CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL

HL Deb 13 October 1969 vol 304 cc1213-32

2.48 p.m.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Perhaps I may first offer your Lordships a word of explanation about the number of Government Amendments which have been put down for Third Reading. Only three of these are Amendments of substance and they modify Amendments that we made in Committee and on Report. The remainder are drafting and technical Amendments and I hope the House will agree that, in order to expedite business, I can move them in most cases fairly formally.

Some of the Amendments are consequential on Amendments which were made earlier, and a number of them dealt with the extension of parts of the Bill to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I remember that when my noble friend Lord Stonham moved these "cross-Border" provisions on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, speaking from his long experience of these matters, warned us that this was a field in which it was very easy to make a slip and he hoped that we had got it right. I am afraid that a close study of the Bill in London, Edinburgh and Belfast showed that we had not got it quite right and I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is desirable to put the matter in order now, even at the expense of certain Third Reading Amendments.

As to the Amendments of substance, one amends an important new provision which the House added on Report, and it has taken account of the discussion which we had then. The other two Amendments concern an identical point which arises on two provisions which we added in Committee. The point was raised with us by an outside body, the Justices' Clerks Association, whose vigilance we welcome but who unfortunately did not put this particular point before us until the Report stage. I am sure the House will feel that we should be failing in our duty if we did not take this last opportunity to consider all these matters and to add some further improvements to the Bill before we finally pass it.

Turning now to the first group of Amendments—Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 35, 48 and 49—these arise out of the Amendment made on Report which added a new condition (b) to subsection (2)—

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble BARONESS for one moment? I do not wish to interrupt at all on the merits of the Amendments, but in order to put ourselves in order. Do we not generally take the Third Reading first, then have the Amendments and, finally, have the debate, if necessary, on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass? I thought that we did not have the particulars of Amendments on Third Reading until we had passed the Third Reading.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I apologise to the House if the procedure is wrong. I can only say in explanation that I was anxious to get on with the business.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I think we should do that if the noble BARONESS simply moved that the Bill be now read a third time. We should then resolve that, and then deal with all these Amendments.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3^a.—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Bill read 3^a, with the Amendments.

Clause 1 [Care proceedings in juvenile courts]:

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 20, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out")

The noble BARONESS said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin again. I am sure the House will not wish me to repeat the serial numbers of the Amendments that hang with Amendment No. 1, but those Amendments are merely, as I was saying, to add a new condition (b) to subsection (2) of Clause 1, and a new subsection (7) to Clause 2. In those subsections the word "mentioned" is ambiguous, and the Amendments—that to Clause 2 is on page 4, line 5—accordingly replace it by "set out". All the other Amendments in this group which I have already mentioned are similar, and they are made only to ensure consistency of drafting throughout the Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I, too, hope that I am not going to get out of order, but I can assure the noble BARONESS and the House that it is my intention to do all I can to help her to rattle us through this very big bunch of Amendments which she has produced for us—and I am very glad that she is doing so. But I should like to take this opportunity to say—and I hope she will forgive me if I do—that on this occasion my gratitude towards her is tinged with a real regret that it is not the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who is taking this Bill, which he has done so much to father, through its final stages.

I suspect that we may be saying something from this side of the House in a moment about the latest batch of Ministerial changes—almost as many changes as there are Amendments at this Third Reading stage here—and all I wish to say now is that I was really very sad indeed to hear on my car radio last night that the noble Lord was leaving the Government and the Home Office, to which Department he has made so distinguished and marked a contribution during the past sixty months. We all know the dedication which he has given to this work—typically, in this Bill, for example; or in his work in Northern Ireland—and not least, I think, almost all of us know how much the noble Lord has done to forward the cause of prison reform in this country. That being so, I suspect it must have been a great source of pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to attend last week the opening of the new industrial prison near Bisley, which marks a very real step forward in prison reform, to which the noble Lord has made a distinguished personal contribution.

