Children Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 12 October 2004.

Standing Committee B

Children Bill [Lords]

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I beg to move

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Children Bill [Lords] the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting on Tuesday 12th October at 9.25 am) meet on—

(a) Tuesday 12th October at 2.30 pm,

(b) Thursday 14th October at 8.55 am and 2.30pm,

(c) Tuesday 19th October at 8.55 am and 2.30 pm,

(d) Thursday 21st October at 8.55 am and 2.30 pm.

(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following Order—

Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 14, Schedule 2, Clauses 15 to 34, Schedule 3, Clauses 35 to 41, Schedule 4, Clauses 42 to 56, New Clauses and new Schedules, Remaining proceedings on the Bill.

(3) the proceedings on the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 21st October.

I am delighted, Mr. Benton, that we shall be serving under your fair, calm, sagacious and good-humoured chairmanship, and we look forward to long debates. I worked with you as a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, and we had some good visits—I remember our visit to Switzerland. I know you to be a fair and honest chairman, and I am sure that all of us on the Committee look forward to working with you.

Several members of the Committee have expertise in the issues before us. I am particularly delighted to see the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) opposite me; he has probably sat through more children's Bills than any other member of the Committee. He will undoubtedly bring the experience of his past deliberations to bear on the detail of the Bill. I am also delighted that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) is speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I noticed, looking through her CV yesterday, that she and I attended the same university; I am sure that she got more out of it than I did, although I certainly had a good time there, and remember it with joy.

Many members of the Committee have extensive experience of children's issues, and spent time in their professional lives before joining the House working with children in a number of ways. I should particularly like to draw attention to my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), who has done absolutely sterling work in supporting me, and whose experience in social services I value enormously. She always brings a pragmatic and practical element to our formal discussions about difficult policy decisions. I should also like to draw attention to my hon. Friend

the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), for whom this will be a great moment in his time as a Member of Parliament. We shall miss him when he goes. We were saying before he arrived in the Committee Room that so cleverly has he tabled his amendments that he will find himself moving the lead amendment in many of the groups, so he will have the opportunity to open and close debates on issues that are of concern to him.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) also have experience of working in social care. The hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) have spent time in teaching, which is relevant to what we will be discussing.

In common with several members of the Committee, I grew impatient as this small but very important Bill wended its way through the House of Lords. It now comes to the Commons for our input, and all hon. Members look forward to making it the landmark Bill that I believe it will be. When our successors reflect on the measure, I think that they will recognise, as I have said elsewhere, that it provides the legislative spine on which we can build a complete transformation of children's services, thereby securing a step change in outcomes, not just for some children but for every child. Hon. Members are anxious to debate some vital issues, and I look forward to our discussions being constructive and good-humoured.

I am genuinely grateful for the support for the Bill from Members on both sides of the House. To date, the debate has been very constructive and extremely helpful. I hope that hon. Members will agree that many of the amendments made in the House of Lords, and others which will be debated in Committee, reflect our response to the concerns and priorities that have been expressed across the political spectrum.

The amendments that I have tabled will deliver further on the commitments that we made in the House of Lords. Hon. Members are inundated with bits of paper and I apologise to the Committee for having been unable to table the amendments before the recess. However, I hope that all Committee members received copies before the end of last week and that they have been able to reflect on them.

I look forward to a constructive debate that will lead to momentous change of which I hope we will all be proud when, in years to come, we reflect on our time in the House of Commons.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Without repeating the Minister's superlatives in appearing to buy your favours, Mr. Benton, I echo her sentiments in saying how delighted I am to serve under your chairmanship, which I have not done before.

As the right hon. Lady said, this important Bill, which has cross-party support, provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get the legislation right, in the interests of all children. I echo her comments that the constructive engagement of hon. Members on both sides of this House and the House of Lords will help to get the measure right.

I will not give a profile of every member of the Committee, but I am delighted to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who has considerable knowledge of family matters and who speaks for our party on women's affairs. Other colleagues, too, have participated in debates on the Bill.

I agree with the Minister's comments that we will miss the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre enormously. He never shirks from balancing his comments about why measures are appropriate and should be supported with attacks on the past record of the Conservatives, and, especially, on my approach to matters; no doubt he will make similar contributions in his swansong in the coming days. He brings enormous knowledge to the House from his previous experience and from his activities with the all-party children's group, which has been so engaged in the Bill.

On the programming resolution, we are concerned about the length of time that has been allocated to the Bill. We would have liked more Committee sittings, particularly as the number of amendments and new clauses to consider has mushroomed in the past few days. I take the Minister's points about that, and she was good enough to contact me last week ahead of tabling the amendments, but the Government have tabled 13 new clauses, one new schedule and at least 55 new amendments, and it is a shame that we will not have more time to consider them. The outside bodies that are interested in the Bill and have engaged in its development, of which there are many, have also been given little time to respond.

I remind the Committee that the Lords started their Committee consideration on 4 May—some five months ago—so the Government have had a lot of time. I am also not aware that we have had new explanatory notes for any of the new clauses. The notes that accompany the Bill are dated 19 July, which was when the Bill received its First Reading in the Commons. There have been no new explanatory notes other than the rough description of the amendments that accompanied the Minister's letter to the Committee, and we have had no formal notes going into the detail of what some of the new clauses, in particular, will involve. I hope that as the Committee progresses, the Minister will as a matter of urgency provide us with more detailed notes on the amendments, so that we can consider them properly.

We tabled our amendments after Second Reading back in September, which has given the Government plenty of time to consider them. It has also allowed other Committee members to see what other amendments might need to be tabled and, in many cases, to add their names to our amendments. I might say therefore that we have been better prepared. I am concerned that we will not have sufficient time to consider many of the long-standing amendments that we and other Members have tabled to reflect some outstanding concerns of the upper House. Furthermore, I do not think that I have served on a Bill Committee that has had to consider so many new clauses. I hope that in the confines of the time available, there will be sufficient time to discuss them.

I am concerned also about clause 2, which we are due to debate later this morning. Clause 2 was completely revised in the House of Lords with all-party support. We agreed that the new version strengthened enormously the role of the Children's Commissioner, which was much more in keeping with the original intentions of Ministers, the Green Paper and all who want to see enhanced protection. It is a great sadness that the commissioner's powers are to be diluted again by a series of Government amendments.

Given the timings, it is also strange that the Government tabled a range of amendments on clause 2, when a more efficient way would surely have been to delete clause 2 and replace it with a new one. They seem to have tabled the amendments to mask the fact that they are destroying the clause, because in fact they will completely undermine the improvements made in the upper House. It is a retrograde step and has been described as creating a commissioner who will have the fewest teeth of all those in the United Kingdom and as one who will be all ears but no teeth.

We also have serious questions about the relationship between the England/UK commissioner and the other commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We want clarification of how they will work, which may take up a lot of time in Committee. Another big subject on which we hope the Minister will provide far more detail is clause 9 and the database and information sharing. I believe that the provisions are a mess, and we will elaborate on that in speaking to our amendments and those tabled by other Members. It is clear that the Government have not completed their thinking. The Minister said that she hoped that further amendments to clarify the detail of regulations would be available by the Committee stage, but it is one of the few clauses on which the swamp of new amendments tabled by the Government last week has no effect. We want much more reassurance from the Minister before we can agree to clause 9. I know that other members of the Committee share those concerns.

There are many other issues to be raised, but I shall not go into the detail of them now, because we want to get on with the debate on individual clauses. However, I am slightly confused by the ordering of the amendments, although I am sure that that has been done quite properly and with extraordinary logic by the Clerks responsible for the Bill. I am not entirely sure, for example, why an amendment that I tabled to the last clause will be considered in relation to clause 1.

Last night, I embarked on what I thought would be an easy exercise of marking out who was responsible for which amendment. However, it required all my highlighter pens to come up with a colour-coded chart of who does what, and I am still baffled by the matter. I hope, Mr. Benton, that you will take the proceedings gently, or you may end up being as confused as some of the other members of the Committee. On second thoughts, however, I am sure that you will not, because otherwise you would not have been selected as Chairman of this august Committee.

I end by reiterating something that I said on Second Reading. The Bill is worth while, and it is a suitable response to the Victoria Climbie tragedy and to all the other tragedies that we are aware of, but which do not receive such a high profile. We all want to see many important measures in the Bill enacted as soon as possible. However, I fear that during the Bill's consideration in the House of Lords the overriding concern of the media and the outside world was the issue of smacking. Smacking is an important subject, on which we all have different views. The Conservatives have allowed a free vote on the matter, so we do not experience the same problems as other parties, but it is an important issue that was not originally in the Bill. I fear that the subject will completely overshadow and dominate all our proceedings on Report, but I am relieved that it has not entered into the Committee stage, thereby giving us more time to consider the important details of the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will respect that, and will not try to sneak in amendments during the Committee proceedings which could sidetrack our deliberations.

I look forward to considering the Bill. We must get it right, and we shall engage constructively and positively with other members of the Committee to ensure that the Bill that leaves the Committee is an improved version of the one—already greatly improved in another place—that came to it. I believe that we can improve it still further.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I, too, Mr. Benton, welcome you to the chairmanship of this important Committee. I also apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams); hon. Members may have noticed that he has secured an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, and is currently speaking there. He will participate fully later sittings.

We, too, want to place on record our wish to make a constructive contribution to this important Bill. We welcome the Bill and have much to say about it, although I shall not go into detail because there will be plenty of time to do so later in our discussions. Our greatest disappointment concerns the amendment tabled by the Government which reverses the tremendous improvements made in the House of Lords. We will therefore dwell on that amendment at great length, and I hope that we will have a good debate on the basic principles as well as the details.

I, too, am looking forward to working on the Committee with people who have such a wide range of relevant skills to contribute. I often tell people that one of my most enjoyable parliamentary experiences was considering the Sexual Offences Bill, which raises a few eyebrows in my constituency. Some hon. Members present also served on the Committee scrutinising that Bill and we had some excellent debates. One left that Committee feeling that one was making a real contribution to the future of our society. I hope that we

will all walk away from this Committee knowing that we have done something positive for the start of the century.

I share the concerns about lack of time. I hope that, throughout the proceedings, we will be able to assess the progress that is being made. No one is here to waste time or to prevent us getting through the business. There is a genuine commitment to make progress, but many issues need detailed consideration during the debate. That is our one caveat this morning; otherwise we look forward to constructive debates.

Question put and agreed to.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

May I remind the Committee that a money resolution is connected to the Bill? Copies are available in the Room.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I want to clarify that for the remaining morning sessions of the Committee, we will meet at 8.55 am. Is that on the programme resolution?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Yes. It is included. I can confirm that that will be the future starting time. I should also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee. I also remind hon. Members to switch off their mobile phones.Clause 1 Establishment

Clause 1 - Establishment

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I beg to move amendment No. 52, in

clause 1, page 1, line 4, after 'Children's', insert 'Rights'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 163 to 165, Government amendment No. 175 and amendment No. 50, in

clause 56, page 35, line 19, leave out 'Children' and insert 'Children's Welfare and Rights'.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

May I say what a pleasure it is once again to serve in a Committee under your wise chairmanship, Mr. Benton? I should also like to thank the Minister for Children, Young People and Families and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for their kind words. I should also like to compliment the Government Whips. That may be an unusual thing to do, but it is in the interests of parliamentary democracy that Back Benchers can table amendments on matters about which they feel strongly.

The Whips have shown a degree of tolerance and forbearance towards me that would surprise many people, possibly outside the parliamentary Labour party and possibly inside it. Clearly the Government Whips have an important job to do, but although I have occasionally been a pain in the neck, they have always been helpful, constructive and sensible. If we disagree—I hope that we do not—about any of the

matters on which I have tabled amendments, I trust that we will all recognise that such disagreements are between decent and well-meaning people who are simply trying to do their best for children.

I am pleased to open the debate with the positive intention of inserting the word ''rights'' right at the beginning. If I had handled the task better, I would have tried to insert it in line 1, rather than in line 2. I am sad and shocked that the Government amendments in the group—Nos. 163 to 165 and 173—remove that very word. I seek clarification through my amendment.

On Second Reading, it was obvious that my right hon. Friend was looking at rights in a particular way and interpreting them as individual rights. She thought that if too much emphasis were placed on rights, the commissioner's role would be skewed towards investigating individual cases and the commissioner would be overwhelmed by such cases. I do not recognise such a definition and I am not sure who does. It is important that we consider that issue during the next few minutes.

It is particularly unfortunate that the Government should be trying to remove the word ''rights'' from what everyone has acknowledged is a colossally important Bill, given that one of their earliest actions was to incorporate the European convention on human rights into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998. In the same first term, we saw the creation of the Disability Rights Commission and the children's rights director, and even now we look forward to the development of the commission for equality and human rights. At this stage, however, we seem to have gone timid on rights when we are discussing the rights, interests and needs of the most vulnerable people in our society.

The Minister wants the Children's Commissioner to concentrate on children's interests rather than rights, so perhaps at this stage we should give those important words some thought. It may be useful to note that David Archard, the modern philosopher who has thought deeply and published widely on issues relating to children, family and the state, has set out a fairly classic interest-related theory of rights, which probably goes back a couple of hundred years to Kant. The theory is that a right arises when someone has an interest of sufficient importance to impose on others certain duties whose discharge allows the right-holder to enjoy the interest in question. There is a clear distinction there between rights and interests, but it is not about individual rights and a community of interest.

Clearly, someone who has rights is someone of significance. Their interests are of particular importance, and the duties of those who are charged with meeting them are vital. There is nothing wrong with talking about interests and welfare—indeed, it is entirely appropriate—but we usually acknowledge that those are of a lesser order than rights. For instance, we often discuss the interests and welfare of animals, but rarely their rights, and most of us think it quite odd to do that. Nationally, we talk about the best

interests of children, but internationally we declare our allegiance to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

Rights are the basis of a liberal, democratic society. They uphold the fundamental obligations of the state to the individual and encourage openness about the entitlements of individuals and the success of Governments in meeting their needs, which is vital. There is nothing wrong with the word ''rights'' and nothing to be afraid of in it. There is no reason to remove the word and plenty of reason to insert it in such a Bill. It worries me when powerful people, even those as benign and committed to children's interests as the Minister, seek to excise such an important word. Those who seek to erase ''rights'' seem to be saying something about the value that we ascribe to children, the reluctance of the state to be challenged or the power that we are prepared to give the commissioner—or perhaps all three.

I hope I am not alone among Government Members in voicing these concerns. I cannot believe that I am alone in having them; indeed, I know that I am not alone in Parliament. I am grateful for the support of those who signed up to amendment No. 52. I am also glad to have the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Although I do not agree with all of its 19th report of this Session on the Bill, I earnestly believe that every member of this Committee should study it carefully, because it is a wise document.

With regret, I share the Joint Committee's disappointment at the tone of the Government's message that ''rights-based'' is a negative concept. It stated that there is

''an excessive, and in our view unfounded, anxiety about the notion of a 'rights-based' commissioner.''

I agree that there is a clear distinction between a rights-based and a complaints-based commissioner. I am not aware of anyone advocating establishing a complaints-based commissioner, whereas a wide consensus of people concerned with the issue are committed to the commissioner being firmly based on the concept of children's rights.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the move away from a rights-based commissioner. Does he agree that commissioners or similar bodies throughout the world are, on the whole, based on rights, and that the Children's Commissioner would be weakened by the proposed changes?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I would go further. It is more than ''on the whole''— every commissioner that has been set up in the world has a focus on children's rights. Yesterday evening I was given a list of the duties and responsibilities of new commissioners in Malta and Croatia, which are firmly based on children's rights. Why a country such as ours cannot base the role of the commissioner on children's rights is beyond me.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the European network of children's commissioners is meeting in Cardiff in Wales later this week? Is he also

aware that, because of the proposed changes, the Children's Commissioner in England may not be able to gain admittance to that organisation?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I have certainly heard that and I share my hon. Friend's concern. It is beyond me why we should want to set up a commissioner who would be excluded from the growing company of commissioners across Europe and the world because they were so weak. A Government as committed as ours to children's issues and a country as powerful as ours which offers a good future to our children should have the best Children's Commissioner in the world, not the worst. It is extraordinary.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

So far the hon. Gentleman has referred exclusively to the rights of children in respect of the Government, and the need for the Government to respond to the rights which he recognises that children possess. Does he accept that rights are exercised not uniquely by or against the Government, but against other people? How does he expect other people to respond to those rights, and how would their rights be balanced against the rights that he wants to include in the clause?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as he leads me into my next argument. Throughout this group of amendments there is a worrying thread, which may also run through some amendments that he has tabled, and a train of thought implying that emphasising children's rights somehow pits children against parents. I am a parent and firmly believe that, by and large, the best advocates for children's rights in this country are parents. The UN convention explicitly respects the responsibility of parents to bring up children according to their own values and to educate children according to their principles. It also firmly sets out the importance of reuniting families.

The issue of children's rights is, by and large, one of power and of the powerlessness of children in the face of the state. It is a function of the fact that children are the only human beings in this country who cannot vote. It should be emphasised that if children—who are powerless in the face not only of Governments but of the judiciary, the professions, organisations and institutions—are ever to have their voices heard, their interests recognised and their rights respected, it is vital to base our approach on a watchdog that is firmly grounded in children's rights.

Parents who want to do their best for their children—as well as a state that wants to improve conditions for children, organisations and professions that want genuinely to serve them, and children themselves—will benefit from the independent champion that a Children's Commissioner based on the United Nations convention on the rights of the child will be. The commissioner will be charged with protecting not only the interests of the children of this country but their rights. If we embrace children's

rights today, we shall serve them well, but if we water down those rights, we shall be missing a tremendous opportunity.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I want to echo all the hon. Gentleman's eloquent comments. My colleagues and I were happy to subscribe to the amendment, because we thought it staked out the most important ground that we needed to cover on the issue of the commissioner. There is a fundamental difference between the schools of thought about whether there should be a rights-based commissioner, or one that is listening, and whether we are talking about a reactive or a proactive role. Those are fundamental differences, and I do not understand the motivation behind the Government's amendments, which do not sit happily with much of the excellent work that they have already carried out.

We now have the issue of human rights in this country's legislation. I express this as someone who does not understand the Government's train of thought: I passionately believe that they should be listening to all the many children's organisations and others, who are united in the view that we should have a rights-based commissioner. So many professionals cannot be wrong about that. Those who have considered the activities of children's commissioners in other countries are united. At present, our Government are out on a limb, and I really do not understand why.

Of course, listening is important—we shall be discussing that and arguing later that more listening should take place—but it is not in itself enough to improve children's lives. That is what we mean by suggesting that the United Nations convention on the rights of the child be at the very heart of the Bill. What we really need is a commissioner who will promote and protect children's rights, and have the power to carry out the follow-up action that is needed. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child published guidelines on independent human rights bodies for children, and there are also the Paris principles. Five essential components are outlined. Independence is important, and we will obviously return to that debate on a later clause.

A human rights framework, strong investigatory powers, the impact on law and policy, an effective remedy for infringement of rights—the Government's approach here does not relate to those important principles. We have the opportunity within the Bill to put ourselves on the same footing as other European countries. To be out on a limb and out of step with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland makes no sense. We need to heed some of the comments that the Joint Committee on Human Rights made about the Bill. It said:

''The view of the existing Commissioners was that the language defining the new Commissioner's mandate is far too weak, and contrasts with the much more robust duties placed on the other Commissioners, which require them to be more proactive in promoting, safeguarding and keeping under review.

The Bill as drafted concentrates on the procedural aspects—that is promoting the views of and interests of children . . . In our report last year we envisaged that the Commissioner should be given a much more substantive role.''

Those voices come from all directions. As well as listening to children, the Minister should listen to all those voices that say that this must be a rights-based commissioner. That is vital.

We signed up to the convention in 1991, which is a long time ago. It gives us the opportunity and the time to ensure that we implement it. It provides a common vision and language for securing a good childhood for everyone. It gives us a detailed strategy for meeting all children's needs. Why not implement it fully at this stage? We also need a commissioner who gives equal opportunities due credibility and accountability. I have not tabled an amendment on that but somewhere in our specification it should state that the commissioner must pay due regard to equality of opportunity.

The president of the European Network of Ombudsmen for Children wrote to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to explain that with such limited powers and questionable independence, it is unlikely that the England commissioner would be able to join the European network. Surely we need to get ourselves ahead of the game rather than lagging behind. There are many instances of countries adopting our models and going on to make much more progress. We are behind at the moment, but why not take this opportunity to be ahead and to lead the world?

There is much to be said—many other hon. Members will wish to contribute—but I heartily endorse amendment No. 52 and oppose the Government amendments. I sincerely hope that the Government will address these important points and put ''rights'' back at the heart of the functions of the Children's Commissioner.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I want to support the amendment and also to speak to amendment No. 50. I do not place great store by individual words and titles but this is more fundamental. It is summed up by Government amendment No. 164, which reads, ''leave out 'rights'''. The Bill refers to children but leaves out their rights. This will be a rights-light Bill. It will be about complaints, rather than about upholding rights and promoting the well-being of children, which we all want.

The current wording is

''promoting and safeguarding the rights and interests of children''.

That will be diluted, if the Government get their way with their amendments, to promoting awareness of the views of children. That sounds a bit wet. Little more than a glorified children's television presenter could perform the same function if it does not have the importance and powers that we are trying to give to the champion of children, as the Children's Commissioner should be. I fear that I return to the phrase coined in another place of ''all ears and no teeth''. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre is right that the Government seem to have gone timid on the issue.

I hope that the Minister has a solid case. She may wish to counter the philosophy that the hon. Gentleman so learnedly quoted—it was way above my head. However, what is wrong with children's rights? I agree that rights are best protected by parents, and we

will seek amendments to reinforce the role of parents. They are the first line of defence for a child's welfare unless abuse happens, in which case we need the role of outside bodies, part of which will be the Children's Commissioner's responsibility. I will be hard pressed not to support the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre in a Division unless the Minister can say why we should have a rights-light Bill. The debate is fundamental to our discussion of future clauses.

Amendment No. 50, which deals with the short title defined at the end of the Bill in clause 56, has been shunted to our first deliberations. There are two points to the amendment. The first is that there is more to the Bill than just calling it the Children Act. We need a better description of welfare and rights, and the title that I have suggested echoes the rights case that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre has made. Secondly, there is a practical reason—it is not entirely mischievous—and I suggested a similar amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill. We have so many pieces of legislation with the same name: there is the Children Act 1989, and this will be another Children Act. We are constantly confusing ourselves about which Act we are referring to, so I am trying to be helpful without making a weighty political point. Although the Minister may not agree with one of the words that I suggested, it might be more useful if the Government added different words to the Bill's title to differentiate it from other legislation, primarily the Children Act 1989.

To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, I am concerned that we should be creating the best. We should be leading the world in the commissioner that we are producing. We have a good reputation in supporting child protection, although clearly we need to do more, which is why we have the Bill. It contains a lot of innovative measures, which we need to get right. If the Children's Commissioner for England/UK is not even powerful enough to be on a level playing field with the other European commissioners, we are clearly doing something wrong. If that suggestion is true, the Government need to justify why they are not following some of the best practice of other countries. Children deserve protection in this country no less than they do in countries on the continent or in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Unless the Minister can come up with a convincing reason why we should leave out the rights of children, I shall urge my hon. Friends to vote for amendment No. 52, as well as my amendment, No. 50.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I am pleased to speak in support of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, she will be able to convince us that she has a reason for the changes that she has proposed. However, it seems to me that the Children's Commissioner is much weakened by the changes. I believe that we should have a rights-based commissioner. If we do not, the English commissioner will be the odd one out in the European network. I mentioned that the ENOC is meeting in

Cardiff at the end of this week. How will our English Children's Commissioner feel about going to such meetings in the future?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I always thought that one of the benefits of devolution was that different countries could do things in different ways. I accept that, in this particular case, there might be something wrong with being the odd one out, but is the hon. Lady advancing the proposition that, in general, it is a bad thing to be the odd one out?

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I would regret it if the English commissioner did not have similar powers to those of the other commissioners. I am thinking not only of the children in England, but of the role of the English Children's Commissioner in non-devolved areas in Wales—an issue that we will discuss later. Welsh children will be affected by the powers of the English commissioner and it is therefore important for the English Children's Commissioner to have the same rights as the Children's Commissioner for Wales. I have seen how the Children's Commissioner for Wales works and have concluded that it is essential for the commissioner's role to be based on a rights model. We need a proactive commissioner who will stand up for children's rights and will be independent. I am therefore very sorry that the Government have weakened the role of the Children's Commissioner for England.

I do not want to talk at great length because most of the points that I wished to make have already been covered. I hope that the Minister will be able to convince us in her reply that there is a reason behind the proposals, and that there is a reason why the commissioner who will be operating in England, and perhaps in parts of Wales, will not have the same powers to affect the lives of children as all the other commissioners in Europe and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre said, the rest of the world.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I also wish to support the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. This is not just a matter of a name change, as has already been pointed out. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North said, the Children's Commissioner will apparently have powers to act in Wales. I am concerned about the confusion that that might cause in the minds of children; they might be able to go to the Children's Commissioner for Wales, who would be working on a somewhat different basis. I am sure that we will have time to explore those arguments later.

I also want to point out that the name change has a significance of its own. It is significant in relation to the perception of the role of the commissioner by the public, and particularly by children. A French philosopher who died last week pointed out some time ago that naming of objects in some ways both defines what those objects are and creates them. As has already been pointed out, the change is sufficiently

important to make the European association consider not admitting the Children's Commissioner for England.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has already referred to the commissioner as the ''England commissioner''. Hon. Members might recall that I asked the Minister on Second Reading what the commissioner would be called, and I do not think that she gave me an answer. Perhaps she can be clearer today. The name ''Children's Commissioner'' or ''Children's Rights Commissioner'' might be confusing, given that we have Children's Commissioners in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The alternative of ''Children's Commissioner (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland)'' would be rather clumsy. I am in favour of terminological exactitude rather than inexactitude. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

Some of the issues raised in the debate will be discussed when we consider the many amendments on how the commissioner will function. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre that I sincerely believe that the Bill and the Government's amendments to its early clauses will ensure that we have the very best commissioner in the world, built on our experience of the workings of commissioners in other countries. I hope during our discourse that I can convince him and other members of the Committee that the commissioner will not be weak, but very strong, and utterly independent of Government. His will be a powerful voice arguing the case on behalf of children. Children will be strongly involved in the process of the commissioner's appointment, which if it is successful will come to be seen as an historic moment in which we strengthened the voice of children and their rights in society.

We have not gone timid on rights as my hon. Friend suggested, which is why we accepted an amendment in the House of Lords that in doing his or her work the commissioner must have regard to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. I hope that he agrees that in accepting that amendment we recognise the importance of the convention.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I entirely acknowledge the Government's good work in tabling the amendment in the other place. However, clause 2(8) states that the children's commissioner

''must have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.''

Is not it therefore absurd to remove the word ''rights'' from the clause? It makes no sense at all.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I would argue that we are talking not about the context and how the commissioner will work, but about his focus and the functions that he fulfils, which is why we say that he must have regard to the UNCRC. In putting the stress on his working in respect of the outcomes that children have told us are important to them, we have tried to ensure that the commissioner does not spend his time policing children's individual rights which flow simply from having the sole function in relation to the UNCRC, but considers the wider policies and interests of

children and reflects them, in respect of Government and, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, other parts of society.

The two notions—having regard to the UNCRC, and focusing on a much broader picture—are not conflicting, but complementary, and I put it to my hon. Friend and to Opposition Members, that if we focused simply on rights, it would limit the work that the commissioner could do on behalf of children. That is why I genuinely believe that we are establishing a much better commissioner than those elsewhere.

In respect of my hon. Friend's narrow amendment, no other commissioner has rights built in to the title, although I accept his point, which was also made by other hon. Members, that there is only a rights focus in the work that they undertake.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is possible to have a rights focus and also influence policy? Many commissioners work at both levels, with one level feeding into the other, and that is an ideal situation.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I have had this discussion with my hon. Friend on many occasions. It is clearly correct to state that an interest in issues that impact on children will frequently arise from individual cases that children raise with the commissioner. However, my experience from observing the work of commissioners elsewhere is that if one gives a limited rights focus to the commissioner, inevitably, given the time constraints, their focus will primarily be on policing individual rights. We would lose the broader focus that I want this powerful champion of children to have, which is the interests of children.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre held a meeting with a number of young people as part of the HeadsUp project. I have a copy of the minutes of that meeting, as I hope do other members of the Committee. What came out of it, as well as from discussions that I have had with children and young people up and down the country, is that no child talks about having a rights-based commissioner focused on the UNCRC. When discussing what the commissioner should do, they want somebody who will focus on international issues such as trade justice, on national issues such as the environment and asylum, and on specific issues such as bullying, sex education, drug abuse and racism.

If a commissioner is established with a purely rights focus, it is inevitable that the main focus of their work will be on pursuing individual complaints, as has happened in Wales. The commissioner in Wales has a heavy case load of about 500 cases a year. To think that he can pursue those effectively, while at the same time taking a view on the wider issues that we wish the English commissioner to champion, is mistaken.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I have listened to the debate with great care, and I put it to the Minister that if we added the word ''rights'' to the Bill, we would be defining a tight, prescriptive legal process and framework, and frankly we would end up with one winner: the process of law rather than the child. I hope that she will make that statement loud and clear.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I am married to a lawyer so I have strong inhibitions about that statement, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's view. If children did not already have a whole range of organisations, tribunals and legal processes through which they can pursue their individual rights, members of this Committee would have a point. However, off the top of my head, I have thought of several: children can go to the local government ombudsman; under the Children Act 1989 there are a range of complaints procedures available; the bodies of the Commission for Social Care Inspection have a complaints procedure; there is a special educational needs tribunal, a Disability Rights Commission and an Equal Opportunities Commission; and subject to parliamentary processes there will be a new equality and human rights commission.

There is a range of organisations, tribunals and legal processes through which children can pursue their individual complaints and rights. We do not want the English commissioner to be bogged down in the pursuit of those individual rights at the expense of wider concerns.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I appreciate the Minister's point, but I do not understand why adding the simple word ''rights'' will suddenly lead to a deluge of work for the commissioner which apparently ignores all the other powers and directions that he will be given in establishing his office in the first place. In any case, the Minister's amendment is designed to remove the phrase

''safeguarding the rights and interests of children''.

The provision refers to rights and interests. It is not exclusively about rights, and the word ''interests'' encompasses all the other things that we are trying to do, so she has not made the case that the commissioner would suddenly have his whole work load changed so as to make his job completely impractical.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I have to say a couple of things to the hon. Gentleman. First, we are not changing the fact that the commissioner must have regard to the UNCRC, so we are not removing that aspect from his or her work. Unlike Opposition Members, I am somewhat surprised by the hon. Gentleman's stance, because unless I misread the papers—I do not always believe everything that I read in them—the Conservative party is in the business of completely removing the Human Rights Act from our legal framework. Having a rights dimension to children's legislation would sit a bit oddly with losing the human rights dimension for the whole—[Interruption.] The two are related.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I am grateful for the spirit in which we are able to have this exchange, because my right hon. Friend and I have disagreed on this issue before. However, I feel that I must put it on the record that I think she has misunderstood how the Children's Commissioner for Wales works. Some 500 children have referred themselves to him, but he does not follow up each of those referrals; in fact, the number that he

follows up is very small. Rather, he and his office make certain that the cases go to the right agencies, all of which he has listed. I am thinking of the Disability Rights Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the ombudsman. The number of individual cases that the commissioner deals with is minute, so he is not bogged down by them. He spends most of his time working and communicating with children in different groups and trying to influence the policy of the Assembly, where he has had a profound effect.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

We have had this dialogue over many months, and my view, having observed the commissioner in Wales—one of the joys of devolution is that we may have different settlements in different countries of the United Kingdom—is that there has been a greater focus there on individual complaints than I want the English commissioner to have in the work that I hope he or she will do on our behalf.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

The Minister said that there is a different emphasis in Wales. The record will show that earlier she used the term ''bogged down''. Was she referring to the Children's Commissioner for Wales being bogged down, and did she mean bogged down in general?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I was referring to the commissioner being bogged down by individual complaints. I know that that view is not shared by a number of hon. Members who represent Wales, and I understand the informal nature of much of the work that the commissioner undertakes with Members of the Welsh Assembly. However, from what I have observed of his work, I have been somewhat disappointed by the sparsity of the reports on general issues that have emerged from him.

Lorna Fitzsimons (Labour, Rochdale)

May I check my understanding? The job that we are discussing is similar to our job. We are meant to be legislators and scrutineers but also caseworkers, and obviously one role informs the other, but we have to get the balance right between our different roles. Does my right hon. Friend want the commissioner to look up, and to look across Government in the widest possible spheres to ensure that Ministers foresee issues that may be of interest or detriment to children as and when they come up, rather than simply looking down and policing the rights that are already enshrined in legislation anyway?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

The matter is about both foreseeing and reflecting on children's issues and concerns. We are attempting to focus clearly on outcomes and what happens to children. Although the amendments remove the references to rights, they retain the references to views and interests interpreted in light of our regard to the UNCRC. Later amendments will restore the broad focus, which is in line with guiding principles that inform the rest of the changes.

I want to deal with some of the issues arising from the argument about whether the commissioner is rights-based and whether he would have the independence to reflect on important individual cases. That was another reason why, having listened to representations in the other place, we included the new power to consider individual cases where there are wider ramifications and where there is no alternative mechanism to which children can refer. I hope that all members of the Committee welcome that.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole talked about the commissioner being reactive, not proactive. I challenge that view: if we had an entirely rights-based commissioner without the broader focus on the outcomes that children have said are important to them, the role would be entirely based around the UNCRC and entirely focused on the policing of individual rights, so the commissioner would have to be reactive to complaints made to him on that basis. We are creating a proactive, not a reactive, mechanism, and the route that the hon. Lady wants to take would be reactive.

I agree that just listening would not be enough, but listening must be a precondition if the commissioner is to be effective in conveying the views and concerns of children in the reports that he may choose to publish and in the annual report that he will have to lay before Parliament. We wish to ensure that he listens before he acts.

I take the hon. Lady's point about equal opportunities being mentioned in the job description, and I will reflect on it. In all our work, particularly in listening to children, we are trying to ensure that the group of children and young people who advise me and who will be involved in the commissioner's appointment is representative of children as a whole. For example, we have listened to representations from Mencap, and several people with learning disabilities actively conveyed their views to me at the first meeting of the children and youth board.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I have listened with great interest to this very good debate. I am greatly reassured by what my right hon. Friend says about this subject being above and beyond rights. She says that it includes rights but that it is about much more. The hon. Member for Caernarfon shrewdly remarked on the philosopher who passed away last week and on definition by words, but much of this is about definition by actions. The Minister has alluded to further actions, but it might be helpful if she expanded on the sorts of actions beyond the rights agenda which she anticipates the commissioner taking.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I am very wary of treading on that ground; were I do to so, I would immediately be accused of interfering with the commissioner's independence. However, were I the commissioner, I have no doubt that I would be investigating issues such as the portrayal of children and young people in the media, child obesity and perhaps even children in youth offender institutions. A whole range of issues may be of interest to the commissioner; it would depend very much on the agenda of the day. If the Bill

is seen speedily through the House, it is our ambition to have somebody in post by Easter next year, and children and young people will be involved in that appointment.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

May I take the Minister back to the earlier point about rights and interests? As well as amendment No. 52, we are debating Government amendment No. 163. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, as the Bill stands, and putting the rights question to one side, the commissioner has the function of promoting the interests of children? The Government amendment will change that to promoting ''awareness'' of the interests of children. Will not that be weaker than promoting the interests themselves?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I do not agree. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the word ''interests'' should remain—although I thought that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham did not accept that. As we move on to the further functions of the commissioner, promoting awareness of the views of children will in practice ensure that their interests are promoted. We have used that phrase because we wish the Bill to reflect a sensitivity to what children themselves will be saying about how the commissioner works.

I know that many amendments need to be debated and that the commissioner is not the only issue on which hon. Members have views. I shall move on.

Government amendments Nos. 164, 165 and 173 are all consequential to Government amendment No. 163. Amendment No. 164 would omit the word ''rights'' from the commissioner's general function in encouraging persons exercising functions or engaged in activities affecting children to take account of their views and interests. Similarly, amendment No. 165 would omit the word ''rights'' from the commissioner's general function, as set out in clause 2(2)(b), to advise the Secretary of State on the views and interests of children. Amendment No. 173 would remove the reference to rights in the general function of the commissioner in clause 2(8).

The UNCRC provides a set of principles or an ethical framework—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre agrees. It is a reference point around which the commissioner's work can be based. The outcomes that we want to be the focus of the commissioner's work are the drivers for tangible change; we hope for a real step change in outcomes for all children. We therefore want to retain the requirement for the commissioner to have regard to the UNCRC.

We genuinely believe that basing the work of the commissioner on outcomes, with reference to the UNCRC, will provide the best of both worlds. That is why, in my view, this commissioner will be the best of all. I hope that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will accept our intent, and that they will work with us to ensure that the commissioner acts as a strong champion and a voice for children.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I crave the indulgence of the Committee to make a brief contribution. I begin, Mr. Benton, by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship. I was keen to hear the Minister's reply to the debate. The Government's response is important, because they are changing the structure of the clause, which was put in place in the House of Lords with widespread, if not all-party, agreement. They are making a significant change and many would argue that the clause is weakened, so I should like to hear the Government's explanation for that. I appreciate the care that the right hon. Lady devoted to her explanation, but after listening to her careful and elegant contribution to the Committee, I am less convinced than I should like to be, if I were to support the Government amendments and vote down the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre.

We have had a good debate this morning. It has been philosophical at times, but no worse for that. There is a debate to be had about children's rights. Without necessarily going far into such a debate, there are wider implications flowing from it which concern me. We are putting in place a Children's Commissioner, with a great deal of fanfare. When the right hon. Lady introduced the Bill, there was no modesty in her intentions. She spoke of a landmark Bill, its legislative spine, and a transformation in children's chances. She said that we could all look back on it and derive pleasure later in our lives from having taken part in such a landmark parliamentary occasion.

That may be the case, but I hope that if we are taking all the time and trouble to create a Children's Commissioner, spending public money on setting up such an office and devoting parliamentary time to doing so, we should have something that makes a difference. For it to make such a difference, it must be seen to be robust and independent.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to a commissioner with teeth, and I think that a Lord in the other place referred to it as having other physical attributes. Whether or not that is so, it does not seem to have recovered that robustness as a result of the Government amendment proposed today. It is important to have an independent and robust commissioner, who is seen as such.

I am concerned about the message that has come from the Government this morning about the character of the commissioner. We shall return to that question time and again. We have touched on it, and I know that we shall be soon come to amendment No. 170, but the right hon. Lady touched on it when she said that the commissioner, unlike those elsewhere, would not be able to investigate individual cases. She made the reasonable point that she did not want the commissioner to become bogged down, but looking at what the Government are proposing, they do not intend to allow the commissioner to investigate any cases at all. The commissioner is not duty bound to investigate all cases coming to him, and the effect of amendment No. 170—

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I want to correct the hon. Gentleman, and refer him to clause 4, where we say that the commissioner will be able to make inquiries on individual cases, where issues of national significance are raised, and where such an inquiry would not involve duplication. It was after listening to the debate in the House of Lords that we introduced clause 4 as an amendment. If the hon. Gentleman's concern is about the commissioner's robustness, he may be mistaken. That clause gives us entirely what we want. In cases that have wide significance, the commissioner can investigate, but he will not be bogged down in the day-to-day cases that could be referred to alternative tribunals and bodies.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. If I was wrong about that, I stand corrected. We shall debate the point later about the commissioner acting at the behest of the Secretary of State. I have concerns about how the commissioner will be seen as a result of the changes that the Government are proposing today. I want an independent and robust commissioner, who is seen as such. Without going all the way into the rights debate, I feel that the commissioner's position is being diluted.

By asking the Minister about interests, I sought to clarify whether the commissioner would be able to promote the interests of children or merely awareness of children. The right hon. Lady looks at me as though she thinks there is no difference, but I think it will widely be seen that there is a difference between promoting awareness of something and promoting interests. That is quite clear and will be seen as such. I am concerned that we are putting in place a rather timid commissioner.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I agree that this has been a good debate. I regret that we have not each been given a copy of the UN convention on the rights of the child among the papers for this sitting. At times, it seems to have been characterised as a terribly narrow and dry document that attends only to the legalistic position of children. My right hon. Friend described it as an ethical framework, which it is—a broad ethical framework that encompasses a vast range of children's interests and needs, and which goes far wider than the five outcomes set out by the Government.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, within the framework, rights are a foundation stone rather than a constraint, and that they provide opportunities? Does he agree that by not including the word ''rights'' throughout the Bill, we are missing opportunities?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for expressing that better than I did. Rights are a foundation stone. They are something to be built on, are acknowledged almost universally in the UN convention, and are principles against which our efforts to meet children's needs can be tested. There is nothing wrong with rights. There is nothing narrow

about rights. There is nothing that rights impel us to do that we should not do. There is nothing about an emphasis on rights that would push the Children's Commissioner to operate as some sort of ombudsman.

With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, I think that she spent some parts of her speech tilting at windmills. In my years of taking an interest in the issue, I have come across no one who would say, ''We want a children's commissioner to do away with all the complaints systems, ombudsmen and children's rights officers, and to take on every single problem that comes their way.'' No one in their right mind would put forward that sort of model for a Children's Commissioner.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Gentleman has just erected a windmill of his own. Of course no one said what he suggested, but there are people who say that the commissioner should have the right to investigate individual cases. Is he one of them?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I am indeed one of them. I join the Government in approving clause 4. It is plain that there are occasions when the Children's Commissioner needs to have the opportunity to investigate—for example, when a child's problem is not investigated properly, perhaps because the child falls between various institutions and authorities. I am not concerned about that, as I think the commissioner would be able to balance taking on individual inquiries with taking a wide-ranging approach to children's issues, as my right hon. Friend says, and considering policy development and how issues affect children.

I hope the Children's Commissioner will take on the case of the child in custody who falls between the youth justice and the child care systems and who might be suicidal. I also hope that the commissioner will take on the issues that children regularly identify to me and, I suspect, to everyone else, such as transport, which is a priority for the Youth Parliament, bullying, which is a priority for very many children, and play areas, which children identified as a priority during the consultation but which is not reflected in the Government's five outcomes. Let us not assume that anyone is proposing that a children's ombudsman should replace all other provision.

The Government are clearly proposing that the Children's Commissioner should have a role in relation to interests, but not in relation to rights. The only difference between interests and rights is the significance that we attach to them and to the person who has those interests or those rights, and the duties that we impose, primarily on the state, to meet them. If we are serious about children, we should focus the Children's Commissioner firmly on rights. If we are serious about the commissioner, we should ensure that

he has the power to do the job. At the end of the day, this is about power. We need a powerful advocate for children in this country.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 12.

Schedule 1 - Children's Commissioner

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 122, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 17, at end insert—

'(3) The availability or exercise of any power under this schedule shall not disbar the Local Government Ombudsman from considering a complaint about the performance of a local authority.'.

May I, too, extend my best wishes to you, Mr. Benton, in your chairmanship of the Committee?

I move swiftly to the amendment, which is probing. It was tabled because of my concern about exactly where the Government stand on the commissioner's power to investigate cases. We have heard today about clause 4, and the Minister said a moment ago that the commissioner will be able to consider individual cases that have wider ramifications, if there is no other body to which a reference could be made.

I tabled the amendment because, from my conversations with the local government ombudsman and my constituency experience in other contexts, I know that the ombudsman has difficulty in determining his jurisdiction when there may be overlapping jurisdictions. For example, if a parent has the right to go to a SENDIST, a special educational needs and disability tribunal—even though they may not have exercised the right—the local government ombudsman does not have the power to investigate a complaint that might have been referred to the tribunal.

Every complaint, in the end, is justiciable under administrative law. There have been cases that have established that just because something is justiciable—just because it can be taken to court—the local government ombudsman is not excluded from

investigating. I tabled the amendment because I was concerned about clause 4(1) and (2). Subsection (1) states:

''Where the Children's Commissioner considers that the case of an individual child raises issues of public policy . . . he may hold an inquiry into that case''.

The power to hold an inquiry into a case that raises issues of public policy means that such cases may not be investigated by the local government ombudsman, unless there is an exemption elsewhere in the Bill to allow that to happen.

I suspect that the Minister will refer me to subsection (2), which states that the commissioner

''may only conduct an inquiry . . . if he is satisfied that the inquiry would not duplicate work that is the function of another person''.

I suspect that she will say that for this purpose the local government ombudsman is another person. That is all very well as long as the boundaries are clear, and it is clear that no inquiry will be conducted into a case if the local government ombudsman has a role. If that is what she means by the subsection, I think I am content, although I should like to ask the same question with reference to the parliamentary ombudsman. However, if she means that there may be cases that the local government ombudsman may investigate but the Children's Commissioner may also investigate, there is a danger that the case load will fall to the commissioner when it might otherwise fall to the ombudsman.

The amendment is intended to make matters rather clearer. I recognise that it is not perfect, but it is clearer than clause 4(1) and (2).

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his probing amendment, which gives me the opportunity to make clear the importance of considering subsections (1) and (2) together. When the issue of the commissioner's independence was discussed in another place, there was concern that not providing the power to consider some individual cases would be seen as interference in the commissioner's independence. We were anxious to assure both Government and Opposition Members that we wanted an independent and strong commissioner. However, we did not want the commissioner to duplicate work undertaken by the ombudsman, the parliamentary ombudsman, the special educational needs and disability tribunal or many other bodies that could be mentioned. That is why we included subsection (2).

We recognised that there would be some individual cases that had a wider public significance and interest. Historically, the Victoria Climbie tragedy would be one such case. Some circumstances of that case, which were investigated by the local authority and social services inspectorate, as it was at that time, and could undoubtedly have been investigated by the ombudsman in terms of the administrative competence of some of those in the local authority, could have found their way through the judicial processes. However, the case raised issues of such wide significance for the protection of children that it warranted an inquiry into it and its wider ramifications. In subsections (1) and (2) we have

provided the commissioner the ability to decide for himself that an individual case has such wider ramifications and, in those limited circumstances, to establish an inquiry.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

In her explanation of subsection (2) the Minister has raised an issue of which I was not aware. She said that in the Victoria Climbie case, the social services inspectorate, who is a person, and the local government ombudsman, who is also a person, had the function but did not undertake the work. Is she saying that the commissioner may not investigate only when an investigation has been or is being conducted, or when in law a case could have been investigated? If it is the latter, the commissioner would not have been able to investigate most aspects of the Victoria Climbie case, because they were covered by the function of another person.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

We must consider the two provisions together. Let us take the Victoria Climbie case as an example. At the time, there was a section 8 inquiry by the local authority's area child protection committee into the circumstances of her tragic death. However, the issues raised both in that inquiry and during the trial were of much wider public interest—hence the provisions in subsection (1). Although in that instance work had taken place elsewhere, the wider public policy ramifications of the particular case were such that it warranted a public inquiry. There may be circumstances in which that situation prevails again once we have the commissioner in place.

Subsection (2) ensures that the commissioner does not get involved in a range of individual complaints that other bodies such as the local authority ombudsman could investigate. However, when an individual incident or complaint has wider policy ramifications, the commissioner could instigate an inquiry into it. I hope that that makes it clear to the hon. Gentleman. It will be a matter of judgment for the commissioner, and in later clauses we suggest that the commissioner will want to discuss that with the Secretary of State. However, the provisions give the commissioner the essential independence, which people were worried that we were not giving, to pursue cases that have wider public policy implications.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am sorry, but that does not make it clear. That is because ''duplicate work'' implies doing work that has already been done and is the function of another person. In other words, the commissioner can do work that has not been done but is the function of another person. The problem is that if the power exists to go to another person—in this case the commissioner—the local government ombudsman is excluded from investigating a case. It seems that we are in a circle and the Minister has not yet got me out of it.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

It is my understanding that the ombudsman would not be excluded, which is why subsections (1) and (2) of clause 4 need to be taken together. There may be instances where there are wider lessons to be drawn from a particular case and where

the ombudsman, CSCI or another body has already undertaken an investigation, which would warrant an inquiry by the commissioner. Where there are wider lessons to be learned, the commissioner will wish to do so. However, practically, where a complaint is not covered by a complaints mechanism, will the commissioner fill that gap? I think that that was the other part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The answer is: only where there is a gap that has wider ramifications.

Finally, to help the hon. Gentleman, we expect the commissioner to look at complaints procedures. If procedures do not cover the full interests or concerns of children, I have absolutely no doubt that, in investigating the working of those procedures, the commissioner will want to draw the Government's attention to a gap and that the Government will wish to respond to that.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank the Minister for her reply. I shall ponder what she said and read it with great care. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 119, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 19, after 'by', insert

'the United Kingdom Youth Parliament after consultation with'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 6, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 19, at end insert—

'(1A) The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to involve children and representatives of childrens' organisations in the process of appointment of the Commissioner'.

Amendment No. 191, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 19, at end insert—

'( ) The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to involve—

(a) children from the areas which the commissioner serves; and

(b) such organisations concerned with children's rights and interests as he considers appropriate,

in the process of appointment of the Commissioner.'.

Amendment No. 120, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 22, after 'by', insert

'the United Kingdom Youth Parliament with the agreement of'.

Amendment No. 58, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 24, at end insert—

'(3A) During this time both the Commissioner and the Secretary of State will be responsible for ensuring that the children of England will be able to scrutinise and evaluate the performance of the Commissioner on their behalf.'.

Amendment No. 192, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 24, at end insert—

'(3A) During this time both the Commissioner and the Secretary of State will be responsible for ensuring that the children that fall within the remit of the Commissioner will be able to scrutinise and evaluate the performance of the commissioner on their behalf.'.

Amendment No. 121, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 29, after 'State', insert

', subject to the agreement of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament,'.

Amendment No. 124, in

schedule 1, page 37, line 37, after 'to', insert

'the United Kingdom Youth Parliament,'.

Amendment No. 128, in

clause 3, page 3, line 13, after 'the', insert

'United Kingdom Youth Parliament and'.

New clause 19—Non-availability of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament—

'If in relation to any responsibility under this Part the United Kingdom Youth Parliament is not able to act, the Secretary of State shall nominate a similar body largely representative (by election) of and comprised of persons under the age of 18.'.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

When the UK Youth Parliament came to lobby Parliament on the question of the Children's Commissioner and, I believe, visited the Minister, the Isle of Wight youth MP, Megan Thomas, spoke to me, along with two members of the Isle of Wight youth council. They asked who would appoint the Children's Commissioner. Should the person be appointed by the Government—whom, they felt, the Children's Commissioner would frequently have to criticise—or by a quango consisting of the usual suspects or, according to one's view, the great and the good? Would the commissioner be appointed by the NSPCC, Barnardo's, the Children's Society, the Association of Directors of Social Services and so on, or would he or she be appointed by a body that was representative of children? I had to say that I did not know who would appoint the commissioner, because I had not read the Bill then. However, I have now, and I know that the Minister wants to do it herself.

We have had youth councils on the Isle of Wight in many towns and villages for some time. For the past year we have had an Isle of Wight youth council as well, although it does not have powers and some would call it a talking shop. I should like to give an assurance that I do not regard the Isle of Wight youth council as a talking shop. Talking is a responsibility in itself, because it influences me and brings to my attention the issues that young people think are important locally. High on their list are public transport and bus fares, which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned.

I have no doubt, however, that we can improve the responsibility of organisations by giving them a responsible task to undertake. That is why I tabled the amendments.

Amendment No. 119 would transfer the power of appointment from the Secretary of State to the United Kingdom Youth Parliament after consultation with the Secretary of State. Other amendments to the schedule would have a similar effect: amendment No. 120 sets out the terms and conditions of appointment by the Youth Parliament, and amendment No. 121 states that the Secretary of State may remove the Children's Commissioner from office only in consultation with the Youth Parliament. Amendment No. 124 is also significant in that respect because it states that the accounts of the Children's Commissioner should be sent to the Youth Parliament. In other words, there would be not only

responsibility but accountability to the Youth Parliament. Amendment No. 128 to clause 3(3)(a) would also require the commissioner's report to be sent to the Youth Parliament, which would therefore have a role in monitoring the commissioner's work.

I do not expect the amendments to have the Government's wholehearted and unequivocal support, but I want Ministers to explain for the record why the Youth Parliament or, as new clause 19 says, another body that is broadly representative and composed of persons under 18, should not have a role in the commissioner's appointment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend has tabled interesting and probing amendments and I shall be interested in the Minister's response to them. I am a big supporter of the youth councils and the Youth Parliament; earlier in the summer I went to the Youth Parliament meeting in Lancaster, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, and had some exceedingly worthwhile and enlightening talks and discussions there, as I always do. I am a big supporter of the youth council in my town and of the county-wide youth council in West Sussex, where next week I will be taking part in local democracy week and in their day at County hall in Chichester. I shall be ritually humiliated by having to take part in game shows. ''I'm a celebrity get me out of here'' is one of the shows this year; last year it was Anne Robinson's quiz show. [Interruption.] I was not the weakest link, but the strongest, although I took a dive in the final round so that one of the Youth Parliament representatives could win rather than me, having wowed everyone with my knowledge of female pop stars' bottoms.

Perhaps we can now get to the serious points. The role of the Youth Parliament is interesting; even if the Minister does not give it the powers that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight suggests in his probing amendment, it should be included in the process if it is to be taken seriously. Organisations such as the UKYP and youth councils should not be subject to tokenism. The Committee will agree that they play an important part in engaging with young people and including them in political processes.

Amendment No. 6 would insert an additional consideration in schedule 1 that, in appointing the commissioner, the Secretary of State, whatever influence the Minister may have on him, should take reasonable steps to involve children and representatives of children's organisations. That is a perfectly practical aspiration. Does the Minister agree with it? She nods her head, which suggests that she does. How will that be achieved in practice, and why is it not necessary to state it in the Bill?

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the appointment of the Children's Commissioner for Wales was done very much in the way he has just described? Young people were involved in the process, although the final decision was left to the Minister with a recommendation from young people. Is he further

aware that the organisations used to involve young people included Voices, which is the Welsh Voices from Care, so that a wide range of young people were represented? Does he agree that that model could be looked at?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The hon. Lady has swiped the second part of my speech. I was going to refer to the different status of, and the considerations used to appoint, the existing commissioners. In Scotland the commissioner is appointed by the Queen on the nomination of the Scottish Parliament, so there the Parliament has more of a role and can take soundings. In Northern Ireland the commissioner is appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister jointly and has a status that is independent of Government.

In Wales, as the hon. Lady points out, they have gone further in including as many people, particularly children, in the process as possible. The commissioner is appointed by the First Secretary of the National Assembly after taking account of the advice of the relevant committee, the views of relevant children and the advice of selection panel. That is all done independently of the Assembly. That is laid out in regulations 2 and 4 to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001. As it has been done that way elsewhere, I cannot see any harm in including in the Bill what I am sure is the Minister's intention. It is essential that the Children's Commissioner has the confidence of children. If he does not, his job will be

that much harder and he will not achieve some of the things that we need him to achieve and which are what the Bill is all about.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight made some interesting suggestions with regard to one body that should be integral to the process. On a more general point, I would like it—and it would strengthen the Bill—if the Minister agreed to add the consideration about taking all reasonable steps. We are not being prescriptive; we are saying that it must be a serious consideration in the appointment. That would send out a strong signal to children, children's groups and young people that they are not merely going to put in their nominations and be patted on the head and told, ''That is very interesting,'' but that they will have a role in choosing the person who is going to be their champion. I hope that the Minister, in the spirit of co-operation and positivity that we have enjoyed so far, will take that on board. It strengthens what we are trying to do.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I suspect that we are going to run out of time. Largely because somebody had the great good sense to invite two young people from the Lancaster and Wyre districts to join the young people's board, I am aware that arrangements are in place to ensure that young people are involved in the appointment of a commissioner and other issues. I hope that my constituents and others will be able—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

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

Standing Committee B

Schedule 1 - Children's Commissioner

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment No. 6, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 19, at end insert—

'(1A) The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to involve children and representatives of children's' organisations in the process of appointment of the Commissioner'.

Amendment No. 191, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 19, at end insert—

'( ) The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to involve—

(a) children from the areas which the commissioner serves; and

(b) such organisations concerned with children's rights and interests as he considers appropriate,

in the process of appointment of the Commissioner.'.

Amendment No. 120, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 22, after 'by', insert

'the United Kingdom Youth Parliament with the agreement of'.

Amendment No. 58, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 24, at end insert—

'(3A) During this time both the Commissioner and the Secretary of State will be responsible for ensuring that the children of England will be able to scrutinise and evaluate the performance of the Commissioner on their behalf.'.

Amendment No. 192, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 24, at end insert—

'(3A) During this time both the Commissioner and the Secretary of State will be responsible for ensuring that the children that fall within the remit of the Commissioner will be able to scrutinise and evaluate the performance of the commissioner on their behalf.'.

Amendment No. 121, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 29, after 'State', insert

', subject to the agreement of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament,'.

Amendment No. 124, in

schedule 1, page 37, line 37, after 'to', insert

'the United Kingdom Youth Parliament,'.

Amendment No. 128, in

clause 3, page 3, line 13, after 'the', insert

'United Kingdom Youth Parliament and'.

New clause 19—Non-availability of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament—

'If in relation to any responsibility under this Part the United Kingdom Youth Parliament is not able to act, the Secretary of State shall nominate a similar body largely representative (by election) of and comprised of persons under the age of 18.'.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

As I was saying when this morning's sitting ended, I am well aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister has made interesting arrangements to involve young people in the selection of the Children's Commissioner and in other aspects of our work. I am sure that we shall hear more about that.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of something that he said this morning, which was that two representatives on the board to assist with appointing the Children's Commissioner were drawn from his constituency. I am sure that we welcome that. I wonder whether two representatives can be drawn from all the other constituencies represented in the House.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I actually took care not to say that the two representatives were from my constituency. They are from the Lancaster and Wyre district; I do not think that either of them is from my constituency. What they are, as the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know, is young people who are very involved in the local youth council and in work with the national youth parliaments. They are very engaged in local and national issues involving children.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The serious point in my intervention was how the representatives were selected and who appointed them. Are people in other districts—or counties, where there are no districts—equally well represented?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I have not the faintest idea how the representatives were selected, but I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Minister will tell us.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

To help the Committee, let me say that the reference is to the new Children and Youth Board, which is a group of 25 young people who advise me. They were appointed through Children's Express, so they were not directly appointed by me or the Department. Children's Express will have to speak for itself as to how it went about the selection process, but the framework that we gave it was to establish a group that was truly representative of all interests. I have met the group only once, but its members are representative.

I remember a representative from the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). She was a very articulate and strong woman who had had a lot of experience on a difficult estate on her patch and talked a lot about her life growing up there. There is representation in terms of age and gender, and there are some children with learning disabilities and one or two children who have been in the looked-after system.

That is a pretty broad range, but the group is not representative and is not an elected body in the way that the United Kingdom Youth Parliament is.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. I was about to point out that that was a lengthy intervention.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Moving swiftly on, I have a couple of brief points. This morning, the Minister mentioned the results of the HeadsUp forum consultation, which took place online. I took part in it and other hon. Members had the opportunity to do so in September. I believe that every member of the Committee has received a report of that consultation involving young people. One question for the Minister relates to whether she will be able to take into account their views about the Children's Commissioner in the work that she is undertaking with the Children and Youth Board. I found the consultation an invaluable experience, and a great deal of excellent information came from it. The process of an online consultation with children whereby they debate the issues before Parliament was a very interesting way to involve young people in the work of parliamentary democracy.

I shall offer only one quote from the consultation. It was said that

''the commissioner should understand that kids r gonna cum up with impossible ideas which may seem crazy but could be adapted to become possible''.

I hope that in a similar spirit my right hon. Friend will give a sympathetic ear to amendment No. 58, which is in my name and seeks to ensure that children and young people are involved not only in the appointment of a Children's Commissioner, but also in scrutinising and evaluating the work of that commissioner and in their reappointment after five years. As we know, the commissioner will be appointed for five years with a possibility of being reappointed for one further term, and children and young people should have a crucial role in deciding whether that person has done a good job and served their interests well.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I shall speak briefly in support of amendments Nos. 6, 191, 58 and 192. Other hon. Members have admirably covered the point that the involvement of young people and children would give rise to more confidence in the appointment. In particular, I shall dwell on the perceptiveness that children and young people have in particular circumstances. I imagine that most of us have been involved in situations in which young people have played a part in an appointment procedure—for example, at a local youth club—and it is a very rewarding experience. What we are talking about would obviously be on a wider scale and I appreciate that the Minister has set up a special board. I ask her to give particular attention to these four amendments and I hope that something can be introduced to the Bill that would demonstrate the Government's

commitment to the world at large. Not everybody knows of the good work that the Minister is doing behind the scenes.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 192 and 191. First, regarding the appointment of the commissioner, as the amendments point out, it is vitally important to consult children from all areas for which the commissioner will have a remit—the Government intend the Children's Commissioner to have a remit in Wales. It is also important for the Government to consult children's organisations for their unique insights. There are a number of Welsh-based children's organisations that the Minister will be familiar with including Plant Yng Nghymru—Children in Wales. Amendments Nos. 119 and 6 and new clause 19 refer to the UK Youth Parliament as representing children. As I said, there are particular Welsh bodies, such as the Welsh Youth Parliament—the Minister will recall Funky Dragon—and Plant Yng Nghymru.

I shall also refer briefly to amendment No. 192 and the issue of scrutiny. It is vitally important that children are able to scrutinise the operation of the Children's Commissioner on a long-term basis. As a former Secretary of State for Wales said in respect of devolution, it is a process, not an event. Certainly, the work of the commissioner will be a process, not a one-off event. I emphasise two points: the need to scrutinise as a long-term measure and to consult properly with children in Wales.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I shall deal first with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) about the UK Youth Parliament. We have probably all worked with the UK Youth Parliament and find it very invigorating and challenging to respond to the issues raised. The Government recognise it as a good organisation that encourages civic responsibility and engagement by young people. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that we support it not only with an annual sum of money to help to keep it going but, more recently, I have identified additional resources to help to implement some of the recommendations from the Office for Public Management's review to ensure that that parliament is more representative of young people. We were able to grant extra money to help it to implement those recommendations.

I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will accept that many other organisations represent young people. Off the top of my head, I can think of the British Youth Council, the Carnegie Young People Initiative, the National Youth Agency and a number of children's organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Barnardo's. All would purport, in some way or another, to represent young people's views. The hon. Gentleman frowns at me a little, but I believe that it would be invidious to select one young persons' organisation over another. That is always the difficulty in finding a representative body to ensure that young people's interests are properly reflected in our decision-making processes.

The main purport behind many of the amendments is to question whether we are involving children and young people in the appointment of our first commissioner. I can assure the Committee that we are. I have already described the Children and Youth Board that we have established and with which I have had one meeting. We intend to support its training so that it can participate in the process of determining the job description and help us to select the first Children's Commissioner.

I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman on another point. In my long intervention, I did not get time to say that two or three members of the Children and Youth Board are also members of the UKYP. I am sure that he will welcome that cross-representation.

Amendment No. 6, tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and others, proposes to include something to reflect the involvement of children and young people in the appointment of the Children's Commissioner. I listened to the argument and have some sympathy with the idea. As always with legal drafting, there are a few problems with the precise wording. However, I hope that he will bear with me and that we can table an amendment on Report to ensure that we include in the Bill a provision for the involvement of children and young people in the appointment. All Committee members will welcome that.

I should tell the Committee something about the process of the appointment. As ever, it will be informed by guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Although I said in an aside that the Secretary of State or I could be a member of the appointing panel if we so wished, we have chosen not to do that, because we believe that that could be seen as interfering with the independence of the appointment of the commissioner. We will not be engaged in the appointment, which will be conducted under the guidance I mentioned. I hope that we will draw together a group of people who reflect the appropriate interests to be responsible for that appointment, taking people from both the non-statutory sector and the civil service and engaging children and young people.

To give some comfort to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), I can tell him that the board that advises me has two representatives from Wales out of the 25, which is proportionate and appropriate. One of them is also a member of Funky Dragon, and I gather that the other one is considering whether to join Funky Dragon. I hope that that deals with the issues of appointment.

There are also a couple of amendments on the scrutiny and accountability of the commissioner. In a sense, the discussion that we had this morning about promoting the awareness of the interests and concerns of children was on the wording to reflect how important the Government feel it is for the commissioner to engage with children and young people in all his work. I have a lot of sympathy for the spirit of what the amendments are designed to achieve, but the problem is with the practicalities of establishing how such a system of accountability to

children and young people could be established, who they would be and how their appropriateness and legitimacy as an accountable group of young people could be justified.

I share with the Committee that concern: at my first meeting with the Children and Youth Board, which was selected by Children's Express, most of the young people were 16 or 17-year olds—among the older age group. We know that the years are very fast-changing in a child's or a young person's life; for example, attitudes to school among 16 and 17-year-olds are different from those among 10, 11 and 12-year-olds. A discussion about our extended schools policy would have a different content if we were to consult 16-year-olds as opposed to 12-year-olds. There is always a worry at the back of one's mind when listening to a group of children and young people that it is not reflecting the whole group. That is why I have difficulty with the precise amendments, but I hope that I can provide comfort for both hon. Members, because I share the spirit of them.

