Child Poverty Bill

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the points made about amendments 35 and 36. I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, and I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon tabled similar amendments in Committee. In response to the point about children's commissioners, the Minister did not give a good reason why they should not be included. They have been suggested specifically because their role is statutory and that is why they are different from the others. If we are to go to the trouble of creating through statute an organisation with expertise in being an advocate for children, it should be a statutory consultee. That is only logical, and I suspect that a similar amendment would attract widespread support in the other place for that reason. The Minister was concerned that amendment 36 would create a burden of consultation—a process burden. If there is a process burden, and if consultation can rightly be described as a burden—I do not think that it can—it was created by signing the UN convention on the rights of the child. Article 12 is clear in requiring states to assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the child's age and maturity. The Minister made reference to article 12 herself.