Children (Scotland) Bill

HL Deb 05 July 1995 vol 565 cc1109-53

4.10 p.m.

Report received.

Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 1:

After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:

("Protection of Children from Violence

.—(1) It shall be unlawful to subject a child to violence, whether or not in the exercise of any parental right, and whether or not by way of punishment.

(2) In considering whether punishment of a child amounts to violence, regard shall be had in particular to whether the child—

1. (a) was struck with a stick, belt or other object; or
2. (b) was struck or shaken in such a way as to cause, or risk causing—
   1. (i) injury, or
   2. (ii) more than momentary pain or discomfort.

(3) In section 12 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 the following are hereby repealed—

1. (a) in subsection (1) the words "assaults," and "assaulted,",
2. (b) subsection (7).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as a preliminary, perhaps I may say that this is an all-party amendment for the protection of children from violence. I believe that all the signatories to the amendment are present except for the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who, most unfortunately, has a long-standing prior engagement elsewhere. The noble Baroness spoke in support of a variant of the amendment at Committee stage in the Moses Room. She much regrets that she cannot be here today in person to support the amendment. However, she has given me authority to say that she most certainly supports the amendment together with the other signatories. I hope that the amendment will be treated as an all-party amendment, and that there will be no hint of party politics—perhaps we had enough at Question Time—imported into our deliberations.

I begin with the need for the amendment. To my mind, it has been clearly expressed by a community study of physical violence to children in the home, financed by the Department of Health, and carried out by the Thomas Coram Research Unit over the past few years. That research lends the strongest possible support to the need for this new clause, or something like it, in order to curb violence to children in their homes.

The study involved detailed interviews with mothers of one year-old, four year-old, seven year-old and 11 year-old children, a smaller number of fathers, and some of the children themselves, from among 400 randomly selected families. Like all such research, it probably under-estimates the real situation in that most parents will be most unlikely to exaggerate any violent treatment which they have given to children in the home. The rates of severe punishment by mothers, indicated by the study, must be of great concern to the country, the Government and this House. The figures would be even higher if punishments by the fathers were taken into account, but I cite the figures regarding mothers. Sixteen per cent. of all children had been severely punished, and 24.5 per cent. of seven year-olds had been severely punished.

The vast majority of cases of severe punishment—it is nearly 90 per cent.—involved hitting the child; and the children who were most frequently hit were more likely to have experienced other forms of physical punishment. The study defines "severe" punishment as punishment involving, the intention or potential to cause injury or psychological damage, use of implements, repeated actions or over a long period of time".

I believe that my quotations from the study which has been so recently undertaken by the Coram Research Unit provides ample evidence for the need for this clause. I now turn to the text of the clause to illustrate its purpose.

The purpose of the clause is to protect children from abusive forms of physical punishment which were designated as severe in the report to which I referred. A similar provision was drafted by the Scottish Law Commission in its 1992 Report on family law. Noble Lords who were present at Committee stage in the Moses Room will remember that I sought to introduce the Law Commission's form of amendment; and previously an attempt had been made to introduce that version in the House of Commons. In the House of Commons there was a vote; the attempt was not successful. In Committee in the Moses Room there was no vote; the Committee stage was a special procedure which did not allow a vote.

I therefore withdrew the amendment in order to come back on Report, as I now do, having taken into account most minutely and seriously the objections which were raised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and by the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench. To my mind they spoke helpfully and not destructively. I was impressed by the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, as well as the Minister in the House of Commons, expressed some sympathy with the amendment. I very much hope that we have produced the right wording and that the amendment, or something like it, will be accepted.

This version seeks to overcome the criticisms made in Committee in the Moses Room, in particular those by the Government. It upholds the general principle that no violence to children shall be justifiable under the guise of punishment—a principle upheld by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, at Committee stage and by other Scottish Ministers in another place. I believe that we have come very close to what the Government can accept. If they still have some sympathy, I hope that they will express not only sympathy but agreement.

I should emphasise that the clause does not ban all smacking. It leaves courts to determine what amounts to violence but requires them to have regard in particular to whether the child was struck with an implement or in a way which caused, or risked causing, prolonged pain. Prolonged pain is described as "more than momentary". Thus, courts are free to take into account other circumstances in addition.

Unlike the previous version, this clause does not imply that hitting a child with any kind of implement, even a rolled up newspaper, would amount to violence. Therefore, I believe that it answers many questions raised at the previous stage of the Bill.

I hope that this revised version of the Scottish Law Commission's proposal, amended in accordance with criticisms made of it in both Houses, especially by Ministers, will find favour in all quarters of the House. If accepted, the amendment goes some way towards meeting our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. For all those reasons, I beg to move.

Baroness David

My Lords, my name is to the amendment and I rise to support it.

There are many of us who would prefer to see a clear prohibition of all physical punishment of children in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and with the worldwide trend against accepting any level of violence to children.

It is quite inevitable that in time, and I hope sooner rather than later, we shall agree to give children at least the same protection from all kinds of assault that we as adults take for granted for ourselves. We do not defend gentle slaps of women by their husbands or, for that matter, slaps of umpires at Wimbledon and there is no logic or justice in defending gentle smacks of children.

But the new clause is not about banning smacking altogether. It is quite clear to those of us who have been working in the House over the years—and I may say that it is a good many years now—to rid our culture of the idea that deliberately hurting children is a useful form of discipline in the school or the home that a bid for full prohibition would fail at the moment. So we welcomed the proposal of the Scottish Law Commission strictly to limit physical punishment as an appropriate step in the right direction which would command public, professional and, we believed, all-party political support. So did the full range of Scottish children's organisations and professional groups. They were surprised to find that the Government, while accepting most of the Law Commission's proposals for Part I of the Bill, left out this provision. They were even more surprised to find in previous stages of the Bill that the Government actively opposed the provision. Can it be that the Government actually approve of children being beaten with sticks and belts or in ways that cause or risk causing significant pain or injury?

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, said in Committee that: no violence to children should be justifiable under the guise of punishment".—[Official Report, 6/6/95; col. 12.] Surely, he must agree that hitting children with sticks and belts or in ways which cause or could cause injury or prolonged pain constitutes violence? I hope that we shall get an unambiguous answer to that today.

The Scottish Law Commission found that the public overwhelmingly support legislation to stop extreme forms of physical punishment. But we also know now from the very detailed Department of Health sponsored research—to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred—that one in six UK children and up to a quarter of seven year-olds are still being severely physically punished. To suggest, as the Minister did at Committee stage (again at col. 12), that, statutory law and common law offer sufficient protection to children from assaults by parents, teachers or others who have charge of children", is patently absurd, given that research finding and given the views of the whole range of Scottish professionals involved in child protection. The current law, the vague concept of "reasonable chastisement", causes a dangerous confusion in the minds of parents and inhibits those in child protection from giving clear messages.

An English Peer treads with great trepidation in to Scottish matters—and I certainly feel that strongly—and especially Scottish children's law when, on the whole, the Scots have got it more right than we have, with a sensitive children's hearings system and other innovations. But today those of us from all parties who are pursuing this issue are doing so because we have been begged to by the very strong, probably unprecedented coalition of Scottish organisations. They see it as an issue with a UK-wide significance, and so do we. Eminent figures, including the current President of the British Paediatric Association, Professor Roy Meadow, and the immediate past president, Sir David Hull, have written in support of this provision. All the major UK-wide child protection and child welfare organisations support it, although most, it is true, would go further and argue for a clear prohibition of all physical punishment.

The Minister gave us some cause for hope when he said that he had sympathy with the intention behind the new clause, but then produced legal and other arguments against accepting it. Many of these were carefully answered by the Scottish Law Commission when the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, requested it to review the criticisms. It does seem quite extraordinary that the Government should have rejected the results of the detailed consultation carried out by the commission in 1992 and such eminent legal advice in so cavalier a fashion.

However, the opposition to the Law Commission's clause from the Government seemed implacable, so we have produced, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, with our advisers, a new version which we hope will prove acceptable. It does, after all, paraphrase the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, that children must not be subjected to violence in the guise of punishment. It highlights abusive forms of punishment, but it does not tie the hands of courts, which can have regard to other factors as well. There is still plenty of time to sort out any remaining technical problems if we can unite behind the uncontroversial intention of protecting children from violence.

Let us have no more attempts to trivialise this issue with anecdotes about hitting children with rolled up newspapers and so on. These insult the serious purpose of the new clause and, more seriously, they insult the good sense of Scottish judicial authorities who have absolute discretion to decide whether a prosecution is in the interests of the child and are quite capable of distinguishing physical actions taken to protect a child. The real purpose of the new clause is educational. It is a modest measure. Accepting it will send out a signal—not yet the completely unambiguous signal that some of us would like but a big improvement on the present dangerous confusion—that it is not on to hit children with implements or in ways that risk causing injury or prolonged pain. I hope very much that the Government can now accept the modified version of the clause in Amendment No. 1.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I also wish to add my support to the amendment, at least to the extent that I continue to believe that Scotland needs guidance about the matter. While such legislation cannot control every situation, at least most people would know what was permissible and eventually bring some pressure to bear on others.

I also believe that the amendment would give some guidance to the courts as to how to sort out the rights and wrongs of an incident brought before them. Principally, the courts have to decide whether it was violence rather than punishment and, if it was punishment, did the parent take reasonable or unreasonable action.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, at the Committee stage of this important Bill relating to children in Scotland I made some comments which directed people back to the Scottish Law Commission on the issue of punishment of children. The amendment that appeared at the Committee stage would have been unenforceable in the courts. I note with interest the new amendment, Amendment No. 1, which has struck the correct balance in that it has taken out the question of assault.

As I understand it, the amendment leaves the common law of assault unchanged but brings into the Children (Scotland) Bill the question of violence. It may be a distinction without a difference, but, as my noble friend Lady David said, the message is being sent out through the legislation to parents that they cannot abuse their children in any way, in particular striking with the methods which are detailed in subsection (2) of the amendment. The emphasis has now been changed. As I look at it, the common law of assault remains, but within the context of the Children (Scotland) Bill parents are told: "You can't be violent towards your child". Maybe the courts will have to determine the difference between being violent and assaulting someone, but violence is spelt out in the new amendment. I hope that it will find favour in your Lordships' House.

The original amendment was proposed by the Scottish Law Commission. With the greatest respect to the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission in England, I do not believe that everyone should kneel down when they make a pronouncement. We must look at it in its proper context. The amendment appears to meet the earlier criticisms which were made of the original amendment. Speaking from this side of the House, we are able to support it. It is not perfect; no amendment will ever be perfect. We could come back on Third Reading with another one. But in so far as we seek a compromise which will give statutory protection to children and send a message to parents, particularly irresponsible parents, we have probably struck the right balance in the amendment. I support it.

