| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we on these Benches very much welcome that the Government have accepted the principle that the commissioner should be confined to England. We asked for that at Second Reading and the National Assembly certainly wanted it. In Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12 and 15, we
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1416
have sought to tidy up the Bill in precisely the same way as the Government are tidying it up, so as to remove unnecessary references to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Amendment No. 15, we have sought to make it clear that the Children's Commissioner will work with the commissioners for the respective countries on matters that are of a broad interest—such as children's rights and interests throughout the United Kingdom—and that the Children's Commissioner for England will also work with the appropriate commissioners on individual matters that concern children in those countries. I hope that we shall hear from the Government that these tidying up amendments are accepted.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful for that response and for the welcome given to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12 and 15 revisit the issue of the commissioner's role on UK-wide matters and his relationship with the other UK Children's Commissioners. As the amendments are rather complex and difficult to unpick, I want to go through them carefully. I shall start by explaining their consequences and why we cannot accept them as they are, and then set out in more detail the effect.
The package of amendments is clearly designed to follow through, as the noble Lord said, the consequences of what has happened to Clause 2. The current text of Clause 2, as amended by your Lordships' House on Report, restricts the commissioner's general function to England only. As I said, that is now a matter for debate in the other place. At the end of my remarks I shall say a few words on where we are in our discussions.
These amendments seek to "tidy up" the commissioner's other functions in the light of that change; so there is a logic in them. They are focused more on England than the other countries in the UK. However, if I may summarise, the consequence of the amendments would be to create a commissioner who can still carry out inquiries into non-devolved matters in the UK but who will be stripped of formal inquiry powers and who—I think this must be unintentional and I shall explain how it happened—will now be able to carry out inquiries into devolved matters across the UK as well. The result will be a gap in provision following from the fact that there will no longer be a commissioner who is able to carry out an effective inquiry into a non-devolved issue. I am sure that noble Lords would not want to see that.
I turn to the amendments in order to outline the specific effect of the amendments. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would remove the commissioner's inquiry powers, such as the power to call witnesses and evidence, when he is carrying out his own inquiries into individual cases in relation to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 similarly remove the commissioner's inquiry powers when he is carrying out inquiries directed by the Secretary of State in relation to those countries. The commissioner would still be able to carry out inquiries into non-devolved matters throughout the UK, but he would be gravely weakened. He would be left with no
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1417
formal inquiry powers to back him up, only the hope that goodwill will prevail and witnesses will co-operate.
As I explained earlier, government amendment No. 14 removes Clause 6(1) and (2) as those provisions are consequential on the new Clause 2 England-only arrangements. By also removing Clause 6(3) and (4), however, Amendment No. 15 would remove the measures that we have currently set down in Clause 6 to reflect the realities of devolution and which prevent the commissioner carrying out his own inquiries into devolved matters. This will allow the commissioner to carry out inquiries, albeit without any formal powers, into devolved matters in other parts of the UK. I am sure that that was not the intention of noble Lords. Amendment No. 15 would also replace the existing Clause 6 with a requirement on the commissioner to consult and work together with the other commissioners on matters concerning rights and interests throughout the UK.
So, the overall effect would be rather paradoxical. The commissioner would be unable to carry out effective inquiries into non-devolved matters because he would be stripped of his formal powers of inquiry. He would still be able to carry out inquiries but they would not be meaningful. Given that the other UK commissioners are prevented from doing so at all, we would create a situation where no commissioner is able to carry out robust, effective inquiries into cases of individual children across the UK where the case is a non-devolved matter. I would argue that that would leave an unacceptable gap in provision for children who are affected by non-devolved issues such as immigration. Again, I am sure that that was not an intentional outcome.
I understand what noble Lords have tried to do. They have tried to address the gap through Amendment No. 15, by requiring the commissioner to work closely with his UK counterparts. We do not believe that that goes far enough to replace what we have now, which is a commissioner who has the necessary powers to carry out effective, independent inquiries into non-devolved matters and to report back to Westminster where the decisions on those matters are made.
So, although I cannot accept the amendments, I would hope to reassure noble Lords, as I have done throughout the passage of the Bill at every stage, that the whole issue of the commissioner's role in the UK and his relationship with the other commissioners is something that we have taken, and continue to take, very seriously indeed.
I described our intentions at Report stage. We are currently urgently considering ways of paving the way for effective working between the commissioners so that they can be the first port of call and single initial point of contact for children in those countries. Officials at the Department for Education and Skills are working extremely hard with colleagues across the UK to find a way forward to which all four nations can agree, and we hope to be able to offer something to
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1418
that end when the Bill reaches another place. As I said on Report, that is the point that we have reached. I hope that noble Lords will think that that is sufficient.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed. There has been relevant debate on these aspects of the Bill at all stages and we have certainly enjoyed contributing to that. With those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 2:
"( ) In carrying out his functions under this section the Commissioner must have regard to the importance of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the wellbeing of children."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this amendment at Third Reading because I was unable to move it on Report due to the success of a major opposition amendment to Clause 2. This House and indeed many of the children's charities have, on various grounds, been seriously concerned about the powers and duties which the Government plan for the commissioner. One of those grounds for concern was that he has no obligation to work with or to take into account the views of parents and others caring for children.
On Report the Government introduced an extremely helpful and important amendment to Clause 7. It may be helpful if I quote it. It stated:
"In making arrangements under this section a children's services authority in England must have regard to the importance of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the well-being of children".
Many noble Lords welcomed that amendment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has obviously persuaded her colleagues that it was a good idea. However, it does not touch on the work of the commissioner. Surely, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I believe that the same clause or one slightly adapted as it must be, as in my amendment, should appear in the directions for the commissioner in Clause 2.
Before we pass the Bill on to another place, I should like to hear the Minister either accept the amendment in principle or give the House a convincing reason why it should not be accepted. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Northbourne. He has consistently argued that the Bill should have a greater recognition of the important role of parents. Indeed, it was fairly amazing that there was no mention of parents when it first appeared. As he has acknowledged, the Government have made a concession in Clause 7.
I have read the extremely helpful letter sent to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, explaining some of the background to the establishment of the various objectives and a copy of the conclusions of Aim High: Stay Real. I could not help but notice the groups which were consulted. The children's own views identified
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1419
friends and family, parents and carers. They would be expected to identify them and they did so. The importance for children was family and home. The practitioners' views were health and emotional well-being. I would interpret—and we will come to it later—emotional well-being as very much a role for parents and carers. So I quickly but heartedly support my noble friend's amendment and hope that we can ensure that the children's commissioner will have that duty.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |