Orders of the Day — Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill

House of Commons, 8 February 2001.

ADVICE TO ASSEMBLY AND TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. As was stated in our deliberations on the programme motion, the basic principle of the Bill is not a matter for great debate across the Chamber. In fact, there was a great deal of agreement in Committee about what we wanted to achieve. However, we failed to get the Government to agree to widen the scope of the role of the Children's Commissioner in a number of areas. New clause 2 is part of our general aim of widening the scope of the commissioner's role. We believe that the Children's Commissioner should have the widest possible powers available to him to enable him to carry out the role of advocate for children in Wales and to look at cases of abuse and the whole range of children's rights, particularly those contained within the UN conventions to which we have signed up. I shall not deal with those points now, because they are outside the scope of the new clause, but no doubt there will be passing references to them on Third Reading. The new clause deals with the advice that the commissioner can and should give to the Assembly and to local authorities. The Bill as drafted states only that the commissioner may review the effect on children of the exercise of functions of the Assembly or other people. Our new clause goes much further, allowing him to give advice on changes to improve the quality of services provided. The new clause includes all local authorities, while the schedule refers only to county councils and county borough councils.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

The hon. Gentleman's new clause makes an important statement about the functions of the commissioner. However, as clause 2 gives the commissioner extremely wide-ranging powers, is that not sufficient to cover the points that he raises? The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with clause 2, but I remind the House that it amends section 72 of the Care Standards Act 2000 and that it states: The principal aim of the Commissioner in exercising his functions"—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. This is developing into a speech. I think that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) will have understood the point that is being made.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before tabling the new clause, we were of course cognisant of the existing wording of the Bill. However, we did not feel that it was sufficient to achieve the purpose that the new clause is intended to serve. Although I am intrigued by the comments of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), his short intervention does not convince me that the existing clause meets that purpose.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Is not the reason why the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is wrong that clause 2 is only a statement of the purpose or objective of the commissioner and does not actually give the commissioner powers? It is the new clause that would confer powers on the commissioner.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

My right hon. and learned Friend has rightly noted that we are trying in the new clause to give the commissioner powers that were not previously conferred. We discussed the matter in Committee, although we did not force it, or any other matter, to a vote. In Committee, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey)—who is in the Chamber and who may want to speak—moved an amendment stating that The Commissioner may make appropriate representations…about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children ordinarily resident in Wales. He said: It would mean that the remit of the commissioner could encompass all aspects of the rights and welfare of children who are ordinarily resident in Wales. The amendment would allow the commissioner to be a truly independent watchdog and champion of children, and would strengthen the Bill in four key ways."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 23 January 2001; c. 61.] We expressed our concern that the definition in that amendment was far too wide. It would have allowed the commissioner to comment on anything, including family life. We have always made clear our anxiety about such an extension to the commissioner's powers.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

The motives behind the new clause are laudable. We want to improve the quality of the services. However, would the provision not create even more confusion concerning who exactly was responsible for certain matters? The new clause refers to giving advice; that is extremely subjective—such advice could easily be ignored. It refers to the quality of services. What is the quality of services? Perhaps the drafting of the Bill is at fault because it is not tight enough but perhaps there should be some reciprocity in the process.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman is correct that there is a fault in the drafting, which is why we are proposing the new clause. I hope that, as I develop my argument, the hon. Gentleman will understand why it would be a useful addition to the Bill and to the scope of the Children's Commissioner. If the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire in Committee had been taken at face value, it would have allowed the commissioner to take upon himself powers to act rather like a health education authority. He would have been able to set out what was good practice and to tell parents that good practice was to do X, Y and Z. We do not want him to do that. It is right that he should consider child abuse in the home and, as we argued in Committee, problems in non-devolved bodies and cross-border issues. However, we were concerned that he should not somehow become the arbiter of good practice in bringing up children in normal family situations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said in Committee, it is clear that, under that amendment, the Children's Commissioner could say anything about anything. We have made it clear that we do not wish the commissioner to be handcuffed, but confusion could arise about whether he could make pronouncements willy-nilly about family life styles and so on. That is not to say that we do not want him to refer to abuse that takes place in the home. We want his remit to cover abuse; what we do not want is for him to have a general remit that covers the various types and qualities of family life styles.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether, under new clause 2, the commissioner could make representations about the adequacy of services for homosexual young people or young people who are seriously questioning their sexuality?

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

New clause 2 would give the commissioner the power to advise local authorities about the services that they provide for children. If a local authority offers services specifically geared towards children who are in the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers, that would fall within the Children Commissioner's remit. However, giving advice in those circumstances to children in a normal family environment would not fall within his remit.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

rose—

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

rose—

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I am very conscious of the fact that, as we said in the debate on the programme motion, there is only a limited amount of time available. However, I understand that hon. Members want to intervene, so I shall give way—briefly, I hope—to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Is not the crux of the argument whether the definition of the word "review" includes giving advice? Local authorities and the Assembly are, by virtue of schedule 2, bodies that come under the Bill. If the Minister were to say that the word "review" included giving advice, new clause 2 might be otiose. It is up to the Minister to respond on that point.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I shall obviously be interested in the Minister's response, but I do not think that using the word "review" necessarily means that the commissioner can advise local authorities. That is the reason why we have tabled new clause 2. We believe that the commissioner should have the power to give advice to local authorities.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I become very disturbed when he talks about closing down the commissioner's remit on what he terms normal family situations. Given that most abuse takes place within families—what happens in institutions is dramatic and should not take place—the general suggestion that families should be left alone will leave many thousands of children vulnerable. I should be very much disturbed if the commissioner's remit were not extend to that

