Children Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 14 October 2004.

Standing Committee B

Children Bill [Lords]

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Before we commence, I have briefly to announce that, in accordance with requests, copies of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child are available on the Table.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

On a point of order, Mr. Benton. May I ask whether you anticipate allowing a short stand part debate on clause 2? Many Opposition Members would be prepared to speed up our debates on some of the amendments if we had the opportunity to say why we shall then vote against the clause.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

The convention is that it depends on the course of discussions on amendments to the clause. When it comes to putting the question on clause stand part, much will depend on what has transpired beforehand. I see no problem if people keep to the amendments and do not debate the broad substance of the clause.

The other point I want to make is that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) has informed me that he is sick. His is the lead name on a number of amendments to clause 4, so I thought it right to explain his absence.

Clause 2 - Membership of the Commission

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in

clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (7).

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

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

No. 130, in

clause 2, page 2, line 32, after 'is', insert 'desirous of but'.

No. 131, in

clause 2, page 2, line 34, at end insert—

'(7A) Nothing in subsection (7) shall permit assistance to be provided in actions against a responsible adult.

(7B) For the purposes of this Part, ''responsible adult'' includes—

(a) a person having parental responsibility for that child;

(b) a teacher of the child;

(c) any other employee of the child's school;

(d) a person working, whether as a volunteer or employee, for any voluntary organisation of which the child is a member;

(e) the child's social worker; or

(f) such other natural person in a class designated by order, subject to the negative resolution procedure, by the Secretary of State.'.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I tabled amendment No. 1, to delete subsection (7), which would empower the commissioner to provide assistance to a child to bring legal proceedings. The subsection is the result of an Opposition amendment tabled in the other place.

We have had a lot of discussion on the issue, Mr. Benton, and you will know that we want the commissioner to have a strategic role in achieving the outcomes that children have defined as important to them, and in ensuring that the system works for children as a whole, rather than making the commissioner spend time on individual cases.

I assure those members of the Committee who may be concerned about what it will mean for individual children that a range of bodies can already provide representation for children, including the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The Official Solicitor also provides support for children. It makes no sense to duplicate those roles. Deleting subsection (7) does not prevent the commissioner, if called on, from acting as a witness in court proceedings. As part of his general clause 2 functions, he will still be able to look into complaints to ensure that the systems work effectively and are child-friendly.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) tabled amendments Nos. 130 and 131, but I hope that he will agree that if our amendment is adopted his will become unnecessary.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

May I correct the Minister on one thing? I tabled the amendment, and she has hijacked it. It has never happened to me before. Government amendment No. 1, and several others that my hon. Friends and I tabled within minutes of Second Reading now magically have her name at the top. I am delighted to do all the hard work, and for her to take the credit. However, we may have different reasons for supporting the amendment.

Subsection (7) came about as the result of a comprehensive, cross-party revision to clause 2 in the other place. I do not think that it was singled out as a particular addition, but it was agreed on all sides. However, it was added in the interests of putting together an all-encompassing alternative to the clause, to beef up the role of the commissioner—a matter on which we will continue to talk.

I have some problems with subsection (7), but for different reasons than the Minister. I originally tabled the amendment as a probing amendment. I do not seek to take away the right of children to be able to turn to the Children's Commissioner for legal redress as a last resort if their interests are not properly being taken into account—for instance, if a social worker has not been appointed to a looked-after child, or a child's educational entitlements are not being provided for.

The intention behind the subsection is that children whose rights and entitlements are being neglected can ask the commissioner to start legal action to institute those entitlements. That is absolutely right, and I have no problem with it. It will be of some reassurance if the Minister is saying that that can be provided by other means, although the mention of CAFCASS does not fill me with great confidence, as she knows.

I am concerned that the subsection could be used in a vexatious way by a young person seeking to cause annoyance to a parent or, more likely, a teacher. The child could seek legal redress through the commissioner to pursue an unjust legal case because of some vendetta. I am sure that it would happen only in extreme circumstances, but the wording of the subsection could give succour to a person wanting to bring such a vexatious complaint; it would entitle the child to the support and resources of the Children's Commissioner to undertake such action.

That is the only reason why I challenge the inclusion of subsection (7). I do it for different reasons than the Minister, but if she can give me some reassurance that that could not happen, I would be happy to withdraw my amendment—although I cannot, as it is now her amendment, and she will press on with it, which confuses the whole picture.

That is why I and my hon. Friends tabled the amendment, and I would be interested in the Minister's response.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I am opposed to my right hon. Friend's proposal, for what I think are good reasons. I shall try out an example in order to hear her response.

The Children's Commissioner will be undertaking all sorts of work on policy issues relating to children. My right hon. Friend suggested on Tuesday that it would be important to consider the position of young people in custody. The Bill already allows the commissioner to take up individual cases that raise issues of public policy. It already gives the commissioner the important opportunity to enter premises and talk to a child in private, if that is what the child wishes. It is therefore entirely possible that, when undertaking an inquiry into the position of children in prison, the commissioner will visit a young offenders institution. He may see a child in private and it may become plain that the child is suicidal.

I have it on good authority that there are suicidal and extremely distressed children in young offenders institutions as we sit here today, and the commissioner is highly likely to come across them. They have often not been well represented; their best interests have certainly not been taken into account in criminal justice proceedings, and there may well be a case for the commissioner to initiate urgent legal proceedings on behalf of individual children. The commissioner might want to seek an emergency protection order or judicial review, or instigate a review of a child's sentence. There may be many other avenues that he could pursue, and he would often want to do so in partnership with the child, the child's parents and legal advisers, CAFCASS and many other bodies. However, the commissioner will need a residual right to bring legal proceedings to assist that individual child in those individual circumstances. What my right hon. Friend suggests is not only a terrible diminution of the commissioner's powers, which the other place

wisely established in statute, but a dangerous step. At its heart, subsection (7) is a child protection measure, and we should keep it in the Bill.

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

I, too, rise to speak against the amendment. As Baroness Walmsley so forcefully said in the other place, subsection (7) is a measure of last resort, and we are talking, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said so movingly, about the most vulnerable children. The wording of the Bill may not be perfect, but the reference to situations

''where the child is unable to bring legal proceedings''

is fairly clear, and I cannot see it opening the floodgates to many individual cases.

On the comments made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), we are all concerned about vexatious cases. As a former teacher, I am always distressed when people suggest bringing cases because GCSE results have not been as high as expected, but I do not think that we are talking about such cases. We are looking to appoint a special person with defined powers, and subsection (7) goes on to say that the commissioner may provide assistance where

''it appears to the Commissioner reasonable to do so''.

Will that wording not close the gate on vexatious complaints? If the Government do not think that it would be strong enough to do so, I would prefer them to consider strengthening it.

I can only emphasise that the safety net in subsection (7) is one of the most important in the Bill, particularly in the light of such tragic suicide cases. Such cases reflect on us all, given that they are happening in our secure institutions and other places. The words in the Bill may not be quite right and may need strengthening, but I urge the Government to remember that that safety net is very important.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I tabled amendments Nos. 130 and 131 because I wanted to introduce exactly the kind of additional clarity that the hon. Lady mentioned. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that the clause is quite wide. I also broadly agree with the Minister: she says that there are additional means of redress for individuals in such circumstances, and there certainly may be. The problem, of course, is that such means of redress are sometimes not very quick. For example, taking a local authority to an ombudsman does not necessarily provide a remedy. In my constituency, an ombudsman case against the local authority was won by my constituents in the last century, and has still not been resolved by the local authority to the satisfaction of those residents.

We are talking about children having access to an additional means of legal redress, but—and this is my concern—parents and professionals have a difficult job as it is, and I do not wish to see that job made more difficult. That is why I have tabled the amendments in such a form. Amendment No. 131 would prevent assistance being given in actions against individuals, while permitting actions against authorities—a

reasonable balance to draw. Amendment No. 130 states that the child has to be desirous of the course of action pursued, which is also a reasonable requirement.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

I want to express some sympathy with the general objectives of the clause as it stands, although I plan to vote for the amendment. The difficulty seems to be that if we open the possibility of the commissioner intervening in individual cases in this way, we will not get the rapid response to which the hon. Gentleman referred. On the contrary, we will have to equip the commissioner with a large staff to deal with cases in a way that will duplicate the methods of other bodies, which would probably not be in the child's interests.

I would have some sympathy with the provision of some kind of opportunity for the commissioner to intervene in cases where he or she considers it to be in the public interest and feels that there has been a systemic breakdown. However, I do not see that in the clause as it stands, and I plan to support the amendment.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

Let me deal with what the commissioner can do, because I hope that that will give some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) and others. The commissioner can and will look at complaints systems, so that if, in the course of his work, he finds that a particular system is not working in the interests of children in general—that will come out of specific cases—he can make appropriate recommendations. Where there is systemic failure, one would expect him to review the workings of a particular complaints mechanism.

Listening hard to the views expressed by Members in the House of Lords, we introduced clause 4, which will give the commissioner the power to pursue an individual case where he believes that that case has wider public policy ramifications and to pursue it would not be duplicating work done elsewhere. In such particular instances, there are sufficient safeguards in the system so that if systems are failing, or a case emerges with wider public interests, the commissioner will be able to intervene.

I come to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). The matter goes to the heart of where we may disagree. We are establishing a commissioner whose prime purpose will be not the policing of individual complaints but to consider all areas of interest to children across the public, private and voluntary sectors, and central and local government, to see whether children's interests are promoted in relation to the five outcomes that we have translated into a legislative form in the Bill.

The commissioner is not a repository of last resort. We deliberately set the Bill up so that he or she did not fulfil that function. Again, I will take the hon. Lady's example of the suicide cases. The Bill's purpose is to provide what I describe as the legislative spine to ensure that those working with children work better

together around the needs of the child and intervene earlier. Time will tell how well the Bill and other reforms work, but if we are successful, one result will be fewer suicides and tragedies such as those that have occurred in the past. That is the purpose of what we are doing. It is a question not of investigating or acting when there have been suicides but of providing the infrastructure to ensure that they do not occur.

I want now to deal with the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre. I recently visited Feltham because of a discussion about whether an additional service should be provided to the young offenders held there. The thing that struck me in my visit was that many of the young people there have a huge range of professionals concerned with them. Each young person probably has an educational welfare officer, because they have probably truanted. They may have a drug problem so someone from a drug action team may be working with them. Someone from the youth justice system will certainly work them, as might someone from the education service. They probably also have a social worker because they are in care or at risk or there is a potential for harm.

It is not a question of there not being sufficient professionals already working with such children with the purpose of protecting them and promoting their best interests. Adding yet another layer and yet another individual with those responsibilities will not improve the quality of the work that is undertaken by the existing professionals working with those young people. We should put our focus on the existing professionals to ensure that tragedies do not occur, not simply add another layer.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I accept everything that my right hon. Friend says. Of course a wide variety of professionals work with young people in young offenders institutions. However, as she could check today with the chair of the Youth Justice Board, the fact is that some young people within the youth justice system fall into the gaps between the Prison Service, the health service and social services. There are exceptionally needy children in those situations, and they are precisely the children whose sometimes extremely complex needs are not met. That is why we need a power in the Bill as expressed in subsection (7).

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I have huge respect for my hon. Friend, but I disagree with that. The purpose of the powers that we are putting in clauses 7 and 8 is precisely to strengthen the co-operation between all the professionals working with children and young people and to strengthen the duties placed on them. It is that that should better prevent young people from falling through the net. It will not always do that, but it will work better than simply saying that there is final recourse to yet another system.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Is not the problem that so many professionals are involved but no individual takes responsibility? Is the right hon. Lady clear that an individual professional is taking lead responsibility for a child in such circumstances?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

There appears to be a consensus here. One problem is that in many past instances there has not been a lead professional. There are several elements of the reforms, and two are relevant in this case. First, we should try to develop a common assessment framework so that all professionals who work with a child or young person do so within the same context and with the same information—specialist information if necessary. Secondly, there ought to be a lead professional for each child or young person with needs. Those are two elements of our reform agenda that are not necessarily encompassed in legislation but that I have often spoken about in the past.

We are discussing with local authorities and other agencies situations in which, as the hon. Gentleman said, it would be better to have a lead professional. I always give the example of a recent case when I visited in her home an eight or nine-year-old girl with severe physical disabilities. She was being educated in a mainstream school, and much of the system was working well for her, but her mother told me that she had had 18 separate assessments—18 different people had come to see her in the previous three months. The mother, who was her main carer, was spending more time managing the assessments and the professionals than focusing on the most important thing, which is supporting her young child.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am very grateful for that response, but one problem is that that leadership role of a single individual is not, as the Minister says, in the Bill.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

It does not need to be.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am clear that an individual can take responsibility despite the fact that it is not a legal requirement, but I am not sure how they can be required to do so.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

We are placing in the framework of the Bill duties to co-operate and to protect and safeguard. The Bill will also require local authorities to establish the new post of director of children's services to bring together services in local government that meet children's needs. We are developing a common assessment framework for those who work with children to use. When we—

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. I suggest to the Minister that we are moving into the territory of social services. Can I try and bring the debate back to subsection (7)?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

You are absolutely correct, Mr. Benton. I will be happy to pursue that conversation with the hon. Gentleman outside the Committee if he shows an interest.

May I deal with the issue of vexatious complaints? One cannot assess what is a legitimate or a vexatious complaint until it has been made and considered. As hon. Members will be aware, if a complaint proves to be vexatious, it can be struck out during the complaints process or legal and judicial processes. There is no way of legislating to prevent vexatious complaints without intervening in the right of individuals to pursue complaints that could be

legitimate. In all instances, we are trying to find proper and appropriate support for professionals involved and to speed up the system so that distress and anxiety are mitigated as much as possible. It is difficult to balance the right of individuals to pursue complaints with the fact that a few individuals will abuse that right and pursue vexatious complaints.

I hope that the Government amendment can be agreed and the others can be left.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 3.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I beg to move amendment No. 56, in

clause 2, page 2, line 41, leave out from '1989' to end of line 43.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 8—Promotion of awareness of UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—

'Each Children's Service Authority in England must make arrangements to ensure that the principles and provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are widely known to—

(a) members and staff of the authority;

(b) members and staff of the authority's relevant partners; and

(c) all children and parents living within the authority's area.'.

New clause 13—Consistency of legislation with the UNCRC and children's well-being—

'(1) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill—

(a) make a statement to the effect that the provisions of the Bill have been assessed for their compatibility with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and their contribution to the well-being of children, relating to the aspects specified in subsection (7)(a) to (e), and that, in his view, the provisions of the Bill do not act to the detriment of any child or group of children in respect of those aspects; and

(b) make available in each Library of the Houses of Parliament a copy of the assessment made under subsection (1)(a), or

(c) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement under subsection (1)(a) the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.

(2) The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), the aspects of children's well-being are—

(a) physical and mental health;

(b) protection from harm and neglect;

(c) education training and recreation;

(d) the contribution made by them to society;

(e) emotional, social and economic well-being.'.

New clause 15—Children's services in Wales: principles—

'In the delivery of children's services in Wales, Children's Services Authorities and their relevant partners specified in section 21 shall have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.'.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

The amendment is designed to make the point that the Children's Commissioner should concern himself with the whole of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child rather than the abbreviated version to which, unfortunately, successive United Kingdom Governments have subscribed. To this day, the Government maintain two reservations with regard to the convention: in respect of immigration and citizenship, and in respect of children in the criminal justice system. Such children are plainly without the remit of the Minister for Children, Young People and Families.

By any measure, we must agree that children who are subject to immigration legislation and those within the criminal justice system—tragically, during the summer, we experienced the death of the youngest person in modern penal history—are among the most vulnerable in society. Scandalously, this House has recently agreed that children of failed asylum seekers can be made destitute. It is imperative that the Children's Commissioner should have a fundamental role in relation to children in respect of whom the Government have withdrawn from the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

New clause 8 simply stipulates that the work should be done by more than just one person in this country. We have had a lot of discussion about the fact that the Children's Commissioner should not be obliged to take on roles that should be fulfilled by other bodies. If this country takes the United Nations convention on the rights of the child as seriously as it should do, it should ensure that children's services authorities promote the convention to children, parents and their own staff.

The United Nations convention is a vital tool in assisting people to work with children, and in cases in which people within public bodies feel that they are not serving children well—they are unhappy about the policy that they have been required to follow or the actions of others, perhaps superiors, in their workplaces—it can be a vital comfort and support. It can encourage them to assert the rights of children and to blow the whistle when something goes wrong. I can see nothing wrong with promoting the convention. In fact, article 42 of the convention requires that the Government should promote it much more widely, rather than saying that one person in the country must have regard to it.

Finally, the Bill, like all others, contains a statement on the front about the impact in terms of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is extremely important that Parliament considers the impact of every Bill on children, whatever it is. One might think, on the face of it, that some Bills had very little to do with the rights of children, but those are precisely the measures that serve children's needs and interests particularly badly. I do not know how often children's rights and interests are raised in discussions on planning and transport legislation. However, such matters are fundamentally important in a country where more children die on the roads than from any other cause, and where children are so often excluded from public provision and play space and ignored in the planning of new housing estates and developments in our towns and cities.

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

I support the amendment and the new clauses, but there are two issues. The amendment is significant, because removing the reservations in question will amount to a statement from the Government that every child does matter. We have rehearsed many times the arguments about the tragedy of how we treat the children of some immigrants and asylum seekers, and children in custody generally. I would like the Minister to consider the matter seriously.

My second point is about the impact statement about children in all legislation. Again, we have a real opportunity here. The issue does not cross over into the rights agenda, in the way that I know concerns the Minister, but the proposals would put the interests of children—not necessarily the rights—at the heart of government.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment, which concerns the most vulnerable children in society. Having recently met asylum seekers in Cardiff who fall outside the remit of the welfare state, I am enormously concerned about the children who are being left in such a vulnerable situation. I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies, she will say why she, the Minister responsible for children, has been unable to address the needs of such vulnerable children.

On new clause 15, we have already discussed the UNCRC, so I do not propose to go into that in detail. The purpose of the new clause is to place an obligation on all public services and local authorities in Wales to show that they are working in accordance with the convention, which is important. The UK and Wales have already signed up—Westminster is a signatory and the Assembly has passed a resolution binding itself to the convention. The purpose of the new clause is to introduce, clearly and directly, the same obligation for local authorities and other bodies. I am sure that all local authorities would say that they had regard to the convention, but putting that requirement in the Bill would give users the comfort of legislative force.

