Lords Sitting of 17 January 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

The Post Office: Quality of Service
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to prevent the service given to the public by the Post Office from deteriorating.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the quality of the postal service is a matter for the Post Office. The Chairman of the Post Office has said that he attaches high priority to improving the quality of service. I welcome his determination to do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is not the efficiency of the postal service also a matter of concern for the Government in view of the vital part it plays in the working of British life and the British economy? If the Government are not satisfied as to the efficiency of the Post Office, are they prepared to do something about it?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suppose that I should say to my noble friend that concern is greatest among the customers who wait to receive their mail or occasionally to receive their bills. The Post Office has taken a large number of steps to improve the quality of service. It is establishing quality assurance teams in most major sorting offices. It has phased introduction of new, faster mechanised sorting machines, which are scheduled for completion in 1990. It plans to introduce more accurate end-to-end measurement on letter delivery performance. This year it is to publish more clearly defined service standards which customers should expect for local mail, medium distance mail and long distance mail. It has had great difficulty with recruitment, particularly in the South-East. It is taking steps to solve that problem. However, at the end of the day what counts is the quality of service itself, which is a matter of constant concern.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does not the problem lie with what is known as the real unit cost reduction target? This target is designed by the Treasury to achieve greater efficiency but only greater efficiency as measured in accounting terms. Should not the target take account of the quality of service as well, so as to ensure that the Post Office cannot meet the financial target simply by allowing its service to deteriorate?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that that is a rather better red herring than usual—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the standards with which the chairman is concerned are the quality of delivery and of service in the Post Office. That is the matter with which he is concerned. It is the chairman of the Post Office who has responsibility for service in the Post Office and not the Treasury.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that no single measure would add more to the efficiency of the Post Office and do more to strengthen the economy of the postal services than the completion of the postal code? What prospect is there for that to be completed, with all the saving of manpower and increases in efficiency which might be expected?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the problem is not so much the completion of the postal code, which is indeed important, but the introduction of new, faster mechanised sorting machines which are dependent on the postal code. That is scheduled for completion in 1990, next year. When those are in, we shall see some of these improvements coming through.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it is not for the noble Lord, who is himself an expert manipulator of the red herring, to make that unworthy charge in respect of my noble friend's question. Can he say how the –20 million made available to the Post Office last September to improve customer service has been spent?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it was not a red herring. What we are discussing here is the quality of service of the Post Office and not some Treasury method which is supposed to have some effect on it. I shall certainly take the opportunity to write to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition setting out the ways in which this £20 million has been invested. I shall place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in view of the substantial deterioration in the service of British Telecom since privatisation, will the Minister give an assurance that he will not be tempted to follow a similar path with the Post Office?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is not very often that 1 have the opportunity to disagree too strongly with the noble Lord but on this occasion I fear that I must do so. Therefore I shall also have placed in the Library the latest survey results which show that the satisfaction level with British Telecom has risen over the past 12 months to historically high levels. These are independent surveys. The noble Lord can judge for himself when he see those figures.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is it not a fact that, while it may not be 100 per cent. efficient. the British Post Office is a great deal more efficient than most post offices in developed countries? It is infinitely more efficient than the American Post Office. Is not the main trouble that all post offices in developed countries are swamped by unsolicited junk mail?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is only for the receiver to categorise mail as junk. In our society we all have the right to post letters. It is not for anyone here to say what is junk and what is worth receiving.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that both in London and in the country I have received the very best possible service from my local postman over the past two years? The Post Office should be given credit for that.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should like to pay great tribute to the work carried out by the staff of the Post Office. Alas, 1988 was a poor year for industrial relations, with some 129 disputes between April and the beginning of October. I hope that we are now entering into calmer conditions and that we shall see the reputation of the Post Office fully restored.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, these new machines will soon be coming into operation. What percentage of business and private customers use the post code at present.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I can certainly make inquiries to see whether that information is available. However, I am sure that once these automatic sorting machines are in place far more people will recognise the sheer necessity of using the post code and will start to remember at least their own post code.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, contrary to the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, many letters come from this city to Hampshire—a distance of 60 miles—in two and a half days, which works out at an average movement of one mile an hour?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have a faint suspicion that when the chairman of the Post Office reads Hansard, as I am sure he will, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will find that the quality of his service may well improve.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether he considers that the introduction of first-class and second-class mail, with experience over the years, has helped or hindered the speed of letter delivery'?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we live in different times. It is undeniable, if we go back enough decades, that there was a time when we relied upon the post far more than we do today and when there were many deliveries and collections each day by the Post Office. However, that was a different age and we are now coming into a time when fax and different methods are being used. We must ensure that we have a Post Office with a quality of service which is satisfactory. Indeed, the chairman of the Post Office is dedicated to improving the quality of service and I welcome his determination to do so. However, I think that we shall have to judge that by results.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us when the full postal code will be put into the telephone book?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suppose that is a matter for British Telecom, but I shall make inquiries and, again, I shall let the noble Lord know the outcome.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, does the Minister agree that none of the exchanges which have taken place to date should he seen as reflecting adversely on the personal services given by the postmen and women who deliver and collect the mail?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he said. I accept that totally.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, even if British Telecom puts postal codes in the telephone book, how are you supposed to find out the postal code of someone who is not on the telephone?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am tempted to say "pass" at this point.

Drink-Driving Prevention Campaign
2.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the results of the recent campaign to stop drinking and driving over the Christmas and New Year holiday period compared with those in previous years.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it is too early for a full assessment. However, preliminary police figures for England and Wales suggest that a substantial 40 per cent. increase in their enforcement effort during the full holiday period compared with the previous year caught only 4 per cent. more drivers who had been drinking. It is clear, therefore, that more people are becoming aware of the dangers arid that there is a long-term downward trend in the amount of drinking and driving.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I welcome the general trend of improvement. While recognising that both the campaigns and the collection of the results were carried out separately in Scotland and in England and Wales, can he indicate whether parts of the United Kingdom were better and others were worse than in previous years, although it may be invidious to point out that some areas start with better records?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I said, the original statistics consist of provisional and incomplete figures from police forces in England and Wales. There are wide differences between force areas. The fact that the figures are not yet complete means that comparisons would not be particularly meaningful at this stage.

107
Figures in respect of Scotland have just come to hand and I can tell my noble friend that the number of drivers tested increased by 80 per cent. and the number of those who failed the test fell by 13 per cent.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the Minister say whether as part of their campaign on drinking and driving Her Majesty's Government have made representations to the Brewers Society to reduce the cost of non-alcoholic beers and lagers? If they have not done so, the public will never seriously believe in their campaign.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting and, I think, most important point. I can say that we welcome the strong support from the private sector, especially the brewers. I am pleased to say that the sales of low and non-alcoholic beers are increasing rapidly. As regards their cost, I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of the brewers.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the Government have finally decided against random breath testing? Further, is he aware that there is more than one form of such testing and that unless we have some kind of random breath testing the position will remain unsatisfactory?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, calls for random breath testing reflect the welcome hardening of society's attitude towards the drinking driver. The police already have wide powers and they can stop at random. However, they have now said that they would like the law to be changed to allow unfettered discretion to test.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any thought has been given to encouraging pubs to run milk bars?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, no; not so far as I know. However, I know that a large number of pubs do sell milk.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, now that the winter holidays are over, can my noble friend and his colleagues also direct their attention to the reckless and inconsiderate driving at other times of the year perpetrated by people who are perfectly sober?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that was a most interesting question. We shall shortly be publishing our conclusions in response to the North Report on Road Traffic Law, including its proposals for dealing with reckless driving. However, our publicity campaign is aimed at improving driving standards and will, of course, continue.

Planning Control: Policy
2.50 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their policy to ensure that the exercise of planning control takes account of aesthetic considerations.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The Government's advice stresses that local planning authorities should not impose their own tastes on developers simply because they believe them to be superior. Local planning authorities should not seek to control the external appearance of new developments except where there is a clear justification; for example, because the development is out of scale or out of character with its surroundings.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am marginally grateful for that reply? Will he bear in mind that beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder; it is an attribute of the deity? Does he agree that most people think that Chartres cathedral, for example, is superior to a pre-fabricated bungalow? Pending divine illumination, will he encourage local authorities to issue guidelines on questions such as the bulk, scale, massing and context of buildings within their area? Will he encourage them to appoint local panels along the lines of the Fine Art Commission to advise them in such matters?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am obviously grateful for any marginal agreement from my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley. It would not be profitable to dwell upon certain aspects of buildings and the merits thereof. The planning policy guidelines are clearly laid out in planning policy note No. 1.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the Government consider rejecting on aesthetic grounds the ill-judged proposal to build in London Wall near to St. Paul's a 31-storey skyscraper which will be as high as the cathedral, in view of the total unsuitability of that project?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am endeavouring to be helpful to the noble Lord. I have said that I think it would be inappropriate to comment upon certain buildings, but if he is referring to the Paternoster Square/St. Paul's Precinct development, I can say that as yet there has been no planning application.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am talking about Winchester House in London Wall, of which the noble Earl should be aware.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it would still be unwise to discuss the merits or otherwise of certain buildings.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, while I acknowledge that my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley speaks from Sinai on matters of faith and morals, and also as arbiter elegantiarum—a sort of modern Maecenas—will my noble friend decline the office of censorship which he seems to be having imposed upon him?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that point is in danger of getting above my head. I regret that I am neither a Latin nor a Greek scholar, but I take the point that my noble and learned friend has made.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is not the degree of modesty shown by the Minister welcome not only to the noble and learned Lord but to us, especially when we look at the building of the Department of the Environment, which is a strong candidate for being the ugliest building in Great Britain?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then ugliness too is in the eye of the beholder. Although I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has said, I can assure him that it is a comfortable and convenient building in which to work.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if the considerations now taken into account are added to in any way, it will make it even more difficult to get planning permission for anything and he will not be doing anyone a good turn?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the best way forward for good design is to have close co-operation and understanding between planner and developer.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his first Answer will cause some dismay to those people who are concerned with local conditions for development and that it could almost be taken to mean a licence for developers to go their own way and do what they want? Is he also aware of the increasing concern felt in certain areas about the use of private parliamentary Bills by developers in order to bypass the normal planning procedures? Finally, what is the situation in some city centres where such buildings have been taken out of the control of the local authority and placed under the control of the urban development corporation, which also becomes the planning authority? What procedural vehicle is left open for someone who wants to object to that type of development by an urban development corporation other than to go cap in hand to the Secretary of State?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that we are dealing with aesthetic considerations. The type of building materials to be used externally are of interest to both the planning authority and the developer; it is the building's eventual use which is important to the client.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Earl has reminded us that planning authorities are not supposed to take account of aesthetic factors. Bearing in mind the recent court decision which said that they were not allowed to take account of social factors either, is there not some risk that the Government may conclude that there is nothing left worth having in the planning system and seek to abolish it? If there is such a risk, will they resist that temptation in view of the fact that we shall fairly soon remember why we set it up in the first place?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is extremely difficult to legislate for good design. I believe that the way I answered a previous question is appropriate. Good design cannot he achieved merely by controls and regulations.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Earl reconsider his replies to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, and recommend a review of the notes of guidance? He must be aware, as I am. that it is almost impossible in my area to find a beholder who finds any beauty in the concrete monster that is being built for the British Library or For Sainsbury's "oil rig" which has been opened in Camden Town. Some guidance must be given to local authorities if we are to avoid a repetition of those monstrous buildings which are being put up in central London.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point that it is always important to see that notes of guidance are updated. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that when the British Rail Channel Tunnel scheme comes forward there will be a need to avoid the desecration of Kent, which at the moment is only too obvious?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, at the end of the day that will not necessarily be the case.

Family Planning Clinics
2.58 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether some health authorities, contrary to Section 4 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973, are closing down or reducing the services provided by NHS family planning clinics; and if so what steps they will take to reopen such clinics and restore such services.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the local provision of family planning services like other health provision is for individual health authorities to decide.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but is he aware that it is more than marginally unsatisfactory? Does he accept that the action of district health authorities in cutting family planning services in recent years is contrary to statute and is causing unwanted pregnancies and more abortions? When will the Government face up to their responsibilities for ensuring that that section of the law is complied with?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very much aware of the concerns of the Family Planning Association about the closure of family planning clinics. However, I understand that proposals for the closure of clinics and reductions in services are not being taken forward in the form originally proposed once they have been fully debated and discussed locally. I think it is significant that no closures have been so contentious that the full consultation process involving referral to Ministers has been brought into play to date.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that the Minister's first reply was misleading? When he said that it was up to local authorities, was he not contradicted by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who quoted correctly the statute that is being broken as these clinics are closed down? Will the Minister not now rescind his original answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and admit that this is a government responsibility under statute?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will find that the statute says:
"The Secretary of State's duty to arrange to such extent as he considers necessary to meet".
That, combined with the second answer I gave to my noble friend Lord Renton, provides, I believe, a satisfactory answer.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that up to 25 per cent. of district health authorities have either cut, or are proposing to cut, their family planning services, and bearing in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that there has been a 5 per cent., or rather 12 per cent., increase in abortions over the last five years, apart from the increase in teenage conceptions, was the Minister saying in his earlier reply that the department and therefore Ministers are turning down these proposals for a reduction? If so, will he accept from me our grateful thanks? Will he go further and ensure that the family planning services are not reduced as it is now proposed they should be? Will he take a firm stand, not just on behalf of the Family Planning Association and its requests but of all of us who are concerned about this issue?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have indicated that the Department of Health has made clear that it expects health authorities to make full use of their family planning services. I again draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to the point I made concerning my second answer to my noble friend, Lord Renton. As to the increase in abortions, I have to say that we cannot state that the closure of family planning clinics has a direct effect on the abortion rate because there is no basis on which the detail of the reasons for the increase in the abortion rate could be satisfactorily compiled.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, is not the Minister's reply a trifle disappointing in view of the recent most welcome emphasis by the Prime Minister on the importance of family planning and containment of the world population in the context of environmental pollution? In particular, will the noble Lord kindly say whether he can give any information on the progress of the three family planning and pregnancy counselling projects for young people set up by the Department of Health and Social Security in 1986?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with regard to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, concerning the three research projects which are going on at the moment, I believe I am correct in saying that the results will be available at the end of 1989.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that closures have taken place because the district health authorities have had to make economies? Does he consider it right merely to pass the costs from one National Health Service budget to another possibly at greater expense, because the Family Planning Association considers that its provision of family planning services is cheaper than if the patient were to go to a GP? Also, can the Minister say what has happened to the Government's banner of freedom of choice and explain why women cannot choose to go to a family planning clinic if they wish rather than to their GP?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Countess is aware that there is a certain level of disagreement concerning the cost effectiveness of the two alternatives, certainly as concerns the department. I must once again draw her attention to my earlier remark which is that a great number of the closures which were proposed have not in many cases taken place after further consultation.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Children Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill will be taken.

Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [H.L.]
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House to whom the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 3 to 7,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 8 to 13,

Schedules 4 and 5,

Clauses 14 to 16,

Schedule 6,

Clause 17.

—(Viscount Davidson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 18 [General duty of local authority in relation to children looked after by them]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 14, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) The local authority shall ensure that a plan to meet the individual needs of every child in their care is drawn up and that a named officer shall be responsible for this plan.").
The noble Lord said: From our discussions already on Clause 18 before, it is clear that subsections (3) and (4) spell out well the duties of the local authority. However I feel that this amendment is justified in order to spell out more clearly how children should be looked after. I think that my amendment will strengthen the rehabilitative duties of the local authority. Each child is a unique individual, and in the words of the Cleveland Report:
"The child is a person, not an object of concern".
Therefore I feel that it is necessary to underline more clearly how these duties might be carried out.
Perhaps I might sum up by saying that it will do no good if we create a sophisticated and sensitive prevention and protection service, only to fail the child personally who cannot live at home. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to support this amendment very strongly. It is essential to have the amendment to ensure that the framework of the Bill operates according to the true intendment. That is an important omission from the Bill.
The amendment in no way conflicts with any provisions of the Bill. On the contrary, it is in clear implementation of the legislation. The amendment is worth very serious consideration because it involves the drawing up of a plan, the meeting of the needs of each individual child in care and a designated officer responsible who, if unable to retain a responsibility, by implication, if not clearly expressed, hands over to another officer designated by the local authority.
The drawing up of this plan involves a mandatory statutory duty enforceable as such in the courts on judicial review. A duty of consultation arises under subsection (4) as regards any decision. But making a plan also inevitably involves consultation and ought to include those persons referred to in the subsection.
Somewhat of a lawyer's point arises and I raise it for the consideration of my noble and learned friend. A plan for action to be taken is perhaps not in the judicial thinking a decision as to action to be taken within the scope of the plan. Perhaps to some slight degree Amendment No. 94 may require a drafting
114
amendment in that regard. However, subject to that qualification, I support Amendment No. 94. If it were put to a vote, I should support it as it stands, because at a later stage of the Bill any drafting amendment of that kind could be carried.
This amendment would ease the means of reasonable resolution of many very difficult and disparate problems. On Second Reading I referred to one such problem. I frankly confessed that I could not devise any resolution of it. As time is precious I shall accept and produce only one example of the types of difficult problems that may arise.
On Second Reading, at col. 508 of Hansard, I referred to the child mother and the child mother's child. I said that either or both of them were in need of supervision. The mother, being unmarried, enters a voluntary home. She then leaves it to go to bed and breakfast accommodation. That is a serious problem, and 1 shall show how this amendment would, if carried, vastly contribute to a reasonable and humane resolution of it.
On Amendment No. 80, moved by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, reference was made to this problem in the context of priority on housing lists. She was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I supported that amendment. I drew the Committee's attention to its relevance in the context of this amendment. But my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor took the point that Amendment No. 80 was concerned with Part III of the Housing Act, as amended, and lay within the remit of another department—the Department of the Environment. So be it. My noble and learned friend said that he had Amendment No. 80 very much in mind.
If one excludes the housing element, this amendment is wholly requisite to deal with the voluntary home and bed and breakfast situation to which I referred. Incidentally, its effect would also be to some degree to ease and indeed resolve the housing element to which reference was made on Amendment No. 80, without introducing any amendments whatever into this Bill to accord equal priority to voluntary homes.
We are concerned with the problem to which I referred; namely, unmarried mothers of 16 to 18 who may have one or more children, and where perhaps the wishes of the mother to go into bed and breakfast accommodation may not be in the interests of the child. A conflict of interests could arise between two children. That is a delicate and sensitive question of balance and is but one way in which this amendment could serve the ends of this Bill and the interests of children.
3.15 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: I rise to support the amendment. When a child goes into local authority care, he may well be suffering from a deep physical or emotional trauma. With the right kind of help the child is able to recover and lead a fulfilled and happy life. Children have very different kinds of needs and what is appropriate for one child may be quite unsuitable for another child. Common sense dictates that each child must have a plan which is designed to meet his or her individual needs.

115
The Cleveland Report highlighted the importance of multidisciplinary working. It emphasised that this must also apply to a child who is in care. Someone must be responsible for ensuring that a child has access to all the locally available resources. A named officer could take responsibility for this and provide advice on the basis of which a child could make informed choices. If the child is too young to do that for himself, the named officer could help to guide the child.
Children should not be allowed to drift through the care system. On occasion they may even get lost in the system. Therefore a named officer would seem essential. It is much easier for a child or other family members to get information if they know whom to go to. Equally, if a child wants to make a complaint he also knows whom to ask.
Baroness Faithfull: I rise to support the amendment, though perhaps from a different point of view. In order to meet the individual needs of a child, a very skilled initial assessment has to be made of that child's needs. At the moment a kind of tariff system is often operated. First of all, social services departments or perhaps a voluntary organisation try to put a child into a foster home. That fails, so the child is moved to another foster home. That fails, and the child is then put into a children's home. That fails, and finally the child is either sent to a school for maladjusted children or perhaps comes before a juvenile court and is put into youth custody; by which time the child is perhaps 12, 13 or 14 years old and it is too late to influence him to any great extent. I support the amendment in order to press for a skilled initial assessment to be made of a child, so that he is not moved from place to place while he is in care.
As regards the point about a named officer, I know that a number of social services departments think it is impossible to have a named officer because of changes in staff. But every time an officer leaves the case in question should immediately be given to another social worker, so that there is always somebody responsible for the child even if at that stage the new person does not know the child very well. On those two points, therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I too wish to support the amendment. There are children in care who do not have a plan for the future. One of the DHSS-sponsored research studies revealed that social workers did not actively plan what should happen to children when they entered care. The study revealed that the plan which most social workers tend to adopt is a wait and see policy.
In assessing what is happening to a child, what is likely to happen to him and what should have happened to him, the attitude of social workers is one of neutrality. That evidence emerged from a DHSS research study. What is required from the day a child enters care—the amendment is silent on the date when the plan is to appear—is a more positive stance. That stance should necessitate a plan being prepared for each child in care. That will concentrate the mind on the need to map a child's future. Basing my
116
comments on the DHSS study document, that would appear to be essential.
There is another spin-off, if I may use the word. in that the preparation of a plan when a child enters care would also counter the drift and passivity in care cases. The DHSS researchers were startled to stumble across this passivity and drift. We believe that this amendment should be acceptable to the Government because, notwithstanding what is happening at ground level, it is in accordance with government policy. We very much wish to support the amendment.
Lord Meston: I also should like to support the amendment, not least because one would like to think that the drawing up of a plan of the kind that is proposed is what happens already in practice. It is very important to avoid what the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, has described as a child drifting in care. One knows from experience that children do drift in care and the line of least resistance is often taken. Those in local authorities who are responsible for children often do not think ahead or think ahead far enough. It seems to me particularly important that there should be some such provision in the Bill if the ability of the courts to intervene and to give directions as to what should or should not happen to a child is to be limited.
The only misgiving that one might have is that a plan can become over-rigid. However, I should hope that, perhaps by later amendment or by regulations, provision could be made to limit over-rigidity in a plan, possibly by means of periodic reviews of the case of a child in care. Generally speaking I support the principle of the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I should like to say first that I very strongly support the view that the child is to be considered as a person and that all his or her needs and aspirations should be taken into account. Secondly, I believe that all of us would wish to see steps taken to prevent drift, as it has been described by the noble Lady. In a sense, drift is one result of not treating the child as a person but allowing it to become involved in a structure in which its personality and individuality are lost sight of. Therefore, I do not believe that there is any disagreement between my noble friend Lord Mottistone and myself on the basic objectives of the amendment, and the same applies in relation to the other noble Lords who have supported the amendment.
However, there are some more technical matters to be considered. First, the amendment is restricted to children in the care of the local authority. Generally speaking, the provisions that we are considering in this Bill relate to all children whom the local authority is looking after, which, as your Lordships know, is a wider concept than in care. Children in care are in a sense the extreme cases and we hope that it will not be necessary for most children to be in care. The aim is to try to look after them in such a way that they may not need to be taken into care. Therefore the scope of a duty of the kind proposed ought to extend beyond merely the children who are subject to a care order and ought to be more general.

117
Secondly, I should like to refer to the provisions of Clause 18 of the Bill, which set out a general duty in relation to children looked after by the local authority. As I said, the Government are anxious that the children should be considered individually and that proper account should be taken of their personality and so on. It is necessary that the children who are covered by Clause 18 should be looked after in a way that recognises those factors. It is apparent that in order to look after a child properly a considerable amount of detail is required, and I should have thought that a plan would require some degree of elaboration to be a useful concept.
I suggest to your Lordships that other clauses in the Bill, if properly implemented, will achieve the objective of the amendment. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, the amendment does not specify a date for the plan.
The first specific point that I wish to make is that we intend that the rules of court to be made under Clause 70 should require a local authority, when applying for a care order, to provide the court with details of its proposals for the child should the order be granted. That will have an effect in relation to the matter raised by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. It may not be possible at that stage to prepare a full assessment of the child's needs but at least the attention of the local authority will be directed to the need to consider the particular child for whom a care order is being sought and to set out to the court its proposals in relation to the child.
As your Lordships will remember, one of the key necessities for an order is that the court should be satisfied that the order will be of some benefit to the child. So the court needs to know, in broad outline at least, what the local authority proposes for the child. At that stage the proposals may be in the nature of an embryo plan rather than a full, detailed plan such as might have been contemplated in connection with this amendment, but they will go into as much detail as possible.
Secondly, under Clause 22, local authorities will be required to review the cases of all children whom they are looking after—children in their care and children who are being looked after but who are not technically in care—at intervals to be laid down. Those reviews will necessarily imply a check on what is required for the child and the nature of the development which is being considered. There is a reference to implementation of such decisions and I shall expect such implementation to be entrusted to a named officer under regulations to be made.
As my noble friend Lady Faithfull has pointed out, local authority staff are apt to change and therefore it would be appropriate to have in regulations a mechanism for ensuring that if a member of staff leaves someone is nominated to take the place of that officer in respect of the child in question.
More generally, both at reviews and in making any other decisions in respect of the child, the responsibilities of local authorities to children they are looking after under Clause 18 require that the local authorities safeguard and promote the child's welfare in the provision of their services. That will
118
require a considered approach and planned proposals for the child. I believe that it is more appropriate that the detailed provisions which are required and which underlie the concerns expressed by the promoters of the amendment should be dealt with in that way. I believe that fairly detailed regulations are required to ensure those objectives. I lay particular stress on the initial requirement in respect of care proceedings, which we anticipate will be provided for in rules of court. There are also possibilities in relation to general guidance and so on, but I believe that most of those matters ought to be provided for under the regulations which the Bill presently provides.
I hope that, in the light of these remarks, my noble friend will feel that the considerations which he has in mind are also very much in our minds and can be adequately catered for under the regulations.
Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for carefully spelling out how he considers that the aims of this amendment might be met. I am also grateful to him for so clearly understanding our intentions. As we all do, I always have slight misgivings about matters which will appear in regulations before we actually see those regulations. I am therefore riot entirely happy about this situation but certainly I intend to read with great care what my noble and learned friend has said and shall perhaps come back at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 15, line 8, at end insert—
("(8A) Subject to subsections (8B) (8C) (8D) and (8E) below, the local authority shall ensure that no child whom they are looking after is subjected to corporal punishment.
(8B) Subsection (8A) shall not apply when the child is placed with—

(a) his parents,

(b) any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him, or

(c) any relative of his.