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

What disturbs me is the suggestion that most families are somehow guilty until proven innocent in such matters. Clearly, the commissioner's responsibilities include child abuse that takes place in family situations. Those powers are already vested in local authorities and social services departments; they already exist. The concern that we expressed on Second Reading and in Committee was that the commissioner would suddenly become the arbiter of good practice within a family situation. It is quite right that the commissioner should be the arbiter of good practice for children in care and children at risk, but not in a normal family situation. 5.30 pm I fear that we have digressed. The new clause would cover the issues that I have mentioned and would deal with any function that the Assembly carried out in relation to children. It would also deal with incidents in which the Assembly failed to carry out a duty. There was broad agreement in Committee on that aim. I recall that the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru representatives and some Labour Back Benchers all supported the aim and moved similar amendments to try to force this principle through. The Government made little response to our arguments in Committee, but this new clause would strengthen the powers of the commissioner and would be very much in the interests of children in Wales.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I shall be brief. By virtue of schedule 2A, the National Assembly and local government are bodies that come under the general purview of the clause. Therefore, the commissioner will have a right to review the exercise of functions by the Assembly and other persons, including local government. I support the general thrust of the new clause; at the very least, it is a good probing new clause. The issue turns on whether the word "review" includes giving advice. In my respectful submission, it is inconceivable that the word "review" would not include giving advice. If the commissioner were to review a situation that was far from tolerable or far from acceptable and he were unable to give advice, his post would be virtually worthless. He would merely report, but would not be able to make recommendations. That would fly in the face of the Welsh Assembly's document, "A Children's Commissioner for Wales", which says: We want the Commissioner to ensure that children and young people are listened to and enabled to play an active part", and that they come into policy-making, planning processes, and provision for all relevant services. The Minister would persuade hon. Members fairly easily if he said that the word "review" included the giving of advice. I find it inconceivable that it should not. If it does, I suggest, with respect to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), that the new clause might be otiose.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I shall speak briefly to agree generally with the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). I, too, find it inconceivable that the word "review" would not cover the suggestions that are made in the new clause. The remarks of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on the family are a distraction from what the Bill seeks to do. It reflects badly on the Conservative party that it has taken this opportunity to throw up this issue. We should concentrate on the wording of the new clause, and I think that its provisions are covered by the current wording of the Bill. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister says when he winds up the debate.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I apologise for not taking part in the proceedings on the Bill's earlier stages. I once worked as a social worker in a children's home and, as a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, I have taken a keen interest in the early years of children's development. A few weeks ago, the Committee published a report on that subject. A couple of years ago in the House I raised the issue of au pairs. I mention that for the following reason. There are many areas over which the commissioner has not been given jurisdiction but where, nevertheless, children may be at risk of harm. On the other hand, the commissioner has been given jurisdiction over, for example, the behaviour of teachers. Teachers are governed by the law of the land and are extremely well trained in handling children. One of the advantages of new clause 2 is that it would be possible for the commissioner to advise the Assembly on new areas to which his jurisdiction might be extended. I have in mind the issue of child carers. During the Select Committee inquiry into the situation in Wales, as well as in England, we understood there to be something of a conflict. On the one hand, there is the need to have the highest quality of child care in the home so that mothers who want to work can do so. On the other hand, many working mothers do not attract a high level of pay. If the costs of paying for child care rise too much because the standards required are so high, many mothers who can now afford child care in the home will not be able to do so. If the commissioner were to recommend that his jurisdiction should extend into that sphere, I hope that that conflict, which is particularly relevant in Wales where low pay is an issue, would be borne in mind. An issue arose in relation to au pairs two years ago, and I warned the Government about it. It continues in my constituency. Agencies that are active there but serve the whole country tell me that there is a problem. Since August 1997, au pairs have no longer been required to register with the police once they have been here for six months. That has had a bad effect on how we keep checks on that level of child care. Although we want to encourage cultural exchange with other countries—that is the purpose of the au pair scheme—inexperienced young people come to look after our children and the authorities have no idea whether they are doing the job properly. A commissioner given an advisory role in the Assembly could look into such matters and advise the Assembly that, although the Government in Whitehall were not prepared to reintroduce a registration system for au pairs, it might be appropriate in Wales. The Select Committee also looked into the issue of smacking children. The all-party Select Committee has striven in all cases to reach a unanimous view by the time we produce a report—despite evidence today on another report. We took a great deal of evidence on smacking by child carers and whether it should be regulated by law. Many of us who instinctively feel that there should never be a law against parents smacking—what parents do to their children will always be restrained by love—nevertheless believe that there should be a legal restraint on child carers. That was the Committee's unanimous decision. While we were reaching that decision, and the Minister concerned knew that we were reaching it, she conducted her own focus group research of a few hundred parents and concluded, based on that very small group, that it would be unpopular. Without waiting for our recommendation, she declared that there would be no such restraint on child carers.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that at this very moment a consultation exercise is taking place in Wales about whether child carers should be allowed to smack children in their care. The indications are that in Wales it will not be allowed.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I welcome that information. I was not aware of it, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady. If we are to have a Children's Commissioner for Wales, we would want the commissioner to be involved in consultation in this area. It is not clear to me whether, in the absence of new clause 2, it will be possible for the commissioner to play a formal role rather than a series of informal roles, which I gather the Minister has intimated during previous proceedings would be appropriate. If we are to have a formal post, and it is to be paid, there should be formal responsibilities. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I have only a few insights to offer. I am sure that we should not be proceeding with such haste in respect of Wales without also considering the situation in England. If the new commissioner were to be given a wider remit under new clause 2, I would hope that he could give advice to the National Assembly for Wales on how to tell the Westminster Parliament—and, so long as we have a Labour Government for the next few months, a Labour Government—how to get its act together so that we have consistent provision of advice and a consistent framework so that children moving from one part of the country to another are given a seamless service by those in charge of them.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, the new clause is useful in that it enables us to consider various issues. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will acknowledge that any review should mean advice, or that the commissioner has the right to give advice beyond that. However, I am disturbed by some of the supporting arguments of Opposition Members, especially the continual reiterating of the argument that the commissioner does not really have a role within the family structure. My first reservation, as I said in Committee, is that I would hate to see a tsar of child care telling local authorities that they must do this and that. Local authorities must be left to do their job, but they have manifestly failed to do so. That is why we are introducing the post of Children's Commissioner for Wales. If the commissioner is to be able to do anything, he must be in a position to lay down what is good practice. He must then ensure that local authorities implement at least that minimum level of good practice. The Opposition are putting forward the idea that there will be somebody knocking at the door of family homes in the middle of the night and prying. That is nonsensical. As most child abuse takes place in families, there must be a way of adopting that approach eventually, but the commissioner does not need to do it. We must ensure that local authorities carry out their duties.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

By means of the new clause, 1we want the commissioner to be able to give advice to local authorities on good practice. Part of good practice is being able to pick up at an early stage any cases of child abuse which, under current legislation, would come within the remit of the local authority's social services department. My references to the commissioner not being intrusive on the family were with respect to an amendment tabled in Committee which would have given him the power to lay down good practice within families, which I think is inappropriate.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

