HC Deb 27 October 1989 vol 158 cc1323-4

Amendment proposed: No. 53, in page 15, line 7, leave out subsection (9) and insert— '(9) Subsections (7) and (8) do not apply while any person—

  1. (a) in whose favour a residence order is in force with respect to the child; or
  2. (b) who has care of the child by virtue of an order made in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children, agrees to the child being looked after in accommodation provided by or on behalf of the local authority.

(9A) Where there is more than one such person as is mentioned in subsection (9), all of them must agree.'—[Mr. Mellor.]

1.30 pm
Mr. Hinchliffe

The clause and the amendment deal with a child's removal from voluntary care. I argued in Committee—the argument was supported by the NSPCC—that while the clause places a duty on a local authority to ascertain and consider the child's wishes and feelings before it provides accommodation, there is no comparable duty on a local authority or parent to consider the child's wishes before he or she is removed from the accommodation. I and others said in Committee that the child could be unhappy about leaving at short notice or about the arrangements which have been made. The Bill takes children's well-being and personal wishes a good way forward in law and it is unfortunate that the clause cannot be said to be a full part of that process. I shall be grateful if the Minister will undertake to consider the matter and, if possible, ensure that amendments are tabled in another place.

Mr. Mellor

I shall consider the matter and advise the hon. Gentleman on where we should go from here.

Amendment agreed to.

Forward to