I welcome the opportunity to have an input to the Bill, because the office of the children's commissioner will have a significant impact on the lives of children. Clause 2 states that the principal aim of the commissioner will be to safeguard and promote the rights and best interests of children and young persons. Nobody could disagree with that noble aspiration.

It is well known that the nine months a child spends in the womb affect his or her well-being for life. That is recognised through the obligation on cigarette companies to attach Government health warnings to cigarette packets. However, the Bill does not recognise properly that children's rights must be protected before birth.

It would be futile to safeguard children from physical harm after birth, if they have already have been seriously harmed in the womb. If the children's commissioner is to fulfil the function of safeguarding and promoting the rights and best interests of children and young people, the rights of unborn children must come within his remit.

Children are among the most vulnerable people in society. Recent child abuse cases have been witnessed on a large scale that show how vulnerable they are. We must not overlook the fact that many children are carers themselves - minors looking after minors, or young people looking after an ill or disabled parent or grandparent. The Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill must reflect on these harsh realities and seek to lighten the load where it is heaviest.

I would also like the Bill and the commissioner's role take into account the unique difficulties in Northern Ireland. For more than 30 years, children have been manipulated by paramilitaries and have been used to do their dirty work. Punishment beatings have mostly been carried out on children and young people. The children's commissioner's role must be to tackle some of these terrible, daily human rights abuses.

Services for children should be overseen and monitored by the commissioner. Children in care have often been viewed as easy targets, especially in their most vulnerable state. I hope that the Bill will rectify that.

I hope that the commissioner will safeguard those rights to education that are recognised by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Powers should be available to combat bullying in schools and play areas and to promote the right to quality education.

We must not lose sight of our aim to protect. Seeking to empower children by making them more independent is no substitute for a loving, safe environment. Childhood is all about children developing into adults, and this growing stage must be protected. A healthy family environment is vital for the healthy development of children. The commissioner will only be one office, whereas family units exist across Northern Ireland. The family unit will continue to be the most important factor in the lives of young people and children.

Section 2(3) places an obligation on the commissioner to have regard for the importance of the role of parents. I welcome that provision, and I hope that it will be upheld in every decision taken by the commissioner. No attempt must be made by this or any other piece of legislation to undermine the vital role carried out by parents.

It is to every child's benefit to be disciplined when deemed appropriate so he can be guided in the right way.

However, the commissioner should be able to distinguish between parental discipline carried out in a loving way and physical violence that amounts to nothing less than abuse.

It is recognised that children thrive through the love and support of family life. I hope that the office of the children's commissioner can complement the positive influence that a family unit has on bringing up children. The new commissioner's office must demonstrate an understanding of all the needs of children - physical, mental, emotional, social and spiritual.

In addition to that, the office should express a commitment to promoting the rights of the disabled, perhaps the most vulnerable of young people. Children must be allowed to be children as they learn to grow up to be adults.

I welcome warmly the Bill's introduction, which will establish a children's commissioner in Northern Ireland. The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety recommended the appointment of a children's commissioner to act as a watchdog and promote and protect children's interests in its inquiry into residential and secure accommodation for children in Northern Ireland. Some witnesses believed firmly that this would be the most important initiative to benefit children, especially those in care and leaving care.

I have listened carefully to the various contributions and I am grateful to Ministers Haughey and Leslie for introducing the Bill.

I agree with Mrs Iris Robinson about the protection of the child in utero - before birth. Billy Armstrong also referred to that. I will not go into a detailed analysis of that debate other than to say that after conception a baby is genetically complete. Nutrition is the only extra thing needed to aid development. Members know all the arguments about 22 weeks and 28 weeks.

I also agree with Iris Robinson about the commissioner for children. My Committee has put a lot of work into that, and the Bill can be amended later. However, I support that 100%, and many members of my Committee also do.

Minister Haughey made comments about respecting children's views. The whole question of human rights, the rights of the child and the unborn child and the participation of young children in matters that concern them are paramount.