I beg to differ on that issue. I return to the substance of the new clause. I have reservations about just giving advice and the quality of the process. I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of the fact that there is not any feedback or reciprocity in the suggested process. One can give advice ad nauseam, but whether it is taken up and acted on is another matter. Until the commissioner has a specific function in that respect, there will always be a weakness in the general process.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I shall make just a few points, as most of those that I was going to make have already been made. I stress that it is important that the new clause broadens and extends powers. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) rightly pointed to amendments that I tabled in Committee, which extended powers much more widely than does new clause 2. Obviously, "advice" is the key word. Reference has been made to the quality and standard of services provided by the Assembly and local authorities. If there is to be a children's champion—a Children's Commissioner for Wales—he must oversee a service with an extremely high standard. My experience of local authorities in Wales is that, on the whole, they are conscientious and want to carry out their tasks. Very often, however, they are underfunded. The standards and improvements that the commissioner would, I am sure, wish to instate will sometimes not be attainable because of lack of funding. Two issues are involved. Crucially, funding of the National Assembly for Wales, which comes via the Welsh block, is decided here through negotiations and is eventually negotiated by the Secretary of State with the Assembly. There ought to be provision in the Welsh block to achieve adequate funding of local authorities and social services departments within those authorities. That funding often varies because of the different priorities of different local authorities in Wales. The role of the Children's Commissioner should include being able to give advice so that standards are maintained and improved. I should like to think that the new clause is a probing one, which tries to ensure that that would be brought about. By the same token, that could be solved by the Minister responding to our debate with a clear statement that "review" and "advice" are virtually the same thing, and that advice can be freely given by the Children's Commissioner for the benefit of children.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I hope that I will be able to satisfy hon. Members on the points that they have made to the Government. I respect the views of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on the matters that he raised. However, on reflection, I hope that he, other Opposition Members and my hon. Friends will accept that there is little difference of view—dare I say, no difference?—between the Government and Opposition Members on the principle behind new clause 2. I hope that the hon. Member for North Dorset will accept my assurance that the power to give the advice envisaged is already encompassed in the Bill. Clause 3 introduces a new power for the commissioner to review the effect on children in Wales of the exercise of any function of the Assembly and of any function of local authorities, as well as other public bodies listed in schedule 2A. That power includes reviewing the effect of the provision of services. Indeed, as has been mentioned, clause 2 states: The principal aim of the Commissioner is to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children to whom this Part applies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) mentioned, the Government believe both that the commissioner will be able to report on the outcome of his reviews and that his reports can include recommendations and advice for action. I very much share the view of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—and the spirit in which it was expressed—that that is the intention of the Bill; I hope that it reflects the intention of the Opposition's new clause. The commissioner may also give advice and information to any person in connection with his functions. The Bill therefore provides fully for the intention of the new clause. Indeed, I envisage that giving such advice will be one of the commissioner's central functions. That is the hope of the Government and the National Assembly. I shall try to cover the points raised in the debate. The key point, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Dorset, relates to family policy. The National Assembly for Wales considered the matter. In its report on the Children's Commissioner, the Health and Social Services Committee recommended that the commissioner should focus on policies and services that affect children. In the Assembly debate on the report, which took place on 7 June last year, it was accepted that it was not the intention that the commissioner should exercise functions, such as investigations, in respect of families. Those powers are rightly held by different bodies accountable to the Assembly. That does not mean that the commissioner will never comment on issues that affect family life. There are many issues affecting children on which he may want to bring broad conclusions to the attention of the Assembly or, informally, to the attention of Government. I remind the hon. Member for North Dorset that his colleague in the Assembly, David Melding, helpfully clarified the fact that a fully effective Children's Commissioner will be available to offer great support to parents, without undermining the responsibility of the family in any way. Given the general principle that we held throughout Committee—that it is not the prime function of the commissioner to investigate individual cases—I hope that I have dealt with the point. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) has left the Chamber, as he contributed to our short debate. He mentioned a range of issues relating to child care. I hope that he will reflect on what I shall say when he has an opportunity to read Hansard on the train in the near future. Provided that the services are regulated by the National Assembly, the commissioner has a direct responsibility, under the Bill, to examine those areas. For areas not regulated by the Assembly, he does not have that direct responsibility, and those are areas that we can consider. I had intended to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Guildford about England, but as he is not present I shall leave that for another day. Perhaps he will reflect on his contribution and consider whether he wants to write to me about those matters. He spoke only seven or eight minutes ago, so it is important that he should allow the Government the opportunity to respond. The final point relates to the fact that the post of commissioner is a statutory office. It therefore has functions conferred upon it by law, but those functions are guided by the principle that the National Assembly for Wales has responsibilities, which are the areas that the commissioner will examine. As I said repeatedly in Committee, in the course of his work the commissioner may receive representations on a range of issues, including non-devolved matters. The commissioner is perfectly entitled to bring those matters to the attention of the relevant Government Departments. That does not give him substantive functions in non-devolved areas, nor will he have formal power to require information in relation to such matters, but he will be able to make informal comments. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Guildford is back. I was not trying to disparage him in his absence, but I have responded to some of the points raised in his contribution. I hope that he will read my response.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I hope that the Minister will accept my apologies for being temporarily absent from the Chamber.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

In the spirit of close co-operation that existed in Committee and on the Floor of the House, I graciously accept that. None of my comments were intended to disparage the hon. Gentleman, but in his absence it was difficult to respond to his comments. I shall deal now with the hon. Gentleman's point about England. Obviously, the Bill is the product of devolution. The National Assembly and the Government are working in partnership to establish a Children's Commissioner for Wales. I understand that the Northern Ireland Assembly has expressed the wish to establish a children's commissioner for Northern Ireland. The British Government will examine the implications and reflect on that as it relates to Government policy for England. The Scottish Executive will also have opportunities to reflect in due course. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for North Dorset. I emphasise my belief that there is no difference of view between the Government and the Opposition on the principle of the new clause. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press it to a Division, that he accepts my explanation and that he will ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I am conscious that only 20 minutes remain because of the pernicious guillotine under which we are working, so I shall not say an awful lot. I accept the Under-Secretary's assurances and I hope that the practice of the commissioner will allow him to give the advice that we sought to insert in the Bill through the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

RIGHT OF ACCESS TO INSTITUTIONS

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I am glad that we have the opportunity to debate the new clause. The Standing Committee's debate on access and the helpful letter that the Under-Secretary circulated to its members mean that we can deal with the proposal within the time allowed. During the debate in Committee, it was recognised that the hierarchy of supervisions, if I can call it that, already contained provision for the social services inspectorate to access institutions in which children were in care. However, one of the points made by the Waterhouse report was that the social services inspectorate sometimes did not do its job properly. Hon. Members were concerned that the commissioner might occasionally find it essential or worth while to visit a children's home to get a feel for the issues at stake in a complaint that he is considering, even though that might not happen often. He might want to visit an institution if a complaint had general ramifications for the way in which children's services are provided in Wales. Although it will not be the commissioner's role to investigate each of the complaints that are received, some of them may involve a general concern. He would be acting well within his powers if he were to make an investigation in respect of such complaints. The Committee listened to the Under-Secretary's words about the role of the social services inspectorate and his assurances that the commissioner would not need to make such visits very often. He told us that he would consider how the commissioner might ensure that he obtained necessary access. I would like to make other hon. Members aware of the letter that he circulated. In relation to examination of particular cases by the commissioner, the letter states: given the background that will inform the Assembly's regulations on the types of cases which may be considered, I consider the possibility remote. It further states that it would be possible for the Assembly to make orders by virtue of regulations under section 74(3) of the Care Standards Act 2000. After reading the letter, I went on to read that section 74 of that Act ensures that the Assembly would have power to make provision for the examination by the Commissioner of the cases of particular children to whom this Part applies. It goes on to state: The regulations may include provision about…the circumstances in which an examination may be made and the procedure for conducting an examination, including provision about the representation of parties. On reflection, I felt that the Under-Secretary had pointed out a way in which access could be dealt with. 6 pm In his letter, the Minister wrote: if the Commissioner considered that his examination of a particular case would be aided by a visit to an establishment that came within his jurisdiction, there would be nothing to prevent him from making an appropriate request to the establishment. Provided the request was reasonable, I think a refusal would be very shortsighted, given the adverse publicity that could ensue. Could an institution refuse the commissioner permission to visit when his intention to visit related to an issue arising from the public funding of a place in that institution? I am not talking about privately funded institutions, although the Minister might wish to consider issues relating to those. I should not have thought that a publicly funded institution would have the right to refuse the commissioner entry when he was investigating a particular case. However, I am satisfied that the Minister's letter covers the main points.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Although the hon. Gentleman and I are striving to achieve the same end, I take a contrary view. Surely the inspectorate, rather than the commissioner, would be responsible for any such investigation.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I was trying to go a step further. We have to assume that the commissioner would want to visit only if there had been a problem with the way in which the inspectorate had conducted its own visit. I want to know whether, in the exceptional circumstances I have cited—given that the places would be publicly funded—an institution could refuse entry to the commissioner. There is also the possibility that the commissioner would want to visit an institution with privately funded places. I hope the Minister can respond to the points that I have raised.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I want to know how the satisfaction expressed by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) can be wholly realised, and how we can ensure proper access to institutions and proper examination of cases. In the latter context, the obtaining of information, explanations and assistance is particularly important. Almost regardless of the circumstances, people should have to give the commissioner the necessary information, or require those who hold or are accountable for information to provide the commissioner with explanations or other assistance. That must enable the commissioner to have direct access to institutions. Standards vary in residential children's homes. Access to such homes is important. The new clause is also relevant to detention centres, although here I am casting the net a bit wider. There are not many detention centres in Wales—I know of only one—and it worries many of us that young people are often miles from their homes, culturally removed and in an alien environment that their parents are unable to visit. That issue—which is currently dealt with under non-devolved regulations—underlines the need in Wales for more facilities of that kind that the Children's Commissioner could examine. The children's ombudspeople in the rest of Europe are empowered to monitor and report on anything affecting children's human rights. Such human rights will be at the forefront of the commissioner's examination of cases that come before him. The Government have made it clear that the commissioner would not necessarily need the power to enter institutions, and that inspectorates already have the right of access. We debated that issue earlier. However, experience has demonstrated that the greatest risk to children exists in the small number of cases in which the parties are obstructive. The Children's Commissioner would not be involved in the work of such inspectorates, except in the case of an alleged failure. The Children's Commissioner should have the express power to visit, and have access to, institutions such as residential children's homes, and to obtain information from foster parents—an issue that has not been discussed a great deal—as well as to require bodies or persons to provide information. I should be grateful if the Minister would address those points, because they lie at the crux of the new clause. The jury is out on whether he will be able to convince us.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Many of the points that I was going to raise have already been covered, so I shall be brief. The new clause is important, because the Children's Commissioner should have the specific power of access to institutions, both public and private, in which children are cared for. The issue of the care standards inspectorate has been raised in Committee and in the House. We accept that the inspector's role, as part of a separate agency, is to inspect services for looked-after children, and that the commissioner should not duplicate that role. However, the commissioner should have a specific role in relation to failures of the inspection service. One of the lessons that we have learned from all the tragedies in Wales and throughout the UK is that children are not always listened to, and that the inspection systems can fail. That is why it is so important that the Children's Commissioner should have the right of access in cases where the inspection system may have failed. I accept what the Minister said in his letter about the refusal of admittance to any establishment being short-sighted and quite unlikely to happen. However, there have been major scandals in the care system. People who sexually abuse often target the care system and try to get jobs that provide access to vulnerable children. We must do everything in our power to prevent that from happening. Although most institutions are very caring places, we know that there is a network of abusers who target the care system. Granting the commissioner the right of access would help in the process of opening up the care system to scrutiny. It would also make a difference to the behaviour of some of the very dangerous people who sometimes get into the system. The Minister said in his letter that the statutory right to physical access was, by its nature, an invasive power that should be granted only when absolutely necessary. In many cases, the institutions in question would be children's homes, so we should be careful about giving people the power to enter them. However, in view of all the problems that have arisen, an invasive power—as the Minister described it—is necessary. It would not be used willy-nilly. The commissioner will work strategically and would not demand entry to children's homes as a matter of course. The new clause gives the commissioner more teeth and sends a clear signal that we will not tolerate any more abuse in children's homes in Wales. That is an important step towards safeguarding all our children in Wales.