.........
|
Aelodau’r pwyllgor yn
bresennol Committee members in
attendance
|
|
Alun Davies
|
Llafur
Labour
|
|
Keith Davies
|
Llafur (yn dirprwyo ar ran David Rees)
Labour (Substitute for David Rees)
|
|
John Griffiths
|
Llafur
Labour
|
|
Altaf Hussain
|
Ceidwadwyr Cymreig Welsh
Conservatives
|
|
Elin Jones
|
Plaid Cymru The Party of Wales
|
|
Darren Millar
|
Ceidwadwyr Cymreig Welsh
Conservatives
|
|
Lynne Neagle
|
Llafur
(Cadeirydd dros dro)
Labour (Temporary Chair)
|
|
Gwyn R. Price
|
Llafur
Labour
|
|
Lindsay Whittle
|
Plaid Cymru The Party of Wales
|
|
Kirsty Williams
|
Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol Cymru Welsh
Liberal Democrats
|
|
Eraill yn bresennol Others in
attendance
|
|
Mark Drakeford
|
Aelod Cynulliad,
Llafur (y Gweinidog Iechyd a Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol)
Assembly Member, Labour (the Minister for Health and Social
Services)
|
|
Kate Johnson
|
Cyfreithiwr,
Llywodraeth Cymru
Lawyer, Welsh Government
|
|
David Pritchard
|
Pennaeth Rheoleiddio
a Datblygu’r Gweithlu, Llywodraeth Cymru
Head of Regulation and Workforce Development, Welsh Government
|
|
Mari Williams
|
Cyfreithiwr,
Llywodraeth Cymru
Lawyer, Welsh Government
|
|
Swyddogion Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru yn
bresennol National Assembly for Wales officials
in attendance
|
|
Helen Finlayson
|
Ail Glerc
Second Clerk
|
|
Gareth Howells
|
Cynghorydd Cyfreithiol
Legal Adviser
|
|
Rhys Morgan
|
Dirprwy Glerc
Deputy Clerk
|
|
Gareth Pembridge
|
Cynghorydd Cyfreithiol
Legal Adviser
|
|
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:31. The meeting began
at 09:31.
|
|
Cynnig i Ethol
Cadeirydd Dros Dro Motion to Elect a Temporary
Chair
|
|
[1]
Ms Finlayson:
Bore da a chroeso i gyfarfod y
Pwyllgor Iechyd a Gofal Cymdeithasol. Nid yw’r Cadeirydd yn
gallu mynychu cyfarfod heddiw.
|
Ms Finlayson; Good morning
and welcome to this meeting of the Health and Social Care
Committee. The Chair is unable to attend today’s meeting.
|
|
[2]
Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 17.22, I call for
nominations for a temporary Chair for the duration of today’s
meeting.
|
|
[3]
Darren Millar: I nominate Lynne Neagle.
|
|
[4]
Alun Davies: I second that.
|
|
[5]
Ms Finlayson: I therefore declare that Lynne Neagle has been
appointed temporary Chair, and I invite her to take the
Chair’s seat for the duration of today’s meeting.
|
|
[6]
Lynne
Neagle: Thank you,
everyone.
|
|
09:32
|
|
Cyflwyniadau, Ymddiheuriadau a Dirprwyon
Introductions, Apologies and Substitutions
|
|
[7]
Lynne Neagle: Good morning. Can I welcome Members and the
public to this morning’s meeting of the Health and Social
Care Committee? As you know, the meeting is bilingual. Headphones
are used for simultaneous translation from Welsh to English on
channel 1, or for amplification on channel 2. Can I remind people
to either turn off their mobile phones or put them on silent, or
anything else that’s going to interfere with the broadcasting
equipment? There’s no fire alarm scheduled, so if the fire
alarm does sound, please follow directions from the ushers.
|
|
[8]
Apologies for this morning have been received from David Rees, and
I’d like to welcome Keith Davies, who is substituting for
David Rees.
|
|
Y Bil Rheoleiddio ac
Arolygu Gofal Cymdeithasol (Cymru)—Cyfnod 2:
Trafod Gwelliannau Regulation and
Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Bill—Stage 2: Consideration
of Amendments
|
|
[9]
Lynne Neagle: Our first item this morning is the
continuation of the Stage 2 debate on the Regulation and Inspection
of Social Care (Wales) Bill. I’d like to welcome Mark
Drakeford, the Minister, to the meeting and ask Mark to introduce
his officials for the record.
|
|
[10]
The Minister for Health and Social Services (Mark
Drakeford): Thank you, Chair. For the record, I’m
accompanied again this morning by David Pritchard, Mari Williams
and Kate Johnson.
|
|
[11]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you very much. Although we’ve done
part of the Stage 2, I think it would probably be useful for the
record just to recap the handling of this morning, which is to
dispose of the remaining amendments. Just to remind Members, there
will be one debate on each group of amendments. The debate on each
group will follow the same structure: I will call the proposer of
the lead amendment in each group first, who should move the lead
amendment and speak to it and any other amendments in the group. I
will then call other Members who wish to speak to any of the
amendments in the group. I will then call the Minister if he did
not have the lead amendment, and then the Member with the lead
amendment to reply to the debate.
|
|
[12]
Voting, as usual, will be by show of hands. If there is a tied
vote, I will use the casting vote in the negative, against the
amendment.
|
|
[13]
Proposers of amendments that were not the lead amendment in these
groups will be called to move the amendments at the appropriate
time. This includes those amendments that were debated, but not
disposed of, during last week’s proceedings.
|
|
[14]
In accordance with the usual practice, I will formally move
amendments tabled by the Minister, unless he indicates at the
appropriate time that he does not wish them to be moved.
|
|
[15]
As is usual practice, advisers to the committee or the Minister are
not expected to provide advice on the record. If Members need to
seek legal advice during proceedings, please do so either by
passing a note to the relevant adviser or by requesting an
adjournment to the proceedings. Are there any questions? No. Okay.
Lovely.
|
|
Grŵp 21:
Adroddiadau Blynyddol Awdurdodau
Lleol (Gwelliannau 149 a
77)
Group 21: Local Authority Annual Reports (Amendments 149 and
77)
|
|
[16]
Lynne Neagle: We begin proceedings this morning with the
twenty-first group of amendments, which is in relation to local
authority annual reports. The lead amendment in the group is
amendment 149, and I call on Lindsay Whittle to move amendment 149
and speak to the amendments in this group.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 149 (Lindsay Whittle).
Amendment 149 (Lindsay Whittle) moved.
|
|
[17]
Lindsay Whittle: Thank you very much, Chair. You will be
delighted to know that I’m going to be very brief. I formally
move amendment 149 in group 21, tabled in my name. Members will be
aware that local authority annual reports should, in my opinion,
specify how needs are met. I think that that should be written onto
the face of the Bill. It’s as simple as that and I formally
move.
|
|
[18]
Lynne Neagle: Thanks, Lindsay. Are there other Members who
would like to speak? No. Then I call on the Minister, please.
|
|
[19]
Mark Drakeford: Thank you, Chair. Well, Government amendment
77 responds to recommendation 10 of the Stage 1 report of this
committee, which called for a requirement on the face of the Bill
to consult stakeholders on the form and content of annual reports
from local authorities before making regulations in relation to
those sections. This amendment therefore achieves that by making
the first set of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure
and therefore to the consultation requirements that that procedure
entails. This makes this part of the Bill consistent with amendment
9, which relates to provider annual returns, which this committee
considered last week as part of group 8.
|
|
[20]
I’ve thought carefully about Lindsay Whittle’s
amendment 149, and given the interest that there has been
throughout the 2014 Act’s procedures in relation to how local
authorities will assess and meet needs, I’m happy to accept
Lindsay’s amendment this morning.
|
|
[21]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you, Minister. Lindsay, do you want to
reply?
|
|
[22]
Lindsay Whittle: Just to thank the Minister, Chair. Thank
you very much.
|
|
[23]
Lynne Neagle: Okay, thank you very much. So, the question is
that amendment 149 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Okay,
great. Then amendment 149 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 149 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 149 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Grŵp 22: Comisiynu Gwasanaethau Gofal
Cymdeithasol (Gwelliannau 74, 78, 150, 152, 159 ac 125)
Group 22: Commissioning Social Care Services (Amendments 74, 78,
150, 152, 159 ac 125)
|
|
[24]
Lynne Neagle: We move on, then, to the twenty-second
grouping of amendments, which is in relation to the commissioning
of social care services. The lead amendment in the group is
amendment 74.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 74 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 74 (Mark Drakford) moved.
|
|
[25]
Lynne Neagle: I formally move amendment 74 in the name of
the Minister and call on the Minister to speak on the
amendment.
|
|
[26]
Mark Drakeford: Thank you, Chair. This is a significant and,
in some ways, complex group of amendments. I think I said on the
floor of the National Assembly that the evidence taken by this
committee during Stage 1, and the conclusions that were drawn in
the Stage 1 report in relation to commissioning, were a very
valuable part of the scrutiny process, and have led me to think
again about some aspects of the Bill as originally drafted.
|
|
[27]
The amendments in my name therefore ensure that the commissioning
of local authorities is given strengthened scrutiny, both in the
inspection of local authority social services, and in the
requirements of the market stability reports. So, the amendments
that I bring forward are a direct response to recommendations 28
and 29 of this committee’s report.
|
|
[28]
Amendment 74 requires that a local authority’s market
stability report includes an assessment of the effect of
commissioning of services in connection with their social services
functions. The amendment makes further provision so that the period
that is to be covered by such an assessment will be set out in
regulations. Amendment 78 makes it clear that the power of review
by Care and Social
Services Inspectorate Walesin relation to social services
functions of local authorities includes a power to review the
commissioning of any services in connection with those functions.
