Legislative Scrutiny: Child Poverty Bill. - Human Rights Joint Committee Contents


1  Child Poverty Bill

Date introduced to first House

Date introduced to second House

Current Bill Number

Previous Reports

11 June 2009

HC Bill 155

None

Background

1.1 This is a Government Bill which was introduced in the House of Commons on 11 June 2009. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP, has made a statement of compatibility under s. 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Bill received its Second Reading on 20 July 2009 and completed its Committee Stage on 3 November 2009.

1.2 We called for evidence in relation to the proposed Child Poverty Bill in our Call for Evidence in our inquiry into Children's Rights. A number of organisations commented on the proposal in their written evidence which will be published in our forthcoming report on Children's Rights.[1] We issued a further call for evidence in July 2009[2] following publication of the Bill and received a number of further submissions which are published with this Report. We have taken into account all the evidence we received about the Bill and we are grateful to all those who submitted evidence.

1.3 We welcome the Bill as a significant human rights enhancing measure and focus in this Report on ways in which it might be improved.

Giving legal effect to economic and social rights

1.4 In our Bill of Rights Report, we sought to move the debate about economic and social rights beyond the well-worn arguments, on the one hand, that such rights should be as fully justiciable as civil and political rights and, on the other hand, that they are mere aspirations which have no place in any legal framework for the protection of human rights.[3] We expressly agreed with those (including the Government) who argue that economic and social rights should not be fully justiciable and legally enforceable because that would be too subversive of the constitutional relationship between the courts and the democratic branches in this country:

167.  We agree with the Government that including fully justiciable and legally enforceable economic and social rights in any Bill of Rights carries too great a risk that the courts will interfere with legislative judgments about priority setting. Like our predecessor Committee, we recognise that the democratic branches (Government and Parliament) must retain the responsibility for economic and social policy, in which the courts lack expertise and have limited institutional competence or authority. It would not be constitutionally appropriate, in our view, for example, for the courts to decide whether a particular standard of living was "adequate", or whether a particular patient should be given priority over another to receive life-saving treatment. Such questions are quite literally non-justiciable: there are no legal standards which make them capable of resolution by a court.

1.5 However, we went on to explore the variety of ways in which economic and social rights can be given legal effect in a way which falls short of making them fully justiciable and legally enforceable rights. We concluded that there is a viable middle way between the traditional positions in the debate about economic and social rights, in which the Government is placed under a duty to make progress towards realising those rights, and is required to report regularly on that progress to Parliament, and the courts have a very limited and closely circumscribed role in reviewing the adequacy of the measures taken to reach the target.[4]

1.6 So long as these arguments remain at a fairly abstract level, few people are persuaded away from their usual positions in the debate about economic and social rights. The Child Poverty Bill, however, provides an opportunity to test our view in the context of concrete legislative proposals.

Purposes and effect of the Bill

1.7 The main purposes of the Bill are to enshrine in law the Government's commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020, to define success in eradicating child poverty, and to create a framework to monitor progress at both a national and a local level.

1.8 To these ends, the Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that four UK-wide income poverty targets are met by the end of the financial year 2020-2021.[5] The statutory duty to meet these targets is absolute: it is not qualified by any reference to affordability or available resources. Nor is there any power to amend the targets.[6] The Bill also imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the targets, once met, are also met in later financial years.[7]

1.9 The Bill also places a duty on the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a national child poverty strategy.[8] The national strategy will set out the measures that the Secretary of State proposes to take for the purpose of complying with the duty to ensure that the targets are met, and for the purpose of ensuring as far as possible that children in the UK do not experience socio-economic disadvantage.[9] The Secretary of State is under a duty to review the strategy every 3 years and to publish a revised strategy.[10]

1.10 There is also a duty on the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the progress made towards meeting the four income targets and in implementing the national strategy.[11] If the most recent UK strategy has not been implemented in full, the annual report must describe the respects in which it has not been implemented and the reasons for this.[12]

1.11 The Bill establishes the Child Poverty Commission,[13] a body of experts which will provide advice to which the Secretary of State is required to have regard when preparing the national child poverty strategy.[14] The Secretary of State is also required to consult, when preparing the national strategy, such children, or organisations working with or representing children, as the Secretary of State thinks fit.[15]

1.12 Both the Secretary of State in preparing the national strategy and the Commission in considering any advice it gives, must take into account (a) economic circumstances, in particular the likely impact of any measure on the economy and (b) fiscal circumstances, in particular the likely impact of any measure on taxation, public spending and public borrowing.[16]

1.13 The Bill places a duty on local authorities and their partners to co-operate to tackle child poverty in their area, to carry out an assessment of the levels of child poverty in that area, and to prepare a local child poverty strategy.[17]

Explanatory Notes

1.14 The Explanatory Notes to the Bill explain both the Government's view that the Bill is compatible with the ECHR[18] and why the Government considers that the powers in the Bill take positive steps to meet the UK's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ("the UNCRC") and to give effect to recommendations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.[19] The inclusion in the Explanatory Notes of a section concerning the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is unusual and we commend this as an example of good practice.

1.15 In addition to the material in the Explanatory Notes, the Minister responsible for the Bill in the Commons, the Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP, wrote to us on 16 June, shortly after the Bill's introduction, enclosing a more detailed memorandum setting out the Government's consideration of the human rights issues relating to the Bill.[20] The production of this memorandum followed very constructive meetings between members of the Bill team and our Legal Adviser, as envisaged in the changes to our working practices agreed in 2008. We welcome the Bill team's engagement with our staff prior to publication of the Bill, and its preparation of a detailed human rights memorandum, and commend them as examples of good practice.

Relevant human rights standards

1.16 The Bill directly engages the right of the child to an adequate standard of living under Article 27 of the UNCRC, which provides, so far as relevant:

Article 27

1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child's development.

3. States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means, shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.

1.17 Article 4 of the UNCRC imposes a positive obligation on States to take all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognised in the Convention. In the case of economic, social and cultural rights, States are required to undertake such measures "to the maximum extent of their available resources."

