Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

The hope and expectation is that there will be a high level of compliance by providers of care with the recommendations of the commissioner. But some authorities may not be inclined to accept the recommendations—perhaps for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. They may therefore not be prepared to respond positively. So the Minister has to tell us what would happen where the provider does not bring itself into compliance. That possibility seems to have been completely ignored in the Bill. There may well need to be an appeal mechanism for a third party to decide whether the recommendations of the commissioner are reasonable and should be complied with. With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Rowlands, I do not accept that a decision by an elected body concludes an issue, but it is a factor that has to be taken into consideration. I believe that there is a heavy responsibility on the Government to accept that that situation may arise and the Bill ought to provide an answer to the dilemma. Amendment No. 24 encourages public bodies to take into account the United Nations principles. The Bill places a duty on the commissioner to have regard to the principles in considering what constitutes the interests of older people. For that, the authors are to be congratulated. But there is no other reference to the principles anywhere in the Bill. Is it not just as important that the principles should also be accorded a proper place at the operational level in the service? Indeed, if they are ignored by the providers of care, it seems to me—this was brought out in the first amendment we have been discussing—that there will be no means of ensuring compliance. So there is a great deal to be said for Amendment No. 24. It is a very important amendment and I support it.