(8C) Subsection (8A) shall not apply to a child placed with a local authority foster parent before this Act was brought into force for the duration of that placement.
(8D) Subject to subsection (8E) 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 battery.
(8E) A person is not to be taken for the purposes cif this section as giving corporal punishment by virtue of anything done for reasons that include averting an immediate danger of personal injury to, or an immediate danger to the property of, any person (including the child).").
The noble Baroness said: My interest in the abolition of corporal punishment will be fairly well known to the Committee. I have spoken about it before and we have achieved a certain amount of success in this matter with help from all round the Chamber. This amendment is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and the noble Lords, Lord Seebohm and Lord Henderson. I hope that it will also be supported from the Benches to my right. It has

119
support from all round the Committee as well as from a large number of associations. The National Children's Home, Barnardo's, the Child Policy Review Group of the National Children's Bureau, the National Foster Care Association and the Children's Legal Centre have all given their support to the amendment. It has very strong backing both inside and outside this assembly.
This amendment aims to protect all children in care from physical punishment, with two exceptions. The definition of physical punishment is taken from the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and as such should cause no difficulties to the Government. That is comprised in subsection (8D). There are two exceptions to the authority's duty to ensure that no child in care is physically punished. The first is as is contained in subsection (8B), which covers circumstances when children are sent "home on trial" to parents or other relatives. The authority is under a duty to promote the upbringing of children with their families, and it is obviously important that the need to protect children from physical punishment should not conflict with the children's need to be with their parents and family. The authority would not be able to compel parents and relatives not to hit the child. The only means of meeting its duty under the amendment without this exemption would be not to send the child home, which would not be in the child's best interests. The Secretary of State must issue regulations on "home on trial placements" (as set out in Clause 19(4)) and could require authorities to use their best endeavours to dissuade parents from using corporal punishment.
Secondly, the other circumstance is where the child is already placed in a foster home. Local authorities will be able to stop foster parents from hitting children in care by making that a part of the fostering contract and by setting it as a condition for inclusion on the panel of approved foster parents. However, there will be some children already in foster placements where this new contract is not in place and where the foster parent is accustomed to using a certain amount of corporal punishment. Without the exemption (set out in subsection (8C) of the amendment) the authority would be placed in the invidious position of having to remove such a child who, perhaps, had been living and settled in the home for many years. As I have already said, the amendment is supported by the National Foster Care Association.
The Government are already committed to banning corporal punishment in most child care institutions. In a Parliamentary Answer given in January 1988 the then Minister, Mr. Tony Newton, stated that the Government would shortly be consulting on draft Children's Homes (Control and Discipline) Regulations which would prohibit corporal punishment in residential establishments where children and young people are accommodated as well as amending the Residential Care Homes Regulations (which cater for some children with mental handicaps).
Although welcome, these regulations do not offer adequate protection for children in care. Of course, corporal punishment is particularly inappropriate for
120
that group of children who may have come into care because of physical abuse. There is also a great difference between being hit by one's own parent and by someone who is a comparative stranger.
But the proposed regulations will not cover mental nursing homes. These are a small number of private homes which cater for mentally disturbed adolescents and which are governed by the Nursing and Mental Nursing Homes Regulations. Those regulations were amended in the summer but they did not ban corporal punishment. When the Children's Legal Centre asked the Department of Health why it had not done so, the officer responsible said that he had received legal advice that medical personnel could not use corporal punishment. That is inaccurate. There is nothing in health legislation to prohibit the use of corporal punishment and anyone with the control or charge of children can hit them. In any event the homes have staff who are not medically qualified.
These homes are dealing with the most difficult and disruptive young people, often those whom every other establishment has rejected. They are young people who are therefore very much at risk of physical abuse. In this context I should like to mention the Aycliffe Centre for young people which has at its head Mr. Masud Hoghughi, who came to speak to the All-Party Penal Affairs Group. The centre is the United Kingdom's largest specialised facility for severely disordered adolescents and it caters for a total of 156 boys and girls between the ages of eight and 19 years. It has 50 secure beds and forms the largest concentration of secure accommodation in the country.
These are children who have the most difficult problems and who have probably gone through almost every aspect of child care already. But the centre has a principle of not using corporal punishment or medication for purposes of control, which is very important. That is its policy. It caters for the most difficult of children and is managing successfully without such means.
Banning corporal punishment by regulation in the way in which I have spoken earlier would also leave unaffected the children in foster care. In 1984 the Children's Legal Centre surveyed local authorities' policies in relation to corporal punishment. It established that 10 of the 37 respondents had banned the use of corporal punishment in foster homes; in other words, it had made that a condition before placing a child with the foster parent. Presumably there were others which had such a policy but which did not reply to the centre; and I should hope that there are still more which have followed this course since the date of the survey.
The practice of those 10 authorities—not to mention the many states and countries elsewhere in the world which ban the use of corporal punishment in foster care—shows that the provision of foster care is not impaired by a prohibition of that sort.
Many children are taken into care because of physical abuse by their parents. It is clearly wrong that they should be at risk of physical punishment in care. Local authorities should be setting the example of good parenting by guaranteeing children in their

121
care a non-violent upbringing. Physical punishment passes on the message that violence solves problems. We are all appalled by the extent of violence in our society today and I believe that this Chamber should play its part in expressing disapproval by banning corporal punishment for those who are in the care of the state. I beg to move.
Lord Seebohm: The noble Baroness, Lady David, has made the case for this amendment extremely clearly, as she always does. Obviously I shall not again go into all the details which she has covered so well. However, it seems to me that the intentions of the Government as regards corporal punishment are already determined, as is evidenced by the Education Act 1987, to which the noble Baroness has referred, which abolished corporal punishment in state-supported schools and, I understand, is committed to banning it in most child care institutions.
We are here concerned with children in care. We are concerned in particular with those who arc with foster parents or on leave with parents, which I believe is a very important process in restoring family life to the child. We are also concerned with those in mental homes who are not covered by the proposed residential care homes regulations.
The debate between what I call hitters and non-hitters continues and will continue. But the hitters have lost in Parliament and it is no use raising the debate all over again. It is worth pointing out that Dr. Barnardo homes abolished corporal punishment 12 years ago and are convinced that they took the right decision especially as so many children are in care because of physical abuse at home.
The letters that some of us have received from hitters have misunderstood or misinterpreted the amendments, which make it clear that the rights of parents or relatives in caring for children are unaltered. Under common law they can use reasonable force to control their offspring. Many non-hitters would go a good deal further than this amendment and Amendment No. 259 that comes later. However, that is not what is proposed and I can see no departure from government policy already enacted or declared. I therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I rise to support this amendment and to endorse all that has been said by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady David. Children in care are the responsibility of the authority and sometimes of one of the great voluntary organisations, in particular the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. In many cases they are in care because they have been abused by their parents or their guardians and are already frightened and probably very difficult to manage. But to inflict more violence will make everything worse. When they are in the care of the public authority, it should not mean more punishment of that kind. Understanding, persuasion and consultation can nearly always prevent the child from becoming more difficult.
Part of the responsibility would be to help the parents to understand the child better. This is where experienced and well trained social workers are vital.
122
It is difficult if children are in mental care, but with the knowledge and experience we have of mental disorder today there is no reason to bring in corporal punishment, which would certainly do nothing to help under those conditions.
I do not think that our laws interfere with families at home unless one of the children's officers or the probation officer finds out that cruelty is being inflicted and report this to the police. They can then intervene and put the parent on trial. Sometimes the mother suffers by the husband who abuses the child and she cannot prevent him; but the children's officer should find out and call in the law on these occasions.
From the Children's Legal Centre I have been given information about what is happening in other European states. It is encouraging. For example, Sweden is one of the countries which has abolished corporal punishment in schools, as has Finland and other Nordic countries, and the result has been a decrease in children coming into care and a decrease in child abuse.
In 1987 the Council of Europe recommended that corporal punishment of children by their parents should be strongly discouraged and in several countries it is illegal. In the modern world there is so much more knowledge of child care and psychiatric treatment, apart from other simple punishments that have nothing to do with corporal punishment. We have already abolished corporal punishment in state schools and it is time that other educational establishments did the same. I should not like our nation to be the only European country which still persists with corporal punishment in the year 1989.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Banks: I should like to support the amendment. I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady David, that corporal punishment is particularly inappropriate for children in care, many of whom are there because of physical abuse. I also agree that there is a great difference between receiving corporal punishment at the hands of the parent, whatever view one may take of that, and receiving it at the hands of a relative stranger.
As I understand the position, the Government have pledged themselves to ban corporal punishment in all child-care institutions. This is to be done by means of regulations. I am not quite clear what the position is about those regulations at the moment. I do not know how far the consultations referred to in a ministerial Answer in January 1988 have progressed. However, the proposed regulations, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, made clear, will not cover mental nursing homes. She also told us that they will not affect the position of new foster emplacements, although 10 local authorities have made it a condition of fostering that there should be a ban on corporal punishment. The passing of this amendment will cover both mental nursing homes and future foster emplacements. It will give a comprehensive cover to the ban on corporal punishment, thus giving full effect to what we understand to be the Government's intentions. I hope very much that they will be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Renton: I too am in favour of this amendment but I am not in favour of the exception created by subsection (8C) where foster parents are already looking after the child. To make that exception appears to me to be wrong. We are perpetuating a wrong. I listened to what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said and I did not think that the reasons she gave justified making that exception.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: As my name is down for this amendment perhaps I may briefly support it. I believe that it is only a small step in the direction that we have already taken. It is no more than a logical extension of the abolition of corporal punishment in state schools to state care. It is entirely appropriate that this extension should be initiated in this Chamber, which initiated the abolition of corporal punishment in state schools. It is completing the work that the Government are already doing with regard to state care.
The amendment would extend the abolition of corporal punishment to those children who are in private mental homes or in new foster placements. It cannot be right that they should be subject to corporal punishment. It would be most unfair to abolish it in some placements and not in others. I regard this as no more than a completion of an exercise which was begun some years ago and initiated in this Chamber.
Perhaps we ought to look at the interesting point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. On reflection I cannot see that there is any reason why the relative of the child should be made an exception to the general rule. I do not know whether the noble Baroness would consider that amendment to her amendment. It seems to be an improvement.
However, in view of the reception of the amendment in this Committee, I hope that it can be agreed to in principle without a Division.
Lord Mishcon: There is no point in my repeating arguments so well advanced by other Members of the Committee. I merely say from this Front Bench that we support the amendment. I know that noble Lords will forgive me, should the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor somewhat unexpectedly say something with which I disagree, if I address the Chamber again.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I should like to utter a word of warning here. Foster parents should treat foster children in exactly the same way as they treat their own children. I believe that it is very important that no differences should be made. For that reason I cannot agree with the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If any form of corporal punishment—even the odd slap, which is what it usually amounts to—is forbidden to future foster parents, it may lose many potential foster parents. I suggest that it may be better for children in care to have the occasional slap from a foster parent, along with the foster parent's children, than for them to be put into a home. I wished to put that thought to the Committee.
Lord Hankey: I hesitate to rise on this subject but I want to express a serious philosophic doubt about how we are dealing with this matter. If disorderly children did not occasionally attack their teachers I should understand fully what we were doing, but teachers and doctors are in trouble. Some children are extremely disorderly. I do not like comparing children with dogs, but I have had a dog occasionally. If one was never able to beat one's dog, he would make an awful muck of the house. It is not that you want to beat him often, but if a dog knows that he will never be bashed he will very soon get out of hand. I do not believe that children ought to be bashed, but I know of extraordinary cases.
I know of a case where a man's daughter let a young man into the house. The daughter was in her early teens. The father discovered what was going on and tried to chuck the young man out but he did not want to go. He said "If you touch me I'll have the law on you. Children are not allowed to be beaten now". I know of another case which I am sure is true of a lady teacher in a school in the Midlands. There was one very disorderly young man. She was arguing with him about something and he began to make it quite clear that he intended to bash her, so she knocked him down. She wondered what was going to happen, for she was a slip of a girl. The other children who had suffered a good deal from this young man were absolutely delighted. They all stood up and cheered and the young man was very abashed. The teacher went to the headmaster to tell him what she had done. The headmaster said "Oh, my goodness; it's very awkward. I'm sure you were right. I'll stand up for you if I can, but I expect the parents will come round".
Next day the parents came to the school. I dare not mention names. They said "We have come to thank you for what Miss So-and-So did to our Johnny. He's been out of hand for a long time and now he's quite easy to live with". I merely express a philosophic doubt. I do not believe that we should be too extreme in these matters. I am not suggesting that the Committee rejects the amendment but we should keep an open mind on this issue.
The Lord Chancellor: The spirit of the amendment is, as has already been pointed out, in accordance with the policy on which the Government have acted in this area generally. I should like to begin by saying a word or two about what has been done in this area by the Government in the prohibition of the use of corporal punishment in the various forms of child care establishment, normally by amendment of the appropriate regulations. It is fair to say that some of these have been completed and some are still in hand. Completed have been the regulations required in the case of homes registered under Part I of the Registered Homes Act 1984 and in the case of maintained schools, and the ones in hand are in the case of care placements in independent schools and in community homes and voluntary homes where draft regulations are at an advanced stage of preparation. In the case of private children's homes the Children's Homes Act 1982 is unimplemented. It is reproduced and amended in Part VIII of the Bill and regulations

125
made under it will prohibit corporal punishment and generally control discipline in such homes.
As regards children who are placed by local authorities in foster homes—boarding out, as it is known at present—the question of discipline and punishment is referred to in guidance issued with revised regulations the Foster Placement Regulations 1988 made in December.
I believe that it is quite important on this subject when one is considering foster parents that we should remember the point made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, because the general principle in relation to foster parents is stated in the boarding out regulations issued in 1955 under which foster parents agree to bring a foster child up as if he or she were a child of their own. Many first-class foster parents and potential foster parents would be lost if they were prohibited from giving even the mildest form of corporal punishment to their children.
The Committee may like to consider whether this problem is not best dealt with by attempting to reach agreement with foster parents. As I said, there are provisions for that and the noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned them. I understood my noble friend Lord Renton to he referring to her paragraph (8C), not paragraph (8B)(c) to which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, was referring. I believe that there was a slight confusion there. The noble Baroness explained why this provision is put into the amendment: she does not wish to disturb existing arrangements which are working perfectly well in a given situation. The Committee will have to consider carefully this matter because there is a valuable principle involved in saying that a foster parent should treat and bring up the foster child as if it were a child of his or her own. I am sure that those who are good foster parents would wish to do that.
Many foster parents have their own children as well. My knowledge of these matters, such as it is, suggests to me that perhaps the best foster parents are those who are willing to take additional children to foster and bring up along with their own families. I have seen very successful fostering of that kind where the children have been brought into the home at ages that perhaps are intertwined with the ages of the natural family in the home and the whole are treated as one. I have seen badly disturbed and badly treated children being brought into a home where it would be fair to say that corporal punishment was not entirely unknown, but it was very evenly distributed and did no harm that I could appreciate to anyone. I was amazed how quickly these disturbed children responded to the home atmosphere and felt themselves integrated into the family.
There is a risk—I believe that the Committee will appreciate this—of damaging that balance if one tries to distinguish between the rules that apply to the parent and to the foster parent. The amendment deals with that. Therefore I wonder whether all of us who are concerned with this matter should not reflect on this—whether the matter is not best approached by seeking agreement at the time the fostering arrangements are made. The overall object is clear.
126
There are several small technical matters to address. It would be preferable to aim any such direction at those who bear the responsibility—for example, the foster parents—rather than at the local authority. To put on the local authority the onus of ensuring that no child whom it is looking after is subjected to corporal punishment is a difficult obligation to enforce totally. Circumstances may occur outwith the knowledge of the local authority. In general the regulations which prohibit corporal punishment are directed towards those who have immediate control in the establishment; for example, the management.
There are no present regulations covering mental nursing homes registered by health authorities. I believe that the principle would apply but we have not been made aware of a need for it. We have not understood that evidence exists to show that such incidents have occurred in those establishments. If there is evidence to suggest that it is a problem which must be dealt with, we shall consider the matter afresh and sympathetically.
The present regulations do not directly attack the matter in the case of foster parents for the reason which I have explained to the Committee. In the light of that explanation the noble Baroness may feel that the amendment requires further thought and she may feel able to withdraw it.
4 p.m.
Lord Renton: Having spoken in support of the noble Baroness's amendment, and having heard what has been said by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I should like to make a plea to her. A good deal of what was said by my noble and learned friend was not familiar to me and it must affect my judgment on the details of her amendment. Therefore, it would be better to consider the issue further and not be pressed to take a decision now.
Lord Mishcon: I understand the sentiment that has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. However, some of us are troubled because, while always extremely clear and frank, the noble and learned Lord has left some of us in doubt about where the Government stand on the issue.
I have been told that the National Foster Care Association has made its position clear and is in favour of the amendment. I and other Members of the Committee understand that we should reconsider the position of foster parents. The argument that they should be in the same position as parents is one to be examined. In order that no Member of the Committee misunderstands the position—and I should hate anyone outside the Committee to misunderstand—I should like to say in parenthesis that the law does not allow parents to bash their children in any way that they see fit. It is only the administration of reasonable punishment that is permitted. I should hate the wrong impression to be created because of the amendment.
Bearing in mind the Government's policy in respect of educational establishments, which has been made abundantly clear, is the noble and learned Lord saying that in principle he agrees with the

127
argument that no institution will look again at foster parents and that no institution under local authority administration which looks after a child shall be permitted to administer corporal punishment? Is he saying that he would like to look again at the case of foster parents in order to equate them with ordinary parents but that the principle of the amendment, apart from the issue of foster parents, is one with which the Government agree? If the noble and learned Lord will tell the Committee I shall be grateful. We can then reconsider the position of foster parents and tidy it up at Report stage.
The Lord Chancellor: I am sorry if I have not made the position sufficiently clear. I tried to explain that the necessary steps have already been taken or are being taken in order to prohibit the use of corporal punishment in the various forms of child care establishments which I described.
The only matter which has not been addressed and which would come within the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David, is the position of health establishments. I understand that there is no evidence to show that any prohibition is required. I further understand that the method of caring for children in such establishments is along the lines described by the noble Baroness at the Aycliffe Home.
In principle the Government take the view that in an institutional setting for child care there should be no question of corporal punishment. Regulations are in place or are being put in place subject to consultation on the matter. However, the case of foster parents is different. In one sense it falls within the principle but it is exceptional. There we are trying to reproduce as closely as possible the natural relationship and one wishes to provide a situation in which that can be achieved.
Equally the local authority is responsible for making the arrangements. The view that has been taken so far is that it is not right to deal with the matter by means of statutory regulations which directly affect it, but rather to try to arrange it through agreements which must be made at the placement stage.
I ought to have mentioned the fact that the guidance that has been given in connection with those agreements stresses that a child, if old enough, should know and have agreed to the content of the agreement reached about his care. The child, if able to appreciate what is happening, should agree with the arrangements. I believe that in this situation that has the attraction of being the best way forward, but I agree that it is a matter for consideration. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
Baroness David: I am grateful for the support which the amendment has received from all Members who have spoken but with the possible exception of those speaking for foster parents. The National Foster Care Association is in favour of the abolition. In their contracts with foster parents many local authorities are already making a condition that there should not be corporal punishment.
I should like to have seen this House slightly ahead of public opinion rather than always trailing along a
128
little way behind. However, after what has been said by the noble and learned Lord about the regulations I believe that it would be only fair to look carefully at any commitments which he may have given and to reconsider the position of foster parents. I reserve my position to come back to the issue at Report stage. I should like to have seen the establishment of the principle of no corporal punishment in state care as it exists in state schools. I give warning that I may come back on Report. I shall look carefully at what has been said and think carefully about the position of foster parents. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Provision of accommodation and maintenance by local authority for children whom they are looking after]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 15, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) placing him with relatives or friends or other suitable person (subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State) on such terms as to payment by the authority and otherwise as the local authority may determine;").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to press local authorities and voluntary organisations to consider relatives and friends and other suitable people as making very good foster parents.
I move this amendment because I have been told that the placement of children in care with relatives, friends and the wider circle of the family has dropped. There are many relatives who are fearful of coming forward and offering themselves as foster parents in case they appear to be interfering or on the other hand who are fearful that they may become involved in family difficulties involving the parents of the child concerned.
A publication by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering shows that there has been a steady decline in the number of children who are formally boarded out with relatives. Between 1978 and 1980, when the number of children placed in foster homes rose, the number of those children placed with relatives diminished by 6 per cent. Research has also shown that children who are placed with relatives tend to do better and are happier than those children placed outside the family circle.
Therefore, it may be that the noble and learned Lord will say that this is a matter for regulations Of course, the boarding out regulations are not positive about the use of relatives but it is a way of drawing to the attention of the social work world, both voluntary and statutory, that relatives should be used if practicable and possible.
There are a number of relatives who take in children; for example, following a terrible accident where perhaps the parent of a nephew or niece has died. After a year or so they then find that for financial reasons they cannot keep the child. We ask whether it is possible for those parents to receive grants because one does not wish to remove children from a home where they are very happy. It may be

129
that that is a matter for regulations, but I press Members of the Committee to consider that, where possible and practicable, children should he placed with relatives. I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull and I agree with what she has said. It is an unfortunate development that the number of children fostered by relatives has declined, as such children appear to do better and are better adjusted.
When the Bill was published, the boarding out regulations had not been placed before Parliament. They were laid on 22nd December 1988 and will come into force in June 1989. The Family Rights Group hoped that the wording of the regulations would be improved and made more positive as a result of consultations carried out by the DHSS. Unfortunately, that did not happen. That seems to make it more necessary to explore and exploit what family members and close friends have to offer young children.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I believe it is very important that, wherever possible and practicable, where there are relatives or friends who are suitable children should be sent to live with people who are familiar to them and not with strangers.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I agree with every word spoken in support of the amendment as regards policy. However, I wonder whether I want that to he written into the Bill. We are passing about 3,000 pages of primary legislation every year. The Liberal Government of 1911, which had the reputation of being a reforming government, passed about 450 pages of primary legislation in that year. I wonder whether our general line that everything which should occur to anybody with any common sense or decency must be written into every Bill is really a good policy.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Meston: They were 450 very good pages. This is something which I wish to see in the Bill. Any positive statutory encouragement to consider the wider family should be supported. I prefer not to see it in regulations. I am afraid that there is a tendency to overlook the wider family; it is a tendency particularly prevalent among younger social workers. They do not consider all the options. Often there are uncles, aunts, grandparents and so on who are ready, willing and able to step in but who are simply overlooked. The consequence is that local authority social workers often create difficulties for themselves in the long run. Accordingly, although it adds to the Bill, we support the amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I rise to support the amendment. There is merit in positively stating in the language of the Bill itself that local authorities should look, and be encouraged to look, to the child's wider family and friends as a placement for the child. That
130
is obviously desirable but I believe it is worth spelling it out.
As to the size of legislation, one cannot measure its quality either by its size or its brevity. Sometimes the latter is disastrous. It depends on what comes before the House. I am afraid that this avalanche of legislation which this Government, contrary to all their protestations, are putting before us is placing us in difficulty.
The Lord Chancellor: I am sure that the Government are seeking to place before the Chamber the best possible legislation and indeed this Bill is a good example. It must be right not to add unnecessarily to the Bill.
The distinction between the two types of placement in Clause 19 is that Clause 19(2)(a) results in a placement where the persons do not have parental responsibility for the child. In Clause 19(4) the persons in question have parental responsibility for the child. That is the basic distinction between the two. I am sure that my noble friend is aware that Clause 19(2)(a) covers what she wishes to happen and it is a question of giving that prominence rather than anything else.
I am against having a separate category which is neither one nor other of the two which I mentioned. However, having heard what she said, it occurs to me that it may be possible to give prominence to the wider family while still maintaining the same division. In other words, instead of going immediately to:
"a family or other suitable person",
I should like to consider whether we might rephrase that so as to give prominence to the wider family in the way my noble friend desires without splitting the legal categories in a different way from that aready in the Bill.
As far as I recall, under the Child Care Act 1980 there is a split between relatives and friends on the one hand and others on the other. I believe that that has caused difficulties and I should not be surprised to learn that that may have assisted in the downward trend to which the noble Baroness referred. I believe it would he dangerous to split those particular categories so that they have different consequences. However, I shall certainly consider whether we could slightly alter the expression in Clause 19(2)(a) to give particular prominence to that. I cannot commit myself because I did not fully appreciate the nature of the point. I should like to consult parliamentary draftsmen to see whether, without damaging the underlying structure, I can accommodate my noble friend's wishes and the wishes of those who have supported her.
Baroness Faithfull: I am grateful to all those who have spoken, and particularly to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I take the point that he makes and I am grateful that before the next stage of the Bill he will consider a rephrasing, not absolutely, so that emphasis is put on relatives and friends. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 15, line 28, after ("with") insert ("any").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 134 and 135. The purpose of these amendments is to clarify the powers governing the arrangements which may be made by local authorities for placing children in certain types of accommodation referred to as "other arrangements" in Clause 19(2)(f).
Clause 19 lists various ways in which a local authority can provide accommodation for children whom it is looking after. This includes placement with a family in various kinds of residential accommodation or by making such other arrangements as seem appropriate to the local authority. This category of other arrangements covered by Clause 19(2)(f) is intended to include half-way houses, hostels and any other type of accommodation not included in the categories already defined.
We have included a power to make regulations, but in the way in which it is phrased at the moment in the absence of regulations we would not be able to use this power and we want a flexible power to use, subject to regulations. That is the purpose of the amendment.
The two further amendments I have mentioned are designed to remove unnecessary restrictions on the arrangements which local authorities or others with parental responsibility may make. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 15, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) Where a child is in the care of a local authority he may be allowed to live with his parents or with a person who is not a parent but has parental responsibility for him in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to be able to place a child back with his parents, or the persons who had parental rights over the child, with a view to rehabilitating the child. Those of us who work in child care know that there are a number of children who do not want to return home and cannot do so; but there are a number of children who want to return home and to be rehabilitated. However, it is difficult for the local authority or the social worker to place the child back home temporarily, in the first instance, without having some supervisory capacity to control what is going on.
Therefore, the amendment would simply enable children to be placed back with their families while still in care to help a child to merge back with the family. It is a risk that a social worker has to take as regards both the child and the parents. Therefore, to get the order rescinded and then place the child back would not he a wise move. The purpose of the amendment is simply to enable social workers to rehabilitate a child with the family, or those who have parental responsibility, over a period of time while the child is still in care. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I agree entirely with the spirit of this amendment. It is extraordinary to find in the Bill, in subsection (4) of Clause 19, a negative presentation. One knows that the draftsman intended certain things to happen, but one wonders whether the Government intended that the accent should be on the negative. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to read out subsection (4). It states:
"Where a child is in the care of a local authority, the authority may not allow him to live with—

(a) a parent of his: or

(b) a person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him,

except in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State".
It occurred to those of us who are associated with Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 that the positive way of putting this in order to encourage, where appropriate, that a child should be returned to the family is, as the Committee will see from the amendments not yet moved, to delete the word "not" in the second line so that the subsection reads:
"Where a child is in the care of a local authority, the authority may allow him to live with … in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State".
In other words, if the regulations negatived the possibility in the interests of the child, that affirmative way of putting it would not apply.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to agree that Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 would be rather more acceptable.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have a point to make on this amendment which relates to Schedule 2, paragraph 13, where, in addition to the parents and the person who has parental responsibility, there is also,
"any other person connected with him".
I am not sure what those words mean, but in any case if they are relevant in the schedule it seems to me that they might also be considered in connection with the amendment. I do not expect an immediate answer, but perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will undertake to consider that point.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marleybone: Perhaps I may add a couple of sentences. I agree with my noble friend Lady Faithfull about the desirability of circumstances in which parents should be allowed to retain care and control of a child who is the subject of a care order. However, I wonder whether my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench may think that to make this the subject of a contract between the local authority and the parents, as is done in the case of fostering, would be a better and more flexible way of dealing with the situation than by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Lord Meston: As reference has been made to Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 and as it seems to me, as it did to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that Amendment No. 98 entirely produces the effect which I certainly intended to produce in my amendments, I suppose I ought to support it. Clearly, the purpose of my amendments and therefore also of the amendment moved is not to add anything to the

133
Bill or, indeed, to alter the Bill in any substantive way but simply to remove two words which produces the same meaning and give a more positive emphasis.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred to the schedule. It seems to me that the advantage of putting this clause in more positive terms is that it would be more consistent with the positive expression of duties which appear in the schedule. Moreover, it ensures that the local authority does not lose sight of its ultimate target, which is the rehabilitation of children in their own homes if at all possible; but it does not rule out the ability of regulations to put in appropriate provisions to safeguard children and to ensure that they are not returned to their homes if circumstances are not appropriate.
Therefore, whether the Committee accepts Amendment No. 98 or prefers Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 I certainly support the principle.
Baroness David: I have my name to Amendment No. 98 so perhaps I may say a few words about it. I believe that it gives more positive encouragement than merely excluding the words "not" and "except" by Amendments Nos. 99 and 100, though I appreciate that the general purpose is the same. However, I should like to remind the Committee that the House of Commons Social Services Committee in its well-known report in 1984 said that far more skills and resources went into finding new families for children than in trying to get them back with their own. So what we want is positive encouragement. I think that is what is given in Amendment No. 98 and on the whole I would support that amendment.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Once again, there is very little difference between us on what we want to achieve. The policy underlying Amendment No. 94 is that the allowing of the child to go back with a parent or a person who has parental responsibility for him is to happen in accordance, and only in accordance, with the Secretary of State's regulations. In other words, they are not to be able to do it except on the terms set out in the Secretary of State's regulations.
Parliamentary counsel have been asked to look at this because I have the same feeling as some other people that in a way it might be better expressed positively. My understanding and advice at present is that the only way, in the sort of style that the parliamentary draftsman has adopted to ensure that such a placement occurs only in accordance with the regulations, is by using this method.
Amendment No. 98 has the advantage of being strong and straightforward. However, if one looks at it strictly the local authority may allow the child to live with his parents in accordance with the regulations of the Secretary of State but not necessarily only in accordance with them. There is no restriction here on powers to do otherwise than allow the child to live with his parents and therefore something else is necessary. As an amateur draftsman, I thought of putting in to meet that point some such phrase as, "But only in accordance with
134
the regulations made by the Secretary of State". However I have not yet had the opportunity of confirming with the parliamentary draftsman that the result would be exactly as we would wish it.
However, your Lordships may take it that if you give me the opportunity we will explore this further and see whether there is a way of achieving the policy in a more positive form. The same problem, in so far as there is a problem, arises in connection with Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 because the permission would not necessarily have to be in accordance with the regulations. All these amendments have that particular difficulty but there may be a way of overcoming it in a simple way. In the light of that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment. It may be that Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 can he postponed possibly altogether.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: With regard to the point that I raised, in a number of places in the Bill there is a reference to,
"parents or persons who have parental responsibility".
So even if the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment I would be most grateful if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would consider the point that I raised about "persons connected with", which is not defined in the interpretation clause. That might be the right way to deal with it.
The Lord Chancellor: Most certainly. I was taking advantage of my noble and learned friend's kind remark that he was not expecting the answer immediately. I certainly had not overlooked the point he made. I think I have an answer but I would prefer to have more time to consider whether it is a full answer. I would certainly have in mind to let him know what my considered answer is. I certainly did not mean to overlook it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. I never for a moment doubted that he would have an answer, but I am perfectly prepared to wait for his considered answer.
Baroness Faithfull: It is quite obvious that in your Lordships' Committee we all agree with the spirit of the amendment and it is also obvious that there are different views on how it should be dealt with and framed, as was said by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Hailsham, and by others. Therefore, with the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 100A:
Page 15, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) Where a local authority provide accommodation for children who are siblings whom they are looking after, they shall (subject to the provisions of this Part) secure that they are, so far as is reasonably practical and consistent with their welfare, accommodated together.").
The noble Baroness said: I move this amendment on the recommendation of the National Association

