 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 192 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 193 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 193 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 193. The question is that amendment 193 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 193 is agreed.

11:50

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 194 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 194 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 194. The question is that amendment 194 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 194 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 195 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 195 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 195. The question is that amendment 195 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 195 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 89 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 89 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 89. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 89 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 90 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 90 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 90. The question is that amendment 90 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 90 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 91 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 91 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 91. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 91 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 196 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 196 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 196. The question is that amendment 196 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 196 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 197 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 197 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 197. The question is that amendment 197 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 197 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 198 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 198 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 198. The question is that amendment 198 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 198 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 92 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 92 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 92. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 92 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 93 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 93 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 93. The question is that amendment 93 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 93 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 94 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 94 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 94. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 94 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 95 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 95 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 95. The question is that amendment 95 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 95 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 96 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 96 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 96. The question is that amendment 96 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 96 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 97 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 97 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 97. The question is the moment 97 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 97 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 98 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 98 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 98. The question is that amendment 98 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 98 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 99 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 99 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 99. The question is that amendment 99 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 99 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 199 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 199 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 199. The question is that amendment 199 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 199 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 100 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 100 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 100. The question is that amendment 100 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 100 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 200 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 200 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 200. The question is that amendment 200 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 200 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 101 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 101 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 101. The question is that amendment 101 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 101 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 102 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 102 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 102. The question is that amendment 102 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 102 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 103 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 103 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 103. The question is that amendment 103 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 103 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 104 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 104 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 104. The question is that amendment 104 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 104 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 201 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 201 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 201. The question is that amendment 201 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 201 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 105 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 105 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move the amendment 105. The question is that amendment 105 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 105 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 202 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 202 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 202. The question is that amendment 202 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 202 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 203 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 203 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 203. The question is that amendment 203 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 203 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 106 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 106 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 106. The question is that amendment 106 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 106 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 204 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 204 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 204. The question is that amendment 204 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 204 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 107 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 107 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

11:55

I move amendment 107. The question is that amendment 107 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 107 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 108 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 108 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 108. The question is that amendment 108 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 108 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 109 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 109 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 109. The question is that amendment 109 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 109 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 205 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 205 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 205. The question is that amendment 205 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 205 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 206 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 206 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 206. The question is that amendment 206 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 206 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 23: Diffiniad o ofal lliniarol (Gwelliant 225)
Group 23: Definition of palliative care (Amendment 225)

The next group is group 23 and relates to the definition of palliative care. The lead and only amendment in the group is amendment 225 in the name of Mark Isherwood. I call on Mark Isherwood to move and speak to amendment 225. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 225 (Mark Isherwood).

Amendment 225 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Thank you, Chair. Amendment 225 broadens the definition of palliative care to include both World Health Organization and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines by inserting a new section after section 62 in conjunction with palliative care service definitions.

Within its evidence to this committee at Stage 1 of the Bill, it was clear that Hospice UK wished to have more of a rounded definition of palliative care on the face of the Bill. At present, the term ‘palliative care’ is not defined on the face of the Bill and rather consigned to the explanatory memorandum under an explanation of section 63. However, even this is narrowly defined, stating that,

‘it is generally used to describe the alleviation of pain of those with terminal conditions, the relief of pain without dealing with the cause of the condition and the general improvement in the quality of life of persons with life-limiting conditions.’ 

However, this is far too narrow to determine what palliative care actually entails, what the people working in this sector day in, day out actually do, and what the patients and families receive in support. While the explanatory memorandum goes further and mentions the WHO and NICE guidelines, there's only reference to the ombudsman providing weighting to the definitions. However, the phrasing of these guidelines as outlined under the explanatory memorandum, according to Hospice UK, is not strong enough to provide clarity on who is included within the Bill’s scope.

Hospice UK further stated that they wanted to ensure that everybody who is accessing care from a hospice has recourse to the ombudsman. In connection with a lack of definition of what palliative care actually means, section 43(2) links palliative care services to funding, which is in turn limited in terms of the understanding of what palliative care is, such as clinical and physical provision. Hospice UK instead has a much broader definition of palliative care, including spiritual, psychological, emotional and social care. I know many of you have links with your local hospices and you know that to be the case from your personal engagement. Therefore, those who access hospice services may also receive specialist care such as counselling or complementary therapies.

Although there's been consideration at Stage 1 over whether section 43(2) should be deleted in its entirety so that the Bill would automatically include all palliative care service providers, this amendment provides a compromise. Instead, by placing World Health Organization and NICE guidelines about what constitutes palliative care, and ensuring that the ombudsman has regard to those definitions, we believe that this will address the concerns outlined by Hospice UK, Hospices Cymru.

We also note that there will be arguments that claim that leaving the term ‘palliative care’ undefined on the face of the Bill could serve the same purpose. However, both the World Health Organization and NICE guidance will continue to evolve and serve to provide the best and most current definition of what palliative care is. Furthermore, the explanatory memorandum itself refers to the WHO and NICE guidelines, which will doubtless be the starting point for the ombudsman when determining what constitutes palliative care. Instead, this amendment places a duty on the ombudsman to consider relevant guidance that would widen out the definition of palliative care as a matter of course to reflect what it truly encompasses in its entirety. Thank you.

12:00

I'm unclear as to why the existing clause isn't sufficient. It seems to me it's quite all-encompassing. It's clear that anybody providing a service, including palliative care, needs to be subject to the purview of the ombudsman. I'm unclear as to why we would want to complicate it by including this amendment. 