The same change was proposed in the Lords by Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, who is my constituent. She withdrew the amendment because she was assured that the Government were in discussion with the

Assembly over the practical implications of the Assembly's stated policy of translating the UNCRC into several core policy aims. Will my right hon. Friend update us on the progress of those discussions? Some fairly complex legal issues are involved but the aim of the new clause is to highlight how important it is for this matter to be in the Bill.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I want to emphasise that, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre thinks, the Government are committed to the aims and the principles of the UN convention. I hope that he would agree that our acceptance of the amendment in the House of Lords that the Children's Commissioner must, rather than may, have regard to the UNCRC demonstrates our support for the convention as a framework for the commissioner's operations.

The National Assembly for Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) pointed out, fully recognises the importance of the UNCRC and has formally adopted the convention as the basis for all its work for children and young people. It has translated the convention rights into seven core aims to act as a basis for planning, for setting priorities and for developing measures of the impact of service provision.

Amendment No. 56 is a standard legal statement, which describes the legal position as it is. Any reference to the UNCRC in UK legislation must be subject to the way in which it is interpreted and accepted in this country. The wording of subsection (9) is therefore essential, but does not constrain any developments in the UK position and leaves the situation totally flexible. Were our reservations to be lifted at some future date, the current wording of subsection (9) could still stand.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Does the part of the clause that I seek to delete in any way constrain the work of the Children's Commissioner?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

The commissioner, in having regard to the UNCRC, would have regard to it with the reservations that are in place in the UK. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, I have many asylum-seeking families in my constituency. A family in this country is covered by all the Children Act provisions and will be protected and safeguarded by all the provisions in the Bill. The question about immigration here is how the authorities implement immigration legislation and what is the prime function and purpose of that role. That does not in any way diminish the power of the authorities and the duties of social services departments and others in the UK to implement the Children Act as it stands and this Bill when it is enacted.

On new clause 8, we are keen for children and those who care for them to learn about the convention. We have therefore created a departmental website to inform children of their rights under the convention, which we hope will soon be operational. If children's

services authorities choose to do something similar, so much the better. As I have said before, the aim of the Bill is to focus on outcomes, not rights.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre will accept that the tragedies that led to the Laming inquiry and hence to this Bill were invariably due to systemic failure and not to a lack of knowledge of rights. Although we would encourage awareness of rights, I do not think that it should have a statutory basis. We do not want the focus to shift from concern about the principles. We want those who work with children to focus on processes and outcomes.

On new clause 13, Ministers are required to state that legislation is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European convention on human rights into UK law. Children and young people are therefore already covered by that assurance, so the requirement to comply with the 1998 Act covers the childproofing element of all our legislation. Both my job and the task of the commissioner, once that post is established, is to provide further assurance that legislation on planning, housing or whatever has the interests of children at heart.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, who tabled new clause 15, knows that we are working with the Assembly to find a way of writing that into the Bill. The Assembly, however, has yet to find a way in which they can change the law so that it would work in practice. The policy is utterly devolved, so it is totally open to the Assembly to come back to us, which it can do even on Report if it manages to devise a mechanism. We would then willingly incorporate the new clause into the Bill.

I therefore hope that Members will not press their amendments and new clauses to a vote.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

We have both clarified our positions, and in the interests of making progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, No. 57, in

clause 2, page 2, line 44, leave out subsection (10).—[Margaret Hodge.]

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 184.

Government new clause 31—Care leavers and young persons with learning disabilities.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I support the amendment, or are the Government supporting my amendment? I am not sure who tabled it first. I support at least the initial amendment to remove subsection (10), simply because children are internationally defined as being under the age of 18. The Committee has spent a lot of time talking about the wide-ranging remit of the Children's Commissioner and trying not to duplicate the work of others. The amendment, however, seems to do precisely that. It is vital that the Children's Rights Director—a post that was established under the Care Standards Act 2000—has a role in relation to children and young adults who have left care.

Although the needs of young adults in prison are of enormous concern, they should not be dealt with by someone whose remit covers children. I am absolutely opposed to bringing young adults with learning disabilities back within the remit of the Children's Commissioner. That is an extraordinarily patronising thing to do. These people are adults, not children, and they should not be dealt with by the Children's Commissioner. There is a Disability Rights Commissioner. It is sometimes vital to tell young adults with learning disabilities that they are not children, but adults, and it is often important to reinforce that point to their parents. I see absolutely no reason to patronise, even demean, young adults with learning disabilities by including them within the remit of the Children's Commissioner.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

Let me respond to the two issues. I shall deal first with children with learning disabilities. I had the privilege of being the Minister with responsibility for disabled people and spent some time taking through much of the legislation, of which this Labour Government are very proud. The reality for anyone working with children and young people with learning disabilities is that one of the key difficulties that they all face is the period of transition from children's to adult services. The whole purpose of the amendment is to support young people as they move into adulthood through those services. That involves everything from education, social care and housing.

I do not know what my hon. Friend's experience is, but there are young people in my constituency who find it extremely hard, for example, to move out of education in the school system to education in the adult system, because of the difficulties of finding placements. The amendment would provide support through that transition, when they may well still be accessing children's services; it is, interestingly enough, in order to promote the rights of young people with learning disabilities that we have deliberately included this in the Bill. It is incredibly important if we want to build a society where equality has meaning.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The reality of the matter is that the clause 2 that we shall end up with, courtesy of a good deal of Government amendments, is vastly different from the one we started with. It resembles more the clause that was in the Bill before its progress through the upper House. I cannot understand why the Government did not just delete the whole clause and submit a new one, rather than fiddling around with a load of little amendments. That appears to disguise the fact that they have completely emasculated the whole purpose of the strengthened clause 2, which had cross-party support in the upper House.

I do not know whether the officials are paid on the basis of the number of amendments that they are able to get the Minister to submit, but it is rather odd. What

we are left with seems to echo the comments made by the commissioner campaign co-ordinating group, which said:

''We are deeply concerned that the Government is reneging on its Green Paper promise to create 'a children's champion independent of Government'.''

That is the key consideration that we have had all along.

Let us now be clear about what has happened to the clause. It now leaves out rights; it is not about promoting rights, but about promoting awareness of views. As I described it, a glorified children's television presenter could, on the face of it, do the same job. Children will, in effect, have no rights in this Bill. It is a rights-light and rights-free Bill. Consider how patronising and feeble—the Minister should appreciate this—the Disability Rights Commission would appear if its general function were simply to promote awareness of the views of disabled people. The same would be true of the Commission for Racial Equality or the Equal Opportunities Commission.

The Minister has rightly mentioned her own role in relation to the Disability Rights Commission, and she might like to comment on that. We can argue over whether animals have rights, or whether we have duties towards their welfare, but surely that does not apply to children. The amendments have now diluted the review and report powers, removing the advocacy and whistleblowing arrangements that we debated earlier. The clause no longer beefs up the Children's Commissioner's obligations to make children aware that they can consult him. It restores the Government's limited checklist of what sort of children's views and interests—not rights—he can take notice of. It reinforces his inability to launch inquiries into individual cases, even when there are big implications for children generally. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned in his amendment, it weakens some of the UN convention considerations.

The ninth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights states:

''Existing arrangements . . . are insufficiently independent from Government to ensure that the rights and interests of all children in England are fully protected''

and that

''independence is the key value that a Children's Commissioner would add to existing mechanisms.''

It also states that the Committee favours a commissioner who is

''independent from but working closely with central government and other agencies.''

Those extracts were also quoted in the House of Lords on 4 May 2004, at column 1039.

The Children's Commissioner is one tsar of whom we can approve, if he or she helps to protect and promote the welfare of children. In another place, Lord Elton used as an example Judge Stephen Tumim—the chief inspector of prisons who was a thorn in the Government's side. That is also the role of the Children's Commissioner if he or she thinks that the Government are not properly standing up for children. When the original version of the clause was debated in the Lords, the commissioner's role was

described as ''discriminatory'', ''castrated'', and a ''glorified public relations consultant''. The Government claim that it is what the children want, but I have seen no evidence of that.

In applying constructive opposition to parts of the Bill, particularly part 1, I have based our amendments and debate on five principles. They are that the commissioner should be independent of Government and a real children's champion; be powerful enough to do his job properly, regardless of the latest Government schemes or funding shortfalls; be fully engaged with children and young people, and have their confidence that he can do the job—Baroness Ashton of Upholland said that in the upper House on 4 May 2004, at column 1043; have a clear status in the context of other UK commissioners, agencies and other interested parties; and be accountable to all the above considerations. Those are the principles that we apply to the Children's Commissioner, but I fear that they are not met by the clause now that it has been completely rehashed and emasculated by the Government. On that basis, I urge hon. Members to vote against the clause.

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

We, too, will vote against the clause as amended. It is an enormous disappointment to many Members and, of course, to the wide range of organisations that supported the amendments in the Lords. A great deal of credit was given to the tremendous cross-party working that achieved a model for the type of commissioner that many people want.

It is clear from the debate that we have different lines of thinking that do not cross, so I will not speak at great length. I foresee that we will end up with a commissioner who will do many laudable things and produce wide-ranging reports, but that English children will not get the same service as Welsh children, whose rights will be given greater consideration. I am concerned that there will be a basic inequality between what English children and children in other parts of the UK can achieve through their commissioner.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

But the hon. Lady's party is an advocate not only of devolution in Wales and Scotland but of regional government. Surely she appreciates that one consequence of devolution is inequality of service delivery in different parts of the UK. I accept her line—although I think that she is wrong—that provisions in England should be the same, and that children in England should benefit from the same services, but I do not accept that inequality is an argument.

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

I would be failing in my duty as an English MP if I did not fight for the rights of English children. Devolution may bring different outcomes, but that does not meant that one should just sit back. Surely, if we think something is right for our part of the UK, we should fight for it. I am perfectly entitled to make those points.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I rise to support my hon. Friend. She is certainly right to fight for the interests of children in England. I say to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that devolution is not about isolation, and that it is producing a better result for the whole United Kingdom and provides an opportunity for other areas and regions to learn best practice. The lesson that we are learning from this legislation—

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. We will not go down the line of discussing the merits of devolution. I ask hon. Members to return to clause 2 as amended.

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

I thank my hon. Friend. Much attention has indeed been paid to the roles of the previously established commissioners in the UK, and it is always good to learn from other patterns and experiences. What concerns me is whether the issue now comes down to funding: providing the same type of service as in Wales and at the same time taking a broad-brush approach would cost more money. I am beginning to feel that funding may now be of the essence, which is a tragedy. I believe that, fundamentally, children's rights should be at the heart of the Children's Commissioner's work. The Minister and I will not agree on this issue, but everything else follows from that. All the criteria that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned would be met if children's rights were at the heart of the commissioner's functions.

I shall be disappointed to vote against the clause, but I hope that through the vote we can at least express the strength of feeling on the issue and the view that this is not the end of the line. We need to come together and try to work out a better solution for the commissioner for England.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I shall reply to the debate only briefly, because there is a danger that we will go over the same ground time and again. I am informed that the advice of the parliamentary draftsmen is that each element of the clause that we changed had to be changed in that way so as not to lose the whole. The draftsmen advised us that that was the appropriate process.

I look forward to having a debate in perhaps a year or 18 months' time on how the first English commissioner works in practice. I expect the commissioner to be a thorn in the side not only of Government but, probably, of every parliamentarian and a number of other institutions and bodies throughout the UK. That is why we are establishing the post. Rights will remain the foundation of his or her work, but he or she will have ambitions that go beyond that and focus on outcomes.

I also look forward to both Government and Opposition Members reflecting in a couple of years' time on how the commissioner is working, and joining me in celebrating the establishment for the first time in England of a commissioner who will champion the cause of children and ensure that the things that matter to them, and not to the professional activists' lobby, are the focus of his or her work. I hear about the things that matter to children in the classrooms, playgroups

and youth clubs that I visit up and down the country. The commissioner should use his or her office to promote better outcomes for children. I am sure that the post will work and that in two years' time we will all celebrate its success. Indeed, I am not sure what the commissioner would be doing if his or her functions were not as laid out in clause 2.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 5.

Clause 3 - Annual report

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in

clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert

'he must—

(a) lay a copy before each House of Parliament, and

(b) simultaneously send a copy to the Secretary of State.'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 95, in

clause 3, page 3, line 14, after 'must', insert

'as soon as is reasonably practicable.'.

Amendment No. 9, in

clause 3, page 3, line 15, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment No. 10, in

clause 3, page 3, line 17, at end insert—

'( ) The Secretary of State must respond formally to the Commissioner's report within 3 months of it having been published and lay his response before Parliament.'.

Clause stand part.

Government new clause 30—Annual reports

New clause 2—Requirement to review working of Part 1 of the Act—

'(1) The Children's Commissioner shall—

(a) keep under review the working of Part 1 of this Act and in doing so consult with children and representatives of organisations concerned with children's rights and interests;

(b) make reports on it to the Secretary of State in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(2) The first report under this section shall be made as soon as practicable after the third anniversary of the coming into force of this Part.

(3) A subsequent report under this section shall be made at such time as the Children's Commissioner thinks fit, not being earlier than three years after the making of the last previous report.

(4) A report under this section—

(a) shall include the views of the Children's Commissioner on the adequacy and effectiveness of this Part; and

(b) may contain recommendations as to amendments to this Part which in the opinion of the Children's Commissioner are necessary desirable.

(5) The Secretary of State shall as soon as is reasonably practicable lay a copy of every report sent to him under this section before each House of Parliament.'.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We are motoring now—we are discussing clause 3. There are several amendments to the clause that my hon. Friends and I tabled and that have not been hijacked by the Minister—that means that she will probably vote against them. I shall not spend a great deal of time on the amendments, because they are self-explanatory.

Amendment No. 8 concerns the commissioner's annual report. During the stand part debate on clause 2, I gave the reasons why it is important for the commissioner to be independent of the Executive—to be a thorn in their side. We are trying to ensure that independence through amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10, in particular. I will discuss new clause 2 later.

We do not see why the commissioner should have to submit annual reports initially and exclusively to the Secretary of State. I am sure that a Secretary of State would not wish to censor the reports, but as the clause stands, he would have the power to do so without Parliament being able to see what was in the unedited, uncut version. The Children's Commissioner should be able to report to Parliament.

The other day, I suggested to the Minister that the Education and Skills Committee might wish to establish a Sub-Committee. I see that hon. Members have tabled an early-day motion with the aim of establishing a children's affairs Committee, which is an interesting idea. However, in relation to the work of the Children's Commissioner, there would be great merit in having a specific Sub-Committee of the Education and Skills Committee to which he could report. That would be similar to the confirmatory hearings mentioned the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), which are held for the Governor of the Bank of England by the Treasury Committee.

Amendment No. 8 would require the Children's Commissioner, when he gives the report to the Secretary of State, to lay a copy of the report simultaneously before the House as a whole. It would then be up to the Secretary of State to prepare his response, but his response would be made to the version that the Children's Commissioner has submitted to him and to the House.

If the Minister is not prepared to accept that reasonable amendment, will she give us an undertaking that the Secretary of State will not be in the business of censoring or editing the report? Can she tell us why the Secretary of State should see it first, other than for him to be able to prepare a brief

statement in response for delivery on the following day, as Ministers normally do? If she is not prepared to accept the amendment, what would be the maximum period of delay between the Children's Commissioner submitting his report to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State then laying it before each House of Parliament? In the interests of transparency and accountability to the House rather than to the Executive, amendment No. 8 is perfectly reasonable.

Amendment No. 9 is contingent on amendment No. 8, and amendment No. 10 would introduce a time scale within which the Secretary of State should respond to the Children's Commissioner's report. We tried to introduce a time scale for inquiries in an earlier debate and the Minister made the not unreasonable point about horses for courses—some inquiries may require more immediate action than three months, whereas others may need longer, although we tried to introduce a mechanism to ensure that somebody who had not complied with the requirement for three months could say why and obtain an extension.

It is wholly appropriate that there should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to respond to the annual report within three months. He will have to do that again a year after in any case, so a three-month time scale would be perfectly sensible and would also cover a recess period. For example, if a report were laid before the summer recess, the Secretary of State could make a statement after we came back, so I cannot see any practical objections. The proposal is perfectly reasonable, plausible, moderate, positive and constructive, and I am sure that the Minister will wish to entertain it favourably.

On new clause 2, the important thing about establishing a new commissioner structure is not to create yet another tsar or give more people more titles, thereby swelling the number of public servants. Rather, its purpose and the basis on which it will be judged is what it adds to the protection and promotion of the welfare of children. How many fewer Victoria Climbie type cases have there been and how much have the educational achievements and health of children improved under the stewardship of the new post holder? That should be the basis on which we judge whether the Children's Commissioner has been a success, not how many meetings have been held, how many visits there have been or how many committees have been set up.

In new clause 2 we seek to introduce a review process. That is not unusual for new bodies, particularly those that are innovatory and have wide-ranging powers. For example, I served for a long time on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee and then the Standing Committee that considered the establishment of the Financial Services Authority. We set in train processes whereby the workings of that body could be reviewed after a period. That is what we seek to do in new clause 2.

When the Children's Commissioner has been established for three years, one can form a view on whether things are going well or not so well, or whether

the entire job is redundant—I hope that that would be unlikely, but if the commissioner was not serving the purpose that we all thought he was there to serve, we would need to review whether he had a purpose at all. New clause 2 sets out a procedure whereby the provisions in the Bill that deal with the role of the Children's Commissioner can be reviewed

''as soon as practicable after the third anniversary of the coming into force of this Part.''

The report should contain the views of the commissioner on whether he believes that he has the powers to do the job and whether we need to change the legislation, and his recommendations on that. As part of the process, it is also essential that the views of other people—the customers, the clients, the agencies that work with the commissioner and the parliamentarians and other representatives—should be taken into account. We have also included a requirement that the Secretary of State should be able to respond to that review as well.

The Minister said that she hoped that we would return in 18 months' time and have a party to celebrate how wonderfully well things had gone. I hope that that is the case—I look forward to sitting on the other side of the Committee, and I will be happy to fund the drinks.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

You shouldn't bother saving.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I have completely lost my train of thought now.

Three years is a reasonable period in which to have a review. It is essential that we put that in this legislation, rather than passing more legislation without the proper checks and balances to ensure that the job is being done as intended. That is what the amendments seek to achieve. They are wholly constructive and in the spirit of the Bill, and I trust that the Minister will look favourably on them.

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

I broadly support the thrust of the amendments. Everybody will want reassurance that the report will not sit on the Secretary of State's desk for about a year before it is let out into the public domain. It is always difficult to state a precise limit in legislation; I notice that the Government new clause says ''As soon as possible''. People need to be reassured that the reports will be in the public domain as soon as is practicable, and that we will review and scrutinise the work of the Children's Commissioner in a reasonable time. I hope that we will be able to celebrate the work of the Children's Commissioner and, come what may, will find matters of great interest in those reports. Does the Minister concur that we need clear time frames if the measure is to work properly?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

There is great sympathy across the Committee for the aims of the amendments. Perhaps when I have spoken to them, and to our new clause, hon. Members will feel happier.

