Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [Lords]

My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) signalled on Second Reading that the Liberal Democrats would support the Bill, and I can confirm that we continue to do so. This has been an invaluable opportunity to explore the ways in which the interests of older people are represented and protected in Wales. The figures speak volumes, with 20 per cent. of the population in Wales being over pensionable age, compared with the UK average of 18 per cent. In my own constituency, 25 per cent. of the people would fall within the remit of the commissioner. In that context, the establishment of that role is very welcome. The eager and enthusiastic language that we have used to describe the provisions has included terms such as ““pioneering””, ““trailblazing”” and ““a champion””, and I share the optimism and enthusiasm for the measure that many hon. Members have expressed. I also share some of the concerns that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) has just expressed, however. There is real concern about the limitations of the commissioner’s role, for example. In Committee, the Liberal Democrats argued the case for a strengthened role for the commissioner, and for his or her powers to extend far beyond those proposed in the Bill. In a Wales-only setting, the commissioner’s powers come close to those that we would like to see. The commissioner will be able to investigate and make recommendations on the practices of local health boards, local authorities, further and higher education establishments, and many other important groups. He or she will also have the power to investigate individual cases in those areas. Although we would have given the commissioner greater powers of enforcement, the important point is that he will be able to interact directly with those bodies and to act as a real force for positive change, eliminating discrimination and malpractice. There are areas in which we would have strengthened the commissioner’s powers further, even in a non-devolved setting. We tabled amendments to give the commissioner greater powers to stop elder abuse. We also argued that an investigated body should be required to give a response to the commissioner within six months. Our debates in Committee were quite repetitive, in that amendments kept being tabled on the same theme. Here we come to the crux of the debate. The theme was that the commissioner must be able to make a real difference to the lives of older people. To do that, that person will require a sufficiently broad remit, and sufficiently tough powers, in every area that affects those whose interests he looks after. The Bill is not particularly different from the one that we saw on Second Reading, in that it still outlines proposals for a commissioner with two dramatically different spheres of influence. The commissioner’s powers in relation to reserved matters are markedly weaker, in that he or she will not have the power to require UK Government Departments to respond directly on non-devolved matters. Pensions, benefits and employment are all reserved matters, and we know from our surgeries that they are also some of the most important issues for our older people. Citizens Advice has told us that 80 per cent. of the cases that it deals with are connected with pensions and tax credits, yet the Bill still leaves the commissioner virtually impotent in those key areas. Any member of the public can write to a Minister, but the commissioner will be prohibited from doing so in his official capacity. If an older person comes to the commissioner to complain about the administration of his pension, for instance, the commissioner will be unable to make representations to the relevant Minister at UK level. Nor will he have the power to summon witnesses and examine documents from the Department for Work and Pensions or Jobcentre Plus. Any recommendations that he makes will have to be made in general terms, and will have to get through two sets of gatekeepers, the Assembly and the Secretary of State, who will have no statutory obligation to respond. The fundamental issue is the accessibility of the commissioner to our constituents. Sadly, the Bill fails on that level. The role of the children’s commissioner, which was established through a laudable piece of legislation, has often been cited as an example in our discussions. When the children’s commissioner appeared before the Welsh Affairs Committee on 22 April 2004, he said:"““I do not have my strongest powers in the area of non-devolved matters. I cannot require documentation to be given to me. I cannot require the attendance of witnesses to give evidence on oath if I am conducting an inquiry. From the point of view of being the most powerful children’s champion possible, it would be good from my perspective if the current Children Bill were amended to extend my powers over those matters””." The experience of the children’s commissioner speaks volumes about what we have been trying to achieve during the passage of the Bill, and we may have to return to those matters in future. I hope that some of them will be addressed in the memorandum of understanding between the Assembly and the newly appointed commissioner. The appointment will be made soon, in 2007, which is to be welcomed. The commissioner’s post will be the first of its kind in the world, and has huge potential to enrich people’s lives. Despite my scepticism—I do not want to be pessimistic—I support what is in the Bill. The Liberal Democrats wish the commissioner every success, and we sincerely hope that, through the Bill, the Government have given him the tools that he needs to do an effective job and, above all, to provide the accessibility to respond to our constituents’ demands. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.