Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 119, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 19, after 'by', insert

'the United Kingdom Youth Parliament after consultation with'.—[Mr. Turner.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment No. 6, in

schedule 1, page 36, 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. 191, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 19, at end insert—

'( ) The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to involve—

(a) children from the areas which the commissioner serves; and

(b) such organisations concerned with children's rights and interests as he considers appropriate,

in the process of appointment of the Commissioner.'.

Amendment No. 120, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 22, after 'by', insert

'the United Kingdom Youth Parliament with the agreement of'.

Amendment No. 58, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 24, at end insert—

'(3A) During this time both the Commissioner and the Secretary of State will be responsible for ensuring that the children of England will be able to scrutinise and evaluate the performance of the Commissioner on their behalf.'.

Amendment No. 192, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 24, at end insert—

'(3A) During this time both the Commissioner and the Secretary of State will be responsible for ensuring that the children that fall within the remit of the Commissioner will be able to scrutinise and evaluate the performance of the commissioner on their behalf.'.

Amendment No. 121, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 29, after 'State', insert

', subject to the agreement of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament,'.

Amendment No. 124, in

schedule 1, page 37, line 37, after 'to', insert

'the United Kingdom Youth Parliament,'.

Amendment No. 128, in

clause 3, page 3, line 13, after 'the', insert

'United Kingdom Youth Parliament and'.

New clause 19—Non-availability of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament—

'If in relation to any responsibility under this Part the United Kingdom Youth Parliament is not able to act, the Secretary of State shall nominate a similar body largely representative (by election) of and comprised of persons under the age of 18.'.

As I was saying when this morning's sitting ended, I am well aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister has made interesting arrangements to involve young people in the selection of the Children's Commissioner and in other aspects of our work. I am sure that we shall hear more about that.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of something that he said this morning, which was that two representatives on the board to assist with appointing the Children's Commissioner were drawn from his constituency. I am sure that we welcome that. I wonder whether two representatives can be drawn from all the other constituencies represented in the House.

I actually took care not to say that the two representatives were from my constituency. They are from the Lancaster and Wyre district; I do not think that either of them is from my constituency. What they are, as the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know, is young people who are very involved in the local youth council and in work with the national youth parliaments. They are very engaged in local and national issues involving children.

The serious point in my intervention was how the representatives were selected and who appointed them. Are people in other districts—or counties, where there are no districts—equally well represented?

I have not the faintest idea how the representatives were selected, but I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Minister will tell us.

To help the Committee, let me say that the reference is to the new Children and Youth Board, which is a group of 25 young people who advise me. They were appointed through Children's Express, so they were not directly appointed by me or the Department. Children's Express will have to speak for itself as to how it went about the selection process, but the framework that we gave it was to establish a group that was truly representative of all interests. I have met the group only once, but its members are representative.

I remember a representative from the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). She was a very articulate and strong woman who had had a lot of experience on a difficult estate on her patch and talked a lot about her life growing up there. There is representation in terms of age and gender, and there are some children with learning disabilities and one or two children who have been in the looked-after system.

That is a pretty broad range, but the group is not representative and is not an elected body in the way that the United Kingdom Youth Parliament is.

Order. I was about to point out that that was a lengthy intervention.

Moving swiftly on, I have a couple of brief points. This morning, the Minister mentioned the results of the HeadsUp forum consultation, which took place online. I took part in it and other hon. Members had the opportunity to do so in September. I believe that every member of the Committee has received a report of that consultation involving young people. One question for the Minister relates to whether she will be able to take into account their views about the Children's Commissioner in the work that she is undertaking with the Children and Youth Board. I found the consultation an invaluable experience, and a great deal of excellent information came from it. The process of an online consultation with children whereby they debate the issues before Parliament was a very interesting way to involve young people in the work of parliamentary democracy.

I shall offer only one quote from the consultation. It was said that

''the commissioner should understand that kids r gonna cum up with impossible ideas which may seem crazy but could be adapted to become possible''.