Amendment No. 8 would require the Commissioner to lay his annual report directly to Parliament, and not through the Secretary of State. We are simply following standard practice in the way in which non-departmental public bodies place their reports before Parliament; there is no question of interfering with independence.I have taken the trouble to look at every non-departmental public body, and it will interest hon. Members to know that Ofsted, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Disability Rights Commission, the immigration services commissioner, Ofcom, English Heritage, the Gaming Board for Great Britain and the Independent Police Complaints Commission all report directly to the Secretary of State. The Welsh commissioner reports to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish commissioner to the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Irish commissioner to the First Minister. The only reports in the United Kingdom that go direct to Parliament are those of the National Audit Office and the Electoral Commission. There are sensible reasons for that. In the case of the NAO, we oversee the purse strings, so it is appropriate that it should report to us, and the business of the Electoral Commission is elections, which is the concern of parliamentarians, rather than of the Government.

All we are doing is following standard practice. I can give all the assurances that hon. Members require that we have no intention to censor anything in any way. I hope that some concerns will be allayed by new clause 30, which includes a provision requiring the Secretary of State to lay the commissioner's report before Parliament as soon as possible. Amendment No. 95 says ''practicable'' rather than ''possible''. That is lawyers' paradise, if I may say so to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. Apparently, ''possible'' means that one does everything that one can to make it a priority, but ''practicable'' is less pressing. It allows one to take other matters into account and to prioritise on the basis of what one can reasonably· do. That being the case, I hope that she would agree that ''possible'' rather than ''practicable'' seems to be the appropriate word to achieve the result that she seeks.

Amendment No. 9 is about removing the requirement on the commissioner to publish his annual report. We believe that publication is a different matter from laying the report. Again, I hope that hon. Members will agree that we want his annual report to be read and considered as widely as possible. The duty on him to publish it so that it will be read is partly how that will happen, so the duty will form part of the accountability framework for the commissioner that we have tried to establish through the clauses. I hope that, having heard that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

On the issue of responding formally, it is clear that the Government will need to respond to anything that the commissioner says relates to the Government, but it is also quite possible that the commissioner's report will go beyond covering issues that are their direct responsibility. We would not want to limit the response to being one simply for the Government, so

although we will respond, it would be inappropriate to insist simply on a response from the Government. We will expect everyone to respond. In discussing earlier amendments, we talked about the commissioner's reports on particular issues. Again, we have strengthened that provision to ensure a response.

New clause 2 is similar to a new clause that was tabled in another place earlier this year. It would probably constrain rather than facilitate a regular review of the powers and responsibilities of the commissioner as laid out in the Bill. If the commissioner wants to review his function, he should be able to do so without any time constraint. He might want to do so two months into office, so why set a three-year period? It is an integral part of his work that the review of his functions should be part of what he considers, so the new clause is unnecessary and would constrain his ability to review his functions as and when appropriate.

The wider review, to which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred, could take place through the Select Committee. That might be an appropriate way by which parliamentarians could call evidence from all those with an interest in the way in which the commissioner works, and it would be the most appropriate way in which others could engage in the process. The commissioner, however, has utter authority to review any of his functions as and when appropriate and to report either as part of the annual report or in a separate report. We need to retain the commissioner's independence to work as he wishes and not to constrain him in any way. I suggest that new clause 2 is inappropriate.

I shall talk briefly about new clause 30, with which we want to replace clause 3. It is similar to the previous clause 3 annual reports in that it requires the commissioner to prepare an annual report, and outlines the type of information to be contained in the report and the processes involved in laying it before Parliament. I am sure that I do not have to mention the importance of such a clause, given the public interest in the commissioner's office. It differs from the previous one in that it requires the commissioner to report on the way in which he has discharged his function under the whole part, not just under clause 2. This is a necessary alteration because of the way in which we propose, in provisions that we are about to discuss for the devolved Administrations, that the commissioner has functions on non-devolved matters in other UK nations on which it would be important for him to report.

Subsection (1)(a) of new clause 30 excludes the need to report on the commissioner's inquiry functions, as they will be subject to separate reports, and a new subsection has been introduced that requires the commissioner to report on the steps that he has taken to involve children in the discharge of his function. Again, I am sure that all Members will be happy with that, because it stresses the fundamental importance of involving children.

Subsection (3), as before, requires the commissioner to send a copy of his annual report to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State is required to lay the

report before the House. As I said, we do not believe that presenting the report to Parliament via the Secretary of State will compromise the independence of the commissioner. The Secretary of State has no power to alter the annual report in any way.

Subsection (4) is similar to the original subsection (4), placing a duty on the commissioner to publish any report that is made under the new clause and laid before Parliament. Subsection (5) defines the term ''financial year'' in exactly the same way as before. I therefore hope that the changes proposed in new clause 30 will enhance the original clause.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful to the Minister, who has given a fair degree of assurance. She trooped out a great long list of interdepartmental standard practices, which is not to say that those involved are not all doing the wrong thing or that they should not all be more transparent and accountable to Parliament, rather than to the Executive. However, that is perhaps an argument for another day, and I reluctantly accept her point.

I was slightly heartened by the autonomy that the Minister ascribed to the commissioner, who may be able to initiate a review sooner. However, I am looking at a more fundamental review of the whole structure, which could even result in a recommendation that the children's commissioner was superfluous, although that is unlikely, and we hope that that would not happen. However, the process should be as fundamental as that, which is why it seemed reasonable that the period for consideration should be three months, rather than two.

I want to take up just one point in new clause 30. Subsection (5) states:

''The Children's Commissioner must also, to the extent that he considers appropriate, publish any report made under this section in a version which is suitable for children'',

and I concur with that. Mencap and other charities have urged that the report should also be suitable for children with disabilities, so perhaps the Minister could give an assurance that reasonable steps will be taken to facilitate that, too. If she did, she would have our support.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I am happy to give that assurance.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am delighted that we have got an assurance out of the Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 disagreed to.

Clause 4 - Inquiries initiated by Commissioner

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in

clause 4, page 3, line 22, after 'child', insert 'in England'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 178.

Amendment No. 12, in

clause 4, page 3, line 41, leave out 'and Wales'.

Government amendment No. 13.

Government amendment No. 17.

Government amendment No. 182.

Amendment No. 18, in

clause 5, page 4, line 34, leave out 'and Wales'.

Amendment No. 19, in

clause 5, page 4, line 36, leave out subsections (8) and (9).

Amendment No. 195, in

clause 6, page 5, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—

'(a) any matter regarding children in Wales;

(b) any matter relating to children in Scotland; or

(c) any matter relating to children in Northern Ireland.'.

Amendment No. 198, in

clause 6, page 5, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

'(a) any matter relating to children in Wales'.

Amendment No. 21, in

clause 6, page 5, line 11, at end insert—

'( ) The Secretary of State, in regulations, must specify procedures for applying this legislation to children normally resident in England engaged in education, treatment and other activities in another part of the United Kingdom, and specifying which body is to be the responsible authority.'.

Amendment No. 196, in

clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

'(3) It shall be the sole responsibility of the Children's Commissioner for Wales to—

(a) hold an inquiry under sections 4 and 5 as regards to children in Wales; and

(b) consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Wales.

(4) It shall be the sole responsibility of the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland to—

(a) hold an inquiry under sections 4 and 5 as regards children in Scotland; and

(b) consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Scotland.

(5) It shall be the sole responsibility of the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland to—

(a) hold an inquiry under sections 4 and 5 as regards children in Northern Ireland; and

(b) consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Wales.'.

Clause 6 stand part.

Government new clause 27—Functions of Commissioner in Wales.

Government new clause 28—Functions of Commissioner in Scotland.

Government new clause 29—Functions of Commissioner in Northern Ireland.

New clause 6—Relationship between Commissioners—

'( ) The Children's Commissioner shall consult and work together with—

(a) the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland on matters concerning children's rights and interests throughout the United Kingdom; and

(b) the appropriate Commissioner or Commissioners on matters concerning children's rights and interests which appear to affect children in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland in addition to England, unless the matter relates principally to events or circumstances in England.'.

New clause 7—Relationship between Commissioners (No. 2)—

'The Children's Commissioner shall consult and work together with—

(a) the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland on matters concerning children's rights and interests throughout the United Kingdom; and

(b) the appropriate Commissioner or Commissioners on matters concerning children's rights and interests which appear to affect children in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland in addition to England.'.

New clause 18—Extension of the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales—

'(1) Section 75A of the Care Standards Act 2000 (additional power of consideration and representation) is amended as follows.

Leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

''( ) The Commissioner may consider, and make representations about, any matter affecting the rights and welfare of children in Wales to—

(a) the Assembly, and

(b) where the matter is not devolved and the Commissioner considers it appropriate, the responsible United Kingdom Minister of the Crown or government department.''.'.

New clause 33—Requirement to review the working of the effect of the creation of a UK children's commissioner on the function of the existing commissioners in the nations of the UK—

'(1) Each of the Children's Commissioners in the UK shall monitor the effect of having more than one Children's Commissioner operating in their nation simultaneously.

(2) Each of the Children's Commissioners shall make reports to the Secretary of State, the National Assembly, Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly on the findings of the provisions specified in section 1(a) and (b) above and in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(3) The report shall, in particular, consider the impact of having more than one Children's Commissioner representing children in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, including—

(a) the overall level of understanding of children in the UK nations as to the division of responsibility between the different Commissioners representing them;

(b) the effectiveness and role of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland; and

(c) any evidence of duplication in work undertaken by the commissioners.

(4) The reports under this section shall be made as soon as practicable after the second anniversary of the coming into force of Part 1 of this Act.

(5) In producing a report under this section the Children's Commissioners shall consult—

(a) children;

(b) representatives of organisations concerned with children's rights and interests; and

(c) the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

(6) A Report under this section—

(a) shall include the views of the Children's Commissioner on the adequacy and effectiveness of this part; and

(b) may contain recommendations to amend this Act.

(7) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of every report sent to him under this section before each House of Parliament.'.

New clause 35—Review of exercise of functions of Assembly and other persons—

'( ) Section 72B of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c.14) (review of exercise of functions of Assembly and other persons) is amended as follows.

( ) In subsection (3), omit paragraphs (a) and (c)

( ) Omit subsections (4) and (6).'.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I am pleased to speak for the first time in this Standing Committee, Mr. Benton, under your chairmanship, and I look forward to the guidance and assistance that you will give us as we go through these amendments and new clauses. If you will permit, I shall speak to the Government amendments first, and shall leave the other amendments until later so that other colleagues will have something to say.

Taken together, the Government amendments and new clauses have the effect of clearly presenting the scope of the children's commissioners functions in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and logically assembling in one place various provisions concerning those countries that are, at present, situated in different clauses of part 1. The effect of the amendments is clearly to make this role one of an English commissioner-plus, who does not undermine the existing role of the other commissioners and can work with them. For example, a memorandum of understanding could be used to minimise possible confusion for children in the other countries about whom they should address themselves to.

The key amendments are Government new clauses 27, 28 and 29, which create new clauses describing the children's commissioner's functions in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The remainder of the amendments are consequential and remove references to the other countries in other clauses of part 1. Amendment No. 11 restricts the scope of clause 4 to England and amendments Nos. 187 and 13 are consequential to that. Amendments Nos. 17 and 182 perform the same functions for clause 5. It was not necessary to table a similar amendment to clause 2 because its scope is already restricted to England, following its amendment in another place.

Amendment No. 51 removes the existing clause 6, which will become unnecessary as its provisions will be included in the proposed new clauses. The changes that we propose maintain the current position: the commissioners in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are wholly responsible for matters that are devolved in their respective countries. They are not being downgraded to regional or deputy commissioners reporting to an overseeing United Kingdom Children's Commissioner. That was never the Government's intention. However, we acknowledge that there was some disquiet in another place, arising from an earlier draft of the Bill, which described the Children's Commissioner as having the function of promoting the views and interest of children in the United Kingdom.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Is my hon. Friend aware of the disquiet expressed yesterday by the Children's Commissioners in their meeting in Cardiff? They said

that they believed that it was insidious to give the English commissioner a role in promoting awareness of children's views and interests in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, even concerning reserved matters. They said that that would be confusing for children who do not think about the issues that affect their lives in constitutional terms. They are also concerned about the potential confusion and difficulty in giving an English commissioner a role in holding inquiries on individual cases in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and that such an arrangement will cause confusion.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I am aware of that statement and of the concerns expressed by the Children's Commissioners. I say to my hon. Friend, and to a wider audience—possibly including the Children's Commissioners—that the latest annual report from the Children's Commissioner for Wales asks:

''What do the commissioner and his team do?''

He answers:

''The commissioner can consider and make representations to the National Assembly about any matter affecting the rights and welfare of children in Wales. This means that he can deal with issues outside the responsibility of the National Assembly such as youth justice, family courts, and social security benefits.''

My hon. Friend is a hard-working and distinguished member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which, in its report on the powers of the Children's Commissioner, said:

''We reiterate our belief that the Children's Commissioner for Wales has made a positive impact on the lives of children in Wales. We have been particularly impressed by the way Peter Clarke, the Children's Commissioner, has developed working relationships with organisations and agencies that cover areas outside of his remit to ensure that children in Wales receive the best possible support available to them.''

I think that, in part, that reassures my hon. Friend on the point that I am trying to make: that in practice the commissioners are already ensuring that the rights and interests of children are protected across all areas of public service delivery and that they have a role to play.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I know that my hon. Friend is working for the interests of children in Wales. However, does he not agree that the fact that the Children's Commissioner for Wales already has the power to make representation on any non-devolved matters relating to children in Wales is a recipe for disaster if the English Children's Commissioner can make representations and carry out inquiries on those same children? Is there not the potential for confusion?

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I do not accept that there is potential for confusion. As I will also say later, we expect close collaboration among the commissioners throughout the United Kingdom, possibly through a working memorandum of understanding through which they will seek to overcome problems.

I have been in this position several times—taking through the House legislation that is somewhat different in Wales than in England. If I am allowed to

digress for a moment, I remember that there were concerns about the Health (Wales) Bill and the work of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection in England and the Healthcare Inspection Unit for Wales. We agreed that there would be a proper collaborative working arrangement to avoid duplication and confusion, and it is working in practice. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The Minister quotes a conclusion from the Welsh Affairs Committee, which says that the commissioner is developing good relationships with organisations outside his remit. Surely this Bill gives us the opportunity to firm up those good relationships and bring them within his remit.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the arrangements are already working in practice. The Children's Commissioner for Wales can make representations to the Assembly on matters that are reserved. He can make, and has made, informal representations to Ministers in Whitehall. Indeed, on 11 May, following a meeting with the Children's Commissioner, I wrote to him to repeat that in the event of his having any concerns regarding a non-devolved policy area, I would be happy to raise those matters with the relevant UK Minister. The commissioner has done that, and I have raised those matters. In practice, there is a good working harmony and relationship, and there is no impediment to the work of the children's commissioners in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland in that regard.

I hope now to make progress. We have listened and, as a result, we have produced the amendments, which make it clear that the Children's Commissioner's functions apply to children in England, and new clauses 27 to 29, which confer functions on him in respect of children in other countries, as has just been mentioned. I must make it clear that the Government acknowledge that issues of relevance and interest to children will relate to both devolved and non-devolved matters. Similarly, children, especially children in trouble, may not know and will certainly not care how the devolution system works and whether or not matters are devolved.

For that reason, in subsection (3) of each new clause, we require the Children's Commissioner to take account of the views and work done by his other UK colleagues. That practical step will help to overcome the difficulties, which responds to the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North. We envisage that the commissioners will draw up a memorandum of understanding on how best to work together, but that is a matter for them. We have no wish to impede or constrain the commissioners' independence in that respect. Sense is not always that common, but I believe that common sense will dictate that there will be a close working relationship between them. The Government have no desire to impose any system of working on the commissioners. That must be left to their own judgment. That is why we do not mention or prescribe any formal way of working together in the Bill.

Similarly, we do not envisage that a child will have to say to themselves, ''My problem concerns matter X, so I must consult Commissioner Y''. If a child in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland needs the services of a commissioner, we envisage that it will turn in the first instance to the commissioner in their country. That is our aspiration, as I am sure it is for everybody here and for the commissioners themselves. It will then be for that respective commissioner to decide whether and how their counterpart based in England should become involved in accordance with their own functions, those of other children's commissioners and with any memorandum of understanding that they have drawn up.

Some hon. Members will prefer the remit of the Children's Commissioner not to extend beyond England. I respect that point of view, but I do not agree with it. The Government are obliged to act within the parameters of the current devolution settlement. It is not our job, in taking this Bill through the Commons, to rewrite the devolution settlement; that is a matter for another time and place. Not allowing the Children's Commissioner to have responsibility for non-devolved matters in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would mean that children in those countries would be deprived of the influence that the commissioner will have here at Westminster on matters that are the responsibility of, and are decided by, Parliament.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Surely the Minister contradicts himself. He says that, in practice, the commissioner in Wales is already doing that and that he has facilitated the commissioner making representations to the appropriate Minister. Why the duplication?

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

No, there is no contradiction; perhaps I am not making myself abundantly clear. What I am saying is that there should be no restriction on the English-plus commissioner, who will have responsibility to consider any matters in reserved areas. We should not restrict him from doing that if it is the appropriate way to ensure that if an issue arises and he wishes to take it up, the case of a child in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland will be investigated by someone who will report directly to a Minister answerable to this Parliament. I hope that hon. Members will see the benefit of children outside England being able to use the services of both commissioners.

I am conscious of time, but I would like to refer briefly to key elements of Government new clauses 27 to 29. New clause 27(1) makes it clear that the Children's Commissioner's functions in Wales will be strictly limited to matters outwith the control of the National Assembly. Subsection (2) refers back to relevant parts of clause 2 to define those functions. I have already described at length the purpose of subsection (3), which will require the Children's Commissioner to take account of the views of, and any work done by, his counterpart in Wales. Subsection (4) gives the commissioner an inquiry power in Wales similar to that for England as set out in clause 4.

Subsection (6) gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the commissioner to undertake an inquiry in Wales.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Does my hon. Friend not think that the power of the Secretary of State to direct the Children's Commissioner in England to undertake an inquiry in Wales impedes the commissioner's independence?

