CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 17 April 1975 vol 359 cc512-58

4.10 p.m.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

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

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3^a.— (Lord Wells-Pestell.)

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

Clause 3 [Approval of adoption societies]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 1 to 6:

Page 2, line 21, after ("society") insert ("or, if it is already an adaption society, desiring to continue to act as such ")

Page 2, line 29, after (" make ") insert (" or, if the applicant is an approved adoption society, is making ")

Page 2, line 29, leave out 31 and insert ("which shall be operative from a date specified in the notice or, in the case of a renewal of approval, from the date of the notice.")

Page 3, line 7, at end insert— (" (5A) If after considering the application the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the applicant is likely to make or, as the case may be, is making an effective contribution to the Adoption Service, the Secretary of State shall, subject to section (Procedure on refusal to approve or withdrawal of approval from societies) (1) and (2), by notice inform the applicant that his application is refused.")

Page 3, line 10, leave out from ("and") to ("shall") in line 11

Page 3, line 11, at end insert ("or, in the case of an approved adoption society whose further application for approval is pending at that time but is subsequently refused, shall expire on the date the notice is served on the society under subsection (5A).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your permission, may I first of all say I am sorry that there are so many Amendments put down on Third Reading, but this is because we have made a sincere and sustained effort to meet the wishes of noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have raised what seemed to us on reflection very pertinent matters that were worthy of consideration, if I may so put it, and that efforts should be made to try to accommodate them if at all possible. This is what we have done. It will be possible to move a substantial number of these Amendments en bloc. Naturally noble Lords will be able to exercise their right to intervene on any Amendment if they wish to do so. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 1 to 6. These Amendments all relate to the undertaking given to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, during Committee stage that the Government would look at her suggestion that rules should require the Secretary of State to give reasons in writing when withdrawing approval from an adoption society.

In order to meet the suggestions of the noble Baroness more completely, we have amended the Bill itself, and extended the requirement to cover refusal to approve as well as withdrawal of approval. The Amendments provide that when the Secretary of State decides to refuse approval to or withdraw approval from a society, he shall serve notice on the society setting out his reasons. The society is then allowed 28 days to make representations to the Secretary of State before the final decision is given. I hope the noble Baroness will feel that we have met her "pressed down to overflowing" on this matter. I beg to move.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am to the Government, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in particular, for meeting this point. It was one which had been raised by a number of voluntary societies: there was some concern that should they be refused recognition by the Secretary of State as an approved adoption society they should have the right to know the reasons. I am most grateful that the Bill has been amended in this way to meet this point. May I not only thank the noble Lord for the Amendment, but say that I think this is a most useful way to deal with this matter on Third Reading and to take the Amendments grouped in this way.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 7: Page 3, line 12, leave out subsection (7).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7. It would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I indicated that Amendments Nos. 10, 38, 39, 77, and 82 all deal with the same subject and are consequential. This group of Amendments relates to provisions in the Bill as drafted dealing with the approval of voluntary adoption agencies in Scotland. Your Lordships will know that the proposal to have separate provisions for the approval of these agencies in Scotland has been under reconsideration by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It has been evident, both from the tabling of Amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, at earlier stages of the Bill, and from representations received by the Secretary of State from the interests directly concerned in Scotland, that there was a strong feeling that Scottish agencies should be registered by the central Government in the same way as their counterparts elsewhere in Great Britain. I will refer again in a moment to the helpful and understanding contribution over this whole matter by the noble Baroness.

In Scottish terms, this has been very much a question of reconciling the recommendation for central registration by the Departmental Committee on the Adoption of Children, which commanded general support among adoption interests in the voluntary sector, with the framework of local authority responsibilities in the social work sphere as laid down by the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. These responsibilities include the registration of voluntary homes provided for the purposes of the Act, and there would have been a strong measure of consistency in coupling this with the same responsibility in relation to adoption agencies, one of which in fact operates a home which is registered by the local authority. The Bill's provisions, like the 1968 Act, included a clause allowing for approvals to be sought from the Secretary of State instead of the local authority, thus imparting a fair measure of flexibility into the system.

However, we accept as entirely reasonable the wishes of adoption societies in Scotland to be treated in the same way as their sister organisations in England and Wales, and I am pleased to be able to move Amendments to the Bill which together produce this effect. May I in doing so say that the Secretary of State is in no way doubtful of the competence or ability of local authorities in Scotland to carry out the tasks of approval of societies which the Bill as drafted assigned to them. We hope that the relationship between the voluntary agencies and local authorities will be close and fruitful, and that each will act as a stimulus to the other in the matter of thinking and practice.

Finally, may I pay a much deserved tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, whose persistence in pursuing the points to which I have referred has been another potent stimulus! I am sure we all admire her dogged championing of this cause and her graceful withdrawal of her Amendments on receiving the assurances which I was able to give her last week. When the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, had the strong support of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I was glad indeed that I found myself in the position of being able, at the last stage, to agree with them. I beg to move.

Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, very much indeed for his speech, and also for the fact that he has met our requests in full for the voluntary adoption societies in Scotland. I can assure him this is most acceptable to all of them, and is very acceptable to myself because I have certainly pursued him relentlessly at every stage of the Bill. I did not expect to win, and now that I have I am absolutely delighted and extremely grateful. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has very great understanding and sympathy for all those working in Scotland and for those working in close association with him in many fields, and in this one in particular. I should like to register the thanks of all the societies and myself for the way in which he has handled this matter.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 [Withdrawal of approval]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9: Page 3, line 16, after ("shall") insert ("subject to section (Procedure on refusal to approve, or withdrawal of approval from, societies) (3) and (4) "). After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:

Procedure on refusal to approve, or withdrawal of approval from, societiees.

(" .—(1) Before notifying a body which has applied for approval that the application is refused in accordance with section 3(5A) the Secretary of State shall serve on the applicant a notice—

1. (a) setting out the reasons why he proposes to refuse the application;
2. (b) informing the applicant that he may make representations in writing to the Secretary of State within 28 days of the date of service of the notice.

(2) If any representations are made by the applicant in accordance with subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall give further con sideration to the application taking into account those representations.

(3) The Secretary of State shall, before with drawing approval of an adoption society in accordance with section 4(1), serve on the society a notice—

1. (a) setting out the reasons why he pro poses to withdraw the approval; and
2. (b) informing the society that they may make representations in writing to the Secretary of State within 28 days of the date of service of the notice.

(4) If any representations are made by the society in accordance with subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall give further consideration to the withdrawal of approval under section 4(1) taking into account those representations.

(5) This section does not apply where the Secretary of State, after having considered any representations made by the applicant in accordance with this section, proposes to refuse approval or, as the case may be, to withdraw approval for reasons which have already been communicated to the applicant in a notice under this section.")

The noble Lord said: These Amendments relate to an undertaking which I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, during the Committee stage, that the Government would look at the suggestion that the rules should require the Secretary of State to give reasons in writing when withdrawing approval from an adoption society. In order to meet the noble Baroness's suggestion more completely, we have amended the Bill itself and extended the requirement to cover refusal to approve as well as withdrawal of approval. The Amendments provide that when the Secretary of State decides to refuse approval to or withdraw approval from a society he shall serve notice on the society setting out his reasons. The society is then allowed 28 days to make representations to the Secretary of State before the final decision is given. My Lords, I beg to move.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, may I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the Government for these Amendments. They entirely meet the point that we raised and we are very grateful. This shows how much better it is for the Government to draw up such Amendments, because a much better result is obtained than if others do it.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 6 [Approval etc. of adoption societies in Scotland]:

Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 10: Leave out Clause 6.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10. This is the next one in the series of which I spoke in relation to Amendment No. 7. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 [Adoption orders]:

4.22 p.m.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 4, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert— (" (4) Schedule (Status conferred by adoption or legitimation) contains further provisions about the effect of adoption, and related or comparable provisions about legitimation.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment introduces a new Schedule, which your Lordships will see printed as Amendment No. 78, to deal with the status of adopted persons and of legitimated persons. It is intended for the following purposes: first, to codify, with amendments, the law about the status and inheritance rights of adopted children; secondly, to codify the existing law about recognition of adoptions effected outside England and Wales; thirdly, to provide transitional provisions about the treatment, for status and property purposes, of adoptions effected in Great Britain before the commencement of the 1975 Act; fourthly, to provide a framework for the treatment of the rest of the Statute Book in relation to adoption, both in relation to pre-1975 and post-1975 Acts; fifthly, to make fresh provision for the property rights which flow from legitimation; and, finally, to make provision for the excep tional case of a child who is both adopted and legitimated.

The Schedule is divided into four Parts. Part I deals with the interpretation of the Schedule. Part II deals with the status conferred on adoption and the property consequences of adoption. Part III deals with the property consequences of legitimation for all legitimated persons, including the child legitimated after adoption. Part IV is supplemental and deals, first, with the rationalisation of the various dispositions about relative seniority and kindred matters; secondly, the protection of trustees and personal representatives; and, thirdly, special provisions about special types of property which are settled with a Peerage or entailed. Part I and some paragraphs in Part II—that is, paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9—apply to Scotland. The rest of the Schedule does not apply to Scotland but it may be that the Schedule will be amended in another place so as not to apply to Scotland and that a fresh, parallel Schedule, relating to Scotland only, will find its way into the Bill.

The package in the Schedule looks formidable, and I apologise to the House for inviting it on Third Reading to deal with such a substantial Amendment; but I assure your Lordships that it is not as bad as it looks, since the effect of the Schedule is simply to restate a number of provisions already in the Bill—in Clauses 7(4), 23 and 24—with some improvements. The most important of those improvements relates to legitimation, since it was thought essential to round off the important changes in family law that the Bill achieves by extending them to legitimation. I hope that when I have explained it, the House will agree that the proposed new Schedule 1 is a compendious and convenient way of dealing with a complex series of subjects.

Dealing first with the specific provisions relating to the status of adopted children, Clause 7(4) of the Bill as it now stands confers on an adopted child a new status as a child of the adopter or adopters, instead of his previous status as a child of his natural family. This is an innovation which has been generally welcomed in the House and elsewhere. It replaces the somewhat fragmented provisions in the Adoption Act 1958, which provide for certain purposes for a transfer of parental rights and duties and for a new status for the purposes of property. The effect of Clause 7(4) is reproduced in paragraphs 2(1) and 2(2) of the proposed Schedule. Clause 7(6) and (7) specify two exceptions to the general rule that the adopted child has this new status as the child of the adopter or adopters. The exceptions relate to kindred and affinity for marriage purposes and to the law of incest, and these are reproduced in paragraph 7 of the Schedule.

Clause 23 of the Bill, which is replaced in paragraph 5 of the Schedule, provides new rules of construction regarding succession to property in adoption cases. The clause is a restatement of Section 16 of the Adoption Act 1958, with the modification suggested by the Houghton Committee at recommendation 83. The effect is to transfer an adopted child more fully than under the present law into his adoptive family for the purposes of property rights and this has been welcomed by your Lordships. Further provisions about property were made in Clause 24, and these are also transferred to the Schedule. Clause 24(1) and (2) appear at paragraph 15, and Clause 24(3) at paragraphs 9 and 16 of the Schedule. Thus far the Schedule does no more than reproduce in a new, and I hope clearer, form the provisions already approved by your Lordships' House. The advantage of taking all these provisions into the Schedule is that it enables further necessary provisions to be made about them.

Referring to existing and foreign adoptions, your Lordships will see that paragraph 1(2) of the Schedule defines adoption as including four classes of adoption orders. As it stands, the Bill covers only class (a) and it is necesary to cover class (b), which arc orders made under the current or previous adoption law in Great Britain. We must also include classes (c) and (d), so as to cover orders made elsewhere in the United Kingdom and orders made abroad which are recognised here under Section 4 of the Adoption Act 1968.

I turn next to the transitional provisions. Now that the new form of status conferred by adoption is to be given to those who have already been adopted in this country, transitional provisions will be necessary to cover such adoptions. These appear in paragraphs 2(4) and (6). For those already adopted, the new status will be conferred with effect from 1st January 1975. I now turn to the provisions relating to the adoption of a child by one or both of his natural parents. As your Lordships will recall from our earlier discussions on the Bill, some adoptions are made on the application of one or both of the parents of the child. In 1970, for instance, 105 adoptions of children were single-parent adoptions. The Bill as it stands is not entirely clear as to the extent, if any, to which the adoption of a child by one parent or both parents is to affect the property rights of that child, particularly in relation to the adopting parent.

There is a risk that a child adopted by his own parent might be thought to have ceased to be a natural child of that parent and to rank as a child of that parent only from the date of the adoption. This could have adverse consequences in relation to paragraph 5(3) of the Schedule which assumes a notional rebirth on adoption. Paragraph 8 of the Schedule therefore avoids this and ensures that an illegitimate child adopted by one parent or both parents does not lose by the adoption. I am considering whether paragraph 8(2) is correctly limited to cases of illegitimacy.

I now turn to legitimation, with apologies to the House for the high technicality of this discourse. Your Lordships will see that Part III of the Schedule relates to legitimation. This is a totally fresh provision. Since the Bill improves the property rights of the adopted child it seems right to do likewise for the legitimated child also. At present, adopted and legitimated children have roughly comparable rights of succession in that they both in a sense have to start again on the adoption or legitimation. By this I mean that they are treated by the present law as adopted or legitimated only for instruments made after that date and not in respect of earlier instruments.

Take, for example, my Lords, an illegitimate child whose grandfather has died leaving property to his legitimate grand-children on attaining age 21. At the time of the death the child is still illegitimate but his parents then marry before he reaches age 21. As the law now stands the child will not qualify, because he was legitimated after the death of the testator. Since the House has taken the view that an adopted child should be included within the ambit of instruments made before the adoption, it follows that the same sort of improvement in the legitimated person's right should also be made.

Paragraphs 10 and 11 deal with property rights following legitimation in almost exactly the same way as do paragraphs 4 and 5 which deal with property rights following adoption. I recommend this change to the House on its merits, since it will be a substantial improvement for legitimated persons and their wives and children, particularly in cases where the deed or will is so drafted that it does not cover illegitimate persons, whose rights of property under the Family Law Reform Act 1969 can be disapplied by the deed or will. A general change in the law of legitimation will be of particular benefit to the child who is adopted by one parent and then legitimated, since as the Bill now stands he would be unfairly treated.

Your Lordships may be interested to know that the change which the Government propose in paragraph 11 of the Schedule represents the existing law of England and Wales in relation to a person legitimated under a foreign law. In the leading case of Re Hurll in 1952 a legitimated child was able to benefit under an instrument made before legitimation, because she was happily able to show that her father was an Italian. She would not have inherited that property had her father been English, or for that matter Welsh. The consequence is that there will no longer be two régimes for property following legitimation, but all will be treated alike. Those legitimated here will be treated in future under our law as generously as those legitimated abroad.

The only other provision to which I need draw your Lordships' particular attention is paragraph 15, which provides protection for trustees and personal representatives who distribute property without notice of an adoption or of a potential legitimation. The paragraph reproduces Clauses 24(1) and (2) and extends the protection there conferred to cases of legitimation. This paragraph thus replaces the present protection conferred for adoption on trustees and others in Section 17(3) of the Adoption Act 1958 which can be repealed with effect from 1st January 1976. I have not described every provision in the Schedule—that would be encroaching too much on your Lordships' tolerance and patience—but I will do my best to answer any points that may be raised in the debate, if I am permitted to speak again at the end of it. My Lords, I beg to move.

4.36 p.m.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, we are now looking at one of the most elephantine Amendments on Third Reading that most of us in the whole period of our membership of your Lordships' House can recall—certainly which I can recall. This sets an important precedent which is an unfortunate one. I would say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that we warned the Government that this situation would arise if they insisted on a tight programme. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will recollect that I and my noble friend Lady Young made repeated requests for an altered programme for this Bill. Your Lordships will recollect that, too. The fourth day of Committee fell on 20th February and the first day of Report on 27th February, so there was a very short time indeed for your Lordships to be able to consider a large number of matters raised on Committee. We had no time to digest them and certainly the Government, due to the trap they set themselves, were quite unable to bring forward this very important Amendment on Report.

