Children Bill [Lords]

---

[back to previous text]

Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the European network of children's commissioners is meeting in Cardiff in Wales later this week? Is he also

Column Number: 11

aware that, because of the proposed changes, the Children's Commissioner in England may not be able to gain admittance to that organisation?

Mr. Dawson: I have certainly heard that and I share my hon. Friend's concern. It is beyond me why we should want to set up a commissioner who would be excluded from the growing company of commissioners across Europe and the world because they were so weak. A Government as committed as ours to children's issues and a country as powerful as ours which offers a good future to our children should have the best Children's Commissioner in the world, not the worst. It is extraordinary.

Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): So far the hon. Gentleman has referred exclusively to the rights of children in respect of the Government, and the need for the Government to respond to the rights which he recognises that children possess. Does he accept that rights are exercised not uniquely by or against the Government, but against other people? How does he expect other people to respond to those rights, and how would their rights be balanced against the rights that he wants to include in the clause?

Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as he leads me into my next argument. Throughout this group of amendments there is a worrying thread, which may also run through some amendments that he has tabled, and a train of thought implying that emphasising children's rights somehow pits children against parents. I am a parent and firmly believe that, by and large, the best advocates for children's rights in this country are parents. The UN convention explicitly respects the responsibility of parents to bring up children according to their own values and to educate children according to their principles. It also firmly sets out the importance of reuniting families.

10 am

The issue of children's rights is, by and large, one of power and of the powerlessness of children in the face of the state. It is a function of the fact that children are the only human beings in this country who cannot vote. It should be emphasised that if children—who are powerless in the face not only of Governments but of the judiciary, the professions, organisations and institutions—are ever to have their voices heard, their interests recognised and their rights respected, it is vital to base our approach on a watchdog that is firmly grounded in children's rights.

Parents who want to do their best for their children—as well as a state that wants to improve conditions for children, organisations and professions that want genuinely to serve them, and children themselves—will benefit from the independent champion that a Children's Commissioner based on the United Nations convention on the rights of the child will be. The commissioner will be charged with protecting not only the interests of the children of this country but their rights. If we embrace children's

Column Number: 12

rights today, we shall serve them well, but if we water down those rights, we shall be missing a tremendous opportunity.

Mrs. Brooke: I want to echo all the hon. Gentleman's eloquent comments. My colleagues and I were happy to subscribe to the amendment, because we thought it staked out the most important ground that we needed to cover on the issue of the commissioner. There is a fundamental difference between the schools of thought about whether there should be a rights-based commissioner, or one that is listening, and whether we are talking about a reactive or a proactive role. Those are fundamental differences, and I do not understand the motivation behind the Government's amendments, which do not sit happily with much of the excellent work that they have already carried out.

We now have the issue of human rights in this country's legislation. I express this as someone who does not understand the Government's train of thought: I passionately believe that they should be listening to all the many children's organisations and others, who are united in the view that we should have a rights-based commissioner. So many professionals cannot be wrong about that. Those who have considered the activities of children's commissioners in other countries are united. At present, our Government are out on a limb, and I really do not understand why.

Of course, listening is important—we shall be discussing that and arguing later that more listening should take place—but it is not in itself enough to improve children's lives. That is what we mean by suggesting that the United Nations convention on the rights of the child be at the very heart of the Bill. What we really need is a commissioner who will promote and protect children's rights, and have the power to carry out the follow-up action that is needed. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child published guidelines on independent human rights bodies for children, and there are also the Paris principles. Five essential components are outlined. Independence is important, and we will obviously return to that debate on a later clause.

A human rights framework, strong investigatory powers, the impact on law and policy, an effective remedy for infringement of rights—the Government's approach here does not relate to those important principles. We have the opportunity within the Bill to put ourselves on the same footing as other European countries. To be out on a limb and out of step with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland makes no sense. We need to heed some of the comments that the Joint Committee on Human Rights made about the Bill. It said:

''The view of the existing Commissioners was that the language defining the new Commissioner's mandate is far too weak, and contrasts with the much more robust duties placed on the other Commissioners, which require them to be more proactive in promoting, safeguarding and keeping under review.

