Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

Before addressing the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, I hope that he will forgive me if I first speak to government Amendments Nos. 100, 101, 105 and 10 in that order. I gave notice at Second Reading that the Government intended to table amendments to clarify the commissioner’s ability to work jointly with other commissioners and ombudsmen to avoid unnecessary duplication and to enable the commissioner to share information with them. Government Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 are the first—indeed the central—amendments that we propose to address the policy intention that the commissioner should be able to work jointly with other commissioners and ombudsmen where there is an overlap in their jurisdiction and they are both ““investigating”” or ““considering whether to investigate”” a particular case. The commissioner should also be able to work collaboratively with other commissioners and ombudsmen where there is no overlap in their jurisdiction but where a case raises matters that should be the subject of investigation by both office-holders. I wrote to noble Lords on 15 September in some detail, explaining our reasons for introducing the amendments, and placed a copy of my letter in the Library. In view of that, I do not propose to speak at length about the amendments now. As a consequence of the amendments brought forward on joint and collaborative working, the Government have also reflected upon Clause 15, to which we propose Amendment No. 105. Its purpose is to enable the Assembly to be specific about which functions of another body should be prescribed for the purposes of Clause 15, rather than prescribing all the functions of that body. Therefore, for example, the commissioner could be prevented from issuing guidance on best practice if this were also a function of another body and that function were prescribed for the purposes of this clause. In this way, although he would be prevented from duplicating the function of issuing guidance on best practice, the commissioner could still co-operate with the other body in relation to other functions where their jurisdictions overlapped. I turn next to Amendment No. 10. This also has arisen from the Government’s amendments on joint working and collaborative working and is intended to provide the commissioner with a greater degree of flexibility in the way he carries out his remit. It enables the commissioner to delegate his functions to any person and not only to members of his staff. This would allow, for example, for the reasonable delegation of the commissioner’s functions, by the commissioner, to other commissioners and ombudsmen. Finally, with apologies, I turn to Amendments Nos. 106 and 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth. Amendment No. 106 seeks to list, or ““prescribe””, in Clause 15 four persons whose functions the commissioner is specifically prevented from duplicating. However, once a person has been prescribed, to the extent that the commissioner’s functions overlap with those of the prescribed person, the commissioner would be prevented from acting in that area. For example, the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales is prescribed in this amendment and the effect would be to prevent the commissioner discharging any function that could also be discharged by the PSOW. However, it is possible that an older person in Wales could present a case that involved issues that were relevant to both the PSOW and the commissioner. In practice, identifying which functions overlap may be difficult. However, by removing the commissioner’s power to act, the amendment could prevent the commissioner working with the PSOW and taking action where that would be appropriate. We believe that the government amendments that we have proposed on joint working and collaborative working offer a preferable mechanism for dealing with potential duplication between the commissioner and the bodies listed in the amendment. Clause 15(2) will, however, still provide the Assembly with the flexibility to deal with situations where there is an overlap and it is considered appropriate to restrict the commissioner’s remit. Finally, Amendment No. 6, standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Livsey of Talgarth and Lord Roberts of Llandudno, seeks to provide for regulations that list specific organisations with whom the commissioner must co-operate to avoid any duplication of functions. Although it is not specified in the amendment, it appears to be intended that that should relate to the exercise of any of the functions of the commissioner. Although the commissioner would almost certainly want to work with other organisations and draw on their expertise in exercising his general functions and issuing guidance, we do not consider it appropriate or necessary to place a duty on him to do so. Paragraph 19 of Schedule 1 states that, subject to any directions given by the Assembly, the commissioner may do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of his functions. The commissioner would certainly be able to use this power to co-operate with others in the course of discharging his functions, but we consider that to place him under a duty to co-operate with certain specified organisations in all circumstances would fetter his discretion and could be seen as detracting from the commissioner’s independence. We have already brought forward amendments on joint and collaborative working that will ensure that duplication of functions with other organisations is minimised. Beyond that, we consider that it should be up to the commissioner to decide how and with whom he wishes to co-operate. We think that these government amendments provide a comprehensive and reasonable approach to the issue of working with other ombudsmen and commissioners and avoiding duplication. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree with me and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, to withdraw his amendment.