135
for Protection of Children in Care. In a way I am rather moved by this amendment because it is a plea from children who have been in care, many of whom are indeed still in care, that they should not be separated from their brothers and sisters. This seems to be something that we would all accept though I have to say that, sadly, in both the voluntary and statutory sectors, there are times when children are separated from their brothers and sisters. It is quite bad enough to be separated, albeit perhaps rightly, from parents, but to be separated from your brothers and sisters is very hard to bear.
Going back to the last century and looking at the histories of Barnardo children, some of whom were separated from their brothers and sisters, I know that they sought to find their brothers and sisters when aged 50 or 60. That fact really brought it home to Barnardo's how important it is that brothers and sisters should not be separated. Therefore representations have been made to me by the children and young people themselves that, wherever possible and practicable, they should not be separated. I beg to move the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: Again, I am absolutely clear that it is important that children who are siblings and who have lived together as a family should continue to do so if it can be arranged and if it is consistent with their welfare. I understand that many local authorities already make arrangements where they can for sibling children to be looked after in the same family or children's home. I can see some advantage in making this a statutory requirement, and if my noble friend will allow me time to consider the point further I shall be glad to do so.
The second amendment deals with contact between siblings. I think the paragraph to which my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale referred—paragraph 13 of Schedule 2—is intended to deal with this, and siblings would be within the class of those connected with the child. However, I agree that the point which has been raised needs to be looked at further. I think that it is certainly intended to cover this particular matter, among others.
Baroness Faithfull: On behalf of the children in care who have made this representation, may I say how very grateful they will be to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. They will be very grateful to him for saying that he will look at this matter again and bring it forward at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Advice and assistance for certain children]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 16, line 22, leave out ("advise and befriend him") and insert ("advise, befriend and assist him in the manner of a good parent.").
The noble Baroness said: Grouped with this amendment are Amendments Nos. 102 and 104. The purpose of this amendment is to place local authorities under a specific duty to provide financial
136
assistance, advice and support to young people who have left the authority's care. The phrase,
"assist him in the manner of a good parent".
is taken from the House of Commons Social Services Committee's short report of 1984 which has been much admired.
In the second Sitting of the Committee before Christmas I spoke to an amendment attempting to change the Social Security Act to give young people who are leaving care some financial support. There was a great deal of support in the Chamber. It was realised that there was a great problem with young people who were suddenly thrown out into the world without any family to help them or support them in any way. There are a great many of them. Every year approximately 8,000 young people leave care. The majority have no suitable family home to return to and are therefore forced to live independently.
Ideally, when a young person leaves the family home to live independently a parent would wherever possible provide not only advice and continuing support but also financial assistance. In the same way, when a young person leaves the care of a local authority the same parental responsibilities should apply. The authority should have a duty as a good parent to provide every assistance to a young person making the very difficult transition from care to independent living.
The current legal duties to young people in care are set out in the Child Care Act 1980. The legislation is muddled and uncoordinated. Authorities vary enormously in the amount of practical help they offer to those leaving care. Recently the National Association of Young People in Care, which was an organisation set up to improve conditions for those in care, conducted a survey of local authorities, asking for details of the provision, financial or otherwise, made to young care leavers. Some of the results were disturbing.
Oxfordshire County Council replied that of the total of 754 young people who left its care in 1987 the authority could account for the whereabouts of 193 only. It had no idea what had happened to the remaining 561 young people. Shropshire County Council replied that it was not its policy to provide any young person leaving care with accommodation.
It is clear that many young people, after spending years in local authority care, leave at the age of 18 unprepared, alone and very vulnerable. They may be left to find their own accommodation, which is often a cramped bed-sitting-room or a hostel, or they may even he forced to live in a dangerous and run-down squat. Indeed, many become homeless. Successive surveys have shown that young people who have left care are over-represented in the number of homeless people. Recent estimated percentages have included 25 per cent. in a Centrepoint study last year and 33 per cent. in a Department of Environment study in 1981.
There is added concern for the welfare of care leavers because the situation for them has been worsened by recent social security legislation. I went into that point in the amendment that I moved at the earlier Sitting. Barnardo's has recently produced a report on the impact of social security changes on

137
young care leavers. I read one of its case studies about a young man called Sean when I moved the last amendment. There were several other case studies, and I thought of reading another but decided that perhaps the Committee would prefer me to get on with the business. Sean was just one example, and there were six very moving examples. I expect that a number of Members of the Committee have received the Barnardo's paper, but I shall repeat what one young women in a similar plight who had just left care said when asked what she felt about the situation: "They are just setting us up to fail".
We cannot leave these young people in such a precarious situation. We should remember that the House of Commons Social Services Committee recommended in its short report that local authorities should be placed under a duty to prepare young people for leaving care and to support those leaving care, to quote the report,
"in the manner of a good parent".
That is where this phrase comes from.
The amendment has the support of Barnardo's, the British Association of Social Workers, the Children's Society, the Children's Legal Centre, First Key, the National Children's Homes, the National Foster Care Association, the National Children's Bureau, the National Association for Young People in Care, the Save the Children Fund and the Voice of the Child in Care.
This is a problem which has been recognised, and I hope that the amendment—which is a very mild one but it should give some assistance, both financial and otherwise, to young people in a very difficult situation—can be accepted. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Amendment No. 102 is grouped with Amendment No. 101, and I rise to speak in favour of No. 101. Amendment No. 102 was an error on my part. The NSPCC, which drafted it, wanted me to put down the wording which is in Amendment No. 101, so I think we may forget Amendment No. 102.
It is difficult to add to the splendid remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady David, who has covered the ground very fully indeed. I should like to endorse everything that she said.
I should like to make one or two other comments. I welcome Clause 20, which is splendid. All we are saying here is that it does not go quite far enough. In subsection (1) it says "advise, assist and befriend", and in subsection (3)(a), "advice and assistance", but in the part after subsection (c) with which we are dealing it just says "advise and befriend" and not "assist". It seems rather strange to leave out "assist" when it has been in before. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend will be able to expound on that for us. I should have thought that there was every reason to include "assist".
We have talked about "in the manner of a good parent" before, and I think my noble and learned friend was not in favour of the phrase. However, it is very important to have a standard of that nature. Advising, assisting and befriending can be very arid
138
and can be handled in an unfriendly sort of way, albeit by dedicated people who are trying to do the right thing, if they do not have basic sympathy for the person to whom they have been asked to give advice, assistance and friendship.
It is useful to have wording which is clearer, and what could be better than "in the manner of a good parent"? We all try to be good parents. For some of the time we succeed and for some of the time we do not. Sometimes we even beat our children, but that would not appeal to some Members of the Committee. The fact is that a good parent sets a standard, and I think it is necessary to have something like that included here.
Finally, from the NSPCC's point of view it is particularly important to have an amendment of this nature because all too frequently young people between the ages of 16 and 21—if I read subsection (2) correctly—may themselves be considering family life and parenthood, so it is good that they should be given an example of how they should behave if and when they have a child of their own. All too frequently those who have been in trouble may inadvertently be in the family way.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will be sympathetic to this phrase even if he has been advised that it is not frightfully good from a draftman's point of view. It would be nice to get it into the Bill in order to take the edge off the not necessarily properly balanced wording of the clause as it stands. I hope that we shall have a favourable response.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment. It does two things. It strengthens the obligation by including the duty to assist, which is a relevant and useful obligation. It sets a standard, albeit a variable standard as all parents are variable. Some beat their children when they are very young and some do not. It is better to have a variable standard than no standard. For that reason too I support the amendment.
I seek the assistance of my noble and learned friend because I too remember that the phrase did not appeal to him very much at an earlier stage. If I am correct, the objection was based on the fact that it should have been included, so to speak, in the check list of general principles in Part I. It was an error to introduce an additional standard in one clause in relation to another. That objection, if that be the right objection, would not arise in this case because Clause 1 is only concerned with the proceedings of the court. In this respect we are not concerned at all with court proceedings. We are concerned with a standard and a duty in a totally different context. If my understanding of the objection is right, on that ground the objection would dissolve. I support the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendment. To save the time of the Committee I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 105, which seeks to leave out the words "in exceptional circumstances". The Bill as drafted states:
"Assistance given under this section may be in kind or, in exceptional circumstances, in cash".
I should like to follow the example of the noble

139
Baroness, Lady David, and quote two cases. One Christmas Day I was driving across Magdalen Bridge in Oxford. I saw a figure whom I recognised walking across the bridge. I stopped the car and found that it was a young man aged 18 or so. He had been in care for eight years. I asked, "What are you doing here?" He said, "What else is there to do?" I said, "It's Christmas Day. Aren't you going to spend it somewhere?" He said, "I've got nowhere to go and nowhere to spend it". I realised that he needed help and assistance both in cash and in accommodation. Needless to say I scooped him up and he spent the rest of Christmas Day—never mind where he spent it.
I am a governor of a school for disturbed and unhappy children. We have often found that we have wasted our money, because children leave care and have to find their own way. This home, the Caldecott Community, has set up bed-sitting-rooms under supervision. Vulnerable young people can live there until they are able to live on their own. Our families would help us in exceptional circumstances. They would help financially, with accommodation and in kind. I support the amendment together with my Amendment, No. 105.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to support Amendment No. 101. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that the words "assist him" are better in Amendment No. 101. I should also like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in her Amendment No. 105. I agree with her that people who leave care will need assistance with money and with finding accommodation. As a parent I have frequently had to help my children with money and in finding them somewhere to live. I support the amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I should like to support the amendment as strongly as I can. We all know that when young people leave care they can get into trouble because there is so much trouble around. There is nobody to turn to. The figures given by the noble Baroness, Lady David, have shocked me, as I am sure they have shocked the rest of the Committee. The support that should be given to young people is not being given. With this amendment perhaps it will be given in the future. I warmly support it.
Lord Banks: I should like briefly to support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady David, told us that each year approximately 8,000 young people leave care. Research indicates that 70 per cent. of young people leaving care go to live on their own. This compares with 0.2 per cent. of the general population of that age. When the noble Baroness moved Amendment No. 70 she reminded us that for those in the 16 to 25 age range benefit available has been reduced. This will affect the most vulnerable, including those leaving care, the majority of whom go to live on their own.
Local authorities will have to assume financial responsibility for topping up in many cases but there is no financial provision in the Bill. The income problems of those leaving care would better be dealt with by social security. The noble and learned Lord
140
the Lord Chancellor said when replying to Amendment No. 70 that the Government would monitor the Social Security Act and the working of the new system introduced in April. He said that all that was said in the debate on Amendment No. 70 would be conveyed to the Secretary of State for Social Security. That is good as far as it goes. Even so I am not hopeful that there will be any substantial change in the near future. In the short term and probably in the long term local authorities will be obliged to stand in. This amendment will strengthen their hand in doing so. With reduced benefits, high levels of youth unemployment and widespread homelessness, all of which affect those leaving care more than proportionately, the need for assistance of various kinds is clear. It is imperative that local authorities continue to treat care leavers in the manner of a good parent.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I should like to support the amendment. At any age to have no one to turn to and to have nowhere to go is a sad state of affairs, but when one is young and vulnerable it is dreadful.
5 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like to add a word to the debate. I entirely agree with this amendment and with the further amendment which has already been spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. However, I should like first to congratulate the Government upon including Clause 20 in the Bill. It is a very great advance and they should be positively congratulated in that respect. Here is a lacuna in national life because we do not look after children who leave care and we do not look after children who leave prison.
There are those children who are in custody. Children under 16 receive nothing when they leave custody. If they wish to claim income support they find that they can only receive it two weeks in arrears. Therefore, for two weeks they have nothing at all on which to live.
There is not that much difference between children needing care and those needing custody. They both very much require the comfort that someone can give them in loco parentis. In this instance I can see that there is a case for social security to take that role. On the other hand, at the moment such services are not able to do so because they cannot give income support for two weeks. Therefore, the child receives nothing if he has no home to go to. That point is one of very great importance.
I make no apology for comparing the child in custody with the child in care. In my view there is not that much difference between them; they both very much need our help. Therefore, I hope that, when it comes to having a criminal justice Bill, a provision along those lines will be included in the legislation for the benefit of those who are in custody. But, in the meantime, I strongly applaud the Government for including this clause, which I hope will be improved by means of the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I shall be very brief in what I have to say but I should like to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady David.

141
The statutory duty set out in the last limb of subsection (3) is too restrictive because it simply provides for a duty to "advise and befriend". As noble Lords have pointed out, it omits the duty to assist. Of course, social workers will provide advice and moral support. However, I believe that it is pretty obvious that financial support is equally important. That is the advice which we have received from the 10 organisations which my noble friend has already mentioned.
The statutory duty, as expressed in subsection (3), is also inadequate as it does not set out the standard which the local authorities should seek to achieve. Indeed, that point was made by the noble Lords, Lord Mottistone and Lord Campbell. The standard which is recommended in the amendment is that of a "good parent". If the term "good parent" poses a problem of interpretation, I should have thought that it would still be possible to formulate a workable test which requires the local authority to act at least as a parent would act, and that would be consistent with the local authority standing in loco parentis to the child.
The Government will have noted the 10 organisations which support this amendment and the three or four connected amendments. That shows the breadth of support for the amendment outside this Chamber. It is also evidence that the 10 organisations, each with its own emphasis and expertise, have arrived at the conclusion that this amendment ought to be supported.
The Lord Chancellor: I should like to begin by taking up the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. Clause 20, as a whole, is a very considerable move forward from the existing law. I believe that it is most important. I also think that it is quite important to understand that it has to cope with many different matters but that it is not intended to cope with social security matters. That is an entirely different field, and I know that noble Lords are well aware of that fact. It must be kept in mind that we are not here to deal with social security legislation in its general provision; we are dealing with a very specific situation. I am sure that Members of the Committee will wish to be careful and to concentrate on this particular situation to ensure that what is proposed is appropriate.
It is true—I shall just mention the point at this stage, but I shall return to it in a moment—that in the original report by the Select Committee it was suggested that local authorities should support those leaving care:
"In the manner of a good parent".
That was the kind of support that was being discussed there. However, when in setting up the interdepartmental working party on child care law, we came to consider the point, and what we should do, the alternative approach which particularises the nature of the support and uses the word "befriend" was favoured. I must say that I find it difficult to understand how you can befriend anyone in anything other than a friendly manner. Surely there is a warmth already included in the clause in that way. I think that perhaps my noble friend Lord Mottistone was not conveying the full effect of the clause.
142
I agree that it is possible to give advice in an unfriendly manner and even, possibly, to help someone in an unfriendly manner. But when it comes to "befriending" someone, I think that that word does give the impression which we want. It is not too paternalistic. After all, these people are growing up and leaving care. They do not want to be, as it were, overborne by a paternalistic figure. It is a figure of friendship and support, the hand of friendship, that is required. That is what the clause provides for. I must say to Members of the Committee that that is a very good standard and a very apt way of describing the matter.
I think that if most young people read this legislation they will understand what is meant by the word "befriend" or what it means to have a friend. In fact, in view of their history, they may well understand the meaning better than the idea of a good parent, because, sadly, they did not, in some cases—although not all—have full experience of good parents and that is why they got into their present situation. Therefore it is important to talk to them and about them, treating them as people, in language that they can understand. I commend to Members of the Committee the approach that the Bill has taken.
Again, in relation to that aspect, I spoke previously about the phrase:
"In the manner of a good parent".
The point I was making then was quite different from the one which I am making now. If I remember rightly, the amendment in which that phrase occurred was one moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I took the view then that it was the subject matter that was in question rather than the manner in that particular case. The amendment dealt with children in need and I took the view that what was required was a definition of the scope of the subject matter. In other words, the phrase,
"In the manner of a good parent",
describes the manner of looking after them rather than defining the subject and for that reason it was inappropriate. However, this is a different point altogether.
I think that noble Lords may have slightly overlooked the provision contained in subsection (1) of Clause 20. Perhaps the most critical time is when the child is leaving, or about to leave, the care of the local authority. The subsection provides that,
"Where a child is being looked after by a local authority, it shall be the duty of the authority to advise, assist and befriend him with a view to promoting his welfare when he ceases to be looked after by them".
So that is imposing upon local authorities, I think for the first time, a general duty of this kind when the child is about to leave them. The right time must be when the child is still with the local authority but is coming to the end of the care period. Therefore that duty rests upon them. If anyone were going to be a good parent one would have thought that it would be the local authority which had looked after the child. That is what Clause 20(1) deals with.
Subsection (3), with which we are dealing in this amendment, is not quite directed towards that situation. It deals with a situation where a person

143
who has been in care, or who has been looked after, has come into an authority's area. The authority may be the same. The young person may be in a local authority's area after the period of care has expired. We all know that people may be in care in one authority's area and move to another. Subsection (3) covers that situation. That is done by defining in subsection (2) that,
"'a person qualifying for advice and assistance' means a person within the area of the authority who is under twenty-one and who was, at any time after reaching the age of sixteen but while still a child—
(a) looked after by a local authority".
Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are then set out.
That is the new situation after termination of care. We are providing here for where a child—I take it as the case that throws up most significantly the difference—has been with one authority and is now in the area of another. That new authority and, of course, if it is the old authority, the old authority, "shall advise and befriend him". That is a continuing situation basically after the age of 16 and before 21. There is a continuing duty to advise and befriend such a person if he was being looked after by a local authority or was accommodated by, or on behalf of, a voluntary organisation. In any other case—in other words, if he was looked after by some other body—it is a power to advise and befriend.
The conditions required to be satisfied are that,
"it appears to the authority that the person concerned is in need of advice and being befriended".
The provision does not mention anything about assistance. One could well have a person who did not require assistance. There may be someone who has sufficient resources but who requires advice and friendship such as the young man who was fortunate enough to meet my friend on Magdalen Bridge on Christmas Day. He was fortunate to have a friend and he could obviously do with some assistance. I was unable fully to follow the detail as to whether the assistance was in kind or cash, but I feel sure that it was generous assistance all the same. That is the type of situation that is being dealt with.
We are not now at the stage of the child who is about to leave care; we are at the later stage. What is said in effect is that if the person was in local authority care there is a duty on the local authority in whose area he is for the whole time until he is 21 to advise and befriend him. If he is in any case other than those covered, the local authority has a power to advise and befriend him.
I shall be moving an amendment to subsection (4)(b) to make clear that it relates to where a child is not looked after by a local authority. Then subsection (5) provides:
"Where as a result of this section a local authority are under a duty, or are empowered, to advise and befriend a person".
That relates to subsection (3), the later stage. Where there is a power to advise and befriend, the local authority also has the power to give the person assistance. The Committee will notice that there is no condition that he requires assistance; so it seems appropriate that in such a situation it should be a power and not a duty to give assistance. That is a
144
drafting point. The draftsman is making a distinction, properly, between the first branch of what comes after Clause 20(3)(c) and the second branch. It is difficult to get assistance properly into that, so the draftsman has provided separately for the assistance where that assistance is vested in the local authority.
There is a duty to assist at the stage at which a child is leaving care. After that, it is a duty in respect of qualifying people to advise and befriend, coupled with a power to give assistance. I submit that that is appropriate. I may be wrong but I rather think that the amendment was put on the basis of the original leaving of care. That is of course an important time. But is is dealt with in subsection (1) where the duty is imposed.
I come now to the exceptional circumstances. The real point is to make it necessary for the local authority to consider the particular circumstances before giving cash; otherwise that power might be seen as part of the social security system. That would be wrong and inappropriate. I hope that my noble friend will see that that phrase—one might think of other phrases—or something like it is necessary to ensure that assistance in cash is appropriately targeted and is not an ordinary regular payment that one would receive under the social security system.
I hope that in the light of the considerations I have put forward the Committee will feel that these amendments, although I fully understand the spirit of them, may not be necessary and that the Bill as it is effectively deals with the matter. It is a new area. I must emphasise that we are taking a considerable step forward. It has been taken with a good deal of thought. While I can see that anything one does may be improved upon. I should like the Committee carefully to consider whether in the particular circumstances to which it is directed, the amendment is an improvement.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like further explanation as to why the noble and learned Lord has an objection to describing such behaviour as,
"in the manner of a good parent".
He has, in a most interesting way, explained why what he is saying is what he means. However, if one adds a certain aspect to that, does he take the view that one is damaging the provision or that one is being sentimental, contradictory, or what? I have not heard one reason, although I listened with great care, to suggest that the amendment would not improve each of the three stages.
The Lord Chancellor: I tried to point out that,
"in the manner of a good parent"
is used as an omnibus description of all that has to be done. It was felt by the interdepartmental working group, I understand—I have given the Committee some references—that some precision was required in this area. What would a good parent do? A good parent would advise; a good parent would offer friendship; a good parent would offer assistance if it were necessary, or give assistance when the person

145
first sets out in life. So instead of saying, "You do what a good parent does", you say, "This is what you do". It is not necessary to say both. It is duplication.
I think, and it is a point of view that attracts me, that one must be careful about getting the matter at the right level. Friendship is a good level. To include
"in the manner of a good parent"
does not add anything. The provision is not directed merely to social workers; it is directed to the young people. I hope that the young people who are affected by the provision will read and understand it. I believe that they will understand it well. To many of them,
"in the manner of a good parent."
sadly will not be something of which they have had much experience. Some people are in care for reasons which have nothing whatever to do with their parents' deficiencies. I do not wish to make an omnibus statement about that. But as regards many, it will be so. In a sense that is rubbing in the loss that they have suffered. One also has to be careful about that. On the whole at the moment I tend to prefer what the interdepartmental working group recommended, looking at it in the light of the Select Committee's report. I hope that the Committee feel that it is not so bad after all.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor a short question. If he says, "Well, it really does not mean anything", but on all sides of the Committee we thought it did—and some of us, including myself, still think so—does it matter if we put it in?
Lord Mottistone: I must say that speaking as, I hope, the "good parent" of Amendment No. 102, I find my noble and learned friend's arguments most persuasive on all points. I do not know whether the people who advised me will find that; but my inclination would be not to pursue this further and perhaps to come back to it at a later stage if that were necessary.
Baroness David: My inclination is not the same. I have listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Lord has said. I do not think he has addressed himself enough to the situation that exists at the moment and the practical problems of these young people. They really need the assistance.
I have looked very carefully at the point. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that we are very glad to have Clause 20. It is a great improvement on what existed before. However, I do not think it goes far enough in the circumstances that we have today. When the social services report came out in the Commons in 1984, we did not have the present social security legislation depriving these young people aged 16 to 25 of the financial assistance that they received before. We are in a very different kind of game, and I think we must give the local authorities the opportunity to assist. I know it is there in subsection (5) that they may give assistance. I think that the amendment makes it more positive and I like that.
146
With all the support that I have received from around the House, the number of people who have spoken and who have liked the amendment has been remarkable. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, what harm would it to do put it in the Bill? It would probably do a great deal of good. In this case I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
The Lord Chancellor: I think that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was referring to "in the manner of a good parent". Regarding the duty, the point I make is that for a person to qualify there is no requirement that he should be in need. I quite concede the point that I may be entirely wrong. I do not claim infallibilty; but I do claim to have carefully considered the difficulties with which this provision is designed to deal. I have sought to set out my consideration of those. However, there is no qualifying condition that the person must be in need. He has to require friendship and assistance; but there is no necessity, in order for him to be subject to the duty, that he should be in need. He must be in need if there is to be a duty implied to require assistance. If the amendment implies a duty to assist, it may well involve a duty to assist people who have no need of such assistance. Not every person who has been in care between the ages of 16 and 21 has the need for financial assistance. Some do and some do not.
Baroness David: If I may say so, the phrase, "in the manner of a good parent" gets round that problem completely. A lot of parents do not assist their children if the children are doing all right. Why should a local authority assist with cash if the child is doing all right? I think that "assist him in the manner of a good parent" gets it just about right.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: When speaking broadly of assistance, one cannot talk of assistance unless there is a need for it. The very use of the term "assistance" presupposes surely that there is a need. As the noble Baroness on the opposite Benches says, "in the manner of a good parent" qualifies the matter in any event.
The Lord Chancellor: I am sorry, I do not wish to take up time unnecessarily on this. Obviously if the noble Baroness wishes to press the point, then she is by all means entitled to do so. All I am saying is that there is no necessity, in order to qualify under this clause, that one should be in need. If to have a duty to assist "in the manner of a good parent" means that one need not assist, then I am not sure that we are improving the clarity of the Bill. However, those are matters for the noble Baroness to consider.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am quite sure that it is my fault, but as so often happens when one discusses a number of related amendments, I am not clear in my mind on which amendment the noble Baroness, Lady David, is inviting us to vote.
Baroness David: It is Amendment No. 101.
5.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 101) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 114.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Airedale, L.

Kitchener, E.

Ardwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Banks, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Blease, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blyth, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mais, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mar, C.

Chitnis, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Meston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Craigavon, L.

Mishcon, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridgc, L.

Oram, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Phillips, B.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Erroll, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkender, B.

Rea, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Flowers, L.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Rugby, L.

Gallacher, L.

Russell, E.

Galpern, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Grey, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hylton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Thurlow, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jacques, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

Kagan, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Butterworth, L.

Aldington, L.

Caithness, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E,

Caldecote, V.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Allerton, L.

Carnock, L.

Ampthill, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Arran, E.

Cathcart, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L

Auckland, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Belstead, L.

Cranworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Broxbourne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

148

Derwent, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Dilhorne, V.

Mottistone, L.

Dundee, E.

Munster, E.

Elibank, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newall, L.

Faithfull, B.

Norfolk, D.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Ferrier, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gainford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pender, L.

Gisborough, L.

Portland, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Reay, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Greenway, L.

Renwick, L.

Gridley, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hailsham of Saint

Romney, E.

Marylebone, L.

St. Davids, V.

Halsbury, E.

St. Germans, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harvington, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Henley, L.

Savile, L.

Hesketh, L.

Selborne, E.

Holderness, L.

Shannon, E.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strange, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Suffield, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swansea, L.

Loch, L.

Swinton, E.

Long, V.

Terrington, L.

Lurgan, L.

Teynham, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trafford, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Margadale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marley, L.

Wise, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Middleton, L.

