I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the procedures for collecting pensions and benefits from Post Offices.

The Bill would provide for a simpler process for opening a Post Office card account, prohibit pressure from being put on those who opt for such an account to switch to using a high street bank and ensure that all applicants clearly understand that an exceptions service is available.

These are times of great change not only in terms of the way in which our constituents receive their pensions and benefits, but for the Post Office, because the changes introduced by the Government have an impact on our post offices' economics and how they operate. Traditionally, our constituents have been able to use girobooks to collect their pensions and benefits from a post office, but the Government are withdrawing that system in favour of direct payment. The method of direct payment according to which people may go directly to a post office to access payments is the Post Office card account, which is a substitute for the girobook, but the Government are encouraging people to switch to using bank accounts, although they offer an exceptions service for those who cannot cope with either service.

The Government are forcing the pace of change because, as we know, people had the option to use their bank accounts prior to the Government's encouragement of that method, but they chose not to exercise it. We should respect the way in which our constituents wish to receive their pensions and benefits. We should understand that they have their own ways of budgeting and running their lives instead of forcing the pace of change for ministerial convenience. It is important to legislate on the matter to allow choice given the many other ways in which we have tried to persuade the Government to see the error of their ways and understand our constituents' need for genuine choice, rather than forcing choice on them.

There are consequences of a system that forces people to switch the way in which they handle their cash and finances from that with which they grew up. It is extremely dangerous for the Government to push people who are used to weekly budgeting with cash into using bank accounts against their wishes. Many people who currently collect cash from a post office have a bank account, but use it only for saving or to draw rainy-day amounts, rather than for day-to-day budgeting. If such people prematurely switch to receiving their pensions in their bank accounts, owing to the way in which the Department for Work and Pensions handles those people, and try to manage all their weekly budgeting through those accounts, they could get into any kind of muddle. That could lead to an overdraft, and they would thus be faced with letters from banks costing £20 or £30. A Post Office card account, however, cannot be overdrawn. It is a simple replacement for the girobook. People who use the account may still use their post offices and budget with cash.

The changes to the system also have consequences for our post offices—both rural and urban. The Government have had to recognise the additional pressures on rural post offices as they lose their traditional business of handling girobooks and they have had to come up with a subsidy of £150 million a year. That will continue until 2008 as an attempt to protect the rural post office network.

The Post Office has also had to undergo a major reorganisation of its urban branches. Only this week we have learned that Crown post offices are to face reorganisation. It is concerning to our constituents that the urban reinvention programme—the re-planning of the urban network of sub-post offices—went ahead without including the Crown reorganisation, as many will have assumed that, having lost their traditional urban post office, a Crown post office would provide the safety net.

For many communities, the post office is the last vital link with public services. It is the last meeting point and the last shop in many a rural village. People collecting their pensions also give such shops business. Using the post office sustains any other economic enterprise in the branch. The Government have promised that people will be able to continue to use their post office to collect pensions and benefits, but that will be a hollow promise if the post office is no longer there to use. It is therefore extremely important that we maintain the economic viability of post offices.

Primarily, my Bill aims to protect individuals. Following an inquiry last year by the Trade and Industry Committee into the way in which the Government handled the transition to direct payment, I am extremely worried about the way in which our constituents appear to be pressurised into switching to the use of bank accounts—the Government's preferred method—to receive their pensions or benefits. I seek to redress the balance.

The danger of switching to a bank account is not only that people might become overdrawn but the fact that many bank accounts cannot be accessed at a post office. HSBC, Halifax Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland group still have not provided a link to their current accounts through the Post Office. Therefore, encouraging the use of bank accounts—especially those I have just mentioned—automatically means that people can no longer use their post office. The Bill sets out a procedure to enable a neutral choice to be made.

The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has highlighted such a choice in its 2004–05 manifesto. Hon. Members will find the document extremely useful in understanding the needs of our sub-postmasters and how best we can take forward a viable post office network. My Bill addresses the key part in the document on access to pensions and benefits in which the federation requests that the system be simplified. Currently, there are about eight steps to opening a Post Office card account. On receipt of a letter from the Government asking whether one wants to switch from the girobook, one has only to fill in one's bank details in order to use a bank account, but eight hurdles must be crossed in order to open a Post Office card account.

The claimant receives an invitation pack for direct payment from the Department for Work and Pensions. The claimant then has to phone the Department's euphemistically named customer conversion centre where, as many of our constituents will attest, they have to fight quite hard to insist on their right to a card account. The Department then sends the claimant a personal invitation document; the claimant takes the personal invitation document to the post office; the post office gives the claimant a card account application form; the claimant completes the application form and returns it to the sub-postmaster, who sends it to Post Office Ltd; Post Office Ltd then sends the claimant account details, a personal identification number and a pick-up notice for the claimant to pick up the card at the branch.

The Government slightly improved the service over the summer. The claimant used to have to fill in the account details from the Department's direct payment invitation pack, but at least the Government have short-circuited that last stage, and details can now be sent directly to the sub-post office, where the form will have already been filled in.

The federation suggests a far simpler system. When mailed at the end of the girobook system, the constituent is presented with a simple choice of whether to tick the box to say that they want to use an account at the post office, and to take the pre-completed form that has arrived at the same time to the local sub-post office to open an account. Alternatively, they can tick a box to indicate that they want to use a bank or building society account, in which case they may fill in a bank mandate. Thirdly and importantly, the federation suggests a third option of the exceptions service, under which someone may receive regular payments by girocheque through the post. It suggests that it should be made clear that if the constituent fails to respond, the latter option will automatically be enabled. Many constituents find the new system worrying and may well prefer to use the exceptions service.

It is vital to have a simple process for the future, because conversion applies not only to current claimants; all new claimants will have to consider their options and it is essential that they are aware that they can still use the Post Office and open a card account. There will be a clear statement in the Bill on the procedures to be followed for a DWP customer to open a card account. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have concerns about the pressure that is being put on people to switch to bank accounts and the Bill will state clearly that no pressure should be put on people using the service to switch from a Post Office card account. The Post Office should be driven by customer choice, not departmental convenience.

The House must exert its authority and insist that pensioners and those on benefits have a fair choice as to how they collect their cash in future. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Robert Smith, Mr. Roger Berry, Malcolm Bruce, Richard Burden, Mr. Edward Davey, Mr. Nigel Evans, Kate Hoey, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. John Randall, Mr. Alan Reid, Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mr. Peter Viggers.

Post Offices (Pensions and Benefits)

Sir Robert Smith accordingly presented a Bill to amend the procedures for collecting pensions and benefits from Post Offices: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed [Bill 170].

The Opposition do not want to hold up the Chamber's work this afternoon because we have a lot of business to get on with, which is why we cannot agree to this programme motion. We are about to discuss no fewer than 43 amendments and 16 new clauses; to tackle the important subject of new clause 2, which was completely emasculated in Committee, new developments on fostering, which have appeared since Committee, and serious outstanding problems on databases in clause 12; and we want to give a proper airing to parental access, and the whole subject, which we were fortunate enough to avoid in Committee, of smacking. The time allocated, as we have suggested all along, is really not sufficient to tackle these substantial issues. For that reason we cannot accept the programme motion.

Liberal Democrats find the programme motion unacceptable because we have some important issues to consider and, unlike the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), I do think that we need to discuss the issue of reasonable chastisement in great detail today. We would not seek to divide the House because we would prefer to spend the time on debate, but in the event of a Division we could not support the motion.

Question put:—

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 5, in clause 25, page 19, line 39, at end insert—

'(g) Wales Joint Education Committee.'.

Amendment No. 6, in page 19, line 39, at end insert—

'(h) the governor of a prison or secure training centre in Wales (or in the case of a contracted out prison or secure training centre, its director).'.

Amendment No. 7, in clause 27, page 21, line 8, leave out from 'officer,' to ', for' in line 9.

Amendment No. 8, in page 21, line 11, leave out from 'members,' to ', to' in line 12.

Government amendment No. 40.

Amendment No. 33, in clause 65, page 42, line 36, at end insert

'but such an order must be made before the end of a period of nine months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed'.

Given the way in which Bills are usually drafted and considered, it is unusual for a Minister who speaks about Welsh issues to be on his feet first on Report, particularly when some of the amendments are minor and technical. However, the Bill will benefit the children and young people of Wales, and I am delighted to open the debate.

Before turning to the first technical Government amendment, however, I should like briefly to reflect on the Bill's passage through both Houses of Parliament. The Bill was introduced in the other place, where it was well received and described as a small Bill with a big heart. Although almost 600 amendments were tabled, many of them were probing amendments and the Bill's core remains unchanged. It is testament to the thinking behind the Bill's central provision—to establish a commissioner to help improve the lot of children—that it has attracted general support in this House.

I pay tribute to the good work by members of Standing Committee B on the Bill. The debate was well informed and constructive, and the Government were able to respond positively on a number of areas— I am sure that the contributions to this afternoon's debate will be equally positive. A number of issues have followed the Bill through both Houses, and I have no doubt that they will be touched upon in the debate.

I shall discuss Government new clause 11 and Government amendment No. 40 now and respond to amendments moved by hon. Members afterwards. New clause 11 provides for the effective sharing of information between the Assembly and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—CAFCASS. Following the transfer of CAFCASS in Wales to the Assembly under part 4 of the Bill, it will be important for both to have a facility that will allow them to share information relating to individual cases. For example, there are likely to be cases involving children of families living on either side of the border who have separate family proceedings officers, both of whose tasks would benefit from sharing information about the two cases.

There is much in the Bill that Liberal Democrat Members can support, including the transfer of CAFCASS to Wales. However, the Minister will know that we have reservations about several issues, and we look to the Government to be more accommodating on those than they have been in the past.

