Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

Before responding to Amendments Nos. 49 and 51, I shall speak first to government Amendments Nos. 50 and 52. During Second Reading, I explained that the Government would give careful consideration to views expressed as part of the public consultation exercise and would bring forward amendments as necessary. Government Amendment No. 50 is one such amendment. It seeks, in effect, to widen the definition of ““whistle-blowing arrangements””. It defines information pertaining to the violation of a person’s dignity as information that is to be regarded as potentially adverse. Government Amendment No. 52 is consequential on Amendment No. 50. Its effect is that information about the concealment of information that a person’s dignity has been violated will also be regarded as potentially adverse information and therefore will be subject to the commissioner’s power to review and monitor arrangements. Amendment No. 51 seeks to ensure that the information that a person’s right to dignity has been denied is to be regarded as potentially adverse information. I believe this amendment has been met by the government amendments to which I have just spoken. Amendment No. 49 seeks to define information that the health, welfare or safety of a person has been endangered as potentially adverse information. Again, while we agree entirely with the sentiment of the amendment, we consider it unnecessary in the light of Amendment No. 50. Information pertaining to a situation in which a person’s dignity has been violated will also encompass situations in which an individual’s welfare has been in danger. As for the moving testimony given by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, about that unfortunate man in north Wales, the Care Standards Inspectorate should be looking at issues such as that. It concerns standards of care and should really be referred to the inspectorate.