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The third paragraph of the letter that has been mentioned states that the Children's Commissioner's work includes neither regulation nor inspection. I do not take much comfort from that. I accept what is said in a later paragraph about when the inspectorate has failed, but it is a bit late to act at that point, when traumatic reports will doubtless be made. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) said, we need to allow the commissioner to move in sufficiently early. There is nothing wrong with the new clause; it does not involve duplication. The NSPCC is worried about the matter that we are discussing and supports the new clause. Plant yng Nghymru—Children in Wales—also strongly favours including such a right of access in the Bill. As the hon. Lady said, some abusers are sophisticated, and every possible measure must be used against them. The new clause constitutes a minor amendment. If the Minister claims that it is substantial and that it somehow alters the Bill, I respectfully remind him that at least two measures that are being considered grant an invasive power. For example, the Vehicles (Crime) Bill grants a new, sweeping power to move into scrap yards and places where number plates are produced. If that is allowed, surely we can permit a power that will protect children who may be at risk. I ask the Minister to reconsider.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I have little time, but I shall try to deal with the points as best I can. First, as I made clear in Committee and in the letter to hon. Members, I want to ensure that the Children's Commissioner has all the necessary powers to prevent a recurrence of the circumstances that led to the Waterhouse report. The Bill gives the commissioner an impressive armoury. First, he will be able to inquire into, and report on, the actions of the care standards inspectorate. As I said in my letter, regulations under section 74 of the Care Standards Act 2000 grant the commissioner the right to information, explanations and other assistance in making such inquiries. He will be able to inquire into the actions of a body that runs a children's home or an institution and the relevant social services departments. Those inquiries can be strongly supported by the right of access to information, explanations and assistance. Such powers will be more than helpful if the commissioner decides that there is a reason to investigate a social services department or even the care standards inspectorate. If the commissioner believed that it was necessary for him to visit premises, nothing in the Bill would prevent him from requesting a visit. It is unlikely that such a request would be refused. If that happened, I am sure that the commissioner would make a strong report to the Assembly on the reasons for the refusal and the grounds on which he wanted to examine the premises in the first place. In answer to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), all premises, private and public, have the right to refuse the commissioner access. However, let us put that in context. The commissioner would make such a request only because of the failure of the inspectorate system, which he examines. That system will undertake regular inspections; it is the commissioner's duty to inspect the inspectors. Fewer than 10 per cent. of looked-after children in Wales are in homes; most are in foster care. I hope that the system is sufficiently robust. On the basis of my letter and my comments today, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the motion.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the reassurance that he has given. Perhaps the Government will reconsider such a provision in another place, but as there are probably powers to enable the Assembly to make appropriate orders, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. The Labour party went into the elections for the National Assembly for Wales committed to the creation of an independent statutory Children's Commissioner for Wales. The Government have shared that commitment by acting swiftly and sympathetically to ensure that the required legislation is put in place. I believe that the whole process has been a testament to successful partnership working between the Government and the Assembly, and—to give credit to those who served on the Committee—between the parties in the House and the Assembly. We achieved a speedy passage of the Bill in Committee and on Report. Last year, the Government acted quickly to amend what was then the Care Standards Bill to establish the office of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and to give the commissioner powers that reflected the recommendations in the Waterhouse report. They relate to children's services regulated under the Care Standards Act 2000, and represented the speediest possible response to Sir Ronald Waterhouse's recommendation of the establishment of a Children's Commissioner for Wales. The Secretary of State's announcement, made so speedily after Sir Ronald's recommendations in February last year, is a testament to the Government's commitment to tackle child abuse, in partnership with the National Assembly. Wales now has its first Children's Commissioner, Peter Clarke. I take this opportunity to wish him well in his post, which he will take up on 1 March—just over a year after the publication of the Waterhouse report. The Government have introduced legislation to extend the commissioner's powers in response to the Assembly's vision. By adding to the scope of the commissioner's functions, the Bill will allow the Assembly to achieve its strategy for a statutory, independent commissioner with a wide-ranging role, who can be—I emphasise this strongly—a champion for all the children and young people in Wales. The Bill has undergone scrutiny in Committee and I thank Committee members for their constructive contributions. I accept that we have made no amendments, but I believe that there has been an exploration of the Bill and that we have achieved broad consensus around the concept of a Children's Commissioner, which has allowed informed discussion and speedy progress. I recognise that there are some concerns, but I hope that I have dealt with them in Committee and on Report. There will be opportunities for further discussion in another place—to the satisfaction of all hon. Members of both Houses, I hope. The Bill will introduce a power for the commissioner to review the effect on children in Wales of the activities of the Assembly, local authorities, health authorities and other public bodies sponsored by the Assembly. The public bodies concerned are not confined to those primarily concerned with services for children. They encompass a wide range of organisations whose actions may impact upon children, such as the Welsh Development Agency, the Sports Council for Wales and the National Museums and Galleries of Wales. The Bill will back up the widened role by extending the commissioner's powers under the Care Standards Act 2000 to examine cases of particular children, and to assist in particular cases. I pay tribute to Jane Hutt and her Committee in the Assembly and to the officials who have supported the progress of the Bill. Assembly regulations will be set out in detail, but the role potentially applies to the activities of all bodies referred to in the Bill. The extent of the commissioner's power to review and monitor arrangements for complaints procedures, whistleblowing and advocacy will also be greatly increased by the Bill. This power will be applied to a far wider group of bodies that provide direct services to children in Wales, including local authorities. I apologise to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) because I had intended to refer to him in an earlier discussion. He mentioned the problem of funding for local authorities. I can only say—I mean this genuinely—that the £10 billion that the Government have given to the National Assembly as part of the comprehensive spending review represents the most significant increase in public spending in Wales in my Lifetime—and, I suspect, in the lifetime of every hon. Member. It is for the Assembly to determine its expenditure, but I believe that much of it will go to local authorities to support the work that they are undertaking. The commissioner's role will extend to local authorities, the NHS, schools and training organisations. Eventually, Assembly regulations will be able to give the commissioner the power to require bodies to provide him with information if they are involved in the investigation of individual cases, or if arrangements for complaints, whistleblowing and advocacy are being monitored. Legal sanctions are already available for failure to comply. In performing all the functions under clauses 2 and 3, the commissioner will have principal aim of safeguarding and promoting the rights and welfare of children in Wales. That is a major step forward for children in Wales, and for the Assembly and the Government. The new functions proposed in the Bill will enable the commissioner to act as a powerful defender of the rights of children. His field will be the whole range of devolved public services in Wales, and his task will be as challenging as it is worth while. I am confident that the Bill will give him the statutory backing that he needs. The House, the Government and the National Assembly for Wales have to do everything in our power to ensure that the horrors dealt with in the Waterhouse report are never repeated. I believe that the establishment of the Children's Commissioner and the powers that the House and the Assembly wish him to exercise will ensure, as far as we are able to, that those horrors are never repeated.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