It would be churlish not to recognise the importance of this Amendment, and more churlish not to recognise the assistance given by the Department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the Opposition in respect of its interpretation. I acknowledge the assistance we have had. Nevertheless, this is a very important matter of law and we should surely recognise the fact that when your Lordships' House, as the deliberative Chamber, considers a Bill of this importance in future we should not, if at all possible, have only one week between stages. I will now return to the Amendment itself and to the Schedule.

We are considering here Clause 7 and adoption orders. May I first draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that after 1926, when the Legitimacy Act reached the Statute Book, it was exactly one year before statistics on this subject came into being. In 1927, the first year after the Legitimacy Act reached the Statute Book, there were a grand total of 2,943 adoption orders, while in 1971, according to the Houghton Report, there were 23,399. The growth of these statistics is inevitable, but I would draw attention to the fact that the situation has progressed over a considerable period of years. This is the first time in, I believe, nearly 50 years that the four questions which are dealt with in the Schedule have been drawn together. I think that this is a matter of considerable importance, because it alters the law in relation to the legitimacy of those who were legitimated abroad and also in this country.

I should prefer to relate my remarks in specific detail to the later Amendment —that is, the Amendment to the Schedule itself—rather than to speak in great depth now on particular points, because it may perhaps be more fruitful and for the benefit of the House to do so. Nevertheless, we welcome this Amendment. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has referred to the question of a similar Schedule for Scotland, we hope that this will be introduced in another place. It is a matter of regret that your Lordships' House will not have the opportunity of reviewing a parallel situation before waving goodbye to the Bill.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, after the words of reproach that have so reasonably been addressed in not, I trust, my personal direction by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, I feel that I ought to appear in sackcloth and ashes! As a Government, we felt that it was important that this measure should be introduced as soon as possible. It has been welcomed all round as an important piece of reform for the benefit of a group of children who are particularly in need of the protection of the community. That is what I offer by way of mitigation of the speed with which the matter has been pressed forward.

As to the size of the Schedule, there has been an attempt to pull together a large number of disparate provisions in the Bill. I think that for future pur poses; namely, understanding of the matter in the courts and by adoption societies, what has been achieved may prove to be helpful. I am grateful, therefore, for the acceptance of the Schedule, in however critical terms.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12. This is merely making good an omission. A child is defined in the Bill as a person under 18 years of age. Since it is legally possible to marry at 16, this Amendment is necessary to restore the provisions of the existing law which have been repealed by the Bill; namely, that a child who is, or has been, married may not be adopted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 24, at end insert— ("' (4A) An adoption order may not be made in relation to child who is or has been married."—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I am glad to see this small but important Amendment to the Bill. We drew the attention of the Government to this point at an earlier stage, and I am sure that it is quite right that this Amendment should be included in the Bill. None of us on this side of the House is very happy about the definition of a child as somebody under the age of 18. I have never quite understood why it was decided to remove the term "young persons", which seems to be much more appropriate and even manages to fit in with the Sex Discrimination Bill, rather than the word "child" which, as my noble friend Lord Elton pointed out, is the kind of thing which enormously upsets those who are aged between, say, 13 and 18 or 14 and 18. That said, we welcome this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13. It is consequential upon Amendment No. 11.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 32, leave out subsections (6), (7) and (8).—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 5, line 18, at end insert— (" (8A) An adoption order may contain such terms and conditions as the court thinks fit.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment restores the substance of Section 7(3) of the Adoption Act 1958 which is repealed in Schedule 4 to the Bill. The provision will enable the court, on making an adoption order, to impose terms and conditions. In general, this power is used very sparingly, but to those trying these cases it has proved to be of value to the courts in exceptional cases.

The additional specific provision which is contained in Section 7(3) of the 1958 Act permitting the court to require the adopter to make financial provision for the adopted child by bond or otherwise, is no longer thought to be necessary and has not been retained, in view of the changes effected by the Bill to the inheritance rights of adopted children. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 [Child to live with adopters before order made]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 15: Page 5, line 25, at end insert ("or in pursuance of an order of the High Court,")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to speak to Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. I hope that they can be taken together. This group of Amendments will enable the High Court to retain its present wide jurisdiction in matters affecting the custody of a child by enabling it to order that the child shall be placed for adoption where this appears to be in the best interests of the child. Such cases are very rare—according to the Official Solicitor, about two in the last five years—but when the need to use it arises, the need is urgent. To delay further while either the cooperation of an adoption agency is invited or would-be adopters are served with their twelve months' notice might be to the child's detriment. The Amendment to Clause 8 would put applicants who have had a child placed with them following a High Court Order in the same position as applicants who are parents, stepparents, or relatives or those who have had a child placed with them by an adoption agency. Similarly, in Clause 29, which places res trictions upon non-agency placements for adoption, placements made in pursuance of a High Court Order are included in the same category as adoptions by relatives; that is, placement of the child need not be made through an agency. I do not think there is any need for me to say more. I beg to move.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I support this Amendment which I am sure fills a gap which must be left in Clause 8. Clearly, it is a very desirable thing to do. The Amendment to Clause 8 gives me an opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his very long letter to me on the point that I have consistently raised on this clause, which I am not completely satisfied has been met; namely, the loophole here for private fosterings to lead to private adoptions. I appreciate the difficulties and I simply leave that on the Record as something which, if anything could be done about it in another place, I feel would be valuable.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11 [Parental agreement]:

4.50 p.m.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 7, line 30, at end insert— (" (2A) Subsection (1) does not apply in any case where the child is not a United Kingdom national and the application for the adoption order is for a Convention adoption order.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16. This Amendment makes it clear that the provisions of Clause 11(1), which relate to parental agreement to adoption, do not apply to applications for Convention adoption orders where the child involved is not a United Kingdom national. Such cases are covered by Clause 25(6) which provides that any consents required for adoption should be governed by the internal law of the Convention country of which the child is a national—and also if Amendment No. 30 is passed that the court is satisfied that each person who consents to the order in accordance with that internal law does so with full understanding of what is involved. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17 [Need to notify local authority of adoption application]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 17 and 18:

Page 11, line 37, leave out from ("authority") to ("of") in line 38 and insert ("within whose area he has his home").

Page 11, line 40, leave out from ("of") to first ("the") in line 41 and insert ("such a notice").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe the only thing that it is necessary for me to say at this stage is that these Amendments remove some superfluous words from Clause 17. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 19 [Guardian ad litem and adoption officer]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:

Page 12, line 21, leave out ("other").

Page 12, line 23, at end insert—

("(1A) Rules may provide for the adoption officer to be appointed before the application is made.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 together. They refer to the same clause and for that reason it may be convenient for me to move them en bloc. The first is simply a drafting Amendment for Amendment No. 20, which provides that the adoption officer who will, when the Bill is enacted, be responsible for checking and witnessing parental agreement to adoption may be appointed before an adoption application is made. This will allow for the continuance of the present procedure under which a written agreement to adoption may be attached to the application form and, where appropriate, for essential inquiries to be made before the application is lodged. I beg to move.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, we accept both these Amendments which clearly will be for the convenience of the courts concerned and will enable a better procedure to be adopted. We attach particular importance to Clause 19, the guardian ad litem clause, and we are very glad that the Government have chosen to bring in these Amendments at this stage.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 20 [Hearings of applications etc. in private]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 21:

Page 12, line 34, at end insert— (" (4) In relation to Scotland, all proceedings before the court under this Part shall be heard and determined in camera unless the court otherwise directs.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment follows to put the position right so far as Scotland is concerned. I think at this stage one may say that we have capitulated under the pressure applied to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lords, Lord Sandys and Lord Wigoder.

The purpose of this Amendment is to insert in Clause 20 provisions dealing with the manner in which proceedings in Scottish courts in relation to the adoption of a child (including applications under Clause 13 for the freeing of a child for adoption) shall be heard and determined. The clause was introduced at Report stage and, as it now stands, deals only with adoption proceedings in courts in England and Wales. The requirement that adoption proceedings shall be held in camera unless the court otherwise directs is contained in court rules applying both to the Court of Session and the sheriff court. The present power to prescribe for this matter in rules is contained in Section 11(3) of the Adoption Act 1958, which is repealed by the Bill. The need for proceedings not to be held in open court in certain circumstances derives in part from the practice in cases where some opinion or ruling is made which is of importance for case law in the future. The discretion allowed to the court to hold proceedings in open court (subject to the normal restrictions in regard to reporting names of children) will be exactly as at present, and there is no reason to think that the courts will not continue to act in this matter with all due care. I beg to move.

Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD

My Lords, I again thank the noble Lord for including this Amendment. I know that this matter gave some concern to the judiciary in Scotland and they will be very glad indeed that this subsection has been inserted.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21 [Making of order]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24:

Page 12, line 39, leave out ("every parent or guardian of the child") and insert ("every person whose consent to the making of the order is required under this Act ").

Page 12, line 40, leave out ("the date and place of the hearing") and insert ("a date and place where he will be heard on the application ").

Page 12, line 42, leave out ("the hearing").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 could be moved en bloc. They maintain the present position regarding the anonymity of prospective adopters. As drafted, Clause 21(1) provides that rules shall require every parent or guardian of a child to be notified of the date and place of the adoption hearing and of the fact that, unless he wishes, or the court requires, he need not attend the hearing.

In cases where an applicant elects under the present adoption rules to remain anonymous by applying under a serial number, arrangements can be made to ensure that the prospective adopters and the parents who wish to be heard are heard separately. We do not intend to change the present practice and the Amendments provide that parents or guardians be informed of a date and place where they will be heard on the application, and not of the date and place of the adoption hearing itself. In this matter the court will write to parents or guardians. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 25: Page 13, line 5, leave out ("for adoption").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment will bring clause 21 (3) into line with other clauses in the Bill which refer to placements by adoption agencies without specifying the purpose of the placement, namely, Clauses 8(l)(b) and 17(1). To leave the words "for adoption "would unduly restrict the intention of the clause which was to ensure that in every case where an adoption application was made on behalf of a child who had been placed with the applicants, whether for adoption or foster care, the agency responsible for the placement should be required to submit a report to the court. The Amendment, I believe, achieves this purpose. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 26: Page 13, leave out lines 24 and 25.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to adjust the Scottish application of Clause 21 contained in paragraph (a) of subsection (6), to reflect changes in the first part of the clause made by the preceding Amendments, Nos. 23 and 24. This application means that the words "the hearing" in the clause as it stands shall mean "any hearing" when applied to Scotland, thus allowing for the fact that there may not be a hearing at all. The earlier part of the clause as now amended makes reference to "any hearing" rather than to "the hearing". The point covered by paragraph (a) is thus made in a different way, and the words deleted by the present Amendment in any case are meaningless in their new context. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:

Clause 23 [Rules of construction regarding succession to property]:

Leave out Clause 23.

Clause 24 [Further provisions relating to property]:

Leave out Clause 24.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. These clauses are replaced with minor Amendments in Schedule 1 agreed to earlier in the debate on Amendment No. 11, dealt with by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Clause 23 becomes paragraph (5), for the interpretation of which some of paragraph (1) is required. Clause 24(1) and (2) becomes paragraph 16, Clause 24(3) becomes paragraphs 10 and 17. I beg to move.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, these Amendments relate to what was said earlier by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. They will be picked up when we come to Amendment No. 78. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I pointed out certain problems which relate to the numbering of paragraphs in that Amendment, but not at this stage.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 25 [Convention adoption orders]:

5.4 p.m.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31.

Page 15, line 35, leave out ("must be made ") and insert ("shall not be made—

1. (a) except")
• line 38, at end insert ("and—
2. (b) unless the court is satisfied that each person who consents to the order in accordance with that internal law does so with full understanding of what is involved.")

Page 16, line 20, after ("10") insert ("(1)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your permission I should like to take Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 together. We are trying to implement the Adoption Act of 1968 by paving the way for ratification. Clause 25(6) at present requires that if a Convention adoption order is to be made in respect of a child who is a national not of the United Kingdom but of another Convention country, the law of that country relating to consents must be applied. The first two Amendments provide the extra requirement that a court must satisfy itself that people whose consent is required to a Convention order made in Great Britain—and such an order would be made in the High Court—who are likely to be in another country, have understood the meaning and effect of such an order. I beg to move.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I do not, in any way, wish to question the Amendments, which seem to improve Clause 25. We did not at any stage in the Bill discuss in any great detail Convention adoption orders. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, can answer one question that I should like to raise about them. My Lords, I am quite certain we are all hoping that the Convention will be ratified. We should do everything we can to speed on its progress as rapidly as we can. Although it probably would not apply to the situation governing the Vietnamese children that we have heard so much about in the last week, it is the kind of situation which all of us con cerned with this Bill have found not only deeply distressing but very worrying from the point of view of adoptions and everything that we have said.

This is not, in any sense, to criticise the societies which have long been concerned with adoptions of children from overseas. But I should like to be reassured that this will make ratification of the Convention come about more quickly. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, could say when he expects it to be in force. If he cannot answer that question immediately, perhaps he could let me know.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. This would have the effect of bringing about ratification much more quickly. I cannot answer the other point raised by the noble Baroness, but my understanding of the situation is that it cannot take effect unless, of course, the Convention is ratified by three countries. I think I am right in saying that at the present moment only two countries have ratified it, so there may be some urgency in ratifying it quickly ourselves.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 26 [Revocation etc. of Convention adoption order]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 32: Leave out Clause 26.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 26 was originally inserted in the Bill to cover cases where a British Convention adoption is revoked or annulled by a foreign court. Section 5 of the Adoption Act 1968, which is not affected by this Bill, obliges us to recognise the effect of that foreign decision. It was thought that some provision was needed to enable the courts here to determine what was to happen to the child adopted under a British order when the foreign courts annulled it. This view, however, was mistaken. This is a highly technical matter and I will give the reasons.

In so far as the matter falls to be determined in Britain, there is already jurisdiction to determine questions of that kind; namely under the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 or through the ward-ship jurisdiction, or even by an application in the previous adoption proceedings. In so far as the matter may be determined by a foreign court, it would not be in accordance with the Convention for a prima facie rule to be established in British law that the revocation or annulment does not affect the extinction of previous parental rights or duties. This means the whole basis of Clause 26(2) was wrong.

My Lords, for property questions, Clause 26(3) is now overtaken in all cases of revocation by the Schedule which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has explained. For annulments there is already jurisdiction to determine what should happen to property distributed on the basis of an adoption order that has been declared to be void. There is nothing more I can say on this. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28 [Obtaining of birth certificate by adopted person]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 33: Page 17, line 12, leave out ("subsection is") and insert ("subsections are")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 with this Amendment. I hope that when I have finished the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will feel that they go some way towards meeting his point of view. I would not presume to suggest that these Amendments go the whole way, but if they go part of the way perhaps he will be satisfied. These Amendments result from an undertaking I gave to the noble Lords, Lord Byers and Lord Wigoder, during the Report stage, to introduce a provision to cover the period between the minimum age of marriage—namely, 16 years —and 18 years when adopted persons will become entitled to their birth certificates, so as to enable adopted persons proposing to marry to be given information to prevent them unknowingly marrying someone within the prohibited degree of blood relationship. The noble Lords had put down an Amendment requiring the Registrar General to provide information on whether an adopted person and the person he intended to marry were within the prohibited degree of relationship.

The information available to the Registrar General—and I want to spell this out rather carefully—is simply the names of the parents of the two people involved. He cannot say positively from those names, particularly if they are common names, whether two parents with the same name are indeed the same parent. Again, in cases where the adopted person's natural parents were not married, the father's name may well not appear on the records. In those circumstances, the Registrar General could not advise whether there was a relationship.

The present Amendment therefore provides that if a situation occurs where there is some evidence of a relationship, the Registrar General will advise the adopted person that he and the person he intends to marry may be within the prohibited degree of relationship. I do not think I can say anything more that would be useful. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will feel that this has to some substantial extent met his point of view and that of his noble friend Lord Byers. I beg to move.

