Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I shall speak first to government Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 27, before turning to Amendments Nos. 7 and 26, which stand in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy, Lord Luke, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Roberts of Llandudno. In Grand Committee, noble Lords stressed the fundamental importance of the commissioner not only looking into matters of concern to older people and making reports and recommendations about those matters, but being able to pursue his recommendations and hold bodies to account for their actions in response to his reports. We expect the commissioner to be proactive in his approach to making and following up recommendations. To make that absolutely clear in the Bill, we have tabled Amendments Nos. 20 and 21, which extend the regulation-making powers in Clause 6(5) to enable the commissioner to require prescribed persons to provide him with information for the purposes of determining whether a recommendation made in a report, following a review of arrangements, has been complied with. Furthermore, Amendment No. 27 provides that, where a person fails to comply with such a request for information, that will be dealt with by means of the existing obstruction and contempt provision in Clause 10. Amendment No. 7 would allow for the commissioner to be given the power to enforce any recommendations that he might choose to make in connection with his general functions. Compliance with those recommendations would be obligatory. However, providing for such an enforcement power in respect of the discharge of general functions would mark a significant extension of the commissioner’s powers and would go far beyond the powers of any other commissioner or ombudsman. Such a power could also cut across the work of regulatory bodies, such as the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales, create duplication and cause confusion about who is in the lead on regulation and enforcement. In the Government’s view, therefore, the Bill, strengthened by the government amendments, strikes the right balance by providing an appropriate level of follow-up action according to whether a specific or a general function has been discharged. The Assembly Government share that view. Similarly, in considering Amendment No. 26, the Government and the Assembly Government are of the view that the addition of such a power would be inappropriate and largely unnecessary. With his existing powers the commissioner is able during an examination to request information, explanations and assistance for the purpose of identifying individual responsibility. That information will allow him, as part of the process of drawing up his recommendations, to determine what person or body is responsible for taking action on those issues. Furthermore, the commissioner will be able to identify responsible individuals in his reports and recommendations, if he considers it to be in the public interest. In such cases it would be evident on whom responsibility for implementation rested. I now turn to two questions asked by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. First, is there an appeal against the commissioner’s recommendation? No, we do not think that it is appropriate for the Bill to make provision for appeal mechanisms in the event that the commissioner’s recommendations are not complied with. It would not be appropriate for any third party, such as another ombudsman, to pass judgment on whether the commissioner’s recommendations were reasonable or had been adequately complied with. That would create a hierarchy of commissioners and ombudsmen, thus undermining their status as independent officers and a point of final recourse. If a public body is not complying with the recommendations of the commissioner or any other ombudsman, the only way that that decision could be challenged would be in the courts by way of judicial review. Any review proceedings would not be against the commissioner’s decision but against the decision of the body that is not complying with the commissioner’s recommendation. My noble friend also asked what would happen if a body refused to implement the commissioner’s recommendation. There would be a number of avenues open to the commissioner in such a case. He may, for example, decide to review the discharge of functions of that body and produce another report with further recommendations. For example, if a decision had been taken not to pursue a recommendation because the necessary funding was not available, the commissioner could make a recommendation that the Assembly, or another appropriate body, should meet the cost or redefine the relevant policy priorities. In the light of those explanations, and with the three government amendments, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.