Young, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.34 p.m.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 16, line 26, after ("(b)") insert ("where that person was not being looked after by the authority,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an amendment to paragraph (b) that we were considering a moment or two ago. Its purpose is to clarify the intention of this provision—Clause 20(4)(b)—which sets out one of the conditions for a local authority to advise and befriend children who have been but are no longer being looked after by a voluntary organisation, a registered children's home or a private foster parent.
We wish to make it clear that a local authority should inform itself of any services and facilities that another local authority may be providing before it provides services and facilities under this clause as all local authorities will have statutory powers and duties placed on them by this Bill.
This provision is also intended to ensure that local authorities will advise and befriend the young person only if the person—namely a voluntary organisation or a registered children's home—who had the primary responsibility for looking after the child does not have the necessary facilities to do so. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 16, line 33, at end insert—
("6A) Any assistance given in cash or in kind under subsection (6) above shall not count as income in respect of any benefits payable under Part II (Income Related Benefits) of the Social Security Act 1986.").
The noble Lord said: The objective of this amendment is to probe the Government's intention as to how cash assistance given by local authorities to a young person leaving care is to be treated by social security officials. Cash assistance will be given when social services departments consider that income support will be inadequate for a young person's needs.
However, if social security officials then treat the cash assistance as income in the assessment of entitlement to income support, the income support will be reduced. In that situation cash assistance given by local authorities because of special circumstances they will have to be satisfied that special circumstances exist—will be of no use. I understand that in some parts of the country payments which are currently made under Section 27 of the Child Care Act 1980 are being treated as income in the assessment of entitlement to income support. So each £1 of income support given by a local authority will result in the social security department reducing its benefit by £1. For each £1 of housing benefit paid by a local authority, 85 pence is withdrawn from the social security benefit.
One very much fears that that precedent will apply to cash payments made by local authorities under this legislation. The intention of the amendment is to probe the Government's intention. Is it intended that the support given by social security will be reduced because the young person has received assistance from a social services department? I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: As I understand it, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that when a local authority provides a young person with assistance under subsection (6), be it in kind or cash, such assistance is disregarded for the purpose of calculating entitlement to benefit payable under Part II of the Social Security Act 1986. That is the part of the Act which deals with the income related benefits: income support, housing benefit and family credit.
While I recognise the concern about the issue, I do not consider that it is appropriate in this Bill to be introducing changes which affect the principles and application of policy under social security legislation, which is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I said in relation to matters debated under Amendment No. 70 that I would draw noble Lords' concerns to the attention of my right honourable friend.
I shall give my understanding of the provisions of Sections 27 to 29 of the 1980 Child Care Act to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has referred. There is no specific rule covering those payments in the income-related benefits legislation; nor was there before April 1988. Because they are made at the discretion of local authorities they are covered by the
150
normal rules relating to voluntary payments. As such, local authorities have considerable flexibility to help young people who have been in care without affecting the level of benefit being paid.
For example, I understand that the first £5 of regular payments is normally disregarded so that a local authority could provide an income of up to £5 a week without benefit being reduced. In addition any payments for housing or accommodation costs not met by income support or housing benefit are disregarded in income support, and payments in kind (a subject of the amendment) are completely disregarded in all income-related benefits.
A further easement introduced from 12th December 1988 means that any one-off payments are treated as capital and will not affect benefit unless they take any existing capital above £3,000. I do not think that that is a situation which is likely to arise in the matters being contemplated here. That enables a local authority to make a lump sum payment, if necessary, to meet an exceptional need without affecting income-related benefits. The same principles will apply to assistance from local authorities under Clause 20(6) of the Bill.
That is the information that I have been given, and I believe that it answers the question which the noble Lord raised in connection with the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: As I see it, there remains a possible conflict between the local authority social service department and the application of the social security legislation. We should have thought that this would be an opportunity to seek to resolve that possible conflict. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would be good enough to draw the attention of his right honourable friend to that possible conflict and ensure that some guidance is issued so that the payments made by the local authorites do not automatically reduce the level of income support that will be paid by social security.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may intervene briefly to say that the Secretary of State for Social Security has agreed to accept a deputation from statutory and voluntary bodies on this very matter. That meeting will take place in a fortnight's time and arises from the discussion of the amendment which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, in an earlier session of the Committee.
Lord Prys-Davies: In the circumstances I do not propose to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 17, line 4, at end insert—
("(10) The local authority shall ensure that these 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 Lord said: As my noble friend Lady David pointed out when she spoke to Amendment No. 101, in England and Wales about 8,000 young people leave care at the age of 18 and have to make their own way in society. I do not know how many

151
young people leave care at the age of 16 or 17. It may be said of the vast majority of those young people that they are the children of the poor and that there is much homelessness, unemployment and poverty affecting that section of society. There is plenty of evidence to show that those young people are faced with immense difficulties.
We say that against that background the local authority should be under a duty to ensure that the young people leaving its care are aware that the local authority may be a source of assistance to them. The onus for offering and giving information, advice and support should be on the local authority. It should not be for the young people to seek out that information. I accept that the clause in the Bill is helpful, but we believe that our amendment should be accepted because it places a firm responsibility on local authorities to seek out the young people and give them the advice which they need. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: Having read this excellent clause very thoroughly, it seems to me that the particular point covered by the amendment is omitted from the clause as it now stands. There is a great deal to be said for the new proposed subsection (10) which would round off the clause and make sure that the local authority takes the extra trouble that the amendment implies.
The Lord Chancellor: I would not think that there is any difference between us on this matter. However, again there are two stages to the question and I am not certain which stage is dealt with by the proposed subsection (10).
As I said earlier, the local authority which is looking after the child has a duty to advise, assist and befriend him with a view to promoting his welfare when he ceases to be looked after by the authority. That is a duty which applies at the time when the care is coming to an end. I should have thought that that would include giving all the necessary information as to what assistance the local authority can provide and that must be an integral part of the process.
The situation relating to young people who have been out of care for some time is more difficult. I suspect that it is those people with whom the amendment is concerned in particular. Under Clause 20(8) there is a duty on the local authority in whose care the child has been to inform the authority into whose area the child has moved. It may not be very easy for the new authority to fulfil the obligation imposed on it.
If the noble Lord is willing to accept it, I should be very happy to look at the matter further. Perhaps he would also be kind enough to look at it further, because I think that there may be a more difficult problem than at first sight appears. I think that the main issue will be catered for at the time the child leaves the care of the local authority. At that time the local authority should give the child all the information and advice about the services he or she could look for, either in the area of that authority or in the area of any other authority to which the child may move. If the noble Lord will accept that suggestion, I should be very happy to look at the
152
question further. Perhaps we could have a word about the matter in the meantime.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may say a word about First Key, which I believe is the only specialist national organisation which deals with the problems associated with young people leaving care. First Key says that:
"During the past 5 years or so in the course of work on this topic neither First Key nor other concerned organisations know of more than a handful of individuals who have approached a local authority social service department for the help and assistance which may be available to care leavers under the terms of current legislation".
Therefore there is a need for such information to be made available to young people. I think that it is an important matter and I am glad that the noble and learned Lord will be looking at it. But I think that First Key could provide more information if it is wanted.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I may say to my noble and learned friend that I do not think necessarily that subsection (1):
"with a view to promoting his welfare when he ceases to he looked after by them"
would be taken by every local authority necessarily to mean that it would include informing him about all the aid that he might receive later on quite apart from stage two, which is obviously more difficult. I think that it is jumping to something of a conclusion to assume that from that wording, which is very general and rather more caring than practical, if you like. It does not in fact say that this will include telling the person when he leaves that all the following sets of resources are available to him from local authorities wherever he may go, as the proposed subsection (10) sought to do.
When my noble and learned friend looks again at this point, perhaps he would think about whether subsection (1) is wide enough to cover what this amendment seeks to do.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I confess that I may still be confused as I was over the last amendment when I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady David, was addressing her remarks—as indeed other Members of the Committee were doing—to cash assistance. When I read this amendment I thought that it related to cash assistance; but as the Committee has now rejected Amendment No. 101. assistance under this amendment is not limited to cash assistance. Indeed, it refers back to subsection (1) of Clause 20. Perhaps that point could be considered by my noble and learned friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, when they give further thought to this matter.
Lord Prys-Davies: The 10 organisations that have written to us in support of this amendment tell us of the difficulties experienced by young people in ascertaining their entitlement to benefits and services. I am very grateful for the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and certainly we shall return to these organisations for further guidance as to how we can possibly improve and indeed perfect the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

153
Clause 21 [Use of accommodation for restricting liberty]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 107A:
Page 17, leave out lines 10 to 15 and insert ("that if he is kept in any other description of accommodation he is likely to injure himself or other persons or suffer significant harm").
The noble Lord said: In introducing this amendment, with the leave of the Committee I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 107C, which is grouped with it. The amendments are tabled at the request of a charitable institution concerned with the welfare of children. I owe the Committee a brief explanation because my name stands against the Motion which follows these amendments; namely, that Clause 21 do not stand part of the Bill. It is not my intention to move the Motion that Clause 21 do not stand part of the Bill. Clause 21 cannot stand part if the principle of Amendment No. 52, which is concerned with secure accommodation, is accepted.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has undertaken to look into the matter of principle as to whether that concept should be removed from Part III and placed in Part II of the Bill. It is a complicated matter and I am pleased to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in his place because he was concerned with these considerations and understands that it is a complicated matter. Therefore while it is under consideration—and my noble and learned friend has written to me but I have not yet received the letter—I shall not oppose the Question that Clause 21 stand part of the Bill.
Therefore as Clause 21 is in a state of suspended animation, the reason why I have tabled Amendment No. 107A is to ensure by this form of words that secure accommodation would not be available for children who needed treatment in the form of a punishment. It should only be available if strictly necessary.
Perhaps I may quote from a letter that I have received from the charity to which I referred. It says that in their experience—and of course at is not my experience but theirs:
"those in secure accommodation are often amongst the most abused—abused by their own families and by the system. Children in care sometimes run away—the phrase used by social workers and the police is 'abscond'—simply because of the appalling circumstances surrounding their life. The current law relating to secure accommodation allows running away—absconding—to be used to justify locking children up in secure accommodation. These children need help, not punishment. Running away should not be grounds for a secure accommodation order".
Those are precisely the sentiments that were expressed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who, when speaking to another amendment, said that in no circumstances should secure accommodation be used as a punishment.
This is a probing amendment to discover whether it commends itself to the Committee as a preferable form of words in order to achieve our common object. That is all that it is.
Amendment No. 107C speaks for itself:
"No court shall exercise the powers conferred… unless… [the child] is represented by a guardian ad litem".
154
The Committee may think that that is a reasonable provision. But, as before on Amendment No. 52, on this very difficult matter of secure accommodation, with the greatest respect I canvass the views of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether again we should try to clarify our minds on a very important matter. Anything that relates to a youngster in secure accommodation must immediately evoke the attention and consideration of all Members of the Committee. I had understood, perhaps quite incorrectly, that a history of absconding was not a history of absconding from a home of ill-treatment or school where the youngster was not understood. It may be that I was quite wrong, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will enlighten me on this point when he comes to address the Committee; but I took it for granted that a history of absconding meant absconding from local authority institutions. That is how I understood it.
The reason therefore for having to put a youngster into secure accommodation was that there had been a history of absconding from local authority places of an alternative kind; or indeed it might even have involved absconding from foster parents into whose care the youngster had been placed. A youngster was not put into care as a result of absconding from his own home. And the fact that if he absconds he is likely to suffer harm is a conjunctive and not an alternative reason. Therefore my reading of the matter was as follows. Not only does he have to have a history of absconding from places where it would have been for his benefit to remain, but also it is thought that he is likely to suffer harm as a result of absconding again. If that interpretation is right, has the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, the same sentiments that he had when addressing us on this amendment?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: It is difficult for me to answer directly as I would wish to do as always because I have no personal experience of the matter. That is why I took the rather exceptional course for me of quoting a letter and disclosing to Members of the Committee that I put this before noble Lords at the specific request of a charity concerned with the welfare of children. In doing so, I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for convening the all-party conference at which the representative from this association contacted me.
I am afraid that I cannot assist the noble Lord. I understand completely my Amendment No. 52 on which I spoke in moving it. That is under consideration. However, it would mean that Clause 21 does not stand part. Clause 21 would go and the provisions would appear elsewhere in the Bill in another and more general form.
6 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: We are in difficulty here because this is very much a question of social work practice. I know of one child who absconded 10 times. I said to him, "If you abscond once more we

155
shall not look for you. We shall make no effort to get you back." He absconded and was knocked down by a car. Noble Lords can imagine how I felt. I felt that I ought to have kept him in secure accommodation.
It is the luck of the game. My difficulty is this. It depends on the individual case, the individual circumstances, and on meeting the needs of the individual child. It may be rather restrictive to follow the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and take these words out of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: The history that has been given to my noble friend by the charity may not be sufficiently related to the law in the matter. The secure accommodation regulations are not all that ancient. There may be some problem about that. With regard to these regulations, and the provision is repeated in the Bill, a child is not to be held in secure accommodation for absconding—not at all—and still less for absconding from home. The situation is that he is likely to abscond from any other description of accommodation. In other words, short of secure accommodation, there is nowhere that we can keep this child safely. We have no other accommodation, however attractive, beautiful or homely, from which he is not likely to run. That is the first point. One must consider all the other accommodation that the local authority can provide for the child.
The second point is this. It was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. If the child absconds he is likely to suffer harm. In other words, the provision of secure accommodation is not a punishment but a protection against his doing harm to himself for example, by running away and then suffering harm in the manner to which my noble friend referred.
Amendment No. 107A may have the effect of making secure accommodation more available. It would delete a very important condition for the use of secure accommodation. The point has been illustrated vividly in the example that my noble friend Lady Faithfull has given. I certainly could not accept this amendment. I know that my noble friend is only probing on this point.
On Amendment 107C, I am inclined to think that where secure accommodation and a child's liberty are in question, where the child has a point of view it ought to be possible for the child to express that view through a representative of his choice. The mere existence of a guardian ad litem, however useful, might not be the right course in that situation.
In these circumstances I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I repeat what I said. I am looking carefully at the points that he made in relation to Amendment No. 52.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am most grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken and in particular to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I know that the charity concerned will be relieved to be able to study the contributions of Members of the Committee and to understand that their very real fears are not realistic or justified. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 107B:
Page 17, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) provide that in any application made under this section in respect of a child who is a ward the child is a full party to the proceedings in his own right and has the opportunity to instruct a lawyer of his own choosing.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is to ensure that wards of court have a fair hearing in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights before they lose their liberty by being put into secure accommodation under Clause 21.
In 1982, after pressure in the House of Lords, the Government took advice from the Attorney-General on the use of secure accommodation in the care system. He confirmed that the existing procedure whereby young people in care had no court hearing on deprivation of their liberty might indeed constitute a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 5 of the convention provides that everyone deprived of liberty shall have the lawfulness of their detention "decided speedily by a court". Article 6 defines this as a fair and public hearing. Cases on this point have determined that a fair hearing includes the right to a lawyer of choice.
The Government therefore used the 1982 Criminal Justice Act to insert Section 21A into the Child Care Act 1980. This secured that all young people in care could be locked up only under strict conditions set out in Clause 21(1) of the Bill and that after 72 hours authorisation should be sought from the juvenile court. This left wards in local authority care in an anomalous position. With regard to wards the authority had to seek permission from the High Court for any change in their placement including a placement in secure accommodation. With a young person in care, the authority also had to have permission from the juvenile court. This meant that there had to be two separate hearings—an admittedly cumbersome process.
The Government came under pressure from the High Court judges. They had expressed disapproval of a situation where their jurisdiction could be superseded by the juvenile court which could veto an order that the ward be locked up. Local authorities were also protesting about all the legal legwork needed to lock up wards.
Therefore, in 1986 the Secure Accommodation (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations came into force. These provided that wards be locked up only pursuant to the direction of a judge exercising wardship jurisdiction. This meant that local authorities could not lock up wards on their own initiative, not even for the first 72 hours, and that permission need no longer be sought from the juvenile court.
The provision also had more sinister implications. Although judges were still bound by the criteria set out in Section 21A of the 1980 Act, they were not in the passive role of the juvenile court, simply agreeing to an application. They were in a position to order the ward to be locked up. Moreover, juvenile courts could authorise this only for a maximum of three months followed by six-monthly renewals. The High Court was not bound by these time limits and could order indefinite deprivation of liberty. It was also exempt from the need to gain the Secretary of State's

157
permission to lock up those under 10 years. The new regulations also meant that the local authority could not release a ward even when the conditions ceased to apply. Permission had first to be sought from the High Court. Perhaps most serious of all, wards were to be denied the right to a fair hearing.
Wards of court are not necessarily even parties to their own cases. When they are, they are represented through a guardian ad litem who by practice direction of the court is normally the Official Solicitor. The Official Solicitor, unlike other solicitors in secure accommodation cases, is not under a duty to act on his client's instructions. He sees his duty as conveying the ward's wishes to the court, but advocating the ward's best interests may be seen by him as being quite different from the ward's wishes. The ward will not be present in court when this is done.
At the time these regulations were made, the Children's Legal Centre pressed that wards of court, like all others in care, should at least have the right to instruct their own lawyers. Although the Department of Health and the Lord Chancellor's Department recognise the centre's concern, the only safeguard was the issuing of a practice direction. Before locking up a ward the court should, unless the ward is already represented by a guardian ad litem or there are special reasons why the ward should not be represented, join the ward as a party to the proceedings and appoint a guardian ad litem to protect his interests and ensure that his views are made known to the court.
Local authorities were also advised in the circular to draw this to the attention of the court and to consider someone other than the Official Solicitor being appointed as guardian ad litem. None of this overcomes the problem of the ward. Even if joined as a party and represented by a guardian ad litem the ward would not have adequate legal representation.
The Children's Legal Centre has already encountered one case where the ward did not wish to be locked up but was represented by the Official Solicitor, who recommended that she be locked up. It is also currently making an application to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of a ward who has been locked up for 24 months, without even being made a party to his proceedings, contrary to the practice direction and circular, neither of which has mandatory force. Given this case the Government may agree to accept this amendment, or they may prefer to put forward their own. If the UK has been in breach of the European Convention in this matter it is very important that it takes steps to remedy the law. To refuse this opportunity to remedy the breach would be deplorable.
The amendment does not solve the problem as to how wards should have a fair hearing, whether this be by reinstating the juvenile court application or by changing High Court procedures. This can be done through rules of court by government. As it stands, Clause 21 is technically flawed in relation to wards. Subsection (7) provides that the court shall exercise powers to lock up children in care only if a child is legally represented, unless he was not eligible for or refused legal aid. I understand that wards cannot
158
have legal aid. The equivalent provision under Section 21A of the 1980 Act placed only juvenile courts under this duty. The words "juvenile court" were changed to "court" because of the Bill's introduction of concurrent jurisdiction. Where wards are concerned they cannot apply for legal aid and are not legally represented.
The Government may argue that the Official Solicitor legally represents wards. The reply is, first, that there is no guarantee that the Official Solicitor will be appointed. Secondly, and more importantly, the Official Solicitor is not a child's legal representative because he will not take instructions from the child. I am sure the Committee will agree that there is a real problem here. I hope that if the noble and learned Lord cannot accept that wording of the amendment he will accept the importance of the points made and make a commitment to come back with his own amendment at Report stage. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Surely there are two questions. The first is that of legal representation—I am looking at the amendment—and the second is whether a child is a full party, whatever that may mean. The first question surely is met by Clause 21(7):
"No court shall exercise the powers conferred by this section in respect of a child who is not legally represented in that court".
Whether a child is a ward or not, that is all-embracing. The other question is whether the child mentioned in the amendment is a full party. On the assumption that he is, or would be by some rules of court, under Clause 21(7) he would be legally represented.
On these assumptions it is not quite understood—at least, I do not understand—how there could be a breach of the Convention on Human Rights as regards representation. I spoke to this point on Second Reading, but not in this context. I am sensitive to the fact that, as I said on Second Reading, the child should be a full party, that he should be represented by a lawyer of his choice. I hope that when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor enters into consideration in depth of the principle involved in Amendment No. 52, which stands in substitution for this clause, he will accept that I accept that the Official Solicitor is not the appropriate representative but that the client should have a lawyer of his own choice.
Be all that as it may. I do not quite see why the amendment is necessary and, moreover, why it cures the possible taint of a breach of the Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Meston: I have to admit that I have never come across the problem which was identified by the noble Baroness in explaining the amendment. I felt considerable surprise when she suggested to the Committee that the wardship jurisdiction had been effectively eroded to the extent she suggested. But if there is a problem it must be addressed, though I am by no means sure as to the scale of the problem. In the vast majority of cases, in particular those cases in which there is any apparent difficulty, the ward will

159
be a party to the proceedings. He will be joined. It is almost automatic nowadays and in the vast majority of cases the ward will be represented by the Official Solicitor as his or her guardian ad litem.
As the noble Baroness said, there is no guarantee of that. Perhaps she is right to press that there should be. It also surprised me when she suggested that there were circumstances in which somehow the wardship jurisdiction was superseded by the juvenile court jurisdiction. It has always been my understanding that it was precisely the other way round.
Baroness David: That has been superseded and is not the position now.
Lord Meston: That is what I understood her to go on to explain, and certainly that is right. But be that as it may; it is still a surprising proposition.
The other factor, and one thing that is certain about wardship jurisdiction, is that any move in the placement of the child has to be notified to the court. That is part of the rules. It has to be recorded by the court. If the child is represented by the Official Solicitor he also has to be informed, so if there is any proposal to move a child matters will inevitably come to the attention of the Official Solicitor.
That leads me to the suggestion that there was something deficient in the representation of the child by the Official Solicitor or by some other guardian ad litem. There are other guardians ad litem in such cases, but normally it is the Official Solicitor. Of course he is not merely the mouthpiece of a child in the way a paid lawyer may sometimes find himself as such, but it does not mean that the Official Solicitor is not an independent, intelligent and forthright representative of the child. It would he unfortunate if the impression were given that there is a deficiency in the representation given to a child by the Official Solicitor.
The Lord Chancellor: If a problem exists in this respect there are powers to deal with it, in particular the powers to make regulations as provided to the Secretary of State under the clause. The noble Baroness, Lady David, suggested that in the case to which she referred it was complained that the child's attitude was not represented: it was revealed but not represented. Perhaps in that case the question arises of what is meant by legal representation in the circumstances. It is a difficult issue, but powers are provided to the Secretrary of State to deal with it under the present law if necessary. If the Bill comes into effect, additional powers will be provided.
Will the noble Baroness be kind enough to allow me to consider how I can take the matter further? I am sure she appreciates that such matters are not always easy to solve. I draw attention to a proposal in the Bill whereby the wardship matter may no longer be of importance in this connection. It is proposed that, in exercising wardship jurisdiction, the court should not put a child into care nor direct the child be kept in any particular accommodation. That is a good and satisfactory solution to the problem. I shall be commending it in due course but not without challenge from certain quarters—I hope
160
not from the noble Baroness. If the Bill is accepted by the Committee it is not clear that there will be a continuing problem.
On that footing perhaps the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment at this stage, see what happens in respect of the wardship jurisdiction proposals contained in a later part of the Bill and, if necessary, return to the matter at a later stage.
Baroness David: I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is a difficult area. It is particularly difficult for me because I am not a lawyer. It appeared that there was a problem and issues needed to be resolved, as must the position of the Official Solicitor. He cannot always act exactly as the child's representative putting forward the wishes of the child.
I should like to read what has been said by Members. However, I understand from my box that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is wrong in saying that subsection (7) cannot apply to wards because they are under a disability of age under the rules of the Supreme Court and they cannot be parties in their own right or instruct a lawyer but are dependent on a guardian ad litem. That is the message that I received from my advisers' box, and I repeat it for what it is worth.
I appreciate the difficulty but I wish to see that the right thing is done. If in this Bill the Committee is presented with the opportunity to do the right thing I think that it should do it. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will write to me before the Report stage and I shall have the opportunity to come back then should I so wish. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 107C not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Review of cases and inquiries into representations]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 107D:
Page 18, line 18, at end insert ("and shall provide that reviews shall take the form of a meeting.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to tidy up the position of the grouping of the amendment. In the list which has been proposed to the Committee it is grouped with Amendment No. 108 (which is right) and No. 109. Members of the Committee will see that in the second part of Amendment No. 109 there is a provision,
"requiring the authority to advise the child of the right of application to the court to discharge the order".
That has nothing to do with the point which I am trying to make in respect of Amendment No. 107D and which others whom I support are trying to make in respect of the amendments I have mentioned. It is also grouped with Amendment No. 110, and that is correct.
Lord Mottistone: I should have liked to speak separately to the first half of Amendment No. 109 as distinct from the second half. No doubt it was put together because it looked neat to those in the Public Bill Office.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may quote my noble friend Lady David and say that such box as is available to the Opposition—I should like to know where it is, because I have never found it—takes a different view and does not believe that it is neat. With the Committee's permission, I shall not address any remarks to the second part of Amendment No. 109.
The amendment to which I am speaking deals with an important matter and Members may consider it to be the most important. It is in respect of a child in care who is being looked after by a local authority, and it is the review which must take place every six months. If what the Committee is dealing with in the Bill is to be effective everything depends on the way in which the review is conducted. I have received certain information from the Family Rights Group. In my view it is my responsibility to put it before the Committee in order that it may be properly appraised of the situation at present inherent in certain local authorities' review procedures—or lack of them. Members of the Committee may feel it is right and proper that an amendment should be tabled dealing with the way in which a review must be conducted and the people who should be invited to be present.
Members of the Committee will realise that no part of the law sets out in statute or otherwise requirements in regard to a review procedure. At the moment all that exists in law is a provision that a review should take place every six months. I am told by the Family Rights Group that in many cases reviews are not carried out in the form that Members would ever consider when using the description "review". A DHSS report published in 1980 concluded that reviews,
"are not carried out or are carried out in a perfunctory manner".
There is then a reference to another DHSS report. Members of the Committee may think that that must, of necessity, be a very objective source. That DHSS report of 1986 by the social services inspectors found that,
"In one authority there had been delays in the reviewing of every case and in another authority it was found that statutory reviews rarely took place".
In 1984 there was a DHSS-sponsored research study of reviews in one particular local authority. That found that 70 per cent. of the 230 reviews studied took fewer than 15 minutes to complete. We have talked about a special plan for a child in care. We have talked about the ways in which that could be implemented, if not by those words. We are dealing with some local authorities whose habit in 70 per cent. of their cases has been to conduct a review lasting 15 minutes which will take place once every six months.
Therefore, whether or not this be the right way to do it, I should be interested to hear the views of Members of the Committee and certainly the response of the noble and learned Lord to this matter. I believe that the proper way to do this is to enforce a meeting, which is required only once every six months, with an invitation extended to the parents, or to anyone standing in loco parentis, and to the child, where appropriate, to attend for part of the
162
meeting. However, it should not be done by an exhange of correspondence or the filling out of a form.
Members of the Committee may ask about the filling out of forms. There was another DHSS research study in 1986 which found that where reviews were based on filling in forms the forms were often completed inadequately with a simple word being given in answer to a complex question, that goals set at reviews were usually written in vague terms, that tasks to be done were not attributed to individual workers, that goals set at one review were not examined at all six months later, and that often the same goals were reset without consideration being given to how realistic they were. Members of the Committee will understand why I feel that filling in forms is not an adequate way to conduct reviews.
At this important stage of the Bill where we are dealing with reviews I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel that this discussion is more than worthwhile and that, in the light of these amendments, the solution may be to ensure that a meeting be held and that the invitations mentioned in these amendments be extended to the parties most vitally interested, if necessary to attend only part of the meeting if that be deemed to be in the interests of the child. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Meston: I share some of the dismay expressed as to the grouping because the amendment which has just been moved deals with the form of the review. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, advocates and I support the view that the review should be in the form of a properly constituted meeting. To my mind the separate questions as to participation in the review are covered by the first part of Amendment No. 109 and Amendment No. 112, and the separate question of representation at review is dealt with by Amendment No. 111. As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, the second part of Amendment No. 109 concerns a separate question altogether; that is, advising the child of the right of application to the court.
Be that as it may, perhaps I may soldier on and speak primarily to Amendment No. 108 which concerns me because in a sense it is the first and most anodyne of the series of amendments dealing with the question of who is to be present at the review. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, the whole process of the review is of the greatest importance in a fair system of care because that prevents. or should prevent, children from drifting, which is the expression already used this afternoon. Fairness and the appearance of a fair review procedure is absolutely crucial.
As far as I can tell, the Bill is absolutely silent about who should be present at a case review. There is no clue in the Bill as to who could be present. I believe I am right in saying that there are departmental guidelines on the subject but experience shows that there are discrepancies as between one area and another. It should be an important function of any review that the parents and the children concerned are kept informed. It is also important—and this takes the question of participation a little

163
further—that steps are taken to ensure that those who have something else to add and something else to contribute should have an opportunity to do so—for instance, the local family doctor, the teacher of the child or the wider family. If the child who has been in care has been home on trial, it may well be that there is a family helper. I remember a case in which the review decided that the child should go home. However, had the family helper been present at the review, it would have been told by that family helper that a matter of hours before the local authority social workers decided that the child could go home, both mother and father were roaring drunk. Therefore, one important feature of participation is to enable those carrying out the review to have the best, most up-to-date information from those in the best position to give it.
However, to return to the participation of parents, it is very true that parents resent the fact that decisions seem to be made behind closed doors. They are not present; they are not told what is discussed. They are not told what evidence or points were put forward one way or the other. They are not even provided with minutes of the review meeting, if there was a meeting. The jealousy with which the local authorities cling on to the minutes of the meetings and will not disclose them is a matter of some surprise to those of us who practise in this area of the law. I have never understood why, because they should have nothing to fear. However, that sense of secrecy causes resentment, feeds the hostility which is I am afraid a feature of those cases and is contrary to any concept of shared care.
As to the child's participation, that is a separate question. Generally speaking, the child should be able to understand the implications of what has been undertaken and should be able to understand the time scale of what is proposed for his or her future. It is often good for the child to realise that there are so many people present at a meeting concerned only with that particular child. That is very good for the child and is of enormous value. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, indicated, there will be cases when it will be quite inappropriate for the child to be present, and regulations will provide for that. There may be other cases where it is of doubtful benefit for the child to be present. That is something that also needs to be considered by regulations. However, by and large, if the child is not present, there is perhaps a stronger case for saying that the child should have a representative of some sort.
As I said, Amendment No. 108 is perhaps the most anodyne of this series of amendments. It simply adds another enabling, rule-making power to the Bill. For that reason I hope it is the amendment which finds most favour with the Government.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that it may be convenient if I make a point that I had intended to raise on clause stand part but which I think is more relevant here.
I certainly have no objection in principle to Amendment No. 107D of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Indeed he seems to make a case for some such specification. My hestitation would be on the
164
word "meeting" without anything further mentioned. A meeting of whom? A meeting where? If that were specified in the form of a meeting of such persons, and so on, my objection would probably go.
I go further. I question the appropriateness of the whole of subsection (2) of Clause 11. It is a formula that the draftsman has used not only in this clause but on several occasions elsewhere. I am very hesitant to criticise the drafting of this Bill where obviously an effort has been made to express the enactment in a way that can be understood by the persons affected by it. Nevertheless, what is done here and elsewhere is to say that the Secretary of State may make regulations of a general nature relating to such and such. I emphasise the word "may". The clause then goes on to say that the regulations may (again "may") in particular make provision as to a number of matters. The obvious reaction is that of course he may. If he may make regulations relating to a general matter, he may make the particular regulations that are subsidiary or incidental. It would be entirely different if it were mandatory in each case.
That was the point (I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will remember) that arose frequently on the Prosecution of Offences Act. Here we have the word "may". The Secretary of State "may" make regulations generally relating to a matter and he "may" in particular make other provisions which are incidental thereto. As I said, of course he may. If the correct answer is that of course he may, then the whole of subsection (2) can be omitted.
The Committee will remember some words that fell from my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham earlier this evening in which he deprecated unnecessarily adding provisions to a statute. He compared a modern statute with the statutes enacted at a time of great legislative activity under the Liberal Government before the 1914–18 War, to which one can perhaps add this. In the year after the Renton Committee reported, the public and general statutes ran to three volumes. Ten years later fewer statutes than in that year ran to six volumes.
On the whole we over-legislate, not only in regard to interfering with people but in the way of verbosity. If we can, as I think we can here, omit a substantial provision which adds nothing to the generality of what has gone before, I suggest to the Committee that we should do so.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may intervene for one second at this stage. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord, to whom we always listen with great respect, is advocating that this should be mandatory in order to mean something; in other words, the Secretary of State "shall" make regulations, because I do not think that any Member of the Committee—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I was not going that far, but it would make sense if it were mandatory. It does not make sense as it is purely voluntary.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I believe that it is necessary to have a meeting, or whatever it

