Children Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 07 February 1989 vol 503 cc1438-504

3.4 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 19 [Provision of accommodation and maintenance by local authority for children whom they are looking after]:

Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 44: Page 15, line 15, at beginning insert— ("(a) placing him with relatives (subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State) on such terms as to payment by the authority and otherwise as the authority may determine;"). The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the social services department feel that as far as possible children should be kept with relatives; and that if they have not been with relatives before they leave care it should be possible to place them with relatives. It should therefore be possible to pay relatives the same type of boarding out allowance as is paid to foster parents. I beg to move.

Lady Kinloss

My Lords, I support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and I said in Committee that the number of children fostered by relatives had declined. That is sad because such children appear to do better and and are better adjusted. One of the elements of the amendment is to enable an allowance to be paid to relatives. That is important when children are living with relatives under voluntary arrangements in circumstances where it may not be appropriate for the relatives to be assessed as foster parents and therefore to receive the foster allowance although they may be in desperate need of money to look after the children. The amendment provides a better solution than sending the children to stay with strangers.

Baroness David

My Lords, as I understand it Amendment No. 45, tabled by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will probably cover the first half of the amendment; we are grateful for that. The other element, which is not covered by his amendment, would enable an allowance to be paid to relatives. That seems important because relatives, if they have support, may be willing to take on nieces, nephews, grandchildren and so forth. It would be much better for those children to be with their relatives. The relatives would be encouraged to take the children if they could have some compensation.

Lord Meston

I support the amendment. It is obviously right that local authorities should be encouraged to look first to the child's wider family. If that is to work, it is also important that foster allowances or something similar should be available to the wider family which is prepared to assist the local authority.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee. I undertook then to consider whether we could put emphasis on relatives. That I have sought to do. If I have understood my own amendment correctly—that is an important proviso—it inserts the phrase under the heads (i), (ii) and (iii) into Clause 19 at line 16 and therefore preserves the existing provision about terms as to payment, by the authority or otherwise as the authority may determine". My amendment covers both aspects of Amendment No. 44, which is what was intended. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will feel that we have dealt with the point more economically in my amendment than in hers and that she will be prepared to withdraw Amendment No. 44 on the promise that I shall move Amendment No. 45 in the hope that it may be accepted.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend. I shall of course withdraw the amendment. We can then debate his amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 45: Page 15, line 16, leave out ("a family or other suitable person") and insert ("—

1. (i) a family;
2. (ii) a relative of his; or
3. (iii) any other suitable person").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is intended to cover the point that relatives should be specifically referred to, otherwise leaving the structure of the clause as it was. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 46: Page 15, line 31. leave out ("parent") and insert ("carer").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am very glad that we have with us the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who is closely associated with the National Foster Care Association and is a foster father of I am not quite sure how many children, but quite a number. It has been put to the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Redesdale, and myself by the National Foster Care Association that in future we should try to call foster parents, foster carers. The reason is that in a number of cases children become confused between their own parents and the foster parents. It ought to be clear to them that the foster parents are not their own parents, although we hope that the foster parents will treat them as their own.

Furthermore, a number of children with foster parents go back to their own parents. One has to recognise that the parents of children who have had to leave them either through force of circumstances or for any other reasons have a sense of inadequacy and hopelessness when they feel that their children are looking to others to take their place. It might have been right that this was so. However, the fact remains that it is confusing in the minds of the children and rather sad in the minds of the parents. Therefore the National Foster Care Association asks whether your Lordships would consider calling foster parents foster carers instead in this Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Meston

My Lords, in a sense this is a matter of semantics. I invite your Lordships to accept the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that the expression foster carer is less emotive and less confusing. We hope to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, what with his experience he thinks.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, I have had a wonderful introduction on this occasion. I shall not take the advice which is usually given to people to start off in a very positive way but will start with an apology. I apologise for taking the time of the House on this point because it may be hard for noble Lords to see the difference in the arguments put forward.

The role of fostering has changed very considerably. Most foster parents or foster carers are in short-term situations. I am speaking in a rather different way in that my children are grown up now. We were long-term foster parents and I am arguing against people like that. Therefore my arguments are against the situation which I was in.

We want to have very many more foster carers because that helps the children and the system. There is a much more caring society in a foster care situation. The concept of caring is to look after the children while they are away from their parents, and we hope that they will go back to their parents. The foster carers are not the old-style foster parents that one heard of; they will have to be very much more professional in the future. A point which we were talking about last night is that they must be trained; they need training. This point will come up again.

If carers are to do their job properly they must have a special relationship with the children. I think that being a foster carer or somebody who is caring for the child is a much better concept than the old-style foster parent, who always had the problem, in the terms of the media, of being in the tug of love situation. The child had been with the foster parent for a long time and was dragged away and sent back to the natural parent. Those were the old cases which were so beloved of the tabloid press at one time.

In a situation where one is working with the parents for the children to go back to the parents later, we do not want such a tied down situation. Therefore I am asking your Lordships to consider changing the phrase "foster parent" to "foster carer" because it is a developing concept. It is something which will exist in the future and therefore I am asking the House to consider putting into the legislation something that will help along the concept for the future. I am sorry to have taken your Lordships' time on the matter and I should be grateful if it could be given consideration.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, is not the important matter frankly not what we call a foster parent in the statute but what the child calls the foster parent? One can hardly imagine a child addressing the person whom he regards as a foster parent as "My dear carer", especially when he writes to him. Do not all these arguments and names alter with circumstances? Will not the circumstances dictate the right title for the child to call the party concerned?

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, perhaps I may respond to that point. I appreciate that in a long-term foster care/foster parent situation children refer to "Daddy" and "Mummy". I am not saying that it should sound like some bureaucratic title. It is more how the foster parent or foster carer is seen from outside. I do not think it is a question of a relationship.

The point is how the parent or the foster parent is considered and whether the child is part of that family—not necessarily a natural part of the family, but he or she certainly enjoys all the benefits and care of the family. That is the difference.

Baroness David

My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. I am sorry to differ from my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I think that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, are making a very important point about the new type of relationship. I hope that this amendment will be accepted.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, I wish to add a brief word. It seems to me important that the carer should not be called "parent" because it is frequently his duty to maintain or promote the child's links with his family. It would be very confusing if the carer were known in many cases as "Daddy" or "Mummy" rather than something like "Uncle" or a Christian name.

The new concept of the foster parent has been reflected in the regulations. The 1985 regulations were amended and revised in 1988 and include that consideration. This is an evolving argument which has been incorporated into the modern government regulations. That is the way things are going and it would only be right and appropriate for the Bill to reflect the modern view of fostering that has grown up.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, this is obviously a difficult and important matter, I do not think that my noble friend Lord Redesdale need in any sense apologise for taking up our time with it. This type of placement is central and it is important that we should think it over. However, while we recognise that there is a school of thought in favour of changing the name, it may not be quite wise to do that in the statute, at least not yet.

As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, said, careful consideration has gone into the continuing use of the term in the 1988 Boarding Out (Foster Placement) Regulations, following certain representations in favour of "foster carer". Now if in particular circumstances or fostering schemes or placements the parties prefer to make use informally of a different term, there is no reason why they should not do so. The handbook of guidance to the 1988 regulations says as much. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in introducing this matter pointed out that it may depend slightly on the length of the relationship. If a child is to be a long-term resident with a foster carer, it might be more appropriate to refer to the parent as a foster parent.

There is the point, which appeals strongly to me, that the child in the fostering family should be regarded as one with that fostering family from the point of view of developing relationships. I mentioned in Committee my personal experience of seeing a close friend and neighbour fostering children very successfully. Quite disturbed children responded with marvellous speed to the love and affection shown them when they became members of a fairly large family.

The guidance makes it clear that whatever the term may be in the statute, it will be chosen according to the particular circumstances that exist. However, at the moment there is no real evidence that "foster carer" is generally a preferred or widely used term. I know that those who are close to it like it. However, it would be fair to say that it has not yet attained general use, although it may do so. The attachment of the word "foster" to "carer" seems a slightly awkward juxtaposition from the point of view of pure English. But of course the words "foster parent" in a sense have a similar difficulty.

A substitute for foster parent may come into general usage. Then it would be right to reflect it in legislation. In the meantime, I feel that although the matter is worthy of consideration, and no doubt will be further considered as the Bill progresses, we should stick with the present term. It has the merit of conveying the sense of family placement and care to a parental standard; that is, the standard of a good parent. That idea commended itself to some of your Lordships at an earlier stage of the proceedings.

I hope that my noble friend may feel that while I perfectly understand the point which she has expressed that the matter is well worthy of consideration, at this stage at least it would be wise to continue with what we have. If that is her view, she may feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I have two points to make. First, the word "carer" is coming into being very much more than it ever has before in all social work legislation in connection with the elderly and the handicapped. It is a word that is attaining common usage in a way that it never did before.

Secondly, the noble and learned Lord said that for the moment we would stay with "foster parent" and not use the word "carer". He said that perhaps in years to come we could consider the word "carer". Therefore at this stage at any rate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Elliot of Harwood moved Amendment No. 47:

Page 15, line 31, at end insert— ("3A) The Secretary of State shall make regulations under subsection (2)(a) to provide that—

1. (a) Subject to subsections (3A)(b), (3A)(c) and (3A)(d), a local authority or voluntary organisation shall not place a child with a foster parent unless the foster parent has before or at the time of placement signed an undertaking not to subject the child to corporal punishment.
2. (b) Subsection (3A)(a) shall not apply to a child placed with a foster parent before this Act was brought into force for the duration of the placement.
3. (c) Subject to subsection (3A)(d) below references in this Act to giving corporal punishment are references to doing anything for the purposes of punishing the child (whether or not there are also other reasons for doing it) which apart from any justification would constitute a battery.
4. (d) A person is not to be taken for the purposes of this section as giving corporal punishment by virtue of anything done for reasons that include averting an immediate danger or personal injury to, or an immediate danger to the property of, any person (including the child).").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is the third attempt that I and my noble friends have made on the Bill to change the ideas of people who believe that corporal punishment is the only way to deal with difficult children. Our previous amendment had much support but was withdrawn when the noble and learned Lord said that it interfered with the common law.

This amendment has no reference to the common law. But as children in foster care are the responsibility of local authorities, the question of beating children who have been placed with foster parents is a separate responsibility connected with local authorities. We all know the arguments for and against corporal punishment. A number of research studies have shown that children who fear physical punishment tend to have less guilt about misbehaviour and less self-discipline. There are also clearly demonstrated links with child abuse. Many of the tragic cases of child abuse started with physical punishment of the child. Many of the abusers of course were themselves beaten as children. Corporal punishment passes on the message that violence solves problems. I think that violence incurs violence. Children model their behaviour on adults and believe that violence solves problems, which it does not. Therefore, it is not surprising that physical punishment tends to encourage aggressive behaviour. One summary of available research in this field concluded: Studies of child-rearing practices, assessing the effects of parental punishment, especially the use of physical punishment, yield a consistent outcome. In general the degree of parental punitiveness has been found to be postively related with … delinquency and aggressive…behaviour". Many children in care, because of their experiences, exhibit disturbed and aggressive behaviour. To allow foster carers to use physical punishment is to risk reinforcing rather than curing that behaviour.

We live in an unacceptably violent society. People talk about the need to subject children to more corporal punishment as a means of disciplining them. But studies show astonishingly high levels of parental physical punishment in this country. The figure is as high as 97 per cent. for four year-olds. Other countries identify the United Kingdom as a land where children are beaten. Our football hooligans are also the shame of ourselves and of Europe. This amendment is, we hope, one modest way of reducing the intoleraby high level of violence in our society. I beg to move.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, it is very hard to follow such a moving speech. I hope that this amendment will command assent both from the heart of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and from his head. He will appreciate that this amendment is logical in that it completes the work of Parliament, which has prohibited corporal punishment in the public education of children. It also completes the work of the Government, who are already committed to banning corporal punishment in community homes.

It would surely be grossly unfair and wrong if children in foster homes were allowed to be beaten when children in community homes—perhaps the brothers of children in foster homes—were not. That is inadmissible and makes this amendment necessary. This amendment concentrates on foster children, in answer to criticisms in Committee. The amendment has also been altered to take account of the technical criticisms of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.

The amendment continues to exempt existing foster placements, so they will be undisturbed. It also uses the wording of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to define corporal punishment. I should have preferred the previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and supported by the noble Baroness, to be agreed. If this amendment goes into the Bill, I should have liked the word "carer" to take the place of "parent". However, those arguments have already been rehearsed. I regret that the previous amendment was not pursued because the view of this House would have been invaluable on an unwhipped basis. This is a difficult matter and that would have been very useful. Perhaps that could be done on Third Reading and we could have a totally unwhipped view as to whether "parent" should be retained or "carer" should be substituted. As the noble Baroness has said, the latter word is in use generally by those who deal with children in care.

I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's objection that the provision of first class foster parents might be diminished if the amendment were passed is totally unfounded. There is no evidence of that happening. We are able to say that with confidence because in those local authority areas where corporal punishment has already been prohibited there has been no evidence of any reluctance on the part of foster parents to come forward, be put on the list and sign a declaration that they will not inflict corporal punishment on children fostered by them.

The amendment has the support of organisations representing all aspects of the child care system, including foster parents.

Finally I should like to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, said. This is a most serious consideration. There have been a number of cases in which the local authority has had to intervene because of inappropriate use of corporal punishment on a foster child. In some instances it has amounted to abuse, as the noble Baroness said, and formal intervention has ensued. That is a state of affairs which none of us would be happy with. The National Foster Care Association has said that that is one of the reasons why it supports the amendment. I should have thought that that, and all the other reasons that have been adduced this afternoon, should be sufficient to persuade the House that the amendment is necessary, if not overdue.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Seebohm

My Lords, I think that there are two sides to the question. As has just been said, under present regulations corporal punishment is to be banned in community homes. It therefore seems quite illogical for the ban not to be extended to foster homes as well. If the regulations were extended, as they may well be, to all children in care they would cover children in foster homes, who would still be in local authority care. Meanwhile, foster parents have not been prohibited from using corporal punishment.

I should hope that, as has already been said by the noble Lord who has just spoken, since Parliament in its wisdom has banned corporal punishment in all state-supported schools and community homes it would complete the job and extend the ban to cover all children in care.

During the Committee stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the child in foster care should be brought up as part of the family. He has repeated that statement today. However that is not what happens in real life. In principle most children are in foster care only until they can be returned to their families. It is very important that the object of their being in foster care should be that they can be returned to their families.

Some of us have read a report by the Dartington Research Project which indicates that 40 per cent. of all children placed in foster care remain there only for about six weeks. Of those who are in foster care for longer, up to two years, 83 per cent. have been in more than one placement. The main object of foster care is not that it should be permanent or a form of second-class adoption: it should last only while family problems are solved.

The noble and learned Lord also said that the supply of foster parents might be diminished. That point has already been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. That suggestion has not been borne out by research or by those local authorities which have adopted the principle which we are trying to establish with the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness who has moved the amendment will press it.

Lord Banks

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. As we have heard, it applies to foster children only. In that connection it is relevant to take note of the fact that the National Foster Care Association supports the amendment.

When corporal punishment was discussed in Committee, as we have heard, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the 1955 regulations laid down that foster parents must bring up foster children as if they were their own. But that is considerably modified by the revised 1988 regulations. Foster parents simply undertake to care for the child as a member of the family having regard to local authority requirements. In addition, as has been explained by previous speakers, there does not appear to be any evidence from those areas where there is a ban on the use of corporal punishment by foster parents that such a ban leads to any diminution in the number of foster parents available.

The amendment refers only to new placements. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to accept it, particularly as it is the Government's policy to abolish corporal punishment in care institutions.

The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, raised an important point when he asked whether it was right that children in care should be treated differently as regards corporal punishment from children placed with foster parents. He felt that that would not be right. I also feel that it would not be right.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I wonder whether we are not going too far. I think that there is too much of a feeling that corporal punishment: is bad and ought to be abolished altogether. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said that one of the arguments in favour of it was that children's behaviour was becoming dreadful.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, it was the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, who talked about violence in society. I did not.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, that is quite right. It was my noble friend Lady Elliot.

When I was brought up in the 1930s there were not the same complaints about bad behaviour as there are today. It may be that there is more publicity today. I was last beaten at the age of 19 as a midshipman for misbehaving. It did not create in me a feeling of antagonism and make me want to behave badly. I think that I have been reasonably well controlled, except perhaps in this Chamber.