Lord WIGODER

My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for putting down this Amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for explaining the difficulties in meeting the situation any more comprehensively than can be done by the terms of the Amendment put forward. I am very happy to accept it, as it appears to deal so far as possible with the situation which I raised during the Committee stage. I am grateful for the fact that the Amendment is put down in this form.

Baroness VICKERS

My Lords, I should like to make one point. This Amendment concerns a person "born in England or Wales" who intends to marry in England. Quite a lot of people are not born in England and Wales, particularly Service people who are born overseas, and at the present time unless they have registered with the High Commission they have difficulty even in getting a passport. How does this affect them? I wonder whether this Amendment should read "who was born or is registered in England or Wales", because I think there might be some difficulty.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I shall have to look into this—I really cannot give the noble Baroness a reply off the cuff—and will write to her. If it gives rise to any serious problem, perhaps the noble Baroness—bearing in mind that this Bill is going to another place—will do something of which she has a great deal of experience. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.

Baroness VICKERS

Yes, my Lords.I thank the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.12 p.m.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

I beg move Amendments Nos. 34 and 35.

Amendments moved—

Page 17, line 20, at end insert— (" (8) On an application made in the prescribed manner by an adopted person under the age of 18 years who was born in England or Wales and is intending to be married in England or Wales, and on payment of the prescribed fee (if any), the Registrar General shall inform the applicant whether or not it appears from information contained in the registers of live births that the applicant and the person whom he intends to marry may be within the prohibited degrees of relationship for the purposes of the Marriage Act 1949.") Page 17, line 21, leave out (" In this subsection") and insert ("(9) In this section").— (Lord Wells-Pestell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 29 [Restriction on arranging adoption and placing of children]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 are consequential. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 17, line 29, after ("unless") insert (" (a) ").

Page 17, line 30 at end insert— ("or (b) he is acting in pursuance of an order of the High Court.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38, which is the next in the series.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 40, leave out from (" Scotland ") to end of line 42.—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30 [Inspection of books etc. of approved adoption societies in Scotland]:

Lord HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 39, which is the next in the series.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 30.—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31 [Restrictions on removal of child pending adoption]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 40: Page 19, line 34, leave out ("arrest") and insert (" the arrest of the child ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 40 and if your Lordships will allow me I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 43, 48 and 52. These Amendments clear up an ambiguity in the phrase "on arrest", which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned at Report stage. The phrase was intended to provide for the removal of a child from applicants for an adoption or custodianship order who had looked after the child for five years or three years respectively, if the child was arrested. The new wording provided by these Amendments makes the position clear. The Amendment to Clause 48 removes the ambiguity in the Scottish custody provisions. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42: Page 19, line 35, leave out from ("a") to ("person") in line 36. Page 19, line 36, after ("adopter")") insert ("gives notice in writing to the local authority within whose area he has his home").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 together, and also speak to Amendment No. 44. They meet the undertaking given —at least, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will think they do—by the Government to the noble Baroness during Report stage to ensure that the voluntary organisation or local authority responsible for the care of the child is informed of a pending adoption application by the local authority which has given notice of intention to apply to adopt. I beg to move.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I should like to thank the Government for bringing forward this series of Amendments. They meet this point, which I think is in the best interests of the child, and make quite sure that a voluntary society will be treated in the same way as a local authority; therefore, there will be no difference. I think these are very useful Amendments, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 43, which is consequential on Amendment No. 40.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 43, leave out ("arrest") and insert (" the arrest of the child").—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 44, which is consequential on Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.

Amendment moved—

Page 20, line 3, at end insert: (" (2A) A local authority which receives such notice as aforesaid in respect of a child whom the authority know to be in the care of another local authority or of a voluntary organisation shall, not more than seven days after the receipt of the notice, inform that other authority or the organisation in writing that they have received the notice.")—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35 [Access and maintenance]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 45:

Page 23, line 4, at end insert (" but the court in deciding whether to make an order under subsection (1)(b) against a person who is not the child's mother or father shall have regard (among the circumstances of the case)—

1. (a) to whether that person had assumed any responsibility for the child's maintenance and, if he did, to the extent to which and the basis on which he did so, and to the length of time during which he discharged that responsibility;
2. (b) to the liability of any other person to maintain that child.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will feel that this Amendment goes most of the way to meet his wishes regarding some of the safeguards which he advised. I do not know whether the noble Lord will want me to say any more. I hops that he is satisfied. We have' tried quite sincerely to meet the safeguards which he advised, and I hope that he feels this is adequate in the circumstances. I beg to move.

Lord WIGODER

My Lords, again I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the way he has moved this Amendment. Where a maintenance order is being made against a person who is not the natural parent of the child, it imports similar safeguards to those which were in the Matrimonial Causes Act, and I therefore welcome it on that ground.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.21 p.m.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 46:

After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:

Other reports by local authorities etc.

(" . Section 6 of the Guardianship Act 1973 (power of courts to obtain reports) shall apply to applications under sections 34, 35, 36 and 40, and to applications which by virtue of section 39(1) are treated as if made under section 34, as it applies to applications made under section 3(3) of that Act, and shall continue to apply to applications under section 9 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 which by virtue of section 39(2) are treated as if made under section 34.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 46. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to refer also to Amendment No. 49. Again, I do not think that it is necessary for me to say very much. This is another matter raised at previous stages by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I think that he would probably say that we have gone rather further than he suggested on the question of revocation. We have been happy to do this. We hope that he will feel that this substantially meets the point that he raised. I beg to move.

Lord WIGODER

My Lords, I welcome this Amendment not only for its rythmic lilt, which I find rather appealing, but because it seems to offer what protection can be offered to a child where a custodianship order is revoked and there is a danger that the child might be left in some sort of vacuum.

Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE

My Lords, may I mention one matter on the draftsmanship of this new clause. It has been widely recognised that this Bill is a particularly offensive example of legislation by reference, and all the more offensive because it deals with people in their everyday lives and has not only to be understood by lawyers but by social workers themselves. Perhaps I may say a word or two more on that quite shortly on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.

There is no need to add to the complexity by legislating in such a way that anybody reading the Act has to look forward, and in this new clause which comes after Clause 36 there are references not only to Sections 34, 35 and 36 but forwards to Section 39(1) and Section 40. I am out of order, I know, in referring to this now, but the same point arises on Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. One ought to be able to read a piece of legislation straight through so that it is perspicuous. That is of course quite impossible in a Bill prepared in this way, but, as I say, it is quite unnecessary to add purely gratuitous complications. I hope that the matter might be considered in Committee in another place.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising this matter. Perhaps he will allow us to look at it in the light of what he has just said and, as the noble and learned Lord has suggested, something can be done in another place should it be found to be necessary. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord himself might give certain advice to somebody in another place in respect of this matter.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38 [Restriction on removal of child where applicant has provided home for three years]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 47: Page 24, line 21, at end insert ("at the time the application is made ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 47. This is an Amendment designed for clarification purposes only and corrects a small inconsistency between the provisions of the Bill. Clauses 31, 38 and 48 all contain provisions designed to make it an offence in certain circumstances to remove a child from the home where he has lived for some time. In the first and last of these clauses the qualifying period of time entitling the applicant to the protection afforded by the Bill has to be completed before the making of the relevant application to the court. In the case, however, of Clause 38 it is arguable that the clause, as drafted, applies to a case where the application was made before the end of the qualifying period (in this case three years), but the child is not actually removed until after the qualifying period. The Amendment does nothing more than bring the wording of Clause 38 into line with that of Clauses 31 and 48 on this point. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 48.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 26, leave out ("arrest") and insert (" the arrest of the child").—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39 [Custodianship order on application for adoption or guardianship]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 49.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 15, leave out subsection (4).— (Lord Wells-Pestell.)

On Question Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 50: Transpose Clause 39 to after Clause 36.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, may I move Amendment No. 50 and speak to Amendment No. 51. These are drafting Amendments aimed at arranging the provisions of Part II of the Bill in a more logical sequence. The effect of the rearrangement is to group together at the beginning of Part II all the provisions relating to custodianship orders in which court proceedings arise. I beg to move.

Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE

My Lords, I need only mention the same point that I made on the earlier clause, that there will be a forward reference now from a clause before 37 to Clause 37, and a forward reference also by reason of Amendment No. 51 to Clause 42(2). I quite see the argument for grouping these clauses, but there are counterarguments when it means looking forward to see what the effect of a section means.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I think that these Amendments will meet the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made on Amendment No. 46. In consequence, the new clause in Amendment No. 36 will not refer to the subsection but to the earlier clause.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40 [Disputes between joint custodians]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 51:

Amendment moved— Transpose Clause 40 to after Clause 36.— (Lord Welh-Pestell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48 [Restriction on removal of child where applicant has provided home for three years]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 52.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 44, leave out (" arrest") and insert (" the arrest of the child").—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 49 [Custody order on application for adoption in Scotland]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 53: Page 29, line 15, leave out ("section 8") and insert ("section 18").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 54. Amendment No. 53 is a drafting Amendment which changes the reference in Clause 49 to Section 8 of the Adoption Act 1958, which deals with the granting of interim orders in adoption proceedings, to a reference to Clause 18 of the Bill. The need for this arises from the fact that Section 8 of the 1958 Act was repealed at Report stage and replaced by the new clause in serted at the same time as Clause 18. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 54.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 16, leave out ("of the 1958 Act ").—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53 [Substitution of s. 2 of Children Act 1948]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 55: Page 31, line 14, leave out from ("Act") to (" (a)") in line 18 and insert (" if it appears to a local authority in relation to any child who is in their care under the foregoing section—").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 55 perhaps I may be allowed to speak to Amendments Nos 56, 57 and 58 at the same time. The first three Amendments provide for circumstances where a local authority assume parental rights which are vested jointly with another person. The fourth Amendment is necessary to replace the repealed Section 4(3) of the Adoption Act 1958, which provided that local authorities who had assumed parental rights under the Children Act 1948, or had a child committed to their care under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, should not have the right to agree to the child's adoption. No question of any substance arises other than the reasons which I have given. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 56.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 20, leave out from ("his") to (" (i) ") in line 23.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords. I beg to move Amendment No. 57.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 6, at end insert ("the local authority may resolve that there shall vest in them those parental rights and duties which, immediately before the resolution, are vested in the parent in relation to whom the resolution is passed, and, if the rights and duties were vested in that parent jointly with another person, they shall also be vested in the local authority jointly with that other person.")—(Lord Wells-Pestell).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords. I beg to move Amendment No. 58.

Amendment moved—

Page 33, line 33, leave out subsection (11) and insert—

(" (11) In this section— British adoption order" has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1975: parent, except in subsection (l)(a), includes a guardian or custodian; parental rights and duties", in relation to a particular child, means all rights and duties which by law the mother and father have in relation to a legitimate child and his property except the right to consent 01 refuse to consent to the making of an application under section 13 of the Children Act 1975 and the right to agree or refuse to agree to the making of an adoption order."). —(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.36 p.m.

Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE moved Amendment No. 58A: Page 34, line 7, leave out (" take full account of ") and insert (" give first consideration to ").

The noble and learned Lord said: "My Lords, I apologise for the late tabling of this Amendment but I was fully expecting it to be tabled by the Government, or at least hearing some reason why they should not have done so. It was only in going through the Marshalled List last night that I found it had not been done. This relates to the Amendment which your Lordships made in Committee, I believe to Clause 2. The Amendment affects both Clause 55 and Clause 60, and perhaps I may be allowed to speak to both. By Clause 55 it is proposed that Section 12 of the Children Act 1948 should read: In reaching any decision relating to a child in their care, a local authority shall take full account of the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child … ".

This is a matter which your Lordships have discussed on a number of occasions, and on which decision was taken on Clause 2 which read in exactly the same way. But your Lordships were not satisfied with Clause 2 as it originally stood and, after a Division on an Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wigoder, your Lordships made Clause 2 read: … shall have regard to all the circumstances, the first consideration being given to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child ".

In other words, it meant that instead of consideration being given, first consideration must be given. That was a decision advisedly reached after full debate and after a Division.

When your Lordships were discussing Clause 55 at the Report stage, I ventured to point out that it was now out of line with Clause 2, as it had been amended, and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was good enough to say he had not had his attention drawn to the point, but that he would consider it. The Amendment which I seek to ask your Lordships to make brings the new subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Children Act into line with Clause 2 of this Bill. It seeks to make it read, In reaching any decision relating to a child in their care, a local authority shall give first consideration to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child ". I know that the Government have argued that that is an impossible criterion. I venture to disagree with that observation.

The present law, so far as custody and guardianship is concerned, requires the courts to have regard to two matters: that the welfare of the child shall be the first consideration, and that it shall be the paramount consideration. Those are two quite different matters. "Paramount consideration" means that if the welfare of the child conflicts with some other consideration the welfare of the child must prevail. Directing the court to give first consideration to the welfare of the child is something quite different. It merely directs the court, the welfare officer or local authority, to consider specifically the welfare of the child and to give its welfare greater weight than other considerations; but it does not say it must prevail over other considerations.

Your Lordships accepted that, in amending Clause 2 at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The question remains why should not Clause 55, the new Section 12, be brought into line. There are only two possible reasons. One is that the Government have not accepted with good grace the Amendment which your Lordships have made to Clause 2 and are unwilling themselves to take the initiative of bringing Clauses 58 and 60 into line, but are prepared to send the Bill in an anomalous form to another place, possibly with a view to seeking a reverse of your Lordships' decision on Clause 2. If that is the reason, then I hope I have spared their feelings by taking the initiative, even at a late stage, of moving this Amendment to remove an anomaly. Even if Clause 2 does not meet with the approval of the Government, that is no reason at all to fail to make consequential Amendments.

The second, and only possible other reason is that different considerations should apply to care from those that apply to adoption. The only argument that could be advanced with any cogency on this is that, so far as adoption is concerned, your Lordships did no more than to restore in Clause 2 what the Houghton Committee had proposed and what the Government proposed to depart from. The Houghton Committee, of course, had no concern with care. However, that is no reason why your Lordships should not make the Amendment and indeed no reason why the Government should not accede to it, because they were not prepared to regard adoption as a special case and were prepared to override the recommendations of the Houghton Committee. That is the only valid reason. Care differs in some respects from adoption, but it is a stronger case because the tragedies which have been so much in the minds of your Lordships in considering this Bill related to children in care and, surely, if we want to avoid a recurrence of the Maria Colwell tragedy—and it was by no means unique, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, pointed out—the very least we can do is to direct that all concerned, including local authorities and social workers, shall give first consideration to the welfare of the child. If the Government oppose this Amendment—and I trust they will not —they will be taking a serious responsibility on themselves if there should be a recurrence of any such tragedy, and I therefore have no hesitation in recommending these Amendments to your Lordships.

5.45 p.m.

Lord WIGODER

My Lords, I find it difficult to add anything to the extremely powerful and persuasive words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. No doubt the Government will bear in mind that they are the words not only of one of the Law Lords, but of one who has in his time been a distinguished President of the Divorce Division and who therefore speaks with perhaps more authority than almost anybody could in this House on this topic. I support the Amendments not only because they would bring a degree of consistency into the Bill, would remove an anomaly and would avoid the necessity of the courts having to apply a series of different tests, depending on which part of the Bill they were considering, but because in its own right the Amendment to give first consideration to the welfare of the child is a vast improvement on the present text: … shall take full account of the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child … I have no desire to go over what is now old ground and I have said before to your Lordships that to "take full account" is the most insipid test imaginable. It is almost surplusage. No court which has ever considered a case in which the welfare of the child is at stake would afterwards admit that it had not taken full account of one of the obvious features of the case. It is imperative that we give assistance to the local authority in this case, just as we have given assistance to the courts in Clause 2, and indicate to them the degree of priority which the welfare of the child is to have.

It was suggested at one time that if we removed the words "take full account" from the first half of Clause 55, we would raise some difficulties over the second half, where it provided that the local authority may, if necessary, for the purpose of protecting members of the public … exercise their powers in relation to a particular child in their care in a manner which may not be consistent with their duty under the foregoing subsection … If the Amendments were accepted, the second half of Clause 55 would give no difficulties to the courts. They would be able to take the view, if they wished to do so in a particular case, that they had a duty to protect members of the public, and their duty under the first half of Clause 55 would not arise. I ask the Government to consider seriously whether they cannot, even at this late stage, in the interest of promoting the welfare of the child without harming the legitimate interests of the other parties in an application under Clause 55, accept the Amendments and remove an obvious anomaly.

