Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [Lords]

We could to and fro on the point ad nauseam, but in my part of Wales, certainly, pensioners are paying significantly more as a result of revaluation and rebanding than would otherwise have been the case. I echo the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham by querying the powers that the commissioner will have. Clause 10 of the Bill sets up sweeping inquisitorial and quasi-judicial powers that will be backed up by a panoply of legal weapons, including the reference of individual cases to the High Court with the possible ultimate sanction of committing individuals to prison for contempt. Such weapons are very powerful and should not—and will not, I am sure—be used capriciously or lightly. We will thus probe in Committee how the powers will be used and in what circumstances that will happen. Indeed, those powers are not possessed by Ministers. Although it might be appropriate for the commissioner to have them, we will want reassurances from the Government about the manner and circumstances in which they may be deployed. My hon. Friend has already referred to the powers of entry in clause 13. Again, we will want clarification on how the powers may be used. There is specific worry about how the powers will interface with those that are currently vested in the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon), who has some experience of these matters. We can envisage circumstances in which both the commissioner and the inspectorate might be concerned about what was going on in a particular care home. It would be extraordinary and, indeed, ridiculous if both the commissioner and the inspectorate decided to exercise their comparable powers at the same time. We shall want to explore the matter further in Committee, but the Government may wish to consider whether, in cases in which the inspector is concerned about the activities of a care home, he should have power to call for an investigation by the care standards inspectorate. I see that the Minister is nodding. Presumably that is why the CSI is not among the organisations mentioned in schedule 1. We also have concerns about the staffing and funding of the commissioner’s office. The Bill, when enacted, will establish a fairly sizeable bureaucracy. We will wish to know whether the size of that bureaucracy is justified. For example, paragraph 4 of schedule 1 provides that the commissioner must appoint a deputy commissioner. Why is that provision mandatory rather than permissive? Why does the commissioner need a deputy? Will he not already be adequately supported by the remaining, no doubt sizeable, staff who will be provided from his £1.5 million per annum budget? Does he really need a deputy who will no doubt be furnished with a sizeable support staff of his own? What added value will the deputy provide? Similarly, the commissioner is to be paid from ministerial budgets. Given that one of the commissioner’s primary duties will be to scrutinise the actions and activities of Welsh Assembly Ministers, is it right that Ministers should be responsible for paying his salary and those of the members of his team? What safeguards does the Government propose to ensure that the suspicion does not arise that he who pays the piper calls the tune? Questions also arise over the commissioner’s period of tenure. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 states that that will be a matter for regulations that will be made at some time in the future. The use of secondary legislation is something of an addiction of the Government’s. One must ask why the period of tenure could not and should not be stated in the Bill. There seems to be no good reason for that, and we shall invite the Government’s observations. There are other matters that concern us. For example, clause 19 establishes statutory defences of absolute and qualified privilege to actions for defamation in respect of many of the commissioner’s activities. We will need to know why the commissioner should have such protection in every such case. He may, for example, make damaging criticisms of the activities of care home proprietors and staff while exercising his duties. Why should he have a defence of privilege if, as a result of his making allegations that subsequently turn out to be false, the lives and livelihoods of those people are blighted? With power comes responsibility, and, given the sweeping powers that are to be conferred on the commissioner—I must beg to differ from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire: this is not a toothless tiger, but a tiger with very sharp teeth—it is only right that he should be called to account if he causes damage in exercising those powers. Indeed, I see no reason why he should not be subject to an action for defamation. We share the broad welcome given to the Bill by Members, but we do not do so uncritically. We fear that from the ““bonfire of the quangos”” of which we have heard so much there has risen a new bureaucratic phoenix in the form of commissioners. Once the accusation was that Wales was quangoland; now it may fairly be suggested that it is rapidly becoming the fiefdom of commissioners. The more cynical might suggest that an important role of the commissioners would be to shoulder responsibilities that would otherwise fall on Ministers. We do not believe that that should happen. While it is welcome that Wales should have a commissioner who will champion the interests of older people, we would expect Ministers to act as champions for older people as well. If Ministers, whether here or in the Welsh Assembly, see that the interests of older people are being compromised, they should intervene and not simply leave it to the commissioner to take action. We, and the people of Wales, expect Ministers to be proactive and not just to await the criticism that may emanate from the commissioner. As I have said, we broadly support the Bill, but we do not do so uncritically. In Committee we will seek answers to the questions that I have asked and, no doubt, to others.