Angela
Watkinson:: I do not claim to have read every word of the
document, but I got to page 19 before I found any reference to the
Council of Europe, and then it was only a source of data. It refers to
mainstreaming children’s rights and I wonder whether that is a
weasel word. It
states: “The
process will take into account work carried out under the Council of
Europe Programme ‘Building a Europe for and with Children
(2006-2008)’ to effectively promote respect for
children’s rights and protect children against all forms of
violence.” I am just a
little suspicious about that process. Is the European Union trying to
subsume the Council of Europe’s work on human rights? I wonder
what their future relationship will
be.
Bill
Rammell: I am a strong, committed and constructive
pro-European, but one challenge that we must always be concerned about
is institutional mission creep within the European Union. That is why I
welcome the fact that we are at the early stage of the process. We
should take the opportunity to ensure that this is genuinely about
adding value and not undercutting the competencies of member states,
that it is taken forward in conformity with the principles of
subsidiarity, and that the rationale and the effective work that those
other international bodies may be, and often are, doing is not
undercut.
Mrs.
Curtis-Thomas: I welcome the initiative, which is
immensely important. We can all go on developing policies that get out
of control, a bit like Topsy. To stand back and consider who is doing
what, particularly in an EU context, is extremely valuable because
there is a great deal of good practice throughout Europe that
we could all learn from. We can provide that practice and we can also
learn from others. I
want to go back to two points that were raised earlier. References to
children with disabilities are very limited in the document. I have had
an opportunity to read it all, and there are such references, but
anything that we do or any response that we provide needs to identify
that group of children, who have good rights in the United Kingdom, but
are immensely disadvantaged in other parts of the
EU.
The
Chairman: Order. I remind all hon. Members that questions
should be brief. There will be an opportunity to contribute to the
debate shortly, but questions to the Minister should be
brief.
Mrs.
Curtis-Thomas: I have noted that, Mrs. Humble.
The Minister set out earlier a list of the activities that the
Commission will undertake, but there was no specific reference to the
establishment of an EU commissioner for children. I hope that the
Minister will forgive my ignorance, but does such a commissioner exist,
or, if not, does he think that the exercise is a route by which we may
achieve
that?
Bill
Rammell: No, that is not the case. As to disability
issues, the matter is one for the national competence of the member
states. My hon. Friend will be aware of the actions that this country
and the Government have taken under disability discrimination
legislation. That is the way forward, but I and officials will reflect
on the comments that have been made in Committee, and look at the
overall proposals. As long as value is genuinely added to what the
European Union is doing, I shall reflect on the comments and see
whether that is appropriate, within one of the EU policy proposal
strands.
Miss
McIntosh: The Minister was in my view a little vague about
the legal basis of the communication. The conclusion of the Select
Committee on European Scrutiny was to agree with the Minister that
there appeared to be no legal basis in the EU and the new treaties. My
understanding is that normally matters would proceed on the basis of
intergovernmental co-operation. Will the Minister confirm that? Will
there be reciprocity of standards, rather than the imposition of
standards between one member state and
another?
Bill
Rammell: I am not trying to be vague, but part of my
difficulty in dealing with the package of proposals this afternoon is
that there is not yet much substance. That is in a sense inevitable,
because we are at an early stage of the process. It is helpful that the
Commission does not claim general competence in the area of fundamental
rights, including children’s rights, under the treaties or under
the case law of the European Court of Justice. Many of the proposals
will be about the sharing of best practice and about co-ordination. It
is conceivable that there is not a competency with respect to
children’s rights, but in other areas, some of which I referred
to earlier, such as providing telephone numbers or tackling the use of
credit cards to obtain
sexual images of children, there may be a case for legislative action
under other EU competencies.
We must press
the Commission for more detail as the proposals are developed, but I
reiterate my point that the proposals must be taken forward in
conformity with respect for the rights of member states and the
principles of subsidiarity. If we hold firm to that, we can address the
issues, as they are taken forward, in
detail.
Mrs.
Curtis-Thomas: Further to my earlier comments, I want to
observe that there is little in the communication—just a
sub-group of a few sentences—about children who are held in
detention. I presume, given the Minister’s references to the
UK’s stance, that we would want to flag the issue up as a major
area of interest during this
exercise.