Lady Kinloss

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Henderson. He explained the reasons and the need for it very clearly. ChildLine Scotland reported that a high proportion of the children who telephone identify physical punishment as their main problem. It also said that some of the children felt sad; they tried to find reasons for the emotional, as well as the physical, pain that they felt. Some felt that it must be their fault, although they could not understand why or what they had done to deserve such severe punishment. They often found the emotional pain harder to bear than the physical pain. The problem with emotional pain is that it is probably harder to detect. A few even said that they had reached the point where they no longer wanted to live. That is tragic. Surely these children must be listened to and somehow helped. A vast majority of the children are reported as saying that they just wanted the hurt to stop but did not want their families to split up. I support the amendment.

4.30 p.m.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, I am extremely concerned about this amendment. I have given it a great deal of thought. Trespassing on railway property is one of the few cases for which trespass exists as an offence in Scotland. The reason for that protection under Scottish law is that it brought danger to the people who trespassed; it is not for any other reason. It is against the law in Scotland to trespass on railway or aircraft property—and quite rightly.

What does a parent do if a child commits that offence on several occasions? That child must be punished. A child may deliberately run in front of traffic. In the old days, if the police caught you doing that, you usually received a cuff on the ear. You did not dare tell your father about it in case you got a cuff on the other ear. I would argue that it did not do us any harm. Let us remember that children today are not perfect. They need to be punished from time to time. There is, for example, a problem with drugs.

I am very unhappy about this clause for another reason. I do not want parents who get fed up with their children, and for no other reason, to be able to fall back on Clause 51 and ask the local authority to place the child under compulsory measures of supervision. There is that risk. The clause provides for compulsory supervision where the child, is beyond the control of any relevant person", or, is falling into bad associations", or is likely to "suffer unnecessarily" or be impaired in some way.

The only alternative punishment available to a parent is to leave a child in the corner of a room facing the corner for several hours. That is far more cruel than is a good, hard slap across the backside with a soft slipper, or depriving the child of food. I am thinking back to my own childhood and that of many of my contemporaries. Those were the punishments that I disliked, because they left one with an awfully bitter taste in the mouth.

I realise the point of what was said. But where a child has deliberately put his or her life at risk or done something utterly stupid, we must give the responsible parent the power physically to punish that child in some way. Sometimes the alternatives to physical punishment can have a far more serious effect upon the child.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, am I interpreting his remarks correctly? Is he saying that violence on the part of the parent is an essential ingredient for the control of the child?

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, if a child deliberately disobeys its parents' orders, yes.

Lord Young of Dartington

My Lords, I support this amendment. I put it to the noble Earl who just spoke that there is a considerable difference between the father whom he brought before us who gives a child a cuff across the ear, and the stepfather. I wonder whether the noble Earl would feel the same way and make the same remarks with such confidence about a stepfather. An important fact needs to be borne in mind by those who are against this amendment. The families of today are very different from the kind of families that existed in the past; and they are still changing at a rapid rate—in the view of many of us, not in a favourable direction.

To go back 25 years, the great majority of children were brought up during their years of dependence by their natural parents. The proportion of children lucky enough to be brought up by their natural parents until they are 16 has fallen steadily and very fast in recent years. The proportion is now not much higher than 50 per cent. Soon, on the basis of the trends observed, only a minority of children will have the good fortune to be brought up until the age of 16 by both their natural parents together. It is a dreadful thought. It means that more and more children, although brought up by one natural parent (usually it is the mother, but sometimes the father) may have to put up with a series of step-parents and the like. Temporary relationships are becoming more and more common. The natural impulses and bonds that bind natural parents to their own children cannot apply with anything like the same force to those who are not the natural parents. Unfortunately we have heard too many stories in recent years about the abuse that children can suffer—not so much from stepmothers, but from stepfathers, who are very much in evidence now in our society.

It is important that this House should recognise the fact that children are not now protected by natural impulses in the way that they once were—as well as the arguments that were put forward by other proponents of this amendment, and at least put it on record that we are against subjecting children to the kind of violence to which they can be subjected, and are most liable to, when it is not their natural parents who are responsible for them. I urge noble Lords to give very serious consideration to this amendment. Even though it may not accord with their natural inclinations to support something like this, I urge them to think again and to be prepared to give it their support.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I shall be very brief. I was not able to be present at all at Committee stage, so I have not joined in this discussion. There is no question that the problem in Scotland is probably greater than it is in England and Wales. There is no question that there is still a lot of violence to children. We know that that violence goes on to affect the next generation. I know that from my own experience.

On the other hand, noble Lords talk about the relationship of ordinary parents to ordinary children. It is very important, given that we are not elected and when some of us are not as closely in touch with ordinary parents and children in all sorts of homes as we were or might be, not to suggest that legislation that includes a provision that is so far from what people understand and will be happy about is likely to work.

I have been trying to imagine how I would explain the amendment to ordinary parents of ordinary children in relation to what they are and are not allowed to do. It is possible to explain the present law on the question of assault, though I understand that will be repealed by this provision. I shall be interested to know whether my noble friend on the Front Bench feels that the amendment is sufficiently different technically from the last amendment to enable it to be more easily explained to parents.

I am not happy about the amendment. I cannot imagine how one will explain to parents that they must not hit their children with any "other object"—what the object is will be discussed by the court. How can we explain "momentary pain or discomfort"? I am not happy about it. However, I am ready to be convinced and shall listen to what my noble friend says.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I am not sure that I heard her correctly—I apologise if I did not. I believe she suggested that there is more violence inflicted towards children in Scotland than there is in England and Wales. On what basis does she make that assertion?

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I do not know whether any research has been done. I thought it was generally understood that that was so and that we were extremely worried about it. I may be wrong and the noble Lord doubtless knows much more about it than I do.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, this amendment is a sort of little sister to the one moved at Report stage in another place and then again at Committee stage in the Moses Room when Divisions were not possible.

As the Ministers, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, explained, the remedies already available in Scotland through the law on assault make the amendment unnecessary. I do not believe it will take us any further. People who know already what is and what is not permissible, and who obey the law as it stands, will hear the message of the amendment. It may confuse them and raise difficulties. Those who really need to hear the message of the amendment will not hear it now any more than they are already aware of what the existing law requires.

Something else worries me. The Bill is not a bad Bill as it stands. It is likely to receive its Third Reading next week and will thereafter return to another place for our amendments to be agreed or disagreed—only eight days before we rise for the Summer Recess. If any amendments are made in this House with which the other place is unable to agree, we shall start a "ping-pong" for which there is no time before we rise for the Recess. If the Bill does not receive Royal Assent before we rise and if anything were to befall the Government before we return in October, we should lose the Bill. We have all worked hard for it and Scotland needs it urgently—indeed, it has needed it for the past five years or longer. I hope therefore that noble Lords who tabled the amendment will not press it. However, if it is pressed I shall vote against it.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Hope of Craighead

My Lords, I wish to add a brief word to what my noble friend Lady Saltoun said. In this difficult matter I urge your Lordships not to underestimate the width and flexibility of the common law in Scotland on assault. The court over which I preside hears cases which involve violence to children. We describe them as cases of assault because that is the way in which our law is defined. However, we do not find it difficult to detect cases where—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton—abusive forms of severe punishment have been used. Where something of that kind has taken place, then to the mind of the Scottish criminal lawyer, in my experience, it suggests that an assault has been committed.

The difficulty we all share is, in the end, one of evidence; bringing cases before the court and making use of the common law which already exists to protect children against violence. For those reasons, I support the view expressed by my noble friend.

Lord Annan

My Lords, no one doubts that children often deserve to be punished; but there are different ways of doing it apart from physically assaulting them. That is the main argument behind the amendment. Again, when it is said that parents will not get the message from the amendment, I do not imagine that many Scottish parents who at the moment hit their children with various weapons actually read the legislation. However, if the amendment is passed, they will find the police at their door and they will then get the message—and it is an important message.

My noble and learned friend said that the common law of Scotland on assault is adequate. If that is so, why has the research and all the evidence raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, been accumulated? It suggests either that the common law on assault is not adequate or, if it is adequate, it is being ignored by the authorities. That is another reason why I hope the amendment will be accepted.

I hope your Lordships do not accept the argument that this amendment is so serious that it would be a menace to the Bill if it were accepted because it would put it back to another place. If the government timetable is such that that occurs, then that is the fault of the Government or of the "usual channels". That is not a substantive argument and can be used in almost every case when amendments which are in the faintest degree controversial are tabled and moved.

On several occasions in recent years the European Court of Justice has notably disagreed with the British common law on matters of this kind. If the amendment is not accepted, I suspect that once again we shall be hauled in front of the European Court and once again humiliated over our attitude on matters of common humanity.

Perhaps I can conclude by saying that the land of my forebears does not put itself on a par with that diehard citadel of corporal punishment, the Isle of Man. The message from the amendment is, "Throw out the tawse".

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, we have had a long and important debate on this matter, but as has already been made clear in Committee, the Government are of the view that the law as it stands already offers sufficient protection to children from assault by parents, teachers or others who have charge of them. That view was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, in Committee, though I realise that he has shifted his opinions today.

Like earlier amendments which were considered here and in another place, there are dangers in seeking to amend the existing law in the way proposed by the new clause. Like earlier versions, the new clause would place unnecessary constraints on the power and the flexibility of the courts to take all the circumstances of each case into consideration. This has proved to be a key factor in recent case history. I emphasise that point. Cases cited by the Crown Office show that the courts take all the circumstances of the case into account. It is the reasonableness of the punishment rather than whether an implement has been used which is the key factor in their determination.

Another principal concern with the new clause is that, because of the wording in subsection (1), it appears to go much further than what was recommended by the Scottish Law Commission. It appears to make it unlawful for a parent to punish a child reasonably. My other concern with subsection (1) is that it is defective. It does not say whether to submit a child to violence constitutes a criminal offence. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, pointed out, it leaves an important area of uncertainty with regard to the relationship between this provision and the general law of assault. On this point I am very grateful for the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who, as noble Lords will know, is the Lord Justice-General. Noble Lords should bear in mind his knowledge, experience and wisdom in this matter in assessing their reaction to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, suggested that Scottish common law is deficient if, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, pointed out, there is evidence to justify such an amendment. I would point out that the problem is not the difficulty of defining the punishment. The problem is the difficulty of obtaining the evidence and corroborating that evidence.

