§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Dr. OwenI beg to move Amendment No. 220, in page 11, line 30, after 'authority', insert 'or voluntary organisation'.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this we may take Government amendments Nos. 222 and 221.
§ Dr. OwenThese three amendments to Clause 16 deal with the revocation of freeing orders and the re-vesting of parental rights. They are fairly self-explanatory. Amendments Nos. 220 and 221 depend on the acceptance of new Clause 1, which would allow a voluntary body to hold parental rights over a child in its care.
Amendment No. 222 emphasises that parental rights shall not revert in a body or authority. It stems from a question raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Reading South (Dr. Vaughan)—why does the Bill sometimes use "person" and sometimes "individual"? I hope that this clarifies the matter.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendments made: No. 222, in page 11, line 32, leave out 'person or persons' and insert—
'individual or, as the case may be, the individuals'.
§
No. 221, in page 11, line 33, leave out "that order was made' and insert—
'they were vested in the authority or organisation'.—[Dr. Owen.]
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North)I beg to move Amendment No. 162, in page 11, line 38, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) If the application is dismissed on the ground that to allow it would contravene the principle embodied in section 3 the former parent shall be entitled to make a further application only with the leave of the court.'
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this we may take Amendment No. 231, in page 11, line 43, after 'child', insert— 1458
'unless there has been a material change in his circumstances and with the leave of a Court, and'.
§ Mr. BennettI move my amendment merely formally. I understand that the Minister has a proposal to meet the point in question.
§ Dr. OwenWith the permission of the House, I shall seek to move, as a manuscript amendment to the Bill, in page 11, line 38, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (5)'.
As a further manuscript amendment, I shall seek to move, in page 11, line 45, at end add—
'(5) Subsection (4)(a) shall not apply where the court which dismissed the application gives leave to the former parent to make a further application under subsection (1), but such leave shall not be given unless it appears to the court that because of the change in circumstances or for any other reason it is proper to allow the application to be made.'It will be clear to the House that this incorporates the substance of Amendment No. 231, and it is intended to meet that point. It also meets the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stock-port, North (Mr. Bennett). I hope that it commends itself to the House. I am sorry about seeking to move these amendments at such a late stage.
§ Dr. VaughanThe Opposition welcome the Minister's manuscript amendments. As he says, they fulfil the function of Amendment No. 231.
We were concerned about the situation where a child may be freed for adoption and then a year later, if the child has not been adopted, the parents may apply to the court for a revocation of the order. If then the court refuses the revocation and afterwards the circumstances and the child's natural home improve, the parents have no right then to apply to the court again for a further revocation. This seemed to us both unjust and not at all in the interests of the child.
As far as I can see, the point is met entirely by the manuscript amendments. In those circumstances, I shall not move Amendment No. 231.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe position is that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) should now withdraw his amendment.
§ Mr. BennettI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Manuscript amendments made:
§ In page 11, line 38, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (5)".
§
In page 11, line 45, at end add—
'(5) Subsection (4)(a) shall not apply where the court which dismissed the application gives leave to the former parent to make a further application under subsection (1), but such leave shall not be given unless it appears to the court that because of the change in circumstances or for any other reason it is proper to allow the application to be made.'—[Dr. Owen.]