Bill
Rammell: It is important that one best practice is shared
across the European Union. To be more specific, there are proposals to
support the banking sector and credit card companies in combating the
use of credit cards to purchase sexual images of children on the
internet. There is, arguably, a case for action there, which we would
look at favourably. Other suggestions, such as promoting a clustering
of actions on child poverty within the European Union, might be helpful
if they add value and help us to achieve the Lisbon goals. However, I
reiterate that we are at an early stage. Some of my difficulty in
responding to hon. Members’ detailed questions is that there is
not yet a great deal of detail coming from the Commission about how the
proposals are to be taken forward. It is therefore important that there
is a genuine opportunity for member states to engage with the process
to ensure that it adds value. We are arguing forcefully for
that. Mrs.
Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby) (Lab): On that point, I must
say that I have read the document and find it quite confusing. I refer
the Minister to paragraph 3, “What issue/problem is the
Communication expected to tackle?”, on page 8. I presume that he
will respond to the document and other relevant pieces of information
that he might have. It is interesting to note that section 3 appears
not only to address the position of children in the EU, but to take a
global perspective of the problems facing children. That is
exceptionally interesting, but for our purposes I would like there to
be far more focus on the issues that affect our children here in the
EU, and some discussion about the instruments that have been brought to
bear to address those problems. Presumably, the Minister has read the
document. Does he share my concern? If so, can he cast any light on
individual sections of the document in relation to children within the
EU?
Bill
Rammell: I am certainly here to say how we are responding
to the document, but I am not the originator of it. My hon. Friend
highlights a particular challenge: while there is a role for the EU in
sharing best practice, monitoring what is happening and adding value,
particularly in terms of asserting and pushing children’s rights
internationally, there is no EU competence in the field of
children’s rights. That is right because it is the
responsibility of individual nation states, which is why we are
strongly pushing the “Every Child Matters” agenda. This
debate and her question tempt us to move beyond that and impinge on
what is rightly the competence of individual member states, and that
would be wrong. The issue is about co-ordinating, adding value and
forcefully upholding member states’ primary responsibility to
assert and implement children’s
rights.
Miss
McIntosh: The Minister referred to the legal basis on
which it would be right and proper for the Commission to undertake
legislation, as it has in the past. Does he share my disappointment
with the way in which the European directive on television without
frontiers has been implemented? There is a remarkable number of
differences in the impact that it has had on advertising and children.
In this country, parents still feel that harmful advertising is being
shown, particularly during the hours that children watch
television.
Similarly, would not it be
appropriate for the EU to legislate to establish a barrier to children
accessing internet gambling? Do we need separate legislation for that?
Is the Minister convinced that the internet does not respect
international frontiers, and would it be appropriate to seek an EU
directive?
Bill
Rammell: I am not convinced at this stage that EU
legislation to tackle that problem is the best way forward, although I
do not rule it out. Our current engagement mechanism is probably the
most effective way of tackling the problem, but I do not rule out
legislation, and those issues are kept under
review.
Mr.
Gerrard: There are several references to the United
Nations convention on the rights of the child. Does the Minister see
anything in the document to suggest that the UK should reconsider the
way in which we deal with the UN convention, particularly as we have a
reservation on immigration policy?
Bill
Rammell: I do not believe that we should move away from
that reservation. In respect of our immigration policies, it is right
that we can secure our borders. Children in adult detention centres is
the second of our two reservations and, as I said, we shall shortly
make progress on that. However, I do not agree that removing the
reservation on immigration would be sensible or
practical.
Angela
Watkinson: Has the Minister considered how the strategy
might be used to prevent the removal of young girls living in this and
other European countries to countries outside the European Union,
mainly in Africa and India, for the purposes of female genital
mutilation and forced marriages? Has he considered how best practice
can be garnered from other European countries to try to stop those
practices?
Bill
Rammell: Those issues are exceedingly important, and as
the details of the directive develop, we should consider whether they
give us a route forward. However, it is important not to overstate the
potential impact of them. The proposals can be helpful and they are
about sharing best practice, but they are the Commission’s broad
proposals and do not encapsulate a silver-bullet solution.