There are other deficiencies about the wording in subsection (2) which were pointed out by my noble and learned friend in Committee. The courts would have some difficulties in interpreting subsection (2) (b) (ii). What is meant by, more than momentary pain or discomfort"? That seems hard to tease out and would give rise to uncertainty. More importantly, since the test would arise where there was no injury, it is extremely hard to see how anyone could ever tell whether the pain or discomfort lasted more than a moment or indeed risked doing so. Again, what is meant by "injury" in subsection (2) (b) (i)? Does it mean only physical injury? If so, would it include a bruise?

A number of very important observations have been made against the amendment. In that regard I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Balfour and Lady Carnegy, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, with his knowledge on these matters. As with earlier versions, the new clause contains a number of deficiencies which mean that the Government could not possibly accept it.

I end where I began. The law as it stands, both statutory law and common law, is sufficient to protect children from assault by parents, teachers or others in charge of children. There are offence provisions in the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 as well as common assault. The common law offers a certain flexibility which might be lost by incorporating this new clause into law. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord and his supporters to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may ask whether this amended clause has the support of the Scottish Law Commission.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I am not able to answer that question. I do not know.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It certainly exposed any difference between the two sides, which I should like to encapsulate by saying that there are some noble Lords, including the Lord Justice-General, who seem to presume that the existing law, whether common law or statute law, is sufficient to curb violence in the home while the other party, if I may describe a number of noble Lords as a party, are of the opinion that the evidence which I adduced for the United Kingdom surely shows that the existing law is not sufficient to protect children from violence in the home. I could say to the House, like the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, that I am proud to have Scottish forebears. In fact, all my four grandparents were Scottish. That is about as good a ticket as I can give to the House as a recommendation for my speaking on a Scottish Bill.

I find the view that the existing law is not sufficient to protect children in the home from violence prevails against those who think that the law is sufficient already. I remind your Lordships that this House gave a lead to the House of Commons by inserting into the criminal law of the country a provision that corporal punishment in schools should not be allowed. The House of Commons agreed to the Lords amendment and that is now the law of the land. If it is the law of the land that corporal punishment is not allowed in schools, surely it cannot be difficult—I say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour—to explain to parents that if it is not allowed in schools, a fortiori, it should not be allowed in the home. We want to improve the culture on the subject of violence which was changed in the schools and to make the same change in the home.

I very much hope that the change in the culture of violence which we initiated in this House with regard to schools will be followed by this amendment which will change, I hope, the violent culture in the homes of the country. I commend the amendment to the House.

4.57 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Hughes, L.
Allen of Abbeydale, L.	Irvine of Lairg, L.
Annan, L.	Jay, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Jeger, B.
Barnett, L.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Judd, L.
Birk, B.	Kennet, L.
Bridges, L.	Kilbracken, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Carter, L.	Lockwood, B.
Castle of Blackburn, B.	Longford, E.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Macaulay of Bragar, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	McConnell, L.
David, B. [Teller.]	Mclntosh of Haringey, L.
Desai, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Diamond, L.	Mar and Kellie, E.
Dubs, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Eatwell, L.	Merlyn-Rees, L.
Ewing of Kirkford, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Monkswell, L.
Foot, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Freyberg, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L
Gallacher, L.	Nicol, B.
Geraint, L.	Palmer, L.
Gibson, L.	Peston, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Glenamara, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.	Rix,L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Gregson, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Hanworth, V.	Seear, B.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Shepherd, L.
Haskel, L.	Simon, V.
Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]	Stedman, B.
	Strabolgi, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Taylor of Gryfe.L.

Tenby, V.	Wharton, B.
Thurlow, L.	White, B.
Tordoff, L.	Wigoder, L.
Wallace of Coslany, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Wedderburn of Charlton, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Whaddon, L.	Young of Dartington, L

NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Lindsay, E.
Ailsa, M.	Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Aldenham, L.	Long, V. [Teller]
Aldington, L.	Lucas, L.
Ampthill, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.	Lyell, L.
	McColl of Dulwich, L.
Astor of Hever, L.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Balfour, E.	Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Belhaven and Stenton, L.
Beloff, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Bethell, L.	Marlesford, L.
Blake, L.	Merrivale, L.
Blaker, L.	Mersey, V.
Blatch, B.	Miller of Hendon, B.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Milverton, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Monson, L.
Brentford, V.	Mottistone, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Burnham, L.	Moyne, L.
Cadman, L.	Munster, E.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Nelson, E.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.	Norrie, L.
Chesham, L.	Northesk, E.
Clark of Kempston, L.	O'Cathain, B.
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]	Orkney, E.
	Oxfuird, V.
Cross, V.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Cumberlege, B.	Pender, L.
Davidson, V.	Pike,B.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Platt of Writtle.B.
Denham, L.	Pym, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Donegall, M.	Rawlings, B.
Eccles, V.	Rees, L.
Eccles of Moulton, B.	Renton, L
Eden of Winton, L.	Renwick, L.
Elibank, L.	Rodger of Earlsferry, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Elles, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Savile, L.
Ferrers, E.	Seccombe, B.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Shannon, E.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Sharpies, B.
Geddes, L.	Shaw of Northstead, L.
Goschen, V.	Skelmersdale, L.
Grey, E.	Skidelsky, L.
Halsbury, E.	Slim, V.
Harding of Pethetton, L.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Hayhoe, L.	Stewartby, L.
Henley, L.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Hesketh, L.	Strange, B.
Holderness, L.	Strathcarron, L.
HolmPatrick, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Hooper, B.	Sudeley, L.
Hope of Craighead, L.	Swinfen, L.
Hothfield, L.	Swinton, E.
Huntly, M.	Teviot, L.
Inglewood, L. [Teller.]	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Killearn, L.	Trumpington, B.
Kimball, L.	Vinson, L.
Kingsland, L.	Westbury, L.
Kintore, E.	Wise, L.
Leigh, L.	Wyatt of Weeford.L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.5 p.m.

Clause 4 [Acquisition of parental rights and responsibilities by natural father]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 3, line 48, after ("Where") insert ("a child's mother has not been deprived of some or all of the parental responsibilities and parental rights in relation to him and").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. These amendments make clear two points about the parental responsibilities agreements which are provided for by Clause 4. First, that a mother can only enter into a parental responsibilities agreement with the unmarried father of her child if she has not been deprived of any of her parental responsibilities and rights by a court order. Secondly, that an agreement will take effect only when it is registered in the Books of Council and Session. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:

Page 3, line 48, leave out ("a child's") and insert ("his").

Page 4, line 1, leave out ("date of the agreement") and insert ("appropriate date").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these two amendments when moving Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 4, line 6, at end insert: ("() executed before a relevant person; and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. This is a provision which should be put into the Bill to make sure that when parents make agreements about parentage and so forth, to put it quite colloquially, it confirms that they know what they are doing. At Committee stage I believe that the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, suggested that perhaps a notary public would not be available in, for example, a remote country area.

The reasoning behind these two amendments is to broaden the scope of the people before whom an agreement can be executed. We have a notary public who, basically, is a solicitor and a justice of the peace. I do not believe that one can move anywhere in Scotland without bumping into a justice of the peace or a sheriff clerk. These are not matters of great urgency. They will not be decided within an hour or two. In making the arrangements it gives the persons involved the opportunity to go before people of responsibility who can question them as to the identity of the parents. There will not be much difficulty with the mother, particularly if she has not given birth, but that is another matter. As regards the father, the provision is to make sure that the parties are properly designated and that they have the capacity to enter into an agreement.

It is quite obvious that a notary public, a justice of the peace or a sheriff clerk are persons who can judge, broadly speaking, whether people know what they are doing and what commitments they are entering into. By allowing this amendment, it will also provide a certain amount of safeguard for the child of the parties involved in the agreement. I beg to move.

The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)

My Lords, these amendments are similar to provisions brought forward in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. At that stage, my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie agreed that parents who are about to undertake a parental responsibilities and rights agreement should give due thought and consideration before doing so. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree with that. It was also confirmed at that stage that it is correct that the process should involve a formal step. Nonetheless, the Government remain of the view that that is already achieved in the existing arrangements of Clause 4, and particularly in subsection (2). As my noble and learned friend made clear in Committee, in producing the guidance notes which will accompany the agreement forms it is the Government's intention to make it clear to such parents that they are taking a substantial step which will involve a change in their status and that they may therefore wish to take legal advice on it before committing themselves.

Nonetheless, the Government are not convinced that the amendments are required, or are even sufficient, to ensure that the parents obtain legal advice. They would involve the parties in additional effort and cost, depending on whether there was a "relevant person" near where they live. I notice that the amendment as now drafted seems in part to cater for the point that was made in Committee about how the provisions would work if one party was located in England and the other in Scotland. However, we are not quite sure that its terms are entirely appropriate. That is because the amendment simply requires the agreement to be signed before a relevant person such as a notary public. In other words, the notary public is simply acting as a witness. There is no requirement upon that person to ascertain whether the person signing the document appreciates what it is that he is signing. That is completely different from the situation ordinarily when a document requires to be sworn before a notary and it does not ensure that legal advice is obtained by the parents.

For that reason, the Government remain of the view that the existing provisions are sufficient. We have already given a commitment to keep the process as straightforward as possible. We believe that the provisions are sufficient, and in those circumstances I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, it is nice to hear the Government talk about Clause 4 because we stopped doing that some time ago. I am advised that the cost of executing a notarial document is less than £40. The cost of getting married in civil ceremony is £66, and the registration of a marriage costs £27. I am not very good at arithmetic, but that amounts to about £90. Therefore, I cannot see why providing that additional protection for those involved, and especially for the child, is not acceptable to the Government. It is all very well for "alleged parents"—if I can put it that way—to do such things, but it is the child who is most centrally involved. I cannot see why building in another wall of defence for the child (who has no part in the proceedings) should be so firmly resisted by the Government. We shall, as usual, read with interest what the Minister has said; but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:

Page 4, line 7, at end insert ("while the mother still has the parental responsibilities and parental rights which she had when the agreement was made").

Page 4, line 7, at end insert: ("() The date on which such registration as is mentioned in subsection (2) (b) above takes place shall be the "appropriate date" for the purposes of subsection (1) above.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]

Clause 6 [Views of children]:

[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

5.15 p.m.

Clause 11 [Court orders relating to parental responsibilities etc.]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 9, line 27, leave out paragraph (b) and insert: ("(b) taking account of the child's age and maturity, shall so far as practicable—

1. (i) give him an opportunity to indicate whether he wishes to express his views;
2. (ii) if he does so wish, give him an opportunity to express them; and
3. (iii) have regard to such views as he may express.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 16.