I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 5 to 8, which stand in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole Mrs. Brooke). Amendment No. 5 follows recommendations made in the Clywch inquiry into abuse in schools. In one case, a schoolteacher devised inappropriate drama activities as part of an examination curriculum whereby children were encouraged into activities that were, because of their sexual content, entirely inappropriate for their age and maturity. The examining board—the Welsh Joint Education Committee—provided examiners to go into the school to investigate the activities on its behalf and to evaluate them in terms of their dramatic merit in classifying pupils for exam results. Those examiners should have reported that something was going on in the school that was giving them great concern, but unfortunately they did not do so. As a result, some of the abuse and harm went on for much longer than was necessary.

Amendment No. 8 would therefore require that the Welsh Joint Education Committee be one of the partners that co-operates with the children's departments of local education authorities to ensure the welfare of children. In a plenary session of the Welsh Assembly, Jane Davidson, the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, said:

"Jane Hutt and I have written to Charles Clarke proposing that examination boards be added to the list of bodies that the Bill requires to have regard for the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children."

I hope that the Minister will take that on board. It is important that examination boards have a role to play, especially where practical activities are concerned.

Amendment No. 6 would require that governors of prisons or secure training units in Wales—or directors of contracted-out prisons or secure training units—also become partners in promoting the welfare of children and young people.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are minor amendments that would give discretion to local authorities in naming the lead member or lead officer responsible for the functions in the Bill.

I should like the Minister to respond particularly to Amendment No. 5, which experience in Wales has led us to believe should be included in the Bill.

I rise in support of new clause 2, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and to which I am co-signatory, and amendment No. 34, which stands in my name. They are complementary. My amendment would remove the role of the children's commissioner for England from the Welsh equation—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a little too early. I think that he is talking about the next group of amendments.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

That is all right—we all make mistakes.

I listened carefully to the points made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams)—and by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), although I am sure that he will return to those a bit later.

Amendment No. 5, which stands in the names of the hon. Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and for Brecon and Radnorshire, proposes the inclusion of the Welsh Joint Education Committee—WJEC—in the list of partners in clause 25 who must co-operate with children's services authorities in Wales to improve the well-being of children in the area. The intention of clause 25 is that, taken with clause 26, it will provide a statutory basis for the work of the children and young people's framework partnerships in planning local services. It is difficult to see how the WJEC could be included with the clause 25 partners, because it is different in nature from the other bodies listed. It is a company limited by guarantee and owned jointly by the 22 local authorities in Wales. It has an office base in Cardiff but no regional or local presence in Wales, and it would be difficult to support its attendance at meetings of local partnerships. Its functions are highly specialised and narrow in comparison with the other bodies named as partners, which include the police, the probation service and health services. The National Council for Education and Training for Wales is included as a partner in recognition of the significant role that it plays as a local education and training provider.

I am of course aware of the criticisms of the WJEC by the Children's Commissioner for Wales in the Clywch inquiry report that he published a little while ago. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his valuable work in carrying out that inquiry. I do not believe, however, that the amendment would adequately address his concerns. Apart from the inappropriateness of the WJEC being involved in 22 sets of local planning arrangements, many other awarding bodies operating within Wales would have to be brought into the equation. The vast majority are England and Wales awarding bodies, and the commissioner clearly had that wider field in mind when making his recommendation to my colleagues in the Assembly. He recommended that the Welsh Assembly, in partnership with the Department for Education and the Awdurdod Cymwysterau, Cwricwluwm ac Asesu Cymru—ACCAC—and the equivalent qualifications, curriculum and assessment authorities in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England consider the role of examining bodies across the UK with regard to child protection arrangements. The Government and the Assembly are committed to working together with the regulatory authorities in England and Wales to produce a practical response to the commissioner's recommendations, and we have established a steering group to take that work forward. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire will concede that his amendment is a bit premature, because it is important that we have this wider consultation.

I have some difficulty with amendment No. 6 as well. The arrangements in clause 25 for promoting co-operation are focused mainly on children and young people who are permanently resident in the local authority area concerned. There would be little purpose in requiring a prison or secure training centre to take part in local arrangements with local agencies if few of the young people in its care were likely to come to their attention. However, clause 25(1)(c) places a duty on the children's services authorities to promote co-operation with

"such persons or bodies as the authority consider appropriate",

which I hope will give some comfort to the hon. Gentleman. If the authority considers it appropriate for a prison governor or a director of a secure training centre to be involved in the co-operation arrangements, the authority must seek that involvement. The outcome will be a matter for local arrangement, and will depend on local circumstances. It would be inappropriate, and perhaps disproportionate, for such governors and directors automatically to be required to become involved in local co-operation arrangements.

In regard to amendments Nos. 7 and 8, there are a number of differences between the provisions for England and Wales in the Bill, which serve to build on the distinctive approach to developing services for children and young people that has been taken by my colleagues in the National Assembly. In Wales, no change is planned in the responsibility for service provision by requiring the appointment of a children's services director. There is no requirement for children's trusts. Instead, clause 27(1) requires each local authority to appoint a

"lead director for children and young people's services"

to co-ordinate and oversee co-operation arrangements to improve their well-being, and to designate a member for the same purpose. These lead directors and the lead members required to be designated will be responsible for taking forward arrangements for partnership planning to ensure that it acts as the strategic driver for action. I hope that, in the light of these assurances, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will feel able not to press their amendments to a vote.

We are somewhat confused about the intention behind amendment No. 33, tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and his hon. Friends. It might help if I explain the reason for the difference in commencement arrangements for clause 28 for the devolved and non-devolved bodies in Wales. The duty on agencies to ensure that their functions are discharged, having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, is placed on a range of agencies in Wales by clause 28, and in England by clause 11.

May I save the Minister some breath? This amendment would be more appropriately tabled in relation to the private fostering arrangements, but it has not been. On that basis, I was not proposing to move it, so I hope that I can save some of the Minister's time.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which has saved us some time. I also hope that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire will feel able not to press the Liberal Democrats' amendments to a vote, and I urge the House to accept the Government's new clause 11 and Government amendment No. 40.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17 — Payments to foster parents

'(1) The appropriate person may by order make provision as to the payments to be made—

(a) by a children's services authority in England or Wales or a person exercising functions on its behalf to a local authority foster parent with whom any child is placed by that authority or person under section 23(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989 (c.41);

(b) by a voluntary organisation to any person with whom any child is placed by that organisation under section 59(1)(a) of that Act.

(2) In subsection (1)—

"appropriate person" means—

(a) the Secretary of State, in relation to a children's services authority in England;

(b) the Assembly, in relation to a children's services authority in Wales;

"local authority foster parent" and "voluntary organisation" have the same meanings as in the Children Act 1989 (c.41).

(3) In section 23(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989 (c.41), at the end insert "(subject to section [payments to foster parents] of the Children Act 2004)".

(4) In section 59(1)(a) of that Act, at the end insert "(subject to section [payments to foster parents] of the Children Act 2004)".'.—[Margaret Hodge.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 10—National fostering allowance—

'The Government shall by regulations establish a national minimum fostering allowance payable by all children's services authorities in England.'.

Amendment No. 31, in clause 44, page 32, line 6, at end insert—

'(aa) the circumstances in which a person may be permitted to foster privately a child previously known to him without being registered;'.

Amendment No. 32, in page 34, line 29, leave out clause 46.

Government amendments Nos. 41 to 43.

I know that Government new clause 17 and the consequential amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be welcomed by foster carers and by organisations such as the Fostering Network that promote foster care and work on behalf of foster carers. I intend to speak to the Government amendments and then respond to the amendments tabled by other hon. Members.

During our discussions on the Bill, strong arguments were advanced by foster carers and their organisations. We have listened to those arguments and are now in a position to respond positively to them. All hon. Members recognise the importance of foster carers, particularly in providing stability and a loving home for the most vulnerable children in our community—those who are looked after by the state. If we are to meet our objective of ensuring greater stability for more looked- after children, it is key that we try to recruit and retain more foster carers in the foster care work force. To do that, we need to put in place a range of measures.

My right hon. Friend rightly differentiates the remuneration of foster parents and payment for skills. Does she propose to introduce some national scale on which foster parents could be paid for the skills that they bring to their work?

That is one of the many issues on which we want to consult local authorities and other stakeholders, including those organisations that represent foster carers, to make sure that we have a scheme that is workable and fair, and that enables us to recruit and keep more foster carers looking after children.

We already have resources available, about which some local authorities have expressed concern. For example, we have set aside £113 million over this spending review period under our "Choice Protects" programme, which puts a focus on fostering. If we consider the comprehensive spending review settlement, an extra £1 billion will be invested in children's services by the end of the period 2004–05 to 2007–08. We need to discuss local authorities' priorities with them.

I hope that the new clause and amendments are generally welcomed by the House. I look forward to working through the issues with all stakeholders, so that we can create fairness and equity and thereby support all the efforts that we all feel are important to build a stronger foster care work force.

May I start uncharacteristically by congratulating the Minister and the Government on the new clause and corresponding amendments? We did not discuss foster carer payments in Committee. I have supported such payments, because we face a drastic problem. We spoke in Committee about foster carer registration schemes, which I shall deal with later in relation to our two amendments in this group.

The situation is dire and has got worse over the past year or so. It is now estimated that there are about 10,000 foster carer vacancies at a time when demand is certainly not lessening. There is great confusion about the amounts paid by varying local authorities to foster carers and no real benchmark for assessing whether local authorities are really paying the full cost. Figures produced by the Fostering Network show the enormous disparities, region by region, in relation to the percentage of local authorities paying below the minimum allowance: in the east midlands, 100 per cent. were below the minimum allowance, whereas in London, the figure was as low as 19 per cent. There is enormous confusion and variation in how fostering is remunerated up and down the country, which is one of the problems associated with the current shortage of foster carers. Perhaps more worrying is the way that we lose foster carers: the cost of training a foster carer is calculated as £12,000, so it is a false economy not to do everything that we can to keep good-quality foster carers in place once we have them.