The Health Committee produced a report on children in care and in secure accommodation. Its main recommendation was the appointment of a commissioner for children. There are two key points in the Children (Leaving Care) Bill that are relevant to the children's commissioner: the personal advisers and the care pathway. Personal advisers will be appointed by trusts for children or young people leaving care. Even if a young person goes to live in another part of Northern Ireland, or possibly elsewhere, his personal adviser will have direct responsibility for him. A personal adviser cannot take the place of parents, but that is the intent. The care pathway is a pathway for a young person who has been in care going through the education system.

The intelligence of a child starting school at the age of five is based on his or her genetic makeup, and there is nothing that can be done about that. However, the environment that a child grows up in also affects his intelligence. Members will agree that a child growing up in a large, poor family that cannot afford healthy eating, and in which some members of the family smoke, is at a gross disadvantage compared to a child of the same age from a healthier environment whose parents are better off. Those points must be taken on board.

The number of recent cases highlighting abuse of children by those entrusted with their safety and protection was instrumental in our Committee's decision to conduct an inquiry into the state of child protection services in Northern Ireland. Those cases fully vindicate the strong investigative powers that it is proposed be vested in the commissioner.

I pay tribute to all the childcare organisations that lobbied so effectively for a campaign for children, to all who contributed to the extensive consultation process and to Ministers Haughey and Leslie for introducing the Bill.

I welcome this important and long-awaited Bill. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister announced it in the Assembly on 29 January 2001. Its intention is to appoint a commissioner for children in Northern Ireland. The announcement has been welcomed by Members from all sides of the House.

The proposals were welcomed as a step towards ensuring that children can grow up in a society in which they are safe from exploitation and abuse, in which their rights are protected and in which their needs are met and their responsibilities are known by themselves and their parents.

After the announcement, the Committee of the Centre undertook a comprehensive inquiry to examine the role of a children's commissioner. In June 2001, the Committee produced a report setting out several detailed recommendations. In the course of the inquiry, the Committee listened to more than 13 hours of oral evidence and questioned 51 individuals representing 26 organisations. I pay tribute to all those organisations and individuals, because they made their points sincerely and were obviously people of commitment and dedication. Those organisations included many statutory and voluntary bodies. We also heard the views of young people, and we invited representatives from Wales and Norway to tell us of their experiences.

The Committee concluded that there was an overwhelming case for appointing a commissioner for children, and it supported calls from the organisations consulted that a commissioner should be appointed as soon as possible. The Committee's report called for a strong, independent commissioner who could look into all aspects of children's lives and be a champion for them. A commissioner should, as it was described to the Committee, have a "helicopter view" - he should be able to see the big picture. By having that overview, the commissioner would be able to draw attention to problems, gaps and lack of proper co-operation.

The Committee was also clear that the commissioner should have a wide range of powers to investigate complaints, initiate inquiries, subpoena witnesses and compel disclosure. The Committee concluded that the commissioner must be able to support children in court cases or initiate cases, if necessary, on their behalf. However, the Committee was equally clear that although a commissioner needs powers to initiate or to intervene in legal proceedings, such powers should only be used strategically when all other means have been exhausted.

The Committee felt strongly, and was supported by the witnesses, that the role of the commissioner must extend to reserved matters. The commissioner must be able to ensure that the rights of children in the juvenile justice system are protected and that they can call on him if necessary. The Committee was pleased to note that most of the recommendations in its report were reflected in the model for a commissioner that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister consulted about last September.

More importantly, however, the Committee welcomes the inclusion of those recommendations in the Bill. The Committee acknowledges that the Department has faced a difficult and complex task in getting the Bill to this Stage; it recognises that many provisions of the Bill cut across the remits of several Departments. That necessitated negotiation and agreement with other Ministers. The Committee welcomes particularly the inclusion of provisions to ensure that the role of a commissioner will extend to reserved matters. The Committee recognised that this was a major hurdle for the Department, and it supported the Department in its negotiations with the NIO to achieve that goal.

In considering the details of the Bill, we must not lose sight of what we are trying to achieve. In the course of our inquiry, we heard many shocking and dramatic statistics about the plight of some of our most vulnerable children. Particularly, we heard about the children who at birth were described as being "destined to fail". The appointment of a children's commissioner is a first and crucial step towards breaking that cycle.