So, those two things together, I think, bring to the surface of the
Bill a new clarity about the need for local authorities and the
discharge of their commissioning responsibilities to be subject to
the scrutiny of the regulator, and to be explicitly addressed in
their market stability reports.
|
|
[29]
The committee will hear of amendments 125 and 150, in the name of
Lindsay Whittle, supported by Kirsty Williams. I have to ask
Members to reject these amendments because they are both concerned
with widening the scope of this Bill to incorporate health board
commissioning of social care services. This is not a Bill about how
health boards operate. We would have had a very different set of
debates, a different range of evidence at Stage 1, and a different
consultation beforehand if this Bill had been about bringing health
boards within its scope. As Members will have noticed, in order to
make those amendments regular, the final amendment of this group
requires that the long title of the Bill be changed to bring about
this very late and fundamental addition, to bring that within the
scope of the Bill. So, I think that these amendments both mistake
what the Bill is about and seek to widen its scope at a point where
nobody who would have had an interest in doing so will have had a
chance to make their views known to this committee, and I cannot
support those amendments. I remind Members as well that the whole
issue of how local health boards are to exercise their powers and
functions is subject to the Green Paper consultation, ‘Our
Health, Our Health Service’, which is still out to public
consultation until 20 November. If there is a case for doing what
these amendments seek to do, then that is the place for that case
to be made and that is the place for it to be pursued in any
subsequent legislation.
|
|
[30]
Amendment 152, again in Lindsay’s name and supported by
Kirsty, seeks to make it a requirement that, when CSSIW are
conducting a review of local authority social services functions,
that review must look at whether the commissioning by the local
authority has taken into account the quality, effectiveness of
services and the economy and efficiency of their provision.
I’ll listen carefully to what is said in support of that
amendment this morning. At present, my conclusion is that the
effect adds little to amendment 78, other than making it a more
complex and bureaucratic approach to the inspection of local
authorities, but I will listen carefully to what is being said.
|
|
[31]
The final amendment in this group is number 159 in the name of
Kirsty Williams. As I understand it, the effect of this amendment
would be that a person who is involved in the decision-making
process of commissioning a regulated service from a service
provider could not, for a period of six months, work for or become
an employee of the service provider or any subsidiary or holding
company of that service provider.
|
|
[32]
I do very much understand why this amendment has come forward, and
I know that it will be as a result of the very direct experience
that Kirsty has had of how commissioning arrangements were carried
forward in her own constituency area. However, my advice is that
this amendment would have significant consequences that might go
beyond the intentions that are there in its proposition. It’s
drafted in a way that will encompass individuals beyond those
intended. It’s not clear, for example, who
|
|
[33]
‘A person who is involved in the decision-making process of
commissioning’
|
|
[34]
is intended to mean. It could encompass a person seeking to work as
a cleaner or a cook in the same care home where that person had
recently been involved in placing their parent, for example, and I
know that’s not the sort of instance that the amendment is
designed to capture. I would ask Members to reject amendment 159
this morning, but I would be happy to meet the Member to discuss
the lessons from the recent events in her constituency and to
understand what the best remedy to that position might be.
|
|
[35]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you, Minister. I’ll take other
Members now. Kirsty and then Lindsay, is it?
|
|
[36]
Kirsty Williams: Thank you, Lynne. Could I thank the
Minister for his comments and welcome the acknowledgement by the
Minister that the evidence that was received at Stage 1 by this
committee has convinced him of the case to take a greater interest
in the regulation and inspection regime in the commissioning
process? I think the evidence is quite clear that, if we are to
ensure that residents, citizens, have access to quality services,
that can only happen if the commissioning of such services is of a
sufficiently high and robust standard. The analogy that we received
here is that it’s like expecting a precious rare orchid to
pop out of the ground, when what has been buried in the ground in
the first place is a tulip bulb. So, if we don’t get the
actual foundations of the commissioning process right, it will not,
therefore, necessarily follow that what we will get is the service
that we would all want to see for constituents. I recognise that
the Government has acknowledged this in some ways in its amendments
today.
|
|
09:45
|
|
[37]
Could I turn to the issue of health boards? The Minister is not
correct in stating that those from health boards have not had an
opportunity to take part in the scrutiny of this Bill. Indeed, it
was members of health boards who came here to represent health
boards in the NHS Confederation, by their own admission, who said
that their commissioning of beds in residential homes throughout
Wales—and they are responsible for a significant number of
placements in such homes—is not looked at as part of the
current Healthcare Inspectorate Wales regime, and they would
welcome the greater scrutiny of how they go about commissioning
those services. So, it’s simply not correct to say that this
is a sudden imposition of something completely new to this
committee, because it was the very evidence from those nursing
directors and commissioners from health boards, who said that they
would welcome a greater focus on their commissioning—
|
|
[38]
Alun Davies: Will you take an intervention?
|
|
[39]
Kirsty Williams: Of course.
|
|
[40]
Alun Davies: I accept the point you make about the evidence,
but the burden of this Bill is to regulate the services provided
rather than to look again at the way that health boards function. I
don’t disagree with the points you make, by the way, but
reading the amendment that you’ve tabled, it’s very,
very clear that it’s an amendment about the health
boards—and the management structures, processes and functions
within the health boards—rather than the services. I think,
in some ways, it might be useful for you to have that conversation
with the Minister before Stage 3.
|
|
[41]
Kirsty Williams: I accept that this Bill, the primary focus
of this Bill, has been about the regulation and inspection of
service delivery, but the Minister has just given way on the point
that this Bill also needs to look at the aspects of commissioning.
If we are saying that we need to look at the aspects of local
authority commissioning of services, it seems to me perfectly
logical that we should look at the aspects of commissioning of
health boards when they are placing people in residential care,
especially at a time when the Government’s direction of
travel is for greater collaboration between local authorities and
health boards in the provision of social care. Indeed, as we sit
here today, there are active negotiations about the wholesale
transfer of adult social care services from Powys local authority
to Powys local health board, who could be responsible, in the not
too near future, for commissioning all adult social care. But,
under this legislation, as currently framed, the commissioning of
those services will not have the same rigour as in terms of other
local authorities where adult social care remains within the
auspices of a local council. Therefore, this Bill needs to reflect
direction of travel, and movement of how commissioning of adult
social care is changing between local authorities and health
boards, and we need to make space for that in the legislation that
is currently before us, rather than wait.
|
|
[42]
If I could turn to the issue of amendment 159, I’d hate for
the amendment to become known as the Powys amendment, because
I’m sure that there are examples, Minister, of such practices
in other areas. But, it seems to me that, at present, there is
nothing in law to stop a senior councillor, or a senior
commissioning officer within a local authority, today handing out a
multi-million pound contract to a private provider, and then be
found to be in their employment if not within days or perhaps weeks
but within months of handing out that multi-million pound taxpayers
contract. I believe that there should be some form of safeguard in
place that stops that from happening.
|
|
[43]
The amendment says that if person A is involved in a
decision-making process that leads to the commissioning of a
regulated service from service provider X, then person A cannot
work for service provider X for six months after the last day
person A was involved in the decision-making process. You’re
quite right that it’s certainly not my intention that someone
who has placed a relative in a care home should be prevented from
working in that care home. I have suggested six months as an
initial idea, because I am aware that restrictions such as these
have to be proportionate, otherwise they risk breaching human
rights and EU law. But I do believe that we need to take action to
protect citizens and the quality of social care by preventing this
practice from happening. If what the Minister saying to me is that
he’s happy to have ongoing discussions about how we can
achieve this effect at Stage 3, then I will happily withdraw the
amendment today, if the Minister is willing to give that commitment
to look to find a way forward to provide these safeguards to
service recipients and to Welsh taxpayers. Thank you.
|
|
[44]
Lynne Neagle: Thanks, Kirsty. Elin.
