Adam
Price: My optimism has taken another severe blow, but I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed
to.
Clause
4Power
to amend Schedule
2
Mark
Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in clause 4,
page 2, line 34, leave out from ‘field' to end of line 35 and
insert ‘which is directly related
to
Wales.'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 24, in clause 4, page 3, line 13, leave out from
‘field' to end of line and
insert ‘which is directly related
to
Wales.'.
Mark
Williams: We discussed the issues at length earlier
and I do not want to detain the Committee longer than necessary. We are
revisiting the subject of non-devolved matters and the
commissioner’s capacity to consider those. Under the clause, the
Assembly could amend schedule 2 by adding to the relevant list. I want
to reiterate what I said about the reality on the ground. Research by
my colleagues who spoke on the matter in another place revealed that 80
per cent. of complaints received by Citizens Advice, to cite one of the
relevant organisations, related to pensions and benefits. I fully
anticipate what the Minister will say, but there is one other issue
that I want to touch
on. I am interested in
what the Minister said about the roles involved, and he has made things
very clear. However, how does he envisage the work of the commissioner
being promoted to the general public, given the limitations of the
commissioner’s role as we see it? How will those limitations be
conveyed
practically to the public, to avoid disappointment for a good many
constituents wanting redress on various matters? That is a huge
publicity task for the Minister and the
commissioner. Nick
Ainger: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: I shall
disappoint him, but at least I am consistent. On his final point, which
did not relate to the amendment, I do not accept that the commissioner
is subject to the limitations that he implies. As I explained in
response to several amendments and clause stand part debates, the
commissioner will be able to take up issues on behalf of people in
Wales, undertake research and make representations. I recognise that
Opposition Members are not satisfied with the process, but he will
still be able to carry out that task effectively. I am certain that the
commissioner will be able to do just what has been done by, for
example, the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, in establishing
a prominent role in Welsh public life. The hon. Gentleman referred to
Citizens Advice, and I am sure that if people go to citizens advice
bureaux with relevant matters those will be passed on to the
commissioner for investigation, further research or whatever is
appropriate.
Amendment No.
23 provides that the Assembly may add to schedule 2, by order, any body
that has functions in a field that is directly related to Wales. That
could include, potentially, a number of UK-wide bodies operating in
non-devolved fields. We have debated that question and we cannot accept
the amendment. Where the Assembly adds a person to schedule 2, the Bill
requires the Assembly to specify which of the person’s functions
will be “relevant functions” and thus subject to the
commissioner’s remit. Currently, a function can be specified as
a “relevant function” only if it is in a field in which
the Assembly has functions—that is, if it is devolved. The same
applies to amendment No. 24. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to
withdraw the
amendment.
Mark
Williams: I thank the Minister for his response to the
amendment and to my slightly devious attempt to raise another issue on
the back of it. There is a fault line between some of the Opposition
and the Minister, and there is little that we can do breach that
divide. However, the subject has been fully aired, both in the other
place and here. It is important that it was. On that basis, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
4 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
5Review
of
arrangements Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mrs.
Gillan: Clause 5 sets out what the commission may do in
determining whether arrangements for advocacy, complaints and
whistleblowing are effective in safeguarding and promoting the
interests of relevant older people in Wales. Subsection (3) provides
that “The
Commissioner may also assess the effect on relevant older people in
Wales of a person’s failure to make any such
arrangements.”
I want to probe the
Minister’s thinking about whether a timeline is envisaged for
the commissioner in assessing the effect of a person’s failure
to make such arrangements. If there are severe failures in advocacy,
complaints or whistleblowing arrangements, the timeliness of an
investigation, report and assessment is critical. I wonder whether the
Minister has anything in his great book of words that would enlighten
us on that, or if it is something that he would prefer to come back to
me on.
Nick
Ainger: The hon. Lady makes a good point about
whistleblowing and complaints procedures. Those people who have made a
formal complaint and concluded a complaints procedure but remain
dissatisfied may well go to the commissioner. However, I accept that
there may be occasions when they are going through a complaints or a
whistleblowing process and realise that something is wrong with the
process—for example, because it discriminates against an older
person. I appreciate that the commissioner would want to respond
quickly on that to the relevant authority. I will seek further advice
on that and write to the hon.
Lady.
Mrs.
Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister. I was looking at
clause 5(7)(c), which refers to where
“the health or safety of a person
has been endangered;”
I know that the Minister is familiar with
the provision. I hope that he can come back to me on that because the
timeliness of a response and of what is carried out is relevant in that
case.
Nick
Ainger: If that was brought to the attention of the
commissioner under clause 7(a), (b), (c), (d), and possibly even (e),
he would immediately alert the relevant authority. If people are at
risk, he would not sit back and carry out research. If it is brought to
his attention that any individual is at risk, he would immediately
alert the relevant authorities, whether it be the police or the local
social services department. In those circumstances, he would react
quickly. However, when we are talking about whistleblowing and the
complaints procedure, there may not be that
urgency.
Mrs.
Gillan: I appreciate that, but there may be an urgency in
a whistleblowing procedure. As far as I can see, there is no statutory
obligation for the commissioner to react in a timely manner. I would
like that to be considered. It is not something that immediately
springs out of the Bill. It should not be left to good judgment
because, sadly, we know that sometimes judgment is not always good. I
shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say after he has
consulted on the time
limits.
Nick
Ainger: All I can
say— It being
One o’clock, The Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order. Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