We want to see a commissioner who will be universally recognised as a champion for all children, someone who will have a high profile, be easily recognisable and accessible to all children, wherever they live or whatever their circumstances. The Committee of the Centre will consider the provisions of the Bill in detail to ensure that it results in such a champion for children. It will seek and listen to the views expressed in the House and from interested organisations and individuals. Views expressed in the Chamber seem to fall under broad headings. There will be an examination of the role of the commissioner in relation to parents and the family. The rights, best interests and welfare of children will also be addressed, as will the rights and responsibilities of parents.

The commissioner's accountability has not been mentioned today, but it must be critically examined. Who will the commissioner report to? Who will he be accountable to? Terms such as "relevant body", which is sometimes used loosely in legislation, must also be defined. It must be made clear who the specific relevant bodies are. The care of unborn children was also mentioned forcibly in the debate. Those areas will be scrutinised by the Committee of the Centre, and it will note its concerns before the final presentation.

The greatest gift to children is to show them how much they are loved and enable them to enjoy a good, stable, secure and loving home background.

The completion of the Bill involved wide consultation that included a substantial inquiry by the Committee of the Centre, of which I am a member. The report into the proposal to appoint a commissioner for children in Northern Ireland was comprehensive and thoughtfully considered. It took into account the expert advice and opinions of groupings as diverse as the Law Society of Northern Ireland, Voices of Young People in Care, the Northern Ireland Guardian Ad Litem Society, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Derry Children's Commission. There were also contributions from legislative bodies, social workers, charities, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and many children's organisations and steering groups that already act as a voice for children in the voluntary sector.

Added to that extensive body of local knowledge was the voice of the Norwegian Children's Ombudsman and the chairperson of the Health and Social Services Committee from the National Assembly for Wales. The Norwegian Government have had a Children's Ombudsman since 1981, the first European country to have one. The lessons that they have learnt in those 21 years, and the pro-active approach that they have adopted because of their experience, were of immense value when drawing up the Bill. The National Assembly for Wales was the first Government in the United Kingdom to appoint a children's commissioner.

Defining the terms of appointments, resources, roles and responsibilities and the duties and powers to be available to the commissioner has been crucial. Other key areas of the commissioner's remit include independence, good practice, interfacing and accountability. The Bill is a welcome addition to the further protection of children and young people.

The commissioner will be appointed jointly by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. He or she will act as a champion for children. It is not intended that the commissioner will usurp the role of parents or duplicate or take over the functions of other agencies.

Initially, the appointment will be for four years, with an option to renew. The maximum term will be eight years. The commissioner will keep under review the workings of the legislation and make reports to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, who will in turn report to the Assembly.

The children's commissioner will act as an advocate for children's rights and monitor those rights in Northern Ireland. He will be the voice of young people and a champion for all young children.

The principal aim of the Bill is to safeguard and promote the rights and best interests of children and young persons. The commissioner will have a duty to create and promote new and innovative opportunities for young people to make their views heard. That could include working through schools, youth clubs and other forums, and involve the use of information technology.

Another key responsibility, which is crucial to the success of the role, is the proviso that the commissioner should work to improve the means of communication with children and young people through, for example, the promotion of language that young people understand, without jargon and formality. It is vital that children feel that they have somewhere to turn when they have an issue that they cannot discuss with parents or carers. It is also important that they receive clear answers and assurances that they are being heard. The western young people's steering group made the point that the commissioner must be easily accessible, physically and mentally, so that young people's minds are relaxed. The only way to do that is to communicate in a direct and equal manner that does not intimidate or confuse a child, especially one in an already vulnerable position. Therefore, it was necessary to ensure that the role of the commissioner was clear, unambiguous and transparent.

The Norwegian Children's Ombudsman related to the Committee details of Powerline, which exists for children in his country. It is not a hotline or a helpline, rather it is a service whereby children can discuss injustice or things that they would like changed. The Commissioner told the Committee that proposals to change legislation arise and that the material comes into the office for analysis, and it is responded to through the Internet channel. Again, that may be a useful tool to employ here.

The Committee of the Centre proposed that the interview panel should include young people, as happened in Wales. The Committee recommended that the children's commissioner should have adequate powers to investigate complaints or to initiate investigations or inquiries in respect of any aspect of children's rights, where other avenues of redress have failed. As the Ombudsman for Northern Ireland pointed out, there would be a legal problem if the children's commissioner determined complaints rather than investigating or supporting the complaint. However, the Ombudsman also highlights concerns regarding the potential for fragmentation, for example, in the commissioner's office and other bodies such as the courts, should the commissioner have too many powers. Therefore the important part of the Ombudsman's recommendation is that the powers be employed where other avenues of redress have failed.

The commissioner's main job will not be to upset the legislative apple cart, but he will need to have some course of action available to him where the normal procedures and systems have failed a child and further action is required.

The Bill recommends that the role of the commissioner should be to monitor the co-ordination of services between organisations that have a role in ensuring children's rights in all organisations, including public authorities. I agree that the definition of "a child" should also include those in utero. In other words, the child should be protected from before birth. The Bill recommends that the commissioner should be independent of all existing organisations and public bodies. That is in line with proposals put forward by virtually all the organisations that gave evidence to the Committee of the Centre. That has been assessed in line with section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Committee of the Centre agreed that the commissioner should receive adequate resources to carry out the role. Many organisations that gave evidence to the Committee felt that if the necessary resources were not forthcoming, the limited resources allocated would be wasted and a vital opportunity missed. However, the financial cost has been estimated. It will be £1 million with ongoing annual costs projected to be in the region of £1·9 million. I welcome the introduction of the Bill.

I am a member of the Committee of the Centre, so I have a particular interest in the issue, and I have contributed to the work along with other members of the Committee. The evidence that children need a commissioner for their protection is not a requirement - it is a necessity. Someone needs to be officially on the side of children to give them the protection and the voice they need. The Bill seems to deliver that: it addresses some of the most important issues that parents fear, especially that someone unsuitable, with a past history of abusing children physically or sexually, would gain employment in schools, churches and youth organisations. The safeguards suggested in the Bill go some way to ensuring that that never happens.

However, as with everything, the safeguards must work. It instils fear into the heart of every parent, after the catalogue of priests, church officials, youth workers and even activists for child protection who have been discovered abusing children and carrying out their deviant agenda while working with children.

The Bill must ensure that those who wish to work with children are vetted. We must go further to ensure worldwide protection for children so that jurisdictions and departmental boundaries cannot be used as excuses to fail our children. In the case of Victoria Climbié that aspect proved fatal as doctors, social workers and police all felt that it was someone else's responsibility to act on the evidence of abuse. Little Victoria died because of petty matters of jurisdiction. It is also a convenient way to evade prosecution. People protecting children must get their act together and decide definitively that there are no boundaries when it comes to protecting children; they must help one another.

It is too convenient that some priests and church officials can hightail it to a diocese in America when parents in Northern Ireland guess that something is amiss. Those men - if we can call them men - are protected by the Church and are given carte blanche to re-offend elsewhere, and that is despicable. The Bill must address that issue as strongly as possible. I welcome the new whistle-blowing procedures as a way forward in addressing that.

It is vital that those working with children are vetted and have references that will be held on a central register. The Pre-Employment Consultancy Service register must be on a statutory base, and it should have a list of people prohibited from working with children so that child-centred businesses can assure parents that their children are safe. Even those who run voluntary childcare services must be legally obliged to check their workers and register them. That will ensure that no matter where our children go we will know that they are with registered workers who are not convicted abusers.

It would be advantageous if convicted child abusers knew that they would be breaking the law when they applied for a job working with children and that they could be punished severely by the courts. The protection of our children must be the highest priority no matter where they are or what they are doing.

The rights of the unborn child should be addressed in the Bill, and so far they have not. My Colleague, Iris Robinson, spoke about that, as did Joe Hendron. The preamble of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child quotes the Declaration of the Rights of the Child defining child protection as:

That is what we should be aiming at. If the United Nations has safeguarded the rights of children before birth, the Northern Ireland Assembly should do likewise. To date, the rights of unborn children have not been safeguarded in Northern Ireland, as unborn twins could not be officially counted among the roll of those murdered by an IRA bomb in Omagh. Whoever causes the death of an unborn child cannot be prosecuted for murder, yet the crime is as real as the murder of you or me. The parents will mourn just as long, and possibly harder, for the child that they did not get to know or see grow up. That is just one tangible reason for protecting the rights of the unborn.

