Children (Scotland) Bill

HL Deb 12 July 1995 vol 565 cc1792-828

6.42 p.m.

Read a third time.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 1: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

("Award of parental responsibilities and parental rights to father

.—(1) Where a child's father does not have parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to him and the mother and father have not agreed to provide for the father to have such responsibilities or rights, the father may apply to the court for such rights, provided that, unless there are exceptional circumstances he does so—

1. (a) no earlier than three months from the date of the child's birth; and
2. (b) no later than a maximum number of years to be prescribed by the Secretary of State from the date of the child's birth if during the intervening time he had no active part in providing for or caring for the child.

(2) Before awarding parental responsibilities and parental rights under subsection (1) above, the court shall satisfy itself that arrangements are made for these rights to be exercised in such a manner as to avoid the father having knowledge of the address of the mother if she does not wish him to have such information.

(3) Where a father awarded parental responsibilities or parental rights under subsection (1) above is subsequently convicted of any offence involving violence or of any offences mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (offences against children to which special provisions apply) or in sections 2A to 2C of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 (incest and intercourse with a child by step-parent or person in position of trust), or has had a protection order enforced against him, his parental responsibilities and parental rights will terminate, pending any further application by him to the court for the restoration of such responsibilities and rights.".).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, before moving this amendment, perhaps I may welcome the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, to his new-found eminence, if that is the correct word, within the Government's structure, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, in the particular task which he has to perform on behalf of the Government. It seems a long time ago, but we seem to say every year that, while we wish both noble Earls well, we trust that their period in office will not be too long. Apart from that, I know from the dealings I have had with the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in connection with this particular Bill, which is a non-party Bill, that, like his predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, we have all, I hope, approached this Bill in your Lordships' House in a constructive and understanding way because children are probably the most important element in our society. Parents fade away, but children grow up. We are trying to give children a decent way of life. This Bill deals with children who are unfortunate and who have to be looked after.

Amendment No. 1 was moved in another place. It was responded to by the then Minister, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, who has moved to other pastures. The reason why the amendment is tabled is that in the course of the debate on these matters there were indications that the Government would take the amendment back and consider it and perhaps come up with their own amendment to deal with this particular issue.

Perhaps I may quote from Hansard of the other place for 1st May 1995, col. 84. The Minister then said: This has been a useful debate. First, I shall answer the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, (Mrs. Fyfe,) about legal aid. Any party to an action to obtain parental responsibilities and rights can apply for legal aid, and will obtain it if he or she satisfies the usual tests. The most important point raised in the debate was concern over the safety of women, especially battered women, in refuges. Although I shall oppose new clause 2"— which is the clause now before your Lordships' House— on technical grounds, we shall consider an amendment to allow a mother to apply to the court to have her details kept confidential".

In fairness to the Minister then dealing with these matters, he made an important point at col. 85. He said that it may be practically impossible to keep the mother's address confidential because, if it follows from the fact that the father is gaining access to the child, then in some cases the child will tell the father where she is living. It is a difficult situation.

The Minister said: In any event, it would not be practicable for the court to be satisfied that the mother's address would not become known to the father. The court could not necessarily control all the circumstances in which such information might be made known to the father, including by innocent third parties such as the children themselves. I have said that we will look at this issue with a view to considering it further at the next stage of the Bill, although I do not think that subsection 2 is appropriately expressed in its present form".

I took the opportunity of speaking to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, to see whether there was some response to this particularly sensitive subject. One of the problems in life which we males know, is that we do not have responsibilities and rights forced on us. The very act of childbirth begins the responsibility and care which is imposed on the woman. The social ethic, if I may put it that way, behind this amendment is that where a woman gives birth to a child she should not be under any particular pressure until all matters surrounding the birth, such as perhaps having a distressful birth and the sudden calamities which sometimes happen, which I shall not go into, have been dealt with. Before the mother makes any agreement of any kind with the man who claims to be the father, she should be given the opportunity of "getting herself together", if I may put it that way without being too pejorative about it. That is the reason behind the amendment.

Subsection 1(3) refers to offences which have been committed against a child. The right of access should be withdrawn. It should, terminate, pending any further application by him to the court for the restoration of such responsibilities and rights".

I declare an interest as a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The number of claims coming in as a result of child abuse, and the amount of money which is being paid out through the board's system, are monumental. There is a real social basis for this.

I accept the difficulties as regards subsection 1(2), in that the child may tell the father where the mother is living. Where the father is convicted of an offence within subsection 1(3), access should be withdrawn because inevitably, as life is at the moment, any offence covered by subsection 1(3) would lead to a claim against the state in terms of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I understand that this subject is to be debated in your Lordships' House on 19th of this month. I am not going through the minutiae of the debate which took place in the other place, because I am sure that the noble Earl has read the discussions on this particular issue. On that foundation, I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, I am worried about the amendment because according to my interpretation of the Bill, particularly Clause 3, the mother has the primary responsibility for the child. I believe that the Bill is correct in that. I fear that the first few words of the proposed new clause would weaken that position. That is one of the main reasons why I am unhappy about the amendment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay)

My Lords, first, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Courtown and myself, I should like to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord for his kind thoughts. As regards the proposed new clause, I stress that my right honourable friend the Minister of State made it clear when this clause was first considered in another place that, while the Government recognise the motives of the noble Lord in proposing such a clause, they are not convinced that such an amendment is necessary.

Under the terms of Clause 11, any person claiming an interest in the child can apply to the court for parental responsibilities and rights. In considering whether to make such an order, the court will have regard to the welfare of the child as its paramount consideration.

Subsection (1) of the new clause would restrict the circumstances in which a father who is not and has not been married to the child's mother can apply to the courts for an order conferring upon him parental responsibilities and rights. We consider, however, that the only cases where a genetic father and mother should be prevented from having access to the courts for that purpose are in the circumstances described by the House of Lords in its decision In re D and another (minors) on 9th March 1995 and in analogous circumstances where the parental rights and responsibilities of a parent have been extinguished by a court. In other cases we consider that it would be difficult, having regard to our international obligations, to have a provision which prevents a genetic parent from applying for such an order at any time in view of the variety of different circumstances which can arise. Therefore we think that it would be preferable to allow the genetic parent to apply but to leave it to the court to determine whether to make the order in all the circumstances of the case, having regard to the welfare of the child as its paramount consideration.