Nevertheless, I must be honest
with the Committee: I cannot be definitive. The broad formulations
before us are not backed up by much detail. We are at the early stages
of the process, and that is why it is crucial that member states are
involved in the debate about the effectiveness of
proposals.
Mrs.
Curtis-Thomas: From what the Minister has said so far, I
understand that the exercise is about bringing together all the
Commission’s different children’s initiatives, and, I
presume, carrying out a mapping exercise. What is not being undertaken
is an agenda-seeking exercise by which member states are invited to
contribute subjects that they would like the EU to consider as part of
developing a strategy on protecting children’s rights. Is that a
fair summation of what is going
on?
Bill
Rammell: It may help if I briefly run through the actions
that are proposed. Some of them are based on consultation with
stakeholders, such as setting up a web-based discussion and work
platform on children’s rights throughout the EU, bringing
together stakeholders in a European forum for the rights of the child,
and involving children in the decision-making process. All those
propositions would be broadly acceptable, although we need more
detail.
The second
tranche of initiatives is about joining up and mainstreaming policies.
It includes setting up a Commission inter-service group and appointing
a co-ordinator for the rights of the child, providing the necessary
skills and tools to actors involved in mainstreaming children’s
rights in Community policies, mainstreaming children’s rights
when drafting EC legislative and non-legislative actions that may
affect them, assessing the impact of the existing EU actions affecting
children’s rights, and continuing and further enhancing the
EU’s active role in international forums to promote the rights
of the child. Again, that tranche of initiatives arguably has merit,
but we need to see the detail.
There are also proposals for
new actions which we need to consider in great detail, such as
reserving a range of phone numbers for European Union services,
including child helplines and hotlines for missing and sexually
exploited children, supporting the banking sector and credit card
companies in combating the use of credit cards for the purchase of
sexual images of children on the internet, launching an action plan on
development co-operation to address children’s priority needs in
developing countries, promoting a clustering of actions on child
poverty across the European Union, collecting comparable data on
children’s rights, and issuing a consultation document to
identify future actions—a Green Paper, which will be
presented in 2008.
Those are broad areas of
direction and as yet there is not a great deal of detail from the
Commission. That is
why it is crucial—we have argued for this—that member
states are involved early on in the detailed formulation of the
proposals. It is also crucial that, certainly before the Green Paper
stage in 2008, there is significant consultation with member states and
with, as was mentioned earlier, the Council of Europe and
others. Annette
Brooke: I have a slightly more detailed question on
children’s and young people’s participation. Quite a lot
is being done in that respect in the UK, and I want a reassurance that
the Government at least welcome the European forum on the rights of the
child. I think it is proposed that one quarter of the members will be
children and young people. Does the Minister think that that is a
useful way to involve children throughout
Europe?
Bill
Rammell: I do. I have a long history of commitment to the
right of young people to represent their views. However, it is crucial
to examine the proposals with care. There may be many environments in
which it is right, helpful and proper for children and young people to
be their own advocates and to be involved in decision making.
Sometimes, particularly in some of the wider European Union forums, it
will be as effective, if not more so, for representative bodies to be
involved in the decision-making process on their behalf. However, as a
general principle I welcome the attempt to engage children and young
people in the development of the
process.
Miss
McIntosh: The Minister said that he thought it would be
best to find local solutions, and I would add that it would be best if
that happened on a voluntary basis. Is he aware of the excellent work
that has been done in the past two years under Conservative-controlled
Hampshire county council? The local education authority has undertaken
a unique school improvement programme, which is being piloted and
rolled out across the UK. Does the Minister not agree that that is the
best way forward and that other parts of the country could learn from
such an approach? As he said, local solutions are a better way forward
than blanket EU control, although I would add that they should be
implemented voluntarily.