165
is called. At that meeting the parents or parent should be present. The child or children should be present but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, other people should be present who are dealing with the child; that is, the teacher, the head of the home if the child is in a children's home, and the social worker. In that way, if the matter is discussed between them all, everyone understands everyone else and they are facing in the same direction.
That does not necessarily mean that the meeting will do what the child wants and asks. What is important is that the child understands and has an explanation as to why things are happening and what is being done for him. Difficulties arise when a child does not understand what is happening. Difficulties also arise if the other people dealing with the child—the school, children's home, foster parents—do not understand one another. Therefore, I very much support the review taking the form of a meeting, provided everyone concerned with the child attends that meeting where practicable and possible. The purpose of that meeting should also be clearly understood. It is not necessarily to do what the child wants at that time but that he should understand what is being done on his behalf.
Lord Mottistone: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 109. I shall concentrate on the first part of the amendment which goes with what we are now discussing but, on the assumption that my noble and learned friend has been given advice on how to comment on the whole amendment, I shall say a few words about the second part later.
The first part of my amendment is very like Amendment No. 112 which, of course, I support. However. I prefer my own amendment because it deals with the business of making sure that the child understands. Of course, a child of, say, three months, would not be very suitable at that sort of meeting.
I shall make a few remarks which have been suggested to me by the Children's Legal Centre. It states that the review is, or should be, the crucial time for planning and decision-making for children in care. The local authority is already under a duty, before making any decision about a child in care, to ascertain and give due consideration to the child's wishes and feelings about the decision, as is set out in Clause 18. A review meeting is where people relevant to the child's life gather together to exchange views—my noble friend Lady Faithfull has just made that point—make decisions, formulate plans and allocate responsibility for their implementation.
It is extremely difficult to see how the authority could fulfil its duty under Clause 18 without having the child present at the meeting. Ascertaining the child's wishes and feelings before the meeting—as proposed by Clause 22(2)(d)—would be inadequate since the child would not be in a position to know what others would propose at the meeting; nor would the child be able to challenge any of their views.
The Children's Legal Centre conducted a survey of local authority reviewing policies in 1983. At the same time the National Association of Young People in Care canvassed the views of about 500 young people in care. Fifteen of the 63 authorities replying to the centre said that young people were always
166
invited to their review. Most of the others said that young people were sometimes invited. Reasons for exclusion included the assessed maturity of the child's ability to cope with the review—and there my amendment has a point—the existence of sensitive information and the need for professionals to have private discussions. In practice, the centre has yet to encounter an adequate justification for excluding a young person who is keen to attend. If information or discussion is relevant to decisions about their life they have a right to know it. Obviously, painful information should not be disclosed at a review and the young people should be adequately warned and prepared that upsetting facts exist. I think that is quite an important point and I would hope very much that something along the lines of my amendment might be acceptable. Other noble Lords have made other points in connection with their own amendments.
If I may now turn to the second paragraph of Amendment No. 109, the aim is to ensure that the child is in a position to know of his right, which exists anyhow, to instruct a solicitor to seek a discharge. It seems to the NSPCC that it is important that somewhere in an appropriate place in this Bill the duty should be laid on authorities to make sure that children know they have that right. At the moment the Bill does not include that fact, and that is the point of the second part of Amendment No. 109.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 109. It is felt by the NSPCC that it is consistent for the child to take part in administrative reviews. I think it is essential, so long as they can understand their right to do so. It is possible that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will say that these matters would be better dealt with by regulations but I feel they are better dealt with in primary legislation.
In the second part of the amendment, the child has the right to apply for variation or discharge of an order. Clause 22 also requires that the local authority, when a review takes place, should consider whether an order should be discharged. If the review process is in part to focus a local authority's attention on the continuing necessity for an order, should this not also apply to the child? A reminder to the child on a periodic basis of his or her rights should help the child to clarify what he or she feels to be the best course of action open to him or her. There is little point in giving children rights if they are not able to exercise them, having no knowledge that the rights exist.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in speaking to these amendments, really invited a more radical point to be looked at: namely, whether the whole provision of Clause 22(2) is inappropriate. So far as Clause 22(1) is concerned, giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations does have effect and I think it is a very normal way of doing it. If one were to have a duty one would perhaps have to make directions about that in more detail. The Secretary of State certainly means, as part of the implementation of this Bill, to make regulations, and we would hope, before the whole structure is put into position, to have those regulations available. It is obvious that they would

167
need to be the subject of much consultation, and that would be intended. So, assuming that the Secretary of State is to have power to make regulations, he could of course make regulations requiring the case of each child who is being looked after by a local authority to be reviewed in accordance with the regulations. Notwithstanding that general power, however, I believe it is appropriate in what is an important part of the provision at least to provide for particular provisions that the Secretary of State will be empowered to make.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Would my noble and learned friend allow me? Both subsections (1) and (2) are permissive and not mandatory, in contrast to subsection (3). If subsection (2) were not there, would it not be permissible for the Secretary of State nevertheless to make regulations on those matters?
The Lord Chancellor: I think it might be arguable, for example, whether he could make regulations covering all these matters. Perhaps the one that is most obvious is the requirement for the authority to monitor the arrangements they had made with a view to ensuring that the regulations were complied with. I think it is perhaps doubtful whether the general power in Clause 22(1), without that specific provision, would empower the Secretary of State to require the authority to monitor what it is doing, but the purpose of this is really to try to set out in fairly clear language what is intended to be dealt with by these regulations. The Secretary of State may well have done that without such power, but I think it is as well that to a certain degree these headings should be specified. Of course it is a question of judgment as to what degree one goes.
I would think that all the provisions proposed in the amendments, subject to the particular point about the local authority advising the child of the right to make an application to the court to discharge an order, would be covered under these specific heads. In particular, the regulation-making power to make provision as to the manner in which each case is to be reviewed would certainly enable the Secretary of State to require that this should he done by way of a meeting.
However, I think the difficulty is to deal with a fairly complicated matter in a way that is going to apply to every possible case. I believe that the total review ought, at any rate in many cases, to include more than just a meeting. It ought to include, for example, getting a report in relation to the child. If, say, a child is having some form of medical treatment, it might be right to get a report from the doctor in order that everyone connected with the matter could study it in advance, and then the doctor could well be asked to attend any subsequent meeting.
The whole process of review may well involve a meeting, but I doubt very much whether it would be right to say that the review should take the form of a meeting: in other words, that nothing should form part of the review which is not a meeting. This is just a point of detail but it illustrates the difficulty of getting into too much detail in the primary legislation. I would take it that the preliminary work
168
of the review would have to be done, generally speaking, in advance of any meeting that might possibly take place.
I agree with the view which has been expressed that, very generally, some form of meeting would be a central part of any review. The bringing together of all the people involved so that they understand one another and are not subject to the mistakes of reporting, or even the nuances that are necessary in some of the delicate cases, is highly desirable. I would say strongly that the correct way to go into the kind of detail that is required to cover all the possible cases is really a matter for the regulations.
I can assure your Lordships that, in proposing the regulations, we should take fully into account all the concerns which have been expressed about what should form part of the review and who should be at it. For my part, I should be sorry to see the power to make regulations too much cut down on the one hand, or made too elaborate on the other hand. Here we have a general list of headings which would enable all the concerns that have been expressed in these amendments to be taken into account.
In relation to the second part of Lord Mottistone's Amendment No. 109, that sets something apart from the review and is a more general matter. I shall certainly consider whether anything needs to be done about that separately.
So far as concerns the details of the review and the way in which it should take place I believe that all the anxieties which have been expressed in these amendments could properly be taken into account in framing the regulations under the headings that we have. I shall undertake that all the matters referred to here will be very much kept in mind in considering the form of regulations to be proposed.
7 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: Some of us are in a difficulty which is inherent in the fact that more and more of our primary legislation depends upon a Minister who, with great veracity and honesty of purpose, tells us about regulations yet to be made. They are not before the Committee. This is not the first time that this point has been raised; but I have to raise it again because of the duty that lies upon us to see that matters which we think are very important, if they are not be in the statute, are eventually to be in regulations.
That is one of the matters that always makes me feel how wonderful it would be if a Minister—one has no doubt having thought about a Bill with great care—saw fit to ensure that the regulations which are always mentioned in Bills were available in draft at the same time as we considered the statute. Then we would all say we had done out duty.
All I can do on this occasion, in addressing myself to the noble and learned Lord and thanking him for the care that he has taken in his reply, is to repeat—I promise not in detail—what I tried to say when moving the amendment. There are examples which have been found by DHSS reviews of the completely unsatisfactory way in which reviews are held by certain local authorities. In my submission, it will be the duty of the Committee to see that that is not repeated after the Bill goes through the House.

169
The noble and learned Lord has conceded with complete grace that in most cases meetings would be appropriate. I would not insist upon saying that a meeting had to be held in every conceivable case, even when inappropriate, although I do not think it would do very much harm. But can the noble and learned Lord give an undertaking to the Committee that in the regulations which are to come there will be specific regulations as to the parties who will be present at a review in the same form as in this amendment; namely, that the child should have an opportunity where it is appropriate, and the parents and anyone else who really has something to contribute? I think that was an addition to the discussion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. Can he also say that the regulations will provide that in most cases, since that would be suitable, there should be a meeting after consultations and reports of an appropriate nature?
If the noble and learned Lord will say that is going to be the position, for my part I shall then say, having the word of the noble and learned Lord which all of us trust completely, that I have done my duty. The regulations will be there and they will cover those points. Without that undertaking, I should really like to give the noble and learned Lord on behalf of the Government an indication of how the Committee feels by testing the opinion of the Committee, hoping that everybody, since we are all in agreement, will vote for the amendment. I do not want to do that if the noble and learned Lord can tell us in specific terms that the regulations will definitely deal with the matters which are inherent in the amendments.
The Lord Chancellor: Regarding the people to be involved in the review, we have sought to deal with that matter in Clause 22(2)(d). That is:

"(i) the child;

(ii) his parents;

(iii) any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental authority for him; and

(iv) any other person whose views the authority consider to be relevant,

including, in particular, the views of those persons in relation to any particular matter which is to be considered in the course of the review;"
For example, a doctor or someone of that sort would be involved.
I think that deals fully with the matter that—
Lord Mishcon: The requirement is merely to take views.
The Lord Chancellor: I have not finished yet.
Lord Mishcon: That remark was meant for my noble friend Lord Meston.
The Lord Chancellor: It happened to reach me also, and therefore I take advantage of it.
That is the first point as to the parties. As to the form, I must hold to the view that I could not go along with saying that reviews should take the form of a meeting because I think that is too restrictive. I believe that a meeting of some kind will be appropriate generally in a review for the reasons that
170
have been explained. It would be wrong to say that in every conceivable circumstance of review a meeting should be necessary, because there might be requirements for reviews that are precipitated by particular circumstances when some urgent decision was required. However, generally speaking, I should expect a review to include a meeting of those who are able to contribute to the matter.
If something more definite than that is required, I cannot go any further than that today. My view of the matter is that to be effectively conducted these reviews would normally involve a meeting. The amendment goes no further than providing that the Secretary of State could make such provision; so I do not believe that there is much between us on this matter.
The views which have been expressed in the course of this debate will certainly be taker into account in formulating the regulations. I do not believe that in general it is right to try to formulate the regulations until one knows what the statutory power is under which they are to be exercised, and it is proper to have consultations before the form of the regulations is settled. That is the best indication I can give at the present time.
Lord Mishcon: The noble and learned Lord is very kind. He says that there is not much difference between us. Unfortunately, the difference between us is that of certainty and uncertainty. The noble and learned Lord says with complete frankness that he would expect that the regulations "might deal" or that he would expect that "provision might be made". Can he at least say on behalf of the Government that the regulations will provide that in normal cases—I accept that there may be abnormal ones—a meeting should take place by way of the review? If it can be said that in normal cases that is what the regulations will say, although I understand that the noble and learned Lord cannot tie himself to the precise words of the regulations, I shall be personally content not to press the amendment. But if he cannot say that—I shall understand that it is not because of lack of good will—I shall have to press the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I am not sure that I understand the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I usually do, but on this occasion I am not quite sure that I understand him. The Bill states that the child should be consulted and that the parents should be consulted. One cannot have those consultations without a meeting. It is implicit that a meeting should be held.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Baroness is right; we usually agree. Indeed, on these Benches we shall always have great respect and affection for the noble Baroness because we so much like her views.
Having said that, I should like to point out to her with deep respect that at the moment the clause provides that before any review takes place the views of certain people mentioned in the clause should be taken. It says that the Secretary of State may make those regulations. It does not say in what form the views may be taken. It may be just a chat. It does not

171
say that the person who has expressed the view will be present at the review procedure in order to argue that view. This is all before a review takes place.
The Committee may feel that, because of the scandals that were revealed in the DHSS reports about the way in which reviews have been carried out by certain local authorities in the past, something definite must be done to ensure that reviews for the children being looked after by local authorities take place in every local authority in the future. The noble and learned Lord says that generally a meeting ought to take place and that there should be reports, and so on, before the meeting. I am asking for an assurance that the regulations will so provide. I shall understand if he cannot give such an undertaking. In that case I shall have to press the amendment if only for the purpose of registering the Committee's view in order to ensure, pray heaven, that the regulations do so provide.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not sure that I can take this matter very much further. I cannot undertake that a meeting would necessarily be held involving all the people at the same time. I mentioned the doctor as an example. I am certainly prepared to undertake that the people involved in the review will include people of the kind referred to in paragraph (d)—this meets the point made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull—and I shall also undertake that meetings will form part of the process where it is appropriate to get the people together. That is as much as I can say.
I made it plain that from my knowledge of these matters I would regard it as appropriate normally for a meeting to take place. However, I cannot absolutely tie myself down to saying that a full meeting involving all those people will have to take place in every case. I would regard a meeting generally to be appropriate, and the views of parties of the kind described in Clause 22(2)(d), which very much matches the words of my noble friend, would be taken into account. The meeting would not necessarily encompass all of those but would have to take proper steps to be apprised of their views. In many cases these views would be best given at the meeting. I expect the regulations to proceed on those lines.
Lord Mishcon: The noble and learned Lord cannot be expected to go further than that. I thank him. If he finds that his expectations are not realised by the ministerial regulations which come forward, I ask, but not with great seriousness, that he should find a legal process in order to punish the Minister concerned.
The Lord Chancellor: I think that prevention is better than cure.
Lord Mishcon: In view of the understanding reached with the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 108A:
Page 18, line 28, leave out ("authority") and insert ("responsibility").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is essentially a drafting amendment to correct what is either a typographical or a printing error. It substitutes "responsibility" for "authority" in two places, in regard to Amendment No. 108A and Amendment No. 197 to which I also speak. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 109 to 112 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 19, line 8, leave out ("considering any representations") and insert ("all aspects of the care system, to consider any complaint or other representation").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 113 is grouped with Amendment No. 115, to which my noble friend Lord Mishcon will speak. We readily accept that subsection (5) is an important beginning. It introduces a representations procedure which will have an independent element. This is most welcome. However, there is ground for concern that the word "complaint" is not used in the clause. That is the basis of the amendment. Nowhere in the Bill do we find the word "complaint". One accepts that the word "representations" includes a complaint, but we are strongly advised by many organisations that the word "complaint" should itself appear in the subsection.
There are three strong reasons for the amendment. The word "complaint" is a time-honoured word. It is generally used when one wants to draw attention to an injustice which one feels one may have suffered. It is time-honoured but not old-fashioned. Therefore why not use it in the Bill in addition to the word "representations"? We can assume that substantial inarticulateness exists among the client group. A parent or a child may not readily understand that the word "representations" includes the old-fashioned complaint. The Voice for the Child in Care charity believes it essential that the word "complaint" should appear in the subsection. I produce that evidence because from the charity's study and experience over 10 years it believes that the word "complaint" should be there.
That is also the conclusion of recent research undertaken by the National Institute for Social Work in association with the National Consumer Council and the Association of County Councils. They say:
"Using the term Complaint procedure is vitally and symbolically important to both clients and staff."
Another reason is that if complaint is to be wrapped up in representations, the authorities may not see the need for setting up a clear system for dealing with complaints, quite apart from a system to deal with general comments and representations. We say that because experience shows that there has been a reluctance to set up complaint procedures in most social services departments.
There is a further reason. The amendment would make it abundantly clear that there is a statutory right to make a complaint. That would give assurance

173
and clients would feel protected by the existence of a complaint procedure. The difficulty which has been experienced in persuading social service departments to establish complaint procedures indicates that there is considerable doubt as to whether a client has the right in law to complain and to require his complaint to be considered. Those are the three reasons—we submit, good reasons—for the inclusion of the word "complaint".
Baroness Faithfull: I seek information from the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I appreciate the need for a complaints procedure. In time gone by, when the authorities were small, the children very often knew who the director or the children's officer was and felt that they could go to that person with their complaints.
I am not quite sure from reading the amendment moved by the noble Lord who the children are to go to. Is the complaint procedure to be set up within the social services department? Will complaints be made to a councillor of the local authority? Or will there be an outside person, such as a chief executive or, even, a local ombudsman? I find myself in some difficulty over the matter. I believe that children, or parents, who wish to make a complaint will not be quite sure that the outcome will he completely objective if the complaint has to be made within the department. Perhaps the noble Lord will give me some guidance.
Lord Prys-Davies: I wonder whether Amendment No. 116 really addresses the problem presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, namely, that there should be a "complaints procedure manager". We shall of course come to that aspect later. I hope that then we can deal with the problem that worries the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. At the moment, I am speaking to Amendment No. 113.
Baroness Faithfull: I am afraid that the point I raised is not really covered. I wish to know whether the complaints manager will be someone within the social service department or someone outside that department.
Lord Prys-Davies: I have not received any particular guidance as to where this complaints manager is to be located. As I understand it, the important thing is that one knows that there is a complaint procedure and who the complaints manager is.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to support the amendment in principle because it is a most important one. It paves the way to the establishment of an appropriate and satisfactory complaints procedure. Whether it starts within or without the department is, for this matter, perhaps irrelevant. The main concern of Members of the Committee must surely he that any interested person should be entitled first of all to be represented by a lawyer of his choice in this complaints procedure; that the interests of the child should always be represented; that the local authority should give some sort of reasoned
174
judgment; and that there should be access to the courts of the Family Division for some binding and final adjudication.
Is it not therefore a matter of serious concern that Clause 22 envisages in subsection (4) a complaints procedure where two members—for example, an officer of the local authority and one person who is not—can make a finding which to all intents and purposes is final, binding and conclusive. Why should that be? Is it not a matter of concern that each local authority may establish its own procedure, there being absolutely no requisite for any uniformity?
Further, is it not also a matter for concern in complaints against a local authority as to the discharge of its functions, under Part III of the Bill, that the general responsibility towards children, and their families, should not be subject to some more formal adjudication and review as is envisaged by the amendment? I say that in particular because this mandatory checklist of general principles concerning the welfare of children is only referable to proceedings in courts and not to any determinations, or findings, by a local authority. It may be said that that aspect will be covered by regulations under subsection (5). However, how do we know? Once the Bill has received Royal Assent convention precludes amendment of subordinate legislation.
In conclusion—I apologise for detaining Members of the Committee but I must do so because this key amendment introduces what could be an appropriate and effective complaints procedure—is it not a matter of concern that there are many areas of crucial importance, including this one, which are covered by regulations and not by primary legislation?
There is, apart from the right to challenge, a complete denial of access under the Child Care Act 1980 which is assimilated—I am grateful for that—and very substantially extended by Clause 29. However, apart from that, there is no effective right now and under the Bill for parents, relatives or others to challenge a local authority decision over children in its care. In that context the courts have rightly ruled out access to wardship. Further the Cleveland Report recommended reconsideration in this regard, which Clause 71 rejects. If there were to be access to the Family Division at the end of a properly conducted and constructed complaints procedure, then the whole question of resort to wardship would not arise. I shall only make this point once. I suggest that that is the only effective kind of complaints procedure which this amendment, in substance and in principle, carries with it.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I too support the amendment. The National Institute for Social Work and the National Consumer Council, which work together, have shown that there is a tremendous reluctance to set up a complaints procedure in most social services departments, and even where complaints procedures exist they are rarely publicised. I could continue on that score. On the other hand, their research has shown that using the term "complaints procedure" is vitally and symbolically important to both clients and staff.

175
The introduction of complaints procedures legitimises the complaints of clients. Staff are concerned about attacks on individual officers, which happen perhaps not so much with young children as with teenagers. They are generally reduced when there is a formal and clear procedure. Again, I could go on about that matter. I could give all the points in favour. However, we do not have much time as we are coming to the end of this period. There may be an opportunity later, if we return to this point at another stage, to push the point strongly.
Lord Meston: I too support the amendment. During the passage of the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill in the summer of 1986, I put forward a probing amendment much along these lines. The argument then, and I think the argument now, is that there should be a specific complaints procedure to deal with matters, which may be relatively trivial or serious, that need to be ventilated and redressed, but which perhaps are not appropriate matters to put before the court.
The importance of a complaints procedure is three-fold. It enables problems to be defused; it enables standards to be maintained and, perhaps most importantly, it enables children to be protected. In some local authorities there are ad hoc arrangements and in some local authorities those ad hoc arrangements work well; but, as has already been said, there is no uniformity. In some areas there is a general reluctance to have any such procedure. The Government's response back in 1986, as I remember it, was that they provided general guidance about these matters to local authorities, and that they were then waiting for the outcome of the White Paper. Well, the White Paper has arrived, and so has the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill specifically about complaints. Since 1986 there has also been the research which has produced the excellent briefing paper, to which reference has already been made, from the National Institute for Social Work.
It had not occurred to me until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, open his arguments on the amendment that we were perhaps looking at the matter from the point of view of simple semantics and that the word "representations" covered complaints. I suppose that not all representations are complaints, and not all complaints are necessarily polite enough to be called representations. If this is ultimately to be an Act which is to be understood by laymen as well as lawyers, it should be made clear that this is primarily a question of dealing with the effective ventilation or redress of complaints. For those reasons I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: The Bill provides:
"every local authority shall establish a procedure for considering any representations made to them by"
and then the list is set out. We have gone a good deal forward from the Government's position at the time to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred when we were awaiting the inter-departmental report which preceded the White Paper. What is here in question is an obligation on every local authority to establish a procedure. That is a big step forward. The only question is whether we should say "any
176
complaints or other representations". In later amendments we find references to "complaints managers" or such people. It is wise to consider whether one wants to have to categorise the particular matters that are being raised with the local authority at any stage. Surely what is wanted is a good procedure which takes account of everything that a child wants to say to a local authority about the way he is being looked after.
As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, it may depend upon how politely a matter is expressed as to whether it is a complaint or representation. That shows that "representation" is the correct word. I cannot see why a person who is polite should be dealt with any less favourably than a person who is impolite. If anything, I would go in the other direction. One may not be put off by moderation in representations, and so the word "representations" is designed to cover all possible matters that could be raised by way of complaint. The main matter that might arise could be in the nature of a complaint but it might be expressed in a way that suggested that some change should be made: "Instead of staying here, I should like to stay there". Is that a complaint? It is certainly a representation. It may be regarded as a complaint against the place where the person is staying. He may wish to go somewhere else. The word "representations" appears to cover such circumstances.
To answer the point made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, the Government's proposal includes an independent person in the procedure. Subsection (4) provides for someone who is not a member or an officer of the authority to take part. There is an independent element in the procedure. The whole procedure must conform with regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of that subsection. In the regulations he will set out minimum standards which are required to be complied with. Some local authorities will do it one way and some another.
I have listened with care to what has been said about the various organisations that have supported the amendment. It is fair to say that no research has been conducted against the background of a situation in which there was an obligation to set up a representations procedure. The old idea has been "complaint". I believe that it is better to talk about a representations procedure—an open procedure—which would cover every form of complaint. It is very much a matter of semantics. "Representations" is a general word, and the procedure is intended to cover all possible types of representation. I therefore believe that the generality in this case is a wise one.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Surely the man in the street will be impressed by the existence of a complaints procedure. There is something special about complaints. I remember a hymn, "He heard my complaints"—I will not go into the music of it. It is a term that is commonly understood. A provision that does not provide for a complaints procedure will be understood by the man in the street as lacking in something. A complaint is something more positive than a representation in the eyes of the ordinary citizen who is concerned about his interests. One

177
cannot very well redress a representation; one can redress a complaint. Let us have the word "complaint" in please. It does not cost any more.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not know many hymns about representations.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I can sing one on another occasion.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not know that it is very important. The procedure should cover all forms of complaint and other representations. The word is intended to cover that. If the feeling is very strong about it, then obviously I should be happy to consider this further. However, I do not mean by that to go into all the business about complaints managers and people of that kind. That is a different matter altogether.
Lord Prys-Davies: I very much welcome the last few words of guidance which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given to the Committee. We readily acknowledge that this clause represents a step forward and that the word "representations" is wide enough to include complaints. However if the amendment is resisted at the end of the day I cannot help feeling that the Government are not paying adequate attention to the message which we have received from so many organisations. For the time being, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that this might be a convenient moment at which to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to the Committee stage of the Bill at 8.40 p.m. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill
7.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill, the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill, be now read a second time.
As your Lordships will have noticed, the Bill is very short. It has two specific but nevertheless important purposes. The first of these is to abolish royalities for fields in the southern basin of the North Sea and onshore which received development approval on or after 1st April 1982. The second will enable this country to implement the recent agreement with the Republic of Ireland on the delimitation of the continental shelf.
The Bill is not concerned with safety. However, the Piper Alpha disaster of last July has tragically
178
reminded us of the terrible price we can pay in terms of human lives for the extraction of energy. Safety must remain of paramount importance in the wake of this tragedy, and the Government are determined to do everything possible to prevent such events from ever happening again.
As your Lordships will know, the Department of Energy has already carried out a technical investigation of Piper Alpha. An interim report was published on 29th September last year, and a further report was published on 22nd December. The public inquiry which the Secretary of State for Energy announced immediately after the disaster will start its work in Aberdeen on Thursday of this week under the chairmanship of Lord Cullen.
I make no apology for having referred to Piper Alpha even though the Bill which is before us does not in any way concern safety. Nevertheless, even this tragedy should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the development of the North Sea over the past 25 years has been a great achievement by the international oil industry and a tremendous success for the United Kingdom. This Bill will contribute in two relatively modest but nevertheless significant ways to the continuation of that success.
The first part of the Bill gives relief to the oil industry, in certain circumstances, from the obligation to pay 12½ per cent. royalties to the Government on oil or gas production from new fields. The Government wish to encourage the development of worthwhile new fields in the North Sea. Because the obligation to pay royalty is relatively insensitive to the economics of individual fields there is a danger that it could inhibit such development. For this reason royalty has already been abolished for new fields in most parts of the North Sea but it remains in force in the mainly gas-bearing southern basin and onshore. The Bill provides for the ending of royalties for new fields in these areas also.
This will mean that all new fields, whether onshore or offshore, will have been freed from royalty and a significant disincentive will have been removed. One very substantial new development which would not otherwise have taken place—the Ravenspurn North gas field—has already been secured and the Government believe that there is now a real prospect, if the industry responds positively, that most, if not all, of Britain's gas requirements for the 1990s can be met from our own resources.
The ending of royalties for new fields in the southern basin of the North Sea and onshore is part of a package of North Sea fiscal changes which were announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement last year. The other elements of that package, which mainly concerned petroleum revenue tax, have been implemented through the Finance Act. Taken as a whole and over the lives of the fields concerned, the package is expected to be revenue-neutral to the Exchequer.
The first two clauses of the Bill are concerned with royalties. Clause 1 exempts from royalty all fields in the southern basin of the North Sea or onshore which received their development consent from the

179
Department of Energy on or after 1st April 1982. That is the measure which I have been describing.
Clause 2 is needed to ensure that the exemption from royalties which already applies elsewhere in the North Sea will apply to licences issued in the forthcoming eleventh licensing round and subsequently.
I turn now to the second purpose of this Bill, which is to enable the United Kingdom to implement the agreement which has recently been negotiated with the Irish Republic on the delimitation of the continental shelf. This is dealt with in Clause 3.
It is very much to be welcomed that it has proved possible to resolve issues concerning conflicting claims to the continental shelf which have been outstanding for 25 years. The Republic of Ireland has agreed to give up some of its original claim and so have we. Copies of the detailed agreement have been available in the Library since 8th November, when my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary announced his signature to the agreement. Agreeing boundaries will open up new opportunities for the oil industry and, potentially, for the offshore supplies industry.
The short clause is needed because, without it, the Government do not have the power to de-designate areas that have once been designated. The clause makes it clear that the power it confers can only be used to implement this particular agreement with the Irish Republic. I can assure noble Lords that there is no possibility of its being used in any other context.
The final clause, Clause 4, is simply concerned with the Bill's short title and extent.
This is not a Bill of far-reaching consequence but it contains two significant and useful measures each of which will help to sustain the vitality of our North Sea industry for the future. I do not think that this is in any way a divisive Bill and hope that it will obtain support from all sides of the House. I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hooper.)
7.49 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing the Bill. It is a short Bill, as she has said, but it contains some important provisions. If I may, I shall take a little more time than she did to discuss some of the provisions and some of the consequential effects of the Bill.
The royalty provision which has previously obtained and which is now, as the noble Baroness pointed out, effectively to be abolished by this Bill constitutes an overt demonstration that the oil and gas in the ground in the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom continental shelf are public property. I should not like the Bill to go through on the nod without reinstating or re-emphasising that particular proposition, which I think has obtained since 1934: that is, that it is public property with which we are dealing, whatever licences may be obtained by various operators to get that oil and gas out of the ground.
180
In the case of the southern North Sea basin it is, as the noble Baroness said, a question mainly of gas production. There are two points that I wish to start with. First, as I understand it, the existing legislation allows the adjustment of royalties on a field by field basis, so we do not need blanket abolition of royalties here. Why therefore is a blanket abolition now recommended by the Government?
Secondly, British Gas is the monopoly purchaser of gas in the southern North Sea basin. It is, in the words of The Economist, "monopsonist" and as such it fixes the prices. I think we are all aware that the effect of British Gas purchasing prices in the mid to late 1970s and the early 1980s was effectively to dry up exploration in the southern North Sea basin. It now appears that partly as a result of a different gas purchasing policy and partly as a result of a change in the structure of gas prices the southern North Sea basin is for British Gas what is known as a swing producer. In other words British Gas plc, which is a privatised monopoly, purchases its gas then signs a contract with the gas producers in the southern North Sea basin which states that it will purchase so much over a year, and that if it runs into a deficit in its gas supplies in the summer or the winter it will purchase from the producers. British Gas will balance out its supplies by purchases from that basin.
It is my information that were the southern North Sea basin not to be in a position to occupy that role, the alternative would be Norwegian gas. We recognise that the southern North Sea basin is in a difficult position. and that it is crucial to our balance of payments in that we do not want to see Norwegian gas being purchased by British Gas, in periods when the latter is in deficit in its supply, to the detriment of our balance of payments. Given that, it is absolutely clear that British Gas dictates the price of the gas produced in the southern North Sea basin and hence the pace of development, production and indeed secondary recovery.
The first question I have for the Minister is: what constraints are there on British Gas in playing this important role? Are we certain that British Gas will not take the benefit of the public surrender of the royalty right just to increase its own return? There are two related points to this, and both of them give rise to questions. The economics are profoundly affected, not only by gas price or the tax regime or the royalty regime, but also by the residual cost of shutting down the field and removing the physical structures that have serviced it.
As the Minister has said, we know about the Piper Alpha disaster in the northern North Sea. We know from previous Government statements that the Piper Alpha platform is to be toppled, that is to say the platform will simply be pushed down to the bottom of the North Sea. What will happen to the rest, and in particular what will happen to those gas producers, who are covered by this Bill, who from time to time will find that their installations need to be dispensed with because the fields which they service have been exhausted? What will happen to them? A ministerial assurance in another place indicated that the decision to topple Piper Alpha is not in any way a precedent for other installations. But we should like to hear the Government's policy on these matters.