1.18 In its most recent Concluding Observations on the UK's compliance with the UNCRC (October 2008),[21] the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child said this about the UK's compliance with Article 27 UNCRC:

Standard of living

64. The Committee welcomes the Government's commitment to end child poverty by 2020 as well as the Childcare Act 2006 requirement on local authorities to reduce inequalities among young children. It also notes with appreciation the information given by the delegation that this target will be reflected and enforced through legislative measures. However, the Committee - while noting that child poverty has been reduced in the last years - is concerned that poverty is a very serious problem affecting all parts of the United Kingdom, including the Overseas Territories, and that it is a particular concern in Northern Ireland, where over 20 per cent of children reportedly live in persistent poverty. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that the Government's strategy is not sufficiently targeted at those groups of children in most severe poverty and that the standard of living of Traveller children is particularly poor.

65. The Committee would like to highlight that an adequate standard of living is essential for a child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development and that child poverty also affects infant mortality rates, access to health and education as well as everyday quality of life of children. In accordance with article 27 of the Convention, the Committee recommends that the State party:

Adopt and adequately implement the legislation aimed at achieving the target of ending child poverty by 2020, including by establishing measurable indicators for their achievement;

Give priority in this legislation and in the follow-up actions to those children and their families in most need of support;

When necessary, besides giving full support to parents or others responsible for the child, intensify its efforts to provide material assistance and support programmes for children, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing;

Reintroduce a statutory duty for local authorities to provide safe and adequate sites for Travellers.

1.19 The right to an adequate standard of living is also recognised in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ("the ICESCR"), which provides, so far as relevant:

Article 11

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realisation of this right …

1.20 In its most recent Concluding Observations on the UK, published in May this year, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed its concern that child poverty remains widespread in the UK, and called on the Government to develop human rights-based poverty reduction programmes:[22]

28. The Committee continues to be concerned that poverty and fuel poverty, especially among children, remain wide-spread in the State party, despite the level of its economic development and the positive steps it has taken. The Committee is also concerned that poverty levels vary considerable between and within regions and cities as well as between different groups of society, with higher poverty levels among ethnic minorities, asylum-seekers and migrants, older persons, single mothers, and persons with disabilities. (art. 11)

The Committee urges the State party to intensify its efforts to combat poverty, fuel poverty, and social exclusion, in particular with regard to the most disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups and in the most affected regions and city areas. It also calls upon the State party to develop human rights-based poverty reduction programs, taking into consideration the Committee's Statement on Poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 2001 (E/C.12/2001/10). The Committee also encourages the State party to intensify its efforts aimed at achieving its target of reducing child poverty by half by 2010.

1.21 The Government's human rights memorandum which accompanied the Bill states that the Government considers that "the Bill makes progress towards the realisation of children's rights under international law."[23]

1.22 By providing an unqualified duty to meet the four income targets by the end of the financial year 2020-21, and establishing a detailed framework both for driving and monitoring progress towards the achievement of those targets, the Bill does on its face appear to provide a mechanism for the progressive realisation of children's right to an adequate standard of living in Article 27 UNCRC and Article 11 ICESCR. It goes some way towards implementing the recent recommendation of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child that the Government adopt legislation aimed at achieving the target of ending child poverty by 2020, including by establishing measurable indicators for its achievement. We therefore welcome the Bill as a human rights enhancing measure.

Significant human rights issues

(1) EFFECTIVENESS OF THE BILL'S MECHANISM FOR PROGRESSIVE REALISATION

Target-setting legislation

1.23 Legislation setting targets which there is a duty to achieve is a relatively recent phenomenon.[24] Precedents include the Climate Change Act 2008, the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 and the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. Such legislation is not without controversy because it seeks to impose duties on future Governments. However, where there is a strong political consensus about the aim to be achieved and that aim is the fulfilment of an important and universally recognised human right, such as the right of children not to grow up in poverty, we consider such target legislation to be appropriate. We are pleased to note that there appears to be a strong consensus amongst the political parties that child poverty should be eradicated by 2020. We also note that although the Bill imposes duties on the Secretary of State to achieve certain targets, it does not purport to tie the hands of a future Parliament, which remains free to amend or repeal the legislation imposing the duties. We therefore welcome the use of the "target-setting legislation" model to bring about the realisation of an important human right and the Government's willingness to introduce what it describes as "ground-breaking legislation."[25]

1.24 We have also considered whether making the Government's policy into a statutory duty will make any practical difference. In our view there is a very big difference between a policy, a choice by the Government to pursue a particular goal, and a statutory obligation to pursue that goal. This difference between a legal duty and a policy preference is significant even though it remains the case that Parliament can always repeal the statutory obligation and return it to the status of a mere policy, or aspiration.

Political accountability

1.25 The accountability mechanisms provided for in the Bill itself are mainly political: they are designed to ensure that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. The Secretary of State is under a duty, within 12 months of the Act being passed, to draw up and lay before Parliament a UK child poverty strategy.[26] The strategy must set out the measures that the Secretary of State proposes to take to comply with the duty to ensure that the targets are met, and to ensure as far as possible that children in the UK do not experience socio-economic disadvantage.[27] The Secretary of State is under a duty to review the strategy before the end of the three year period and lay a revised strategy before Parliament.[28] Significantly, the UK strategy must describe the progress that the Secretary of State considers needs to be made by the end of the strategy period if the targets are to be met: in other words, the Secretary of State must set benchmarks in the strategy in order to indicate whether the Government is on track to meet the target.[29] The Secretary of State is also required to monitor progress towards the targets against the benchmarks: subsequent strategies must describe the measures taken in accordance with the previous strategy and describe the effects of those measures on progress towards meeting the targets.[30] The Secretary of State is also under a duty to lay before Parliament an annual report on the progress made towards meeting the targets and in implementing the strategy.[31]

1.26 We welcome the detailed mechanisms in the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the Government's performance of the new statutory duty to ensure that the child poverty targets are met. As both we and our predecessor Committee have consistently made clear in previous reports, we consider that in a parliamentary democracy it is the democratic branches of the state (the Government and Parliament) which should have primary responsibility for economic and social policy, in which the courts lack expertise and have limited institutional competence or authority.[32] In our view the scheme of the Bill ensures that primary responsibility for policy on child poverty remains with the democratic branches, by making detailed provision for the Secretary of State's accountability to Parliament for Government policy on how to meet the targets.