It is unfortunate that our proceedings on the Bill are so rushed. I shall have to keep my remarks relatively brief. In all our consideration of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and I have been consistent and positive in supporting the concept of establishing a Children's Commissioner. I thought that the Minister was a little remiss in claiming credit for the Labour party, while failing to point out that it was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who, when he was Secretary of State for Wales, established the Waterhouse inquiry, which led to this legislation. Last year, my colleagues who were involved in the consideration of the Care Standards Act 2000 supported the provisions establishing the Children's Commissioner for Wales. Even at that time, however, they questioned the lack of an equivalent provision for England. The National Assembly for Wales has expressed its concerns about some of the limitations on the commissioner's remit. On Second Reading, in Committee, and earlier today on Report, we have alluded to some of the Bill's remaining defects. There is still a lack of clarity in distinguishing between the rights and responsibilities of parents and those of the Children's Commissioner. I have no doubt that those matters will be revisited in another place. The Bill's most significant defect, however, arises from the devolution settlement. The public bodies in Wales that fall within the Bill's scope are listed in schedules to the Bill. However, the Government of Wales Act 1998 did not create a world in which all child abuse would be committed only by institutions subject to the supervision of the National Assembly, while those who administer other public bodies in Wales would be sanctified and, by statue, become no threat to children's rights. That is clearly nonsense. The immigration service, the Prison Service, the police and the Army are only a few of the many public bodies that operate in Wales but are not covered by the Bill. The schedules to the Bill cover the Welsh Language Board, but not Sianel Pedwar Cymru, which is probably the most significant promoter of the language. Such a nonsense would not exist if we had a children's rights commissioner for England and Wales, or for the whole of the United Kingdom. It would not exist, either, if we were to recognise in this limited Bill—it is limited to Wales—that public bodies in Wales are both devolved and non-devolved, and that the commissioner could be responsible not only to the Assembly for activities within its remit, but to the House for non-devolved matters. We must now look to their lordships to improve the Bill as we seek to improve it. Conservative Members both in Wales and in this place will support such change—which is entirely consistent with what has been said in the Assembly by Members from all parties who want the commissioner's remit to extend not only to public bodies that fall within the scope of the Assembly's powers, but to those within the remit of this place. We must not lose the plot. The Waterhouse report was about children in care, and the commissioner's primary responsibility must be towards children in care and children at risk. He has to get that right. Then we can look to him to be a key advocate in all other areas of public administration, whether they fall within the scope of the Assembly or of the United Kingdom Departments. In evidence to the Health Committee in January 1998, the Government said that they were considering the matter as part of a response to the UN committee on compliance with the convention on the rights of the child. The report of the Health Committee, of which I was a member, was more definite. We argued that it was right for the United Kingdom to follow the example of a number of other western countries by creating the post of a children's rights commissioner. We proposed a commissioner who would have the duty to promote awareness of the rights of the child; highlight ways in which present and proposed policy fails to deliver those rights in practice; conduct formal investigations into alleged breaches of children's rights; ensure that children have an effective means of redress when their rights are disregarded; and carry out and commission research relevant to safeguarding children's rights. The Conservative party in both Westminster and Cardiff believes that it is appropriate that the commissioner should look after children in the care of local authorities and other public bodies, but we do not believe that the Bill is specific enough about his powers. The Opposition have specific concerns about protecting the role of the family and of parents. We mentioned some of those on Report. The Bill will give the commissioner a wide remit, and we want to be careful not to allow him to supplant the parent. Parents should always be given the first opportunity to speak up for their children. We have said that, and we will oppose any measure that allows the commissioner to intervene unnecessarily in the family unit. We also have concerns that the role of the commissioner is confused. For example, he has not been given jurisdiction over many areas in which children may come to harm, but he has specific roles in respect of schools, where teachers already play a vital part in protecting their pupils' welfare. We feel that the Bill falls far short of the Assembly's vision. The job of commissioner is an independent post, funded by the Assembly, but the legislation makes no provision for him to be made accountable to Parliament. We believe in an effective commissioner who does not supplant parents' role, who has parents' confidence, whose role extends to all public bodies, and whose function could apply as much to England as it does to Wales.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Getting the Bill through all its stages in the House has been a triumph. The Government responded very quickly to the Waterhouse report, got the post of Children's Commissioner for Wales established in the Care Standards Act 2000 and, following consultation with the National Assembly, introduced the much wider-ranging powers that the commissioner now has under the Bill. I am pleased that the Children in Wales Commissioner Campaign Group, which encompasses all the major children's charities in Wales, has welcomed the Bill and is pleased with the way in which the Government have acted, although it would have liked the commissioner, in a more focused and statutory way, to have been given a much wider role. Nevertheless, they have welcomed the Bill and want it to be enacted as soon as possible. I should like to address some of the matters that the members of the campaign group have raised. They felt that under this Bill the Children's Commissioner would be merely an ombudsman for children's services, and that the post did not aspire to being a human rights institution. However, I believe that clause 2 gives the commissioner a basis for such an aspiration. It 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. The schedule to the Bill means that any child treated in the national health service comes under the Bill, so any child in Wales can be considered. Moreover, children who ordinarily live in Wales but who are treated in England, and whose treatment is paid for out of the Welsh purse, will also be covered. Therefore, I am sure that a commissioner with the necessary drive and foresight will be able to use the legislation to ensure that his office is a human rights institution. I have every confidence that Peter Clarke will be able to do that. Children cannot be divided into devolved and non-devolved parts, so it will be important for the commissioner to take that positive view. The Children in Wales Commissioner Campaign Group set out five essential characteristics for the commissioner. They were that he should be able to set his own agenda, that he should be able to use the framework of the UN convention on the rights of the child as a guide, that he should have a special obligation to maintain direct contact with children, that he should act as a spokesman for children, and that he should promote respect for the views of children throughout society. I believe that the Bill enables the commissioner to do all those things. There is certainly nothing in it to prevent him from doing them. In Committee, we discussed the campaign group's concerns about how the commissioner would operate. The group wondered whether he would be able to report on primary legislation and potential primary legislation, and whether he would have the right to comment freely on non-devolved matters and functions when they have an impact on children in Wales. The group was also concerned about whether he would be able to represent the interests of children who are ordinarily resident in Wales but who receive services, or who are accommodated, outside Wales, and whether he would be able to consider and make appropriate representations on any matters that, through consultation and other contact with children and young people in Wales, emerge as key concerns. The responses given by my hon. Friend the Minister at the Dispatch Box and in Committee have made it clear that the commissioner will be able to perform all the functions set out by the campaign group. Nevertheless, some concerns remain. The Government want the Children's Commissioner for Wales to be successful, and they have a liberal interpretation of the way in which he will operate with the powers granted by the Bill. Perhaps the campaign group is right to wonder whether in 50 years time or so, a different Government might take a less liberal view. By that time, however, I imagine that the success of the commissioner in Wales, using the powers granted by the Bill, will have meant that there will be a role for a commissioner throughout the United Kingdom, with complete statutory backing and all the powers that any of us would ever want him to have. It needs to be emphasised that the commissioner introduced by this Bill will be independent. That is very important. In conclusion, the problem of the relationship between devolved and non-devolved matters will mean that it is very important for the commissioner to network with, and work closely with, people such as the chief inspector of prisons. In that way, he will be able to make sure that children anywhere in Wales will have his backing when it comes to dealing with people in independent posts such as that. With close co-operation between the commissioner and those who hold similar offices, I am sure that the Bill will be a landmark in the progress that we are making to redress the terrors that children have suffered for far too long in many parts of Wales under the old system. A new dawn is coming, and I believe that there will be further progress. Let us give the Bill the strongest possible support, to ensure that it is enacted before the election.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. As many people wish to make a contribution to this short debate, I ask Members to be as concise as possible.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I will endeavour to abbreviate parts of my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is an historic occasion, because the Bill is the first piece of primary legislation specific to Wales since devolution. Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of a Bill to extend the powers of the Children's Commissioner. Children are a particularly vulnerable group, as has been demonstrated clearly by the Waterhouse tribunal report on abuse in children's homes in north Wales. I commend every member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill for the sincerity and motivation that they showed in supporting it. It has been excellent. In some respects, however, the Bill has not met the aspirations of the National Assembly. I believe that technical problems were responsible. The Liberal Democrats had a manifesto commitment in the National Assembly elections to appoint an independent Children's Commissioner for Wales. It is interesting that no amendments have been accepted during the Bill's passage. I believe that many of the amendments tabled in Committee followed pretty closely the wishes of the National Assembly for Wales. It should be the duty of the commissioner to represent the views of children and to promote, for example, the implementation of the UN convention on the rights of the child. In debates on that issue, we emphasised that such rights were better discharged at small nation level. The commissioner cannot comment on the decisions of courts and tribunals. That is to do with the fact that the Assembly only has secondary legislative functions and it points to some inadequacies in the Government of Wales Act 1998. The Government should, in another place, try and tease out, among all the parties in that place, the vexed issue of non-devolved matters that impinge upon children in Wales. There is no doubt that difficulties arise in the context of social security problems, legal problems and matters involving children in care outside Wales. There are strict limitations on the scope of the Children's Commissioner's powers, as they cover only persons and services over which the National Assembly has responsibility. Obviously, I welcome that as a massive move forward. However, we need an independent commissioner who is able to get involved in any matter that may affect the rights and welfare of children. The Bill broadens substantially the powers of the commissioner. He should be able to make representations on any matter affecting children in Wales, and the Bill goes a long way to achieving that. The amendments may have been resisted on the grounds that to accept them would in some way undermine the Government of Wales Act 1998. I do not know whether that is true, but I suspect that it may be. It would appear that the Children's Commissioner would be allowed to make representations only about those matters specifically devolved to the National Assembly. If we examine the 1998 Act, the form of the Bill is understandable.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify how that point relates to the commissioner's responsibilities under schedule 2A in respect of matters that might otherwise fall within the ambit of the chief inspector of education in Wales, who reports back to Westminster rather than to the Assembly?

