2 Mandate
The primary function: promoting
and protecting children's rights
27. The Dunford Review concluded that the Children's
Commissioner's current remit of promoting awareness of children's
views and interests"[15]
is too limited and one of the main weaknesses of the current legislative
framework.
28. The draft clauses would change the primary function
of the Children's Commissioner, from one of "promoting awareness
of the views and interests of children in England" to one
of "promoting and protecting the rights of children in England".[16]
29. This change in the Commissioner's primary function
is intended by the Government to create a new role for the Children's
Commissioner. The draft Explanatory Notes which accompany the
draft clauses explain what the terms "promoting" and
"protecting" children's rights are intended to mean.[17]
They say that the role of promoting children's rights will entail
raising awareness of children's rights and how they should be
applied, while the role of protecting children's rights will mean
that the Commissioner will be able to challenge any policy or
practice which may lead, or has led, to an infringement or abuse
of children's rights.
30. We welcome
the proposed change in the Commissioner's primary function, from
one of 'promoting awareness of the views and interests of children
in England' to one of 'promoting and protecting the rights of
children in England'. A statutorily explicit rights-based remit
represents a significant strengthening of the Commissioner's mandate,
and is an important step in the transformation of the office into
a fully fledged human rights institution for children. A mandate
to "promote and protect" human rights is the first requirement
in the international standards for a body to be recognised as
a national human rights institution.
Which "rights of children"?
31. The scope of the Commissioner's new rights-based
mandate clearly depends on what is included within the definition
of "the rights of children in England" which it is the
Commissioner's primary function to promote and protect. The draft
clauses do not, however, define "the rights of children"
which the Commissioner is charged with promoting and protecting.
32. The draft clauses do, however, provide that the
Commissioner must "have regard to the UNCRC" in considering
what constitute the rights and interests of children for the purposes
of the Commissioner's primary function.[18]
The UNCRC is defined for these purposes as the treaty adopted
by the General Assembly of the UN on 20 November 1989, subject
to any reservations, objections or interpretative declarations
by the UK which are in force.[19]
THE UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS
OF THE CHILD
33. The Dunford Review envisaged that the Commissioner's
new rights-based remit would be rooted in the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child: it recommended that the basis for the
work of the Children's Commissioner should be the promotion and
protection of the rights of children "as set out in the UNCRC".
34. This is also the Government's clear intention.
As the then Minister of State for Children and Families said in
her written statement to the House of Commons when laying the
draft legislation before Parliament:[20]
The draft legislation laid before the House today
would create a new role for the Children's Commissioner, focused
on promoting and protecting the rights of children, in line with
the articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,
to which the Government are a committed signatory.
35. The draft Explanatory Notes also make reference
to the UNCRC when explaining the Commissioner's new role. They
state, for example, that in practice the Commissioner's role of
promoting children's rights should include raising awareness of
the UNCRC among children and proactively encouraging other organisations
to develop policies and practices that comply with the UNCRC.[21]
36. As drafted, however, the draft clauses do not
give effect to the Government's intention that the Children's
Commissioner should be charged with the task of promoting and
protecting the rights set out in the UNCRC. Requiring the Commissioner
merely to "have regard" to the UNCRC when considering
what constitute the rights and interests of children for the purposes
of the Commissioner's primary function[22]
is a relatively weak and circuitous way of giving effect to the
Government's intention.
37. The reasoning behind the approach in the draft
clauses is not apparent from any of the information which has
been provided by the Government. It may be driven by a concern
to avoid giving the impression that the Act is incorporating the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child directly into the law
of England Wales. In our view, however, the Government's intention
can be achieved without going so far. The Bill could simply define
"the rights of children in England" to include the rights
in the UNCRC for the purposes of the definition of the Commissioner's
primary function.
38. We recommend
that, in order to give effect to the recommendation of the Dunford
Review and the Government's intention that the reformed Children's
Commissioner should have a rights-based remit grounded in the
UNCRC, the Bill should expressly define "the rights of children
in England" to include the rights in the UNCRC for the purposes
of defining the Commissioner's primary function.
We recommend below an amendment to the draft clauses which would
give effect to this recommendation.
THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOLS TO THE UNCRC
39. The international standards concerning national
human rights institutions require that the Commissioner's mandate
should effectively cover all of the human rights of children,
including not only those in the UNCRC itself but also those in
the Optional Protocols to the UNCRC.[23]
40. As we indicated above, the draft clauses define
the UNCRC in a way which does not expressly include the Optional
Protocols ratified by the UK. The UK has ratified two Optional
Protocols to the UNCRC.[24]
As the draft clauses stand, therefore, the rights of children
which have been accepted by the UK under those Optional Protocols
would not be included in the rights which it is the Commissioner's
task to protect and promote.
41. We asked the Government why the definition of
the UNCRC rights in the draft clauses does not include the Optional
Protocols to the UNCRC which the UK has signed and ratified, and
whether there is any reason why they should not be expressly referred
to in the Bill, but the Government did not answer this question.
We therefore do not know the Government's reasons for not including
reference to the Optional Protocols in the draft clauses.
42. We expect
the Government's intention to be that the definition of the UNCRC
rights in the Bill includes the rights in the Optional Protocols
ratified by the UK, especially given the clarity required by the
relevant international standards on this question. We cannot see
any reason why this should not be made explicit on the face of
the Bill. We recommend that the definition of the UNCRC in the
draft clauses be amended to include an express reference to the
Optional Protocols ratified by the UK. We
recommend below an amendment to the draft clauses which would
give effect to this recommendation.
OTHER RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS
43. The international standards concerning national
human rights institutions further require that the Commissioner's
mandate should effectively cover not only the human rights of
children in the UNCRC itself and its Optional Protocols, but also
those in other relevant international human rights instruments.
[25] The draft
clauses refer only to the UNCRC and make no reference to other
relevant international human rights instruments. We asked the
Government if there is any reason why the Commissioner should
not also be required to have regard to any other relevant international
human rights instrument concerning the rights of children which
the UK has signed and ratified, but again the Government's response
did not include an answer. We therefore do not know the reason
why the rights of children are not defined to include the rights
of children in other relevant international human rights instruments.
44. One possible reason is that such an open-ended
reference on the face of the statute might introduce uncertainty
for the Children's Commissioner about which rights in which instruments
they are required to promote and protect. We have some sympathy
with this as a reason for proceeding with caution in defining
this aspect of the Commissioner's mandate. The phrase "international
human rights instruments" is a vague one, and on its face
it is capable of including both legally binding international
treaties and so-called "soft law" standards which are
agreed to and accepted by the UK Government but which are not
legally binding.
45. In our view the statutory framework establishing
the Children's Commissioner should include reference to the human
rights of children in other relevant international human rights
instruments, but should distinguish between rights contained in
legally binding international treaties and those contained in
other, non-binding standards. International treaties contain some
important human rights of children which it ought to be the role
of the Children's Commissioner to promote and protect. For example,
the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
which post-dates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,
includes an important provision[26]
concerning children with disabilities. That provision includes
the following:
States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities
have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting
them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their
age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to
be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to
realize that right.
46. The right of children with disabilities to be
provided with disability-appropriate assistance to enable them
to realize their right to express their views freely on all matters
affecting them is both more specific and more extensive than the
general right of children in the UNCRC itself to have their views
taken into account. We can see no reason in principle why such
rights contained in international treaties, which are legally
binding on the UK, should not be included in the definition of
the rights which it is the Commissioner's function to promote
and protect. It is a relatively easy task for the Government and
the Commissioner to compile an exhaustive list of children's rights
contained in international treaties which the UK has ratified.
47. We recommend
that the draft clauses be amended to include in the definition
of the rights of children required to be promoted and protected
by the Commissioner under their duty, not only the rights in the
UNCRC but any human rights of children contained in international
treaties. We suggest below an amendment
which would give effect to this recommendation.
48. We acknowledge that the position is more difficult
in relation to non-binding international human rights instruments.
As well as being more numerous and wide-ranging in their subject-matter,
these have less normative force than legally binding international
treaties, but nevertheless are a useful source of standards. The
UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice
(the so-called "Beijing Rules"), for example, which
were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1985, contain some
useful guidance on the principle of "diversion", according
to which the use of the formal criminal justice system should
only ever be a last resort for children. We do not consider it
unreasonable to expect the Children's Commissioner, who is responsible
for promoting and protecting the rights of children, to identify
and have regard to the international instruments which are of
most relevance to the discharge of that function.