I hope that in a similar spirit my right hon. Friend will give a sympathetic ear to amendment No. 58, which is in my name and seeks to ensure that children and young people are involved not only in the appointment of a Children's Commissioner, but also in scrutinising and evaluating the work of that commissioner and in their reappointment after five years. As we know, the commissioner will be appointed for five years with a possibility of being reappointed for one further term, and children and young people should have a crucial role in deciding whether that person has done a good job and served their interests well.

I shall speak briefly in support of amendments Nos. 6, 191, 58 and 192. Other hon. Members have admirably covered the point that the involvement of young people and children would give rise to more confidence in the appointment. In particular, I shall dwell on the perceptiveness that children and young people have in particular circumstances. I imagine that most of us have been involved in situations in which young people have played a part in an appointment procedure—for example, at a local youth club—and it is a very rewarding experience. What we are talking about would obviously be on a wider scale and I appreciate that the Minister has set up a special board. I ask her to give particular attention to these four amendments and I hope that something can be introduced to the Bill that would demonstrate the Government's

commitment to the world at large. Not everybody knows of the good work that the Minister is doing behind the scenes.

I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 192 and 191. First, regarding the appointment of the commissioner, as the amendments point out, it is vitally important to consult children from all areas for which the commissioner will have a remit—the Government intend the Children's Commissioner to have a remit in Wales. It is also important for the Government to consult children's organisations for their unique insights. There are a number of Welsh-based children's organisations that the Minister will be familiar with including Plant Yng Nghymru—Children in Wales. Amendments Nos. 119 and 6 and new clause 19 refer to the UK Youth Parliament as representing children. As I said, there are particular Welsh bodies, such as the Welsh Youth Parliament—the Minister will recall Funky Dragon—and Plant Yng Nghymru.

I shall also refer briefly to amendment No. 192 and the issue of scrutiny. It is vitally important that children are able to scrutinise the operation of the Children's Commissioner on a long-term basis. As a former Secretary of State for Wales said in respect of devolution, it is a process, not an event. Certainly, the work of the commissioner will be a process, not a one-off event. I emphasise two points: the need to scrutinise as a long-term measure and to consult properly with children in Wales.

I shall deal first with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) about the UK Youth Parliament. We have probably all worked with the UK Youth Parliament and find it very invigorating and challenging to respond to the issues raised. The Government recognise it as a good organisation that encourages civic responsibility and engagement by young people. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that we support it not only with an annual sum of money to help to keep it going but, more recently, I have identified additional resources to help to implement some of the recommendations from the Office for Public Management's review to ensure that that parliament is more representative of young people. We were able to grant extra money to help it to implement those recommendations.

I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will accept that many other organisations represent young people. Off the top of my head, I can think of the British Youth Council, the Carnegie Young People Initiative, the National Youth Agency and a number of children's organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Barnardo's. All would purport, in some way or another, to represent young people's views. The hon. Gentleman frowns at me a little, but I believe that it would be invidious to select one young persons' organisation over another. That is always the difficulty in finding a representative body to ensure that young people's interests are properly reflected in our decision-making processes.

The main purport behind many of the amendments is to question whether we are involving children and young people in the appointment of our first commissioner. I can assure the Committee that we are. I have already described the Children and Youth Board that we have established and with which I have had one meeting. We intend to support its training so that it can participate in the process of determining the job description and help us to select the first Children's Commissioner.

I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman on another point. In my long intervention, I did not get time to say that two or three members of the Children and Youth Board are also members of the UKYP. I am sure that he will welcome that cross-representation.

Amendment No. 6, tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and others, proposes to include something to reflect the involvement of children and young people in the appointment of the Children's Commissioner. I listened to the argument and have some sympathy with the idea. As always with legal drafting, there are a few problems with the precise wording. However, I hope that he will bear with me and that we can table an amendment on Report to ensure that we include in the Bill a provision for the involvement of children and young people in the appointment. All Committee members will welcome that.