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

No, I do not. It is important to recognise, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families has made clear several times in Committee, that the functions of the Children's Commissioner in England will be different to the operation of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. In Wales, the commissioner examines key individual cases and issues, whereas in England the view of the commissioner will be much broader and strategic. There will be no conflict at all.

The provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland are, in effect, identical to those for Wales. Subsections (1) to (5) in new clause 28 for Scotland and new clause 29 for Northern Ireland have the same effect as subsections (1) to (5) in new clause 27 for Wales. Subsection (6) is the text of existing subsections (8) or (9), as appropriate, of clause 4, which has been transferred to the new clauses. Subsection (7) gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the commissioner to undertake an inquiry in Scotland or Northern Ireland respectively. That corresponds to a similar provision for England in clause 5. Subsection (8) is a technical cross-reference. Subsection (9) is the existing text of subsections (8) or (9), as appropriate, of clause 5, which has been transferred to the new clauses. Subsection (10) defines reserved or exceptional matters.

We are fully committed to establishing good working relationships between the commissioners throughout the United Kingdom. The Government's amendments are the result of lengthy discussions, and I think that they will do that. It is therefore appropriate for me to pause at this stage to allow colleagues with other amendments to make their comments, and I will then respond.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

This is a highly complicated series of amendments and new clauses, grouped together for the whole clause. Perhaps we should talk about the generality of the amendments.

The Under-Secretary started by saying that the Government intended to establish an English commissioner who does not undermine any other commissioner. I fear that there is great concern that the English commissioner will still do that, even if the amendments are accepted. The Under-Secretary referred to some disquiet; that is putting it very modestly, certainly in view of what the hon. Member for Cardiff, North said about comments from the other commissioners only yesterday. The Under-Secretary also talked about the hopes and inspirations for the English commissioner to be for English children. However, that is still not on the face of the Bill, and we need greater clarification.

We have started with a treble hijack, as no fewer than three of the amendments laid by myself and other hon. Members all of a sudden appear to have the name of the Minister for Children, Young People and Families at the top. They are technical amendments, which seek to make the point that we, and other hon. Members, have been trying to make—I am sure the hon. Gentleman from the Welsh nationalists would make it at greater length were he here today, which is why we might not have as lengthy a debate on the clause as we might have had—which is that the English commissioner should be concerned with children from England. His actions should be instigated by concerns from children in England.

Amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 17 are all technical amendments to define England, rather than the other parts of the United Kingdom, on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 12 also does that but, for some reason, the Government have not sought to hijack it.

This is a complete dog's dinner. It still appears to be contradictory to the spirit of devolution. We have disagreements; we have differences in the way in which things are run in different parts of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has made that point. It is one of the strengths of devolution, supposedly. We respect the powers of different parts of the United Kingdom to have those disagreements and do things in different ways.

There was a lengthy and well informed debate on the subject in Committee in the House of Lords. Pertinent points were made by Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, a constituent of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North—whether a Member of the House of Lords technically constitutes a constituent, I am not sure, but I am sure that the hon. Lady would not turn her away from one of her surgeries if she appeared seeking advice. During the Lords Committee in May, Baroness Finlay referred to a debate in the plenary sitting of the Assembly, where a motion was passed unanimously by 50 votes to nil stating that the Assembly welcomed the additional powers that the Children Bill gives to the Assembly, rejected the proposal that the English Children's Commissioner should have statutory functions over non-devolved matters in Wales, and called for the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales to be extended to non-devolved matters.

Baroness Finlay also referred to the comments and actions of the late Lord Williams of Mostyn, and his amendments to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill in 2001. He ensured that the Children's Commissioner for Wales can make representations to the Assembly on any matter, devolved or non-devolved, that affects the welfare and rights of children. If the commissioner deems it appropriate, he can also make informal representations to the UK Government on those matters. Although the Wales Office has given reassurances that that can continue, it seems to me to be a courtesy to allow the commissioner freedom of expression.

My noble Friend Earl Howe also reinforced the existing rights of the Welsh commissioner. The commissioner already has the power to raise with the Welsh Assembly any matters of concern relating to non-devolved issues, leaving it to the Assembly to pass those concerns to the appropriate quarter as he wishes. However, even with these changes, it is envisaged that the Children's Commissioner of the United Kingdom will suddenly muscle in and assume responsibility for those issues relating to children that are non-devolved. Welsh children could find they have not one champion but two, working side by side.

If the Government get their way, the UK Children's Commissioner will not take up the cudgels for Welsh children in the same way as the Welsh commissioner currently does, because he will be concerned only with promoting awareness of the views and interests of those children, not with safeguarding and promoting their rights and interests. This difference in powers and functions is unsatisfactory enough for children in England and doubly unsatisfactory for children in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, because in practice it represents the dilution of a protection that they currently enjoy through their respective commissioners.

The Children's Rights Alliance has reinforced those points. It says that new clauses 27 to 29

''show breathtaking insensitivity to the needs and rights of those countries' children''—

the children of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. It continues:

''The idea of a Commissioner from England going or being sent into the other countries to carry out a formal inquiry seems quite absurd. Giving England's Commissioner a function of promoting the views and interests of children across the UK shows an astonishing ignorance of the roles of the existing Commissioners. They can already promote awareness of the views and interests of children on any matter, devolved or otherwise. What are lacking in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are formal investigatory and reporting powers over non-devolved matters.''

The question that arises is, where does the buck stop? That is what Lord Laming identified. Two main points that he made very forcefully in the Climbie report were the lack of joined-up thinking and practice between the professionals and the lack of accountability to a person with whom the responsibility for a failure in the system should lie. I fear we will repeat those problems where we have a confused relationship between the different commissioners. Some serious inequalities have been thrown up. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary has taken the point on board, but the Government proposals do not address the problem properly, and in some ways they exacerbate it. The system is confusing, it is not joined up and it threatens to produce two supposed children's champions. I still have a good deal of difficulty with the Bill, even with the proposed changes, although the amendments that we had hijacked have sought to define England more closely as opposed to Wales.

Amendment No.21 is on a slightly different subject—cross-border children. We all appreciate that there was a problem here. I do not appreciate how it

has been dealt with in the Bill. I gather that the definition of where a child is resident is where that child normally lives, but there will be many cases where children move around. We need to specify procedures for dealing with cross-border children. Later in the Bill we will deal with who is accountable for children who move between local authority areas within England, which is a big enough problem, but we have not addressed the problem of those who move from one United Kingdom country to another.

There are many examples: an English child who is at a boarding school in Cardiff or Edinburgh; a child who is in care across the border; a child who has contact orders with his parents who have split up and now live in different parts of the United Kingdom; a child who has a long-term medical condition and requires long-term medical residential care, particularly in mental health hospitals, which may be in any part of the United Kingdom; a child who is at a special needs school. In all those examples the Bill establishes a duty of care for school professionals, health professionals and social workers in order to ensure that the child is being looked after in a joined-up way. However, clause 4 is unclear about who should take the lead responsibility in the different countries. For instance, what happens if a child spends half the year at a school in Scotland and the other half at home with the parents, or half the year in a residential care facility in one country and the other half elsewhere? I am sure that it can be sorted out, but it is not clear in the Bill. Ultimately, therefore, no one is identified who can say, ''The buck stops with me.''

Amendment No. 21 is constructive, but we have said that we will leave it to the Under-Secretary to define how things can be done. It specifies that, in regulations, the Government must come up with procedures for dealing with children who are normally resident in England but who, as I have described, are

''engaged in education, treatment and other activities in another part of the United Kingdom, and specifying which body is to be the responsible authority.''

I would be grateful for a more detailed response on that; it is a practical concern.

We will probably argue until the cows come home over the amendments dealing with Wales. The provisions still appear to be a dog's dinner. They need to be greatly simplified.

We would have benefited from a more detailed explanatory note on the changes that the Government now propose, which were tabled only a week ago. I certainly would like greater clarification of what the Under-Secretary has already said, and I would appreciate a more comprehensive response to amendment No. 21.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I am sorry that we have had to debate the merits of a Welsh Children's Commissioner, and how the position relates to what is proposed for the English Children's Commissioner. It is a good Bill, and I am pleased that there will now be an commissioner for England; I am sorry that we have not been able to straighten out our differences, but it does not seem beyond the bounds of possibility that it could still be worked out satisfactorily for all concerned.

Government amendment No. 11 clarifies the situation in a positive way, and other Government amendments in the group are positive in helping to clarify the position in England. However, the clause is still confusing in relation to Wales, which is not satisfactory. I shall concentrate on new clauses 7 and 18, and then speak to Government new clause 27.

New clause 18 would extend the powers of the Children's Commissioner in Wales to non-devolved matters; it would enable him to consider and make representations about any matter to the National Assembly for Wales or to the responsible Department or Minister at Westminster. That seems the most clear-cut, sensible and practical way of dividing responsibilities between the commissioners, and it would guarantee no confusion to the users of the service. Children in Wales would know that one person was able to deal with all matters.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in his opening remarks that he hoped that there would be only one point of contact, but I believe that the Welsh commissioner needs to be able to lobby on behalf of children in Wales on all matters. The general view of professionals, lobby groups and all involved in child care is that what the Government propose is unsatisfactory. The Welsh Affairs Committee recommended that the Welsh commissioner should cover all matters that impact on children and young people in Wales, regardless of whether they are devolved. In his evidence to that Committee, Peter Clarke clearly stated that the commissioner should act in an holistic way, and that he should not be tied by artificial boundaries related to constitutional issues.

New clause 18 would make the most constructive use of the fact that, since devolution, services operate differently in Wales than in England. One cannot say that a service such as youth justice is not devolved. Youth justice in Wales operates in a context in which housing, education and health are all delivered by the National Assembly—and they are delivered differently than in England. It is the same with the probation service; it operates in a different context. The Welsh commissioner is an expert on the Welsh policy context; he is fully briefed. Only someone who is on the spot and operating in Wales can understand that context. An English commissioner will have to develop a range of areas of expertise, and it is hard to imagine how they will become expert with what might be only occasional forays into Wales. The Welsh commissioner has an office in Wales and a Welsh language scheme in place and is fully briefed on what is happening in Wales. I do not see any way in which an English commissioner, operating in an English context, will be able to come into Wales and consider non-devolved matters in a devolved context in the way that a Welsh commissioner could.

That is why the new clause is the most sensible way forward. The Welsh commissioner can make representations and look into any matter affecting a child in Wales, and the practical step forward is to allow him to make representations to Ministers at Westminster. The new clause is the ideal way forward. It would not change the devolution settlement but

merely provide a practical arrangement to make things simpler and more straightforward for children and safer. The confusion that has often caused tragedies in this country has been mentioned, and having two children's commissioners operating will be very worrying. The current children's commissioners made a statement yesterday in Cardiff saying how insidious they felt it would be for a commissioner from another country to come in and try to raise awareness in Wales. Such a situation is non-workable.

I ask the Under-Secretary to think again about this issue. Even if it is not possible to persuade the Government to devolve additional powers to the Welsh commissioner, will he at least consider enabling the English commissioner to delegate non-devolved matters in Wales to the Welsh commissioner? That would make things clear and reduce confusion. Will he also assure us that it may be possible to consider the issue again before Report to see whether there is a way to reach agreement between all the parties involved and produce a proposal that gives children in Wales the maximum chance of having the benefit of the Children's Commissioner who is already there?

New clause 7 concerns the relationship between the commissioners. It would place a duty on the new commissioner to

''consult and work together with''

the commissioners for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The debate that there has been on the relationship between the new commissioner and the others has probably highlighted more than any other debate the nature of post-devolution Britain. The key point of the new clause is to ensure that whatever model each commissioner is based on—they do not have to be based on the same model, although all commissioners should adhere to certain principles—they work together and consult one another for the good of the children involved.

That brings us back to the basic point. It is not for children to navigate their way between different pieces of legislation or different commissioners. It is essential that the commissioners work together as a single entity and that it is remembered that many of the children who will be dealt with are among the most vulnerable in our society and that tragedies have occurred when there have not been clear lines of responsibility.

I understand what my hon. Friend says about not wanting to impose working patterns on the commissioners and that that may be done via a memorandum of understanding. However, in written evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, Peter Clarke stated:

''While I welcome the opportunity of working together with the Children's Commissioner for England, I am not prepared to enter into any memorandum of understanding or other agreement which might compromise my independence prior to the appointment of the first postholder.''

That is an important point and I believe that it is right. It is important that guidelines be laid down about what a memorandum of understanding actually means. What does my hon. Friend envisage as the headings in

any such memorandum? What topics would be covered and what work has already been done on such a memorandum?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am interested that the hon. Lady is asking the Under-Secretary those questions. Is she suggesting that he can answer in respect only of the commissioner who is the subject of the Bill, or also in respect of the other three commissioners?

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I am asking whether the Government have given any thought to what form a memorandum would take. Although the individual commissioners should decide between themselves how they operate, the Government must give some thought to the memorandum. Otherwise, the Committee and the legislation would leave the matter wide open.

The purpose of tabling new clause 7 was to try to determine the Government's thinking on the memorandum of understanding between the commissioners. My preferred option would be that the non-devolved powers should become the responsibility of the Children's Commissioner for Wales.

I am extremely concerned about Government new clause 27. The way in which subsection (1) is worded undermines the existing commissioners—they feel strongly that it is not the way forward.

The Children's Commissioner for Wales has a general power to make representations on any matter affecting any child ordinarily resident in Wales. He already has a relationship with the police and visits prisons. When one commissioner is already examining those areas, it would be confusing to put in someone else with responsibility for those areas in Wales.

Young people in Wales already move in and out of devolved areas and non-devolved areas. Peter Clarke gives an example in which he could go to the secure unit at Hillside and would find that he had responsibility for one child who had gone into the unit through the care system but not for the child sitting next to him who had gone into the unit through the youth justice system. Two people in the same institution could be the responsibility of different commissioners. A situation could also arise in which Peter Clarke was dealing with a person in the community through the child welfare system, but if that person went into a secure unit, they would become the responsibility of another commissioner. That would be crazy. We should be able to work out something more satisfactory than what is proposed.

The young people that we are dealing with are very vulnerable, and we have a duty to ensure that the system works as well as possible for them. The model proposed in Government new clause 27 will not do that. It will add confusion and cause problems. I am sorry to have to say all this, because I strongly support the Bill, and know that good work has been put into many of its clauses.

In Wales we have a Children's Commissioner who has made a lot of difference to the lives of children there. In Wales it is universally recognised that it was

a big move forward to have the first Children's Commissioner in the UK. There were great hopes that the introduction of this legislation would address some of the areas that had caused difficulties. One of those areas—entry to buildings—is being addressed, so some progress is being made. However, it was also strongly hoped that the commissioner's powers could be extended to cover non-devolved matters. That would be the most satisfactory way of moving forward. I appeal to my hon. Friend to see whether anything else can be done to devise a more satisfactory solution.

I conclude by saying that the power of the Secretary of State to direct the English Children's Commissioner makes that commissioner much less independent than the other Children's Commissioners in the UK, and also much less independent than all the Children's Commissioners in the European network, who are now meeting in Cardiff. If the English commissioner is not totally independent, the Bill falls down in addressing the criteria for what commissioners should be. I cannot see how a commissioner can be independent if they can be directed by the Secretary of State.

I oppose Government new clause 27; my preferred option would be new clause 18. By tabling new clause 7, I also seek information on the Government's thinking about a memorandum of understanding.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Thank you, Mr. Benton. I apologise for going beyond the brief of the Committee this morning. I shall try not to do so again, although the issues we are considering reflect on the devolution settlement, the way that devolution is working and how it will work in future in respect of the Bill.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caernarfon cannot be present, because of the good work that he and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North did in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on the report on the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. It clarified thinking on what could be achieved and what would be in the best interests of children in Wales.

I am saddened that we seem to have reached an impasse vis-a-vis the Children's Commissioner for Wales, because there is much that is good in the Bill. Everyone who has the welfare of children at heart supports it. There were high hopes when the Bill was published that it would provide an opportunity to build on the good work being done by the Children's Commissioner for Wales—to reinforce and extend his powers within Wales, and also, in a limited degree, to extend his powers in respect of those children who are normally resident in Wales but who, for whatever reason, find themselves in England in other institutions or situations. The test that I apply to the amendments and new clauses is what will they do to reinforce and strengthen the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and to extend his ability to look after the interests of such children.

In her evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, Jane Hutt, the Welsh Minister for Health and Social Services, summed up what we want. She said that

''the most important thing is for us all to look at children and young people in Wales and to say for them: 'How can we ensure that we preserve the independence of the commissioner and enable children and young people to have one single point of reference in terms of seeking to make their views known or raising issues with the commissioner?'''

That is another test of how the amendments and new clauses will work.

I have no problem with Government amendments Nos. 11, 178, 13 and 17, which help to clarify the role of the relationship between the commissioners in England and Wales. However, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, North explained, there are difficulties with Government new clause 17, which undoes almost all the good work done in the other place in making amendments that clarified the relationship.

I take the practical example of the Clywch inquiry, which was welcomed by all sectors of political life in Wales and by other organisations on which its recommendations had an impact. If the new relationship as described in the Bill were in place, how would that inquiry be held, because it covers devolved and reserved matters? Would there be two inquiries, one by the Children's Commissioner for Wales and one by the English commissioner in respect of the reserved matters, or a single joint inquiry, with both commissioners being represented? There would be many possibilities for duplication and waste of resources.

In the case of the Clwych inquiry, the right thing happened: the Children's Commissioner for Wales carried out a very well focused inquiry and produced outcomes and recommendations that several organisations throughout Wales found very helpful. I therefore challenge the Minister on a practical point: how does the Bill improve that situation, and how will it be implemented?

New clause 27(6) states:

''Where the Secretary of State considers that . . . an individual child in Wales raises issues of relevance to other children''.

I presume that this is the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, or is it the Secretary of State for Wales? It is very unclear to whom the legislation refers. It should be the Secretary of State for Wales who recommends that an inquiry be carried out. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will clarify that. The new clause is replicated in new clauses 28 and 29, and all the comments that I have made about the situation in Wales have been replicated in representations that we have had on the situation in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

My amendment No. 198, and amendment No. 195 in the name of the hon. Member for Caernarfon, which is very similar but fuller, make absolutely clear the limitations of the operations in Wales of the Children's Commissioner for England. We also support amendment No. 21, which would extend the commissioner's powers outside Wales, and new clauses 6 and 7.