I therefore welcome the fact that the Government have at last addressed this problem. There was a high-pressure campaign and many of us were e-mailed incessantly by foster carers all over the country calling for a new scheme for minimum allowances. Clearly, that work has paid off. But as the Minister said, much work still needs to be done to define how this scheme will operate in practice. I want to raise a few questions, most of which I am sure she will already be aware of. Perhaps she will give some initial responses as to the Government's current thinking, particularly in relation to how the scheme will be funded through local authorities.

The Deputy Prime Minister agreed at a Central Local Partnership conference of councillors two weeks ago that the Government would not impose additional burdens on local authorities if they were unfunded. That was a clear commitment given to the Local Government Association and local councillors. We therefore hope that it will be clear to local authorities how the scheme will be funded over the longer term. What reserve powers will the Minister have to invoke to put the scheme in place? When is it likely to be introduced? We hope that it is not just a wish list for several years hence. The Minister mentioned that £113 million is already allocated to "Choice Protects", much of which is targeted at the training of foster carers, and providing information to foster carers, but not at allowances. It does not therefore tackle directly the problem of proper funding of the scheme.

The Minister rightly referred to the problem of local authorities doing different things in different areas of the country. Certainly, variations for different costs of living up and down the country would be desirable. What discussions has she had with the LGA on putting that into effect? In a letter, the LGA stated:

"It has the potential to cut across the ability of the local authority to develop different arrangements for paying allowances, expenses and other specific grants for costs such as holidays or school trips to foster carers. Taking account of local variables such as the age profile of looked after child population, or the regional variations in the cost of living are important in determining allowances locally."

I hope that all those considerations will be taken on board when the scheme is finalised.

The British Association for Adoption and Fostering has also raised questions, referring to

"how the allowance will be calculated, the implementation date and whether a new ring-fenced grant will be made available to local authorities to ensure that this measure is funded."

It has launched a campaign to ensure that.

I welcome the Government amendments, but we want to see the beef, and we want to see it soon. We want to make sure that all those questions are being addressed, rather than have the Minister or her successor come back to the House in a few years' time still considering how the scheme will work.

That is only half the deal—we had some time in Committee to address the other half, which is the whole subject of a registration scheme. Extraordinarily, the Minister set her mind completely against that, despite the fact, to remind her, that every report that the Government have commissioned over the past five years confirms that privately fostered children are very vulnerable, and that a registration system involving the approval of private foster carers would protect their interests better than the current situation in which private foster carers are required only to notify local authorities about arrangements. I tackled her in Committee about how many people have fallen foul of the law as it currently stands. She was unable to answer that, largely because the number is tiny. The system is not working at the moment, and still too many people—we do not know the extent of it, because it is unquantifiable—are entering into private arrangements, particularly with vulnerable girls from west Africa who, as we know all too well, come into the country, disappear into the system and are open to all kinds of abuse and neglect, ending up in the sex industry or effectively as domestic slaves.

The Opposition still cannot understand why the Government have proved so inflexible on this issue. Their additions to the Bill do not address the problem—they are tokenism of the worst kind. Our amendments Nos. 31 and 32 therefore set down that the regulations must define

"the circumstances in which a person may be permitted to foster privately a child previously known to him without being registered".

In effect, we have attacked the problem from the other end, because the Minister was not responsive to setting up a registration scheme, with the question: when will private fostering be allowed, permissible and promoted by the Government if that arrangement is not registered? That is a different question to address the same problem, and I hope that the Government start to have the sort of conversion that they appear to have had on fostering allowances and become more open-minded on going the whole hog. I shall then be absolutely delighted to congratulate the Minister doubly, which is doubly unexpected from me.

That would help to give much more protection to a host of children whose fostering arrangements are inadequate and ensure that legitimate fosterers are properly remunerated, incentivised and trained. They will then be able to take on much more of the work load that we need them to take on, especially with difficult children, so that such children can be given a second chance of a stable upbringing rather than being condemned to the outer reaches of the system—far-flung children's homes where they are not best looked after—or condemned to failure in the sphere of education or health.

I congratulate the Minister on her new clause and amendments, but may I push her further? Now that she has opened the door, let us have all the beef and not just half of it.

I wholeheartedly welcome what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said. It marks excellent progress for not just foster carers but the entire care system. If we are to have a really effective system, we must ensure that foster carers are properly valued. That involves recompensing them for all the costs of looking after children and rewarding them for their skills. Those skills vary, but some carers operate very professionally, providing tremendously good care for some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children. All foster carers are doing an invaluable job: they are key partners in the system.

I am delighted that this good news has been welcomed by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). Having managed a family placement team during the last eight miserable years of Conservative government before 1997, I can tell him that the rates paid to foster carers then were an absolute disgrace, and carers prevailed on me regularly to do something about it.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that those eight so-called miserable years were years in which there were rather more Labour councils than there are now, and that it was left to councils to pay the carers? It is entirely down to the hon. Gentleman's party that those years were so miserable.

We were starved of resources.

My hon. Friend was in a similar position. We were indeed starved of resources. Let us get real: the problem has been around for probably 50 years, but it was certainly much worse under the Tory Government. It has taken this Government to provide real resources and show real determination.

The hon. Gentleman has a good deal of experience, but is there is not also a responsibility to ensure that local authorities have enough resources to support the foster carers whom we hope to recruit? Past failure has been due to a lack of resources at the centre to pay those taking on the task that the hon. Gentleman describes so eloquently.

I agree. Thanks to "Choice Protects", at last some real investment—good money—is being spent on the training and ongoing support of foster carers, and we will see that that continues.

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is going to consult. There are difficult issues to be teased out. They vary in different parts of the country and in different parts of the care system. What I would insist on is the development of good practice. I hope that we will not end up with a basic service providing the bare minimum. What foster carers want, need and deserve is quality—quality support, quality training and quality remuneration. They do not want to have to undergo endless bureaucratic processes just to identify the odd bit of money that they have paid on a child's behalf.

Looked-after children are the children of corporate parents, the local authorities. Those 60,000 looked-after children are our children. We owe it to them, via their foster carers, to treat them generously and give them all the life chances that every child should have the right to enjoy. That is our duty.

I will not say much about private fostering today. I voted against the Government on that in Committee, I disagree with the line that they are taking and I hope that they will quickly realise that the present notification scheme is completely inadequate. A registration scheme would be effective, simple and in the interests of privately fostered children, their parents and the fosterers. Today, however, we should celebrate the progress that is being made, and look forward to consultation and the involvement of all parties in making the care system much better than it has been in the past.

I too congratulate the Government. I am glad that we have embarked on this stage in a spirit of celebration. We all recognise the vital role of carers in giving some of the most disadvantaged children the opportunity of a stable family life and, indeed, other opportunities. We should value the wonderful people who offer those services, and show that we value them.

The Government's new clause and amendments make our new clause redundant. We are pleased about that, and pleased about the response to debate in the other place. I particularly appreciate the Minister's assurance that there will be more emphasis on training: I think that professionalisation is part of the valuing of the skills from which we are benefiting as a society and as corporate parent. What is clear is that we have failed looked-after children in many respects, and we can do much better.

I am glad that there is to be consultation in an attempt to agree on the details. It will be a difficult process, but it is the only way to deal with vast discrepancies for which it is hard to find any explanation. While acknowledging the complexities and the hard work involved, I would find it helpful if the Minister gave us an idea of the time scale. People need to know whether we are talking about six, 12 or 18 months.

I am afraid that local authorities in my part of the world pay less than the minimum, no doubt because of pressure on resources. We will need to be reassured that there will be new resources to cover this new measure. I do not think that referring to pots of money that are already accounted for is sufficient.

I, too, lament the fact that we did not manage to persuade the Government that private foster parents should be registered now rather than at some indefinite time in the future. I hope that we shall be able to return to that, although I accept that we debated it at length in Committee.

I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members who may be looking for some dissent here but I too welcome the words of the Minister. I have long been in favour of establishing minimum fostering allowances. As a very young social worker in the mid-1970s, I found it extremely difficult to recruit foster parents, one of the reasons being that the rates were so insufficient. Only last year, I met with the fostering network in my constituency in Caernarfon, Gwynedd, and found the same concerns surfacing yet again, some 28 years later.

Foster parents are in short supply. Often they are out of pocket, and willingly so because they are committed to the work that they do. They play an invaluable role on behalf of us all. That should be recognised properly. The state should not be, by default, taking advantage of those people's commitment to their calling, and I am glad that the Minister will remedy that.

There is something of a postcode lottery in Wales, as the rates vary in the 22 local authorities. I will be glad to see the establishment of minimum rates, so that the rates paid do not depend on the local authority's ability to pay. I and the hon. Members who have contributed so far may have been reading the same brief. I think that the questions that have been raised already are important: how will the rates be calculated—I say "rates" because I assume that there will be a number—when will they be implemented and will local authorities be certain that a ring-fenced grant is available to ensure that the measure is properly funded?

Like other hon. Members, I am delighted that we have this measure. It would be foolish of anyone here to doubt its necessity, or the pleasure that the whole House must have in seeing the new clause and indeed the Bill come into force. However, there are real issues.

I had 35 years' experience in local government of trying to recruit and encourage people to foster. It was not just the initial rate for the job that was a problem, but the failure of local authorities to support foster parents once in a position to take care of children. They always had to fight for the foster child's right to have the money to go on a school trip or to have the school uniform provided. Local authorities always saw foster care and fosterers as at the bottom end of social services' responsibilities. There was never great enthusiasm, mainly because too many social services directors thought that they knew best and held children's homes as a solution to the problem. It has taken a generation to change that.