The accountability will come through us in Parliament. The commissioner will be obliged to place a report annually before Parliament. I hope that the report will be taken seriously by the appropriate Select Committee, which at this point will be the Education and Skills Committee. I hope that it will call the commissioner to account and, as part of that process, question children as to whether the commissioner has sufficiently fulfilled his or her functions in responding to children's interests and listening to their needs. I hope that, having heard what I have said on the subject, both hon. Members will withdraw their amendments about that scrutiny. I hope, too, that I can provide comfort to all other hon. Members about how we shall set about appointing the commissioner by assuring them that on Report I shall table an amendment that involves children and young people in the appointment process.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I frowned because I felt that although the bodies that the Minister mentioned may represent children, they do not necessarily involve children. I welcome her promise to suggesting some new wording on Report which will fulfil her promises and solidify the process into which she has already entered. I am interested to know that that not only are there two representatives from north Lancashire on the Children and Youth Board, but two for the whole of the Principality of Wales; I hope that isolated and rural areas are equally well represented. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 32, at end insert—

'or,

(c) significantly failed in the discharge of any of his functions'.

This is a probing amendment to schedule 1, concerning the hopefully unlikely event of getting rid of a commissioner who is not up to scratch. An identical amendment was tabled in another place by Earl Howe, who was not entirely convinced by the answer from the Minister there. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to remove the commissioner from office if

''he is satisfied that he has—

(a) become unfit or unable properly to discharge his functions; or

(b) behaved in a way that is not compatible with his continuing in office.''

That does not seem to cover all angles, because it is possible for the commissioner to be fit, both physically and mentally, and by common consent still to have failed in the performance of his duties. To whom will the commissioner be accountable for an assessment of his performance, not only as to whether he is up to the job, but as to whether he is doing a good job?

The issue arose earlier. What happens if, on the face of it, the commissioner is doing his job perfectly well—turning up at the office at the requisite times—but he has completely lost the confidence of children, whose champion he is supposed to be, by failing to produce the reports as required under the Bill? It seems that the only criterion missing for his being sacked by the Secretary of State is that of not doing his job terribly well.

Later amendments relate to assessing the worth of the job of commissioner and whether the new measure is working. After three or five years the legislation should be considered to see whether we should tighten up the grounds on which the commissioner can properly be sacked, as I can envisage some escape clauses. The last thing we want is a lame-duck commissioner who escapes being sacked because of the Bill's strict wording.

There is a wider point: we want Parliament to have a greater role. We would like the commissioner to be much more responsible and accountable to Parliament, and we shall table separate amendments relating to how he will report on his job. Is not there a role for Parliament to assess whether the commissioner is doing his job properly? If not, we should consider how Parliament could make a strong recommendation that a new commissioner be found.

This is a probing amendment, as the Minister in the other place did not cover all the angles.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, the commissioner will be accountable to Ministers; accountability to Parliament will come through the annual report laid before Parliament. As I said, I would expect the Select Committee to want to interview the commissioner about that report to see how well he or she had fulfilled their duties as described in the report. There would be nothing to stop the Select Committee undertaking a review of the commissioner's role and considering how well he or

she was fulfilling their functions in relation to the measure. Accountability to Parliament will be through that mechanism—directly to Ministers.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am interested in how the process will work. The Treasury Committee, for example, has a relationship with the Governor of the Bank of England, who makes an annual report and comes for interview. Does the Minister envisage that the Education and Skills Committee will call the commissioner for annual interview? She would not try to impose her will on it, but would the Minister ideally like a Sub-Committee of the Select Committee to have a specific responsibility for children's issues and the Commissioner and be given that particular role?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

That is an interesting idea. Far be it from me to determine how the Select Committees decide to pursue their responsibilities. As Minister for Children, Young People and Families, I have responsibilities that go beyond the departmental parameters, so I have appeared before several Select Committees of the House as well as committees of the Department for Education and Skills. Presumably, some of the Select Committees will want to interview the commissioner on a range of issues that they are considering. It is a matter for the House, and it is for hon. Members to determine it as they see fit.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

While the Minister cogitates on how the Select Committee may want to scrutinise the work of the commissioner, she might want to explore a further suggestion. She will know that the Treasury Committee holds confirmatory hearings of nominees for the Monetary Policy Committee. She might want to recommend, or to discuss with the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, the possibility of its holding a confirmatory hearing for any nominated commissioner.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. Before the Minister responds to that question, I should point out that we are moving slightly away from the subject of the amendment, which concerns whether the commissioner has

''significantly failed in the discharge of any of his functions.''

Can I bring the Committee back to that point?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I do not know whether you are telling me not to respond to that question, Mr. Benton. Again, however, that is a matter for the House to determine. This particular post-holder is answerable primarily to children, which is why we are anxious to involve children and young people in his or her appointment.

We do not believe that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is necessary. We believe that there are sufficient powers provided for in schedule 1 to remove the commissioner. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 3(6)(b), which states that the commissioner may be removed if he has

''behaved in a way that is not compatible with his continuing in office.''

That could be interpreted as meaning that he or she has

''significantly failed in the discharge of any of his functions.''

as stated in the amendment. I think that a failure to discharge the functions of the post would be covered by the provision in sub-paragraph (6)(b).

The Committee will be anxious for us to do all that we can to ensure the independence of the commissioner. If we overload powers of intervention—and, if necessary, of dismissal—on to the Secretary of State, the use of those powers could quickly be interpreted as the Secretary of State interfering with the commissioner's independence. We have had to draw a fine line between ensuring that we have sufficient powers to do precisely what the hon. Gentleman wants us to do—ensure that the commissioner does his job properly—without being seen to interfere in his independence.

I also draw to hon. Members' attention the fact that we examined the wording of the schedule in the context of that used in the legislation governing the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, and it is not dissimilar. We therefore feel comfortable that it gives us sufficient authority to do what the Opposition demand.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful for that clarification. The amendment was a probing one. I certainly would not wish, through any of the amendments that we have tabled, to overload the Secretary of State with powers—quite the opposite. That is why, ideally, we would like to see some mechanism that would give greater powers to Parliament, a Select Committee, or a Sub-Committee of a Select Committee. I am reassured that the Minister envisages the development of that sort of relationship with a Select Committee. The Education and Skills Committee might want to consider the interesting suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) that there should be confirmatory hearings similar to those held for the Bank of England.

Given that the Minister said that the provision was not greatly at variance with the legislation for the other commissioners already in situ in the United Kingdom, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Before we move on to the next group of amendments, I indicate to the Committee that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will not now be moving amendment No. 123. The lead amendment will therefore be amendment No. 194.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I beg to move amendment No. 194, in

schedule 1, page 37, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'appropriate' in line 32 and insert

'with regards to any expenditure incurred by virtue of this Act'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in

schedule 1, page 37, line 31, leave out

'and on such conditions (if any)'.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

This is a probing amendment, which concerns the funding and independence of the Children's Commissioner. Looking at the debate in the House of Lords, it seemed to me that the Constitution Committee had severe doubts as to whether there was sufficient provision for the commissioner to exercise his functions independently of the Secretary of State. Having the funding determined by the Secretary of State seemed to it seriously to jeopardise the commissioner's independence.

This was debated in some detail in the Lords, and other organisations have argued that the funding undermines the independence of the commissioner and could unduly affect his work. The Government responded by saying that this is standard wording. I am ready to accept that, but I wonder whether I could tempt the Minister to reassure us that she has taken those comments on board.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I have some sympathy with the line of inquiry that the hon. Gentleman has just taken. Amendment No. 5 is a probing amendment. It seeks to ensure the independence of the Children's Commissioner, which we are keen to reinforce in the Bill. The Minister appears to have some sympathy with that. What does

''on such conditions (if any)''

mean? It is obviously appropriate for the Secretary of State to decide on the total budget that is given to the Children's Commissioner. Without wishing to make a spending commitment, in view of the relative amounts in the budget likely to be allocated to the new commissioner for England, as opposed to the existing commissioner, and given the relative populations—some 84 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom lives in England—one wonders whether the resources are sufficient. Perhaps the resources already allocated to the other commissioners are over-generous. I do not want to say more than that.

It is obviously appropriate for the Secretary of State to decide on the total budget, but not to constrain how it is to be spent. The last thing we want is further ring-fencing of the money allocated to the Children's Commissioner. We are fervently against that, and I thought that the Government were at last showing signs of reversing that policy, having ring-fenced so much money, particularly in health, education and social services. The wording in this part of schedule appears to be too wide. In the upper House Baroness Ashton of Upholland gave an undertaking to look at it again. She claimed that the wording mirrors the Care Standards Act 2000 under which the National Assembly for Wales funds the Welsh commissioner.

Under the Bill it is up to the Children's Commissioner to determine his or her priorities. Are we are talking about purely supplementary payments that may be issued by the Secretary of State in order to fund specific inquiries or research projects or to set up new structures that he has authorised—that is, of course, ring-fencing—or will some caveats or

restrictions be placed on the whole budget that the commissioner gets, which would inevitably mean some curtailing of independence?

When Baroness Ashton gave the mirroring of the Care Standards Act as the reason for this, she did not explain why it was necessary to mirror those terms. I will be grateful if the Minister can assure us that we are in no way trying to hamstring the Children's Commissioner in terms of the way in which he or she spends his or her budget. We would have severe reservations about an attempt to do so and it would be against the rationale for the independence of the commissioner that the Minister has advanced. I would be grateful for her reassurances on that score, hence amendment No. 5.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I shall deal first with the budget that has been set for the commissioner, because a number of hon. Members and organisations outside the House have expressed concern about it in relation to the budgets for other commissioners. We believe that the budget is sufficient. It reflects the fact that we expect the English commissioner to fulfil a different role from that of commissioners in the other countries. Of course, as with all these things—I was involved when we embarked on setting up the Disability Rights Commission—we will have to reflect on the experience of the first year or so of operation of the Children's Commissioner to ensure that the role is properly and effectively funded. I can assure the Committee that we will do that.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

If the role in England is to be financed with much less money, is it envisaged that it will be a lesser role?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

We are in danger of reopening the argument that we had this morning. In my view, the role is different and more appropriate. I look forward to debates with the hon. Lady over time as we see the strength of this champion for children impacting on our lives as parliamentarians. We shall see whose judgement at this stage, before we establish the post and see how the commissioner works, is right, but it is a different role and one that deliberately focuses on the bigger picture. In my view, it will have an enormous impact not only on us as parliamentarians but on all organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors that in one way or another impact on children's lives. I have simply been trying to respond to the question raised by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about how we had arrived at a different budget head—it is because of the different role.

Hon. Members have clearly read the record of the debate that took place on these issues in the House of Lords. The justification for the wording in the schedule is that it is the wording that we always use for non-departmental public bodies. It is a standard condition to ensure that the money that is voted for the commissioner is spent on the functions within the scope of his power.

We added the words ''and on such conditions'' because there may well be situations under clauses 4 and 5 in which the Secretary of State wants to give additional moneys to the commissioner, either to carry out an inquiry that the commissioner has instigated or has been asked to conduct by the Secretary of State. In those instances, we would want the commissioner to use for that purpose alone the moneys allocated for that purpose.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Is the Minister specifically saying that the words

''and on such conditions (if any)''

will apply solely to supplementary funds, not to the main budget? If so, would it not be clearer to add an amendment specifying that those words refer to supplementary funds? I see that a bit of in-flight refuelling is going on. If what she has told me is right, we will have no problem in withdrawing the amendment, but given the in-flight refuelling that she has had, can she reflect on whether what she is saying is correct?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

The hon. Gentleman will see the exchange of notes across the Committee. My only slight problem with giving the assurance that he seeks is that I would not want to create a constraint in saying that it was only for inquiries under clauses 4 and 5 that one would choose to give particular moneys. We may well want the commissioner to undertake a particular project on an issue—I am trying to think of one. Perhaps we have all been during the lunch break to the Young People Now reception on the subject of how children are portrayed in the media. There may be a general interest, supported by the Secretary of State, in a project about how young people are portrayed in the media, so the Secretary of State could provide additional resources for such a project. We would not want to curtail specific funding of such projects.

I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance, and he will undoubtedly then want to come back to me. There is absolutely no suggestion in this amendment, or in the way that the schedule on funding has been written, that we shall interfere at all in the generality of the way in which the commissioner chooses to spend the money that we shall give him. I can give the Committee a total and utter assurance that we shall not seek in any way to stop the commissioner undertaking a particular task or investigation or reviewing an issue. That is not at all the purpose of the wording in the schedule.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I had rather suspected that the Minister would not accept my amendment with open arms. It refers to

''expenditure incurred by virtue of this Act'',

and that is a broad definition. Perhaps, as elegantly as I can, I can pirouette and argue the other side of the case. There is a sum of money, and as other hon. Members have already asked, will that be sufficient for the commissioner's work in England? There is also the work of the commissioner in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and my particular concern, arguing from the other side, is whether there will be sufficient money for the work there. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to ring-fencing and

the Minister spoke about not predetermining how the commissioner should spend his or her money. Can she assure the Committee that there will be sufficient moneys for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? As she knows, my particular concern is about the extra expenditure incurred in providing a proper bilingual service in Wales.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

Again, in the spirit of not wishing to intervene in the commissioner's independence, our view is that the general sum that we will give the commissioner will be sufficient for him to carry out all his duties, including those in Wales on non-devolved issues that impact on children. Should it come to pass that there is a specific inquiry, under clauses 4 or 5, that takes place in Wales, that is just the sort of situation where a specified sum from the Secretary of State to the commissioner will be provided so that such an inquiry will take place and be properly funded. Should there be a particular project—again, I cannot think of one off the top of my head—that the Secretary of State and the commissioner agree ought to be undertaken, which impacts only on Wales, that would be the circumstance in which a specific sum would be provided to carry out that work.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I think we have got somewhere; the phrase that the Minister used to assure was that she was not seeking to interfere with the generality of the way in which the children's commissioner spends the money given to him. I think that that means that we are talking only about supplemental spending. She did not quite use those terms of assurance, but everything that she said suggested that that was what she means, although she will not quite commit herself to confirm that or to specify it in the Bill. It is important—we are not just talking semantics here.

We need to ensure that the Children's Commissioner will have the full and resourced independence to do the job that is tasked to him by the legislation. If the Government announce the budget for the commissioner each year and say that they expect him to spend 10 per cent. of that money in a particular area, that will compromise his independence. If the Government are merely talking about specific project funding, whether to run an inquiry or conduct research on children's portrayal in the media, as mentioned earlier today, we would have no trouble with that. However, one would hope that the initiation for such an inquiry would come from the commissioner, who would seek funds about which the Government could take a decision.

I want to return to the issue of funding, because we clearly have worries. The Children's Commissioner for Wales has a staff of 22, his budget for the current year is £1.4 million, and according to the 2001 census, the population of under-18-year-olds is just over 662,000. The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People has a slightly larger staff of 29, a budget of £1.4 million for the first year, rising to £1.9 million, and a smaller population of about 500,000 under-19-year-olds to look after—a slightly different age specification. In Scotland, the commissioner has a staff

of 15, yet despite having the largest number of children of the three to look after—1.2 million under-19-year-olds—her budget is £1.2 million a year and £1.5 million in the first year.

According to the Minister's Department, the estimated running costs of the commissioner in England will be £2.5 million per annum, yet the population is almost 10 times that of Scotland—somewhere between 10.5 million and 11 million under the age of 18. There is a discrepancy between the amount of resources available to our commissioner and what the other commissioners get. That will clearly throw up question marks and concerns about whether the Children's Commissioner will be properly resourced to do the job that we are giving him.

I hope, as the Minister appears to be saying, that there will be no financial straitjackets put on the commissioner and that paragraph 7 will be pertinent merely to supplemental funding for specific projects. If that is the case, we will be happy not to press what is a probing amendment. I hope that her assurances lead us down that route, although she has not set it out in black and white as I asked.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

To return to the Minister's previous comments, I was reassured by what she said and her confirmation that my understanding was correct. I am also reassured by her remarks about funding for specific inquiries should they be required in Wales. I know that she is mindful of the particular situation that we have in Wales, so given her remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 125, in

schedule 1, page 38, line 34, at end add—

'14 The Secretary of State shall by regulation provide that the Children's Commissioner and members of staff of the Children's Commissioner shall be disqualified from membership of the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament.'.

I assume that the commissioner will continue to have responsibilities outside England. The Bill provides that the commissioner should not be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but does not make an equivalent provision for the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales, and I hope that the Minister will explain why.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I am told that it requires primary legislation to ensure disqualification of Members of the UK Parliament from holding that post because of a potential conflict of interests. I am also told that it does not require primary legislation to ensure that Members of the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament are disqualified from holding the post of the commissioner for England. That would be for them to determine when deciding who was eligible to be a Member of the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. The measure will determine who is eligible to be a Member of the UK Parliament; the English commissioner will not be eligible.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I accept that, but paragraph 13 on page 38 states that they are disqualified from membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly, too. Obviously, it is

partly for the protection of the Parliament itself, but as to the commissioner's responsibility, how can someone hold an office under the Crown and be a Member of a political body of that kind?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

This is such a technical issue. I am told that the Bill has to legislate in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to our own Parliament. Section 15(1)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 states that a person is disqualified from being a Member of the Parliament if

''he is an office-holder of a description specified in an Order in Council made by Her Majesty under this subsection.''

