Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill

Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2001.

Standing Committee F

Clause 3 - Review of exercise of functions of Assembly and other persons

Barry Jones (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 12, in page 2, line 33, at end insert—

`(2A) The Secretary of State may lay before Parliament an order to amend this section or Schedule 2A by—

(a) adding any person to that Schedule;

(b) omitting any person from that Schedule;

(c) altering the description of any person mentioned in that Schedule; or

(d) making provision specifying, in respect of a person mentioned in that Schedule and specified in the order, a function of the person which although exercisable in relation to Wales is not to be treated as such for the purpose of subsection (1)(b).'.

No. 13, in page 2, line 34, after `(2)', insert `or (2A)'.

No. 16, in clause 4, page 4, line 35, after `Assembly', insert

`, with the consent of the Secretary of State'.

No. 30, in page 4, line 45, at end insert—

`(5AA) The Secretary of State may lay before Parliament an order to amend this section or Schedule 2B by—

(e) adding any person to that Schedule;

(f) omitting any person from that Schedule;

(g) altering the description of any person mentioned in that Schedule; or

(h) making provision specifying, in respect of a person mentioned in that Schedule and specified in the order, services which although provided by the person are not to be treated as such for the purposes of the exercise of the Commissioner's functions.'.

No. 31, in page 5, line 1, after `(5A)', insert `or (5AA)'.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I shall not repeat the arguments that I advanced at our previous sitting on Thursday 25 January as they are recorded in Hansard. Opposition Members are anxious to stick to the Bill's timetable, so, God willing, we shall complete our proceedings today.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend may have inadvertently made a small error. We are under no commitment to end our proceedings in Committee today, although we may well do so.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I was not making a commitment to finish our proceedings today, just saying that I hoped that we would be able to do so.

The amendments give powers to the Assembly and, more particularly, to the Secretary of State, to extend the Children's Commissioner's remit beyond those matters that are devolved to the National Assembly for Wales to non-devolved areas that may be described as cross-border issues. At our previous sitting, I referred to several issues, including some non-devolved issues that were specifically Welsh, such as S4C, whose privatisation the Conservative party is not favour of, which we compared with the Welsh Language Board, both of which may have areas that cross over with each other, yet the Children's Commissioner will have a remit over only one of those areas.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

One matter causes me concern. Amendments Nos. 12 and 30 would authorise the Secretary of State laying before Parliament orders to amend schedules 2A and 2B by

adding any person to that Schedule . . . omitting any person from that Schedule . . . altering the description of any person mentioned in that Schedule.

The amendments would give the Secretary of State much power and could be seen as an attempt by the Conservative party to ensure that if, in future, the electorate returns a Government of a different colour, the Secretary of State for Wales would possess greater powers than the National Assembly with regard to the welfare of children. That is another example of the Conservative party attempting to restrict the powers of the Assembly.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to ask a question on the issue. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond. Does the Secretary of State still have the power to make such orders? Under the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the devolution settlement, such powers would, by and large, have been passed to the National Assembly.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I have similar suspicions about the issue. We must keep a clear focus on the fact that the Children's Commissioner for Wales is accountable almost exclusively to the National Assembly. We have previously debated widening the commissioner's remit to include non-devolved issues. When the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) sums up the debate, will he clarify some of the problems involved?

The commissioner has basic powers to monitor, review and report on all matters that may affect the human rights of children in Wales. That does not conflict with the devolution settlement. The commissioner could be given powers, similar to those of the Assembly under section 33 of the Government of Wales Act, to consider and make appropriate representation about matters affecting children in Wales. I am concerned that the amendments may water down the powers of the Assembly by transferring to the Secretary of State powers that could be adequately carried out by the Assembly.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Like the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), I am concerned that the amendments appear to extend the devolution settlement by putting non-devolved matters into a list, but giving powers to the Secretary of State over devolved matters. Have the official Opposition thought about the implications of such amendments? Some of them are very prescriptive. For example, if the amendments were made, the National Assembly for Wales would not be able to change the name of the Care Council for Wales without the permission of the Secretary of State. The amendments have difficult implications, which the Opposition do not seem to have not thought through completely.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

Before we chase the issue, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, this, to use the words of the current Government, is joined-up government. We are trying to extend the powers of the Children's Commissioner so that his remit extends to cross-border and non-devolved matters. Clearly, the commissioner could not derive those powers from the National Assembly, because it has no remit over such matters. The Secretary of State, however, does. To join everything up, the amendment would bring the Secretary of State into the decision-making process in adding and subtracting people from the schedule. It is simply a case of joined-up government.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but, as a consequence of the amendments, should the National Assembly for Wales wish to change the name of one of the bodies listed in the schedules, the Secretary of State would have to grant permission. That is not in the spirit of the devolution settlement.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I side more with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) on the amendments than with the official Opposition, so it is back to normal.

I understand that the intended effect of the amendments is, as the hon. Member for North Dorset said, to widen the range of bodies that could be included in the commissioner's jurisdiction. That would be done through the framework that the hon. Gentleman mentioned of vesting order-making powers in the Secretary of State, rather than in the Assembly. The points made by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire are valid.

The Committee has debated at length the principle of the commissioner's jurisdiction, which falls within devolved spheres and, therefore, relates to bodies with functions in the Assembly's devolved areas of responsibility, so the order-making power proposed in the amendments to add bodies in future should be underpinned by such a principle. The amendments are not consistent with the principle of allowing the Assembly maximum discretion in secondary legislation.

Clauses 3 and 4 give the Assembly discretion to amend the list of bodies proposed in schedules 2A and 2B, but they do so in particular defined circumstances, which are essentially those that I have often mentioned in Committee. The Assembly must have a locus in the devolved or shared responsibility for those bodies. The Bill requires the Secretary of State's consent only if the relevant body is not 50 per cent. funded by the Assembly. That is an important principle, but under the Bill the Secretary of State cannot add bodies unilaterally. That chimes with the comments of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire.

That condition echoes the condition specified in the Government of Wales Act under which the Assembly may add bodies to the Welsh Administration ombudsman's remit. The most obvious examples of such bodies will be those whose functions span both devolved and non-devolved fields of responsibility. The Secretary of State may give his consent if the funding condition is not fulfilled, but the body would still have to have functions in devolved areas of responsibility.

I accept the spirit of the amendments, which would require the Secretary of State's consent in all circumstances. As my hon. Friends said, the amendments would also allow the Secretary of State to make orders amending the schedules. Given that the Bill relates solely to Wales and bodies with functions in devolved spheres of responsibility, I accept that it would be an unacceptable interference in the Assembly's responsibility to give an order-making power to the Secretary of State over aspects that are rightly the Assembly's responsibility.

If the Assembly's spheres of responsibility are to be extended in future, the range of bodies that the Assembly could add to the commissioner's jurisdiction, with or without the Secretary of State, would be extended accordingly, reflecting the wider range of bodies coming within the devolved field. Any extension of the Assembly's functions is a matter for primary legislation, considered by the House; further transfer of functions orders; further legislation; or motions and procedures that are subject to affirmative resolution and therefore open to consideration by hon. Members.

It is important to give the Assembly flexibility to examine its spheres of responsibility and not to allow the Assembly unilaterally to stray into non-devolved spheres or allow the Secretary of State unilaterally, without reference to the House, to add functions to the Assembly. Given the comments of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and my hon. Friends, those arguments—

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Is my hon. Friend saying that, constitutionally, it would be in order for the Secretary of State to have the order-making powers provided for in the Bill, although, technically, the Government of Wales Act handed those powers over to the Assembly. What is the constitutional propriety of that? Is anything permitted in relation to an Act of Parliament, simply because we do not have a written constitution?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

If the Bill were to give the Secretary of State the powers mentioned by my hon. Friend, he could make the necessary orders. However, we must ask whether the House and the Assembly would consider that desirable; given the devolution settlement, I do not think that they would. The Assembly and the House can examine areas within their spheres of influence. If we adopted the amendments, we would give the Secretary of State greater influence over the daily running of the Assembly than is allowed under the devolution settlement.

I hope that the hon. Member for North Dorset will reflect on that and on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, and withdraw the amendment.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

We are dealing with primary legislation, and it is within the House's power to legislate as it thinks fit throughout the United Kingdom. The Government of Wales Act 1998 should not act as a constraint on our powers. The areas devolved to the Assembly are not the only ones in which there is child abuse or a challenge to children's rights. Several bodies in Wales that have not been devolved to the Assembly under the Government of Wales Act 1998 should come within the remit of the Children's Commissioner.

I sensed, from some remarks, that the Act was perceived as a constitution in defiance of which we could not legislate. It is not; it is an Act of Parliament that gives devolved powers in secondary legislation and administrative matters to the Assembly. This House is the one that legislates, and it is appropriate that it should do in the interests of joined-up government. Under the Bill, the Assembly has discretion, but in relation only to devolved bodies. The Minister suggested that the Secretary of State would be involved in the list of bodies that might come under the commissioner's remit if there were certain levels of joint funding. The amendments would tidy up that process, giving order-making powers to the Secretary of State, not simply as an individual but with the consent of the House. Therefore, there would be a democratic constraint on him.

From the Minister's comments and from the tone of the interventions, I suspect that we will not win the argument at this point. However, we may readdress the matter on Report or in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 10, leave out

`by members of the public'.

Barry Jones (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 15, in page 3, line 12, leave out

`, or of steps taken following,'.

No. 34, in clause 4, page 5, line 24, leave out

`, or of steps taken following'.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

There is a point of principle here that the Committee should discuss. Amendment No. 14 deals with clause 3(5), which is a catch-all subsection. It states:

`An order under subsection (2) must not add to Schedule 2A a person whose sole main activity is—

(a) the investigation of complaints by members of the public about the actions of any other person;'

That means that if someone else is already involved in the game, the Commissioner cannot have a role to play. I am not sure that we would intend that constraint to fall on the Commissioner. It is entirely appropriate that in certain areas of activity, when other bodies are investigating complaints, the Commissioner may like to say, ``But the manner in which you are investigating those complaints is against the best interests of the children involved,'' and may wish to comment on the complaints procedure.

Complaints by members of the public could cover a range of activities. The one that springs to mind is police activity. We have already said that we feel that the Commissioner should have a remit when children are in police custody, and when the police are investigating crimes that are alleged to have been committed by children. We do not suggest that the Commissioner should investigate those crimes, but that he should have a say in the way in which children are treated in police custody.

In order to achieve that, it is appropriate to delete the reference to

``the investigation of complaints by members of the public'',

as amendment No. 14 would. Investigation of complaints by members of the public covers principally complaints against the police, but it could cover complaints against local government involving the ombudsman, where children are either the subject of the complaint, the complainants or witnesses to an investigation. To put that constraint on the Children's Commissioner could rule out his becoming involved. The Committee should think seriously about that. I am not entirely happy that the phrasing of our amendment will achieve the desired objective—the subsection may need a fundamental rewrite to put the point across—the reason for tabling the amdts, however, is to open up the discussion.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned complaints relating to the police and to local government. In the latter case, an independently established ombudsman investigates complaints by members of the public. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Children's Commissioner should be able to investigate the ombudsman in case the latter does not do his job properly? If he is saying that about an independently established body such as the local government ombudsman, why not raise the same question about the Children's Commissioner himself? Yet that is gainsaid by the amdts. I understand about the police complaints authority, but not about independently established ombudsmen such as the one for local government.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

If the local government ombudsman were looking at a specific complaint of maladministration in a local authority social services department in relation to children's services, it would not be desirable, in the interests of joined-up government, for the Children's Commissioner to be silent on the matter while the ombudsman carried out his investigation. I want to find an accommodation within the Bill whereby the Children's Commissioner would be considered by the ombudsman to be the more appropriate body to consider that kind of complaint, rather than the ombudsman himself.

The amendments are probing and are intended to tease out where the line lies in relation to complaints about children's services, children in care or children in custody, when another complaints procedure exists. To rule the Children's Commissioner out of court in relation to such an investigation of complaints by members of the public is not necessarily the appropriate way forward. I shall be interested to learn how the Minister regards the interplay between the Children's Commissioner and other bodies with a view to making sure that complaints involving children, children's services, children in care or children in custody are satisfactorily investigated.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The Minister needs to clarify this aspect of the Bill. I understand from what the hon. Member for North Dorset said that the amendment is probing, but it begs some questions. Subsection (5) states:

``An order under subsection (2) must not add to Schedule 2A a person whose sole or main activity is—

(a) the investigation of complaints by members of the public about the actions of any person''.

Under the amendment, the words

``by members of the public''

will be removed.

That would have many ramifications if, for example, a member of the public complained to the NSPCC about what was going on in a children's home, or if Children in Wales received a complaint. I would not want a member of the public not to have the right to make such representations, and have them examined, perhaps in relation to a complaint by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which might then go to the Children's Commissioner.

Many of the amendments under consideration are of the same ilk and have the same function. Will the Minister tell the Committee how this part of the Bill should be interpreted? Amendment No. 34 would remove the words,

``, or of steps taken following''.

Presumably, the steps taken following an investigation have been thoroughly examined, and I would have thought that one of the commissioner's functions should be to look at the effect of those steps, which should improve the way in which children are treated in a certain place, or in general. A number of issues need to be spelled out, and I hope that they will be.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

The amendments are difficult to understand, but the hon. Member for North Dorset has said that they are not to be taken literally but are designed to explore the issues behind them. Those issues are important. They concern the relationship of the commissioner with other independent bodies that investigate complaints, and I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The provisions that the amendments would alter were inserted by the Government with a clear purpose, which I hope to be able to explain to the Committee. Essentially, it is to prevent the commissioner from reviewing the activities of other bodies set up to deal with complaints by members of the public or to monitor investigations by such bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend brought much of his ministerial experience to bear in his intervention, which highlighted the Government's concerns. There is a similar provision in schedule 9 to the Government of Wales Act relating to the Welsh administration ombudsman. The key to the Government's position is the idea that there should not be confusion between the roles of broadly similar bodies.

