§ [Nos. 115 and 116]
§ Clause 49, page 29, line 32, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").
§ Clause 49, page 30, line 1, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").
§ 8.14 p.m.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 115 and 116. With the permission of the House I will take these Amendments with Amendments Nos. 145 and 146. They relate to the notice of intention to remove the child. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for keeping close to my brief since I have come into this Bill rather late in the day. This is an important part of our discussion tonight.
When the Bill left your Lordships' House, this clause contained a provision which would have required the parent of a child who had been in the care of a local authority throughout the preceding 12 months to give not less than 28 days notice of intention to remove the child from care. The local authority would have had power to consent to the removal of the child from care either without notice or at any time during the period of 28 days if they thought fit.
The contentious aspects of the clause are first the period which should elapse after a child has been in care before the requirement to give notice of removal takes effect, and secondly the amount of notice that should be required. During consideration of the Bill in the other place the requirement to give 28 days' notice of removal after the child had been 12 months in care was changed so as to require the same period of notice after only six months in care. In explaining the reasons for this change my honourable friend the Minister of State in the other place said:
It seems clear that we cannot meet the wishes of all who have expressed a view on this contentious issue and therefore in a spirit of compromise I have tabled this amendment which goes part of the way towards meeting the differing views expressed. The original proposals in the Bill have been changed from 12 to six months.Noble Lords who have more experience of this Bill will remember that a very large spectrum of differing advice was given to the Minister of State on this 1259 matter. The Amendment in question would enable the Secretary of State by order, subject to approval by each House, to vary the periods of 28 days and six months should these prove in practice not to be the most suitable. If the noble Baroness will allow me, Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 introduce comparable provisions for Scotland. My Lords, I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
§ Lord REDESDALEMy Lords, I should first declare an interest, as I did before. I have two foster children. However, neither of them comes within this clause. Therefore, I do not feel that I am speaking with too much of an interest. I can be impartial. May I make one or two points. First, after the Committee stage in the House of Commons a Consultative Document was circulated. However, it was not circulated to the Foster Care Association and I should like that to go on the record. It is rather sad that this was not done.
The fact that we now have a hurdle of 28 days before a child can be taken back by a natural parent is a great advantage in the period of six months, and I am glad that it has been reduced from 12 to six months. However, children in the period before six months can be taken out and it is most disturbing if they can be taken out with virtually no notice. I think this is a pity because, without sounding trite, we are saying that a child's time span is different from that of an adult. Perhaps it is the same for politicians as for children, because Mr. Wilson once said that a week is a long time in the life of a politician. The same applies to a child, although rather more so.
I do not intend to take up your Lordships' time or in any way to jeopardise the Bill at this point, but I feel that we should ask the Minister, on the record, to examine the working of this. I agree that there are powers within the Bill for this to be changed at a later date, and I hope that at the earliest possible date greater protection can be given to children who have been taken into care for less than six months. They should have 1260 at least 48 hours' notice and not be taken away in the middle of the night, or in some other way.
§ Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALEMy Lords, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I must declare an interest, not being a foster parent but a foster grandparent. I think my involvement is as remote as his own in this case. Like the noble Lord, I am a little worried about the period defined in the Amendment which has come from the other place. I preferred the Amendments that were carried during the Committee stage in that place, but like the noble Lord the last thing I want to do is in any way to impede the passage of this Bill. It is an excellent Bill and I think my noble friend deserves to be congratulated upon it. It is widely welcomed by foster parents and by the National Foster Care Association, but I should be glad if my noble friend could give the assurance that if in the light of experience it seems that the composite Amendment put forward by my noble friend is not the right solution to the problem, the Minister will issue an order as provided for in this clause.
§ Lord ELTONMy Lords, the noble Lord,Lord Winterbottom, coming nobly from his corner has explained to us the essentials of these Amendments and their origins by saying that they relate to the period after which it is necessary for a natural parent to give notice before he takes the child out of voluntary care; and they are relevant also to the length of notice which must then be given. The noble Lord will be as aware as I am of the very chequered history in another place of these provisions and of the elaborate Amendments which were tabled —and in fact at one stage carried—and withdrawn, and like me he will have been gratified to notice that the boundary division between those on one side and those on the other was not in any way coincidental with Party convictions. That is true of the whole Bill, and I am sure it is something which we all savour greatly in this place and applaud in the other place.
Turning to this particular problem, there are great reservations held by people intimately concerned with this problem about the propriety of allowing a natural 1261 parent after, say, five months, to tap on the door of a house and remove a child without further ado. This is something which unfortunately does happen. It has happened recently in South Wales and it has happened more recently in Nottingham. And the noble Lord will doubtless be familiar with both occasions.
In reviewing this, it occurs to me that we look at the two elements the—six months, which may well be too long, and the 28 days which may also be too long. In the first six months, I well understand the anxiety of the Social Services not to do anything to prevent the hesitant natural parent from removing a natural child from an intolerable or dangerous situation into the security of care. There are arguments which say that if an elaborate process of recovery is required this will be enough to send the parent home with the child, but I suggest that it is necessary to look closely at the possibility of having a 24-hour, or preferably a 48-hour, period of notice, mandatory unless waived by the local authority, upon the natural parent. I think the 48-hour period is more satisfactory than the 24-hour period because of the difficulty of taking any administrative steps on Sunday or a bank holiday.