Bill
Rammell: I certainly think that across the board we need
to look at the detail of the proposals to ensure that they genuinely
help, across the European Union and beyond, to assert and to support
the rights of children. The test of that will be, as the proposals come
forward and we try to influence them, that they achieve a beneficial
outcome and genuinely add value to what the European Union can
do.
Mrs.
Curtis-Thomas: I thank the Minister for that response, but
it suggests that we shall carry out an assessment exercise on the
competence of various institutions or structures in the EU to deal with
particular matters, and that we may arrive at the conclusion that they
do not provide any particular benefit, in which case, will we advise
the EU that we do not have confidence in those structures and,
therefore, argue for their removal from a process to which they do not
seem to contribute?
Bill
Rammell: This Government, through our participation in
European forums, will urge the Commission not to go beyond its
competence or its remit. First, it would be wrong in principle for the
European Union to do so and, secondly, the prime responsibility for
supporting and upholding children’s rights lies rightly with
member states. If we create any sense in which the responsibility is
considered not to be paramount on member states, in the long run we
will undermine the importance of children’s rights throughout
the European Union and beyond.
Mrs.
Curtis-Thomas: Is my hon. Friend saying that the UK would
not support the establishment of an EU commissioner for
children’s rights?
Bill
Rammell: I am not convinced that the establishment of such
a post would at this stage help to promote and enhance the rights of
children, either throughout the European Union, or within member
states.
Mrs.
Curtis-Thomas: I hope that this is my final question. Have
there been developed the criteria that we would want satisfied before
agreeing to the establishment of a commissioner for children in
Europe?
Bill
Rammell: I am not the Minister responsible for
children’s rights, but I am happy to engage in correspondence
and to provide my hon. Friend with the information that she seeks about
whether such criteria have been assessed in the context of the overall
criteria. Motion
made, and Question proposed,
That this Committee takes note
of European Union Document No. 12107/06 and Addenda 1 and 2, Commission
Communication: Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child;
supports the Government's view that any such strategy should stay
within the Union's existing competences; asks the Government to ensure
that any EU activity in the field of children's rights adds value to
existing intergovernmental arrangements; and opposes any future
legislation on children's rights that does not have a proper Treaty
basis.—[Bill
Rammell.] 5.17
pm
Miss
McIntosh: I welcome the debate and the Minister’s
introduction to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster and I
served for a number of years on the European Scrutiny Committee, so we
have some knowledge of the way in which it works.
May I remind hon. Members why
the Scrutiny Committee asked for the debate? It agreed that there
appeared to be no legal basis in previous European Community and
European Union treaties for an EU strategy on the rights of the child.
In the Committee’s view, neither the Commission nor the European
Union is or can be a party to the UN convention on the rights of the
child. Further, in the Committee’s view, there appeared to be no
remit from the European Council for the Commission to devise a strategy
on children’s rights. The European Council’s March 2006
request was addressed to member states, and it was about the reduction
of child poverty, not the general rights of the
child. We have
discussed disability during parliamentary question time, and there is a
big question about those children who go missing and those who are in
care. I remember living in Brussels part-time as a Member of the
European Parliament, where I saw pictures of children who came to a
tragic end at airports, sea ports and railway stations. There is a role
for Interpol and its European equivalent in general
information-sharing. I did not see much reference to looked-after
children in the document. Bearing in mind that children can go missing
from this country and end up in other parts of the European Union, and
vice versa, I hope that the Minister will suggest including such a
reference in the 2008 Green Paper.
The Scrutiny Committee appeared
to agree with the Minister when it said that the Commission’s
proposal would usefully add to the existing arrangements, and
particularly to the intergovernmental activities of L’Europe de
l’Enfance. In English, I think it means Europe of the infant. I
do not think that the French would be recognised even in the Scrutiny
Committee. The
Scrutiny Committee stated:
“We find it astonishing
that the Commission’s Communication does not invite the views of
Member States on its
proposals.” As I have
said, I share that view. Its report
continued:
“Rather it states what
the Commission will do and calls on Member States and others to fall
into step. We hope that Member States will press the Finnish Presidency
to arrange an early discussion of the document in the Council of
Ministers.” Will
the Minister inform us whether the Finnish presidency has had a chance
to arrange an early discussion of the document? If the consultation is
to take place in 2007 with a view to the Green Paper’s
publication in 2008, there should have been discussions in the Council
of Ministers by now.