I should tell the Committee something about the process of the appointment. As ever, it will be informed by guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Although I said in an aside that the Secretary of State or I could be a member of the appointing panel if we so wished, we have chosen not to do that, because we believe that that could be seen as interfering with the independence of the appointment of the commissioner. We will not be engaged in the appointment, which will be conducted under the guidance I mentioned. I hope that we will draw together a group of people who reflect the appropriate interests to be responsible for that appointment, taking people from both the non-statutory sector and the civil service and engaging children and young people.

To give some comfort to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), I can tell him that the board that advises me has two representatives from Wales out of the 25, which is proportionate and appropriate. One of them is also a member of Funky Dragon, and I gather that the other one is considering whether to join Funky Dragon. I hope that that deals with the issues of appointment.

There are also a couple of amendments on the scrutiny and accountability of the commissioner. In a sense, the discussion that we had this morning about promoting the awareness of the interests and concerns of children was on the wording to reflect how important the Government feel it is for the commissioner to engage with children and young people in all his work. I have a lot of sympathy for the spirit of what the amendments are designed to achieve, but the problem is with the practicalities of establishing how such a system of accountability to

children and young people could be established, who they would be and how their appropriateness and legitimacy as an accountable group of young people could be justified.

I share with the Committee that concern: at my first meeting with the Children and Youth Board, which was selected by Children's Express, most of the young people were 16 or 17-year olds—among the older age group. We know that the years are very fast-changing in a child's or a young person's life; for example, attitudes to school among 16 and 17-year-olds are different from those among 10, 11 and 12-year-olds. A discussion about our extended schools policy would have a different content if we were to consult 16-year-olds as opposed to 12-year-olds. There is always a worry at the back of one's mind when listening to a group of children and young people that it is not reflecting the whole group. That is why I have difficulty with the precise amendments, but I hope that I can provide comfort for both hon. Members, because I share the spirit of them.

The accountability will come through us in Parliament. The commissioner will be obliged to place a report annually before Parliament. I hope that the report will be taken seriously by the appropriate Select Committee, which at this point will be the Education and Skills Committee. I hope that it will call the commissioner to account and, as part of that process, question children as to whether the commissioner has sufficiently fulfilled his or her functions in responding to children's interests and listening to their needs. I hope that, having heard what I have said on the subject, both hon. Members will withdraw their amendments about that scrutiny. I hope, too, that I can provide comfort to all other hon. Members about how we shall set about appointing the commissioner by assuring them that on Report I shall table an amendment that involves children and young people in the appointment process.

I frowned because I felt that although the bodies that the Minister mentioned may represent children, they do not necessarily involve children. I welcome her promise to suggesting some new wording on Report which will fulfil her promises and solidify the process into which she has already entered. I am interested to know that that not only are there two representatives from north Lancashire on the Children and Youth Board, but two for the whole of the Principality of Wales; I hope that isolated and rural areas are equally well represented. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in

schedule 1, page 36, line 32, at end insert—

'or,

(c) significantly failed in the discharge of any of his functions'.

This is a probing amendment to schedule 1, concerning the hopefully unlikely event of getting rid of a commissioner who is not up to scratch. An identical amendment was tabled in another place by Earl Howe, who was not entirely convinced by the answer from the Minister there. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to remove the commissioner from office if

''he is satisfied that he has—

(a) become unfit or unable properly to discharge his functions; or

(b) behaved in a way that is not compatible with his continuing in office.''

That does not seem to cover all angles, because it is possible for the commissioner to be fit, both physically and mentally, and by common consent still to have failed in the performance of his duties. To whom will the commissioner be accountable for an assessment of his performance, not only as to whether he is up to the job, but as to whether he is doing a good job?

The issue arose earlier. What happens if, on the face of it, the commissioner is doing his job perfectly well—turning up at the office at the requisite times—but he has completely lost the confidence of children, whose champion he is supposed to be, by failing to produce the reports as required under the Bill? It seems that the only criterion missing for his being sacked by the Secretary of State is that of not doing his job terribly well.

Later amendments relate to assessing the worth of the job of commissioner and whether the new measure is working. After three or five years the legislation should be considered to see whether we should tighten up the grounds on which the commissioner can properly be sacked, as I can envisage some escape clauses. The last thing we want is a lame-duck commissioner who escapes being sacked because of the Bill's strict wording.