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The hon. Gentleman draws attention to several anomalies. The correct assertion that devolution is a continuing process accounts in part for some of them.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

To clarify the matter, the chief inspector of schools in Wales reports to the Assembly.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I am not surprised to hear that. I do not have the Minister's resources, so I was not well enough briefed to make that response to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). It is essential that, eventually, the commissioner's powers be extended to cover primary legislation—to encompass aspects such as social security. It has been argued that if the commissioner has statutory powers to comment on non-devolved matters, he will, in effect, have the power to require information from Departments of the UK Government. I suspect that that might be a problem. Although the power does not seem unreasonable, strict constitutional rules are being rigorously applied owing to the fact that inadequate powers were devolved to the Assembly. It would thus seem sensible to devolve more powers to Wales and amend the 1998 Act in order to include primary legislative powers for the National Assembly for Wales. It is only a matter of time; undoubtedly, that day will come—but possibly not two or three months before a general election!

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I am pleased to speak on Third Reading of the Bill. The measure is important for many reasons. As other hon. Members have pointed out, it is the first Wales-only Bill to be requested by the National Assembly for Wales. In that sense, it is historic. It also establishes the first Children's Commissioner in the United Kingdom, although there are children's commissioners and ombudsmen throughout Europe. The Under-Secretary has already noted that Northern Ireland proposes to appoint a children's commissioner—I very much welcome that. Many children's charities have campaigned for many years for a commissioner. It is important to pay tribute to them and, especially to the Children in Wales consortium, which lobbied hard for a commissioner. It provided information to help members of the Standing Committee and is wholly committed to improving the lot of children in Wales. As hon. Members have said, children's charities in Wales have made a huge contribution to the measure. I am pleased that it is a Labour Government who have given time for the Bill. I welcome the cross-party support that the measure received in Committee. It formed part of our manifesto commitment, and that of other parties, during the elections to the Assembly. I was disappointed that the Conservatives debated the programme motion for the full time so that we lost valuable time for discussion of the Bill. That was not in the spirit of the Bill's passage through the House so far. The Bill has been universally welcomed throughout Wales and the UK. Its swift passage and the time allocated to it have been seen as a recognition of the importance that the Westminster Government attach to working with the devolved Assembly. The establishment of a Children's Commissioner is obviously a priority in Wales, but not in England. It is right that devolution should work in that way. All the children's charities welcome the Bill; the debate has been confined to the range of its powers. Although many and varied amendments were debated in Committee, the main thrust of the discussion throughout has been the commissioner's relationship to non-devolved matters. We have made progress in that respect. For example, we now know that the commissioner can comment on any matter that affects children in Wales. Of course, that includes non-devolved matters, such as children in prison. That issue has been raised frequently, because there is enormous concern in Wales about children who are in prison—in some cases, in England and far away from home—and someone must be able to speak on their behalf. We have been able to make it clear that the commissioner can comment on those issues as well as others, such as social security. We want the commissioner to tackle the curse of poverty that affects children in Wales. Obviously, he is to do that, he must be able to comment on the benefits system and other non-devolved issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said, it is difficult to split children's issues into little pieces. The Government's thrust is to try to work with the whole person and all aspects of children's lives.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

I am sure that my hon. Friend does not intend to suggest that the Bill has been introduced simply because of devolution in Wales. Obviously, the mechanics of devolution have allowed the Bill to be introduced, but the real reason for its existence has nothing to do with Government structures; it has to do with the fact that a horrendous scandal took place in Wales, and with the child abuse that led to the report.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

The Bill is certainly a response to the scandals in Wales, but it is not possible to deny that devolution produced the Assembly and that it has seized the opportunity to set up the commissioner. We want to treat the problems of children as a whole, so the commissioner has to have responsibility for all children in Wales, not just those who receive certain services. I would welcome further clarification on how the commissioner can respond to non-devolved matters and on how he can comment on them. Tremendous progress has been made. The Bill began with the proposal's inclusion in the Labour party manifesto. There has been an extensive consultation process in Wales. The National Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee's in-depth consultations led to its report, and the proposals have now reached the House. The House has extended the powers to include not only social services and children in regulated care, but all the Assembly's devolved areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend said, we hope that the Bill makes speedy progress so that it can be in place before a possible general election. That we have come this far is a triumph of everyone's working together. I wish the commissioner all the best in his new job. One of the most important things that I hope he will be able to do is communicate with the children of Wales—an issue raised by all the members of the Committee. We want him to hear what they have to say, because they do not have a voice or a formal means of putting forward their views. We want him to be in dialogue with the children of Wales and thus to inform life in Wales. Commissioners and ombudsmen in other European countries have been very successful in getting children's views heard and using them to influence legislation. Although the Assembly cannot legislate, I hope that the commissioner will influence how we run things. I wish Peter Clarke all the best and pay tribute to the Committee and all the Ministers who have brought the Bill this far.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