I am delighted that the director of social services for Portsmouth city council, Mr. Rob Hutchinson, has been actively involved in much of the work that we are discussing. It is to his credit that he brings his reputation and the experience that he has gained both in Portsmouth and in Hampshire to bear on this matter, but the issues do not end there. Hon. Members are right to raise some doubts: the length of time it will take clearly to establish a minimum rate that will be universally acceptable and the need for flexibility on top of that, because it will still be difficult to recruit. In London, it will for ever be difficult to recruit foster parents. In some regions of the south-east, because of the economic climate, it will be difficult because it will be better for a family who need the resources to go elsewhere. Therefore, we must ensure that the judgment made on the minimum rate is right, and that local authorities have flexibility to allow extra payments to be made to take care of local needs. That must be a requirement.

On the point about local authorities ring-fencing not only the fostering element but their responsibilities towards fosterers, one cannot increase the number of fosterers if one does not increase the amount available to local authorities to manage, recruit, train and supervise what is happening properly. Too many local authorities will recruit as many fosterers as they can to take care of these vulnerable children in what they consider now to be the best way, yet not resource their central advisers to fosterers properly.

It is a delight to see such consensus not just across the Chamber, but on the Government Benches. I welcome that enormously. Perhaps we should stop our business now.

Hon. Members have raised perfectly legitimate issues and demonstrated some of the complexity of the detail that we need to deal with as we take forward our intent to set a national foster care allowances system in process. The letter that was sent by the Association of Directors of Social Services said:

"The devil is very much likely to be in the detail. The ADSS would expect that should the Bill be so amended"

as we are doing today

"there would be detailed discussions about a staged implementation between the Government and local government."

It is because of the complexity of the issues and because we want to take our partners with us—the people on the front line who will have to implement the national scheme—that we are looking at a staged implementation. To help hon. Members, I will tell them what our thinking is, although it is early days.

We want to spend the early part of 2005 in extensive consultation with all interested partners. We hope at the end of that process to be able to set the rates and to publicise them. We hope that that in itself will move things forward and that a number of authorities will improve their rates after we have taken them through the discussion on what is a fair rate for looking after a child. During 2006, we hope to work with local authorities in implementing the rates, as set in 2005. We will then, probably at the beginning of 2007, invoke the power, should that be necessary, if local authorities are not complying with the rates that have been agreed with them. I hope that that gives hon. Members some clarity about the timetable.

On costs, I accept the commitment given by the Government that were we to impose additional burdens, we would provide the necessary funding but I hope hon. Members will agree that looked-after children have to be placed. There is a legislative imperative to do so. If we do not have sufficient foster carers, particularly in the local community, an on-the-spot decision tends to be taken. Often, the looked-after children are placed in extremely expensive residential accommodation out of the borough. My officials and I will need some convincing during our discussions that setting an appropriate and proper minimum foster care allowance will constitute an additional expense. It could lead to a change in the way in which we spend money, and to an expenditure saving that we could then reinvest in other services that support foster carers or looked-after children. We will keep this issue at the forefront of our minds, but we do not necessarily agree that such an allowance will lead to an increase in expenditure on looked-after children in whom local authorities already invest money.

I do not want to suggest, as I had to do in Committee, that on these issues we are the libertarians and the Opposition are the Stalinists. However, we will not consider using a ring-fenced grant as a mechanism for implementing a minimum foster care system. We will have discussions with the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services, and the various voluntary organisations that represent foster carers. We want, in that partnership environment, to work through what are very complex issues and to establish a workable system.

I do not wish to appear too Stalinist, but is the Minister saying that there will be a saving, which I agree there will be? As we discussed in Committee, we are talking about private children's homes that cost £2,000 a week upwards compared with foster carers who cost several hundred pounds, but surely there has to be a lead-in process. Will the Minister make sure that the money is available for local authorities to ensure that foster carers are trained and in place—doing so will indeed cost money—even if the savings will come a few years down the line, when we will no longer have to rely so much on out-of-area placements?

That is just the sort of detailed conversation that we need to engage in with our partners. It was in the light of such issues that I alluded to the "Choice Protects" grant and to the additional resources that we are putting into children's services during the comprehensive spending review period.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very easy simply to say that we will reduce the number of out-of-borough placements to the private sector? In fact, we need all these services, including specialist residential provision, so it is not a case of having one or the other. It is essential that we have such provision, and that it has the capacity to develop services for the most damaged children.

I agree with my hon. Friend and I certainly respect his experience, which was gained during many years on the front line as a social worker. But equally, I hope that he agrees with me that it is in the interests of more looked-after children to provide them with the stability of a placement in a loving home with a foster carer. Whatever the shortages, if we can increase the number of such carers—we need to establish a far better basis for doing so than currently exists—using the creation of a national foster allowance system as one mechanism for doing so, that will improve the lives of looked-after children for whom such an environment is appropriate. Over time, that should lead to some savings for local authorities that currently do not commission in a particularly rational way the places that they require for such children.

Given that Members want to speak about other issues, I shall deal briefly with the registration of private foster care. I agree with the House that this is a very important issue that we need to get right, which is why we have secured the relevant power through what is known as a sunset clause. As a result, if we cannot improve the current notification scheme, we can move immediately to a registration scheme without needing to return to the House to obtain primary legislation. The whole House agrees, as do I, that the current notification scheme is not working and is inadequate. But I hope that in the light of the additional powers that we are taking—powers to insist that awareness of the scheme be promoted, and that local authorities monitor their own notification schemes—Members will agree that it is worth allowing time to see whether the system works. With the best will in the world, even a registration scheme might not provide the safeguards and protection that we all seek for such children, who are sometimes the most vulnerable in our communities.

My right hon. Friend knows my views on this matter. What criteria does she envisage the Department using to assess whether her proposed scheme is successful, particularly given that the number of private foster carers is not known because the figures are not collated?

This is a difficult issue, but those authorities that are making huge efforts to ensure that the notification scheme works have a far greater number of notifications than those that, in my view, are not making adequate efforts. So monitoring the number of notifications will be just one of the mechanisms that we will use. However, my hon. Friend is right to draw our attention to this issue. We do need to get a better handle on the quantum of the problem, and to focus on the most vulnerable among the broad group of children who come under private fostering arrangements.

I warmly thank Members for their welcome for the new clause. Rather than dividing on this issue I hope that we will unify, so that we can ensure that foster carers are rewarded properly, that they are not out of pocket in caring for looked-after children, and that we grow the foster care work force.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1 — Children's Commissioner: functions

'(1) The Children's Commissioner has, subject to the following provisions of this Part, the function of promoting and safeguarding the rights and interests of children in England.

(2) The Children's Commissioner may in particular under this section—

(a) encourage persons exercising functions or engaged in activities affecting children to take account of their rights, views and interests;

(b) advise the Secretary of State on the rights, views and interests of children;

(c) review and report on the effectiveness of—

(i) advice and advocacy services;

(ii) complaints procedures; and

(iii) inspection and whistle-blowing arrangements,

so far as relating to children;

(d) review and report on any other matter relating to the rights, views and interests of children.

(3) The Children's Commissioner must take reasonable steps to involve children in the discharge of his functions under this section, and in particular to—

(a) ensure that children are made aware of his function and how they may communicate with him;

(b) consult children, and organisations working with children, on the matters he proposes to review and report on under subsection (2)(c) or (d);

(c) ensure that the content of any material issued by the Commissioner or his staff, whether printed or in electronic or other form, which is intended to be used by children, takes account, so far as practicable, of the means of communication, level of understanding and usual language of the intended recipients.

(4) The Children's Commissioner must for the purposes of subsection (3) have particular regard to groups of children who do not have other adequate means by which they can make their views known.

(5) The Children's Commissioner or a person authorised by him may for the purposes of his function under this section at any reasonable time—

(a) enter any premises, other than a private dwelling, for the purposes of interviewing any child accommodated or cared for there; and

(b) if the child consents, interview the child in private.

(6) Any person exercising functions under any enactment must supply the Children's Commissioner with such information in that person's possession relating to those functions as the Children's Commissioner may reasonably request for the purposes of his function under this section (provided that the information is information which that person may, apart from this subsection, lawfully disclose to him).

(7) The Children's Commissioner may provide assistance to a child to bring legal proceedings where the child is unable to bring legal proceedings; and it appears to the Commissioner reasonable to do so and there is no other person or body likely to provide such assistance or take such action (or both).

(8) In considering for the purpose of his function under this section what constitutes the rights and interests of children (generally or so far as relating to a particular matter) the Children's Commissioner must have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

(9) In subsection (8) the reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is to the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20th November 1989, subject to any reservations, objections or interpretative declarations by the United Kingdom for the time being in force.'.—[Mrs. Brooke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Powers of consideration and representation by Children's Commissioner for Wales—

'(1) Section 75A of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c.14) (additional powers of consideration and representation) is amended as follows.

(2) Omit 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, to the responsible United Kingdom Minister of the Crown or Government department.".'.

New clause 3—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 is 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 or 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.'.

New clause 13—Children's Commissioner: functions (No.2)—

'(1) The Children's Commissioner has, subject to the following provisions of this Part, the function of promoting and safeguarding the rights and interests of children in England.

(2) The Children's Commissioner may in particular under this section—

(a) encourage persons exercising functions or engaged in activities affecting children to take account of their rights, views and interests;

(b) advise the Secretary of State on the rights, views and interests of children;

(c) review and report on the effectiveness of—

(i) advice and advocacy services;

(ii) complaints procedures; and

(iii) inspection and whistle-blowing arrangements,

so far as relating to children;

(d) review and report on any other matter relating to the rights, views and interests of children.

(3) The Children's Commissioner must take reasonable steps to involve children in the discharge of his functions under this section, and in particular to—

(a) ensure that children are made aware of his function and how they may communicate with him;

(b) consult children, and organisations working with children, on the matters he proposes to review and report on under subsection (2)(c) or (d);

(c) ensure that the content of any material issued by the Commissioner or his staff, whether printed or in electronic or other form, which is intended to be used by children, takes account, so far as practicable, of the means of communication, level of understanding and usual language of the intended recipients.