There is a wider point: we want Parliament to have a greater role. We would like the commissioner to be much more responsible and accountable to Parliament, and we shall table separate amendments relating to how he will report on his job. Is not there a role for Parliament to assess whether the commissioner is doing his job properly? If not, we should consider how Parliament could make a strong recommendation that a new commissioner be found.

This is a probing amendment, as the Minister in the other place did not cover all the angles.

To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, the commissioner will be accountable to Ministers; accountability to Parliament will come through the annual report laid before Parliament. As I said, I would expect the Select Committee to want to interview the commissioner about that report to see how well he or she had fulfilled their duties as described in the report. There would be nothing to stop the Select Committee undertaking a review of the commissioner's role and considering how well he or

she was fulfilling their functions in relation to the measure. Accountability to Parliament will be through that mechanism—directly to Ministers.

I am interested in how the process will work. The Treasury Committee, for example, has a relationship with the Governor of the Bank of England, who makes an annual report and comes for interview. Does the Minister envisage that the Education and Skills Committee will call the commissioner for annual interview? She would not try to impose her will on it, but would the Minister ideally like a Sub-Committee of the Select Committee to have a specific responsibility for children's issues and the Commissioner and be given that particular role?

That is an interesting idea. Far be it from me to determine how the Select Committees decide to pursue their responsibilities. As Minister for Children, Young People and Families, I have responsibilities that go beyond the departmental parameters, so I have appeared before several Select Committees of the House as well as committees of the Department for Education and Skills. Presumably, some of the Select Committees will want to interview the commissioner on a range of issues that they are considering. It is a matter for the House, and it is for hon. Members to determine it as they see fit.

While the Minister cogitates on how the Select Committee may want to scrutinise the work of the commissioner, she might want to explore a further suggestion. She will know that the Treasury Committee holds confirmatory hearings of nominees for the Monetary Policy Committee. She might want to recommend, or to discuss with the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, the possibility of its holding a confirmatory hearing for any nominated commissioner.

Order. Before the Minister responds to that question, I should point out that we are moving slightly away from the subject of the amendment, which concerns whether the commissioner has

''significantly failed in the discharge of any of his functions.''

Can I bring the Committee back to that point?

I do not know whether you are telling me not to respond to that question, Mr. Benton. Again, however, that is a matter for the House to determine. This particular post-holder is answerable primarily to children, which is why we are anxious to involve children and young people in his or her appointment.

We do not believe that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is necessary. We believe that there are sufficient powers provided for in schedule 1 to remove the commissioner. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 3(6)(b), which states that the commissioner may be removed if he has

''behaved in a way that is not compatible with his continuing in office.''

That could be interpreted as meaning that he or she has

''significantly failed in the discharge of any of his functions.'' as stated in the amendment. I think that a failure to discharge the functions of the post would be covered by the provision in sub-paragraph (6)(b).

The Committee will be anxious for us to do all that we can to ensure the independence of the commissioner. If we overload powers of intervention—and, if necessary, of dismissal—on to the Secretary of State, the use of those powers could quickly be interpreted as the Secretary of State interfering with the commissioner's independence. We have had to draw a fine line between ensuring that we have sufficient powers to do precisely what the hon. Gentleman wants us to do—ensure that the commissioner does his job properly—without being seen to interfere in his independence.

I also draw to hon. Members' attention the fact that we examined the wording of the schedule in the context of that used in the legislation governing the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, and it is not dissimilar. We therefore feel comfortable that it gives us sufficient authority to do what the Opposition demand.

I am grateful for that clarification. The amendment was a probing one. I certainly would not wish, through any of the amendments that we have tabled, to overload the Secretary of State with powers—quite the opposite. That is why, ideally, we would like to see some mechanism that would give greater powers to Parliament, a Select Committee, or a Sub-Committee of a Select Committee. I am reassured that the Minister envisages the development of that sort of relationship with a Select Committee. The Education and Skills Committee might want to consider the interesting suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) that there should be confirmatory hearings similar to those held for the Bank of England.