At an earlier stage of this Bill the noble Lord said, if I may quote his words: I should like to think that I have a great many personal friends on the other side of the House and that we mix on terms of very warm personal friendship."—[Official Report, 18/7/69; col. 596.] I should like to assure Victor Stonham that this is the case. He has many friends on this side of the House. He has earned them by the sincerity of his work and by the courtesy which he has invariably extended to all those who are working in this field, whether opposing him temporarily or not, as the case may be. Given the Lord that he has carried in your Lordships' House in the past years, I fail to see how this House is going to get on without him. Be that as it may, while we on these Benches are really sad to see the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, leaving the Home Office, we are delighted to note that he has been made a Privy Counsellor, and we know that on later occasions we shall be hearing a great deal from him with his great experience in these fields, and we look forward to that.

Meanwhile, having said that, may I merely say that so far as this batch of Amendments is concerned I think that "set out" is an improvement on "mentioned".

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, I wonder whether I may add just one word from this Bench of profound regret that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has left the Government Front Bench. He has always treated the House, as Leaders have, with the greatest possible courtesy; he has always given the most careful consideration to everything brought forward, and he has always answered any debate without shirking any question. I should like to say, from this place, how very much we regret that Lord Stonham will no longer grace—and I use "grace" deliberately—that Front Bench.

LORD REA

My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches cannot possibly be left out of this tribute to a man whom they have admired so long for the fine work which he has done. He and I both suffered a certain illness which comes to those getting on in years, and how he has done so much work since then I cannot imagine: I could not possibly have done it. He has been quiet, efficient and diligent in the accuracy and detail which he has brought to his work. What I think is most notable is that so many unfortunate people—prisoners, mentally retarded people and so on—owe such a debt to the noble Lord, who is giving up his post, in which we have admired him for so long.

LORD DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

My Lords, as a Back Bencher from this side who has worked in the same field and behind my noble friend Lord Stonham, I want only to endorse every word that has been said.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, at the risk of being out of order twice in a very short period of time, may I say that I am sure that all noble Lords in all parts of the House would wish to join in the tributes that have just been paid to the work of Lord Stonham in his period of office at the Home Office. This I have always felt was to him the flowering of a lifetime of voluntary work in this particular sector. I myself have in the last two years sat by his side on many occasions long into the night, and have admired the courage and fortitude with which he has, with endless patience and courtesy and without a single complaint, dealt with Government business, with questions and with Amendments at a time when many of us were flagging.

It has fallen to me to speak of his work. I am sure that if my noble Leader, Lord Shackleton, were here he could speak with far greater power and effectiveness than I can. We all shall miss him, particularly on this Front Bench, and join in congratulating him on his latest ho tour. With the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I am sure that there is much in life still for him to do, and we look forward to seeing him here regularly in his new position.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, quite unexpectedly but with great humility I have listened—in particular to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—to words that never used to be said until after a man had died. They have been most moving and heartening I thought I should mention this because the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in the course of his most generous tribute, inadvertently said that I had left the House. I should like, therefore, to make it clear that it is my earnest hope that I shall have the pleasure and privilege of sharing with Members from all side of the House in the work that we have done together, nearly always in complete agreement, and to say once more what I have long felt and often said in public, that although it may not be possible to justify the means by which we come to this House, whether it be by heredity or by appointment, once here we find this the most democratic Parliamentary Chamber in the world. And despite the uniformly bad Press that we get—even if we get a Press at all—the work that is done here is uniformly constructive and helpful to our country. I hope that we shall all be spared to go on doing it for a long time to come.

On Question, Amendment agreed 10.

Clause 2 [Provisions supplementary to s. 1]:

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 3, line 44, leave out ("shall bring him forthwith") and insert— ("(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").

The noble BARONESS said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 and Amendments Nos. 9, 21 and 50 that hang with it are the Amendments to which I referred earlier which had been put down to meet a point which was put to us by the Justices' Clerks Society. As at present drafted, Clause 2 (5) requires a person arrested on a warrant issued in care proceedings to be brought before a justice forthwith if he cannot immediately be brought before a juvenile court. Juvenile courts do not sit daily and it may be some days before he can be brought before the juvenile court which issued the warrant.

It has been put to us by the Society that the word "forthwith" in this context may require the child or young person to be brought before the justice unnecessarily, e.g. at night or perhaps at the week-end. These are cases where a juvenile court has issued a warrant for the purpose of securing the child's attendance before it, and it is proper that such a warrant should constitute authority for detention for a reasonable period and should specify where he shall be detained during that period.

