moved Amendment No. 3:"Page 12, line 12, after ““appointment”” insert ““and re-appointment””"
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 aim to probe the Minister with regard to the term of office of the commissioner. Like those consulted, I agree that it is necessary to find a careful balance between the term of office being of a sufficient length of time that the commissioner can build up expertise and experience and put in place a suitable agenda of work and the term of office being too long, which would result in lost opportunities if the commissioner’s skills failed to match the priorities of the job. The Minister will explain that the advisory group held a public consultation on this matter and that 59 per cent of respondents opted for a four-year term, renewable once. My ideal would have been a five-year term, renewable once, so we are not so far apart. However, the Government have failed to put that measure in the Bill. Is that because they do not intend to stick to the results of the consultation? As I said, I personally believe that five years would be a better time scale; hence the use of the figure in my amendment. Could the Minister inform me whether five years was given as an option in consultation?
Amendment No. 3 would insert the words ““and re-appointment”” into paragraph 2(a) of Schedule 1. At the moment, regulations may make provisions about the appointment of the commissioner, but not reappointment. As consultation and past examples of commissioners, chairmanships and other committee leaderships all support reappointment of short terms, such an indication should be clarified in primary legislation.
Amendment No. 5 inserts the words ““initial five-year”” into paragraph (2)(b) of Schedule 1, tightening the ability of the regulations to make provisions as to the initial five-year term of office of the commissioner rather than the broader option of the term of office. Throughout the passage of the Bill we have expressed concerns with regard to the Henry VIII powers in regulations. As the Select Committee on the Constitution said,"““the use of framework legislation and Henry VIII powers is to be avoided, and when necessary should be hedged with appropriate safeguards””."
I would feel a lot happier with this narrower remit of regulations with regard to the term of office and for the clarification that it brings with regard to the length of office in the Bill. We may well argue about what the length of time should be, but I hope that the Minister will agree that it is something simple that should be incorporated. If I remember correctly, we have incorporated a term of office for the Children’s Commissioner, and there is no real reason why we should not do it here.
Amendment No. 4 is a simple drafting amendment. Once again the Bill team and I are at odds on a small technical matter. The amendment substitutes ““fulfilled”” in paragraph (2)(a) for ““met to qualify”” with regard to the conditions that the potential commissioner will need to meet to be appointed. Will the Minister explain the details of the proposed model of appointment for the older people’s commissioner, especially for those who are not aware of the model being used for the children’s commissioner? Will he confirm that the regulations regarding the appointment will be subject to public consultation in Wales and that the appointment will be made within the Cabinet Office’s public appointments process?
The Assembly Government’s commissioner advisory group recommended that,"““the appointment process should ensure that the successful candidate has a real understanding of, and empathy with, older people in Wales; and it should meaningfully involve older people in the selection””."
Will the Minister explain how older people will be meaningfully involved in the selection process?
Amendment No. 8 aims to probe exactly what ““gratuities””, on top of the pensions, the Assembly envisages it must pay to a commissioner once he or she has ceased to hold office. The amendment removes the option to pay gratuities from paragraph (3)(2)(a) of Schedule 1. I beg to move.
Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Roberts of Conwy
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 18 October 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c185-6GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:37:48 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_280555
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_280555
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_280555