Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 108:"Page 9, line 7, leave out ““60”” and insert ““50””" The noble Lord said: We turn to perhaps the most contentious issue in the Bill. The amendment would alter the current proposed definition of who constitutes an older person from 60 years of age to 50. The view in this House is that at the age of 60, you are still a spring chicken. At 75, I tend to agree. However, if the commissioner is to be consistent with the Government’s proposal for the Commissioner for Equality and Human Rights currently being discussed in the Equality Bill, then his remit should start at 50, when those older members of the working population find it hard to get new jobs or training, rather than 60, when they are less likely to want permanent work. The Government have argued that although the lower age limit for the strategy for older people in Wales was set at 50 years of age, on the basis that it drew together the themes of active citizenship and preparing people for retirement and older age—an age that the UK paper Opportunity Age also uses—the remit and powers of the commissioner are differently focused to act on behalf of and represent those who receive services as older people in Wales. I argue that the service requirements and demands of older people on the system often depend on how they have prepared for retirement in older age. That is why it is important for the commissioner to look at cases involving those who are 50 and over rather than 60 and over. After all, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, needs cannot be defined purely by age. Everybody responds to and is affected by the ageing processes differently and often special help is needed with the onset of health problems, physical disabilities, the early onset of dementia, and so on. What is the commissioner to do if he is asked to look into an issue involving an elderly couple, for example, where the husband is over 60 and the wife younger? Could he only look into the issue with regard to the husband and not the wife? What of those who decide to take early retirement? If the noble Lord is not prepared to accept a lower definition of age in the Bill, will he consider that a more pragmatic definition should be adopted to allow the commissioner discretion to help people aged 50 and over if he thinks fit? If the commissioner refuses the case, he should give his reasons why. I beg to move.