1.27 We also welcome the creation of the Child Poverty Commission as a source of independent expert advice to the Secretary of State. We welcome the duty on the Secretary of State to request the advice of the Commission when preparing a UK strategy, and the obligation on the Secretary of State to have regard to any advice given by the Commission. We also welcome the requirements on the Commission that it give the reasoning behind its advice and that it publish that advice as soon as reasonably practicable after giving it. Both of these requirements enhance the transparency of the process by which the Secretary of State draws up the UK strategy and policy on child poverty generally, and so facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's performance of its duty.

Legal accountability

1.28 We particularly welcome the combination in the Bill of both political and legal accountability for failure to meet the child poverty targets. As we indicated above, in our Report on A Bill of Rights for the UK?, we concluded that there is a viable middle position which transcends the hackneyed debate about giving legal effect to economic and social rights, by recognising that political and legal accountability for the realisation of economic and social rights need not be a choice but can be complementary. We concluded that placing the Government under a duty to make progress towards realising such rights, coupled with requirements that the Government report regularly to Parliament, could exist alongside a very limited degree of legal enforceability in which courts have a closely circumscribed role in reviewing the adequacy of the measures taken to reach the target.[33]

1.29 We are pleased to note that this appears to be precisely the Government's approach in this Bill. In addition to the mechanisms for political accountability which we have described above, the Government has expressly accepted that there will also be a role for the courts in ensuring that the Secretary of State is held accountable for failing to meet the targets. On the day the Bill was published, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, was reported in the media as having said that "a government that failed to show how it was seeking to abolish child poverty could be subject to judicial review."[34] The Financial Secretary to the Treasury also repeatedly stated in Public Bill Committee that the duty to meet the targets is an absolute and binding duty on the Secretary of State. It is therefore quite unlike previous "target duties" such as the qualified duty in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000,[35] which the Court of Appeal recently characterised, in the Friends of the Earth case, as "a duty to try" as opposed to a duty to succeed, because that Act uses the language of "effort" to achieve targets rather than the language of a guarantee that the targets will be reached.[36] The Court of Appeal in that case noted that "it is common ground that the Act is a source of governmental obligations"[37] and that "the dispute is about the extent not the fact of legal obligation."[38] The extent of the legal obligation, the Court of Appeal held, was a matter of construction of the particular statutory language. It is not clear from the face of this Bill, however, at what point and on what basis judicial review of the Secretary of State could be brought. We therefore asked the Government for a more detailed explanation of the sorts of circumstances in which it is envisaged that judicial review could be brought to enforce the duty on the Secretary of State in clause 1 of the Bill to ensure that the child poverty targets are met.

1.30 As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP, said in his response, it is clear that judicial review would be possible if the targets are not met by the target year, and the report relating to that year states that they have not been met.[39] In those circumstances judicial review would be available on the basis that the Secretary of State has breached his statutory duty to meet the targets. The more difficult question is whether judicial review would be available in anticipation of such a breach of duty, before 2020, at a point when it is clear that it is going to be impossible to meet the targets. The Government accepts in principle the possibility of such a judicial review being brought:[40]

it is possible that a claimant could bring a judicial review before the report in relation to 2020 has been published, on the grounds that the Government's actions, or decisions not to act, will not be sufficient to allow it to meet its statutory duties to meet the targets.

1.31 The Government also accepts in principle that such a judicial review could be brought by a stakeholder group involved in the campaign to eradicate child poverty (e.g. the Child Poverty Action Group), and that in principle the full range of judicial review remedies would be available in the event of a successful challenge, including a mandatory order requiring the Secretary of State to take action to meet the targets if they are not met, or it is evident that they will not be met.[41] In his oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee, the Minister went even further in his statement of what a court could order on a judicial review of a failure to meet the targets:[42]

Under the Bill, a court could, in response to a judicial review, require the Government to make substantial spending commitments in order for the targets to be met. This is a strongly binding target. … I do not know whether, in practice, a court would want to set out the detailed policy changes that it thought were needed, although it is conceivable that it might. I suspect that it would not give instructions on quite that detailed a levy, but it certainly could require the Government to make substantial expenditure. … There certainly could be a judicial review that in effect required the Government to spend more on tax credits or some other element of the benefit or tax credit system.

1.32 However, although the possibility of judicial review before 2020 is acknowledged in principle, the Government rightly points out that in practice the likelihood of the courts ordering the Government to take action to meet the targets is extremely slim for a number of reasons. First, the claimant would need to produce clear evidence that the targets will not be met by 2020, and this will be difficult to prove until quite close to 2020. The evidence capable of supporting such a claim is not likely to exist until the years immediately preceding 2020. It is notable, for example, that even at this late stage before the date of the Government's interim target of halving child poverty by 2010, campaigners are still arguing that the target could be met if £4 billion were allocated to deal with the problem in the Pre Budget Review this autumn.[43] Second, the courts do not tend to interfere in matters of public spending when the Secretary of State has discretion as to how to allocate resources. And third, when deciding what remedy, if any, to award to a successful judicial review claimant, the courts would have regard to the fact that the Bill does make express provision for the event that the targets are not met by 2020: the Secretary of State must make new regulations providing for a new target date, strategy, annual reports and consultation.[44] The courts might regard this as indicative of an intention that any remedy for a breach of the duty to meet the targets should be political not legal.

