HL Deb 08 November 1989 vol 512 cc730-2

38 Clause 14, page 11, line 13, at end insert — '(7) A family assistance order shall not be made so as to require a local authority to make an officer of theirs available unless —

  1. (a) the authority agree; or
  2. (b) the child concerned lives or will live within their area.
(8) Where a family assistance order requires a probation officer to be made available, the officer shall be selected in accordance with arrangements made by the probation committee for the area in which the child lives or will live. (9) If the selected probation officer is unable to carry out his duties, or dies, another probation officer shall be selected in the same manner.'

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38.

The amendment provides for the selection of local authority or probation officers whom the court may by order require to advise, assist and befriend the person or persons named in a family assistance order. Its provisions are similar to those in paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the Bill which govern the selection of supervisors for supervision orders.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

Lord Renton

My Lords, I doubt whether we are wise to legislate on this point. The second part of the amendment, especially subsections (8) and (9), deals with administrative matters which the authorities concerned would deal with as a matter of course. Subsection (9) states: If the selected probation officer is unable to carry out his duties, or dies, another probation officer shall be selected in the same manner". Do we really have to have primary legislation to tell our administrative grandmothers to suck eggs in that way?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the problem is that a family assistance order must make provision for a local authority to do particular acts. That involves resources for the local authority, and we must be careful about the conditions under which the local authority should be asked to provide an officer in a particular way. The same applies more generally. It is a matter of detail but perhaps of necessary detail.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I shall support in a sentence or two what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said, because it is in line with previous protests which have been made in the House today about the absurdity of legislation which attempts to take it for granted that the public consists of a band of powerless idiots. I say that not so much because of subsections (8) and (9), to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred but because if one looks at subsection (9), even having regard to what the noble and learned Lord said about the need to provide for the appointment of a specific officer, one finds that it provides that, if the probation officer is unable to carry out his duties or he dies, someone else can be put in his place. That is carrying things to an absurdity. The House, as the legislative body revising legislation, should not allow such an example to pass without notice. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for calling attention to it.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, perhaps I may put an opposite point of view. I am all for having this provision in the Bill. I regret to say that there are a number of cases in social services and probation departments which are not allocated to a social worker or a probation officer because they have not been replaced and there is no one to deal with the case. I support the inclusion of the provision in the Bill.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, many of these amendments have arisen as a result of consultations with those having practical experience. A good deal of consultation has been going on throughout the whole parliamentary process with people in the field. Difficulties in the work are sometimes encountered which might not be adequately or properly described in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did, and an arrangement of this kind which allocates responsibility can be important. I know of cases in which, because a probation officer has, as it were, moved on in some way, adequate arrangements for carrying on that person's work have not been made. It is useful to direct attention to that point.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I wish to add only one more sentence. It was not so much that I objected to subsection (8), which talks about the arrangements that should be made for the selection and appointment of an officer, but because vague words are used: in accordance with arrangements made by the probation committee for the area". Must it not follow as night follows day that the same situation must arise if the person so appointed is no longer available? It is obvious that subsection (8) applies and another person must be appointed: in accordance with arrangements made by the probation committee for the area". To have a legislative provision for that, as I tried to say before, and as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said before me, constitutes an absurdity for legislators.

On Question, Motion agreed to.