(4) The Children's Commissioner must for the purposes of subsection (3) have particular regard to groups of children who do not have other adequate means by which they can made their views known.

(5) The Children's Commissioner or a person authorised by him may for the purposes of his function under this section at any reasonable time—

(a) enter any premises, other than a private dwelling, for the purposes of interviewing any child accommodated or cared for there; and

(b) if the child consents, interview the child in private.

(6) Any person exercising functions under any enactment must supply the Children's Commissioner with such information in that person's possession relating to those functions as the Children's Commissioner may reasonably request for the purposes of his function under this section (provided that the information is information which that person may, apart from this subsection, lawfully disclose to him).

(7) In considering for the purpose of his function under this section what constitutes the rights and interests of children (generally or so far as relating to a particular matter) the Children's Commissioner must have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

(8) In subsection (7) the reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is to the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20th November 1989, subject to any reservations, objections or interpretative declarations by the United Kingdom for the time being in force.'.

New clause 18—Exercise of functions in relation to children in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—

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

(a) hold an inquiry on any matters as regards children in Wales; and

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

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

(a) hold an inquiry on any matters as regards children in Scotland; and

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

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

(a) hold an inquiry on any matters as regards children in Northern Ireland; and

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

Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out clause 2.

Amendment No. 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out 'take reasonable steps to'.

Amendment No. 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out 'section' and insert 'Part'.

Amendment No. 44, in clause 4, page 2, line 24, at end insert—

'(c) ensure that direct services provided to children by the Commissioner or his staff in Wales whether formally or informally are provided in Welsh or English or both according to the wishes of the intended recipients.'.

Amendment No. 13, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, at end insert—

'(6A) In carrying out his functions under this section the Commissioner must take steps to ascertain the views of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the well-being of children.'.

Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 1, leave out clause 4.

Amendment No. 34, in page 4, line 24, leave out clause 5.

Amendment No. 45, in page 4, line 24, leave out clauses 5 to 7.

Amendment No. 24, in clause 5, page 4, line 29, leave out '(12) of section 2' and insert—

'(9) of section [Children's Commissioner: functions]'.

Amendment No. 25, in clause 6, page 5, line 6, leave out '(12) of section 2' and insert—

'(9) of section [Children's Commissioner: functions]'.

Government amendment No. 28.

Amendment No. 26, in clause 7, page 5, line 38, leave out '(12) of section 2' and insert—

'(9) of section [Children's Commissioner: functions]'.

Amendment No. 27, in clause 9, page 7, line 7, leave out '2(11) and (12)' and insert—

'[Children's Commissioner: functions](8) and (9)'.

Government amendment No. 30.

Amendment No. 9, in schedule 1, page 44, line 19, at end insert—

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

Amendment No. 10, in schedule 1, page 45, line 31, leave out

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

I think that the consensus has come to an end. I rise to speak to new clause 1 and amendment No. 1, which would delete clause 2, as amended in Committee, to consequential amendments Nos. 24 to 27, and to amendment No. 4, which would leave out clause 4. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) very much hopes to speak to new clause 2, and on other issues pertaining particularly to Wales. As we are short of time, it might help if I said at the outset that we want to press new clauses 1 and 2 to a vote.

The Minister will be aware that a wide range of organisations and individuals are enormously disappointed with the amendments to clause 2 that were recently passed in Committee. During the debate, it became apparent that the Government's views on the functions and role of the children's commissioner were fundamentally different from those who opposed the amendments, with little hope of convergence. Given the widespread welcome for a Children's Commissioner for England—I do indeed welcome the concept—it is surely right that we revisit the issues and reflect on the cross-party support given in the other place to a clause similar to new clause 1. Indeed, new clause 1 is also very similar to new clause 13, as proposed by the Conservatives.

As a consequence of the Government's amendments, the children's commissioner now has the function of

"promoting awareness of the views and interests of children".

That contrasts with the much stronger statement resulting from cross-party amendments made in the other place, which would have given the commissioner the function of

"promoting and safeguarding the rights and interests"

of children. As the Children's Commissioner for Wales said:

"What sort of 'champion' is it that does not advocate for the rights of the group of people they are championing?"

We welcome the fact that the Government accepted at a very early stage an amendment in the other place whereby the commissioner "must"—rather than "may"—have regard to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. But the Government also required that the commissioner be concerned "in particular" with the five "outcome goals". The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded:

"We consider that the confusion engendered by reincorporating in the Bill a duty to have regard both to the Convention and the five outcomes will risk downgrading the Convention from a framework to a background to the Commissioner's work . . . We conclude that it is unnecessary for the five outcomes listed in clause 2(3) as originally introduced to be reinstated. If the Government feels they must, they should be clearly placed within the context of the CRC."

The Minister told the Committee that if the focus were simply on rights, it would limit the work that the commissioner could do on behalf of children. That is a point with which we have considerable difficulty.

Does the hon. Lady recall that, in Committee, the Minister for Children argued in favour of the Secretary of State having powers to direct? Does she agree that that is totally wrong and that the Secretary of State should not have such powers? The Secretary of State can already instigate inquiries and it is vital that the children's commissioner be independent of Government and free to comment on Government inquiries. Can the hon. Lady envisage circumstances in which a Government inquiry could have a specific political dimension, making the independence of the children's commissioner absolutely vital?

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I could not agree more with her, so I will cut a bit out of my speech. It is indeed vital that we have a genuinely independent children's champion.

In Committee, the Minister said that the changes that she was proposing would

"ensure that we have the very best commissioner in the world, built on our experience of the workings of commissioners in other countries."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 October 2004; c. 16.]

All members of the Committee wanted the best commissioner in the world, but which other commissioner anywhere does not have the basic right and duty of promoting and safeguarding children's rights? None. The model proposed for our commissioner is far weaker than those that exist in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I understand that the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children has written to the Minister expressing concern at the weakness of the legislation, suggesting that the Children's Commissioner for England might not be able to join the network. In other words, we cannot be part of the club.

On Second Reading in the other place, my noble friend Baroness Walmsley said:

"I was horrified to discover that the budget per child for the Northern Ireland Commissioner is £3.80, for every Welsh child it is £2.11, every Scottish child 98p, but the anticipated expenditure on every English child is only 24p"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 1220.]

Suspicion remains that the limiting of the role of the English commissioner is financial. I believe that that is quite fundamental.

Briefly, we welcome Govt amendment No. 30—the Government were listening there—and also have considerable sympathy for new clause 3. I am mindful that many other hon. Members have important contributions to make, so I shall end there.

I rise this time, I hope, to speak to the correct group of amendments. It all shows how keen I am to get my views on the record. [Hon. Members: "Excellent."] I support, as do other members of the Committee, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). We are co-signatories in respect of her new clause and of mine; they are complementary.

My amending provision is designed totally to remove the role of the Children's Commissioner for England out of the Welsh equation. At the same time the other extends the role of the Children's Commissioner for Wales to fill the gap and provide a comprehensive service to children from Wales wherever they are in care or in need of care. Sadly, the Government have refused to deal with that matter to the satisfaction of the Committee, of non-governmental organisations across Wales and of the Children's Commissioner for Wales himself.

The Government say that they do not want to extend devolution on this matter, but extending powers at this stage would not affect the current devolution settlement one iota. Acceptance of the amendment would not give a single additional power to the National Assembly for Wales, but would allow the Children's Commissioner for Wales to carry out his duties properly and to help Welsh children in all aspects of their lives, wherever they are in the UK.

I cannot emphasise enough to the House that the Children's Commissioner for Wales is an independent body and not a National Assembly body and neither is the commissioner's role to be an adjunct to the Welsh Assembly Government. He stands alone and should not be mixed up in the devolution process, as the Government seem to fear is likely to happen.

Members of the Welsh Affairs Committee have rehearsed the arguments on many occasions over this specific point. Indeed, the Committee conducted a report, "The Powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales", and we took evidence from the Minister for Children herself. The amendments advocate a logical and sensible move for the children of Wales, and I can assure the House that everyone in Wales agrees with what they propose. I would not have added my name to the amendments and new clauses if I were swimming against the tide of Welsh opinion. Children's organisations and the National Assembly for Wales believe that this is the right move for Welsh children and that the Government are wrong on this specific issue. I am sure that the Minister would agree that the acid test is how legislation operates in practice.

I congratulate the Committee on its excellent work, as reflected in the report, but is my hon. Friend aware that, in his annual report, the Children's Commissioner for Wales made it plain that he was able to make representations to the Government on any matter affecting children in Wales? It works.

I have no doubt that he will attempt to make it work, but I also know from the evidence that he gave to the Committee—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is being selective—that he does not accept that the drafting of the legislation would make his job any easier. In fact, he said that it would make it more difficult.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the debate shows that we are not asking the Government to move very far? We are asking only to formalise and make proper an arrangement that already exists informally. The point is that the Children's Commissioner for Wales is not a creature of the Assembly—it is completely independent—so the huge constitutional crisis that Ministers seem to fear will not arise.

Indeed. There is no crisis. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service has already been devolved to the Assembly. We are talking about something that is far less of a move than that. I simply cannot understand why the Government are so intransigent on this matter. I know that the Minister wants what is best for children in Wales, so she should listen more to what the NGOs and charities in Wales are saying; they want the same thing.

I am a huge supporter of the concept of draft legislation, but if the Government want Select Committees to undertake detailed pre-legislative scrutiny, they will have to accept that they should listen on occasions to what those Committees say. This is one such occasion and I ask the Government to accept the amendments in order to make a good and well-intentioned Bill even better.

The consensus is well and truly over at this stage, and the great melange of amendments and new clauses in the group covers a wide range of subjects about the children's commissioner. I shall speak briefly to new clause 1, proposed by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), which we shall support. It is similar to our new clause 13.