The first Amendment accordingly requires the young person to be brought before a justice within 72 hours if he has not been brought before a juvenile court within that period and authorises detention in a place of safety meanwhile. The Amendment to Clause 16 makes similar provision in relation to a person arrested on a warrant issued in supervision proceedings. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3 formally.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 5, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 9. leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Further supplementary provisions relating to s. l (2) (f)]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 2, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 [Alterations in treatment of young offenders, etc.]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I move Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 together. These are both drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 12, line 22, after first ("order") insert ("as is mentioned in this subsection")

Page 12, line 35, leave out ("making") and insert ("exercising a power to make").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 8 [Finger-printing of suspected young persons]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, this Amendment hangs with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 26, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16 [Provisions supplementary to s. 15]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.

Amendment moved—

Page 20, line 29, leave out ("shall bring him forthwith") and insert— ("(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").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 39, leave out ("foregoing") and insert ("preceding").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, Amendment No. 11 corrects a misreference which unfortunately occurred in the printing. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 26, leave out ("(6) of that") and insert ("(5) of the preceding").—(BARONESS Serota.)

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I have checked on that. The noble BARONESS is quite correct.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24 [Powers and duties of local authorities et cetera with respect to persons committed to their care]:

3.6 p.m.

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 15. Page 30, line 10, leave out from ("If") to ("and") in line 14 and insert ("a person who is subject to a care order and has attained the age of five is accommodated in a community home or other establishment which he has not been allowed to leave during the preceding three months for the purpose of ordinary attendance at an educational institution or at work") Page 30, line 15, leave out ("during that period") Page 30, line 20, after ("not") insert ("lived with or") Page 30, line 21, at end insert ("during the preceding twelve months")

The noble BARONESS said: My Lords, I hope the House will allow me to move Amendment No. 12 and together with it Amendments 13, 14 and 15. Your Lordships will remember that on the Report stage my noble friend Lord Stonham introduced a provision which is now embodied in subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 24 requiring the appointment of a "visitor" for certain children in care. This provision was drafted in the very short space of time that occurred between the Committee and the Report stages of the Bill, and the Amendments which I am now moving are the result of further reflections during the Recess which have taken into account some of the comments made on the Amendment when we discussed the new provisions on the Report stage.

Subsection (5) as it now stands requires the appointment of a visitor where a person subject to a care order has throughout the preceding twelve months been accommodated by virtue of a court order in an establishment where care, treatment and education are given wholly or mainly on the premises forming part of the establishment, and where he has not visited or been visited by either of his parents or guardian during that twelve months. The House will remember that this was a matter to which the closest attention was given by various noble Lords. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, suggested that a shorter period than twelve months might be appropriate. We have looked at this point again, and on reflection we feel that it would be preferable to lay down a separate, shorter period of residence in a closed situation before the duty to consider the appointment of a visitor arises, keeping the twelve months' absence of parent; I contact as the long-stop when the duty to appoint a visitor becomes absolute. One effect of this first Amendment is to reduce the specified period in a closed situation from twelve months to three months. I think this is the change of direction in which the noble Earl hoped that the House would go and which he was suggesting to my noble friend Lord Stonham.

We have also looked again at the definition of a "closed situation" which was the subject of comment during the debate. Subsection (5) at present refers to an establishment where care, treatment and education are given wholly or mainly on premises forming part of the establishment". The difficulty with this formulation is that there may be community homes in which some of the children go out to school or to work and some do not. In the clause as it stands, the definition would be ambiguous in relation to such homes. It might mean, for example, that because some children were going out of school, others, who were not, did not qualify for a visitor.

The Amendment which we have put down avoids this difficulty by relating the duty to appoint a visitor to the situation of each individual child. The object is to provide for a visitor to be appointed for a child who has little or no parental contact and who is in a closed situation in that he does not regularly go outside the establishment and have contacts with the outside world. The Amendment defines this situation as being in an establishment which he has not been allowed to leave during the preceding three months for the purpose of ordinary attendance at an educational institution or at work. This, of course, excludes such things as church attendance or casual outings.

Noble Lords will note that children under five have been excluded from the provision. Inevitably, young children spend most of their lives in the establishment where they live, and the younger they are the more time they are likely to spend there. In our earlier discussions I think we all agreed that our major concern here was with the older child or young person who spends nearly all his time in community homes. The second and fourth Amendments to this clause are consequential. The third covers the situation where a child has lived with his parents during the previous twelve months—that is, before coming into care—and where the reference to being visited by his parents would not be appropriate.

My Lords, I have dealt with these Amendments at some length because I know the concern which the House showed for this part of the Bill. If I may try to sum up, the effect of this subsection with the Amendments I am now moving would be this: if a child is subject to a care order and has been in a closed situation in the sense that I have just described for three months, the local authority must appoint a visitor if they think this appropriate, because communication between the child and his parents or guardian has been so infrequent; and in any case if the child has not seen his parent or guardian for twelve months. Compared with the subsection as it stands there are two main changes. The definition of a closed situation, we think, hits the nail more firmly on the head; and the prescribed period spent in such a situation is reduced from twelve months to three months. That is in the direction for which I think that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was asking. I hope that with that explanation the House will be prepared to agree to the Amendments which I have just moved.

3.15 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble BARONESS for her clear exposition of these Amendments and I am grateful, too, to the Government for the care which they have given to this part of the Bill. As the noble BARONESS reminded us, this is a part of the Bill which has greatly exercised many of us on both sides of the House. As I said during the Report stage discussions, I think that the Amendment which was then introduced by the Government went at least part of the way to afford the safeguards to the children and young people concerned which we felt were necessary. By and large, I think that these grouped Amendments are a further improvement on the position.

I should like to say straightaway that I am glad that the Government have conceded that this new machinery should operate within a shorter period than twelve months. I note the period of three months and I assume that although it is mandatory on the local authority to appoint a visitor after three months if the other criteria are met, there is absolutely no bar to their doing so beforehand if they consider that desirable in the special circumstances of a particular case. If the noble BARONESS can confirm that, I should be glad.

I see no objection to the age limit of five which has been proposed. I made it clear during our previous discussions that it was the older child about whom we were really concerned, and five seems to me to be about reasonable, although I am not certain why five has been chosen. I said that by and large these grouped Amendments seemed to me to be an improvement, and I think that they are, but I must say that I am still unclear why this additional and important safeguard is restricted (and it is clearly designed to be restricted by the Government) to children in secure accommodation, in the approved-school type of accommodation. I would agree straightaway that safeguards are probably more necessary here than when the young person concerned is in a more open situation, but I still believe that this safeguard would be useful as a stand-by provision where children are in some form of residential accommodation but, normally speaking, going out to work or for education.

If I recall correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. in arguing the more restricted case, referred to the children who were being fostered and to the obvious absurdity, when they are being befriended and have somebody in loco parentis, as it were, of having an additional visitor; and that I would concede absolutely and straight away. Nevertheless, just because we do not wish to extend the provision to children with foster parents, I see no need to restrict it. as is so clearly done here, to children in closed, approved-school type establishments; even though I concede that it is probably less often necessary in the more open type of establishment. Personally I should much have preferred Amendment No. 12 if it had been put before us without the qualifying words "which he has not been allowed to leave" and the next two or three lines.

I regret that the Government have not seen their way to meet this particular point which was urged upon them during the Report stage, not only from this side of the House but also from the Benches opposite. Having made that reservation to my welcome to this Amendment in general and to this subsection as improved by the Amendments which the noble BARONESS has moved may I ask one question? Am I right in thinking—I think that I am, after glancing at subsection (6)—that if for any reason a visitor gives up or is sacked from his job immediately thereafter it is incumbent on the local authority to appoint another visitor? That is certainly my reading of the Bill as at present drafted, but I should like confirmation that that is the case.

LORD LEATHERLAND

My Lords, I think this is a very useful addition and improvement to the Bill. I merely wish to ask the question: what kind of person is this visitor to be? Is this visitor to be a kind-hearted lady or gentleman from the general community—a "do-gooder" as they are called—or is it to be a children's officer in the employment of the local authority? My mind goes back more than 25 years to my early days on the Essex County Council when we inaugurated what we called a system of "uncles" and "aunts" whereby kind-hearted men and women would, so to speak—I put the word in quotes—"adopt" a child in one of the children's homes or with a fosterparent, and pay regular visits to that child. We thought that a very good scheme, and so it proved to be. If it is that kind of person who is to be a visitor, it is one thing. If, on the other hand, it is to be a disciplined children's officer from the headquarters of the county council or the county borough council who is to be the visitor, it could be another kind of question. I do not say that one is better than the other, or worse than the other. I merely want to know what kind of person the Government have in mind as a visitor under this clause of the Bill.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, with regard to the first point that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, put to me, as the Bill stands at present, a local authority cannot appoint a visitor within the meaning of Clause 24 before three months in a closed situation. My noble friend Lord Leatherland has told us of the kind of informal work that many children's authorities do in this field. They can of course encourage a suitable person from outside to take an interest in the children, but that person would be a friend, an aunt or an uncle, and would have no right to take a case to court, unless he was a visitor within the statutory meaning of the phrase as we have put it in this Bill.