Lord REDESDALE

My Lords, I, too, support the Amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. As I have said before, my interests lie particularly in fostering, and the point that the noble and learned Lord made—that it is more important for first consideration to be given in the care section than under adoption—is of vital importance. For me, as a layman, to try to add anything after the two previous speakers would be impertinent, and I rise simply to say that I support the Amendments.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I do not know what view the Government will take over this Amendment; perhaps they are going to accept it. I had not appreciated that we should be having another major debate on this issue at this stage of the Bill, and it is with considerable trepidation that I enter the debate at all, particularly as I feel that the other side of this case should be put before the Government reach a decision on it. My noble friends supported the Government earlier when this matter was debated, really on the grounds that under Clause 55 we are talking about the Children Act 1948, and about child care cases, and not about adoption, custody or guardianship. Certainly when I was the chairman of a children's committee the view then was that one was considering the child in its family and in relation to the family. It seems to me that there is a difference, because most children coming into care are there for a very short period of time. As a proportion of the whole, the children who are there more or less permanently are few.

The worry has run through the Bill that many parents who require their children to be fostered for a period will be apprehensive that once they let the child go it will be taken away from them by being fostered and then adopted, in many cases through no fault at all of the parent. I have previously quoted the case of the mother who may have to go into a mental hospital and who puts her child into care because there is nowhere else for it to go, but who has every intention of looking after it again when she is well.

I believe that there is a suggestion running through the Bill which could frighten parents who ought to allow their children to go into care for perfectly good and valid reasons but who might be prevented from allowing this to happen because of the fear that they would lose them. My worry relates to the short-term cases and the anxiety of parents, because in such cases I should still have thought it was the object of much child care to return the child to its natural family. After all, it is our job to uphold the family wherever we can and it is for that reason that I believe that, inconsistent as it may be in law— and I quite appreciate the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has made —we are dealing with a rather different situation. I should be quite happy to see the Bill remain as it is.

Baroness MASHAM of ILTON

My Lords, before the noble Lord rises, I should like to support the Amendments because I feel that most people who understand children who are dealing with them— whether they are social workers or those working in the courts— know that the best place for children is their own home and will do everything possible to ensure that they remain there. Surely, however, "give first consideration to" is better than" take full account of". Therefore, I support the Amendments.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, the reason the Government did not put down an Amendment on these lines is that they are not convinced that Clause 2, as amended on Report, is now right and that the interpretation is free from doubt. For this reason, the Government are giving further consideration to the matter and this is something which could be dealt with in another place. At this stage the Government have decided not to table an Amendment, because there is a good deal of confusion about the matter. I do not believe that I can add very much to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said. We have been over this ground before at great length and I am sorry that I have not the support of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. both of whom, I think I am right in saying, took an entirely different view.

Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE

My Lords, if I may intervene, although the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did so, particularly in the memorandum which his Department circulated, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, had doubts about the paramountcy test and not, as I understood him, about the primacy test.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, that was precisely my point. I think the view was expressed at the time that "first consideration "could be taken to mean" paramount consideration ", but there is this difference between us and I do not feel, in my position as a layman, that I can stand up as strongly as I should like to against the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Wigoder, whose legal ability is well known to your Lordships' House. If the noble and learned Lord intends to press the matter, let me say quite frankly that I shall wilt and shall do nothing about it.

Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE

My Lords, if I may have your Lordships' leave to address the House a second time, I did not entirely gather from the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, whether, if I pressed the Amendment, he would be prepared to accept it, though not liking it at all. If so, there is nothing more for me to say except to thank those noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have supported me.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE

I beg to move Amendment No. 58B.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 5, leave out from (" shall ") to first (" the") in line 6 and insert (" give first consideration to ")—(Lord Simon of Glaisdale.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 61 [Substitution of Section 16 of Social Work {Scotland) Act 1968]:

5.55 p.m.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 59: Page 38, line 39, leave out (" refuse consent to adoption ") and insert (" consent or refuse to consent to the making of an application under section 13 of the Children Act 1975 and the right to agree or refuse to agree to the making of an adoption order ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment expands the definition of "relevant parental rights" in Clause 61(2) of the Bill, which applies only to Scotland and deals with the assumption of parental rights in respect of a child in local authority care by that local authority. In doing so, it brings Scottish provisions of the Bill into line with what is already provided in relation to England and Wales.

As at present drafted, the definition of the rights in respect of the child which devolve on the local authority refers to consent to adoption as a right which, uniquely, remains with the parent. The same provision exists in the present law in relation to England and Wales as well as Scotland. The only change that has been required is to make it clear that the rights concerned in relation to adoption include the right to refuse consent to adoption as well as to consent and the right to agree or refuse agreement to the making of an order under Clause 13 freeing the child for adoption. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 60.

Page 40, line 22, at end insert— (" ( ) Where in the case of a child to whom a resolution under this section applies—

1. (a) an order is made under section 13 of the Children Act 1975 declaring the child free for adoption; or
2. (b) a British adoption order is made; or
3. (c) a guardian is appointed under section 4(2A) of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925;
• the resolution shall cease to have effect.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I can deal briefly with this Amendment. Its purpose is to bring together various circumstances in which a resolution passed by a local authority in Scotland assuming parental rights in relation to a child shall cease to have effect without its being rescinded by decision of the local authority itself or terminated by order of the sheriff under existing statutory provisions. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 61.

Page 40, line 36, at end insert— ("(2) In this section "British adoption order" has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1975.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a tidying-up Amendment. The definition contained in the Amendment, which relates to the assumption of parental rights by a local authority in Scotland, is the same as that already included in Clause 53 (11), the equivalent provision relating to parental rights resolutions in England and Wales. "British adoption order" is a phrase introduced in the Bill to enable reference to be made readily to adoption orders made by courts—for example, in Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands—in parts of the United Kingdom to which neither the Adoption Act 1958 nor most of the present Bill applies. I beg to move.

Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE

My Lords, may I take up the noble Lord's felicity "a tidying-up operation"? What this Amendment does— like the two previous ones—is to amend the Act of 1968 in such a way that it refers forward to this very Bill—the Children Bill 1975. I merely draw attention to that as one of the horrors of legislation by reference. I know that it tidies up in a certain way, but from a point of view of intelligibility I hardly think it does that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6 p.m.

Clause 62 [Making of adoption orders where local authority have parental rights]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 62:

Page 40. leave out lines 39 to 45 and insert— ("(4A) A court may entertain an application under—

1. (a) section 7 of the Children Act 1975 for an adoption order in respect of a child;
2. (b) section 13 of the Children Act 1975 for an order declaring a child free for adoption,
• notwithstanding that, by virtue of a resolution under section 16 of this Act, a local authority have parental rights with respect to him.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment and with your Lordships' permission I propose to speak to Amendment No. 105 at the same time. These Amendments both relate to care provisions applying to Scotland, and can conveniently be moved together. Their composite effect is to extend the provisions at present in Section 18(4) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, by drawing together this subsection and a new version of subsection 18(4A) as included in Clause 62 of the Bill as at present drafted.

The two subsections as now read together will provide that, notwithstanding the passing of a parental rights resolution by a local authority in respect of a child (and the consequent transfer of all parental rights to the local authority except in relation to adoption), the same child may be the subject of court proceedings relating to the appointment of guardian, the adoption of the child or the making of the child free for adoption. It is a provision for the avoidance of doubt rather than one leading to any substantive change in the law relating to child care, adoption or guardianship. It is also complementary to Amendment No. 60, which provides that on the making of any relevant order by the court the resolution shall cease to have effect.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 66 [Child in care of body other than local authority];

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65:

Page 42, line 13, leave out from ("a") to ("if") in line 14 and insert ("voluntary organisation ")

Page 42, line 15, leave out ("body") and insert (" organisation ")

Page 42, line 16, leave out (" body") and insert (" organisation ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 76 and 89.

