Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Wales; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 24, page 14, line 17, leave out ‘60' and insert ‘50'.

Hywel Williams (Spokesperson (Culture; Education & Skills; Work & Pensions; Social Security; Health; Disability; International Development); Caernarfon, Plaid Cymru)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 37, in clause 24, page 14, line 17, at end insert

‘but, at the Commissioner's discretion, “older person” may also be interpreted to mean a person aged 50 or over where that person suffers from an age-related illness, impairment or disability or where the Commissioner considers it appropriate to do so.'.

Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Wales; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

The purpose of this simple amendment is to probe the Government’s arrival at the magic age of 60 as the definition of an older person. I know many people who are 60 and over who would perhaps resent being described as an older person. Indeed, if one is four, a seven-year-old is an older person. Some explanation behind the thinking here would be appreciated because during the enormous consultation process there was a variety of opinions as to the age at which these provisions should bite.

Some people were of the opinion that because the strategy for older people in Wales focuses on those who are 50 and over, it should perhaps be even as young as 50. Certainly it was suggested by some of the respondents that if older people were defined as 50-plus, it would at least give the commissioner some locus, prior to the 60th birthday, in an area where individuals of that age may need some help. Some argued that because health policy considers an older person to be aged 65 and over, that should have been the age.

Indeed, it was considered that if the age of retirement is to increase, as I believe it will, that should perhaps be the age at which the provisions kick in. It would be a moving age but it would be in line with the view that someone who is no longer in the world of work and who has retired is perhaps more in need of the services that are provided.

I have read most of the arguments that have been put forward and I am certainly not at odds with 60 being the age, but it would be interesting to know why the Minister arrived at that particular age, rather than  taking a slightly more inappropriate younger age, or a more appropriate older age, as people are now living longer, showing great signs of activity and working sometimes well into their 70s and 80s.

Adam Price (Spokesperson (Defence; Transport; Economy & Taxation; Miners Compensation; Regeneration; Trade & Industry); Carmarthen East & Dinefwr, Plaid Cymru)

I rise to speak to amendment No. 37, which proposes a degree of flexibility—one of the arguments that a number of consultees advanced in relation to the definition of an older person. It is a subjective thing, clearly. Victor Hugo said that 40 is the old age of youth and 50 is the youth of old age, but I am a little close to both. The serious point, as has been touched on by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, is that we are in danger of creating a profusion of different definitions of “older person”, much as at the opposite end of the age scale, we have had an issue for several years about the different rights given to young people at 16, 17, 18, 21 and so on.

Certainly there would seem to be an advantage from a public policy perspective in having a degree of consistency when it comes to a definition of what constitutes an older person for these purposes. As has been said, we have in Wales the strategy for older people, and now we have in England the sister strategy of opportunity age, both of which take 50 as their starting point, because that, they believe, is the point at which people begin to experience age-related problems, in terms of the delivery of services and the context of their own lives. There is therefore a problem of mismatch, because we have a strategy that is seeking to enhance and improve the provision of services for older people in Wales, yet the Commissioner for Older People will be dealing only with people aged 60 and over. All that my amendment—I was tempted to say “our amendment”, but obviously you are in the Chair, Mr. Williams—seeks to do is to offer that flexibility.

The Government have argued that we have to draw a line somewhere and that there is no perfect answer. They argue that it would be better to veer towards 60 rather than 50. That is because at 50, we would be including one third of the population and growing, as the demographic bubble changes day by day. There is some strength to that argument. However, as many of the consultees suggested, why not give a general rule of 60 to the commissioner but offer him the flexibility to look at cases that involve people who are 50-plus and who have a problem that is clearly age-related, particularly in the employment sphere? It could be argued that the Commission for Equality and human rights will cover that. However, there is also the matter of Alzheimer’s and other dementia-related illnesses that begin to kick in, unfortunately, at 50-plus. There is a strong argument that the commissioner could perform an important function in looking at people between the ages of 50 and 60 who receive regulated services and suffer an age-related impairment. Yet in the current framework of provision, the commissioner would not be able to do that.

We touched earlier on the fact that the way that we ended up deciding on 60 was strange. In the other place, Lord Evans was quite courageously trying to justify it with reference to all manner of things. At age 60, winter fuel payment and pension credit benefits kick in, as well as the Assembly’s free swimming and bus pass schemes. One could almost justify the choice  of any age; for example, there is probably a good argument for choosing 57 lurking somewhere.

One of the consultations by the Assembly advisory group offered three options: 65, 50-plus and 65 with flexibility. The age limit of 60 was never offered in the consultation but that is the one that we ended up with. The most popular option, with 139 respondents behind it, was 65, but with the flexibility that I referred to.

I know that the Government have addressed the matter in the other place, in Grand Committee, and on Second Reading. There is a strong argument for giving the commissioner the opportunity to look at age-related public policy matters and problems as people get closer to the Government’s chosen definition of 60.