Thank you, Chair. Amendment 225 would introduce a requirement for the ombudsman to consider specific definitions of palliative care. Palliative care is not otherwise defined on the face of the Bill. As a result of this, it is up to the ombudsman to reasonably use their discretion in defining palliative care. This leaves them the flexibility to evolve with future understanding of palliative care. I would expect the ombudsman to give due regard to appropriate guidance. This would include the most up-to-date definitions from leading bodies in this sector. However, I don't think it's good legislative practice here to specify particular bodies implicitly giving their definitions precedence over any other and over any evolving future understanding of what palliative care means. For example, this would place the WHO and NICE definitions above that of the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care. It would require the ombudsman to give regard to these definitions above the thinking of any new bodies that emerge to lead best practice in the sector. I'm happy to support Mark Isherwood's intention that the ombudsman should follow best practice in defining palliative care. I want the ombudsman to be driving best practice in public services across Wales. However, I do not think this amendment is the right way to achieve that.

Yes, thank you, Chair. The term 'palliative care' was inserted into the 2005 Act by the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. So, this Bill copies that approach, and it's not the aim of this Bill to interfere with such definitions. The explanatory notes to the Bill, as has been mentioned, which reflect as well the explanatory notes to the 2005 Act, set out further information about what is expected to be captured by the term 'palliative care', and the explanatory notes make express reference to giving weight to the WHO definition and the NICE guidelines.

In any event, the amendment gives the ombudsman a discretionary power, not a duty, to consider WHO and NICE guidance, but the ombudsman already has that discretionary power. As the explanatory notes to the Bill say, and I quote,

'it is anticipated that the Ombudsman will give...weight to the definition of "palliative care" that is used by the World Health Organisation...Weight is also likely to be given to the...(NICE) definition'.

Now, at Stage 1, evidence from Hospice UK said that WHO and NICE encompassed the holistic approach to palliative care, and that's already included in the explanatory memorandum. So, I believe this amendment isn't necessary. It provides a discretionary power to the ombudsman. However, he already has this discretion, and, based on the explanatory notes, as I said, I'd strongly expect the ombudsman to consider the definition and guidance when considering palliative care.

The key issue is that an expectation is not a duty, and a discretionary power is not a duty. In most other contexts, the Welsh Government relies on definitions and guidance from NICE as its template, and although NICE is not binding on the Welsh Government, it's normal for the health Minister to refer to NICE as his core guidance, alongside the Welsh advisory body.

Similarly, the World Health Organization is the leading international body working across the health sectors, and the key concern is that the definition provided is too narrow. It doesn't include the broader holistic requirements—spiritual, psychological, emotional and social care—and yet we all know that this Assembly rightly devotes a lot of its time to considering those matters in other contexts. This is a key element to hospice care; in fact, often it's the thing that extends hospice care beyond simply clinical and physical provision. And the sector, therefore, rightly seeks the inclusion of this on the face of the Bill. The danger, if we don't, is that we could be missing a trick and that people who should be receiving help in the future might not receive it for discretionary reasons or because this is only advisory, and I'm sure we'd all seek to avoid that.

As I state, ironically and almost exceptionally, the bodies we're proposing to apply this to seek this. They seek the wider powers, even though it might mean themselves being investigated, because they believe that this is the right path to follow, not only in their own corporate interests, but, particularly, in the interests of the patients and the families they support.

12:05

Okay. The question is that amendment 225 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, there is an objection. The question, then, is that amendment 225 be agreed. Will all those in favour please raise your hands? Those against. Any abstentions. Okay. With regard to amendment 225, there voted in favour two, against six, no abstentions. Therefore, amendment 225 is not agreed.

Gwelliant 225: O blaid: 2, Yn erbyn: 6, Ymatal: 0

Gwrthodwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 225: For: 2, Against: 6, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 110 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 110 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 110. The question is that amendment 110 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 110 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

As we've now reached 12.06 p.m., I propose that we break for lunch until 1 o'clock and resume at 1 o'clock. The committee will break.

13:00

Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 12:06 a 13:01.

The meeting adjourned between 12:06 and 13:01.

Grŵp 24: Cydweithio ag eraill (Gwelliannau 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 152, 153)
Group 24: Working jointly with others (Amendments 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 152, 153)

Okay. Welcome back, everyone, to this meeting of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, dealing with the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill. We recommence at group 24, which relates to working jointly with others. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 111, in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 111 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 111 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 111 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd, and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment, and the other amendments in this group.

Thank you very much, Chair. The amendments in the group implement recommendation 2 of this committee’s Stage 1 report. Section 65 of the Bill as introduced deals with situations where the ombudsman, when dealing with an investigation, identifies matters that could be subject to examination by the Welsh commissioners, statutory advisers and regulators. Amendment 111 uses the word 'investigation' as shorthand for investigations, examinations and inquiries that could be carried out by the persons specified in section 65.

Amendment 136 goes with amendment 111, in that it sets out what is included within the shorthand use of 'investigation' in the Bill. The effect of this amendment will be that the use of 'investigation' in the Bill captures examinations, inquiries and reviews carried out by other persons, such as the various commissioners that we have here in Wales, and the Welsh Ministers as well. So, this will ensure that the ombudsman and specified persons are clear as to when they can work jointly on matters.

Amendment 112 adds Welsh Ministers to the listing of specified persons where the matter relates to health or social care. This is to ensure that the resulting legislation doesn't depend on the titles and structures of future offices where they relate to health and social care. It also ensures that, when investigating a health or social care matter, the ombudsman must consult, and may work with, Healthcare Inspectorate Wales and the Care Inspectorate Wales, who, of course, investigate on behalf of the Welsh Ministers. Amendment 112 also removes certain persons from the list of specified persons. As introduced, the list included future commissioners, statutory advisers and persons exercising regulatory functions. However, removing these persons provides greater clarity for the ombudsman, while still making sure that the ombudsman can work jointly with the right persons. And, if any person needs to be added to the list of specified persons, then that can be done by regulation, or, of course, if an Assembly Act creates, for example, a new commissioner, then that Act could include the new commissioner as a person who can work with the ombudsman.

