Member

Amendment 135 is similar but here the duty to consider children’s needs and rights applies to the ICO rather than the controllers and processors. Proposed paragraphs (e) to (g) in Amendment 135 mirror the provisions in paragraphs (a) to (c) of proposed subsection (1) in Amendment 88, while its proposed subsection (2) once again puts into the Bill the fact that a child is a person under 18. I suspect that the Minister may say that Amendment 135 is not needed because the Government have already proposed a duty relating to children, but the wording in Clause 90 is inadequate. It places a duty on the ICO to have regard to