The Government remain to be persuaded that there should be a provision along the lines of subsection (2) of the new clause. It would not be practicable for the court to be satisfied that the mother's address would not become known to the father in the exercise of his parental responsibilities and rights. The court could not control all the circumstances in which such information might be made known to the father, including, as the noble Lord said, by innocent third parties such as the children themselves. It was for those reasons that the Government rejected the earlier proposal to make specific provision in legislation for the court to satisfy itself on a matter on which satisfaction may be simply impracticable to obtain. It appears paradoxical, moreover, to empower the court to satisfy itself on that matter when awarding parental responsibilities and rights when there is no provision for the court to prevent the father knowing the address of the mother in cases where it does not award such parental responsibilities and rights.

However, I recognise that my honourable friend the Minister of State agreed in another place, as the noble Lord pointed out, to examine whether an amendment might be brought forward to alleviate concerns over the safety of women, especially battered women in refuges. He undertook to consider an amendment which would allow the mother to apply to the court to have her details kept confidential.

As I have already said, the court could not be expected to control all the circumstances under which information could be made known to the father. However, it is our view that, in the preparation of rules of court, provisions might be made which, upon her application to the court, would allow the details of the mother to be kept confidential in relation to those parts of the process over which the courts have control. I would hope that the Sheriff Courts Rules Council and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, will take note of the noble Lord's concerns in the preparation of rules for the sheriff courts and the Court of Session. I understand that the Sheriff Court Rules Council has already begun work on the Sheriff Court Rules for Part I of the Bill.

Finally, in relation to subsection (3) of the new clause it seems discriminatory to deprive the unmarried father automatically of parental responsibilities and rights in the event of a conviction as described but to make no such provision in relation to the married father or indeed the mother. Arguably, any person with parental responsibilities and rights should be treated equally in relation to the possible risk to the child should he or she incur such a conviction.

The proposed new clause moved in another place and here is thought-provoking. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing these issues up. In answer to his concern that a mother who has just given birth may be vulnerable, she may be in a vulnerable state at any stage during the early years of her child's life. We have always stressed that any parent embarking upon an arrangement for parental responsibilities should, if they are unmarried, seek advice. For that reason and the other reasons I have given, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he tell the House whether rules of court are published so that noble Lords and others can obtain them? We have heard a great deal on this Bill about rules of court. Noble Lords are interested in how they come out in the end. I should be grateful to know whether that is possible.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, it is my understanding that they are published, but if I have anything to add I shall write to my noble friend.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, it is probably my fault but I did not understand the point that the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, was making. If he wishes to reiterate it, I might understand it better, but it is probably my fault.

Subsection (1) of the amendment is not designed for the protection of the child—on one view of the matter this should not be in the Children (Scotland) Bill—but for the protection of the mother. I wonder whether the Government might consider accepting subsection (1) (a) because it has been carefully framed. It provides: the father may apply to the court for such rights, provided that, unless there are exceptional circumstances he does so— (a) no earlier than three months from the date of the child's birth". It is a protective device for the mother. As I understand it, in England there is the Infanticide Act which protects the mother within six months of the child's birth from anything she may do to a child, including killing it.

It appears to be a reasonable proposition in the circumstances outlined in the amendment that the mother, who may for a variety of reasons have the emotional and other pressures put upon her which I mentioned when I moved the amendment, should be protected at least for three months, subject to the father being able to go to the court to say, "I want to see my child"—provided of course that the mother accepts that the person who wants to see the child is the father of the child, but that is another matter.

On subsection (2) of the proposed new clause, I am basically at one with the Minister as to the difficulty of keeping knowledge of the mother's address away from the father. The provision is carefully worded. It says only that the court should not divulge the address to the father. As the Minister will have noted from the debate in another place, when the amendment was being debated on 1st May (col. 77 of Hansard) a case was quoted: Sadly we learned while the Committee was sitting of a mother who killed her ex-husband while the young son hid in fear. The husband had obtained the address from the report of the children's hearing on three separate occasions". So subsection (2) is merely an admonition to the court not to reveal the mother's address. The address may come out otherwise, and if the father is sufficiently determined to find out where his child is living he will do so. It is like burglars breaking into one's house; if they want to get in they will do so.

The amendment is carefully framed because it provides that the court shall satisfy itself and so forth. As regards subsection (3), I take the point about the unmarried father. Nevertheless, the point of principle is worthy of consideration. Having heard the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7 p.m.

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

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 14, line 8, after ("order;") insert: ("(iia) whether to grant a warrant under section 66 of this Act:").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, during the Report stage an amendment was introduced which empowered the sheriff to issue a warrant under Clause 66 requiring a child to be detained in a place of safety. The amendment applies to the provisions of Clause 16(2) and (3) to the sheriff's consideration. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 14, line 19, after ("decision") insert (", provided that the best interests of the child concerned shall remain a primary consideration of the children's hearing").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which are related. This is not a new amendment but it involves a most fundamental principle that has not yet been addressed. The amendments would definitely resolve the anxiety about the suspension of the paramountcy of the child's interests in Clauses 16 and 17. All three amendments propose the inclusion of the words: provided that the best interests of the child concerned shall remain a primary consideration of", the children's hearing, the court or the local authority. That inclusion would resolve the concern or fear that members of the children's hearing, the Bench or the local authority may view the child in a totally different light.

The exceptional circumstances are that the child has acted against other people or their property. While such actions certainly require to be dealt with firmly, and secure accommodation may well be necessary, I cannot accept that the paramountcy of the child's interests can be suspended completely. I strongly recommend that the reduced status of a primary consideration should be spelt out to measure and quantify the suspension.

