Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

Amendment No. 6 raises a very important issue—namely, how the commissioner will work with the commission currently being set up by the Equality Bill and, indeed, other organisations. There is a clear need to avoid duplication—I was glad to hear the Minister stress that—and to ensure efficient and effective co-operation between the commissioner and other offices. In areas where there is crossover, it needs to be clear who has the final say—who is, effectively, top of the pile in different projects. Otherwise, we may end up with a tricky situation where different organisations suggest different courses of action. If that is the case, whose decision should the service providers adhere to? For example, with regard to the issue of old age and employment, we have already discussed the differences between the more proactive Opportunity Age document for England and the reactive Strategy for Older People in Wales. We know that both the Equality Commissioner and the Commissioner for Older People will have employment within their remits. So it is very important that the ground rules for co-operation should be clearly established. Once again, I congratulate the Minister on addressing in his amendment the issue of great concern on these Benches during Second Reading. It is vital that the commissioner should be able to work with other commissioners and ombudsmen in circumstances where their functions overlap and meet. We hope that joined-up government at all levels will lead to the effective and efficient production of services for all, with a lack of duplication and bureaucratic red tape. We support initiatives that will enable government to be small but effective. It will be very important to clarify in joint or multi-working situations who has the final say on decisions, should there be disagreement, and I hope that the noble Lord can shed a little more light on that issue. I would welcome clarification on Amendment No. 106 regarding who a ““prescribed person”” includes, and whether the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is complete, or whether others associated with those officers could be considered to be prescribed individuals.