In Committee debates about the children's commissioner, we applied five principles. First, the new children's commissioner should be independent of the Government and a champion for children. Secondly, the commissioner should be powerful enough to do his or her job properly, regardless of Government schemes and funding shortfalls. Thirdly, he should fully engage with children and young people and also gain their confidence, as Baroness Ashton said in the other place. Fourthly, the children's commissioner should have a clear status in the context of other UK commissioners and other agencies and interested parties. Fifthly, the commissioner should be accountable to all of the above.

I fear that the way in which the Government have emasculated the powers of the commissioner has spoiled the cross-party consensus. I see the Minister for Children responding with an enormous Cheshire cat grin on her face as though she has just killed the biggest rat of all. There was enormous cross-party consensus to put together a comprehensive new clause 2 in the Lords. She has completely torn the guts out of it.

Let us remind ourselves of what the Government have reversed. They have completely left out the mention of children's rights. Instead, the children's commissioner will be promoting awareness of children's views. Children have no rights in the Bill; it is rights-lite, rights-free. In Committee, I offered the Minister the comparison of considering how feeble 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 made a series of amendments rather than just replacing new clause 2, and I have never been sure why she did that. The Bill dilutes the review and reporting powers, removing the advocacy and whistleblowing arrangements. It declines to beef up the children's commissioner's obligations to make children aware that they can consult him, and restores the Government's limited checklist on what sort of children's views and interests—not rights—he can take notice of. It reinforces the commissioner's inability to undertake inquiries into individual cases, even when they have implications for children generally. That is why the original clause, to which the Government have reverted, was described in the upper Chamber as discriminatory and castrated and as giving the children's commissioner the powers of a glorified public relations consultant. All along, the Government have claimed that they have done what children wanted, but nowhere have they provided evidence of that.

Five references to children's rights have been removed. The provision to support individual children was removed. The references to reviewing and reporting on the effectiveness of advice and advocacy and on whistleblowing and inspection arrangements were removed. The Government reinserted their outcome goals in part 1 of the Bill.

The Minister said that, in Committee, Ministers stated that the Government would ensure that they had the best commissioner in the world, built on their experience of the workings of commissioners in other countries. The Children's Rights Alliance has been completely unable to find a commissioner anywhere who does not have the basic duty of promoting and safeguarding children's rights, which means, by the looks of things, that the Children's Commissioner for England will not be permitted to be part of the European network.

We want to restore the original clause 2 that was inserted in the Bill in the upper House, as it has been emasculated. We will support new clause 1 in endeavouring to do that, although we think that new clause 13, removing subsection (7)—about which we, and the Government, have some qualms—would be the best way to do that.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are all about involving children, which is what the Bill is supposed to be all about. Amendment No. 11 would take the short phrase "take reasonable steps" from subsection (4) so that the children's commissioner must involve children in the discharge of his functions. That is what we have assumed all the way along, so why must "reasonable steps" be placed in the way of the commissioner's doing that?

In the first schedule to the Bill, we want to involve children much more in the selection of the children's commissioner in the first place. Amendment No. 9 says that the appointment of the commissioner should involve children and children's organisations. Consider the status of the other children's commissioners. In Wales, the appointment is made by the First Secretary of the National Assembly after taking account of the advice of the relevant committee, the views of relevant children and the advice of a selection panel independent of the Assembly. In Northern Ireland, the commissioner is appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister jointly, independently of the Government. In Scotland, the commissioner is appointed by the Queen on the nomination of the Scottish Parliament. But in England, he will be appointed by the Secretary of State. That is very different from the arrangements that pertain in the rest of the United Kingdom, which is why the English commissioner is not going to be the best in the world. In a phrase often quoted in the House of Lords, it is all about big ears and no teeth.

I speak in support of amendment No. 34, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), and new clause 1.

We discussed issues relating to Wales at length in Standing Committee and in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. We have taken a lot of evidence, as my hon. Friend, who chairs the Committee, has said. The Government should listen to the Welsh Affairs Committee, whose views have been totally ignored. It is shameful that the Government have not taken more notice of what we have said.

The Government should also have taken more notice of the first children's commissioner to be set up in the United Kingdom, Peter Clarke, who has been in post for three years now. They did not even consult him about the shape and form of the new Children's Commissioner for England. That was a terrible failing. This is a good Bill and it is sad that issues remain that could have been sorted out. There is much to rejoice in, including today's good news from the Government, but it is sad that we have had to raise the Welsh dimension again today.

The overwhelming view in Wales is that the Government's proposals in clause 5, which amendment No. 34 aims to delete, would undermine the Children's Commissioner for Wales and be confusing to children in Wales. The Northern Ireland and Scotland commissioners also find the proposals undermining.

Clarity and simplicity seem to be the keys to any successful office. The Children's Commissioner for Wales has had a big impact and made a lot of difference to consideration of children and their rights. The Government have not consulted him or listened to him. What is happening is undermining him. Their proposals are a setback for Wales.

The Children's Commissioner for Wales already has the power to listen to any concerns raised by children. He has been into prisons to see children and he has related his findings to the police and worked hard on such non-devolved matters. Clause 5 gives the English children's commissioner the function of promoting awareness in Wales about non-devolved matters, without any proposal for him to have even a base in Wales.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the president of the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children recently wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children emphasising that, under the job description that has been given, it is unlikely that the commissioner would be able to join the network. Not only is the commissioner in England likely to be a watered-down version of the commissioners already in place in the other UK nations, but the protection afforded would compare badly with what is offered by counterparts in Europe. I do not believe that English children are uniquely undeserving of a real commissioner.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I support what she says.

The English children's commissioner will operate without knowledge of the Welsh context or of the interface between devolved and non-devolved matters. Peter Clarke and the children's commissioners for Scotland and for Northern Ireland have condemned the proposed model and said that it is a recipe for confusion. Peter Clarke said that if he visited secure accommodation in Neath and saw two children, he would be responsible for the one who had come in through the care system but not for the other if that child had come in through the juvenile justice system, because the latter child would come under the remit of the English children's commissioner.

That is bound to cause problems and difficulties. Our duty is to children in Wales, and we must ensure that those who have problems are clear about where they should take them. It is very sad that we have been unable to come to an arrangement that is satisfactory to everyone in Wales.

Clause 5 also allows the English Secretary of State to direct the English children's commissioner to undertake inquiries in Wales. That means that an English Minister can ask the English children's commissioner to conduct an inquiry, in Wales, into a case involving a Welsh child. That is a recipe for confusion, and it calls into question the independence of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. I do not see how a person who can be directed by a Secretary of State can be called "independent".

The Government are pinning their hopes on the commissioners being able to liaise with each other by means of a memorandum of understanding. This House should be giving out the clear message that the arrangements that we are making will best serve the interests of children in Wales. I am sorry that the Government have not listened to the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Children's Commissioner for Wales or to children's organisations in Wales, because it means that they have not listened to those who work most closely with children in Wales.

The Welsh Affairs Committee produced an excellent report on this matter, but the Government's response was very disappointing. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will tell the House what she intends to do to tackle those problems.

I want to begin by assuring all hon. Members that the Government have listened to other opinions, throughout this debate and in connection with every clause in the Bill. The range of amendments that the Government have tabled, in respect of the children's commissioner and of other matters, is proof of that. Not every interested party will agree on every aspect of the Bill, but that is another issue. We have been engaged in a thorough process and have tried to listen to all the issues that people have raised.

In the little time that remains, I want to go back over the principal issues, and the question of whether we are establishing a powerful and strong champion for children. I shall then turn to the issues raised by those of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Wales.

I repeat what I said in Committee: I believe that the commissioner for English children that the Bill establishes—who will also have responsibility for British children on non-devolved issues—will be an extremely powerful and effective champion on behalf of children. In framing the commissioner's powers and duties, we have had regard for the UN convention on the rights of the child, which is why we listened to the arguments in support of amendments tabled in the upper House. As a result, the commissioner must have regard for the UNCRC, which proves that his work has its basis in children's rights.

However, we have also said from the start that we do not wish to establish in England a commissioner whose primary purpose is to police individual rights. A panoply of structures exists already—in the courts and various tribunals—that ensures that individuals can pursue their rights. The commissioner will have the duty to oversee those systems, ensuring that the complaint mechanisms and tribunals work and that the courts defend individual rights.

Yet we also want the commissioner to do more. We want him to look at the outcomes that children and young people say are important, and at the much wider picture of children's lives. He would report to Parliament and elsewhere on all those important matters. As I said in Committee, if a commissioner were in place today, he would be looking at matters such as how children and young people are portrayed in the media, their position in the criminal justice system, and child obesity. The commissioner may well also look at other important issues, but if he had to focus on policing individual rights, he would have no time to do anything else.

I assure the House that under the general functions laid out in clause 2 the commissioner will be independent and able to look at any issue or question. He will be able to initiate inquires into any case that has wider significance and public policy implications. That is another example of how the Government have listened.

The commissioner will have total discretion over the budgets that he commands, except for the normal considerations of propriety. Another sign of the Government's willingness to listen is the fact that the commissioner will have access to children—a provision that we introduced to the Bill. In addition, the Government have amended the Bill to ensure that the commissioner can seek responses to the inquiries and recommendations contained in reports that he compiles. The commissioner will report annually to Parliament, and I hope that the relevant Select Committees will hold him to account.

Finally, I remind the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that the word "rights" does not appear in the legislation setting out the functions of the disability rights commissioner.

I turn now to the issues raised by those of my hon. Friends with constituencies in Wales. Like them, the Government are anxious to ensure that children in Wales are no less well served by their children's commissioner than their counterparts in England would be. However, we must work within the devolution settlement as it stands. I know that some of my hon. Friends find that difficult, but we do not want the children's commissioner—who will report every year to this House through the Secretary of State for Education and Skills—to relinquish all responsibility for matters in Wales that remain the responsibility of Westminster.