The justification is clear. Although the child may have been a considerable nuisance, possibly committing several offences, that is only one aspect of his or her life. The whole child and all his or her relationships, attributes, character and interests are being considered for placement in a special situation.

While the child is being considered on account of his or her offending behaviour, he or she retains all the other aspects of character and life. Those other aspects do not merit complete suspension of the paramountcy of the child's interests. A qualified suspension is necessary to keep that in balance. The child is more than, for example, a house breaker.

The three amendments would clarify the extent to which the paramountcy was being suspended. The legislation must not go forward with such a procedural error within it. I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, the amendment reminds me of an occasion when a children's reporter was explaining to the members of my old county council what their functions were. The headmaster of a school asked the reporter, "What procedures would you take to welcome back into the school the boy who had burnt it down?" I believe that the provisions of the Bill set an example as regards the welfare of the child coming first. However, as regards an arsonist, other steps must be taken because one cannot necessarily put the child first.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, during earlier stages of the Bill we agreed that to a certain extent we were dealing with semantics as regards the use of the word "paramountcy". I do not know where the word came from, but it is in the Bill and in earlier legislation. I am not sure what it means.

The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is trying to focus attention on the child. That is what the Bill is all about. The example of an arsonist is extreme. Obviously, such a child would not be welcomed back into the school because the school would no longer be there. But the child must be dealt with. I understand that the philosophy behind the Bill is to rescue children from their evil doings. If a child has burnt down the school or whatever, the amendments tabled by the noble Earl will remind those dealing with him that while paramountcy is a provision of the Bill at the end of the day there must be a rescue operation in order to get the child back on to the straight track.

The three amendments would not harm the Bill. Indeed, it would be useful to accept them so that persons dealing with children can be reminded that the issue is not the evil that was done but whether we make the child who has done wrong a better child and a better person to live with in a civilised society. I support the amendments.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, the exception to the paramountcy principle in Clause 16 (for the courts and children's hearings) and also in Clause 17 (for local authorities) has already been discussed at great length. It was discussed most recently when the noble Earl moved and subsequently withdrew the same amendments during the Report stage. As the noble Earl said, the amendment is not new. Perhaps I may remind him that at that time my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate comprehensively set out the Government's firm view that the specification in the amendment was unnecessary. We are not talking about a complete suspension of paramountcy, to which the noble Earl referred. Nor are we suddenly taking the focus away from the child, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, suggested. The focus remains on the child; we are looking at the response.

My noble friend Lord Balfour summed up our objection to the amendments. The Bill is essentially about the welfare and protection of children and it clearly establishes 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 the public 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; 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 their exercising 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 local authorities, 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 they would continue to have regard to the welfare of the child as an important consideration but not the paramount one. I hope that, with this further reassurance, the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendments.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble Earl said, and I am reassured. A point of principle was involved. I felt that there should be a reduced status. I believe that the noble Earl has told me that that is implicit in the Bill. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

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

[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 6: After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:

("Duty of persons with parental responsibilities to notify change of address to local authority looking after child.

.—(1) Where a child is being looked after by a local authority, each natural person who has parental responsibilities in relation to the child shall, without unreasonable delay, inform that authority whenever the person changes his address.

(2) A person who knowingly fails to comply with the requirement imposed by subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of level 1 on the standard scale; but in any proceedings under this section it shall be a defence that—

1. (a) the change was to the same address as that to which another person who at that time had parental responsibilities in relation to the child was changing; and
2. (b) the accused had reasonable cause to believe that the other person had informed the authority of the change of address of them both.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 32 and 62. These amendments apparently bring in a new clause but it is of course a transfer of the provisions from the 1968 Act. It is right that there should be a duty placed on people with parental responsibilities to notify their change of address to any local authority looking after their child or children. It is possible to imagine circumstances in which the local authority could lose touch with parents. Whether the child can be reunited with the family is not material; it is simply appropriate that the local authority should be able to reach the parent for so long as the authority looks after the child and the parent has the parental responsibilities.

While the duty is on the adult to notify any change of address, the clause is as much related to the child and the child's needs. It is certainly appropriate to have it in the Children (Scotland) Bill, and the amendment brings in the necessary substantive clause. The other amendments make appropriate references in Schedule 5 to effect the necessary repeal in the 1968 Act and in Clause 104, making clear that it extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

These amendments offer a further enhancement of the Bill. It is preferable that provision of this type should be in the Bill rather than the 1968 Act. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 7: After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:

("Welfare of child and local authority's consideration of his views

.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 17 above, where under or by virtue of this Part of this Act, a local authority decides 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, Amendment No. 7 is not new. I am returning to it because I believe that the Bill will be weakened without it. A clear statement is needed about how the local authorities shall approach the needs of children who live in their area but are not being looked after by them.

In Scotland we are bound by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Therefore, I cannot see why the Minister has so far resisted the amendment. It would confirm what local authorities must do as they comply with that convention. Acceptance of the amendment would effectively cross-reference the convention and this new social work legislation. If the proposed clause is not included, social work practitioners who have a good grip of the legislative base will wonder why it is not included, especially as the convention must be complied with in any event. I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, I am rather surprised by this amendment because the welfare of the child is very clearly specified in Clauses 16, 17, 21, 34 and 35 and there is even a provision for a review of it in Clause 30. I feel that the welfare of the child could not be emphasised more strongly in the Bill.

7.15 p.m.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, this familiar amendment was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on Report, when I gave him a full explanation of the Government's position on this matter. The UN convention does not place a duty of paramountcy in respect of all children. That may clarify the noble Earl's position.

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 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, with guidance wherever necessary, but these are not matters for the Bill and I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, once again I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. This was a point of principle. I am reassured that local authorities will be able to proceed in the way that I would like them to. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 [Manner of provision of accommodation to child looked after by local authority]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 20, line 8, after first ("or) insert ("the definition of that expression in").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is essentially a drafting amendment to clarify the definition of the families with whom a local authority would not place a child they are looking after. It puts beyond doubt that families where the persons have parental responsibilities for the child or with whom the child has been living would not come within the scope of Clause 25. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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

The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 25, line 30, at end insert ("and to ensure that strategies to prevent bullying and abuse are in place").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with the purpose of the inspection of independent and private schools.

