Children's Commissioner
Item 3 on the agenda is an update on the children's commissioner inquiry. We have appointed Alison Clelland as reporter. She is likely to begin her work about July 2001, when we have completed our initial investigations with the one-day seminar and the film.
On 14 May, I visited the Northern Ireland Assembly in Belfast. I met Edwin Poots, who is the chair of the Committee of the Centre. That committee is considering the issue of a children's commissioner. Our discussion was very worthwhile.
Their inquiry is probably further down the line than ours. They have about six weeks' evidence from parliamentarians from Europe and the UK, agencies and people who have particular experiences in Northern Ireland. They talked about the children's commissioner's role as an advocate, watchdog and champion—which is a very good analysis of what the commissioner's role could be.
We talked about a number of issues, including reserved and devolved matters. The Northern Irish and Welsh models have pushed me towards the idea that the commissioner should have an all-encompassing role and should consider both reserved and devolved matters. We also talked about how the commissioner would be funded. The Committee of the Centre is currently considering that and where the money would come from within the budget, should it go down that road.
Wales has moved much further down the road and has allocated a budget for the children's commissioner. We would have to consider how much budget would need to be allocated to a commissioner in Scotland.
We will have to consider the powers of the commissioner and the commissioner's relationship with other bodies. Wales and Ireland have urged that a protocol is needed for working between the commissioner and the agencies that already exist. We would probably want something similar to a concordat to be established.
The exercise has been useful. I will produce some reports when we make progress with the issue. Because the general election date was changed, the formal evidence-taking session will take place after the summer recess. It is unrealistic to start taking formal evidence before the recess, unfortunately. If we want to do the matter justice, we must do our work well, rather than quickly. We have asked for the matter to be factored into our agenda as soon as possible after the summer recess, when we will take evidence and make progress.
We will want to speak to the minister earlier rather than later in our discussions. In Wales, the civil service had much input into the process, which pushed forward the legislation early. The earlier that civil service input into the legislation takes place, the better, because the drafting of any legislation is time consuming and complex. It would be worth pursuing with the minister whether some support could be provided to our clerks and to our reporter—is it a reporter? What is the official title? Is that what we call them?
We will have an adviser.
Thank you. If there were scope for some civil service support on information gathering, that might be helpful, because sometimes the civil service has greater access to information than we have. We should pursue that with the minister.
That is where things are. I am keeping the organisations that have written to us abreast of events, so that they do not think that the issue has fallen off our agenda. I have written to everybody who gave us evidence.
It is important to get the civil servants in early. I presume that if ultimately we recommended that a commissioner should be appointed, a bill would have to be introduced and more consultation would take place, which would almost repeat the process that we will undertake by taking evidence. I do not know how we could do it, but if we could tee things up so that as soon as we have taken evidence we could publish a draft bill, that would mean that the process was more telescoped.
As I understand it, the evidence-taking session in Wales ran as the pre-legislative scrutiny, so that work did not have to be replicated. Because people in Wales were involved and knew that a commissioner was planned, they were able to work in that way. We have not said, "Yes, we are going to establish a commissioner." Before we start taking evidence, perhaps we should have that discussion. If we agree that a commissioner should be appointed, we will then get into the nuts and bolts and could maybe short-circuit the system.
All the evidence that we have received has said that there should be a commissioner, but the evidence has not examined the bread-and-butter issues of how the post would work, how the commission would be implemented, what the responsibilities would be or how the funding would come on stream. The principle is fine. The practical implementation is the point at which there is a disagreement. Perhaps at our first session with the minister we should consider whether we could short-circuit the system.
That is what I was saying. There might come a point when we want to make a statement that in principle we want to agree that there should be a commissioner and get a draft bill out on which we can consult and take evidence, at the same time as we refine our views.
I might be wrong, but I think that in Wales, a draft bill was not even produced.
We will have to produce one.
Yes, but we could agree to the principle, because we do not have to go through the UK Parliament. It would be useful to find out whether there is a mechanism whereby, if we agreed to the principle, the detailed evidence taking could be conducted as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny. I do not know whether that is within our competence, but it is worth pursuing. If that is not possible, the time for implementation will probably be extended by six or seven months.
For pre-legislation work, we need civil service back-up. The issue needs to be taken seriously. We cannot merely add it to our agenda—we will need additional back-up. It would help if the committee considered what it wants to do and where it will start. The adviser will help us to do that. There is a will out there for a children's commissioner and there has been for some time. However, if we are going to go down that road, we need to get this right. We cannot assume that a particular way forward exists before we have taken evidence. We would need back-up in order to short-circuit the procedures. People need to know what could happen.
There might be space in our agenda for Tuesday 26 June to have that initial discussion, after our one-day event. That would be informative. We can factor in an initial discussion on that day. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.