Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 1:"Page 12, line 6, leave out ““to be regarded as””" The noble Lord said: Before I discuss the first group of amendments, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for his detailed but somewhat critical letter following Second Reading on 14 June. I think that the Minister felt that some speakers in that debate raised points that had already been dealt with at our meeting with Ministers. I must tell him, although he will already know, that discussions outside the debate on the Floor of the House do not have the same standing as on-the-record comments made in Hansard. I therefore hope that he will forgive me if I cover what the Government and the Assembly may consider old ground, because it may be new to others who read our proceedings. We must also bear in mind that the Bill has been introduced in your Lordships’ House and that our comments may be helpful when it is considered by the Members of the other place. I also thank the Minister for his most recent letter and comments on the latest batch of government amendments. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke, are simple drafting amendments that aim at clarifying the independence of the commissioner. We have been told all along that the commissioner is to be independent, separate from political parties and, as such, he or she is to be objective and impartial. Indeed, paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 1 insists that the commissioner is a corporation sole. Why, then, did those who drafted the Bill feel it necessary to include the words, ““to be regarded as”” in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3)? If the commissioner is independent, surely the provision should read, ““The Commissioner is not the servant or agent of the Crown””, and, ““The Commissioner’s property is not the property of the Crown””, not, ““The Commissioner is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown””. That wording suggests that he is, but that we should ignore that. Perhaps it is just my grip, but in legislation I always prefer to be simple where we can. These two amendments remove the offending words ““to be regarded as”” in both cases. Amendment No. 9, which is grouped, is also aimed at tightening the wording of the Bill. It limits the commissioner, who may appoint such other staff as he thinks necessary for assisting him in the discharge of his functions, to doing so only within limits set by regulation. I believe that I am correct to say that, at the moment, the commissioner is expected to work with a similar number of staff as the Children’s Commissioner—so about 30 individuals. What assessment has been made of the efficiency and effectiveness of that number of staff for the Children’s Commissioner? Is that a proper figure? If the age is dropped to 50 for older people in Wales, do the Government anticipate that the commissioner will need more staff? That may occur if we follow the lines laid down in England. Apart from administrative support, what sort of staff does the Minister envisage that the commissioner will need? I beg to move.