The Amendments to Clause 66 substitute for the sake of simplicity the term "voluntary organisation" instead of the phrase "body corporate (other than a local authority) or an unincorporated body of persons" in Clause 66. In consequence, a definition of "voluntary organisation" is put into the Bill and into the Adoption Act 1958 by the Amendments to Clause 76 and Schedule 3, and this is the usual system. It is not a new definition, and it is one of simplicity.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 71 [Courts?]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 66 and 67:

Page 45, line 22, at end insert (" in the case of an application under section 13, any county court within whose district a parent or guardian of the child is; (bb)")

Page 45, line 27, at end insert ("and, in the case of an application under section 13, any magistrates' court within whose area a parent or guardian of the child is ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these two Amendments can be taken together. They will enable freeing application under Clause 13 to be brought either in the court within whose area or district the child is, or in the court within whose area or district a parent or guardian is. I think I am right in saying that the noble Baroness feels rather strongly about this. This is considered desirable as it may provide a more convenient court in which the application may be heard where a child has been placed, pending the application, in a temporary home some distance from the agency or parent's home.

If either of these two courts should prove inconvenient, the application may be transferred, after it has been made, to a more convenient court. The Government gave an undertaking to consider this point when very strong representations were made by the noble Baroness, and I hope that she and your Lordships will be satisfied with the Amendment as it stands, because on going into the matter we felt there was a great deal of validity in what the noble Baroness said.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for bringing forward this Amendment in the generous way that he has. The point of it is simply to make it easier, in the cases where the child is being freed for adoption under the new procedure, for both the natural parents and the agency in this case. It seems to me something of great practical use to people, and I am very grateful to see it included in the Bill.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

6.6 p.m.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 68:

After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—

Evidence of agreement and consent

(" .—(1) Any agreement or consent which is required by Part I, except section 25(6), or Part II to be given to the making of any order or application for an order may be given in writing, and, if the document signifying the agreement or consent is—

1. (a) in the case of an adoption order or an application for an order under section 13, witnessed in accordance with rules, or
2. (b) in the case of an application made under Part II, witnessed in accordance with rules of court,
• it shall be admissible in evidence without further proof of the signature of the person by whom it was executed.

(2) A document signifying such agreement or consent which purports to be witnessed in accordance with rules or as the case may be, with rules of court shall be presumed to be so witnessed, and to have been executed and witnessed on the date and at the place specified in the document, unless the contrary is proved.

(3) In the application of this section to Scotland—

1. (a) for "made under Part II" there is substituted "to which Part II applies";
2. (b) for "admissible in evidence" there is substituted "sufficient evidence"; and
3. (c) for "rules of court" there is substituted "act of sederunt".")

The noble Lord said: This new clause replaces and preserves some of the provisions of Section 6 of the 1958 Act which is repealed by the Bill. It is necessary to enable agreements to adoption given in writing, which will be witnessed by the adoption officers to be appointed under Clause 19, to be admissible in evidence, and the new clause achieves this. It also makes similar provisions in respect of consents to applications for orders freeing a child for adoption, and consents in custody proceedings under Part II of the Bill. Subsection (3) makes the provisions applicable in Scottish terms.

The clause does not apply to agreements or consents required to Convention adoption orders where the child is not a United Kingdom national, since this is covered by Clause 25(7).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 73 [Panel for guardians ad idem and adoption officers]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 69: Page 46, line 29, leave out (" are to ") and insert (" may in accordance with rules").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment allows the Lord Chancellor to draw up court rules regarding the appointment of guardians ad litem and adoption officers from the panels established under regulations made by the Secretary of State. It will help to achieve the Houghton Committee's intention that guardians ad litem and adoption officers should be suitably experienced people. Personnel will be covered by regulations which by Amendment No. 71 can be annulled. It is therefore a Negative Resolution and I gave an undertaking, both at the Committee and Report stages, that there will be wide consultation in the appointment of such people.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 70:

Page 46, line 34, at end insert— (" (3) In relation to Scotland, the reference in subsection (1) to guardians ad litem shall be construed as a reference to curators ad litem.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment repairs an omission in Clause 73 as it was introduced into the Bill at Report stage by providing for the construction in Scottish terms of the phrase "guardian ad litem" used in subsection (1) of the clause. The curator ad litem in adoption proceedings in Scotland performs the same practical task as the guardian ad litem in England and Wales, by reporting to the court on the suitability of the arrangements made for the adoption of the child. This position is preserved under Clause 19 of the Bill, which already refers to the curator ad litem in relation to Scotland.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 75 [Regulations and orders]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 71:

Page 47, line 3, at end insert— (" A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 73 shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope you will allow me to speak to Amendments Nos. 79, 85 and 97. This group of Amendments can be taken together. During Committee and Report stages on the Bill the comment was frequently made that noble Lords did not know what the content of the rules and regulations made under the Bill would be, and hence were at a disadvantage in discussing and agreeing certain clauses. The noble Baroness made this point on more than one occasion.

My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor undertook during Committee on 13th February that in due course an Amendment would be moved to require rules to be laid. The new subsection (1) of the new Section 56 introduced into the 1958 Act by Amendment No. 85 provides that all rules and regulations made under the Adoption Act 1958, and hence under the Bill, will be subject to annulment procedure. Amendment No. 71 provides similarly that regulations to be made by the Secretary of State regarding the panels of experienced people from which guardians ad litem and adoption officers are to be drawn will be subject to annulment procedure. Amendments Nos. 79 and 97 and subsections (2), (3) and (4) in Amendment No. 85 meet the request of the General Register Office that the regulations which will need to be made under the 1958 Act with regard to the Adopted Children Register should be made by the Registrar General with the approval of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I should like to thank the Government for introducing this Amendment. We put down a similar Amendment at Committee stage and the Government said that they would look at it. It is pleasing that they have been able to include it at this stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 76 [Interpretation]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 72:

Page 47, line 40, after (" "guardian") insert (" means—

1. (a) a person appointed by deed or will in accordance with the provisions of the Guardianship of Infants Acts 1886 and 1925 or the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 or by a court of competent jurisdiction to be the guardian of the child, and
2. (b)")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 72, I trust that you will allow me to speak to Amendment No. 88. The Bill as it stands defines the term "guardian" only in relation to the adoption of illegitimate children where the father has custody of the child. The 1958 Act, however, defined "guardian" in the more usual sense of a person appointed by deed or will in accordance with the provisions of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1886 and 1925, or by a court. The purpose of the first Amendment is to widen the definition of "guardian" to bring it into line with that contained in the 1958 Act. The second Amendment merely modifies the definition of "guardian" in the 1958 Act so that the wording is in line with that of the definition in the Bill. The Guardianship of Infants Act 1886 was repealed by the 1971 Act, but it is necessary to include it in the definition as there may still be guardians who were appointed under it. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 73 and 74:

Page 48, line 9, after second ("rules") insert (" made ")

Page 48, line 10, at end insert ("or made by virtue of section 9(4) of the 1958 Act under section 15 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 73 and 74. I think your Lordships will agree that these two Amendments to Clause 76 can be moved together. The first is simply a matter of drafting. The second provides for the making of magistrates' courts rules under the Bill in relation to adoption matters. At present the rule-making powers in this area are not given under Section 9(3) of the 1958 Act, to which the Bill's definition of "rules" is tied. They are given under Section 15 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, and are related to adoption matters by Section 9(4) of the 1958 Act. The Amendment simply ensures that these rule-making powers are not lost under the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 75: Page 48, leave out lines 12 to 14.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 75, which is consequential. It would delete definitions of "trust" and "trustee" which are not required; because the drafting of paragraph 16 of the Schedule agreed to earlier is slightly different from the drafting of Clause 24(1) of the Bill which it replaces.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 76. I spoke to this when dealing with Amendment No. 63.

Amendment moved—

Page 48, line 19, at end insert— (" "voluntary organisation" means a body other than a public or local authority the activities of which are not carried on for profit.")—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 77 which is consequential upon Amendment No. 7.

Amendment moved— Page 48, leave out lines 23 and 24.—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Approval etc. of adoption societies in Scotland.]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 78: Leave out Schedule 1, and insert the following new Schedule—