| Children Bill [Lords]
|
|
Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister. I am not sure whether I am one of the people whom she is endeavouring to name and shame. I did not speak about individual cases. Can she confirm, because she would not tell us for sure on Tuesday, that if additional funds are to be allocated to the Children's Commissioner, they will be given purely as Column Number: 130 supplementary funds for the additional work that he is being required to do, and for no other purposes will his work be directed and those funds be ring-fenced? She would not give that undertaking on Tuesday, but she is now trying to suggest that she did.Margaret Hodge: The point that I just made was that were the commissioner to be asked to undertake an investigation into a case of such national significance that the Secretary of State believed it warranted an inquiry, additional funding would be available. There is no intention for the Secretary of State or any Minister to intervene in how the commissioner chooses to expend the general budget that we have set, so long as he does so within the general functions that we determine. Mr. Dawson: In an effort to re-trek across the parallel universe that we seem to be inhabiting, can the Minister tell me, given that she supports clause 5 so strongly, whether she seriously believes that the Children's Commissioner is independent of Government? Margaret Hodge: Yes, I do. Time will tell whether it is my judgment or my hon. Friend's that is right. Mrs. Brooke: Does the Minister accept what the clause empowers successive Secretaries of State to do? It puts into somebody's hands the enormous power to demand an inquiry that might be against the judgment of the appointed Children's Commissioner. If I am reading that correctly, I should be grateful for her comments. Does she have no concerns about that, for the future, if not for now? Margaret Hodge: I will respond to the issue of substance, which I think was the purpose of the amendment. The Secretary of State already has the enormous power to determine whether he will hold an inquiry into a particular case if he believes that it warrants it; he holds that power now. The issue that we are discussing is whether the commissioner is the appropriate person to undertake such inquiries, so let us deal with that under amendment No. 14. I accept the purpose for which the amendment was tabled. However, I am told that the lawyers say that the difference between ''direct'' and ''require'' is pretty non-existent. Why have we chosen to put the word ''direct'' into the clause? This is a limited power to allow the Secretary of State to require the Children's Commissioner to lead an inquiry into a matter of such gravity that he feels an inquiry is appropriate. It is an extremely limited power. It adds to the Secretary of State's options for finding effective leadership to undertake exercises of this importance. It also has the significant practical advantage for the commissioner of creating a moral—if not a legal—obligation on the Secretary of State to fund such an inquiry properly with supplementary financial provisions, rather than expecting the commissioner to fund it from his annual budget. Tim Loughton: I hear what the Minister says, but what is the difference between the Secretary of State's existing power to establish judicial-style inquiries, as Column Number: 131 with Lord Laming, which would be funded directly, and getting the Children's Commissioner to do it? In what circumstances does she envisage that she would want the Children's Commissioner to be told to hold an inquiry that he is reluctant to initiate himself, that could not be achieved by appointing a Lord Laming-type inquiry which he already has the powers to do?Margaret Hodge: One of the purposes of establishing a Children's Commissioner is that we have a function within the landscape that will develop a specific expertise for carrying out the sort of inquiries that Lord Laming did so effectively in relation to the death of Victoria Climbie. If we create that function, the Children's Commissioner seems the obvious person whom the Secretary of State would ask to undertake the inquiry. Undoubtedly there are other experienced people in the House of Lords or elsewhere who could do the work, but if we have a specific body established to protect children's interests, surely it is the obvious body to which to turn if there is a case of such importance that we want to have a proper inquiry to look at its national significance. As Lady Ashton said in the other place, in reality the Secretary of State would want to discuss the matter with the commissioner to ensure that they reach a mutual understanding. I find it extremely difficult to envisage any situation where the Secretary of State considered that the case was of such importance that it warranted a national inquiry and the commissioner did not concur with that view. Perhaps other hon. Members can help me. Tim Loughton: The Minister makes the point exactly—so why put it into the Bill where there are two fallbacks? First, the Secretary of State can order a judicial inquiry by Lord Laming's equivalents; and secondly, it would be part of the performance-related material and could count against the commissioner in an assessment. There are two checks and balances there, so why does it need to be put so forcefully when it appears so prescriptive in the Bill? Margaret Hodge: In the situation where Parliament and the public express such horror and concern about a particular incident, the Government should be seen to respond on behalf of us all in a strong and measured way. Having that power of direction reflects the gravity of the sort of case we envisage being subject to a specific inquiry directed by the Secretary of State and hence we have used those words. A lot has been made of that issue. I ask that amendment No. 14 be not pushed to a vote not only because it will make no difference in practice but so that hon. Members understand the intent behind the phraseology of the clause, and its importance as it stands. Mr. Turner: Unless I have missed something, that seems merely to be so that the Secretary of State can show that he is doing something. That is the tenor of what the Minister said to my hon. Friend. Column Number: 132 Margaret Hodge: The Secretary of State can do something in any case; he has that power. In the instance of a grave and terrible tragedy, which is the sort of situation that might require such an inquiry, the gravity of the case would require us to have a stronger response—so requiring the commissioner to undertake an inquiry is appropriate. The intent of the Opposition's amendment No. 15 and ours is the same. As I said when speaking to an earlier amendment—this is lawyers' heyday stuff—our wording more appropriately meets the intent of the Opposition Members who tabled amendment No. 15. The words ''as soon as possible'' would make it a duty to do everything one could to make it a priority, whereas
Tim Loughton: It has been an interesting debate, but I am not altogether convinced at the end of it. We have heard some rather weak arguments. I think that the cat was let out of the bag when, in justifying her comments to my hon. Friend just now, the Minister said that in such grave circumstances it would be appropriate to ''require'' the commissioner to conduct an inquiry. That is the very word that we used in our amendment, not ''direct''. She makes the legalese point—we must take officials' word for it—that there is little difference in drafting between ''require'' and ''direct''. That is as may be. Certainly there are enough people who are better versed than me in such matters who think that the word ''direct'' is unduly prescriptive and would feel much happier with the word ''require'', but I think that there is a difference. However, she tells me that she accepts the meaning of the amendment. I also accept her point about the difference between
We did not agree with striking out the whole clause, although I can entirely see why some Government and Liberal Democrat Members want to do so, because they think that it completely compromises the independence of the commissioner. If that were the case, I would have a good deal of sympathy with that position, because of the five principles that I set out this morning on how the legislation relating to the commissioner would be judged. If we simply struck Column Number: 133 out clause 5, we would lose some strategic elements, because there are no replacement amendments to insert some of those aspects. For example, the clause authorises the commissioner to hold inquiries in private where appropriate, such as if there are sensitive issues with particular children. Where a child's identity might be compromised, there are various courses of action that could be taken under subsection (5).
3.45 pmMr. Dawson: Are those issues not catered for in clause 4—''Inquiries initiated by Commissioner''—and certain subsections of clause 2? Tim Loughton: We are dealing with different sorts of inquiries. The wording is slightly different, so I am not sure about that, but the hon. Gentleman has raised a good point, which is why the Government must reflect on the wording of the amendment. We have already had a big argument about clause 4(8) and (9) and the issue of devolution, which I shall not return to. The wording of the clause is unsatisfactory. I hope that rather than having to vote against the clause, the Government will come back on Report with a reworded clause to reflect our concerns and those of other hon. Members. If they are not prepared to do that, there will be a good case for voting against it on Report.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 14 October 2004 |
