Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his lucid explanation of the Bill and for arranging the helpful meeting with the Welsh Assembly Deputy Minister and officials last Thursday. I also wish to express my appreciation for the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon. They were very thoughtful contributions. I warmly welcome the Bill. It is of considerable importance to a great many people in Wales. As we have heard, it is also a unique development. It is therefore not surprising that the Bill is of interest far beyond Wales. The Bill is important for a number of reasons. The first and most obvious reason is the fact that there are about 620,000 older people in Wales. Secondly, it will help to safeguard the dignity of the older citizen and enhance his or her standard of life by ensuring that services are readily and equally available to every older person who needs them. The third reason, although this may not be so obvious at first sight, is that in many households the Bill should also bring help to the members of the family who care for a very elderly parent. Sometimes the carer himself or herself can also be helped. In such cases the Bill will help the whole family. For those reasons alone the Bill has caught the public eye. There is a wide measure of agreement in Wales in favour of a Bill along the lines of the present one, but it would, of course, have been the cause of some concern if the Minister had claimed that the Bill was perfect. Happily, the Bill does not raise any major political or philosophical question, subject to the very important point about non-devolved services to which my noble friend Lord Rowlands referred. Like the Children’s Commissioner, the commissioner cannot directly pursue with Whitehall departments issues which call for a solution by those departments. There are many such issues, for example, in regard to   social security benefits, employment regulations, the   Inland Revenue, the DVLA and others. If the commissioner attempted to raise any of these issues with a Whitehall department he would be stopped dead in his tracks by Clauses 2(2), 9(2)(a), 13(2)(a) and 14(2). This is a fundamental point that has been raised on many occasions in your Lordships’ House. I believe that there is a genuine difference of opinion which is symptomatic of a difference in philosophy. We heard from the Minister that the estimated annual running costs will be about £1.5 million. That is not a very large sum. I am slightly worried at the starkness of the advisory group’s analysis of the scale of the problem—which is quite clearly with us in Wales for the present and, indeed, for the foreseeable future—yet the funding is limited to £1.5 million annually. I want to be fair to the Minister—I am bound to accept that that is the estimate put forward by the advisory group—but, given that the client group, if I may use that phrase, is very large, is there not a real risk that the office may not be adequately resourced to meet the demands on it? The Minister touched on this issue in his opening speech and has given us certain assurances. The commissioner will discharge many functions, but it seems to me that he will be primarily concerned with safeguarding and enhancing what is described in the Bill as,"““the interests of older people in Wales””." These words appear in about six different subsections throughout the Bill. Their meaning is defined in Clause 18 in these terms:"““In considering, for the purposes of this Act, what constitutes the interests of older people in Wales, the Commissioner must have regard to the United Nations Principles for Older Persons adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 16 December 1991””." I warmly welcome the fundamental duty defined in Clause 18. I recall how we endeavoured in vain to introduce a similar duty in the Children’s Commissioner for Wales Act 2001. I should now like to add to the questionnaire my noble friend will answer when he comes to wind up. My questions seek clarification and are designed to strengthen existing clauses. We must bear in mind that this Bill was requested by the Welsh Assembly. It is our duty to facilitate the passage of a Bill that has been so requested. Therefore, some of the questions which have today been addressed to my noble friend on the Front Bench should be addressed in the National Assembly and answered by National Assembly Ministers. It is not for us to question the fundamental principle of the Bill. In what circumstances will Clause 9 operate? Under the clause, the commissioner may examine individual cases of particular persons. Will he be acting on a reference to him by the elderly person himself or herself? If so, is there not a risk that his role and that of the public services ombudsman will be blurred? On the other hand, if the commissioner acts on his own motion, what preliminary hurdle will have to be surmounted before he will exercise this function? In other words, what is Clause 9 intended to cover? What is it aimed at? I invite my noble friend to explain the kinds of cases which may be examined and the circumstances in which the examination may be made. I turn now to Clause 12, which has been referred to by a number of speakers today. The clause defines the commissioner’s right to enter premises and of interviewing in private. The clause excludes the right to enter a private dwelling. I confess that it is the subject of slight unease on my part. One day a real problem will arise where the commissioner will think that he ought to visit and interview an elderly person living or being cared for in a private dwelling house, who is deeply in need or thought to be in need of his advice, and who may not be able to express himself or herself on paper. I am concerned that in those circumstances the elderly person may not have recourse to the commissioner’s help. I readily recognise that this may be quite a difficult problem. The Minister may confirm that the answer can be found in another statute. If so, it would seem that there is no difficulty. I welcome Clause 11, which empowers the commissioner, after consultation, to produce guidance on best practice. The case for a code of practice has, by now, been well made. But I note that the guidance does not have to be examined and approved by the Assembly before it is issued. I wonder whether that is wise. There are two other difficulties. First, in the Bill as it stands, the guidance will be without any legal significance. Secondly, the commissioner will not be empowered to monitor compliance with it. The guidance on best practice is potentially a very good device for helping the commissioner to bring about improved standards of service. It would be powerfully reinforced if it were to be given some legal significance, such as providing for the guidance to be taken into account by a magistrate or judge trying a civil or criminal case. The guidance would also be powerfully strengthened if it were backed by giving the commissioner power to monitor compliance with it. To my mind, those are worrying omissions. Unless they are addressed I feel that the guidance will fail to meet the high hopes that are placed in it. I have spoken for more than 10 minutes, which seems a very long time for a contribution meant essentially to say that I support the Bill. But the Bill did stimulate a few suggestions for strengthening the office and which the Minister may or may not wish to consider.