Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

Amendment No. 80, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, would extend the Assembly’s regulation-making power in Clause 9 to include regulations about the examination by the commissioner of policies that discriminate directly or indirectly against older people in Wales. I appreciate of course that what my noble friend wants to achieve by way of this amendment is a strong power for the commissioner to investigate and hold to account those bodies that may be discriminating against older people in how they arrive at and operate their policies. However, the combination of powers available to the commissioner would give him the tools to do the job. I add that I would expect that he would work together with the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights in Wales to tackle the direct and indirect discrimination that older people suffer. Amendment No. 81 touches upon a similar matter to that raised by Amendment No. 48, which we debated earlier today. Although I indicated that I was willing further to consider the principle behind that amendment, I have reservations about seeking to introduce such a power into this part of the Bill, which is concerned with the examination of cases. In particular, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that, for the purposes of an examination under Clause 9, the regulations may make provision for the commissioner to be able to require the provision of information and the attendance of witnesses. But the policies with which the amendment is concerned will be in the public domain, so a specific power to require the attendance of witnesses and the provision of information will not be required and could be seen as disproportionate. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies asked why the commissioner should take up only cases that raise a matter of principle. The Assembly’s statement of policy intentions indicated that regulations would require the commissioner to examine a case,"““where the . . . representation raises 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””." That is to try to ensure that the commissioner’s workload is manageable and that he is able to focus on strategic cases that raise questions of wider relevance to older people. In our view, it would not be appropriate for the commissioner to examine the case of a person who did not want him to do so. He also has other powers to investigate wider issues, and Clauses 2 and 3, in particular, provide for that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that what my noble friend said was very interesting, and I look forward to reading it. But, in the mean time, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.