Protecting the child before birth would ensure that unborn children have a voice in medical issues. The commissioner could ensure the best medical care for children, even if they are unborn. It would mean that unborn children are protected from toxic substances that their mothers may work with, and employers would have to preserve the health and the job of the mother in the interests of the child.

As each child is unique and special, each child holds the same fundamental value, and it is priceless beyond our wildest imagination. We must protect children against all dangers, whether medical, terrorist or sexual.

Greater protection from all dangers needs to be legislated for and improved so that bureaucracy and inactivity cannot fail children any more. Every child needs to be protected, even those to whom we cannot speak as yet.

We are the adults. We can make a difference. Let us start by ensuring that the legislation is perfect and without loopholes that those with a subversive attitude could use to their advantage. I commend the Bill to the House.

I have listened with interest to the speeches and comments that have been made. I welcome the Bill. The Committee of the Centre will scrutinise it closely. The Committee may make amendments to the Bill once it has heard others' opinions, and I guarantee that there will be full consultation. I assure those Members who have raised concerns that the Committee will take their views on board and will seek to incorporate them into the Bill through amendments.

I support the concept of a champion for children. However, I suggest that in most cases children's champions are their mums and dads. I would like to think that that is the case in my own home. I believe that it is the case in most homes around the Province. Unfortunately, however, some children's mums and dads are not their champions. Often, children are brought up by either their mum or their dad, with the other parent absent. In those cases, only one parent can be their champion.

Often, one or both parents are involved in activities that are not conducive to a stable family environment. Perhaps there are drink or drug problems in the home, or a parent has had to go jail because he or she has become involved in crime. Those are cases in which children's parents do not act as champions.

There are also cases in which a child's parents become separated, and a stepfather or stepmother comes on the scene who uses the vulnerability of the single parent to engage in paedophile activity. Once again, the child does not have a champion in the home.

I believe that in the vast majority of cases the champions of children will be their parents. However, a children's commissioner is needed for those children who do not have a parent to be their champion, or whose parents have let them down. That is where the role and remit of the children's commissioner must be concentrated. It must not be focused on prying into homes in which there is a good, stable family relationship where the child is loved and well cared for. The role of the commissioner must be to protect those children who are vulnerable and in need of protection.

Adults often think that they know about children's issues, whereas children and young people have a completely different concept of what those issues are. When the Norwegian Commissioner was in Northern Ireland, one of the key issues for children was that of school uniforms. I am not referring to what Members might think of as school uniforms, but to Nike shoes, Nokia phones and Reebok T-shirts. That was an issue for children whose schools had done away with school uniforms, and whose backgrounds were such that they could not afford to wear the labelled T-shirts, trainers, jeans that the other children were wearing. Perhaps adults would not have identified that as an issue. However, young people did.

The Commissioner said that Norwegian politicians thought that it would be a good idea to reduce the age of consent. He asked young people what their views were. Those young people, particularly young girls, were opposed to it and the legislation was stopped. That was further evidence of adults thinking that they knew the issues affecting children and young people. Let us listen to what children and young people want - perhaps some things that adults impose upon them are not what they want.

Several Members spoke on many issues, including the rights of parents and the extension of the legislation to cover unborn children. At least five Members talked about the definition of "child" and how it needed to be extended. I assure those Members that the Committee of the Centre will fully consider and examine the possibility of having the legislation amended, which will require the co-operation of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

In a somewhat confused speech, Jane Morrice talked of the commissioner lacking powers. I am not sure whether it is appropriate for the same person to both investigate and decide the outcome of a case, which was a point that Ms Morrice made. She then expressed concern that non-governmental organisations might be fined if they did not meet the commissioner's requirements. On the one hand she was seeking more powers for the commissioner, but on the other hand was concerned that the commissioner's powers might damage some organisations.

Ms Morrice said that the legislation had only been introduced because of the pressure of the private Member's Bill tabled by the Women's Coalition. Without delving too much into that somewhat facile point, it should be made clear for the record that the current Bill was proceeding before that private Member's Bill was brought forward. Mrs Eileen Bell and I had previously tabled a motion in the House to appoint a children's commissioner, which the Executive had taken into account and, when the motion was debated, indicated their intention to initiate a Bill. The Women's Coalition's private Member's Bill came along some time after that.

