The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 57, in
clause 22, page 13, line 14, leave
out ‘or’ and insert
‘and’.
Steve
Webb: Clause 9 is headed “Provision of advice by
Commission and consultation with others”, and subsection (4)(c)
states that the Secretary of
State “must
consult such children, or organisations working with or representing
children, as the Secretary of State thinks
fit”. The
amendment would modify that to read, “consult such children and
organisations working with” children. As the wording currently
stands, it appears to be possible to draw up a strategy without
consulting children; that is where we are coming from. One will be able
to satisfy the condition in subsection (4)(c) by consulting only
organisations that work with children, and not children themselves. All
that we are trying to do—it is clearly good practice to do
this—is to make consulting children a requirement. I do not need
to labour the point, as I am sure that the Committee knows where I am
coming from.
There are two
issues here. The first is about consulting children, and the second, a
sub-issue, is about consulting children in poverty. It is important
that actions on child poverty are not things done to people, but are
things done with them and for them, and are shaped by those who are
meant to be influenced. To quote from the UN Development Programme,
people living in
poverty “must
be considered as the principal actors of development; they can no
longer be seen as passive recipients; they are strategic partners
rather than target groups.”
In
other words, this should not be a patronising, top-down,
we-know-what-is-best-for-you measure. With children, that is a
particular risk. However, parts of the Bill already ask children what
they think. For example, for the child material deprivation indicators,
children will be asked about their hobbies, such as swimming, from
their perspective. That is entirely welcome, but we would like to see
the Bill strengthened so that there is consultation not just with
representative groups, but with the children
themselves.
Mr.
Stuart: I will not speak on the amendment, but I fully
support what the hon. Gentleman says, and I hope that Ministers will
take that on board
immediately.
Steve
Webb: I am sure that the Ministers will take the hon.
Gentleman’s support on board immediately; I am grateful for his
support. Save
the Children endorses the amendment, and I think the Equality and Human
Rights Commission might even have written it—although even I can
draft “delete ‘or’ and insert
‘and’” on a good day. An important point is being
made: consultation with organisations is supplementary to, not a
substitute for, consultation with children and families. One only has
to run through some of the frameworks for consulting children and young
people—the UN convention on the rights of the child, the
Children Act 1989, the Every Child Matters programme, the national
service framework for children—to see that all of them stress
the importance of seeking and taking into account children’s
views. Indeed, the UN convention on the rights of the child states
that “parties
shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own
views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting
the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance
with the age and maturity of the
child.” Obviously,
the views of younger children will differ from those of older
children. I
cannot help but feel that listening to the voice of a variety of
children with disabilities will be particularly important. I suspect
that all of us have attended fringe meetings at our party conferences
that were organised by the Every Disabled Child Matters coalition. It
produced a DVD that disabled youngsters had made. A parliamentary
colleague and I were on a panel with disabled teenagers, who were able
to hold up a card that said “Jargon” if we used jargon. I
recall that meeting more than most; I hope that no one on the Committee
has such a card. It was different to hear things from the
horse’s mouth, rather than just from an organisation acting on
people’s
behalf. Julie
Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman makes an
important point: it is important to communicate directly with children.
However, does he agree that communicating directly with them is not
easy, and has to be done in a way that allows one to find out what they
truly mean? In those situations, organisations that work with children
can sometimes help facilitate the coming forward of children’s
views. It is important to bear that in
mind.
Steve
Webb: Absolutely. I do not underestimate the difficulty of
communicating with children, nor do I underestimate the contribution
that children’s organisations
can make. We do not do that, in any sense, by
converting “or” to “and”. By putting in
“and”, we will require consultation with
children’s organisations. However, we have to ensure that the
voice of the child is heard clearly. I think that the point has been
made, and I commend the amendment to the
Committee. 2.15
pm
Andrew
Selous: I support the amendment, and I agree with my hon.
Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. The amendment is
important. We should not underestimate the fact that adults are not
always good proxies for children’s views. As the hon. Member for
Northavon said, the task may not be easy, and we need to talk to
organisations that work with, for and on behalf of children. At my
party’s conference I saw a film produced by Save the Children
called “Wee Shots”—both Ministers may have seen it
at a showing in Portcullis House—and met children who live in
poverty in Bradford, London and elsewhere in the UK. The amendment
brings an extra dimension, and I echo the reference that the hon.
Member for Northavon made to the United Nation’s words about
doing things with and for people, rather than to them. The amendment is
therefore sensible, and we will support him if he chooses to press it
to a
vote.
Helen
Goodman: Subsection (4)(c) requires the Secretary of State
to “consult
such children, or organisations working with or representing children,
as the Secretary of State thinks
fit” in
preparing a UK strategy. Similarly, clause 22(6) requires the
responsible local authority
to “consult
such children, or organisations working with or representing children,
as the authority thinks
fit” in
preparing or modifying a joint child poverty strategy. The hon. Member
for Northavon proposes to change the word “or” in those
subsections to “and” to require consultation on national
and local child poverty strategies to take place directly with
children, as well as with organisations working with or representing
children. The
Government fully appreciate the spirit in which the amendment has been
tabled. Ensuring that children’s views underpin Government
policies to improve outcomes for all children has been and remains at
the heart of our approach. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the
participation of the child is one of the three key principles in the UN
convention on the rights of the child and has been incorporated into
English law since the Scarman judgment on the Gillick case. We have a
long history of doing that where we believe it to be appropriate.