I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for the suggestion that has led to these amendments. In his capacity as Lord President of the Court of Session, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, thinks that the Bill should provide sufficient policy guidance for him to make appropriate rules of court concerning the taking of the views of the child. The noble and learned Lord drew attention to the text of Article 12(2) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which says, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard".

We have also borne in mind that where a very young child is concerned, the court or the children's hearing must not be bound to go through the motions of trying to ascertain his or her views.

We have therefore produced what we think is an appropriate formula to provide that the court and children's hearing have a duty as far as practicable both to allow the child the opportunity to indicate a wish to express a view, and if the child does so indicate, to obtain his or her views. Having done so, they must have regard to these views.

In relation to Amendment No. 16, I should add that if your Lordships accept the new clause after Clause 64, which deals with warrants for the further detention of a child, I would consider it appropriate at Third Reading to make proceedings under that clause subject to the same provisions relating to taking the child's views as other proceedings mentioned in Clause 16. I beg to move.

Lord Hope of Craighead

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for accepting the advice, which I gave on behalf of the court, that the amendment should be brought forward. As far as we are concerned, it achieves something useful because it separates the giving of the opportunity on the one hand, for which we shall have to make careful rules, and the method by which the views may be expressed if the child wishes to express them. That too will have to be subject to careful rules. The way in which the provisions are now framed is in accordance with what we would wish to see and assists clarity in rule-making functions, which is my principal concern.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 9, line 29, at end insert: ("() shall consider if it is necessary to appoint a person to ascertain the views of the child in the proceedings.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. Amendment No. 11 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 12 and 170. Indeed, Amendment No. 170 is consequential upon Amendment Nos. 11 and 12. The amendments seek to build into the legislation a means of allowing a child's views to be heard and dealt with. As we all know from experience, various sheriffs—and perhaps judges in the High Court—take different approaches to talking to children and finding out their views. Most of the time that is done behind closed doors when a judge, particularly in civil cases, asks a child what he thinks about what is going to happen, and who he likes or does not like.

The amendment has been tabled to take the child out of the adversarial process and to provide another safeguard to ensure that the child's views are properly represented in the proceedings. If a suitable person is appointed to speak for and to represent the child outwith the court, that will make the proceedings much more satisfactory from everyone's point of view and the child will not need to be seen by the judge in chambers or whatever. The amendments have been tabled to benefit those children who are unfortunately involved in adversarial proceedings between their parents, whether married or otherwise. I beg to move.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, those of your Lordships who were involved in the earlier stage of the Bill will be aware that the theme of the Bill is the importance of taking into account children's views. The procedures as to how the child's views are obtained are just as much a matter of court procedure and practice as if the child were giving evidence in court. As my noble and learned friend said in Committee, the Sheriff Court Rules Council has been considering how best to achieve that end. Work on the preparation of one of the necessary rules of court has already begun.

As your Lordships will be aware, it is the normal practice to leave the detail of such issues to be carried into effect through rules of court. Considerable expertise is available in the Sheriff Court Rules Council. That council includes among its members practitioners experienced in family law and lay members as well as members of the judiciary. It is well-versed in the preparation of provisions which relate to procedure.

In preparing such rules of court, the views of interested parties and experts are sought through both formal and informal consultation. The Government amendment to Clause 11 is designed to facilitate just such preparation of rules of court which will allow for the kinds of situations set out and dealt with in the amendment. Given that it is normal to leave such matters to rules of court, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation which had an air of sympathy about it. We shall have to see in due course what the rules of court say. The amendments emphasise matters which persons who are preparing the rules of court should take into consideration, because the Bill is the last chance that the children of Scotland will have for a long time to have themselves put in a proper position and to be represented properly in all proceedings relating to their welfare and future.

As I say, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for giving that explanation. We look forward to seeing what the rules of court say. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 10, line 8, at end insert: ("() Any court which has made an order under subsections (1) or (2) above may issue with that order an explanatory statement detailing—

1. (a) the nature and effect of the order; and
2. (b) the manner in which the order relates to orders of custody or access which would have been granted by any court prior to the coming into force of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is self explanatory. When an order is made there may be some confusion about the question of custody, access, and residence in the international courts. The reasoning behind the amendment is that the court should give an explanation of the reasons lying behind any decision it makes within the terms of Clause 11 in relation to custody and access. I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, I am worried about the amendment. It reads: prior to the coming into force of this Act". It has been my experience when dealing with legislation in your Lordships' House that different bits of an Act are brought into force at different times. If the amendment were to be considered, the words should read: prior to the coming into force of this part of this Act". Otherwise, I feel that the amendment will lie on the shelf for an incredibly long time.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I can understand why the noble Lord has tabled the amendment, but I can give my noble friend Lord Balfour some immediate reassurance and say that I am not convinced that the amendment is necessary.

First, although I am aware that sheriffs do on occasion provide a note explaining the reason for their decisions, it is not the same as one which explains the nature and effect of the order. Secondly, I believe that it should be for the legal adviser to the party who is the subject of the order to explain the nature and effect of the order to his or her client. That reflects the current position. Lastly, I would hope that (following rules of court and procedure guidance which will arise after the Bill is enacted) orders made by the courts under subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 11 will be clear as respects their nature and effect.

As regards how a Clause 11 order would relate to existing orders for custody or access, orders for custody or access would be superseded by an order under Clause 11(1) or (2). For instance, if a person applied for a "residence order" under Clause 11(2), that order would, in effect, overtake any existing order for custody. In addition, Clause 15(2) makes it clear that where, before Clause 11 comes into force, a final decree has been made in relation to a custody or access order, any application to vary or recall that order is to be treated as if it has been made under Clause 11.

The thrust of the Bill is that all new orders, or variations of existing orders, should be in terms of Clause 11. So the position is quite clear and, I would suggest, means that there is no real need for this amendment. On the basis of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, I listened with interest to that explanation, but I am not sure that it meets the problem in relation to international law. The words "custody", "access", "residence", and "contact" are used in the Bill. I am sure that the noble Earl is well aware that the essence of the Bill in relation to children is the making of a residence order and an order for contact with the parents. The amendment was put down so that from the international point of view it will be clear what is meant by the words "residence" and "contact".

Schedule 3 paragraph 40(2) and paragraph 36(3) mention the words "residence", "contact", "custody" and "access". They are all mixed up and that might not be understood by people outwith Scotland. We have an international convention on child abduction and a European convention on the recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning the custody of children. The amendment has been put down to ensure that if any order is made by a court, which has to go to a foreign court, the foreign court should have no doubt about what is meant by the words "residence" and "contact".

I hope that the Government will have a look at this matter because it could lead to great confusion. As we know from child abduction and custody cases, which are reported day in and day out in the newspapers, there is sometimes a great deal of confusion about what those words mean. It is not difficult for a judge to spell out what he means when he talks about "residence" and "contact". If it means custody or access, let him say that so that the matter can be dealt with properly. With those observations, which I hope the Government will take away and look at, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.30 p.m.

Clause 15 [Interpretation of Part I]:

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 12, line 15, at end insert ("(except that, for the purposes of subsection (5) (b) below, paragraph (d) of the definition in question shall be disregarded)").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 14 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. These are drafting amendments which are designed to remove unnecessary language from the definition of a transaction as it currently appears in Clause 15. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 12, line 37, leave out ("having legal effect").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 16 [Welfare of child and consideration of his views]:

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 13, line 12, leave out from ("sheriff') to ("without") in line 14 and insert:(", taking account of the age and maturity of the child concerned, shall so far as practicable—

1. (a) give him an opportunity to indicate whether he wishes to express his views;
2. (b) if he does so wish, give him an opportunity to express them; and
3. (c) have regard to such views as he may express; and").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 14, line 5, after ("decision") insert:(", provided that the best interests of the child concerned shall remain a primary consideration of the children's hearing").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 17 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 which echo the same theme. Some people may believe the amendment is philosophical rather than practical. Within the context of the statutory provision, it re-emphasises that the best interests of the child shall remain a primary consideration of the hearing.

The word "paramount" has crept into the Bill and Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 make clear that, within the context of the legislation, people dealing with children should remember that the best interests of the child, as distinct from the paramount interests, shall remain a primary consideration of the hearing. The inclusion of the amendments will not harm the legislation. I beg to move.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, the exception to the paramountcy principle in Clause 16 (for the courts and children's hearing) and also in Clause 17 (for local authorities) has been discussed at previous stages of the Bill. The question of paramountcy has not crept into the Bill; the word "paramount" has been part of the legislation relating to children for about 70 years and is an important aspect.

The Bill is essentially about the welfare and protection of children and it clearly establishes and endorses the paramountcy of the child's welfare. It makes only one exception; to protect members of the public from serious harm. That is a protection which they have every right to expect.

The key point is that Clause 16(5) is not about giving hearings and courts powers to take specific action in relation to a child but rather it provides hearings and courts with a power to do something which would not put the welfare of the child as the paramount concern. That in itself is not a separate power to send a child to secure accommodation or to place the child under a supervision requirement. It opens the way to the body exercising its functions, for which succeeding provisions of the Bill provide specific authority.

It is important to see Clause 16(5) in its context. It does not stand on its own; it provides flexibility for a sheriff or a hearing to make appropriate decisions under the relevant legislation where children threaten members of the public with harm. This is not some draconian measure which will allow hearings and courts carte blanche to deal with children as they see fit. They would have to exercise their powers in accordance with the legislative provisions and in doing so the welfare of the child would continue to be a consideration but not the paramount one.

With that reassurance I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and in due course I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Perhaps at this point I may raise the question of progress in your Lordships' House. It is no one's fault that today we have to deal with two Scottish Bills, one directly following the other. As regards this Bill, we have about 80 groups of amendments to deal with. Even with the best will in the world, and if the amendments sail through, the Government having taken on board the suggestions that we made in Committee, we shall need about four hours to debate this Bill. I do not mind working late because I am in the Palace in any event but four hours from now is half past nine. I believe that it would be wrong to begin debate on a Bill as serious as the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill at that time. It contains a serious clause about hearsay evidence in criminal matters and other Members of your Lordships' House may wish to speak on that.

