Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

My Lords, we have had a very interesting and informative debate and I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that it has been very thoughtful indeed. He has looked very hard at the legal implications—or lack of them—in the Bill and I pay tribute to him for that. I have no wish to repeat what the noble Lord has just said, but the Minister should take due account—as I am sure he will—of his comments that some aspects of the legal force of the Bill do not appear to be adequate. As my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno said, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill in principle. Some 660,000 people—22 per cent of the population—in Wales are over 60. As others have said, demography will change and in a very short time, 25   per cent of the population of Wales—in the region of 800,000—will be over 60. We have heard the forecast that that will go up to 28 per cent. There is no doubt that in principle the Commissioner for Older People is a very good idea. However, when one examines the Bill, comparison with the Children’s Commissioner is not wholly sustainable. As have many have said in this debate, many UK policies impact directly on older people on a UK basis. That is especially the case with pensions, benefits and employment. In that respect, the Bill differs significantly from the Children’s Commissioner Bill. There is more involvement of UK government departments. Pensions, benefits and employment are not within the scope of the Assembly or the Welsh Assembly Government. Those functions are crucial to the well-being of older people in Wales, yet the commissioner will have very little or no impact. That was said very forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, whose excellent speech brought out many of these points. These points lead to other comments about the powers of the National Assembly combined with the timing of this Bill. I accept wholeheartedly the Minister’s generous apology and the way that he has sought to correct the problem and let us have more information. It is clearly good that we are debating the Bill early in this Parliament, but the Welsh Assembly Government were not expecting to have this Bill coming here so early in the Session. Why is that? Reference was made to the public consultation not being quite finished, but we will get some of the information. However, it is a pity that we did not have before us today many cogent comments which, I am sure, have been drafted by many in Wales. The timing issue has, for the reasons stated, complicated this debate. However, surely the Welsh Assembly Government ought to be able to initiate and legislate by itself. It cannot do that because of weaknesses in the Government of Wales Act 1998 which did not give the Assembly primary powers to legislate. Primary powers would achieve a logical progression of the process, better informed debate in the Assembly and therefore better legislation. The issues of non-specific statutes in the Bill and a lot of regulation are not entirely satisfactory. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, said about the framework issue and that it may be a new way of going forward. We must remember that paragraph 13 in the Richard Commission report is really a halfway house. We should ask whether we would get into a significant tangle in the legislative process if there were a government with a different complexion in Westminster. The whole area of pensions, benefits and employment is vital. Speaking as a former MP, the amount of work done sorting out the problems of the elderly, as many noble Lords will know, is massive, working especially with CABs. The plight of pensioners is often financial. Indeed, injustices are sometimes legion as well. I certainly found that, especially in relation to women who had employment breaks. Sadly, many pensioners often end up very poor indeed. These are huge issues to do with the welfare of pensioners. For example, I can quote someone who was with the 8th Army in El Alamein who is now 85   and is suddenly confronted by not one but a multiplicity of benefit forms issued by the Inland Revenue. I also know of a widow with a pension, whose case I came upon, who, back in time, worked in an explosives factory during the Second World War and had her fingers blown off. She never received any compensation. We constantly have problems of that kind. The benefits hurdle is an obstacle course and many millions are not claiming entitlements yet are living in poverty. That is a huge problem which I am sure the commissioner will want to address. One knows of many cases of people in that situation; people who are not able to fill in the forms. Even though assistance is available, they are not actually connecting. In my own experience, having been put out of work at the age of 56, employment for older people is not an easy experience. Certainly, I did two years and then had to reapply for my own job because the body was privatised. I had to undergo a psychological test, which many people in the Chamber may agree that I needed. However, it was not a pleasant experience, I can assure you. Indeed, it was discrimination in one sense because I was awarded only short-term contracts all the time and I never knew when the sword of Damocles was about to fall, which it eventually did. Where is the commissioner’s place within these problems, which are the purview of Whitehall departments—pension rights, benefit rights and employment rights? I declare an interest in several sectors in the state of the elderly. I belong to an organisation called Prime Cymru which helps people between 50 and 65 to start up businesses. We have a target of 40,000 businesses out of a population of 250,000 in Wales and we have created 1,000 new businesses in three years. I will not go into all the details, but they are absolutely fascinating, like finding one’s own Welsh roots on the Internet and so on. There are problems, particularly within the care sector, where different standards operate, for example in local authority and private care homes. In The commissioner will be able to address problems in local authority care homes, but in some instances councils have turned them over to BUPA, which has paid lower wages and asked for longer hours. As a result the quality of care has gone down. I am not singling BUPA out—the same is true of other bodies. The financing of private homes is very difficult because it is dependent on benefit and many homes have closed. In some instances couples have tragically been parted as a result of a sudden closure of a home. These are all issues which we hope the commissioner will be able to investigate. There are big problems within the elderly sector and in many cases the voluntary sector is picking up the pieces and doing extremely well. But the finance for the voluntary sector is very difficult as the funding is very often being reduced every year. I know that from experience through my involvement in various areas, in particular with a disabled club that has many elderly people. Dial-a-ride services, for example, are very difficult to keep going in rural areas. The commissioner should be able to get involved in many of these intractable problems. He needs investigative and enforcement powers to ensure that these measures are taken. We will judge this Bill in   its final form, when we will take a decision—I hope a constructive one—on whether to establish a commissioner for the elderly. But we would like free care for the elderly, and we would like council tax to be replaced by a local income tax, which would reduce the poverty levels of the elderly. We believe that these policies would improve their quality of life. The key question is whether the creation of the commissioner will improve the quality of life for the elderly. If so, we certainly will support the Bill. If not, then we will have to have a think about it.