The amendments have several different effects. Amendment No. 14 would restrict the order-making power further by preventing bodies from being subject to review by the commissioner if their principal activity were investigation of any complaint about the actions of anyone in particular. At present the restriction relates to bodies who investigate complaints by members of the public. The amendment appears to be intended to widen the restriction to encompass a body, if such a body existed, whose role was to investigate complaints other than those of the public. I hope that Opposition Members do not want to restrict the potential in the Bill to add bodies to the commissioner's jurisdiction where it is sensible to do so.

Amendments Nos. 15 and 34 would have the opposite effect. They would narrow the existing restrictions so as not to exclude bodies whose main activity might be to follow up an investigation. However, that activity is closely associated with the remaining words of the provision, which speaks of

``supervision or review of . . . an investigation''.

It would be more sensible to retain the provision as drafted.

I hear what hon. Members have said about the amendments. In essence, our aim is to ensure that there is not confusion between the roles of similar bodies. The Welsh local government ombudsman and the Children's Commissioner, have different roles in dealing with the public. It is important to have clarity about those roles and not to involve one body in examining the concerns of another body.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

In seeking my hon. Friend's advice and guidance, I am partly interpreting what I believe the Opposition are seeking to do, in one amendment at least. It would not be appropriate to specify the local government ombudsman in a schedule to this Bill, but if he were investigating a social services case involving child abuse, when the investigation was over and the recommendations made, would it be appropriate for the Children's Commissioner to say, ``Yes, I am pleased that this has been done. It was a good job on behalf of children.''? Or might he even say, ``Yes, this is really good—and it could be improved by local government doing this, that or the other,'' simply by way of informal advice?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

That would depend on the context and the issues that arose, but I cannot see any difficulty. It is important to differentiate between the roles and responsibilities of the local government ombudsman and those of the Children's Commissioner, and the amendment could cause confusion in those roles, leading to difficulties in the interpretation of the Bill compared with that of other Acts of Parliament.

I recognise that many questions that hon. Members have raised may not have been adequately answered in detail, but the Government want to emphasise that the amendments might lead to confusion—and that confusion is exactly what the clarity of Bill is designed to avoid. I therefore ask the hon. Member for North Dorset to withdraw the amendment.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I am a little worried that our concern seems to be about administrative convenience and neatness rather than the investigation of complaints about children's services. It is central to the Bill that children are the people about whom we are concerned. We are not necessarily concerned about the niceties of whether the local government ombudsman has his empire imposed upon by the Children's Commissioner. That is something that we as politicians must sort out in drafting legislation, and ensure that it has the best possible effect on the children we seek to protect.

As I have said, the amendments seek to tease out from the Minister his response to our concern that in order to preserve the remit of, for example, the local government ombudsman or any other ombudsman or investigatory body, we are limiting the powers of the Children's Commissioner. I am not sure that that is in the best interests of children. I am not sure that our probing amendments would be sufficient to achieve that end, but we were seeking the Minister's response. We may need to revisit the subject as we proceed, and their Lordships may want to look at it in the other place.

In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Barry Jones (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

With this we will take the following amendments: No, 36, in schedule, page 8, line 3, at end insert—

`( ) Any police authority in Wales'.

No. 37, in line 3, at end insert—`( ) the Prison Service'.

No. 38, in line 3, at end insert—`( ) the Inland Revenue'.

No. 39, in line 3, at end insert—

`( ) the Air Training Corps in Wales'.

No. 40, in line 3, at end insert—

`( ) the Army Cadet Corps in Wales'.

No. 41, in line 3, at end insert—

`( ) the Combined Cadet Corps in Wales'.

No. 50, in line 3, at end insert—`( ) the Benefits Agency'.

No. 51, in line 3, at end insert—`( ) the Charity Commission'.

No. 52, in line 3, at end insert—

`( ) the Commission for Racial Equality'.

No. 53, in line 3, at end insert—`( ) the Crown Prosecution Service'.

No. 54, in line 3, at end insert—`( ) the Employment Service'.

No. 55, in line 3, at end insert—`( ) the Food Standards Agency'.

No. 56, in line 3, at end insert—

`( ) the Health and Safety Executive'.

No. 57, in line 3, at end insert—`( ) HM Customs and Excise'.

No. 58, in line 3, at end insert—

`( ) the Maritime and Coastguard Agency'.

No. 59, in line 3, at end insert—

`( ) the National Criminal Intelligence Service'.

No. 60, in line 3, at end insert—`( ) National Savings'.

No. 61, in line 3, at end insert—

`( ) Office of the National Lottery'.

No. 62, in line 3, at end insert—`( ) the Youth Justice Board'.

No. 63, in line 3, at end insert—`( ) the Radio Authority'.

No. 64, in line 3, at end insert—`( ) the British Broadcasting Corporation'.

No. 65, in line 3, at end insert—`( ) Sianel Pedwar Cymru'.

No. 66, in line 3, at end insert—`( ) the Independent Television Commission'.

No. 67, in line 3, at end insert—`( ) the Child Support Agency'.

Hon. Members will have noted that part I of the schedule—the proposed schedule 2A to the Care Standards Act 2000—is closely tied to clause 3. I have therefore selected the proposed amendments to part I of the schedule for discussion during this clause stand part debate. I shall be content for hon. Members to discuss part I of the schedule more widely if it will make for a more effective debate. If hon. Members wish to put any of the amendments to the schedule to the vote, they should make that known to me or to my fellow Chairman. We shall call the amendments formally when we reach that part of the Bill.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am grateful, Mr. Jones, for your guidance, as I am sure is the Committee. The Bill is a relatively short, and when I first looked at schedule 2A and went through the bodies mentioned in it, I wondered what connection some of them had with the Children's Commissioner for Wales. I scratched my head when I saw in the list a national park authority for a national park in Wales and the Arts Council of Wales, and wondered how the powers of the commissioner might impinge upon those various bodies, what recommendations he might make, what research or inquiries—

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

It is wonderful to see the hon. Gentleman. I am delighted to give way to him.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Once again, he has not thought the matter through. For example, the Arts Council of Wales has a children's theatre.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I fully accept that when one thinks more deeply about the list it starts to make more sense. For example, why include the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales? I am not saying that children would not have an interest in those areas, but that does not readily spring to mind when we read the list of the various bodies in proposed new schedule 2A. Similarly, the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Language Board and the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting are listed. Some suggest themselves more readily than others. What ties those bodies together is that the National Assembly for Wales has authority over them.

I do not wish to dwell on the issue because, as hon. Members will see, our amendments Nos. 36 to 41 and 50 to 67 list many other bodies, and I could quite easily stand here until 7 o'clock this evening saying something about each of them—[Interruption.] Excitement has built up in the Committee at that prospect.

Barry Jones (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

Order. The hon. Gentleman might be willing to stay here until 7 o'clock, but I am not.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am sure that when you have read the reports of previous Committees that have dealt with various different bodies, Mr. Jones, you will have seen that detail was included about some of them. I do not intend to repeat any previous contributions that I might have made.

There seems to be general agreement that we want to ensure that the Children's Commissioner for Wales will not be straitjacketed in any way. The Minister has told us that the commissioner's budget is limited to approximately £800,000. We are told that he should concentrate on the core issues, and should not become involved in highly charged party political issues. At the same time, he will able to comment on issues outside the core areas, but in an informal way. I hope that that summation of the Children's Commissioner's role is accurate.

Our amendments would ensure that the Children's Commissioner in no way felt inhibited. We have listed a number of different bodies that suggest themselves as much as the bodies contained in proposed new schedule 2A. They do not fall within the direct powers of the National Assembly, so they are regarded as being outside the core areas. The bodies mentioned in our amendments, such as the Army Cadet Corps, the Combined Cadet Corps and so forth, are directly involved in services to children.

As for others, such as the Benefits Agency, we would not expect the Children's Commissioner to comment directly on the amount of money being given in benefits for children, but if there were any problems with the payment of benefits already announced by Government, or with the guidance to parents as to the benefits available, I would expect the commissioner to comment. He may not feel able to do that under the Bill as drafted, because the function is not a core function.

When the Government make announcements on social security matters, they can be complicated, especially if means-testing is involved, and claimants are required to fill out several pages of forms to claim the benefits. We all know that under successive Governments, some benefits have been underclaimed. Without going into the issue of fraud and overclaiming, we can agree that it would help people if forms were simplified, or if more information were made available to claimants. If the Benefits Agency were identified in the Bill, the Children's Commissioner would be able to examine the system of benefits involving children, and if he felt that the benefits could be better explained, he could get involved.

The Employment Service suggests itself readily, because children will be employed. I declare an interest in that I believe that we have paper boys and girls in our shop in Swansea—we certainly did when I was a youngster. They would not fall directly within the purview of the Employment Service, but, in the light of various experiences, the commissioner may want to make recommendations. The Food Standards Agency clearly suggests itself.

The amendments also refer to the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Independent Television Commission and Sianel Pedwar Cymru, which is safe in our hands. Children watch television, obviously, so the content of programmes is important. Everyone considers himself an expert and comments on that subject. It will not be a core area for the commissioner, but he may want to comment on aspects of programming or the amount of time spent by children in front of the television.

The commissioner may also want to issue guidance and make recommendations about new technology, and the content and availability of the internet in particular. We must make the Bill relevant to the 21st century. There is a digital divide, in that some people have constant access to the internet, while others have none. Children who cannot enjoy the benefits of the internet will be disadvantaged.

In addition to those bodies, we should not forget the Radio Authority—radio is vital. I will not add anything to what I said about the Child Support Agency, as I have already given a lengthy disposition on the subject.

The Government should state why they feel that the Children's Commissioner's power would be sufficient without amending the Bill. I do not claim that our amendments are fully comprehensive, as other bodies might be added. The National Assembly for Wales would not be able to add bodies beyond the area for which it has responsibility without the permission of the Secretary of State for Wales. That is why we devised a list of bodies on which children's issues might impinge. We hope that the commissioner will not be constrained in that respect.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I hope that I do not cause any consternation to my hon. Friend the Minister in saying that I sympathise with the thrust of the amendments. I am pleased that the Opposition's concerns about the fate of children have led them to make a total reverse, or U-turn, in their attitude towards devolution. If the amendments were accepted, the role of the Assembly would be hugely expanded through the Children's Commissioner. They would also drive a cart and horses through the Government of Wales Act—although, during the passage of that Act, the Opposition spent all their time trying to minimise the role of the Assembly.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's comments are causing consternation on the Government Benches, but they certainly are on the Opposition Benches. I have no intention of doing what he suggests. Children come first in our minds as we debate the Bill, so we want to give the commissioner power to overlook those areas that involve children. The Assembly can make whatever statements it likes on subjects that impinge on it. I hope that the annual report, which, it is recommended, should be laid before the Assembly, is laid also before the House, as I am sure that hon. Members will want to comment on services provided for children in Wales.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

The hon. Gentleman almost took up the point that I wanted to make. Given what has been said in Committee and on Second Reading, and in the light of the Government of Wales Act and the power of other Departments, it would not be appropriate to accept the amendments. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Minister has made it clear that the commissioner should not be constrained in commenting on anything that affects children in Wales. In an earlier debate, we also made it clear that the appropriate way to give added strength to what the commissioner says would be to channel his remarks and observations through the National Assembly. The Government of Wales Act could deal with that at an official level, through the Secretary of State for Wales into the Cabinet. If changes in primary legislation were needed, that would be the appropriate way to make them. The mechanisms are in place without having to include all those bodies in the Bill.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The debate mirrors earlier debates in Committee. Although it is important, I suspect that the amendment was tabled to initiate further debate on the subject of an exhaustive list. The Minister rejected wording, similar to that of section 33 of the Government of Wales Act, which would have been appropriate and would have included in the Bill an overarching power for the Commissioner to investigate all matters affecting children in Wales. The wording in that Act is:

`may consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting Wales'.

All we need are the words ``any matter affecting children in Wales''. The Government have rejected that and I suspect that, argue as we will, there will be no change in the Bill. That is unfortunate. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bridgend says, ``Do not be so pessimistic''. He may know more than I do, and I hope that he is right.

Barry Jones (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

Order. The hon. Gentleman should address the Chair. Sedentary remarks are not recorded.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I wonder whether the hon. Member for Bridgend knows more than I do. I hope—no doubt as you do, Mr. Jones—that the hon. Gentleman's qualified optimism will be rewarded later in Committee. I hope that I am in order in making those remarks.

This is the crux of the matter. All hon. Members want the commissioner to be able to deliver the necessary services on behalf of the children of Wales. The wording of section 33 would cover the issue perfectly. Plainly, there will be no movement on the amendment, because of what was said in earlier debates, but will the Minister think again about an extension in the Bill? In our debates on Tuesday last week, Labour Members—especially the hon. Member for Cardiff, North—said that, because of his status, the commissioner would be able to ask for information from various Departments. I come again to my honest belief that, unless it is written into the Bill, Departments will not feel under any pressure to send anything to the commissioner, least of all anything of moment or of relevance to the matter in hand.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

My recollection of what I said in those debates is that any comment of the commissioner would be of sufficient status for it to be noticed. My reference was generally to comments.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but what comment will the commissioner be able to make without knowing what he is commenting on? The commissioner will be viewed as an animal of the National Assembly, so it is only devolved matters that he will be entitled to consider in any depth. The commissioner may comment on various non-devolved matters until the cows come home, but without some reference to the extension of his remit, the Bill will be just words, and nothing else.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I shall reinforce the argument of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who made some pertinent points. We are discussing clause stand part as well as the amendments, which would bring almost exclusively non-devolved organisations into the remit of the Bill. They remind me of an ancient west country rhyme; they should be called the ``Old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all'' amendments. The only things missing are references to Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer and so on.

