I'll begin by saying that I'm happy to support amendment 11. The Member in charge is proposing a welcome drafting update to ensure that the procedure by which the Assembly agrees the complaints-handling principles is clear bilingually in the Bill.

However, speaking to amendment 47, this would undo an amendment agreed by the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee at Stage 2, which, as the Member in charge explained at the time, struck a better balance between the ombudsman's freedom to draft the statement of principles and the Assembly's ability to reject it, should we see fit.

The procedure that amendment 47 seeks to reinstate leaves a large degree of uncertainty for the ombudsman if the Assembly makes no resolution to approve the complaints-handling principles within the two-month period. In this case, the ombudsman would not know whether or not the Assembly supports the proposed criteria, whether there are any issues that we would like to see addressed, or whether it was simply an issue of timing and the criteria might be approved if they were tabled again. With no opportunity to influence Assembly proceedings, it would not be fair to ask the ombudsman to wait upon a motion being tabled in favour of their criteria before proceeding to implement the powers that the National Assembly has already debated in this Bill. I don't think the process that the Member suggests is necessary to ensure that the Assembly is content with the ombudsman's proposals. The passing of this Bill would signal the Assembly's desire that a statement of complaints-handling principles be made by the ombudsman, and if that proposal is not in line with our expectations, then the Assembly can reject it and instruct the ombudsman to reconsider.

Speaking to amendment 48, the Member raises a relevant point that the ombudsman will need to be proportionate when applying model complaints-handling procedures to listed authorities, particularly in the example of community councils, as he's proposed. This amendment, however, would require the ombudsman to consider the resources of community councils whenever they are developing a model complaints-handling procedure, even if that procedure were not intended to apply to community councils. This is not a proportionate way of achieving the Member's aim. It would lead to an unnecessary administrative burden on the ombudsman's complaints standards powers for all other bodies in Wales. The Bill already includes a requirement for the ombudsman to consult before applying model complaints-handling procedures to any body. This would allow any body concerned about the administrative burden of their proposals to raise the issue, and for the ombudsman to take a balanced view of the benefits of the complaints system against the costs of implementing it.

Furthermore, this legislation is founded upon the principle that the ombudsman is a trusted, independent complaints authority, appointed directly by, and accountable to, the National Assembly. If the Assembly is not content with the ombudsman's use of their powers, then this can be addressed through committee scrutiny of the ombudsman. Beyond this, in extreme cases, the ombudsman is subject to the normal public law recourse of judicial review, by which any unreasonable requirement could be challenged. With these accountability arrangements already in place, we should not be legislating on the assumption that the ombudsman will use their powers irresponsibly. I'm sure that the ombudsman will listen to the points that Members have raised in today's debate and consider them when determining the approach to model complaints procedures for public bodies. On this basis, I don't think this amendment is necessary, and I would ask Members not to support it or amendment 47 today.