During the passage of the Bill through this House, I received communications from nine parents concerning independent schools throughout the UK with which they have been involved. Two letters were from parents who were very happy with the performance of the schools which they had selected. The other seven were written by parents who were far from happy with the schools. In every case the child or children had been removed from the schools in question and most were settled elsewhere.

I have tried to draw some useful conclusions from that sad exercise. The first must be a personal conclusion. As a prep school boy in Dunbar and an average pupil at Eton, I do not recall the kind of incidents which parents have recounted. I know that the memory is selective but there is determined recall, perhaps through the initial layer of happy memories. At the risk of whitewashing Eton, I believe that its system of having a well-constituted housemaster who is effectively in charge of the whole life of the pupil and a work tutor who is continuously responsible for the boy's academic work provides the type of supervision necessary to ensure that an unhappy child is identified and assisted quickly before the problem becomes out of hand.

Similarly, arranging for each pupil to have a room of his own has enormous merit. It makes routine conversations with the authorities easy and natural. The provision of a broad range of leisure and recreational opportunities is also a great help.

These schools are total institutions and they must provide an active programme and supervision for each of the 168 hours per week. In similar vein, the Scottish prison service has addressed that problem by introducing a personal officer scheme.

Secondly, parents who wrote to me have complained about bullying, lack of supervision, lack of a full programme, initiation ceremonies, harsh interrogation and lack of ability to meet the needs of overseas pupils, in particular for those for whom English is not a first language.

Thirdly, some parents complain that they have not been treated as equal partners in the upbringing of their children. It is as though they had been disenfranchised as parents when they handed over their children to the school in loco parentis. I wonder whether that is not inevitable. I have to say here that, as each school offers a unique system, parents have to be careful about what they are buying because they are in fact buying a specific product. Perhaps there is a need for less optimistic advertising.

Fourthly, parents have complained about the lack of an effective complaints system, both internally and externally. Recourse to the school's lawyers seems to come early on in the process at present. Perhaps there is also a deficiency in the record-keeping systems of some schools. Fifthly, some parents have complained that the board of governors or its equivalent rarely seems willing to do anything other than back the headmaster and protect the good name of the school. Perhaps such people should review their own role.

Sixthly, I would comment that not all children are suited to boarding school life, especially dormitory life, and that parents must be realistic about their child's likelihood of survival in a boarding school. Seventhly, I am surprised to a degree by the call from parents for greater state control in the independent sector in education. On the face of it, I thought that they had selected such schools because they were outside the state system. In conclusion, this sorry state of affairs requires close liaison and inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors. I beg to move.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I have to confess at the outset that we are bound to reject the amendment moved by the noble Earl. However, perhaps I may try to reassure him. Her Majesty's inspectors of schools are currently developing detailed operational guidelines for their future inspections of the welfare of residential pupils. Welfare provisions at three independent schools in Scotland have recently been inspected in pilot inspections—with satisfactory results, I may add—to test the thoroughness of those guidelines. Further fine-tuning is being made to ensure that from school session 1995–96, Her Majesty's inspectors of schools can start a rolling programme of such welfare inspections in line with the provisions of Clause 34. Those guidelines include references to schools' strategies on child protection to combat bullying and abuse. I can assure the noble Earl that his point is already covered in planning currently under way for those welfare inspections.

Child protection guidelines for independent schools are currently being drawn up by Professor Kathleen Marshall, of Glasgow University, in consultation with a number of interested and expert parties, including Her Majesty's inspectors of schools and the social work services inspectorate, for use by the independent schools in meeting their welfare duty under the clause. Those guidelines will cover, for example, the responsibilities of schools, the appointment and training of staff, the designation of a senior member of staff with special responsibility for co-ordinating child protection within the school, and detailed guidance on action required in specific cases.

Clause 34 as presently worded will provide an effective means of ensuring that appropriate welfare standards are in place in independent schools.

I hope that the noble Earl can derive considerable comfort from what I have said. I should also point out that although he may have received nine letters, I believe that there are 100,000 or so children in private residential schools. So there is a silent majority out there reasonably satisfied with the education their children are receiving.

I was a little surprised that the noble Earl should think that one disenfranchises one's child when one sends him or her to school. In most cases, the parents make a positive choice in sending the child to a particular school. If there is any dissatisfaction, there is very often the option of changing the child's school. I hope that the noble Earl will accept those reassurances.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he say whether he distinguishes between welfare and rights? I ask that question because the debate that has taken place to date during the course of the Bill's passage has established that it is all right for the inspectors to go in and ensure that the welfare of the child is all right, that the rooms are all right, and so on, as mentioned by the noble Earl. However, as I understand it, the focus of the amendment is the right of the child within the school system.

Parents who have to go abroad and who cannot perhaps take their children with them often choose to put them into the independent school system. The whole issue which has been debated throughout the various stages of the Bill is not a question of welfare—in other words, it is not a question of welfare or whether the children are well fed and have clean bedsheets, and so on—it is a question of whether the child has reasonable access to a complaints procedure if he is capable of making up his mind on the matter and seeks such access.

The noble Earl referred to the prison system, but you cannot have a protracted procedure of complaint about bullying and such matters that happen in any school. Bullying is not unique to independent schools; indeed, it is something which takes place in every school throughout the land. I wonder whether we have grasped the purpose of what we have been discussing during the passage of the Bill. We are talking about the child who has been in an independent school for whatever reason—because his parents have gone abroad; because they do not fancy having him about the house; or because they want to lead a better social life as they see it and therefore, as they can afford it, have put him into the independent system. I wonder whether we are looking at the real issue involved as regards this particular focus of the Bill. I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, if I have misrepresented him in any way, but that seems to me to be the real issue.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I am sure that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. The detailed operational guidelines currently being developed by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools and also the child protection guidelines for independent schools being drawn up by Professor Kathleen Marshall, of Glasgow University, cover welfare duties in their widest sense. Therefore, the rights of the child as enshrined in the Bill will be consistently co-ordinated with the detailed investigation of the welfare of the child pursued by those two groups. I can also tell the noble Lord that complaints procedures and their operation will be reviewed in the course of inspections. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, we have had a very good debate about independent schools and their relationship to the future of the Children (Scotland) Bill. I do not believe that we intended to do so when we began, but certain parents made sure that the debate was brought to the Floor of the House. It is important to qualify press reports which suggested that I had received a dossier of correspondence. I do not know how many letters a dossier is supposed to contain, but I have established that I received nine from different sources.