The order has to be made through the Scottish Parliament.

Equally, section 12(1)(b) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 states that a person is disqualified from being an Assembly Member if

''he holds any of the offices for the time being designated by Order in Council as offices disqualifying persons from being Assembly members''.

That must be done through the Welsh Assembly and not through this Parliament. That is what I am told; it is a pure technicality that we have responsibility for the UK Parliament and Northern Ireland and we do not have the responsibility in primary legislation for disqualifying people from being Members of the Scottish Parliament or of the Welsh Assembly.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Bingo! I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 - General function

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is not moving amendment No. 127, Government amendment No. 11 becomes the lead amendment in the next group on the selection list. As it is in a group of amendments to clause 4, for the sake of good order, we will move it down the agenda. The next item is therefore amendment No. 53.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I beg to move amendment No. 53, in

clause 2, page 1, line 9, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 166 to 168.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

The amendments raise some serious issues, which we should explore. My amendment would strengthen the Bill. It is designed to ensure that the Children's Commissioner is completely committed to encouraging people to take account of children's views and interests, to advising the Secretary of State on those views and interests, and to reviewing and

reporting on the effectiveness of advice and advocacy services, complaints procedures and whistleblowing. I think that that is fair enough.

I am extremely concerned by the Government amendments that would replace ''review and report'' with ''consider or research'' and would delete the references to advice and advocacy and whistleblowing. For a start, ''review and report'' is plainly much stronger than ''consider or research'', and I do not see the point of changing it. Furthermore, if we are expecting the Children's Commissioner even just to consider or research complaints procedures, why should he not also consider and research advice and advocacy services? The two seem to go hand in hand, and considering the way in which local authorities and organisations have structured their services, I do not see how one could easily separate complaints procedures from advice and advocacy services in many parts of the country.

I am particularly concerned by the idea of excluding the provision that the Children's Commissioner should review and report on whistleblowing. It is crucial to allow those working with children to raise concerns and issues, speak publicly and tell authorities to ensure that others know when services are going wrong or children are being abused or neglected or are suffering at the hands of the state, local authority or organisation charged with their care. It is essential for a Government who are committed to dealing with the atrocious abuses that we have seen in so many parts of the care system over so many years to ensure that the independent watchdog for children—the children's champion—should be able to take a close interest in and report on the efficacy of whistleblowing activities.

I do not see the point of some of the Government amendments and indeed believe that some would be extremely harmful. I am seeking to strengthen this part of the Bill, and I certainly do not think that it should be weakened by replacing the important functions of reviewing and reporting with considering or researching.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I rise to support amendment No. 53. I was minded to propose the word ''must'' rather than ''shall'', but I did not want to be picky, so I signed up to this amendment. The provisions, as amended in the Lords, are strong, and in the same way as the Minister has conceded that a ''may'' should change to a ''shall'', I felt that the changes were very important. I can only echo the comments that aspects such as the whistleblowing arrangements inspection are so important that to have them blown out of the Bill is amazing. We should therefore reject Government amendments Nos. 166 to 168.

Amendment No. 167 was not touched on earlier, but bringing the outcome goals back into this part of the Bill seems singularly inappropriate. I welcome the fact that the outcome provisions were expanded in the House of Lords and that the amendments there were accepted. I am happy with them.

To return to our earlier discussion, but without rehearsing it again, I make it clear that the rights agenda should be the underlying principle. There is much confusion between principles and outcomes. I

believe that the outcome goals are in a satisfactory place in the Bill now. I therefore speak strongly against the three Government amendments. There have been great improvements in the Bill, but it is now proposed to blow them all away, which is a huge pity.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I have some sympathy with what was said about the amendments. They are part of the diluting of clause 2. We saw much good work in the upper House to give the Children's Commissioner real teeth. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre has quite rightly identified certain issues—I agree with him on whistleblowing—that should be covered in the Bill. The Government amendments seek to dilute what we were given in the first place.

I have spent many happy hours in Committees arguing the toss between ''must'' and ''shall'' and I have never won that toss in seven and a half years of Committee work. There are great diatribes of parliamentary code on why ''must'' or ''shall'' should prevail, so I do not want to go over that territory now, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the new element of clause 2—and we will be discussing the rest of clause 2, which we would like to see remain largely unchanged, later. I will be sympathetic to his aims if he is going to push his point, although I am not very optimistic about achieving any change in the language.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

There is a danger that we will regurgitate the debate that we had this morning, but this debate gives me the opportunity to say that these Government amendments reflect the purpose that we see for the commissioner. We want the commissioner to have a wider focus on outcomes and not a narrow focus on policing individual rights. That may be a difference between us in Committee. Again, experience will tell who is right with regard to the way in which we have formulated the functions of the commissioner.

Perhaps I can reflect a little on the transformation agenda. The five outcomes, which we have translated into parliamentary language in one of the amendments before us this afternoon, arose out of an extensive and thorough consultation exercise that we undertook with children and young people. They are the expression of what children and young people said to us mattered to them. Making their priorities the focus of what we wish the commissioner to undertake seems to me the best way of ensuring that we will have a children and young persons' champion, and not a champion of any particular interest group. I say that with all sincerity, and I recognise the commitment that many people have to the concept of the Children's Commissioner.

Our entire programme of reform—our entire transformation of children's services—is built around those five outcomes. When I talk about the Bill being the legislative spine, I mean that those outcomes will be reflected in the targets that we set ourselves as a Government and against which we wished to be judged, in the targets that we set for local authorities and against which they will be judged, in the targets set by the Minister responsible for community health, and

in the framework that he has established through the national service framework for health. They will also be reflected in the integrated inspection of children's services, which is led by Ofsted. Throughout all the work that we do, we reflect what children have told us matters to them, as described in those outcomes.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Will the Minister give way?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

May I just finish my next few sentences? The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) thinks that having the outcomes on the face of the Bill is unnecessary. That is utterly wrong.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Will the Minister give way?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I will give way in a moment.

Those outcomes are central to everything that we are doing to provide a step change in the life chances of every child.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I do not argue that the outcome should not be in the Bill either. Does my right hon. Friend believe that focusing on these five outcomes will prevent the Children's Commissioner from engaging with any issue relating to the interests of children?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

No is the simple and clear answer. By also stating in the Bill that the commissioner must have regard to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, we will ensure that that value system also underpins his work and that it is strongly focused in relation to the outcomes defined not by us as parliamentarians, but by children and young people.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I should like to place on record exactly what I said. I welcomed the outcomes appearing in part 2 of the Bill. Indeed, I have tabled an amendment that, I hope, will improve them even further. I simply did not feel that it was appropriate to include them in this part of the Bill.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I simply reflect that the principal purpose of the Children's Commissioner will be to ensure that children and young people's views are reflected in relation to those outcomes. That is why it is important that they are in this part of the Bill. Remove them from this part of the Bill and the principal purpose of the Children's Commissioner changes in a way that will not serve the interests of children in England, and children across the whole of the UK in relation to non-devolved matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre talked about whistleblowing, which is extremely important. I completely concur with him on that. Again, does he not agree that we wish to have a commissioner who is utterly independent of the Government and who will not simply fulfil the priorities that he may deem important, that I may deem important or that the Committee may deem important? We want the commissioner to determine his own priorities—what he should spend time on and what he should investigate. Deleting references to certain issues is not to say that they are not important, but stops us prescribing the priorities for his work. That is all that we are attempting to do in order to

consolidate even further his independence. Instructing the commissioner to report on issues is tantamount to telling him how to do his job.

I have no doubt that the commissioner I envisage undertaking this task will wish to report on issues of importance to Parliament, to the Secretary of State and to children and young people in all sorts of ways. He will wish to publish reports. However, to prescribe how he should do his job is tantamount to interference. We want the commissioner to be as independent as possible, even if that means that he investigates matters that we would not wish him to investigate. I completely take the point that my hon. Friend made in his intervention.

I should like to go briefly through the Government amendments so that hon. Members are clear what we intend. The current paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (2) specify advice and advocacy services and inspection and whistleblowing arrangements as areas that the commissioner may want to review and report on. Those were the areas that are now in the Bill as a result of an amendment in another place, and they are wide ranging. They would prescribe priorities and determine the focus of the commissioner's work in a way that it is inappropriate for us to do here. I also fear that prescribing priorities in the Bill—this may be what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre intended—would tend to drag the commissioner into individual casework. As my hon. Friend knows, we have stressed that that is not desirable. We do not want to turn the commissioner's office into an inspectorate.

Reinstating the outcomes in the Bill gives us a legal interpretation of what children identified as being important to them. The outcomes are also referred to in clause 7. Restoring them to clause 2 will establish the function of the commissioner in the same framework as the rest of the Bill and fully incorporate it as part of the new outcomes-based approach to children's services in England that I have described.

While seeking to restore the reference to the outcomes, we will retain the requirement for the commissioner to have regard to the UNCRC. The outcomes are a definition of practical, meaningful and achievable goals that children and young people said were important to them. They provide a useful focus for the commissioner's functions, and one that children themselves can easily understand.

I have discussed why we thought that ''consider or research'' was better than ''review and report''. Again, our wording does not prevent the commissioner from issuing reports on any subject he feels it is relevant for him to report on. It simply does not prescribe that he should do so.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

My right hon. Friend has been extremely helpful. I would just like to check whether she is saying that the Government amendments would not in any way prevent the Children's Commissioner from reviewing and reporting advice, advocacy complaints and whistleblowing if he felt that that was appropriate.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I am saying precisely that. The commissioner is free to do what he wishes, but we do not wish in the Bill to prescribe the priorities and functions that he ought to fulfil or the areas that he should cover.

It seems that we may have reached some consensus in that little exchange. In that spirit, I hope that members of the Committee will support the Government amendments, but not the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 164, in

clause 2, page 1, line 11, leave out 'rights,'.

No. 165, in

clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out 'rights,'.

No. 166, in

clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d) and insert—

'(c) consider or research the operation of complaints procedures so far as relating to children;

(d) consider or research any other matter relating to the interests of children;

(e) publish a report on any matter considered or researched by him under this section.'

No. 167, in

clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

'(2A) The Children's Commissioner is to be concerned in particular under this section with the views and interests of children so far as relating to the following aspects of their well-being—

(a) physical and mental health and emotional well-being;

(b) protection from harm and neglect;

(c) education, training and recreation;

(d) the contribution made by them to society;

(e) social and economic well-being.'—[Margaret Hodge.]

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I beg to move amendment No. 54, in

clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out 'take reasonable steps to'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss following amendments: No. 4, in

clause 2, page 2, line 6, leave out 'section' and insert 'Part'.

No. 55, in

clause 2, page 2, line 6, leave out 'to'.

No. 129, in

clause 2, page 2, line 9, after first 'children', insert

', parents, organisations representing parents'.

Government amendment No. 169.

No. 2, in

clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

'( ) In carrying out his functions under this section the Commissioner must have regard to the importance of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the wellbeing of children'.

No. 3, in

clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out 'section' and insert 'Part'.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

In the spirit of the previous debate, I hope that we might agree that, for this one aspect of the work, we should be able to dictate how the Children's Commissioner carries out his responsibilities. My amendment would simply leave it that the commissioner must involve children in the

discharge of his functions. That seems perfectly reasonable and sensible, and something that the Children's Commissioner should accept as a fundamental part of their job.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Amendment No. 54 is eminently sensible; I cannot see why the four words are required.

I want to speak to amendments Nos. 2 to 4. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are simple; moreover, I do not see why the considerations described in them should not apply to the whole Bill rather than to just the clause. We ask that those considerations should apply to compiling reports, reporting to Parliament, holding inquiries and the relationship with other commissioners, and not just to clause 2.

In response to these probing amendments, can the Minister tell us why the provisions set out in subsections (4) and (5) are limited to clause 2? The subsections provide for the commissioner to have particular regard to groups of children

''who do not have other adequate means by which they can make their views known''

and give the commissioner power to enter premises. Those provisions should apply to the entire role of the Children's Commissioner under all six clauses of part 1, rather than to clause 2 alone. Can she clarify the matter?

Amendment No. 2 was originally tabled as a probing amendment by Lord Northbourne in another place. Subsection (4) provides for the commissioner to be proactive in ascertaining and reflecting the views of disadvantaged children—that is right. However, there is no mention of the family in part 1, and very little mention of the family in the whole Bill. This morning, hon. Members mentioned the importance of the family as the first port of call in addressing children's problems, if that is at all possible. Only when breakdown and problems within the family occur do we need recourse to other help and support. The family is essential to the child's well-being, but it is not mentioned.

The Bill is about all children, not just those without a family and who are looked-after children—it applies to everyone. The child's welfare should not be considered in isolation from their relationship with their family. We therefore contend that, in clause 2, and probably also in clause 6, all the agencies dealing with children should make the presumption of the importance of the family. We would include in that presumption an extended family, rather than just parents—all the people who can be described as part of a child's family. I am interested in hearing the Minister's views on why family and parents are not given any prominence in the Bill, because they surely are part of the solution. All those agencies that will have to intervene on behalf of children should have regard to maintaining—if there is any chance of it—the relationship between parents and children within the family context. That is the point of amendment No. 2.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I support amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 54 and Government amendment No. 169. I have been arguing against most of the Government amendments, so I felt that I should say that amendment No. 169 is excellent.

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham speak to amendment No. 2. Although I also place great weight on the importance of the family and carers, I am rather uncertain about inclusion of the amendment at this stage of the Bill. I am going to reserve my views on that and listen to the Minister. It is a difficult balance to achieve. We know that the family and carers should, in an ideal world, be the first port of call, but sadly we do not live in an ideal world. Therefore, I am uncertain about whether such a provision would always be in the child's best interests. I want to be sure that we are always operating in the child's best interests. I shall listen to the debate on amendment No.2, but I should like to register our support for the amendments that I listed.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I support Government amendment No. 169. I think that it is absolutely excellent that there will be a version of the Children's Commissioner's report specifically designed for children. That has happened in Wales with the Children's Commissioner for Wales and has gone down extremely well. I am pleased about that. Can the Minister say what plans she has to publish the report in other languages? We have discussed the Welsh language already, but has she any views on the other languages that are used particularly in our cities?

There was discussion about the role of families in relation to children. I thought that it would be interesting to make the point that many of the 500 cases that the Children's Commissioner for Wales is dealing have come from families rather than from children even though they are about children.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I support the amendment, which I think is valuable, and I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister's response. I heard the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I cannot think of many circumstances in which it would not be in the interests of the child to have the support of the family when there is one to support the child. When I say ''family'', I hasten to add that I am not prescribing any particular form of family; I am not making judgments about people, how they live, or the nature of their relationships, but the interests of the family—in the sense of those looking after the child—must be taken into account, and the commissioner should have regard to the importance that such people should care for the child. They supply the child with emotional support and care. The state does not generally do that.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I am not trying to make a cheap shot, as this is a genuine debate. However, will the hon. Gentleman accept that most cases of child abuse occur within the family?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I am not disputing that. I think that the hon. Lady is missing the point, which, if I may say so, I do not think she has got her head round. The

point being made is that it is important for a family to support the child. Let us not make judgments about child abuse or the nature of families. It is in the child's best interests to have family support. A family might not give the child very good support, but that is a different issue. Children are generally best brought up by families.

I return to the point that I was making before the hon. Lady's intervention: the state in this country, and I suspect in other countries, has proven that it is not very good at looking after children in the absence of families. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre made some important points about that, to which I hope we shall return in due course. We have a special duty to those children who do not have the support of families. However, where there is a family, we should bear it in mind and give it support. Obviously, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and I are not calling for support for abusive families or parents, but when a family is caring for a child, we have to consider it and regard family life as important.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

Although several amendments have been grouped together, I will separate them to try to make sense of them.

