§ 'Either a parent or guardian or the child may apply under section 15(1) or section 21(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 for the discharge of a care or supervision order, or under section 5(4) for the revocation of a parental rights resolution.'.—[Ms. Harman.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
11.15 am§ Ms. HarmanI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause deals with revocation and discharge proceedings. Earlier clauses make parents parties in all care and related proceedings. That is an important step. New clause 3 is designed to make it clear that not only can parents or guardians be parties to applications but that they can initiate revocation and discharge proceedings.
Parents face many problems because they are not necessarily parties to discharge proceedings. There is a technical right to initiate discharge proceedings but the legal position is currently complex. Following the decision in 1985 in the Avon county council case, it is possible that parents will not be able to proceed with an application to discharge if there is a guardian ad litem and where that guardian ad litem does not support the application by the parents for a discharge.
Parents have to go through legal contortions in fighting their way through an application for discharge. A system which deprives parents of the right to seek the return of their children but gives them rights to be parties only when the application is made by the local authority cannot be fair or just. That is why I have tabled the new clause. I hope that it will be accepted.
§ Mr. WhitneyI am advised that the practical effect of the new clause would be small because under section 70(2) of the 1969 Act an application can be made on behalf of a child by a parent or guardian as defined, but including someone who was guardian when the original order was made.
I urge the House not to press the new clause as it would not fit in with Government amendments 22 and 23 by 1215 which party status is given to parents and guardians only when a separate representation order is made because of a conflict of interests with the child. When we present our own proposals for comprehensive legislation, I shall take account of the comments by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman).
§ Ms. HarmanDoes the Minister accept that section 70(2) of the 1969 Act was hedged around in the court decision in the Avon county council case? That means that section 70(2) no longer applies. The Minister assures us that in the far distant future we shall benefit from the child care law review, but now the situation remains unclear.
§ Mr. WhitneyI do not accept that it is wrong to wait while we complete the comprehensive process of revising legislation. I have already said that our concrete proposals will be made in the autumn. I am sure that it is right to take account of that and of section 70(2) of the 1969 Act as it now applies.
§ Question put and negatived.