From the foster parent's point of view, it is not much to expect some protection from the feeling that every step on the front path, every knock on the back door, may be somebody coming to take the child away. It is not much on the part of the child, once it is of an age to understand the circumstances in which it is put, perhaps dimly and perhaps with great apprehension, to expect at least a day and a night of reflection in which to be warned of a change of circumstances about to happen, which to us may seem simply like moving from 48 Cedars Avenue to 53 Railway Terrace but in fact for a child of tender years is the transfer from one galactic constellation to another.
Your Lordships will understand that I am anxious to put firmly and clearly on the Record the concern which is felt, not merely by myself and my noble friends on these Benches but also by associations outside this House, not least the National Foster Care Association, and others whose views on this I think are not nearly so hostile or trenchant as perhaps the noble Lord has been led to suppose in 1262 the light of conversations which I have recently had with him.
I am also under constraint not to impede the passage of an excellent piece of legislation and not to place a further strain upon the machinery which has produced and is perfecting it. In doing that, I am encouraged by seeing that under subsection (3) (b) the Secretary of State, without Amendment, has the power to alter the extent of the six months and the extent of the 28 days' notice. But be it noticed that he can only produce one period of notice at one extent of time in care. He is not able to introduce a step; under the regulations as he is empowered to make them under Clause 49(3)(b)—as at present numbered—he cannot say, "Let there be 48 hours' notice required, though waivable, in the first six months, or perhaps three months, and thereafter 28 days, or perhaps 14 days". This is a power which I think in the light of experience he may wish to be able to take to himself later on.
I am encouraged not to press the noble Lord beyond the confines of the Lobbies by the notable improvement in the Bill in the new clause which allows a report and review after three years of operation. It is my purpose, speaking at inordinate length, as at this stage of the Bill we can speak only once and therefore I must make the most of my opportunity, indelibly to impress upon the noble Lord and his Ministerial and other advisers the necessity for seeing how this provision works in practice and accepting the necessity for taking new powers in three years' time if it should be apparent that it is necessary. This would not be a victory for one Party or a defeat for the other; it would be a recognition of realities and indeed it is possible, although I think unlikely, that the opinion which the noble Lord now holds will prevail, in the light of his experience, over the opinion which I now hold, although I think it unlikely.
§ 8.20 p.m.
Baroness VICKERSMy Lords, may I add a word. Having served on the Houghton Committee and having been a sponsor, with the present Minister of State, in his Private Bill, I am satisfied with this because it is really carrying out one of the Houghton recommendations. I would mention that so far as I understand it from the Registrar-General, 25.6 1263 per cent. of the children in the circumstances we are now discussing are there because of illness of parents, because of emergency, lack of housing and not for any other reason. If we change this, we might be penalising the poorer families who are in difficulties and have to take certain action. I am fortified in this by the feelings of one-parent families and others in those categories.
My Lords, I, too, was a little worried when I first saw this. I agree with my noble friend that we have a safeguard in subsection (3B) and also in (3C). Therefore, in view of the fact that this has been discussed—and I have read the whole of the debate in the other place—I hope we shall consider, particularly in regard to the figures I have now been able to give, that this probably is the best solution.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, performed a very important function by stating with such clarity the feeling of what is really a very representative body of people: that to snatch children from their homes at short notice, and particularly at midnight, is unacceptable. It brings to the mind the visits of the Gestapo and the KGB too strongly to be acceptable. We cannot expect that in a very large group of people such as make up our Social Services, and who serve our Social Services mostly with distinction and dedication, that there are not some people who are insensitive or who may make misjudgments. Events like this can occur, but I think the comments of noble Lord will be noted—in fact, I know they will be—and people then will think twice before precipitating steps of this kind.
My Lords, the discussion which has led up to these Amendments has been very interesting. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, it has nothing to do with party politics, but with differing views within a dedicated profession. This particular difference of views was reflected in the passage of the Bill through another place, where I understand it was said that if a child was in care for a short time, say, six months, 48 hours' notice of removal should be given, and then there was a rising scale of notice. As I am informed, most of the professional organisations who were consulted—apart, 1264 I believe from the National Foster Care Association—held the view that something rather less elastic was desirable, and that we should accept the compromise which produced the present Amendment.
I may be wrong, because I have not been able to steep myself in this Bill as has my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, whom I am certain we all miss. But as I understand it, if this particular aspect of the Bill goes wrong, the Secretary of State can lay an Order before three years. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord. As I read the Bill, it says:
The Secretary of State may by order a draft of which has been approved by each House of Parliament amend subsection (3A) of this section by substituting a different period for the period of 28 days or of 12 months…",and so on. In my reading of the Bill, I do not see anything that confines the Secretary of State to a fixed period. If, say, in six months or nine months from now, some major mistake was made which he felt needed correcting, then the Secretary of State could do it under this particular subsection. Amendment No. 203 provides for a general periodic review of the Bill. I think it is different from the powers under this clause.
§ Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALEMy Lords, can my noble friend give us an assurance that if experience shows these periods to be wrong, that the Secretary of State will not hesitate to make an Order of this kind? It would be of great help.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I can give that assurance, because my right honourable friend very nearly took the view expressed by the noble Lord opposite. He has had to balance the various pieces of advice given to him and he came down on the compromise I have described, but the powers of review are not circumscribed by time. If I am wrong, I will tell the noble Lord and the House.