1.33 The most significant limit on the court's role, however, is contained in clause 15 of the Bill, which requires the Secretary of State, when drawing up the strategy, and the Commission, when considering what advice to give the Secretary of State, to take into account economic and fiscal circumstances. Although the duty to ensure the targets are met by the financial year 2020 is absolute, the duty to have a national strategy for achieving those targets is qualified by the requirement that economic and fiscal circumstances must be taken into account by the Secretary of State when preparing that strategy. As the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee pointed out to the Minister Stephen Timms MP in a recent evidence session, this distinction in the Bill between the targets and the strategy is artificial because if the strategy is not properly resourced the targets will not be met.[45] The Minister responded that the strategy will have to be properly resourced, in order to ensure that the targets are met. On the face of it, however, clause 15 of the Bill makes the strategy subject to budgetary constraints and if the strategy were judicially reviewed on the basis that it was insufficiently resourced to meet the targets the Secretary of State would be able to rely on clause 15. We therefore asked the Minister to clarify the intended effect of clause 15 and in particular its relationship with the duty in clause 1 to ensure that the targets are met.

1.34 The Minister's answer to this question makes clear, in our view, the very limited scope for recourse to judicial review before 2020 to challenge the adequacy of the steps being taken by the Government to reach the targets by that date. The Government says that the duty on the Secretary of State in clause 15 of the Bill, to have regard to economic and fiscal circumstances when preparing the strategy, "does not detract from the duty in clause 1 to meet the targets. The duty to meet the targets is absolute: clause 15 is about how the targets are met, not whether they are met."[46] In the event that the targets are not met by 2020, clause 15 would not therefore be a defence to a judicial review on the basis that the duty in clause 1 had been breached. The Government acknowledges, however, that the effect of clause 15 is to ensure that the Government cannot be challenged for taking into account economic and fiscal circumstances when preparing the strategies, and cannot be forced to include measures in the strategy that could be detrimental to the country's overall economic or fiscal position. So, if a claimant argues on judicial review that certain measures should have been included in the strategy in order to meet the targets, "the inclusion of clause 15 in the Bill may result in a court allowing the Secretary of State discretion in deciding how best to meet the targets rather than specifying certain measures."[47] The effect of clause 15 of the Bill is therefore to ensure that, notwithstanding the absolute duty to meet the targets, in any legal challenge to the adequacy of his child poverty strategy, the Secretary of State will be able to invoke the case-law which recognises that the courts should generally be deferential to the executive on matters of resource allocation.[48]

1.35 It follows from the above that, although judicial review of the adequacy of the steps taken by the Secretary of State to reach the child poverty targets by 2020 is theoretically possible before that date, it is likely in practice to be available only in very limited circumstances. Much of the evidence we received was critical of this feature of the Bill, and argued for stronger provisions on the legal enforceability of the duty.[49] In our view, however, the Bill is consistent with the model for giving legal effect to economic and social rights that we advocated in our Report on a Bill of Rights for the UK. We do not believe it to be realistic, or constitutionally appropriate, to impose legally enforceable duties on ministers regardless of available resources. We therefore accept the necessity for clause 15 of the Bill, on the understanding that its effect is not to exclude the possibility of judicial review, but to make it possible for the Secretary of State to justify his strategy by reference to economic and fiscal circumstances.

1.36 We welcome the Government's acceptance that judicial review is in principle available, but we also welcome the fact that it will only in practice be available in limited circumstances, such as where the Secretary of State refused to draw up a strategy, or where the evidence is incontrovertible that the targets are going to be missed so that no reasonable Secretary of State could maintain such a strategy consistently with his duty to meet the targets. As we pointed out in our Bill of Rights Report, when some possibility of judicial enforcement exists, it is more likely that rights will in practice be respected. Although under this Bill judicial review of the adequacy of the measures taken by the Government to achieve the targets is not likely to be possible until much nearer 2020, the gradually increasing possibility of such a legal challenge in the future should inform current decisions about the strategy for complying with the overarching duty, which is to ensure that the targets are met by 2020.

Duty to implement the strategy

1.37 The Bill imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a national strategy setting out the measures that the Secretary of State proposes to take for the purpose of ensuring that the targets are met and, as far as possible, that children in the UK do not experience socio-economic disadvantage.[50] However, unlike other comparable statutory regimes, such as that under the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000[51] and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995,[52] there is no statutory duty to implement the strategy. We asked the Government why clause 8 of the Bill does not include a duty to implement the strategy.

1.38 The Minister offers a number of justifications for not including in the Bill a duty to implement the child poverty strategy. First, he argues that the Bill places a binding duty on the Secretary of State to meet the child poverty targets, which is "the strongest possible incentive" for the Government and their partners to deliver a strategy that over time achieves the targets.[53] The aim of the legislation is said to be the achievement of the targets, and the strategy is merely a means to achieving that end. This is contrasted to the disability discrimination legislation, where the aim is said to be the implementation of the accessibility strategy itself. We find this an elusive distinction. Both pieces of legislation require strategies to be drawn up as a means to an end (in the Bill, the end is to achieve the child poverty targets, in the DDA it is to achieve improved accessibility), and we fail to see a qualitative difference between the two capable of justifying the absence of a duty to implement the strategy in the case of child poverty.

1.39 The Government's second justification is that including a duty to implement the strategy risks tying the Government to measures which subsequent evidence or analysis shows to be ineffective or inappropriate. The strategy must be revised and refreshed every three years, ensuring that new developments and evidence about the best way to tackle child poverty are taken into account.[54] The duty to implement the strategy in the Disability Discrimination Act is distinguished on the basis that in that legislation "the obligation was to compile an access strategy which would be a one-off exercise that would then need to be implemented."[55] We are not persuaded that the inclusion of a duty to implement the strategy necessarily results in the inflexibility the Government fears. A duty to implement a strategy does not mean a duty to ignore subsequent evidence or analysis that calls into question elements of the strategy. Any public authority which shuts its eyes to such evidence or analysis and continued with measures which had been demonstrated to be ineffective or inappropriate would be most unlikely to be performing its functions rationally and would be vulnerable to legal challenge on that basis. We note that in the Disability Discrimination Act a duty to implement coexists with a duty to prepare further accessibility strategies after the first one, and similarly in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act there is both a duty to implement and a duty to assess progress and revise the strategy.