It seems to me that one can become obsessed with the thought that corporal punishment—beating—of a child by a parent is wicked. It is wicked if it is done for the wrong reasons but if it is a disciplinary process it can deal with a problem very quickly and easily and solve the problem nicely. I should have thought that a foster parent would need to have that facility just as much as an ordinary parent. It does not matter if there is to be a mini adoption process. Anyone who is in charge of a child should not feel that they cannot beat it as a punishment for doing something wrong. The fourth paragraph of the amendment goes some way in the direction that I should like, but it is not good enough as an excuse for beating a child who misbehaves.

I believe that the noble Lords who are moving the amendment are well meaning but that they are taking the issue too far and too seriously. I hope that your Lordships will feel that there is a place for beating—I shall not call it corporal punishment—in family life. I should have thought that it was silly to legislate in an attempt to cut it out altogether.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, every noble Lord who has spoken to the amendment has talked about beating children. I am a mother and I never beat my children. However, I did sometimes—as a great many mothers and fathers do occasionally—cuff my children or give them a smack. It is quite common in the animal world. When a cub has put itself in danger its mother will drag it back and give it a cuff. Quite honestly, it is a reflex action that the human mother has too.

Are we seriously to ask foster parents to sign a written declaration that they will never give a cuff to a child who has perhaps stepped off the pavement into the path of an on-coming car and given them a real fright? It seems to me that we are getting this matter a little out of proportion and creating a difficult situation.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Baroness, Lady Saltoun. They are right. If a local authority in its wisdom gives a precious child into the care of someone who might beat or hurt the child, that is the local authority's fault, but in my view it does not mean that Parliament should lay down as and when any chastisement takes place.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that she and the previous two speakers have been talking about corporal punishment—beating, cuffing or whatever it may be—within the family and that the amendment is not about the family at all? Those comments are therefore totally irrelevant to the amendment.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

My Lords, I was not talking about the family. I was talking implicitly about children who might be part of a family and who should therefore be treated in the same way as those in a normal family.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, as possibly the only foster parent or carer in this House, I should like to say that fostering is extremely difficult. I am afraid that I cannot support my noble friend on this amendment.

I hate the thought of the word "beating" which sounds very extreme. It is rather like diets: some things are good for you, but not in excess. A child in a foster situation can perhaps push the parent to the point where it expects a reaction. All children do this. Having had seven children of my own and two foster children, I feel that I have some knowledge of the matter. The child wants to see authority. I do not want carte blanche for beating, but it is unfair that a carer or foster parent can be had for assault because he or she slapped a wrist. It is a question of degree. I cannot therefore support the amendment.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, I speak as an ex-teacher and as a mother and grandmother. I have never struck a child in my life; it is really not necessary. If you think about it, it is an admission of your own inability to control. I do not wish to pursue that point, but I should be happy to give counselling to some noble Lords.

Why are we making such heavy weather of this matter? Paragraph (c) of the amendment states quite clearly what corporal punishment is about in this connection. Battery is very clear. Battery takes place when one beats a child to such an extent that it is really suffering. That is rather different from a cuff. Many years ago I can remember my mother saying that one did not cuff a child because it was dangerous to do so and one might do damage to the ear. Her generation had been brought up in a rather different school of thought so I cannot understand why we cannot write this provision into the Act. I should like to see written into Acts of Parliament that parents cannot use corporal punishment against their children. We now see the most appalling examples of torture and cruelty which some parents obviously think is permitted. I fear that the attitude displayed by some Peers suggests that it is permitted.

I do not like the suggestion that we can be compared with animals. There are moments when I think that animals are much more sensitive than we are because they do not attack their own. But there is no doubt that we are uncivilised if we subscribe to any kind of battering of a child or of any other defenceless person.

Lord Seebohm

My Lords, I did not wish to speak again. I just wish to say that to my mind all that we are putting forward is government policy. We are simply extending it to a logical conclusion.

Baroness David

My Lords, my name is on the amendment, but I have been waiting to speak because I expected that someone such as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, would say, "It didn't do me any harm when I was a child". I find that approach slightly offensive, but I do not want to be nasty to the noble Lord whom I very much like.

We have had time and again this argument, "It didn't do me any harm". We have advanced a little since then. I have certainly cuffed my children, but I have always been very ashamed and sorry that I have done so. I do not think that any of my children now cuff their children and I am glad about that. However, as the regulations now state that there should be no corporal punishment in community homes or residential establishments, it is logical to extend that to foster parents or carers. Why should children who are in care there be treated differently from children in care in the home?

I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give a lead; it is important in creating a climate of opinion. We can do that in this House; I hope that the noble and learned Lord will.

3.45 p.m.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, there is one point that has not been made throughout the debate. It is that children in foster homes are vulnerable children. They are not like the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who has had a wonderful life and could tolerate having had a good old whang and battering. Children in foster homes are vulnerable and often have deep emotional feelings of animosity against life. One does not want to add to that. It is therefore right that we do not have corporal punishment in community homes and we should not have corporal punishment for vulnerable children in foster homes.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the regulation-making powers in paragraph 10 of Part II of Schedule 2 will enable us to provide in regulations for a wide range of matters connected with the welfare and upbringing of children placed with foster parents. There are many equally important matters which are, and will continue to be, covered in foster placement regulations which are not specifically named in the regulation-making power. We shall discuss more about the principles of this matter later.

The existing power would enable us to include in regulations such a requirement as my noble friend Lady Elliot has in mind. Before commencement of the Act we shall be reviewing the Boarding Out of Children (Foster Placement) Regulations 1988 and the accompanying handbook of guidance and at that point we shall give careful consideration as to whether further provision should be made on this matter.

In respect of assessing the suitability of people applying to the local authority as foster parents, the handbook at present states: The applicant's views on discipline should be explored, including views on the agency's policy on punishment and discipline and on the inappropriateness generally of corporal punishment for children in care. Discussion may be needed on how the agency's requirements might be reconciled with an applicant's differing views in relation to the upbringing of children of the family.

Paragraph 154 of the handbook states that matters of discipline and punishment can he included in written agreements between the local authority and the foster parent. I see great merit in the present approach which is that punishment and discipline generally—that is the whole range of discipline, not just this particular aspect—are matters that can be covered in written agreements between authorities and foster parents. Some noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment pointed out that in the case where local authorities have pursued this policy, on the whole it has been successful. There is a great deal to be said for this being pursued by agreement.

With reference to what I said in Committee, some noble Lords were inclined to think that I had in mind only long-term fostering when I said that the children were to be brought up as members of the family. However, the most recent regulations that deal with this matter require the child to be brought up—it is the purpose of a fostering placement—as a member of the family for however long or short a time the child may be in that home. There has to be some form of borderline however one works. This amendment is not attempting to apply this philosophy to the ordinary parent and child. It therefore seems right that the philosophy which should be applied—if one is dealing with an agreement that a child should be brought up as a member of the family—should apply equally to the natural member of the family and to the fostered member of the family.

There is a great merit in proceeding by agreement. As has been said, it has been successful and is becoming more extensive. I believe that this approach allows for flexibility and for a positive attitude with proper attention to the most suitable framework of upbringing and discipline for each individual child rather than restriction to a blanket prohibition of one form of punishment. There may be forms of punishment other than corporal punishment which are equally inappropriate for children. There are always dangers in focusing on one. There are forms of emotional punishment which could be at least as damaging, if not more so.

It is a question of a borderline. We have made regulations with regard to institutions for child care which prevent institutional corporal punishment. However, with the home and family, there are borderlines to be observed. This amendment provides for a quite remarkable borderline. It provides for placements before the Act takes effect to be covered by one law and placements after the Act takes effect to be covered by another, even if they are placements in the same family. I believe that this is better done by agreement.

However, I wish to assure noble Lords that we shall very carefully consider in the regulations how this should be handled. The concerns that have been expressed here will certainly be taken into account. But I suggest that it may not be wise at this stage, having regard to the principle which has been described—that of bringing up a child as a member of the family, which is what the regulations presently require—as the essence of the relationship. So long as that is the law and so long as the law permits the parent to administer corporal punishment to his or her child it seems to be a contradiction to outlaw this except by agreement. Agreement has certainly proved a very effective way of dealing with the matter so far.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, for the guidance of the House will he explain what he means by favouring an agreement entered into between the local authority and the foster parent? Is he envisaging that some local authorities which some of us would describe as progressive would insist on an agreement of that kind whereas a neighbouring authority which did not insist on the agreement would have a situation where a foster parent was permitted to administer corporal punishment? Would that not be the most terrible injustice between various areas in the country?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I said that some kind of borderline is required. It is possible to say that it is a terrible injustice to make one rule for existing placements and a new rule for new placements. One has to have some form of borderline in this business.

I believe that good practice will produce results. One local authority may well think differently from another. However, it does not appear to me that that constitutes an injustice. After all, a local authority is an elected authority representing the people in its area and is no doubt sensitive to the wishes and atmosphere in the area. It is perhaps demonstrated by what has been said: that this method has been found to be very satisfactory. Where the local authorities have introduced this matter by degrees and by agreement they have been able to do so without any adverse consequences to the supply of appropriate foster parents.

Baroness Elliot of Harwood

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply and to thank those who have spoken in this debate. I still feel that these are anomalies that require thought. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, pointed out that in schools and in community centres which are managed by local authorities one cannot beat a child. Why should a local authority which chooses to put a child in a foster home allow that child to be beaten? If it puts him in the community centre he will not be beaten. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that he will reconsider the matter. There are many anomalies. The situation is not clear. I shall not press the amendment to a Division, though I should have liked to do so.

Noble Lords

No, no!

Baroness Elliot of Harwood

I shall not do so because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that he will think about it again. However, I do not think that it is known how many anomalies there are. Do noble Lords want to divide?

Noble Lords

Yes!

Baroness Elliot of Harwood

My Lords, I feel very strongly about this matter. This is the third time that I have tried to make provision for not allowing punishment through local authorities, schools, and so on, in this Bill. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not prepared to accept the amendment, perhaps we should divide.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I may not have made my position as clear as I ought. I said that the matter would be considered in relation to the making of regulations. That is what I said, and I wish to make it quite plain. I was not offering to reconsider the terms of the Bill in order to consider accepting this amendment. I said that it would be considered in relation to the making of regulations. The noble Baroness may therefore feel that she has no undertaking from me to reconsider the terms of the Bill on this aspect.

Baroness Elliot of Harwood

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that. I feel very strongly about this matter. I do not know who is advising these people, but it is facts that one wants to consider. Facts condemn this completely. I hope that if the noble and learned Lord reconsiders the matter he will ensure that it is put on the table. I shall not put the amendment to a vote now.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?

Noble Lords

No!

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content".

Noble Lords

Content.

The Lord Chancellor

To the contrary, "Not-Content".

Noble Lords

Not Content.

3.59 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 47) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109, Not-Contents, 128.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Listowel, E.
Airedale, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Annan, L.	Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Ardwick, L.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Aylestone, L.	Lockwood, B.
Banks, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Birk, B.	McCarthy, L.
Bonham-Carter, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Mackie of Benshie. L.
Bottomley, L.	McNair, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Mais, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Manchester, Bp.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Campbell of Eskan, L.	Mayhew, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Meston, L.
Carter, L.	Milverton, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Mishcon, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Molloy, L.
David, B.	Moyne, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L.	Mulley, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Nicol, B.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Northfield, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Ogmore, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Oram, L.
Ezra, L.	Peston, L.
Faithfull, B.	Phillips, B.
Falkland, V.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Fitt, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Foot, L.	Rathcreedan, L.
Gallacher, L.	Reilly, L.
Galpern, L.	Rochester, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Rugby, L.
Glenamara, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Seear, B.
Grey, E.	Seebohm, L. [Teller.]
Grimond, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Hampton, L.	Serota, B.
Harmsworth, L.	Shepherd, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Stallard, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]	Stedman, B.
	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Hirshfield, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hughes, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Hunt, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Jay, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Jeger, B.	Turner of Camden, B.
John-Mackie, L.	Underhill, L.
Kennet, L.	Vernon, L.
Kilbracken, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Kilmarnock, L.	Whaddon, L.
Kirkhill, L.	White, B.
Kirkwood, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Leatherland, L.	Winstanley, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Airey of Abingdon, B.	Bauer, L.
Aldington, L.	Beaverbrook, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Beloff, L.
Allerton, L.	Belstead, L.
Arran, E.	Bessborough, E.

Bethell, L.	Joseph, L.
Blake, L.	Keyes, L.
Blatch, B.	Killearn, L.
Blyth, L.	Lauderdale, E.
Bolton, L.	Long, V. [Teller.]
Borthwick, L.	Luke, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	McFadzean, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Brightman, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Margadale, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L.	Merrivale, L.
Butterworth, L.	Mersey, V.
Caccia, L.	Middleton, L.
Caithness, E.	Monson, L.
Caldecote, V.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Mottistone, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Cayzer, L.	Munster, E.
Chelmer, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Chelwood, L.	Nelson, E.
Clinton, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Cockfield, L.	Orkney, E.
Colnbrook, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Cox, B.	Pender, L.
Crawshaw, L.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Platt of Writtle, B.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Davidson, V.
De Freyne, L.	Porritt, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Portland, D.
Derwent, L.	Pym, L.
Dundee, E.	Quinton, L.
Effingham, E.	Reay, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Redesdale, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Renwick, L.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L.	Rodney, L.
Ferrers, E.	Ryder of Warsaw, B.
Fortescue, E.	St. Davids, V.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Gainford, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Glenarthur, L.	Shaughnessy, L.
Gridley, L.	Shrewsbury, E.
Grimthorpe, L.	Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Haddington, E.	Skelmersdale, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Strange, B.
	Strathclyde, L.
Harlech, L.	Sudeley, L.
Harvington, L.	Swansea, L.
Havers, L.	Terrington, L.
Hayter, L.	Teviot, L.
Henley, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Hesketh, L.	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Hives, L.	Trafford, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Hunter of Newington, L.	Trumpington, B.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Ilchester, E.	Whitelaw, V.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.8 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, before I call the next amendment, I must point out that if Amendment No. 48 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 49 or 50.

[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 49: Page 15, line 33, leave out ("not") and insert ("only").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment attempts to deal with the matter which was raised in Committee and is the subject also of Amendment No. 48. At Committee stage there was concern that Clause 19(4) was expressed negatively instead of positively. We considered then how it might be done. I have now taken the draftsman's help and Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are the result. I beg to move.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, I do not understand why and am sorry that Amendment No. 48 has not been moved because from the purely grammatical point of view it would have been better than Amendments Nos. 49 and 50, as the word "only" should always govern the word or phrase which appears immediately after it. But if it has been withdrawn, this is certainly an improvement.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, surely it is Amendment No. 45 which replaces Amendment No. 48 and that has already been agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, Amendment No. 49 addresses the problem that Clause 19(4) was expressed negatively. What was wanted in Committee was that it should be addressed in the opposite sense. The word "only", which occurred to some of us when discussing the matter at Committee stage, has been used by the draftsmen in order to turn a negative into a positive. That is what was required and I believe that it is grammatical.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 50: Page 15, line 37, leave out ("except").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with the same point. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 51: Page 15, line 39, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 41 and insert ("subject to the provisions of this Part and so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with his welfare, secure that—

1. (a) any accommodation is near his home; and
2. (b) where the authority are also providing accommodation for a sibling of his, they are accommodated together.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would insert a new provision into Clause 19(5) to the effect that where a local authority provides accommodation for children who are siblings whom they are looking after it shall, subject to the provisions of Part III, secure that they are, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with their welfare, accommodated together.

The amendment is also intended to deal with a matter which was raised in Committee by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and which was supported by a number of your Lordships.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 20 [Advice and assistance for certain children]:

Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment: No. 52: Page 16, line 22, after ("case,") insert ("assist").

4.15 p.m.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55. On 17th January the noble Baroness, Lady David, most ably moved an amendment concerning the position of young people aged 18 to 21 who had been in the care of local authorities and who, as the law now stands, are discharged from care. She asked that such young people should be advised, assisted and befriended in the manner of a good parent. That amendment appears at col. 135 of Hansard for 17th January 1989.

While supporting her amendment in principle I voted against it because I could not agree with the phrase "in the manner of a good parent". In our mixed ethnic society the concept of a good parent differs among the various groups.