Finally, although bullying happens in every school, one of the different features of a boarding school is that one cannot go home. It is a total institution from which one cannot escape in the way that is possible if one goes home in the evening. I should like to draw that distinction. It is most important that schools should have effective anti-bullying strategies. I am most grateful to the noble Earl for detailing how Her Majesty's inspectors will be dealing with independent schools in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 27, line 39, leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11. This is an amendment to Clause 37 which involves the question of a child at his own hands seeking the help of the local authority where he is at risk of harm. As noble Lords will see from Clause 37(1) (a): Where a child appears to a local authority to be at risk of harm, they may at the child's request provide him with refuge",

and so on.

I would hope that the Government might take this amendment on board. It seeks to amend Clause 37(5) to allow a little more time to deal with the problem of a child who seeks help from a local authority. It goes without saying that if any child is in a situation where he has to leave home and seek help from the local authority, there must be something badly wrong either with the child or with the home. The Minister will no doubt be familiar by now with these amendments which relate to the whole concept of the Bill, which is to help children. For example, if a child turns up at a local authority home, the first thing that must be done is to find out who the child is. The child may claim that he is called John Smith or Jimmy Brown but the local authority staff must find out his identity, where he lives, his age and the school that he attends.

The philosophy—if that is the correct word—behind this amendment is to give a local authority time to find out what the problem is. If the relevant period is restricted to the period mentioned in Clause 37(5), the child can be thrown out of a refuge without his problem having been solved, if there is a problem. All that that will achieve will be to create the situation where the child will return to the refuge. I cannot see that it would constitute a great imposition on a local authority to keep a child for 14 or 21 days, as my amendments propose. I am the first person to recognise that keeping children in a refuge may be considered by some people to be an infringement of civil liberties. However, the Government have provided in the Bill that a local authority, may at the child's request provide him with refuge".

It is not a question of a child being apprehended and put into a home, but rather of a child seeking help. If local authorities are to help these children they must have the time to do so. Once a child has been identified under its correct name, one then has to find his mother or father, if the father is on the scene at all, but all that requires time. I am advised by people who are involved in these matters that the experience in England has been that the timescale we are discussing is far too short and that a longer timescale is better suited to the interests of the child who is seeking refuge and in terms of solving whatever problems may have caused the child to seek help from the local authority. I beg to move.

7.30 p.m.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister replies, I hope I may ask him a question at this stage. Even if the local authority manages to find out nothing more than a child's name, from my reading of the legislation I do not think that the child could be thrown out on the street at the end of seven days, which is rather the impression I obtained from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. I accept that the noble Lord referred to that as the worst case that could befall a child. I want to make quite certain that under no circumstances would a child be thrown out on to the street because a local authority could not find out anything about him, or who his parents were and whether, for example, they had disappeared off on holiday. However, from my reading of the legislation, I do not think that is the case.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, on this matter. I obviously wish to support the amendment. In Scotland we are blessed with our welfare-driven children's panel system. I can see that the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, may want to resist these amendments because the matter can be referred to a children's hearing at any time. That is technically correct, but I want to refer to the situation where a child has arrived at a refuge and he is completely unknown to the welfare authorities; that is, social work, education or health authorities.

There will be much information to gather and many factors to be assessed before any long-term plan can be formulated, let alone agreed upon, and seven or 14 days will be woefully inadequate as a timescale. An early children's hearing may not assist the process in the eyes and, more particularly, the emotions of the child in question. The experiences that led up to the decision to run away from home will constitute depths which will not easily be plumbed. Only good can come from building sufficient flexibility into the Bill.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, let me reiterate to noble Lords that we see refuges as a comparatively small but important service which will be relevant to a limited number of children who are in danger of harm. The refuge provision responds to a need. It is a short-term response to a short-term need. We must resist any temptation to turn the refuge into something different or to allow children to stay there for longer periods without proper decisions being made as to their future. Children ask for "time-out" or a "breathing space" to be available in certain circumstances. The refuge provides for that. It means that seven days are available for the child and workers in the refuge to get to grips with the underlying problems and to consider how best to plan for their resolution. It may mean the child going home or it could mean the local authority thinking seriously about what statutory steps it should take to protect the child; for example, a child protection order or an exclusion order.

What it certainly does not mean is what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, referred to—and what my noble friend Lord Balfour quite rightly doubted—and that is that a child would be thrown out of a refuge on to the streets, as it were. I have spoken about the two statutory steps which might be available and there are other options. Furthermore, if a local authority feels that the assessment has not been sufficient, it can always apply to the Secretary of State for an extension. However, the period of seven days for which the clause provides at present should in most circumstances be quite sufficient for the local authority and the child to reach decisions. The refuges are aimed at providing expert and swift assessment, and we do not want to prolong that. I cannot see that allowing a longer period in a refuge would encourage timely and purposeful assessment and action to assist vulnerable young people.

To accept the noble Lord's amendment would alter this provision to such an extent that consideration would have to be given to matters more appropriate to long-term care; for example, education, the transfer of parental rights and responsibilities and other matters well beyond the initial purpose of the refuge. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, was incorrect when he said rather glibly that it was no problem for local authorities to keep these children in their care for, let us say, 14 days. As I have said, providing education and the sort of services associated with longer term residence would be a burden on local authorities.

