My Lords, in Grand Committee I very much understood and sympathised with the thought behind Amendment No. 7, although I cannot go along with it as it is drawn. The amendment draws attention to the position that will arise where the provider simply refuses to implement the commission’s recommendation. The Bill simply ignores that possibility. We are making a mistake in designing a Bill that is silent on that issue.
The provider may refuse to comply for one of a number of reasons. My noble friend indicated one good reason why an objector might not be prepared to go along with a recommendation, but there can be others—for example, wilfulness on the part of the provider. We know of damaging cases in the past few years where the provider was not prepared or willing to implement recommendations. I am not sure of the answer, but it should be possible to design a procedure where the recommendation and the objection to it can be referred to a third party for a decision that would be binding on the commission and the provider. That is an issue of considerable importance, and the Government should give it further thought.
Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Prys-Davies
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 9 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
675 c691 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 17:08:58 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276291
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276291
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276291