UK Parliament / Open data

Child Poverty Bill

Proceeding contribution from Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 9 December 2009. It occurred during Debate on bills on Child Poverty Bill.
I see the point that the Minister makes. However, the explanatory notes on the duty""to consult children, or organisations working with or representing children as the Secretary of State thinks fit"" refer to article 12. That implies that that consultation with groups is based on article 12, and that that is not restricted to the right of individual consultation on measures that the state imposes on a child. That may be a debate for another day. I wish to record my thanks to the Minister for saying that she will look at this point. I do not want to be churlish, but it is a point about process. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon raised it on 29 October at columns 256-7 in a very good speech and in terms. At that point, she rejected the argument. The Joint Committee then issued its view on 10 November. The point of Report is for the Government to return to the House weeks later with a clear view, and not to see matters leave this House to be dealt with by the unelected House. I do not mean that in an angry way; I just regret that we are not using Report as it should be used. However, I recognise her willingness to reconsider the point, which ought to be put on the record. Finally, on new clause 4, I accept that there is some validity in the Minister's point about whether it would tie the Government down to a duty to implement something that might not be the best way of meeting the obligatory targets. The Joint Committee considered and rejected that argument, but we will reflect on her comments and the Government's response. However, I reject the argument that a legal duty to implement a strategy undermines Parliament's ability to hold the Government to account. The processes of the House undermine that ability, and I think that any legal reference that Parliament can use will aid it. I do not accept that argument, and nor, I think, will the Joint Committee. It is clearly a difficult new clause, however, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
502 c445-6 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top