In Committee I drew an analogy with an emergency casualty ward at a hospital. If, instead of carrying out a swift assessment of a patient and then transferring that patient to the part of the hospital where he could best be treated, one allowed the patient to spend twice or thrice as long in the emergency casualty ward, one would tie up resources and be unable to accommodate the next batch of those in need of the emergency services. I hope that the noble Lord is assured that the refuge provision is designed to provide purposeful assistance so that responsible decisions about a child's future can be made without delay. With that explanation and with the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation by the Minister. However, I return to my basic point, that the situation described in Clause 37(1) is not sparked off by the local authority but rather by a child. I accept that there may be some clever children who will think that the refuge is a great place in which to spend seven days, after which they will return home and then return to the refuge for another seven days and make a nuisance of themselves. We must be realistic about this, and within the context of this Bill we have tried to be realistic.

I would say in answer to the query of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that Clause 37(1) (a) (ii) states that a child can be kept in a refuge, for a period which does not exceed the relevant period". The relevant period is then defined in Clause 37(5). It is seven days or 14 days. Therefore, in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, as I read the Bill, although I may be completely wrong, the child is thrown out after the maximum of 14 days. Whatever other processes may take place in the intervening period is another matter.

I would be the last one to impose further financial burdens on local authorities, because they have plenty to deal with already. However, I wonder whether the timescale is too short to deal with the case of a child who has a real problem. I do not mean a child who was doing this for fun and has perhaps heard from his pals that he can go along to a refuge and will be kept there for a week and then be thrown out. This Bill is concerned with problem children, but in the way it is presently framed local authorities are not being given sufficient time.

The amendment does not mean that a child would have to stay in a refuge for 14 or 21 days. The child could be released after two days. The purpose of the amendment is to give the local authority, the child, social workers and everyone else involved an opportunity to get together to try to solve the problem which is bothering the child within a reasonable period.

I hope that the Government will take note of what I say and have another look at the timescale. I am not sure whether consultation has taken place between the Scottish Office and the Home Office in relation to the operation of the Children Act 1989 in England. It is my understanding, although I have not researched the matter, that the operation of the Children Act 1989 is running into problems. This may well be one of the problems. Certainly it is my information that in England that period is not considered realistic. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

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

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 29, line 27, leave out ("before") and insert ("at").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 to 24, 29, 30 and 55. All these amendments make minor textual changes to a number of provisions in the Bill but do not alter their effects. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 53 [Reference to the Principal Reporter by court]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 39, line 29, leave out ("and").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 14, 45, 46 and 67.

Clause 53 deals with various situations in which a court may refer matters relating to a child to the principal reporter. The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 also provides for such referrals, although at present it is to a reporter in terms of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Those requirements need to be suitably updated and brought together with the new arrangements under the Bill.

The substantive change is in Clause 53, which is amended to ensure that proceedings under the Education (Scotland) Act will be able to trigger a referral to the principal reporter where the court thought it appropriate. The particular matters would be where action was being taken under Section 35 of the 1980 Act in relation to a failure by a parent to secure regular attendance by a child at a public school, Section 41 in respect of a failure to comply with an attendance order or Section 42(3) in respect of a failure to permit examination of a child.

I also draw your Lordships' attention to the consequential changes to the 1980 Act brought about through Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 in Schedule 4 and the repeals effected through Amendment No. 67 in Schedule 5.

This group of amendments represents a helpful tidying up of the links between the Education (Scotland) Act and the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 39, line 32, at end insert ("; and (d) proceedings for an offence against section 35 (failure by parent to secure regular attendance by his child at a public school), 41 (failure to comply with attendance order) or 42(3) (failure to permit examination of child) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 56 [Child protection orders]:

The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 42, line 17, at end insert: ("(2A) Where a child seeks protection in a place of safety, he shall be treated as wishing to make an application in terms of subsection (1) above, and the officer in charge of the place of safety shall provide the child with all advice and assistance to prepare and make such an application. (2B) Where a child has sought protection in a place of safety in terms of subsection (2A) above, he shall be entitled to remain in that place of safety, or in any other such place of safety, until the sheriff has disposed of the said application in terms of subsection (1) above. (2C) For the purposes of subsections (2A) and (2B) above, 'place of safety' shall only be given the meanings listed as (a), (b) and (c) in the definition provided in section 90 of this Act.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to extend the Bill by permitting a child to seek a place of safety on his or her own behalf. The child would then be able to initiate an application for a child protection order.

I believe that there is an omission from the Bill. Section 37(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 states: any child who has taken refuge in a place of safety may be detained there until arrangements can be made for him to be brought before a children's hearing".

The amendment proposes that the act of seeking his or her own place of safety will automatically trigger child protection measures. It also avoids the use of the word "detention", preferring the more positive and empowering phrase "entitled to remain".

The amendment does not automatically grant a child protection order, but it ensures that the matter will definitely go before the sheriff. That will prevent any high-handed action by parents who are in difficulties with their teenage children.

There is an alternative. It lies in the wording of Clause 56(1), which reads: Where the sheriff, on an application by any person, is satisfied that".

I do not believe that Clause 56(1), which deals with applications for child protection orders, is the most appropriate way for a child to initiate him or herself. I suggest that it is aimed at the professionals.

The amendment is focused on the child who has found life at home intolerable and has run to a place of safety. The provision would he published in the wee booklet that the local authorities will be producing to explain their services to children. I beg to move.

7.45 p.m.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I expressed some sympathy with the noble Earl's amendment when he moved it at Report stage. I express the same sympathy today. Nonetheless, I can still foresee a number of difficulties with the provision as drafted.

Most significantly, the amendment empowers a child to remain in a place of safety until the sheriff has disposed of a child protection order application made by that child, but no obligation is placed on the child to make such an application. It would therefore be possible for the child to remain indefinitely in a place of safety where he chose not to make such an application. That would clearly be inappropriate.

As I indicated in my earlier response at Report stage, there is no simple answer to this issue. Where a child has reasonable cause to run away from home we believe that the appropriate course of action would be for an application for a child protection order to be made. That way the responsibilities and rights of all concerned will be recognised and subject to judicial scrutiny.