Other amendments in this group also provide a clearer and more targeted duty for the ombudsman to inform and consult the various commissioners when a matter could be investigated by the ombudsman and one of the commissioners, or, where the matter relates to health and social care, the Welsh Ministers of course, which in effect means Health Inspectorate Wales and Care Inspectorate Wales.

The Bill as introduced required the ombudsman to inform and consult specified persons where he considered it appropriate to do so. Amendment 113 requires the ombudsman to inform and, where appropriate, consult specified persons when he is undertaking an own-initiative investigation under Parts 3 and 5. This is in response to evidence from this committee during Stage 1 proceedings about the duplication and about relationships with other commissioners.

Amendments 114, 115, 116 and 136 specify these requirements more precisely. Amendment 114 specifies the scope of the powers of the ombudsman to work collaboratively with commissioners. The effect of this is that the ombudsman will be able to work with other commissioners where a complaint, or a matter the ombudsman is considering investigating using the own-initiative power, relates to a matter that one of the commissioners could also investigate. Amendment 115 is consequential upon amendment 114. 

Amendment 116 clarifies the meaning of the reference to 'matter' in subsection (2)(a), meaning it's a reference, of course, to the matter to which the investigation relates. So, that's there for clarity.
Amendment 152 adds a new section to the Care Standards Act 2000. Now, this will ensure that the powers of the children’s commissioner and the ombudsman to work jointly are set out on the face of legislation, rather than leaving it to subordinate legislation. Because there is no longer a power for the Welsh Ministers to make subordinate legislation regarding such joint working, there is no need to set out the Assembly procedure that would apply to such subordinate legislation. Amendment 153 therefore removes reference to the Assembly procedure that would have applied to such subordinate legislation. 

13:05

Thank you, Chair. The committee identified at Stage 1 the importance of the ombudsman being co-ordinated with other regulators when exercising own-initiative powers. I'm grateful to the Member in charge and the Finance Committee that they've included Healthcare Inspectorate Wales and Care Inspectorate Wales in these provisions to ensure that these regulators are captured by the Bill. I fully support the requirement to inform and consult, where appropriate, other regulators before the ombudsman embarks on an own-initiative investigation. This should lead to more efficient and effective regulation and reduce any conflicts or duplication between different authorities and regulators.

I hope this will also ensure that there are no misunderstandings between regulators about whose responsibility it is to investigate a particular concern, whilst also minimising duplication. As HIW and CIW have no separate legal status from the Welsh Ministers, they cannot be explicitly referenced on the face of the Bill. This means that Welsh Ministers must be referenced as the consultee if the inspectorates are to be included. The requirement to consult the Welsh Ministers has been limited to the health and care sectors to ensure that they are captured, but without introducing a wider obligation to consult the Welsh Government in other sectors. I hope this will reassure Members that this is a proportionate duty to ensure that the ombudsman and regulators can be properly co-ordinated.

Finally, the requirement for the ombudsman to consult only if appropriate will act as a safeguard to ensure that HIW and CIW are not consulted about matters that it might be inappropriate for the Welsh Government to comment on.

You're happy with that. And do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 111?

Okay. The question is that amendment 111 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 111 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 112 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 112 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 112. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 112 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 113 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 113 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 113. The question is that amendment 113 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 113 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 114 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 114 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 114. The question is that amendment 114 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 114 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 115 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 115 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 115. The question is that amendment 115 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 115 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 116 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 116 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 116. The question is that amendment 116 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 116 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 25: Datgelu gwybodaeth (Gwelliannau 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123)
Group 25: Disclosure of information (Amendments 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123)

Group 25 relates to disclosure of information. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 117 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 117 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 117 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 117 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd, and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in the group. 

Thank you, Chair. This group of amendments relates to section 68 of the Bill, which is the section dealing with disclosure of information. Amendment 117 applies section 68 to information received in connection with notifications that a provider must send to the ombudsman under section 56. This would mean that information setting out the action the provider has taken, or proposes to take, in response to an ombudsman report, and the period during which the provider proposes to take the action, if not already taken, must not be disclosed, except in circumstances specified elsewhere, in section 68. This amendment would ensure that information contained in notifications received in relation to both investigations of listed authorities and social care and palliative care is protected from disclosure.

Amendment 118 would allow the Auditor General for Wales to share any relevant information with the ombudsman when the auditor general and the ombudsman work together. The amendment ensures that the auditor general is able to disclose that information for the purpose of any of the auditor general’s functions, and not just for the purpose of working with the ombudsman. I brought forward amendment 118 in response to recommendation 7 of this committee’s Stage 1 report, which asked me to consider balancing the protection against the leaking of draft reports and the protection for the auditor general, in order to avoid discouraging the auditor general from engaging with the ombudsman.

Amendment 119 seeks to correct a typographical error.

Amendment 120 clarifies the scope of disclosures that are allowed under section 68. The amendment covers disclosures for the purposes of the ombudsman’s functions under chapters 3 and 4 of Part 3 of the Local Government Act 2000. For example, the amendment clarifies that the ombudsman is able to use information he receives under the Bill in order to make a decision as to whether to investigate local authority members under the Local Government Act 2000.

Amendments 121, 122 and 123 seek to include references to the Data Protection Act 2018, which of course received Royal Assent after the Bill was introduced. The effect of these amendments will be that information about investigations can be disclosed to the Information Commissioner where it appears to the ombudsman that the information relates to either matters the Information Commissioner could investigate under the Data Protection Act or offences, of course, under that Act.

13:10

Okay. Does any other Member wish to speak—any Member wish to speak? No. Minister.