I express again my sadness that we do not seem to be able to agree on this point. This matter has united the whole body politic throughout Wales, including local authorities, charities and other non-governmental organisations. It is ridiculous that we do not seem to be able to propose a solution, and that we are putting legislation before the rights and welfare of children. The Minister tells us that this is happening in practice, but I cannot believe that we should not legislate for what is happening in practice. Why should we legislate for something that is different from what is working? As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North said, we should make it as simple as possible for children to get into the system and to be confident that they know where they are going and that the system will deliver what they seek. We should ensure that it is a child-friendly service. The Bill makes it legislatively friendly, but not children friendly.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I have listened to the debate with great interest because I could not be further away from Wales if I tried. It seems that two new rules of devolution are being propounded. One, which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole propounds, is that if Wales chooses to act on a devolved matter, England must follow. The other, which the hon. Member for Cardiff, North propounds, is that if Wales decides to act on a non-devolved matter, England must not poke its nose in.

It is curious that what I believed to be a comprehensible, albeit in some respects flawed, devolution settlement is now being messed about with at both ends, and that we are being left with complete confusion about the underlying principles of devolution. It seems sensible that something is either a UK matter or a devolved matter, which is why I tabled the amendment that subsequently I did not move on Tuesday. I accept that, in different parts of the UK, some things are UK matters and other things are devolved, but the Bill leaves us with complete confusion. I suspect that this affects Ministers more than it affects me, because they are being asked to sort it out. Two completely different principles are being propounded by people who support the devolution settlement; they then ask a UK Minister to sort it out, but God help him if he sorts it out as he has—in a way that is not to the satisfaction of the Members from Wales.

I do not think that this is a perfect solution—I do not think that a perfect solution is possible—but the moment that the UK Minister proposes a solution that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North and other hon. Members from Wales do not like, they ask for it to be reviewed to keep the existing arrangement in Wales, even though that goes beyond the devolution settlement. I bet the Minister would not be encouraged to tell the Welsh commissioner to keep his nose out of non-devolved affairs, although that would be a perfectly reasonable attitude to take. Some things are devolved matters and some are not. Surely, therefore,

it should be for a commissioner established by the UK Parliament to take account of reserved matters, and for a commissioner appointed by the National Assembly for Wales to take account of devolved matters, but that approach does not seem to be acceptable to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North either.

Meanwhile, Welsh Members of this Committee vote on matters that affect only England, and could therefore affect the outcome of a vote, although they have not as yet. We are in a position in which if we are not careful, the devolution settlement will continually be pushed and pushed, not in debates on the principles, which, as the Under-Secretary said, is where such debates should take place, but in debates on individual aspects of devolution, such as the implementation of particular policies where they affect the devolution settlement.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) says that we should legislate for what is happening, but fox hunting is happening and we do not seem to be too happy to legislate on that.

There has to be a hard-nosed approach to this matter, which says either, ''This is the devolution settlement, let's work within it,'' or, ''This is a UK Minister, let him put forward a solution, and let us accept it.'' Having said that, I like the idea suggested by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, that the commissioner—I do not think of him as the commissioner for England, but as the Children's Commissioner established by the UK Parliament—should be empowered to delegate matters to the commissioners in the other countries. That proposal seems to be entirely sensible, but it does not appear to have been put forward as an amendment to the Bill.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

On a point of order, Mr. Benton. When amendments are grouped together as these are, how do we vote on a new clause if it is not the lead amendment?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

If it is not the lead amendment, we will first have to vote on the lead amendment. If you wish to press a new clause to a vote, the appropriate time to do so is when we come to it on the amendment paper. To which clause is is the hon. Lady referring?

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

New clause 27.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I am informed that it will automatically be put to a vote, but not until we reach the new clauses.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Benton. We would like to have a separate vote on new clause 6. I presume that the same procedure will apply?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Yes, indeed.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate, for which I thank colleagues on all sides, although we may have disagreed, because that is what this place is about—scrutinising legislation put before it by the Executive.

I will briefly comment on some of my colleagues' comments before moving on to the amendments and new clauses generally. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham started by talking about the devolution settlement, which brought to mind St. Paul on the road to Damascus. We always welcome a convert, particularly given that a Conservative speaking in favour of devolution is rather rare—as rare, in fact, as a Conservative in my constituency.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Under-Secretary is being entirely disingenuous for the sake of a few cheap laughs, as he knows. Like the principle of a commissioner, the principle of devolution has become a reality, whether we agreed with it or not, and we are working with it. We do not want the way in which devolution works to be completely undermined because of the confusion in the Bill. That is an entirely consistent position.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman is a little upset—I would not want to upset him for the world. However, I was not quite clear, when he quoted Members of the other place at the beginning of his remarks, whether he was in favour of extending the powers of the Welsh commissioner to look into reserved matters.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The whole purpose of our amendments is to make it clear where the buck stops—that is what I am trying to achieve. So far, the Under-Secretary has signally failed to explain where the buck stops.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I will certainly say where the buck stops, but, even after that reply, I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman supports extending the powers of the Welsh commissioner to look into reserved matters. It is a perfectly simple question, but the hon. Gentleman is clearly unable to answer it.

The important point to remember is that the Government amendments in no way dilute or diminish the powers of the Welsh commissioner or the commissioners in the other countries of the United Kingdom. In fact, in the specific terms of the present argument, their powers will remain untouched.

As regards the amendments that we have tabled on the powers of the English commissioner in reserved matters, the buck stops here—in the British Parliament. Ministers must come to the United Kingdom Parliament, where they are answerable on reserved matters, which are the responsibility of the Government in this place. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman went on to express concerns, which I perfectly understand, about cross-border issues, and I shall perhaps make some general remarks

about that. The Government's view, however, is that a child who wanted to take up an issue would go to the commissioner in the country where they were resident. That would be the case even if an issue arose when a Welsh child was on a day trip to England—or, conversely, an English child was on a day trip to Wales—and there was nothing to prevent the child from going to the commissioner in England, if that was appropriate. A child will go to whichever commissioner is responsible for the part of the United Kingdom in which they are resident at that time.

To underpin the point and address the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North in the Welsh context, I am trying to stress all the time that, as far as the Government are concerned, the Welsh commissioner will be the point of contact for children in Wales. If he then feels he should refer the matter on because it covers a reserved area, that is a matter for discussion between him and the English-plus commissioner. However, the child's first point of contact will be the commissioner in Wales.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The Minister makes great play of the fact that he is not lessening the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, but he now says that if a child goes to the commissioner in Wales on a reserved matter, the commissioner will refer it to the commissioner in England. At the moment, however, the commissioner in Wales would deal with such matters himself, so the Under-Secretary must be lessening his powers.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I did not refer to matters that he deals with at the moment. As was said earlier in relation to the late Lord Williams of Mostyn and his amendment to the Care Standards Act 2000, the Children's Commissioner for Wales can look into any matter affecting a child in Wales. In practice, of course, if that matter fell within a reserved area, he would ask the Assembly or a Whitehall Minister to look into it because he would have no power to investigate it. He would also have the opportunity to ask the English commissioner to take a matter up if that was appropriate. However, that does not prevent him from carrying out an investigation and then, say, collaborating with his colleague, the English commissioner, and asking him to take it further. We are talking about an extension, not a diminution of his powers.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I entirely accept the good sense of what my hon. Friend says, but is there not a—

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

Clause 4 - Inquiries initiated by the Commissioner

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Government amendment No. 178.

Amendment No. 12, in

clause 4, page 3, line 41, leave out 'and Wales'.

Government amendments No. 13, 17 and 182.

Amendment No. 18, in

clause 5, page 4, line 34, leave out 'and Wales'.

Amendment No. 19, in

clause 5, page 4, line 36, leave out subsections (8) and (9).

Amendment No. 195, in

clause 6, page 5, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—

'(a) any matter regarding children in Wales;

(b) any matter relating to children in Scotland; or

(c) any matter relating to children in Northern Ireland.'.

Amendment No. 198, in

clause 6, page 5, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

'(a) any matter relating to children in Wales'.

Amendment No. 21, in

clause 6, page 5, line 11, at end insert—

'( ) The Secretary of State, in regulations, must specify procedures for applying this legislation to children normally resident in England engaged in education, treatment and other activities in another part of the United Kingdom, and specifying which body is to be the responsible authority.'.

Amendment No. 196, in

clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

'(3) It shall be the sole responsibility of the Children's Commissioner for Wales to—

(a) hold an inquiry under sections 4 and 5 as regards to children in Wales; and

(b) consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Wales.

(4) It shall be the sole responsibility of the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland to—

(a) hold an inquiry under sections 4 and 5 as regards children in Scotland; and

(b) consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Scotland.

(5) It shall be the sole responsibility of the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland to—

(a) hold an inquiry under sections 4 and 5 as regards children in Northern Ireland; and

(b) consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Wales.'.

Clause 6 stand part.

Government new clause 27—Functions of Commissioner in Wales.

Government new clause 28—Functions of Commissioner in Scotland.

Government new clause 29—Functions of Commissioner in Northern Ireland.

New clause 6—Relationship between Commissioners—

'( ) The Children's Commissioner shall consult and work together with—

(a) the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland on matters concerning children's rights and interests throughout the United Kingdom; and

(b) the appropriate Commissioner or Commissioners on matters concerning children's rights and interests which appear to affect children in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland in addition to England, unless the matter relates principally to events or circumstances in England.'.

New clause 7—Relationship between Commissioners (No. 2)—

'The Children's Commissioner shall consult and work together with—

(a) the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland on matters concerning children's rights and interests throughout the United Kingdom; and

(b) the appropriate Commissioner or Commissioners on matters concerning children's rights and interests which appear to affect children in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland in addition to England.'.

New clause 18—Extension of the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales—

'(1) Section 75A of the Care Standards Act 2000 (additional power of consideration and representation) is amended as follows.

Leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

''( ) The Commissioner may consider, and make representations about, any matter affecting the rights and welfare of children in Wales to—

(a) the Assembly, and

(b) where the matter is not devolved and the Commissioner considers it appropriate, the responsible United Kingdom Minister of the Crown or government department.''.'.

New clause 33—Requirement to review the working of the effect of the creation of a UK children's commissioner on the function of the existing commissioners in the nations of the UK—

'(1) Each of the Children's Commissioners in the UK shall monitor the effect of having more than one Children's Commissioner operating in their nation simultaneously.

(2) Each of the Children's Commissioners shall make reports to the Secretary of State, the National Assembly, Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly on the findings of the provisions specified in section 1(a) and (b) above and in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(3) The report shall, in particular, consider the impact of having more than one Children's Commissioner representing children in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, including—

(a) the overall level of understanding of children in the UK nations as to the division of responsibility between the different Commissioners representing them;

(b) the effectiveness and role of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland and the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland; and

(c) any evidence of duplication in work undertaken by the commissioners.

(4) The reports under this section shall be made as soon as practicable after the second anniversary of the coming into force of Part 1 of this Act.

(5) In producing a report under this section the Children's Commissioners shall consult—

(a) children;

(b) representatives of organisations concerned with children's rights and interests; and

(c) the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

(6) A Report under this section—

(a) shall include the views of the Children's Commissioner on the adequacy and effectiveness of this part; and

(b) may contain recommendations to amend this Act.

(7) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of every report sent to him under this section before each House of Parliament.'.

New clause 35—Review of exercise of functions of Assembly and other persons—

'( ) Section 72B of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c.14) (review of exercise of functions of Assembly and other persons) is amended as follows.

( ) In subsection (3), omit paragraphs (a) and (c)

( ) Omit subsections (4) and (6).'.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Welcome, Dame Marion, to this excellent Committee. As I was saying when Mr. Benton wisely interrupted me, I accept entirely the good sense of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) was saying, but given the provision in clause 5 for the English commissioner to be directed by the Secretary of State, is there not a problem about the establishment of protocol between the commissioners of the various parts of the United Kingdom? Will not that inevitably lead to the other commissioners feeling unwilling to engage in any protocols when they could be directed by the English commissioner, or when he could be directed to deal with children from their countries, rather than them dealing with matters themselves?

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I welcome you, Dame Marion, to the Chair, and look forward to your guidance and direction throughout this sitting.

In response to the point made by my hon. Friend, I simply say that I hope that they would not be so childish. The Bill is intended to promote the interests of children. People may not like aspects of the Bill, but I hope that the fact that it gives power to the Minister to give directions to the commissioner for England will not mean that colleagues in other parts of the UK will feel unable to co-operate or work with that commissioner. Parliament, not the commissioner, will decide what powers the commissioner will have. He or she will in no way be able to influence that, and I hope that that will not happen.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North opened her remarks by saying that this is a good Bill. I understand her concerns about the powers of the commissioner in Wales, and the overlap of the powers of the English commissioner to investigate matters in Wales in reserved matters, but I am sure she would

agree that the narrow point on powers, which perhaps divides us, should not take away from the fact that the Bill will benefit children. She made the point that members of the Welsh Affairs Committee and others feel that the Children's Commissioner for Wales should have powers to look into matters currently reserved to the Government here in Westminster.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) asked where the buck stops. The buck stops here in Parliament, with us. That is the devolution settlement under which we are working; it was proposed by this Government, it was approved by Parliament and it received the consent of the Welsh people in a referendum. We are not, in this Bill, rewriting the devolution settlement. I must make it clear that the Government line has been, and remains, that the Children's Commissioner, appointed by the Government in Westminster, must have responsibility for matters within the remit of this Parliament. To do otherwise would, as I have said, be contrary to the devolution settlement, and outside the scope of the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North went on to ask if the Government had done any detailed work on the possibility of a memorandum of understanding, which would allow the commissioners throughout the UK to work collaboratively. The short answer is no. We think that it would be wrong to do so, because it would pre-empt the commissioners and impinge on their independence. We consider that independence important, and we would expect the commissioners themselves to agree the protocols and the details of how they would work together.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

As I understand it, the Minister's case rests on there being a satisfactory memorandum, or some memorandums, of understanding between the commissioners. Is not it therefore reasonable that hon. Members should have some indication about the scope of those memorandums ?

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

The difficulty that we would have is that that would be seen as compromising the independence of the commissioners. They will have the opportunity and the ability—because of the work done by those already in post—to work out a best way of working between them. We must give them that chance

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North asked whether the matters covered in her amendments and others in the group might be further considered on Report. That is, I regret to tell her, very unlikely if the Committee agrees to these amendments today. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) referred to the devolution settlement and the scope of the Bill. He was right to set the amendments in that context, and the points that I have made in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North answer his queries.

I understand hon. Members' concerns about the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the fact that he will not be able to investigate reserved matters. I do not share those concerns for the practical reasons that I gave this morning. I was a little

concerned by the tone of the comments made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire this morning, not least because they failed to support me. We have to be careful about the language that we use. We should not paint a completely dark picture of the Bill, and we should not be intemperate in our comments, as it is not helpful.

We Welsh have a dark side. We like to have a bit of misery and grief; it is something that God has blessed us with. But the Bill is something to celebrate, and we should say that it is a bad Bill simply because there is a small difference over the powers of the commissioner. It will be good for children in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman mentioned problems that he thought might occur and cited the Clywch inquiry, asking whether such an inquiry could take place once the Bill is enacted?

Nothing in the Bill would prevent the Children's Commissioner for Wales from carrying out a Clywch-type inquiry. No reserved matters were directly involved in that inquiry. If devolved matters were involved we could reasonably expect the commissioners to arrive at a sensible arrangement that best fits the circumstances and allows the Welsh commissioner to address the issues within his remit. The English commissioner may support that, but he could not, through clause 4, duplicate an inquiry of his own.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made some telling remarks. He commented on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North. They were very interesting points, but he will forgive me if I add that I could not possibly comment.

Amendment No. 12, tabled by the official Opposition, is superseded by Government amendments, which make it clear how inquiries under the clause may be taken forward by the English commissioner. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are likewise superseded but relate to inquiries under clause 5. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham suggests that there has been some hijacking at the end. I ask him to be generous and to share with me. Is it not our duty here to make good law? If we can do so collaboratively, that is a good thing. If he feels ownership of any of the things that we are doing in the Bill, I thank him. That is about as close as he will get to government for a long time.

Amendments Nos. 195, 196 and 198 were tabled by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams). We all regret his absence this afternoon; we wish him well and hope that he returns to good health. We know the valuable work that he has done. His amendments would go further and give the devolved commissioners the power to undertake inquiries in their areas. New clause 35 would also allow the Welsh commissioner to take on broader functions with respect to reserved issues than at present.

We do not agree that it is right for the existing commissioners to have functions that do not reflect the various devolution settlements. The ultimate losers

will be the children concerned, whose voices will not be heard in this House on matters that are decided here and on which Ministers answerable to this House have a say. The Government are fully aware that the commissioners must work together sensibly for the good of all children. This batch of Government amendments, of which new clauses 27 to 29 are the main ones, have been drafted after detailed consultation, and they represent the way forward.

New clause 18, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North promoted, would also extend the power of the Welsh commissioner by allowing him to report directly to the UK Government on non-devolved issues. Although that sometimes happens informally, as I explained this morning, we must work within the devolution settlement as it stands. The Children's Commissioner, who will report to the House through the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, cannot totally relinquish responsibility for matters in Wales that may remain the responsibility of Government here in Westminster.

I appreciate the intention behind amendment No. 21, which is to ensure that no child misses out because of a division of territorial responsibilities. I reassure the Committee that any child in any part of the UK with issues that they wish to raise will be able to do so with the commissioner in whose territory they find themselves. Even if they are on a day trip, they could call on the help, advice or services of the commissioner in that country.

New clauses 6 and 7 would require the commissioners to work together. The broader, less prescriptive wording of the Government's amendments will serve the commissioners better than new clauses 6 or 7. The purpose of any amendment on this subject is to ensure that the commissioners work closely together to the best benefit of all children in the UK. Given those assurances, I hope that the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham, for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

New clause 33, also tabled by the hon. Member for Caernarfon, promotes the idea of a statutory review by all four commissioners into how the joint working arrangements will function. Given that we wish to achieve a practical solution for children throughout the UK with a minimum of restriction, we need to ensure that our arrangements work in practice and to consider future changes dependent on that. Equally clearly, the commissioners will be well placed to do that, reflecting the views of children and young people whom they have helped and advised in their respective nations. However, I am not convinced that the amendment is necessary to achieve that. Although I see merit in its intent, the commissioners may wish to review how the joint working arrangements are operating and will want to take any opportunity to make comments to this Government or the respective Administrations in the devolved nations.

The Government's amendments provide a mechanism on non-devolved issues which is appropriate in practice and will allow the

commissioners to work together under a memorandum of understanding. It will ensure that the views of children throughout the UK are made known and that the helpful advice and protection that we can give them is expressed. It is a practical and principled solution to the issues before us, and I urge the Committee to support our amendments.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Marion. We have reached almost a stalemate. The arguments have been made on both sides and there seems to be little give. I was disappointed that the Minister was unable to give any comfort to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North that changes could be made between the Committee and Report stages.