Article 12 of the UN convention urges state parties to allow
children who are capable of forming their own views to have a say on
issues that affect
them. Taking
into account the views of children and families living in poverty is
central to the development of our strategies for tackling child
poverty. During the development of the Bill, we commissioned Save the
Children to carry out a series of consultation events with children and
young people aged five to 19, seeking their views on the Bill, as well
as on the Government’s vision for meeting the 2020 targets. We
have also commissioned Dr. Tess Ridge from Bath university, who gave
evidence to the Committee last week, to research the experience of
children and families living in poverty. Her report was published in
July and will help to inform the development of the child poverty
strategy.
We
do not believe, however, that it will always be appropriate for the
Secretary of State to consult children directly, as well as those
organisations whose role is to identify and represent children’s
views and interests. While we want to ensure that both the local and
national strategies are informed by the views of children and young
people, we acknowledge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North
implied in her intervention, that Government may not always be best
placed to achieve this goal. In reaching the most disaffected children
or those with complex needs, we want to work with those organisations
that represent groups that do not usually take part in Government
consultations, and that have the necessary specialist
skills. The
hon. Member for Northavon suggested that the Government were failing in
their obligations to take the views of children and young people
seriously. I do not accept that. We have made the participation of
children and young people a priority. The Children’s
Commissioner and the DCSF’s children and youth board play a
crucial role in ensuring that the views of children and young people
inform the development of policies. I have taken the trouble to check
the obligations of the Children’s Commissioner for England, and
they include the “and”—rather than the
“or”—approach that the hon. Gentleman would like
us to take. However, the Children’s Commissioner differs
significantly from the child poverty commission, because he has the
function of promoting awareness of the views and interests of children,
whereas the role of the child poverty commission is to advise on
strategies to tackle child
poverty.
Steve
Webb: The Minister refers to the child poverty commission,
but clause 9(4) imposes a duty on the Secretary of State, not on the
child poverty commission.
Helen
Goodman: I understand that, but in implementing strategies
and seeking to meet targets, the Secretary of State tries to implement
a policy that will be effective in another objective. That is different
from being effective in representing the views of children to the
world, which is the role of the Children’s Commissioner, and
that is why we have handled their role
differently.
Judy
Mallaber: I am still a little confused as to what
difference changing the wording, as proposed by the amendment, would
make. The tenor of the amendment is not clear. Would the Minister
explain further what she understands would happen as a result of the
amendment?
Helen
Goodman: My understanding is that in preparing a UK
strategy, the Secretary of State—or the local authorities, as
set out in clause 22—would have to consult children and
organisations working with or representing children in every single
case. As the provision is currently drafted, the Secretary of State has
a choice about how best to secure the views of children and young
people on the issues being considered—namely, drawing up a
strategy to tackle child
poverty. I
hope that hon. Members will accept my reassurances that we intend that
the development of the national and local strategies should benefit
from the views of children who have direct experience of living in
poverty. In our view, clause 9(4)(c) and clause 22(6) make that
intention clear, and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for
Northavon is unnecessary. The important point is
how we put those requirements into practice and
ensure that the views of children and their families are properly taken
into account. On that basis, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw
his
amendment. Steve
Webb: I feel that that was the answer to a different
question. The Minister said that it is important to listen to children
and that test groups have been commissioned to do research, which has
informed policy. She said that Save the Children had undertaken a
consultation in which it talked to children, which was good and
worthwhile, but she did not want to make it a duty on the Government to
do that again. If this is all so worthwhile, why would the Secretary of
State want to retain the option of not consulting with children under
the Bill as currently drafted?
Helen
Goodman: The Secretary of State retains the option of
doing it, but is not required to do it in every instance. I think there
is a difference.
Steve
Webb: I think it is the same thing. I cannot conceive of a
Secretary of State wanting to draw up a child poverty strategy where he
or she did not consult children directly, so I do not see why we need
to leave that option in the Bill and I seek to test the view of the
Committee on the amendment.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
7.
Division
No.
7]
The
Chairman: In accordance with the practice of the House, I
cast my vote with the Noes, so as to leave the Bill in its original
form. Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 9
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
10Scottish
Strategies
Helen
Goodman: I beg to move amendment 33, in
clause 10, page 6, line 19, at
end insert— ‘( ) The
Scottish Ministers must, on or before each report date relating to a
Scottish strategy, lay before the Scottish Parliament a report
which— (a) describes the
measures taken by the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the
Scottish strategy, (b)
describes the effect of those measures in contributing to the meeting
of the targets in sections 2 to 5,
and (c) describes other effects
of those measures that contribute to the achievement of the purpose
mentioned in subsection (2)(b).
( ) The report dates relating to a Scottish strategy
are each anniversary of the day on which it was laid before the
Scottish Parliament, other than an anniversary which
falls— (a) on or after
the date on which a subsequent Scottish strategy is so laid,
or (b) after the end of the
target
year.’. This
amendment requires the Scottish Ministers to lay before the Scottish
Parliament an annual report describing how measures taken in accordance
with the current Scottish strategy have contributed to meeting the
targets and to ensuring that children in Scotland do not experience
socio-economic
disadvantage.
| 