|
|
[45]
Elin Jones: O, reit. Dim ond i ategu’r hyn y mae Kirsty Williams wedi’i
ddweud wrth ddatgan y gefnogaeth i’r gwelliannau sydd yn enw
Lindsay Whittle am ddod â byrddau iechyd i sgôp y
comisiynu—. Fe ddywedoch chi, Weinidog, yn eich cyflwyniad
nawr, nad yw’n briodol dod â’r maes yma i mewn ar
y very late stage yma, fel y gwnaethoch chi ddweud. Wel,
i’r pwyllgor yma, nid yw hi’n very late stage;
hwn yw ein cyfle ni, ar ei gynharaf, i gyflwyno gwelliannau
i’r Mesur yma. Felly, nid yw hi’n gyfnod hwyr o ran
gwaith y pwyllgor yma i fod yn cyflwyno gwelliannau o’r math
yma sy’n adlewyrchu’r dystiolaeth a’r drafodaeth
gawsom ni yn y pwyllgor yma dros gyfnod sgrwtini Cyfnod 1, fel y
gwnaeth Kirsty ei amlinellu. Ac felly rŷm ni’n rhedeg y
risg gyda’r Mesur yma fel y mae wedi’i ddrafftio ar hyn
o bryd, os ydych chi’n gwrthod y gwelliannau yma, na fydd y
Mesur yn adlewyrchu realiti eich dyhead polisi chi i weld gwell
integreiddio o ran comisiynu, gwell integreiddio o ran gwaith a
darpariaeth rhwng byrddau iechyd ac awdurdodau lleol, na
chwaith y practis sydd
yn digwydd ar lawr gwlad erbyn
hyn, i ryw raddau, lle mae yna gydweithredu yn digwydd. Mae practis
erbyn hyn hefyd yn cydweithredu rhwng byrddau iechyd ac awdurdodau
lleol, ac felly y risg o beidio â derbyn y gwelliannau yma
heddiw, neu eu cyflwyno nhw yng Nghyfnod 3, yw bod y Mesur yma, y
ddeddfwriaeth yma, yn seilo awdurdodau lleol yn unig heb fod yn
cymryd y cyfle i ganiatáu, os nad gorfodi, comisiynu ar y cyd
ar gyfer oedolion yn y sector yma.
|
Elin Jones: Oh, right. Just to support
what Kirsty has said in stating the support for the amendments in
the name of Lindsay Whittle on bringing health boards within the
scope of the commissioning—. You said, Minister, in your
introduction just now, that it wasn’t appropriate to bring
this area in at this very late stage, as you put it. Well, for this
committee, it’s not a very late stage; this is the earliest
opportunity for us to put forward amendments to this Bill. So,
it’s not a late stage in terms of the work of this committee
to be putting forward amendments of this kind that reflect the
evidence and the discussion that we had in committee during the
Stage 1 scrutiny process, as Kirsty outlined. And so we are
therefore running the risk with this Bill, as it has been drafted,
that, if you reject these amendments, the Bill will not reflect the
reality of your policy ambitions to see better integration in terms
of commissioning, better integration in terms of work and provision
between health boards and local authorities, and neither will it
reflect the practice happening at grass-roots level at present, to
some degree, where collaboration happens. There is also practice in
collaboration between health boards and local authorities, and so
the risk in rejecting these amendments today, or in introducing
them at Stage 3, is that this Bill, this legislation, is in a local
authority silo without taking the opportunity to allow, if not
compel, joint commissioning for adults in this sector.
|
|
[46]
Felly, byddem ni’n dweud eich
bod chi’n anghwrtais wrth y pwyllgor yma wrth ddweud ei bod
yn gyfnod hwyr i gyflwyno’r gwelliannau yma. Hwn yw’r
cyfnod cyntaf rŷm ni’n gallu cyflwyno’r
gwelliannau a chryfhau’r Mesur yn y modd yma. Rŷm ni
wedi clywed y dystiolaeth, rŷm ni’n gweld eich cyfeiriad
polisi chi eich hunan, yn ogystal, efallai, â’n dyhead
ni fel pwyllgor i fod yn hyrwyddo ac yn gweithio tuag at fwy o
integreiddiad gwasanaethau ac, yng nghyd-destun y Mesur yma, fwy o
integreiddiad o ran comisiynu ac o ran rheoleiddio
gwasanaethau.
|
So, we would say that you are being impolite
to this committee in saying that this is a late stage to be putting
forward these amendments. This is the first opportunity for us to
be able to put forward these amendments and strengthen the Bill in
this way. We’ve heard the evidence, we’ve seen your own
policy direction, as well as, perhaps, our ambition as a committee
to be promoting and working towards greater integration of services
and, in the context of this Bill, greater integration in terms of
commissioning and in terms of regulating services.
|
|
[47]
Lynne Neagle: Thanks, Elin. Darren.
|
|
[48]
Darren Millar: Yes, just very, very briefly, I’d like
some legal advice, if that’s okay for the committee, on this
particularly.
|
|
[49]
Lynne Neagle: Okay. Well, in view of that, then, we will
adjourn for five minutes while the committee seeks some legal
advice.
|
|
Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 09:54 a 09:58. The
meeting adjourned between 09:54 and 09:58.
|
|
[50]
Lynne Neagle: We’ll reconvene and I’ll bring
Darren Millar in.
|
|
[51]
Darren Millar: Chair, further to the legal advice
we’ve received, it would appear that a situation where a
local authority effectively delegates its responsibility to a third
party to fulfil its functions in relation to these social services
is not captured anywhere in the Bill, and that the local authority
is always the responsible authority for the purposes of the Bill.
That, to me, suggests that the Bill is inadequate in respect of
this alternative way of commissioning its services. Given that that
is not captured, I don’t know whether the Minister wants to
agree to discuss this further with the Member who’s brought
forward the amendment, but I think that might be wise.
|
|
[52]
Lynne Neagle: Thanks, Darren. Lindsay.
|
|
[53]
Lindsay Whittle: Thank you, Chair. Minister, we just need to
know what criteria local health boards will be applying when
they’re commissioning services to ensure that Welsh
Government are getting value for money and a high-quality service.
I’d be quite happy, with the support of Kirsty Williams, to
perhaps withdraw amendment 150 at this stage, providing you would
be happy to meet us further on that matter.
|
|
[54]
Lynne Neagle: Thanks, Lindsay. Can I ask the Minister to
reply to the debate, please?
|
|
10:00
|
|
[55]
Mark Drakeford: Thank you, Chair, and thanks to everyone who
has contributed. I recognise that the commissioning of services has
been a consistent thread in the discussion since this Bill was
introduced. I don’t think the Government amendments are about
giving way on commissioning. It is about drawing to the surface of
the Bill some of the oversight of commissioning and the discharge
of commissioning responsibilities that we would have expected local
authorities and CSSIW to have discharged in any case. This makes
those obligations more significant.
|
|
[56]
Of course, I am always ready to discuss issues with Members where
further discussion would allow us to reach a further understanding,
so I’m very happy to give that undertaking this morning. Can
I just mention in relation to amendment 159—simply to be
clear with Kirsty, so that she can make her decision on whether she
wants to move her amendment—that I’m very pleased to
offer a chance to discuss the issue further? I have absolutely no
disagreement with the position she outlined as being a position
that needs to be remedied. I wasn’t going as far as saying
this morning that I could guarantee that those discussions would
lead to a Stage 3 amendment to this Bill. So, I just want to be
explicit with the Member on that point.
|
|
[57]
Elin Jones: Could I just ask for some clarity as well as to
your response to Lindsay Whittle on further discussions on the
issue of including local health boards within the commissioning
aspect of this Bill? You were quite definitely against that in your
introduction, but are you now confirming to the committee that you
are prepared to have discussions with Lindsay in terms of the lead
amendment, on how that possibly could be incorporated in advance of
Stage 3?
|
|
[58]
Mark Drakeford: That’s not what I said, Chair. The
position I outlined earlier is still the position that I would
maintain—that to bring about an amendment of that sort at
this point is not consistent with the way I think that these things
ought to be discussed. I’m happy to talk about the
substantive issue if that’s what Members would like me to do,
because I did listen carefully to what was said. I don’t
agree that having health boards in front of the committee to ask
them about a Bill as it was in front of the committee at that point
is sufficient to say that they would be happy with a Bill as this
amendment would bring it. It’s a bit like saying that health
boards were here and invited to talk about a tulip, and now that
the committee is about to vote in favour of an orchid, the health
boards will be happy with the orchid. Now, I intended nothing
discourteous in what I said to this committee. The point I was
making was that no stakeholders—health boards or anybody
else—were able to give evidence to this committee on the
proposition you’re now being asked to vote on. This Bill has
been a very long time in preparation. For them, it is not just late
in the day; it is too late in the day because they have no other
opportunity to make their views known to you on that amendment.
Darren Millar asked me, having heard what was said, whether I would
be happy to discuss things further. As I said, I’m always
happy to have those further discussions, but I’m not
embarking on them on the basis that this is somehow an agreement by
me that the Government’s version will change in advance of
Stage 3. It’s a commitment to discuss.
|
|
[59]
Darren Millar: Will you take an intervention on that point,
Minister?
|
|
[60]
Mark Drakeford: Yes.
|
|
[61]
Darren Millar: I’m very grateful. One of the problems
with your suggestion that you want to engage in discussions is that
it fails to recognise that, for the purposes of the Bill, local
authorities are always regarded as the lead responsible authority
in respect of social services, but the reality is quickly changing.
