| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, we on these Benches also support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We are of course aware of the importance of parents and families to the emotional well-being of children. We think that it would be a good signal of the Government's intent for the commissioner and his or her obligation to consult and involve parents at every stage of his or her work if such a phrase were to be put into the Bill.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. If this form of words, which we welcome very much, in Clause 7 is the right one for co-operation between agencies, I cannot see why it should not be equally important in the general function of the commissioner.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I share noble Lords' respect for the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in consistently reminding us and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, ensuring that the Government take seriously the question of parents. I am grateful for noble Lords' support and endorsement of our amendment.
I have to say that I disagree with what the noble Lord seeks to do for a very straightforward and simple reason. We have set up the commissioner with your Lordships' assistance in helping us to refine the post—and perhaps sometimes taking us in slightly different directions—in such a way that the commissioner is clearly focused around children and focused as an independent body looking to support and protect children in all the right ways in order to make sure their voices are heard.
I was particularly struck when the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about involving parents at each and every stage. That might not always be the best way forward for children and young people. Young people need to feel that the commissioner is for them; mum and dad or their carer or foster parents are important people, but not so important in the commissioner's eyes as they are. That is the way it should be.
The reason I do not want the provision on the face of the Bill is not in any way to detract from the critical importance of parents, carers and family—far from it—but to say that the focus for the commissioner is around children and young children. To have even one very important group added as one to which the commissioner must have particular regard, changes the focus. So, with all respect and with an absolute understanding of the critical role of parents and carers,
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1420
I just want the Bill to be crystal clear that the commissioner's job and responsibilities are around children and young people.
I am sure that part and parcel of the work of the commissioner will be that he or she will be talking to organisations and to parents and carers. But I would not want that on the face of the Bill for the reasons that I have given.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept that in the spirit in which it is given. I think the amendment changes the focus and that would be a pity. On that basis, I hope he will withdraw it.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I asked for an explanation and I got one, although I am not wholly happy about it. I recognise the Government's intention is to put children at the very centre of the commissioner's work, but I think that when talking about children they are thinking of teenagers in particular. I know that younger children have opinions. But in varying degrees as they get younger and younger their opinions are perhaps influenced by short-term considerations and a lack of knowledge of the world around them; and parents and carers have a role to play in interpreting the needs and wishes of younger children. I should like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that half the nation's children are under the age of 13.
We must not think that teenagers represent children. Indeed, teenagers often have a special agenda which is different from that of younger children. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 3:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 3 and to speak to Amendment No. 4. They also tidy up Clause 2. Amendment No. 3 to subsection (5) of Clause 2 proposes that the power to enter institutional premises and interview children, if necessary in private, should not only apply to the commissioner's general functions under Clause 2, but to the whole of Part 1.
The purpose is to ensure that the commissioner has this power when carrying out a formal inquiry under either Clauses 4 or 5. While we understand that the powers given to the commissioner in relation to formal inquiries include the right to summon witnesses and so on—and that is very welcome—they may not always be appropriate for children, and it may be necessary to enter premises and interview children in the course of an inquiry. So, we need this amendment to ensure that the commissioner has the full range of powers he needs to carry out the job.
Amendment No. 4 amends Clause 2(10) in a similar way. It would ensure that the extended definition of children, which we put into Clause 2 to include care leavers, young people in custody to the age of 22 and young people with disabilities to the age of 21, applies not only to the commissioner's general functions
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1421
under Clause 2, but to the whole of Part 1, thus including the power to carry out formal inquiries under either Clauses 4 or 5 and the relationship with the other commissioners under Clause 6. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward as we have debated these issues. As noble Lords know, we agree with the need for the power of entry in Clause 2 and that the commissioner's remit should be extended to include certain vulnerable groups of young children over the age of 18.
Looking specifically at Amendment No. 3, the reason that the Government sought to include the power of entry in Clause 2 was to ensure that under the more manageable general role that the Government still want to see for the commissioner, he or she would have the power to make sure he could seek the views of all children. Should the commissioner be carrying out an inquiry under Clauses 4 or 5, it would be in a more formal context. He or she would be able to summon witnesses and to take evidence under oath. There is simply no need to make the extension that the noble Baroness is seeking under the provisions of Clause 2(5), as it is already covered. Therefore, it is unnecessary. I have taken advice to ensure that is correct. If there is anything further to add, I will get the note now.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, the Minister will have noticed from my face that I am rather puzzled. Is she confirming that there is no need to give a special power to enter premises under these circumstances because that is already covered in what we have done to the Bill? If she is, I am satisfied; if not, I am not satisfied.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed, my Lords. The noble Baroness would be right not to be satisfied. My understanding is that because we moved from a general power, which is about how to ensure that the commissioner can talk to all children, as we discussed on Report to the more formal powers of conducting an inquiry, the rules around formal powers come into being. Therefore, it is unnecessary to have both. He does not need to have those powers because he has the power to summon people to him in any event, so it is not an issue.
I have checked with the officials, and I understand why the noble Baroness is looking puzzled. If I discover that I have in any way misled the House by saying that, we will correct it in another place. My understanding is that we simply do not need it, because the nature of the formal powers means that the commissioner does not have the problem—which we sought to address under the other part—that he could not get access to children. Because he has formal powers under the inquiry, he does have access to children. The two merge to meet the same end.
It may not look like that, but I am reassured that that is the effect. Of course, if that is wrong I will correct it. There is no difference between us; that is
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1422
what we both seek to achieve. I understand why the noble Baroness has brought this forward and I am grateful, but the effect is the same; the commissioner can reach the children that he needs to reach, because the powers enable him to do that. I will confirm that in another way, but the House can be reassured that is right.
I can see the logic behind Amendment No. 4, but I must resist it, partly for reasons of principle and partly on pragmatic grounds. The Government do not accept that when young offenders reach the age of 18 they are still "children". In the judicial system they are adults. Although I understand completely that noble Lords who have concerns about young offenders in our institutions would wish the commissioner to have some role, we have strong views about making sure that the commissioner is focused in the right way. The concerns about young adults in institutions need to be addressed in a different way by those who have responsibility for them. There is no desire on my part to run away or move away from resolving those issues. We simply do not believe that the commissioner can resolve all noble Lords' concerns.
I accept that there may be a stronger case in relation to care leavers and young people with learning disabilities, but the amendment as worded is defective, and I must oppose it for that reason. I made a commitment to widening the scope of the commissioner's remit to include young adults leaving care and those with learning disabilities. As noble Lords will know, I was not able to do that because of the adoption of the revised Clause 2 on a non-government amendment, which had more far-reaching provisions than those we were contemplating. I stand by that commitment, and I indicated on Report that there were issues about making the drafting more effective. Another place must look at Clause 2 and determine what it wishes to do. I stand by our commitment to ensure that the commissioner's remit is extended in an appropriate and legally accurate manner to cover those groups. I apologise to the House that I cannot do that now, but it must go to another place to ensure that the legal drafting is correct.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness in respect of Amendment No. 3 that the commissioner can do what the noble Baroness wishes him to do. Our commitment to take forward learning disabilities and young people leaving care shows that we wish to do what the House wants us to do. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |