§
Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 3, line 24, at end insert:
( ) Without prejudice to any power to issue a summons or warrant apart from this subsection, a justice may issue a summons or warrant for the purpose of securing the attendance of the relevant infant before the court in which care proceedings are brought or proposed to be brought in respect of him; but subsections (3) and (4) of section 47 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 (which among other things restrict the circumstances in which a warrant may be issued) shall apply with the necessary modifications to a warrant under this subsection as they apply to a warrant under that section and as if in subsection (3) after the word "summons" there were inserted the words "cannot be served or".
( ) Where the relevant infant is arrested in pursuance of a warrant issued by virtue of the preceding subsection and cannot be brought immediately before the court aforesaid, the person in whose custody he is
(a) may make arrangements for his detention in a place of safety for a period of not more than seventy-two hours from the time of the arrest (and it shall be lawful for him to be detained in pursuance of the arrangements); and
(b) shall within that period, unless within it the relevant infant is brought before the court aforesaid, bring him before a justice, and the justice shall either make an interim order in respect of him or direct that he be released forthwith.
§ Mr. Elystan MorganI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this Amendment, I suggest that we take Lords Amendments Nos. 21, 24, 40, 47, 48 and 99. They are all linked.
§ Mr. Elystan MorganThe effect of these Amendments is to empower a justice to issue a summons or warrant to secure the attendance of a child or young person before the court, or his detention in default.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
458§ Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 5. line 11, leave out "twenty-five" and insert "fifty".
§ Mr. Elystan MorganI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
In Committee, an Amendment to increase the maximum sum in which the parents could be bound over from £25 to £100 was resisted by the Government. Subsequently, an Amendment enabling a young person himself to be bound over in care proceedings was accepted. In another place, it was argued that there should be a higher maximum for the binding over of parents than of young persons, and £50 was suggested.
I appreciate that the considerations are very nicely balanced, but the Government saw the force of the view that there should be different maxima for parents and their children. They relented and accepted that the maximum in the case of parents should be £50.
§ Mr. WorsleyWe welcome the Government's change of heart in this matter. We hope that it is not as a result of the progress of inflation since we were in Committee. At that time we were accused, as we are so often by the hon. Gentleman, of having a punitive point of view. I hope he will realise that our desire to put a higher maximum in this case was never inspired by a punitive point of view but simply by a desire, in a Measure which it is hoped will remain unamended for some years, to make sure that the figure suggested was an effective one. Even now, clearly £25 is not such a figure in certain families. We feel that it would have been better to have accepted our Amendment in Committee. Nevertheless, we do not intend to look a gift horse in the mouth. We realise that the Government have come halfway, and we welcome it.
§ Question put and agreed to.