None the less, I have some sympathy with the amendments. The organisations to which they refer are missing from the Bill. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred to amendment No. 42, which is not now before us. It was a catch-all amendment and stated:

``The Commissioner may make appropriate representations . . . about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children ordinarily resident in Wales.''.

The amendments make up a shopping list of various non-devolved organisations. I draw the Committee's attention to the position of the Army, junior leaders and regiments. Matters relating to them were dealt with in Wales. Indeed, matters of discipline and other unfortunate incidents were dealt with in my constituency. The Ministry of Defence has now referred such matters to Lichfield in Staffordshire, where all young soldiers, whether from Wales or elsewhere, are trained.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

The hon. Gentleman may or may not know that the South Wales Borderers were first established by a corps of troops from Lichfield.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I shall not go too far down the road to Lichfield. The 24th Regiment was originally founded further east, but settled in Brecon, in my constituency, which is where the hon. Gentleman comes from.

What might happen to young Welsh people could happen outside Wales. Four or five years ago, there was a scandal concerning the treatment of young Welsh soldiers in Lichfield. Surely such matters would be of interest to a Children's Commissioner for Wales. If I had pushed amendment No. 42 a little further, it would have taken care of the amendments under discussion. I hope to return to the matter later in our proceedings. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) are honourable, but they make up a shopping list of organisations. Given what the hon. Member for Bridgend said from a sedentary position, perhaps the Government may come up with an appropriate amendment, and a solution can be found to the problem.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

We must recognise the powers that clause 3 gives the Children's Commissioner. That is the key extension of the commissioner's role. It takes the commissioner's functions way beyond those envisaged by the Care Standards Act 2000, which concerned complaints, advocacy and whistleblowing procedures—important though those activities are. The clause gives scope for the commissioner, in the words of the National Assembly's report, to

``raise the profile of children's issues and take an overview of the impact of policies and procedures''.

We must recognise, before we discuss the amendments tabled, that the clause is extremely important in giving extra powers to the commissioner. It introduces a new power for the commissioner to review the exercise or proposed exercise of functions by the National Assembly and other bodies in Wales. The bodies listed in the schedules extend beyond those that provide direct services to children, several of which have been mentioned by Opposition Members. The clause will enable the commissioner to review the impact on children and young people of a wide range of public bodies operating in areas such as economic development, town and country planning, transport, sport and recreation, as well as more obvious areas such as education, training and health care.

The bodies listed are those with significant executive functions in Wales, within the Assembly's areas of responsibility. Before I address the amendments, I want the Committee to recognise that clause 3 and the schedule will give the new Children's Commissioner a wide, roving brief to raise the profile of children's issues across a vast sweep of the public sector in Wales. We must not forget the impact of the clause and the extra powers that it will give to the Children's Commissioner.

I have said previously, and I hope that I have made my views clear to the Committee, that the Government are sympathetic to the need to give the commissioner a wide role. The degree to which we are prepared to do that is reflected in the long list of bodies in schedules 2A and 2B. However, for the sake of clarity, I shall say again that one fundamental principle underlies the selection of those bodies, the presumption of clause 3 and our approach to the roles and responsibilities of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. That underlying principle is that the commissioner is the creation of the National Assembly, with Government support, and of the legislation that we have enabled the Assembly to enact. It is therefore right and proper that the commissioner's functions should coincide with the Assembly's areas of responsibility. I recognise what the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said in that regard, but that is the point that we have reached. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend pointed out, I have said that there are areas in which the commissioner can examine issues, as they arise, beyond that statutory role. However, it is right and proper that the commissioner's core functions should be specified in the Bill.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the bodies listed in the schedule being those operating in areas in which the Assembly has responsibility. One of the amendments would add the Food Standards Agency to that list. I understand that, under the Food Standards Act 1999, the agency is responsible to the National Assembly, as it is to this House and the Scottish Parliament. Would not the food that our children eat and their dietary requirements be an appropriate matter for the commissioner? Should not the Food Standards Agency therefore be added to the list?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a Food Standards Agency in England, and the chairman of the agency, Sir John Krebs, also has a UK responsibility. It is a joint England and Wales body, and the Assembly may, if it so wishes, add it to the list, by order, in due course. No great problems therefore exist in relation to that issue, as it falls within an area in which the Assembly has responsibility.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I want to take the Minister back to what he said, before the intervention by the hon. Member for North Dorset, about the commissioner commenting more widely on matters affecting children in Wales. Does he not agree that the last thing a commissioner will do is to stray from the strict statutory definition of his office, at least in the first few years, as he would be finding his way with the 24 bodies concerned, and the other bodies listed in schedule 2B? The commissioner will therefore be hampered in the performance of his duties in the initial few months. The Minister said more than once that he would be able to comment on things outside the strict definition of devolved matters. However, I have heard no example being given.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I refer the hon. Gentleman to column 72 of the Official Report of Thursday's sitting, when I responded to the points that he made on Tuesday about the substantive difference between what is in the Bill and some of the core issues.

The substantive difference is that the commissioner should comment on core activities—those that are the responsibility of the National Assembly. I must have answered the hon. Gentleman's point to the satisfaction of the Committee, because the amendment was withdrawn. The commissioner can comment on issues more broadly, but there are core functions in relation to which the commissioner must have a role and responsibility. Those functions fall within the responsibilities of the National Assembly as determined by the schedule and reinforced by clause 3, which gives additional powers to the Commissioner.

It is important to keep clear in our minds the distinction between the role of the commissioner and the role of routine child protection arrangements. I have tried to explain to the Committee that the commissioner has a role in ensuring that provisions for protecting children from abuse operate effectively. However, the office is not intended in any way to be a routine part of the regulatory regime. I emphasise that the commissioner cannot replace statutory agencies. He has a wider role in the promotion of children's interests, but is not intended to replace or duplicate those statutory agencies.

In relation to bodies listed in the amendments that have direct contact with children, such as the Prison Service and the Combined Cadet Force, controls exist that are designed to prevent abuse and harm to children within their care or responsibility, and those include the vetting of individuals. I shall take the example given by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire of the army corps based in his constituency. Having consulted the Ministry of Defence, I assure him that systems are in place to protect children and young people in the Army cadet force, the Air Training Corps and the Combined Cadet Force from abuse. For example, in the Combined Cadet Force, the head of service is responsible and ultimately accountable to the Ministry of Defence to ensure that all adult volunteers are vetted as suitable for working with children. Mechanisms are in place to examine the child protection needs within that type of service.

Similar provisions apply to many of the other bodies listed in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. Two of the bodies listed—the Charity Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality—are independent watchdogs in their own right. As was said in the previous debate, it would therefore not be appropriate for the Children's Commissioner's jurisdiction to extend to other commissioner-type bodies, even if they fell within devolved areas of responsibility.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The Minister mentioned bodies operating in Wales. As we all know, people involved in such activities must be vetted. Currently, quite a large charge must be paid for that service by bodies such as the scouts. I understand that the problem has been overcome in Scotland, and that people do not have to pay for the vetting service. Has he any news on the subject in relation to Wales?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I shall examine the matter. . The Government are deeply committed to the voluntary sector, and we recognise the important work that is done. We fully understand the anxieties that have been expressed about the difficult issue of charging a fee. The bureau is working closely with users, and we are examining the issues being raised.

The hon. Gentleman will agree that despite the anxieties that have been expressed, the paramount issue is that we need to provide effective and efficient safeguard systems for the welfare of children. I hope that fees will be kept to the minimum necessary to recoup costs, and that they will be reviewed in the light of the bureau's operations in due course—but we are slightly straying off the point, because such matters are currently being examined. I should like to return to the main part of the debate.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

Not only is vetting an expensive exercise for voluntary organisations, among others, but it is absolutely indispensable that the information available be of the highest possible quality. If volunteers are going to have their reputations destroyed because the records are hopeless, it will do huge and lasting damage. I understand that at the moment such records are shaky.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

We would all agree that accurate records should be available, which reflect the quality of those who work with young people. I am sure that my colleagues in the Home Office will be working towards that end.

My key point, which relates to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, is that mechanisms are in place, and the bureau will help those mechanisms to ensure that people who work with children and young people in the bodies listed in the amendments have the security to ensure that abuse is prevented as far as possible.

To return to the key issue, the—

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Will the Minister give way?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Both the clause and the amendments that were tabled to it are about trying to define the role of the Children's Commissioner. I believe that the clause acts strongly to define and strengthen that role, and I have explained the differences between the amendments and the clause.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I can understand why the Minister wants to move off the point about fees, but we shall drag him back to it, because it is important, especially in cross-border areas. He said that he and his colleagues were examining the issue, but it is a cross-border issue, and it must be examined in Scotland, Wales and England—and in Northern Ireland, too, if it applies there. I am sure that we would all like there to be no fee. Everyone agrees that the requirement for such searches is intended to protect youngsters, but in all voluntary bodies involved with youngsters, enormous pressure is placed on youngsters and parents to pay fees weekly or monthly. The charges may eat into those subscriptions, which is wrong.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Because of the focus of our debate, I shall not discuss the criminal records bureau. I worked in the voluntary sector for many years before entering the House, and the Government fully understand the anxieties that have been expressed in the voluntary sector about the difficult issue of charging a fee. Fees will be kept to the minimum necessary to recoup costs, and in due course the Government will review fees in the light of the bureau's operation.

To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, mechanisms are already in place to examine the bodies listed in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, so I ask him not to press those amendments.

Clause 3 is important. It adds powers, gives strength and develops the role of the Children's Commissioner, but it does so in the context of the National Assembly's roles and responsibilities. The amendments would extend the devolution process. On reflection, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will probably recognise that we should supply the commissioner with core functions and allow him to comment on matters outside those functions. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment to a Division; if he did so, we would have to oppose it.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

The list of bodies has been referred to as a shopping list—and that is what it is. It is not the most convenient or tidiest way of introducing a wider remit into the Bill, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said. I agree with him, too, that in the first few years, the commissioner will have to concentrate on the core issues, because he will be feeling his way. It will take him a long time to bed in, so I am delighted that the post is up and running, and that he is working to make his role known to the various bodies throughout Wales.

It was never the intention of our amendments that the commissioner should replace or duplicate the powers of statutory bodies, but that he should monitor, investigate and comment upon them. We intended the commissioner to make recommendations, and the National Assembly for Wales to consider and debate his comments. If any changes were needed in primary legislation, they would go through the post-devolution procedure. Those routes are complicated and not everyone fully understands them, but I hope that comments made during the procedure would be fully heard here at Westminster. The Secretary of State for Wales should consider the commissioner's recommendations carefully, and speak at the Cabinet table. It should be part of the Secretary of State's role to listen to the Assembly and the commissioner, and if he believes that legislative time is necessary in which to protect our youngsters further, to say so.

I am sure that we will revisit those matters, because there is a consensus in the Committee that the commissioner should not be hamstrung. Each of our attempts to put something into the Bill that would give the commissioner confidence in dealing with areas outside the devolved matters has been hit back by the Minister. However, there may be other opportunities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendments.

Barry Jones (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

The hon. Gentleman did not formally move any of the amendments, so he does not require permission to withdraw them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Review and monitoring of arrangements

Barry Jones (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

If it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss the proposed schedule 2B to the Care Standards Act 2000 in connection with the clause, I shall be happy for members to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Further functions of the commissioner

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 5, line 36, at end insert—

`(2) After subsection (2) insert—

``(2A) The Commissioner shall promote understanding and awareness of the importance of the human rights of children to whom this Part applies and for this purpose he may undertake, commission, or provide financial or other assistance for—

(a) research;

(b) educational activities.''.'.

We do not need to labour the point of the amendment too strongly, because my hon. Friend the Minister's comments—especially those made in the previous debate—should reassure us that everything is being done to ensure that any statutory role for the commissioner is provided for in full. We should also be reassured that the commissioner would have a strong voice as regards other bodies that are not part of the statutory set-up for the Assembly but belong to other Government Departments.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the amendment? We appreciate the broad interpretation of the commissioner's role, which allows him to do almost anything in relation to his functions, by giving advice and information, and so on. However, the commissioner's role is extended by giving the broadest possible interpretation to the Care Standards Act, and the explanatory notes state that the Bill

``encompasses all children in Wales and different sectors and services.''

The amendment would put some flesh on a substantial skeleton, by giving the commissioner the power to

``promote understanding and awareness of the importance of the human rights of children.''

In doing that, he would be able to

``undertake, commission, or provide financial or other assistance for—

(a) research;

(b) educational activities.''

That would give the commissioner a little bit extra power in his role as independent champion for children.