My noble friend asked what kind of person—is it to be a children's officer? I can only refer him to the Bill itself, where the kind of person is spelled out on page 30, at line 32: In this section 'independent persons' means a person satisfying such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State with a view to securing that he is independent of the local authority in question and unconnected with any community home. I think that that definition is quite clear.

I am glad that the noble Earl feels able to accept these Amendments. I can assure him that the greatest thought has been given to their wording. I think that they meet almost to the full extent the particular points he made to us, and I hope that the House will now rest content and pass them.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 28 [Detention of child or young person in place of safety]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will move Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 en bloc, as they follow from Amendment No. 1, to which the House has already agreed.

Amendments moved— Page 35, line 6, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out") Page 35, line 9, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out") Page 35, line 24, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out") Page 35, line 26, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to ensure consistency between sub-paragraph (b) of subsection (4) and subsection (5). I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 17. leave out ("has reason to believe") and insert ("considers").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32 [Detention of absentees]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, this Amendment hangs together with Amendment No. 1, and therefore I beg to move it formally.

Amendment moved— Page 39. line 39, after ("section") insert ("2 (5), 16 (3) or"). —(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48 [Financial provisions applicable on cessation of controlled or assisted community home]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, this, too, is a drafting Amendment, which substitutes a straightforward reference to designation as a community home for the reference to paragraph (9) (1) of Schedule 3. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 56, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("then") in line 12 and insert ("were designated as a community home in a regional plan approved by the Secretary of State").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 56 [Extension of disqualification for keeping foster children]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 13, leave out ("foregoing") and insert ("preceding").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70 [Interpretation and ancillary provisions]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, this Amendment I regard as a technical drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 73. line 16, at end insert ("and (5)").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

Clause 73 [Citation, commencement and extent]:

3.25 p.m.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, we now come to a great block of ten Amendments, from No. 25 to No. 34, all to Clause 73, so, with the leave of the House, I will move them together. These are technical Amendments, which relate to the application of certain provisions of the Bill to Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. These are the set of Amendments to which I referred at the outset and on which we were warned by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and 1 offer them now to the House to make amends. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 75, line 16, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section")

Page 75,line 19, leave out paragraph (6) and insert—

("(b) section 72 (2) and Part II of Schedule 4; ")

Page 75, line 21, after ("35") insert (", 38")

Page 75, line 29, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section")

Page 75, line 32, at end insert ("section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 and")

Page 75, line 36, leave out from ("1933") to end of line 37 and insert (", paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 to the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961, sections 10 (1) and (2), 53 (1) and 65 (5) of, and paragraphs 27, 34 and 50 of Schedule 3 to, the Act of 1963 and sections 73 (2), 76 (1) and (2) and 77 (0 (6) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968; ")

Page 75, line 42, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section")

Page 75, line 44, leave out ("section 53 (1) of") and insert ("paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 to the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 and section 53 (1) of, and paragraph 34 of Schedule 3 to, ")

Page 75, line 46, leave out ("extends") and insert ("and this section extend") at end insert—

("(7) It is hereby declared that the provisions of sections 69 and 70 of this Act extend to each of the countries aforesaid so far as is appropriate for the purposes of any other provisions of this Act extending to the country in question.").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Modifications of Part IV of Criminal Justice Act 1967]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 76, line 33, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Approved schools and other institutions]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 36 to 43 to Schedule 3 are all purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 83, line 28, leave out ("accordance with")

Page 83, line 30, leave out ("are") and insert ("is")

Page 83, line 42, leave out ("accordance with")

Page 83, line 43, leave out ("are") and insert ("is")

Page 84, line 38, leave out ("accordance with")

Page 84, line 40, leave out ("are") and insert ("is")

Page 86, line 4, leave out ("accordance with")

Page 86, line 7, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").—(BARONESS Serota.)

