We heard from the Member in charge, the current ombudsman, and his counterparts in Northern Ireland and Scotland, that this was a critical tool in the ombudsman’s toolkit. It is also one that is available to most of their counterparts across the world. We noted the concerns raised by stakeholders about creating additional complexity in that already crowded regulatory framework, but the Member in charge responded to these concerns by reminding us of the difference in roles and approach between regulators and an ombudsman. It is the ombudsman who approaches concerns from a citizen perspective, and we found that a compelling argument. We support, then, this extension of the ombudsman’s powers. We made only one recommendation in relation to these provisions, which is to place an additional duty on the ombudsman to consult with regulators before embarking on an own-initiative investigation, and I am pleased that the Member in charge has accepted this recommendation.

Moving on to the provisions on making and referral of complaints to the ombudsman, the Bill seeks to remove restrictions on how complaints can be made or referred. Currently, oral complaints can only be made at the ombudsman’s discretion. We heard clear evidence that this can make it more difficult for the most vulnerable to access the ombudsman’s services. While we have focused on oral complaints, we noted that the Bill’s provisions will enable the ombudsman to adapt in the future and accept complaints in any format they feel is appropriate. This helps futureproof the legislation and will allow the ombudsman to adapt to any technological changes. We believe these provisions will improve access to the ombudsman’s services, and therefore only made one recommendation in relation to these provisions. Recommendation 3 calls for amendments to be brought forward to place a requirement on the ombudsman to maintain a register of all complaints, not just oral complaints, and, again, I am pleased that the Member in charge has accepted this recommendation. We also called on the ombudsman to reflect on the evidence we received when developing any guidance. If this Bill is passed, there will be an issue, and we will monitor, during our ongoing scrutiny of the ombudsman, progress on these matters.

Dirprwy Lywydd, Part 4 of the Bill introduces powers for the ombudsman to set complaints handling procedures. This was one of the elements of the Bill that generated the most debate from stakeholders. In particular, we heard concerns about how model procedures set by the ombudsman would interact with already existing complaints handling procedures. Much of this discussion centred on the 'Putting Things Right' regulations within the national health service. There was concern that the definition of enactments within the Bill would not cover these regulations, and while we noted all these concerns, we believe that it is totally appropriate for the ombudsman to have a role in setting complaints handling procedures. We believe that this will help lead to improvements in complaints handling and, hopefully, improvements in public services. We were encouraged by the example in Scotland, where similar powers have been given to the Scottish ombudsman. However, we believe that there could be greater clarity in how existing non-statutory guidance, such as 'Putting Things Right', will be considered by the ombudsman in drawing up and enforcing model complaints procedures. We therefore made recommendation 5, that amendments be brought forward to provide this greater clarity, and, again, I am pleased that the Member in charge has accepted this recommendation.

Moving on to provisions that place a duty on the ombudsman to produce a Welsh language strategy, we welcome the strengthening of these requirements. However, we do not believe the Bill goes far enough. We think too much is left to the ombudsman’s own discretion and that the ombudsman should adhere to the principles of the Welsh language standards. We acknowledge that it would not be appropriate for the ombudsman to be covered directly by the standards, but we believe he or she should, in principle, deliver comparable bilingual services to those public services within his remit, and I am pleased again to note the commitment made by the Member in charge to revisit these provisions and that this will be done in consultation with the Welsh Language Commissioner and others.

Financial scrutiny was a matter that we centred on, Dirprwy Lywydd, and we appointed an expert adviser, Dr Gavin McBurnie, as mentioned earlier. Those financial implications are the area where the majority of our recommendations focus. It was good to hear both the ombudsman and the Member in charge make clear commitments that the ombudsman would not seek any increase in budget above 0.03 per cent of the Welsh block. However, we are seeking further information on the regulatory impact assessment on issues relating to the indirect costs and, in particular, the costs that may be incurred by the listed authorities that fall within the ombudsman’s remit.

We do not believe that the recommendations we have made seeking greater clarity are unreasonable, and, again, I welcome the Member accepting all but one of them.

I know that time—