You make—and many Government Ministers make—the point
of the need to futureproof Bills on a regular basis. And yet, this
Bill could be outdated as soon as it arrives on the statute
books.
|
|
[62]
Mark Drakeford: Well, I heard the Member make that point
earlier, and it was part of why I said I was prepared to discuss it
further. I would need to think about what he has said, and
I’d need to see what advice I would get on that point, but my
offer to discuss is a without-prejudice offer; it is not an
indication that the Government is moving to a different position at
Stage 3.
|
|
[63]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you, Minister. Do you wish to proceed to
a vote on amendment 74?
|
|
[64]
Mark Drakeford: Yes, please.
|
|
[65]
Lynne Neagle: The question, then, is that amendment 74 be
agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 74 is agreed,
as there are no objections.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 74 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 74 agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.
|
|
Grŵp 23: Adroddiadau ar Sefydlogrwydd y
Farchnad Leol
(Gwelliannau 75 a 76)
Group 23: Local Market Stability Reports (Amendments 75 and 76)
|
|
[66]
Lynne Neagle: The twenty-third group of amendments is in
relation to local market stability reports. The lead amendment in
the group is amendment 75.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 75 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 75 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[67]
Lynne Neagle: I formally move amendment 75 in the name of
the Minister and I call on the Minister to speak to the amendments
in the group.
|
|
[68]
Mark Drakeford: Thank you very much, Chair. This group of
amendments is brought forward partly in response to the
recommendations made in the committee’s Stage 1 report.
Amendment 75 does two things. Firstly, it requires local
authorities to take into account their most recently published
population needs assessments and the plan that they’re
required to bring forward under the Social Services and Well-being
(Wales) Act 2014, while also requiring them to consult with
relevant health boards. This latter requirement responds to this
committee’s recommendation 31, which sought collaboration
with health boards in the preparation of market stability
reports.
|
|
[69]
Amendment 76 establishes a requirement to consult before the
introduction of substantial regulations relating to market
stability reports. Again, this is a direct response to this
committee’s report and, specifically, its recommendation
30.
|
|
[70]
Both of these amendments, in conjunction with amendment 74 in the
previous group, make additional provision for market stability
reports, and I hope that Members will support them.
|
|
[71]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you, Minister. Are there any other
Members who would like to speak on this group? No. Minister, do you
wish to move to a vote on amendment 75?
|
|
[72]
Mark Drakeford: Yes, please, Chair.
|
|
[73]
Lynne Neagle: The question, then, is that amendment 75 be
agreed to. Does any Member object? There are no objections, so
amendment 75 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 75 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 75 agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd
gwelliant 76 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 76 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[74]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 76 be agreed
to. Does any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment
76 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 76 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 76 agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd
gwelliant 77 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 77 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[75]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 77 be agreed
to. Does any Member object? Amendment 77 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 77 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 77 agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd
gwelliant 78 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 78 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[76]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 78 be agreed
to. Does any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment
78 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 78 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 78 agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd
gwelliant 79 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 79 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[77]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 79 be agreed
to. Does any Member object? Amendment 79 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 79 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 79 agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.
|
|
[78]
Lynne Neagle: Before we move to a vote on amendment 150,
Members will wish to be aware that if this amendment is not agreed,
amendment 125 will fall. Lindsay, would you like to move amendment
150?
|
|
Cynigiwyd
gwelliant 150 (Lindsay Whittle gyda chefnogaeth Kirsty
Williams ac Altaf Hussain).
Amendment 150 (Lindsay Whittle supported by Kirsty Williams and
Altaf Hussain) moved.
|
|
[79]
Lindsay Whittle: I formally move, Chair.
|
|
[80]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you. The question, then, is that
amendment 150 be agreed to. Does any Member agreed object? We have
an objection, so we will now take a vote. The question is that
amendment 150 be agreed to. Can I ask members to show? Those in
favour. And those against. Thank you. So, we have five in favour
and five against. As there is a tied vote, I use my casting vote in
the negative, that is, against the amendment, in accordance with
Standing Order 6.20(ii). Therefore, amendment 150 is not
agreed.
|
|
Gwelliant 150: O blaid 5,
Yn erbyn 5, Ymatal 0.
Amendment 150: For 5, Against 5, Abstain 0.
|
|
O blaid:
For:
|
Yn erbyn:
Against:
|
Ymatal:
Abstain:
|
|
Hussain, Altaf
Jones, Elin
Millar, Darren
Whittle, Lindsay
Williams, Kirsty
|
Davies, Alun
Davies, Keith
Griffiths, John
Neagle, Lynne
Price, Gwyn R.
|
|
|
Gwrthodwyd gwelliant 150.
Amendment 150 not agreed.
|
|
Gan fod nifer y pleidleisiau yn gyfartal, defnyddiodd y Cadeirydd
ei phleidlais fwrw yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 6.20(ii).
As there was an equality of votes, the Chair used her casting vote
in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii).
|
|
Methodd gwelliant 125.
Amendment 125 fell.
|
|
Grŵp 24: Adolygiadau o Swyddogaethau
Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol Awdurdodau Lleol (Gwelliant 151)
Group 24: Reviews of Local Authority Social Services Functions
(Amendment 151)
|
|
[81]
Lynne Neagle: Moving on, then, to group 24, which deals with
reviews of local authority social services functions. The lead and
only amendment in the group is amendment 151 and I call on Lindsay
Whittle to move and speak to that amendment.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 151 (Lindsay Whittle).
Amendment 151 (Lindsay Whittle) moved.
|
|
[82]
Lindsay Whittle: Thank you, Chair. I formally move amendment
151, tabled in my name. The amendment is to specifically state that
reviews of local authority social services functions must include
the outcomes that have been achieved. We know, Chair, that the
Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act emphasised the need for
services to be outcome based, and whilst it’s important to
ensure that all of the proper procedures are followed, it’s
vital to know whether those outcomes expected by persons and carers
are actually being achieved. And that is the only reason for this
amendment, and I so move.
|
|
[83]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you, Lindsay. Are there any other
Members who would like to speak on this amendment? Can I call on
the Minister, then, to speak?
|
|
[84]
Mark Drakeford: Chair, I’ll ask the Members to reject
this amendment. I think it is superfluous. The Bill in section
149(d) already establishes a comprehensive list of things that the
regulator must take into account when conducting a review of local
authority social services. That includes: the availability and
accessibility of services; the quality and effectiveness of
services; the management of services; the economy and efficiency of
provision; the availability and quality of information; duties
imposed on local authorities in relation to UN conventions; and,
the effectiveness of measures taken by local authorities to achieve
the outcomes specified in the statement issued by Welsh Ministers
under section 8. In that sense, I think everything that Lindsay is
seeking to achieve is already there on the face of the Bill, and
the amendment would only serve to complicate the process of
inspection. I ask Members to reject the amendment on that
basis.
|
|
[85]
Lynne Neagle: Thanks, Minister. Lindsay, do you wish to go
to a vote on amendment 151?
|
|
[86]
Lindsay Whittle: I do, Chair—
|
|
[87]
Lynne Neagle: Sorry, to reply to the debate.
|
|
[88]
Lindsay Whittle: Sorry, I was just going to ask if I could
reply? I can, thank you. It’s important that the regulator is
happy, I’m sure. But, what about the customer in all of this?
I think it’s important to ensure that the customer is happy
as well—the people who are actually receiving the service.
That is all I wanted to achieve with this. So, I would like to put
this to the vote please.
|
|
[89]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you, Lindsay. The question is that
amendment 151 be agreed to. Does any Member object?
[Objection.] We have an objection, so I will therefore take
a vote by show of hands. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment
to show, please? Those against. So, there voted five in favour,
five against. As there is a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the
negative according to Standing Orders and vote ‘no’.
So, amendment 151 falls.
|
Gwelliant 151: O blaid 5
Yn erbyn 5, Ymatal 0.
Amendment 151: For 5 Against 5, Abstain 0.
|
|
O blaid:
For:
|
Yn erbyn:
Against:
|
Ymatal:
Abstain:
|
|
Hussain, Altaf
Jones, Elin
Millar, Darren
Whittle, Lindsay
Williams, Kirsty
|
Davies, Alun
Davies, Keith
Griffiths, John
Neagle, Lynne
Price, Gwyn R.
|
|
|
Gan fod nifer y pleidleisiau yn gyfartal, defnyddiodd y Cadeirydd
ei phleidlais fwrw yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 6.20(ii).
As there was an equality of votes, the Chair used her casting vote
in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii).
|
|
Gwrthodwyd gwelliant 151.
Amendment 151 not agreed.
|
|
[90]
Lynne Neagle: Lindsay, would you like move amendment
152?
|
|
Cynigiwyd
gwelliant 152 (Lindsay Whittle).
Amendment 152 (Lindsay Whittle) moved.
|
|
[91]
Lindsay Whittle: Formally.
|
|
[92]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 152 be agreed
to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an
objection, so I will take a vote. Can I ask those in favour of the
amendment to please show? Those against. So, there voted five in
favour, five against. As there is a tied vote, I use my casting
vote in the negative and the amendment falls.
|
|
Gwelliant 152: O blaid 5
Yn erbyn 5, Ymatal 0.