Yes, okay. The question then is that amendment 117 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 117 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 208 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 208 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 208. The question is that amendment 208 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 208 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 118 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 118 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 118. The question is that amendment 118 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 118 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 119 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 119 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 119. The question is that amendment 119 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 119 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 120 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 120 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 120. The question is that amendment 120 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 120 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 121 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 121 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 121. The question is that amendment 121 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 121 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 122 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 122 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 122. The question is that amendment 122 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 122 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 123 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 123 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 123. The question is that amendment 123 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 123 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 209 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 209 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 209. The question is that amendment 209 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 209 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 26: Difenwi (Gwelliannau 124, 125, 126, 127, 154)
Group 26: Defamation (Amendments 124, 125, 126, 127, 154)

Group 26 relates to defamation. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 124 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 124 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 124 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 124 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd, and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Thank you, Chair. Amendments 124 to 127 clarify section 70, which deals with protection from defamation claims.

Amendment 124 clarifies that, when a healthcare provider is complying with the duty under section 21 and 22 to publicise an ombudsman report, including a special report, that publication by the healthcare provider is protected from defamation claims. Amendments 125, 126 and 127 clarify that publication of matters by, for example, a listed authority or the ombudsman in connection with a complaint, even where there is no investigation, is protected from defamation claims.

Amendment 154 implements recommendation 8 of this committee’s Stage 1 report. It protects the auditor general from claims for defamation in respect of communications between the auditor general and the ombudsman relating to joint investigations carried out by them both. The effect of this amendment will be that no-one will be able to bring a defamation claim against the auditor general or the Wales Audit Office based on the content of any communication between them where the communication relates to a joint investigation carried out by the auditor general and the ombudsman under the Bill.

13:15

It's purely to clarify. It's obviously been identified as a risk to a health organisation disposing of some information that they could actually potentially end up facing defamation without these amendments. 

Just in response to Huw's comment, of course, a health body might publish a report on its webpage, or anywhere, really, and it's just to protect them from defamation against that, because obviously the content is not of their making, but they are obliged to publish it. 

Okay. The question is that amendment 124 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 124 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 125 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 125 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 125. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 125 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 126 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 126 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 126. The question is that amendment 126 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 126 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 127 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 127 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 127. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 127 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 27: Panel Adolygu Annibynnol (Gwelliannau 229, 230)
Group 27: Independent Review Panel (Amendments 229, 230)

Group 27 relates to an independent review panel. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 229 in the name of Leanne Wood. I call on Leanne Wood to move amendment 229 and speak to her other amendment in the group. Leanne.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 229 (Leanne Wood).

Amendment 229 (Leanne Wood) moved.

Diolch. I again move these amendments on the same basis as I moved the previous amendments on behalf of the leader of Plaid Cymru and the Assembly Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr. 

There is currently no statutory provision, as far as I'm aware, for dealing with complaints against the ombudsman himself. These amendments seek to create a new, independent body called the independent review panel, and it has a dual purpose: firstly to report annually on the ombudsman's performance to the National Assembly, and secondly to review any cases decided by the ombudsman that are referred to it by an aggrieved person. The review panel may scrutinise how the ombudsman has investigated a complaint and assess the merits of any decisions taken. The review panel may make recommendations to the ombudsman to reconsider any issues in relation to a relevant case. 

One of the oldest questions in accountability in quasi-judicial or investigatory organisations is who watches the watchers, or who polices the police. So, there should be a right of complaint against those bodies whose principal aim is to investigate complaints. This is recognised and reflected in terms of the police, the judiciary and regulators such as the Welsh Language Commissioner. This principle is seemingly recognised by the ombudsman himself, who, at his behest, has set up a contract with a third party to review complaints against the performance of the ombudsman's office. However, this is a voluntary arrangement, and it's not intended to consider an aggrieved person's concerns around the merits of a case decision of the ombudsman, only the administrative performance of the office.

The ombudsman also has an advisory panel, but that doesn't necessarily hold the ombudsman to account. Firstly, as the name suggests, this panel is advisory only. It's non-statutory, and it's there to provide advice and support in providing leadership and good governance to the office of the ombudsman.

The policy for complaints against the ombudsman states, and I quote:

'Our management team will regularly consider a summary of all complaints and details of any serious complaints. Complaints about our service are also reported annually to the Ombudsman’s Advisory Panel'.

However, it's not noted in the advisory panel's terms of reference that it is to consider complaints, and, in its 2017-18 annual report, there is no mention of a summary of complaints being presented for discussion at all. 

In addition to these current voluntary and non-statutory mechanisms, there's also the opportunity for those who wish to challenge a decision of the ombudsman through the seeking of a judicial review. However, judicial review isn't always easily available and accessible to citizens. So, these amendments at Stage 2 are therefore presented as a proposed evolution of the current limited accountability and complaint procedures by means of an independent and statutory review panel. 

13:20

I have quite a lot of concern about this proposal, because at the moment the people who scrutinise the public services ombudsman are ourselves. So, through the Public Accounts Committee and through this committee, we have regular scrutiny of the public services ombudsman, and I would have thought that is the appropriate place to do this. It seems to me that an independent review panel is setting up a quango—another organisation where we would be in danger of ourselves getting involved in adjudication of individual complaints, when it is our role to ensure that complaints are being properly investigated and dealt with, and not our role to second guess the outcome of that complaint. So, I have some concerns about this suggested idea. 

I'd echo those concerns, particularly on the basis that there may be a case here for looking at the way that we as Assembly Members scrutinise the ombudsman, but the fact that it's set up within the underpinning legislation of the ombudsman that they're answerable directly to us, so we can not only scrutinise, but we can also, with the consent of the Queen as well, get rid of the ombudsman if we're dissatisfied with performance as well. So, there's a real direct accountability to the citizens' representatives here in the National Assembly. Whilst I can understand this might be to do with the detail of what is put in front of us as Assembly Members, and that would be an interesting additional debate to the role that we have—and I think we can do that within the powers we currently have—putting another level, something that feels like another organisation, on top of that, which will not be directly accountable to us, curiously, well, I think that's moving it away from accountability. 