It is not right to legislate on the basis of the worst possible scenario. In this case, the worst possible scenario would be an English commissioner at complete loggerheads with a commissioner in Wales, resulting in turf wars. I am sure that there is plenty of provision in the Bill for sorting out that situation. However, neither is it right to legislate on the basis of the best scenario, which would be of a happy, charming Minister in the Wales Office, a charming Minister in the appropriate Department and commissioners who get on well together and are able to work for the benefit of children. It is therefore important for the Bill to provide a better idea of how things will work in practice. The Minister tells us that it is fine, and that it is working in practice. However, the legislation does not concur with what is happening at present; if there were greater concurrence, the state of affairs would be happier for children in Wales and in England.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I, too, am extremely disappointed that the Minister indicated that there will be no further study of the proposals, nor any further effort made to reach an agreement by which all the people involved in the different countries can come together. It would be simple to devise a solution that satisfied everyone. The proposals as they stand are disappointing.

In general, I think that the Bill is good, and I want to rejoice with everyone else about it. However, it is a shame that there could not have been more flexibility over these issues, so that a solution could be reached which satisfied people in Wales in particular. I intend to support the Government's amendments, which, where they insert ''in England'', improve the situation by making it much clearer. However, I want to register my strong feeling that Government new clause 27 will make the situation for Welsh children confusing and will not be a step forward.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 177, in

clause 4, page 3, line 39, 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.'

No. 178, in

clause 4, page 3, line 41, leave out from 'section' to 'with' in line 42.

No. 13, in

clause 4, page 4, line 1, leave out subsections (8) and (9).—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Other inquiries held by Commissioner

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in

clause 5, page 4, line 14, leave out 'direct' and insert 'require'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 15, in

clause 5, page 4, line 21, after 'must', insert

'as soon as is reasonably practicable'.

Government amendment No. 181.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Dame Marion, not because the previous Chairman was no good, but because it is always good to see you in the Chair. You may have missed all the high jinks this morning, when the Government hijacked all our amendments, but they have not hijacked amendments Nos. 14 and 15.

We think that there is an anomaly in the language of subsection (1), which states:

''Where the Secretary of State considers that the case of an individual child in England''—

the last two words were added by one of the amendments hijacked in our earlier debate—

''raises issues of relevance to other children, he may direct the Children's Commissioner to hold an inquiry into that case.''

That appears to be contrary to all the warm words that we have heard from the Government in underpinning the supposed independence of the commissioner. We are therefore keen for the Minister to explain why—

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We are keen for the Minister to explain why the Government found it necessary to use the word ''direct'' in subsection (1), in the sense of directing the commissioner to hold an inquiry into an individual case. No commissioner in the other countries of the UK—or, indeed, in the other nations of Europe where such commissioners operate—can be directed or controlled in the way suggested by that wording. It is in direct conflict with the commissioner's independence and is unnecessary, because the

Secretary of State has existing powers to establish judicial-style inquiries and can invite the commissioner to carry out the work.

When the issue was raised on Third Reading in another place, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, the then Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, said:

''We do not envisage forcing the commissioner to do something against his or her will. Of course there would be discussion, debate and dialogue before any such direction was issued.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2004; Vol. 663, c. 1440.]

In that case, why must the Bill contain the word ''direct''? The Government can use debate and dialogue to persuade the commissioner to use his or her independent power under clause 4, which we have covered, to establish a formal inquiry. There can be only one purpose in retaining clause 5 as drafted: to give this and successive Governments legal power to force—another word for ''direct''—the commissioner to undertake an inquiry against his or her judgment. Amendment No. 14 would replace the word ''direct'' with ''require'', which is more in the spirit of the independence of the commissioner, as the Minister will no doubt agree but have some technical reason for wriggling out of.

Turning to amendment No. 15, for once the Government have not tried to hijack our amendment but have come up with one of their own—No. 181. It seems to want to achieve the same purpose as our amendment but with a different formulation: it would insert ''as soon as possible'' rather than the slightly more longwinded phrase ''as soon as is reasonably practicable'' in the context of Secretary of State publishing reports that he has received from the commissioner.

I am perfectly amenable to being told, for technical reasons, that the Government's wording is more legally appropriate, but I am less convinced that they will be able to come up with a case against amendment No. 14, as the Minister would not want to be accused of being unduly prescriptive.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Marion. With your indulgence, I would like speak to both clause stand part and the amendments.

I am inclined to resist the amendments, because they undermine the independence of the commissioner. That is such a vital point—

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. Would the hon. Lady speak just a little more loudly so that we can all hear what she is saying?

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

I apologise, Dame Marion.

We want an independent commissioner, and omitting the word ''require'' and substituting ''direct'' would not achieve the purpose that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham intends. Having any requirement or direction conflicts with the commissioner's independence. Obviously, the Secretary of State, can make a request, and I do not see how the Children's Commissioner could refuse a request. A request does not need to be in legislation

and I therefore feel that the entire proposal should be deleted. My hon. Friends and I will vote against clause stand part.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. I cannot understand why this extraordinary clause is in the Bill, as it utterly undermines the independence of the Children's Commissioner. I am not aware of any other children's commissioner in the world who works under a requirement by which they can be made to undertake an inquiry by the Secretary of State. We want a commissioner who is a thorn in the side of Government and that cannot possibly equate with his being required to do something by Government. If the commissioner is to be there for children and to listen to them, I do not see how on earth the Bill can have a requirement in the clause.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is it not better to have someone to whom the Secretary of State may direct such a request or a requirement for an inquiry, rather than merely leaving it in the hands of the Secretary of State to pick someone—perhaps a noble Lord or a former Cabinet Secretary—to undertake the inquiry on his behalf?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Lord Laming did a thoroughly good job of the Climbie report but spent a colossal amount of time doing so. He could not have done anything with his time for many months other than conduct the inquiry, and that is part of my point. How can we seriously put a Children's Commissioner in such a position? He will make a commitment to children, timetable many meetings and discussions with the UK Youth Parliament, youth forums and young people throughout the country, and perhaps decide to work on a particular topic that young people have identified as important to them. Then he will suddenly have to say, ''I'm sorry, it's all off: meetings aren't going to happen, reports aren't going to be written and issues aren't going to be discussed because the Secretary of State requires me to do something else.''

That cannot possibly be right. If this is a Children's Commissioner, he should work to children's priorities, not the Secretary of State's. The Secretary of State might want to raise all sorts of important issues, but with all due respect he has a huge range of eminent people from which to choose to conduct such inquiries. If the Secretary of State firmly believes that the commissioner should take up a particular inquiry, he should not just direct or discuss the issue with him—let him darn well go out to the children and young people of this country and ask them if it is a priority for them that the commissioner takes the issue on.

The provision utterly compromises the commissioner's independence and is a fundamental flaw in the proposal. As I said to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales earlier, I firmly believe that it will undermine any efforts for co-operation with other commissioners across the United Kingdom, let alone Europe or the rest of the world. In particular, I cannot see the other UK commissioners, who have been given independence by their bodies, being willing to engage with somebody who does not

have such independence or agreeing to any protocols on joint working that include someone who can be directed not by children but by the state to develop a line of inquiry. Clause 5 is completely wrong and should be dismissed.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Dame Marion. I am particularly pleased as you and I hold much in common. I gather that our photographs are next to each other in the school that we both attended, and until I looked you up I had not realised that you stood for election in my wonderful constituency in 1979, presumably when the late Jo Richardson won. I am delighted to work under your chairmanship. There may be a conflict of interest. We are probably the only two who ever went to that school.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Two what?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Two extremely successful women.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

Absolutely.

I want first to respond to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), because I am astounded by their contributions. We have spent a lot of time over the past day and a half discussing whether the commissioner should investigate individual cases. We are now talking about a situation in which there is an individual case of such national significance and import that the Secretary of State would want the commissioner to investigate it, and I suddenly hear the argument that we do not want the commissioner to spend all his time looking at individual cases. That is precisely the argument that I held in the opposite direction. I cannot understand it; I fail to see the logic of the argument that is being made by two people for whom I have enormous respect.

Our reason for saying that should the Secretary of State require the commissioner to undertake such an inquiry, there would be additional funding for it—I think that that was mentioned in an earlier debate—was to ensure that the commissioner's resources could not be eaten up in pursuit of a particular inquiry, however important it might be. We cannot have our cake and eat it. One can argue either that the commissioner should investigate no individual complaints—the Government have conceded that in both clause 4 and clause 5—or that he should be free to do so. One cannot argue that in one case he can but in another he cannot.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful to the Minister. I am not sure whether I am one of the people whom she is endeavouring to name and shame. I did not speak about individual cases. Can she confirm, because she would not tell us for sure on Tuesday, that if additional funds are to be allocated to the Children's Commissioner, they will be given purely as

supplementary funds for the additional work that he is being required to do, and for no other purposes will his work be directed and those funds be ring-fenced? She would not give that undertaking on Tuesday, but she is now trying to suggest that she did.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

The point that I just made was that were the commissioner to be asked to undertake an investigation into a case of such national significance that the Secretary of State believed it warranted an inquiry, additional funding would be available. There is no intention for the Secretary of State or any Minister to intervene in how the commissioner chooses to expend the general budget that we have set, so long as he does so within the general functions that we determine.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

In an effort to re-trek across the parallel universe that we seem to be inhabiting, can the Minister tell me, given that she supports clause 5 so strongly, whether she seriously believes that the Children's Commissioner is independent of Government?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

Yes, I do. Time will tell whether it is my judgment or my hon. Friend's that is right.

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

Does the Minister accept what the clause empowers successive Secretaries of State to do? It puts into somebody's hands the enormous power to demand an inquiry that might be against the judgment of the appointed Children's Commissioner. If I am reading that correctly, I should be grateful for her comments. Does she have no concerns about that, for the future, if not for now?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I will respond to the issue of substance, which I think was the purpose of the amendment. The Secretary of State already has the enormous power to determine whether he will hold an inquiry into a particular case if he believes that it warrants it; he holds that power now. The issue that we are discussing is whether the commissioner is the appropriate person to undertake such inquiries, so let us deal with that under amendment No. 14.

I accept the purpose for which the amendment was tabled. However, I am told that the lawyers say that the difference between ''direct'' and ''require'' is pretty non-existent. Why have we chosen to put the word ''direct'' into the clause? This is a limited power to allow the Secretary of State to require the Children's Commissioner to lead an inquiry into a matter of such gravity that he feels an inquiry is appropriate. It is an extremely limited power. It adds to the Secretary of State's options for finding effective leadership to undertake exercises of this importance. It also has the significant practical advantage for the commissioner of creating a moral—if not a legal—obligation on the Secretary of State to fund such an inquiry properly with supplementary financial provisions, rather than expecting the commissioner to fund it from his annual budget.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I hear what the Minister says, but what is the difference between the Secretary of State's existing power to establish judicial-style inquiries, as

with Lord Laming, which would be funded directly, and getting the Children's Commissioner to do it? In what circumstances does she envisage that she would want the Children's Commissioner to be told to hold an inquiry that he is reluctant to initiate himself, that could not be achieved by appointing a Lord Laming-type inquiry which he already has the powers to do?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

One of the purposes of establishing a Children's Commissioner is that we have a function within the landscape that will develop a specific expertise for carrying out the sort of inquiries that Lord Laming did so effectively in relation to the death of Victoria Climbie. If we create that function, the Children's Commissioner seems the obvious person whom the Secretary of State would ask to undertake the inquiry. Undoubtedly there are other experienced people in the House of Lords or elsewhere who could do the work, but if we have a specific body established to protect children's interests, surely it is the obvious body to which to turn if there is a case of such importance that we want to have a proper inquiry to look at its national significance.

As Lady Ashton said in the other place, in reality the Secretary of State would want to discuss the matter with the commissioner to ensure that they reach a mutual understanding. I find it extremely difficult to envisage any situation where the Secretary of State considered that the case was of such importance that it warranted a national inquiry and the commissioner did not concur with that view. Perhaps other hon. Members can help me.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister makes the point exactly—so why put it into the Bill where there are two fallbacks? First, the Secretary of State can order a judicial inquiry by Lord Laming's equivalents; and secondly, it would be part of the performance-related material and could count against the commissioner in an assessment. There are two checks and balances there, so why does it need to be put so forcefully when it appears so prescriptive in the Bill?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

In the situation where Parliament and the public express such horror and concern about a particular incident, the Government should be seen to respond on behalf of us all in a strong and measured way. Having that power of direction reflects the gravity of the sort of case we envisage being subject to a specific inquiry directed by the Secretary of State and hence we have used those words.

A lot has been made of that issue. I ask that amendment No. 14 be not pushed to a vote not only because it will make no difference in practice but so that hon. Members understand the intent behind the phraseology of the clause, and its importance as it stands.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Unless I have missed something, that seems merely to be so that the Secretary of State can show that he is doing something. That is the tenor of what the Minister said to my hon. Friend.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

The Secretary of State can do something in any case; he has that power. In the instance of a grave and terrible tragedy, which is the sort of situation that might require such an inquiry, the gravity of the case would require us to have a stronger response—so requiring the commissioner to undertake an inquiry is appropriate.

The intent of the Opposition's amendment No. 15 and ours is the same. As I said when speaking to an earlier amendment—this is lawyers' heyday stuff—our wording more appropriately meets the intent of the Opposition Members who tabled amendment No. 15. The words ''as soon as possible'' would make it a duty to do everything one could to make it a priority, whereas

''as soon as is reasonably practicable''

could be interpreted as less pressing, and would allow one to take other matters into account and to prioritise on the basis of what one could reasonably do. Given that the intent is the same, and that the advice of parliamentary draftsmen is that our wording would give better effect to that intent, I hope that we can agree to the Government amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

It has been an interesting debate, but I am not altogether convinced at the end of it. We have heard some rather weak arguments. I think that the cat was let out of the bag when, in justifying her comments to my hon. Friend just now, the Minister said that in such grave circumstances it would be appropriate to ''require'' the commissioner to conduct an inquiry. That is the very word that we used in our amendment, not ''direct''. She makes the legalese point—we must take officials' word for it—that there is little difference in drafting between ''require'' and ''direct''. That is as may be. Certainly there are enough people who are better versed than me in such matters who think that the word ''direct'' is unduly prescriptive and would feel much happier with the word ''require'', but I think that there is a difference. However, she tells me that she accepts the meaning of the amendment.

I also accept her point about the difference between

''as soon as is reasonably practicable''

and ''as soon as possible''. We shall not argue the toss over that one. However, I am not happy that she has made a suitable case against amendment No. 14, although her language suggests that she agrees with the thrust of what we are saying. I shall not push the amendment to a vote, and we may return to it on Report. However, she might like to reflect on the language, as the amendment would not compromise her position but might send out some good messages to those who set a lot of store by the wording.

We did not agree with striking out the whole clause, although I can entirely see why some Government and Liberal Democrat Members want to do so, because they think that it completely compromises the independence of the commissioner. If that were the case, I would have a good deal of sympathy with that position, because of the five principles that I set out this morning on how the legislation relating to the commissioner would be judged. If we simply struck

out clause 5, we would lose some strategic elements, because there are no replacement amendments to insert some of those aspects. For example, the clause authorises the commissioner to hold inquiries in private where appropriate, such as if there are sensitive issues with particular children. Where a child's identity might be compromised, there are various courses of action that could be taken under subsection (5).

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Are those issues not catered for in clause 4—''Inquiries initiated by Commissioner''—and certain subsections of clause 2?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We are dealing with different sorts of inquiries. The wording is slightly different, so I am not sure about that, but the hon. Gentleman has raised a good point, which is why the Government must reflect on the wording of the amendment. We have already had a big argument about clause 4(8) and (9) and the issue of devolution, which I shall not return to.

The wording of the clause is unsatisfactory. I hope that rather than having to vote against the clause, the Government will come back on Report with a reworded clause to reflect our concerns and those of other hon. Members. If they are not prepared to do that, there will be a good case for voting against it on Report.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Given that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to support the clause to the extent of not voting against it, does he share my concern that somebody who can be required or directed to inquire into grave cases no longer has the facility to base their interests on children's rights after the amendments made yesterday?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I heard the points that the hon. Gentleman made and we are sympathetic to each other's cases. That is why, for the purposes of getting on to another clause that does not involve the Children's Commissioner—we are almost halfway through the time allocated for this stage of the Bill—I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I reserve the right to return to the issue on Report when we may raise our concerns again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 181, in

clause 5, page 4, line 22, at end insert 'as soon as possible'.

No. 182, in

clause 5, page 4, line 34, leave out from 'section' to end of line 46.—[Margaret Hodge.]

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Clause 7 - Co-operation to improve well-being

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 24, in

clause 7, page 5, line 22, after 'partners', insert 'to include voluntary organisations'.

At last, we have reached part 2, about halfway through our proceedings. The clause deals with the principle of joined-up approaches between the professionals—the various agencies and bodies involved in child protection and promoting the welfare of children.

Amendment No. 24 is a probing amendment. Many voluntary organisations involved with children's welfare have made representations about the clause, because they feel that voluntary partners should be mentioned in the Bill—as it stands, they are not. I am sure that the Government are mindful of the good work and essential involvement of voluntary bodies in this area. Without them—be it the NSPCC, Barnardo's or any of the wealth of other voluntary bodies—much of what we are trying to achieve would not be possible.

Amendment No. 24 would therefore include the mention of voluntary organisations. I know what the Government will say: that that would give undue preference to a particular body of people. On Tuesday, we were told that even parents would not be afforded any particular recognition; they do not occupy a special place in our attitudes towards children. If even parents cannot get mentioned in part 1, I am not optimistic that voluntary organisations will be included in part 2. However, we keep on trying, because we believe that voluntary organisations play a particularly important role, and that it would be useful for them to be named.

On occasions, conflicts occur between a commissioning local authority and particular voluntary organisations. Local authorities may, on the one hand, view voluntary organisations as merely cheap labour to provide services—they provide those services very well—or, on the other hand, may ignore them if they are not required. Both positions are

equally untenable. We believe that including voluntary organisations in the Bill would strengthen it and would also remind the various authorities and agencies of Government that voluntary partners are essential to make the joined-up approach work. That is why I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I welcome you to the Chair, Dame Marion. I am confident in saying that you and I never attended the same school, and equally confident in saying that none of the schools that I attended have ever put up my picture.