On 31st January 1989, 36 young people who had been in care came to Westminster from different parts of the country in order to meet a number of your Lordships and put forward their points of view. I wish that the Secretaries of State for Social Security and Employment, the Minister for Housing and in particular my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor could have been present to hear what the young people said about their experiences of leaving care and being cast upon the world with no background, no home and few relatives, if any.

I should like to repeat the point which was made by the noble and learned Lord when he spoke against Amendment No. 101 on 17th January. At col. 141 of Hansard he said: we are not here to deal with social security legislation in its general provision". As it now stands, social security legislation is inadequate to enable people with no family background to live on their own while having a low paid job, attending YTS or in further education.

Last week the Secretary of State for Social Security generously received a deputation from voluntary child care organisations in respect of the matter. We await his decision. Does the noble and learned Lord feel able to make representations on the matter to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security? Will he consider putting forward a recommendation that young people who have no resources should be able to apply to the social fund without having to repay the money (taking into account Amendment No. 20 which was accepted in your Lordships' House yesterday)?

As far as possible and practicable young people should be helped by social security. They should be befriended in such a way that their social worker helps them to know how to apply for social security should it be necessary. Secondly, the noble and learned Lord dealt with the phrase "in the manner of a good parent", which appears at col. 141 of Hansard for 17th January. While in law I agree with the noble and learned Lord, it must be recognised that young people who have been in care and are discharged at the age of 18 have no family behind them and no resources on which they can call. Emotionally they bear the burden of the experience of abuse, cruelty, neglect and a broken family.

Existing legislation provides for young people leaving care to be advised and befriended on request. It empowers local authorities to offer practical assistance. Some local authorities offer excellent support to young people leaving care. However, it must be admitted, as those young people made very clear, that other local authorities abandon young people partly on the ground of lack of resources and partly on the ground that there is an inadequate number of social workers to continue to befriend them.

We believe that the amendments to which I am speaking will clarify and strengthen Clause 20. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said in Committee, we are grateful to the Government for taking the step of including Clause 20 in the Bill. However, despite the encouraging speech made by the noble and learned Lord at the last stage, we believe that Clause 20 needs strengthening.

In Amendment No. 52 we propose that the word "assist" be inserted. I am sure that the Treasury is against that but such a provision does not need to be expensive, nor take up a great deal of resources if the Social Security Act is altered, and the social fund used in the way I have suggested.

A proportion of young homeless people in this country are those who have been in care. They are vulnerable. A proportion—and I say "only a proportion"— take to drugs and prostitution. I pay tribute to those people who manage against fearful odds to keep afloat. For the word "assistance" to be written into the Bill will not draw heavily on resources. At the same time, it will be possible for local authorities to help in extraordinary circumstances.

I have already described to noble Lords some situations which I have experienced. For example, I supplied a boy with a guitar and he is now one of the outstanding pop group guitarists in France. The instrument could not have been supplied in a way other than by "assistance". Put at its lowest level, it is not cost-effective for the community not to help young people when they can receive help only in such a way. I underline the fact. I believe that we should enable young people to be helped by the various other services, but there must be a fall-back position. There must be a way in which they can be helped in extraordinary circumstances. If that provision is not written into the Bill we shall be unable to help young people in that way.

In this speech, as reported in Hansard, the noble and learned Lord said that local authorities should help young people on leaving care. The Bill takes the age up to 21 years. Who among us was cast off by our families before or after the age of 21? We had families to fall back on. Many foster parents and children's homes help children, but if they do not have terms of reference under the Bill for help to be given, there is no way in which they can help those children. I beg to move.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. Those Members of your Lordships' House who last week in Committee Room 3 met 30 or 40 young people who had left care were immensely moved by the experience which they related to us. I for one see their problems, their disadvantages and their travails in a much clearer way. I now understand why they are described as probably the most vulnerable section of that vulnerable age group.

They face severe disadvantages. On leaving care and through no fault of their own they cannot live with a family. Somehow they have to seek to live independently. Yet I believe that they are hopelessly inequipped to set up home independently. Many have to find lodgings or apartments for themselves, and if they find unfurnished apartments, they cannot turn to their parents for help to buy furniture, bedclothing, crockery and cutlery. Their income is too low to enable them to buy those necessities. The social fund office requires any payments made for those essential purposes to be made by way of loan. Plainly those young people face severe difficulties. They do not share in the prosperity and wealth of our country and some feel alienated from society.

However, there is one authority which stands in loco parentis to those young people—the local authority. The care leaver should be able to turn to the local authority for assistance on and after leaving care. It seems to me that the noble Baroness has made out her case for these amendments which in combination will ensure that local authorities can respond with assistance in the circumstances described.

Lady Kinloss

My Lords, as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have already mentioned, last week we were able to meet some young people who had left care. They were concerned that when a young person leaves care he or she generally faces quite different problems from those who have lived at home with their families.

One point made by the young who have left care is that they mostly have no family to whom to turn for help if they are in difficulties. They cannot go home for help and assistance. That assistance need not be financial but merely somewhere to stay and someone to whom they can talk as they find loneliness one of their problems.

For example, one young man's education was totally disrupted by being in care as he was frequently moved from school to school. On leaving care he asked his local authority for money to help him return to education, which it refused, as it had every right to do. However, being articulate he persuaded the authority to help him to study further and he is now at a college of further education. However, that case is unusual because it worked out well in the end. Many young people are not so lucky and that case demonstrates what assistance can do.

Lord Banks

My Lords, I should like to support this amendment and the amendments associated with it so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I understand the distinction made more than once by the noble and learned Lord in the course of our discussions on this aspect of the Bill: regular income should come from social security and exceptional and essential needs should be met by the social services department where they cannot be met by social security. That is an excellent principle in the abstract. However, I believe that we have tried to convey to the Government the peculiar situation in which young people under 25 find themselves today, largely as a result of the recent changes in social secutity and the consequent reduction in benefits for that age group.

The Government's policy is to encourage young people particularly 16 and 17 year-olds, riot to leave home. That is understandable but all the evidence shows that youngsters who try to live on their own are in acute difficulty. We have heard about the youngsters who came to the House last week. I was unable to be present but a colleague of mine attended and said that he was appalled by some of the difficulties which they faced. Yet we know that the great majority of those leaving care have to live on their own. They have no alternative and are among the most vulnerable of that age group. We should like to make certain that they will receive assistance and will know that they can receive assistance from the social services department of the local authority if they cannot make ends meet and cannot be expected to make ends meet on the benefits which they receive. Youngsters of 16 and 17 are encouraged to stay with their parents. The local authorities were in the position of parents to those leaving care. Therefore, there is an imperative need for them to cominue to act as good parents towards the young people after they leave care.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I should also like to support this amendment. Unfortunately I was not able to meet the young people who came to the House last week. However, I know that the difficulties of many young people who have been brought up in local authority homes are compounded when they leave by the fact that very often they have had no training in housekeeping and budgeting skills.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, I was one of those fortunate enough to meet those young people. Like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I was both touched and moved by what they said about their experiences when leaving care. It is incredible that they said most eloquently and vociferously that they were pushed out of care when they were not ready to be on their own. They were not consulted. A number of them said that they would have liked an opportunity to decide for themselves when they were ready to leave care. That is a very important point which has been running through the considerations of this Bill. Some of us have pressed that the child's point of view when leaving care should be taken into account and should have very high, if not paramount, importance.

Children from poor backgrounds are especially vulnerable because that has often meant that they have been in care. The youngsters found all the difficulties which have been enumerated as to lodgings, furniture and managing on a low income which was not enough to live on after paying for all necessities. That happened after they had been to the social fund and exhausted the resources of the social services. However, it is fair to say that some local officers dealing with social services do not really appreciate the discretion that they have and therefore they do not always give to these young people what might be given to them by way of discretion if not of entitlement.

I should like to say to the noble and learned Lord that it is rather difficult for us to deal with this Bill when the social services Bill is not before us. I am not averse to belt and braces. I should like to see that there are provisions in the social services available for these people as well as provisions in the Children Bill. Of course I recognise there might be some danger in this because some young people might play off the social services against the local authorities; but I believe that danger should be faced and it should be possible to arrange perfectly properly for liaison between the local authorities and the social services.

I should like to put a point especially related to the excellent Part I of Schedule 2, which we discussed in another context last night. Paragraph 6 is headed: Provisions to reduce need for care proceedings etc. It says: Every local authority shall take steps designed … (b) to encourage children within their area not to commit criminal offences". I think there should be a further subparagraph in paragraph 6 which would deal with provisions to assist children after leaving care. A number of suggestions have been made this afternoon and I would include in that subparagraph (b) additional words, so that it would read: (b) to encourage children after leaving care within their area not to commit criminal offences". I think children in that position are particularly vulnerable because they are not able to go home if there is no home and they are not able to set up home with loans from the social services without finding that their funds are not sufficient to gain them the ordinary daily necessities such as food, lodging rates and so on. That is honestly an encouragement for them to find money elsewhere, which is encouraging them to commit a criminal offence. I believe that is quite wrong. If we are to tackle the business of criminal proceedings which these children get involved in and which may put them into prisons that are already overcrowded, we must have regard to the plight of these children leaving care who do not have enough to live on and who will be sorely tempted—and who would not be, in that position?—to find a little on the side.

Of course I would not condone any kind of criminal activity but there is a sore temptation for children in this position to resort to crime. I believe there should be an obligation in the Bill that in such circumstances children should not be put to that sore temptation. I support this amendment but should like to see a new paragraph in Part I of Schedule 2 relating to the provision to assist children after leaving care.

4.30 p.m.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

My Lords, I wonder whether I might add one or two words. The word "assist" is in the first three lines of Clause 20 and there is a provision for the local authorities to assist both when the children are in their care and when they have left it. However, I should like to underline the fact that these amendments, in addition to the first three lines, are important also for the reasons that other speakers have given and especially perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I think he has realised, as we all have, that this age group can turn so very easily not only to crime but to crime leading on to drugs and other non-social attitudes to life.

It is incumbent on governments to see to it that these young people who have never known a proper home and who have never done anything for themselves—and I have met very many of them—are looked after. Even if they do not need money they should be helped and guided in their future life. This is part of our society which perhaps we, as slightly older people, may not realise is so important in these days. I should like to support anything that will make their future lives more tolerable.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, it probably is not necessary for me to add to the speeches that have already been made, all supporting these amendments so splendidly. I should just like to follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. I think I am right in saying that if somebody leaves youth custody or prison they are helped when they immediately leave. To me if often seems ironic that people who have committed offences actually get treated far better in society than those who have never done anything other than being left, as these young people have been left, in the position of having to be in care. They are very vulnerable. The necessity to live may make them turn to crime, and this is a very important point to consider.

Baroness David

My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment and it has been spoken to so ably from all sides of the House that I do not think I need add much. However, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, very much for having organised a meeting with these young people last week: it was a great feat of organisation. They were shown round the House, they were brought into the Chamber and so on. We admire the noble Baroness very much for having done that and it was a great help to us. Before meeting those young people I had thought that perhaps the trouble was mostly financial and they were short of money. However, it clearly was not just that: they needed support from somebody in addition.

I am not quite sure whether Amendment No. 57 was moved at the same time. It says: The local authority shall take steps to ensure that children and young people are aware of the assistance which may be given to them". That is very important, I believe, having listened to them last week, and I feel that the young people we saw were on the whole the luckier ones. They had been picked up by various agencies and they were a pretty bright lot. They had been picked up by Barnado's and so on, and one can imagine there are a great many young people who have not been so picked up. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to accept this series of amendments.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, perhaps I should mention first, in relation to the last point, that Amendment No. 67 standing in my name has the effect of adding to paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 the provision of services under Clause 20.

During the Committee stage we had a very full debate on the provision by local authorities of assistance in cash to young people towards whom they will have aftercare responsibilities under the Bill. Although the Committee did not feel able to accept the relevant amendment on that occasion, I have been considering all the points which were made during that debate and which have been elaborated on today after some of your Lordships had the privilege of meeting some of the young people concerned.

It is important to see what is in Clause 20 at the moment and not to overlook the fact that there is a duty put upon the local authority to provide assistance for the child leaving care: that is at the beginning of the period in question. That is very plainly provided in Clause 20(1). That is the critical time, although difficulties may arise later.

The Government will bring forward amendments at a later stage to provide a power for local authorities to assist young people in connection with education and training, and to assist those seeking employment. On the wider issue as to whether local authorities should be under a duty, or have a power, to assist young people, I am bound to say that we remain of the view that the balance of responsibilities placed on local authorities in Clause 20 for young people who have left care, is about right.

I should like to mention a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. He said that we have not got the Social Security Bill here at the moment and that there is no harm in belts and braces. I believe that when one is dealing with the Social Security Bill one ought to be considering the social security provisions. They apply to everyone who qualifies under the Social Security Bill. We are here dealing with children who are coming out of care. It must be right that proper consideration of social security matters should be in the Social Security Bill. A proper consideration of matters which may particularly affect those coming out of care, and only those, should be in the Children Bill.

With the greatest possible respect, it must be nonsense to put social security measures into the Children Bill and restrict them to particular classes of children, while giving other people who are equally entitled to social security some less good treatment. Therefore the two subjects are distinct and ought to be kept so. I have no doubt that it was for that reason that my noble friend Baroness Faithfull raised these matters with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. That is the obvious place to go if a social security matter is in issue. I shall certainly undertake to communicate to my right honourable friend the concerns that have been expressed in this debate about the damage that is done if children coming out of care find themselves without the necessities which they require.

I totally share the feeling of the House that young people leaving care, particularly those who are unable to return to their natural family—or who have no family to return to—may need support from the local authority, at least initially. It depends how well they get on as to how much they need, but the initial matter is quite plainly provided for in Clause 20 subsection (1).

Clause 20 is a blanket provision. It applies to all children leaving care in the circumstances described in subsection (2). Some of these young people will be returning to their own families, and in circumstances where those families are fully able to support them. Some will remain with their foster parents, or in other forms of supported accommodation, while others will choose to live, or have to live, independently. I should also like to remind your Lordships that the responsibilities placed on local authorities under Clause 20 cover the period from the child's 16th birthday (if he left care at that age) up to the time he attains the age of 21. In other words, these responsibilities could last for a maximum period of five years, and cover the period from youth to adulthood. During this period the young person could reasonably be expected to attain an increasing degree of self-reliance, both emotionally and financially. The essential point I am making is that the provisions of Clause 20 are designed to cover a wide variety of individual circumstances, and over a relatively long time-span. That is why we believe it is best to give the local authority discretion to decide the circumstances in which assistance might be appropriately offered, rather than impose a duty on them to do so.

In addition to the introduction of a duty to assist a young person who has left care, the amendments propose that the "exceptional circumstances" qualification (Amendment No. 55) should also he removed. Surely, in the light of what I have just said, it would be wholly unreasonable to impose a duty on local authorities, without any qualification whatever, to assist not only young people leaving care when they have just turned 16 but effectively adults up to the age of 21.

I should like to mention a more technical point. The underlying intention of the amendments is to impose a duty on the local authority to assist the young person who has left care, subject to certain conditions. But what does this duty consist of? It is not qualified in any way. It does not say in what circumstances or to what extent the local authority has a duty to assist the young person.

As the amendments stand, therefore, the local authority could, if it wished, say that it had complied with its duty by giving the child a nominal amount. I am sure that that is not what noble Lords intended but that is what has happened. I have looked long and hard at these amendments to see if there is some way in which we could sensibly redraft them to overcome the problems of defining the application and scope of the assistance which local authorities would be under a duty to offer. So far I have been unable to find a suitable formula.

If there is to be an enforceable duty, which is what is essentially proposed, one must have some degree of definition of the scope of that duty so that it can be properly enforced.

I recognise that my inability to accept these amendments will come as a great disappointment to a number of your Lordships. While I understand and appreciate the very good intentions underlying them, I believe that the balance which is struck in the present provisions of Clause 20, between the respective powers and duties of local authorities to support young people who have left their care, from 16 through to the age of 21, is about right. In addition, as I have already mentioned, the Government will be bringing forward their own amendments at a later stage to strengthen further the responsibilities of local authorities to support those young people who have left care and are seeking, or undergoing, education and training.

I am grateful that the meeting with young people was arranged and that your Lordships heard directly about these matters. I believe that Clause 20 directly addresses these matters in a new way which, in its practical application, will turn out to be satisfactory. However, it cannot in any sense be said to be a social security amendment. This is a matter that deals with children in care and the consequences for those who leave care during this period up until they are 21.