So, I get the argument—I do get the argument that says we need to have the ombudsman in front of us as he administers these—if this Bill goes forward—new responsibilities, this extension of what he can do there. If this goes through, then he needs to answer to that to us on how he's doing it. But I'm not sure about setting up another organisation to do it. And I particularly like the fact—. And we often talk about this in terms of other functions, not necessarily with ombudsmen, but similar functionaries that we've set up by the Welsh Government as to who they should be answerable to, Welsh Government or to the Assembly—I'm one who would say it should be to the Assembly when these individuals or bodies or organisations are set up, but we've got it already with the ombudsman. 

So, for me, the question is, Leanne, I would say it's not trying to set up another organisation that, in fact, distances it a little bit from what we can scrutinise here—it's let make it work, because the accountability lies now with us within the Assembly. That's my difficulty with what is suggested in here in this amendment. I think it might be something that we'll want to return to subsequently, about how we go forward scrutinising the ombudsman with his new powers and so on.  

Yes. I understand that the ombudsman in statute is accountable to the Assembly, and that is the norm with other ombudsmen's offices in other parts of the UK. I'm also conscious, however, that it's not the Assembly's role or the role of a committee in the Assembly to challenge the ombudsman or his officers over aggrieved persons' concerns regarding investigation of their cases. Without going into any personal detail, I am aware that there have been, in my own experience, many cases where people have been aggrieved persons who feel perversely that the greater volume of complex evidence has sometimes generated perverse outcomes. So, I can understand why that gap might need to be filled, but who is going to oversee appointments? I like the Platonic term, 'Who shall guard the guardians?', used to cover other equivalent terms. What's the cost going to be? Where will that come from? How would we monitor the effectiveness of that body? Where does it begin? But I would be very keen to explore a mechanism, whether it's within the Assembly itself, to drill down on apparent perverse determinations that appear to run counter to evidence. 

13:25

Thank you, Chair. It's only appropriate that, as we debate legislation that aims to expand the powers of the ombudsman, we also consider in parallel the oversight of the ombudsman and the way that the office is scrutinised. The legislation is based on the foundation that the ombudsman is an independent authority trusted to impartially investigate complaints about maladministration and service failure. The ombudsman is appointed by and accountable to the Assembly. 

I can understand the frustrations of those who have not had their complaints upheld by the ombudsman, with no option for appeal other than judicial review. However, I am concerned that the panel proposed in these amendments would create another layer of oversight and bureaucracy with the same level of accountability as the ombudsman, directly to the Assembly, and the route for appeal—judicial review. If the committee is concerned about the level of scrutiny of the ombudsman, I would be happy to contribute to a detailed review of that oversight. 

Any panel created to oversee the ombudsman would be funded at the expense of other public services directly from the Welsh consolidated fund. The panel would need resources to properly scrutinise and adjudicate on complaints escalated to it, but without any formal criteria on which applications it should consider. 

If I were to support this proposal, I would need to be convinced that this layer of regulation would lead to an improvement in public services beyond that which could be achieved by the extra investment. It would also be important to consider what qualifications a member might need to effectively review the ombudsman's decisions and on what criteria those decisions should be challenged. At this stage, I cannot see a compelling case that creating an independent review panel of this nature for the ombudsman would be an effective use of public money.

Thank you, Chair. Leanne described this as evolution. I think it's much more than that; I think it's a significant change in policy. Historically, ombudsmen haven't been subject to review other than by the courts and by the legislatures to which they're accountable. The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales is no exception. In the exercise of his investigatory functions, he is accountable to the Assembly. As Jenny said, we have a Public Accounts Committee, we have a Finance Committee, and this committee in turn scrutinising different aspects of the ombudsman's work, and, of course, he is subject, ultimately, to judicial review by the courts, as we've already heard.

The amendments also allow the independent review panel to investigate complaints itself and to prepare a report on its investigations. This would require the independent review panel to have expert investigators who were able to investigate those matters, and all of this would be funded by the Assembly. It is worth underlining—and I know it's been referred to—that there is an independent review mechanism that the ombudsman’s office has voluntarily put in place as a matter of good practice. Additionally, these amendments would, as we've heard, be costly—costs that would come from the Welsh Consolidated Fund. As the ombudsman is already accountable to the Assembly and to the courts, I believe the likely costs of this approach would outweigh any benefits.

Finally, the creation of an independent review panel would probably require more detailed amendments setting out the powers of the panel and the full procedure that would apply to the panel’s investigations. So, like many others, I remain unconvinced that this is appropriate at this point. 

I thank Members, and I'm sympathetic to some of the points that have been made, but I would like to see this matter explored further if that is possible, and I'm grateful to have the opportunity to have a debate on the record on this suggested approach of ensuring that the accountability of the ombudsman to Welsh citizens and the right of redress, including engagement with the ombudsman himself, goes hand in hand with a substantial increase in the scope of the ombudsman's remit.

I understand that the policy approach in terms of the Bill on the whole isn't to make substantial departures from that of the current 2005 ombudsman legislation. However, perhaps we shouldn't be too confined by what has gone before, and now is the time to have the debate and discuss the possibility of making more far-reaching changes. In terms of the ombudsman's concern about the independence of his office being compromised by this amendment, I'd refer to the fact that the proposed review panel is not intended to overturn a judgment of the ombudsman, but rather to require the ombudsman to give due regard to any recommendations made by the independent review panel and to send a written reply to the aggrieved person and the independent review panel in relation to such recommendations.

Also, the members of the panel would be appointed and paid for by the Assembly rather than Welsh Ministers. Again, that's important to guarantee independence. In terms of the possibility of vexatious complaints under the proposed panel that this amendment provides for, a new section 7(7) would read, and I quote,

'Following a request under subsection (6), the Independent Review Panel may investigate and prepare a report with respect to the matter referred if it decides that it is reasonable to do so.'

