Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

In introducing the debate I neglected to speak to Amendments Nos. 47 and 85. These also stand in my name and that of my noble friend and are grouped. On Amendment No. 47, on Second Reading the Minister explained that the commissioner,"““will be a champion with much wider powers””.—[Official Report, 14/6/05; col. 1170.]" Lobby groups have welcomed the powers in Clause 5 that enable the commissioner to promote the development of effective and comprehensive advocacy, complaints and whistle-blowing arrangements. However, as noble Lords picked up on Second Reading, lobby groups—the Law Society, Help the Aged and Age Concern, to name but three—have serious concerns that those powers lack teeth and that there is no means of enforcing any recommendations the commissioner may make. Indeed, that is a theme which runs throughout the Bill. Amendment No. 47 would insert a new paragraph (d) to Clause 5(2) that would enable the commissioner to review and monitor the implementation of his or her recommendations on arrangements for advocacy, complaints and whistle-blowing. I may not have suggested the right place for the amendment but I would like to hear how the commissioner will improve the lives of older people if all that he can do is name and shame and make reports that can be ignored. We all know that naming and shaming is often not enough. Today’s news is often quickly forgotten. A champion such as the commissioner is intended to be can hardly defend his position unless he has real clout. So there is a very strong argument there. Amendment No. 85 provides a kind of fall-back position. It would amend Clause 9(6)(b) and spells out the details of a duty that I feel needs to be on the face of the Bill. Subsection (6) explains the purposes for which regulations can be made to require information to be provided to the commissioner in an examination case. Thanks to our previous debate, we now have more of an idea of what such an examination case may be. Subsection 6(b) specifies that it can be for,"““the purposes of determining whether a recommendation made in a report following an examination has been complied with””," to which I have added,"““and if not what action should be taken, and by whom””." So once again the thrust is to secure action on the commissioner’s report. The amendment is very clear: the commissioner must not only discover what went wrong but be ready to suggest a solution or steps forward. He must be proactive in his approach, not just descriptive. I hope that the Minister will assure the Committee that this is indeed the way in which the commissioner will work. It has been argued that the name and shame option is a powerful tool but, again, I agree with those who say that it lacks the real teeth that lobby groups would like. As such, I argue that if it is the route by which the commissioner will go, it should be stated somehow in the Bill in plain English, as the amendment proposes.