I hope that, in the light of what I have said, and of my assurance that I shall bring the matters that have been raised here to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendments.

4.45 p.m.

Baroness David

My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether as there is a Social Security Bill going through the other place at the moment, and as a lot of the ills that we are trying to rectify come from the last Social Security Act, there is any plan to amend that Act in the present Social Security Bill? That would go some way towards improving the situation at least financially.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, from our viewpoint every Bill is intended to improve the situation. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to enter into the detail of the social security position. I have already said to your Lordships in Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has undertaken closely to monitor the changes made on the last occasion, particularly in relation to young people. I think that it is right to concentrate in the Children Bill on the special situation of children in care. When your Lordships have an opportunity, as you undoubtedly will, to consider the Social Security Bill, you will be able to apply your minds to that aspect of the matter.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord one question, because we are all concerned about the fact that these children, after leaving care, will fall between the Children Bill and the Social Security Bill. If, by chance, and as we hope, the social security legislation is amended to help these young people, it might appear that the local authority's duties would be consequentially diminished because of the condition in Clause 20(4)(a). I do not expect the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to answer that now, but I wonder whether he will look at the interaction of the amendments on the two Bills that are going through Parliament in order to watch that point.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the point as regards general levels is a matter for the Social Security Bill. This Bill addresses the special problems arising from coming out of care. That is the aspect that we should be considering now. It is in relation to that matter that these amendments have to be considered.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for trying to help us. There are still some matters on which I need further help. First, the noble and learned Lord has spoken about coming out of care. I presume that he means up to the age of 21 and not just the time when young people leave care at the moment, which is at the age of 18.

Secondly, one has to think of the Social Security Bill and the Children Bill. Under the Children Bill the local authority will have a duty to befriend. The noble and learned Lord explained at the last stage of the Bill exactly what befriending meant. If a local authority is befriending a child and that child needs some kind of financial help, that cannot be obtained under the Social Security Bill. All that these amendments are asking is that in the process of befriending the local authority will be able in a few circumstances—it would not amount to very much—to help the child. For instance, suppose in befriending the local authority finds for a child a job that the child particularly wants. However, the job is a long way from the child's home. The child asks, "Can I have a bicycle in order not to have to pay heavy fares?"

I suggest that social security will never supply a bicycle for a child. That means that a child or young person at the age of 18 of 19 has to spend a good deal of money on fares. Though the social worker is supposed to be befriending him, the social worker cannot help. That is only one instance. Perhaps I may give a second instance. If one befriends a child and helps to find him just one bare room—he certainly would be unable to afford more than one room—and the child says, "I have not got a bed, bedclothes or a chest of drawers," one says "You must go to a jumble sale or to Oxfam and buy those articles".

If the child is on very low pay he cannot go to the jumble sale to buy those items. As the Social Security Bill stands at the moment, the child cannot be helped by the social fund. If the child is helped by the social fund by chance then he has to repay. If the child is on very low pay he cannot repay and therefore he is getting into debt. These amendments are not asking for great resources; they are only asking for fall-backs where it is not possible for the social security to help under the Social Security Act.

It is distressing if a duty is laid on one to befriend a child and in the befriending of that child one sees items that that child needs which are very minimal (they would only be minimal) but one cannot help. In those circumstances what kind of befriending is that? Because this situation cannot involve very much as regards resources, but only a minimal amount, I cannot understand why that cannot be written into the Bill. Perhaps we can redraft these amendments in a way that shows that only in circumstances that would not allow social security help would the befriender be able to help the child. Can the noble and learned Lord help me?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I shall certainly try to do so. When I spoke about children coming out of care I was seeking to use a fairly compendious phrase to describe those who are dealt with at the beginning of Clause 20; that is, those who when they attain the age will be leaving care. Clause 20(1) deals with that and it imposes a duty to assist. It is not specific at that stage because it is the assistance that would be necessary in coming out of care. I am referring to people who have been in care or otherwise as described in Clause 20 when I speak about children coming out of care. The age rises, as my noble friend said, to 21.

Perhaps I may turn to the examples. As my noble friend has explained, there is a duty to befriend. I believe what we have done matches almost exactly the situation that she described. We have given a power to assist. For example, if the social worker felt that the child was going to a job that was very suitable for him, but at some distance, there is power to assist. The clause makes clear that assistance can be given in kind or in cash. Cash may be given in exceptional circumstances. My noble friend has made clear that the kind of assistance about which she speaks would be exceptional and very much a one-off special situation. That is exactly what we have in mind. We have tried to express it as exactly as this kind of language allows.

In the Bill at present there is power for the social worker to buy the child or young person a bicycle if the social worker believes that that is an assistance that it is proper to give in the situation. There is no obligation to give particular assistance. My noble friend will be the first to appreciate that it is difficult to lay down a rule that one has to give assistance in every situation, because there is a good deal of judgment involved. Someone may wish to have a bicycle because he wants a new one, and the job may be just around the corner. He may prefer a bike because at least going to work is downhill. I believe that we have provided to match almost exactly the concerns of my noble friend.

As regards the room, if the young person requires some furniture, again there is power to assist if the social worker believes it appropriate as part of the power to assist which is given in the Bill to the local authority. The real point between us is this. It is very difficult to turn that kind of appropriate, judicious and discretionary help on particular occasions for particular purposes into a general statutory duty to assist. I believe that we have expressed it in a way that matches very closely the two examples that my noble friend has given. I hope that what I have said helps her at least a little.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The horizon looks slightly brighter than it did before he spoke. I am worried because even now under the Children Bill local authorities are able to befriend and assist, but they do not. Some do and some do not. Therefore, if it is not put more strongly in the Bill many local authorities can say "That child cannot have a bicycle". A number of local authorities do say that. A number of them do not even supply a social worker. If we were to withdraw the amendment, could we in some way quantify what the local authority should do? At the moment it is open ended.

5 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, with the leave of the House, this is a difficult question. Somebody must have responsibility for deciding these matters. We felt that they are matters appropriately left to the local authority, which is the elected body in the locality. I am sure that most areas will have people—perhaps not as eloquent as my noble friend—who are able to draw attention to these problems. If the problems are not attended to by the local authority it may be the case that electors in the local authority area will suffer. That is perhaps not the best argument for using these powers properly, but it is nevertheless an argument.

If one gives power in this matter to local authorities it is difficult to see how one can tie up with tremendous detail precisely how that power is exercised. The House will have heard suggestions that I belong to a centralist government. One cannot have it every way. We feel that this authority is best dealt with at local authority level, giving the local authority a power which carries with it a responsibility.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, if I may, and if those who have spoken agree, I should like to see the Secretary of State for Social Security to ask whether he can do something through the social fund. If he can I do not say that we shall be home and dry, but at any rate there will be a fall-back position. I should like very much to ponder and read what my noble and learned friend has said, and at this stage to withdraw the amendment; but with the thought of bringing it back at the next stage.

Baroness David

My Lords, my name is also attached to the amendment and I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Baroness. We have agencies to deal with young people. We had those young people here the other day. They will be disappointed if this House does not take, or at any rate try to take, some action. The words of the noble and learned Lord today were very much the same as they were last time. He said to me yesterday, "Why shouldn't I give the same answer if it is a good answer?" If all the agencies believe that the position is disastrous at the moment we should try to change things. These are modest amendments, as the noble Baroness said. I should like to press the amendment even if she does not.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, it is for my noble friend to decide what she wishes to do. I shall then put the matter to the House.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I am waiting for my noble and learned friend to put the matter to the House.

5.3 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 52) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 128.

DIVISION NO. 2
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Leatherland, L.
Airedale, L.	Listowel, E.
Ardwick, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Aylestone, L.	Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Banks, L.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Lockwood, B.
Birk, B.	Longford, E.
Blackstone, B.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Bonham-Carter, L.	McCarthy, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.	McNair, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Mais, L.
Carter, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Mayhew, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Meston, L.
David, B. [Teller.]	Milner of Leeds, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L.	Mulley, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Nicol, B.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Northfield, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Ogmore, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	O'Neill of the Maine, L.
Ezra, L.	Oram, L.
Faithfull, B.	Peston, L.
Falkland, V.	Phillips, B.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Foot, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Galpern, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Gifford, L.	Rathcreedan, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Glenamara, L.	Rochester, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Grey, E.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Hampton, L.	Seear, B.
Hanworth, V.	Seebohm, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L.	Serota, B.
Hirshfield. L.	Shackleton, L.
Hooson, L.	Shannon, E.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Shaughnessy, L.
Hughes, L.	Shepherd, L.
Hunt, L.	Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Stallard, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Jay, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Jeger, B.	Strabolgi, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
John-Mackie, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Kennet, L.	Underhill, L.
Kilbracken, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Kinloss, Ly. [Teller.]	White, B.
Kirkhill, L.	Williams or Elvel, L.
Kirkwood, L.	Winstanley, L.
Lawrence, L.	Winterbottom, L.
NON-CONTENTS
Aldington, L.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Beloff, L.
Allerton, L.	Belstead, L.
Alport, L.	Blake, L.
Ampthill, L.	Blatch, B.
Arran, E.	Bolton, L.
Astor, V.	Borthwick, L.
Atholl, D.	Boyd-Carpenter, L.
Auckland, L.	Brabazon of Tara, L.
Bauer, L.	Brightman, L.
Beaverbrook, L.	Brougham and Vaux, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.	Margadale, L.
Butterworth, L.	Marley, L.
Caithness, E.	Marshall of Leeds, L.
Caldecote, V.	Merrivale, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Mersey, V.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Middleton, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Milverton, L.
Carnock, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Chelmer, L.	Morris, L.
Chelwood, L.	Mottistone, L.
Clinton, L.	Munster, E.
Cockfield, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Colnbrook, L.	Nelson, E.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Norrie, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Orkney, E.
Cross, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Pender, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Pennock, L.
De Freyne, L.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
De L'Isle, V.	Platt of Writtle, B.
Denham, L.	Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Derwent, L.
Dundee, E.	Porritt, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Portland, D.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L.	Pym, L.
Ferrers, E.	Quinton, L.
Forbes, L.	Reay, L.
Fortescue, E.	Renwick, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Rodney, L.
Glenarthur, L.	Rugby, L.
Grimthorpe, L.	St. Davids, V.
Haddington, E.	St. John of Fawsley, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
	Sempill, Ly.
Harlech, L.	Shrewsbury, E.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Harrowby, E.	Strange, B.
Havers, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Henley, L.	Sudeley, L.
Hesketh, L.	Swansea, L.
Hives, L.	Swinfen, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L.	Teviot, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Teynham, L.
Joseph, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Long, V. [Teller.]	Trafford, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Trefgame, L.
Luke, L.	Trumpington, B.
McAlpine of Moffat, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
McFadzean, L.	Whitelaw, V.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.	Wise, L.
Macleod of Borve, B.	Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.12 p.m.

[Amendments Nos. 53 to 55 not moved.]

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 55A: Page 16, line 34, at end insert— ("( ) Assistance given under this section to a person who, when he reaches the age of 21 is undertaking a course of educational training which extends beyond that date, may be given until the end of the course.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in a way this is consequential to the amendments which we have been discussing, but it addresses a particular problem. There are some young people who have left care and who have had some assistance up to the age of 21. They have started on a course of education which perhaps lasts for two or three years. They may not have finished that course when they reach the age of 21 and therefore they need a little extra assistance so that they can finish their course. That assistance may only be required for a few months, but it may be very necessary. I hope therefore that the noble and learned Lord will at least look kindly at this small amendment which will certainly not be costly because it will not affect all that many people. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, when I was seeking to answer the groups of amendments with which we have just been dealing, I said that we hoped to bring forward future amendments to make specific provision for local authorities to assist young people in connection with their education and training.

Section 27 of the Child Care Act 1980 contains a provision allowing local authorities, where they are making contributions in respect of a person receiving education and training at the age of 21, to continue making contributions until the course is completed. At present, I see no reason why that should not be reflected in the amendments to be brought forward. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will feel able to await such amendments.

Baroness David

My Lords, with that reassurance I must say that I am very happy about the matter. Of course I shall study carefully the amendments when they are brought forward, but I am nevertheless reassured. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 56: Page 16, line 35, leave out ("and (8)") and insert ("(8) and (8A)").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I spoke to Amendment No. 20. Accordingly, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 57: Page 17, line 4, at end insert— ("(10) The local authority shall take steps to ensure that children and young people are aware of the assistance which may be given to them by the local authority under the terms of this section.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a small but very important amendment. It provides that young people should be informed of the services which the local authority has to offer when they leave care. I think that I may have made a mistake because I believe that they ought to be told more than just what the local authority has to offer; I think that they should specifically be told what the housing department has to offer and how they can put their names on the housing list. It is important that they should know what the social services department has to offer and indeed who is their social worker. However, I know that the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, will speak on other matters.

As I said, I think that perhaps the wording ought to have been a little wider so that young people should know, for instance, what the Citizens' Advice Bureau is, what the medical services are, what social security is and how they should, for example, open a bank account. I say that because a young man aged 24 came to see me saying that he had won the football pools but that I had never taught him how to open a bank account. Therefore, perhaps the amendment ought to have been wider but, in any case, I should like to move it so as to ensure that young people are informed of what is available to them within the local authority. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment in principle. It seems to me that there is a little loophole in the Bill in this respect. I think that it is a provision which could be extremely helpful.

In the Isle of Wight we have a great difficulty with people in their early twenties and late teens who are outside the net of official care of one kind or another. We have an organisation called The Isle of Wight Youth Trust which we are trying to develop in order to deal with such people who may be in their mid-twenties. Therefore the principle contained in the amendment is something which needs very careful thought. Even if my noble and learned friend cannot respond positively at this moment, he may like to give the matter some thought for the future.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, in Committee a similar amendment was moved to which the noble and learned Lord was sympathetic. Indeed, he promised to look further into the matter. It appears to me that possibly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is responding by way of Amendment No. 67 which is tabled in his name and which we shall discuss later.

I should like to make the point that we are being told by the voluntary bodies that many young people leave care without any idea of what services are available to them or, indeed, of their entitlement under the various laws and regulations. That fact was confirmed by some of the young people whom we saw in the committee room last week. I well recall one of the young men saying to us, "I have been thrown out of care". I believe that that phrase captures his very raw experience. Therefore, it seems essential that the local authorities which have been standing in loco parentis to such young people should be under a duty to make the information available to them when they leave care.

Of course the problem of how to inform young people who have already left care and who are living in the community is much more difficult. However, it has been suggested by one of the voluntary organisations that the notification should, or could, be linked to the notice under subsection (8), Clause 20, and that the local authority on receiving a notice under that subsection should be responsible for notifying the young person of the assistance and advice which is available. I draw attention to that particular suggestion as it strikes me as being a constructive one. Therefore, there are two specific occasions when information can be made available; namely, when young people leave care, and when a notice is being served under subsection (8). Finally, I should very much like to express my support for the amendment.

Lady Kinloss

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful!, as regards this amendment. It is most important that young people should know how to go about getting their rights and that they should know what assistance they can have.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I support the amendment in principle. However, I wonder whether the word "ensure" does not impose too high a duty upon the services.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, before dealing with this amendment I should like to say that Clause 20 addresses the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned—that of children leaving care. Clause 20(1) places a duty on an authority to advise, address and befriend him with a view to promoting his welfare when he ceases to be looked after by it. That is a general duty of a character that should take account of the matters to which the noble Lord referred. Where it applies, subsection (8) should also have that effect if there is a need for advice and befriending. "Befriending" is a big word which encompasses all the sorts of things that a good friend would tell another on parting about matters that could affect him. Social security and all the other matters that were mentioned will be covered by that provision.

Amendment No. 57 is virtually identical to Amendment No. 107, to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred and which he moved in Committee. As I said in addressing that amendment, where a child has been looked after by a local authority, it will be part of the process of preparing a child for independent living to inform him. What is evident however is that such counselling might not be available to children or young persons who are leaving accommodation which has been provided by a person or persons other than a local authority. Clearly, we would not wish to see such young people at a disadvantage, and this amendment seeks to remedy that. However, I feel that the government Amendment No. 67 to paragraph 1 of Schedule 2, which I hope to move later, would be a more appropriate means of doing this.

Paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 2 would require each local authority to publicise the services which are provided under Clauses 15 to 17, and, importantly, to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that those who might benefit from the services receive the information relevant to them. Our amendment will extend that duty to aftercare services under Clause 20. The advantage is that the local authority's duty to publicise its services will be set out in a single provision. That is a practical point.

I believe that with this new duty we can ensure that all children who qualify for advice and assistance under Clause 20 will receive the information that was being sought by the noble Lord and to which I believe they are entitled.

Our amendment will also achieve one other thing, and this follows from Amendment No. 126, moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. That amendment sought to require local authorities to publish such information about services provided in their area by persons other than themselves as they consider appropriate—services provided by voluntary organisations, for example. As your Lordships will know, many services for children and families are provided in the private and voluntary sector, especially in respect of day-care and under-fives provision. Those complement the services of local authorities and represent an important part of the support that is available to families in the community. The amendment additionally requires local authorities, when publishing details of their own services under Clauses 15 to 17 and Clause 20, to present a fuller picture of the services that are available in their area generally.

I hope that our amendment meets the concerns of my noble friend and those who have supported her and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment in favour of the government version.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply. I realise that Amendment No. 167 covers the whole point, as he said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 [Review of cases and inquiries into representations]:

Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 58: Page 18, line 18, leave out subsection (2).

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, there has been general agreement that this is a valuable Bill. It faces important social problems which, today especially, have been debated knowledgeably and in moving terms. After examination, your Lordships have generally agreed that the Bill is well structured. It is agreed that the draftsmanship is generally satisfactory in the sense that it uses language which an ordinary, literate member of the public affected by the Bill can understand.

The amendment removes a blemish on the Bill in that it deletes superfluous verbiage. It has been linked with Amendments Nos. 73, 74, 95, 116 and 127. They raise a similar, although not identical, problem. It will save confusion and, I hope, commend itself to your Lordships if I confine myself to Amendment No. 58.

I raised the matter in Committee in the debate on clause stand part. My noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack did not at that time deal with what I was drawing attention to. I have no complaint about that, because I had an opportunity to raise a similar point on Schedule 5 upon which he was able to give a full and informed answer. Although I shall be addressing myself exclusively to Clause 22, I shall refer to the arguments of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.

If your Lordships will be good enough to look at Clause 22 you will see that it deals with review of the cases of children taken into care. It is in permissive terms. It provides that: The Secretary of State may"— I emphasise the word "may", make regulations requiring the case of each child who is being looked after by a local authority to be reviewed"— I emphasise the next phrase, in accordance with the provisions of the regulations". In other words, that says everything that needs to be said. Nevertheless, subsection (2) goes on to say: The regulations may, in particular, make provision as to the manner in which each case is to be reviewed and so forth. Anyone of common sense, in which I include lawyers, reading subsection (2) would say, "Of course the Secretary of State may make those particular regulations because he has already been given power to do so in subsection (1)". Such a person would go on to say, "It goes without saying". If it goes without saying, as it does, it should not be in an Act of Parliament.

The background to the amendment is an intervention in Committee by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in which he approved the policy of an amendment but questioned the necessity of writing in every good intention that may be expressed, regardless of the consideration that any sensible Minister would do what was required. He significantly cited the state of our statute book today—annually some 3,000 pages, he said—compared with the statute book in 1911, a busy year of a reforming government, which took up 450 pages. In other words, the statute book has swollen in the intervening years by no fewer than six times.

However, one can bring the matter more up to date. After years of complaint about the prolixity, the complexity and lack of clarity in the statute book, the Renton Committee was finally set up with powers of reference to review those matters. It reported in 1975. In 1976 the statute book ran to three massive volumes. In 1986—notwithstanding Renton—it had expanded to six equally massive volumes. It had doubled, in spite of Renton. It had doubled, curiously enough, although there were fewer public and general Acts. That suggests (does it not?) that we are far too prolix, far too prone to verbiage in the legislation that we enact.

My noble and learned friend, in defending this kind of provision, accepted that it might not be strictly necessary. The holder of the Great Seal always speaks "strictly", which means that it was not necessary. It is only fair to say that he went on (I must. get out my magnifying glass, if your Lordships will allow me): However, knowing the particular desire of the Members of the Committee"— by which I take my noble and learned friend to have meant the Members of both Houses of Parliament— to have a idea of what the Secretary of State had in mind for regulation and in order to keep the headings in question, we have put them in". In other words, subsection (2) is unnecessary but has been put in so that Members of both Houses may know what the Secretary of State has in mind by way of regulation.

I hope that my noble and learned friend will not take this amiss, but the first point to be made is that the subsection does no such thing. What it does is to say what he might make by way of regulation. But in the same breath the subsection says what he might not do, because this is a purely permissive power.

Secondly, a permissive power to make regulations for the local authority in reviews in accordance with the provisions of the regulations having been given, I ask my noble and learned friend specifically what is really added by subsection (2)(a): The regulations may, in particular, make provision— (a) as to the manner in which each case is to he reviewed". What does that tell any Member of Parliament, however acute he may be? The answer is, precisely nothing. Your Lordships will see that subsection (2) alone runs to three-quarters of a page. All the provisions that have been grouped with it, taken together, run to some three or four pages. With six massive volumes of statutes, surely we are bound to do what we can to prune the legislation of unnecessary verbiage.

There is one final point to be made. If the only object is to apprise Parliament of what the Secretary of State intends to do, he can tell Members in the other place himself and it will be reported much less expensively in Hansard. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack can be safely trusted to repeat that accurately to your Lordships. I beg to move.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, Clause 22 deals with what is potentially a very important matter; namely, provision for review of cases and inquiries into representations by a local authority. However, there is a desperate need to flesh the bones of the provisions in this clause, which are at the moment extremely skeletal, if I may continue the metaphor.

The provision in subsection (2) is that the Secretary of State having been given the power to make regulations, we then anxiously look to see what the regulations will contain. But answer comes there, if not none, very little. The subsection says: The regulations may, in particular, make provision— (a) as to the manner in which each case is to be reviewed". There is no clue as to who is to do the review, what the nature of the review is to be, or when it is to be done. It is left completely open and there is no clue as to the manner of the review. In so far as it is sought to give the impression of completion of the responsibility of the duties of a local authority, it leaves the situation almost completely bare. There is no clue as to the manner in which each case is to be reviewed.

When we come to subsection (2)(b), the regulations may make provision: (b) as to the considerations to which the local authority are to have regard in reviewing each case". Again, there is no clue there as to what the considerations should be. There is no suggestion of a code of practice as to the manner or the nature of the considerations. Parliament is left on this important matter in a complete state of not knowing what is involved, what exactly is undertaken or where we go from here.

If I were to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, "When is Parliament going to see the regulations?", I have little doubt that he would not be able to give an immediately encouraging answer. I should certainly not expect it to be, "Oh, they are all ready; we are just eager to wait for the moment to show them to Parliament". I am sure that is not the case and the noble and learned Lord would not mislead us in making that suggestion.

I say with respect that with all his great ability the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor cannot point to any moment in time when reality will he given to what is undertaken; namely, that there shall be a review of cases arising from the manner in which a child's fate and affairs are being looked after by a local authority. That will not do. Such a matter should not be left in this wholly uncertain and unknown field. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can give us any indication when, in what circumstances and in what manner these undertakings will be carried out.

This is a sad example of the mischief of putting into a Bill a broad provision of regulations without undergoing the political and intellectual process of giving a clue beforehand as to what the regulations will contain. Clause 22(2)(a) and (b) are practically useless. The House cannot feel satisfied—I certainly do not—with the way in which the matter is left. Perhaps, however, the noble and learned Lord may be able to give us some comfort in answering these complaints.

Lord Meston

My Lords, strictly speaking, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is right. Even if all the details were not set out in Clause 22(2), regulations could still be made which covered all the subjects dealt with in Clause 22(2) without those regulations being vulnerable to attack as having been made ultra vires.

Nevertheless, there is still some point in having something like Clause 22(2) in that it gives guidance to the draftsman of the regulations. It also enables the Government to meet the complaint that we often utter that a Bill such as this provides a regulatory power without giving any clue as to the substance of the regulations to follow.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, says that Clause 22(2) is useless. In a sense, I go as far as to agree with the noble and learned Lord. However, I feel it is better than nothing. At least having something like Clause 22(2) enables us to try and improve on the directions given to the draftsman of the regulations and enables the regulations to concentrate on further details—the kind of details to which the noble and learned Lord has just referred.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I agree that it is better to have something rather than nothing, even if it is contrary to the recommendations of the Renton Report and contrary to the strict tenets of pure draftsmanship. It is just better to have something rather than nothing.

However, the problem was identified clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. The problem exists when there is an enabling clause like this without a draft of the regulations. It is essentially that practice, for which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is in no way responsible, which has become a general practice. That puts us all in difficulty. Now that we are in that difficulty, we must make the best of it. Therefore, although I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is right, as he always is, I suggest that it is proper on this occasion to oppose his amendment in order to ensure we have something.

5.45 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is right to say that this subsection strictly speaking, may not add anything to what is in Clause 22(1). I venture to suggest that there are some branches of this provision which may not be covered unless expressly mentioned, particularly the provision relating to monitoring.

I am sure my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has had experience, and much more than I, of arguments about whether or not regulations are within the powers contained in an Act of Parliament. I believe that it is a wise policy, when such arguments are possible, to do what one can to meet them in advance in relation to the headings which one expects to put in regulations.

I believe also that provisions indicating the headings that may be covered under the regulations have a purpose in informing the Committee, as it was when we discussed this before your Lordships' House, and of course another place when the legislation eventually gets there, of what the Secretary of State has in mind.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, would like even more information. He would like me to propose an amendment to add even more detail to Clause 22(2). I believe that what we have to do at this stage is to try to lay down—in so far as we regard them as important—particular headings. This is a new kind of review in this kind of provision. It is a very important element of what is being proposed. I think it is right that we take this level of care over it.

My noble friend Lord Mottistone is, I believe, about to move another addition to this provision, if I am not mistaken. I have no doubt that he would regard it as somewhat frustrating if he did not obtain some consideration for that heading on its merits. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, say that it is difficult to consider this matter when we do not have the regulations. I certainly do not anticipate that we shall have them for some time yet. In a sense, having draft regulations may distract one from the provisions in the Bill itself, because regulations made under such a power as this may be changed.

I believe also that, in pursuance of the argument put yesterday by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the Secretary of State having very general power, Parliament has come to look at the vires or the powers of regulations quite closely. It is, as a practical matter at least, an advantage to have headings of this kind in the enabling legislation.

I subscribe very much to the view that the statute book should be as short as is reasonably possible. However, when one is actually faced with particular proposals, I fear one wants to go for what seems to be reasonably safe rather than the shorter formulation. I fear that I could not advise your Lordships, in spite of the eloquence of my noble and learned friend in moving this amendment and the very cogent argument with which he supported it, to give effect to the amendment. I believe that to do so would not be in accordance with the practice of Parliament as it has developed.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, if I withdraw this amendment, being confident, as I hope my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack is, of the respect in which I hold him, it will not be because I accept the cogency of the argument which the noble and learned Lord has just addressed to your Lordships. In particular, he said that there are some powers under subsection (2) which would not be covered by subsection (1). However, that is not possible as a matter of construction because subsection (2) purports to set out the particularity of the generality of subsection (1).

The second point is that nothing I said yesterday in denunciation of a "Henry VIII clause" gives any justification for this idle verbiage. Thirdly, I noticed that my noble and learned friend did not answer the question that was echoed by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones as to what subsection (2)(a) means and what it adds to the final phrase: in accordance with the provisions of the regulations in subsection (1).

If I do not press the amendment to a Division, the main reason is that I noted the result of the two earlier Divisions. The second reason is that both the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that something was better than nothing. I personally regard subsection (2) as nothing, as mere abstraction or mere verbiage, as I put it. The third reason is that I like to think that by nagging at these matters without Divisions, particularly without being defeated in a Division, one obtains some result in the form of improved draftsmanship.

For many years the noble Lord, Lord Renton, girded at the absurdity of the phrase, with the consent of the Treasury". I did my best to second him. We came very close to satisfaction on one occasion when I raised the irrelevance and lack of necessity of that phrase in a statute because the internal machinery of government takes perfect care of consultation with the Treasury on any matter which might amount to a charge on public funds.

On that occasion the Minister in charge accepted that that was so in his experience. I was encouraged by that to set down an amendment at Report stage, but by that time his arm must have been twisted out of its socket because it was clear that the Treasury felt more comfortable with the phrase in the statute, quite unnecessary though it was, and the draftsman had got used to it.

The last occasion on which we raised the matter was during the passage of the Legal Aid Bill, which was conducted with great agility by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. Regulations had to he made with the concurrence or with the consent of, or after consultation with, the Treasury. There are abundant examples in this Bill of regulations which may involve a charge on the Treasury. Yet the draftsman has quite happily forborne from using that phrase. The only reference to the consent of the Treasury is in another context in Clause 63.

It is therefore buoyant with the hope that that kind of access of common sense may even extend to not inserting subsections in a permissive form which particularise a generality which is also permissive that I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 59: Page 18, line 37, at end insert— ("( ) requiring the authority to advise the child of his right of application to the court to discharge or vary an order made under Part IV of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have pleasure in proposing, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, a further addition to subsection (2), to which I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord' Simon of Glaisdale, will not object too much. In passing, I may say that I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord. I think that it is a very good thing. We grumble when we have regulations because we do not know what will be in them. Yet when we are given an idea we grumble about having the provisions in the Bill. That does not seem to me to be logical. Perhaps it would be better still if we did not have any regulations, but think of the problems. We should be sitting all night, every night, in order to cope with the much wider general legislation.

My amendment deals with the fact that Clause 34(1) and (2) provides that the child has a right to apply to the court to vary or discharge an order but there is no provision to ensure that the child is told about that right. On a general level the child should always be given as much information as possible to help him retain some control over circumstances which may be alien and confusing.

The review process requires that the local authority should consider the continuing necessity for an order. A reminder to a child of his or her rights would be valuable in helping the child to consider and focus on what course of action he or she wants to take. There appears to be little point in giving a child rights if the child is unaware that those rights exist. I moved a somewhat similar amendment at Committee stage. Unfortunately it was bracketed with other amendments and was not properly debated. However, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said (at col. 168 of Hansard for 17th January) that he would certainly consider whether anything needs to be done about that", referring to my earlier amendment on those lines.

In the light of that debate we have modified the amendment slightly to include specific reference to Part IV. Otherwise it is much the same. I hope that my noble and learned friend has had an opportunity to give it the consideration that he promised. I hope that his reaction is favourable, that he thinks that I am talking sense and will agree to the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I have no objection to the amendment so long as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is not misled into thinking that it will have any influence at all on the Secretary of State. The whole of subsection (1) and subsection (2), in contradistinction to the ensuing subsections, is purely permissive. If the Secretary of State wants to do what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, wants him to do he can do so under subsection (1).

However, I can offer this encouragement to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. If my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack opposes the amendment, that will indicate to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that this is not one of the regulations which the Secretary of State has in mind. I should not like to prognosticate what satisfaction that will give to the noble Lord, but I would wish him better.

6 p.m.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, I do not wish to depress the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, further, but I am afraid that this is a somewhat futile exercise in view of the other provisions of Clause 22.

Lady Kinloss

My Lords, I should like to add in support of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that the Government have already agreed to amend the Bill so that young people are informed of their rights on leaving care. This amendment seeks to ensure that young people are informed of their right to a court order in order to leave care. I hope that as the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has shown care and thought in putting down Amendment No. 67, he will be equally thoughtful in accepting this amendment.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, as my noble friend has explained, the purpose of this amendment is to provide that the regulations which may be made under Clause 22 in respect of local authority reviews may include a requirement that the authority advise the child whose case is being reviewed of his right to apply to the court for discharge or variation of an order made under Part IV of the Bill.

As has been said, this measure was part of a list taken together in Committee. There was not very much opportunity to consider it separately. At present the list includes in paragraph (e) provisions that may be made in the regulations, requiring the authority to consider, in the case of a child who is the subject of a care order, whether an application should be made to discharge the order". Paragraph (d) requires the authority to seek the views of those specified including, where appropriate, the child, on any matter to be considered. Paragraph (h) requires the authority to notify the result of the review and any decision taken. Again, where appropriate, those notified would include the child.