It is important to

``promote understanding and awareness of the importance of the human rights of children'',

because children have been seen as second class citizens, who do not have the same rights as adults, which has resulted in many problems in the treatment of children. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond positively, either by giving an undertaking that the commissioner can do those things, or by taking the amendment away and framing it in some other way that would be more within the spirit of the Bill.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

I hope that among the commissioner's rights and responsibilities will be the obligation to publish his report in terms that are easily accessible to young people. A lot of young people have attended the steering group of United Kingdom Youth Parliament to establish the first Session, which will be at the end of February. That group has urged upon Ministers that White Papers and other policy documents that affect young people should be summarised or put on the web in a form that is easily accessible. I endorse that because, if they can make those documents understandable to young people, they may make them understandable to me. It would be a huge step forward if, as part of his obligations, he were charged to produce a summary report of his activities in a form that young people would find accessible.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

The activities that are spelled out in the amendment are an important part of the commissioner's role, and it is good to highlight them.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley said that it was not obvious how the Welsh Development Agency and the Arts Council for Wales affected children. The commissioner would have an important role in educational activities and research to promote the fact that all activities have a children's dimension and affect their rights. That needs to be spelled out: it is an important part of his role. I feel strongly about the planning process that has been mentioned. When planners sit down to plan, how often do they take into account how their plans will affect children? In planning terms, how are city centres and towns in Wales geared to children? An important part of the commissioner's role is to promote the way in which children are affected by activities that do not fall within the boundaries of health and social services, such as the activities of the national parks authorities and the Sports Council for Wales. That is an important part of the amendment.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I fully support the amendment. Research into children's human rights is important. Children in should be educated and encouraged to look outwards. The current excesses in the violation of children's rights worldwide is frightening—torture, child abuse, sale of children, prostitution, child soldiers, children made refugees because of armed conflict, and the many thousands—millions even—of children dying of disease and hunger, poverty, lack of education and homelessness. All those matters are catered for in the UN charter, but are still going on, and in some places increasing. In the new millennium, we should reflect on that. In spite of the UN convention, child labour, prostitution, hunger, disease, inadequate schooling, drugs, homelessness and the curse of AIDS are increasing. We see refugee camps and children disabled by war; we need to put our house in order. The Bill is not a panacea for all ills, but a commissioner in Wales may at least contribute towards educating children in Wales about the problems of children in other countries. Hopefully, we can look towards a better prospect for children generally in terms of the environment, disease and illiteracy. We owe it to the future of humankind to show that children know exactly what is going on in the big, wide world. The amendment helps to define further the role of the commissioner to assist children in Wales and beyond.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

My name appears on the amendment and, clearly, I support it 100 per cent. An understanding and awareness of the importance of children's human rights is vital, and we should push that further. The children's rights commissioner for the Flemish community in Belgium has specific powers in relation to the Flemish Parliament and Flemish legislation. He has a general duty to defend the rights and interests of the child.

We must remember that, as a result of the Good Friday agreement, there is a Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission that includes the rights of children. If that exists in one part of the United Kingdom there is no reason why it should not exist in another part. It is important to initiate research and educational activities in that respect so that we all understand commitment to children. Creating independent human rights institutions is a mark of a Government's commitment to creating a human rights culture and being accountable for human rights obligations. Setting limits on monitoring and reporting powers defeats the object and calls in question the commitment. The amendment will thus go some way to strengthening the Bill in an important respect.

Like the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, the never-ending series of scandals involving gross violations of children's rights dictates that there must be no compromise whatever in creating a children's champion who can be fearless and unfettered in defending children's rights and welfare. Amendment No. 43 pushes that agenda considerably in the right direction and there is a strong case for the Government to accept it.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Again, we have had useful contributions from hon. Members. In an effort to be helpful to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, the fact that we have not yet accepted amendments does not mean that our debate has not been useful. I hope that it has clarified the intentions of hon. Members, the Government, and the Assembly with regard to the role and responsibilities of the Children's Commissioner. I hope that I can reassure both my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, who moved the amendment, and other hon. Members who have spoken.

I understand that the commissioner can already provide advice and information to any person in connection with his functions by virtue of section 76(3) of the Care Standards Act. There is every reason why such advice and information should extend to the human rights of children. I can put it no more strongly than to say that such rights are central to the commissioner's role and to our role in protecting the rights of children.

Clause 2 sets out the principal aims of the commissioner. I emphasise them because they are key to today's debate. Section 72A of the Care Standards Act states: ``The principal aim of the Commissioner in exercising his functions is to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children to whom this Part applies.''

That principal aim is a strong signal to the commissioner, and to children and community groups, that the commissioner should play a strong role in underpinning the rights of children and be central to those rights.

The way in which advice and information is delivered will be a matter for the commissioner, but I am confident that that principal aim will not leave any doubts at all that the rights of children—as mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend and Cardiff, North and the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, for Faversham and Mid-Kent and for Brecon and Radnorshire—are central to and at the forefront of everything the commissioner does.

The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent made a valuable suggestion about the nature of reports and we will deal with matters relating to reports later. In due course, it will be for the Assembly to specify in regulations the requirements for reports, but I am sure that it will welcome his suggestion, and I shall certainly pass that on for its consideration.

The amendment also refers to the undertaking and commissioning of research and educational activities. The commissioner's general powers under paragraph 5 of schedule 2 to the Care Standards Act 2000 allow him to do anything that seems necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of his functions. They are important powers. There is also a provision under section 76 of the Act whereby the Assembly can make regulations to confer further functions on the commissioner, provided that they are in connection with his core functions.

It will be a matter for the Assembly to consider whether to make such regulations and whether to define them, given that the commissioner has the overarching power that allows him to deal with matters in connection with his functions that seem to him to be necessary and expedient. I hope that members of the Committee will be reassured that the combination of provisions under the Care Standards Act and those in clause 2 of the Bill will provide a framework within which their aspirations are fulfilled.

I wish to place on record that there is no doubt in my mind that the Government believe that, under clause 2, the commissioner can consider the issues that have been raised in Committee. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred to child soldiers, prostitution and slavery. If such issues pertain in any way to those that relate to the commissioner's core responsibilities in Wales, he will consider them. Some matters that have been raised are international issues, so there will be less scope for the commissioner to make representations about them. But let there be no doubt that the word ``rights'' in the Bill will be sufficient for the commissioner to exercise his powers accordingly. I hope that my response has satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I thank my hon. Friend for his positive contribution and for making a strong commitment to the aim of amendment No. 43. I was taken particularly by his saying that the National Assembly for Wales will in any event be able by order to include specific matters in any job description of the Children's Commissioner. Bearing that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Commencement, short title and extent

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 6, line 3, after `Children's', insert `and Youth'.

Barry Jones (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 2—Children's and Youth Commissioner for Wales—

`In section 72 of the Care Standards Act 2000 for the words ``Children's Commissioner for Wales'' there shall be substituted ``Children's and Youth Commissioner for Wales''.'.

Amendment No. 49, in Title, page 1, after `Children's', insert `and Youth'.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

The amendment is interesting. It challenges the title of Children's Commissioner. Proposed new subsection (1A) of section 78 of the Care Standards Act 2000 states:

Regulations may provide that, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, ``child'' includes a person aged 18 or over who falls within subsection (1B).

That brings into question whether we are dealing with a Children's Commissioner or with somebody who deals with young people as well. From the definitions on page 1 it is clear that there is a wider remit.

The Care Standards Act 2000 and its interpretations suggest that the provision applies to a child. We have previously debated ``ordinarily resident in Wales.'' New subsection (1) states:

``This Part applies to a child . . . to or in respect of whom services are provided in Wales by, or on behalf of or under arrangements with, a person mentioned in Schedule 2B; or . . . to or in respect of whom regulated children's services . . . are provided''.

Under the Bill, a Children's Commissioner will be responsible for services for children and young people. Our contention is that we should amend the Bill by agreeing to new clause 2 to change the title of the commissioner to the Children's and Youth Commissioner for Wales.

That may seem pedantic, but we want young people to have confidence in the commissioner, and for the commissioner to feel that his remit extends, if not to all the bodies mentioned in earlier amendments, to institutions of further and higher education. I remind the Committee of paragraphs 5,6,7 and 8 of proposed new schedule 2A to the Care Standards Act 2000. Those bodies deal not with children under any usual definition, but with young people who come within the remit of public bodies involved in education. The proposed new schedule includes the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales, which is examining 16, 17 and 18-year-olds' pay. The Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, the Sports Council for Wales, the Wales Tourist Board and the Welsh Development Agency as well as the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting deal not only with children, but with youths. That wider definition should be reflected in the title of the Bill and the title of the Children's Commissioner. I lay before the Committee the proposition that we should add the words ``and Youth'' to make the title of the office that we are creating under the Bill the Children's and Youth Commissioner for Wales.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I support the amendment. Young people are sensitive about how they are described, but it is not politically incorrect to describe them as youths. If one looks, for example, at transgressions, such as young people not being paid properly in workplaces where statutory legislation has to be enforced. That can occur with the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales, with which I have dealt in the past. It must be a good thing to describe those young people as ``youth''. The same applies to what was said earlier about the services. Aspects of the services in Wales can be described as ``youth'' services; they too have rights. Amendment No. 47 is a grown-up amendment; we support it.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I too am unhappy with the term ``Children's Commissioner'' and agree with what has been said. It is important to consider changing the name; that would not extend the remit, nor would it impose further duties or obligations on the office of commissioner.

Hon. Members who have referred to their teenage sons or daughters as ``children'' know that that is a cardinal and unforgivable sin. I am reminded of the redoubtable actress Kathleen Turner, who was over here a few months ago acting in ``The Graduate''. I did see it, but I will not go into that now. [HON. MEMBERS: ``All of it?''] Yes—but no doubt I would be straying if I were to go further down that road. Suffice it to say that she is a redoubtable actress—and a tough character, they say. She was interviewed on a chat show and someone asked the innocuous question, ``Miss Turner, does anyone ever call you Kath?'' The answer was, ``Only the once.'' Similarly, calling teenage young people children is not sensible.

It is entirely appropriate to look at the commissioner's title. To change it would not extend the remit; that already extends to further and higher education. People at university, at the age of 20 or 21, are by no means children.

We need to ensure that children and young people are comfortable with the commissioner and his role. People over 16 or 17 would feel unsure and unhappy about going to his department if he were known as the Children's Commissioner for Wales. This is not a back-door way of extending his remit, but a highly desirable and appropriate change of name.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

As the parent of one teenager, and of two other children who are on the cusp of becoming teenagers, I concur with what the hon. Gentleman has said. There are occasional flashes of childlike qualities, and occasional flashes of growing adulthood. I recognise that when dealing with teenagers, we must all tread carefully—I will say no more—especially if we are absent parents on occasion, as I am , because of the demands of the House.

In general terms I sympathise with the points that have been made by hon. Members, because it is important that the Children's Commissioner be relevant to all groups that fall within his jurisdiction, and be seen by them as their champion. That goes for children of pre-school, primary or secondary school age, and for some of the children defined by the Bill who are at the older end of the commissioner's jurisdiction. He must be the champion for all children. When he takes up the post, the commissioner will need to develop a communications strategy and an understanding of the nature of the role, to ensure that that is so.

However—I trust that hon. Members will accept this in the spirit in which I say it—if we change the name at this stage, given the discussions that we have had to date, there may be difficulties. By statute, under the Care Standards Act, Wales already has its first Children's Commissioner designate. Peter Clarke has been appointed and is in post. All the recruitment work, the selection work, the adverts and the attendant publicity use the title ``Children's Commissioner''. That is how the office has been referred to by the National Assembly, by Parliament, by the groups involved in promoting the Bill, by hon. Members, by Assembly Members—by every individual involved to date, in fact. ``Children's Commissioner'', or its equivalent, is also the title that is commonly used for all the parallel positions in the rest of Europe and elsewhere. There is therefore a global resonance to the phrase ``Children's Commissioner''.

Because of that resonance, and given the nature of the political and social discussions that we have had about the nature of the post last year and this year, in the Assembly, in the House of Commons, in Committee and in the outside world, I doubt whether the commissioner's post would be referred to as anything other than the Children's Commissioner, even if we were to change the name. That is not to say that I do not recognise the points that have been made.

Another important issue has even greater resonance. The title Children's Commissioner also links in with references in other legislation passed by this House dealing with people under the age of 18, such as the Children Act 1989. The title Children's Commissioner is therefore consistent with the general understanding of what is meant by statute in parliamentary legislation.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

But equally, it is inconsistent with all statutes dealing with higher and further education.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The commissioner will cover universities and higher education only in so far as they deal with those who are under the age of 18. We have to recognise that there is a definitive split-off point at the age of 18 for the commissioner's roles and responsibilities under the legislation. I emphasise again that the title is consistent with the general understanding of the age group covered by the term ``children'' in statute.

As I said in opening my remarks—this echoes what the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said—I recognise that some teenagers may object to being referred to as children, but most members of the Committee will recognise that we need to have an unambiguous title that is as short as possible. Referring back to the appointments procedure for the Children's Commissioner for Wales, neither the Assembly nor the Wales Office has had any representations about the name of ``Children's Commissioner'' from any young people during consideration of the Bill.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

I have considerable sympathy with what the Minister is saying. The business of names is difficult to resolve. However, I wonder whether the Government have ever considered looking again at the thorny problem that has been around in our society for as long as legislation has—that the law alternates between the responsibilities of children, young people and adults in the most inconsequential way. We all know, for example, that people can get married at 16 but they cannot buy a drink. At some point, when Ministers have nothing else to do, they might like to consider, among other things, the opening paragraphs of the Kilbrandon report, which established children's hearings in Scotland. They would see what a wonderful portrait it paints of the anomalies at the time, and realise that, although they have changed, the anomalies remain every bit as incomprehensible now as they were then.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, and I am sure that in due course the Government will examine some of those concerns. I am afraid that I cannot do more than soak up the suggestion this morning and reflect upon it, because there are myriad departmental responsibilities in the areas that he has mentioned. There are certainly issues that could be explored, and before he retires, there may still be opportunities for private Member's legislation on those subjects.