The Committee also
stated: “Because
of the importance of children’s rights, the contentious nature
of the Commission’s proposals and the Government opposition to
them, we recommend the document for debate by a European Standing
Committee.” I
should outline the document’s main proposals, which include the
need to “capitalise on
existing activities while addressing urgent
needs”. Reference
is also made to the European Union child helpline. I recognise the
excellent work that the child hotline in this country does, and I hope
that it can be used as a model and exemplar in other European Union
countries. The banking sector is mentioned in respect of combating the
purchasing of internet porn by credit card, and the document also
mentions the need “to
promote ‘a clustering of actions’ on child poverty in the
EU”. In pushing
for the content of the communication to be beefed up in the Green
Paper, will the Minister be mindful that it might be more useful to
focus on issues such as child poverty rather than some of those in the
communication? It identifies the priorities for future European Union
action, including a consultation document “to identify future
action”, and the collecting of
“comparable data on
children’s
rights”. That begs the
question of whether such a database exists in this country. Is there a
national database that we could use to compare children’s rights
here and children’s rights in the rest of the
EU? The communication
also states that there is a need
to “mainstream
children’s rights in EU actions; establish efficient
coordination and consultation mechanisms; enhance capacity and
expertise on children’s rights; communicate more effectively on
children’s rights; and promote the rights of the child in
external relations.” I
was not entirely clear about what that last point meant. Does it refer
to relations between the EU and the UN? Can the Minister give me any
advice in that regard?
Why does the communication
propose all this? Its intention is
“to establish a comprehensive EU
strategy to...promote and safeguard the rights of the child in the
European Union’s internal and external
policies”. The
Commission argues that the situation of children globally compared with
that of children in the European Union is generally better, but I would
have said that the situation of children in the European Union is
generally better than that in many developing countries. Have the
Government formed a view on that? In the Commission’s view,
European Union children face a greater likelihood of living in relative
poverty than the population as a whole does. The Commission is also
concerned about children having a
greater likelihood of being subjected to racism, child trafficking and
exploitation. Let us
consider the policy implications. When I pressed the Minister he did
not disclose the legal basis. Is it intended that article 6(2) of the
European Union treaty give the European Union an obligation to respect
fundamental rights, including children’s rights, while
respecting member states competences? When giving evidence to the
Scrutiny Committee, it appeared that the Minister saw the main issues
as being a lack of confidence and the fact that it was not clear
whether a discussion would take place in any European Union working
party. Does he now feel that a discussion has taken place in a European
Union working party that clarifies the matter further?
The Minister said that the UK
Government think that the Commission is
“looking to extend competence into
a new policy
area”. Conservative
Members would oppose such a move for reasons similar to those rehearsed
by the Minister. He also said that
the “UK Government
proposes to oppose it on the grounds that there is no Treaty base or
Ministerial remit for the
work.” He has also said
that the UK Government already address relevant concerns within their
policy. The Opposition believe that it is the role of the nation state
to determine its education policy, and that that is not for the
European Union to decide. Matters of child policy should proceed on the
basis of mutual recognition and not European intervention. I remind the
Committee that my noble Friend Baroness Bottomley, when she was a
Health Minister, signed the UK up to the UN convention on the rights of
the child, which broadly sets out the principles that have been
followed in this country ever since.
I remind the Minister of the
excellent work that is going on in schools in Hampshire, and hope that
he will share that information with his colleagues. That pilot could be
a role model and could be rolled out in other parts of the
country. I applaud
the Government’s call for further consultation and ask the
Minister to press for that at the earliest possible opportunity. We are
on the eve of 2007 and there is no time to lose, especially given that
the Scrutiny Committee expressed its dissatisfaction and disappointment
that there has been no consultation with other member states to date. I
also applaud the Minister’s assertion that solutions should be
local. I add that they should be voluntary as well, where
possible. If the
Minister is minded to stick with the provisos that he has given today,
namely that any agreement should be on the basis of subsidiarity,
against a background of wide consultation with all the member states,
and that there should be no encroachment on the competence of member
states, we will support the motion as it
stands. 5.27
pm
| 
