Speaking in this week’s Debate on Stage 3 of The Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill, North Wales Assembly Member Mark Isherwood put forward a number of Amendments, including one seeking confirmation to ensure that the Ombudsman considers the resources of Town and Community Councils.
The purpose and intended effect of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill is to replace the existing legislation – the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005 (‘the 2005 Act’), and makes provision for new powers in relation to the Ombudsman’s investigatory functions, to extend the Ombudsman’s role in relation to model complaints-handling procedures, and provisions to specify in guidance the form of a complaint, which could include oral complaints.
But Mr Isherwood is concerned about the ability of Town and Community Councils as listed authorities under the Bill to carry out their duties.
Moving Amendment 48, Mr Isherwood said:
“The Bill contains many requirements and time limits for listed authorities, which includes a six-month time limit for listed authorities to submit their own complaints-handling procedure. At Stage 2, I outlined that, while supporting the Bill's application to Town and Community Councils, we can see from both the perspective of the Ombudsman and Town and Community Councils how burdensome and onerous the duties could be to undertake when staffing and resources are minimal.
“Town and Community Councils currently number over 730 in Wales, with 8,000 councillors. As evidenced by the Auditor General in his report on Town and Community Councils, some councils are already struggling to apply existing statutory duties. As I noted at Stage 2, nearly 100 town and community councils had not been able to submit their Audits by the cut-off date of 30 November 2018.”
He added: “I refer back to the evidence of Cardiff City Council, raised 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 in a manner that suits their size and structures.'
He also spoke of the concerns of One Voice Wales, which represents town and community councils in Wales, regarding the model complaints procedure.
He said: “They further noted that most Town and Community Councils in Wales are incredibly small and employ just one clerk, who would likely work on a part-time basis. As such, it is still difficult to see whether smaller Town and Community Councils with relatively limited resources will be able to keep up with the provisions outlined under the Bill without due consideration by the Ombudsman”.
Mr Isherwood also moved amendment 49, which relates to the four-month flexibility period the Wales Audit Office is able to grant for the Public Services Ombudsman's accounts, which was inserted at Stage 2.
He said: “While the Auditor General for Wales asked for this change at Stage 1, there are some questions as to how this would apply to other public bodies outside of the Bill's scope. Clearly, the constraints, the reasons and justification for the change, apply to most, if not all, public bodies, and the issue here is clarification where a body with oversight of those other public bodies may be granted something not available to those other public bodies.”
Regarding Amendment 46, he said:
I’ve retabled this amendment from Stage 2, as I wish to seek reassurance from the Member in charge that the Ombudsman will take the Nolan principles into consideration when his office is undertaking investigations into complaints against public bodies.” The 'Nolan principles' apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder, whether elected or appointed to public office, including all people appointed to work in local government, health, education, social and care services.
Regarding Amendment 47, Mr Isherwood said: “This deletes the procedure that applies to the publication by the Ombudsman of the Statement of Principles, and replaces this with another procedure. The changes made to the Ombudsman's Statement of Principles outlined by Amendment 56 at Stage 2 mean there is little opportunity for the Assembly to properly scrutinise the principles before their introduction. This changes the process from affirmative to negative, and I believe represents a backward step, given the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's praise for the affirmative nature of the Bill at Stage 1.”