As this amendment was grouped with others in Committee, it was discussed only briefly and I offered to consider it for this stage. Having now done so, the conclusion that I have reached is that an amendment of this kind may have merit in relation to the older child, as indeed may a provision requiring advice to the child on various other matters such as contact and the availability of the representations procedure.

Although we have not been able to discuss this fully with the draftsman for the reasons that I gave yesterday, we shall try to do so before Third Reading. So the position is that I have not been able fully to consider how this might be done but I have reached the stage of believing that it may well constitute an advantage if we can do it with a reasonable degree of economy of language. I hope that the noble Lord may feel able in the light of that assurance, to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I am indeed grateful to my noble and learned friend. I hope that the chief draftsman improves quickly and that we can hope for appropriate wording to appear in the Bill before it leaves this House. With those encouraging words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 60, perhaps I should say that it appears to be an alternative to Amendment No. 61.

Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 60: Page 19, line 9, leave out ("for considering any representations") and insert ("to consider any complaint or other representation").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak in support of the amendment that my noble friend Lady David and myself have tabled. I should also like to speak, with the leave of the House, to manuscript amendments which—I apologise for this—we submitted late in the day. The manuscript amendments are Amendments Nos. 62A to 62E. The effect of each amendment is to introduce the words "or complaints" in lines 24, 27, 30, 33 and 42 respectively on page 19.

In Committee, we urged that the word "complaint" should be included in Clause 22(3). Your Lordships will recall that the amendment attracted considerable support. I am particularly grateful that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has considered the matter further and has tabled Amendment No. 61. Nevertheless, I should like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the 10 organisations that have briefed us on this issue are all agreed that it is essential—that is the word they use—that "complaint" should be used in the Bill and in any procedures to be established under the Bill.

Children and young people understand the word whereas the word "representation" on its own has little or no meaning to many young people. The word "complaint" is preferred to the word "representation" for another reason. A complainant is not simply expressing a view or making a comment. He expects that his complaint will be listened to and in the event of it being upheld that it will lead to a decision and to action.

I should mention that there is considerable precedent for the term "complaints procedure". It is used in the Residential Care Homes Regulations 1984, in the Hospital Complaints Procedure Act 1985 and again in the Education Reform Act 1988. Moreover, the use of the term "complaints procedure" is strongly supported by eight major studies or reports that have been published in the United Kingdom since 1980. So the amendment is in line with respectable precedent. I should like to think that it has helped to pave the way for Amendment No. 61 which has been tabled by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.

I should just like to say a few words about the amendments that have been tabled late in the day. If there were a similar amendment to Amendment No. 61, with the effect of including the word "complaint" wherever the word "representation" appears on page 19 of the Bill, it is felt that proper recognition would then have been given in the Bill to the importance of using the term, "complaints procedure". I do not propose to press the manuscript amendments upon the House, but it would be appreciated if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could consider in due course whether they meet with his approval. I beg to move.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

Perhaps I may express gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the open-minded way in which he has approached this question of providing expressly for "complaints" to be dealt with in the terms of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord has done that in Amendment No. 61 and we are grateful to him.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I do not believe that any further explanation is required apart from saying that I think the effect of Amendment No. 61 is to give "representation" wherever it occurs thereafter the same meaning. I shall however check with the draftsman to be certain. That is my understanding of what we did. This precludes in no way the format for the procedures when the procedures are set out. It may well be that some greater prominence might be given to "complaint" in that situation than is done here. However, I think the basic point that I have explained still arises. We want to make it clear that the review procedures are intended to deal not only with complaints but with every aspect of matters. I believe that the amendment does that. I think therefore that I ought to invite noble Lords to deal with Amendment No. 60 and then we can possibly go on to Amendment No. 61.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I am very pleased to withdraw Amendment No. 60 and to rely upon the Amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I thank him for responding so favourably to the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 61: Page 19, line 10, after ("representations") insert ("(including any complaint)").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already explained this amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lords who raised this matter with us. I believe that we may have made a practical improvement in this situation. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 62: Page 19, line 15, at end insert— ("(e) any person who has had contact with the child").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment follows from Amendment No. 114 at Committee. It considerably widens the number of people who can make representations on behalf of a child. As the Bill stands, family members such as brothers, sisters or grandparents cannot make representations on behalf of a child. Local authority staff are also precluded. That is surprising when one considers that testaments from staff have in the past been instrumental in disclosing abuses in residential homes. As the Bill stands, very young children, children with communication difficulties and children who have been abandoned are cut off from people who could complain on their behalves.

At Committee stage, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor felt that there were difficulties in assessing who should be able to make complaints. I suggest that contact with the child is an appropriate test. It seems reasonable that persons in contact with the child should be able to voice their concerns. No one is likely to abuse this system. Making a complaint is a serious matter. With a little encouragement my noble and learned friend said at col. 191 on 17th January in Hansard that he would give further consideration to this point.

In conclusion, I received a letter this morning from a lady from Macclesfield in Cheshire. She said that she was a guardian ad litem. I was most encouraged. Until I read the earlier part of this Bill I had never heard of them. To have had a letter from one was a great privilege. She supported strongly the amendment that we discussed yesterday. Unfortunately the letter arrived only today. I shall hope to pursue the matter later. She was also in favour of the forerunner of this amendment at Committee stage. She wonders whether I have heard of the legislation of Quebec state—she thinks it was in 1978—which set up an office of child protection. Any adult can take a complaint to the director; in fact they have a duty to do so. It provides for any adult to do so, not just those specified in this part of the Bill that we are considering.

The general principle of widening the provision to include close relations seems to have much support from obviously very worthy people. I beg to move.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I do not know whether this would be a convenient opportunity to ask a question that I asked in Committee. What is the meaning of "other person connected with him"? The reference is page 79, Schedule 2, at line 20.

The relevance that I beg for the question is the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to extend the circle of people who are concerned in the review. If is is not convenient to the noble and learned Lord to answer now, I shall be perfectly content to wait and to have the question answered by letter or in any other way that is convenient to him.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I support the amendment. It exposes an unintentional gap in the proposed administration. I also welcome Amendment No. 61, having spoken on the question of complaints procedures on previous occasions. Surely representations should be heard from any person who has had contact with the child.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, perhaps I may first address myself to the question that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked me about paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 which appears on page 79. I am speaking from memory but I think that I attempted to answer that question somewhat later in the proceedings than when he first asked it. However, I may be wrong about that. My understanding of "connected with him" in that context is that it is a phrase that has been used in this type of legislation in the past and that it means related in any degree. I believe that I am right in saying that it was in legislation before; I may be wrong about that. However, that is the context of and the connotation that we give to the phrase in this clause.

On this amendment, I refer to the very useful discussion that we had about its predecessor in Committee. I undertook to consider whether we could find a way of opening up access to procedure a little to provide for problems of the kind that have been addressed. I said that there could be difficulties in doing so and we are finding that there are. As a result we are still considering the matter.

One of the problems is to avoid opening up access to the procedure too much. As I said in Committee, it must be a reasonably selective procedure so that the time of the authority is not continually taken up with having to look into complaints instead of looking after the child. That is always a risk. On coming into public life for the first time one may be surprised at the number of people who are prepared to take up other people's time in investigating matters which require much time to investigate and sometimes have been investigated rather frequently in the past. When I first came to office I tried to interview some of these people. I soon found that if I did it too often I would not have much opportunity for everything else. We must also watch that the procedure is not made capable of abuse by persons who have no legal interest in the child and who may only cause trouble between the authority and the parents.

I thought that my noble friend's original amendment was perhaps a little wide. However, his present amendment goes wider. The very slightest contact at any time in the past—perhaps a single meeting—would be sufficient. I recognise that there is a problem here. I would certainly expect to go so far as allowing representations from an independent visitor, for example, appointed in accordance with paragraph 15 of Schedule 2. I shall certainly consider what can be done in relation to staff and people who have responsibility for children in such a situation.

I am told that I was wrong when I said earlier that the phrase "connected" was used in previous legislation. I was relying upon my recollection. I shall have an opportunity to check it later. I understand that it is a new phrase. The purpose of it is to include any person who can claim connection with the child.

I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble friend may feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I hope that my noble and learned freind will forgive me. Did I correctly gain the impression that he is still studying the matter with a view to bringing something into the Bill if he can at some stage to take care of the point that I am trying to make?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, yes.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, with that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Manuscript Amendments Nos. 62A to 62E not moved.]

Clause 24 [Recoupment of cost of providing services etc.]:

6.15 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 63: Page 20, line 27, at end insert— ("(2A) No person shall be liable to pay any charge under subsection (1) at any time when he is in receipt of income support or family credit under the Social Security Act 1986.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke earlier to this amendment with Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 64: After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:

("Designation of responsible officer.

For the purpose of facilitating the discharge of their duties, the local authority shall—

1. (a) designate an officer of the authority, or
2. (b) facilitate the designation of an officer of another agency, who shall be responsible for safeguards and promoting the welfare of any child accommodated by them.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a new way of presenting a matter which came to the fore in various ways during the Committee stage. I am suggesting that we should have a new clause to deal with this particular subject. It seeks to ensure that there is a named key worker for every child in the care of the local authority. Parents and children frequently complain about lack of information, not knowing where to complain or where to ask for advice. A named officer could ensure that any plans or targets for the child would be met and could co-ordinate the multi-discipline network on behalf of the child.

A child is likely to feel more secure if he is able to develop a relationship with one person. Local authorities have high staff turnovers and at times are unable to attract staff. However, regulations could deal with such matters as sickness, extended holiday periods or a member of staff leaving. The amendment would establish the principle that children would be far less likely to drift if they were the responsibility of a named officer from a local authority or a local voluntary group. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I support the amendment. I spoke to a similar amendment at Committee stage and I do not intend to repeat anything that I then said. The reasons are still valid. In essence one needs a key worker, a named officer, perhaps to stop the child slipping through the net of care and welfare. I should have thought that this was an obvious improvement in accordance with the intendment of the Bill and in no way in conflict with it.

Lady Kinloss

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in all that he has said, and to emphasise in particular the principle that a child is far less likely to drift if he is the responsibility of a named officer of the authority or a local voluntary group.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, this amendment, as my noble friend has said, is like one that we discussed in Committee. The theme of a responsible officer started there and is expanded in the amendment to deal with all children accommodated by a local authority. It would also give that officer responsibilities to safeguard and promote the child's welfare.

As I explained in Committee, cases of all children who are looked after by local authorities will be subject to regular reviews, and the review will entail a check on the development of, and the long term proposals for, each child. I also said that I would expect regulations to provide for the implementation of decisions made under such reviews to be entrusted to a named officer. That is what we shall expect to see emerging from Clause 22. The child's welfare will therefore be protected by a detailed and professional assessment of his needs and the child should thereafter be protected from the risk of drift by the personal attention and constant review of the named officer. That officer will, on behalf of the local authority, be under a duty to safeguard and promote the child's welfare, as envisaged under Clause 18(3). Therefore I do not believe that there is anything between my noble friends, the noble Lady or myself on this matter. However, we believe that the situation requires regulations, partly for the reasons which my noble friend explained. One has to make detailed provisions about the transfer of the named officer from one named person to another in the event of staff leaving. In a sense that is the time when something is apt to go wrong. It is necessary that the regulations should cover that.

This amendment also refers to facilitating the designation of an officer of another agency. Clearly many children are looked after by a local authority, but they are actually accommodated in voluntary homes or other such accommodation. In those circumstances, it may be appropriate for the relevant officer of a voluntary organisation, or of another authority, to have special responsibility on an agency basis. I should certainly not wish to prevent this, but as it is the local authority which has the welfare responsibility in respect of such a child, that authority will have the discretion to act appropriately in each case, but should itself always remain accountable, ideally through its own designated officer.

I spoke a moment ago about the responsibility which this amendment would place upon the individual officer. The responsibility would be equal to the local authority's welfare duty in respect of the child under Clause 18(3). Although the officer would acquire this duty only to facilitate the discharge of local authority functions, this could nevertheless lead to unwelcome conflicts between an authority and its employee. It is right that the local authority should be required to promote and safeguard the welfare of each child whom it looks after; but individual officers should not have that duty. The officer should act as an agent of the authority in carrying out its policy in the discharge of its functions.

As I have explained, I have certain reservations about this amendment as it stands, and also that the principle of the amendment, with which I substantially agree, will be provided for under regulations concerning reviews. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment. As I have said, I substantially agree with the principle of the amendment. However, I believe, as my noble friend said, that regulations are required to deal with the matter and it is better that it should be dealt with there in its entirety.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend one question? If this is to be dealt with by regulations, we know that the regulations may or may not so provide. I understand that my noble and learned friend anticipates that they will. But if he accepts the principle, as he does, why should not the governing principle of designation be put in the primary legislation leaving the regulations to sort out any machinery? Perhaps I am being slow on this aspect. What is the objection to the amendment in its present form if the principle is acceptable?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I said that I substantially accepted the principle; but I indicated one or two reservations about the precise scope of the duty placed on the designated officer. Moreover, I expressed a doubt also about the wisdom of designating an officer of the other agency rather than of the authority when the child is being looked after by another agency on behalf of the authority. This is a matter which requires regulation. Therefore I feel it is best dealt with in its entirety in regulations. If one is dealing with the whole subject, it is better to do it in one place.

Reference to regulations would be necessary because the officer of the authority would be required to pass it down from the person who held it on transfer to another person. That is the difficulty about doing it on the face of the Bill.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for our general agreement on the principle of that amendment. However, in view of the fact that he said it would be more suitable in regulations, would it perhaps be appropriate to have yet another part of subsection (2) which embraced the gist of my amendment within it?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I am willing to consider that. One has to be slightly careful because the subsection is fairly long already. However, if my noble friend would be kind enough to leave that with me, I shall consider it with my advisers.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much. If he can carry it that much further, I shall be even happier. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]

6.30 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 66:

Page 76, line 14, at end insert— ("( ) Every local authority shall take reasonable steps to make provision of services to meet the identified needs of children within their area.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 66 if it is convenient to the House, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 68. The purpose of both amendments is to strengthen the provisions of Schedule 2, paragraph 1. Schedule 2, paragraph 1, requires that, Every local authority shall take reasonable steps to identify the extent to which there are children in need within their area".

It appears that thereafter there is a full stop. The voluntary bodies working in the area consider that that is inadequate. Having identified the extent of the need, it is argued, the paragraph should go on to provide that local authorities shall take reasonable steps to meet it.

I appreciate that it may be said in reply that the duty to meet the identified need is now covered by Clause 15(1) of the Bill. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the specific duty was spelt out in paragraph 1 of Part I of the schedule. That would at least ensure that when the reader comes to paragraph 1, Part he knows of the requirement of Clause 15(1).

Amendment No. 68 deals with another area of concern. On many occasions during the course of the discussions on the Bill we have seen that local authorities are given wide discretion as to how to carry out their duties in respect of children in need. The result is that the Section 1 budget of the Child Care Act 1980—that is, the budget for the preventive and rehabilitation service—varies immensely from authority to authority without apparent justification. For example, we have been told that one study has shown that the expenditure under the Section 1 budget varies from £2,000 in one authority to £1 million in another. It is suggested that that wide, unpredictable variation points to the need for regulations to be made to establish standards—presumably minimum standards—for the provision of services to meet needs.

The question may well be asked: what difference will regulations make? I am advised that the existence of such standards will encourage authorities to take a comprehensive look at what has been done and to consider what changes are required in order to improve the services. Otherwise, there is a danger that we shall continue to have more of the same, whereas what we possible want is less of the same. I beg to move.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, is it likely that regulations will define the phrase "provision of services"?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I believe that it is wise to deal with the amendments in order, though they are closely connected as the noble Lord has explained. Amendment No. 66 would place a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to make provision for services to meet the identified needs of children in their area. If this amendment is intended to relate to children in need as defined, the amendment is unnecessary because the Bill already provides for this in Clause 15. It states that it shall be the general duty of every local authority to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within its area who are in need by provision of a range and level of services appropriate to the need of children in need in its area. That general duty under Clause 15 applies to all children in need in the area.

Under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 the local authority is under a duty to identify the extent to which there are children in need in its area. It is not necessary to provide specifically for the local authority to take reasonable steps, as local authorities are under the general law required to act on a reasonable basis. Clause 15(1) is preferable in that it specifies that an appropriate range and level of services must be provided in order to fulfill the general duty to further children's welfare. I do not think, therefore, that there is any need to say more than what is already in Clause 15(1).

