I am delighted today, prior to the first anniversary of the transfer of functions to the Assembly, to ask you to agree a set of proposals made in Wales for the children of Wales—the establishment of an independent children’s commissioner. It is a milestone in our young history. The process that has brought us to this point is an exemplar of how the Assembly should operate. It has been an open process. A great deal of government policy at a local, central, European and international level is created by politicians and civil servants before others are informed and consulted. This has been done the other way around. It is about the people of Wales influencing the Assembly on this policy. It has been open and inclusive.

We asked the Health and Social Services Committee last July to consider and make recommendations to the Assembly on the role, remit and functions of a children’s commissioner. As I have said, this policy has been developed in an inclusive way. The Committee carried out a wide-ranging consultation between October 1999 and March 2000, receiving over 90 responses and hearing oral evidence from representatives from a range of key organisations in Wales. I am happy to accept amendment 1 because I am sure that the Assembly would wish to give special thanks to the children and young people who were involved in that consultation. Some of the most powerful presentations came when we heard oral and written contributions from ‘Voices from Care’ and from children’s voluntary organisations.

We have established joined-up government in the Assembly. We have brought together the Health and Social Services Committee and the Pre-16 Education Committee to consider how this can effect and improve the lives of children. The children’s commissioner has major implications for both Committees. Lorraine Barrett has represented the Pre-16 Education Committee during the Health and Social Services Committee’s discussions on the commissioner, and I have worked closely with Rosemary Butler. We have held a joint session and, on occasion, the Pre-16 Education Committee has considered papers in parallel. I am grateful for the Committee’s contribution.

The work has also been marked by a consensus approach. We have established that all the parties support the proposal. Our discussions have been free from party political point scoring. We owe it to our children to have done this in such a way. It is an important historical decision. It is a unique policy, tailored to Welsh circumstances. No other part of the UK has a firm proposal to establish a children’s commissioner. We must not forget that. We must triumph our achievement.

Looking at the need for a children’s commissioner, we see that Wales has a tradition of strong family and community ties. However, we know that a significant number of children in Wales suffer at the margins of exclusion and poverty because of social and economic deprivation. We have a duty to protect and develop all children, but especially the most vulnerable. We talked about this again today as we discussed our response to the Waterhouse report, ‘Lost in Care’, in the Health and Social Services Committee and the Pre-16 Education, Schools and Early Learning Committee.

The Assembly has already taken significant steps to safeguard and promote the welfare and development of children and young people in Wales through individual programmes which we have debated in the Chamber: Children First, Building Excellent Schools Together, all-Wales health gain targets for children, the Children and Youth Partnership, Sure Start and the National Childcare Strategy. We are developing a children and young people strategy, which brings together all the elements of the Assembly’s programme for children and young people into a coherent framework. These are all crucial developments but they focus primarily on services provided for children. The missing element is someone to speak on behalf of children. To put it simply, children do not have the vote. They have no democratic avenue to let politicians, planners and providers know their needs and wants.

Listening to children is at the forefront of how we respond to the Waterhouse report. Children and young people lack a real voice and do not have a direct influence on the decisions that affect their lives. Our need for a commissioner is rooted in the need for us all to listen to children and young people. That awful expression, ‘children should be seen and not heard’, remains real in our society and exemplifies how we treat our children. We have to listen to and protect the most vulnerable, but all children have a contribution to make. We must ensure that children have a real say in influencing the services and opportunities that we are developing in Wales through the Assembly. We must be committed to reflecting their needs and views when deciding policies and when planning and delivering services.

We turn to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as a starting point because it has been instrumental in the past decade in helping to set up an accepted international framework for the treatment of all children. The aim has been to advance an international commitment to protecting children’s rights, to raise the profile of children and to foster a competent and positive image of children as pro-active holders and users of rights of citizens of the world. The convention has three broad categories of rights that define the values, expectations and requirements of society towards children. First, participation. Children are active citizens in the world and have rights to their own opinions, to express them and have them fully taken into account. Second, protection. Children are vulnerable and have the right to be protected in various ways. Third, provision. Children have rights to proper standards of physical care, education and health, as well as leisure and environmental opportunities and all the other aspects of policy.

I move on to our role, remit and function. A clear message emerged from the consultation that the functions of the commissioner in Wales should be based on the UN convention. That was the clear message that we got from children in Wales and all the organisations that came to see us. They should underpin the three broad categories I have outlined.

Children’s rights of participation should be key to the commissioner’s role. The commissioner’s agenda should be determined by children and young people themselves, rather than the providers of services. That is why we envisage a role for children and young people from the outset with the appointment procedure. That role should continue in terms of letting the commissioner know of children and young people’s priorities and concerns. We have to start with that important point of the appointment of the commissioner, who will have a role in upholding children’s rights to protection. This will take place through the monitoring and overseeing of complaints and whistle-blowing procedures, and arrangements for children’s advocacy.

The intention is for the commissioner to be able to investigate individual cases where that is considered necessary. I stress that he or she will have the right to require the provision of information and attendance of witnesses. That is already in our Committee report. The commissioner will be able to help children to pursue proceedings in respect of breaches of rights, to advise children about representation and complaints procedures and to guide practitioners in good practice in the production and implementation of these procedures.

Finally, the commissioner should have an impact on the full range of provision affecting all children in Wales, through raising the profile, and taking an overview, of the impact of policies, procedures and services on children. The commissioner will be able to produce reports and recommendations in the exercise of her or his functions, including an annual report to the Assembly on the position of children in Wales. She or he will be a constant reminder, including to the Assembly, of the need to give children’s services the priority that they deserve. There will be a mechanism to ensure that the commissioner’s recommendations are followed up. The commissioner must have teeth.

On David Melding’s amendment 2, I agree that the Assembly should fully acknowledge the importance of family and parents in protecting and nurturing children. However, I do not believe that the Health and Social Services Committee intended that the commissioner should have routine involvement in private family issues. Instead, we discussed the commissioner’s remit under future legislation as being primarily concerned with services that affect children and are provided or commissioned by public bodies. I say ‘services that affect children’ deliberately, since the agreed Committee report refers to the commissioner being given a remit beyond children’s services. That is where we must differ: on going beyond children’s services and on further legislation. As I have said, the Committee envisaged that the commissioner could comment on aspects of other services such as transport, the environment and anti-pollution measures, in so far as they affect children. I would not want the commissioner confined to the narrow remit of children’s services, as amendment 2 proposes.

Does the Secretary recognise that part of the social problem is often due to step-parents or live-in, unrelated ‘parents’, who, in some instances, are known to abuse the children who live with them? My concern about amendment 2 is that it seems to create the illusion that the family is always the best environment for children. In many instances, frankly, it is not.

We should not rule out the possibility of the commissioner’s involvement in issues that affect families and parents. If issues affect children’s rights and interests, then we must ensure that the commissioner is able to investigate them. I know that the issue of family life and external bodies’ interference, or perceived interference, in that life is sensitive. However, we are saying to children and young people that we are serious about upholding their rights and taking account of their interests. We would not do them justice if we denied the commissioner the right to comment on issues that might be interpreted as having an impact on family life. A classic example is domestic violence. We must ensure that the commissioner has the right to comment on that and similar matters. However, the commissioner would not exercise formal powers of investigation with regard to such family matters. That is the appropriate remit of social services, the police and the courts.

This is about the commissioner being able to comment on aspects of family life that affect children. David may wish to withdraw his amendment on the basis of my explanations. This is about not limiting the commissioner’s remit to children’s services, and enabling her or him to uphold children’s rights in family life. We can discuss these issues further.

To move on to the legislative framework, the Committee’s recommendations are based on the principle that the commissioner’s functions must have statutory authority. The independence of the office must be enshrined in statute. That requires primary legislation. Let us reflect on how far we have gone in a year. At the beginning we were talking tentatively about advisory roles. I remember meeting the Norwegian ombudsman and him saying ‘you could do this without primary legislation’. We were so tentative then. We have moved on much further. We will have primary legislation.

When ‘Lost in Care’ was published during the course of our deliberations in the Committee and we observed the important recommendation about ensuring that children’s rights were respected through the monitoring and oversight of complaints and whistle-blowing procedures, and ensuring that there were arrangements for children’s advocacy through the establishment of a children’s commissioner, we immediately told the Government that we wanted to amend the Care Standards Bill. That enables us to implement those first two vital recommendations in ‘Lost in Care’. This amendment will confer initial statutory functions on the commissioner relating to those services that are regulated by the Care Standards Bill in line with Sir Ronald Waterhouse’s recommendations. You will be pleased that this amendment is due to be tabled at the House of Commons Committee stage later this month.

To clarify, the commissioner’s functions under the Bill will extend to children’s homes, residential family centres, fostering agencies, voluntary adoption agencies, local authorities’ fostering and adoption services, domiciliary and day care, child minding services for those under eight years of age, private and voluntary hospitals and clinics and boarding schools. All that will come under the scope of the Care Standards Bill. Under this statutory duty we can establish a statutory commissioner as soon as possible. This is an important first step. At the earliest opportunity, Wales can establish an independent statutory commissioner to represent the rights and safeguard the welfare of the most vulnerable children. This is only the first step and a crucial issue, because the Bill’s scope extends beyond services for children looked after by local authorities, but it does not enable the commissioner to cover all settings on a statutory basis. That is why I have started discussions with the Secretary of State for Wales about seeking an early opportunity to extend the statutory role, functions and powers of the commissioner’s office through further primary legislation.

The recommendations in the Committee’s report will form the basis for further detailed discussions with the Secretary of State for Wales. This is important, as I turn to Kirsty’s amendments 3 and 4. The Secretary of State for Wales has said that the UK Government will want to look at our proposals sympathetically and urgently. Today’s debate enables us to progress that. In the meantime, the Health and Social Services Committee must look at other aspects of the commissioner’s scope, for example, the powers that we can use under Section 40 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, which enable the commissioner to advise the Assembly on a range of functions until we get further primary legislation.

Amendment 3 strengthens my point. It requests the Secretary of State for Wales to convey the Assembly’s proposals to the UK Cabinet Committee on the Queen’s Speeches and Future Legislation. We are moving in that direction. I am willing to support the amendment, but I want to make some technical clarifications, Kirsty. Your amendment is an expression of support for the Government’s statement in this motion. I must clarify that the Committee to which you refer apparently no longer exists; it has merged with the UK Cabinet Committee on Legislation to form the Committee on the Legislative Programme, which is known as LP. You may know about that. Other Cabinet committees are also interested in our proposals. I understand the thrust behind your amendment, Kirsty. It is to ensure that relevant parts of the UK Government machinery consider urgently the need to extend the commissioner’s remit. Therefore, I am happy to support it on that basis. Your amendment deletes the reference to discussions between the Cabinet and the Secretary of State for Wales, but I do not think that that is what you intend. We must continue those discussions and continue to involve the Health and Social Services Committee and Plenary where appropriate. I hope that that clarifies that, in spirit, we are saying the same thing.

Amendment 4 asks the Assembly to affirm its belief that the commissioner’s statutory powers should extend across all areas relating to children in Wales and that those powers should include the right to require action by public authorities and bodies. The Committee has produced a strong consensus through its report that it would be desirable in the interests of children in Wales for the commissioner’s powers to extend to non-devolved services and services provided outside Wales for children living in Wales. It is important if a child is placed outside Wales that we also have the right—which we believe that we will have through section 33 of the Government of Wales Act 1998—to comment on those services outside Wales. Much more work needs to be done, however, to clarify those cross-border issues. The Committee recognised that we need further exploration and negotiations with the UK Government on how we take this forward, in relation not only to non-devolved services and services outside Wales, but also enforcement powers, which is part of your amendment 4. What you have done, Kirsty, is help to draw attention to these powers that we need to explore with the UK Government. I hope, on the basis of my reassurances, that that will very much be part of the agenda and that you will consider withdrawing your amendment 4, so that we can move forward, endorsing the Committee report, but taking on board that the sort of powers that you mention must be part of the negotiations and exploration with the Government.

Finally, we can be justifiably proud today, because the Assembly in the past year has come far in a short space of time. I was delighted when Catriona Williams, the Chief Executive of Children in Wales said this morning that the Assembly has done something, so we will be tested on how we deliver this. Our commitment to a children’s commissioner for Wales must be more than a worthwhile ambition and aspiration. It will be the Assembly’s single most powerful development: to allow children and young people to directly influence decisions that impact on their lives. I thank all the organisations and individuals who have taken part in the consultation process, and the Committees for their dedication and vision. I am sure that you will want to endorse the proposals in the Health and Social Services Committee’s report, and resolve that we continue our discussions with the Secretary of State to move things forward on further powers.

At end of point 1, add:

‘and is grateful to all those who participated in the consultation process, particularly the children and young people .’

I will keep my comments as brief as possible. The Health and Social Services Committee members have had an opportunity to debate these issues at length and I am anxious to leave as much space as possible for Members who have not been involved in that process.

The Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales group is, like Jane Hutt, proud of the proposals before the Assembly today and of the contribution that we have made to develop those proposals. The broad consensus that we have developed around the role of the children’s commissioner has not been reached just by cosy chats between Members, but by strong, powerful debate, and, perhaps most importantly, by a wide consultation process. This process is an example of how I hoped, when I stood for election, that this Assembly would work, and I would like to see this kind of process happen more often.

The external consultation process was positive and innovative and the purpose of my amendment 1 is to draw attention to the contribution made by children and young people. I am sure that the whole Assembly will wish to thank the organisations, such as Voices from Care, the NSPCC and Children in Wales, who facilitated that participation. Above all, I am sure that we would want to thank the children and young people themselves. I found their contribution the most challenging, sometimes the most difficult, the most compelling and the most valuable of all. I learnt a great deal, and I believe that we all did. The children made clear to us that they wanted a commissioner to be a voice for them—a strong, independent voice that could speak out on all issues affecting their lives.

The proposal in the report before us today is a valuable step towards providing that voice, and we offer it warm support. We particularly welcome the progress on statutory powers, though we remain concerned that the powers currently proposed under the Care Standards Bill amendment do not cover children on the at-risk register. I realise that there are technical difficulties with that, but we would urge the Government of Wales to reconsider whether it is possible to extend the clause to cover that. We are delighted at the Government of Wales’s commitment in this report to explore with the UK Government ways in which the commissioner can be granted effective powers regarding non-devolved matters and cross-border matters. These are important steps towards creating the broadest possible role for the commissioner.

Our group supports the principles behind Kirsty Williams’s amendments 3 and 4. However, we hope that in the light of what Jane Hutt has said, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment 4, which we feel reiterates the report’s content, which is perhaps unnecessary. We will, however, wait to hear what Kirsty Williams has to say about that before making our final view.

After much discussion we decided that we would abstain on David Melding’s amendment 2. We strongly support the principle that loving families are the best place for children. However, sadly we also know that for a mercifully small minority of children, families can be the most terribly dangerous places, and are the places in which most abuse happens. The last thing that we would want is for the commissioner to go around responding to individual children’s gripes about pocket money or bedtime. Even in the most serious situations, we would only see the commissioner coming in on an individual case as a point of last resort. However, we believe that the report makes this completely clear. We would not want the commissioner to be prevented from commenting—as Jane Hutt said—on, for example, the effect of domestic violence—which happens in families—on children. We would want the commissioner perhaps to have a view on the best way that we as a community can deal with those issues. While we feel unable, therefore, to support David Melding’s amendment 2, we appreciate the spirit behind it, but feel that there may be unintended consequences from this amendment, and so we will abstain.

This is a piece of work of which the whole Assembly, so far as it has gone, can be proud. It is a unique piece of policy, developed through a powerful consultation process and reflecting consensus. It meets manifesto commitments, which is always nice, but much more importantly, it sets the needs of the children of Wales at the heart not only of the Assembly’s deliberations, but also at the heart of the life of Wales.

I end, however, on two words of warning. First, to the Government of Wales. Unless the office of the commissioner is properly resourced, the whole purpose of the commissioner will fail. We are concerned that the long-term costs will be nearer £1 million a year than the figures in the report. We seek assurances today from the Government of Wales that there will be capacity for growth—if that growth proves necessary—in the budget. Secondly, and much more importantly, a word of warning to the UK Government. We appreciate Mr Murphy’s sympathetic and urgent approach to this matter. However, I would say to him and his colleagues that if they fail to make time in the next legislative year—not the year after that, or the following year—to grant full statutory powers to the children’s commissioner of Wales, they will be treating this Assembly and this nation with contempt. The people of Wales would not be prepared to put up with that contempt in the long term.

Finally, the Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales group wholly commends this report to the Assembly, and we look forward to continuing to work to make its proposals a reality for children’s lives as soon as possible.

After point 1, insert the following point and renumber subsequent points:

2. asserts the importance of the family in protecting and nurturing children and therefore believes that the remit of the Children’s Commissioner should relate exclusively to children’s services provided by public and other agencies

The Conservative group welcomes the establishment of the children’s commissioner, and we commend this report to you. I also want to praise the administration’s approach. It is fair sometimes to say that a job has been well done, and this whole issue has been an instance of good cross-party work where the administration has taken issue seriously and used all the mechanisms at its disposal to advance the issue as quickly as possible. We are happy to support the amendment to the Care Standards Bill in the first instance as a way of really getting the commissioner going on a statutory basis.

It is appropriate that we seek an early legislative opportunity to extend the commissioner’s role to all children’s services. I am quite confident, given the track record to date, that the Assembly Secretary will not let us down, and I am sure that with her colleague, the Secretary of State for Health, we will find that that opportunity is given to us graciously and quickly. The Assembly has really made a difference in this area. We have all heard the questions—what do AMs do, what was the point of the Assembly? Sometimes you receive a strident answer from a Conservative on such a matter. However, on this issue, the Assembly has made a difference, and has done so quickly. It would not be possible to have a children’s commissioner in Wales before the rest of the UK unless we had devolution. Somewhat reluctantly, I must concede that even devolution can have its benefits. I hope that, as the social policy aspect has been developed vigorously in Wales, the rest of the United Kingdom follows our example. That is not a trite point. Let us hope that they do. The Conservative group has no intention of breaking the all-party support for this motion and the recommendations of the report. We will vote in favour of the motion however it is amended. There is no question about that.

I will speak to amendment 2 as it has attracted some comments. Amendment 2 makes explicit what is implicit in the recommendations of the Health and Social Services Committee’s report. The children’s commissioner will focus on services provided to children by public and other agencies. Children’s services is not a protective term, and I did not say ‘in social services’ in particular. The wide remit is appropriate, because services for children cover health, issues related to pollution, the safety of transport to school and the safety of public highways. All of these issues impinge on the welfare of children. It was not my intention, therefore, to say designated social services in a specific sense, and it is not stated in the amendment. It is important that parents are confident and reassured that the children’s commissioner will protect the interests of their children in performing this function. It is a vital partnership that will be welcomed by parents as much as by children and young people. That is the positive spirit in which amendment 2 was tabled.

The children’s commissioner’s role will not include issuing strictures on politically correct parenting, however conceived at a specific time. Although she will not support the amendment, I welcome the Secretary’s remarks on the role of the family and the micro-interference that could be feared. That is not meant to be part of this agenda. Helen Mary also made remarks in that vein, which I welcome and consider important. The authority of the family is in itself an important protection for children and must be emphasised. Rod Richards made an important point about threatening environments in families. That cannot be dismissed because much abuse occurs within the family. Limiting the role of the commissioner to prevent investigation of families should not be part of our discussions. Other agencies, social services, the police and the courts are responsible for such investigation. If they are not effectively investigated, it would then become a matter for the children’s commissioner. I accept the remark in the spirit that it was made, but I do not think that it affects my point about the family. However, it makes an important point that families are not always an idyllic unit. They are mostly a force for good, but not in all cases.

What you have said has been partially helpful. I was concerned when you prefaced your remarks by politically correct versions of what constitutes a family. On seeing your amendment, I envisaged a right-wing politically correct version of what the family should be—a stereotypical situation of two parents and 2.5 children. I am grateful that you have clarified that you are not imposing a stereotypical view on what constitutes a good working family.

I have not defined ‘family’ in a moralistic way according to one set of beliefs. The family is an extended unit and made up in different ways. I do not wish to say that a nuclear unit is the only definition of a family that I am seeking to advance. I am talking about families in the widest possible context and in an historical context, not one that is in itself a recent social construct.

The children’s commissioner should not have routine involvement in private family issues. That is at the heart of amendment 2. The Assembly Secretary stated that clearly. I am pleased that it will now be on the record. It is implicit in the report. The mechanisms for direct involvement in cases of abuse or suspected abuse exist elsewhere. They must be used effectively. Many of our deliberations on the Waterhouse report meant examining cases when the mechanisms were not used effectively. The commissioner’s role would not be inhibited in that area. It would be an important aspect of that person’s duties.

I conclude by saying that it is important that the commissioner is completely independent. One of the things that will ensure independence is a single, lengthy term. A seven year, non-renewable term is recommended in the report. I hope that when the appointment is eventually made, it will be contracted on that basis. I commend the report to the Assembly and assure you that the Conservative group supports it fully and will vote accordingly this afternoon.

At the end of point 3 delete ‘.’ and add ‘as set out in the recommendations of the Committee’s report’.

I also propose amendment 4 in the name of Kirsty Williams.

Add at the end of point 3:

‘In particular the Assembly affirms its belief that the Children’s Commissioner for Wales should have statutory powers across all areas affecting all children in Wales, and that his/her powers should include:

Power to require inquiries Powers to order disclosure of information Powers to require action to be taken by public authorities and bodies, in accordance with their own duties.’

The Liberal Democrats fully endorse the appointment of a children’s commissioner and fully support the report that is before us today. We have advocated it for some years and it was included in our manifesto—as in one or two of the other parties’ manifestos—for the Assembly elections. The expectations of this commissioner are high, particularly judging by the comments made at the NSPCC stall at the Eisteddfod last week. I noticed that the requirements of the commissioner included dealing with racism and bullying, and international peace was also prominent. When we talk about drawing wide boundaries for this person’s role, we must remember that young people have wide expectations that are undoubtedly wider than we are able to fulfil in Wales alone.

We fully endorse the way in which the Health and Social Services Committee and the Pre-16 Committee have taken evidence and reached agreement on what the commissioner’s role should be. The principle is fine. However, when you look at it in detail, there are complex issues to discuss. We had difficult decisions to make. Those decisions included not only how wide the commissioner’s remit should be but other decisions such as should that remit only include social services or should it include education and go further than that? Should the commissioner be an investigator or an advocate or both at the same time? Will the commissioner need wider legislative powers? What cross-border powers will the commissioner have?

I am pleased that the committee overwhelmingly went for the wider definition on all these issues. One of the things that we discussed in the Pre-16 Education Committee was whether the commissioner should sign the Official Secrets Act. That should not be the case. There are models where people are able to undertake investigations without signing the Official Secrets Act. Once the commissioner signs that, he or she becomes an internal person aligned with the Government and not the independent arbitrator that we want.

By submitting amendments today, the Liberal Democrats are not in any way seeking to amend the report. We are drawing attention to certain points in the report. We are amending the motion, not the report. Amendment 3 seeks to strengthen the request in the report for suitable primary legislation to be brought forward to expand the commissioner’s role beyond the scope that will be provided in the near future by the Care Standards Bill. As written, the existing motion merely talks about discussions. With all due respect, in our experience so far, discussions have not always produced the goods. We want to go forward quickly and put in the formal request. I am pleased that Jane outlined the fact that she is prepared to accept that.

On 2 February, the Assembly approved a protocol between the Assembly and the Secretary of State. I quote:

‘The Assembly will normally submit to the Secretary of State its proposals for Bills….The Secretary of State undertakes to consider such proposals fully, and to convey them to his or her Ministerial colleagues as appropriate.’

It goes on to refer to the specific committee to which we refer in amendment 3. Jane has informed us that it has changed its name, but the protocol has not changed its context.

We want to move from simply discussing the issue to putting it on a formal footing and say to the UK Government that something needs to be done about this now. We endorse Helen Mary’s comments about the need for action at the first opportunity. This cannot be put on the back burner until after a general election.

Kirsty Williams’s amendment 4, which has already been discussed, seeks to draw out aspects that are vital to the role of the commissioner. We have used the same words as those in the amendment that we tabled on the debate on the Waterhouse report, on 15 March. I remind you that on that occasion the amendment was passed unanimously; all four parties voted for it. This amendment is not a criticism of the report, but an endorsement of it. It seeks to encapsulate the spirit of the report.

The Liberal Democrats want the commissioner to have the widest possible remit. We want more primary legislation that deals with this issue than the Care Standards Bill. We want that soon. We want an effective commissioner with power and the ability to require inquiries and order the disclosure of information.

As a member of the Pre-16 Education Committee, I remember that we looked at the long-term rather than the short-term issue of the commissioner’s immediate legislative powers. We looked at a vision of a commissioner who could deal with the education system, for example, and the rights of the child in the education system.

We will support Helen Mary Jones’s amendment 1, but we will not support David Melding’s amendment 2. As I have already stated, we believe that the commissioner should have wide-ranging powers covering all areas affecting children. In fact, our amendment 4 could be seen to be in direct contradiction to David Melding’s amendment 2. Of course, families are of prime importance in protecting and nurturing children, and families come in all shapes and sizes. However, they are also of prime importance when they have failed to protect and nurture children.

The commissioner would not daily investigate or intervene in families. However, when a situation breaks down, families normally come into contact with social services. The role of the family could be considered essential in terms of the commissioner’s role. Such exclusion in the commissioner’s role would lessen the impact of the office of the commissioner.

In conclusion, I have one thought, which David has touched on already. The Assembly has received much criticism recently. I am sure that you have been asked the same question as I have, namely ‘What has the Assembly done so far?’ When people say that to me, the first thing I always say—and I have other things to say, as I am sure you all do—is that we are about to appoint a children’s commissioner. I say this with great pride. I also say that in this we are ahead of the rest of the UK. We are different. We are setting our own agenda. It is important that in doing this and in fulfilling this promise, we do so effectively and efficiently and appoint a powerful commissioner. We must also make it clear that without the Assembly this would not have happened.

For once, let us ensure that we ask Westminster to fit in with our plans, rather than us fitting in with its plans. It is essential that this is at the top of their agenda as well as ours.

This is one of the major pieces of work carried out by the Health and Social Services Committee. We began almost 12 months ago and it has exercised much of our time, effort and energy. It started with a large consultation process that was quite unique in its approach, as Jane said. Many organisations in Wales, on learning that we were about to consult on this important issue, were expecting a heavy document containing our ideas, already outlined—done, sealed and dusted—to land on their doorstep. Instead, receiving a letter asking them six questions about what they wanted was a surprise. It was also a challenge for some people who were used to dealing with the old ways of doing things. On behalf of the Health and Social Services Committee, I formally thank all of the 100 organisations and individuals who took the time and trouble to respond to that letter and to let us know what they thought the children’s commissioner should be about. I also thank the organisations and individuals who gave oral submissions to the Assembly in a formal session of the Committee. We took an international approach and looked abroad at the various commissioners that are already established, mainly in Europe. We also got out and about and paid a useful visit to the Sandfields family centre in Port Talbot, and I thank them for their hospitality during our visit.

As has already been said, this was a great example of two Subject Committees working together. I am grateful for the efforts of Lorraine Barrett, who attended Health and Social Services Committee meetings faithfully, often having to dash from one Committee room to another to ensure that the education views were represented on the Committee. I am also grateful to the entire Pre-16 Education Committee, who joined us in a formal joint Committee session. Without their work, the report would be a much lesser document than it is. I thank Rosemary and her colleagues on the Pre-16 Education Committee.

Unfortunately, the results of our consultation highlighted some severe shortcomings in services for children in Wales. These were often characterised by a lack of coherence and focus and fragmentation. There was little or no scope for children and young people to influence decisions. There was also a lack of support and advocacy for the most disadvantaged children and young people in our society. The Committee recognised early on the need for such an office, even before Sir Ronald Waterhouse made it a key recommendation in his ‘Lost in Care’ report.

Subsequently, the Committee’s work has focused on the framework that defines the role of our children’s champion. We welcomed the early opportunity to give the commissioner statutory powers via an amendment to the Care Standards Bill. However, the Committee is vitally aware that this is only a first step and that the powers afforded to the children’s commissioner by this amendment are too limiting. The children’s commissioner will not be able to look after the needs of all children in Wales—whoever they are, wherever they live, whoever cares for them and whether they are in a school, hospital, sports club or youth project—if we settle for this sole amendment. We recommend to all our Assembly colleagues that a further legislative opportunity needs to be secured as soon as possible, to ensure that this role is given teeth and powers to get things done for the children and young people of Wales.

The Committee was also anxious to ensure that, in the meantime, we use all the powers given to us by the Government of Wales Act 1998 to empower the post of commissioner. This issue does not end here. We must continue to develop, with others, the role and functions of the commissioner. I am sure that the Health and Social Services Committee will scrutinise the Executive intently in these matters. I am also sure that the Executive will adopt a ‘can do’ approach to what we all know must be a joint approach with our colleagues in Westminster.

We now begin the difficult but exciting task of finding the special person who will be the first ever independent children’s commissioner for Wales. Again, I urge the Assembly to endorse the Committee’s proposals of a process of identifying that person, which will include children and young people. That is important. This person will hopefully be in post by the end of this year.

A great deal of our time has been spent developing a consensus on the commissioner. That has been difficult at times, but through sheer determination, hard work and a willingness to sit down and talk it through when it became tough, we have been able to achieve that consensus. Sometimes, that has not been possible, and the issues of budgets and hard cash spring to mind. However, I am sure that the tough talking and negotiation will continue beyond today’s debate. On behalf of the Health and Social Services Committee, I thank the Children and Families Division for its work and time spent in responding to requests for information from the Committee. The division has had to turn around papers within tight deadlines, and we are grateful for its efforts and hard work.

For me, the best thing about creating a National Assembly for Wales is the opportunity to do things differently in our country and to make a difference. We can identify Welsh problems and provide Welsh answers. This is one opportunity to do just that. The Assembly also gives us the opportunity to ensure that our policies are realistic and relevant to people in Wales. By looking outside ourselves, beyond this building and by truly engaging with people and partners on the outside, I hope that this has been achieved. I urge the Assembly and all Members to endorse the Health and Social Services Committee’s report, to set us on our way to appointing this special person.

Diolch am y cyfle i gyfrannu at ddadl sydd o bwys mawr o ganlyniad i’r ymchwiliadau i gam-drin plant a digwyddiadau’r blynyddoedd diwethaf. Bydd pob plaid yn cefnogi’r cynnig, sydd, yn bennaf oll, yn ceisio rhoi swyddogaethau statudol i’r comisiynydd sydd yn ehangach na’r rheini a roddir iddo, neu iddi, yn y Mesur Safonau Gofal. Cefnogaf welliant 4 Kirsty Williams, sydd yn rhoi grym i gynnal ymchwiliadau a datgelu gwybodaeth. Mae hwn yn rym pwysig a allai fod yn rhan allweddol o’r frwydr i atal cam-drin plant.

Nid cyd-ddigwyddiad yw’r ffaith mai’r cyntaf o’r 72 o argymhellion yn adroddiad Waterhouse yw’r un sydd yn nodi:

‘Dylid penodi Comisiynydd Plant annibynnol ar gyfer Gymru.’

Mae’r ail argymhelliad yn awgrymu beth ddylai fod yn ddyletswyddau i’r comisiynydd, gan bwysleisio y dylent:

‘sicrhau y perchir hawliau plant drwy fonitro a goruchwylio’r ffordd y caiff gweithdrefnau cwyno a datgelu cyfrinachau eu gweithredu a’r trefniadau ar gyfer eiriolaeth plant’.

Mae’r ddau brif ddyletswydd arall yn ymwneud â’r dull o ymdrin â chwynion. Er yn bwysig, nid ydynt cyn bwysiced â’r dyletswydd cyntaf. Y dyletswydd hwnnw—ond i’r comisiynydd gael y pwerau priodol—fydd yr arf pwysicaf i rwystro cam-drin plant. Mae’n bwysig bod y sylw pennaf yn cael ei roi i sefydlu parch tuag at hawliau plant a’r gweithdrefnau priodol a threfniadau addas ar gyfer eiriolaeth plant. Fel aelod o’r Pwyllgor Addysg Cyn-16, yr wyf yn sicr y gallwn, ar y cyd â’r Pwyllgor Iechyd a Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol, sicrhau bod y gofynion hynny yn cael eu hymgorffori yn ein casgliadau a’n polisïau.

Wrth ddarllen am yr achosion o gam-drin, trist yw gweld bod adroddiad Waterhouse yn nodi bod gweithdrefnau a systemau wedi eu sefydlu yn y cartrefi lle tybiwyd bod y plant yn derbyn gofal. Fodd bynnag, nid oedd monitro yn digwydd na defnydd priodol yn cael ei wneud o’r gweithdrefnau ac, fel y gwyddom heddiw, nid oedd neb yno i eiriol ar ran y plant nac i wrando eu cwyn. Dyna sydd yn drist am y sefyllfa hon.

Ni chafwyd ymateb digon cadarnhaol i sawl adroddiad blaenorol nac i ofynion Deddf Plant 1989. Mae adroddiad Waterhouse yn nodi’n hollol glir y bydd angen arweiniad positif a chadarn gan Gynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru os am warchod diogelwch plant mewn gofal yng Nghymru yn ddigonol a gwella ansawdd y gofal a ddarperir. Mae’r ffaith fod y mater dan sylw gennym y prynhawn yma yn arwydd o ymrwymiad y Cynulliad. Yr wyf yn falch o hynny.

Mae’r amcanion yn rhai syml ond yn rhai hynod anodd i’w gwireddu. Gyda’r gweithdrefnau gorau yn y byd, mae’n dal yn anodd darganfod a yw plentyn yn cael ei gam-drin ai peidio. Dyna pam y bydd yn rhaid i’r comisiynydd, yn rhinwedd ei swydd, gael yr hawl i gyflwyno a mabwysiadu syniadau a dyfeisiadau o’r newydd. Rhaid iddo ef neu hi allu uniaethu â phlant yn gydymdeimladol, gallu dibynnu ar unigolion sydd yn deall anghenion plant, gallu cyfathrebu â phlant ym mha iaith bynnag sydd yn briodol a gallu eiriol ar eu rhan. Afraid dweud fy mod yn argyhoeddedig y dylai’r comisiynydd feddu ar briodoleddau arbennig; nid y lleiaf ohonynt fydd y gallu i siarad iaith y plentyn.

Dyna pam y bu i ni, yn y Pwyllgor Addysg Cyn-16, Ysgolion ac Addysg Gynnar, ofyn i’r panel penodi beidio â chyfyngu’n ormodol ar ddisgrifiad person y swydd. Croesawaf yn fawr y bwriad diffuant i sicrhau bod llais ein plant a’n pobl ifanc yn cael ei glywed yn y broses o benodi’r comisiynydd, ac y bu ymgynghori gyda’r bobl ifanc yn y Cynulliad a hyd yn oed ar faes Eisteddfod yr Urdd ym Mro Conwy yr wythnos diwethaf.

Fel y soniodd Jenny, mae’r adborth o’r ymgynghori hwnnw—er enghraifft, pryderon ynghylch hiliaeth a bwlio—yn dweud y bydd yn rhaid i’r comisiynydd feddu ar yr hawl i reoli a dylanwadu ar bolisïau addysgol yn ogystal â pholisïau a gweithdrefnau adrannau gwasanaethau cymdeithasol ac awdurdodau iechyd. Heb y grym hwnnw i sicrhau cydweithio ar draws y meysydd, byddai’n amhosibl i’r comisiynydd gyflawni ei ddyletswyddau neu ei dyletswyddau’n effeithiol.

Dylai’r comisiynydd hefyd sicrhau bod gofynion addysgol plant mewn gofal yn cael sylw haeddiannol, a hefyd bod ein hysgolion yn gosod y disgwyliadau addysgol uchaf posibl ar blant mewn gofal. Mae hynny’n wir am bob plentyn. Rhaid iddo hefyd fod yn wir am blant mewn gofal.

Yr wyf yn cloi drwy gyfeirio at welliant 4 Kirsty Williams, sydd yn allweddol bwysig. Un rheswm inni aros cyhyd cyn derbyn adroddiad Waterhouse a pham y bu oedi cyn y gellid cymryd camau effeithiol i atal cam-drin plant, oedd y bygythiad o achosion cyfreithiol yn cael eu dwyn yn erbyn awdurdodau lleol ac unigolion pe bai’r adroddiadau yn ddi-sail.

Oherwydd hyn, fel y gwyddom, ni chyhoeddwyd sawl adroddiad mewnol, er enghraifft adroddiad Jillings, yr adroddiad ar Gartrefle ac eraill. Byddai datgelu cynnwys yr adroddiadau hynny wedi cynorthwyo i symud pethau ymlaen yn llawer cyflymach nag a wnaethpwyd. Mae hynny i gyd yn adroddiad Waterhouse. Er mor bwysig yw diogelu hawliau’r unigolyn mewn achosion o’r fath, nid yw’n iawn i dderbyn hynny fel rheswm dros wneud dim.

Bydd yn rhaid i’r comisiynydd gael yr hawl statudol i alw a gweld adroddiadau o’r fath a gweithredu arnynt yn ddiymdroi yn ôl y galw. Pe bai’r grym hwnnw wedi bod ar gael ac wedi ei ddefnyddio flynyddoedd yn ôl, byddai sawl achos o gam-drin plant wedi ei atal. Mae’n rym o bwys—yn fygythiol i oedolion, yr wyf yn cydnabod—ond er tegwch i’r plentyn, dylai fod ar gael.

Deallaf fod y Llywodraeth wedi edrych ar argymhellion 71 a 72, y ddau olaf yn adroddiad Waterhouse, sydd yn galw ar Gomisiwn y Gyfraith i edrych ar sut y sefydlir ymchwiliadau mewnol ac y’u cyhoeddir yn y dyfodol. Bydd hyn yn digwydd yn fuan. Croesawaf hynny a chydnabyddaf bwynt Jane mewn perthynas â’r gwelliant hwn. Os digwydd hyn yn ystod y flwyddyn nesaf, boed felly. Mae hynny i’w groesawu. Hoffwn feddwl y bydd yn digwydd neu byddwn yn ôl yn yr un sefyllfa ag o’r blaen.

Yn y pen draw, nid mater i gwmnïau yswiriant yw penderfynu a ddylid cyhoeddi adroddiadau ai peidio ond i’r comisiynydd yn unol â’i swyddogaeth o gymryd camau angenrheidiol i ddiogelu hawliau’r plentyn. Drwy waith y comisiynydd, gadewch i ni yng Nghymru—cydnabyddaf ein bod yn arloesi—roi hawliau a buddiannau’r plentyn yn gyntaf a phob buddiant arall yn eilradd.

A certain amount of self-congratulation is in order this afternoon. It has taken us a long time to go through the process but we have discussed it at length and have left no stone unturned without due consideration. We should take pride in what we have done to achieve the imminent setting up of a children’s commissioner later this year. I do not want to replicate what I have said in the Pre-16 Education Committee, of which I am a member. I am sure that other members have been exercising a voluntary code of abstinence on this, so I shall do the same.

I agree with all that has been said. However, I think that David Melding has got it wrong in his amendment and that that view is the general consensus in the Assembly. I agree that the commissioner should be accountable to the Assembly and that he or she should have one non-renewable term of seven years. I am particularly pleased that the recommendation is that the commissioner should not sign the Official Secrets Act. That works well in other legislatures. In the House of Commons, the Comptroller and Auditor General does not sign the Official Secrets Act but is a servant of the Public Accounts Committee and is allowed to see restricted and secret material and is trusted by the Government and the Executive of the day. I believe that the Comptroller and Auditor General performs that task well. I am sure that a children’s commissioner can do the same as a servant of this Assembly.

The commissioner should have statutory powers and be independent and be seen to be independent. I hope that the appointment, when it is made, will allow a wide spectrum of applicants for this position. I do not wish to see it circumscribed by terms and conditions of appointment that would ensure that only two or three people in Wales could apply and satisfy all the conditions. We want a wide spectrum of applicants because we want a person of the highest calibre.

What I wish to say today does not concern any of that. I say it because I agree with it. We can congratulate ourselves but we have only taken the first steps. This depends on sympathetic and urgent consideration by the Westminster Government. I wonder whether this is an example of where the Assembly could tell the Westminster Government that this matter does not concern England—of course there are cross-border issues to be resolved—but concerns us in Wales. It does not concern England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. If we appoint a commissioner, he or she will be paid out of Wales’s block budget and not out of England’s, Scotland’s or Northern Ireland’s. Why do we have to wait and be at the mercy of the legislative timetable in Westminster in order to give the commissioner statutory powers? It is a perfectly reasonable question.

I will go on to address whether we should have more powers and I will detail some possibilities. I know that primary legislative powers were not a consideration of the referendum on establishing the Assembly. However, it is not easy to define a primary or secondary legislative power. In Westminster, a Government could easily detail matters that would normally be left to regulations as primary legislation. The Assembly has been in place for a year, but devolution has not yet reached the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It does not believe that such a thing exists in Wales. However, I would be straying too far from the subject if I were to voice my dissatisfaction with that department’s actions so far.

We could request primary legislative powers in the long term and I know that other Members agree. We must, first, satisfy the people of Wales that we deserve those powers. We need them because we need to be able to avoid such difficulties as not being able to vote in favour of providing the Welsh children’s commissioner with full statutory powers. I am sure that we would vote unanimously in favour of that if we were able to do so. However, instead, we must rely on the Westminster Government’s sympathetic and urgent treatment.

Following the drafting of the White Paper on devolution, people voted for an Assembly that only had secondary legislative powers. Does John Marek agree that it would be unfair to grant the Assembly further powers without giving the people of Wales an opportunity to air their voices?

We will have to wait and see. I was at pains to try to explain that what you might consider a primary legislative power I would consider secondary or vice versa, depending on the power and the way Westminster parliamentary draftsmen write a primary legislative Bill.

I agree that we did not seek primary legislative powers in the referendum. I am not trying to urge the Assembly to demand them now, although I believe that it should have them. However, while I am not urging the Assembly to demand them, it is right to request procedures and processes that will enable us to act in the interests of the Welsh people without affecting the Treasury or England.

The children’s commissioner is a case in point. The Government will introduce an amendment into a Westminster Bill later this month. However, it cannot introduce all the necessary amendments because the Bill’s long title does not allow for those that would enable us to do what we want in Wales. Therefore, we are stuck and we must now wait until the next legislative session for the Westminster Government to state whether or not we can introduce a Welsh Bill giving full powers to a children’s commissioner. That is unsatisfactory because we will be at the behest of a general election. I do not blame the Westminster Government for that because it is a fact of life, but the situation is unsatisfactory. I think that David Davies will agree that that is the case, whatever his feelings may be on that. If we had a perfect legislative world, we would have been able to make all the changes and appoint the children’s commissioner with all the powers that we would wish him or her to have.

That is the problem. How can we avoid always having to go cap in hand to the Westminster Government? We could ask the Westminster Government—the Executive could request this when meeting with colleagues at Westminster—to always consider the Welsh issue before asking parliamentary draftsmen to draw up a Bill and to ensure that there is an enabling style of legislation for primary legislation on issues that have a strong Welsh interest. I hope that nobody misunderstands me. I am not asking for powers over taxation or matters that have not been devolved, such as Home Office powers. However, powers have been devolved in areas such as care and care standards. When the Government formulated the Care Standards Bill, it would have been right for it to have ensured in advance that the long title of the Bill was long enough to accommodate what we would want to do. It would have been right for the Government to ensure that the Bill was in an enabling form so that we in Wales could decide on all matters pertaining to Wales. That makes sense to me and I hope that it makes sense to other Members.

If the Government cannot do that, we need a fast track for Welsh Bills. The Assembly cannot be held at the mercy of events in other legislatures, as other legislatures and Executives rightly have other considerations. I do not seek to take that away from them. When Bills do not affect or demand any more money from England or the central Exchequer, there should be a system where Welsh Bills could be fast tracked through Parliament—I will not go into details because that is not the issue—so that there would be a certainty that we would receive the primary powers fairly quickly unless there was a serious point of principle. That is not the case at present. I ask Rosemary Butler and Jane Hutt whether this should be taken up within the Cabinet and discussed with the Secretary of State for Wales, Paul Murphy. It is not good enough to go to Paul Murphy alone. I do not want to belittle him but the Welsh position in the British Cabinet is the most junior position, apart from perhaps the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Secretary of State for Wales has very little pull or power unless we provide the backing. I believe that we can do something.

I will conclude because I have had my time. If you had your new clocks here, Dafydd, they would flash red by now. I support the children’s commissioner, a post that we should and will be proud of in future.

Mae’n bleser cyfrannu i’r ddadl y prynhawn yma.

Does the Assembly think that children in need in Wales could benefit from the Assembly complementing the role of the children’s commissioner? I would like to make the case for the National Assembly for Wales maintaining a discreet focus on services for children in need at the national level. The Children Act 1989 definition, which is interpreted with variations across Wales, encompasses a range of children and families who are on the margins of social exclusion. They represent a small but significant minority of the population who require active services from local authorities. Without specific focus on this minority in terms of target action and resources, children in need will become more, rather than less, marginalised. There have been recurring concerns over many years about the quality of provision in many areas for children and young people. They are the most socially excluded citizens in that they are looked after away from home in the public sector. Many have been taken into care to receive protection and help but have not been helped and protected. Many have been let down and not given the attention they needed. The whole system had failed.

There are similar concerns about how robust the child protection systems are when a child who is already known to social services is seriously injured or killed. Communities are rightly unforgiving when we get it wrong. A specific focus on children in need at a national level, including children in need of protection and care, will help local agencies get it right. The Children First programme provides an opportunity for a positive spotlight to shine on services for children and young people in need and their families. The programme will be strategically led for the first time at a national level by elected representatives.

Part of the task in improving services and outcomes for children is professional and managerial. However, there is a significant political challenge to be won in acquiring the services and keeping them high on the social care agenda. A national children’s committee will achieve this. The unprecedented letter to all members of local authorities by the past Secretary of State for Wales reinforcing their roles will help. Strategies and services must inevitably work through and alongside local authorities’ structures. They will be required to have a lead officer with oversight for provision for children in need. Local political structures must also reflect—and we saw this in the Waterhouse report—the need to focus on children’s services as a discrete remit. A national structure with a similar focus will enable partnership working at both levels of government. The task for all of us in the public sector—not least the Assembly—is to make a difference and improve the quality of outcomes for citizens. A long-term, resourced and discrete focus on services for children in need at a national level will help us all to make that difference along with the development of the role of the children’s commissioner. It would make my day if the Assembly formally and publicly adopted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I did not intend to speak this afternoon because I thought that this debate should be an opportunity for Members who have not been involved in the discussions so far. However, as my name has been mentioned several times as the representative from the Pre-16 Education Committee, I will say a few words. First, I enjoyed visiting the Health and Social Services Committee and I thank Kirsty for welcoming me and involving me in its deliberations.

Secondly, I endorse the previous comments that welcomed this proposal. We all agree that it will be one of the most important issues with which the Assembly has dealt so far. I am sure that the appointment of the children’s commissioner will be warmly welcomed throughout Wales. However, I have one small third point to make as a word of caution. The commissioner will not be the panacea for all the ills that beset children and young people in Wales. Various children’s agencies and myself feel that the Assembly must ensure that expectations are not raised to an impossible level. Jenny Randerson made that point earlier. The commissioner might be seen as a failure in the future if those expectations are too high. I am sure that that will not be the case, but I wanted to bring that up this afternoon so that we are more careful in the way that we proceed with this appointment.

