Clause 1 - Establishment
Children Bill [Lords]
9:45 am
Mr Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre, Labour)
May I say what a pleasure it is once again to serve in a Committee under your wise chairmanship, Mr. Benton? I should also like to thank the Minister for Children, Young People and Families and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for their kind words. I should also like to compliment the Government Whips. That may be an unusual thing to do, but it is in the interests of parliamentary democracy that Back Benchers can table amendments on matters about which they feel strongly.
The Whips have shown a degree of tolerance and forbearance towards me that would surprise many people, possibly outside the parliamentary Labour party and possibly inside it. Clearly the Government Whips have an important job to do, but although I have occasionally been a pain in the neck, they have always been helpful, constructive and sensible. If we disagree—I hope that we do not—about any of the
matters on which I have tabled amendments, I trust that we will all recognise that such disagreements are between decent and well-meaning people who are simply trying to do their best for children.
I am pleased to open the debate with the positive intention of inserting the word ''rights'' right at the beginning. If I had handled the task better, I would have tried to insert it in line 1, rather than in line 2. I am sad and shocked that the Government amendments in the group—Nos. 163 to 165 and 173—remove that very word. I seek clarification through my amendment.
On Second Reading, it was obvious that my right hon. Friend was looking at rights in a particular way and interpreting them as individual rights. She thought that if too much emphasis were placed on rights, the commissioner's role would be skewed towards investigating individual cases and the commissioner would be overwhelmed by such cases. I do not recognise such a definition and I am not sure who does. It is important that we consider that issue during the next few minutes.
It is particularly unfortunate that the Government should be trying to remove the word ''rights'' from what everyone has acknowledged is a colossally important Bill, given that one of their earliest actions was to incorporate the European convention on human rights into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998. In the same first term, we saw the creation of the Disability Rights Commission and the children's rights director, and even now we look forward to the development of the commission for equality and human rights. At this stage, however, we seem to have gone timid on rights when we are discussing the rights, interests and needs of the most vulnerable people in our society.
The Minister wants the Children's Commissioner to concentrate on children's interests rather than rights, so perhaps at this stage we should give those important words some thought. It may be useful to note that David Archard, the modern philosopher who has thought deeply and published widely on issues relating to children, family and the state, has set out a fairly classic interest-related theory of rights, which probably goes back a couple of hundred years to Kant. The theory is that a right arises when someone has an interest of sufficient importance to impose on others certain duties whose discharge allows the right-holder to enjoy the interest in question. There is a clear distinction there between rights and interests, but it is not about individual rights and a community of interest.
Clearly, someone who has rights is someone of significance. Their interests are of particular importance, and the duties of those who are charged with meeting them are vital. There is nothing wrong with talking about interests and welfare—indeed, it is entirely appropriate—but we usually acknowledge that those are of a lesser order than rights. For instance, we often discuss the interests and welfare of animals, but rarely their rights, and most of us think it quite odd to do that. Nationally, we talk about the best
interests of children, but internationally we declare our allegiance to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.
Rights are the basis of a liberal, democratic society. They uphold the fundamental obligations of the state to the individual and encourage openness about the entitlements of individuals and the success of Governments in meeting their needs, which is vital. There is nothing wrong with the word ''rights'' and nothing to be afraid of in it. There is no reason to remove the word and plenty of reason to insert it in such a Bill. It worries me when powerful people, even those as benign and committed to children's interests as the Minister, seek to excise such an important word. Those who seek to erase ''rights'' seem to be saying something about the value that we ascribe to children, the reluctance of the state to be challenged or the power that we are prepared to give the commissioner—or perhaps all three.
I hope I am not alone among Government Members in voicing these concerns. I cannot believe that I am alone in having them; indeed, I know that I am not alone in Parliament. I am grateful for the support of those who signed up to amendment No. 52. I am also glad to have the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Although I do not agree with all of its 19th report of this Session on the Bill, I earnestly believe that every member of this Committee should study it carefully, because it is a wise document.
With regret, I share the Joint Committee's disappointment at the tone of the Government's message that ''rights-based'' is a negative concept. It stated that there is
''an excessive, and in our view unfounded, anxiety about the notion of a 'rights-based' commissioner.''
I agree that there is a clear distinction between a rights-based and a complaints-based commissioner. I am not aware of anyone advocating establishing a complaints-based commissioner, whereas a wide consensus of people concerned with the issue are committed to the commissioner being firmly based on the concept of children's rights.