Clearly, involving children in the discharge of the commissioner's function is central to what he is all about. If I have a quarrel with amendment No. 6, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre, it is that he is trying to prescribe how the commissioner should work. We have left in the words that he wants to delete because we want to leave discretion to the commissioner to decide how best to consult and work with children and take account of their views.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

With respect, I cannot follow my right hon. Friend's argument. I am not trying to prescribe how the Children's Commissioner should involve children in the discharge of his function; I am saying just that he should darn well do it. I would have thought that all Committee members could agree on that.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

The commissioner will do it, but we need to leave him the flexibility and discretion to do it in the way that is appropriate to him. I am told that the words in clause 2 give him that additional flexibility so that he can operate in the most appropriate manner. It is to enable him to have that flexibility that I ask my hon. Friend not to push amendment No. 54, which would delete the words ''take reasonable steps to''. The purpose of clause 2 is to ensure that the commissioner listens to children and works with them, through them and for them. We share that ambition, and it is on a drafting technicality that we are at odds.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Who will judge whether the Children's Commissioner has taken reasonable steps?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I suppose that, in the accountability structure that we have established, the Secretary of State will ultimately judge whether he fulfils his functions under the terms set out in

schedule 1. The House will also judge. One way that the commissioner will carry out his work is by producing at least one report each year to the House, which will provide an avenue for him to appear before House Committees to answer for the report in any way that hon. Members choose. I have absolutely no doubt that as we watch how the commissioner operates, one issue that we will all examine is how well, broadly and thoroughly he listens to the voice of children and how he reflects that in his work.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful for that, but the Minister used the phrase ''I suppose that it would be the Secretary of State'', which is not good enough. I cannot envisage any circumstances in which the Children's Commissioner should not or could not involve children in the discharge of his function to ensure that children are made aware of that function. There is no scenario by which children would not be involved in that.

I had thought that we made progress earlier when the Minister was sympathetic and said that she may even return with a Government amendment mirroring my proposal on the role of children in the selection of the Children's Commissioner. It would be entirely consistent and logical to take the four little words out of clause 2, because they do not seem to serve any purpose.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

All I would say is that the purpose of including those four words was to provide flexibility to enable the commissioner to function in a practical way. However, if it will help hon. Members, I will reflect on the issue with lawyers again. If we can remove the words without in any way constraining the flexibility of the commissioner to exercise his functions and involve children, we will do so on Report. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to reflect on the issue between now and Report, I will do so.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments, but I would be even more grateful if she reflected with the Children and Youth Board rather than with lawyers, and asked its members what makes most sense to them: saying that the Children's Commissioner must take reasonable steps to involve children or saying that he must involve them. I really think that she could just accept this amendment.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but he knows as well as I do that we have to watch the legal terms with which we establish this post. The provision must be copper-bottomed and must make sense and be operable after we have had our debates in Committee and in the House more broadly. However, I will come back to him on that.

The purpose of amendments Nos. 4 and 3 is to extend the duty of the commissioner to take reasonable steps to involve children in the discharge of his functions to all parts of the Bill. The purpose of the existing requirement in respect of the commissioner's clause 2 functions is to ensure that children are involved. We prefer to maintain the current wording,

because the same purpose may not be as relevant to, for example, clause 4 and 5 inquiries. The amendment would serve little purpose in that regard. A clause 5 inquiry would be to investigate the case of an individual child and that child would form the focus of the commissioner's work in any event. I am therefore slightly puzzled as to the extra value that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham thinks would be gained by inserting his wording.

Let us consider the wording in relation to clause 3, which concerns the annual report. Again, I am slightly puzzled as to why children should be involved in the drafting of the commissioner's annual report. Children will want to read it and comment on it and may want to disagree with it, but it is questionable whether it is appropriate to involve them in its drafting. I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's thinking.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I would have thought that it was quite desirable to involve children in the drafting of a report to ensure that it is in a form that they can read and understand.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I do not agree, because the report is the account that the commissioner will give Parliament of the work that he has done, although it will be more widely read. It is a report of his work, which, one hopes, reflects the views of children. Later amendments, which hon. Members have welcomed, talk about the way in which he phrases the report to make it comprehensible to children. The more I think about it, the more I believe that it would be inappropriate to involve children in drafting a report that is the basis of the commissioner's accountability to Parliament and, beyond, to the Secretary of State and others. To conclude, the proposal is unnecessary for clauses 4 and 5 and inappropriate for clause 3.

Let me now turn to the general issues that have been raised in relation to parents. I shall start by saying something that I consider very important: parents are the most important people in a child's life. Anyone who is concerned about children recognises that. Indeed, I often say, and have probably done so in the House, that all the research evidence we have shows that parenting in the home has a greater impact on outcomes for children than any other intervention, including the most wonderful school and the most talented teachers. That is why it is our view, interestingly enough, that for far too long the state has not felt it appropriate to play a role in supporting parents in the most difficult task of rearing their children, and has always left it to the private concern of the family, intervening only when things go wrong—for example, if a child is subject to abuse. I genuinely believe that there is a wider role for the state in providing—not forcing—a framework of support for parents in that difficult task.

If that is common ground with us all, I hope that we can make progress. Several parents' organisations and others approached me at an early stage to say that parents were not incorporated or represented anywhere in the Bill. The reason for that was to avoid our inserting in legislation elements that we do not

need there. We try to keep legislation as narrow and focused as we can. We all recognise the importance of the family, and the crucial importance of parenting to children's outcomes and development, but that does not mean that we need to insert in the Bill a little clause or phrase to pursue that policy objective. However, because of our shared recognition of it, we did insert a phrase on the importance of parenting to children's outcomes at one point in the Bill. I cannot quite recall which clause it is in, but it was an amendment to which we agreed in the House of Lords.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am not sure whether the Minister is referring to clause 7(3), but that refers to the responsibilities of children's services authorities, not to the responsibilities of the commissioner. Where are parents equivalently treated in respect of the commissioner's responsibilities?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

The hon. Gentleman is correct: I am indeed referring to that part of the Bill. I was going to come to the issue of the commissioner, because he is correct to say that we have not referred to parents in relation to the commissioner's role and functions. I was going to start to explain why. Clearly, the commissioner will want to have regard to the views of parents and other carers of children when discharging his functions, and he will also have regard to the view that in the vast majority of cases they are the first and best guardians of children's interests. The only cases in which we expect him not to involve parents will be where they are part of the problem, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said.

However, we believe that we should leave the commissioner free to consult whomever he thinks appropriate on whatever issue he is considering. Again, that is an essential part of his independence. This is a children's commissioner, not a parents' commissioner. We could argue over whether we should have a parents' commissioner, which might be an interesting expenditure commitment for some political parties as we move into the general election. However, it would not be appropriate in discussing the role of the Children's Commissioner to give any group of people who are important to children and their outcomes precedence over others. That is in no way to undermine the general thrust of our shared understanding of the importance of parents in a child's life. I hope that that explanation will reassure hon. Members that we understand the importance of parents but think that it would be inappropriate to include them in the clause.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Surely the Minister has contradicted herself. She started well, saying that the most important people in the welfare of children are parents, but she ended up saying that we should not give preference in the Bill to any particular group of people. Parents are the most important collection of people by far, so they surely merit a mention that simply says ''must have regard to''. That would not put them in any sort of hierarchy, make their views exclusive or give them a veto, but we should simply include them in the Bill because they do not appear anywhere in this part of it.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

They do appear in the Bill, but not in this part of it, because this is about a Children's Commissioner. I made the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman alluded in the context of what would happen if we were to refer to them in this part of the Bill. We would thereby be putting a duty on the commissioner to consult with and have regard to parents' views.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Good.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

But the purpose of the commissioner is to promote, and have regard to, the rights of children. In doing that job, and in implementing the law, he will undoubtedly wish to have regard to a whole group of people of whom parents may well be the most important, but we should not prescribe that. We should not interfere with his independence and put one group of people—the most important—in the Bill and not other groups. That is the point I was trying to make.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Again, the Minister is contradicting herself. We are discussing the commissioner, and talking about the rights of children. This morning, she approved an amendment to delete a reference to those rights. We are talking about the most important group of people; we are trying not to hamstring the commissioner but to ensure that the Bill states that those people have a special role, which the Minister herself admitted. Surely they merit just a small mention, a couple of lines in this important part of the Bill, saying that the commissioner should have regard to them.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

Despite my best endeavours, we may have to agree to disagree on this point. We recognise the importance of parents and I reiterate that we amended clause 7 to emphasise it, although in terms of the law, we did not need that clause in order to take action, to promote programmes or to give priority to parents, which is the consensus in the Committee. We do not believe that we should mention them in relation to the function of the Children's Commissioner, first, because he is primarily a children's champion, and children's interests should come first—so we should not prescribe any group except children—and secondly, because we want to maintain his independence in consulting and having regard to whomever he thinks appropriate in the particular context in which he is working.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Has not my right hon. Friend established that the Children's Commissioner must have regard to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child? Do not articles 5, 10 and 18 of that convention refer to the role and responsibilities of parents to guide their children as they develop, the importance of family reunification and, as article 18 states, the need to support parents in their responsibilities to bring up their own children?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

Well, there we are. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's extremely helpful intervention. I simply say that I, and probably other members of the Committee too, cannot imagine being an effective

commissioner without having regard to parents, who are the most important people in a child's life. However, we want the commissioner to remain independent, taking his or her own decisions about whom to consult. That is where we divide.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It would be interesting to know what the Minister and her Children and Youth Board think should be in the job description and the supporting information for those who wish to apply for the post of Children's Commissioner. Will she make that available to the House, because it might clarify the matter and tell those of us who are less well informed than the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre whether there are any hidden obligations?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

As it will be a public appointment, which will be publicly advertised, the job description and specification will be freely available when it emerges. I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman as and when it is determined. To be honest, we have not got there yet, as the Bill is not on the statute book. However, we are beginning to think about it, and when the measure is enacted, as I hope it will be in the next few weeks, we shall swiftly move to determine the job description, in consultation with the Children and Youth Board and others, and move towards advertising. If he will bear with me, I shall write and inform him when we decide. It will be a totally public appointment, publicly advertised, so he will no doubt see it in the press and elsewhere, but I undertake to write to him.

I am grateful for the general support that Government amendment No. 169 has received from the Committee. It provides an alternative to the rather difficult text of subsection (3)(c). The Government understand the thinking behind the provision, which was introduced by an amendment in the House of Lords as part of the overhaul of the clause. We agree that reports published by the commissioner should be as child-friendly as possible; after all, the commissioner is acting on behalf of children.

''Child-friendly'' has a lot of implications, though. It is partly about reflecting the age of children with whom we wish to communicate. It partly reflects issues around disability, and I have had extensive discussions, in particular with Mencap, about how to ensure that many of our communications are understandable to children with a learning disability. When talking about disability, we often think about publishing things in Braille or putting them on tape, but we rarely consider some of the more disadvantaged disabled young children in our communities and their total participation in what we do.

We must also consider language, which was a point raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon and others. In my constituency, 170 languages are spoken by children in schools at the primary level, and I have no doubt that other members of the Committee are in a similar situation. The phrasing of the amendment leaves it to the discretion and flexibility of the

commissioner so that as he publishes reports in a child-friendly way he can respond to the broad cohort of children with whom he wishes to communicate.

That is the context of the amendment, and it reads better as it is. We wish to leave the discretion to the commissioner so that he can respond to children of different ages, abilities and ethnic backgrounds or with a different language.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Is it appropriate for me to respond now before the amendment is withdrawn, because I would like to refer specifically to our amendments?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

It has been moved that the lead amendment be withdrawn. If there is an objection to its being withdrawn, the hon. Gentleman can speak to the other amendments.

Is it the Committee's wish that the amendment be withdrawn?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Then the hon. Gentleman may speak again.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful, Mr. Benton. I am sorry if I should have leapt to my feet with greater alacrity. The ordering of the amendments is so complex that I think we are all struggling slightly.

Having accepted the Minister's reasoning for why there may be problems with amendments Nos. 3 and 4, I am happy not to press them, but I would like to return to the important matter of amendment No. 2—which I realise is not the lead amendment—and put it to a vote. The Minister has not made her case and has had to admit that we shall have to divide in our opinions. The Committee should have the opportunity to divide on amendment No. 2, which is fundamental.

The Government have contested the principle, by the addition that they have made to clause 7 in respect of the children's services director. I cannot see why that cannot be an integral consideration, rather than an hierarchical consideration, purely with regard to the group of people that the Minister has admitted is the most important—not just the parents, but the extended family. It is essential that the Bill should not be unduly prescriptive but should mention the parents and family. I am alarmed that they are not mentioned in part 1 and that they are mentioned rarely in the rest of the Bill. I would therefore be grateful for an opportunity to vote on amendment No. 2.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I note what the hon. Gentleman says about amendment No. 2. When we come to it, I shall put it to the Committee formally. We must now dispose of amendment No. 54.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 168, in

clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out 'review and report on' and insert 'consider or research'.

No. 169, in

clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

'(3A) Where the Commissioner publishes a report under this section he must, if and to the extent that he considers it appropriate, also publish the report in a version which is suitable for children (or, if the report relates to a particular group of children, for those children).'—[Margaret Hodge.]

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I beg to move amendment No. 193, in

clause 2, page 2, line 16, at end insert—

'(d) Ensure that direct services provided to children by the commissioner or his staff, whether formally or informally is provided in the language of the intended recipients.'.

The amendment relates to the Children's Commissioner's duties under the clause, which includes those set out the newly amended subsection (3)(a), which we have just discussed. The amendment draws attention to the language issue—as hon. Members know by now, I have an interest in the language issue in Wales.

A great deal is wrapped up in the wording of the amendment. The relevant legislation is the Welsh Language Act 1993, which requires public bodies to teach Welsh and English on the basis of equality, in so far as that is reasonably practical and appropriate. That is the injunction of the 1993 Act. Many public bodies do that through the medium of language schemes, which the Welsh Language Board approves.

It is right that the provisions that relate to the commissioner's general functions in dealing with children should deal with language. That would reflect current best practice in Wales, which takes account of the language preferences of the recipients of public services. Not all public services go down that route, but the best do and give primacy to the wishes of the user, client or, in this case, the child. I am sorry to use an old social work expression, but the services start where the client is, rather than where the service is, and with trying to tailor those services to the language wishes of the child.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. However, does he not agree that this issue is dealt with under the Welsh Language Act 1993? I understand his desire for the issue to be covered in the Bill, but is it necessary?

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I am afraid that, in my experience, very many of these language schemes often refer to the language of answering the telephone or of sending out letters. They refer very infrequently to the language of practice. I have recent experience of a health trust that is quite happy to have signs up in Welsh and in English and to have headed notepaper, but when it comes to discussing the wishes of its elderly patients, it insists that the written material is in English. The problem has been that language schemes vary in their application and in their efficiency in ensuring that the service user has as full a choice as possible. That is why it is important for this to be in this part of the Bill.

I refer briefly to the demography of the matter. Some 600,000 people in Wales speak Welsh, approximately a third of whom are young people. I will not go into the detail of the figures, but one can say

as a general rule that Welsh is getting younger. The conventional picture of Welsh speakers is that they are elderly people living in rural and remote areas. However, the census shows that there is a clear bias in the age group of Welsh speakers towards younger people. That is unsurprising, given changes introduced by the Conservative Government, including the Welsh Language Act 1993, and changes to the national curriculum. Welsh is much more widely taught in schools now and very many more young people speak it, which is a very positive sign.

The point, as the Welsh Language Board has always said, is that public bodies should plan for growth because that is what is happening. As I have said in other debates, the board should plan for a normalisation of the use of Welsh alongside English on a totally equivalent basis. One way of driving that change through would be to give proper regard to the language wishes of service users, which is the aim of the amendment.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Gentleman has so far mentioned only Welsh and English. Judging by the way in which he responded to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), his amendment is designed to cover only those languages, but the amendment itself does not appear to do so. Is he suggesting that the responsibility to ensure that direct services are provided in the language of the intended recipients should apply to the provision of services in any language that is the language of the child concerned?

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I refer to clause 2(2), which states that the Children's Commissioner may—not must—provide a choice of language. I contend that that would be the normal course of action in Wales. Whether that might be the normal course of action elsewhere is another matter. I point the hon. Gentleman to my earlier argument that the Welsh language has a particular status in Wales and only in Wales, apart from in very peculiar circumstances that I need not go into here. So far as I can see, the amendment would allow the Children's Commissioner to make particular arrangements in Wales in respect of children's language, because of the legal situation.

The other point that I wish to make is that it is best practice to take account of children's language choices. If I had to deal with a child who was very young and could use only the language of his family, whether Italian, Punjabi or whatever, it would be best practice for me to reflect that in the way in which I worked.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Gentleman has twice used the word ''may'' in relation to the amendment, but in fact the wording is

''must take reasonable steps to involve children in the discharge of his function under the section, and in particular . . . ensure—''

and so on.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Perhaps my reading is defective. I thought that clause 2(2) said that the commissioner may—

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

We are talking about the amendment to line 16, which is subject to the words in lines 5 and 6 on page 2, not to those on page 1. Lines 5 and 6 contain the word ''must'', not ''may''.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

My response to that would be that the hon. Gentleman has got me there. However, that was part of my argument; my point was that it would allow the commissioner to work in Wales under this clause. I now see that I have misread it.

