Thank you, Llywydd. All of the amendments in this group relate to representations being made by the citizen voice body and the response that should be provided to them, but they, of course, have different permutations. And I do want to make clear again that, despite the language being used, refusing to agree to amendments 42 or 77 are not examples or evidence of bad faith, or a deliberate desire on the part of the Government to emasculate the current CHC movement and replace them with a toothless body. There is room for honest disagreement, as I recognise both within my own party, and across this Chamber as well. And we have drafted the Bill to enable the citizen voice body to make representations to NHS bodies and local authorities, as organisations that provide or commission the vast majority of health and social care in Wales. As such, they are best placed to take an overview of services in their area, and be most effective in compelling changes on the ground, and responding to the matters related to their representations. 

Both of the amendments in this group seek to add Welsh Ministers to the list of bodies to whom the citizen voice body may make representations. I've been clear that there is nothing to prevent the citizen voice body from corresponding with Welsh Ministers, and, as with any key stakeholders, we don't just take that body's views into account in exercising our relevant functions, including policy and legislation, but we already ensure that we do respond to people who write to Welsh Ministers. Any and every Welsh Government-sponsored body that writes to Ministers receives a response, and that would be exactly the same in terms of the normal ongoing dialogue with Welsh Ministers and the new citizen voice body.

Amendment 41 also refers to representations to be made to any other person or body who makes decisions or exercises functions on behalf of a local authority or an NHS body. And that was not, of course, a Health, Social Care and Sport Committee recommendation. It is, though, incredibly broad. It could be particularly onerous for smaller providers of social services, especially in view of the requirement in amendment 42 for providers to publish their response on their website—not all providers actually have websites. But I do have real concern about the requirement to publish all responses.

The body's ability to make representations is deliberately very broad. This does mean, however, that it may not be appropriate in some instances to publish responses. The person or people who the citizen voice body are making representations on their behalf may not want to have representations published. However, the amendment that Members are asked to vote for gives absolutely no flexibility in respect of amendments 42 and 77, and the drafting of the amendments really does matter. It doesn't say that they 'may' publish, or 'should consider' publishing; the amendments make very clear, in either version, that they 'must' publish their response on their website. And you can't amend that clear and unambiguous statutory requirement in guidance. 

Placing these duties on service providers runs contrary to the approach taken under the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 that this place has already passed—to place proportionate duties on service providers, empowering them to find the best ways of meeting regulatory requirements. It is appropriate that representations are made to the bodies that have statutory responsibility to the public for providing health and social care—local authorities and our NHS. And that is what the Bill provides for. I don't agree that there is a need for further provision on this—the citizen voice body will have ample opportunity to shape national policy and highlight best practice, as the body is being designed to do.

In terms of the requirement for a response to representations that sets out the extent to which the recipient accepts the representation, and any actions that the recipient intends to take, that is formulaic and potentially, encourages an adversarial rather than a co-operative approach. And it doesn't take account of the fact that it may be more appropriate—within the context of the particular circumstances of the kind of representation being made—to deal with matters as part of an outcome-focused discussion, rather than formal written correspondence, through a prescribed process, as amendments 42 and 77 would require.

The Government amendment in this group seeks to resolve what we understand is the chief concern and desire: for NHS bodies and local authorities to have a clear system for dealing with representations received from the citizen voice body that is proportionate to the issues raised in the representation; for the citizen voice body to be kept appraised of progress in dealing with their representation; and, crucially, to make sure that they are advised of the outcome to their representation. The Government amendment will ensure—through statutory guidance—that NHS bodies and local authorities have that proportionate and operational procedure in place for considering and responding to representations. And I believe that that will be conducive to ongoing working relationships between the parties, and will mean that the body is advised of the eventual outcome of making any representation. And I ask Members to support the Government amendment in this group.