I return to what I was saying about having had no representations. That is important in the context of the appointment procedure for the Children's Commissioner because, as hon. Members will know, the National Assembly involved young people and children in that procedure. Many 16 and 17-year-olds were involved, and none of them commented on the fact that the word ``children'' appeared in the title. Young people themselves seem to recognise the appropriateness of using the title Children's Commissioner.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I agree with my hon. Friend about using a short title that is easily recognisable and usable, and which has been accepted by young people in Wales. Does he not agree that the important point is how the commissioner operates in relation to the different age groups that come under the banner of ``children''? Will he make certain that all his communications and his efforts to reach disadvantaged children are made in a way, and in language, that recognises the whole range of ages under that banner?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I do agree. It is important for the Children's Commissioner to reach out to all children and young people within his sphere of influence.

I return to the fact that we have several issues before us: current legislation and the definition of children, the anticipation that the Children's Commissioner post has generated and the understanding of it over the past 12 months, and also the general recognition of the title Children's Commissioner on a worldwide basis. All that leads me to say that that title reflects the needs, wishes and aspirations of children generally. I sympathise with the points that have been made and, in echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North has said, I hope that the Children's Commissioner, once fully in post and with the new powers that we have given him in the Bill, will devise a strategy to ensure that all people within his jurisdiction in Wales feel that they can approach him, that he reaches out to them, and that the activities that he undertakes reflect all their needs.

I hope that the hon. Member for North Dorset understands where the Government stand on the issue and that, on reflection, he will withdraw the amendment.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I hear what the Minister says, and I am grateful for the support of other hon. Members. I suspect, however, that this may be an academic discussion because, as we saw with the Government of Wales Act 1998, giving titles to posts in the Welsh Assembly does not seem to mean that those who hold them are in any way limited to using those titles. They seem to be able to make up their own titles as they go along. The First Secretary has become the First Minister, and the other Secretaries also call themselves Ministers.

To turn to the more serious point—that is not to say that renaming posts in the Welsh Assembly is not serious—although my own children are well beyond being teenagers, I still refer to them as children, despite the fact that they are in their 20s. None the less, I am sure that they would have been exceedingly upset if public bodies had referred to them as children, even when they were 16, 17 or 18 years old and entering higher education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent said, some anomalies are involved in that people may marry at 16 but cannot drink until they are 18, and there are various other things that they cannot do until they are 21. None the less, not necessarily during the passage of the Bill but as the Children's Commissioner starts work, we shall revisit the question of whether it would be more appropriate to call him the Children's and Youth Commissioner for Wales. In the light of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1 - Commissioner's annual report

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 1 is fairly straightforward. It would make three alterations. It states:

``The Commissioner shall lay a report before Parliament annually.''

Much has been said about the Assembly's ability to ask the Children's Commissioner to report on various issues, and no doubt an annual report will be laid before the National Assembly for Wales. As the Committee has discussed, the commissioner may want to comment on non-devolved aspects even though they are not core issues for him, and no doubt he will do so in a report to the National Assembly. Forty Members of Parliament represent Welsh constituencies, and they all have an interest in matters affecting Wales and children, as is clear not only from this debate but from other debates on the Floor of the House. It is only right that if the commissioner wants to comment on non-devolved aspects, a report should be laid before this House.

Paragraph (c) of proposed new section 77A of the Care Standards Act refers to making

``any recommendations about the scope of the Commissioner's remit as the Commissioner may deem necessary.''

After 12 months of operating under the Bill, the Children's Commissioner may say that he feels constrained in certain areas, and he may want to make recommendations about his own powers. As primary legislation may be necessary to alter those powers, it is only right to encourage him to examine them and find out whether there is anything else that he might want to say about them.

The commissioner may comment on secondary legislation introduced in the National Assembly for Wales, and he may, as we have discussed ad nauseam, want to comment on primary legislation. He should be able to comment on any primary legislation that affects children in Wales. He may easily comment informally, but his report to Parliament would enable him to do so in a more detailed fashion. As primary legislation is introduced here, surely we should be able to examine his comments. Paragraphs (a) and (c) would enable us to do that, and paragraph (b) would provide a breakdown of the commissioner's total expenditure for the year, which would enable us to consider more carefully how money is spent.

Several members of the Committee have advanced the case for the commissioner's having extra powers. The hon. Member for Bridgend spoke about his role in education about the human rights of children, and in facilitating research on that subject, which would cost money. I assume that under his current powers, he will be able to advance research on all devolved aspects. That would cost a certain percentage of his money, and it is only right for us to have a full breakdown so that we can examine the pressures on his budget.

It would help the Treasury and the National Assembly for Wales to examine whether the Children's Commissioner would be more effective if more resources were pumped into specific areas. That would also give hon. Members an opportunity to see whether there was a lack of monitoring in some areas because of lack of money. That could certainly come out under paragraph (b). New clause 1 is straightforward and I hope that the Government will look favourably upon it. It is not radical, but it enables hon. Members to take an active interest in what the Children's Commissioner is doing, especially with regard to primary legislation, which resides at Westminster.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

The new clause should be resisted. It is linked with previous amendments tabled by Conservative Members, and would undermine the devolution settlement. The report is the property of the National Assembly, and if the Assembly wished to take it further by channelling it to the House, that would be acceptable. The new clause undermines the principles according to which the National Assembly has created the post and set aside money from its budget to implement and operate it. If we start to interfere with the budget, that will cause difficulties.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

My hon. Friend has raised an important point about the annual report and the position of Members of Parliament. Is it not true that, with the systems already established, right hon. and hon. Members of this House have pretty direct access to documents published by the National Assembly, and can obtain them in much the same way as parliamentary reports?

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Yes, we do get easy access to all reports produced by the National Assembly. Writing into the Bill that the commissioner's report should be submitted to this Parliament would undermine the way in which the system works. The Children's Commissioner should have wide-ranging powers, but his ability to comment and make representations on any powers that he has—or wishes that he had—should be channelled via a report to the National Assembly. The amendment should be resisted.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

This is an example of rather muddled thinking. The commissioner has been set up by the National Assembly for Wales and is answerable to that Assembly. His over-arching remit is devolved matters, so how on earth can this House second-guess whether he or she did the right thing, when it has no responsibility for devolved matters? That is the first muddle.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has said—I sought to intervene on the hon. Lady, but she sat down before I could do so. The purpose of new clause 1, which proposes that the commissioner should lay his report before Parliament, is to establish a formal link between him and Parliament. If our Select Committee on Health, for example, wished to investigate children's services in the United Kingdom, would it not be appropriate for that Committee to investigate children's services in Wales?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

It would be entirely appropriate, but is the hon. Gentleman saying that the only way to persuade the commissioner to appear as a witness before a Select Committee is to ask him to report directly to this House? That cannot be right, because there are hundreds of thousands of witnesses every year who are not strictly bound to report to this place.

The second bit of muddled thinking is the idea that the commissioner should provide this place with a breakdown of his total expenditure. That must be a matter for the Assembly, which should be in charge of the commissioner's office. The commissioner will report directly to the Assembly and, if there is a need for greater expenditure, the Assembly will presumably have to put the case to this House—or alternatively, part of its block will have to provide for it.

Thirdly, there is muddled thinking behind paragraph (c) of the new clause, which mentions making recommendations about the scope of the commissioner's role. This House cannot have it both ways. The Assembly pressed for the post of commissioner to be set up, while this House, traditionally, showed a great deal of reticence and a lack of enthusiasm for creating that office. Now it seems that this House wants to say, ``Well, the office has been created, but make sure that the commissioner reports to us, not to those people down in Cardiff.'' That is not on; it is muddled thinking or worse.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

Nobody is saying that the commissioner should not report to the Assembly; that would be ludicrous. We are saying that the 40 Welsh Members in this House should have the opportunity to consider his report.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Very well. What happens if Assembly Members approve the report and the Members of this House do not?

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

It is part of the devolution procedure—as we are told time and time again—that the two may not agree.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

That could be avoided by not reporting to this place at all. Again, that is muddled thinking. I am glad that that those two hon. Gentlemen intervened, because they are showing themselves up. I shall go on, because this debate is embarrassing those on the Conservative Front Bench.

Paragraph (c) is muddled because the machinery already exists for the legislation to be brought to this House. That is how the legislation that we are now discussing came to this House in the first place; it came from the Assembly, together with pressure from the Secretary of State for Wales. There is no need for the commissioner to plead with this House for an extension, as the machinery is already there. On three counts out of three, the new clause is not a good one.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I agree with the hon. Members for Cardiff, North and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. The new clause relates to accountability and functions, which were sorted out during debate on the Government of Wales Bill—now the Government of Wales Act 1998. To accept the new clause would be to go backwards.

I understand that Opposition Members want information. I, too, want freedom of information, and am sure that the report will be available to everyone, as will a breakdown of the Assembly's expenditure. Those matters have been devolved to the Assembly; they have been settled, and we cannot go back into history and unscramble that. There is already a means of processing that information, and we all understand it.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

It is good to see that everyone is ganging up against the Conservatives; that is always a good sign in Committee.

Paragraph 8 of schedule 2 to the Care Standards Act 2000 already provides for regulations relating to reports from the commissioner. The Assembly may shortly require the commissioner to make an annual report to the Assembly; if it made such a request, that would reflect the recommendations of its own report on the roles of the commissioner.

I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for Cardiff, North, and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, that placing in the Bill a further detailed requirement for annual reports to Parliament would conflict with the Government's approach of giving maximum discretion to the Assembly, which is entirely consistent with the devolution settlement. As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said in debate on his amendment, asking for breakdowns of the commissioner's total expenditure and making recommendations could be perceived as another attempt to reinvade Wales on the part of the Government.

Given the consistency of the devolution settlement, it would not be consistent for a report to be laid formally before Parliament, for the reasons that hon. Members have mentioned. By virtue of section 45 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, reports or statements relating

``exclusively to matters with respect to which functions are exercised by the Assembly''

are laid before and published by the Assembly. The commissioner's financial package and report are the responsibility of the Assembly.

In the spirit of co-operation, however, which I have tried to ensure during our proceedings, I should be happy to bring to the Assembly's attention the suggestion that hon. Members might want to be included when matters are presented by the commissioner, and that reports could be made available to Parliament. It is usually the practice of other Assembly-sponsored bodies to make reports available through the Library. The Assembly might also want to consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley that the 40 Welsh Members might want to receive reports. Indeed, the Assembly might even send them to Conservative Members as well, none of whom represent Welsh constituencies.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The Minister has made an important point in saying that such reports should be available. If he and fellow Members go to the Library, they will find that an enormous number of reports are available from the Scottish Parliament, but very few from the Welsh Assembly. The Assembly is run on an electronic basis, so information may be available by that means, but will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to distribute more information in a readable form to the Library? That would be of great value to us all.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

As the hon. Gentleman said, the Assembly puts many of its reports on the web and uses its website to promote its activities. I take the point that hard copies are welcome for research purposes and for those who do not have access to the web. However, the general practice for devolved public bodies is to make their reports available to Parliament in the Library. I am sure that that could apply to the commissioner's report, too, and I will put that request to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), the First Minister.

I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, but I want to clarify one point. The reports of the commissioner to the Assembly do not have to be approved by the Assembly. The commissioner is financially accountable, but he is independent of the Assembly; if his reports had to be approved by the Assembly or anyone else, his independence would be undermined. That argument applies, too, to the new clause. The House might have to approve the report, which would go against the commissioner's independence.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley has experienced the combined efforts of the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for Brecon and Radnorshire, and my hon. Friends. Given that, I hope that he will withdraw his new clause, recognising the superior forces in opposition to him.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I stand before the Committee quaking in my boots at the combined forces of the coalition that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset and I knew existed, but had not seen working before in Committee. The Minister said that it was good to see everyone attacking the Tories again and that reminded me of the glorious 18 years of the Conservative Government. It was wonderful to have such an experience in Committee, if only for a short time. However, we are only a few weeks off a general election. It was almost a cause for an X-file investigation, given the conciliatory words of the Minister, when he referred to the 40 Welsh Members of Parliament. After the general election, however, a number of Conservatives will represent Welsh constituencies, so they will receive a copy of the report, but it would be useful if it had as wide a circulation as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent said that the report should be prepared in such a way that people can understand it. That is an important point. Whether it be in hard copy or on the web, the report should be prepared so that people understand the commissioner's thinking about those areas that he has monitored and the recommendations that he makes. I know that the Children's Commissioner will be reading a copy of our deliberations and I hope that he will pay due regard to the manner in which the report is brought forward.

I agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire about the availability of some of the reports from the Welsh Assembly. It seems as though we have to go out of our way to obtain certain reports. Given that the primary legislative powers will remain here, it is important that Members of Parliament with Welsh interests and children's interests are encouraged to read the report, and one way to facilitate that might not only be to put it in the Library, but to ensure that it is sent to all Members of Parliament, as is the case with several other reports.

With the wonderful warm consensual words of the Minister still ringing in my ears, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 3 - Right of commissioner to comment on court decisions

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Barry Jones (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

With this we may discuss new clause 4—Right of access to institutions—

`( ) In section 74(3) of the Care Standards Act 2000 (examination of cases) before paragraph (a) insert—

``(a1) requiring persons to allow the Commissioner access to institutions which include children to whom this Part applies;''.'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

The new clauses are the result of concerns that have been raised by the Children in Wales Commissioner Campaign Group. Children in Wales has representative organisations affiliated to it in Wales, which include Save the Children, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Cymru, Barnardos Cymru, the Children's Society in Wales and representatives of professional bodies such as the Royal College of Paediatrics and the Institute of Child Health, the Wales branch. Children in Wales is a significant umbrella organisation, which combines voluntary bodies that work with children in Wales and professional organisations that care for children in Wales. As such, the two new clauses are important.