Amendment 152: For 5 Against 5, Abstain 0.
|
|
O blaid:
For:
|
Yn erbyn:
Against:
|
Ymatal:
Abstain:
|
|
Hussain, Altaf
Jones, Elin
Millar, Darren
Whittle, Lindsay
Williams, Kirsty
|
Davies, Alun
Davies, Keith
Griffiths, John
Neagle, Lynne
Price, Gwyn R.
|
|
|
Gan fod nifer y pleidleisiau yn gyfartal, defnyddiodd y Cadeirydd
ei phleidlais fwrw yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 6.20(ii).
As there was an equality of votes, the Chair used her casting vote
in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii).
|
|
Gwrthodwyd gwelliant 152.
Amendment 152 not agreed.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 80 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 80 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[93]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 80 be agreed
to. Does any Member object? Amendment 80 is therefore agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 80 yn unol
â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34. Amendment 80 agreed in
accordance with Standing Order 17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 81 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 81 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[94]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 81 be agreed
to. Does any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment
81 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 81 yn unol
â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34. Amendment 81 agreed in
accordance with Standing Order 17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 82 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 82 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[95]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 82 be agreed
to. Does any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment
82 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 82 yn unol
â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34. Amendment 82 agreed in
accordance with Standing Order 17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 83 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 83 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[96]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 83 be agreed
to. Does any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment
83 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 83 yn unol
â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34. Amendment 83 agreed in
accordance with Standing Order 17.34.
|
|
Grŵp 25: Darpariaethau ar gyfer Trosolwg
o’r Farchnad
(Gwelliannau 84, 85, 86, 87 ac 88)
Group 25: Market Oversight Provisions (Amendments 84, 85, 86, 87
and 88)
|
|
[97]
Lynne Neagle: We move on to group 25, which is in relation
to market oversight provisions. The lead amendment is amendment
84.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 84 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 84 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[98]
Lynne Neagle: I formally move amendment 84 in the name of
the Minister and call the Minister to speak to the amendments in
this group.
|
|
[99]
Mark Drakeford: Thank you, Chair. Here’s a further
group of amendments that seek to respond to recommendations made by
this committee and to ensure consistency across the Bill as a
whole. Amendments 84 and 87 will ensure that consultation will take
place prior to any significant regulations concerning market
oversight and national market stability reports. The former is a
direct response to recommendation 33 of this committee. The latter
will make the preparation of regulations in relation to national
market stability reports consistent with those of local reports, as
discussed a few moments ago.
|
|
[100]
Amendments 85 and 88 are proposed in response to recommendation 19
of this committee’s Stage 1 report. They will ensure that the
meaning of care and support within national market stability
reports is the wider one contained within the Social Services and
Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, without undermining the important
qualifications set out in part 1 of the Bill. The purpose of having
the wider definition is so that CSSIW is able to look not only at
the sufficiency of regulated services within the national market
but may also, for example, examine the sufficiency of social
enterprises or co-operative organisations that emerge to provide
care and support and preventative services as a result of the
provision of the 2014 Act. Amendment 86 requires CSSIW to report on
an assessment on the effect of commissioning on the exercise of
local authority social services. Although this was not an explicit
recommendation of the committee, it is consistent with
recommendation 29 to include commissioning in local reports, and
then, I think this will be an important requirement in the
future.
|
|
|
10:15
|
|
[101]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you, Minister. Are there any other
Members who would like to speak on this group? No. Minister, do you
wish to move to a vote on amendment 84?
|
|
[102]
Mark Drakeford: Yes, please.
|
|
[103]
Lynne Neagle: The question then is that amendment 84 be
agreed to. Does any Member object? There are no objections, so
amendment 84 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 84 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 84 agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 85 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 85 (Mark Drakford) moved.
|
|
[104]
Lynne Neagle: The question then is that amendment 85 be
agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 85 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 85 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 85 agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 86 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 86 (Mark Drakford) moved.
|
|
[105]
Lynne Neagle: The question then is that amendment 86 be
agreed to. Are there any objections? Amendment 86 is therefore
agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 86 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 86 agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 87 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 87 (Mark Drakford) moved.
|
|
[106]
Lynne Neagle: The question then is that amendment 87 be
agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 87 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 87 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 87 agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.
|
|
[107]
Lynne Neagle: Kirsty, would you like to move amendment
159?
|
|
[108]
Kirsty Williams: Given what the Minister has said, I will
not move the amendment, without prejudice, and I reserve the right
to bring a similar amendment at Stage 3 if I cannot reach agreement
with the Government to find a way that we can adequately take
action against what I regard as a scandal.
|
|
[109]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you, Kirsty. Kirsty’s proposing to
withdraw her amendment. Are there any other Members that want to
move that amendment? No. Okay, well, that amendment is lost for
now.
|
|
Ni chynigiwyd gwelliant 159 (Kirsty Williams gyda chefnogaeth Altaf
Hussain).
Amendment 159 (Kirsty Williams, supported by Altaf Hussain) not
moved.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 88 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 88 (Mark Drakford) moved.
|
|
[110]
Lynne Neagle: The question then is that amendment 88 be
agreed to. Does any Member object? No. That amendment, then is
agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 88 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 88 agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.
|
|
[111]
Lynne Neagle: If Members are content, I’m going to
suggest that we take a five-minute break before we start group 26,
to be back here for 10.25 a.m. Thank you.
|
|
Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 10:17 a
10:25.
The meeting adjourned between 10:17 and 10:25.
|
|
Grŵp 26: Cofrestru Gweithwyr Gofal
Cymdeithasol gyda Gofal Cymdeithasol Cymru (Gwelliannau 116, 117,
118, 119, 120, 121, 122 a 123)
Group 26: Registration of Social Care Workers with Social Care
Wales (Amendments 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 and 123)
|
|
[112]
Lynne Neagle: Okay, is everybody ready? Can I welcome
Members back then? And we’ll move on to group 26, which is in
relation to the registration of social care workers with Social
Care Wales. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 116, and I
call on Altaf Hussain to move amendment 116 and to speak to the
other amendments in this group.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 116 (Altaf Hussain, gyda
chefnogaeth Lindsay Whittle a Kirsty Williams).
Amendment 116 (Altaf Hussain, supported by Lindsay Whittle and
Kirsty Williams) moved.
|
|
[113]
Altaf Hussain: Thank you very much. I move amendments 116 to
123. They are to require domiciliary care workers and adult
residential care workers to register with Social Care Wales.
Domiciliary care workers work, often without direct supervision,
with some of the most vulnerable old people in their own homes.
There have been examples of those who have provided inadequate care
still being employed in the sector. Requiring domiciliary care
workers to register with Social Care Wales will help ensure that
those employed in the sector have the skills and knowledge needed
to provide the levels of care expected of them and that those who
fall below the standards are prevented from working in the sector.
The same applies to the adult residential care workers. The fact
that that restriction applies to those working in children’s
residential care but not those working in adult residential care
homes is perverse.
|
|
[114]
The Flynn review graphically highlights what happens when poor care
and neglect are unchallenged in care homes. Stakeholders told the
committee that the current arrangements do not protect vulnerable
older people. Requiring adult residential care workers to register
will help ensure that those who do not uphold the highest standards
of care are unable to work in a regulated service in future. Thank
you.
|
|
[115]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you very much. Are there any other
Members who would like to speak on this group of amendments?
John.
|
|
[116]
John Griffiths: Yes. Just to say, Chair, that I’m not
sure that these amendments actually achieve what Altaf has just
described. It seems to me that they would require the setting up of
a register but not actually require registration and not actually
have in place any consequences for failure to register. So,
I’m not sure that, as set out in the wording, the effect is
actually that which Altaf seeks to achieve.
|
|
[117]
Lynne Neagle: Thanks. Kirsty.
|
|
[118]
Kirsty Williams: If I could turn firstly to the principle of
the requirement to register domiciliary and adult care staff,
it’s a very fine balance that I think you have to tread,
because we don’t want to create a bureaucratic system that
causes more problems than it solves. We also have to be mindful of
cost in a sector that is already under significant pressure and
will be coming under more pressure with regard to the so-called
living wage, when that comes in. Unless that is reflected in
changes to fee levels that local authorities pay, I think there is
a real pressure building up in the system. But the committee spent
a great deal of time looking at the merits of registration and, in
the end, I think, after careful deliberation, we did make
recommendation 38 that the Minister should bring forward amendments
in this regard. I think, on balance, it is right that we look to
register these workers, given the nature of the work that they
do.
|
|
[119]
I think an important part of that is sending a message to that
workforce that they are part of a very valued and trusted
profession, because part of the problem we have in delivering great
social care is a high turnover of staff and the low value that is
often associated with those jobs. I think we need to send a very
powerful message to that workforce. And it’s a workforce that
wants to do more. It’s a workforce that recognises their
ability to do more for those individuals and to help deliver Welsh
Government objectives of helping people to remain living
independently as far as possible, for as long as possible, and
keeping people out of hospital and out of the health system
altogether. So, on balance, I think it is an important
principle.