Given that the Minister said that the provision was not greatly at variance with the legislation for the other commissioners already in situ in the United Kingdom, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Before we move on to the next group of amendments, I indicate to the Committee that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will not now be moving amendment No. 123. The lead amendment will therefore be amendment No. 194.

I beg to move amendment No. 194, in

schedule 1, page 37, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'appropriate' in line 32 and insert

'with regards to any expenditure incurred by virtue of this Act'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in

schedule 1, page 37, line 31, leave out

'and on such conditions (if any)'.

This is a probing amendment, which concerns the funding and independence of the Children's Commissioner. Looking at the debate in the House of Lords, it seemed to me that the Constitution Committee had severe doubts as to whether there was sufficient provision for the commissioner to exercise his functions independently of the Secretary of State. Having the funding determined by the Secretary of State seemed to it seriously to jeopardise the commissioner's independence.

This was debated in some detail in the Lords, and other organisations have argued that the funding undermines the independence of the commissioner and could unduly affect his work. The Government responded by saying that this is standard wording. I am ready to accept that, but I wonder whether I could tempt the Minister to reassure us that she has taken those comments on board.

I have some sympathy with the line of inquiry that the hon. Gentleman has just taken. Amendment No. 5 is a probing amendment. It seeks to ensure the independence of the Children's Commissioner, which we are keen to reinforce in the Bill. The Minister appears to have some sympathy with that. What does

''on such conditions (if any)''

mean? It is obviously appropriate for the Secretary of State to decide on the total budget that is given to the Children's Commissioner. Without wishing to make a spending commitment, in view of the relative amounts in the budget likely to be allocated to the new commissioner for England, as opposed to the existing commissioner, and given the relative populations—some 84 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom lives in England—one wonders whether the resources are sufficient. Perhaps the resources already allocated to the other commissioners are over-generous. I do not want to say more than that.

It is obviously appropriate for the Secretary of State to decide on the total budget, but not to constrain how it is to be spent. The last thing we want is further ring-fencing of the money allocated to the Children's Commissioner. We are fervently against that, and I thought that the Government were at last showing signs of reversing that policy, having ring-fenced so much money, particularly in health, education and social services. The wording in this part of schedule appears to be too wide. In the upper House Baroness Ashton of Upholland gave an undertaking to look at it again. She claimed that the wording mirrors the Care Standards Act 2000 under which the National Assembly for Wales funds the Welsh commissioner.

Under the Bill it is up to the Children's Commissioner to determine his or her priorities. Are we are talking about purely supplementary payments that may be issued by the Secretary of State in order to fund specific inquiries or research projects or to set up new structures that he has authorised—that is, of course, ring-fencing—or will some caveats or

restrictions be placed on the whole budget that the commissioner gets, which would inevitably mean some curtailing of independence?

When Baroness Ashton gave the mirroring of the Care Standards Act as the reason for this, she did not explain why it was necessary to mirror those terms. I will be grateful if the Minister can assure us that we are in no way trying to hamstring the Children's Commissioner in terms of the way in which he or she spends his or her budget. We would have severe reservations about an attempt to do so and it would be against the rationale for the independence of the commissioner that the Minister has advanced. I would be grateful for her reassurances on that score, hence amendment No. 5.

I shall deal first with the budget that has been set for the commissioner, because a number of hon. Members and organisations outside the House have expressed concern about it in relation to the budgets for other commissioners. We believe that the budget is sufficient. It reflects the fact that we expect the English commissioner to fulfil a different role from that of commissioners in the other countries. Of course, as with all these things—I was involved when we embarked on setting up the Disability Rights Commission—we will have to reflect on the experience of the first year or so of operation of the Children's Commissioner to ensure that the role is properly and effectively funded. I can assure the Committee that we will do that.

If the role in England is to be financed with much less money, is it envisaged that it will be a lesser role?