New clause 3 would remove the words

``or has been determined by''

from section 77(1) of the Care Standards Act 2000. It is important because the restriction on the commissioner threatens—I believe, and the Children in Wales Commissioner Campaign Group believes—to undermine seriously his role as a children's champion and whistleblower. The Children in Wales Commissioner Campaign Group does not want the commissioner to second guess court decisions or comment on matters that are sub judice. The group and I recognise that that would be entirely inappropriate. However, there will be circumstances in which the commissioner would need to speak out. My hon. Friend the Minister may be able to reassure me that there will be appropriate circumstances in which the commissioner might be able to refer to such matters.

Under the Bill, and according to my hon. Friend the Minister's responses so far, there is a degree of ambiguity and confusion as to the commissioner's powers to inquire into and comment on concluded criminal and other cases, including specific matters of concern raised by trial judgments and judgments arising. The restrictions under the Care Standards Act ban the commissioner from inquiring into or reporting on any matter in so far as it has been determined by a court or tribunal. I am aware of the Government's broad interpretation of the commissioner's role, as indicated by the Minister, and of their support for informal comment.

Although we appreciate that it is not a likely prospect for a decade or two, we must admit that the party in government can and does change. I am therefore taking a long-term view—such a change may even be half a century ahead, in which I case I will not be around—but it is right, given that this Bill can become an Act of Parliament, that we consider that distant prospect. Even when there are Governments of the same party but different Ministers, interpretations of the law can vary. It is right to take that into account, notwithstanding the supportive attitude of my hon. Friend. He has made it clear that the commissioner may comment informally on such cases, but I wonder whether that is sufficient. I know that the Children in Wales Commissioner Campaign Group believes that it is insufficient. It feels that the Children's Commissioner for Wales must be able to make informed judgments on which to base his comments. That will mean acquiring knowledge and understanding, which other bodies or persons may challenge as amounting to—in the context of the Bill—inquiring and reporting.

On the question of whether the commissioner is inquiring and reporting in making informal comments about cases and tribunals, even informal comments, because of the status of the Children's Commissioner's office, would have greater import and significance than those of most other individuals. That may give rise to legal challenges that such comments are, in effect, a violation of the clause. I hope that the Committee will recognise that that may put a restriction on the ability of the commissioner to initiate inquiries.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.

Standing Committee F

New Clause 3 - Right of Commissioner to comment on court decisions

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking new clause 4—Right of access to institutions—

`( ) In section 74(3) of the Care Standards Act 2000 (examination of cases) before paragraph (a) insert—

(a1) requiring persons to allow the Commissioner access to institutions which include children to whom this Part applies;.'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I am delighted to welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Wells.

When the Committee adjourned, I was in full flow and about to deal with the commissioner's ability to initiate inquiries into matters of public concern, which, without the new clause, might be restricted. If, for example, the Secretary of State for Health had not decided to initiate an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Anna Climbie's tragic death, and if that death had occurred in Wales and the National Assembly had decided not to initiate an inquiry, under current legislation would the Children's Commissioner have been able to initiate an inquiry of his own, despite the case having already been subject to legal proceedings? I ask the Minister to reflect upon that, or whether section 77 of the Care Standards Act would apply in such a case.

A more diffuse issue relating to the commissioner's ability to inquire into matters where there may be related or other legal proceedings is exemplified by the inquiry into alleged child abuse in north Wales. In similar circumstances, would there be restrictions upon the commissioner's ability to inquire into all aspects of alleged abuse if one or more of the alleged abusers were subject to legal proceedings, of if they had been convicted of abuse within the scope of an inquiry, such as the Waterhouse inquiry?

The first recommendation of the Waterhouse inquiry was the appointment of a children's commissioner to act swiftly in dealing with allegations of child abuse. Would the Care Standards Act prevent the commissioner from making such inquiries on behalf of children if legal proceedings were under way connected with at least some of the people involved in the allegations of child abuse?

I have made inquiries with the Library. It is standard practice that ombudsmen cannot make inquiries in a large number of areas where options are already available for people to obtain redress. However, looking at the English local government's ombudsman's rules, there is a let-out in that, if there is a good reason why someone may not reasonably be expected to follow some other procedure laid down in law, he could still appeal to the ombudsman. Would that sort of let-out allow the Children's Commissioner to consider cases that have such legal and tribunal parameters, which would usually prevent him from carrying out an investigation? As in the case of the English local government ombudsman, could the Children's Commissioner consider whether that would be reasonable?

New clause 4 is designed to ensure that the Children's Commissioner has the right of entry into children's institutions and can obtain all the information that he requires from such institutions if he is conducting an inquiry relating to children. At present, under the Care Standards Act, he would be denied such access. Our amendment would add to section 74(3) of that Act the words:

``(a1) requiring persons to allow the Commissioner access to institutions which include children to whom this Part applies''.

Does the Bill gives the commissioner that untrammelled right of entry and questioning, or are there some areas where the Government believe that that is not appropriate? If so, the issues raised by new clause 4 deserve to be examined in detail.

I anticipate that in virtually every case the commissioner would gain access to an institution caring for or involved with children and obtain the information from the people responsible without any trouble. But as the law stands, if the people in an institution want to be less than helpful, that right of access and right to information would not be granted because they would have the right to say, ``Sorry, you cannot come in here.'' The right that I am talking about is common to children's ombudsmen in other European countries. I hope that my hon. Friend will give a positive response on the issues that I have raised in new clauses 3 and 4.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

It is good to see you here this afternoon, Mr. Wells.

New clause 3 deals with the right of the commissioner to comment on court decisions. That that is not possible at the moment is incompatible with the fact that the commissioner is a children's champion. That is serious as such matters can adversely affect children in Wales.

New clause 4 deals with the right of access to institutions. There has been a serious development recently in the lower courts with a court ruling that children's advocates, who speak for children who are unable to speak for themselves, may not work with children who are subject to any legal proceedings. That is extremely serious. A child with learning difficulties might have misbehaved or even committed a minor offence. He might be unable to respond adequately in a court and yet he could not now have an advocate to assist him. In Wales, we do not have adequate resources to detain children. Children—youths—can end up in jail, where the commissioner may not be able to visit them.

I have a case in my constituency at the moment, which reflects what I have said. I cannot give any details, but it involves a young person with learning difficulties, who has found himself in a similar situation. I wish that the Children's Commissioner already had the powers contained in these two new clauses to strengthen his ability to assist in such a situation.

I wholeheartedly support new clauses 3 and 4. In certain circumstances, the commissioner needs to be able to comment on court decisions or to obtain access to institutions where children are detained, and may, because of their situation, be adversely affected by their detainment.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I, too, welcome you to the chair this afternoon, Mr. Wells.

Most of the arguments have already been put. I agree with the hon. Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). The wording of the clause it is quite peculiar. It states:

``the Commissioner to enquire into or report on any matter so far as it is the subject of legal proceedings before, or has been determined by,''—

the operative words in the amendment—``a court or tribunal.'' No one inside or outside the House would argue that the sub judice principle is not perfectly sensible and should not be upheld. However, there is no argument for precluding proper detailed comments on, and investigation into, matters that have already been decided.

The hon. Member for Bridgend asked whether the commissioner would have been prevented from commenting on the awful events dealt with in the Waterhouse report because many of those involved had been the subject of proceedings. A number of people in my chambers in Chester spent three or four years prosecuting those evil people. If—God forbid—such a tragedy were to be repeated, I am afraid that the commissioner would be gagged from taking any part in the proceedings, and that is astonishing.

The Waterhouse inquiry, conducted thoroughly by Sir Ronald Waterhouse and the other members of the panel, came to the firm conclusion early on in its recommendations that a commissioner was necessary. There is no mention in the recommendations of judicial proceedings, but, looking at the spirit of what was recommended, I am sure that the inquiry would not have wished the commissioner to have been denied access to decided cases. There are two good reasons for that. First under our present constitution, laws appertaining to children, and anyone else for that matter, are made by the House and by the National Assembly. Secondly, case law precedents develop the law, and decided cases are important. In some areas of family law, they are more important than the actual statute itself. Many decided cases of family law completely change the situation. I will not bore the Committee with examples, but family law can be quite radical. Laws can suddenly be changed on the strength of a Court of Appeal of a House of Lords decision. The commissioner will not be able to feed into that.

None of us want a repeat of the awful events that gave rise to the Waterhouse inquiry, but, human nature being what it is, and given what we read about some of these paedophile rings, there is more to come throughout Wales, I hope not to the same degree, but who knows? We will have a commissioner who will have to say, `I'm sorry, but I cannot comment on that, because one of the number has been prosecuted for a sexual offence.' That is not adequate, and will reflect badly on his office and all who work in it. It will hamper the commissioner in his duties, and I am concerned about that.

The hon. Member for Bridgend said that Children in Wales feels strongly about the matter, and he mentioned the various constituent bodies of Children in Wales. They have worked hard during the passage of the Bill, and previously in lobbying the Assembly, and they were the first to flag up the need for a commissioner. Please can we take heed of their expert advice and opinions? Those people are at the coalface, dealing with children, whether they be in care, in private accommodation or in the public sphere. They know what they are talking about, and they feel strongly about this.

We have previously mentioned the two unfortunate young children from America, who were allegedly bought. I feel awful using that word. There was the high profile murder of young Damilola Taylor and the Bulger case, involving the two boys, one of whose parents allegedly live in north Wales, not that that matters. We have high profile cases involving young children in various spheres, whether in the criminal or the civil courts, and it is ridiculous that the commissioner cannot make comments. Everyone and his brother will be making comments to the press, and it would be unacceptable if an invitation to the expert on children's welfare to comment were to meet with the response, `I am sorry, that does not come within my remit. I cannot comment on anything that has been decided in a court of law.' That will doubtless hamper the commissioner. We are not playing politics with this subject. The new clause has the support of the Liberal Democrats and it was tabled by the hon. Member for Bridgend and his colleagues. I fully support the new clause and I believe that the Government are wrong. I urge the Minister to rethink even at this late stage, and to go back and consider it further for another time.

Curiously, the first thing that the Northern Ireland commissioner did was to investigate the judicial process in the north of Ireland as it impinges on children. Why is there a difference between the way that that commissioner can act and the way in which the Children's Commissioner for Wales would be precluded from considering such an investigation?

New clause 4 is also important. It would ensure that the commissioner has the proper access to various bodies that he requires to carry out his work efficiently. We have heard that he will be entitled to make informal comments. If I hear that a Department or an official body has made informal comments, I often switch off immediately. Informal comments often mean ill-informed comments or `I am sorry, I do not really know half the story but I will give you an off-the-cuff informal comment about it', which would not usually be worth the paper it was written on. Are we seriously saying that the commissioner will have to be invited to comment informally on matters because he cannot gain the proper urgent access that he may require from time to time?

We know that abuse probably continues in some residential children's homes in Wales. It will be some of the people involved in that who will refuse to give access. Those people will be obstructive, and will pose the greatest risk to children. The paedophile rings that operate throughout the UK and beyond are very sophisticated. When they see that a commissioner can be denied proper access to an institution, access will be denied. I fear for the safety of children in those circumstances. Surely we can reconsider that matter. Both the new clauses have been well drafted and have reason and force behind them. I urge the Government to reconsider, even at this stage.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I do not wish to delay the Committee because all the relevant points have been clearly made, but I strongly support new clauses 3 and 4. It would be difficult if the commissioner could not comment on some of the high profile cases mentioned by hon. Members and it is important for the Minister to clarify the commissioner's position on such cases. New clause 4 also makes important proposals and, again, I should be grateful if the Minister would make it clear whether, under the Care Standards Act, the commissioner could have access to any institution that he felt he needed to enter. Would section 74(3)(b) of that Act, requiring persons who hold or are accountable for information to provide the commissioner with explanations or other assistance, cover that? That could allow the commissioner to have access to institutions. I should prefer the new clauses to be in the Bill, but, if the Minister is not minded to accept them, I should like him to clarify the issue.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Wells.

Members on both sides of the Committee have made good points. I hope that I can clarify the Government's intentions on the issues raised in new clauses 3 and 4. New clause 3 would remove the specific restriction on the commissioner inquiring into or reporting on any matter that is to be determined by a court or tribunal. New clause 4 would give the commissioner a right of access to institutions that include children to whom part V of the Care Standards Act applies when investigating individual cases. I share the concern of my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend and for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), and of Opposition Members, about the commissioner's investigations and agree that they should not be unreasonably restricted. I genuinely hope that my explanation will enable hon. Members to realise that we will be able to meet the spirit of the new clauses without incorporating them into the Bill.

There are many precedents for having restrictions on inquiring into or reporting on issues that have been determined by a court or tribunal. Courts and tribunals determine specific issues and it is not for the commissioner to try to reopen their determinations. That means in practice that, while the commissioner would not usually comment upon or investigate matters that are sub judice, he would not be prevented from commenting informally on the outcome of court cases or from reporting on related issues within his jurisdiction, such as the performance of social service authorities which have dealt with a case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend mentioned the case of Anna Climbie. If that case had occurred in Wales, the commissioner would not have investigated the specific issue that was before the court—the guilt or innocence of those charged with the crimes that eventually resulted in the court case. It is not the commissioner's role to decide guilt or innocence, second-guess a jury, or become involved in the legal process. Once the court has reached its verdict, the commissioner can look at the wider issues arising from the verdict.