I suggest that the House adjourns for a short time in order that we can discuss whether the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill should proceed after debates on this Bill are concluded. It would be wrong to consider such a serious Bill at ten o'clock at night. Indeed, the Children (Scotland) Bill is equally important. Perhaps we could adjourn the House for five minutes.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, many of the government amendments to the Children (Scotland) Bill are technical and therefore some groups will be dealt with very quickly. I suggest that we press on with the Bill because discussions with the usual channels are being initiated. We shall receive a response from them in due course.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, I am grateful for that assurance. We shall see how matters proceed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]

Clause 17 [Duty of local authority to child looked after by them]:

[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]

The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 20:

Page 15, line 6, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 8.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I apologise to my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench because I have had no opportunity to discuss the amendment with him. However, I must explain the position. It is a consequential amendment which arises because of the sensible government Amendment No. 124. That deletes the reference to a "relevant local authority" in Clause 68(3) and moves it, under Amendment No. 165, to Clause 90, which is the interpretation clause dealing with Part II.

The definition of a "relevant local authority" is now fully described in Amendment No. 165 and is inserted in its correct alphabetical position in Clause 90. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the government amendments make the legislation easier to read and understand.

As well as this amendment, which I spotted because of my own cross-referencing in the Bill, Amendments Nos. 122, 125, 127 and 128 are all consequential. I beg to move.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I am happy to accept Amendment No. 20 moved by my noble friend Lord Balfour which is consequential to the moving of the definition of "relevant local authority" from Clause 68(3) to the definition in Clause 90.

Having accepted that amendment, it may be appropriate to speak now to government Amendments Nos. 122, 124, 125, 127, 128 and 165. These are all minor clarifying amendments of the same nature as that moved by my noble friend.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 21:

Page 15, line 8, at end insert ("and for whom they are providing accommodation.").

The noble Lady said: My Lords, this is a purely probing amendment. It serves to limit the use of the term "looked after" to only those children and young people who are accommodated away from the family home.

One of the underlying principles of the Bill is to minimise the role of the state and to maximise parents' ability to continue to exercise their rights and responsibilities in relation to the care of their children. The effect of the recent change introduced by the Government in Committee is that a child subject to a supervision requirement at home will now be regarded as being "looked after" by a local authority. Parents may well view that as both confusing and over-intrusive, where the local authority's duty under Clause 68(2) is only from time to time to investigate that any conditions imposed by the supervision requirement are being fulfilled. That does not really mean that the local authority is looking after the child.

There is also scope for confusion from the point of view of the local authority. Does the duty under Clause 68(2) limit or circumscribe any duty of care owed to the child under common law? Would it not be possible to clarify that position in the Bill while at the same time allowing those children and young people subject to supervision in relevant accommodation access to aftercare and other support from local authorities? I beg to move.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I see difficulties in the inclusion of children subject to a domestic supervision requirement under Clause 68(2) (a) in the category of "looked after" children. Will such children be entitled to claim aftercare under Clause 28? I wonder whether the Minister has calculated the numbers of such children and the scale of the costs involved. I am advised by the Association of Directors of Social Work that the costs of including those children could amount to £8.77 million. I wonder whether provision will be made in the Bill for that sum. While there is no problem if that provision is to be made, children should be re-categorised if adequate provision is not being made for them.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, I listened with care to what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said. I have some sympathy for her position. I know that it is a probing amendment but, nevertheless, it would have the effect of removing from local authority responsibilities and services the children who are subject to compulsory measures of supervision at home.

Clause 17 sets out a duty that a local authority has to children looked after by it. The intention is that this clause should embrace all categories of children who receive services or assistance or for whom local authorities have responsibilities under the Bill: that is, those who are accommodated, those who are subject to compulsory supervision and those who are subject to an order or warrant under the Bill.

Where a child is subject to a supervision requirement but continues to live at home, his parents still have a fundamentally important part to play in the upbringing of the child—and I am sure that that is what the noble Lady would wish. But in making a supervision requirement, the children's hearing will have concluded that the child has needs which the local authority has a role in meeting. I suggest to your Lordships that we cannot ignore the needs of such children and the duty which local authorities should have to them. It is a matter for the children's hearing to decide whether that is so in all the circumstances.

Most importantly, I should emphasise that by including children in the general category of being "looked after", we ensure that they qualify for all appropriate services. One such potentially important service is aftercare.

By redefining the category of children covered by Clause 17(6) (b), the noble Lady would be depriving any child who was subject to a home supervision requirement at school-leaving age of receiving continued support under the aftercare provisions of Clause 28. I should observe that aftercare is already a duty under the 1968 Act in cases of home supervision. I am sure that the noble Lady will agree that such children might well require further advice, guidance and assistance from the local authority. Therefore, it would be unfortunate if such an amendment were made which would have the undesirable repercussion of depriving the children of that advice and so on. I hope that with that explanation, the noble Lady will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

5.45 p.m.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 22: After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:

("Duty of local authority to child not looked after by them

.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 17 above, where under or by virtue of this Part of this Act, a local authority decide any matter with respect to a child, the welfare of that child throughout his childhood shall be their paramount consideration.

(2) In making any such decision a local authority shall have regard so far as practicable to the views (if he wishes to express them) of the child concerned, taking account of his age and maturity; and without prejudice to the generality of this subsection a child twelve years of age or more shall be presumed to be of sufficient age and maturity to form a view.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment follows on from the previous amendment. It attempts to define the duties of the local authority to children who are not categorised as "looked after" but are in receipt of social work intervention. That includes children in need and children in refuges.

Clause 17 provides clearly that "looked after" children shall be treated with their interests as paramount, but there seems to be no corresponding duty to children in need in the community or in refuges. While the amendment would resolve that problem, I wonder whether there is an error or omission from the Bill. I beg to move.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, the noble Earl has raised a number of interesting points in moving this amendment. I assure him that there is no error or omission. He is right to suggest that when local authorities are contemplating taking action or providing services under Part II of the Bill, there will be many circumstances in which they should seek the child's views.

I believe also that the child's welfare should be a matter of considerable concern in any dealings which a local authority has with a child or the parents. But I am less clear that it would be appropriate to place a specific duty on a local authority to have welfare as a paramount concern when the authority is not actually looking after the child and therefore has no formal relationship with him.

I think that we have to differentiate rather carefully between public intervention in the life of a child or family and the simple provision of support services. The noble Earl's proposed clause would bite wherever and whenever a local authority were considering any action under Part II. I believe that writing such a sweeping provision into primary legislation would run a very serious risk of creating such a heavy and onerous requirement on local authorities that they would find real difficulty in meeting its terms and delivering their services—and in meeting priority needs. It is too prescriptive and would require a degree of consultation and interaction between the authorities and individuals which would probably prove impracticable.

I believe that the best of what the noble Earl seeks will be obtained through good practice and through guidance where that is necessary. However, they are not matters for the face of the Bill. On the basis of those reassurances, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 [Local authority plans for services for children]:

The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 23:

Page 15, line 26, after ("services") insert ("and associated health and education services").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment is concerned with broadening the scale of children's service plans to include the education service and to bring in the health boards' provisions. That corporate planning should not be too difficult to co-ordinate as the two local authority departments and the health board each know what services they provide. I do not believe that it would be too difficult to produce an integrated plan to co-ordinate their existing services.

I have taken the point made in Committee that provisions by voluntary organisations will be too difficult to organise within the child service plan. However, I believe that the statutory agencies ought to be required to do so. I beg to move.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, at an earlier stage we discussed the extent and scope of the plans for child care services. On that occasion, the noble Earl moved an amendment to delete the word "relevant" and thus extend the planning requirement to include all services for children. I understand the wish to see services for children properly co-ordinated and well planned. But, nonetheless, the Government remain very firmly of the view that attempting to stretch the plans to include health and education is unrealistic and would be unhelpful.

We have now had some considerable experience in the preparation of strategic plans for community care services. Those services, like services for children, require careful planning and co-operation among a number of agencies. I think it is fair to say—although not a happy thing to say—that initial attempts which endeavoured to cover every single aspect resulted in the production of plans that were so lengthy and complex that they were almost incomprehensible. I very much fear that the amendment would have precisely the same result on the plans for child care services provided under the Bill.

The clause introduces a new requirement on local authorities. I hope that the plans which will be produced will be crisp, clear and well focused. The aim is that they should be key management tools capable of providing a broad, strategic overview of the development of child care services. They are strategic plans, not plans focused on the needs of any particular child and they should be seen in that context. I strongly believe that the amendment would not only be unhelpful but, on this occasion, would actually cause significant harm to the procedures which I understand the noble Earl is most concerned to see work well. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I am undoubtedly a little disappointed in the answer of the noble and learned Lord. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 [Publication of information about services for children]:

The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 24:

Page 16, line 29, at end insert:("; and () shall take such steps as are reasonable to ensure that all published information is made available to children and their families who may benefit; and () ensure that all published information is in a form which is accessible to likely users.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee mention was made of the fact that the child service plans may well contain much turgid detail. I believe that that is likely. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that an easily read guide to the local authority's child service plans is made available in most of the languages used in its area, including Braille. That wee booklet would be made available on demand and be displayed at community access points which local authorities will be setting up. They should also be given to all families receiving a service from the social work department.

There is still a general lack of knowledge about the scale of operations carried out by the social work department, the education department and the health board which I should have liked to include. The proposed booklet could reduce that knowledge gap. I beg to move.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, we introduced Clause 19 to the Bill as a government amendment in the Committee stage in this Chamber following debate on the matter in another place. It lays a clear duty on local authorities to publish information about services for children. Clause 19 has been welcomed as a useful addition.

However, I am not sure whether the noble Earl's proposed addition would add anything of further value, although he made some good points when introducing the amendment. He seeks to make local authorities responsible for bringing the information to children and families who may benefit, but has to acknowledge, of course, that local authorities will not necessarily know who all potential beneficiaries might be. It is therefore not possible to make the requirement an absolute duty, and the amendment rightly qualifies it by simply requiring the authority to take such steps as are reasonable. In effect therefore the first part of the amendment could equally well be covered in guidance, if necessary.

The second part of the amendment requires information to be published in a form which is accessible to likely users. The noble Earl, quite rightly, has a dislike of turgid information. Again, I am sure that it would be in a local authority's best interests to publish in an attractive and usable manner information about services for which they are accountable. It is through the publication of such information that residents in local authority areas see how their authorities respond to local needs. I should add that there are a number of local authorities which already produce their guides in different languages; indeed, there are some which also produce such information in Braille.