Certain hon. Members have argued that we cannot change the devolution settlement in the context of this debate. I agree, and that is why we tabled three new clauses in Committee to clarify the role of the children's commissioners in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and to enable all the UK commissioners to work together on non-devolved matters. Those amendments were accepted and now form part of the Bill.

We envisage that, in practice, the commissioners will draw up informal ways of working together on non-devolved issues that will be child friendly while at the same time remaining within the terms of the devolution settlement. To deprive children in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales of the services of the children's commissioner in respect of non-devolved matters would not enhance those children's national identity or culture. They will simply lose the services of a commissioner who has a general overview and represents all our children in matters affecting the United Kingdom as a whole that are decided in Westminster. They will therefore be worse off than their counterparts in England. I cannot believe that that is the wish of my hon. Friends in tabling those amendments or of the House, and I hope—

It being half past Two o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 16—Procedures in relation to the processing of personal data—

'(1) This section shall have effect in relation to the provisions described in section 12 and the processing of personal data.

(2) The Secretary of State may not make any regulations under the provisions of section 12, or issue guidance or a direction under those provisions, unless the Information Commissioner has been provided with the opportunity to make representations as to any degradation in the protection afforded to data subjects or to any degradation in the effectiveness of any data protection principle which would be caused by the implementation of that regulation, guidance or direction.

(3) If the Secretary of State issues regulations, guidance or direction under the provisions of section 12 which, in the view of the Information Commissioner, degrade the protection afforded to data subjects or degrade the effectiveness of any data protection principle, the Information Commissioner may publish any relevant information, correspondence, document or advice which relates to the degradation in question.

(4) For the purposes of this Act, section 10(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (c.29) (exemptions from right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress) shall apply as if it read as follows—

"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1, 2 or 4 of Schedule 2 is met."

(5) Personal data processed by any data controller for a purpose specified in regulations, guidance or direction made or issued under the provisions of section 12 shall not be processed for any other purpose unless that purpose is also specified in regulations made under powers authorised by this Act.

(6) For the purpose of this Act, "personal data" shall mean any data which relate to a living individual who can be directly or indirectly identified—

(a) from those data, or

(b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller.

(7) For the purpose of this section—

(a) the definition of "data", "processing", "data controller" and "data subject" shall be the same as in section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998;

(b) the "data protection principles" are the principles described in Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 1998;

(c) the "Information Commissioner" is the Commissioner established by the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.'.

Amendment No. 46, in page 9, line 32, leave out clause 12.Amendment No. 17, in clause 12, page 9, line 39, leave out 'one or more databases' and insert

'a United Kingdom-wide database and facilitate regional databases where appropriate'.

Amendment No. 2, in clause 12, page 10, line 15, leave out paragraph (g).

Amendment No. 18, in clause 12, page 10, line 15, leave out from 'of' to end of line 16 and insert

'concern for his welfare, such basis for concern having been set out in national guidance;'.

Amendment No. 3, in clause 12, page 10, line 17, leave out paragraph (h).

Amendment No. 38, in clause 12, page 10, line 39, at end insert—

'( ) The requirement to disclose information for agencies specified in subsection (6)(b) will not apply if disclosure would be detrimental to the child's welfare or safeguarding.'.

Amendment No. 19, in clause 12, page 11, line 2 , at end insert—

'(7A) The requirement to disclose information for agencies specified in subsection (6)(b) will not apply if disclosure would be detrimental to the child's welfare or safeguarding.'.

We now come to what could be, barring the smacking debate that we shall hold later, the most contentious part of the Bill and the one about which the Opposition have the most concerns. I want to talk to clause 12 as a whole. Amendment no. 46 would delete it, but other amendments in the group, as well as new clause 4 itself, would improve and make acceptable the whole section about databases.

This is an important part of the Bill. In Committee, we spent more than a morning on it, rightly, yet at the end of that time we had few assurances from the Minister for Children, Young People and Families about how the provisions would work, so we subsequently decided to vote against the whole clause. The upper House made some improvements to the clause, but although they were welcome they did not go nearly far enough.

In Committee, the Minister mentioned that she hoped our fears would be assuaged by the publication of the consultation document on the whole database system, which duly took place last week. We are grateful for that consultation document, but that is all it is—a consultation document. It is not a White Paper; it does not show a firm direction for the Government to take. The responses will not be in until the end of January, yet we are being asked, at this late stage of the Bill's progress, to write the Government a large blank cheque to set up powerful databases that would include each and every one of the more than 11 million children in this country.

The 10 trailblazer projects—pilots—being set up to try to investigate how such schemes could work are only halfway through their task. That work is being extended until March 2005 and the projects have just been granted second-tier funding, yet we are being asked to give the Secretary of State enormous powers to set up databases, about which there remain a lot of unanswered questions. The Government do not even know what the final identity and nature of those databases will be.

Even more worrying is the fact that only in the last week or so have we started to hear details about the Government's integrated children's systems, which, I gather, are to replace child protection registers by December 2005. They will be more detailed than child protection registers and will contain children's social care case records. They will operate in parallel with other case record systems, such as the NHS care record system for health practitioners.

The Minister has pledged £30 million to the project over the next two years, yet that was not mentioned once during the entire proceedings of the Bill in the upper House, on Second Reading or in Committee. Not once did the Minister allude to the fact that another much larger database is being constructed, for which money is already committed, and which will replace child protection registers.

Why was that not mentioned? How will the new system interact with the databases that we are discussing in the Bill? How will information be transferred? What arrangements have been made for security of access under the new systems? In answer to my written question

"what arrangements are already in existence to register children on a national register",

the Minister replied:

"There are no arrangements in existence to register children on a national register."—[Official Report, 13 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 634W.]

Why was that?

What is this proposal if it is not a national register? We need much more information than we have been given so far.

Yet more alarm bells are sounding. The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, warned in an article in The Times earlier in the year that we risk

"sleepwalking into a surveillance society".

The arrangements have already been referred to as "Big Brother for children" in The Guardian. Children Now magazine recently warned:

"We need to avoid making professionals slaves to technology by placing undue burdens on them to record information. And we should question whether the benefits of storing copious information about children are offset by the disadvantages of information overload and creeping surveillance."

I share those worries.

The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged Lord Laming's recommendation that information sharing is absolutely vital. He clearly welcomed the amendments to the provisions proposed by the Lords. He was complimentary about some of the information that is coming from his own trailblazer. He has asked for details about the consultation process throughout the passage of the Bill, and he now has them. Is he not just grandstanding when we should be getting on with cracking these thorny issues and making information sharing a reality for the safety of all our children?

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is essential to make information sharing a reality, but although we are told that the method in the Bill is the only way of doing that, we do not know exactly how it will work. Information sharing is a sensitive subject, as I shall illustrate with comments made by the British Medical Association and sexual health clinics. We need to get the system right or it could be entirely counter-productive. People will not present themselves if they do not want information to be shared by others, so although the principle of information sharing is right, we need a proper system. We have said all along that we do not understand how putting the names of 11.5 million children on a database—we do not yet know the extent of the other details that might be included—will benefit the tens of thousands of children who could realistically be described as children at risk or vulnerable children.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely missing the point, which is surely that it is difficult to define the children who are at risk. The Government's proposal would flag up causes of concern among professionals, which would help to identify the children who are missed under existing systems—they will certainly be missed under any of his proposals.

We will come on to the definition of "cause for concern" in a moment because that is another worry. I still cannot understand how overloading a system with the details of 11.5 million children would help those who are most at risk. Many of the missing children to whom the hon. Gentleman rightly often refers—we debated them in Committee—will remain missing if such databases are in place because their parents, carers or private fosterers often want them to remain missing, but that is an entirely separate issue.

I want to pose some more questions to the Minister, although I want other hon. Members to have the opportunity to speak. She has said:

"we are not good at establishing IT systems"—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 October 2004; c. 240.]

We do not know how close we are to having available for the database information technology that would be interoperable with other services. We have received no assurances about security of access. We do not know which identifying marks will be used—will they be NHS or national insurance numbers? Clause 12(4)(h) is a catch-all provision that states that

"information of such other description, not including medical records or other personal records, as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify"

may be included on the databases. What does that mean? What could be included? How long will the information be kept on the system? How will the system address the Soham loophole? Will information on children be kept after they reach 18?

Several problems have emerged due to conflicts in the proposals since the publication of the consultation document. A range of listed persons or bodies will be compelled to disclose information. There will be no caveats or exceptions to that requirement, except for the medical ones that I mentioned. When the Minister was asked in Committee about professional judgment, which we support, she said that permitting it would

"cause confusion because it would mean that practitioners would have to think about whether they should enter the fact that they are working with a child on to the database. The practitioner would have to apply a test whether disclosing the information that they were being asked to disclose would be detrimental to the child's welfare. We want to provide practitioners with certainty about using the database, not uncertainty."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 October 2004; c. 263.]

That effectively overrides the essential need for professional judgment to be applied, although we were promised that throughout the passage of the Bill. What will be the penalties for non-disclosure? Who will judge whether a case of non-disclosure was intentional or accidental? What will happen following a case of non-disclosure?

It is interesting to note that paragraph 2.19 of the consultation document states that a practitioner can override a professional duty of confidentiality to place a flag on the database. However, paragraphs 2.22 and 3.25 say that a practitioner may not be able to share information because of a duty of confidentiality. That raises the amusing possibility that two practitioners could flag the database and contact each other, yet be unable to discuss their reasons for doing so—such is the craziness of the consultation document and the Minister's proposals.

We have received strong expressions of concern from many professionals. The BMA asked:

"How do Ministers envisage collating information required under Clause 9 . . . Will they use the route of the automated Exeter Registration System . . . run by the PCOs to collate the information? Whose responsibility will it be to provide the information—primary care organisations or individual GP practices? What impact will the requirements have on GP practices and primary care?"