We are in danger of reopening the argument that we had this morning. In my view, the role is different and more appropriate. I look forward to debates with the hon. Lady over time as we see the strength of this champion for children impacting on our lives as parliamentarians. We shall see whose judgement at this stage, before we establish the post and see how the commissioner works, is right, but it is a different role and one that deliberately focuses on the bigger picture. In my view, it will have an enormous impact not only on us as parliamentarians but on all organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors that in one way or another impact on children's lives. I have simply been trying to respond to the question raised by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about how we had arrived at a different budget head—it is because of the different role.

Hon. Members have clearly read the record of the debate that took place on these issues in the House of Lords. The justification for the wording in the schedule is that it is the wording that we always use for non-departmental public bodies. It is a standard condition to ensure that the money that is voted for the commissioner is spent on the functions within the scope of his power.

We added the words ''and on such conditions'' because there may well be situations under clauses 4 and 5 in which the Secretary of State wants to give additional moneys to the commissioner, either to carry out an inquiry that the commissioner has instigated or has been asked to conduct by the Secretary of State. In those instances, we would want the commissioner to use for that purpose alone the moneys allocated for that purpose.

Is the Minister specifically saying that the words

''and on such conditions (if any)'' will apply solely to supplementary funds, not to the main budget? If so, would it not be clearer to add an amendment specifying that those words refer to supplementary funds? I see that a bit of in-flight refuelling is going on. If what she has told me is right, we will have no problem in withdrawing the amendment, but given the in-flight refuelling that she has had, can she reflect on whether what she is saying is correct?

The hon. Gentleman will see the exchange of notes across the Committee. My only slight problem with giving the assurance that he seeks is that I would not want to create a constraint in saying that it was only for inquiries under clauses 4 and 5 that one would choose to give particular moneys. We may well want the commissioner to undertake a particular project on an issue—I am trying to think of one. Perhaps we have all been during the lunch break to the Young People Now reception on the subject of how children are portrayed in the media. There may be a general interest, supported by the Secretary of State, in a project about how young people are portrayed in the media, so the Secretary of State could provide additional resources for such a project. We would not want to curtail specific funding of such projects.

I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance, and he will undoubtedly then want to come back to me. There is absolutely no suggestion in this amendment, or in the way that the schedule on funding has been written, that we shall interfere at all in the generality of the way in which the commissioner chooses to spend the money that we shall give him. I can give the Committee a total and utter assurance that we shall not seek in any way to stop the commissioner undertaking a particular task or investigation or reviewing an issue. That is not at all the purpose of the wording in the schedule.

I had rather suspected that the Minister would not accept my amendment with open arms. It refers to

''expenditure incurred by virtue of this Act'', and that is a broad definition. Perhaps, as elegantly as I can, I can pirouette and argue the other side of the case. There is a sum of money, and as other hon. Members have already asked, will that be sufficient for the commissioner's work in England? There is also the work of the commissioner in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and my particular concern, arguing from the other side, is whether there will be sufficient money for the work there. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to ring-fencing and

the Minister spoke about not predetermining how the commissioner should spend his or her money. Can she assure the Committee that there will be sufficient moneys for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? As she knows, my particular concern is about the extra expenditure incurred in providing a proper bilingual service in Wales.

Again, in the spirit of not wishing to intervene in the commissioner's independence, our view is that the general sum that we will give the commissioner will be sufficient for him to carry out all his duties, including those in Wales on non-devolved issues that impact on children. Should it come to pass that there is a specific inquiry, under clauses 4 or 5, that takes place in Wales, that is just the sort of situation where a specified sum from the Secretary of State to the commissioner will be provided so that such an inquiry will take place and be properly funded. Should there be a particular project—again, I cannot think of one off the top of my head—that the Secretary of State and the commissioner agree ought to be undertaken, which impacts only on Wales, that would be the circumstance in which a specific sum would be provided to carry out that work.

I think we have got somewhere; the phrase that the Minister used to assure was that she was not seeking to interfere with the generality of the way in which the children's commissioner spends the money given to him. I think that that means that we are talking only about supplemental spending. She did not quite use those terms of assurance, but everything that she said suggested that that was what she means, although she will not quite commit herself to confirm that or to specify it in the Bill. It is important—we are not just talking semantics here.