49. In our view,
non-binding international standards do not give rise to rights
which it should be the function of the Children's Commissioner
to promote and protect, but they do provide a useful source of
standards and guidance to the Commissioner in the discharge of
their primary function. We are sure that it is the Government's
intention that the Commissioner should be permitted to take such
international standards into account in the exercise of their
functions. We consider, however, that the Children's Commissioner
should be required in the Bill to have regard to all relevant
international standards concerning the rights of children and
we recommend that the draft clauses be amended to that effect.
We suggest below
and amendment which would give effect to this recommendation.
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS IN DOMESTIC LAW
50. Although the draft clauses require the Children's
Commissioner to have regard to the UNCRC when considering what
constitute the rights and interests of children, there is nothing
in the draft clauses requiring the Commissioner to have regard
to children's rights or interests in domestic law or statutory
guidance where those are more extensive than those in the UNCRC.
The draft Explanatory Notes state that "where domestic law
or statutory guidance afford children greater protection than
the UNCRC, the Commissioner should take account of them, as required",
[27] but there
is nothing in the draft clauses to suggest that the rights of
children that the Commissioner is charged with promoting and protecting
include the rights of children under domestic law.
51. The current Children's Rights Director for England,
Dr Roger Morgan, has suggested in written evidence to us that
in his experience it is frequently the case that UK domestic law
or guidance promotes and protects children's rights either better,
or more specifically, than the UNCRC. The current Children's
Commissioner gave oral evidence to the same effect. [28]
In particular the Children Act 1989 and guidance which has been
developed under that Act in some respects goes beyond the protection
provided by the UNCRC.
52. The current Children's Rights Director regards
it as a significant omission that the Bill does not make clear
that the rights of children in England include domestic law rights.
He recommends that the Bill should be amended to include "a
provision on the face of the legislation to the effect that 'where
the Commissioner considers domestic UK law or statutory guidance
more effective in promoting or protecting the rights of children
than the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,
the Commissioner must have regard to that law or guidance'.
53. The concern of the Children's Rights Director
appears to be that, without such a provision, the Commissioner's
remit will be constrained in practice because proposed new section
2A(1) may be interpreted as defining "the rights of children
in England" exhaustively in terms of UNCRC rights for the
purposes of the Commissioner's remit. This would mean, for example,
that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to investigate a policy
or practice that appears to be in breach of a right protected
by the Children Act but not by the UNCRC.
54. We asked whether the Government intends that
"the rights and interests of children in England" include
rights and interests arising under domestic law and guidance which
go beyond those in the UNCRC. The Government did not, however,
answer this question in its response.
55. We welcome
the Government's apparent intention, implicit in paragraph 21
of the draft Explanatory Notes, that the rights of children that
the Children's Commissioner is charged with promoting and protecting
include rights which children have in domestic law where these
are more extensive than those in the UNCRC. We agree with the
concern of the Children's Rights Director that the lack of a clause
making this intention explicit on the face of the Bill may give
rise to uncertainty about the scope of the Commissioner's mandate.
Such uncertainty would be both undesirable in practice and inconsistent
with the relevant international standards which require specificity
in the statutory definition of the Commissioner's mandate. We
recommend that the draft clauses should be amended so that it
is plain on the face of the legislation that the Commissioner
is responsible for promoting and protecting children's rights
or interests in domestic law or statutory guidance where those
are more extensive than those in the UNCRC. We
suggest below an amendment to the draft clauses which would give
effect to this recommendation.
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO PROPOSED
NEW S. 2A CHILDREN ACT 2004
56. To give effect to the recommendations we make
in this section of our Report concerning which rights of children
it is the Commissioner's functions to promote and protect, we
recommend that proposed new s. 2A of the Children Act 2004 be
amended to read as follows:
'2A The rights of children
2A(1) For the purposes of s. 2(1) above the rights
of children include—
(a) the rights in the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child,
(b) the rights of children in any other international
treaty ratified by the UK, and
(c) the rights of children in the law applicable
in England.
2A(2) The reference in subsection (1)(a) to the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is to the Convention
on the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of
the United Nations on 20th November 1989, and any Optional
Protocols thereto ratified by the United Kingdom, subject to any
reservations, objections or interpretative declarations by the
United Kingdom for the time being in force.
2A(3) The Children's Commissioner must, in the discharge
of the primary function, have regard to any other relevant international
standards concerning the rights of children which have been accepted
by the UK Government, whether legally binding or not.'