The issue comes back to the relationship between Clause 15(1) and the schedule, which is the overriding general duty. The powers and duties in the schedule are intended to fill that out and give facilities for it. I hope noble Lords will agree that the proposed amendment does not add anything to what is already there. If the amendment relates to the needs of all children, which in fact is how the first subsection of the amendment is drafted, I cannot agree to even the sentiment behind it because it goes far too wide, covering any need of any child. The local authority must provide services for the children in need, as they appear from an examination of its area.

The second linked amendment, No. 68, would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish reasonable standards for the provision of services to meet the needs identified for children in the local authority area. This would result in the Secretary of State regulating local authorities about matters which should properly be left to the local authority to determine.

I said earlier that one must have a philosophy about the matter. Some peope believe that central government know it all, while others believe that local authorities know it all. We believe that this situation is one for local authorities to determine. Local authorities are accountable to their local electorate and are responsible for making their own decisions according to their priorities and the particular needs and circumstances of their area.

The mere fact that the level of provision is different in money terms does not necessarily show that it is not appropriate for the area. I do not believe that it will be appropriate for the Secretary of State to take powers to control so closely the provision of local services which, in any event, need to reflect local needs. Accordingly, I believe that the balance of power in the matter is right and that the local authority is given the general duty. It is then for it to meet the needs identified by an examination of its area as required by Clause 15(1).

In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I had anticipated the noble and learned Lord's response to Amendment No. 66. We have lived with the Bill for seven or eight days and are now familiar with its structure.

It may well be that in practice social workers and solicitors who come across Part I of Schedule 2 for the first time will not appreciate that it must be read in conjunction with Clause 15(1). However, I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord is reluctant to move away from the basic structure of the Bill. I accept the guidance which has been given and beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 66.

As regards Amendment No. 68, there is a belief that the centre ought to be giving guidance if the existing pattern appears to be unsatisfactory and local authorities are not moving to amend it. Earlier I pointed out that there is a danger that the authorities will merely provide more of the same, whereas one ought to be having less of the same. Those with whom we have discussed the amendment must consider the response given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the delicate relationship between the centre and the local authorities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 67: Page 76, line 16, leave out from ("information") to ("and") in line 17 insert ("—

1. (i) about services provided by them under sections 15 to 17 and 20; and
2. (ii) where they consider it appropriate, about the provision by others (including, in particular, voluntary organisations) of services which the authority have power to provide under those sections;").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I referred to this amendment in speaking earlier to Amendment No. 57. This will extend the local authority's duty to publish information about services provided to include services under Clause 20 (aftercare) and to meet a point raised by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, where appropriate, those which are provided in their area by other persons. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend for this amendment. That meets amendments which I tabled at an earlier stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 not moved.]

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 70: Page 76, line 36, leave out ("neglect or physical or sexual abuse") and insert ("ill-treatment or neglect.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I also speak to Amendment No. 129. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 provides for the duty of the local authority to take steps to: prevent children within their area suffering neglect or physical or sexual abuse". This is an important preventive duty and it is right that we should draft carefully. In Committee we discussed the possibility of extending this provision to make explicit the notion that abuse might not be physical. That was a helpful debate. As a result, these amendments are proposed by the Government. They recast the duty at paragraph 4 to refer to "ill-treatment or neglect" and provide for "ill-treatment" to have the same meaning as in Clause 26(8)—that it includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical.

This is not precisely what had been proposed by your Lordships, but I think that it covers the point. "Emotional abuse" is difficult to define. However, I think that it is undoubtedly embraced by "ill-treatment" which is defined to include the non-physical. I hope that this will meet with the approval of, amongst others, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whose own inspirational suggestion was not dissimilar, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones will remember. We should not turn paragraph 4 into a detailed catalogue of suffering, but I believe this scheme ensures that the duty is sufficient to ensure that no child who is suffering will be excluded. I beg to move.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Mishcon (who I believe will be returning to the joust before very long) I accept the amendment which I understand owes its fons et origo to my noble friend.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 71:

Page 77, line 16, after ("proceedings") insert— ("(v) proceedings taken under section 21 of the Act:").

The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to impose a mandatory duty to require the local authority to diminish the use of secure accommodation. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 requires that: Every local authority shall take steps designed— (a) to reduce the need to bring and this amendment adds proceedings instituted under Clause 21 relating to secure accommodation.

There is a real need for this amendment. A recent study by Timms and Harris, DHSS September 1988, concluded that 98 per cent. of applications for secure accommodation orders were approved, that there is evidence of rubber stamping and that the use of secure accommodation has not been restricted to cases where the child or the public have been exposed to serious risks.

I referred to this problem in my Second Reading speech and on Amendment No. 52. I know that my noble and learned friend and his advisers are actively engaged in seeking to come to grips and in devising an acceptable solution to this very complex problem, which is far more complex than I realised. Noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House will be grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.

However, in any event, this amendment is supportable and supported. It is supported by a Voice for the Child in Care, the Children's Society, the Children's Legal Centre, Independent Representation for Children in Need and the British Association of Social Workers. Perhaps I may read from their letter: At present, secure accommodation is open to wide abuses enabling children in care to be 'locked up' in circumstances in which they have committed no criminal offence or for incidents in which it would not be possible to restrict the liberty of a child not in care. Some children in care who abscond can find themselves placed in secure units while those who persistently 'run away' from home, adoptive parents or boarding schools can receive no such consideration. I shall not cite them in full, but perhaps I may give two citations to my noble and learned friend when the House rises which they gave me from Cawson on secure accommodation which point to the urgency of this problem.

In those circumstances, irrespective of the very intensive efforts which my noble and learned friend makes to deal with the major aspect of the problem, I beg to move this amendment on its own merits in any event.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, I rise to indicate my support for this amendment.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I too should like to support this amendment. Research seems to have established the need for action, and the widespread support it commands among children's organisations also gives importance to this amendment. Even if Amendment No. 52 put down in Committee was not acceptable to the Government, it seems to me that this amendment could only make a positive contribution to the welfare of children in this sphere.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I see no difficulty in accepting the principle underlying this amendment. It is clearly right that local authorities should be expected to take whatever steps are possible to reduce the need to place children in secure accommodation and to seek the authority of the court to keep them there.

However, I believe there is another aspect of this matter to which I should like to draw attention. Subparagraph (a) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 requires the local authority to take steps to reduce the need to bring certain proceedings—these are listed in the sub-paragraph.

This amendment seeks to put Clause 21 of this Bill into that. However, there is a matter which I should mention on that. Children may of course be placed in secure accommodation for short periods, currently for up to 72 hours, without an application being made to the court. Therefore, to meet the principle of my noble friend's amendment, I believe a more general provision would be desirable, something on the lines of the existing subparagraph (b), which required local authorities to take steps to reduce the need to restrict the liberty of children. I shall certainly consider the point further in the light of the debate we have had and bring forward a Government amendment to give effect to the principles underlying the points which have been made at a later stage, possibly going slightly wider for the reason given in dealing with the matter. I hope that my noble friend will feel that we have fully taken his point on board.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I am more than content and thank him for taking the principle on board. Again, the problem is rather more complicated than I had appreciated. I am sure that the Government will produce the right amendment to meet the principle. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 72: Page 78, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert ("unless, in their opinion, to do so is not in the interests of the child's welfare.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like, in speaking to this amendment, to speak also to Amendment No. 75. At Committee stage we tabled an amendment to transfer paragraph 9 of Part I of the schedule into Clause 15 but we accepted the guidance given by the noble and learned Lord that the paragraph should remain in the schedule. However, it is strongly felt that legislation should encourage a more positive attitude towards rehabilitation, and we submit that that would be the effect of Amendments Nos. 72 and 75.

Amendment No. 72 amends the wording of paragraph 9 and Amendment No. 75 amends that of paragraph 13. We are advised that it is a principle of good social work practice that it is in the interest of the majority of children who are looked after by a local authority that they should remain in contact with their families and eventually return home. Nevertheless, we understand that not enough is being done to maintain contact and to promote the return of children to their families.

My attention has been drawn to a report called Social Work Decisions in Child Care, published by HM Stationery Office. I believe it is the work of Dr. Jane Rowe, a very respected researcher. In one study she found that in only 10 per cent. of cases was rehabilitation actively pursued. In another 25 per cent. the child's return home was hoped for, yet nothing practical was done to achieve that desired objective. Dr. Rowe concluded that once children came into care social work contact with natural parents dwindled rapidly and did not feature even in cases where the child's return home was considered to be desirable.

Given this depressing background, it is important for children in care and for their parents that advantage should be taken of this important legislation to express as a duty in positive form that the authorities have to give higher priority to rehabilitation, or at least to give it the priority it deserves. These two amendments seek to do that. We trust they will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, with permission, I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 72 and 75 together. The intention, as has been explained, is the same. It is to strengthen the duties of local authorities to promote links between children and their families. Naturally, I am very sympathetic to this objective, and indeed Clause 15(1) imposes on local authorities a general duty to provide services to promote the upbringing of children in need by their families so far as that is consistent with their duty to safeguard and promote the children's interests. That is a very general duty and it applies at all times, not just before there is a question of care. So the general thrust is towards the family at all times. That is an important aspect of Clause 15(1).

However, I respond to the proposed amendments with an element of caution because the Bill should not impose duties on local authorities which are unnecessarily onerous. To do so would dilute the provision of services where they are most needed. The first amendment seems to us to go too far. It relates to paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 which applies to any child in the authority's area who is in need and living apart from his family whether or not he is being looked after by the local authority. The duty to take reasonable steps to enable such a child to live with his family or to promote contact between him and his family applies "if in the authority's opinion" it is necessary to do so in order to safeguard or promote the child's welfare.

The amendment would make the duty applicable unless, in the authority's opinion, to take such steps would not be, in the interests of the child's welfare". In other words, the authority is required to act unless it would not be in the child's interests. That would be a presumption that action should be taken.

Paragraph 9 was deliberately framed in the opposite way. A local authority should only have to take steps where it is necessary to do so to safeguard or promote the child's welfare. To turn this formula around would greatly increase the burdens of local authorities. This would only be at the expense of other services for children and families; and for this reason I believe that when one remembers the overall duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child, the duty in paragraph 9 is correctly framed in that respect.

The second amendment, however, is of more limited scope in that it applies only to children who are being looked after by local authorities. A similar amendment was moved in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady David, in somewhat stronger terms. As I explained then, the Government would not wish to lose certain features of paragraph 13(1), namely that the duty with regard to contact should be "to endeavour to promote contact" rather than "to promote contact", qualified by, so far as is reasonably practicable". Today's amendment would substitute merely the word "practicable". The amendment we are considering would require an authority to act unless it is not in the child's interests rather than where it is "consistent" with the child's welfare as laid down in the present paragraph 13. Nevertheless, we are attracted to the change of emphasis in this particular situation and would like to consider the amendment for that reason.

In this case, unlike the first amendment, there seems to be good reason for emphasising the promotion of contact regarding a relatively limited range of children who are most at risk of losing touch with their families. If, therefore, I may summarise, I should like to consider further whether we can do something along the lines of Amendment No. 75 to emphasise the need to promote contact in that limited class of case. We feel that Amendment No. 72 covers too wide a class of children to make it right to put that extra duty on local authorities. I hope that in the light of my explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the tone of his observations on these two amendments. I appreciate the difficulties connected with Amendment No. 72 but I thought the noble and learned Lord much more encouraging over Amendment No. 75. We feel that if paragraph 13 could be strengthened it would give powerful steering to local authorities to put more effort into promoting contact. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 73, 74 and 75 not moved.]

7 p.m.

Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 76: Page 80, line 38, at end insert— ("and, (c) where the child has sufficient understanding to give or withhold his consent, he has consented to the appointment of an independent visitor.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will, I hope, be acceptable to the noble and learned Lord. It introduces the role of the independent visitor. That role is to advise, visit and befriend a child in care who has been out of touch with parents for more than a year. What is proposed concerns page 80, line 38, at the end of the provisions relating to what should be done in different situations following the words: Where it appears to a local authority in relation to any child that they are looking after that— I am proposing an additional paragraph which reads: (c) where the child has sufficient understanding to give or withhold his consent, he has consented to the appointment of an independent visitor". As I have said, that role is to advise, visit and befriend a child in care who has been out of touch with parents for more than a year. The Bill extends the appointment of independent visitors to all children in care, not just to those in secure accommodation or community homes, when education and hospital care is involved as is the case at present. That provision in the Bill is very welcome. However I sould like to add as a precautionary step that an independent visitor should not be forced on an unwilling older child since that might be not only counterproductive but a curious form of befriending.

This is a short, but I hope helpful, amendment which I move.

Baroness David

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. We all know what it is like to have an unwelcome visitor and people we would rather not see when they come to the front door. It is in line with the general philosophy of the Bill that we do not try to make children do things that they do not want to do or see people that they do not want to see if it is not absolutely essential. This seems to be an amendment with which we all ought to have sympathy. I hope that the noble and learned Lord is able to see his way to accepting it.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is clear and I am sympathetic to that purpose. The Bill places a duty on local authorities to appoint an independent visitor where communication between the parents and child is very infrequent or where the child has not been visited during the preceding 12 months. The job of an independent visitor is to advise and befriend the child from a standpoint which is separate from that of the local authority. A visitor can offer valuable support to an isolated child without many outside friends.

I think that the idea is a good one, but we now think it that might not be wise to have an independent visitor where a child is with a family, and that it would be wise to limit the appointment of independent visitors to cases where children are placed in residential establishments and not with families. However, that is a matter for another day.

I can see that the essential purpose of our proposal would be frustrated if a child who is able to make mature decisions does not wish to have a visitor appointed for him. I am therefore happy to consider this matter further. To thrust a visitor on an older child who does not want a visitor might well have the kind of results that the noble Baroness, Lady David, pointed out from her own experience. We will consider the matter further.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to remind your Lordships of the observation that the artist, Sickert, made on one occasion to a visitor who stayed too long and talked too much. Sickert said to him, "Do come again when you have a little less time". In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 77:

Page 82, leave out lines 44 and 45 and insert— ("(2) An authority may receive contributions from a contributor only if there is an exceptional and positive cause to do so and the contributor agrees to make the contributions.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment at Committee stage which attempted to delete all reference to parental contributions from the Bill. Although that amendment was supported by every child care organisation and indeed every local authority association, the Government did not look very kindly on it. In bringing forward these amendments, we are trying to do a little less. In speaking to Amendment No. 77 I am also speaking to Amendment No. 78.

These amendments follow exactly the recommendation of the House of Commons Social Services Committee in 1984: namely, the Short committee which has been referred to a great many times in the course of the proceedings on this Bill. That recommendation appeared in paragraph 353 of the report. The amendments enable a local authority to collect contributions, and parents to make them, where there is a positive reason to do so and where there is genuine agreement by the parents. In arguing against the detailed arguments in favour of abolishing contributions that I put forward at Committee stage, the noble and learned Lord made a number of points (cols. 217–219, of 17th January 1989).

The noble and learned Lord's first objection was that the Bill lays greater emphasis on reasonableness. This is true, but local authorities will still have to make a decision in each individual case rather than being able to have a policy of not requiring contributions at all, which many local authorities would wish to have, and it would make it very much simpler for them.

Secondly, the noble and learned Lord said that the Bill encourages local authorities to reach agreement over contributions. It may well do, but so does the present legislation. The fact remains that under present legislation and under the Bill, if no agreement can be reached, the parents are taken to court. At court parents are not entitled to legal aid for representation. The court looks only at the ability to pay and not at the reasonableness or otherwise of the local authority's claim.

Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord referred to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that payment encouraged a sense of responsibility and dignity and enabled parents to feel that they had not completely lost touch with their children. That may be true in the case of some parents, but this amendment would enable parents to make payments if they wished. However, for the majority of parents, parental contributions are an additional burden and there is not much dignity in being pursued through courts for arrears, which frequently happens to those who fail to pay.

Parents who strenuously oppose their children being taken into care feel that the subsequent imposition of charges adds insult to injury. It is difficult to see how the collection of contributions helps parents to feel responsible for, and maintain contact with, their children.

The Family Rights Group, which has made a considerable study of this matter, has experience of several cases where parents have been taken to court over contributions in circumstances where the local authority were denying them all contact with their children. That naturally leads to resentment. Contributions are dealt with by a different section of the local authority from the social services department; it is the finance department which chases them up. The finance department has no personal contact with the parents and no knowledge and understanding of the circumstances surrounding their case.

