Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

I am advised that they will not. The commissioner will also have the power to examine individual cases. This will involve having to deal with allegations as reported to him. To investigate those allegations, he will need to talk to third parties and may need to co-operate with other commissioners and ombudsmen about them. It is important that the commissioner is able to do so without the fear of defamation proceedings. Without such protection, the commissioner will find himself spending his time defending lawsuits, which would impact on the effectiveness with which he will be able to investigate cases. Absolute privilege provides a complete defence against defamation proceedings. Therefore, the amendment would place a bar on a person’s right to pursue a defamation claim against the commissioner. With regard to communications from certain persons in connection with the examination of the case, the amendment provides that they will be subject to qualified privilege. Qualified privilege provides a conditional defence. If a person listed in subsection (3) makes a defamatory statement to the commissioner in connection with the examination of the case, the person who has been defamed will be able to bring a defamation claim against that person. The reason that the commissioner is given an absolute privilege is that qualified privilege does not negate the chilling effect caused by concern about having to defend actions under defamation. The Assembly takes the view that, given the important role that the commissioner will play in promoting and safeguarding the interests of older persons, it is very important that the commissioner can carry out his functions without fear of having to spend time and resources defending himself in lawsuits. Unlike the case of an individual, that will not leave the person aggrieved without recourse. The commissioner is a public body; will be subject to the common law of fairness; and his actions may be judicially reviewed. I now turn to Amendments Nos. 99 and 11. The purpose of both the amendments is to remove unnecessary drafting and duplication from the Bill in the light of the new express provision on protection against defamation that I have just explained. Specifically, Amendment No. 99 removes from Clause 14 the provision dealing with the privilege of the reports made following the discharge of functions. When set alongside Amendment No. 103, the amendment has no effect on the level of privilege accorded to a report made by the commissioner pursuant to Clause 14, and such reports will be absolutely privileged for the purposes of the law of defamation. Amendment No. 11 makes changes along similar lines to paragraph 8 of Schedule 1, which deals with reports made to the Assembly. I beg to move.