Monitoring implementation of
UNCRC
57. The draft clauses, after setting out the primary
function of the Children's Commissioner as the promotion and protection
of the rights of children, go on to set out a permissive but non-exhaustive
list of additional activities that the Commissioner may undertake
in the exercise of the primary function.[29]
Those additional activities include the power to consider the
effect of legislation, future and existing, and of policy proposals,
on the rights of children,[30]
but there is no express provision for systematically monitoring
the implementation of the UNCRC in the UK.
58. We asked the Government if it intended the Children's
Commissioner to systematically monitor and report on the UK's
implementation of the UNCRC. If so, we asked whether the Government
would include in the legislation's definition of the Commissioner's
primary function an express reference to the Commissioner's role
in monitoring and reporting on the UK's implementation of the
Convention.
59. The Government in its response stated that to
set out the types of activities which the Children's Commissioner
could undertake would overload the Bill unnecessarily. In particular,
the Government noted that it would be unnecessary to include an
express reference to monitoring and reporting on the implementation
of the UNCRC, as this activity falls within the scope of the primary
function—to promote and protect the rights of children in
England—and "doesn't therefore need to be referred
to separately on the face of the Bill." The Government highlighted
the fact that the existing Children's Commissioner already fulfils
this role, for example, using her powers under the Children Act
2004 to publish a mid-term progress report on the UK's implementation
of the UNCRC.
60. The relevant international standards, however,
require that national human rights institutions should be given
as broad a mandate as possible: both the Paris Principles and
General Comment No. 2 to the UNCRC require that the mandate of
national human rights institutions should be "clearly set
forth in a [...] legislative text specifying its [...] sphere
of competence."[31]
The relevant international standards concerning children's rights
NHRIs, moreover, are clear that the institution's functions should
include monitoring the implementation of the UNCRC. Such monitoring
is treated in the international standards as a separate function
alongside protection and promotion of UNCRC rights.[32]
61. If monitoring the implementation of the UNCRC
were an explicit part of the Commissioner's primary function it
would require the Commissioner to keep under systematic review
the extent to which law, policy and practice are compatible with
children's rights. The devolved Children's Commissioners are already
under such a duty to keep law, policy and practice under review
for UNCRC compliance. During the passage of the Children Act 2004
the evidence of the devolved Commissioners to our predecessor
Committee was that the absence of such a duty made the English
Commissioner's mandate far too weak. The Equality and Human Rights
Commission is also explicitly required to monitor both the effectiveness
of the equality and human rights enactments and the progress being
made in society in advancing equality and human rights.[33]
That monitoring function will remain even after the scope of the
EHRC's mandate has been reduced by the amendments to the Equality
Act currently proposed in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Bill.
62. We welcome
the Government's clear indication of its intention that systematically
monitoring the implementation of the UNCRC in the UK and reporting
on progress is within the scope of the Commissioner's primary
function. We understand the Government's reluctance to overload
the Bill with unnecessary detail and its preference for setting
out the types of activity that the Commissioner may undertake
rather than listing each specific activity.
63. However,
we are mindful of the requirements in the relevant international
standards that the Commissioner's mandate be set out clearly in
legislation which specifies the Commissioner's functions. Monitoring
the implementation of the UNCRC is not merely a particular activity
of the Children's Commissioner, it is an important function of
any independent human rights institution for children. To ensure
that there is no scope for uncertainty about Parliament's intention
in relation to such an important matter, we therefore recommend
that the draft clauses should be amended so as to include an explicit
reference to the Commissioner's function of monitoring the UK's
implementation of the UNCRC. We
recommend the following amendment to draft clause 1 to give effect
to this recommendation:
In proposed new s. 2(3) Children Act 2004, before
sub-paragraph (a) insert new sub-paragraph—
(aa) monitor the implementation of the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child in the United Kingdom;
Raising awareness and understanding
of children's rights
64. The draft clauses expressly include within the
Commissioner's primary function "promoting awareness of the
views and interests of children in England."[34]
As the draft Explanatory Notes explain, this is no longer
the primary function of the Children's Commissioner, but it is
retained as "an aspect of the primary function of promoting
and protecting children's rights".[35]
However, the primary function is not defined to include
promoting awareness and understanding of children's rights (as
distinct from their views and interests), nor is the power to
do so included in the indicative list of powers in proposed new
s. 2(3).