I also say to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that, since I am dealing with the clause, he is right not to be optimistic. However, I agree with him about the importance of voluntary organisations: they are vital if we are to deliver on this agenda. They need to be involved not just as providers of services but in commissioning and developing strategy and policy. However, we cannot support the amendment, because to include voluntary organisations in the Bill would be to treat them as a cohesive group, which they are not. If we expected the partners to treat them as such, they would have to choose between them and would find that difficult. In addition, the Bill is a two-way street. It imposes responsibilities as well as rights on the partners.

Under the amendment, voluntary organisations would be expected to fulfil certain duties, but many would not be able to fulfil their part of the bargain, even though they could still make a valuable contribution as part of the overall strategy. That is why subsection (1)(c) provides for the inclusion of voluntary organisations in a sustainable way. We support such involvement and have undertaken to produce guidance that will say clearly that voluntary organisations should be part of the co-operative partnership that we are trying to create. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Those are perfectly practical responses to the amendment. The recognition of the importance of voluntary organisations is welcome and probably the most that we can expect at this stage. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I beg to move amendment No. 59, in

clause 7, page 5, line 25, at end insert—

'(d) neighbouring children's services authorities particularly when boundaries between the authorities are crossed by relevant partners.'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 23, in

clause 7, page 5, line 25, at end insert—

'(1A) This section also applies to children in the authority's care but placed outside that authority area whilst in their care.'.

Amendment No. 60, in

clause 7, page 5, line 27, after 'children', insert

'living in or becoming known to agencies'.

Amendment No. 215, in

clause 7, page 6, line 7, leave out 'for England' and insert

'for the area any part of which falls within the area of the children's services authority'.

Amendment No. 33, in

clause 8, page 7, line 4, after 'children', insert—

'(aa) considerations apply equally to children in the care of the children's services authority who are being looked after out of that authority's geographical area, and regulations will specify procedures for the responsible body.'.

New clause 9—Children's services in England—

'(1) Where a children's services authority is a county council it must publish a plan for the devolution of co-operative arrangements to improve the well-being of children in the authority's area to district or primary care trust level.

(2) This devolved plan shall be reviewed every 4 years and the results of that review published.'.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I am pleased that we have moved on to discuss clause 7, which is an estimable and wonderful clause that I do not criticise in any way whatever.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

It is too late now.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

In lots of senses.

I support the clause, which is fundamental to developing the new world of high-quality, integrated and child-centred children's services that we hope the Bill will bring about, but there are clearly ways in which it could be improved. I am sometimes frustrated when reading Government documents, and that was particularly the case when I read the Green Paper, because many of the references to local government seemed to be to fairly small metropolitan boroughs and boroughs that had the great good fortune of being coterminous with key partners. Unfortunately, life is not like that in large parts of the country.

My aim in amendment No. 59, therefore, is to promote co-operation not only with the authority's relevant partners and other bodies that exercise functions in relation to children in the authority's area but with neighbouring authorities. I am thinking in particular of county councils that share boundaries with primary care trusts or that share a police authority. Just from practical, everyday experience, I recommend the amendment as a sensible move to ensure that there is co-ordination and cohesion between those bodies and that we do not have a body such as Morecambe Bay primary care trust working across a very large rural area and having to relate not only to three districts but to two children's services authorities that perhaps have different priorities and ways of operating. It is essential to try to ensure that there is co-operation.

Along the same lines, new clause 9 addresses itself to my local situation. We have a huge county council in Lancashire, which encompasses 12 districts and eight primary care trusts. I have lived in the area and worked for the authority, and I simply do not believe that it is possible to build co-operative arrangements in an area of such a size and complexity and with such different relationships and interrelationships without trying to ensure an effective form of devolution.

New clause 9 is an attempt to be helpful and to try and make things work on the ground. It would provide that county councils should publish a plan for the devolution of co-operative arrangements for the key partners to a level that makes more sense to people than the entire county council area. That devolution would be to district level where all the partners are engaged and where, crucially, the children, parents and people working at the coal face have the opportunity to build good relationships on a day-to-day basis.

Without the devolution and co-operation across boundaries that I have been talking about, what we all want to happen—the transformation of children's services—will be much more difficult. That would be the case particularly in the rural areas and shire counties of this country.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's case, but I want to deal more nationally with the problem that he has identified. That is the purpose of our amendments Nos. 23 and 33, which have the same aims of co-operation as clauses 7 and 8.

On Second Reading, I mentioned the real problem children placed out of area by an authority, and I think that the Minister took the point on board. I cited the example of what has been happening in my part of the world in west Sussex and specifically in Worthing in my constituency where a number of private children's homes have sprung up, the occupants of which appear to be getting disproportionately entangled with the law. That is not to make a specific comment on those people, but it is certainly a comment on the nature of the care that they are receiving, or more likely not receiving, in those private children's homes.

I gave the figures, which are from the Government, that the year before last there were 1,172 registered private children's homes, and last year the number had risen to 1,956. That is an enormous leap—it is a growth market. The chief inspector of police in Worthing told me two months ago that 23 per cent. of his monthly crime figures was committed by half a dozen teenage boys who supposedly resided in those private children's homes. That suggests that the standard of care is falling far short of what is required.

I have spoken to colleagues who have experienced the same problems, and we have taken the issue up with the Commission for Social Care Inspection, which is examining the problem. What is happening is that the line of accountability between the placing authority and the place where the looked-after young person ends up is very grey. Technically, responsibility should be with the placing authority that has the teenager in care and then places them out of area because of the suitability or availability of children's accommodation elsewhere. However, the minute that the young person leaves the authority's geographical zone and the cheque for his or her care is signed, the interest that the authority shows in the subsequent behaviour of that child falls well below the standards that we would expect.

Typically, the London authority placing a young person in a home in Worthing—I will not name names—does not appear to be doing the checks that we would hope for. So when the young person goes ''off the rails''—we should define that term—the finger of responsibility is pointed at West Sussex social services, which technically has no responsibility for that young person. There is no obligation on the placing authority even to tell West Sussex social services or West Sussex council that the person has been placed in that council's territory. It has been calculated, although we cannot tell for sure, that more than 200 such placements are made in West Sussex alone, and if something goes wrong, the local social services department is asked why it is not doing something about it. If the teenager gets into trouble, the local police then have to do something about it, and the local magistrates court increasingly has its time taken up dealing with the young people who fall foul of the law. That is in nobody's interests; it is certainly not in the interests of the host authority or its professionals, or of the placing authority and, most important, it is not in the interests of the young person or child who is placed out of area.

The purpose of the amendment is to try to ensure that the children's services authorities do not just promote co-operation between the neighbouring authorities—a children's services authority, a primary care trust, another health institution and so on—which have day-to-day managerial arrangements in common, but actually have to promote co-operation with the host authority where the looked-after children or young people are placed. That point not clear in the Bill as drafted. The line of accountability is technically defined in Government regulations but, in practice, it is falling down. The amendment would remind placing authorities that they have a duty to co-operate and to pay greater regard to the well-being and the future of their looked-after children, even though they are out of sight—out of sight but not out of mind, to coin the phrase.

The amendment is important because it would tackle a very real problem. Technically, there may be problems with the wording of the amendment or its place in the Bill, but the Government need to take the problem on board and address it. They could do so by accepting the amendment, which goes to the heart of our approach to the problem of how to ''join up'' all the professionals in caring for looked-after children, particularly those who are especially problematic, such as the young people I have been talking about.

The amendment is constructive and helpful; I hope that the Minister will take it on board and give us words of encouragement. Many hon. Members will have experienced the same problems in their constituencies.

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

I support the amendments. I am particularly concerned about the criss-crossing of boundaries. Some county councils work very well with district councils, others do not. The situation is patchy across the country, as are the workings of different health authorities. The amendments have a lot to contribute to finding a solution.

We heard on Second Reading of the tragedy of cases in which children may be placed out of London when they have just started with foster parents. I do not know the best way to tackle that problem, but it is right to raise these issues, because young people are falling through the gap. They are being blamed for their activities but do not get any support, and I am sympathetic to the view that we must do something about that.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

When we consulted on ''Every child matters'', we received a very clear message from respondents that we needed to focus on outcomes rather than structures, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre would agree. That is why we have tried to create a duty to co-operate and to promote co-operation without being prescriptive about the structures that people must create to do that. There are different circumstances in different parts of the country, such as varying local pressures and boundary arrangements. Although amendments Nos. 59 and 60 seek to promote co-operation, which I support, they attempt to be prescriptive. Our thrust is not to be prescriptive, but to expect partnerships to measure themselves against outcomes. If outcomes were not delivered, we would expect partnerships to change.

Co-operation needs a geographic focus and local authority boundaries are different. As my hon. Friend said, many partners do not have coterminous boundaries—for example, primary care trusts often do not have coterminous boundaries with local authorities—but we still have to create a partnership that works and makes sense locally. If he is asking whether, in an ideal world, we would start from where we are now, the answer is no. We would start by redesigning the boundaries of our councils and organisations and making them all coterminous. In that case, simple arrangements would be in place that we could put into the Bill. However, that is not the situation, so his amendments would be overly prescriptive in attempting to create the partnership rather than allowing it to meet local needs.

New clause 9 would, to some extent, impose a Lancaster model on the various partners. Since he drew on his experience in supporting his amendment, I shall give an example from my constituency. My constituency is in Kent—a large part is in Thanet; a small part is in Dover. Some parts of the partnership that we seek to create in Kent would want to take a countywide view of the issues. Equally, some issues would have to be devolved to the district council level on a Thanet or Dover basis. We also organise some things on the basis of east Kent—an area that covers Thanet, Dover and Canterbury—because that best suits us in local working and suits our geography.

Although I entirely accept what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve, I encourage him to withdraw his amendment and accept that the more general duty that we have put in the Bill will allow people to create the partnerships that are needed in his, and everybody else's, area. We must measure the success of those

partnerships against outcomes and test them against whether they deliver for children—the only thing that matters. The formula in the Bill better reflects that.

Turning to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I again have a great deal of sympathy for what he is trying to achieve because I have exactly the same problem in my constituency, where there are a huge number of children's homes. Children are usually placed there from the London boroughs and, very occasionally, some children cause tensions in local communities. Historically, some of those homes have not been managed as well as they ought to have been. Surely the way to deal with that is to use the appropriate mechanisms—for example the Commission for Social Care Inspection, the Care Standards Act 2000 and other legal frameworks that we have put in place to ensure that we drive up standards.

I doubt whether it would be appropriate to put the duties that the hon. Gentleman is talking about in this Bill alongside the general arrangements to encourage co-operation, because there are existing laws. He may well argue that we are not enforcing those laws well enough, and I have some sympathy with that view, from a constituency perspective. However, part 3 of the Children Act 1989 deals with that: section 27 requires co-operation between local authorities—although he may argue that we must enforce that better. The Act's placement regulations cover that area of work. Again, he may well argue that they should be enforced better, and I might not disagree with him. However, the amendments that he proposes would be out of place in this Bill, and would not achieve the outcomes that he is looking for.

Finally, there is another amendment in this group: perhaps I shall not refer to it as it has not been raised.

Mr. Turner rose—

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Does the hon. Gentleman want to comment on it now?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The reason why I did not raise amendment No. 215 was that I thought it was self-explanatory, and I invite the Minister to respond to it anyway.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

In that case, I am happy to do so. First, though, I should like to correct something that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said—that there was no obligation on the placing authority to notify the host authority where a child is placed. There is such an obligation. Perhaps I can write to him with chapter and verse on where that obligation arises from so that he can use that information in future discussions with his local agencies.

Amendment No. 215 is flawed because there is one Learning and Skills Council for the whole of England. It happens to have 47 local arms, but there is one organisation for the whole country. The wording includes the 47 local arms by default, so it is not necessary to amend the Bill. As an aside, the amendment would in fact change the name of the

Learning and Skills Council in the process, so for that reason, if for no other, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press it.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Thank you.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am glad that the Minister has sympathy with the thrust of the amendments. Clearly, the procedure is not happening: I pointed out that the systems are in place but are not working. He said that this is not an appropriate Bill in which to raise the matter, but I think that it is the most appropriate Bill in which to do so because we aim to look after the most vulnerable children. Some of the children whom I have described are among the most vulnerable, for all the reasons that we discussed earlier. I do not see why it would be inappropriate to replicate, enforce and strengthen what he says is already in the 1989 Act, by putting it into a new, more appropriate context here. I take his point but I am not entirely convinced by it.

The Minister also refers to the Commission for Social Care Inspection as the appropriate investigating authority. That is true, but its role is primarily to look at the standard of the homes themselves. That is one thing, although in a ministerial answer, I will be told that the level of inspections of some of those homes is high. When I raised the matter in a previous debate, pointing out that 46 per cent. of unannounced inspections of private children's homes had not been carried out by CSCI's predecessor body, I received a very curt letter from the previous head of that body pointing out that my statistics were wrong. I politely responded to her that I had obtained them from her own annual report. My contention is that the system is clearly not working.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I certainly take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about enforcement not happening, and we must move forward on that. My right hon. Friend has already taken steps to start to look at how that can be improved. The hon. Gentleman should not forget that the Commission for Social Care Inspection includes not only the National Care Standards Council—one of the predecessor bodies to which he refers—but the social services inspectorate, previously in the Department of Health, so CSCI's role, working with other partners such as Ofsted and the Healthcare Commission, will be to inspect both sides of the equation. It will inspect both the councils and the providers of care. It has an opportunity that the predecessor bodies did not have.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I entirely take that point, but as far as I know, it will not investigate the links between a placing and a host authority. We do not say that the placing authority or the host authority is no good. We say that the links between the placing and the host authorities leave a lot to be desired. I do not think that the two bodies that the Minister mentioned have a role to play, which is why it is appropriate to place a duty in the Bill to ensure that there is some linking up.

The whole Bill is about the joined-up approach and where the buck stops. I will not press the amendments, but I hope that the Government will take this on board. One solution to all of this is to ensure that we get many more and better foster carers so that children can stay with them closer to home. The whole problem then wonderfully disappears. That is for another debate. I am pleased about the Government's comments, but we need to see some more cohesive action.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I am reassured that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendments. I want to give him some further reassurance that the links between the commissioners and the providers are very important. We are about to start consulting on a draft circular to remind authorities of their responsibility in ensuring that these links exist.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is very helpful. I should be interested to see that. The impression I was given by the relevant agencies in my part of the world was that there was no duty on a placing authority to report to the host authority. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me with the relevant regulations so that I can point them out to them.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I am sorry to sound prescriptive to my hon. Friend. All I was trying to prescribe was that decisions about the lives of children and families are generally best made closest to where they live and involving the co-operation of all partners and all organisations that might have something to do with it. I know as well as I know anything that my proposal would be the right thing to do across a large part of the country. I am sorry that he cannot take this any further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I beg to move amendment No. 132, in

clause 7, page 5, line 28, at end insert 'and emotional well-being'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 133 and 144.

Amendment No. 103, in

clause 21, page 16, line 11, after '(e)', insert 'emotional'.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

As I said, on the last group, the Government based the Bill on outcomes, particularly the outcomes that children told us were important. Their Lordships decided in their wisdom to add an outcome that children had not told us about. In the context of a Bill where we are supposed to be listening to children, I thought that said something about the House of Lords. Nevertheless, emotional well-being is important. We are happy that it remains in the Bill but their Lordships put it in what we considered to be an illogical place, so the amendments move it to a more logical place. Equally, their Lordships were obviously working from the map produced by the European Union that omitted Wales, because they forgot that Wales existed in the Bill. They did not include their

amendment in clause 21. Our amendment here does for Wales what their Lordships' amendment does for England.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 133, in

clause 7, page 5, line 32, leave out 'emotional,'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 25, in

clause 7, page 5, line 32, at end insert—

'(f) housing and accommodation'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 200, in

clause 7, page 5, line 32, at end insert—

'(f) housing needs'.

New clause 37—Assessment of children in need—

'After section 213A(3) of the Housing Act 1996 (c.52), insert—

''(3A) Upon receiving a referral under subsection (2) or (3), the social services authority shall carry out an assessment of the needs of the child or children in question for the purposes of Part 3 of the Children Act 1989.''.'.

New clause 38—Provision of housing assistance for children in need—

'After section 17(6) of the Children Act 1989 (c.41), insert—

''(6A) Where a child is in need because, or partly because, he has no accommodation, in exercising their powers under subsection (6), the authority shall have regard in particular to the following factors—

(a) the objectives specified in subsection (1);

(b) the effects upon the child of his lack of adequate accommodation;

(c) the benefit to the child of being accommodated together with other members of his household;

(d) the relative cost to the authority of providing accommodation for the child with other members of his household and of accommodating the child under section 20;

(e) the rights of the child and of others under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

(6B) Where an authority has reason to believe that a child may be a child in need because, or partly because, he has no accommodation, they shall have the power to provide accommodation or appropriate assistance on an interim basis pending an assessment of the child's needs under section 213A(3A) of the Housing Act 1996.

(6C) Where an authority declines to provide services under this section or decides to provide services other than those requested, whether on an interim basis or otherwise, they shall give reasons in writing for their decision.''.'.

New clause 39—Appointment of designated liaison officer by housing authorities—

'Any housing authority for the area covered by the children's service authority must appoint a designated officer to liaise between all registered social housing providers within the housing authority area and the children's service authority.'.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The amendment relates to subsection (2), which concerns the improvement of the well-being of children in an authority's area according to a certain set of criteria. A number of representations have been made concerning the omission of an obvious criterion: housing and accommodation. We therefore seek to remedy that omission by the addition of a paragraph (f).

If we asked GPs about the things that we could do to improve the health of children, particularly in inner-city areas, many would answer: improve the standard

of housing. Many health-related problems, particularly in inner cities, are connected with poor or damp housing or other housing issues such as the availability of suitable heating. That is an important consideration, which is why we seek to add housing and accommodation to the key criteria in subsection (2).

Poor housing can cause all sorts of physical problems and also mental health problems and stress, which may lead to antisocial behaviour. It seems odd that housing and accommodation have been missed out completely as considerations to which local authorities should have regard in promoting co-operation in the interests of the well-being of children. They are obvious candidates to add to the list, and their inclusion is supported by many outside bodies concerned with children. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) has tabled an amendment that refers to housing need, so there is support from both sides of the Committee. I hope, therefore, that the Minister can explain why housing and accommodation have not been included, or how that issue has been taken account of in other parts of the Bill.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

May I be perhaps the last today to welcome you to the Chair, Dame Marion?

I want to say a few words about amendment No. 200 and new clauses 37 and 38. The intention behind the amendment is to include housing in the list of criteria as a key factor in promoting children's well-being. Lord Laming pointed to the relationship between housing and social services; when families have been placed in temporary accommodation, that is one of the factors that contributes towards difficulties. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to that.