The Bill is considerably longer than it was when it was originally introduced. I am clear that we have been able to make a number of improvements to it. On the basis of what I have been able to tell the noble Earl, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he said, especially as he said that much of what I am looking for will in fact be included in guidance. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 [Promotion of welfare of children in need]:

The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 25:

Page 17, line 10, at end insert: ("() Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the services to be provided by the local authority under that subsection shall include services which—

1. (a) reduce the likelihood of a child requiring to be looked after by the local authority; and
2. (b) increase the likelihood of a child no longer requiring to be looked after by the local authority.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 26. The two amendments are designed to ensure that the local authority makes plans for preventive services and the back-up of community services. However, I am not clear why it is the Government's intention to leave that aspect of social work with children in the voluntary area. Will there at least be guidance that will cover and promote a full range of preventive and community services?

Amendment No. 26 deals with that vital resource of respite services. The Government have opposed the inclusion of respite services on the face of the Bill because, it would not be helpful to highlight one particular service in primary legislation"—[Official Report, 6/6/95; col. 54.] Yet the Government have recently introduced their own clause for a particular service—Clause 26—which deals with the provision of day care services.

Respite services are a key preventive service. It can be the vital service to keep families together and to further the development of their children. At present, huge gaps in respite services exist across Scotland with many families unable to access services. Practice demonstrates that government support for respite services is not enough. The need to provide such services must be recognised in children's legislation. Can the Minister please confirm that respite services will be part of children's service plans? I beg to move.

6 p.m.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, I can well understand the noble Earl's desire with Amendment No. 25 to require a local authority to include among the services which it provides those which will, reduce the likelihood of a child requiring to be looked after by the local authority; and increase the likelihood of a child no longer requiring to be looked after by the local authority". Nonetheless, we are of the view that services for those purposes can indeed be provided under Clause 21 as it stands. In safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in need, the local authority is also required to promote the upbringing of such children by their families by providing a range and level of services appropriate to the children's needs. That is a more positive way of achieving what Amendment No. 25 seeks to do. This matter will be covered in a range of guidance.

Amendment No. 26 calls for respite services to be specifically included within Clause 21. It has already been acknowledged that these services can play an important part in keeping families together. We would expect them to figure in children's services plans drawn up by local authorities. Nonetheless the Government still hold to the view that it is not only respite services which can be of great assistance in keeping families together, but there will be other services too. We have concerns about the possibility—we have said this on previous occasions—that specifying particular services within this clause could mean that other services not so specified would be held not to be included in the range of services a local authority will be required to provide. When one includes one provision, legal arguments can arise about others. Respite services are of course important but they will only be part of the range of services. For the reasons I have given it would not be appropriate to specify them. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, these services are important. I am pleased to hear that they will be specifically mentioned in guidance. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 27:

Page 17, line 25, after ("of") insert ("—(a)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, these three small amendments are a necessary reconciliation with the Jobseekers Act 1995 which received Royal Assent on 28th June. They are obviously important for consistency. I therefore commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 28:

Page 17, line 25, at end insert ("payable").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 when I moved Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 29:

Page 17, line 26, at end insert ("; or (b) an income-based jobseeker's allowance payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 22 [Children affected by disability]:

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 30:

Page 17, line 38, leave out subsection (2) and insert: ("(2) For the purposes of this Act—

1. (a) a child has a disability if he has a physical, mental, or sensory impairment which has a detrimental effect on his ability to carry out activities associated with the expected stage of development of children of a similar age without disability;
2. (b) 'impairment' means any damage to or loss or absence of a physiological, psychological or anatomical function; and
3. (c) an adult has a disability if he has a physical, mental or sensory impairment which has a detrimental effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities, including the normal activities involved in caring for a child.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to Clause 22 of the Bill. Clause 22(2) states, For the purposes of this Chapter of this Part a person is disabled if he is chronically sick or disabled or suffers from mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984). The Bill we are discussing is entitled Children (Scotland) Bill and the child for whose welfare we are all concerned suddenly becomes a person in this clause within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act which deals with adults who are unfortunate enough to have mental disorders. This amendment seeks to introduce flexibility into the definition of disablement within the terms of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act. It gives time for the condition of the child to be properly assessed over a number of years. It is quite a simple amendment but it has great significance for the children of Scotland for whom this Bill has been introduced into your Lordships' House with all-party support.

It is difficult to diagnose at an early age whether a child is mentally ill within the definition of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act. However, an adult has had time to develop and to demonstrate his propensities one way or another, whether he demonstrates violence, schizophrenia or any other condition. It is easier—I do not use that word lightly—for a psychiatrist to diagnose an adult's condition who is 18 or older as that adult will have had time to develop by then. The Bill as it stands at present will place children in a context which has nothing to do with children's disorders. The objective behind the amendment is to tailor the Bill to suit the needs of children. As we all know, children develop in various ways. Unless there is a child who is an absolute menace—if I can put it that way—and can be diagnosed psychologically as being, chronically sick or disabled or suffers from mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984) it is difficult to take a child out of a home, for example, and place him within the context of that Act.

The definition contained within Clause 22(2) may have been taken from some other Act. I believe it is adult-based and that it has nothing to do with the welfare of children. We must look after children and ensure that they develop properly, in so far as we can. I know that children may develop some conditions and no one can help that, just as some adults become schizophrenics and develop other conditions. I believe that the definition contained in Clause 22(2) is a fairly draconian one to impose on children who are governed by this Bill. On that basis, I would ask the Government, even if they do not accept the terminology of the amendment, to consider that the people who framed this amendment are all concerned with the welfare of children. Even if the phraseology of the amendment is not acceptable to the Government, perhaps they might reconsider the clause we are discussing and return at Third Reading with a different definition of disablement in Clause 22(2). I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, I should like to make one comment here. Even if the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, is not accepted, I wonder whether in the existing subsection (2) of Clause 22 the Government would consider using the words, For the purpose of this part of this Act". If it is restricted to this chapter, as the clause reads, Chapters 3 and 4 could be affected.

My other concern about the amendment is the reference to "an adult" in sub-paragraph (c). I wonder whether we have allowed for a disabled adult, who perhaps was physically fit when the child was born but subsequently had a serious accident, to be helped with the care of children within the provisions of the Bill.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, this is the second occasion on which the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has been discussed in this House. It has also been discussed at length on separate occasions in another place.

If I may be forgiven for being equally persistent, I shall reiterate what my noble and learned friend said when we previously debated the matter in Committee. The definition in the Bill has the twin advantages of being flexible and also of being familiar to local authorities in that it is drawn from the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. It is not draconian, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, suggested. Moreover, we have already provided a definition of a disabled adult which for the purposes of Clause 22 is the same as that of a disabled child.

My noble and learned friend also said that he could appreciate the temptation to produce particular types of conditions within the definition of disability. Again I have to say that going down that road carries the real risk that some specific condition may be omitted, thus placing the child with that condition outside the definition of a disabled child and, more importantly, denying the child the opportunity to benefit from services which authorities will provide under Clause 21.

My noble friend Lord Balfour raised a point about the drafting in line 38 on page 17. We shall look into that and contact him in relation to the point that he made.

On the basis of the argument that I have reiterated to the noble Lord, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, I may feel obliged to withdraw the amendment, but whether I am able to do so is another matter.

Looking at the terminology of Clause 22(2), it occurs to me that it is a restricting clause. Let us assume that, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, the reference to the chapter was deleted. The subsection would read: For the purposes of this Part a person", which obviously means a child, is disabled if he is chronically sick or disabled or suffers from mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984)". I apologise for not giving the noble Earl prior notice of this point but it has just occurred to me. Is that not a restrictive clause? It means that if a child does not fall within the definitions in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 then he or she is not designated as being disabled within the meaning of the Children (Scotland) Bill. I wonder whether the Government and their advisers might look at that point and consider whether a broader concept to take account at least of the spirit of my amendment might be more suitable to a Bill which is entitled the Children (Scotland) Bill.

We are not dealing with adults. We are dealing with developing personalities. Those of us who are familiar with children know how children develop over the years. They develop one way and then another. It seems to me that Clause 22(2) places a limit on the children who can be covered by the Bill.

The noble Earl is a caring Minister, as is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, who has taken a great interest in the Bill. We are all trying to do our best for children. It would not be good for the children of Scotland if a restrictive piece of legislation deprived them of the assistance they might need during their years of development. With those observations, and having heard what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]

6.15 p.m.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 17, line 47, at end insert ("and shall

1. (a) having regard to the results of that assessment, decide whether the needs of the child or other person call for the provision of any service; and
2. (b) provide a written copy of the assessment and any decision made following the assessment to the child and child's parent or guardian.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not quite sure why the amendment is included. No doubt the Government have had notice of it and have some observations to make on it which I can consider between now and the Third Reading. I beg to move.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, for what they are worth, the Government's observations are much as they were in Committee. The aim of the Government is to keep Clause 22 as simple and focused as possible and to avoid cluttering the primary legislation with too much detail. Therefore, whatever the intention behind Amendment No. 32, which the noble Lord does not seem to be clear about, we believe that it would add unnecessary detail. Nonetheless, the intention is that guidelines will be issued which will deal with the objectives that lie behind the amendment. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 [Assessment of ability of carers to provide care for disabled children]:

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 33:

Page 18, line 7, leave out ("the carer may request").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 33 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 34 to 38. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that where a carer's assessment is made in respect of a disabled child that assessment should be made at the same time. The Bill as drafted introduces two assessments which may be relevant to families affected by disability. It is much fairer if the carer and the disabled person are assessed at the same time rather than separately. I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to page 18, line 10, of the Bill, which reads: to carry out an assessment of the carer's ability to continue to provide". I get the impression that this relates not only to the carer's physical ability but also to his financial ability to provide care and whether a person can afford to look after a disabled child.

In relation to Amendment No. 37, I do not know where the word "many" appears in line 15. I have not found it.

In addition, I could not possibly agree to Amendment No. 38. I believe that the word "by" is much more important than "in respect or.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, the essential purpose of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is, so far as we understand, to remove the need for a carer to request an assessment and for the assessment of the carer's needs to be carried out independently of the needs of the child.

I have difficulty with that on three grounds. First, it goes beyond our undertaking to align the Scottish provisions dealing with carers as closely as possible to the provisions which will apply in England and Wales. Secondly, I fear that the amendment, by requiring the carer's needs to be assessed independently of the needs of the child, might put the clause outwith the scope of the Bill in that it is a children Bill. Any assessment of adult carers would need to be carried out for the purposes of addressing the needs of the child.

The third point is that I do not feel that it is appropriate for assessments to be imposed on carers. There will be carers who are perfectly happy and competent to care for the child. Local authority intervention of the kind which would apply if the amendments were adopted might well be resented by some carers. However, I accept that carers should be aware that they have a right to an assessment when the child's needs are being assessed. We propose to cover the point in the guidance issued following enactment of the Bill.

