Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 1:"Page 1, line 16, leave out ““only””" The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 seek to soften the line, break down the wall, that confines the commissioner and his exercise of powers to areas where the Assembly has functions; that is, devolved areas of government. Clause 2(2) sets that line firmly. Our Amendment No. 1 seeks to soften it. Why? The limitation on the commissioner’s exercise of his functions to devolved areas only is unrealistic, as I believe we have all recognised in earlier discussions. Individual cases do not recognise departmental boundaries or fall neatly into devolved or non-devolved areas. It is clear from the nature of those functions, as described in subsection (1), that the commissioner will not be able, in practice, to draw a line that confines him to the devolved areas only. The Government appear to accept in Clause 2(3) that the commissioner may find himself in non-devolved areas. Therefore, provision is made that he may make representations to the Assembly on,"““any matter relating to the interests of older people in Wales””." It will then be for the Assembly to decide what action to take, if any: it could be a lengthy process or an urgent matter requiring immediate attention. It is that consideration of practical necessity that underlies our second amendment, which seeks to ensure that the commissioner has direct access to the relevant Secretary of State, if necessary. That would certainly be the case if there is urgency in the matter. The Minister will say that such changes as our amendments propose will blur the demarcation lines between devolved and non-devolved areas, between Assembly appointees responsible to that body and operating in specific areas, and civil servants employed by other departments of state. I understand the Government’s concern and anxiety to prevent confusion, but they must recognise the realities on the ground—the real world in which the commissioner will operate—where there are no clear lines of demarcation. Individual cases can involve a variety of departments, some of which are responsible to the Assembly and some of which are responsible to the Westminster Parliament. The Government are wrong to specify the commissioner’s ““No Go”” areas quite so firmly: they should allow some flexibility. Otherwise, there may be tension. The public simply will not understand why the commissioner can operate in one area, but not in another. This prescription seems to fly in the face of the Minister’s wish, expressed at Report stage, that the commissioner should have,"““freedom to choose when, in what instances, and how he will exercise his functions””.—[Official Report, 9/11/05; col. 682.]" He requires the latitude couched in our amendments to achieve that freedom. I beg to move.