It has been a privilege to listen to this debate this afternoon. It has been one of the best debates that we have had. People think about this subject more than any other. There has been much talk about consensus. I am pleased that the debate has followed the consensus that happened in Committee. It is good to have a consensus but someone needs to spearhead the Assembly’s thoughts. Jane Hutt should be congratulated and complimented on her excellent efforts in pushing this forward, cajoling people and ensuring that the Assembly gets what it wants. I would like it formally recorded on behalf of the Assembly that her efforts have been exemplary.

The office will help us listen to children and young people on the kind of Wales that they want to be part of. It will inform us so that we can design policies and services to meet their needs. The commissioner may sometimes be felt as a thorn in our sides: that should be welcomed. It will be a reflection of the commissioner’s influence and power. The commissioner’s role will be to promote and safeguard the rights and interests of all children in Wales by listening to their views and representing children directly. Wales will join an admirable band of countries in establishing a children’s commissioner.

At the same time we will be unique in the UK in appointing a children’s commissioner. I know that we are greatly applauded for our genuine and practical commitment to developing the commissioner’s office. In establishing it, the Assembly exemplifies the benefit of diversity that devolution can bring to the people of Wales.

We have had an excellent debate this afternoon and I will comment on some of the contributions.

Helen Mary Jones thanked all our outside partners, as did a number of the speakers, and it was important to do so. She made the point that families can be loving but that they can also be dangerous. She also talked about proper resources: we are going into the budget round and it is up to both committees—the Health and Social Services Committee and the Pre-16 Education, Schools and Early Learning Committee—to ensure that they state the case for resources clearly to the Finance Secretary. Now we are setting up this office we must ensure that the resources are properly supplied.

Talking about the remit of the commissioner, Jane made the point that this, albeit a big step, is the first step. We will move on to ensure that the commissioner has as wide a role as possible.

David Melding made a good contribution, as he always does, and made the point that parents should be assured that the commissioner is there to protect their children—

One of the points that Helen made forcefully was our reliance on Westminster for the primary legislation. Can we have your response about when you expect the UK Government to say when it will make time available for us to have that primary legislation?

I was going to address that point later, Jocelyn, because other people made it, and Kirsty particularly made it forcibly. We need to ensure that we achieve that primary legislation as soon as possible. I cannot give an exact date today, but it will be as soon as possible. The Care Standards Bill is going through now and Jane has arranged meetings to ensure that we get that opportunity, after that Bill has gone through.

With regard to David’s point about parents’ fears that the commissioner will interfere in family life, the commission will be there to protect all children. I think you said that the commissioner should not have routine involvement in family life, but should be there as a back-up, if the family should fall apart.

Jenny Randerson made a good contribution and she has made excellent contributions in the Pre-16 Committee. She made the point that, as well as our expectations, young people also have wide expectations of this commissioner. She said that the amendments were meant to be helpful and they are. All the amendments were meant to be helpful, though sometimes the wording, particularly in David’s, has not been as helpful as we would have liked. It is most important that we make sure that the child is protected when families break down. The child is the central issue this afternoon.

Kirsty should be complimented on her control of her Committee. I have watched it on television with great interest, on occasion.

You have done an excellent job, Kirsty; you should be congratulated, with Jane, for making sure that the fast-tracking of this process has delivered. You made the point forcibly about the need for a commissioner and the fact that we in the Assembly highlighted that need before the Waterhouse report was published. That is a credit to the Assembly.

On Jocelyn’s point, the matter does not end here today. We must ensure that we get a primary legislation slot quickly. You and others emphasised how special the commissioner must be. That will be crucial. You wanted assurance on continued pressure for negotiations for parliamentary time. I have known Jane Hutt for several years and I assure you that, when she gets her teeth into something, she does not let go. She has discussions at every opportunity with the people who matter in Westminster.

Gareth Jones made a good contribution on the Waterhouse inquiry. It was emotional because he was involved in reporting on some of the child abuse cases in north Wales. He feels passionately that any report on child abuse written in Wales should be made public. I believe that we all agree with that. Gareth wanted assurance that the Waterhouse recommendations on the commissioner will be incorporated in the Care Standards Bill. I give him that assurance.

Gareth also raised the issue of language and the ability to communicate in Welsh and English. That will be considered at the interview. However, it is not only Welsh and English that we must consider but the myriad of other languages spoken by children in Wales: Urdu, Gujarati and so on. We must ensure that facilities exist so that if children from those ethnic groups wish to use the commissioner’s services, they can do so in their own language. Gareth said that children’s interests must come first. That is important.

Hoffwn egluro’r pwynt hwnnw. Ni chyfeiriais at y Gymraeg na’r Saesneg. Dewisais fy ngeiriau yn ofalus. Cyfeiriais at iaith y plentyn.

I am sorry, Gareth. You are right. However, I want to ensure that language will be considered during the interview process.

John Marek has made several contributions to the Pre-16 Education Committee. He has an agile mind with regard to regulations and points of order. He said that the commissioner must not only be independent but seen to be so. That is important and John made that point well. At another Pre-16 Education Committee meeting, we noted that the choice of commissioner must be wide. It must not be so narrow that few people will apply for the post. The job description must be as wide as possible to ensure a wide choice of candidates. John, you are in the ideal place in Parliament to ask questions about primary and secondary legislation. You must push it from that end. You have my assurance that we will push it from this end.

When the Care Standards Bill was introduced, neither the Assembly nor the Waterhouse report had made recommendations. Therefore, it is interesting that Jane Hutt secured an amendment within the full scope of the Bill. That was fast thinking on her part.

Gwenda’s contribution was well thought out. Her experience in social services has given her knowledge about all aspects of dealing with children. However, the Assembly’s response to Waterhouse provides what you ask for.

On Lorraine’s point, the commissioner is not a panacea. We must not assume that because we will have a children’s commissioner, we can sit back. We must ensure that we deliver policies and strategies that will protect children, and ensure that we win hearts and minds before the child is forced to go to the commissioner. I hope that I have given Kirsty the reassurance that she wanted. I am convinced that if anybody can deliver, Jane Hutt can.

The main aim is to appoint a children’s commissioner as soon as possible, hopefully by the end of this year or, if not, early next year. The timing will depend on the remaining stages of the Care Standards Bill. The general approach of the amendment to the Bill will be to enable as much detail as possible to be set out by the Assembly in secondary legislation, including the appointment procedures. The Health and Social Services Committee and the Pre-16 Education Committee will consider proposals for secondary legislation as soon as possible.

At the same time, we will give the highest priority to continuing discussions with the Secretary of State for Wales about further primary legislative powers. I am sure that you all share the excitement that we feel today about this development. It has been hard work for all concerned but it has been extremely rewarding. The commitment to establishing a children’s commissioner with wide-ranging functions is a landmark one. It is a significant step to improving the lives of all children and young people in Wales, enhancing their opportunities and preparing them for a full and successful adulthood. The commissioner will be a powerful, independent champion for all the children and young people of Wales. I urge you to support the motion.

I will withdraw amendment 4.