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, we took the last large block of Amendments on trust, and I hope that we were right to do so. All I can say about this block is that we can much more easily understand them, and we are certain that they are neater.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Transitional provisions and savings]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, this is a technical Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 88, line 27, leave out ("the information was") and insert ("apart from this paragraph the information would have been").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, Amendments 45 and 46 can be taken together. The object of the first Amendment is to avoid casting any doubt on the extent of paragraph (9) of Schedule 4. The second Amendment is consequential to the first. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 91, line 20, at the beginning insert ("Without prejudice to the preceding paragraph") Page 91, line 21, leave out ("paragraph 9 (a) of this Schedule") and insert ("sub-paragraph (a) of that paragraph").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, this Amendment has been put down as it is felt that the word "commencement" is inappropriate here, because there are different dates on which the different provisions of the Bill will be brought into force. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 92, line 16, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments of enactments]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, Amendments 48 and 49 to Schedule 5 form part of the group that I dealt with under Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 94. line 44, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out")

Page 97, line 16, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out").—(BARONESS Serota.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, this Amendment, No. 50, hangs together with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 98, line 9, after ("section") insert ("2 (5), 16 (3) or").—(BARONESS Serota.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Wilson of Langside)

My Lords, Amendment No. 51 is yet another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 101, line 1, after the word ("person") insert the words ("to whom the notification relates").—(Lord Wilson of Langside.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD WILSON of LANGSIDE

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will take Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 together. No. 53, as it appears on the Marshalled List of which your Lordships have a copy, has been printed wrongly, and it is accordingly necessary that before moving the Amendment I should draw the attention of your Lordships to the error. The error consists in the omission at the end of Amendment No. 53 of the figure (2), in brackets. This Amendment in the correct form has previously been printed and circulated on Amendment Sheet 160 (b) of October 3. I propose to move the Amendment in its correct form.

These two Amendments are designed to clarify the way in which the Secretary of State is to exercise the various powers to prescribe which are set out in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, whether by order, by regulation or by rule. Section 90 (1) of the 1968 Act provides that the power to prescribe shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, but does not state whether this shall be regulations, rules, orders, or by some other form. The intention when the Bill was enacted was that the Secretary of State should choose whichever form of statutory instrument seemed most suitable, but it is now thought preferable, for the avoidance of any doubt, to set out specifically the way the power is to be exercised in each case. It is to achieve that end that these Amendments are moved. I beg to move.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)

My Lords, I did not follow where the figure (2) should be.

LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE

My Lords, it should appear after the last word "order" at the foot of page 5 of the Marshalled List.

Amendments moved—

Page 107, line 36, at end insert— (". In section 90 (1) of the said Act of 1968, the words 'or to prescribe any matter,' shall be omitted.")

Page 107, line 37, after the word ("1968") insert— ("(1) after the definition of "place of safety" there shall be inserted the words—

"prescribed" means—

1. (a) in section 3, prescribed by regulations,
2. (b) in section 44, prescribed by rules, and
3. (c) in sections 62(2), 66(1) and (2), 94, paragraphs 2(2) and (3), 4(3) and (4) of Schedule 7, prescribed by order).

(Lord Wilson of Langside.)

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I should like to express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for making it unnecessary to point out to him that there was this slight inaccuracy, and to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for getting the (2) in the right place.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Repeals]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will move Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56 together. They are consequential on the abolition of approved schools, remand homes and fit persons orders. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 112, line 12, at end insert—

("1937 c. 37.

The Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937.

Sections 82, 86, 87 and 89. In Schedule 2, paragraph 13.")

Page 116, line 53, leave out ("'and 53 (1)'") and insert ("' Subsections (1) and (2) of section 10 and', 'and 53 (1)' and '27' and '34'").

Page 116, line 56, after ("27") insert ("33, 34,").—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD WILSON Of LANGSIDE

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 118, line 16, at end insert— ("In section 90(1) the words 'or to prescribe any matter, '")—(Lord Wilson of Langside.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, this last Amendment is purely a drafting Amendment to correct an omission. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 118, line 18, after ("words") insert ("from").—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.