It is unfair to say that the Executive and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are enacting the legislation on the basis of that private Member's Bill. However, we look forward to addressing all those issues and hope that the Bill will go part of the way to reducing the widespread problems and bad experiences that many children and young people face.

Although we cannot eradicate all the problems, we can do everything possible to ensure that the problems that children and young people face are as small as we can make them. Whether that is done through legislation or through a children's commissioner, we want to give them as much protection as possible.

The Junior Minister (Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister) (Mr Leslie): I thank Members for their thoughtful contributions. I listened carefully to them all. I also thank many Members from all sides of the House for their support for the proposals in the Bill. As my Colleague, Denis Haughey, said at the start of the debate, the Bill offers a marvellous opportunity to establish a commissioner's office that would be a world leader in protecting the rights and best interests of children.

That is only the beginning. Appointing a commissioner does not absolve Government and society of their responsibilities towards children and young people. The next goal must be to promote a culture of respect for children's rights that permeates every aspect of society and a system of governance in which consideration of the rights, interests and views of children and young people is second nature, not second choice. That requires more than appointing a commissioner. It will require us to respect the commissioner's office and respond with diligence and imagination to the commissioner's recommendations.

We have learnt a great deal in the process of developing our proposals. We have learnt the value of taking the necessary time to have a comprehensive and inclusive consultation process. Some have argued recently that there is too much consultation. We may need to change the way in which consultations are conducted. The emphasis could possibly be shifted away from written documents towards active dialogue with key shareholders. However, under no circumstances must we lose the immense value that those consultations have. We have sought to do that with this Bill, and our proposals are much the better for it.

We have also seen the value of an exclusive partnership approach. Once again, like my colleague Denis Haughey, I pay tribute to the work of the non-governmental organisations forum. The forum complemented the work of the various Departments, providing a synergy that greatly benefited the process. In particular, the expertise of forum members allowed us to involve children and young people of all ages in the development of proposals and in the subsequent consultation in a way that otherwise would not have been possible. Lessons on the value of close co-operation with social partners can be applied more widely across Government.

We appreciate greatly the Committee of the Centre's commitment to the initiative, and we look forward to working closely with the Committee during the consideration of the Bill. Most of all, we have seen the value and potential of the Executive and the Assembly. We set ourselves the ambitious target of leading the way on children's rights, and we now have the means to achieve that target. The Bill is clear evidence that we have a governmental system that delivers on key local issues, and that we have the political capacity and maturity to make the system work effectively.

I shall respond to as many as possible of the specific points made during the debate, and any points to which I am unable to respond will receive a written answer. I shall start at the end and thank Mr Poots for his thoughtful and measured contribution, in the course of which he answered several of the points that were raised in the debate. I am grateful to him for that. In particular, Dr Birnie, at the start of the debate, raised the issue of whether there might be a risk of the commissioner's activities conflicting with the rights of the children. Mr Poots focused on what the commissioner's emphasis should be, and an underlying point to remember when seeking a commissioner is that the person appointed must understand clearly that exceedingly important balance.

I assure the Assembly that our proposal aims to complement and not to oppose the rule of parents in protecting the rights and best interests of their children. I emphasise that it is not a zero-sum gain issue: recognising and upholding the rights of children does not detract from the rights of parents. There are two specific safeguards. First, as Dr Birnie noted, in deciding whether and how to exercise functions, the Bill specifically requires the commissioner to have due regard to the importance of the role of parents in the upbringing and development of children. Secondly, the commissioner is obliged to have regard to the relevant rights in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The role of parents is central to the Convention, as evidenced in article 5, which states that

I hope, therefore, that Members will agree that the proposed role and remit are not in any way inimical to the rights and responsibilities of parents or to the contribution made by family life.

Several Members raised issues that relate to the rights of the unborn child. Those Members, in particular Dr Birnie and, earlier in the debate, Mrs Robinson, made points about providing information to expectant mothers. At this stage, we do not propose to extend formally the commissioner's remit to include the unborn child. Legislation exists on the matter and we do not intend to change that. It would have been inappropriate to legislate on that matter without full and careful consideration of the complex and sensitive issues involved. Because the issues are complex and sensitive, the amount of time taken might have held up the appointment process to an extent that would not have been sensible. The issues involved turn on both civil and criminal law.