Bill
Rammell: I do not think that anybody is advocating blanket
EU control. Incidentally, I am happy to pay tribute where it is due,
and I am sure that some Conservative-controlled local education
authorities do sensible things from time to time. However, I take the
hon. Lady’s point that there needs to be local action. As I said
at the beginning, it is crucial that the present process is developed
in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, which is about
ensuring that local action is taken where it is the most effective
alternative. However, as we move ahead on a case-by-case basis, there
will be issues on which we need to take collective action across the
EU, and that is one of the issues that the current proposals look
at.
Dr.
Gibson: I wonder whether I could chase the Minister a
little further, because I am interested in the mechanism by which these
things will happen. I referred earlier to disability, and a meeting in
which I took part
one day was attended by seven Ministers from different Departments, all
of whom had an interest in the development of the young people we were
discussing. The Minister said something about how we will move forward,
but who will be involved in the discussions? Will the commissioner for
children be involved? Will a Minister be in charge? What discussions
have taken place between Ministers and civil servants in different
Departments to make things happen? I might jocularly add that I hope
that my hon. Friend maintains his interest in Harlow long enough to see
the proposals come to fruition, because this is one heck of an
agenda.
Bill
Rammell: Absolutely. I will take that comment in the
friendly spirit in which I am sure it was intended. It is probably
helpful if I set out some of the ways in which we are seeking
clarification of what will eventually emerge. Through the UK permanent
representation to the EU, there will shortly be an informal meeting
with the Commission. At working group and intergovernmental meetings
where the communication has been presented, we are pushing for
discussion. We are also seeking strong representation on the
stakeholder forum. In addition, we are approaching the German
presidency to ask for proper discussions of the eventual consultation
document in the Council working group, and those will probably take
place in the social affairs working group.
I reiterate that we are at an
early stage of the process. As my hon. Friend made clear, it is a very
long process, and it will take a further two years to get even to the
Green Paper stage. If there are then to be legislative proposals, there
will be further time scales, and member states will have further
opportunities to influence the process. At the moment, we are ensuring
through officials and Ministers that there is as much consultation and
debate on these issues as
possible.
Annette
Brooke: Does the Minister not agree that the consultation
that will take place as a consequence of the communication will be
beneficial for policy making in the United Kingdom and enable us better
to meet the requirements of the convention on the rights of
the
child?
Bill
Rammell: Any debate about those issues is important, but I
do not accept the thrust of the hon. Lady’s suggestion that we
are being negligent in terms of signing up to the broad requirements of
the convention on the rights of the child. We have a good track record
across the board on children’s rights, particularly in respect
of our proposals and strategies under “Every Child
Matters”, and we are moving firmly forward on that
agenda.
Mr.
Gerrard: May I return to the issue of the consultation,
which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North? Can
the Minister give us any idea who might be involved in the proposed
stakeholder groups? We are dealing with an area that involves many
NGOs. There is expertise both in this country and throughout Europe.
One would expect the police perhaps to have
some involvement in issues involving the banking sector and fraud, or
trafficking. Who is likely to be involved in the stakeholder groups,
and who will make the decision on who those people
are?
Bill
Rammell: My hon. Friend’s question goes to the
heart of the matter. The stakeholder forum will consist of
representatives from member states, as well as non-governmental
organisations and children’s representatives. In that context,
we shall certainly argue to ensure that the forum does not duplicate
existing intergovernmental arrangements at EU level. I say that from an
important perspective. If we end up with fragmentation and duplication,
the job of work that needs to done will not be undertaken effectively,
but if we can get it right, the stakeholder engagement process has the
potential to be useful in looking at EU-level proposals. Again, I would
certainly not want it to duplicate meetings, such as those of
L’Europe de l’Enfance, which focuses on exchange of
national policy best practice. If we get this right, it is about the
best way of ensuring that the appropriate people are involved in the
forum from the outset. Certainly there will be representatives from
member states and NGOs, as well as children’s representatives.
If my hon. Friend has detailed concerns about specific organisations
that he wants to be involved in the process, perhaps he will
communicate with me about that. I would be happy to consider that in
our deliberations on the way in which we take this
forward.
| 