If that case had occurred in my authority in Flintshire, north Wales, the commissioner would not have been able to examine guilt or innocence, but, once the verdict had been received, the commissioner could have considered whether Flintshire county council social services had acted properly in the run-up to the case. There may have been general lessons about child care protection matters to learn from the case, which he might have wished to investigate with colleagues from the social services inspectorate, or local government. Nothing in the Bill precludes the commissioner from considering the consequences of a particular verdict, but it would be totally inappropriate for a commissioner to consider a case during the course of a trial.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

During that sad case, there was a moment when one of the social workers wanted to blow the whistle on what was happening. Had the commissioner been in existence, and the social worker had blown the whistle to the commissioner, presumably the commissioner could have intervened to protect the child against the incompetent bureaucratic processes that had allowed her to be abused.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Presumably, if the commissioner had received a whistle blowing comment from a social worker, he would be able to give evidence, if called upon by the court, which is entirely different from making comments during the course of the trial. The commissioner's role does not include second-guessing the jury, but it does include looking at the consequences, post-verdict.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I understand that the commissioner cannot do anything directly relating to the verdict, and I fully support that, but, to improve the system, when the case is over, the commissioner could pore over all the evidence, set-up an inquiry of his own, and call people to clarify matters.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

There are subtle but important differences. The commissioner should not comment during a court case, unless he is called to give evidence, as the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent said, because information was passed to him that led to the court case. The commissioner should not comment as a matter of course. He would not go to the newspapers with his views on issues in order to influence the verdict. Once the verdict is given, the commissioner is free to examine the consequences of that decision.

When X has been found guilty of a crime, the commissioner can examine the agencies involved to see whether there are lessons to be learned. The commissioner cannot—this is a subtle but important difference—re-visit the verdict. Therefore, if a jury finds a person innocent, the commissioner cannot take further evidence and, as a result, say that X should have been found guilty. Those are important roles in terms of the legal system, and those roles are defined.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am sure that the Minister is right, as no one in his right mind would seek to comment on the jury's verdict. Without having tried the case and heard all the evidence, such comment would be bound to be somewhat specious.

Will the Minister give an example of a situation that would be outwith the commissioner's remit. I will read the section again. It states:

``This Part does not authorise the Commissioner to enquire into or report on any matter so far as it is the subject of legal proceedings before, or has been determined by, a court or tribunal.''

Presumably, that is included for a reason. Without referring to the social services argument—we fully understand that social services will be part of the Commissioner's remit—can the Minister give an example of where that section would come into play and would preclude comment?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I thought I had done that; I apologise if it was not clear. The commissioner could be called to give evidence, as in the case sited by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, if he had been involved in determining part of the evidence on the case. However, he could not comment on the case as a general principle while it was being considered. He could not try to influence the verdict in that general sense. Once the verdict has been given, he cannot reopen it, but he can look at the consequences of the case for the agencies that are involved in child protection or welfare issues generally. I cannot give specific examples of how that would work, but I hope that the general boundary lines are clear.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

I have been torn between a Select Committee hearing and this Committee and I apologise for not having been at the early part of the debate. I entirely agree with what the Minister said, but my point was different from the one that he raised. I am seeking an assurance that, if a whistleblower were to speak to the commissioner before any question of legal proceedings arose, the commissioner would, under the Care Standards Act, have the power to look into the workings of the authority about which the whistleblower was complaining. That would have prevented the fatal injuries.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Absolutely. I can give a categorical assurance that that is one of the central tenets of the commissioner's role.

The clarification that I am trying to provide relates to the period of the court case. It is not appropriate for the commissioner to comment upon a court case where he has not been involved in the compilation of evidence, nor is it part of his role to comment on a verdict. It is the commissioner's role to examine the implications for public service and childhood protection issues. I do not think that I can make that any clearer.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

It is not part of my function to delay the Committee but I cannot understand how what the Minister has said is on all fours with the words

``or has been determined by''

``Has been determined by'' means a case has been decided by a court or tribunal. The commissioner, therefore, is not authorised to inquire or report on any matter because it has been the subject of legal proceedings that have ``been determined''. I am sorry to put it that way, but it is completely different from what the Minister is saying.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I can only give my interpretation of the Government's thinking on the issue. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend and for Cardiff, North and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Can the Minister clarify the statement in section 77(1) where it says that the commissioner cannot

``enquire into or report on any matter''

so far as it has been determined by legal proceedings? Is the Minister saying that the commissioner will be able to comment on the local authority procedures that may have caused this to happen, or anything of that nature? That is the key point. As it is written, it looks as if he would not be able to comment on any of surrounding issues. The Act says ``on any matter''.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

My interpretation—and I am speaking on behalf of the Government—is that the commissioner should be able to comment on the implications of the case for the agencies for which he has jurisdiction. I hope that that is the clarification that my hon. Friends have sought in tabling the amendment. sought. That has always been the Government's interpretation of this particular aspect of the legislation.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

There does seem to be confusion between the wording in the Bill and the Government's intentions. We agree with the Minister and would like to see what he said in the Bill. However, what we see in the Bill is not, in our interpretation, the same. When the Bill passes to the other place, the Government will have an opportunity to examine the wording of the clause again.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I would like to reflect further on what the hon. Gentleman said, but I have made the Government's intentions clear. Hon. Members still have their views, but I am trying to define the Government's understanding.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Will the Minister reconsider my point about advocacy? Young people of a low IQ who cannot express themselves or communicate adequately are denied assistance in court. Could they not have some form of counselling because after the court's decision, some of these people may be put in jail or a detention centre in inappropriate circumstances? That is the court's decision. Without an advocate, the right result is sometimes not achieved. I do not expect an immediate answer from the Minister, but would he raise that matter with his colleagues? It is an important point.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. I cannot provide an immediate answer, but I will reflect further. If necessary, we can correspond on the issues.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I mentioned earlier that I had been in touch with the Library to examine the powers of the ombudsman in general and to ascertain what happened in the past. The same issue came up when the Care Standards Bill was in Committee. I was not a member of that Committee and do not know whether anyone present here was—

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I was.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

My hon. Friend can answer my point, then. To the best of my knowledge, no major debate of this matter took place in that Committee. It may have come to the fore because of subsequent concerns. I accept the Minister's argument about why the commissioner cannot examine the verdict, only the services responsible for providing the care. A cast-iron guarantee would make me happy with the outcome of the debate.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I was a member of the Committee considering the Care Standards Bill last June. I was also a member of the Committees considering the Local Government Bill and the Learning and Skills Bill at the same time. I spent most of last June flitting between three Committee Rooms to speak on matters relating to those Bills. I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me if I cannot recall in exact detail what was debated then.

I hope that my explanation of the commissioner's role and of his responsibility for matters going before a court will meet my hon. Friend's request for clarification and assurance. I know that he has liaised with many children's groups outside this House; I have met them, too, and given them the same explanation prior to this Committee stage. I hope that my hon. Friend and those groups will consider the implications of what I have said, and reflect on the matter when it goes to another place, as it will very shortly. I am confident that what I have said today will allow the commissioner a positive role in those areas.

On the issue of physical access to institutions, the Bill reflects the disclosure arrangements for other ombudsmen and commissioner-type officers in the United Kingdom, who have no specific powers of physical access to institutions that come under their jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Bill extends the right to information, explanations and assistance under the Care Standards Act 2000, to ensure that the commissioner's investigations will be as effective as possible.

The Assembly will be able to make regulations that enable the commissioner to require information to be provided in respect of the bodies that will be subject to the function of reviewing and monitoring arrangements for dealing with complaints for whistle blowing and advocacy. The regulations made by the Assembly will give the commissioner strong powers to require that information, explanations and assistance be provided in respect of the relevant bodies when the commissioner examines individual cases. The new powers that we have given, both under the Care Standards Act last year and under the Bill today, will allow the commissioner to be able to demand information on a range of issues that he is not able to demand under the Care Standards Act.

The extra powers enhancing the commissioner's responsibilities will be of particular importance to cover the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend. The power of access in particular is more appropriate for bodies that have direct inspection powers, such as the proposed care standards inspectorate for Wales. I confirm that the care standard inspectorate will have the right of access to premises to undertake direct investigations, as that is in the nature of its roles and responsibilities as distinct from those of the commissioner.

I am confident that the commissioner will want to establish close working relationships with the inspectorate, and that he will give it advice and support on issues relating to inspections that that it has undertaken and reports it wants to produce. However, there is definite distinction between the two roles. The commissioner will have the power to ask for papers and information and make demands on organisations accordingly; the new care standards inspectorate for Wales will be able to make visits to premises and to undertake that type of inspection visit, because that is in the nature of its responsibilities. The two roles are distinct and both will enhance the protection of children.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I accept that there are two distinct roles, but we all know that inspectors do not always get it right, so it is desirable that the commissioner has the right of access to institutions. Will the Minister agree orally, now, or will he make appropriate provision in the Bill? We have had so many scandals and tragedies in institutions in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom that it seems unfortunate that we do not spell out such a provision in the Bill.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I hope that can reassure my hon. Friend. There are two distinct roles: the care standards inspectorate is responsible for inspection and has the right of access to premises; that is its distinct role, whereas the Children's Commissioner is responsible for broad areas. For example, if the care standards inspectorate chooses not to make an inspection, the Children's Commissioner can, using his jurisdiction as the person responsible for such issues, comment and report on that failure to carry out an inspection; he can also encourage the carrying out of inspections. However, there is a distinct difference between the day-to-day responsibilities of the inspectorate and the commissioner. Although my hon. Friend's probing amendment would allow the commissioner to have that right of access, it is, in fact, part of the general division of labour in terms of child protection.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I appreciate everything that the Minister is saying about the differing roles of the inspectorate and the commissioner, but let us take a hypothetical case in which the failure lay with the inspectorate to carry out their inspection of a children's institution properly; and there was a cosy relationship between the head of the institution and the inspector. Let us say that someone blew the whistle on what was going on, with the result that the commissioner wanted to investigate, visit the institution and question the staff to get to the bottom of the whole affair. Does the Bill as it stands give the commissioner untrammelled access, or could the head of the institution say ``Sorry, you're not coming into my place. That's the inspectorate's job and they have been and I do not want you here.''? Can the Minister assure us that, either because the Bill does not prevent the commissioner from doing that, or because the National Assembly could make regulations giving him that power, that all would be well if the commissioner were to act in the hypothetical circumstances I have described?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The commissioner, as I said earlier, will be able to require information to be provided in respect of bodies, he will have powers of general review and he will be able to ask for information about those bodies, the care standards inspectorate and the institution that may be being inspected, but he could not undertake a direct visit for the reasons that I have stated: there is a division of responsibility. However, the commissioner could report on the care standards inspectorate's failure to act and he could indicate to the Assembly his concern following the receipt of information about the inspectorate's failure to act on a particular case.

There are different and distinct responsibilities. The commissioner has overarching responsibility to review the level of services and type of service provision, whereas the job of the care standards inspectorate is to inspect. I do not know whether that satisfies my hon. Friend, but that is the view shared by the Government and the Assembly those roles and responsibilities.

We have fully discussed both of the amendments. I have tried to explain the Government's view on core aspects, I hope that the Committee is satisfied that the commissioner will have a responsibility to look at the implications of cases. I also hope that I have satisfied the Committee on the question of powers of access. There are mechanisms in place to ensure access.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I appreciate the fact that the Minister is taking time to deal with these points, but is it not illogical that an inspector has a statutory power to enter premises, but the commissioner—the guardian, the advocate at the top of the tree—is not allowed to gain access in any particular circumstances? I am not saying that he would often want to have access, but there might be occasions on which the inspector has been obstructed, or the case is a high-profile, very bad one in which, even for the purposes of making a public announcement later on, it would be better if the commissioner could say that he had visited with inspectors. None the less, the commissioner is precluded from doing that, whereas inspectors have the statutory duty and power to do so. That does not make much sense. I am not blaming the Minister, but there appears to be a vacuum.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The hon. Gentleman should always blame the Minister, because Ministers are ultimately responsible for determining the policy and the line of Government thinking.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

In that case, I do blame the Minister.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I shall accept the blame. The debate boils down to core functions and their duplication. The purpose of the care standards inspectorate is to inspect and that of the Children's Commissioner to oversee and ensure that lessons are learned, good practices are disseminated and issues arising from inspection reports are considered. The two roles are not contradictory, but I shall reflect on what has been said. I hope that that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

We have considered new clauses 3 and 4 in detail, but some anxiety about access remains. I am not revealing any secrets, but I read the social services inspectorate reports when I was the Welsh Office Minister responsible for such matters. The questions most often asked during discussions on those reports with senior staff in the Welsh Office were about the physical location—we asked ``Where was this or that located?'' in response to comments made by the social services inspectorate.

In a case in which the inspectorate is accused of not doing its job properly, the commissioner must be able to visit premises, although I appreciate that he can get lots of information about premises in which problems are alleged to have occurred. For now, however, as this is our first run at such an important issue and there will be opportunities to revisit the matter on Report and in another place, I ask the Minister to reconsider whether the access issue can be resolved while avoiding the potential problems of duplication of function. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5 - Consultation by the National Assembly for Wales

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

With this we may take new clause 6—Consultation by the Secretary of State—

`In section 16(1) of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 (Devolution) after the third ``the'', for the words ``National Assembly for Wales'' there shall be substituted ``Children's Commissioner for Wales.``.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

The Committee has spent a lot of time considering the commissioner's powers with regard to institutions, but much less discussing fostering and adoption. The new clauses relate largely to adoption and to enhancing the commissioner's powers in that respect. They touch on the case that is at the forefront of our minds, although I do not want to embarrass the Minister, who has mentioned that the parents in that adoption case are his constituents and that his wife is chairman of the social services committee dealing with it.