As I said, we have sympathy with the underlying intention of the amendment but we have serious doubts as to how it would operate in practice. For those reasons, I ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I like the amendment because it guarantees judicial scrutiny. However, having listened to the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 59 [Duration, recall or variation of child protection order]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 16 to 18:

Page 45, line 37, leave out (", or continued under section 58(4),").

Page 45, line 38, after ("Act,") insert ("or such an order or direction continued (whether with or without variation) under section 58(4) of this Act,").

Page 46, line 5, after ("continued") insert ("(whether with or without variation)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 are consequential to a change made at Report stage. Clause 58(4) now empowers a children's hearing to vary a child protection order or any direction in relation to the exercise of parental responsibilities or parental rights made by a sheriff. The amendments ensure that the order or direction so varied may be the subject of an application of the sheriff under subsection (7) of Clause 59. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 64 [Referral to, and proceedings at, children's hearing]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 50, line 17, at end insert: ("(2A) Where a referral is made in respect of a child who is subject to a supervision requirement, the children's hearing shall, before disposing of the referral in accordance with section 68(1) (b) or (c) of this Act, review that requirement in accordance with subsections (9) to (12) of section 72 of this Act.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords this is a small but, as with all our amendments, a useful proposal. It requires a children's hearing before disposing of a referral in accordance with paragraphs (b) or (c) of Clause 68(1) to review any existing supervision requirements. This will ensure that the needs of the child will be considered in their entirety rather than in relation to the most recent referral. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 65 [Warrant to keep child where children's hearing unable to dispose of case]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 20:

Page 51, line 28, at beginning insert ("to find and to keep or, as the case may be,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 provide for a warrant made by a children's hearing under Clause 65 (1) to include the power to find the child, in addition to the existing power to keep the child in, a place of safety; and it clarifies that the period of a warrant runs from the date of granting it. It meets the intentions of amendments withdrawn by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, following our undertaking to consider the matter further. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing forward the amendment. I thought that I recognised the provision from an earlier occasion.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 21:

Page 51, line 29, at end insert ("after the warrant is granted").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 68 [Continuation or disposal of referral by children's hearing]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 22 to 24:

Page 55, line 12, leave out ("from the warrant being issued") and insert ("after the warrant is granted").

Page 55, line 25, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted").

Page 55, line 46, leave out ("worker") and insert ("work officer").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 when moving Amendment No. 12. I beg to move them en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 69 [Disposal of referral by children's hearing: supervision requirements, including residence in secure accommodation]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 25:

Page 56, line 30, at end insert ("so specified").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this minor amendment adds the words "so specified" to be consistent with the earlier terminology in the subsection. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 85 [Parental responsibilities order: general]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 26:

Page 71, line 23, leave out from ("1976") to end of line 25 and insert (", under section 18 or 49 of the said Act of 1978 or under Article 17, 18 or 57 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (corresponding provision for Scotland and Northern Ireland);").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 85 enables a local authority, on application to a sheriff, to seek parental rights and responsibilities in relation to a child. Subsection (6) ensures that a parental responsibilities order will terminate under various circumstances including those where the child becomes subject to an adoption order or an order freeing the child for adoption. At present subsection (6) attracts the relevant adoption provisions for England and Wales from the Adoption Act 1976 and the amendment simply secures that the relevant provisions for Northern Ireland are also brought into the picture. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 89 [Consent of child to certain procedures]:

The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 27:

Page 73, line 18, after ("a") insert ("direction or a").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27, I speak also to Amendment No. 28. The amendments aim to ensure that children subject to a child protection order will only be subject to a medical examination if they consent or if they are judged incapable of giving that consent.

Clause 89, in conjunction with Clause 15(5), clarifies that a child who is considered capable of giving consent to a medical examination is also capable of refusing a medical examination. There has been confusion about that with court cases occurring over similar legislation in England. In Committee, a government amendment sought to clarify and safeguard the child's right to refuse in those circumstances. However, there remains a doubt among social workers as to whether a child can refuse to consent to a medical examination in the face of a direction on a child protection order.

It would be doubly abusive to subject an abused child to an intimate examination against his or her will. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to confirm that the child's right to refuse will be made clear. I beg to move.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I appreciate the intention underlying the amendments which would extend the provisions specifically mentioned in Clause 89 to include a direction made in a child protection order. I would suggest, however, that they are not necessary.

A direction under Clause 57 only empowers a sheriff to make a direction in relation to the exercise or fulfilment of any parental responsibilities or parental rights in respect of the child concerned. Where a child is of sufficient understanding to consent to surgical, medical or dental procedure or treatment by virtue of Section 2(4) of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991, then the child is enabled to make such decisions in his own right. In such circumstances, the right to consent to medical examination is not a parental responsibility or right and so cannot be the subject of a direction given by a sheriff under Clause 57.

The wording of the provisions specifically mentioned in Clause 89 do not relate to the exercise of parental responsibilities and as such might have been seen as overriding the general provision in Clause 89. Hence the proviso that these provisions are subject to the child's capacity to consent. Such a clarification is not, however, necessary in respect of directions attached to child protection orders.

I hope that I have answered the noble Earl and that on that basis he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, the noble Earl has certainly answered my question. I am extremely grateful to him and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]

Clause 90 [Procedural rules in relation to certain applications etc.]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 29:

Page 73, line 33, leave out ("by virtue of subsection (1) above") and insert ("under the said section 32").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 29 when I moved Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 92 [Interpretation of Part II]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 30:

Page 78, line 12, at end insert ("granted the warrant or").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 104 [Extent, short title, minor and consequential amendments, repeals and commencement]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 31:

Page 85, line 8, after ("transitional") insert ("and consequential").

