Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

I accept the gentle and elegant rebuke of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. He is, of course, absolutely right that information given in a private setting is quite different from statements that are recorded in Hansard. I absolutely accept that. Before I speak to the amendments I should like to say a few words in general. Once again I express my gratitude for the understanding which noble Lords on all sides of the Committee have shown on the matter of the timing of the Bill. As I explained during Second Reading, the early introduction of the Bill meant that it was not as polished or complete as we would normally expect and that the Government would therefore be bringing forward a considerable number of amendments. That is what we have done. I tabled these amendments on 14 September, and on 15 September I wrote to noble Lords with an interest in the Bill explaining in detail the amendments and our reasons for tabling them. I placed a copy of the letter in the Library and I hope that it has proved helpful in preparing for today’s debate. As the Committee is aware, the Assembly undertook an extensive public consultation on the draft Bill earlier this year. More than 1,700 organisations and individuals were consulted, and in total 98 responses were received. These responses contained 64 recommendations on the content of the Bill. However, after careful consideration it was decided that only two of them would be accepted. These are now before the Committee as government Amendments Nos. 36 and 50. While the remaining recommendations were quite legitimate, the Assembly’s view, shared by the Government, was that 27 were already provided for in the Bill and the remaining 29 conflicted with its policy intentions. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on 13 October, setting out in detail the Government’s position in response to the specific recommendations contained in the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which he chairs, which were published on 30 June. However, I have previously set out the Government’s position on these two matters in my letter of 15 September; it appears in the government amendments and my response to the Select Committee on the Constitution on 30 June. Both gave an outline of the rationale for our approach on the appointment of the commissioner and on the examination of cases. I hope that those introductory remarks will be helpful as we spend at least two days discussing the Bill in Committee. Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 9, which stand in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Luke, concern the commissioner’s operational independence. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 seek to amend paragraph (1) of Schedule 1. We believe that they inadvertently introduce an element of uncertainty about that operational independence where it is important that none should exist. Subparagraphs (2) and (3) of Schedule 1(1) provide that the commissioner is not to be regarded as an agent or servant of the Crown and that his property is not to be regarded as the property of the Crown. As the commissioner will not be a servant of the Crown, nor will his property be the property of the Crown, a statement to this effect is not necessary. However, it may be possible for the commissioner or his property to be treated as such. It is this circumstance that the provision seeks to prevent. So, in our submission, Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 would not add to the provisions in the Bill. Amendment No. 9 would enable the Assembly to make regulations limiting the number of staff that the commissioner can appoint. The Assembly considers that this would interfere with the independence of the commissioner, and the Government accept that view. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, asked whether 30 members of staff were enough, given the demographics in Wales. Obviously, the Assembly will be keeping a close eye on that, but at the moment we feel that the staffing levels we have suggested are correct. In any case, it would be an almost impossible task for the Assembly to pre-judge at what level any limit should be set. Furthermore, the commissioner will only be able to employ such staff as is affordable from within his overall budget, which will be agreed annually with the Welsh Assembly Government. An integral part of running an independent office is the assessment of what is an appropriate level of staffing to carry out the functions conferred and to fulfil an agreed programme of work. Given my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.