![]() House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords] |
Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Mr. C. Shaw,
Mr. M. Hillyard, Committee
Clerks attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 24 June 2008(Afternoon)[Mr. Greg Pope in the Chair]Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords]Clause 8Well-being
of children and young
persons Amendment
proposed [this day]: No. 4, in clause 8, page 6, line 15, leave out
from State to in in line 16 and
insert must discharge
functions under this section in a manner consistent with the objectives
of safeguarding the welfare of children as set
out.[Tim
Loughton.] 4
pm Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing amendment No. 26, in clause 8, page 6, line 17, at end
insert and to the
provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child..
The
Minister for Children, Young People and Families (Beverley
Hughes): I had almost come to the end of my comments on
amendment No. 4. I was explaining how it would narrow the well-being
duty to a focus solely on safeguarding. We had an interchange about
whether the phrase having regard to diluted the
responsibilities under the duty. I shall clarify that for the
Committee.
At the time,
I did not have a copy of the Children Act 2004 with me, only a copy of
the Children Act 1989, or I would have realised that subsection (5), in
referring to sections 10(2)(a) to (e) of the 2004 Act, simply refers to
the five elements of Every Child Matters, which I mentioned in my
earlier remarks. That adds weight to my argument that the clause
contains an unequivocal duty reflecting the five outcomes of Every
Child Matters as enshrined in legislation.
Mr.
Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con): As the Minister
will be aware, the welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the 1989 Act
sets out not only the checklist but the have regard to
aspect as well. As a way of coming to a position where we are both
satisfied with the Bills approach, it might be helpful for the
clause to say not only have regard to but, as in
section 1(3) of the 1989 Act,
have regard in
particular to.
That seems to marry
the proposed legislation with the reasons why it is proposed under
clause 8(5) in such stark terms as a responsibility and duty of the
Secretary of State. It would not only be consistent with previous
legislation, which contains a requirement to have regard in particular
to a certain aspect; it would also satisfy
Committee members from all parties in creating not only a duty but a
particular duty for the Secretary of State.
Beverley
Hughes: Without embarking on a lengthy examination of
various Acts of Parliament relating to children, may I explain to the
hon. Gentleman that as we are talking about well-being, the relevant
piece of legislation is not the 1989 Act but the 2004 Act? Section 10
of that Act introduced a duty to co-operate to improve well-being. In
that measure, have regard to, which we debated earlier,
does not appear, so I am not quite sure what the hon. Member for East
Worthing and Shoreham was referring to when he seemed to remember
proposing it during the course of debates on that Act.
The clause
will simply put a duty on local authorities to promote well-being.
Without going too far into the minutiae and risking your censure,
Mr. Pope, I understand entirely what the hon. Member for
Crewe and Nantwich said. I simply say again to him that in terms of a
duty in respect of well-being, subsection (1) puts that duty
unequivocally on the Secretary of State, not a local authority or local
agency. Subsection (5) simply says that in executing that duty, the
Secretary of State must have regard to the five elements of Every Child
Matters, as listed in section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004. It is
like a double lock; the Secretary of State has a unequivocal duty, and
that duty must reflect the legislation as it applies to local
authorities and other agencies with regard to the whole
childnot merely their safeguarding, important thought that is,
but also the other four aspects of the childs
well-being.
must have
regard to the aspects of well-being mentioned in section
10(2)(a). That
is not the same as discharging functions
in a manner
consistent with the objectives of safeguarding the welfare of
children.
It could be argued
that the former is merely a guideline, with discretion on how to take
note of it, while the latter is a clear direction on how such discharge
functions should managed. Does the Minister not notice the
difference?
Beverley
Hughes: We are turning words on a pinhead. I appreciate
the hon. Gentlemans attempt to ensure that the Government are
serious, and I respect his right to do so, but I refer him to
subsection (1). As I said, it unequivocally states that it is the duty
of the Secretary of State to
promote the
well-being of children in
England. In
doing so, he has to have regard to the way in which well-being has been
defined by Members of this House in previous legislation. Together,
those two give us an assurance on how it will be undertaken.
I believe
that the record will show that, in introducing amendment No. 26, the
hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said that we had not signed
up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child.
Beverley
Hughes: I beg the hon. Ladys pardon; I thought
that someone had said that we were not signed up to it. She will
knowindeed, she may have said sothat we have signed up
to the UNCRC. It was ratified a long time ago, and the present
Government do not demur from that international treaty. We therefore
have an obligation under international law to ensure that the rights
set out in the convention are given effect. However, the convention
does not include an obligation to meet the rights in any particular
way. It does not rely on provisions in domestic legislation, but the
obligation exists entirely independently. I am sure that the hon. Lady
will appreciate the fact that in practice UK law often goes further
than the convention in describing childrens rights. The UNCRC
rights are set out in very broad terms, whereas our legislation gives
children specific rights on a range of issues.