As I was the first person to mention a commissioner, back in 1993, I too am very pleased that the Bill has completed its passage through the House. However, the work has not finished. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that I was pessimistic about the prospect of amendments being accepted, but I am afraid that I was right. None of them were accepted. I shall rush through briefly some of the points that concern the very children's charities to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) referred. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Cymru has written to us this week on two sheets of A4 paper expressing its concerns about the Bill. Although it welcomes the Bill, it does so with grave reservations. A provision similar to that in section 33 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 should have been included in the Bill to enable the commissioner to speak about any matter affecting children resident in Wales. The commissioner will not be able to talk about any tribunal or court decision that has been made. That is bizarre and ridiculous, and the problem still has not been addressed. Cross-border issues have not been addressed, nor has the point about including the United Nations convention in the Bill. The Assembly requested action on all those points, but that has not been accepted by this House. I do not wish to sour the atmosphere, but this whole back-slapping business is getting to me a little bit. We have not done half the job yet, and I hope that the other place will complete the work on several issues that concern organisations such as NSPCC Cymru. It is not politically motivated but, like reasonable hon. Members, it is concerned about the well-being of children and young people. I have mentioned the UN convention, and there are concerns about whistle blowing and the remit on non-devolved matters, which is covered by the provision in the Government of Wales Act 1998. All those points are important and, on Second Reading, I told the hon. Member for Bridgend that there were four principal matters for debate. Those matters remain. I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity for a second and we have received assurances from him. However, I would always prefer matters to be made clear on the face of any Bill that deals with such an important subject. Earlier, it was suggested that the commissioner will have access to institutions, but he will have access to them only when the system has broken down. Plainly, that will be too late. There would be nothing wrong in allowing the commissioner to have access alongside members of the inspectorate. That would have provided further supervision over the inspectorate, which would know that, at any time, the commissioner could move in. Although I know that it does not sound like it, I welcome the Bill. I served on the Committee to improve the Bill. I have spoken to various children charities and they welcome the Bill as far as it goes. This is the second bite at the legislative cherry, but I hope that we do not have to return in another 12 months to find yet more time to deal with shortcomings in the Bill. None of us wants that. There are flaws in the Bill, and I hope that their lordships in the other place will address them. I hope that any amendments tabled in the other place will not be stamped on in pre-emptive fashion by this House. That would be wrong and contemptible. We are part way to producing a good Bill but much more work needs to be done. Despite the consensus in Committee, I am disappointed that the Government did not consider any amendments. The most glaring example is the amendment that would have included a provision similar to that in section 33 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. It would have gone a long way to allaying all the niggling fears that charities still have.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we discussed outside Committee what would happen if there were a legal challenge to any of the commissioner's work that was based on what appears in the Bill and what has been said about it? If there were a dispute about the meaning of the Bill, the Minister's words could be prayed in aid to clarify its intention. A much wider view can therefore be taken of what appears in the Bill.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Yes, I agree, and a 1992 case makes that point. However, is it not always better to provide clear legislation that does not have to go to the courts for consideration? Surely our job is to make plain on the face of any Bill what we want to say. We should not leave it to the whim of a High Court judge to consider what the Minister said at the time. It is far better to do things properly the first time round.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I will be brief, as time is extremely short. I welcome this fine Bill. We should heed some of the wise words of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), but I hear the optimism and good will expressed by my hon. Friends the Under-Secretary and the Members for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). The only issue that I want to raise is whether my hon. Friend the Minister considers that the Children's Commissioner as currently constituted meets the Paris principles for human rights organisations set down by the United Nations in 1993. At the heart of this is a human rights issue.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

It looks as though the last word will fall, paradoxically, to an Englishman. That may be no bad thing because although this is a uniquely Welsh Bill, it may well prove to be a pilot for wider replication across the United Kingdom. All of us, then, would be affected. I chide the Minister somewhat for claiming exclusive credit for the Government for implementing this measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) made clear, it was as a result of the tribunal set up by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in 1996 when he was Secretary of State for Wales that Sir Ronald Waterhouse reported his findings.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

May I point out that, although my hon. Friend the Minister may not have mentioned that on Third Reading today, he referred on Second Reading and in Committee to the role played by the former Secretary of State for Wales, who is now the Leader of the Conservative party?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

The hon. Gentleman is extremely charitable and I take his point entirely. I thank him for it. I acknowledge that the measure enjoys the support of all parties, even if there are remaining concerns. The first recommendation by Sir Ronald Waterhouse in his report was that there should be a Children's Commissioner for Wales. Anybody who has read the report cannot have been other than moved by the sheer magnitude of the abuse that was being inflicted on young people who were often placed in the Principality not by Welsh authorities, but by English ones. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Bridgend that social services did not do their job. I hope that social services departments throughout the country and particularly in Wales do not regard the appointment of the Children's Commissioner as a substitute for the need for them to exercise vigilance themselves. That would defeat the whole object, which is to improve protection for our children. They must note that it is our intention that they should continue to do the job that the public has charged them with. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset issued a caveat that I also share, which is that the commissioner should not supplant the role of parents. All of us in the House believe that it is the principal role of parents to bring up children. We do not wish the commissioner to supplant them.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that any decent, ordinary parent would welcome their children's rights being expanded, enhanced and developed by this sort of post? Does he further accept that any ordinary, decent parent has nothing whatever t o fear from the Children's Commissioner?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. I am most grateful to him for being sparing in his remarks to enable me to contribute. Yes, of course, I am sure that concern for children is the principal motive. However, it is important to get the balance right between the responsibilities of parents and those of society at large, to ensure that the wider needs of children are recognised. I am sorry if I end on a slightly discordant note. I raised this point with the Secretary of State on Second Reading and I mention it in passing in the hope that the other place may be able to deal with it. The report states: We draw the attention of Parliament to the abuse suffered by B between the ages of 16 years and 18 years in circumstances which appear to have made him question his own sexuality for a period. Much of the later abuse was not inflicted by persons in a position of trust in relation to him and there can be no doubt that he was significantly corrupted and damaged by what occurred. That was the way in which the tribunal—