Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 80:"Page 6, line 12, at end insert ““and of policies which discriminate directly or indirectly against older people in Wales””" The noble Lord said: On this occasion, I am very happy that Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 be taken together. The reason that justifies examination of the matters covered by the two amendments is that they both raise issues that are in the public interest. I submit that it is important that the commissioner should have the authority to examine such complaints. Since tabling the amendments, we have had the benefit of reading the helpful letter of 13 October that the Minister sent to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, the chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. On page 4, the letter explains:"““it is intended that an examination may be made by the Commissioner only where a representation is made to him by the older person concerned or by someone acting on their behalf””." In the next paragraph, it continues:"““It is proposed that the regulations will further restrict the circumstances in which the Commissioner can examine a case by specifying that the case must raise a question of principle which has a more general application or relevance to the rights or welfare of older people than in the particular case concerned””." So what emerges from the letter that my noble friend sent to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, is that the examination under Clause 9 will be subject to restrictions. It can be undertaken only if it is received from an older person who is concerned or by a person on his behalf and if the complaint raises an issue of general concern. It therefore seems that the regulations will take account of the situations referred to in Amendments Nos. 80 and 81, but only if the complaint is made by the older person concerned or by someone acting on his behalf. That raises two or possibly three questions. First, why cannot the complaint be made by relative or friend, even though he cannot get the agreement of the older person concerned to make a complaint on his behalf? Secondly, why cannot the complaint be made by a third party, who is not acting behalf of any particular old person but who is speaking on behalf of public interest? Indeed, he may not get the agreement of any older person to make a complaint. Thirdly, if the words of Clause 9(1) remain unamended and contain no reference to the restrictions mentioned by my noble friend in his letter to the chairman of the Select Committee, is not the subsection somewhat misleading? I beg to move.