1.40 The Government's third reason for not including a duty to implement the strategy is that the Bill makes provision for political and public accountability for not implementing the strategy,[56] by requiring that the Secretary of State's annual reports to Parliament must state whether the strategy has been implemented in full, and, if not, the reasons for this.[57] As we have made clear above, we welcome this provision for political accountability for not implementing the strategy, but we do not consider such political accountability to be mutually exclusive with legal accountability.

1.41 We are in favour of supplementing the political accountability for not implementing the strategy with a degree of legal accountability by including in the Bill a legally enforceable duty to implement the strategy. Judicial review on the basis of a failure to implement a strategy, which has been adopted after receiving advice from the Child Poverty Commission and being laid before Parliament, is a far less intrusive judicial role than judicial review on the basis that the strategy contains unreasonable measures or that the omission of certain measures from the strategy was unreasonable. In the Friends of the Earth case, which was a legal challenge to an alleged failure to implement the Secretary of State's fuel poverty strategy, the Court of Appeal approved the High Court's view that it is open to the courts to review the Secretary of State's decision to see if there has been "a demonstrated failure to implement an identifiable part of the strategy's provisions."[58] We do not consider that a legally enforceable duty to implement the child poverty strategy which has been adopted involves the courts in a constitutionally inappropriate way in the enforcement of the duty to progressively realise children's right to an adequate standard of living. We do, however, consider that including such a duty in the Bill would go a considerable way towards addressing the concern expressed by a number of witnesses, that there are insufficient means for holding the Government accountable for a failure to make progress towards the achievement of the targets by 2020.[59]

1.42 We recommend that the Bill be amended to insert a duty to implement the child poverty strategy, as this will enhance opportunities to hold the Secretary of State accountable for failure to make progress towards the targets between now and 2020. The following suggested amendment to the Bill would give effect to this recommendation.

Page 5, line 29, insert New Clause:

Duty to implement strategy

The Secretary of State shall take such steps as are in his reasonable opinion necessary to implement the UK strategy.

(2) DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF CHILDREN NOT IN "QUALIFYING HOUSEHOLDS"

1.43 The principal duty that the Bill imposes on the Secretary of State is to meet targets relating to four income-based indicators of poverty.[60] Those indicators all relate to children in "qualifying households". What counts as a "qualifying household" is not defined in the Bill itself, but the Secretary of State is given power to make regulations about what is a qualifying household,[61] and in doing so "must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the targets in sections 2 to 5 have as wide an application as is reasonably practicable, having regard to the statistical surveys that are being or can reasonably be expected to be undertaken."[62] What is envisaged is that "qualifying households" will be defined in regulations as households which are covered by the statistical surveys used to collect the data by which the indicators are measured.[63] The surveys currently used are based on the Small Users Postcode Address File, which includes most addresses which have postcodes and receive less than 50 items of post a day, and exclude addresses which are "communal establishments or institutions".

1.44 The Government acknowledges, in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill,[64] the human rights memorandum[65] and the Minister's response to our letter,[66] that the effect of confining the duty to meet the targets to children in households that can be measured using current surveys is to exclude certain children, for example children who live in communal accommodation, such as a local authority children's home, and children who do not live in accommodation with a postcode, such as many Gypsy and Roma children. The Government states, and we accept, that there is no direct discrimination, because no children are excluded from the surveys simply on the basis of their status. The Government accepts, however, that there could be indirect discrimination because for some groups, such as Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children, and asylum seeking children, the likelihood of their being excluded is higher than for some other groups. The Government also accepts that the groups which have a lower chance of being captured by a survey include some groups which are already disadvantaged. We note that this concern about the Bill's differential treatment of children not in qualifying households was expressed by many of those who submitted evidence to us.[67] We also noted the same concern in our recent Report on Children's Rights.[68] We agree with the Government's analysis that the use of targets which apply only to children in qualifying households is potentially indirectly discriminatory, because it necessarily excludes certain children who may well be living in poverty, including Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children, asylum-seeking children living in asylum centres or Bed and Breakfast accommodation, and looked after children living in children's homes. Such differential treatment of children not living in qualifying households raises the question whether the Bill is compatible with Article 14 ECHR, the right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of Convention rights.

1.45 The Government does not accept, however, that there is any incompatibility with Article 14 ECHR for a number of reasons. First, although it accepts that the Bill treats children differently because of the coverage of the surveys, it does not accept that Article 14 is engaged at all because, in its view, no other substantive Article of the Convention is engaged by the subject-matter of the Bill. It considers the link with the right to respect for private and family life in Article 8 ECHR and the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions in Article 1 Protocol 1 to be too tenuous: the "high level" nature of the Bill means that nothing in the Bill directly affects the rights of individual children.[69] The Government's reasoning appears to be that because the Bill does not itself confer any individual entitlements or benefits, but rather provides a framework in which other concrete action may take place in the future (such as changes to social security benefits or tax), its provisions are not sufficiently determinative of any decision to allocate or focus benefits in favour of any particular group and are therefore not within the scope of Article 8 or Article 1 Protocol 1.

