§ [Nos. 134–137]
§ Clause 56, page 35, line 18, leave out ("an officer of a local authority or other") and insert ("a")
§
Clause 56, page 35, leave out lines 20 to 23 and insert—
("(ii) without prejudice to any existing power to appoint a person to represent the interests of the child, may, if he thinks fit, appoint a person to act for the purpose specified in paragraph (i) above".)
§
Clause 56, page 35, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert—
(" (ii) appointment under subsection (1) of this section, the functions of a person so appointed and any right of such a person to information relating to the proceedings in question")
§
Clause 56, page 35, leave out lines 34 to 40 and insert—
(3) The expenses of a person appointed under subsection (1) of this section shall—
be borne by the local authority for whose area the children's panel from which the relevant children's hearing has been constituted is formed.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, "relevant children's hearing" means—
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 134 to 137, and I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 168. At an earlier stage of our discussions, I indicated to the noble Baroness. Lady Elliot of Harwood, that we had decided that it would be convenient to discuss the Scottish interests together. Amendments Nos. 134 to 137, together with Amendment No. 168, make changes to the Scottish provisions in Clause 56 relating to the safeguarding of children's interests in proceedings before a children's hearing or in court proceedings arising from a children's hearing. I can assure your Lordships that these Amendments make only minor alterations to Clause 56 as it was when it was last considered in this House. Amendment No. 134 relates to the person who may be appointed to safeguard the interests of a child. As read with the second part of Amendment No. 202, it would permit the chairman of a hearing or the sheriff, as the case may be, to make an appointment from the panel established under Clause 71.
Amendment No. 135 is a drafting Amendment, which is intended to correct a possible ambiguity in the wording of the existing provision. Amendment No. 136 is a consequential Amendment to Amendment No. 134. It will deal with the question of which persons might be suitable for appointment to safeguard children's interests—this was an interesting point which was raised earlier, and I stress the words "might be suitable"—for example, members of the panel set up under Clause 71, or persons who should not be appointed, possibly because they are officers of the local authority which is already closely involved in the case.
Amendment No. 137 adjusts a less than adequate provision in the existing clause. It provides that, where a person is appointed to safeguard the interests of a child in proceedings before a children's hearing or in any court proceedings arising from a children's hearing, the expenses reasonably incurred are to be met by the local authority, or where that person is appointed from the panel established under Clause 71 in accord- 1284 ance with the regulations made under that clause.
The new subsection differs from the existing subsection in providing that the expenses of persons appointed in connection with cases before the courts will now fall to be met by the local authority, whereas under the existing subsection they were to be regarded as "expenses in the cause"; that is, they would be met by the party awarded expenses possibly with assistance under legal aid. I feel we know what that might mean. The original provision would have presented complications in that the sheriff under the appropriate court rules (Act of Sederunt (Social Work) (Sheriff Court Procedure Rules) 1971) cannot award expenses in court proceedings deriving from children's hearings, and therefore could not allocate the expenses of the appointment either to the child or the parents. That is a real jungle and, for a poor Sassenach, quite beyond understanding.
Amendment No. 168 deals with safeguarding the interests of a child in court proceedings relating to the vesting of parental rights in a local authority or a voluntary organisation. It is the Scottish equivalent of Amendment No. 125 for England and Wales. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
§ Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOODMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for putting forward these Amendments. I do not disagree with any of them. In Scotland, we have always been anxious that the child ought to be represented by its own representative, very often someone with a legal background and training. The question of the expenses, and the difference in the way in which the courts work in Scotland and in England, arises because the children's hearings were a new experiment. They were financed by the county councils, whereas before the children's hearings were inaugurated children appeared before the sheriff and the expenses were met by the sheriff court.
These Amendments all seem to be advantageous. The noble Lord has also moved a new clause to he inserted after Clause 59, and it is clearly stated that the interests of the child shall be paramount, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, 1285 used to say when we discussed this Bill previously. I have no objections to these Amendments, and I am happy to support them.
§ Baroness MASHAM of ILTONMy Lords, being a full-blooded Scot, I should like to say how proud I am to hear how well organised Scotland is compared with England.