181
Decommissioning anything involves a large cost. Decommissioning any North Sea installation involves a large cost also.
If anything is going to be toppled, the Government should bear in mind that not very long ago in the course of a NATO exercise a German submarine tried to hide in a platform in the Norwegian section of the North Sea. The submarine did substantial damage both to itself and to the platform in the course of the exercise. That gives rise again to the question of safety of installations and of platforms which are simply pushed to the bottom of the sea. Are the Government aware of that issue?
The related point to that is the matter of safety offshore. The noble Baroness was quite right to draw our attention to the fact that the Piper Alpha public inquiry is to start the day after tomorrow. We hope that it will be a full and fair inquiry into what happened. We very much hope that there will be no compromise on safety in North Sea offshore installations. But, of course, the multiplicity of agencies responsible for safety in the North Sea in our view hampers effective safety action. The Department of Energy, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Health and Safety Executive are all involved. A lot of people have different roles to carry out in the safety field. We believe that some co-ordinated role is necessary.
So much for the royalty question offshore; that question also arises onshore. Here the economics are not good because the lack of transferable PRT relief onshore has made onshore exploration relatively less attractive than offshore. For instance, an onshore well drilling to 6,000 feet will attract a gross cost of £750,000. There will be corporation tax relief on that and the net cost will be £487,500. An offshore well in the central North Sea which is drilled to 12,000 feet, twice as deep as the onshore well, will attract a gross cost of £2,700,000. But, given a full PRT relief of £2,025,000, it will attract a net cost of £675,00 which, after corporation tax relief, gives a net cost of £438,750.
So the offshore central North Sea well drilled to 12,000 feet is cheaper than the onshore well drilled to 6,000 feet. That is a point that the Government must consider. Indeed it was considered by the Select Committee in another place when it studied the problem of the independent sector in the North Sea exploration business.
We accept the need for royalty relief, but we wonder whether this is the right way to go about it. After all onshore the major problem, as the Select Committee of another place pointed out, is not so much the fact that it is less economic to drill but that environmental fears and the difficulty in getting planning permission impede proper exploration and development. I wonder whether the Government are considering the suggestion that was mooted in the report of that Select Committee that royalties should be shared between central government and local government. Nothing encourages a local authority more in giving planning permission than the fact that it may get a slice of the action and benefit from what is going on in its area. I also believe that we ought to
182
try to encourage independent oil companies in the exploration sector. I believe that that point was made by the Select Committee.
I am afraid that I have taken up a certain amount of your Lordships' time because I think that there are some important points upon which the House may wish to ponder before giving the Bill a Second Reading. I shall spend no time at all on the question of the continental shelf between the United Kingdom and Ireland. I shall simply say that any agreement between ourselves and the Republic of Ireland must be welcomed at this time. Goodness knows, there are so many points of difference. We certainly support that development.
I hope that the noble Baroness in her reply—I gave notice of some of the points that I have raised—will be able to satisfy us that the Government have taken into consideration the questions I have raised. In the meantime, I am happy to be able to say that we certainly shall not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as has been pointed out by the noble Baroness in introducing the Motion, the Bill is limited in its extent but it deals with a very important subject. Over recent years the North Sea has, through its provision of oil and gas due to the exertions of the companies involved, transformed the economy of Britain. Therefore anything that is done in that connection has to he very closely examined.
Oil presently contributes some 32 per cent. of the total energy consumed in this country and gas 25 per cent., both coming from the North Sea. In addition, there are exports of oil. I am glad to say, in view of my past affiliations, that coal still leads, providing 34 per cent.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, have both pointed out that that great success story of the North Sea is not without its risks. We have seen that dramatically exposed by the Piper Alpha disaster last year. I have myself been through similar but not such large-scale experiences in the coal industry in my time, and I know how terrible that is not only for those directly affected and their families but also for the management of the companies concerned. Let us all hope that as a result of the inquiry being conducted into that disaster such dire events will be avoided in the future.
Turning to the Bill, I should like first to deal with the agreement with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the respective rights in relation to the continental shelf adjacent to both countries. I welcome that agreement. I think that it is highly desirable that that question is sorted out and I therefore give my full support to the proposition contained in the Bill.
Dealing next with the other issue considered in the Bill—namely, that of royalties—I should like to say that there has always been a degree of anomaly about that impost. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, its impact is insensitive to economics. It is related to the total production of the product irrespective of whether it is sold at a profit or not. That is an undesirable form of tax.

183
In the Finance Act 1983 royalties in the northern and central basins of the North Sea were abolished for future fields but were retained in the southern basin. The present Bill proposes to abolish royalties for oil and gas fields in the southern basin and onshore subsequent to 1982. So it would appear that the whole of the North Sea and onshore exploration would be put on the same basis in relation to the abolition of royalties. That would appear to be eminently desirable.
However, the abolition of the royalties in the southern basin has to be looked at in conjunction with the provision introduced in last year's Finance Act, to which the noble Baroness referred. That provision was brought in by the Government to achieve what they call bringing about revenue neutrality. They achieved that by, at the same time as the abolition of the royalty was introduced, reducing the oil tax allowance from 250,000 tonnes per chargeable period to 100,000 tonnes so that on the one hand the royalty impost was removed but on the other hand the tax allowance was reduced. The question is whether those two things balance out.
The oil companies contended that the Government's original proposition went too far. On the basis of very detailed calculations which they carried out they suggested that revenue neutrality would not be achieved below a tax allowance of 160,000 tonnes. The Government looked at the question again and eventually compromised at 125,000 tonnes. I have looked into the matter and I feel that the oil companies have a case.
What worries me is that the Government have apparently set out to stimulate exploration and development in the southern basin by removing the royalty charge, but what they have given on the one hand they appear to have more than taken away with the other. I think that it would be reasonable to invite the noble Baroness to explain the real motives of the Government. Is this a device for raising more tax revenue, by removing a smaller impost on the one hand and replacing it with a larger one on the other, or is it really intended to stimulate activity in the southern basin?
If the Government are not prepared to increase the tonnage qualifying for tax allowance, because that has already been passed in another place, would they at least consider bringing forward the date of application of the measures from 1982 to the date when the Bill is passed? That would enable companies, when planning future operations, to take account of the new tax regime and would therefore he much fairer. I do not personally believe that retrospective tax changes are in any circumstances desirable.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, having spent the greater part of my business life in the oil and gas sectors I have experienced a variety of royalty regimes. Despite the noble Baroness's view that this is an uncontroversial Bill, I think that there are some important implications which could have far reaching effects, as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
184
Petroleum royalty has traditionally been seen as a form of economic rent, a levy paid in return for the right to exploit a natural resource, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams. pointed out. Any change in the level of royalty alters the terms of the licences under which a particular field has been developed and thus has a direct effect upon its economic profile. As proposed in this Bill, the effect is beneficial. However, once the concept is established that the negotiated terms of a licence can be altered by legislation at the will of a government, there is nothing to prevent, a government from reimposing a royalty or in fact increasing royalty rates ex post facto.
One of the objectives of the Bill presumably is to create incentives to explore and develop both offshore on the continental shelf and onshore. However, as has been mentioned. in effect it penalises the more mature fields developed before the specific date of, I think, March 1982. It is those fields which have suffered most from the continuing depressed prices that have been experienced in the past few years since the newer fields already enjoy a substantial advantage with a lower rate of petroleum revenue tax.
In addition I think it is fair to say that it is precisely the mature fields that have produced the revenues to fund further exploration and development both onshore and offshore. Having embarked on this course of what might be termed royalty adjustment. the Government should very seriously consider taking the definitive decision to remove Crown royalties altogether from both comparatively new and mature fields. I believe that that would reduce the total marginal government take in taxes altogether, including the whole regime, from 86 per cent. to 84 per cent.—a matter of two percentage points—and would have an immediate effect on cash flow benefit where it is most needed.
Furthermore, it would ease the administrative burden that the present cumbersome system imposes on both the producer and the Government. I refer in particular to the complications of reporting, the auditing and the reviewing that have to be done on royalty returns which are filed twice a year. At the same time it would create considerable added incentives. Thus investment decisions would be put on a comparable basis between new and old fields, since production from neither would attract Crown royalty.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate, so enabling us to benefit from their knowledge and expertise. I shall endeavour to reply to as many as possible of the questions raised and no doubt I shall be reminded should I omit any point.
I turn first to the series of questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. First and foremost there is the question of oil and gas being public property. And, of course, oil and gas in the North Sea are vested in the Crown. That will remain the case. There is no dispute on that. That is why we have royalties in the first place, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy. I do not see any immediate prospect of abolishing royalties

185
altogether, as he suggests. Indeed, the reason for dealing with this matter other than on a field by field basis is to have consistency overall in the area of new exploration.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also referred to the monopsony powers of British Gas. Your Lordships will know that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission published its report on British Gas on 19th October last year. It made a number of recommendations intended to promote competition in the supply of gas. These included a requirement for British Gas to publish a price schedule for the supply of firm and interruptible gas to contract customers and a requirement on British Gas to contract initially for no more than 90 per cent. of any new gas fields.
My noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked the Director General of Gas Supply to seek agreement with British Gas to modifications to its authorisation so as to effect remedies on British Gas pricing and contract policies. He has asked the Director General of Fair Trading to consult interested parties on the basis of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's 90 per cent. recommendation with a view to proposing by the 31st January—the end of this month—a scheme which will make it easier for organisations other than British Gas to buy gas from the developers of gas fields.
We very much welcome these developments. We believe that they will promote competition and that they should he welcome to British Gas contract gas customers and potential competitors. In fact we are already seeing the first signs of a growing market in gas that is sold direct by producers to consumers. A contract for the sale of gas from the Miller field to the North of Scotland Hydro-electric Board for power generation at Peterhead power station has already been announced, and the issues that have been raised about the market power of British Gas are being addressed in a comprehensive fashion. We believe that the Bill will encourage new developments in the North Sea, as in the example of the Ravenspurn North field to which I referred and therefore will tend to reduce any future need, for example, for Norwegian gas.
On the question of abandonment to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred, the Act governing abandonment is the Petroleum Act 1987 which was introduced after considerable consultation with interested parties. The objective underlying the Petroleum Act was to institute an effective abandonment regime which, while taking account of the requirements of international law, the safety of navigation, fishing and environmental interests, would aim to minimise the costs of abandonment in each case. It enables the Secretary of State to require the submission of costed abandonment programmes for all offshore installations and pipelines and, where a programme is approved, makes it the joint and several duty of the companies which submitted it to secure that it is carried out.
It is the Government's intention when calling for abandonment programmes to require the companies
186
concerned to consult the fishing organisations about their proposals and to submit a report on those consultations with their programme. I recognise of course that costs are involved in abandonment, as indeed in safety, but the principle is not new and companies have indeed been making provision for abandonment over the course of a number of years.
As to what will happen to disused installations in the southern basin, these platforms are in relatively shallow water and the current recommendations of the International Maritime Organisation require that they be entirely removed. The Government have made clear that they intend that the domestic abandonment arrangements under the Petroleum Act 1987 will meet the IMO requirements.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves the question of abandonment, can she very kindly give us some indication of the guidelines that the Government will he adopting and recommending to companies when they seek the permission of the Government to adopt certain abandonment provisions'? As the noble Baroness will know, very important sums of money are involved. It is a matter of concern in the industry that, under the Petroleum Act 1987, we are all up in the air. The Piper Alpha precedent is not regarded as being a precedent. What is the policy that the Government will try to urge on companies when they submit their abandonment plans?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Piper Alpha incident was unexpected and action had to be taken quickly. I am not in a position to say whether or when the Government will be issuing guidelines. However, as I have said, the arrangements that have been made so far have been made as a result of considerable and wide consultation. That consultation process will obviously not be stopped out of hand at this stage. I believe that the overall estimated costs of abandonment—which in the majority of cases will not be taking place or occurring until the turn of the century—are in the region of £4 million. Those are the figures that I have been given.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the sum £4 billion or £4 million?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is £4 million.
Perhaps I may return to the question of PRT relief for onshore exploration. We have carefully considered all representations on this issue in the past. We have not been persuaded that restoration of Section 5A relief for onshore drilling is the right way to promote new onshore activity. Many small companies which do not pay PRT would have been unable to take advantage of the relief. It is even more appropriate to introduce a measure from which all companies involved onshore could benefit. Hence the measure announced by the Chancellor in his Budget to abolish all royalties for post-1982 onshore fields which is now the subject of this Bill.
Removing the one element of the fiscal regime that was not profit-related should be of significant benefit to companies involved onshore. The revised oil allowance enacted in this year's Finance Act should

187
still protect virtually all onshore fields from PRT. We shall of course consider all aspects of the recent Select Committee report which I understand welcomes the introduction of the royalty provisions of this Bill.
I must stand corrected. The figure was £4 billion, not £4 million. I misread my notes.
On the question of the multiplicity of offshore safety agencies, as a result of Piper Alpha, the present arrangements for offshore safety are in line with the recommendations of the Burgoyne Report of 1980. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has said that if the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, can suggest improvements to the current safety regime, his recommendations will be accepted. I am sure that this is welcomed on all fronts.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, referred to the question of fiscal neutrality. In formulating the Budget proposals originally, the Government looked carefully at the impact that these proposals would have on the industry. In making the tax regime more profits-related, and by opting for an overall fiscally neutral package, it was inevitable that there would be both winners and losers. The main criticism of the package came, naturally enough, from the companies which stood to lose most. Companies' perceptions of the Budget's impact were sensitive to the precise assumptions used in particular in relation to the falling price of oil.
The department held numerous discussions with the industry to obtain a clear picture of the industry's view of the proposed changes. The strong reaction of industry which concentrated on the PRT change, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has already pointed out, resulted in the Government announcing the concession on petroleum revenue tax oil allowance which was accepted during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill in another place. This concession took full account of the discussions with the industry and was the maximum that could be justified in all the circumstances.
I can assure the noble Lord that the overall package was most certainly intended to stimulate the industry, and furthermore that the Government intend to keep the North Sea tax system under review. Inevitably fields already in production will sometimes be affected but the nature of the southern basin tax changes was to make the system more sensitive to field economics. Generally speaking therefore the fields that were losing under these changes were fields that were highly profitable and will remain so.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has also suggested that this change was retrospective. I should say that technically that is not the case. The change did not come into effect until 1st July last year.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is it not a fact that it will affect all committed future fields from 1983? The suggestion I made was that it would be much better if it were to affect all future fields as from now so that the companies could take into account the new regime in assessing the economics of those fields.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I appreciate the point of the noble Lord. However, I can say only that it is not unusual for tax changes to affect revenue from existing assets and existing production. Unfortunately we are all subject to the effect of tax changes.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. It is wholly unusual for tax changes to be retroactive in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has specified. This is something that I do not think has ever occurred in tax law.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I understand it, the tax changes are effective from July of last year as a result of the Finance Act although they may apply to operations which have been in existence since 1982. Therefore they are not retrospective.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am very sorry but I must say that I am totally confused by this situation. What would be wrong, in introducing a new regime of taxation, in saying that it should apply from now, as is normally done in any budget? It is the retrospective element over which there is some doubt.
As the noble Baroness rightly said, there are winners and losers. We do not know what the balance is. Why not say that from the time this Bill is passed this new tax regime will apply? Then all oil companies operating in the southern basin will be able to take account of it in judging the economics of their operations.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I fear that I have not succeeded in explaining the position as I understand it. The tax changes are effective—that is, the additional tax, if any—from July last year on all operations that have started in 1982. However, the tax will not be backdated to apply as from 1982. I hope that that clarifies the position slightly more.
Finally, to wind up, we have referred to the tragic events of Piper Alpha and to safety in general in these types of operations, but in doing so we should not forget the tremendous achievements of the oil industry in the North Sea over the past 25 years and the immense benefits which they have brought to the United Kingdom. In that period the industry has produced more than 1 billion tonnes of crude oil and 700 billion cubic metres of gas worth over £140 billion in the money of the day. The taxpayer has benefited from tax and royalty payments to the Government of over £65 billion and some £25 billion worth of orders for goods and services have been placed with United Kingdom suppliers. By any standards this must be regarded as a major success and one that is largely due to the technical and managerial skills of the international oil industry.
We have now reached a stage in the life of the North Sea where almost certainly the largest discoveries are behind us and where the outlook for oil prices is uncertain. It is a great tribute to the industry in these challenging circumstances that it has shown great ingenuity and technical skill in adapting its operations to the new economic reality. As a result we continue to have an active and

189
vigorous North Sea industry. In some respects, and taking account of the current economic climate, it is more vigorous than it has ever been.
In 1988 the Department of Energy gave the largest number of project approvals that has ever been made in a single year. The 24 projects concerned involved total new investment of over £3 billion, and 11 more projects are still under discussion. We are aware that several further development plans may come forward for consideration this year. That is the picture in the development of new fields. Exploration and appraisal activity is required to identify new fields in the future and the picture here is similarly bright. Last year 175 exploration and appraisal wells were drilled, the second highest total since offshore drilling began in 1964 and far outstripping the 1987 total. A total of eight discoveries were announced last year, including one onshore.
It is against this very encouraging background that the Government have brought forward the Bill, which will help to create the right fiscal environment for new developments in the southern basin and onshore which will make available for licensing in the future certain areas that have been disputed with the Irish Republic. I am most grateful to your Lordship for the welcome that you all unreservedly gave to those provisions in relation to the agreement with the Irish Republic. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.33 to 8.40 p.m.]

Children Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 22.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 19, line 14, at end insert—
("(e) any person who has demonstrated a reasonable interest in the child's welfare,").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to enlarge upon the number of people from whom representations should be considered under subsection (3) of the clause. The people I have in mind are other family members such as grandparents. Being a grandparent, I feel strongly because they can be helpful to children of all ages and they could have a close interest.
It is interesting to note that in several of the reports which have examined accusations of abuse to children in residential and foster care, junior members of the social services staff have often spoken for the child concerned. However, they have had no way of ensuring that the child's and their own worries can be taken into account. That is a surprising omission from subsection (3). Such people are specifically excluded by subsection (4). It is suggested to be important that where members of staff have become aware of a child's complaint and the child may not wish to pursue it for fear of some reprisal, the staff member can do so on their behalf. There may
190
be other independent visitors or friends visiting the children in residential or foster care. If the provision contained in my amendment were adopted, they would also be able to make representations under the paragraphs of subsection (3). I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: I support the amendment. The NSPCC and the National Children's Bureau believe that it is vital that interested parties such as relatives, grandparents or a teacher should be able to make a complaint on the child's behalf. That applies especially in the case of young children, vulnerable young people and disabled children. For example, there may be a mentally handicapped child in a home who has been abandoned by his parent or parents. In those circumstances, there would be no one in the paragraphs (a) to (d) who could make a complaint about the child's treatment in care.
The National Children's Bureau states that it is interesting to note that in several of the reports which have examined accusations of the abuse of children in residential and foster care junior members of staff have often spoken for the child concerned. However, they have had no way of ensuring that the child's and their own worries can be taken into account. It is important that where members of staff have become aware of a child's complaint, and that the child may not wish to pursue it for fear of some reprisal, the staff member can do so on their behalf.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble friend Lord Mottistone mentioned the fact that junior members of staff are excluded; but subsection (4) is intended to secure the presence of an impartial person in the procedure. Therefore it would not be appropriate for a junior member of staff to be that person and it is right that they should not be named in subsection (4).
I am anxious that the representation procedure should be reasonable. However, the amendment does not help a great deal. It provides for:
"any person who has demonstrated a reasonable interest in the child's welfare".
That presupposes a demonstration to somebody so that there is an adjudication procedure as a preliminary to making a representation. It would be better if one could define the category so that a person was either in or out of it and not leave the matter too wide.
I concede that there may be difficulties in that respect but I consider that the amendment is too wide. I am also a grandparent and therefore I have an interest in securing the child's welfare. Indeed, some other categories may be thought of. I invite my noble friend and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, to consider whether the problem can be avoided by a form of classification of people who may be allowed to make representations.
On the other hand, I am sure that my noble friend and the noble Lady will be aware of the need to ensure that if the representation procedure is to work it cannot be open to everyone. It must be a reasonably selective procedure. At the moment none exists, and we are making a considerable advance by introducing it. Therefore one does not wish to have a provision so wide that the time of local authorities is continually taken up with trying to determine such

191
matters instead of looking after the child. There are disadvantages in the provision being too wide and I hope that my noble friend will consider that the matter requires further consideration.
Lord Mottistone: Yes, I understand my noble and learned friend's anxiety about making the provision too wide. On the other hand, I suggest that the fact that a junior member of staff and a grandparent, for example, are not covered by subsection (3) is a fault of that subsection, and it needs to include more people. Our attempt to describe them in the words:
"any person who has demonstrated a reasonable interest in the child's welfare".
was an attempt to fill that gap. My noble and learned friend believes that it is too wide and must be defined more closely: but I believe that there is room for the provision of someone else in the subsection.
I have the impression that my noble and learned friend is sympathetic to that suggestion. I should be grateful if he could say that he is sympathetic and that he will try to find a phrase which will cover it.
The Lord Chancellor: I meant to imply that, and I shall give further consideration as to how best it can be done in the light of the examples that have been given. However, it is a difficult problem and all members of the Committee will have their own predelictions in the matter. I certainly intend to consider it further, and my noble friend can have that assurance.
Lord Mottistone: That is very kind of my noble and learned friend. I am grateful that he will I look at this matter to see if he can cover the sorts of people about whom we are talking. Of course we shall do the same, observing what he said about our attempt. With that undertaking, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 19, line 16, leave out ("Part") and insert ("Act").
The noble Lord said: The Law Society and the Children's Legal Centre join hands in hoping that the Committee will agree to this amendment. I can state the purpose of it very shortly. It is to ensure that the complaints procedure to be established by subsection (3) relates to all parts of the care system and, for example, covers any grievance of any child looked after by a local authority whether under a care order or voluntarily. I beg to move. That was short and sweet!
The Lord Chancellor: I shall endeavour to be sweet but I am not sure that I can be quite so short.
The requirement in Clause 22 is that local authorities should establish procedures for considering representation about the discharge of any of their functions under Part III of the Bill in relation to a child. The proposal that the procedure should apply in respect of all aspects of the care system is unclear. That could be taken to extend to court matters and matters of that sort and it would be wholly inappropriate for local authority
192
representations procedure to be capable of examining matters that go before the courts and for which an appeal is provided: for example, applications related to the way in which they were operating a particular application to the court. This provision achieves, and I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that that is sufficient, that all local authority functions under Part III will be subject to this procedure. Part III of the Bill extends to all a local authority's responsibilities in respect of services for children in need and for children whom they look after, whether or not they are subject to a care order.
I realise that there are other provisions to which one might wish to extend the availability of a representations procedure, such as those relating to children who are not looked after by local authorities but who arc accommodated in voluntary or registered children's homes or privately fostered. We can certainly look at that sort of matter. However, I believe that to cover the Bill as a whole is going too far. However, we are looking at that particular aspect.
I believe that the powers to make these regulations in respect of voluntary or registered children's homes are sufficient to enable us to make regulations of this type in respect of these also, but we shall certainly look further at the point. However. I believe that it would be going too far to cover the whole Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for pointing out something which had not occurred to me: namely, that this might cover court proceedings. I should not have thought that it did. He has been good enough to say that he is looking at the question of extending this beyond Part III because there are certain other categories of children who should he covered by the complaints procedure, and, with that kind undertaking, I am satisfied and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 19, line 22. at end insert (", and that a complaints procedure manager should be identified to ensure an effective and speedy response to complaints.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 117. I believe that the noble and learned Lord indicated earlier this evening his approach to Amendment No. 116 and I was not particularly encouraged by his words. That is why I am particularly anxious to also speak to Amendment No. 117. in the hope that I shall he more successful.
However, confining my remarks to Amendment No. 116 at present, we believe that an officer should be made unequivocally responsible for the receipt and the investigation of complaints. Unless there is a complaints procedure manager or the holder of a similar post, people will find it very difficult to know to whom to make a complaint or, indeed, how to make a complaint. We are advised that currently many complaints go all over the place. Some go to the Director of Social Services, some to known managers, others to elected members and indeed some become lost within the system. Therefore, it is recommended that there should be a named and identified complaints officer who should act as a