We take the
implementation of the UNCRC seriously, but since ratification and under
Governments of different complexions our policy has always been that
the convention should be implemented through a mix of legislative
provisions and policy initiatives. Implementation of the convention
rights comes about through Government and devolved Administration
policy, taken as a whole.
We aim to
meet our duties under the convention through the totality of our
activities, rather than making reference to it in individual
legislative provisions. That is the stance that we have taken. Since
ratification, the Government have diligently pursued implementation of
the UNCRC through a raft of measures, including the Children Act 1989
and subsequent provisions, the Children Act 2004, Every Child Matters
and more recently the wealth of measures set out in the
childrens plan. All those programmes are steadily improving the
well-being outcomes for all children and thus the fuller realisation of
their UNCRC rights.
Annette
Brooke: First, I assure the Minister that I did indeed say
that the previous Government had signed up to the convention, so I gave
credit where it was due. Is the Minister expecting a completely clean
bill of health when the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the
Child reports back on the evidence supplied by the Government and
others, including the four childrens
commissioners?
Beverley
Hughes: We will await the view of the UNCRC, but we have
certainly made a strong case that the Government have progressively
improved the position of children and young people in relation to all
aspects of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and aim to
continue to go further, so we will have to see the outcome of those
different points of view as they are put to that committee.
Finally, the
Secretary of States duty to promote the well-being of children
clearly encompasses the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child, and I think that the duty, just as it stands, creates an
additional legislative vehicle by which the Secretary of State will
carry out activities and bring forward policy and practice that will
implement the convention. Therefore, what matters most is giving
children that good experience of childhood and having a Government who
progressively want to go further to promote the well-being of children,
rather than conforming by referring to the convention in every single
piece of legislation or going through the
arduous process of incorporating it all together in one big piece of
legislation, which would frankly be a completely fruitless
task.
I am sure
that the hon. Lady and I agree on the importance of the convention and
our desire to give children and young people rights that go far beyond
those of the convention, but I accept that we might disagree on how
best to demonstrate that that is being done, particularly if she is
arguing that references to the UNCRC are needed in every piece of
legislation. The Government do not think that that is necessary, but we
are none the less committed to those rights for our children and young
people and will continue to be so. With those assurances, I hope that
the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will withdraw his
amendment.
Tim
Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): I have
somewhat lost the train of thought from where we started before lunch.
Now that we are getting into the particulars of having
particular regard, which I thought was a particularly ingenious
suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and one
that showed the willingness of the Opposition to come to some
accommodation with the Government to improve the Bills
terminology. I am still not quite convinced how the Minister deems not
replacing having regard with a clear positive duty to
promote the well-being is just as adequate. However, we have had quite
an interesting canter round the subject and should move on to something
fresh. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Beverley
Hughes: We have explored the Governments intention
in that regard and that Members, notwithstanding the previous debate,
welcome the fact that a parallel duty to promote young peoples
wider well-being has been added to the Secretary of States duty
to promote the educational opportunities for them. One consequence on
which we have not yet touched is the fact that the clause will enable
the Secretary of State to enter into legal contracts to promote the
well-being of
children. 4.15
pm Helen
Southworth (Warrington, South) (Lab): I am pleased to
serve on a Committee so ably chaired by one who is such a strong
advocate of vulnerable children. I welcome the clause, because although
the well-being of children and young people is by all means the
responsibility of the Secretary of State, it is good to be part of a
Committee that is making that so explicit. The clause refers to the
Secretary of States powers to promote the well-being
of persons
under the age of 25 of a prescribed
description. Will
the Minister ensure that children and young people who have run away
from home or been thrown away from home are given consideration under
regulations in that respect, particularly in view of the excellent
runaways action plan launched by the Department last week and the
commitments that that will bring over the following months and possibly
years to support children who run away?
Will the
Minister take particular account of the Stepping Up
report, which was produced by the Childrens Society for the
Department? Following extensive consultation, that document identified
the fact that some local
authorities reported
unwritten policies of refusing any accommodation for thirteen to
fifteen year olds. Police were keen to emphasise that they would raise
concerns with social services but some local authority colleagues
reported that teenagers were unlikely to receive support unless the
level of risk was so high as to cause concern of risk to
life. That
appears to mean that if there is a valid cause for concern about the
well-being of young people who have run away from home but it does not
raise concern about a risk to life, those young people are, in many
local authority areas, not being considered for looked-after status and
therefore will not receive the benefit of many of the extremely
valuable measures being put in place by the Bill. Will the Minister
ensure that that set of young people is given full consideration under
subsection (4)(b)? Can she identify for us whether she will
be able to take that matter into consideration when regulations are
made under the
clause?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 25 June 2008 |