Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I welcome Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 27. They are improvements to the Bill. The commissioner should be enabled to require people to provide him with information so that he may decide whether a recommendation has been complied with. That is certainly a step forward. It is also right that, where a person fails to comply with such a request, the commissioner should be able to issue a certificate to the High Court so that proceedings for contempt of court may ensue. Those changes certainly help to ensure that the commissioner’s recommendations are taken seriously and are on no account to be disregarded. I must answer the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, as I tried to do, if I remember correctly, in Committee, when he raised the question of resources that lay behind the enforced implementation of the commissioner’s recommendations. This is the second time this evening that the issue of adequate resources for the commissioner has been raised. It was mentioned when we discussed Amendment No. 3 and the question of whether the functions should be powers or duties. The question of resources dictated that the commissioner should have some latitude to prioritise and perform according to the resources available to him. Again, the question of adequate resources for the commissioner arises in the implementation of a recommendation, as per my amendment. That, too, comes under the ““may”” category, and it would be up to the commissioner to decide what recommendation to highlight as not being adequately complied with. Some discretion still rests with the commissioner in putting forward what are after all his own recommendations following on his functions under Clause 2.