|
|
10:30
|
|
[120]
Can I just turn to the points that John raises about how amendments
are drafted? This is the refuge, isn’t it, of Government
Ministers and backbenchers who are trying to be helpful to
Government Ministers. [Laughter.] ‘We agree with the
principle of what you are wanting to do, but, ah, it’s the
way it’s drafted’. Can I remind colleagues that these
aren’t drafted by Assembly Members who don’t know what
they’re doing? These are drafted by committee lawyers on the
basis that they are sound, and what they do is actually implement
the policy objectives of the Assembly Members. I think I’ve
got to the stage where I’ve become slightly bored of hearing
that the reason Government can’t support amendments is
because of the way that they are drafted. I’m sure, in some
cases, that’s legitimate, but I just would like to remind
colleagues that these are drafted by committee lawyers, just like
Government amendments are not drafted by the Minister himself but
drafted by his lawyers. If there’s a point of principle that
you disagree with, that’s fine, but it’s this trying to
refuge, saying, ‘Oh, it’s the way it’s
drafted’, that is the problem, I think. We need to challenge
that, because these have been drafted by equally talented capable
lawyers as those the Government have, and they would not be
drafting something that was outside competence or wouldn’t be
drafting something that was legally unsound. I would like to put
that on the record.
|
|
[121]
Lynne Neagle: Shall I bring the Minister in? Are there any
other Members before I bring the Minister in? Mark.
|
|
[122]
Mark Drakeford: Thank you, Chair, and thanks to Members for
the chance to debate this very important issue. It’s an issue
that, as Kirsty said, has received a lot of attention during the
passage of the Bill. Chair, I know that you yourself have pursued
lines of questioning in relation to the registration of the
workforce regularly during our discussions. However, we have to
consider what is actually in front of the committee this morning. I
think the points that John made are very important
because—let me be clear—the amendment that you’re
asked to vote on would not do the thing that Altaf said in his very
first sentence. He said that the amendments would require workers
to register with Social Care Wales, and these amendments do no such
thing. What these amendments do is to place a requirement on Social
Care Wales to maintain a register. If nobody put their name on that
register, that would be entirely consistent with this amendment and
there would be no consequences whatsoever for anybody who did not
put their name on that register. So, the case that Altaf made is
the strong case that Members have heard during the passage of the
Bill. These amendments do not do what I’m sure he had
intended them to do. What they do, in fact, is to move the Bill
back into territory that it has deliberately vacated, because what
it is doing is to set up an entirely voluntary register. Nobody
would have to put their name on the register that these amendments
would set up. We have rehearsed here previously the reason why,
through this Bill, because of the very strong advice from the Law
Commission, we have deliberately excluded the practice of voluntary
registration. We’ve done that with the wide support of
stakeholders, and these amendments—inadvertently, I have no
doubt—would move the Bill right back into that territory.
|
|
[123]
So, I’m going to ask you to vote against them for that reason
and for a couple of others, because the amendments would also
result in an inconsistent approach to how legislation deals with
the registration of various categories of social care workers. The
Bill is designed to continue the existing framework where groups of
social care workers, apart from social workers, are required to be
registered through their inclusion in regulations in line with the
current methods under the Care Standards Act 2000. These amendments
would result in domiciliary care workers and adult residential care
workers being named on the face of the Bill, but other equally
important categories of social care workers, such as social care
managers, not being named on the face of the Bill at all, and I
think that would introduce confusion and inconsistency into a
really important piece of legislation in this area.
|
|
[124]
I am also opposed to the effect of amendments 118 and 119. The
definition of domiciliary care workers that would be inserted by
amendment 118 would, undoubtedly, capture personal assistants.
It’s never been part of our policy to require such workers to
register. The reason for having personal assistants is to allow the
person with direct payments to make their own decisions and to
secure the best solution that they think is to be secured for their
own care and support needs. This amendment would require those
people only to employ someone who is on the register and I think
that would be to fetter their discretion in a way that would be
quite at odds with the fundamental ethos of direct payments.
|
|
[125]
Chair, I wonder if I could have just a moment, however, to say,
once more, what the Government does intend to do in relation to the
important debate that this committee has heard, and to respond to
some of the points that Kirsty Williams made in her contribution.
I’ve said already in front of the committee that my view is
that we should move to a position where domiciliary care workers
and then, after them, residential care workers, should be part of
the registered workforce. I want to do it, however, in a way that
does not give rise to some of the unintended consequences and
difficulties that Kirsty identified. I want to work with
stakeholders in the field, including employers, to make sure that
we move to registration in a way that, for example, identifies the
necessary qualifications that workers would need to have in order
to get on the register, and to give attention to wider issues, such
as high rates of turnover in the field.
|
|
[126]
Through my officials, we have already begun discussions with the
Care Council for Wales so that we can set out a timetable that will
show how we can get from where we are today to a position where
these groups of workers can be registered, but that we can do it in
a way that is both proportionate and allows us to get to that
position without risking quite large-scale destabilisation.
Let’s be clear: if we insisted on everybody being registered
tomorrow, anybody who wasn’t on the register could not act as
a domiciliary care worker. I think the effect of doing it without
working with the sector and having a properly laid out timetable
would be that we could be in a position where lots of people who do
that job today, and do it perfectly satisfactorily, could not get
themselves on to the register.
|
|
[127]
Alun Davies: Will you take an intervention on that
point?
|
|
[128]
Mark Drakeford: Yes, of course.
|
|
[129]
Alun Davies: It appears to me, Minister, that your
disagreement on this amendment isn’t one of principle in
terms of the inclusion of this group of people on the register, but
a matter of process and timetabling in how that is achieved. It
might be useful, therefore, were you to be able to explain how you
intend to do that. It could be done through some sort of sunrise
clause in this legislation, or potentially through regulation. I
think it would be useful for all of us if we were able to
understand what your intentions are.
|
|
[130]
Elin Jones: Further to that intervention, just to ask, then,
whether the advice you’ve had to date on how you would
proceed with your policy intention, which I support, would require
then new legislation to implement, or whether either this
legislation or other legislation that’s already in place
would allow the Government Minister to move to enacting what
you’ve described in terms of the process of registration for
domiciliary care and other workers.
|
|
[131]
Lynne Neagle: Mark.
|
|
[132]
Mark Drakeford: Thank you, Chair. I’ll take
Elin’s question first. The Bill already provides powers to
Ministers through regulations to add new categories of workers to
those who would be registered. I’ve already indicated that I
would intend to use those powers to bring these two groups into
registration. In answer to Alun’s point, what I’m happy
to say to the committee this morning is that I will set out, before
Stage 3, the tests that I think would need to be there: what would
a worker need to do in order to get on to the register, what level
of qualifications they would need, and so on. I will set out what I
think the tests should be and I will set out the timetable against
which I think we can move to use those regulations to require
registration. I think that will be an orderly way of achieving
what—. I agree with the committee, and I agree with Altaf
Hussain in the ambitions that lie behind his amendments. I think we
can get an orderly way of doing that that achieves what the
committee wants to achieve without some of the unintended
consequences that Kirsty referred to in her contribution.
|
|
[133]
Lynne Neagle: Thanks, Minister. Altaf to reply to the
debate.
|
|
[134]
Altaf Hussain: Thank you very much, Minister, for that.
I’ll withdraw these amendments, 116 to 123.
|
|
[135]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you very much. So, Altaf has indicated
that he wants to withdraw amendment 116. Members should note that
if amendment 116 doesn’t get agreed then amendments 118, 120
and 122 will fall. Are there any objections to the withdrawal of
amendment 116? Okay, amendment 116 is withdrawn.
|
|
Tynnwyd gwelliant 116 yn ôl gyda
chaniatâd y pwyllgor. Amendment 116 withdrawn by
leave of the committee.
|
|
Methodd gwelliannau 118, 120 a
122.
Amendments 118, 120, and 122 fell.
|
|
[136]
Lynne Neagle: Altaf, do you want to move amendment 117? No.
Withdrawn. Okay. Can Members also note that the loss of 117 means
that amendments 119, 121 and 123 will fall. Are there any
objections to the withdrawal of amendment 117? No. Okay, 117 is
withdrawn. As amendments 116 and 117 were not agreed, amendments
118, 119, 120, 121, 122 and 123 have all fallen.
|
|
Ni chynigiwyd gwelliant 117 (Altaf Hussain, gyda chefnogaeth
Lindsay Whittle, Kirsty Williams)
Amendment 117 (Altaf Hussain, supported by Lindsay Whittle, Kirsty
Williams) not moved.
|
|
Methodd gwelliannau 119, 121 a 123.