193
channel for all complaints to ensure that they receive the same treatment and are dealt with effectively.
Such an appointment is described by the various voluntary organisation as being crucial for clients and also important for all staff and politicians so that they can become used to using the correct channels. Amendment No. 116 rests on that argument.
Perhaps I may move on to Amendment No. 117. A worrying inadequacy of the present complaints procedure, where it exists, is the virtually complete absence of the complainant when a complaint is considered. There is much dissatisfaction that the complainant cannot appear before the committee or the panel to justify his complaint. If he is not present, his views may not be taken fully into account or he may feel that they have not been taken fully into account or feel that the grounds of his complaint have been misunderstood. Therefore, openness is better than secrecy in the hearing of complaints. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The essential factor in this provision is the obligation on every local authority to establish a procedure for considering any representations made to it. In order to define that as a reasonable procedure we have provided for the persons who may make the complaint or representation the essential independent element in the consideration of the representation, subject to the undertaking I have already given to my noble friend. We have also provided that the authority shall have due regard to the findings of those considering the representations and to whom it shall intimate its decision and so on.
Those are the essentials that the procedure must follow. There are varying conditions in the local authorities and, in this situation where something new is being provided, it seems right to give the local authority the obligation of considering what is best in its area. The regulations provided for in subsection (5) will ensure a minimum. I should have thought that the kinds of matter which are dealt with in Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 are matters which fall to be considered in the light of the regulations as a whole. After all, I believe that the regulations are required to be reasonably comprehensive although they are providing for a minimum.
I should not wish to carry forward a distinction into the procedure as between representations and complaints. That goes back to what we were talking about earlier. There will be one procedure for every form of representation or complaint, assuming that complaint is expressly mentioned. Therefore, I believe that these matters are properly dealt with in the regulations. Obviously we wish to secure an effective, speedy and adequate consideration of complaints.
It may be that in some places a single officer should be designated. There may be other ways in which the matter could be handled, so long as it is clear that a procedure for initiating complaints will not lead to the complaints being overlooked. So long as the local authority has a system for ensuring that, I do not believe that it is right to go into detail on precisely how it should be done. It may be that a particular
194
elected member should have that responsibility—perhaps the chairman of the social services committee. Therefore, these are matters which must depend on the arrangements made in the local authority concerned.
As regards the second amendment, again that must depend on the arrangements that are required for consideration of the complaint or representation. I should have thought that the requirement that the child or his representative should be present was a matter that would be the subject of consideration when the regulations are being made. Moreover, one must not overlook the possibility, as I mentioned earlier in relation to reviews, that some representations may require to be speedily dealt with.
9 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: The response from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is a little worrying; at least, I find it so. The details to be covered by the complaints procedure are not spelt out, apart from the need for an independent element which is contained in subsection (4). That is in sharp contrast to the matters which are to be covered by the review cases procedure.
Here we have only two requirements—that there should be a procedure and that there should be an independent element. For example, we are advised by the National Children's Bureau that the existence of a complaints procedure alone would be useless in protecting children. That is the bureau's conclusion. Therefore, I should have thought that the Government could move to meet the amendments by including a reference to such matters in the regulations. For my part, I am disappointed and I shall have to take further advice. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 19, line 28, leave out ("regard to the findings of those considering the representation") and insert ("consideration to providing redress to a complainant where a complaint is upheld").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (6) requires that the local authority shall,
"have due regard to the findings of those considering the representation".
However, it is felt that subsection (6) gives too much discretion to the local authority. It is felt that when the complaint is upheld it should be acted upon provided the situation or the conduct complained of is capable of being remedied. I accept that that is not made clear in the amendment as drafted.
However, unless the situation is remedied the procedure will be of little value. That is the basis of the amendment. The right to complain will hardly be worth having if it does not carry with it the right to a remedy if the situation is capable of being remedied. We are told that where a complaints procedure is in existence, redress or remedy is often forgotten about. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I support this amendment, which is an almost verbatim version of Amendment No. 119, but I wish to develop the arguments a little further. It

195
seems to me that it is one thing to allow procedure which enables complaints to be ventilated but another thing to provide for actual redress for the individual complaint. It may be that the representation or complaints procedure will ensure that, in general terms, the same situation will not occur again; but it does not necessarily follow that the individual who has complained will obtain the redress which he or she seeks.
That needs to be spelt out in the Bill, because if it is not the body dealing with the complaint may feel that it has no power to give any teeth to the complaints procedure. There is a risk that if redress is given and there is no provision in the Bill specifically providing for redress to be given someone will suggest that the redress has been given ultra vires. In the circumstances I believe that the amendment, or an amendment like it, is not only desirable but necessary.
The Lord Chancellor: This amendment proceeds on the footing that only complaints are at issue. The amendments propose that the obligation is to give due consideration to providing redress (as in Amendment No. 119) and consideration to providing redress (as in Amendment No. 118). Therefore, the amendments propose due consideration or consideration to providing redress.
I venture to suggest that representations include complaints and it is on that footing, as I said, that we are proceeding. An obligation to have due regard to the findings of those considering representations is, I believe, a stronger obligation than to consider whether to provide redress. To have due regard to the findings is surely a stronger obligation and requires that the authority should take the findings with considerable seriousness. Merely to consider whether to provide redress does not seem to be as strong as that.
Therefore, in the interests of achieving a good result I should have thought, subject to the point about complaint, that what we have in the Bill is better than what is proposed. In the light of those considerations I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who has moved the amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who is thinking of moving his amendment, will agree that the position is perhaps best left as it is.
Lord Meston: With respect to the noble and learned Lord, I think that my amendment adds the requirement to give due consideration, whereas Amendment No. 118 takes out the words in the Bill and substitutes the requirement to give consideration. For that reason, I suppose I ought to prefer mine, and indeed, on balance, I think 1 do. But, with respect to the argument of the noble and learned Lord, it does not strike one, reading it, that "having regard to the findings" is as strong as a specific provision requiring consideration to be given to providing redress. Certainly my impression is that the strength to which he alludes simply is not there in the Bill. Of course, not every representation is a complaint and not every complaint will require a redress. It is for that reason that both amendments simply require consideration to be given to providing redress.
196
Certainly the intention underlying the amendments is to make sure that the authority is in fact empowered to provide redress. It does not have to do so but it has the power. If it is in the Bill in this form, there can be no complaint or argument, that the local authority is acting outside its legitimate powers if it decides that some form of redress is appropriate. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, intends to do, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord would at least undertake to have another look at this.
Lord Prys-Davies: We are of course concerned with a representation which is a complaint. I should have thought that merely to call on the local authority to give due regard to the consideration could be pretty meaningless, whereas in our amendment we are asking the local authority to direct its attention to a remedy or a relief or a redress. It may in some circumstances be no more than an apology, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that to press the local authority for a redress or a remedy or a relief, where the situation is capable of being remedied, is stronger than asking the authority to give due consideration to the findings. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 19, line 40, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) Information about policies and procedures relating to the discharge of these functions shall be available to children, their families and representatives.").
The noble Lord said: We fully support the underlying principle of subsection (7) that the local authority must publicise its complaints procedure, but again the subsection allows complete discretion to the authority as to how the procedure is to be publicised. The evidence we have received from almost all the organisations reveals a consensus that the local authority should be under a duty to take steps to ensure that the parents, the children and indeed the staff are clearly informed of the existence of the complaints procedure and of their right to make a complaint. It occurs to us that this information might form part of a readable information booklet for children and parents. That is obviously a matter which would properly be left to their discretion, but, unless the local authority is under a duty to bring the procedure to the attention of children and parents, they may not become aware of its existence.
As I mentioned in relation to another amendment, the existence of a complaints procedure by itself is not a safeguard but knowledge on the part of parents, children and staff of its existence would be a much-needed safeguard. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Again, I think we are aiming at the same objective. It is a question of precisely how one arrives at it. Without adequate publicity, a procedure such as is envisaged in this part of the clause would be considerably reduced in effectiveness.
In my view, the clause which the present amendment seeks to delete has two features which

197
have much to commend them. First, the clause requires publicity to be given, rather than, as here proposed, information to be available. Clause 22(7) therefore puts the onus on local authorities to communicate to the public the existence of the representations procedure. A general duty to publish information regarding services provided under Clauses 15 to 17 is provided in Schedule 2. Paragraph 1(2) specifically requests that reasonable steps be taken to target information at people who may benefit from such services. Therefore I think the sort of information package to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was referring would reasonably be referred to at that place.
Secondly, Clause 22(7) gives local authorities an element of discretion as to the amount, nature and direction of publicity which is undertaken. In contrast, the proposed amendment would impose an absolute duty to make available to certain persons information regarding policies and procedures. I venture to think that the Bill is to be preferred here for its relative flexibility. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that local authorities should not be forced to make available information in inappropriate circumstances. For example, I do not see why authorities should be required, with no exception, to provide information about their policies on representations procedures to persons who may not be in receipt of services under this part of the Bill. It is difficult to see that anything further is required than that publicity be of a proper and targetted kind.
Availability of information in relation to the services to be provided is required under Clauses 15 to 17. My view is that the proposal which we have is a better way of dealing with the complaints procedure, particularly if the amendment of my noble friend Lord Mottistone to widen the scope of those who may complain is to be given effect to any extent. We are both left considering that particular matter.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his response. We were particularly anxious that the procedure should be made known to parents and children because they are the people who will probably originate the complaints. But the noble and learned Lord has referred to Schedule 2, and we shall have to consider the provisions in the schedule. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 19, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Independent appeal panels shall be established to make final and binding adjudication on complaints.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 121. If there is a complaint or representation about the way in which a local authority has carried out its duties under this part of the Bill we feel that there should be a means of appeal against any decision which the local authority is competent to make. We feel that that appeal should be heard by people who are not involved in the particular case or in the running of the section of the social services department involved.
Therefore in this amendment we have provided for the establishment of independent appeal panels which would decide on behalf of the local authority on any matters presented to them. We think that such a system would be fair and designed to increase confidence in the complaints procedure. The panels would deal only with such matters as the local authority would be required to decide upon in any event. Of course there are such appeals panels already in existence in connection with some local authority social services departments.
In a local authority setting there are limitations on independence, particularly given the importance of including on any panel someone with experience of the work of social services. Appeals panels already in existence typically comprise three people: one, an elected member (possibly the chairman or the vice-chairman of the social services committee); another, a senior social services worker unconnected with the sections of the department actually involved; and the third an independent person selected from a pool of independent people who are not employed by the department.
We believe the availability of an appeal to such a panel would strengthen confidence in the fairness of the complaints or representation procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: All of us appreciate that in many cases throughout this land local authorities have behaved with the greatest of care and consideration regarding the children under their care. But your Lordships will also remember some dreadful cases that have occurred which show that some local authorities have not behaved as they should have done. Things have been concealed when they should not have been concealed; people have not been reproved when they should have been reproved; and things have not been investigated properly when they should have been investigated.
The Committee may be satisfied that the citizen will regard as independent something that takes place in the town hall of the local authority against which the complaint is being made. The average citizen will not. However the tribunal is made up, when parents walk into that local town hall they will regard it as a complaint against the very people to whom they want to complain. In an attempt to satisfy public opinion and to ensure that we try everything we can to avoid some of the dreadful cases that have occurred—I agree that they are the minority of cases—some such speedy procedure—I emphasise the word "speedy"—is necessary. It is important that in regard to children speedy decisions are made even when dealing with complaints. I hope that there can be a speedy procedure for independent panels of appeal to operate where required. I support the amendment.
Earl Russell: I should like to support my noble friend. The amendment adds something to the other amendments about the complaints procedure. It adds the word "independent". It is possible, to put it no higher, that complaints will be directed against the local authority. Whether those complaints are proved or not, it seems to be equally in the interests of the local authority and of all other parties to have them investigated by somebody whose findings will

199
command confidence. There is at least a possibility of a suspicion that the local authority will be regarded as judge and party in its own cause. That is why the word "independent" adds a great deal of strength and attraction to the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, as he proposed the amendment. I am inclined to think that the independence was secured by the presence of at least one person who was neither a member nor an officer of the authority. Other members might not be concerned with a particular case but might well be officials of the authority. In any event, with the independent element to which I have referred already, what we have is a large step forward. We want to ensure a working machinery. We do not want a system that is hedged about with complaints procedures, appeals, further panels, judicial review, and so on. A child has to get on with living. I agree that there is also scope for people who administer complaints procedures and appear in them to live as well. But the primary purpose is to bring the situation to the attention of the local authority by reference to an independent person.
It is difficult for me to accept that elected local authorities should be tied hand and foot by appeals panels of this kind. After all, the members of the local authority are elected representatives of the people in the locality. They are obliged to have regard to the representation procedure decision taken by a system which includes an independent element. I should have thought that that was a wise arrangement in a practical matter. To try to build further structures of appeal and so on upon it would be to build a structure which is too heavy and apt to divert useful resources from taking care of the children to procedures which might have less than desirable effects.
Lord Mishcon: I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord will have second thoughts about the matter. I have no doubt that all he said would apply to planning matters, in spite of the fact that there are appeals for planning procedures. Indeed, all of it might apply to building regulations and many other matters which are dealt with by local authorities where of course other procedures are available.
Indeed there is the procedure of judicial review in regard to anything which any tribunal seems to be doing in the land at present. All that is very healthy. However, I should have thought that much more important than a planning application and building regulations is the complaint of a child or a parent that something is going terribly wrong with the way in which care is being administered.
For all the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, I wish that I had precisely the same picture of the elected representatives of local authorities as being always experts on matters concerning children or indeed upon many aspects of life. It is one of the features about which many of us are apprehensive. With powers being taken away from local authorities, as they have been, and funds not being available to them, the same type of member which some of us remember in local authorities does not appear to be coming forward for election.
200
The same applies to local government officers. Let us be perfectly frank—they are not made of the stuff that local government officers were made in days gone by, as I remember from my many years in local government. We must be realistic about this. The point is that we are dealing with human lives and complaints involving children. Everyone in the Committee cares much about this matter, otherwise we would not be here at this hour discussing it at the Committee stage. But to deny the right of an appeal panel to an aggrieved parent or an aggrieved child is quite wrong; it would hardly add to the administration. I repeat, if we have an appeals procedure for nearly everything else in the land and a judicial review where we have not, what about the children?
Lord Banks: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to my noble friend Lord Russell for their support on the amendment. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor thought that it would be too complicated and heavy. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out the number of other cases where similar procedures are followed. Indeed I mentioned in my remarks that it already works with some social services departments, and it is merely a question of extending what already exists over the whole field.
The noble and learned Lord set a great deal of store by the independent person who is provided for in the Bill and who would be involved in the making of the initial decision. That provision is certainly good as far as it goes, and is to be welcomed. However, here we are trying to provide an appeal against the initial decision if someone should feel so aggrieved by what has been decided. We feel that that additional appeal would give greater confidence in the system. However, in view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I should like to consider the matter further and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 19, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Every local authority shall establish procedures to monitor complaints and other representations, and shall review procedures and practices in the light of such information.").
The noble Lord said: If we believe that a fair complaints or representation procedure should be an important part of local authority care, then it is equally important to keep that system under constant supervision. That should be achieved by arranging, as the amendment does, for the establishment of a procedure to monitor complaints and representations. Reports on the work of the complaints procedure would provide the local authority with information as to whether the procedure was working in practice and what changes, if any, were necessary.
As things stand, complaints are rarely monitored, and their potential value in terms of quality control and the identification of gaps in the service is not often utilised. The results of the monitoring should influence policy development, service promotion, training and managerial systems. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: As I said earlier, the clause and the part of the Bill that we are considering put a new obligation on local authorities to establish a representation procedure. That development by itself will lead to consideration and reconsideration of their practice. The Secretary of State will have power, by regulation, to set minimum standards to which the local authority would have to adhere.
I should expect local authorities, as a matter of good local authority practice, to monitor their operations. I doubt that any further statutory obligation is required. The matter will be provided for in guidance. It is entirely reasonable that that should be so. I am not sure that it would be easy to put such obligation into the Bill. I shall consider whether anything requires to be added to the power given to the Secretary of State by regulations on that head. As I said in relation to Clause 22(2), it is doubtful whether a mere power to provide minimum regulations in respect of the procedure would entitle the Secretary of State to oblige the authority to have any sort of monitoring system, so I am willing to consider that point.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. He said that he expected that local authorities would monitor the work of the complaints system; but expectations are not always fulfilled. I was glad to note that the subject will be referred to in guidance. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his willingness to see whether there is anything further in that respect that he feels he can do. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 19, line 42, at end insert—
("(8) Every local authority shall ensure that parents are informed of case conferences and invited to attend for all or part of the conferences unless, in the view of the Chairman of the conference, their presence will preclude a full and proper consideration of the child's interests. Regulations shall specify what information shall be made available to parents before the conference.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment refers to a case conference. A case conference decides whether to place a child, whether or not he is in care, on a child protection register and is therefore an important decision. However, it is rare for a parent to be informed of a case conference in relation to his or her child, let alone to be invited to such a conference. We often have a case conference without the parents being present. That omission has been heavily criticised. The Cleveland parents were not invited to a case conference.
In her report, Lord Justice Butler-Sloss recommended, in general, that parents should be informed of case conferences and invited to attend for all or part of the conference. Amendment No. 124 is identical to the recommendation made by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. We are content to rely upon her wisdom, but if further evidence is required I
202
understand that it can be found in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and in the most recent advice to professional workers by the British Association of Social Workers. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in moving this amendment referred to the conclusion of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss in the report on the Cleveland inquiry in which she said, among other things:
"The child's interest must be the determining factor and the extent to which parents can be involved must be tempered by the nature of the matter under discussion".
In this matter, therefore, I urge your Lordships not to attempt to set a legislative rule. Questions on participation in case conferences would be best dealt with in guidance issued by the Secretary of State where a flexible approach can be adopted to the many and various situations which can occur. In fact guidance on the lines of this amendment was issued in circular LAC(88)10 issued on 6th July 1988 when the Cleveland Report was published. The Committee should note that Clause 18(4) of the Bill requires a local authority, so far as it is practicable, to ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child, his parents and any other person with parental responsibility before making any decision with regard to the child. This is a new statutory obligation.
That brings me to another aspect. Case Conferences are not statutory. The noble Lord has explained when they normally take place. But they are not statutory and there is no definition in this amendment or in the Bill of what a case conference is. It is a system which has been developed for seeking to get a good decision at the stage to which the noble Lord has referred. But since the system itself is not on a statutory basis, it is wise, I believe, that the matter should be dealt with as a matter of good practice by guidance, reinforced by the new provision of Clause 18(4) which of course has effect on every decision, including the decision which a case conference would take.
Lord Prys-Davies: Once again I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply. He reminded the Committee that relevant guidance was issued last year in respect of case conferences. But we have been pressing for guidance on parental participation to be incorporated in the Bill or in regulations. It would appear that, notwithstanding the advice which has been issued, local authorities are on the whole slow and unenthusiastic about following the guidance. However I note the reference of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to Clause 18(4) of the Bill. I am sure that that will be helpful.
In the light of the reply we shall consider whether to bring this amendment back for further consideration. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.

203
Clause 25 [Miscellaneous]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 20, line 46, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment would remove a superfluous reference imposed on local authorities by Sections 1 and 2 of the Child Care Act 1980 which are replaced by provisions in Part III of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Local Authority Support for Children and Families]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 76, line 20, at end insert ("; and
(c) publish information on such other services as the authority consider appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 126 to 130 are all aimed in the same direction. I shall talk to Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 separately and 128 to 130 together. It is essential that local authorities have strength and power in duties to promote strategies to prevent child abuse in all its forms. The purpose of these amendments is to enshrine these in primary legislation in order to concentrate the attention of local policymakers on the necessity to provide a range of preventive services to children and families.
I turn to Amendment No. 126 in particular. Local authorities often work in partnership with voluntary sector agencies to provide a range of welfare and educational services to the local community. There are also many community-based organisations which provide services that benefit children and parents. Examples include playgrounds and out-of-school provision for older children. All these have the potential either directly or indirectly to improve the quality of a child's family life.
If a local authority considers these services appropriate, they should be publicised in order to provide an extended range of services as a choice for families. An authority might also consider it appropriate to publish information on services provided by profit-making organisations which provide relevant facilities or services. I think that that could usefully be added to the end of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2. I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: These amendments seek to do two things. They seek to allow local authorities to publish information on services provided by people other than the statutory authorities, which often work in partnership with voluntary organisations. Given that many services, particularly those for under-fives, are provided by voluntary or community groups, it would be useful, if local authorities thought it appropriate, for these services to be widely known about.
Amendments Nos. 128 to 130 seek to give statutory recognition to the emotional abuse of children. I believe there is no strict legal definition of emotional abuse. However, it must be stressed that this is a form of abuse recognised by the NSPCC and is a working definition commonly used by social
204
workers. A child can be said to be emotionally abused in situations where, for example, he is constantly taunted or shouted at or where he is manipulated by parents who have a disagreement with each other. I accept that in some circumstances, such as a particularly nasty divorce, there may be little a local authority can do. However, family centres and child guidance, which are mentioned later in the schedule, could be of enormous benefit to the emotionally abused child in other circumstances.
Lord Hylton: For a long time now we have heard a great deal about partnership between the statutory and the voluntary sectors. Everyone agrees with this, but of course it does not happen uniformly across the hoard. Some places are very much better at it than others. Nevertheless this seems to be an opportunity in the Bill to make sure that it really happens. We acknowledge that the Government have taken certain steps since they came to power to encourage giving to charities. They have sought to help the voluntary sector in other ways. I do not see how the Government can resist this amendment and I personally support it very strongly.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not proposing to enlighten the noble Lord, because I accept the principle of this amendment. If my noble friend will allow me to consider how it can be taken on board, I shall certainly agree to do that. It appears to be a useful point for which I am indebted to my noble friend and to all those who have supported it.
Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. As I understand that he is going to put the amendment into the proper language, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, wihdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 76, line 27, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This amendment strengthens the duty of a local authority, in turning "may" to "shall", to assess the support which an individual child may require. If a local authority knows that a child is in need, it seems only right that the child's needs are assessed. I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel that he can be equally generous with this amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I think there may be some slight misunderstanding about this. My understanding is that this amendment would require a local authority, rather than allow it, to assess a child's needs for the purposes of Part III, at the same time as any assessment is made of his or her needs under the other statutes specified in paragraph 3(a) of Schedule 2. The purpose of the word "may" in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 as drafted is to allow the local authority to carry out an assessment of a child's need of services under Part III at the same time as any other statutory assessment which may be appropriate is carried out if it is sensible and practicable that they should be done together. That will sometimes but not always be so. If any assessment had been carried out under one of the other statutes a few weeks earlier,

205
under the amendment the assessment for the purposes of Part III either could not be carried out or would require the earlier assessment to be done again.
The discretionary provision provides flexibility in the matter, which is surely desirable. It is not suggested that an assessment under Part III will not be required but rather the Bill allows flexibility as to when such an assessment should be undertaken. It would be sensible normally to carry out the assessment with the others but there may be circumstances in which that is not possible. Therefore I think that the word "may" is more appropriate to cover that possibility.
Lord Mottistone: I understand what my noble and learned friend has said. I still think that there ought to be compulsion, but we shall consider that question and come back to it at a later stage. At this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 76, line 37, leave out first ("or").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 128 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 129 and 130. My noble friend Lady Kinloss has in effect told the Committee exactly what the amendments are all about. We are seeking the inclusion in this part of the Bill of an additional form of abuse; namely, emotional abuse. It has no legal definition at the moment and I think that we should have to give it one if my noble and learned friend thought that it was reasonable to include emotional abuse in the Bill.
Emotional abuse is referred to in Department of Health circulars so it is not an entirely new concept. There is no doubt that emotional abuse is used, sadly, in the maltreatment of children. I should very much like to think that we could find some way of including it in Schedule 2 to the Bill. 1 hope that my noble and learned friend may feel that he can help me in that direction. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I should like at once to say that I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said about the need to add something to paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, Part I. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will agree that it is terribly important that when one places a duty upon a local authority in an Act one has to be careful about the language used because the courts may have to construe whether or not a local authority is carrying out that duty.
At present there is a limitation to the reasonable steps which a local authority has to take; namely, that through the provision of services under that part of the Bill they must
"prevent children in their area suffering neglect or physical or sexual abuse".
There it ends. As the noble Lord said, and as the noble Baroness said before him, we must try to
206
include the category of abuse which many of us know by the term emotional abuse but which a court would find extremely difficult, in my humble submission, to define with any precision.
In an endeavour to meet the very point which the noble Lord has made I looked elsewhere in the Bill. I had a little bit of inspiration. The noble and learned Lord may want to describe it in another way, but I hope that it was a little bit of inspiration. I turned to the definition clause on page 22 of the Bill, where subection (8) states that in that section,
" 'ill-treatment' includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical".
That seemed to me to fit the bill, if 1 may use the phrase.
Therefore bearing in mind Lord Mottistone's point, I thought that that was a useful way of dealing with the matter; namely, with the very language of the Bill in another part. I have made the speech that I would have made were Amendment No. 130A to be called. It will not be called, but I promise the Committee not to make that speech again. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will think that the suggestion is an acceptable one.
Lord Meston: I should like to support what has just been said, in particular with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, preferring Amendment No. 130A, because it seems to me that emotional abuse, although that is a phrase which is sometimes used, is more generally referred to as emotional deprivation. Emotional deprivation, which is not perhaps so easy to describe as a form of abuse, nevertheless would fit within the definition suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
The Lord Chancellor: I entirely agree that this is an important matter. I am very grateful for the suggestion contained in Amendment No. 130A, and I certainly do not wish to describe it in any less appreciative terms than those used by the author himself. I should certainly like to consider it.
I suspect, though I may be wrong, that in some of the elements that were described by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, there may be types of emotional abuse which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, amount to emotional deprivation perhaps, and are in the nature of emotional neglect. However, I think that this phrase will probably be as good as we can obtain.
However, the matter is so important that I think we ought to consider it further. Various suggestions have been made to me; and certainly a number of difficult questions, with which I shall not trouble the Committee tonight, are posed about the borderline and what can happen at the borderline. I think that everyone would agree that we are in a particularly difficult area and the more thought that we can give to the matter, the better. Our thoughts having been stimulated, perhaps we can agree to return to it at some other time.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble and learned friend, and indeed other noble Lords and the noble Lady who have spoken on this matter. I think that we have a very good point. My noble and learned friend said that perhaps the word "neglect" might cover some of the points made by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. She mentioned being shouted at, taunted or verbally abused, and one cannot call that neglect. That is emotional abuse. There are no two ways about it. The difficulty is probably met by the definition of ill-treatment that the noble Lord, Lord
208
Mishcon, so cleverly dug out of the back of the Bill.
I look forward to seeing a government amendment. In the meantime, I shall get to work and try to produce another one just so that we do not lose the point. It is important that it is written into the Bill. However at this stage I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 128.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 130A:
Page 76, line 37, after ("abuse") insert ("or forms of ill-treatment which are not physical").
The noble Lord said: I merely want to say that I entirely resent the jealousy of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in endeavouring to get an alternative to Amendment No. 130A.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): It seems that Amendment No. 130A is not moved.
[Amendment No. 130A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 131 to 133 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 78, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (a).
The noble and learned Lord said: Paragraph 11(a) of Schedule 2 provides for regulations as to the description of arrangements that may be made under Clause 19(2)(f) which provides for local authorities to make other arrangements for children as seem appropriate. The amendment would remove this provision, which is unnecessary and is potentially restrictive of the other arrangements that may be made. The Committee may remember that I explained this point in relation to Amendment No. 97.
Amendment No. 134 removes an unnecessary restriction in this part of the Bill which is associated with that provision and I invite the Committee to approve it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 78, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (e).
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 87.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 135A:
Page 79, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert—
("(1) Where a child is being looked after by a local authority, the local authority shall, unless it is not in the interests of the child to do so, promote contact between the child and—").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is to ensure that local authorities are positively encouraged to promote contact between children in care and their families. The current statutory code of practice on access provides,
"that local authorities have a positive responsibility to promote and sustain access".
That appears in paragraph 3 of the code.
Recent research, in particular that of Spencer Millham and others, entitled Lost in Care, and that of David Berridge and others entitled Foster Home Breakdown, has shown clearly that, firstly, promoting and maintaining close links between children and their families is essential if the objective of reunification is to be achieved, and, secondly, that, even
210
if children are not to return home, enabling them to remain in contact with their families and friends gives them greater security, a sense of identity and a sense of belonging.
Casework carried out by the Family Rights Group, training experience, and the evidence of recent research shows that, regrettably, social services departments do not actively promote and encourage contact between children and their families. All too often meaningful contact is seen as one or two hours a week, often with a social worker or foster carer present. Insufficient attention is paid to making visits between children and their families relaxed and enjoyable for all concerned. It is therefore very important that the legislation gives a lead in stressing the role that local authorities have to play in promoting contact. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: In supporting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady David, perhaps I may save time by speaking to Amendment No. 135B. I am asked to bring it before the Committee by the National Association for the Protection of Children in Care. The amendment is very much in line with Amendment No. 100A. The position is the same as that described by the noble Baroness, Lady David, namely, that,
"Where a child is being looked after by a local authority, the authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with his welfare, endeavour to promote contact between the child".
and under (c),
"any other person connected with him".
My amendment inserts "his siblings" in place of "him".
The Lord Chancellor: The Bill as drafted endeavours to deal with this point by stating in Schedule 2, paragraph 13(1) of Part II:
"Where a child is being looked after by a local authority, the authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with his welfare, endeavour to promote contact between the child and his parents"
and so on. The effect of this amendment is to leave out "reasonably practicable" and the reference to "endeavour".
The principle is being aimed at, but one has to recognise that it is not right to put duties on local authorities that it is not practicable for them to carry out. We are providing what the noble Baroness wants "so far as is reasonably practicable". It would be most awkward and wrong should the local authority find itself in breach of this requirement in circumstances where it is not reasonably practicable to endeavour to promote contact. For example, there are cases where the whereabouts of the parents of the child are not known. In these circumstances, where the local authority has no way of getting in touch with the parents, it would be impossible for the local authority to carry out a requirement to promote contact. I hope the Committee will agree that this example demonstrates that the qualification "so far as is reasonably practicable" is wise and necessary. We are anxious to secure exactly the same result, but we must try to tailor the words of the obligation to what can be done.