We spent a lot of time considering amendments to the Care Standards Act 2000; the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 is also relevant. I want to give the commissioner a key role in setting policy on international adoption procedures. The Act incorporates the 1993 Hague convention into UK law, but the Government have so far failed to implement the Act, which has left the way open for the case that took place in north Wales.

Our amendments would give the commissioner responsibility for advising the Government on the Act's implementation in Wales. It may help if I deal with the provenance of the two new clauses. Clause 1 relates to section 78 of the Care Standards Act 2000 and says:

``This Part applies to a child . . .to or in respect of whom regulated children's services in Wales are provided.``

Section 78(2) of the 2000 Act says:

``In this Part, [odq]regulated children's services in Wales'' means . . . services provided by local authorities in Wales in the exercise of relevant adoption functions or relevant fostering functions''.

We seek to amend two sections in the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999. Section 2 deals with central authorities and accredited bodies, and subsection (1) says:

``The functions under the Convention of the Central Authority are to be discharged—

(a) separately in relation to England and Scotland by the Secretary of State; and

(b) in relation to Wales by the National Assembly for Wales.``

New clause 5 would amend section 2(1)(b) and make it say ``by the National Assembly for Wales, after consultation with the Children's Commissioner for Wales.''

Section 16(1) of the 1999 Act says:

``Any function of the Secretary of State under section 1 or 18(3), or section 17 or 56A of the 1976 Act, is exercisable only after consultation with the National Assembly for Wales.

New clause 6 would streamline that procedure. If the Secretary of State—in this case the Secretary of State for Health—must consult the National Assembly, which then has to consult the commissioner, that important aspect may need short-circuiting. I do not want to take the National Assembly out of the loop, but the person charged with looking after such matters on behalf of the National Assembly and the people of Wales is the Children's Commissioner. We seek to delete the words ``National Assembly for Wales'' and insert ``Children's Commissioner for Wales.''

The new clauses would beef up the powers of the Children's Commissioner when dealing with international adoptions and particularly the sort of case that we have seen in north Wales. I remind the Committee that the Government signed the convention in 1993, but have not yet implemented it. In schedule 1 to the 1999 Act, the fourth statement in the convention says:

``The States signatory to the present Convention . . . Convinced of the necessity to take measures to ensure that intercountry adoptions are made in the best interests of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental rights, and to prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in, children''.

That is exactly what most hon. Members want to prevent. We have seen evidence of that practice in the case in north Wales.

The Government have so far failed to implement the Act. The Bill could give the Children's Commissioner power as an advocate for children and their rights, including those who are being adopted. If we as Members of Parliament cannot persuade the Government that they should implement that convention, perhaps by giving the Children's Commissioner for Wales a power as an advocate for children—including those who are being adopted—and children's rights, we will enable the commissioner to convince them to implement both the 1993 Hague convention and an Act that was passed by the House two years ago, which would have prevented what I can only describe as the obscene internet procedures that have recently taken place.

The new clauses would enhance the role of the Children's Commissioner and that of parents in the safe adoption of children across frontiers. They would have enabled the Flintshire social services committee to oversee the home study report in the case of the Kilshaws. That report could have been lodged with the Secretary of State for Health and with the court in the United States, with the result that the adoption, if it were ultimately approved, would have been made with the approval of all the authorities involved. However, it was not. I should prefer that and similar adoptions to have approval and that is why I commend the new clauses to the Committee.

Raymond Powell (Labour, Ogmore)

We must be careful when dealing with new procedures for the adoption of children. In the past two years, I have seen great problems when adoptions are allowed without full investigation of people who are adopting children throughout the country, particularly in Wales. We must have provisions and people who are able to ensure that a proper inspection takes place of the homes where those children are going to live and the background of the people who want to adopt.

More often than not, we have the problem of trying to intervene in cases that have already been decided. Once the decisions have been taken and the children have been adopted, we face great difficulty. It is high time we had far stricter laws on and greater resources going into adoption. Many children are seeking adoption but are not finding homes because we do not have the inspectors to conduct the research that is necessary before adoption can take place. However, I appeal to the Committee not to take a quick decision on the suggestions that have been made until we have examined in more detail the safeguards that we should impose in respect of adoption.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful for the comments from the hon. Member for Dorset, North. For the record and for the sake of clarity, I should declare again two interests that are connected with matters that he has raised: first, Mr. and Mrs. Kilshaw are my constituents; secondly, my wife, Councillor Margaret Hanson, is chair of Flintshire county council social services committee and is dealing with that case.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that one of the Assembly's key functions will be to act as a central authority for the purposes of the 1993 Hague convention on the protection of children and co-operation in respect of inter-country adoption. New clause 5 would impose upon the Assembly an obligation to consult the commissioner in respect of the discharge of its responsibilities as the central authority in Wales for the purposes of that convention.

Continuing the sympathetic approach that I have tried to take in Committee, let me say that I have no problem with the commissioner having a view on how the assembly exercises that function. Under clause 3, he already has the power to review the exercise of all of the assembly's functions: he will be able to report on the outcome of the reviews and will be able to take a primary role in influencing and informing the way in which the Assembly exercises its functions in respect of adoption and the convention.

Where the hon. Gentleman and I differ, if we differ at all, is that I do not believe that it is sensible to confuse the commissioner's roles by making him a formal consultee on the discharge of functions that he could subsequently review. Clause 3 gives the commissioner the power to examine all those issues accordingly. The new clause would highlight the commissioner's adoption role, over and above many other roles that he will have, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on that. That is not to deny the necessity for the commissioner to take a strong interest in adoption issues; it is simply that the commissioner will and should have a range of roles. His involvement in adoption issues will simply be one of many areas on which he can comment.

In order, I hope, to help the hon. Member for North Dorset, I shall give the Government's view on the important issue that he raised of the Hague convention and its implementation. He will agree that that is a complex area of legislation and that it is vital to ensure that the provisions properly protect the interests of children in the United Kingdom. Section 14 of the 1999 Act, which inserts a new provision in the Adoption Act 1976, makes it an offence to bring a child into England and Wales for the purposes of adoption unless requirements prescribed in regulations have been complied with. The Government intend to enact the provision in advance of the main body of the 1999 Act to tighten controls over the assessment procedure. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), will consult on the draft regulations shortly. I understand that the Assembly will also be involved in that consultation. I hope that that covers new clause 5, but I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments in due course. I emphasise that the new clause would elevate the adoption issue above many of the other issues with which the Children's Commissioner will have to deal.

New clause 6 would remove the National Assembly's statutory right to be formally consulted on the implementation of the 1999 Act. I understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled the new clause; obviously he wants to beef up, in his words, the commissioner's role on those issues. However, new clause 6 would remove the right of formal consultation from the Assembly and vest it in the commissioner, and that would be inappropriate, for several reasons. As I have tried to explain during the course of the Bill, the commissioner should be independent of the Assembly—he is a creature of the Assembly, funded by the Assembly, but is independent of the Assembly. The Assembly and the commissioner may take different views on a particular issue, which is right and proper. It is certainly right for the Assembly to hold strong views on such issues, but if we accepted new clause 6, the independent Children's Commissioner could have a view on an issue while the elected National Assembly did not. That is an important point.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

As I was saying before the Division, the commissioner has significant powers under clause 3, which will allow him to review the exercise of the Assembly's functions in relation to a range of issues, particularly that of adoption and the relevant adoption legislation.

Clause 3 is significant. Although I accept what the hon. Member for North Dorset has said, I do not believe that we should lift adoption out of the range of other issues that are considered by the commissioner. He will have the power under the clause to exercise wide-ranging reviews of the Assembly's functions as the central authority. Before the Division I talked about new clause 5, the Assembly and the commissioner's responsibilities for a general review of functions under clause 3. I also talked about new clause 6, which I believe would replace the Assembly's role with the commissioner's role and deny the Assembly a view of some important issues. I hope that the hon. Member for Dorset North will reflect on those comments, and for the last time in this Committee stage, I ask him to consider withdrawing the motion and new clause.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I do not wish to be pedantic, but just for the record I should say that the name of my constituency is North Dorset. I was disappointed that the Minister told us that the Government did intend to implement the Hague convention, which was signed in 1993. The Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act received Royal Assent on 27 July 1999, and still it has not been implemented. It is a matter of some concern that that is still the case. Part of my reason for tabling these amendments was to make the Children's Commissioner a champion of children's rights so that he can intervene for victims of inter-country adoptions that are carried out through dubious processes.

I do not necessarily accept everything the Minister said, particularly with regard to new clause 6 and putting the Commissioner into a consultation role rather than an executive role. I would have thought it appropriate for the commissioner to be the consultee for Wales. It would enhance, not only the commissioner but, the National Assembly, if the commissioner's role was established in legislation with regard to inter-country aspects when the Assembly was acting as the central authority. It seems that the Minister is not minded to accept my new clauses, despite the sympathy that I sensed from him and from his hon. Friend Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell). I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Wells. May I take this opportunity to thank you and Mr. Jones for your chairmanship and for way in which the Committee has been conducted? I congratulate those who have contributed to the Bill or to its proceedings. There are some issues to which we shall return later. If we are to have a children's champion, we must address the question of powers and children's human rights. If there are non-devolved matters, that is clearly a question to which we shall have to return.

Finally, I offer my best wishes to the National Assembly for Wales and my thanks to all those groups of children's lobbyists who have assisted the Committee so much.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Further to that point of order, I am sure that it will not go unnoticed that in the five sittings of the Committee there has not been one Division. That does not mean there has been unanimity on the Bill, but there has been unanimity of purpose, which is to establish a Children's Commissioner for Wales with proper and effective powers. I am sure that is true of all parties represented here today. Just because we did not vote, does not mean there were no differences between us—indeed, there have been lengthy discussions to which hon. Members on both sides have contributed on how to improve the Bill. On Report and Third Reading and during the Bill's passage through the House of Lords, we shall continue to try to improve the legislation. Time is of the essence, and I am delighted we have been able to do our job in the five sittings allotted to us. We wish the Bill well on its journey.

I, too, would like to thank all the children's charities and others who have made representations to us and the National Assembly of Wales during consideration of the Bill. I thank you, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Jones for the way in which you have chaired our sittings—your guidance has been invaluable.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Wells. I had intended to wait until you put the Question before making my remarks, but as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has raised his point of order, I shall do so now.

This is the 18th Bill on which I have had the pleasure of serving during my time in the House, Mr. Well but it is the first time I have ever gone through a Bill without voting, which is an indication of the cross-party support for the Bill and for the Government's proposals. I understand that the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), has been through two Bills without voting. Obviously, he brings an air of consensus to Committee proceedings, unlike previous Whips I have served under. I confess that when I was a Whip, I enjoyed forcing points on an issue, just to make a point.

I thank you, Mr. Wells, for your efforts in the sittings that you have chaired, and your colleague, Mr. Jones, who as well as being your co-Chairman is my constituency next-door-neighbour. I should also like to place on record my thanks to the Clerk, to parliamentary counsel, to my colleagues from the police for sitting through the Committee on numerous occasions and helping us during our proceedings, to the Hansard reporters, to officials from the Wales Office who are present today and those from the National Assembly who are on secondment to the Wales Office, and to the Doorkeepers for the service they have provided.

I also thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their support and constructive comments. From the Opposition Benches, the hon. Members for North Dorset and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) have been constructive in their comments, as have the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and for Brecon and Radnorshire. Not least, I thank my hon. Friends, both those who have offered constructive contributions and those who have indulged the Committee with their silence, for their fulsome and wholesome support at all times. It is a pleasure to know that many hon. Members are so keen on Government proposals that they do not need to reinforce their feelings with words, but can instead rely on the Minister to represent the Government's interests.

I also thank the many children's groups who have been involved in lobbying the Committee. It is right and proper that we explore the issues that they have raised. Finally, I pay tribute to National Assembly for its committee work, and to Jane Hutt, the Minister with responsibility for health and children's affairs in the National Assembly.

I am confident that, although it has not been amended in Committee, we have a Bill that will go to another place with the benefit of constructive criticism and Government explanations. In due course, when the Bill has been through Report stage and Third Reading, we shall have legislation of which the House and the National Assembly can be proud.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Further to that point of order, Mr Wells. I add my gratitude to you and Mr. Jones for chairing our proceedings so ably. Most of our time in Committee has been spent in what has been described as grown-up debate. We have not changed much, but we have narrowed down three or four main areas of contention. Two or three remain for another place to address in more detail. I am confident that the Minister will report to his colleagues on the main areas for attention and I hope that there will be some movement in another place.

I add my thanks to the children's groups who have lobbied and briefed us so well. I think in particular of Children in Wales, which has acted as an umbrella group for all the interested parties. A lot of hard work has been done. Today's proceedings are a tribute to Children in Wales, who, back in the early 1990s, pointed out the need for a Children's Commissioner for Wales. That is now to become a reality, subject to those amendments that were argued for, some of which I hope will be put into effect in the other place.

There has been unanimity on many aspects of the Bill. There is a consensus and our debate from beginning to end has been a sensible one. I hope that it has also been fruitful, not for us as parliamentarians, but for the young children of Wales who are the future of that country.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Wells. It would be remiss of us not to thank the Minister for his good humour in taking this Bill through Committee.

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I thank all those who have put spurious points of order to me on matters that are not really my concern. I am grateful to receive them, however, particularly as they have been expressed in such a gracious and good-humoured way. I will certainly convey them to my co-Chairman, Mr. Jones. I commend the Committee for its good-tempered and serious debates. It does the reputation of the Houses of Parliament a great deal of good when matters of such importance are discussed in such a responsible manner.

Following the changes in our procedure, I have new words to say. Our proceedings are now concluded.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Committee rose at seven minutes past Six o'clock.