I shall finish my remarks so that the Minister can respond to the broad thrust of my argument. The commissioner should have a language scheme in place at the start of the operation of his office. When we discussed this previously, the Minister pointed out that the language scheme of the Children's Commissioner for Wales was approved rather later. The necessity to have the language scheme approved should not prevent the commissioner from applying its principles before it is approved. I would like some reassurance that his work will be consistent with the Welsh Language Act from the start, even if the scheme is not approved until later.

My other point concerned funding, but I think that the Minister answered that in an earlier response.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I shall speak briefly in support of the hon. Member for Caernarfon about the use of the Welsh language in these circumstances. The number of children who are being educated in Welsh is increasing every day, in secondary schools as well as in primary schools. In my constituency, which is broadly English speaking, the demand for a Welsh language education is increasing. For those children, Welsh is the language of home—their first language—and the language of education. When they face difficult circumstances, such as emotional problems, or trouble with the way in which services are administered on their behalf, it will be easiest for them to speak the language in which they are used to expressing their problems and their frustrations. I therefore support the spirit of the amendment.

I am not quite sure about the legislation on the requirement for a public body based outside Wales to operate a Welsh language scheme, but it is essential that such a scheme should be in place, not just for administrative purposes such as answering the telephone and dealing with post, but for engaging with children on the matters that are of concern to them, and about which they might find it difficult to express themselves in detail. I support the amendment.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I support the thrust of the amendment. My constituency also has a vast number of children who attend Welsh language schools. There is definitely a need, should they receive any service from the commissioner based in England, for a Welsh language scheme. Every effort should be made to communicate in the language of the home—the child's

first language. I certainly support the sentiments informing the amendment, and I support what the hon. Member for Caernarfon has said.

I should have thought, however, that the matter was already covered by the Welsh Language Board. I believe that other Departments and organisations which are based in England but whose operations cover Wales, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, provide Welsh language schemes. I am sure that the Minister will be able to enlighten us.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I would support the amendment if it related to clause 2(2) and oppose it if it related to clause 2(3), because the distinction between ''must'' and ''may'' is vital. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon mentioned, it is good practice to take account of the mother tongue of anyone for whom services are being provided, or the language in which they prefer to be addressed. My concern is that the amendment is not confined to Wales or Welsh speakers. [Interruption.]

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. The background noise is a little loud.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Thank you, Mr. Benton. Perhaps if I speak more quietly others will too. As the Minister has explained, there are certainly some constituencies in which 170 or perhaps even more languages are spoken. I fear that if the word ''must'' were being used, the amendment would be impossible. That is why my support for the amendment depends entirely on where it goes in the clause.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

We are all confused about the issue of ''must'' or ''may''. As I understand it, the amendment is to page 2, line 16, so it would add to subsection (3) a paragraph (d). Therefore, it is a ''must'', not a ''may''. I was previously under the impression that it amended clause 2(2), but it is an addition to clause 2(3). I took it as a probing amendment, and perhaps I may provide comfort to those hon. Members who have expressed an interest.

We are of course aware of our obligations to publish in Welsh where public activities in Wales are involved. I hope that hon. Members will be pleased to hear that we have already initiated inquiries with the Welsh Language Board on methods of implementation. It has advised that it would be for the Assembly to assess the role of the commissioner in Wales, and to decide whether he or she should be required to run a Welsh language scheme. We shall pursue that matter once the Bill has made the necessary progress, but I take the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon that we do not need to wait for the establishment of a scheme.

From the point of view of my own constituency I concur with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight: Welsh is but one language, and 170 different mother tongues are spoken by children in my constituency. I wonder whether some of the hon. Members in the Room represent constituencies where even more are spoken. The important thing is that the commissioner should communicate with all children, and we have allowed flexibility precisely so that the commissioner can respond in an appropriate way. Of course, language

can be interpreted in a broad way, which will include the needs of children with learning difficulties. Those needs are also related to language and its use, which is why we have used the broad definition of ''child friendly''. With those brief words of comfort to assert that we are taking the needs of Welsh children seriously, as well as those of children with other languages, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment, wherever it sits.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Being a good Calvanistic Methodist, I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight for a well-deserved chastening for my earlier mistake. Clearly, I have a surfeit of twos. I see that I have written ''2'' several times here, and not ''3''.

I shall respond briefly to the Minister. I had understood from the Welsh Language Board that there had been some contact following our discussion on the matter in the Welsh Affairs Committee. I am glad that that is the case, and I am very glad to have raised the point and emphasised the importance of language for children, particularly in Wales. Given what I have heard during the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I beg to move amendment No. 170, in

clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

'(4A) The Children's Commissioner is not under this section to conduct an investigation of the case of an individual child.'

The amendment removes dealing with individual cases from the commissioner's day-to-day role. To reassure Committee members, I can say that the commissioner will still have the discretion in certain circumstances to consider an individual case, such as under subsection (4) where an individual case has wide implications and is not a duplication of an individual case being considered through another mechanism.

I do not believe that any member of the Committee, however they might approach the role of the commissioner and the basis on which the post should be established, would think it achievable for him to take on individual cases throughout England. Neither would it be desirable for him to duplicate the existing ways that cases can be pursued. However, he always ought to consider whether the complaints mechanisms are working appropriately on behalf of children. I hope that hon. Members agree that it is important that everyone understands that such cases are not part of his day-to-day job.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I have some concerns about the amendment. I accept the point that we do not anticipate that the commissioner should investigate every case. I am happy to have a caveat that any such investigation based on an individual case should have wider implications. However, I am not very content with removing that possibility altogether, particularly

at this point at the Bill, and specifically with the wording in subsection (4) that the commissioner should

''have particular regard to groups of children who do not have other adequate means by which they can make their views known.''

That implies some vulnerability to me. Why remove the opportunity entirely? Why not simply have it clearly expressed as it is in the clause that it can only be an individual case with wider implications? I find that much more acceptable than a blanket statement that we would never do something for those vulnerable children. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on that.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

The amendment is there because we wanted to be completely clear about the purpose and functions of the commissioner. I repeat the point from the earlier debate—I know that the hon. Lady does not agree with me—that we do not want a rights-based commissioner policing individual rights. We want the commissioner to examine the broader picture and therefore to investigate whether services throughout England and some parts of the other countries of the UK are meeting the needs of children. The amendment will make that absolutely clear.

However, we listened to the debate and to members of the hon. Lady's party in the other House who were very concerned that that would interfere with the commissioner's independence. That is why I urge her to look carefully at subsections (1) and (2) of clause 4, which provide for the independence and the capacity of the commissioner to underpin and investigate individual cases in those very rare circumstances where they will have wider policy implications and where they would not duplicate other existing mechanisms.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Will the Minister make it clear that children in Wales will have access on an individual basis to a commissioner for devolved matters but no access to a commissioner on an individual basis for non-devolved matters?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

It is in the nature of devolution that there will be different ways in which we do our business. That is its strength and joy, and that is why I support it as the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly does himself. When we discuss the Welsh clauses, we will discuss at length how to ensure that there is no confusion for individual children in Wales as to how they proceed. Settlements are different. For example, the Scottish commissioner does not look at individual complaints in the way that the Welsh commissioner does. The Government's view is that with 11.3 million children in England, we do not want the English commissioner to examine individual complaints.

For non-devolved matters, Welsh children will have a series of mechanisms through which they can pursue their individual rights and complaints, as they currently do. My understanding from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is that the current system

works; children are not perceived as being confused and they are directed to the appropriate mechanism. Under the current system, Welsh children cannot pursue individual complaints through the Welsh commissioner for non-devolved issues.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I thank the Minister. I have no doubt that we will discuss those issues in greater detail. I wish to make the point, however, that surely the importance lies not in how we do our business but in the children and how they can get some recompense and put forward their concerns about their treatment. This legislation puts too much emphasis on the importance of legislation and not enough on the rights of children.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I challenge that. The purpose of setting up the commissioner is to give a strong and powerful voice to children. The way that we are doing that in England is different from the way that the Welsh Assembly has chosen to do it for devolved matters in Wales. That is absolutely fine, and we can all learn from each other. Over time we shall see how effective the different mechanisms are in promoting the interests of children. I am utterly convinced that the mechanism that we propose and the Bill under consideration in Committee will provide an exceedingly powerful and independent champion for children.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 2, in

clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

'( ) In carrying out his functions under this section the Commissioner must have regard to the importance of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the wellbeing of children'.—[Tim Loughton.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 14.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I beg to move amendment No. 171, in

clause 2, page 2, line 30, at end insert—

'(6A) Where the Children's Commissioner has published a report under this section containing recommendations in respect of any person exercising functions under any enactment, he may require that person to state in writing, within such period as the Commissioner may reasonably require, what action the person has taken or proposes to take in response to the recommendations.'

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 177.

New clause 1—Further action following report on formal investigation—

'(1) Where the Children's Commissioner has made a report under section 4 which contains a recommendation as to action to be taken by a relevant body, the Commissioner may by notice require that body to provide the Commissioner within 3 months of the date of the notice with—

(a) such information as will enable the Children's Commissioner to determine whether the body has complied with the recommendation or will be complying with it; or

(b) a statement of the body's reason for not complying with the recommendation.

(2) A notice under subsection (1) shall include a statement that a failure by the body to respond within the period mentioned in that paragraph may be published in such manner as the Children's Commissioner considers appropriate.

(3) If, on receipt of a response from the body, the Children's Commissioner considers that—

(a) the action taken or proposed to be taken by the body to comply with the recommendation is inadequate; or

(b) the body's reason for not complying with the recommendation is inadequate, the Commissioner may send to the body concerned a further notice setting out the inadequacy and requiring the body to reconsider the matter and respond within one month of the date of the notice.

(4) A notice under subsection (3) shall include a statement that a failure by the body—

(a) to provide what the Children's Commissioner considers to be a satisfactory response; or

(b) to provide any response within the period mentioned in that subsection, may be published in such manner as the Children's Commissioner considers appropriate.

(5) The Children's Commissioner shall maintain a register containing details of—

(a) recommendations (together with the reasons for them) contained in reports made under section 4;

(b) action taken by the Children's Commissioner under subsections (1) and (3); and

(c) the results of any such action.

(6) Any register maintained under subsection (5) shall be open to inspection by any person at all reasonable times at the offices of the Children's Commissioner and the Commissioner may make arrangements for copies of the register to be available for inspection in such other place or places or by such other means as he considers appropriate.

(7) The Children's Commissioner shall publish those arrangements in such a way as to bring them to the attention of persons likely to be interested.'.

New clause 12—Further action following report on formal investigation (No.2)—

'(1) Where the Children's Commissioner has made a report under section 4 which contains a recommendation as to action to be taken by a relevant body, the Commissioner may by notice require that body to provide the Commissioner within 3 months of the date of the notice with—

(a) such information as will enable the Children's Commissioner to determine whether the body has complied with the recommendation or will be complying with it; or

(b) a statement of the body's reason for not complying with the recommendation.

(2) A notice under subsection (1) shall include a statement that a failure by the body to respond within the period mentioned in that paragraph may be published in such manner as the Children's Commissioner considers appropriate.

(3) If, on receipt of a response from the body, the Children's Commissioner considers that—

(a) the action taken or proposed to be taken by the body to comply with the recommendation is inadequate; or

(b) the body's reason for not complying with the recommendation is inadequate, the Commissioner may send to the body concerned a further notice setting out the inadequacy and requiring the body to reconsider the matter and respond within one month of the date of the notice.

(4) A notice under subsection (3) shall include a statement that a failure by the body—

(a) to provide what the Children's Commissioner considers to be a satisfactory response; or

(b) to provide any response within the period mentioned in that subsection, may be published in such manner as the Children's Commissioner considers appropriate.

(5) The Children's Commissioner shall maintain a register containing details of—

(a) recommendations (together with the reasons for them) contained in reports made under section 4;

(b) action taken by the Children's Commissioner under subsections (1) and (3); and

(c) the results of any such action.

(6) Any register maintained under subsection (5) shall be open to inspection by any person at all reasonable times at the offices of the Children's Commissioner and the Commissioner may make arrangements for copies of the register to be available for inspection in such other place or places or by such other means as he considers appropriate.

(7) The Children's Commissioner shall publish those arrangements in such a way as to bring them to the attention of persons likely to be interested.

(8) The Children's Commissioner shall monitor two years after an entry in the register has been made the actions taken by the body in relation to the matters giving rise to the entry on the register.'.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I shall speak to the Government amendments, and perhaps deal with the new clauses.

The Government believe that the commissioner's report should, where necessary, lead to action and positive change. There should be agreement across the Committee on that. We do not want to see the reports disappear without trace. Some recommendations made by the commissioner may be unpopular with certain bodies, which is why we have tabled the amendments to provide the commissioner with further powers to follow up the recommendations where appropriate. We do not want to end up, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has suggested, with a commissioner with big ears and no teeth.

Our amendments are phrased as simply as possible, to allow the commissioner flexibility in how he wishes to exercise those powers. We have not laid down an appropriate response time; we will leave that to the discretion of the commissioner. That makes sense because the recommendations made by the commissioner will inevitably be wide ranging and may require different response times. For example, if the commissioner were to recommend that a company selling goods to children should completely change its marketing strategy, three months or even six months might not be long enough to obtain a properly thought-out response. On the other hand, there may be cases where the commissioner feels that a deadline

shorter than three months is appropriate. The important thing is to give the commissioner the freedom to make such decisions as he wishes.

If it is not inappropriate, I want to respond to what I think the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will say in speaking to new clause 1, and to what the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole may say in speaking to new clause 12. I hope that they will compare both new clauses with the Government amendments. Both new clauses would require any body that was the object of a recommendation in a report by the commissioner under clause 4 to respond within three months, failing which the commissioner would publish the fact that it had not done so. They also provide that the same body would have to report again within another month if the commissioner was not satisfied with its initial response. Those responses would be recorded in an open register. I hope that the Committee will understand why I think that such time constraints would be inappropriate for the circumstances. With those assurances, I hope that hon. Members will not insist on pushing the new clauses.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister's comments are helpful. It should be pointed out that we tabled our new clause a month ago; she tabled her amendments five days ago. Some assurance has come from her amendments, which are, uncharacteristically, less wordy than our new clause, which seeks to be all-encompassing, and that is helpful.

We will all agree that the reports need to be acted on, and that there needs to be a clear and transparent line of response so that people can see that action will be taken as a result of any such inquiries. I believe that the response time of three months was suggested by various children's charities. It is not unreasonable for a three-month time scale to be laid down, because that would not be set in stone. If there were reasons why that period was inappropriate—I accept the point that it could be shorter or longer—there would be a clear line of action through which a response could be given.

For the purposes of the debate on the clause, and so that we can move things on, I am happy not to take the proposed new clause any further, particularly given its similarity to that tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. However, it would be useful for the Minister to recognise that the new clause is not quite as prescriptive as she suggested.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I welcome the Government's amendments. The intention of my colleagues and I in tabling new clause 12 was to introduce the idea of monitoring into the process, and this was the only place that I could find to do so.

Will the Minister consider further whether there should be a process for monitoring whether action has taken place after a certain period? Although I welcome the amendments, they ask for a statement of intention rather than of what has actually been done.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

Our amendments are so clear and precise because they took so long to draft. I apologise to members of the Committee for the fact that they were not given as much notice of the amendments as they would have liked and I would have liked to give them. However, we have some good amendments before us, for which we thank our parliamentary draftsmen.

My response to the question asked by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is that, the moment we include a time frame in the Bill, that becomes the accepted orthodoxy. People then think that they have got three months in which to respond, even if they could actually respond in a shorter time. Equally, if the three-month period is insufficient, there will not be a proper response. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that, and accepts that it would be inappropriate to include such a provision.

Will monitoring take place? It is difficult for me to give assurances on how the commissioner will choose to work. However, I cannot think that he would put energy into producing a report with recommendations and not wish to see them implemented. I hope that the powers that we include in Government amendments Nos. 171 and 177 will give the commissioner the necessary authority to carry out such monitoring; it is therefore unnecessary to include a provision for monitoring in the Bill. I have no doubt that the commissioner will wish to carry out monitoring and to ensure that his recommendations are implemented or, at least, responded to, if there is a good reason why a particular organisation cannot implement them.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Will the Minister give that matter further consideration? My question is intended constructively. As currently drafted, the amendments that we are considering at short notice could mean that quite a long time could elapse before any monitoring took place; a provision for monitoring should therefore be included in the Bill.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

As we have only half a minute left, I undertake to write to the hon. Lady after I have considered the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Further consideration adjourned—[Vernon Coaker.]

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Five o'clock until Thursday 14 October at five minutes to Nine o'clock.