211
For similar practical reasons we believe that it is important that the duty should require a local authority to endeavour to promote contact. It should not be limited to a duty to promote contact. The local authority could make every effort to promote contact between a child and his family, but its efforts could fail because contact could only be achieved in any meaningful sense by the mutual agreement of those concerned. If the parents or the child refuse to see each other or respond to letters or telephone calls, with the best will in the world the local authority will not be able to promote contact. The proposed amendment would mean that the local authority would find itself in breach of the statutory requirement if it could not achieve the result. That is why we have used the word "endeavour". The principle is exactly the same, but we have tried to tailor the words of the clause to a practical situation. The same applies in relation to Amendment No. 135B and I think I gave a clear explanation when we discussed it with Amendment No. 135A.
We are at one on the principle, but not about the way to express it. I believe that we have expressed it as strongly as is reasonable in relation to all the possible circumstances with which a local authority may be faced. I am sure that both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady David, are familiar with cases in which contacts with parents are not possible to achieve. I myself have had experiences, especially in divorce cases, where it is not possible to achieve those contacts much as one would like to do so. One must continue to endeavour. One does not want to give up just because it does not work once. Therefore the word "endeavour" implies the idea of continuing to work at it in the hope that ultimately it will prevail. I believe this contains the flavour that would be appropriate for this sort of situation.
10 p.m.
Baroness David: I suspected that that would be the answer. I believe that we are aiming at the same end. We are hoping that a rather more positive approach would have a better effect. I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord has said, that we want the same result.
At the moment I shall not push this amendment any further but am prepared to withdraw it. I shall have to reconsider the matter and decide whether we need to raise it again. I must emphasise that we know how important it is for contacts to be kept or established as far as possible between the child and his family. That was the reason for the amendment, but I shall think more about it and for the moment beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 135B not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 135C:
Page 79, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Where a child is being looked after by a local authority, the local authority shall follow the guidance contained in the Code of Practice on Access to Children in Care.")
The noble Baroness said: This is continuing along the same lines. The statutory code of practice on access was introduced in 1984 and has proved extremely helpful to local authorities, children and families. It sets out general guidelines for good practice in relation to access. It goes into far more detail than would be appropriate for legislation or regulations and it is a vital accompaniment to legislative guidance on the importance of local authorities in promoting contact between children and their families. All the amendment tries to do is to stress that the guidance should be followed. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The code has been of great value and I am glad to know that the noble Baroness agrees with that point of view. It is the only child care issue subject to a statutory code of practice of this kind.
At present access can only be challenged in the courts by parents or others when access is actually terminated or refused. They cannot challenge a decision severely to restrict access. The code among other things specifically addressed that question of restriction of access, and more generally contact in relation to children subject to care orders.
The new provisions in the Bill bring substantial reform in this area, including most of the matters which are currently dealt with in the code. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 requires local authorities to take reasonable steps to enable children living away from their families to live with them, and to promote contact between them and their families where this would be in their interests. Where a child is being looked after by a local authority paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 provides for the promotion and maintenance of contact between the child and his family.
There will be a presumption of reasonable contact between a child in care and his parents and others. Local authorities will be expected where possible to agree on arrangements for contact at an early stage.
We have tried to include in the Bill the main issues contained in the code. It would not now be appropriate to return to the code, a large part of which is overtaken by those changes. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider that we have included important parts of the code in the Bill and that that shows the importance we attach to them.
Baroness David: I think that I am convinced by what the noble and learned Lord said but, as is so often the case, I shall need to read it to be totally convinced. I shall do so during the course of the next few days in order to decide whether I need to come back. I suspect that I shall not but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 136 and 137:
Page 81, line 46, at end insert ("or").
Page 82, line 1, leave out sub-paragraphs (d) to (f).
The noble and learned Lord said: With permission I shall take these two amendments together. The purpose of these amendments is to remove inappropriate grounds for dispensing with the need for a parent's consent for a local authority to arrange for a child in care to live abroad. It is important that, where a local authority wishes to arrange for a child to live abroad, there are proper procedures in place to secure the child's safety and well-being. Local authorities do not make these arrangements very often.
Usually it happens when a foster parent with whom the child is living wishes to emigrate or when a suitable relative living abroad wishes to look after the child. At present, under the Child Care Act 1980, local authorities have to apply to the Secretary of State to give his approval to the arrangements. The Government have decided, however, that making arrangements for a child to live abroad is such a serious step and so fraught with potential difficulties for the child that in future a court procedure would he more appropriate.
One of the particular safeguards we wish to provide for is the need for the consent of the parents or person with parental responsibility to be obtained before the court can give its approval. However, as in adoption proceedings, provision has to be made for those situations where it would be appropriate to dispense with the need to obtain the parents' consent. We think, on reflection, that this is adequately provided for in the grounds in subparagraphs (5)(a) to (c). These are where the court is satisfied that the person concerned cannot be found, is incapable of consenting or is witholding his consent unreasonably.
We consider that the grounds for dispensing with consent are uncomfortably close to the existing grounds for a care order which this Bill seeks to set aside and replace and that those subparagraphs in (5)(a) to (c) provide the correct basis for dispensing with consent where appropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 137A:
Page 82, leave out from beginning of line 40 to end of line 12 on page 86.
The noble Baroness said: I moved my last two amendments admirably briefly but I am afraid that I shall be a little longer in speaking to this amendment. It is extremely important so I give warning that I shall be speaking for several minutes. The purpose of the amendment is to abolish the requirement on parents and children to contribute to the maintenance of children being looked after by the local authority.
I should like to explain the current position. Parents of children in care are liable to make contributions towards the maintenance of those children unless those parents are in receipt of income support or family credit. If the parents are not exempted from payment a local authority must require contributions to be made unless it considers it unreasonable to do so in an individual case.
The local authority has the power to charge all parents the same or to fix the charge according to family income. It is required by law to notify a parent of its proposed weekly charge and the local authority
214
and parent have one month to reach an agreement about the amount to be paid. If agreement cannot be reached the local authority applies to a magistrates' court to obtain a contribution order. The court must take into account the parent's ability to pay but beyond that cannot consider the merits of whether or not a parent should be ordered to pay a contribution.
Perhaps I may turn to the changes proposed in the Bill. Paragraphs 19(1) and (2) of Schedule 2 give the local authority greater discretion to decide not to require contributions to be paid.
I should now like to refer to the problems which exist and which will remain under the new legislation. We believe that the system is unfair to families. A survey by the Family Rights Group on the charging policies of 77 local authorities in England and Wales provided a picture of local authorities chiselling contributions out of the poorest families—contributions which did not amount to much in comparison to the costs of providing care but which caused immediate hardship to the families. For better off families on wages of up to £110 per week—that was in 1981 and would not perhaps be considered to be a very good wage now—the recovery of sums of up to £35 per week for a single child in care and over £l 0 for several, at a rate of up to 75p in the £1 or even £1 in the £1 from their net incomes, transforms the poverty trap into a financial black hole. Not surprisingly many families do not or cannot pay, and arrears are endemic.
A detailed study by members of the Association of British Association Social Workers in Coventry found that 80 per cent. of parents requested to pay contributions were in arrears and in one in 10 cases this necessitated court action. The study stated that the heavy charges made some families reluctant to have their children admitted to care and led others to withdraw them prematurely from care.
The 1983 report of the Joint Working Group on Personal Social Services Charging Policies produced by the AMA and ACC stated:
"attempts to collect debts can put severe strains on the families of children in long-stay care. Further, if the social services department press for a maintenance contribution for a child in care, that can hinder the rehabilitation of the child with his family".
The House of Commons Social Services Committee report on children in care in 1984 submitted:
"evidence received shows the damage and difficulties which parental contributions can in some circumstances cause … far from helping maintain links with the child"—
that is one of the arguments in favour—
"a contribution when taken with the financial burden of travelling to visit a child, buying presents, etc, can be the last straw. The NSPCC told us that there were even cases of parents being sent to prison for failing to contribute and the FRG survey showed that most families were in arrears on their contributions. Contributions can cause unnecessary strains, for example, on parents with children in care who have another family to care for, to the extent that they may seek to have a child back to avoid that financial strain, with disastrous results".
Perhaps I may give an example of one or two cases. In a social inquiry report presented to a juvenile court opposing the discharge of a care order, a social worker said that the mother should pay off her heavy debts before she was reunited with her three children in care. Over half the money was owed to the

215
council's finance department for arrears of parental contributions. A father appeared in court recently who was being prosecuted for arrears of contributions in respect of his son to whom he had been denied access by the local authority for the past two years. He could not believe that that gave him no defence in court.
Different parents receive different treatment. Different local authorities have different policies on charging. Currently the parents of children in National Health Service institutions or in local authority educational institutions are not liable for contributions. The effect is that there will be children living in the same institution receiving the same care but the parents of some children are subject to contributions while the parents of others are not.
One local authority noted in 1983:
"If a young offender is sent to a borstal or detention centre, there is no charge on parents but if the offender is committed to care the parents are assessed to pay. If a handicapped child is in hospital there is no charge but if in care, there is. A child in need of boarding school education in a special school is often committed to care because of the shortage of boarding school places. There is no charge for the boarding school but there is a charge if the child is in care and goes to a day special school. If a mentally handicapped child is cared for by the social services department under the Mental Health legislation there is no charge but if the child is in care under children's legislation there is."
It is manifestly unfair.
The House of Commons Social Services Committee noted these anomalies in its 1984 report and concluded by saying that,
"The ADSS [Association of Directors of Social Services] hinted strongly in their evidence that in view of these anomalies, the high costs of collection as against the low returns, and the frequently aggravating side effects of collecting contributions, there was considerable professional support for abolition of the idea of contributions."
It is not clear whether these anomalies will continue under the Bill or whether the effects of Clause 25(6) will be to introduce charges to the parents of handicapped children who arc currently not subject to such charges. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will enlighten the Committee in that respect. The system is complex, inefficient and costly to administer.
The local authority departments and their staffs have little, if anything, to gain from charging. It is the view of local authorities that the amount of money they collect does not meet the administrative costs of assessing parents' liability to pay, of bringing court proceedings and following up parents who fall into arrears. The joint working party of the AMA and the ACC which published a report in 1983 on parental contributions pointed out that the £2 million collected was insignificant in relation to the £200 million which was then spent on providing accommodation for children in care. It commented that,
"if charges were dispensed with, there would be a cash saving as well as a saving in staff time."
That was contained in paragraph 353. In 1984 the House of Commons Social Services Committee stated:
"We recommend that contributions should only be levied on parents on the basis of there being an exception and positive reason
216
to do so. In such circumstances we would expect to see full information about such liability to contributions given to parents at the time of a child's entry into care. Subject to this proviso, we recommend the abolition of parental contributions in respect of children in care."
At a meeting of many organisations last Tuesday, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, this matter was discussed. I was amazed at the unanimity in the room among the associations represented there who supported this amendment and who hope that the amendment will succeed, with the abolition of the necessity for parents to contribute. However, that may not be fully decided and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give encouragement and perhaps even support the amendment. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: The noble Baroness is right that I chaired that meeting, and that the majority of the people there supported the amendment. However, the noble Baroness will remember that while I do not necessarily disagree with her amendment, there is another point of view to be considered before we finally decide on the matter.
The assessment process and the collection of contributions is expensive. Equally, I have to say that there are two types of cases. First, there is voluntary care—that is, when parents apply for their children to go into care. I am slightly worried that without assessment more parents will apply for their children to go into care when they are in financial difficulties.
Secondly, it depends how the assessment is done and who does it. I was very fortunate in having a most sympathetic assessment officer. It meant that the parents were kept in touch with the department from the point of view both of assessing and of collection. Also there was a sense of dignity financially, in that, even if you were only contributing 50p, £1, £5 or £10 a week for your child, you had a sense of responsibility for your child. It is the purpose of all of us to try to rehabilitate children so that they can go back to their families. The fact that parents had to pay for them, however small the amount, did mean that there was a sense of responsibility for the child.
I have to say that, in a number of cases where no assessment was made, the parents tended to disappear and you could not then rehabilitate the children back into their families. So I am in some difficulty. The noble Baroness has made a splendid case for her amendment but I would ask your Lordships to consider that there is another point of view. What we have to pay for we value: and I think it helps a number of parents to feel that they have not completely lost contact with their children if they have to pay something towards their support, however difficult that may be.
Finally, I would say that never at any time, although I believed in assessing parents in regard to payment for their children, did we ever take them to court. Certainly we would never have wanted them to go to prison for such a debt. Such cases were referred to the then social services committee, which would then decide to wipe off the debt. This is a very difficult and complex situation, but I think that if parents do not pay anything at all for their children they can lose

217
interest in them and lose their sense of responsibility for them.
Baroness David: I always have the greatest respect for what the noble Baroness has to say—
Baroness Faithfull: Not in this case.
Baroness David: Yes, I do. There is only one thing with which I would totally disagree: that is that the parents would push their children into care in order to save money. I find that extremely hard to believe. The other thing is that I am sure the noble Baroness was an extremely enlightened director of social services and that she influenced her authority very well, but I am not sure that happens everywhere and I still feel, on balance, that it would be better to abolish the demand for contributions.
Lord Hylton: I do not expect the Government at this time automatically and necessarily to welcome this amendment with open arms, but the noble Baroness, Lady David, has made out a very strong case for it. She mentioned the possibility, when families do not have to make a contribution, of their using the money in order to travel to visit their children in care, thereby maintaining the family link.
Perhaps I may give some other examples of ways in which parents could use what they would otherwise have to spend on contributions. Taking holidays is another way of maintaining the link between the parent and the child. For example, there could also he saving towards a new home into which to bring the child when it comes out of care. For families which are very disorganised there are courses in home management and home economics, or even practical tuition in parenting. All these may need to be paid for or may require travel and the payment of fares. I recognise that there is very unlikely to be any way of compelling parents to spend their money on these desirable things, but I suggest that it would at least be an improvement if they were given the opportunity of doing so.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has correctly anticipated the stand which I propose to take. Perhaps your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I cannot agree to the wiping out of a large part of Schedule 2 by means of this rather neat amendment.
As the noble Baroness, Lady David, pointed out, this provision replaces and simplifies Part V of the Child Care Act 1980 but—this is most important—it lays greater emphasis on reasonableness. I feel sure that the matters to which she referred were under the previous law, while this attempts to deal with the matter by improving the situation.
Paragraph 19 specifically provides that local authorities should consider whether or not to recover contributions towards the child's maintenance and that they may only recover contributions if they consider it reasonable to do so. They must take account of all the circumstances in reaching that decision. It exempts parents from contributions during any period when they are in receipt of income
218
support or family support under the Social Security Act 1986.
It encourages local authorities to reach agreement with the contributors by providing that a contributor is not obliged to make any contribution except as agreed between him and the authority or, failing agreement, as determined by the court, which is required by paragraph 21(3)(6) to pay due regard to the contributor's means. So there are no circumstances in which the court could order a payment which did not have proper regard to the contributor's means.
The authority is further encouraged to reach agreement with the contributor outside the court by the provision in paragraph 21(3)(a) of the schedule that a contribution order made by the court shall not specify a weekly income to be contributed greater than that specified in the authority's initial contribution notice. So there is no question of going to the court to get more than the authority initially sought.
There is further protection for the parent or child that he may withdraw his agreement to pay particular contributions at any time—this is paragraph 20(8)—if, for example. he falls on hard times, or indeed for any reason. Appeals against court orders will be provided for in rules of court while aggrieved parents will also be able to make representations; or, if the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is given effect, a complaint under the new procedure in Clause 22.
I do not think there is anything objectionable in principle in enabling local authorities which are looking after a child subject to a care order or providing accommodation under voluntary arrangements to ask for contributions from parents, or, if he is over 16, the child towards the cost of his maintenance, provided they satisfy themselves that they can afford to pay and the contributions sought are reasonable.
After all, there will be some savings to the parents by virtue of the fact that an authority is looking after the child. No doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, if some parents were able to save money in that way they would put it to good use; but not everyone would do that, as he recognised. Accordingly, I believe that the changes we have made are changes which modify the effect of the old law in a constructive way, and have the effect of introducing this overall reasonableness which gives the local authority an area of discretion that helps to avoid difficulty.
I do not wish to go over the ground covered by my noble friend Lady Faithfull because I cannot improve on the words that she used, but that aspect of the matter also has to be taken into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked about handicapped children. The situation is that local authorities can charge, subject to means, for children looked after. There is no charge for National Health Service provision. If I am at home I have to pay for looking after myself. If I go to a hospital I do not have to do that. That may be regarded as anomalous by some, but one has to take account of the fact that children in care are children the responsibility for

219
whom has been taken over by the local authority, and if the parents are able to pay it seems reasonable that they should be required to pay a reasonable contribution to what otherwise would have been their responsibility.
Accordingly, I hope that the noble Baroness may feel able not to press the amendment. But if she were to do so I hope that the Committee would feel that the reasonable provisions in this part of the law should be given effect.
Baroness David: I shall not press the amendment at this time of night but I am not entirely convinced by that response. There are still anomalies. I shall read carefully what has been said and I may well come back at the next stage. I suspect that it would be very much simpler to abolish the payments altogether. However, at this moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Local Authority Support for Children and Families]:
[Amendments Nos. 138 to 143 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Clause 26 [Care and supervision orders]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 21, line 26, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

(" (1) (a) any application by a local authority or authorised person for an order placing the child with respect to whom the application is made in the care of a designated local authority shall be made to the High Court;

(b) any application made by a local authority or authorised person for an order putting him under the supervision of a designated local authority or of a probation officer shall be made in the High Court or in a County Court;

(c) nothing in this section shall affect the power of the High Court to make a supervision order on an application by a local authority or an authorised person for a care order.").

The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to provide that care orders are dealt with exclusively in the High Court; that supervision orders are dealt with either in the High Court or in the county court; and that the magistrates' court has no involvement in either of those sets of proceedings. It is my unique talent for timing that leads me to move this substantial amendment at this hour, but I fear that I have to speak to it in a little detail in order to do it some justice.
I should like to set out the arguments for excluding magistrates from dealing with applications for care or supervision. I would be the first to pay tribute to the huge contribution made by lay magistrates to the administration of justice. Their commitment is unquestioned. The purpose of this amendment, however, is to argue that it is unacceptable that decisions which may lead to the permanent severance of a child from his parents should be taken by a lay bench. Care proceedings involve the sifting of complicated evidence and the assessing of a large number of separate incidents and issues in order to draw conclusions from their cumulative effect. In
220
addition, difficult questions of law have to be applied to the facts as found. That requires legal training and competence of a high order and it is unreasonable to expect magistrates to achieve that standard.
The involvement of magistrates in care proceedings is a hangover from their duties as guardians of the Poor Laws, and, like their role in illegitimacy cases, is simply out of date. The almost invariable experience of practitioners is that such cases before magistrates take much longer than before a trained judge. In addition, the difficulty of ensuring that magistrates are available to continue hearing a case until it finishes, particularly when its length cannot be accurately assessed before the issues are investigated during the hearing, often means that many weeks and sometimes months can elapse before a case is finally concluded.
In view of the excellent emphasis in the Bill on the need for expedition, that is highly unsatisfactory because of the unsettling effects on the child concerned and also because it results in most of the detailed evidence at the first sitting not being correctly or properly remembered at a later hearing, which therefore tends to concentrate on the most recent parts of the evidence. Again, the experience of most practitioners is that an experienced judge will cut through matters that are peripheral so as to narrow the issue and save time by inviting the parties to concentrate on what really matters.
At the moment there is no provision for exchange of statements or affidavits in magistrates' court hearings. That practice in the High Court and in the county court means that the judge has read the papers beforehand and so is able to see what the issues are and direct the hearing to deal with those issues.
If magistrates are to continue to be used, then plainly there will need to be a system of exchange of written evidence and also a requirement that the magistrates themselves should read the papers in the case before the hearing. I should be interested to hear if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wishes to say anything on this aspect of the exercise by the magistrates of their present functions.
It is not difficult to conclude that the magistrates may well feel overwhelmed with the volume of documents available to them, and the necessity to go through them before the hearing must entail an onerous imposition upon the free time of unpaid lay persons.
The common practice by which a professional judge will take an initiative which often results in a case settling is almost unheard of before a bench of magistrates. That is of greater importance in family cases than in any other class of case because the emotions which are almost always generated by those proceedings make it very difficult for the parties—that is, spouses, parents, social workers, and so on—to co-operate subsequently. That is what I have to say about the magistrates' jurisdiction.
I now turn to the arguments in favour of the High Court dealing exclusively with care cases. A care order removes from a child the right to be brought up by his own parents. It may also lead to severance of all contact between parent and child and may well

221
lead to adoption. So the point is this: should not a professional judge of the highest calibre be made available to decide an issue of this gravity, which goes to the heart of family life?
I raise next the question of whether the county court bench is not much less suited than the High Court to deal with complex care cases. The circuit judge necessarily applies the whole gamut of the legal trade. Family cases are traditionally recognised as highly specialised. No doubt that is why Queen's Bench Division judges never try family cases. The breadth of the duties and the functions of the circuit judge surely makes him much less qualified than his counterpart in the Family Division of the High Court for those specialised and important cases.
Of course we welcomed the indication that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave on Second Reading that special training is to be given to county court judges dealing with children's cases. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will think it right to elaborate on that aspect when replying to the amendment. Is what is envisaged a trained and interested pool of circuit judges who will give themselves enthusiastically to this class of case? But how can that be achieved consistent with all their other duties?
It must also be said that there are serious organisational difficulties which tell strongly against the county court in this class of case. The county court is not well organised to deal with cases which last longer than a day. The busy county court judge has to deal with the workaday problems of a busy centre and it is very rare that a substantial case can start much before 11.30 or 12 o'clock because of other matters which must be got out of the way. So, if the case goes over a day, especially if this was not anticipated when listed, it is almost impossible to continue into the next day, and a split hearing with all the attendant shortcomings will result.
Finally, one great advantage of the High Court in this area is that the judges travel the country administering a uniform standard of justice born out of regular contact with the mainstream thinking of the High Court judges and the Court of Appeal.
Therefore the amendment proposes care orders for the High Court, supervision orders for the High Court or the county court and no involvement of magistrates in either of those areas. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): If Amendment No. 144 is agreed to, I cannot then call Amendments Nos. 145 or 146.
Lord Meston: The timing of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, is impeccable. Moving an amendment of this type at this time at night means that there are fewer magistrates to take offence at what he has just said and at what I am about to say, because I support everything that he has just said.
The problems in this area of the law are to some extent derived from the involvement of the lay magistrates, invaluable in many ways as their contributions otherwise are. There is the problem of assimilating and assessing evidence, dealing with hearsay evidence and assessing diagnostic evidence,
222
especially in sexual abuse cases. There is a lack of any provision for affidavit evidence or the advanced disclosure of evidence in the matrimonial courts. A bench of three magistrates who are all unpaid part-timers cannot sit more than a few days consecutively on what may be complicated cases which need a speedy resolution.
As advocates we all know that appearing in front of a professional tribunal, which can take on a perhaps more involved inquisitorial role in court, enables proceedings to be shortened because a judge can say, "You do not need to trouble to address me on points A and B; I just want to hear what you have to say on points C and D." A bench of magistrates does not operate like that. It has to have everything explained to it at some length. It does not have the ability or confidence to shorten the proceedings and to refine the issues down to the short points on which it needs to hear evidence and argument.
If we are to have a system under the Bill in which the public is to have confidence, we must have one which ensures the highest calibre of tribunal to deal with these difficult cases. If one is entitled to have a county court judge decide which of two insurance companies should pay for a relatively trivial motor accident, surely one is entitled to at least a county court judge or a High Court judge to decide the most important matters of whether a parent should be allowed to keep or see his or her child ever again. I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: The amendment is of a piece with those that we shall come to later which would exclude the magistrates' courts jurisdiction under other parts of this Bill and which seek to fix in primary legislation which tier of court should hear particular matters. However, in relation to this particular amendment, I should emphasise that the Government recognise the seriousness of intervention in the family that a local authority's applicaton for a care or supervision order represents. As I made clear in my Second Reading speech, one aim of the Bill is to match the weight of the case to the level of court. There are however factors other than weight to be taken into account in deciding which court should consider a particular case.
One example is complexity. Some cases relating to care and supervision may be straightforward while others may be much more complex with, for example, no direct evidence of physical abuse and perhaps with conflicting medical and other expert evidence. It is also generally accepted that delay is itself a major risk to children and their families, and given finite court resources the decision about where a case should be heard will sometimes need to take account of the harm that delay may cause. Further, stress has been laid on the need to hear all cases relating to the same child and his family in the same court if possible. This amendment would impede the Bill in taking those matters into account by fixing rigidly that all care cases had to be taken in the High Court.
Children and their families will not be helped if this Bill provides inflexible rules about where applications should be made which, on the one hand, ignore important factors which should influence where an application is made, and on the other hand ignore the

223
realities about the likely availability of judge and court time in the superior courts and the consequent need to ensure that the most difficult cases are not delayed because the superior courts are saturated by cases which could properly be dealt with at a lower level.
I understand that there are complex cases that take a long time, but there are also shorter cases which take rather less time.
I shall explain again in greater detail when we reach amendments on Clause 69 what the Government have in mind in relation to jurisdiction generally. However, what is already clear on the face of the Bill is the Government's determination to create a flexible system which will enable subordinate legislation to be made about where cases should start and which will provide for the transfer of proceedings between courts if that seems desirable.
The purpose of the starting rules will be to ensure that cases start in the court where they are most likely to be heard, thus reducing overall delays and the expenditure of resources caused by transfer.
Although we recognise that a proportion of care cases justify hearing by a county court or in the most difficult cases the High Court, we expect that a considerable number, perhaps the majority, will continue to be dealt with by magistrates. Accordingly, apart from cases where there are already other family proceedings pending, we intend to provide by order that, at first at least, applications for care or supervision orders should be made to magistrates.
The Government are aware that criticisms are made from time to time of care proceedings in juvenile courts. However, as the scope of the reforms in the Bill demonstrates, those courts have to, and are continuing to, operate at the present time a system of law and procedure which is seriously flawed and which no court could reasonably be expected to administer without considerable difficulty. That said, the juvenile panels have developed considerable experience and expertise in this field and have devoted themselves to it with great commitment. The Bill improves care law and procedure. We will be taking powers to transfer the care jurisdiction to the domestic bench. All that should help to lay to rest the criticisms now levelled at the arrangements for care proceedings.
However, we recognise that some cases will be so complex as to require a professional judicial officer to hear them. We therefore intend to provide for the transfer of cases from the magistrates' court to a registrar who will then allocate the case within the county court or the High Court. If a magistrates' court or justices' clerk does not transfer a case to a superior court, it is intended to make provision for an aggrieved party to challenge the decision.
I would only add that the powers we intend to take under the Bill are such that should practice show that the majority of care or supervision cases need to be heard in the county courts and the High Court it will
224
be possible either to allow or to direct that initial applications for care and supervision orders should be made to a superior court. We regard this power as being of the utmost importance. At present there is relatively little information of a general kind available about the nature and complexity of care cases and, in any event, the changes under the Bill would render that information of little value for planning the future. Our intention therefore is to keep the operation of the care and supervision aspect of the Bill under close review and to be ready to make any changes necessary to ensure that the best jurisdictional arrangements exist for dealing with the cases involved.
On a severely practical note, it must be very doubtful that the county courts and High Court could absorb the extra cases. On a broad estimate, the amendment could involve about 10,000 extra applications before those courts. On average the cases might take perhaps two and a half days. In terms of full-time judges that would mean fairly extensive finding of new judges. Cost aside, and despite the fact that registrars would have a part to play, that figure, I think, shows that this amendment would create very considerable difficulties.
The system in the Bill is designed to ensure that we can match cases to courts. I believe that an amendment which seeks to say at the outset that all care cases should go to the High Court and supervision cases to the county court or above is contrary to achieving the kind of flexibility and the system which the public expects for the determination of these matters. For these reasons, I would not feel able to accept this amendment.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: if I may say so, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made a most detailed and interesting answer which I shall read with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I think we have probably reached the moment in the day when we should adjourn the Committee. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Port of Tyne Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven o'clock.