For those reasons, and for the reasons put forward by my noble friend Lord Balfour, but with the assurance that I have given on guidance, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, the more closely one considers the Bill, the more difficult it becomes. One is not aware of many of these issues until considering the Bill. The assessments are made at the request of the carers. Under Clause 23(1) where there is an assessment to determine the needs of a disabled child, a person in that section referred to as a carer, may request the local authority … to carry out an assessment of the carer's ability. Should a power be given to the local authority to assess the carer? Why should the impetus come from the carer? We have to be careful about the needs of children, disabled or otherwise. Might some provision be built into Clause 23(1) to give the local authority the power to assess the ability of the carer to look after the disabled child?

The more one reads the Bill, the more one sees problems emerging. It is an all-party Bill; I do not make any party points. Will the Government and their advisers consider the matter to see whether the local authority should be given some power to consider the carer as well as the child rather than wait for the request of the carer?

Subject to that, and seeking to be helpful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 34 to 38 not moved.]

Clause 28 [After-care]:

The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 39:

Page 20, line 43, leave out ("nineteen") and insert ("twenty-one").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.

At present, the Bill offers some young people who have been looked after by their local authority the useful possibility of help, guidance and assistance as young adults. I continue to believe that the age range specified is too tight and that a slight relaxation of the age range of eligibility will be more than beneficial in the case of those who were discharged from being looked after by the local authority after their 15th birthday.

I would suggest that it would be even more significant to look at the size of the group discharged after they reach 15½ years. I clearly believe that an enlargement of the catchment group could be useful in reducing homelessness, addiction, unemployment, lack of skills, disaffection and delinquency, all of which cost the nation a fortune, albeit set against a different budget. I remind noble Lords that the cost of a week's imprisonment is £500 per person.

Similarly, I should be keen to see the age range of the power to assist raised to 23 years. That would bring the provision up to a par with the average age of leaving home which is now understood to be 22 years. It also reflects the fact that growing up in a "looked after" environment is rarely a springboard to early maturity. I beg to move.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)

My Lords, I am keenly aware of the importance of aftercare. There is little sense in investing time, money and staff resources in looking after young people and then failing to provide them with the necessary support when they move towards independent living.

To my mind the key point is that services—that is, advice, guidance and assistance given to them—should he improved, not simply extended to people who are slightly older. If we get the services right at the early stage I very much hope that we shall be able to avoid some of the difficulties which exist at present.

It is not simply a question of resources, although clearly additional costs could be significant if we both materially improve services and extend the age range of the young people who might qualify to receive them. It is just as important that the services and support should be carefully tailored to meet the needs of the young people involved. I hope that that can be achieved.

I stress that the clause contains a duty for local authorities to provide aftercare for young people up to 19 and a power to continue assisting young care leavers until they are 21. All in all, we are providing for aftercare on a wider basis than is available for other parts of the United Kingdom. The aftercare provisions are considerably more generous than they are under the 1968 Act.

I do not believe that we need to take aftercare beyond a young person's 21st birthday. But it should be noted that Clause 29 empowers local authorities to contribute to costs of education and training for young people beyond 21.

This is essentially a children Bill. We have provided a strong framework of aftercare within it. I hope that, with the assessment on the quality that is provided, rather than extending the range the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It is encouraging. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved]:

Clause 33 [Registration and inspection of certain residential grant-aided and independent schools etc.]:

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 42 and 43:

Page 24, line 38, leave out second ("or").

Page 24, line 41, after ("1984,") insert ("or Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995,").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments simply insert a reference to the Bill into the redrafted Section 67 which the Bill puts into the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 34 [Welfare of children in accommodation provided for purposes of school attendance]:

The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 44:

Page 25, line 21, at end insert: ("() Such inspections shall be made () on a routine basis; and () in response to any reasonable complaint by a child or his parent or parents.".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment builds on the answer given by the Minister at Committee stage. I bring the amendment forward for several reasons.

First, I believe it is essential that it is made absolutely clear that there are no exemptions to the jurisdiction of the future Children (Scotland) Act and that children in independent schools are definitely covered by that legislation.

Secondly, problems arise in independent schools which need to be resolved. I believe that all schools should have effective and powerful internal systems to deal with complaints by pupils, parents and guardians. I further believe that there is a need for a system of external investigation and inspection. This, I understand, is already in place but seems to be little known and probably under-resourced.

Thirdly, there are an increasing number of children from abroad attending Scottish independent schools. Our reputation in education goes before us, but we must live up to it. These children may be vulnerable, culture-shocked and far from home. We must ensure that the local systems of support are good enough to meet their needs.

Fourthly, it may be necessary to give assistance and advice on anti-bullying and anti-abuse strategies. Her Majesty's inspectors should, by now, have broad experience in the area. As an analogy, the Scottish Prison Service has for the past two years had an anti-bullying strategy at the top of the list of priorities of governors of young offenders institutions. Perhaps the old virtue of over-privileged children being subjected to artificial hardship has broken down in an era of social mobility.

Fifthly and finally, private education is bought and paid for, but it is not a consumer product which can be returned to the manufacturers. Parents who have committed their children to an independent school must be confident that the school is a competent place where their child can grow up. There is no second chance for a ruined childhood and upbringing. The amendment would put the Secretary of State's existing task on the face of the Bill and publicise it. I beg to move.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, as I indicated at the Committee stage of the Bill, I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl. I noticed that in Scottish newspapers recently—I shall not mention the name of the school involved—it was stated that the headmaster had taken on board the problems which had been recognised in the school. He said that he was quite happy to have any inspection at any time. If that is the case, I cannot see why the noble Earl's amendment should be resisted by the Government.

I noticed that in his remarks the headmaster said that hanging a child out of a window by his ankles and inserting a broom into a certain part of his anatomy was "horseplay". If that is horseplay, it is not the type of horseplay to which I should like my child or anyone else's to be subjected. The whole objective behind the amendment is to give an avenue through which parents and children can obtain justice within the school system. If the headmaster who made the remarks was responding to the criticisms of that school, then let us have an open house with the Government supporting the amendment.

The Earl of Kintore

My Lords, I wonder whether the amendment will help in relation to the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. I understand that independent schools have nothing to hide and very much welcome inspections from HMI. The schools believe that they do well and if they receive a good inspection report from HMI, the position is confirmed.

HMI or the relevant authority will react, in response to any reasonable complaint by a child or his parent or parents". As a parent myself, I believe that one should complain first to the headmaster and, if the problem is not resolved quickly, one should remove one's child from the school.

Schools might wish to consider the proposal that there could possibly be room for having a really independent person outwith the school whom the children could consult if they had a problem. It would have to be publicised to the children and everything would have to be totally confidential. The outside adviser would have to have the ear of the headmaster 24 hours a day, but something like that could be useful.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, has just said. Apart from anything else, no amount of inspections would stop the kind of bullying described by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. Bullies do not hang children out of the window by their ankles when the inspector is standing below. I do not think inspections would stop that kind of thing and what the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, suggested is far more likely to do so.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for moving the amendment and particularly for the way in which he did it. As he is aware, a number of allegations have been made about a school in Scotland in what seemed to me to be extremely unfair circumstances. Little opportunity was allowed to the school to offer any explanation of whether the allegations were well-founded. For that reason, I am grateful to the noble Earl for approaching the matter in an objective way and without reference to particular circumstances.

I am in complete agreement with the noble Earl that it is clearly desirable that the new welfare duty should be imposed on schools and that, as part of their inspection, Her Majesty's inspectors of schools should have regard to that new welfare duty. The inspections will be carried out on a routine basis, but in my view it would not be helpful to be restrictive in the Bill as to the frequency of the inspections. We have proposed a five-year inspection cycle, but that is not the only basis on which it might be undertaken. I take very seriously the noble Earl's concern that inspections should be triggered by complaints by pupils or their parents. All complaints about the operation of independent schools received by the Secretary of State are already followed up with the schools concerned. Her Majesty's inspectors of schools can be asked to carry out investigations and report their findings to the Secretary of State and make recommendations for improvements in provision by schools where those are considered necessary.

My conclusion is that there is already in place an effective means of investigating complaints about the operation of independent schools. However, it does not end there. I note what the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said. I can advise them that child protection guidelines are being drawn up by Professor Kathleen Marshall of Glasgow University, in consultation with a number of interested and expert parties, for use by the independent schools in meeting their new duty under this clause. Clause 34, as at present worded, will provide an effective means of ensuring that appropriate welfare standards are in place in independent schools. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured by the action that is being initiated by independent schools in Scotland to meet the new duty that is imposed on them. With those words, I hope that the noble Earl will feel that he can withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks. I shall go along with his request and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 [Short-term refuges for children at risk of harm]:

[Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.]

Clause 40[Safeguarding child's interests in proceedings]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 47:

Page 29, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 47, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 48. These are two small technical amendments and I therefore commend them to the House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 41 [Power of Secretary of State to make rules governing procedure at children's hearing etc.]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 48:

Page 30, line 7, at end insert: ("() the procedure in relation to the disposal of matters arising under section 40(1) of this Act; () the functions of any person appointed by a children's hearing under section 40(1) of this Act and and right of that person to information relating to the proceedings in question; () the recording in writing of any statement given under section 40(3) of this Act;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 43 [Prohibition of publication of proceedings at children's hearing]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 49:

Page 31, line 3, leave out ("or section 73(1)") and insert (", section 73(1) or section 82(1)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 49, I also wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 64 to 66, 68, 69, 70, 73, 113, 115, 119, 120 and 121. These amendments are also minor and consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 50:

Page 31, line 22, leave out subsection (5).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to Clause 43 of the Bill in relation to the publication of proceedings at children's hearings. Its objective in leaving out subsection (5) of this particular clause is that no proceedings in a children's hearing should be published at all. As was discussed in Committee, the Secretary of State for Scotland has a power to order the publication of children's hearings, but it has never to my knowledge been used.

It is important to remember that the whole purpose of children's hearings in Scotland was to contain dealings with children within the community, with access between the Children's Panel, the parents and the child and with reference to the sheriff to find out whether grounds of referral were justified. To allow publication of the hearings in any shape, manner or form would be contrary to the proposals of Lord Kilbrandon, who set out the guidelines that children should be dealt with within the community.

Children are sent to a hearing for a variety of reasons. If they have committed some horrible crime such as murder, rape or arson, they will not be dealt with within the children's hearing system; they will be dealt with through the normal court process, assuming that they are over the age of criminal responsibility. It would not help the running of the children's hearing system if anyone were allowed to report the basis or the decision of the hearing or to name the children or their parents. That is why this amendment was tabled.