Nick Ainger (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Secretary of State for Wales; Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire, Labour)

That was an issue that we addressed on Second Reading as well as in the other place, to which the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr has referred extensively. Both the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and the hon. Gentleman are right in saying that a line has to be drawn somewhere. The difficulty is in getting that right and having sufficient flexibility to address some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

One issue, apart from getting the age right, is making sure that the commissioner is capable of dealing with the issues that will be brought to him. Setting the age threshold at 50, as the hon. Lady has suggested, would provide the commissioner with too broad a remit, one that would cover more than a third of the population of Wales. There are approximately 600,000 people over the age of 60 in Wales, but if the age were to be dropped to 50, the commissioner’s remit would extend to incorporate more than 1 million people, or an extra 400,000. If we want an effective champion for older people, as I am sure we all do, we must draw a line somewhere. We believe that 60 is a sensible and pragmatic choice. Despite the fact that nobody suggested 60 in certain consultations, we might have drawn the line about right by taking into account all the different proposals.

For those concerned that an age limit of 60 will fail to catch those people experiencing discrimination in employment, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr said, the CEHR’s new age equality regulations, which will come into force this October, will make it unlawful to discriminate in employment on grounds of age and vocational training. It will be the role of the CEHR, which will have appointed a chair and a board by autumn, to enforce that legislation.

The role of the Commissioner for Older People will be different from that of the CEHR. It will be primarily to act for the protection of those who receive or are in need of services as older people in Wales. Of course the commissioner will want to work with the new CEHR on matters affecting older people which are of interest to them both. I envisage that the working relationship will be underpinned at a practical level by a memorandum of understanding or protocol setting out their respective roles. It could also be formalised using the provisions for joint and collaborative working that I referred to during debate on clauses 16 and 17.

Amendment No. 37 seeks to provide the commissioner with the discretion to extend his remit to include persons aged between 50 and 60 who suffer from age-related illness, impairment or disability, or if he considers it appropriate for whatever reason to do so. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern that the commissioner’s remit should encompass as far as possible those vulnerable people suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, for example. The Government and the Assembly considered carefully whether any flexibility in the age threshold could be applied. However, because of the need to specify any exceptions to the normal age threshold in the legislation and because of the difficulties of doing so, the single criterion of 60 was used.

The amendment seeks to specify exceptions to the age threshold of 60, but the criteria are extremely wide. In our view, the amendment would lead to uncertainty and confusion about the commissioner’s powers. The listed exceptions would require the commissioner to decide on a case-by-case basis whether someone fell within the category of persons listed or not. That task would consume a considerable amount of the commissioner’s time and require additional expertise. As for the commissioner’s residual general discretion, it could in effect lower the age threshold to 50. Such a low threshold would bring us back to the issue of the extra 400,000 people who would be eligible to make representations to him.

On balance—we must strike a balance—I believe that 60 is the clearest, most sensible and pragmatic choice. However, that does not mean that persons aged under 60 will not benefit from the appointment of a commissioner. The commissioner will have a significant strategic role, which will include reviewing the functions and arrangements of a number of public bodies and issuing guidance. Any general recommendations or guidance that the commissioner makes to improve services or arrangements will help to drive up standards for all service users, including those under 60.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the strategy for older people in Wales, which would cover people over the age of 50. Its purpose is not just the same as the commissioner’s but encapsulates the active citizenship agenda and preparing people for retirement and older age. The commissioner’s remit is quite different. That is why the strategy took a threshold of age 50. We could carry on this debate and come forward with other ages. I was not particularly happy that the hon. Gentleman suggested 57, that being my next birthday.

Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Wales; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

Has the Minister declared an interest?

Nick Ainger (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Secretary of State for Wales; Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire, Labour)

Perhaps I should.

The age of 60 is a reasonable balance. As I have indicated on the provision of services, particularly for those with a particular condition such as dementia, if there is a shortfall in the services provided to those aged 60 and above, it will also be an issue for those below 60. Sadly there are those who are now suffering from dementia below 60.

Glenda Jackson (Hampstead & Highgate, Labour)

I believe the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr earlier in our debate, in one of his attempts to move the commissioner’s rights to cover non-devolved issues in Wales, said that the CAB had reported that 80 per cent. of cases presented to them had to do with the benefits and/or pensions system. I point out that the pensionable age for women in Wales, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, is 60.

Nick Ainger (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Secretary of State for Wales; Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire, Labour)

Absolutely. That is one of the justifications for choosing the age of 60. The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr referred to a number of other benefits that people receive in Wales, virtually all of which start at the age of 60. As part of the main function of the commissioner is to review the services that people receive, it again seems sensible to decide that the threshold when people start receiving those benefits and services should be 60. I would ask that the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman withdraw their amendments.

Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Wales; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I have listened to the Minister’s thinking. I am not sure that there is a right or wrong answer. The point made by the hon. Gentleman who speaks for Plaid Cymru, the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr, is correct. We are in danger of messing up at the other end of the scale. We have so many different ages for qualifying for rights and responsibilities at the lower end—16 as the age of consent, 18 for voting—and we are starting to get that at the other end of life. We should be moving in the direction of equality in the retirement age for women and men. However, I accept the arguments. There is no wrong or right answer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.