Not only would it cut across several Departments, it would include reserved matters. European jurisprudence does not define the extent to which article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which addresses the right to life, applies to unborn children. The European Court of Human Rights gave member states a wide margin of discretion on that matter in order to reflect the wide variation in the laws of member states. However, clause 3(2) of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill makes provision to review the adequacy and effectiveness of the law relating to the rights of children. The commissioner could decide to consider that matter and to make recommendations.

I agree with Iris Robinson's points about information and research on factors that affect the health of unborn children. The commissioner may seek a role in those important matters, but the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is primarily responsible and exceedingly active in that area. That is not to say, however, that we should not seek further activity.

Dr Birnie asked about the accountability of the commissioner. Annual reports will be published, so the commissioner's activities will be scrutinised in the Assembly, especially by the Committee of the Centre.

Dr Birnie referred to a parent's forum. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister recognises the importance of ascertaining the views of parents, and the commissioner will decide how parent's views should be elicited. The Parents Advice Centre and Homestart, which are non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that work with parents, are members of the NGO forum and have ensured that, in drafting the Bill, we were cognisant of parents' views.

Ms Lewsley asked whether the commissioner would work with his or her counterparts in other jurisdictions. In schedule 1, the Bill empowers the commissioner to co-operate with

We thought that it was important that that power be included explicitly in the Bill.

Ms Lewsley also asked what implications the work of the children's commissioner would have for the children's strategy. We are committed to developing a comprehensive children's strategy and, as with the proposals for the children's commissioner, the consultation process will begin with the involvement of key stakeholders and other interested parties to develop the proposals for more formal consultation in spring 2003. Our focus hitherto was on bringing the Bill to the House. Having achieved that, we can move with more expedition to the children's strategy.

We intend to involve children and young people in the appointment process. We are establishing a young people's advisory forum, which will self-select 12 to 14 of its number to assist with our work. Those selected will receive special support and training to enable them to participate in the appointment process. They will help to draw up the job specification and the personal specification and will participate in the interview process. Young people were involved in the appointment process in Wales, and we will consult with Welsh officials to determine what useful lessons we can learn from that and then tailor the process to our circumstances.

Several Members referred to the time that it has taken to finalise the Bill and to the negotiations between Departments and with the Northern Ireland Office. We were attempting to legislate for a commissioner with a broad range of functions, covering a wide canvas, and, therefore, there were many interested parties.

The commissioner's comprehensive set of functions and powers covers our aims. The Bill gives the commissioner a broad remit, including juvenile justice, a reserved matter that could not be included in the Bill without the Secretary of State's consent. As a result, long and detailed discussions with the Northern Ireland Office on the scope of the Bill's provisions and the necessary safeguards were required. I am pleased that those discussions culminated in an agreed position without watering down the proposals.

In response to Mr McElduff's question, the timing of the commissioner's appointment will depend on the Bill's progress through the Assembly Stages, but we hope to fill the post by early next year. Preparatory work on the appointment procedure will begin very soon.

I agree with Mr Neeson that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is important. That is why the Bill specifically requires the commissioner to have regard to it.

With regard to consulting young people and the creation of a forum, clause 3 imposes a duty on the commissioner to seek the views of children and young people on the exercise of his or her functions. The commissioner will decide the precise mechanism for doing that.

Ms Morrice asked about the use of the terms "welfare" and "rights and best interests". The inclusion in the Bill of "best interests" reflects the terminology of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, the term "welfare" must be used where the Bill refers to existing bodies of law that use that term. That is particularly applicable to clauses 10 and 11, because the term "welfare" is commonly used in legislation on related matters.

Ms Morrice also questioned why the children's commissioner and the children's strategy were the responsibility of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister even though the issue cuts across other Departments' responsibilities. She answered her own question: it is precisely because the issues cut across several Departments' activities that it is appropriate that the centre Department should be responsible for them. The Office of the First and the Deputy First Minister will lead the Executive in setting the strategic direction and vision. However, that does not mean that other Departments are not involved - they clearly are, and we will work with them.