1.46 We are not persuaded by the Government's argument that Article 14 is not engaged by the Bill's differential treatment of children not living in qualifying households. For Article 14 to apply, there does not need to be differential treatment in the actual determination of any Convention rights: it is enough if there is differential treatment within "the scope of application" of other Convention rights. The Bill raises the novel and interesting question of whether Article 14 can be engaged by target-setting legislation of this kind in the absence of implementing measures. In our view it can do so. The Bill imposes a binding duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that four targets are met. Each of the four targets is income-related and will therefore require measures to boost income, such as higher tax credits or benefits, if they are to be achieved. Measures to boost income are in our view clearly within the ambit of the protection for "possessions" in Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, which includes benefits.[70] Performance of the duty will therefore require measures which are within the scope of Article 1 Protocol 1. By the Government's own account, the whole premise of the duty in clause 1 is that it is possible to influence the outcome of the policy-making process by ensuring that policy-makers make the achievement of the income targets a priority. The beneficiaries of the duty to meet the income targets will apparently only be children in qualifying households. The legislation is therefore, on its face, designed to require policy-making to prioritise such children over others, including Roma children, children in children's home and asylum-seeking children. In our view, to design a policy-making process which prioritises increasing the income of some children over others engages Article 14 ECHR, in conjunction with Article 1 Protocol 1, where the chosen targets exclude certain groups of already disadvantaged children. If the positive race equality duty were to be statutorily defined as not applying to certain ethnic groups in relation to certain functions (say, for the sake of argument, non-white people in relation to housing), in our view that would engage Article 14 ECHR and be very likely to lead to a breach of Article 14 in practice. We can see no distinction between that case and the exclusion of children not in qualifying households from the duty in the present Bill. We consider that Article 14 therefore clearly applies in conjunction with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions in Article 1 Protocol 1.

1.47 Second, the Government argues that there is nothing on the face of the Bill which could be said to be in breach of Article 14, because it leaves "qualifying households" to be defined by regulation, and therefore the Bill itself does not exclude anyone from the indicators and "it is not possible at this stage to definitively say that any children will be excluded from the targets."[71] Although strictly speaking true, because the term "qualifying households" is not defined in the Bill, we find this to be a most unattractive and technical argument. As we have pointed out above, the Government itself acknowledges that the regulations will define qualifying households by reference to current surveys which are already carried out, or such additional surveys as are reasonably practicable to carry out, and that those surveys currently exclude certain children, including some from disadvantaged groups. So the Government accepts that some children will inevitably be excluded from the targets by the regulations in due course. As we have frequently made clear in our legislative scrutiny reports, the fact that the provisions in a Bill are likely to give rise to a breach of a Convention right in practice, for example because of a regulation making power that is likely to be exercised in a way which is incompatible with Convention rights, is of as much concern to us as a breach on the face of the Bill. Our concern about the compatibility with Article 14 ECHR of excluding children not in qualifying households from the targets is not affected by the fact that qualifying households will be defined in regulations rather than in the Bill itself.

1.48 Third, the Government argues that it is not the intention of the Bill to discriminate against any groups of children.[72] On the contrary, it argues, it is envisaged that the same steps will be taken in relation to all children. The child poverty strategy which the Secretary of State is under a duty to prepare will relate to all children, and not just those who are covered by the targets.[73] That strategy must set out not only how the targets will be met, but the measures that will be taken to ensure as far as possible that children in the UK do not experience socio-economic disadvantage.[74] We welcome the provision in the Bill requiring the UK child poverty strategy to include measures to ensure that children do not suffer socio-economic disadvantage, and we accept that this part of the Bill will benefit all children living in poverty and not just those who are caught by the targets. However, the fact that another part of the Bill will benefit all children does not answer the concern that the targets discriminate against children not living in qualifying households. Nor does it matter in our view that it is not the Bill's intention to discriminate between children: it is enough that it is the effect of its provisions that the children covered by the targets are prioritised over those children not caught by the data. In our view the tying of the targets to qualifying households means that the Bill necessarily gives rise to differential treatment in relation to the enjoyment of Convention rights which requires justification if it is to be compatible with Article 14 ECHR.

1.49 Fourth, the Government argues that any discrimination against children not living in qualifying households is justifiable and proportionate, because it is simply not practical to conduct surveys which cover all children.[75] Measurable targets for reducing poverty can only relate to measurable children, and the targets set out in the Bill can only apply to children whose household income is measured by the current surveys. To improve the methodology of these surveys so that all children in the UK had an equal chance of being surveyed, the Government claims that it would need to know the whereabouts of every household in the UK, which, it says, would require an annual survey more comprehensive than the existing census, which would be impracticable. Such an effort, the Government says, would not be proportionate, when the targets will assess 99.5% of children in the UK, and any differential treatment is therefore justifiable in the economic interests of the country and the need to make the best use of public funds.

1.50 We are sceptical of the Government's claim that to survey children not in qualifying households for the purposes of measuring child poverty "would require an annual survey more comprehensive than the existing census." On the Government's own figures the numbers of children it would be necessary to survey is relatively small (0.5% of children in the UK if the Government's estimate of the coverage of its targets is correct). The whereabouts of many of those children will already be known because of other responsibilities public authorities have in relation to them (e.g. the duty on local education authorities to keep a record of school age children in their area to encourage school attendance).[76] We would need convincing that it is such a disproportionate task to ensure that data is available so that all children can be measured against the child poverty targets and not merely those in qualifying households captured by current surveys. We also note that "comprehensive data collection" is one of the general measures of implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which States are obliged to take,[77] and that "collection of sufficient and reliable data on children, disaggregated to enable identification of discrimination and/or disparities in the realisation of rights, is an essential part of implementation."[78]

1.51 We are also unimpressed by the argument that the setting of targets by reference to "qualifying households" excludes only "a very small minority of children" - 0.5%. That very small minority includes many children who are particularly poor and vulnerable. ILPA, for example, highlight the situation of children subject to immigration control,[79] and in its evidence to our Children's Rights inquiry, commented that "the poverty of certain children under immigration control is not being eradicated, it is being written out of the picture."[80] The Refugee Children's Consortium makes similar points in relation to children seeking asylum.[81] The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in its October 2008 report expressed its concern that the Government strategy on child poverty "is not sufficiently targeted at those groups of children in most severe poverty and that the standard of living of Traveller children is particularly poor."[82] The Economic and Social Rights Committee similarly urged the Government to intensify its efforts to combat poverty "in particular with regard to the most disadvantaged and marginalised individuals and groups."[83] We specifically asked the Government how it proposes to focus in particular on children living in severe poverty, as recommended by the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Government's response was that its approach in the Bill is designed to incentivise policy which is focused on all children in poverty, "including the very poor".[84] An approach which includes the very poor is not the same as an approach which focuses on the very poor, which is what the monitoring bodies recommended that the UK should do. For the reasons we have explained above, we are concerned not only that the Bill does not focus on children living in the most severe poverty, but also that those poorest children are effectively excluded from the benefit of the measures to achieve the child poverty targets because they are not children in qualifying households.

