moved Amendment No. 33:"Page 13, line 17, after ““consult”” insert ““and receive the approval of””"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment pursues a point that I raised at the end of Grand Committee, when the Government introduced what was then their new Clause 19, dealing with the complaints procedure in respect of the commissioner.
This clause is about complaints against the commissioner, the possibility that the commissioner may not have discharged his or her duties properly, and the procedures that would be required if an individual thought that the commission had failed him or her. It is a question not of the commission’s independence but of who should finally approve the procedures of complaint against the commissioner.
In this clause, the commissioner must consult the Assembly and, having amended the complaints procedure in the light of such consultation, send a document to the Assembly, as in subsection (5). I suggest that there is a case for the Assembly having greater responsibility for these procedures. They are drafted to ensure that the individual has a right to complain against the commissioner’s performance of his or her duties. I do not believe that, in that instance, the commissioner should be the final arbiter. What if, for example, the Assembly did not think that the commissioner was bringing forward procedures that were robust and rigorous enough to deal with the complaints against him or her?
What if the Assembly found itself at loggerheads over these procedures? Under this provision, the commissioner could stick to his or her guns and establish a procedure for complaint about him or herself. It is not the case—as my noble friend indicated very briefly at the end of our discussion we had—that an amendment of this kind would somehow impinge upon the commissioner’s independence. This is nothing to do with the discharge of the commissioner’s functions in, for example, pursuing grievances. Of course he or she must have total independence in that respect, but I doubt he or she should have total independence in dealing with developing a complaints procedure against him or herself. In this case, there is a strong case for the commissioner to seek the approval of the Assembly when establishing such procedures. I beg to move.
Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Rowlands
(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 c710-1 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 17:10:37 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276341
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276341
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276341