Therefore, there would be no specific duty on the panel to review complaints made to it if they appeared to be unreasonable. I hope we can all accept that any ombudsman could make a serious error, which could cause further injustice for any complainant. No ombudsman could possibly get everything right, so surely it's important to prevent that further injustice by introducing another set of eyes to look reasonably at an aggrieved person's case. In summary, Plaid Cymru would welcome the opportunity to have further discussions with the Member in charge and the Welsh Government on this policy aim, including further clarity around potential cost in comparison to the present arrangements that the ombudsman has in place, and how we may take that forward at Stage 3.

13:30

I don't. Like the other amendment I proposed earlier, it was a probing amendment, Chair, so—.

Is committee content for amendment 229 to be withdrawn? Yes. Then amendment 229 is withdrawn and amendment 230 falls.

Tynnwyd gwelliant 229 yn ôl gyda chaniatâd y pwyllgor.

Amendment 229 withdrawn by leave of the committee.

Methodd gwelliant 230.

Amendment 230 fell.

Grŵp 28: Gofynion y Gymraeg (Gwelliant 222)
Group 28: Welsh language requirements (Amendment 222)

Group 28 relates to Welsh language requirements. The lead and only amendment in the group is amendment 222 in the name of the Minister.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 222 (Rebecca Evans).

Amendment 222 (Rebecca Evans) moved.

I move amendment 222 in the name of the Minister and call on the Minister to speak to her amendment. Minister.

Thank you, Chair. This amendment will authorise the Welsh Language Commissioner to give the ombudsman a compliance notice so they must conform with the standards set out in the Welsh Language Standards (No. 2) Regulations 2016. The standards in those regulations are specifically applicable to the bodies listed in Schedule 6 to the regulations. Paragraph 1 of the amendment adds the ombudsman to the list of bodies in Schedule 6 and authorises the commissioner, once the provision is in force, to give a compliance notice to the ombudsman, subject to consultation. The ombudsman must comply with the relevant standard from the date or dates specified in the final compliance notice, which must be at least six months after that notice. The ombudsman may challenge any of the standards on the grounds they are not reasonable and proportionate, with a final appeal to the Welsh language tribunal.

Paragraph 2 ensures the amendment will not prevent the Welsh Ministers from amending the No. 2 regulations in the future, or from specifying new standards for the ombudsman in the future, relying on the powers in the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011. There was some debate during Stage 1 scrutiny of this Bill about the Welsh language requirements it places on the ombudsman. While the Bill leaves much to the ombudsman's discretion, concerns were rightly raised about the level of Welsh language service the public should be able to expect from public services, regardless of the office holder.

We discussed the committee's recommendation that the provisions in section 71 of the Bill be strengthened by the Member in charge, and considered further evidence from the Welsh Language Commissioner. Her recommendation was that the ombudsman should be subject to the Welsh language standards. I'm aware that the ombudsman's constitutional status has been raised previously and, in particular, whether it is appropriate that the ombudsman should be brought into the standards regime. However, on this specific point, I would point Members to the example of the Auditor General for Wales. The auditor general, like the ombudsman, scrutinises other public sector bodies. He's funded from the Welsh consolidated fund and is accountable directly to the National Assembly. The auditor general is subject to the No. 2 standards, and I see no reason not to bring the ombudsman under the same regulations. This would avoid creating a separate, stand-alone system of Welsh language obligations for the ombudsman and help embed consistent entitlements to Welsh language services across the public sector.

We agreed with the Member in charge to enact this change on the face of the Bill rather than relying on later regulations to ensure that there was no delay in these provisions coming into force and to reassure the Assembly that the ombudsman will be placed under appropriate Welsh language obligations on the same timeline as gaining the new powers in the Bill. It is on this basis I tabled the amendment for the committee's deliberation and discussion today.

13:35

Thank you, Minister. Does any Member wish to speak? No. Then, I call on Llyr Gruffydd to speak to this group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Mi wnaeth y pwyllgor, wrth gwrs, argymell y dylid cyflwyno gwelliannau i gryfhau dyletswyddau a chyfrifoldebau’r ombwdsmon yn ymwneud â’r Gymraeg. Fe allai’r ombwdsmon fod yn ddarostyngedig i Fesur y Gymraeg (Cymru) 2011 yn rhinwedd Atodlen 6 i'r Mesur fel,

'Personau sy'n arfer, ar ran y Goron, swyddogaethau a roddir gan neu o dan Ddeddf neu Fesur'

Fodd bynnag, dyw'r ombwdsmon ddim yn ddarostyngedig i'r Mesur ar hyn o bryd ac mae'n gweithredu cynllun iaith gwirfoddol nad oes sail gyfreithiol iddo. Rwy'n deall bod y Bil wedi'i ddrafftio'n wreiddiol i'w gwneud yn ofynnol i'r ombwdsmon gael strategaeth ar gyfer y Gymraeg, ond er mwyn sicrhau bod y ddarpariaeth Gymraeg yn cael sylw llawn, ac i roi eglurder i ombwdsmyn y dyfodol, rwy'n credu y dylai ei ddyletswyddau yn ymwneud â'r Gymraeg gael eu hategu gan ddeddfwriaeth. Fodd bynnag, rwy'n cydnabod y byddai'n well gan Lywodraeth Cymru pe bai hynny'n cael ei gyflawni drwy welliant 222.

Unwaith i'r Bil gael ei basio, byddwn yn gobeithio y byddai Comisiynydd y Gymraeg yn cyhoeddi hysbysiadau cydymffurfio i'r ombwdsmon yn unol â'r weithdrefn a nodir yn y ddeddfwriaeth. Bydd angen inni, wrth gwrs, asesu pa gostau ychwanegol, os o gwbl, sy’n debygol o godi o ganlyniad i'r gwelliant hwn os caiff e ei dderbyn, ac mi fyddwn ni'n adlewyrchu hyn yn y memorandwm esboniadol a fydd yn cael ei gyhoeddi ar ddiwedd Cyfnod 2.