The Bill as drafted concentrates on the procedural aspects—that is promoting the views of and interests of children . . . In our report last year we envisaged that the Commissioner should be given a much more substantive role.''

Column Number: 13

Those voices come from all directions. As well as listening to children, the Minister should listen to all those voices that say that this must be a rights-based commissioner. That is vital.

We signed up to the convention in 1991, which is a long time ago. It gives us the opportunity and the time to ensure that we implement it. It provides a common vision and language for securing a good childhood for everyone. It gives us a detailed strategy for meeting all children's needs. Why not implement it fully at this stage? We also need a commissioner who gives equal opportunities due credibility and accountability. I have not tabled an amendment on that but somewhere in our specification it should state that the commissioner must pay due regard to equality of opportunity.

The president of the European Network of Ombudsmen for Children wrote to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to explain that with such limited powers and questionable independence, it is unlikely that the England commissioner would be able to join the European network. Surely we need to get ourselves ahead of the game rather than lagging behind. There are many instances of countries adopting our models and going on to make much more progress. We are behind at the moment, but why not take this opportunity to be ahead and to lead the world?

There is much to be said—many other hon. Members will wish to contribute—but I heartily endorse amendment No. 52 and oppose the Government amendments. I sincerely hope that the Government will address these important points and put ''rights'' back at the heart of the functions of the Children's Commissioner.

Tim Loughton: I want to support the amendment and also to speak to amendment No. 50. I do not place great store by individual words and titles but this is more fundamental. It is summed up by Government amendment No. 164, which reads, ''leave out 'rights'''. The Bill refers to children but leaves out their rights. This will be a rights-light Bill. It will be about complaints, rather than about upholding rights and promoting the well-being of children, which we all want.

The current wording is

''promoting and safeguarding the rights and interests of children''.

That will be diluted, if the Government get their way with their amendments, to promoting awareness of the views of children. That sounds a bit wet. Little more than a glorified children's television presenter could perform the same function if it does not have the importance and powers that we are trying to give to the champion of children, as the Children's Commissioner should be. I fear that I return to the phrase coined in another place of ''all ears and no teeth''. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre is right that the Government seem to have gone timid on the issue.

I hope that the Minister has a solid case. She may wish to counter the philosophy that the hon. Gentleman so learnedly quoted—it was way above my head. However, what is wrong with children's rights? I agree that rights are best protected by parents, and we

Column Number: 14

will seek amendments to reinforce the role of parents. They are the first line of defence for a child's welfare unless abuse happens, in which case we need the role of outside bodies, part of which will be the Children's Commissioner's responsibility. I will be hard pressed not to support the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre in a Division unless the Minister can say why we should have a rights-light Bill. The debate is fundamental to our discussion of future clauses.

Amendment No. 50, which deals with the short title defined at the end of the Bill in clause 56, has been shunted to our first deliberations. There are two points to the amendment. The first is that there is more to the Bill than just calling it the Children Act. We need a better description of welfare and rights, and the title that I have suggested echoes the rights case that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre has made. Secondly, there is a practical reason—it is not entirely mischievous—and I suggested a similar amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill. We have so many pieces of legislation with the same name: there is the Children Act 1989, and this will be another Children Act. We are constantly confusing ourselves about which Act we are referring to, so I am trying to be helpful without making a weighty political point. Although the Minister may not agree with one of the words that I suggested, it might be more useful if the Government added different words to the Bill's title to differentiate it from other legislation, primarily the Children Act 1989.

To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, I am concerned that we should be creating the best. We should be leading the world in the commissioner that we are producing. We have a good reputation in supporting child protection, although clearly we need to do more, which is why we have the Bill. It contains a lot of innovative measures, which we need to get right. If the Children's Commissioner for England/UK is not even powerful enough to be on a level playing field with the other European commissioners, we are clearly doing something wrong. If that suggestion is true, the Government need to justify why they are not following some of the best practice of other countries. Children deserve protection in this country no less than they do in countries on the continent or in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Unless the Minister can come up with a convincing reason why we should leave out the rights of children, I shall urge my hon. Friends to vote for amendment No. 52, as well as my amendment, No. 50.

 

---

Prepared 12 October 2004