Amendments 119, 121 and 123 fell.
|
|
Grŵp 27:
Addasrwydd i Ymarfer (Gwelliannau 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 103 a 104)
Group 27: Fitness to Practise (Amendments 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 103 and 104)
|
|
[137]
Lynne Neagle: We’ll now move to group 27, which is a
group of amendments dealing with fitness to practise. The lead
amendment is No. 89.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 89 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 89 (Mark Drakeford)
moved.
|
|
[138]
Lynne Neagle: I formally move amendment 89 in the name of
the Minister and call on the Minister to speak to the amendments in
this group.
|
|
[139]
Mark Drakeford: Thank you, Chair. Fitness to practise under
this Bill is a part of the Bill that, broadly, seeks to continue,
in future, the existing widely understood approach that is
currently in operation. It is a relatively technical and complex
area of the Bill, and the Government amendments are intended to try
and simplify and clarify some of the matters that were raised
during the earlier scrutiny.
|
|
[140]
The concept of impaired fitness to practise is central to the
regulation of social care workers and is the foundation upon which
the provisions in Part 6—this part of the Bill—are
built. Section 116 provides that a person’s fitness to
practise is to be regarded as impaired by reason only of one or
more of the grounds specified in subsection (1). One of those
grounds is a determination by a relevant body that the
person’s fitness to practise is impaired, and amendments 90
and 91 amend section 116 of the Bill to ensure that decisions made
by the Nursing and Midwifery Council can be relied upon as a ground
of impairment. So, that’s just adding the NMC to the list of
bodies that if they say someone’s fitness to practise is
impaired that can be taken into account in this Bill. It adds the
NMC to the other bodies that are already identified for that
purpose. Amendment 103 ensures that any regulations that are made
that add to the list of bodies whose decisions can be taken into
account in the future will be subject to the affirmative
procedure.
|
|
[141]
Amendment 92 assists in making sure that the regulatory process is
fair and transparent by amending section 131 of the Bill to ensure
that those notified of the onward referral of a matter that
involves fitness-to-practise panels are also notified if that
referral is cancelled.
|
|
[142]
Amendment 104 is a direct response to the recommendation of the
Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee that the
regulations made under section 135(2)(d), which deal with persons
to whom undertakings may be disclosed by Social Care Wales, are
subject to the affirmative procedure.
|
|
10:45
|
|
[143]
There are further amendments in this group, Chair, that are even
more technical in nature, and of course I’m happy to provide
a full explanation of any one of them if Members require such an
explanation.
|
|
[144]
Lynne Neagle: Thanks, Minister. Are there any other Members
who want to speak on this group of amendments? No. Okay. Minister,
do you wish to proceed to a vote, then, on amendment 89?
|
|
[145]
Mark Drakeford: Yes, please, Chair.
|
|
[146]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 89 be agreed
to. Does any Member object? No, there are no objections, so
amendment 89 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 89 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 89 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 90 (Mark
Drakeford). Amendment
90 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[147]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 90 be agreed to. Does
any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment 90 is
agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 90 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 90 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 91 (Mark
Drakeford). Amendment
91 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[148]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 91 be agreed to. Does
any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment 91 is
agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 91 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 91 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 92 (Mark
Drakeford). Amendment
92 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[149]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 92 be agreed to. Does
any Member object? Amendment 92 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 92 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 92 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 93 (Mark
Drakeford). Amendment
93 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[150]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 93 be agreed to. Does
any Member object? No. There are no objections, so amendment 93 is
agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 93 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 93 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 94 (Mark
Drakeford). Amendment
94 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[151]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Does
any Member object? No. Amendment 94 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 94 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 94 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 95 (Mark
Drakeford). Amendment
95 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[152]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 95 be agreed to. Does
any Member object? No. Amendment 95 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 95 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 95 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd
gwelliant 96 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 96 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[153]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 96 be agreed to. Does
any Member object? Amendment 96 is therefore agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd
gwelliant 96 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 96 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 97 (Mark
Drakeford). Amendment
97 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[154]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 97 be agreed to. Does
any Member object? No objection, so amendment 97 is
agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 97 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 97 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Grŵp 28: Gorchmynion sy’n Gwahardd
Gwaith mewn Gofal Cymdeithasol: Personau Anghofrestredig
(Gwelliannau 98, 99 a 100) Group 28: Orders Prohibiting Work
in Social Care: Unregistered Persons (Amendments 98, 99 and
100)
|
|
[155]
Lynne Neagle: So, we’ll move on now, then, to group
28, which is in relation to orders prohibiting work in social care
in relation to unregistered persons. The lead amendment is
amendment 98.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 98 (Mark
Drakeford). Amendment
98 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[156]
Lynne Neagle: I formally move amendment 98 in the name of
the Minister and call the Minister to speak to the amendments in
this group.
|
|
[157]
Mark Drakeford:
Thank you, Chair. So, these are
amendments that strengthen the Bill’s provisions in relation
to prohibition orders so that if those provisions were ever to be
introduced, the procedures underpinning them would be robust and
fair. As I’ve said previously to the committee, the
Government has no intention of making use of prohibition orders in
the foreseeable future. They’re included in the Bill on the
advice of the Law Commission, which recommended that Government
should have this as part of a range of workforce regulatory options
available to it. Our position is that we would want to see the
other regulatory processes fully exploited before we move to any
consideration of prohibition orders.
|
|
[158]
However, as part of Stage 1 scrutiny, a number of recommendations
were made to strengthen this part of the Bill should a future
Government ever seek to use the powers that would be provided in
relation to prohibition orders. Amendment 98 therefore requires
Welsh Ministers to consult any persons they think appropriate
before making the regulations to bring such a scheme into
operation. These regulations are already in the Bill subject to the
affirmative procedure, and this amendment further strengthens the
process through which prohibition orders would be introduced,
through a direct response to this committee’s recommendation
43 that Welsh Ministers should consult with the social care sector
prior to making regulations under section 163.
|
|
[159]
The amendment goes beyond the social care sector itself because, of
course, there may be others who would need to be part of that
consultation process—organisations in the education sector,
for example.
|
|
[160]
Amendment 99 amends section 167 of the Bill by inserting a new
provision in relation to the timing of when interim prohibition
orders must be reviewed. It requires the regulator to carry out a
review if the individual subject to the order requests it, but a
minimum of at least three months has to elapse between the making
of the interim order and the request for a review.
|
|
[161]
Finally, amendment 100 amends section 168 of the Bill and ensures
that regulations providing for appeals against prohibition orders
do not need to be made until regulations are made to introduce a
prohibition order scheme.
|
|
[162]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you, Minister. Are there any other
Members who want to speak on this group of amendments? No.
Minister, do you wish to proceed to a vote, then, on amendment
98?
|
|
[163]
Mark Drakeford: Yes, please, Chair.
|
|
[164]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 98 be agreed
to. Does any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment
98 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 98 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 98 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 99 (Mark
Drakeford). Amendment
99 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[165]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 99 be agreed to. Does
any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment 99 is
agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 99 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 99 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 100 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 100 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
|
[166]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 100 be agreed
to. Does any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment
100 is agreed.
|
|
|
Derbyniwyd
gwelliant 100 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 100 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
|
Grŵp 29: Awdurdodau Perthnasol (Gwelliannau
101, 153 a 154)
Group 29: Relevant Authorities (Amendments 101, 153 and 154)
|
|
|
[167]
Lynne Neagle: This takes us to group 29, which is in
relation to relevant authorities. The lead amendment in this group
is amendment 101.
|
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 101 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 101 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
|
[168]
Lynne Neagle: I formally move amendment 101 in the name of
the Minister, and call on the Minister to speak to the amendments
in this group.
|
|
|
[169]
Mark Drakeford: Chair, the Government amendment in this
group adds the Education Workforce Council to the list of relevant
authorities that must co-operate with the regulatory bodies, CSSIW
and Social Care Wales. Lindsay Whittle’s amendment adds
community health councils to the list of relevant authorities, and
I would be very happy to support his amendment as well as the
Government amendment in this group.
|
|
|
[170]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you, Minister. Are there any other
Members who want to speak on the amendments in this group? No.
Okay. Minister, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment
101?
|
|
|
[171]
Mark Drakeford: Yes, please, Chair.
|
|
|
[172]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 101 be agreed
to. Does any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment
101 is agreed.
|
|
|
Derbyniwyd
gwelliant 101 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 101 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
|
[173]
Lynne Neagle: Lindsay, would you like to move amendment
153?
|
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 153 (Lindsay Whittle).
Amendment 153 (Lindsay Whittle) moved.
|
|
|
[174]
Lindsay Whittle: I formally move, Chair.
|
|
|
[175]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you, Lindsay. Before we move to a vote
on amendment 153, Members will wish to be aware that if amendment
153 is not agreed, then amendment 154 will fall. The question is
that amendment 153 be agreed to. Does any Member object? There are
no objections, so amendment 153 is agreed.
|
|
|
Derbyniwyd
gwelliant 153 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 153 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
|
[176]
Lynne Neagle: Lindsay, would you like to move amendment
154?
|
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 154 (Lindsay Whittle).