Rwy'n falch o gefnogi'r gwelliant hwn. Fodd bynnag, byddwn i'n croesawu sicrwydd gan y Gweinidog y bydd yr adran hon yn cychwyn yn ddi-oed yn dilyn Cydsyniad Brenhinol er mwyn sicrhau bod safonau'r Gymraeg yn gymwys i Ombwdsmon Gwasanaethau Cyhoeddus Cymru cyn gynted ag sy'n bosib. 

Thank you, Chair. The committee, of course, recommended that amendments should be brought forward to strengthen the Welsh language duties and responsibilities of the ombudsman. The Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, by virtue of Schedule 6 to the Measure, could be applied to the ombudsman as,

'Persons exercising, on behalf of the Crown, functions conferred by or under an Act or Measure'

However, currently, the ombudsman is not subject to the Measure and operates a voluntary Welsh language scheme that has no legal basis. I understand that the Bill was originally drafted to place a requirement on the ombudsman to have a Welsh language strategy, but in order to ensure that Welsh language provision is fully addressed and to provide clarity for future ombudsmen, I believe that Welsh language duties should be underpinned by legislation. However, I recognise that the Welsh Government would prefer for that to be achieved via amendment 222.

Once the Bill is passed, I would hope that the Welsh Language Commissioner would issue compliance notices to the ombudsman in accordance with the procedure set out in legislation. We will, of course, need to assess what, if any, additional cost is likely to arise as a result of this amendment if it is agreed, and we will reflect this in the revised explanatory memorandum to be published at the end of Stage 2.
 
I'm happy to support this amendment, but I would welcome reassurance from the Minister that this section will be commenced without delay following Royal Assent to ensure the Welsh language standards apply to the ombudsman at the earliest opportunity. 
 

Thank you very much. One of the reasons behind tabling this on the face of the Bill rather than relying on regulations was to ensure that there would be no delay in the provisions coming into force.

Okay. So, then, Minister, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 222?

If amendment 222 is agreed, amendment 210 will fall. The question is that amendment 222 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 222 is agreed and amendment 210 falls.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Methodd gwelliant 210.

Amendment 210 fell.

Grŵp 29: Adolygu’r Ddeddf (Gwelliant 128)
Group 29: Review of Act (Amendment 128)

Group 29 relates to the review of the Act. The lead and only amendment in the group is amendment 128 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 128 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 128 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 128 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd, and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in this group.

Thank you, Chair. Amendment 128 removes existing section 72 and replaces it with a new section, albeit with the same title. The new section requires an Assembly committee to review the Bill, should it become an Act. The provision requires an Assembly committee to report on the operation of the Act after consulting appropriate persons. The report must be undertaken five years after the Act has received Royal Assent, but it doesn’t, of course, prevent the Act being reported on in the intervening five years. I refer Members to my earlier comments on the possibility that this provision may change at Stage 3, depending on the Commission's Stage 3 amendments.

13:40

The question is that amendment 128 be agreed. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 128 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 129 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 129 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 129. The question is that amendment 129 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 129 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 152 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 152 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 152. The question is that amendment 152 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 152 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 153 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 153 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 153. The question is that amendment 153 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 153 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 154 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 154 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 154. The question is that amendment 154 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 154 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 155 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 155 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 155. The question is that amendment 155 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 155 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 156 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 156 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 156. The question is that amendment 156 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 156 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 157 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 157 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 157. The question is that amendment 157 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 157 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 158 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 158 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 158. The question is that amendment 158 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 158 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 159 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 159 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 159. The question is that amendment 159 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 159 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 160 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 160 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 160. The question is that amendment 160 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 160 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 161 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 161 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 161. The question is that amendment 161 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 161 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 162 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 162 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 162. The question is that amendment 162 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 162 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 163 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 163 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 163. The question is that amendment 163 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 163 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 164 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 164 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 164. The question is that amendment 164 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 164 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 165 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 165 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 165. The question is that amendment 165 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 165 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 166 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 166 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 166. The question is that amendment 166 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 166 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 167 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 167 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 167. The question is that amendment 167 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 167 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 168 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 168 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 168. The question is that amendment 168 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 168 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 169 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 169 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 169. The question is that amendment 169 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 169 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 170 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 170 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 170. The question is that amendment 170 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 170 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 130 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 130 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 130. The question is that amendment 130 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 130 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 30: Dehongli (Gwelliannau 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136)
Group 30: Interpretations (Amendments 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136)

Okay, that takes us on, then, to group 30, which deals with interpretations. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 131 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 131 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 131 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 131 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in this group. 

Thank you, Chair. All these amendments relate to definitions in section 76 of the Bill. Amendment 131 inserts a new definition of 'enactment'. The effect of this amendment is that any reference to 'enactment' in the Bill means an enactment in an Assembly Act, an Assembly Measure, an Act of Parliament or any subordinate legislation made under an Assembly Act, an Assembly Measure or an Act of Parliament. Amendment 131 also links with amendment 139 in the next group, which we'll come on to later, group 31.

Amendment 132 clarifies that the meaning of the reference to Part 3 in the definition of 'family health service provider in Wales' is a reference to Part 3 of the Bill. 

Amendment 133 removes unnecessary wording and avoids duplication of subsection 7 of this section.

Amendment 134 sets out a new definition of 'in writing' so that anything that may be done 'in writing' under the Bill may be done by writing in electronic form as well, such as e-mail, of course.

Amendment 135 reflects the fact that the ombudsman may investigate a matter even where there has been no complaint. It clarifies that the reference to action in the definition of 'independent provider in Wales' is a reference to action that is the subject of an investigation, which may or may not have been instigated by a complaint.

Amendment 136 captures inquiries and reviews within the definition of 'investigation' as it applies in the Bill to persons other than the ombudsman. This reflects the fact that the use of 'investigation' in the Bill captures examinations, inquiries and reviews carried out by other persons, such as the commissioners that we have or the Welsh Ministers, et cetera. This amendment links with amendment 111, which we debated earlier in group 24, which clarifies the reference to investigations that can be carried out by the children’s commissioner, the commissioner for older people, and other commissioners as well. 