We need to ensure that the Children's Commissioner will have the full and resourced independence to do the job that is tasked to him by the legislation. If the Government announce the budget for the commissioner each year and say that they expect him to spend 10 per cent. of that money in a particular area, that will compromise his independence. If the Government are merely talking about specific project funding, whether to run an inquiry or conduct research on children's portrayal in the media, as mentioned earlier today, we would have no trouble with that. However, one would hope that the initiation for such an inquiry would come from the commissioner, who would seek funds about which the Government could take a decision.

I want to return to the issue of funding, because we clearly have worries. The Children's Commissioner for Wales has a staff of 22, his budget for the current year is £1.4 million, and according to the 2001 census, the population of under-18-year-olds is just over 662,000. The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People has a slightly larger staff of 29, a budget of £1.4 million for the first year, rising to £1.9 million, and a smaller population of about 500,000 under-19-year-olds to look after—a slightly different age specification. In Scotland, the commissioner has a staff

of 15, yet despite having the largest number of children of the three to look after—1.2 million under-19-year-olds—her budget is £1.2 million a year and £1.5 million in the first year.

According to the Minister's Department, the estimated running costs of the commissioner in England will be £2.5 million per annum, yet the population is almost 10 times that of Scotland—somewhere between 10.5 million and 11 million under the age of 18. There is a discrepancy between the amount of resources available to our commissioner and what the other commissioners get. That will clearly throw up question marks and concerns about whether the Children's Commissioner will be properly resourced to do the job that we are giving him.

I hope, as the Minister appears to be saying, that there will be no financial straitjackets put on the commissioner and that paragraph 7 will be pertinent merely to supplemental funding for specific projects. If that is the case, we will be happy not to press what is a probing amendment. I hope that her assurances lead us down that route, although she has not set it out in black and white as I asked.

To return to the Minister's previous comments, I was reassured by what she said and her confirmation that my understanding was correct. I am also reassured by her remarks about funding for specific inquiries should they be required in Wales. I know that she is mindful of the particular situation that we have in Wales, so given her remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 125, in

schedule 1, page 38, line 34, at end add—

'14 The Secretary of State shall by regulation provide that the Children's Commissioner and members of staff of the Children's Commissioner shall be disqualified from membership of the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament.'.

I assume that the commissioner will continue to have responsibilities outside England. The Bill provides that the commissioner should not be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but does not make an equivalent provision for the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales, and I hope that the Minister will explain why.

I am told that it requires primary legislation to ensure disqualification of Members of the UK Parliament from holding that post because of a potential conflict of interests. I am also told that it does not require primary legislation to ensure that Members of the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament are disqualified from holding the post of the commissioner for England. That would be for them to determine when deciding who was eligible to be a Member of the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. The measure will determine who is eligible to be a Member of the UK Parliament; the English commissioner will not be eligible.

I accept that, but paragraph 13 on page 38 states that they are disqualified from membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly, too. Obviously, it is

partly for the protection of the Parliament itself, but as to the commissioner's responsibility, how can someone hold an office under the Crown and be a Member of a political body of that kind?

This is such a technical issue. I am told that the Bill has to legislate in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to our own Parliament. Section 15(1)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 states that a person is disqualified from being a Member of the Parliament if

''he is an office-holder of a description specified in an Order in Council made by Her Majesty under this subsection.''

The order has to be made through the Scottish Parliament.

Equally, section 12(1)(b) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 states that a person is disqualified from being an Assembly Member if

''he holds any of the offices for the time being designated by Order in Council as offices disqualifying persons from being Assembly members''.

That must be done through the Welsh Assembly and not through this Parliament. That is what I am told; it is a pure technicality that we have responsibility for the UK Parliament and Northern Ireland and we do not have the responsibility in primary legislation for disqualifying people from being Members of the Scottish Parliament or of the Welsh Assembly.

Bingo! I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.