Moreover, the Government's intentions as expressed in ''Every child matters'' identified homelessness as a key risk factor in poor outcomes for children, so it is somewhat surprising that housing has not been included in the Bill. Dame Denise Platt, the chair of the Commission for Social Care Inspection, has also suggested that the Bill does not adequately address housing issues.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families acknowledged in May in Community Care magazine that she did not think that we had yet done enough about housing. My reason for wanting to raise the issue is that I think that housing is likely to become an increasing problem, particularly with the application of antisocial behaviour legislation. Clamping down on unacceptable behaviour by tenants can produce the by-product of children who are inappropriately housed.

One example of that is that of a constituent, a single mum with a chaotic lifestyle, who has twice been evicted from council housing and is therefore classed as intentionally homeless. She now lives in bed-and-breakfast accommodation with five children, one of whom has autism, at a cost of £700 a week to Suffolk

social care services. I do not want to drive a coach and horses through the antisocial behaviour policies, but I think that we need agencies to respond properly to such situations. To what extent are the Government aware of the scale of this problem? Has any research into appropriate family support solutions been undertaken? Are any statistics available? The purpose of this probing amendment is to find out the Government thinking on those issues.

With new clauses 37 and 38, I seek to improve housing assistance processes. I stress that these may be appropriate solutions other than housing itself, such as interim accommodation or advice and assistance. We do not want the alternative to end up being the taking of children into care, as that runs against the spirit of what we are trying to achieve with the Bill.

As has already been said, although there are some good social care practices across the UK, Shelter and other bodies have drawn attention to the fact that some may be patchy at best. New clause 37 would amend legislation concerning a duty of co-operation to make it clear that, when a family is referred to social services under that legislation, an assessment must be carried out .

New clause 38 would strengthen the power to provide housing assistance through rent deposits or other guarantees. It sets out a framework in which to consider the effects on the child of inadequate housing, and the costs and benefits of housing the child and family together. It is often felt that the weakness of the current legislative framework is used by some social care authorities to do little or nothing in such circumstances. The new clause would add to legislation not a duty to provide accommodation, but a set of factors that should be considered in deciding what response to make.

Does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health acknowledge those issues? What do the Government plan to do to develop responses that go beyond traditional social care assessment and seek truly to address the family circumstances that led to the intentionally homeless situation in the first place, whether through legislation, guidance or stronger protocols at a local authority level? At the very least, the commissioning of some research would be welcome.

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

I am very supportive of the concepts behind these amendments. It is essential that housing is included in the Bill, but it is difficult to put it in. I am concerned that amendments Nos. 25 and 200 would put housing, which is a means, among outcomes. As much as I appreciate the arguments, I do not think that they work.

I support entirely the principles behind new clauses 37 and 38. I have heard some harrowing stories from Shelter about children being taken into care. I am interested to hear the Minister's response to that, and hope that we will consider it in some detail.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. Could the hon. Lady please raise her voice? I know that it could be difficult, but the Hansard staff are having difficulty hearing her.

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

I apologise. New clause 39 is a probing amendment, but I tried to take on board the fact that in discussions in the other place the response was often, ''That is not a strategic authority; this is a strategic authority.'' The Bill names the local authority but not the housing part, because it is said to be within the local authority. I feel that the Bill should name the housing authority because, again, there is the issue of the balance between the county council and the district council. I am particularly concerned these days about the fact that we are not talking just about local authority housing. There is arm's-length management; council housing has been sold off to housing trusts; and we have other registered social housing.

That is the thinking behind the new clause, which I have not debated with the Local Government Association, although such consultation would certainly be needed. If one could appoint a designated officer from the housing authority to be the point of liaison between all the registered social housing providers and the children's services authority, we could perhaps attempt to close the gaps exposed by the Victoria Climbie case, in which a housing authority was not acting. The new clause is designed merely to ask the Minister whether referring in the Bill to the important issue of housing could have advantages and enable us to try to close some of the gaps that must exist, given the various types of social housing provider that exist these days.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Nobody in the Government would argue with the sentiments that have been expressed. Housing is, of course, vital to children; there is no question about that. If they are to be healthy and to thrive, they need good accommodation. They need a refuge, a place where they can grow and feel safe and comfortable. However, the Bill already includes the necessary assurances to ensure that housing is taken into account. With regard to two-tier authorities, for example, clause 7 specifically refers to district councils. One of the district councils' duties is housing. Another relates to leisure activities, which are also of great importance to children. Because district councils have to co-operate as part of the arrangements that we are discussing, all their statutory duties, including their housing function, are automatically included.

In relation to unitary authorities, we will issue statutory guidance on the lead member and director of children's services—to which clauses 14 and 15 relate—to make it clear that the director will be part of the local authority corporate team. That encompasses the housing responsibilities of unitary authorities. Furthermore, the five outcomes that we listed in ''Every child matters'', which were identified by children and young people as the most important ones to them, have been developed into an outcomes framework that will be used to inform planning, assessment and inspection. The framework will include a reference to the importance of

accommodation and housing. I hope that that explanation reassures the Committee in respect of amendments Nos. 25 and 200.

Again, I have the greatest sympathy with the views expressed on new clause 37. However, where families with children are found to be intentionally homeless so that they are owed no duty under housing and homelessness legislation, the Children Act 1989 provides a safety net for the children and, where relevant, the parents, as being homeless might well mean that the children would become ''children in need'' and the local authority would have the power to provide accommodation for them under section 17 of that Act.

The action taken by social services in each case—as in all other cases in which children are in need according to the assessment of the needs of the child—is carried out in accordance with the Government's guidance, ''Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families''. Such assessments may result in local authorities offering to assist children and their families with support towards accommodation. Alternatively, the local authority may offer to accommodate children under section 20 of the 1989 Act.

The local authority may decline to offer services to the child and family if it does not view the child as a child in need, or if the needs of the child are not as great as the needs of those to whom services are already being provided using the resources available to the local authority.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

May I finish these points first? Afterwards I shall certainly give way.

The homelessness legislation already imposes a duty on housing authorities to ensure that homeless families with children who are not eligible for the main homelessness duty are promptly brought to the attention of social services.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

My hon. Friend draws attention to the existing legislative framework that should provide protection, but do the Government have any evidence that it is working, and are statistics collected? If not, will he commit himself to finding out whether the framework works for future reviews of the subject?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

My hon. Friend has returned to the conditions of enforcement. If the existing legislation is not working, we need to make sure that it does. The issues that my hon. Friend mentioned are subject to inspection. I am happy to write to him and tell him what exactly the mechanisms for inspection are and where he can find the relevant statistics.

In general, it would be inappropriate to place a specific duty on social services to undertake assessments of children referred to them by housing authorities. The power to undertake assessments is set out clearly in the 1989 Act and the related statutory guidance. The legislation does not place a compulsory assessment duty on local authorities in relation

tonamed potential needs. It would not be useful to create a list of particular needs that are to be accompanied by a specific assessment duty above and beyond what is provided for in the existing powers.

With more than 250,000 initial 1989 Act assessments being undertaken by local authorities each year, it would be wrong to single out specific issues that involve additional assessment requirements. Such queue-jumping might well be harmful to the interests of children if, for example, the assessment of child protection referrals were placed behind those relating to housing, simply because the latter were associated with an assessment duty, as is proposed under the new clause. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the new clause.

On new clause 38, the 1989 Act places duties on local authorities in relation to children in need in their area. Section 17 gives a general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need by providing a range of services. Section 20 provides a specific duty to provide accommodation for an individual child in need. Both sections may be used to provide a child with accommodation but, in the case of section 17, children and their parents may be supported together.

The assessment of a child's needs by social services is expected to be carried out in accordance with the statutory guidance. The duties imposed on housing authorities dealing with applicants with children who are intentionally homeless or otherwise ineligible for assistance are set out clearly in the ''Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities'', published in July 2002.

With new clause 39, I once again support the intention, but not the proposed methods. In some cases it might make good sense to have a liaison officer post, but in others it might not. In unitary authorities, the housing department is an integral part of the children's services authority; in two-tier authorities it is part of the district council. This is not a case in which we can prescribe a single solution that covers all eventualities.

Registered social landlords are already subject to regulation. They are accountable to the Housing Corporation through a regulatory code, which requires registered social landlords to demonstrate that their strategies and policies are responsive to the needs and circumstances of local people and link into regional and local housing strategies.

I hope that I have demonstrated that there are sufficient safeguards in place. The Government entirely accept the principles of the importance of housing which have been set out today. We shall ensure that the partnerships focus on that issue and, if necessary, we will take appropriate steps to ensure that existing legislation is better enforced.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I fully take the Minister's point, and I am grateful for the detail that he has given. If he entirely agrees with the principles that we have tried to set out under the amendments, I am entirely happy to 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. 26, in

clause 7, page 5, line 32, at end insert—

'( ) In making arrangements under this section a children's services authority shall ensure that—

(a) the well-being of children set out in subsection (2) is monitored and evaluated;

(b) children and young people's views and experiences are included in any monitoring and evaluation undertaken under this subsection;

(c) a report on improvements in children's well-being is made annually to the Secretary of State.'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 61, in

clause 7, page 5, line 34, after 'must', insert

'consult with children and should'.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

This amendment is about monitoring and evaluating children's outcomes. As we have said all along, the success of the Bill will be measured in terms not only of the structures put in place, but of the outcomes that they achieve. Therefore, amendment No. 26 seeks to establish a monitoring arrangement whereby the criteria set out in the clause can be properly evaluated in a meaningful way, rather than merely having the process for its own sake. The Children's Society has been keen to add something of that nature to the Bill.

This is a probing amendment to clarify the Government's expectations of how the five outcomes for children will be measured. First, it probes whether children's services authorities will be given a clear statutory responsibility for measuring and evaluating children's outcomes. Secondly, it argues that the Bill is an opportunity to ensure in statute that the views and experiences of children and young people are at the heart of that evaluation. Thirdly, it seeks to establish how local monitoring will be collated and made available nationally.

Being able to establish and document the impact of service activity on children's outcomes must be integral to making the new policy a meaningful and tangible change for the better. Although a wide range of existing and new processes, such as inspection reports, service contracting monitoring and local needs assessment, will produce vital evidence about the impact of services on children, there is no simple or clear responsibility for each children's services authority to gather the evidence in a co-ordinated way and to report on progress. Without a clear and standard expectation of who should do that, how often it should be done and according to what principles, difficulties could remain in establishing common baseline information nationally and there could be scope for substantial variation in the quality of, and approach taken to, evaluation of the outcomes.

It is a straightforward amendment, and I am sure that the Government can understand what we are trying to achieve. If that cannot be achieved through the amendment, how do the Government propose to evaluate what the Bill will put in place?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman said, and I am hopeful that the Government will accept amendment No. 61. It is entirely reasonable, although every amendment that I have moved over the two days of this Committee has been entirely reasonable.

I have high hopes for this amendment. After everything that has been said, I do not think that anyone would dissent from the view that children's services authorities must consult children when making arrangements to promote co-operation with a view to improving their well-being, their physical and mental health, protecting them from harm and neglect, improving their education, training and recreation, and the other desirables listed in subsection (2).

It is impossible properly to achieve any of those outcomes without the extremely effective participation of children and young people. They will tell children's services authorities the truth about the quality of their services. They will have good ideas about the way that those services can be developed, which will not be known to adults because children are the recipients of those services and have a different perspective on them. The engagement of children and young people in those services will be crucial to their success. I hope that the Government will accept amendment No. 61.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre is absolutely right: the voice of children is essential. Indeed, it is the golden thread that runs throughout the Bill, and the five outcomes expressed by children in the Bill must be what we test its success against. That is why in July 2004 we appointed Children's Express to establish and run the Children and Youth Board. As my hon. Friend will know, the board is made up of 25 young people from across the UK and it will advise at least eight Government Departments on different aspects of their work. That is also why we strongly encourage children's services authorities to consult regularly their children and young people.

Whether placing a duty to listen to the voice of children in the Bill would further the objective or simply lead to a bureaucratic process is an argument that we can have. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we believe that rather than include it in the Bill, it would be better to put it in guidance. I am happy to assure him that we will send a clear message in the guidance that we issue.

I turn now to amendment No. 26, which deals with monitoring and evaluation. We will be creating joint area reviews, which I am sure will eventually become known as JARs. They will be inspections of local areas and will report on performance in respect of the five outcomes for children and on how well the agencies that provide services for children are working together. No doubt, we will debate that further when we consider later clauses. As well as the JAR, there will be an annual performance assessment of the local authority children's services, focusing on how children's services improve outcomes. The annual performance assessment will inform the broader, local authority-wide comprehensive performance assessment.

Planning, inspection and assessment arrangements will also provide opportunities to listen to children and young people. Inspectorates will seek the views of children locally before a JAR is held, and the evidence that the children and young people provide will contribute towards the inspectors' judgments. Local authority self-assessments will also cover how local authorities listen to the views of children. Regulations on the children and young people's plan will require authorities to consult children and young people. Taken together, that is a raft of measures to carry out the monitoring.

I do not think that an annual report by the Secretary of State will be necessary. Inspection reports will be published, as will comprehensive performance assessment scores and the outcomes of the other inspections. Information will be widely available, and nothing would be gained by an annual report. Although I sympathise once again with the intention behind the amendment, I believe that we have covered it well enough in the plans, guidance and the Bill as it stands.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

JARs, annual performance assessments, planning, inspection and assessment arrangements, inspectorates, local authority self-assessments, regulations, and children and young people's plans—I despair. How much of the money going to the structures could have been spent on actually looking after the children? That is what we are worried about. What we are trying to achieve with the amendment is to bring together in a joined-up way what a lot of different professionals are thought to be achieving. That is our worry about how some of the Bill is structured. The current weakness in the system is that so many people are doing so many different things in silos. That is what we are supposedly trying to legislate against.

Before the Minister, however, comes up with another long list of all the people whom we employ at great public expense, and in order to move the debate on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 93, in

clause 7, page 5, line 32, at end insert—

'(2A) Equality of opportunity must be considered in relation to subsection 2(a) to (e).'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 14——Equal opportunities

'Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act, Children's Services Authorities in Wales and their relevant partners shall have regard to combating social exclusion and discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.'.

New clause 40——Equal opportunities (No. 2)

'Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act, children's services authorities in England and their relevant partners shall have due regard to the need to combat social exclusion and discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, family status or sexual orientation.'.

New clause 41——Equality of opportunity

'(1) In exercising his functions the director of children's services must have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity.

(2) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year the director of children's services must make a report containing an assessment of how effective the arrangements made under subsection (1) were in improving the wellbeing of disabled children in his area and the promotion of equality of opportunity for children generally.

(3) The report must also contain a statement of the arrangements which he has made, or proposes to make, under subsection (1) in respect of the financial year immediately following that referred to in subsection (2).'.

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

The intention of amendment No. 93 is to ensure that equality of opportunity is reflected at appropriate points in the Bill. On Tuesday, we discussed the possibility of equality of opportunity being included in clause 2 so that the Children's Commissioner would be mindful of it. Now that the outcomes have been added to clause 2, my amendment would ensure that he has to have regard to equality of opportunity.

The purpose of new clause 14 is to create a cross-cutting, positive equality duty for children's services in Wales. I make no excuse for the fact that it is modelled on new clause 40, which would apply to England. New clause 41 would ensure that the new directors of children's services take responsibility for positively tackling discrimination and promoting equal opportunities for all children. It is modelled on the equality duty of the Learning and Skills Council and includes a duty to report on the effectiveness of the arrangements.

Equality of opportunity is central to the remit of children's services authorities in England and Wales. Amendments similar to those that we are discussing won cross-party backing in the other place and the Government promised to give the matter further consideration. This might be the moment that we have all been waiting for—the Government's acceptance of some the arguments that have been advanced.

The new arrangements in the Bill for improved co-ordination of children's services and multi-agency work could lead to major improvements in social inclusion and the life chances of disabled children and their families. However, for them to be able to realise their potential there must be a firmer focus in the Bill on tackling discriminatory barriers that disabled children and others face. There needs to be a specific reference in the Bill to promoting equality.

The Disability Rights Commission believes that the Government should impose a specific statutory duty on children's services authorities and/or the proposed new directors to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity for the disabled and all the others that have been mentioned—the children of asylum seekers, for example.

The Government were heavily criticised in respect of the United Kingdom's compliance with the convention in the last report of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2002. It expressed concern that the principle of non-discrimination is not fully implemented in respect of all children in all parts of the country, that unequal

enjoyment of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights still exist, especially for children with disabilities, asylum and refugee children, children in the care system, detained children and so on.

These equality amendments and new clauses would enable the Government to implement the committee's recommendation of comprehensive strategies containing specific and well targeted actions, which would be aimed at eliminating all forms of discrimination. The amendments would give the Bill, which we all support, a step forward.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I shall speak briefly to new clause 14. The hon. Lady made most of the points that I want to make. The amendments and the new clauses acknowledge the barriers that exist for many children, and the hon. Lady mentioned the children who do not have equal access to services or the same rights as other children—they include Traveller children, the children of asylum seekers and many others, especially those with disabilities. In the other place, the Government said that they would consider similar amendments. I look forward to their response.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Once again, the Government have nothing but sympathy for the sentiments behind the amendments, but whether they would be effective, or whether the Bill is the place to achieve their aims is another matter.

There is already a strong framework of anti-discrimination protection in law, to which all public bodies are subject. They cannot discriminate on grounds of race, disability or gender. In addition, there is a positive duty on public bodies to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity under section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. A similar positive duty to promote equalisation of opportunity for disabled people is included in the draft Disability

Bill, and the Government are committed to a duty requiring the promotion of gender equality when the legislative programme allows.

We recognise such issues and believe that there is a body of legislation to support the case already. In addition, we believe that the commission for equality and human rights will take the issues forward. Once it is created, it will begin discussions with the aim of bringing forward a single equality Act. The issues will be better addressed within that framework.

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

I am disappointed that the Government have made no move on this issue. Just putting the concept of equality of opportunity in the Bill would make a strong statement. If that concept were included in the context of the outcomes, everybody who had anything to do with children would have it brought to the top of their agenda.

I will withdraw the amendment, but I ask the Minister to give at least some consideration to how equality of opportunity can be worked into the outcomes. It is highly unlikely that, when asked, children will use the phrase ''equality of opportunity'', although they might say, ''It's not fair!'' However, I think that there is a place for that phrase in the outcomes.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

To give the hon. Lady further reassurance, we will make clear statements on that issue in the guidance that accompanies the two clauses.

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

I thank the Minister for his response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Vernon Coaker.]

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Five o'clock until Tuesday 19 October at five minutes to Nine o'clock.