13:45

The question is that amendment 131 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 131 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 132 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 132 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 132. The question is that amendment 132 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 132 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 133 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 133 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 133. The question is that amendment 133 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 133 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 134 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 134 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 134. The question is that amendment 134 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 134 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Amendment 135 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Amendment 135 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 135. The question is that amendment 135 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 135 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 136 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 136 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 136. The question is that amendment 136 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 136 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 137 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 137 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 137. The question is that amendment 137 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 137 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 138 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 138 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 138. The question is that amendment 138 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 138 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 211 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 211 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 211. The question is that amendment 211 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 211 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 31: Pwerau gwneud rheoliadau (Gwelliant 139)
Group 31: Regulation-making powers (Amendment 139)

Okay, we move on, then, to group 31, which deals with regulation-making powers. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 139 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 139 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 139 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd, and call on Llyr to speak to his amendments. 

Thank you, Chair. Amendment 139 gives the Welsh Ministers power to make regulations that amend, revoke or repeal any enactment, including an enactment in this Bill. This amendment, along with the new definition of 'enactment', which we inserted by—or, at least, we discussed in the previous group—amendment 131, provides Welsh Ministers with the power to make consequential, incidental, transitory or saving provisions to amend primary legislation.

Now, while this expands the power that is set out in the Bill as introduced, it puts the Welsh Ministers in the same position they are under the 2005 Act. The then Cabinet Secretary for Finance gave evidence to the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee about the practical consequences of narrowing the power and how that could restrict the smooth implementation of the Bill and the need to make consequential amendments without requiring primary legislation. The use of these powers will, of course, be closely scrutinised by the CLA committee itself. So, I'm happy to propose this particular amendment. 

I've already thanked the Member in charge for the extensive work that he and his officials have done with the Welsh Government to ensure that this Bill will be able to function effectively if it is passed by the National Assembly. The diligence of Llyr's supporting officials can be seen in the number of changes that have been made at this Stage. This includes some 23 amendments we have discussed, and which have been grouped as repeals and consequential provisions. We've also covered those amendments that are needed as a result of the updated Data Protection Act, which is completing its passage through Parliament. It's reassuring to see that so many of these necessary changes have been picked up, but this does demonstrate the extent of the links and the cross-references into other pieces of legislation, and the potential need for further updates based on new legislation, or any consequential changes that haven't been captured so far. 

Section 78 does not currently enable amendments to be made to primary legislation where this is necessary to ensure this Bill is able to effectively come into force. Although the power in subsection (1) is widely drawn, the power to amend primary legislation by regulations must be explicit. Amendment 139 adds a new subsection, which would permit regulations made under subsection (1) to make amendments to primary legislation. Any regulations made under section 78 are subject to the affirmative procedure. This would ensure the Assembly would always have the final say on any amendments to primary legislation proposed to secure the effectiveness of the Bill should it become an Act. That power is limited by the wording of subsection (1) so that any amendments made by regulations under section 78 can only be made for the purposes of, in consequence of, or for giving full effect to any provision of the Act. The majority of the required amendments to primary legislation will be made on the face of the Bill, and, therefore, the power this amendment conveys to amend primary legislation would only need to be used in limited circumstances. 

I hope the committee will agree that this amendment is necessary to ensure the Assembly can effectively make provisions to enact its intentions as expressed by the Bill, and will support its inclusion in the Bill today.

13:50

The question is that amendment 139 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 139 is agreed.

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 140 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 140 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 140. The question is that amendment 140 be agreed. Does any Member object? Then amendment 140 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Grŵp 32: Trosolwg (Gwelliant 1)
Group 32: Overview (Amendment 1)

That takes us to our final group, group 32, which deals with the overview. The lead and only amendment in the group is amendment 1, in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 1 (Llyr Gruffydd).

Amendment 1 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

I move amendment 1 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd and call on Llyr to speak to his amendment. 

Thank you, Chair. Quite simply, amendment 1 amends the overview section to reflect the changes made to the Bill during the Stage 2 proceedings. 

I'm happy to support this amendment, Chair. As it's the last group we'll be debating, I'll just put on record my thanks to the Member in charge for the way in which he's worked with us thus far, and also to the committee for the work that they've done. I very much look forward to Stage 3.

Yes. The only one thing I'd like to add is that of course we did pass amendment 222 on the Welsh language, so that will mean that we will need to amend slightly the overview section as a consequence of that at Stage 3. But I would also like to thank the Chair, the committee members and the Minister and your respective teams for your patience and your co-operation. We've disposed of a large number of amendments today, and no doubt there will be other amendments that we will need to deal with at Stage 3, but I'm hoping there won't be as many. [Laughter.] So, thank you one and all. Diolch.

Okay. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 1 is agreed. 

Derbyniwyd y gwelliant yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

May I also thank the Member in charge and the Minister and officials for your attendance today and your work on this important legislation? You will be sent a transcript of the meeting to check for factual accuracy in the usual way. 

So, diolch yn fawr i bawb. 

So, thank you very much, everyone.

This completes Stage 2 proceedings. Stage 3 begins tomorrow, and subject to agreement by the Business Committee, Stage 3 proceedings will take place on 13 March. The deadline for tabling amendments will be 4 March for the Member in charge and 6 March for all other Members.

Standing Orders make provision for the Minister to prepare a revised explanatory memorandum taking account of the amendments agreed today. The revised memorandum will be laid at least five working days before Stage 3 proceedings.

That concludes our business for today. Diolch yn fawr. 

Barnwyd y cytunwyd ar bob adran o’r Bil.

All sections of the Bill deemed agreed.

Daeth y cyfarfod i ben am 13:54.

The meeting ended at 13:54.