|
|
|
|
The National Assembly has published a consultation
document seeking responses to proposals for the powers and
jurisdiction of the new role and requesting answers to eleven
questions as well as inviting any further relevant comments on the
issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Committee debated the questions and agreed as
follows:-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.
|
Are there any public bodies in existence in Wales,
not currently subject to investigation by the Welsh Administration
Ombudsman ("WAO") , the Health Service Commissioner for Wales
("HSCW") or the Commissioner for Local Administration in Wales
("CLAW") which should be brought within the scope of the new
jurisdiction when it is established?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bodies listed on Page 19 (Annex B) and those
listed on Page 20 (3) should be brought within the scope of the new
jurisdiction when it is established. The Committee took the view
that every body dealing with public money and/or provide a public
service should be included. This should encompass voluntary,
private, or any other, organisations which carry out public
functions as agent/contractor for a public body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B.
|
In relation to new bodies created in the future,
should any limits continue to be placed on the types of public body
that can be brought within jurisdiction?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responded to under Question A above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.
|
Are the various limitations and restrictions on the
current Ombudsmen's jurisdictions, as summarised in Annex C, still
appropriate? Should any of them be omitted from legislation,
establishing the new Ombudsman's office? Are there any new
restrictions or limitations which it would be appropriate to
introduce?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annex C2 : Although the Ombudsmen cannot at present
investigate the merits of a
decision, there may be an argument for including this possibility
within the new Ombudsman's jurisdiction where the decision
complained about has resulted in an absurdity, or is contrary to
the principles of proportionality, or the principle of legitimate
expectation. Equally, where a complainant's inability to afford
professional legal representation before a tribunal could give rise
to an injustice because the respondent
|
|
|
|
|
|
is able to employ a representative, the new Ombudsman
should be able, depending upon the subject matter under
consideration, to accept such complaints. Given the increased
restriction on the availability of Legal Aid provision, the same
principle, with specified restrictions as to subject matter, should
apply in relation to proceedings in a court of
law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B.
|
Do you agree that the new Ombudsman's jurisdiction
should be focused on complaints of maladministration or operational
failures in provision of a service by a public body, and thus
be framed in a way that precludes investigations into discretionary
policy decisions about the use of resources?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Committee took the view that the Ombudsman should
be able to investigate decisions where policy has been applied
rigidly, without any consideration of the merits of the individual
case and contrary to the legal role concerning the fettering of
discretion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.
|
Are there any other categories of decisions based
on professional judgement (in addition to those based on clinical
judgement) which it would be appropriate to allow the new Ombudsman
to investigate; or does "maladministration" provide sufficient
flexibility to permit investigation in appropriate
cases?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D.
|
Do you agree that the new Ombudsman should not, as
a matter of law, accept oral complaints, but that legislation
should enable the Ombudsman to assist potential complaints as
necessary to prepare their complaints in due form? Do you agree
that complaints submitted to the Ombudsman be e-mail should be
acceptable?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Committee was of the opinion that, in general,
oral complaints should not be accepted, but that the Ombudsman
should have discretion to accept these in exceptional circumstances
where assistance to prepare the complaint in due form was clearly
needed by the complainant. Complaints submitted by e-mail should be
accepted.
|
|
|
|
|
E.
|
Do you agree that any body subject to investigation
by the new Ombudsman should, subject to appropriate conditions, be
able to refer a complaint relating to action taken by, or on behalf
of, the body to the Ombudsman for investigation? If you agree, what
do you think should be the conditions or restrictions which should
be placed on exercise of this power?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No - it is for individual complainants to submit a
complaint. It should not be open to a "body" to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F.
|
Do you agree that the new Ombudsman should be given
a power equivalent to what is available to CLAW now, to issue
"advice and guidance about good administrative practice" to public
bodies within jurisdiction? Are there any limits or procedural
requirements which you consider should be placed on the exercise of
this power?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - the Ombudsman should be given a power to issue
"advice and guidance about good administrative practice" to public
bodies within jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no limits or procedural requirements which
the Committee consider should be placed on the exercise of this
power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i.
|
that the new Ombudsman should not normally accept a
complaint for investigation unless the complainant has exhausted
the internal complaints procedure of the body being complained
about, but
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ii.
|
should have discretion to do so if it would be
unreasonable in the particular circumstances to expect the
complainant to have followed those procedures?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Committee agreed that the Ombudsman should have
discretion to accept a complaint if it would be unreasonable in the
particular circumstances to expect the complainant to have followed
the internal complaints procedure of the body being complained
about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.
|
Do you agree that the new Ombudsman should be able
to facilitate the resolution of complaints between complainants and
public bodies by any appropriate means, and to operate without the
need in every case to produce a formal report?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Committee agreed with the proviso that reasons
were given for the decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B.
|
Do you agree that, in relation to redress for
individuals, the legislation should make similar provision as now,
rather than conferring additional powers on the new Ombudsman
either to enforce his recommendations through the courts or impose
sanctions on public bodies which fail to act in accordance with
them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Committee agreed that the Ombudsman's decisions
should be binding with the right to impose sanctions, in which case
a challenge against the decision should be possible through
the courts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
TRAINING FOR THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A report by the Monitoring Officer was submitted which
provided information on future Training Arrangements for the
Committee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Monitoring Officer reported she, together with the
Council's Training and Development Manager, would select the most
suitable course providers and subsequently approach other
authorities with a view to arranging joint training.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whilst elected Members drew attention to the forthcoming
elections for the County Council, it was felt that the training
would be beneficial to prepare Members of the Committee to deal
with any complaint referred to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members were requested to provide the Training and
Development Manager with details of their availability over the new
few months so that a convenient date can be arranged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|