1.52 We therefore disagree with the Government's argument that the exclusion of certain groups of children from the targets which the Secretary of State is under a duty to meet does not amount to unjustified differential treatment contrary to Article 14 ECHR. In our view, Article 14 clearly applies, there is differential treatment of children not living in qualifying households, that differential treatment calls for justification, and the onus is on the Government to show that there are no other measurable targets for the groups currently excluded from the targets because of the way those targets are defined. In our view that onus is all the heavier because the excluded groups include some of those children who are particularly poor. We do not consider the Government to have discharged the heavy onus of justification by relying solely on the cost and impracticality of surveying children who do not live in qualifying households. We therefore conclude that it is highly likely that, as presently drafted, the Bill will give rise to a serious risk of future breaches of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 Protocol 1, because policy-makers will prioritise raising the income of children only in qualifying households, in a discriminatory way.

1.53 To remedy this incompatibility we recommend the inclusion in the Bill of a target or targets which would apply to children not living in qualifying households.

(3) DUTY TO CONSULT CHILDREN

1.54 The Bill imposes a duty on the Secretary of State, when preparing a national strategy on child poverty, to consult "such children, or organisations working with or representing children, as the Secretary of State thinks fit."[85] The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that this duty is "consistent with the obligation arising under Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child."[86]

1.55 Article 12 UNCRC requires States to "assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child." The international monitoring bodies have often stressed the importance of participation as an essential element of anti-poverty strategies,[87] particularly for children for whom poverty is a major obstacle to participation in a number of contexts.[88]

1.56 The obligation to consult children in the Bill, although couched as a duty, leaves the Secretary of State with a great deal of discretion as to who he consults, and also permits him to consult organisations working with or representing children instead of children themselves. The Government does not think it appropriate to prescribe in legislation the detailed methods for consulting children and young people and opposes any mandatory requirement to consult the relevant Children's Commissioner on the basis that requiring this in legislation may be overly prescriptive and lead to the extent of the consultation being limited.

1.57 In our view the duties to consult children in the preparation of child poverty strategies are insufficiently precise, because they leave it to the discretion of the Secretary of State (or Scottish Ministers/Northern Ireland department) as to whether or not to consult children directly at all: they could choose to consult organisations working with or representing children instead. We recommend that the duty to consult be amended to give better effect to the right recognised in international human rights law to participate in the relevant decision-making process, by requiring consultation with both children and organisations working with or representing them, and by requiring consultation with the relevant Children's Commissioner. The following suggested amendment to the Bill would give effect to this recommendation.

Page 5, line 24,

Insert new sub-paragraph "(ba) must consult the Children's Commissioners for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland."

In sub-paragraph ( c), leave out "or" and insert "and"

(4) HUMAN RIGHTS BASED STRATEGY FOR POVERTY REDUCTION

1.58 We asked whether the Secretary of State will have regard to the guidance of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on human rights-based poverty reduction strategies[89] when drawing up the national strategy, as recommended in that Committee's recent Concluding Observations on the UK, and how the Government proposes to give effect to that guidance.

1.59 The Minister responded that in preparing the child poverty strategy the Government will take into account the guidance issued by the UN Committee, "particularly with regard to addressing inequality and encouraging a participatory approach." He also pointed to the requirement for annual reporting on progress as evidence that the Government's approach is sensitive to the UN Committee's recommendation is that Governments should be held to account for the effectiveness of their poverty reduction strategies.

1.60 We welcome the Government's positive engagement with the UNCESCR's guidance on using international human rights law as a framework for poverty reduction strategies and look forward to seeing in more detail precisely how the Government proposes to give effect to that guidance.


1   Children's Rights Alliance for England; Refugee Children's Consortium; Save the Children; Equality Commission for Northern Ireland; Children England; Wales UNCRC Monitoring Group; Treehouse; The Children's Society; Immigration Law Practitioners' Association ("ILPA"). Back

2   Press Notice No. 56 http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights/jchrpn056_270709.cfm Back

3   Twenty-ninth Report of Session 2007-08, A Bill of Rights for the UK?, HL Paper 165-I, HC 150-I, chapter 5. Back

4   Ibid. at paras 192-197. Back

5   Clause 1. The four targets are defined in detail in clauses 2-5: they are the relative low income target, the combined low income and material deprivation target, the absolute low income target and the persistent poverty target. Back

6   Cf. the Climate Change Bill, which broadly provides the model for the current Bill, but which gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the targets. Back

7   Clause 16 and Schedule 2. Back

8   Clause 8(1). The Bill also places duties on the Scottish Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland Department (the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister) to prepare child poverty strategies through to 2020, relating only to devolved matters, also to be reviewed and revised every 3 years: clauses 10 and 11. Back

9   Clause 8(2). Back

10   Clause Back

11   Clause 13(1). Back

12   Clause 13(5). Back

13   Clause 7 and Schedule 1. Back

14   Clause 9(1) and (3). Back

15   Clause 9(4)( c). Back

16   Clause 15(1) and (2). The Scottish Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland department are similarly required to have regard to (a) the resources that are or may be available to them and (b) the effect of the implementation of the strategy on those resources: clause 15(3). Back

17   Part 2, clauses 18-24. Back

18   Bill 112-EN, paras 135-146. Back

19   EN paras 147-8. Back

20   Letter from Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP dated 16 June 2009 and accompanying human rights memorandum, Ev 1-6. Back

21   Committee on the Rights of the Child (Forty-ninth Session), Concluding Observations on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, CRC/C/GBR/CO/4 (20 October 2008). Back