With regard to the commissioner's powers, he or she will have the necessary tools for the job. The commissioner is not there to replace the police or the social services authorities and so does not need those agencies' powers. He or she will have the power to take legal proceedings, but the primary purpose will be to change how public authorities interact with children. Where possible, that will be best done through collaboration and the dissemination of good practice. The commissioner will also have significant powers to investigate authorities and to recommend changes in policy, practice or law.

With regard to the concern about the commissioner and parents, I emphasise that the focus is on aspects of children's lives in which parents play no part, and that is for sound reasons. It will be difficult for authorities to ignore any recommendations that the commissioner may make. Departments and the Assembly can deal with the matter if public authorities respond inadequately.

The safeguards in the Bill will not hamper formal investigations. The test to be met as a condition to exercising the stronger powers contained in the Bill will be whether there are reasonable grounds for carrying out an investigation. I am sure that Ms Morrice would not object to that as a criterion, because it is common in legislation.

I echo Mr Poots's surprise that Ms Morrice did not tell us that, in view of the introduction of this Bill, the Women's Coalition would be withdrawing its Bill. I ask Ms Morrice and her Colleague, Ms McWilliams, to reflect on a few matters, such as how much consultation went into the wording of their Bill, what their Bill says about the appointment and accountability arrangements of the commissioner and what special functions and powers are included? Given the cross-departmental interest, the Northern Ireland Office interest and the issue of reserved powers, is Ms Morrice confident that her Bill will achieve the degree of agreement that we have achieved with those bodies in our Bill? I trust that the Bill being read today will receive widespread support and that the Women's Coalition will, on reflection, withdraw its Bill.

I welcome the comments of the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre, Mr Gibson. In the Bill, we reflected the proposals that the Committee of the Centre produced as a result of its consultation, and we are grateful to the Committee for all the information it provided. The differences are slight and may be matters of degree or emphasis rather than fundamental policy.

The Bill makes it clear that the commissioner will be accountable to the Assembly through the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and to the Comptroller and Auditor General by means of annual reports.

Mr Shannon raised the need to ensure that child abusers could not gain access to children through employment. I agree with Mr Shannon on this key issue. However, that matter is not addressed in this Bill; it is addressed in the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill, which was introduced by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

That deals with matters raised by Members; if I have left any out, I will ensure that Members receive a written reply.

I will finish with the words of one of the many children and young people who responded to the consultation paper. One young man put it very simply, as young people often do:

We can assure that young man that the commissioner will be good, and, judging by the provisions for commissioners elsewhere, ours will be the best children's commissioner Bill on the statute books.

The Bill now stands referred to the Committee of the Centre.

Education and Libraries Bill: Second Stage

TOP

The Minister of Education (Mr M McGuinness):

I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. This is the first Bill to be brought before the Assembly on matters relating to schools and the first piece of primary legislation on this matter since the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.

The Bill is set out in four parts and contains three schedules with consequential and supplementary amendments and repeals. The most important issue in it is the allocation of funds for the local management of schools (LMS). I will take the opportunity to include provisions on other matters.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, the main purpose of the Bill is dealt with in part 1, which contains enabling provisions to allow the Department to introduce a single common funding formula for the calculation of schools' budgets for all schools funded under local management of schools arrangements.

Local management of schools was introduced here in April 1991. There are seven different LMS formulae in operation. Five of those are operated by the education and library boards - one by each of the boards. Those formulae are applied to all controlled and maintained schools in each board area. The remaining two formulae are operated by the Department of Education. One is for the voluntary grammar schools, and the other is for grant-maintained integrated schools. Although the formulae have many common features, there are differences in the factors used and in the values attached to them. There are also significant variations in the relative size of the budgets that they distribute. As a result, schools that are similar in size can receive quite different levels of resources, purely because their LMS budgets are calculated under different formulae.

I have stated on several occasions, and I am sure that Members agree, that it is indefensible, inequitable and nonsensical to have seven different LMS formulae for the allocation of resources to schools. I am committed to the introduction of a single common funding formula to ensure that schools with similar characteristics receive similar levels of funding, regardless of the area or sector in which they are located.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>