| Children Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Clappison: I crave the indulgence of the Committee to make a brief contribution. I begin, Mr. Benton, by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship. I was keen to hear the Minister's reply to the debate. The Government's response is important, because they are changing the structure of the clause, which was put in place in the House of Lords with widespread, if not all-party, agreement. They are making a significant change and many would argue that the clause is weakened, so I should like to hear the Government's explanation for that. I appreciate the care that the right hon. Lady devoted to her explanation, but after listening to her careful and elegant contribution to the Committee, I am less convinced than I should like to be, if I were to support the Government amendments and vote down the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. We have had a good debate this morning. It has been philosophical at times, but no worse for that. There is a debate to be had about children's rights. Without necessarily going far into such a debate, there are wider implications flowing from it which concern me. We are putting in place a Children's Commissioner, with a great deal of fanfare. When the right hon. Lady introduced the Bill, there was no modesty in her intentions. She spoke of a landmark Bill, its legislative spine, and a transformation in children's chances. She said that we could all look back on it and derive pleasure later in our lives from having taken part in such a landmark parliamentary occasion. That may be the case, but I hope that if we are taking all the time and trouble to create a Children's Commissioner, spending public money on setting up such an office and devoting parliamentary time to doing so, we should have something that makes a difference. For it to make such a difference, it must be seen to be robust and independent. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to a commissioner with teeth, and I think that a Lord in the other place referred to it as having other physical attributes. Whether or not that is so, it does not seem to have recovered that robustness as a result of the Government amendment proposed today. It is important to have an independent and robust commissioner, who is seen as such. I am concerned about the message that has come from the Government this morning about the character of the commissioner. We shall return to that question time and again. We have touched on it, and I know that we shall be soon come to amendment No. 170, but the right hon. Lady touched on it when she said that the commissioner, unlike those elsewhere, would not be able to investigate individual cases. She made the reasonable point that she did not want the commissioner to become bogged down, but looking at what the Government are proposing, they do not intend to allow the commissioner to investigate any cases at all. The commissioner is not duty bound to investigate all cases coming to him, and the effect of amendment No. 170— Column Number: 23 Margaret Hodge: I want to correct the hon. Gentleman, and refer him to clause 4, where we say that the commissioner will be able to make inquiries on individual cases, where issues of national significance are raised, and where such an inquiry would not involve duplication. It was after listening to the debate in the House of Lords that we introduced clause 4 as an amendment. If the hon. Gentleman's concern is about the commissioner's robustness, he may be mistaken. That clause gives us entirely what we want. In cases that have wide significance, the commissioner can investigate, but he will not be bogged down in the day-to-day cases that could be referred to alternative tribunals and bodies. Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. If I was wrong about that, I stand corrected. We shall debate the point later about the commissioner acting at the behest of the Secretary of State. I have concerns about how the commissioner will be seen as a result of the changes that the Government are proposing today. I want an independent and robust commissioner, who is seen as such. Without going all the way into the rights debate, I feel that the commissioner's position is being diluted. By asking the Minister about interests, I sought to clarify whether the commissioner would be able to promote the interests of children or merely awareness of children. The right hon. Lady looks at me as though she thinks there is no difference, but I think it will widely be seen that there is a difference between promoting awareness of something and promoting interests. That is quite clear and will be seen as such. I am concerned that we are putting in place a rather timid commissioner. Mr. Dawson: I agree that this has been a good debate. I regret that we have not each been given a copy of the UN convention on the rights of the child among the papers for this sitting. At times, it seems to have been characterised as a terribly narrow and dry document that attends only to the legalistic position of children. My right hon. Friend described it as an ethical framework, which it is—a broad ethical framework that encompasses a vast range of children's interests and needs, and which goes far wider than the five outcomes set out by the Government. Mrs. Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, within the framework, rights are a foundation stone rather than a constraint, and that they provide opportunities? Does he agree that by not including the word ''rights'' throughout the Bill, we are missing opportunities? Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for expressing that better than I did. Rights are a foundation stone. They are something to be built on, are acknowledged almost universally in the UN convention, and are principles against which our efforts to meet children's needs can be tested. There is nothing wrong with rights. There is nothing narrow Column Number: 24 about rights. There is nothing that rights impel us to do that we should not do. There is nothing about an emphasis on rights that would push the Children's Commissioner to operate as some sort of ombudsman.With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, I think that she spent some parts of her speech tilting at windmills. In my years of taking an interest in the issue, I have come across no one who would say, ''We want a children's commissioner to do away with all the complaints systems, ombudsmen and children's rights officers, and to take on every single problem that comes their way.'' No one in their right mind would put forward that sort of model for a Children's Commissioner. Mr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman has just erected a windmill of his own. Of course no one said what he suggested, but there are people who say that the commissioner should have the right to investigate individual cases. Is he one of them? Mr. Dawson: I am indeed one of them. I join the Government in approving clause 4. It is plain that there are occasions when the Children's Commissioner needs to have the opportunity to investigate—for example, when a child's problem is not investigated properly, perhaps because the child falls between various institutions and authorities. I am not concerned about that, as I think the commissioner would be able to balance taking on individual inquiries with taking a wide-ranging approach to children's issues, as my right hon. Friend says, and considering policy development and how issues affect children. I hope the Children's Commissioner will take on the case of the child in custody who falls between the youth justice and the child care systems and who might be suicidal. I also hope that the commissioner will take on the issues that children regularly identify to me and, I suspect, to everyone else, such as transport, which is a priority for the Youth Parliament, bullying, which is a priority for very many children, and play areas, which children identified as a priority during the consultation but which is not reflected in the Government's five outcomes. Let us not assume that anyone is proposing that a children's ombudsman should replace all other provision. The Government are clearly proposing that the Children's Commissioner should have a role in relation to interests, but not in relation to rights. The only difference between interests and rights is the significance that we attach to them and to the person who has those interests or those rights, and the duties that we impose, primarily on the state, to meet them. If we are serious about children, we should focus the Children's Commissioner firmly on rights. If we are serious about the commissioner, we should ensure that Column Number: 25 he has the power to do the job. At the end of the day, this is about power. We need a powerful advocate for children in this country.Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 12.
Division No. 1]
AYES
NOES
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 12 October 2004 |