The Family Rights Group's experience in casework and training is that social workers are extremely reluctant to get involved in collection of parental contributions or in negotiations about how much people should pay. They regard it as a matter to be dealt with by the finance sector. Indeed, social workers frequently fail to pick up the fact that parents might well be entitled to family credit, which would exempt them from liability to contributions. The Family Rights Group has cases of families which are eligible for family credit, but not claiming it, but are still being chased for parental contributions.

In relation to handicapped children whose parents are not currently required to make contributions, it is unclear from the noble and learned Lord's comments at Committee stage whether under the Bill it will be possible for them to be charged in future. Perhaps he will clarify that matter in reply.

I said at the beginning of my remarks that the Social Services Committee of the House of Commons in 1984 recommended that parents should not be forced to make contributions to their children's maintenance unless they volunteered to do so. I am told on good authority that the Social Services Committee in another place, which is now sitting, is about to come unanimously to the same conclusion. It seems to be a matter of considerable importance when two committees made up of all parties decide, five years apart, that this is the sensible thing to do. One considers also that all the voluntary associations and the local authority associations are against forcing people to pay. I believe that is a very powerful argument. I look forward with slightly more optimism this time to what the noble and learned Lord will say than I had as a result of the response he gave me at Committee stage, remembering that this is a slightly diluted amendment. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, in view of the forcefulness with which the noble Baroness, Lady David, moved her amendment at Committee, I am not entirely surprised to find that we are back on this subject at Report.

I well understand the concern that insensitive use of the power to recover contributions can place on families and children of limited means and put them under pressure. I was interested in the views attributed to a joint working party of the AMA and ACC in 1983 that there would be savings of cash and time if charges were dispensed with. But I do not think it follows from these points that the recovery of contributions should nowhere be permitted. As I said last time, there seems to me to be nothing objectionable in principle in enabling local authorities which are looking after a child to ask for contributions from the parents, who in other circumstances would have to maintain the child themselves, if they are satisfied that the parents can afford to pay and the contributions sought are reasonable. The answer to insensitive charging must be to improve practice, and I would expect the greater emphasis placed on reasonableness by the Bill to have impact in that direction.

The noble Baroness is referring to the practice under the current system. Our system under the Bill is putting greater emphasis on reasonableness. The local authority associations may also wish to repeat their guidance to local authorities which was referred to in the Select Committee report, which states: Regard must be given to the effect on families of meeting the charges and the effect this has on their relationship with social workers. Any scheme needs to be as reasonable and as non-punitive as possible". In any case there should be no question of the authority "chiselling"—to use the expression used by the noble Baroness, Lady David in Committee—money out of unwilling victims. The procedure in Schedule 2 provides several checks on unreasonableness.

First, paragraph 20(5) states: The authority may not specify in a contribution notice a weekly sum greater than that which they consider—(b) it is reasonably practicable for the contributor to pay (having regard to his means)". Secondly, paragraph 20(8) states that where the contributor agrees the sum which he is to contribute he may withdraw his agreement at any time.

Thirdly, paragraph 19(4) says: A parent is not liable to contribute during any period when he is in receipt of income support or family credit". Fourthly, paragraph 21(1) states that if the contributor does not agree with the contribution notice or, having agreed, withdraws his agreement, the authority connot recover the contributions without a court order.

I shall look into the legal aid situation because I believe it appropriate that it should be available. I shall check that situation. Fifthly, paragraph 21(3) declares that the court in making a contribution order must pay due regard to the contributor's means and may not specify a sum to be contributed greater than that specified by the authority in the contribution notice. Sixthly, under paragraph 21(11) the contributor will be able to appeal against a decision of the court in accordance with rules of court with the benefit at this and the preceding stage of legal aid if he is eligible.

In addition, the contributor will be able to make representations under the new procedure to be established under Clause 22 if he wishes. I would venture to suggest that this is designed to ensure that the outcome is entirely reasonable and affords great protection against the kind of situation which the noble Baroness described.

As regards the suggestion from the 1983 working party report that there would be savings if the collection of contributions was dispensed with, there is no reason why individual authorities should not decide on that ground alone if they wished that contributions should not be collected. Paragraph 19(1) simply requires the authority to consider whether it should recover contributions. It may take account of any relevant considerations in reaching its decision. I believe that it follows from what I have said that I am unable to support the first Amendment, No. 77, and I remain opposed to the second which is not new. I have the greatest respect for the committee whose recommendation is reflected in Amendment No. 77, but I find it hard to visualise circumstances which would give exceptional and positive cause, to quote the amendment, for receiving a contribution. This is, I have to say, a difficult proposition to put into practice. The second amendment would remove the mechanics for recovering contributions, leaving what remained unenforceable. The noble Baroness asked in Committee whether the Bill will introduce charges to the parents of handicapped children who are currently not subject to such charges. I said in answer to the question that there is no charge where disabled children, or anyone else, is in National Health Service provision, but there can be a charge for children for whom services are provided by a local authority, just as under the present law.

I cannot add very much more to this and to what I said last time. The emphasis on reasonableness in the Bill is in marked contrast to the rather rigid language of persons being liable to make contributions in Part V of the Child Care Act 1980, which it replaces. I said, and I believe it is worthy of repetition, that experience under the present law is on the basis of these rigid provisions. While the Social Services Committee was inclined to pooh-pooh the idea, I believe, as I said last time, that there is something in the comment of my noble friend Lady Faithfull that it can help parents, or at least some of them, to feel that they have not lost contact with their children if they have to pay something towards their support when they are in a position to do so.

We have tried to be as reasonable as possible in this matter and to promote a balanced approach to what can be a difficult question in some circumstances. I hope the noble Baroness feels able not to press the amendment.

7.15 p.m.

Baroness David

My Lords, my amendment means that parents could make contributions. The amendment states, an authority may receive contributions from a contributor", so that can be done. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving me an extensive answer. I shall read it with great care. I am particularly glad that he said he would look into the question of legal aid.

I am not altogether happy with the situation that is left. It seems a pity that one has two committees, five years apart, that have made the same recommendation and that that does not carry a little more weight. I do not believe that it would be wise to divide the House at this time. From what the noble and learned Lord has said, I believe that I have the right to come back at the next stage if I so wish. I believe that course is left open to me. I shall read very carefully what he has said and I give warning that I may well return to this issue at the next stage of the Bill. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]

Clause 26 [Care and supervision orders]:

Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 79:

Page 21, line 24, leave out subsection (1) and insert— ("(1) On the application of—

1. (a) any local authority,
2. (b) any authorised person,
3. (c) the child, or
4. (d) any person who has parental responsibility for the child, the court may make an order placing the child with respect to whom the application is made in the care of a designated local authority.

(1A) On the application of any local authority or authorised person the court may make an order putting him under the supervision of a designated local authority or of a probation officer.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may once more bring to the attention of the House something that is of great concern to the Children's Legal Centre and other organisations that are well known for their moderation, goodness and experience in looking after young people. The purpose of this amendment is to enable children and parents to apply for compulsory care orders. That will arise when a request to a local authority for accommodation under Clause 17 has been refused. As the Bill stands at present there is not a provision for a parent or a child to challenge such a decision of a local authority.

An amendment was moved in Committee, but it was later withdrawn. Another amendment was moved which would have brought in, as it were, by a back door what is intended by the amendment before us. It would have reintroduced Section 3 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963. It would have provided that following a period of notice, parents could apply to the juvenile court for an order requiring the local authority to take care proceedings if they felt that their child was beyond their control. That amendment was also withdrawn.

In Committee, the noble and learned Lord took a certain stance. I am sure that he needs no reminder of that stance; but I wonder whether I may be permitted to remind the House of what the noble and learned Lord felt at that stage. I shall paraphrase cols. 333–334 of the Official Report of 19th January. If in any way I paraphrase wrongly, I know he will chastise me—and correctly so. It would be a case of deserved corporal punishment, if I may remind the House of an earlier debate.

He said that he did not agree with the principle that a child should be able to apply for a care or supervision order in respect of himself. Here I shall quote directly what the noble and learned Lord said: It is important that the needs of a child are fully investigated before proceedings are brought—a responsibility which in almost all cases a local authority is best placed to meet".—[Official Report, 19/1/89; col. 334.]

The experience of those connected with the matter is that the children to whom the amendment is addressed will have already contacted social services for help—they will either have done it themselves or someone will have done it on their behalf—and investigations should have been carried out.

The noble and learned Lord also made reference to the recommendations of the Review of Child Care Law that care proceedings should usually—not inevitably—be brought by a local authority social services department. But that debate was in the context of whether the police or the NSPCC should continue to institute care proceedings. There was no discussion about the plight of children who have been failed by the social services. The noble and learned Lord went on to say: It is, of course, always open to a child to go to a local authority and bring his situation to the attention of the authority. The authority then has the statutory duty to see that the child is properly looked after". That is absolutely right and no one can argue with it. It is perfectly in order when the machine works properly. There is then no difficulty. However, we are dealing with what happens when a local authority has failed to comply with its statutory duty. The amendment is addressed to that problem.

The Children's Legal Centre and various other organisations are worried about the growing problem of social services departments not being prepared to receive children into care. This is usually for resource reasons but sometimes because they do not accept as being genuine or as being in need of urgent attention a child's allegations of abuse. Some officers of social services departments may tend to minimise the harm involved. I shall not bore the House at this stage, although I know that it is extremely interested in the problems of such children, with all the details of the cases of children under the age of 18 who have been assisted by the Central London Teenage Project, the Children's Society project concerned with runaways. I assure the House that I have many detailed cases. Each one highlights the desperate steps that these young people have taken to get away from home. They have done so for good reason and without help being afforded to them by social services departments.

The amendment also deals with a parent's right to apply. I shall again paraphrase the noble and learned Lord. He said at cols. 369–370 of the Official Report for 19th January that the seeking of a care order should be a matter of last resort with the authority considering whether or not the situation could be met by the provision of services in the first instance or accommodation on a voluntary basis. The noble and learned Lord was absolutely right in saying that. However, my point in the amendment is that there may be circumstances in which the local authority fails in its statutory duty. The Bill provides no remedy at all for such children or such parents. At the moment they can go by way of wardship proceedings, through next friends such as teachers or youth workers, and a care order can be sought. However, Clause 70(2) expressly precludes such applications in the future.

In the debate on this issue the noble and learned Lord stated clearly at cols. 1345–1346 of the Official Report of 20th December that in his view the appropriate course of action for those wishing to challenge the decision of a local authority was through judicial review.

One knows that the process of applying for judicial review is a complicated and costly affair. An application for judicial review will be granted by the court only on certain well known grounds. It will not enable the court to look at the way in which decisions are made. It does not enable the court to consider the case on its merits.

The court cannot substitute its own decision for the decision of the local authority unless, in accordance with what is known as the Wednesbury principle, there was sufficient information before the local authority to enable the court to make its own decision. Usually, the court either cannot entertain the application or can only send back the matter for the local authority to make its decision in the proper way. If that happens one can well imagine that a local authority may decide to reach exactly the same decision in order to save its face or for the reasons it gave before. However, what the court cannot do is to consider the welfare of the child in its deliberations and substitute, as I said, its own decision.

It is for that reason—to help children and parents in that predicament—that the amendment seeks to give the child and the parent the right to go to court to make an order placing the child, with respect to whom the application is made, in the care of a designated local authority. Obviously in an inappropriate case the court will not make the order. However, some provision must be made to deal with the kind of case which I brought to the attention of the House as, indeed, it was brought to the attention of noble Lords in Committee.

I must repeat that it is not my own brainchild; it is the agonised wish—I use that word advisedly—of the Children's Legal Centre and other such organisations that those children and those parents should be looked after in that way. I beg to move.

7.30 p.m.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I must say that in principle I am sad about the amendment. I am sad about the fact that it should have to be. I think that for children to feel that they must go to court against their parents is something which one would not want to encourage in any way.

However, there are two instances where there are very real difficulties. The first is where the mother or the father suffer from a mental illness and the children cannot tolerate that illness. Indeed, in some cases the children are frightened of it. The second instance is a very sad situation. It is where some local authorities—the ones I know of are in London—are closed on certain days so that if there are any problems the children—or indeed the parents—cannot go there. Therefore if a child is being ill-treated or cruelly treated and goes to the local authority for help, he or she cannot receive it because the office is closed.

Therefore I am in some dilemma over the matter. In principle, I think that it is a sad amendment to have to put forward. I regret the fact that it has to be put forward; but I see the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which is illustrated by the two cases that I have cited.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, in Committee I set out our reasons for objecting to the child being able to apply for a care or supervision order. Indeed, the noble Lord has summarised with his customary accuracy and brevity, what I said at greater length at that time. I believe those reasons apply equally well to applications by persons with parental responsibility.

First and foremost, care proceedings are very serious matters with major implications for the child himself, the parents and others with parental responsibility, and of course the local authority. The needs of the child should be fully investigated before proceedings are brought. The local authority will have a specific responsibility under paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to take steps to reduce the need to bring care and supervision proceedings, for instance by providing other services; and, so far as is consistent with their general duty, to promote the upbringing of children who are in need by their families (and of course, the parents would be able to make representations at that stage under the new procedure if they wished).

Those are important responsibilities designed to ensure that children are placed in care only as a last resort. Authorities, efforts to find other solutions could be sabotaged if the child or parents were able to pursue an application regardless. There are no particular grounds referred to in the amendment, and it would be possible for any person named to pursue an application without any preparation. It is true that the authority could argue its case before the court; but surely it is much better to prevent inappropriate applications from getting that far.

In Committee I mentioned the review of child care law which saw other reasons for restricting the power to bring care proceedings to local authorities and authorised persons. It said, at paragraphs 12.15 and 12.16: As any obligations under a care or supervision order will fall on (local) authorities they seem to us the most natural applicant for such orders. Indeed, given their wide powers to provide other social services and help to parents and children, and specifically to prevent care becoming necessary they alone may often be in a position to judge when compulsory intervention is the best or only feasible way forward. Weight is lent to the argument by the fact that the question whether to make an order and, if so, what order to make may depend to a significant degree on the resources and facilities which the social services department are willing to make available if an order is made, and on what their long term plans for the child are. It is difficult to see how proceedings could be brought without the agreement and co-operation of social services departments. Given that agreement and co-operation, it is difficult to see why others should, in general, need an independent right to start proceedings. The noble Lord referred to that and mentioned its context. But that seems to me to be a general statement which underlies the recommendation of the Committee. The review continues to say: We also see some advantage in ensuring from the outset of what may become a long history of compulsory intervention that the social services department are in the lead and firmly identified by themselves and others as having the primary responsibility for the child". I would only add that there is no provision in existing law for the child, the parents or other private individuals to initiate care proceedings. Under Section 3 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, to which reference was made, parents may seek a court order requiring the authority to bring care proceedings, but this is little used, and we are proposing, as I mentioned before, that it should be repealed. An amendment seeking to restore this was considered in Committee. In my view, it would be inappropriate, for the reasons I have touched on, for the local authority to be compelled to seek a care or supervision order. The whole thrust of the scheme in the Bill is not to extend opportunities for bringing these proceedings, but in the other direction, and that is why police and local education authority powers will not be renewed.

As I have said on other occasions, the local authority's power to provide services under Part III, and its duty to seek to prevent the need to initiate proceedings, are among the most important features of the Bill. I should not like to see those features diluted by a provision of the kind proposed in the amendment. I should have thought that underlying the anxieties expressed in the amendment there is something extending a great deal further than the bringing of care proceedings and it is a question of enforcement of the general duty. In that respect, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, the law provides the remedy which is appropriate for a breach of duty and there are of course reserve powers vested in the Secretary of State. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and and learned Lord for the consideration which he has obviously given to what I said and, indeed, to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. Like the noble Baroness I got no joy in moving the amendment and drawing attention to cases where local authorities may fail the needs of the children. If I may say so, with the utmost respect, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord pointed in any direction where such children, or parents in that position, such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for example, will be helped.

As I tried to point out, pointing towards an application for judicial review or compelling local authorities to carry out their statutory duty is not an easy way to cover such cases. I told the House that the inspiration for the amendment was the Children's Legal Centre and other organisations which are endeavouring to look after some of the children who have left home for one reason or another, and to deal with their problems.

I think that it is appropriate at this stage for me to withdraw the amendment so that I can take advice from those organisations upon their reading the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord. In those circumstances therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until not before 8.40 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.