It understands that

"the database is expected to include the GPs' name and contact details for every child under 18 on their lists rather than for children about whom practitioners have a concern. The Minister appears to be saying that it is also the practitioner's responsibility to notify the data manager each time a child leaves a practice list, and every time a child registers with a new practice . . . Each practice could have around 440 children on its list and the BMA will need to explore with the Department of Health"

how the logistics and any extra work load requirements will be addressed.

I recently received a letter from Brook Advisory Centres saying:

"We are particularly concerned that young people's attendance at sexual health services might have to be notified to information databases. This concern was not allayed by the amendment during the Bill's passage through the House of Lords . . . Research has consistently demonstrated that confidentiality is of paramount importance for young people using contraceptive and sexual health services. Concerns about how far confidentiality is protected in General Practices and other sexual health services are among the issues most frequently raised by users of the Brook Young People's Information Service, which is accessed by 17,000 young people a year."

As one user of the service said:

"I think it is an utter disgrace. Next they will be printing barcodes on the insides of your wrists. I know I would think twice about seeking any help or advice, instead of listening to street tales about contraception etc. It would be ridiculous and a bad move."

Brook and many children's charities are worried about how the database system will work.

Given that the Government are proposing such an important step change to the way in which we put information about each of our children on systems, they need to be better prepared and further down the road than they are at present. If they do not give us the real assurances that we need, they should consider removing the clause from the Bill. They could then do the work on it that is required and bring it back as a part of a criminal justice Bill. Such legislation could address the Soham loophole and related problems with databases that we have at the moment.

New clause 4, which we did not get to discuss in Committee, would set up an appeals procedure. There is no appeals procedure in the Bill that relates to any of the databases. There is therefore no defence against wrong information being placed on a database—wrong information that may be vexatious, which has been placed there as a result of a complaint made by a child against a teacher or a parent. Those records—we do not know the extent of what may be kept—may be kept for an indeterminate period and if used may count against the person mentioned. Surely, as with any other such database, there should be a mechanism by which people who want to challenge the veracity and relevance of the information stored about them can do so. There are no safeguards in the Bill, and that is a deep worry. Wrong information about people could be placed on the database either accidentally or intentionally, and their lives and records could be unjustifiably blighted as a result.

None of that detracts from the requirement, the necessity and the desirability of placing on the database worrying information about those who might be dangerous to vulnerable people. That is what databases should be about. However, we need proper checks and balances. At no point during the passage of the Bill have the Government provided reassurances on how an appeals mechanism could work and how long the information will be kept.

Amendment No. 17 would limit the Secretary of State to setting up one database. We now know why the Government resisted a similar amendment in Committee, saying that it might be appropriate for other databases to be set up. We are to have databases coming out of our ears, it would appear. The Minister claimed that accepting the amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from setting up a regional or a London-wide database, for example. There is a strong case for a London-wide database because of the nature of and interaction between all the boroughs in London, and the Climbié case clearly underlined that. I have no problem with that, but the Bill as it stands could facilitate it through co-operation between authorities.

In order to allay the Minister's objections to the amendment that we moved in Committee, we have slightly changed the wording so that it refers to facilitating "regional databases where appropriate". As we have gone that far to accommodate the Minister's concerns, perhaps she will tell us which other databases, about which we do not yet know, she envisages the Secretary of State will need to set up and which the amendment would prevent.

Amendment No. 18 is about the definition of "cause for concern". Hon. Members have mentioned the reference to it in clause 12(4)(g). This strange phrase has come out of the blue. To what types of concern does it refer? It would appear that it is intended to be all-encompassing: any concern about a child's behaviour, circumstances or developmental progress. By what standards are children and parents to be measured and a judgment on concern to be made?

As the Barnardo's briefing said:

"Cause for concern is not a recognised criteria and will include unclear and subjective information of unproven worth, which may lead to inappropriate interventions while leaving vulnerable children at risk. Cause for concern is not a standard used or understood by the caring professions. Nor does it appear in any other child welfare or health legislation."

It certainly does not appear in the Children Act 1989. That contains

"clear definitions of where local authorities can and must act when the child is in need. The child-in-need threshold is defined in statute and is associated with a range of additional powers in the supporting schedule. The Bill as currently drafted does not give professionals a common standard of that kind."

We need qualification of what the phrase really means. If we do not know what it means, practitioners in the field who will have to put the legislation into practice daily—GPs, social workers, teachers, the school nurse, the police—will be confused. They need to operate under one standard—hence the amendment suggests that we identify "cause for concern" and that a basis for it should be set out in national guidance. As I said in Committee, that guidance should be distributed among the professional bodies concerned, to ensure that all professionals sing from the same song sheet and operate under similar thresholds.

Amendment No. 38, which we have co-signed with the Liberals, and amendment No. 19, which we have tabled alone, are about not disclosing information if it would be detrimental to the child's welfare. That is self-explanatory, and we went into it at length in Committee. Extraordinarily, the Minister again did not take the point on board, although it is clearly in the interests of vulnerable children that such a provision should be in the Bill. We hope that the slight re-wording will make it more acceptable.

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments on databases. Obviously, I was not privy to discussions in Committee, but I have followed carefully his arguments on Second Reading and this afternoon. Do I understand him correctly in assuming that he is arguing that there should be a London-wide database and regional databases—such as one in west Yorkshire, for example—but not a national database? If so, what assumption is he making about the lack of mobility of families? The database that he suggests would not cover somebody moving from London to Leeds, but in my experience that happens quite regularly.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, which is why I have been suggesting exactly the reverse throughout proceedings on the Bill. We are in favour of local databases that join up local professionals and which would probably come under the aegis of the director of children's services. We need greater clarification of how that information would be submitted and acted on, and at what point an intervention by social workers would be triggered. I am in favour of that for vulnerable children, such as those on the at-risk register and those who are looked after.

For exactly the reasons mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I am also in favour of a national database—information for which would be passed from authorities that flag up children on their own databases. The most vulnerable children are usually the most mobile. A child on the radar of Newcastle social services who disappears and ends up in Brighton would need to be the subject of a central exchange of information, so that the social services director in Brighton could check on a national database for any form. The decision on whether intervention should occur should be left to the relevant authorities in the area where the child resides, with or without parents. We absolutely need a national database, but 11.5 million children do not need to be on it. We must concentrate on the most vulnerable children, to whom the most resources should be devoted. That is the great difference between us.

Clause 12 is very important and we shall certainly be pressing our amendments to the vote unless we receive some severe assurances from the Minister.

I wish the Minister well with the Bill. Children need the protection afforded by this legislation. There have been too many horror stories of the system failing to co-ordinate the activities of professionals and children have been killed or abused as a consequence. However, there needs to be augmented protection of individuals from Ministers taking sweeping powers in establishing one or several information databases, which could interfere with private and family life—which, after all, is protected under article 8 of the United Nations convention on human rights. Therefore, my sole intervention on proceedings on this Bill is the tabling of new clause 16, which would go a long way to addressing the concerns expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Committee warned of the human rights problem in paragraph 109 of its 19th report, which states:

"We remain concerned about the lack of detail contained on the face of the Bill and the breadth of the regulation-making powers being conferred on the Secretary of State in a context involving serious interferences with Article 8 rights."

Another reason why the Minister should accept my new clause is that she may have been misdirected a little by her officials' analysis of the Data Protection Act 1998. For instance, in her written evidence to the Joint Committee, published in the Committee's report on page 24, in reply to the question:

"What is the proposed relationship between this legislation and the Data Protection Principles in the Data Protection Act?",

she said:

"We expect the databases to fully comply with the Data Protection Act and do not want to make any special arrangements under data protection for them."

To my mind, that answer is clearly wrong, as clause 12 contains a host of special arrangements such as the wide-ranging ministerial powers that can be used to neutralise the data protection principles.

Let me give a background example to show why subsections (2) and (3) of new clause 16 are needed. In Scotland, the collection of dates of birth on the poll tax form was not deemed excessive because it was prescribed in regulations. In England and Wales, a tribunal ruled that it was excessive, because there was no need to collect everybody's date of birth. That did not conform with the data protection principles. That is what happened in England and Wales when the Data Protection Act applied. In Scotland, the opposite happened under ministerial regulations. Therefore, statutory prescription specifically weakened the privacy protection afforded by the Act, and I think that the same will happen under this Bill.

In clause 12, we see statutory provisions that could weaken data protection principles. Under subsection (6)(a), the Secretary of State has the flexibility to specify personal data that could be excessive for the purpose, and that neutralises the third principle of the 1998 Act. Under subsection (6)(b) to (f), the Secretary of State has the flexibility to specify in regulations disclosures that could otherwise be incompatible with the purpose of collection, and that neutralises the second principle. Under subsection (6)(g), the Secretary of State has the flexibility to specify in regulations a long, or even infinite, period of retention of data, and that neutralises the fifth principle. Under subsection (6)(h), the Secretary of State has the flexibility to specify in regulations criteria that allow inaccurate or out-of-date personal data to be retained on the database, and that neutralises the fourth principle.

Under subsection (13)(a) to (c), the Secretary of State can specify a level of security that is lower than the appropriate managerial level, and that neutralises the seventh principle. Under subsection (13)(d), the Secretary of State can transfer data abroad, outside the European economic area, and that neutralises the eighth principle.

In effect, the Bill gives the Minister control over how virtually all the data protection principles apply to personal data. The Information Commissioner cannot effectively enforce the principles if the Minister has used her powers in a way that degrades the protection afforded by each principle.

It will not be satisfactory for the Minister to give reassurance about consultation with the Information Commissioner. The point that I am raising is that there is no counterbalance in the Bill to stop any future Minister using the powers to set aside or degrade the protection afforded by the data protection principles. That is why, when the Minister told the Joint Committee that