Amendment 154 (Lindsay Whittle) moved.
|
|
|
[177]
Lindsay Whittle: I would, Chair. I formally move.
|
|
|
[178]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you. The question is that amendment 154
be agreed to. Does any Member object? There are no objections, so
amendment 154 is agreed.
|
|
|
Derbyniwyd
gwelliant 154 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 154 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
|
Grŵp 30: Cydweithredu wrth Arfer Swyddogaethau
(Gwelliant 155)
Group 30: Co-operation in the Exercise of Functions (Amendment
155)
|
|
|
[179]
Lynne Neagle: We’ll move on now, then, to group 30, which
deals with co-operation in the exercise of functions. The lead and
only amendment in the group is amendment 155, and I call on Lindsay
Whittle to move and speak to amendment 155.
|
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 155 (Lindsay Whittle).
Amendment 155 (Lindsay Whittle) moved.
|
|
|
[180]
Lindsay Whittle:
Thank you, Chair. In the interests of
co-operation, I formally move amendment 155, tabled in my name, in
group 30. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure we have
co-operation between those carrying out inspections of service
providers so that the inspection of care homes could be carried out
by Healthcare Inspectorate Wales or, indeed, any successor
organisations, thereby ensuring we move towards having a single
social care and healthcare inspectorate, which is inevitably, I
believe, going to come to this country soon. Thank you. I formally
move.
|
|
|
[181]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you,
Lindsay. Are there any other Members who would like to speak on
this amendment? No. Can I call on the Minister, then?
|
|
|
[182]
Mark Drakeford:
Thank you, Chair. I have no objections to
the objective that Lindsay has just outlined, but I think this
amendment is unnecessary in law. Both HIW and CSSIW in law are
Welsh Ministers. They simply are exercising Welsh Ministers’
functions. The amendment therefore requires Welsh Ministers to
co-operate with themselves, and I think it’s simply
unnecessary.
|
|
|
[183]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you, Minister. Lindsay, do you want to reply to
that?
|
|
|
[184]
Lindsay Whittle:
I couldn’t possibly comment on
that, Chair. [Laughter.] No, I simply move.
|
|
|
[185]
Lynne Neagle: Okay, thank you. The question, then, is that
amendment 155 be agreed to. Does any Member object?
[Objection.] Okay. We have an objection, so I will take a
vote by show of hands. Can I ask those in favour to please show?
Those against. So, the result of the vote is five in favour, five
against, with no abstentions. As there’s a tied vote, I use
my casting vote in the negative against the amendment, and
amendment 155 falls.
|
|
|
Gwelliant 155: O blaid 5,
Yn erbyn 5, Ymatal 0.
Amendment 155: For 5, Against 5, Abstain 0.
|
|
|
O blaid:
For:
|
Yn erbyn:
Against:
|
Ymatal:
Abstain:
|
|
|
Hussain, Altaf
Jones, Elin
Millar, Darren
Whittle, Lindsay
Williams, Kirsty
|
Davies, Alun
Davies, Keith
Griffiths, John
Neagle, Lynne
Price, Gwyn R.
|
|
|
|
Gan fod nifer y pleidleisiau yn gyfartal, defnyddiodd y Cadeirydd
ei phleidlais fwrw yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 6.20(ii).
As there was an equality of votes, the Chair used her casting vote
in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii).
|
|
|
Gwrthodwyd gwelliant 155.
Amendment 155 not agreed.
|
|
|
[186]
Lynne Neagle: Altaf, would you like to move amendment 124,
which was debated last week?
|
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 124 (Altaf Hussain, gyda chefnogaeth Kirsty
Williams).
Amendment 124 (Altaf Hussain, supported by Kirsty Williams)
moved.
|
|
|
[187]
Altaf Hussain: Yes, please.
|
|
|
[188]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you. The question is that amendment 124
be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank
you. We have an objection, so we’ll now proceed to a vote.
Can I ask all those in favour of amendment 124 to please show? All
those against. Okay. Abstentions. Okay. The result of that vote,
then, is that we’ve got two in favour, seven against and one
abstention. So, amendment 124 falls.
|
|
|
Gwelliant 124: O blaid 2,
Yn erbyn 7, Ymatal 1.
Amendment 124: For 2, Against 7, Abstain 1.
|
|
|
O blaid:
For:
|
Yn erbyn:
Against:
|
Ymatal:
Abstain:
|
|
|
Hussain, Altaf
Millar, Darren
|
Davies, Alun
Davies, Keith
Griffiths, John
Jones, Elin
Neagle, Lynne
Price, Gwyn R.
Whittle, Lindsay
|
Williams, Kirsty
|
|
|
Gwrthodwyd gwelliant 124.
Amendment 124 not agreed.
|
|
|
Grŵp 31: Diwygiadau i Ddeddf Gwasanaethau
Cymdeithasol a Llesiant (Cymru) 2014 (Gwelliannau 105, 106, 107 a
108)
Group 31: Amendments to the Social Services and Well-being (Wales)
Act 2014 (Amendments 105, 106, 107 and 108)
|
|
|
[189]
Lynne Neagle: That takes us to group 31, which deals with
amendments to the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014.
The lead amendment in the group is amendment 105.
|
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 105 (Mark Drakeford).
Amendment 105 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
|
[190]
Lynne Neagle: I formally move amendment 105 and call on the
Minister to speak to the amendments.
|
|
|
[191]
Mark Drakeford: Thank you, Chair. This final group of
amendments makes consequential provision to other enactments,
including the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and
the Care Standards Act 2000. They really are consequential to other
amendments already made during the Stage 2 process, and are
technical in nature, and I hope Members will support them.
|
|
|
[192]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you, Minister. Are there any other
Members who want to speak? No. Okay. Thank you. Minister, do you
want to proceed to a vote on amendment 105?
|
|
[193]
Mark Drakeford: Please, Chair.
|
|
[194]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 105 be agreed
to. Does any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment
105 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 105 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 105 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 106 (Mark
Drakeford).
Amendment 106 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[195]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 106 be agreed to. Does
any Member object? Okay. No. Amendment 106 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 106 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 106 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 107 (Mark
Drakeford).
Amendment 107 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[196]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 107 be agreed to. Does
any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment 107 is
agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 107 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 107 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 108 (Mark
Drakeford).
Amendment 108 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[197]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 108 be agreed to. Does
any Member object? No. Amendment 108 is agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 108 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 108 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 102 (Mark
Drakeford).
Amendment 102 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[198]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 102 be agreed to. Does
any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment 102 is
agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 102 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 102 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 103 (Mark
Drakeford).
Amendment 103 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[199]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 103 be agreed. Does
any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment 103 is
agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 103 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 103 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
Cynigiwyd gwelliant 104 (Mark
Drakeford).
Amendment 104 (Mark Drakeford) moved.
|
|
[200]
Lynne Neagle: The question is that amendment 104 be agreed to. Does
any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment 104 is
agreed.
|
|
Derbyniwyd gwelliant 104 yn unol â
Rheol Sefydlog 17.34.
Amendment 104 agreed in accordance with Standing Order
17.34.
|
|
[201]
Lynne Neagle: As amendment 150 was not agreed, amendment 125
has fallen and we have therefore now finished Stage 2
proceedings.
|
|
[202]
All sections and Schedules to the Bill have now been deemed agreed
by the committee. As Stage 2 has been completed today, Stage 3
begins tomorrow and Members will be notified of tabling deadlines
in due course. In accordance with Standing Orders, the Minister
must now prepare and lay a revised explanatory memorandum before
the Assembly at least five working days before Stage 3 proceedings
take place.
|
|
[203]
Can I thank Members for their hard work this morning, and thank the
Minister and his officials for attending? Thank you.
|
|
[204]
Mark Drakeford: Thank you.
|
|
Barnwyd y cytunwyd ar bob adran o’r Bil.
All sections of the Bill deemed agreed.
|
|
10:57
|
|
Papurau i’w Nodi
Papers to Note
|
|
[205]
Lynne Neagle: We’ll pick up our agenda, then, as
normal. Item 3 is a paper to note. Can I ask Members to note the
minutes of the meeting held on 1 October 2015? Noted. Okay. Thank
you.
|
|
Cynnig o dan
Reolau Sefydlog 17.42(vi) a (ix) i Benderfynu Gwahardd y
Cyhoedd
Motion under Standing Orders 17.42(vi) and (ix) to Resolve to
Exclude the Public
|
|
Cynnig:
|
Motion:
|
|
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o
weddill y cyfarfod ac o eitemau 1 a 2 yn y cyfarfod ar 21 Hydref
2015, yn unol â Rheolau Sefydlog 17.42(vi) a (ix).
|
that the committee
resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting
and items 1 and 2 of the meeting on 21 October 2015, in accordance
with Standing Orders 17.42(vi) and (ix).
|
|
Cynigiwyd y cynnig. Motion
moved.
|
|
|
[206]
Lynne Neagle: Can I then propose in accordance with Standing
Order 17.42(vi) and (ix) that the committee now resolves to meet in
private for the remainder of this meeting and for items 1 and 2 of
the meeting on 21 October? Are all Members content? Thank you.
We’ll move into private, then.
|
|
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Motion agreed.
|
|
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am
10:57. The public part of the meeting ended at
10:57.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|