My Lords, I have some amendments in this group, but before I speak to them, I will say a word about the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I do not support it because it would take out what is the most significant improvement in the powers and duties of the Children’s Commissioner: namely, the duty to promote and protect the rights of children in England. This is making our commissioner a rights-based commissioner for the first time and I very much welcome that. I hope that the Bill makes a difference and that the Government are not, in the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, “playing a game”.
I will speak to Amendments 250, 254, 255 and 256 in this group. Before I do, I will mention my support for Amendment 252 on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and Amendment 266A about a duty on public bodies to respect children’s rights and give proper regard to their views, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. However, in order to save the Committee’s time, I will leave both noble Baronesses to speak for me on those amendments.
Before I go into the detail of my amendments, I will pay tribute to the coalition Government and the current Ministers, and particularly to the former Children’s Minister, my colleague Sarah Teather MP, for bringing the Children’s Commissioner for England much closer to the Paris principles and making the office a much better national human rights institution, as it should have been from the start.
7 pm
My Amendment 250 is to clarify the commissioner’s primary functions. I believe that the legislation should grant the Children's Commissioner all the powers that a national human rights institution should have. These are specified by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. There are two essential functions that are not listed in Clause 79. They are: raising public awareness of children’s rights by promoting knowledge of and respect for them; and initiating and participating in certain legal proceedings regarding specific cases of children.
In another place, when a similar amendment was discussed, the Minister stated that this list should not include activities that are already implicit in the commissioner’s primary functions, and that the list was intended to describe her or his broad remit rather than being exhaustive. However, the fact is that the list that is contained in Clause 79 already includes many
powers that one might describe as implicit in the Commissioner’s primary functions. So why refuse to include these two? It suggests that they do not belong there. I ask my noble friend the Minister to set my mind at rest by making it quite clear to the Committee that the Government believe that the two powers in my amendment are indeed implicit in the broad remit of the commissioner and that, therefore, they may be seen to be on a par with those that are included in the list in Clause 79.
Legal proceedings are difficult for children, so they need their commissioner to be able, in a few very special cases, to be able to take their place. The current commissioner has made it clear that she does not consider this to be something she would expect to do a lot of, but she needs the power in a few cases. Also, I emphasise that raising awareness of children’s rights is crucial to ensuring they are implemented.
Amendment 254 amends Clause 85, which introduces an expectation that the Children’s Commissioner will report on his or her activities in relation to children’s rights. I very much welcome this clause but would like to strengthen it with a requirement that the commissioner should monitor the implementation of the UNCRC in England and report on the state of children’s rights across the country, rather than just write about his or her own activities. Again, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in General Comment No. 2 in 2002, made it clear that independent national human rights institutions for children should:
““Review and report on the Government's implementation and monitoring of the state of children’s rights.
John Dunford, in his excellent 2010 report—I think it was commissioned by the previous Government; no it was not, it was this Government—which has resulted in Part 5 of the Bill, also recommended that the reformed OCCE should submit an annual report to Parliament which highlights and makes recommendations on issues in relation to children’s rights. At present, Clause 85 requires the commissioner to report only on how his or her activities have impacted on the rights of children, so we need to add an expert review of the whole national picture in England.
Amendment 255 strengthens the voice of the child in this section. Given that the commissioner’s role is to promote and protect children’s rights, it is vital that children and young people are involved in all aspects of the office’s work. I welcome the fact that the commissioner must take all reasonable steps to involve children in the work but, to comply with Article 12 of the UNCRC, he or she must also give due regard to their views. That is why my amendment says that the commissioner’s annual report must include the extent to which due regard has been given to children’s views. It is all very well receiving their views, but they must be seen to be acted on.
Amendment 256 extends the definition of vulnerable children in Clause 86 to include trafficked and unaccompanied migrant children and children in custody. Clause 86 lists four groups of children living away from home or receiving social care for whom the commissioner’s office will have responsibility, now that the post of Children’s Rights Director is to be incorporated into the OCCE. While appreciating the statement by the Minister in another place that the
Government wish to ring-fence the groups that currently come under the remit of the Children’s Rights Director, I have confidence that the OCCE will continue to represent these children. This is not, therefore, an adequate reason for excluding my particular groups of very vulnerable children from the list in Clause 86.
I am well aware that a well qualified Children’s Commissioner will be perfectly capable of identifying which groups of children should be regarded as vulnerable. However, if in future anyone should question whether a commissioner should give advice or assistance to trafficked children or those in custody, it would certainly make the matter very clear if my amendment were to be incorporated in the Bill—or if I get a clear statement from the Minister. Alternatively, perhaps my noble friend can explain that all the children covered by Amendment 256 are included in the duties and powers of the reformed OCCE.