Many people will say that children would not be at the children's hearing if they had not done something wrong. But that is not the point at issue. The whole point of a children's hearing is to set a child who has gone wrong in whatever way back on the right road. The worst approach is to publicise his or her appearance before the children's hearing and let neighbours and peers at school know that the child has been before the hearing and has been dealt with. This amendment was tabled for the protection of children. That is an essential ingredient of the Bill. On that basis, I beg to move.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, this amendment is identical to one that the noble Lord tabled at Committee stage. It remains my view that a dispensing power is necessary to provide for exceptional cases in the interests of justice.

The noble Lord will be aware that the Secretary of State already has such a general power in the 1968 Act. The Children Act 1989 extends such a power to both the court and the Secretary of State. The noble Lord is absolutely right: these powers are not to be used lightly; nor have they been used in the past. But there may be circumstances, however rare, where it may be appropriate to dispense with the prohibition. This long-stop provision ensures that, should such a situation arise, either the court or the Secretary of State has the necessary powers available. I stress that it is very much a long-stop provision. With that assurance, and knowing the history of this provision, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, I am always very intrigued by the phrase "the interests of justice". The question is: justice to whom? Is it justice to the individual or to what we care to call society? Obviously the amendment is not acceptable to the Government, so there is no point in my pressing it. I have not yet heard who is to be Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that whoever it is will take on board the Minister's remarks. I am sure that whoever he is—and I have a suspicion who it might be—will exercise his humanity and will not allow to be broadcast anything that happens within the children's hearing system subject to the guidelines provided by the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 44 [Attendance of child and relevant person at children's hearing]:

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 51:

Page 31, line 34, after ("shall") insert ("—

1. (a) have the right to attend at all stages of the hearing; and
2. (b) subject to subsection (2) below,").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, government Amendments Nos. 51, 53, 55 and 58 are grouped with a number .of other amendments tabled by other noble Lords. An undertaking was given in another place to consider the introduction of a provision that would extend to a child the right to attend all stages of a children's hearing. Following an amendment in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, we undertook to bring forward these amendments. They fulfil the commitment by giving the child an unqualified right of attendance. The amendments also ensure, however, that the hearing may proceed in the absence of the child.

The later amendments in my name introduce a similar right for the child to attend a hearing of an application before a sheriff to establish the grounds of referral. I beg to move my Amendment No. 51. Given that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he need not bother to move his amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 53:

Page 31, line 34, leave out ("that hearing") and insert ("those stages").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 55:

Page 31, line 36, leave out ("the provisions of") and insert ("subsection (1) (a) above and").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 58:

Page 31, leave out line 44 and insert ("they may release the child from the obligation imposed by subsection (1) (b) above.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]

Clause 48 [Referral or remission to children's hearing on conviction]:

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 60 to 63:

Page 33. line 31, leave out from ("requirement") to end of line 33.

Page 33, line 40, at end insert: ("(1) Where a person, who is charged with an offence and pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, that offence, is aged sixteen years or over and is subject to a supervision requirement, the court if it is—

1. (a) the High Court, may; and
2. (b) the sheriff court, shall,

proceed in accordance with either paragraph (i) or (ii) of subsection (1) above.").

Page 34, line 18, leave out from ("requirement") to end of line 20.

Page 34, line 27, at end insert: ("(1) Where a person, who is charged with an offence and pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, that offence, is aged sixteen years or over and is subject to a supervision requirement, the court shall proceed in accordance with either paragraph (i) or (ii) of subsection (1) above.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 48 amends Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1975 to extend the involvement of the children's hearing where a court is considering the case of a young person who has committed an offence. It was pointed out that the amendments to that section remove an existing obligation on the court to take the advice of the children's hearing in respect of young people aged 16 years and over who are subject to a supervision requirement. These amendments reintroduce that obligation. I beg to move them en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 50 [Appeal against decision of children's hearing or sheriff]:

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 66:

Page 35, line 20, leave out from ("generality") to end of line 21 and insert (", the sheriff may—

1. (a) examine the Principal Reporter;").

Page 35, line 22, leave out ("the sheriff may").

Page 35, line 24, leave out ("may").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 49, my noble friend also spoke to Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 67:

Page 35, line 42, leave out from ("case") to end of line 45.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to Clause 50 of the Bill under consideration. Its basis is that the sheriff who hears a case should not be allowed to substitute his own decision in place of decisions that might be made by the children's hearing.

I return to the point that I made earlier. The whole point of the children's hearing is that children should be dealt with within the community and on the basis of the children's hearing. To allow the sheriff to enter the process and impose his own view of the case is quite contrary to the Kilbrandon principles. If that is to be allowed, it is the thin end of the wedge—taking the disposal of children in Scotland out of the children's hearing system and into the ordinary courts. The whole purpose of the Kilbrandon Report in setting up the children's hearings in 1968 was to keep children out of the courts. On that basis, I beg to move Amendment No. 67.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, the only time I have felt a frisson of irritation during the course of the Bill is over this matter. I am as anxious as other noble Lords to ensure that the unique system that we have in Scotland of children's hearings should be maintained and improved wherever possible.

Why I indicated previously that we have to introduce this arrangement is that a children's hearing is an informal body. It is quasi-judicial and as such does not follow judicial procedure. It does not conform to the European Convention on Human Rights which, in Article 6, guarantees a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law which provides the procedural safeguards required by that article. This leaves hearing decisions open to challenge under the convention.

We are bound to take this matter very seriously because of our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. A wider range of disposals on appeal to the sheriff is necessary and this is provided in subsection (5) (c) (iii) of Clause 50. That, in our view, is the best way to preserve the hearings system, while meeting our international obligations.

This is a matter which we have considered with the greatest care, since we are, as the White Paper affirmed, strongly committed to the hearings system. With those strongest of reassurances, I hope the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hope of Craighead

My Lords, I support the Minister on this point. I had experience of the difficulty of dealing with these matters on appeal. It is largely with the benefit of that background that the wording of the clause was constructed. This provision is necessary in order to give the court the power to deal with some difficult matters without the necessity to go back before the children's hearing, which may find it difficult to accept the factual basis upon which the court has to proceed, having allowed the appeal.

This is an extremely technical matter to explain. However, I can assure your Lordships that my experience tells me that this clause is valuable and I suggest that the Government have made the right decision to include it in the Bill.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in connection with these matters. What concerns the people involved with child welfare and children's hearings is whether this is the best way to test the European Convention on children's rights.

As far as I am aware, no case has been taken to the European Court. According to a radio broadcast I listened to last week, it takes three to four years to obtain a decision from the European Court, but it is hoped to speed up that process by cutting out the Commission and therefore getting to the European Court fairly quickly.

I still maintain—with the greatest respect, despite the views expressed in this short debate—that this provision runs contrary to Kilbrandon. Once we start running contrary to Kilbrandon on one view, we may as well give up the children's hearing system altogether. That may be a cynical view, but it is a view I express. It is perhaps a sad view that the criminal courts, the sheriff court, the High Court and so forth, including the European Court, are to be brought into the matter. Why cannot the children's hearing exercise a quasi-judicial decision which is open to judicial review? That is an entirely different animal from the sheriff being allowed to impose his own views on the children's hearing.

There is a lot of work to be done on this matter between now and Third Reading, if not afterwards. I cannot for the life of me see why the sheriff has been brought into this procedure to impose his decision on the panel and on the child. I hope that the Government will have another look at it. We should let one of the cases go to the European Court and let the European Court tell the children's panel that it is acting in contravention of the law. I am not convinced that this section is based on any European Convention. No doubt the Minister will attempt to convince me otherwise.

I am extremely unhappy about the intervention of the sheriff in what is, as the Minister said, a system unique to Scotland for dealing with children. If we are going to take them out of the children's system and dump them into the sheriff court, let us forget about children's hearings and get on with it. Let us put the children back into the sheriff courts as they used to be when I started practice; when the sheriff took off his wig and we all went into a room with the mother and father and discussed the situation. That is the easy way to do it. That is expressing a personal view, but I can see what the end result of this approach to the children's panel system will be. With those perhaps rather cynical observations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 68:

Page 36, line 23, leave out ("or").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 49, we spoke also to Amendment No. 68. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 69 and 70:

Page 36, line 25, after ("Act;") insert ("or (iii) on an application made under section 82(1) of this Act;").

Page 36, line 27, leave out ("and (ii)") and insert ("to (iii)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 49, we spoke also to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. With the leave of the House, I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 71:

Page 36, line 28, after ("and") insert (", with leave of the sheriff principal,").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will be of interest not only to those of your Lordships who have been consistently active in the passage of the Bill but also, and in particular, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. Those of your Lordships who were present at the Second Reading of the Bill will recall that he raised a number of issues on the Bill, including those in relation to the appeal procedure.

In response, my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Advocate entered into discussion with the Lord President of the Court of Session as to how the latter's concerns might be met in relation to the problem of the dual route of appeal. The result of those discussions, in which I also participated, has been to agree that we should not jeopardise the availability locally of appeals in the sheriff courts through the appeal route provided in Clause 50(11) to the sheriff principal from decisions of the sheriff.

It was also agreed that we should not jeopardise the opportunity of direct appeal to the Court of Session in those cases where it seemed appropriate for such an appeal to be brought, say, where there were major issues. However, there did seem some question as to whether it was necessary to allow an unlimited right of appeal from the sheriff principal in every case.

As a result, it has been decided that there should continue to be an appeal route from the sheriff principal but that this should only be with leave of the sheriff principal. I am pleased that the outcome of our helpful discussions has led to this straightforward conclusion and a relatively simple amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 51 [Children requiring compulsory measures of supervision]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 72:

Page 37, line 36, leave out paragraph (1).

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which removes a condition which is not now necessary. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 52 [Provision of information to the Principal Reporter]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 73:

Page 38, line 23, leave out from ("Where") to end of line 24 and insert ("an application has been made to the sheriff—

1. (a) by the Principal Reporter in accordance with a direction given by a children's hearing under section 63(6) or (8) of this Act; or
2. (b) by any person entitled to make an application under section 82 of this Act,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 49. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 54 [Child assessment orders]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 74:

Page 40, line 10, leave out subsection (6).

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 74, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 78, 89, 90, 141, 143, 144, 146, 153, 154, 156, 157 and 160. This group of amendments has one common aim—to rationalise the provisions in Part II of the Bill in relation to the making of court procedure rules for the purposes of that part. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not earlier than 7.45 p.m. but as soon as possible thereafter.

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