Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I want to tell the noble Lord why I shall be opposing his amendment if he presses it. There are two reasons. First, the continuing success of the devolution settlement has been its clarity of accountability. The commissioner may be created by Westminster statute, but it will be wholly and totally paid for by the Assembly. The Assembly’s budget will carry the cost of the commissioner. Secondly, the agencies and the departments that the noble Lord wishes to bring within the scope of the commissioner’s powers are United Kingdom agencies and departments which have their own very clear lines of accountability. They have lines of accountability to UK Ministers, to the Houses of Parliament through Select Committees and through questions and answers, and to Members of Parliament. The things that the noble Lord spoke about were the meat and drink of my 30 years’ worth of parliamentary experience. That is the job of a Member of Parliament; that is the job of a Select Committee investigating at national level the role and the way all these agencies perform their duties in respect of older people, or, indeed any other clients of theirs. I have always sought to achieve equality of service across the United Kingdom. I do not want older people in Hertfordshire to have different benefits from older people in Monmouthshire. I do not want different rights for older people on each side of Offa’s Dyke. I do not think that that is the way forward. I believe that this is a genuine United Kingdom interest and that we should sustain and maintain the quality of benefits and treatment. I certainly do not think that we should confuse the line of accountability. There is a very clear line of accountability for UK departments. They are accountable to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, to Select Committees, to Members of Parliament and to Ministers. Since the devolution settlement in 1998 communication between the Assembly, United Kingdom Ministers and officials at Whitehall has grown very successfully. Commissioners have to go through the Assembly. The Assembly will create this office by funding it and promoting the Bill, and I do not think that it should be bypassed in any way. Therefore, I do not believe that the noble Lord’s amendment, which would allow the commission to have the right, presumably to go to UK Ministers—I think that is the logic of it—is the right way forward. I hope therefore that he will think about the matter. I also want the devolution settlement to work. I do not see this provision in terms of English Members at all; I see it as part of a growing process. The Assembly has grown. All the Richard commission evidence has demonstrated that. One of the ways it has grown is the way that we have maintained clear systems of accountability between ourselves and Westminster and between UK Ministers and Assembly Ministers. The Assembly is the best conduit through which this kind of representation should be made. I therefore will not be supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.