65. Promoting such awareness and understanding of
rights is one of the most important functions of a national human
rights institution. Article 42 of the UNCRC requires that States
Parties "undertake to make the principles and provisions
of the Convention widely known, by appropriate and active means,
to adults and children alike." General Comment No. 2 recognises
the importance of this function of raising awareness about rights,
referring to "the important role NHRIs play in promoting
and protecting human rights and enhancing public awareness of
those rights."[36]
Other NHRIs are expressly accorded this function in their founding
legislation. The Scottish Children's Commissioner, for example,
is required to "promote awareness and understanding of the
rights of children and young people".[37]
The Northern Irish Commissioner has a very similar duty.[38]
The functions of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission also
include promoting awareness and understanding of rights under
the equality legislation.[39]
66. The draft Explanatory Notes suggest that the
Government sees raising awareness and understanding of children's
rights as included within the Commissioner's primary function.[40]
As currently drafted, however, it is far from clear that the draft
clauses give effect to this intention. A number of provisions
in the draft clauses carry forward provisions from the 2004 Act
referring to the "views and interests of children" but
extend them to cover "rights" as well, to reflect the
change to the Commissioner's primary function. Proposed new s.
2(3)(a), for example, envisages the Commissioner encouraging people
to take account of children's "rights" as well as their
"views and interests". Proposed new s. 2(3)(b) similarly
envisages the Commissioner advising the Secretary of State on
children's "rights" as well as their "views and
interests".
67. It would appear from the Government's UNCRC Assessment
that the same extension was intended in relation to raising awareness
of children's rights as well as their views and interests: under
the analysis of compatibility with Article 12 UNCRC, the assessment
states "The proposed legislation would make clear that the
Children's Commissioner's role includes 'promoting awareness of
the rights, views and interests of children'".[41]
In fact, as drafted, proposed new s. 2(2) says that the Commissioner's
primary function includes 'promoting awareness of the views and
interests of children': the intended reference to rights has been
omitted.
68. This omission of a reference to children's rights
in an important sub-section is potentially interpretatively significant,
given the inclusion of such a reference in other provisions in
the draft clauses. It also risks failing to give effect to what
appears (from the UNCRC Assessment) to be the Government's intention.
Such uncertainty in the definition of the Commissioner's primary
function is also inconsistent with the relevant international
standards, which require clarity and specificity about the Commissioner's
mandate in the legislation establishing the institution. An express
power to promote awareness and understanding about rights would
also meet the concerns of the outgoing Children's Rights Director,
who recommends that the Commissioner should be given express power
to produce and publish information for children about their rights.
69. We recommend
that the draft clauses should be amended so as to include promoting
awareness and understanding of rights, as well as the views and
interests of children in England, in the mandate of the Commissioner.
The relevant clause, as currently drafted, does not give effect
to the Government's intention that the Commissioner's mandate
be rights-based. In its present form, it replicates the current
function without extending that function to include promoting
awareness of rights. In our view, such a change would ensure clear
legislative drafting of the mandate and functions of the Commissioner,
as required by the relevant international standards.
We recommend that proposed new s. 2(2)
be amended as follows so as to give effect to this recommendation:
(2) The primary function includes promoting awareness
and understanding of the rights, views and interests of children
in England.
Title
70. We consider the proposed title of the Children's
Commissioner in this chapter of our Report because in our view
the title sends an important signal about the scope of the Commissioner's
mandate.
71. The draft clauses do not propose any change to
the title of the Commissioner, which will remain the Children's
Commissioner for England. In Wales, similarly, the Commissioner
is called the Children's Commissioner for Wales. Northern Ireland,
however, has the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and
Young People and Scotland similarly has Scotland's Commissioner
for Children and Young People.
72. We asked the Government to explain why it decided
not to rename the office the Commissioner for Children and Young
People as in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but it did not respond
to this question.
73. We note with interest that Amplify, the advisory
group to the Children's Commissioner comprising children and young
people, support the inclusion of "young people" in the
Commissioner's title on the grounds that without it a lot of older
teenagers might be put off from contacting or engaging with the
Commissioner, assuming it to be relevant only to younger children.[42]
The Office of the Children's Commissioner, however, having considered
the views of its advisory group of children and young people,
disagreed. Although sympathetic to the argument that the name
should not deter young people's engagement, it believes that the
name should mirror the language used by the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child, which covers all children and young people
up to the age of 18.
