Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

In responding to Amendment No. 3, I propose to speak to Amendment No. 5 before turning to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 8, all of which, as we now know, concern the appointment and tenure of the commissioner. Amendment No. 5, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, would provide in the Bill a requirement that the initial term of office of the commissioner is for a period of five years. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 empowers the Assembly to make regulations concerning the appointment and term of office of the commissioner. At this point, I should refer back to the Second Reading debate on the Bill. In a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, I indicated that an amendment along the lines of the one that he has subsequently brought forward, setting out a term of office in the Bill, may be acceptable to the Government. I was speaking out of turn. I was reprimanded afterwards for saying that because, of course, the decision on the length of the term should be for the Assembly and not for me as the spokesman for Wales here in the House of Lords. It is properly a matter for the Assembly to determine the appropriate term of office for the commissioner in the light of circumstances in Wales. The Welsh Assembly Government’s Advisory Group considered in some depth the issue of the length of the term of office of the commissioner. In its report, it concluded that it would be important for the term of office to be of sufficient length for the commissioner to be able to build up expertise and experience, which would enable him or her to put in place a considered agenda of work. The group also felt that too long a term of office might mean a loss of opportunities to ensure that the commissioner’s skills and expertise continued to match the priorities of the job. Public consultation took place on a range of options for the term of office, but there was a majority of 59 per cent in favour of a four-year term, renewable once. I understand that the Assembly Government’s intention, therefore, is that that is what will be specified in the regulations. The other difficulty with the amendment is that it refers to an initial period of office of the commissioner. If accepted, that would prevent the Assembly making regulations about any subsequent terms of office. The clause as drafted provides for the Assembly to make regulations about the appointment of the commissioner, explicit within which is the possibility of reappointment. We argue that Amendment No. 3 is therefore unnecessary. We have carefully considered Amendment No. 4, which seeks to provide that the appointment regulations under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 may include any conditions to be,"““met to qualify for appointment””," rather than ““fulfilled for appointment””. However, we have concluded that that is just another way of saying the same thing and that it does not add to the existing provision. Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 8, which amends paragraph 3 of Schedule 1. It seeks to remove from the Bill a provision that obliges the Assembly to pay gratuities to an outgoing commissioner in accordance with the terms of his appointment. Noble Lords may, like me, have wondered whether this gratuity would be the equivalent of a tip left in a restaurant. However, in the Bill it is understood to cover payments, such as a retirement lump sum for early retirement through ill health. I have already said that as an overarching principle we think the Assembly is the appropriate body to determine the commissioner’s terms of appointment, including whether to provide for any such payments. We share the Assembly’s view that the Bill should require it to comply with the terms that it has agreed at the time of the commissioner’s appointment, and that is the purpose of including this phrase here. I shall deal with one or two points made by noble Lords in the discussion of these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked why a narrow remit could not be set in terms of what is left of secondary legislation. A matter is left to be dealt with in regulations because it is considered appropriate by the Assembly and the Government, given devolution and the Assembly’s procedure for secondary legislation. The noble Lord also asked by what process the appointment will be made. This is a matter for the Assembly to determine through regulations. I understand that the Assembly government intends to use a process based on that used for the appointment of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, and that the appointment was made in accordance with the Assembly’s code of practice for public appointments. It is envisaged that regulations will specify the process by which both the Assembly and older people themselves will participate in the selection process for the post of commissioner. This may include the establishment of a sifting panel, with significant representation from older people and those who work with and for them. A question was also asked about what sort of gratuities we envisage the commissioner might receive. As we have already said, we do not mean tips in restaurants, but payments that may be made to the commissioner by the Assembly in addition to his or her pension. This may include any enhanced pension payments or payments into any other schemes, as may have been provided for under the terms of his appointment. Parallel provision about gratuities is made in both the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005 and the Children’s Commissioner for Wales Act 2001. It is an absolutely standard provision. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies asks whether we have received a response from the Select Committee on the Constitution. There has not yet been a response, but when we get one we will immediately pass it to interested Members on all sides and put it in the Library. I am sure we will return to the discussion of it at the next stage of our deliberations. In the light of my explanations, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendments.