Annette
Brooke: I belatedly take the opportunity to say that,
although we meet in many other forums, Mrs. Humble, this is
the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, and it is
indeed a pleasure.
I praise the Commission for
seeking to put children’s rights at the heart of the EU’s
policy development, and I believe that the principles are right. I see
the problems with some of the processes that have been mentioned, but I
would like us all to be a little more enthusiastic because the
principles are very important. There are a few issues regarding the
principles on which I disagree with the Minister, but, on the whole, I
have been heartened by his words.
I am particularly encouraged
that the strategy uses the UN convention on the rights of the child
because it has achieved near universal ratification. With only two
countries yet to sign up, it is the most widely ratified of all human
rights treaties. Children within the EU and beyond would certainly
benefit from an EU strategy based on the UNCRC’s four foundation
principles: non-discrimination; the best interests of the child; the
right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of
the child. The
strategy seeks to mainstream the issue of children’s rights
within the EU’s existing competencies. The communication states
that any proposed positive action
“needs to respect the principles
of subsidiarity and proportionality and must not encroach on the
competence of the Member
States.” I understand
that the Minister and his civil servants will watch that aspect
carefully, and concur that that is
important. The DFES
explanatory memorandum states:
“There are no specific
subsidiarity issues attached to this document as the proposed action
mostly affects internal Commission activity.”
It also says that most of the 13
objectives and their related activities are matters for the Commission
to implement. There may therefore be little that affects domestic
policy.
Children’s rights are
not a new issue for the European Union. Article 24 of the EU charter of
fundamental rights specifically addresses children’s rights and
asserts the primacy of the child’s best interests. That reflects
the priorities of our domestic legislation and of “Every Child
Matters”, and it is one of the key principles of the
UNCRC. I, too, would
like to mention the European Scrutiny Committee’s 38th report,
from the previous Session. The report says that neither the Commission
nor the European Union is, or can be, a party to the convention on the
rights of the child. However, the near-universal ratification
of the convention means that its principles are transnational, and I
understand that the Council of Europe refers to it in its case law,
despite not being a party to the treaty.
The European Scrutiny Committee
was astonished that there was no prior consultation on the strategy.
That is probably not a good start, because if people have not heard of
things, they start getting a bit prickly about them. As I said,
however, I was pleased by the Minister’s more positive views,
and I want him to confirm yet again that the Government will take an
active part in developing the strategy. That is important because
although things might not have gone quite as we would have liked to
start with, we can, I hope, be positive about the process.
A growing number of EU
activities in trade, health, consumer protection, criminal justice,
social inclusion and international development affect children directly
and indirectly. It would be rather encouraging, therefore, to have an
assurance that United Kingdom taxpayers’ money is not being used
contrary to children’s rights.
The strategy will tie together
existing EU policies that have worked to protect children rights. It
will also enable EU institutions and member states to benefit from that
co-ordination and shared experience. Indeed, in our questions, we
raised a number of issues about that shared experience.
I mentioned the European forum
for the rights of the child, which could be an excellent innovation. It
would allow for discussion of the best practice models that would shape
the UK’s policies, while allowing the UK to share much of the
good practice that has been implemented during my time in
Parliament. Unlike
the Minister, I am not entirely happy with the way in which we have
implemented the UN convention on the rights of the child. Indeed, in
its report, the UN demonstrates that we are not fully implementing the
convention. It has a lot to say about that in its most recent
observations, and there will be more comments in 2007 and 2008. The
current proposals give us an opportunity to assess the issues on which
we should go a bit further.
I want to pursue the point
about the emphasis on participation, which is important. Given the low
turnout at European elections, particularly among young people, we
surely need to do more to engage young people in public decision
making. As the Government recognise, children’s participation is
shown to produce effective policy making, such as provisions for
greater safeguards against the violent treatment of children. Paulo
Pinheiro, the independent expert appointed to lead the UN study on
violence against children, said recently:
“If there is one factor
that has contributed to our failure to protect children from violence
throughout history, it has been our failure to listen to
children...The process of emancipation experienced by workers and
women has only relatively recently begun to be experienced by
children.” Indeed, I was
at a conference the other day where it was pointed out that we have
seen a great deal in terms of women’s rights and that it is
perhaps time to look much more seriously at children’s
rights. We must
recognise throughout that there is great potential for cutting
duplication and promoting good practice. I was a little surprised that
the Minister had so many concerns about the impact on something like
Childline. I understand that the system can work by having each number
start with 116, as proposed, and the regulatory authority in each
member state—Ofcom in our case—linking particular child
helplines to that number. If the Minister said that that needs a little
more teasing out, I would be prepared to accept that, but we know from
experience how important Childline
is. When we think about the international issues, which is where the EU
really comes into its own in terms of children’s rights, that
international line is important. So many risks to children transcend
national boundaries and we must co-operate. I am on the Home
Secretary’s taskforce for child safety on the internet and it is
obvious that we must go outside the many different stakeholders who
come to those meetings to ensure that we have an international
dimension as well. We are also concerned about child trafficking, and
sex offenders crossing borders. We are already making progress on some
transnational
issues. As I have said
in other debates, I am extremely disappointed that the Government have
yet to withdraw their reservation about the CRC on immigration and
nationality. That is of great concern to me, but I shall continue to be
positive by saying that I welcome what the Minister said about children
in detention. Yet
another reason to support the EU strategy on the rights of the child is
the Union’s geopolitical influence. The document
states: “The EU
has the necessary weight to push children’s rights to the
forefront of international agendas and can use its global presence and
influence to effectively promote universal children’s rights at
national level
worldwide”. That is so
important, and respect for human rights is part of the culture of the
European Union. We should expect standards from both applicant states
and member states. The
EU has a significant role in the promotion of children’s rights
in the wider world, being one of the biggest donors of aid in the
world—the biggest if the donations of individual member states
are included—and this would be an excellent opportunity to
develop policies such as ethical trade initiatives with
children’s rights at the
centre. I remain
concerned that we have been unable to read anything about the rights of
disabled children. I am also concerned about the immigration
reservation, and the UK’s policy on physical chastisement.
However, I hope that we can all agree that children in the UK and
around the world have much to gain from the strategy. We should look at
the positive aspects and I hope that the Government will support the
main thrust of the strategy and think about our international
obligations. Having said that, I can be quite sceptical when we are
dragged along and suddenly find that we have signed up to something
that we do not really want and I respect the caution along those lines,
but we have a great opportunity here to signal that children’s
rights are at the core of Europe’s values. We should not stand
back from saying that very
loudly. 5.38
pm
Angela
Watkinson: I want to raise one brief point. Paragraph 3.2
of the EU document, on page 35 of the main document,
states: “It is
interesting to explore the extent to which a political will is
developing for further action, at global as well as European
level”. It remains to be
seen whether that will happen. The preceding paragraph refers to the
number of children in the world who have been orphaned by war, famine,
disease and various other causes. If there is to be an
element in the EU strategy that deals with orphans on a global scale, I
propose that charities are included among the consultees. A number of
charities are an enormous source of knowledge, information and best
practice, and they could profitably inform the debate. I am thinking in
particular of SOS-Kinderdorf, which has its head office in
Austria—or SOS Children’s Villages, if one is in
Manchester. It sets up villages all over the world for orphans, who
live with house parents and have their own schools. They stay there
until they are adults and can leave and lead independent
lives. On a smaller
scale there are two small charities in my constituency that do similar
work: Christian Hope International and Kids Alive. They are very
hands-on charities, dealing with exactly the sort of problems that are
described in paragraph 3.1.4. They are probably more successful than
Governments at getting aid to their intended recipients. If there is to
be a debate on a global element to the strategy, they would be useful
contacts. 5.41
pm
Bill
Rammell: Like the hon. Member for Vale of York, I was at
one time a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. Its role, and
these debates, help in a meaningful way to open up the process of
decision making in the European Union. That is to the good.
The hon. Lady asked about early
discussion. There has been discussion at the ad hoc justice and home
affairs working group. We pushed for that and I welcome it. There has
not yet been discussion in the Council. We are talking to the German
presidency about trying to secure that, because it is
important that as the process continues, the consultation is
as wide as possible.
To deal specifically with the
question about the legal base, the Commission recognises in its
document that there is no general competence in the area of
children’s rights. However, article 6(2) of the treaty on the
European Union states that the European Union must respect fundamental
rights, including children’s rights. Many of the proposals that
we have been discussing are not legislative.
As to the ministerial mandate,
the matter does not fall under the message from the March 2006 European
Council, which called for poverty reduction measures, but it is in The
Hague action plan on justice and home affairs, which calls for the
communication. That is the context in which the proposals are being
presented, and I agree that there is a role for European Union
co-operation in particular areas.
I was asked about data. The
Government certainly collect an enormous amount of data on children and
young people, to enable us to measure the effect of our policies on
children. The issue being considered in the current context is what
data are collected in the European Union and how compatible they are
with UK data. I
recognise that looked-after children are particularly vulnerable. The
Government will explore how to ensure that good practice in the UK can
be shared throughout the European Union. The recent Green Paper has
been
widely welcomed and I think that we can make a significant contribution.
We want to ensure that all looked-after children gain the best chances
in life. The
Hampshire project—the child rights project in four
schools—is an important initiative, which I welcome. It has
shown positive early results and my officials are exploring how it can
operate elsewhere. I certainly concur with the hon. Lady—because
I think that she was concurring with me—that as long as the
proposals conform with the principles of subsidiarity, and there is
wide consultation and no encroachment on the competence of member
states, we should all be in a position to support the
proposal. The hon.
Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole praised action that the EU is
taking. The process is to its credit, as long as the action is of the
right kind and does not undermine action that member states are taking
properly and rightly. That is the point that I have been trying to get
across. The proposal must add value and should not duplicate or
undermine the key, fundamental role of member states in pursuing those
responsibilities. I can reassure her that our Government will be active
in developing the proposals in the strategy.
The hon. Lady raised a
continuing concern, similar to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member
for Walthamstow, about our two reservations in respect of the UN
convention. Article 22 of the current UN convention allows children who
enter the country as refugees to have the same rights as children born
in the UK. We have reserved the right to apply that article to preserve
the integrity of the UK immigration laws, and we are right to do so. I
understand where they are coming from, but it is important that we
uphold that
position. As I said, I
can put a more encouraging emphasis on what we are doing about article
37, which says that children should not be imprisoned with adults.
Until now, lack of secure accommodation has led the UK to reserve the
right to hold some young people in adult prisons. However, the Home
Office can now remove that reservation, which it plans to do by the
summer of 2007, and I hope and believe that it will be
welcomed. On
children’s helplines, it is important to make it clear that
helplines in the UK have been of significant benefit, which is why the
Government supported them. As the process has developed, it has become
clearer that the European Union proposal is not about undermining or
doing away with national childlines—not that it would have the
competence to do so. Each pan-European Union telephone number would
have to be considered on its merits because the decision goes through
the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council. We will have an
opportunity to influence which numbers we want and to argue for further
impact
assessments. The hon.
Member for Upminster made an exceedingly important point—that a
range of domestic and international charities are doing immense good
work on children’s rights. We want their
practical
understanding and hands-on experience to inform the process and we shall
pursue the involvement of some charities and non-governmental
organisations. I hope
that hon. Members will support the proposition, which will allow the
Government to consider each proposal from the communication on its
merits. It will also allow us to put across our concerns about
duplicating existing arrangements, to call for further discussion by
member state representatives and to reiterate that any action proposed
by the Commission must be within the scope of the treaties.
Question put and agreed
to. Resolved,
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.] Committee
rose at twelve minutes to Six
o’clock.
| 