74. In our view this is an issue on which the views
of young people should be given particular weight. One of the
most important functions of the title of an institution which
exists to be a champion of the rights of a vulnerable group is
that it accurately describes its mandate in order to encourage
the members of that vulnerable group to engage with it. Evidence
from older teenagers that they are deterred from engaging with
an institution called a Children's Commissioner, rather than a
Children and Young People's Commissioner, must be taken very seriously.
Otherwise, in our view, there is a risk that those young people
who are closer in age to 18 will not consider the Commissioner
to be of relevance to them and will not seek to contact or engage
with the Commissioner.
75. We also note that the Children's Commissioner
will in future have functions in relation to a group of 18-24-year-olds,
who currently fall under the remit of the Children's Rights Director,
namely young people who are receiving care leaving support from
a local authority under the Children Act 1989.[43]
Indeed, we note that one consequence of this is to make necessary
a provision which states "a person who is not a child is
to be treated as a child" for the purposes of the part of
the Act which establishes the Children's Commissioner.[44]
76. We understand the technical necessity for such
a deeming provision, given the chosen nomenclature of a "children's
commissioner", but in our view a 24-year-old who is receiving
care leaving support from a local authority is unlikely to be
encouraged to seek advice or assistance from the Children's Commissioner
by a statutory framework which explicitly says that they will
be "treated as a child". It would be better, in our
view, to dispense with the need for such a provision by changing
the Commissioner's title to include "young people".
77. We recommend
that the title of the Commissioner be changed to include "young
people" as well as "children", both in order to
encourage older teenagers to consider the Commissioner of relevance
to them, and to reflect the fact that the Commissioner will have
functions in relation to certain 18-24-year-olds.
78. We express no view as to whether the title should
be Children's and Young People's Commissioner for England or England's
Commissioner for Children and Young People, but we suggest the
following new clause which would give effect to this recommendation:
In section 1(1) of the Children Act 2004 after 'Children's'
insert 'and Young People's'
15 Section 2(1) Children Act 2004. Back
16
Proposed new s. 2(1) Children Act 2004. Back
17
Draft Explanatory Notes, paras 13 and 14. Back
18
Proposed new s. 2A(1) Children Act 2004. Back
19
Propsed new s. 2A(2). Back
20
HC Deb 9 July 2012 col 3WS. Back
21
Draft Explanatory Notes, para. 13. Back
22
Proposed new s. 2A(1) Children Act 2004. Back
23
See e.g. General Comment No. 2 para. 8. Back
24
Optional Protocol on the involvement of Children in Armed Conflict
and Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution
and Child Pornography. Back
25
See e.g. General Comment No. 2 para. 8. Back
26
Article 7. Back
27
Draft Explanatory Notes, para. 21. Back
28
Evidence of Dr Maggie Atkinson, 24 April 2012, Q. 7. Back
29
Proposed new s. 2(3)(a)-(h) Children Act 2004. Back
30
Proposed new s. 2(3)(c) and (d) Children Act 2004. Back
31
Paris Principles para. 2; General Comment No. 2 para. 8 ("the
legislation should include provisions setting out specific functions,
powers and duties relating to children linked to the Convention
on the Rights of the Child"). Back
32
See e.g. UNCRC General Comment No. 2 paras 1 and 7 and the ENOC
Standards. Back
33
Equality Act 2006 sections 11 and 12. Back
34
Proposed new s. 2(2) Children Act 2004. Back
35
Draft Explanatory Notes, para. 15. Back
36
General Comment No. 2 para 3 and see also para. 19(l) and (m). Back
37
Section 4(2)(a) Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland)
Act 2003. Back
38
The Commissioner has an explicit duty under Article 7(1) of the
Commissioner for Children and Young People (Northern Ireland)
Order 2003 to promote (a) an understanding of the rights of children
and young persons; (b) an awareness of the importance of those
rights and a respect among children and young persons for the
rights or others; and (c) an awareness of matters relating to
the best interests of children and young persons. Back
39
Equality Act 2006 s. 8(1). Back
40
Draft EN para. 13. Back
41
UNCRC Assessment, p. 3. Back
42
Response of the Office of the Children's Commissioner to the consultation
on establishing a new Office of the Children's Commissioner for
England (OCCE) (September 2011), p. 4. Back
43
Proposed new s. 8A Children Act 2004, inserted by draft clause
8, defining the children and young people aged 18-24 who currently
fall within the remit of the Children's Rights Director. Back
44
Proposed new s. 8A(6) Children Act 2004. Back
| 