22   Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, E/C.12/GBR/CO/5 (22 May 2009). Back

23   Human rights memorandum, para. 47, Ev 6. Back

24   See the recent Court of Appeal decision in R (Friends of the Earth) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2009] EWCA Civ 810 (30 July 2009), a challenge to the Secretary of State's failure to implement his Fuel Poverty Strategy under the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, in which the Court noted, at para. 19, "the relatively sudden upsurge of this type of target-setting, duty-creating legislation" and describing it as "a rapidly developing area of public law." Back

25   Letter from Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP dated 16 June 2009, Ev 1. Back

26   Clause 8(1). Back

27   Clause 8(2). Back

28   Clause 8(4). Back

29   Clause 8(6)(a)(i). Back

30   Clause 8(7). Back

31   Clause 13(1). Back

32   Twenty-first Report of Session 2003-04, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, HL Paper 183, HC 1188 at para. 64; Twenty-ninth Report of Session 2007-08, A Bill of Rights for the UK?, HL Paper 165-I, HC 150-I at para. 167. Back

33   Ibid. at para. 192. Back

34   "Yvette Cooper plans binding legal commitment to cutting child poverty", The Guardian, 11 June 2009.  Back

35   Section 2(1) of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy setting out his policies for ensuring that, as far as reasonably practicable, persons do not live in fuel poverty. Back

36   [2009] EWCA Civ 810 at para. 15. See to similar effect para. 20: "The essential legal obligation is described in terms of effort or endeavour." Back

37   Ibid. at para. 2. Back

38   Ibid. at para. 17. Back

39   Letter from Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP dated 22 September 2009, Ev 8. Back

40   Ibid.. Back

41   Ev 8-9. Back

42   PBC 20 October 2009 Qs 26-28. Back

43   Through Thick and Thin: Tackling Child Poverty in Hard Times, Report of the Campaign to End Child Poverty, 2 November 2009. Back

44   Schedule 2, para. 3. Back

45   Minutes of Evidence taken before the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee, 17 June 2009, uncorrected transcript HC 702-I, Q 86. Back

46   Letter from Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP dated 22 September 2009, Ev 9. Back

47   Ibid., Ev 9. Back

48   See e.g. the Friends of the Earth case, above, at paras 30 and 35; Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames LBC [2009] UKHL 7 at para. 38 ("courts have no power to conjure up resources where none exist."). Back

49   See e.g. Child Poverty Action Group Ev 12; National Children's Bureau Ev 21; UNICEF Ev 30. Back

50   Clause 8(1) and (2). Back

51   Section 2(5) of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 provides that "The appropriate authority shall take such steps as are in its opinion necessary to implement the strategy." Back

52   Section 28D(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act imposes a duty on the responsible body to implement its accessibility strategy. Back

53   RT Hon Stephen Timms MP, PBC 20 October 2009 col. 24; Letter from Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP dated 22 September 2009, Ev 9. Back

54   Ibid., Ev 10. Back

55   PBC 20 October 2009 col. 23. Back

56   Clause 13(5). Back

57   Letter from Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP dated 22 September 2009, Ev 10. Back

58   [2009] EWCA Civ 810 at para. 38. Back

59   Eg. Child Poverty Action Group Ev 13; Law Centre (NI), at para. 7,2,1, Ev 20; Save the Children, para. 4.2, Ev 27. Back

60   Clause 1(1). The 4 targets are described in clauses 2-5. Back

61   Clause 6(1)(a). Back

62   Clause 6(4). Back

63   EN paras 17-18. Back

64   EN para 137. Back

65   Human rights memorandum, para. 24, Ev 3. Back

66   Letter from Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP dated 22 September 2009, Ev 10. Back

67   See e.g. Immigration Law Practitioners' Association Ev 14-18; Refugee Children's Consortium, Ev 23-25; Save the Children, Ev 27; UNICEF, Ev 29. Back

68   Twenty-fifth Report of Session 2008-09, Children's Rights, HL Paper 157, HC 318 at para. 146. Back

69   EN paras 138-9; Human rights memorandum, at paras 16-22 and 25, Ev 2-3. Back

70   Stec v UK, App. No.s 65731/01 and 65900/01, (2005) 41 EHRR SE18 at para. 54 (Grand Chamber decision as to admissibility). Back

71   EN para. 140; Human rights memorandum, para. 26, Ev 3. Back

72   Human rights memorandum, para. 27, Ev 3-4. Back

73   EN para. 140; Letter from Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP dated 22 September 2009, Ev 11. Back

74   Clause 8(2)(b). Back

75   EN para. 141; Human rights memorandum, para. 28, Ev 4; Letter from Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP dated 22 September 2009, Ev 11. Back

76   Section 436A(1) Education Act 1996, inserted by s. 4(1) Education and Inspections Act 2006. Back

77   UNCRC General Comment No. 5 (2003) on General Measures of Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, at para. 9. Back

78   Ibid. at para. 48. Back

79   Ev 14-18. Back

80   Above, n. xx at para. 146. Back

81   Ev 23-25. Back

82   Above, n. 21 at para. 64. See also ibid. at para. 24, recommending that the UK strengthen its awareness-raising and other preventive activities against discrimination and, if necessary, take affirmative actions for the benefit of vulnerable groups of children, such as Roma and Irish Travellers' children, migrant, asylum-seeking and refugee children and other vulnerable groups. Back

83   Above, n. 22 at para. 28. Back

84   Letter from Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP dated 22 September 2009, Ev 11. Back

85   Clause 9(4). Back

86   EN para. 148. Back

87   See e.g. Poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Statement of the Committee to the Third UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries (twenty-fifth session), E/2002/22-E/C.12/2001/17, annex VII at paras 9 and 12. Back

88   UNCRC General Comment No. 12 on the Right of the Child to be Heard (2009) CRC/C/GC/12. Back

89   Statement on Poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 2001 (E/C.12/2001/10). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 26 November 2009