§ [Nos 1 and 2.]
§ Clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out from beginning to "then" in line 4.
§ Clause 1, page 2, line 6, leave out "such an order" and insert "an order under this section."
§ The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
§ Because they feel that care proceedings should only be brought to ensure that the child or young person receives the care or control which he needs.
§ BARONESS SEROTAMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed. The House will remember that the two Amendments to Clause 1 of this Bill to which the Commons have now disagreed had already been discussed on identical Amendments in another place on two occasions, and on both those occasions they had been rejected on a vote. Therefore I suspect that it will not come as a surprise to your Lordships, especially after the warning given by my noble friend Lord Stonham on the Report stage of the Bill, that on the third occasion the other House has maintained its earlier position and has expressed its disagreement with these Amendments.
Arguments for and against the Amendments have been put forward with great sincerity, and also at great length and in some detail, in both Houses, but eventually there must come a time when a 1629 decision has to be taken one way or the other. Apart from the arguments about Clause 1 I am sure we shall all agree—and it has been agreed throughout all stages in this House—that the Bill is a valuable and necessary one, and we cannot delay it at this stage. Therefore the Government hope that your Lordships will accede to the wishes of the House of Commons on these Amendments and will allow the Bill now to go forward for the Royal Assent.
§ Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Serota.)
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, echoing the noble Baroness I am not entirely surprised that this Bill has come back to us with the major substantive Amendment which we made at our Committee stage removed from it. I note, however, that the vote in the other place was a comparatively narrow one, which I think may well reflect something of the disquiet which has been felt on both sides of both Houses at the double standard which the Government have now reintroduced into this Bill. I regret that we have not been able to persuade the Government on this important point. I fear it may create grave difficulties and a risk of discrimination as between one child and another in the future.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, informed us at an earlier stage in this House, half the young persons coming before our courts at present are charged with offences as joint offenders, and certainly in this case at least I believe that there is a grave risk of serious discrimination. Nevertheless, despite this serious blemish—and there are others which we debated at great length in this House in the summer—I am quite willing to grant that there is a great deal of good in this Bill. In any event, I am sure your Lordships would not wish to insist on an Amendment of this sort to this Bill. Therefore, reluctantly though it may be, I feel it is right that we should not insist upon our Amendments.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.