The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 31 and 35 to 38 are small, clarifying, technical amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 85, line 27, after ("Sections") insert ("Duty of persons with parental responsibilities to notify change of address to local authority looking after child").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 32 when I moved Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Amendments of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 33:

Page 90, leave out line 15 and insert:

("(a) in subsection (1), the words from "Subject" to "certain cases)" shall cease to have effect; and").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 33, I speak also to Amendment No. 34 and related consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 44 and 64 to 66. The amendments represent our promised response to the matters raised on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, about adoption and custody.

Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 seek to delete references to Section 53(1) of the Children Act 1975 from Sections 14 and 15 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. In a sense they are consequential amendments to the repeal of Section 53 which is given effect by Amendments Nos. 64 and 65.

Section 53 of the 1975 Act provides that a court, in considering the adoption of a child, may make a custody order should that appear to be more appropriate. The Bill allows for a range of orders to be made through Clause 11 and the Section 53 provision in the 1975 Act is therefore spent. The amendments effect the repeal and make the necessary consequential changes elsewhere. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 34:

Page 90, leave out line 22 and insert: ("(a) in subsection (1), the words from "Subject" to "certain cases)" shall cease to have effect; and").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8 p.m.

Schedule 4 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 35 to 38:

Page 107, line 7, at end insert: ("() In section 59(1) (provision and maintenance of residential and other establishments) after the word "Act,", where it occurs for the second time, insert "or under Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995,").

Page 109, line 3, leave out ("and").

Page 109, line 6, at end insert ("; and (k) for the definition of "training school" substitute-""training school" has the meaning assigned to it by section 180(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968;").

Page 109, line 7, leave out ("97(1)") and insert ("97").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 39 and 40:

Page 109, line 22, at beginning insert: ("—(1) The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph. (2) In section 18(2) (information as to accommodation of younger with older persons), for the words "having functions under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute ", in respect of their functions both under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995,". (3)").

Page 109, line 22, leave out ("of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970").

The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 will amend Section 18(2) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That section deals with information to be provided by local authorities where younger people suffering from certain specified illnesses or mental disorder are accommodated in accommodation with persons over the age of 65. The amendment recognises that local authorities may provide residential accommodation for children under Part II of the Bill. While it is thought unlikely that such children would be provided with accommodation in the same premises as persons over 65 years, that cannot be ruled out completely and the amendment would take account of that possibility for purposes of the information that local authorities would provide in terms of Section 18(2) of the 1970 Act. These are essentially consequential amendments and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 41:

Page 109, line 43, after ("solicitor") insert ("but who satisfies the requirements set out in an Act of Sederunt in respect of —

1. (i) standards of training;
2. (ii) indemnification of loss suffered by any child represented by him; and
3. (iii) compliance with a code of conduct").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 58, which has the same effect. The amendment is put down to ensure that within the area of representation of the child there is a structure which can be dealt with by the courts. The amendment is not in any way self-seeking because I happen to be an advocate-and probably still a solicitor, although I am not sure. It is not a case of special pleading on behalf of the legal profession.

The reasoning behind the amendments is that, within the procedure in the relevant section, first, there should be a solid structure for representation on behalf of the child by people who are able to present the child's views. Secondly, within that structure there should be an indemnification policy which the person representing the child would take out. There should also be a code of conduct.

If that does not take place, then let us take the example of a child of 12 who is presumed on the basis of the legislation to understand what he or she is doing. If that child is represented by someone who does not fall within a reasonably structured representation system, what happens when the child reaches 16? What happens to him between the ages of 12 and 16 because of the representations made on his behalf? Those representations made on his behalf and with his understanding may have deprived him of the enjoyment of his youth. He may have been taken away from his home. At the age of 16 he may return to the court and say: "I did not tell that woman to say that on my behalf. I did not realise what was going on".

These are two mirror amendments to reflect what should happen under Section 25 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, which refers to solicitor advocates. There are detailed provisions for training, a code of practice, for indemnification and for investigation of complaints. The Law Society of Scotland supports the proposal, not out of self-interest but to prevent disasters taking place. Unless there is some structure for representation, who in the end will be the representative of the child? It could be his mother, father, grandfather, Auntie Nelly, or Uncle Willie in Scotland, anybody. Where do we stop? Six people could come in, all saying: "We represent the child". Considerable argument could take place as to whether what is being said is a true representation of the child's views. I am not being facetious, because it is important that, when major decisions are made about a child's future, there should be properly structured representations to the court on the child's behalf. The two amendments are put before your Lordships' House for those reasons. I beg to move.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, there may have been some misunderstanding of this part of the Bill. The provision in the Bill is not about representation of the child: that is a separate matter. I stress that the child can be represented by a solicitor or advocate, as the noble Lord knows.

We have every sympathy with the noble Lord's intentions. During Report stage my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate stressed the importance of providing suitable machinery for taking the views of the child into account in relevant proceedings. However, he stressed that the procedures for ascertaining a child's views were more properly and effectively a matter of court procedure and practice. It is accordingly appropriate that those procedures be prescribed not by primary legislation but by rules of court.

The amendments seek to prescribe to a substantial extent the matters which may be contained in the relevant rules. That is excessively constricting. The rules councils, with their expertise in matters relating to children and family law generally, are undoubtedly best placed not only to identify the most appropriate means of taking and transmitting the views of a child to the sheriff but also to assess the extent, if any, to which such matters as are contained in the amendment require to be prescribed. We understand what the noble Lord seeks to achieve but we are convinced that it is better achieved through the rules of court.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I hope that I can take an implied indication that, when the rules of court are being structured, at least the spirit of the two amendments will be taken into account on behalf of the children. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 42:

Page 110, line 38, at end insert:

("Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 (c.56)

—(1) The Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.

(2) In section 35(3) (disturbance payments where modification of dwelling required for disabled person), in paragraph (a), after "1968" insert "or section 22 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".

(3) In section 80(1) (interpretation), in the definition of "disabled person"—

1. (a) after "means" insert"—
   1. (a)"; and
2. (b) after "1972" insert "; and
   1. (b) a child in need within the meaning of section 92(4) (a) (iii) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment will amend the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 so that it takes account of the new definition of a disabled child provided for in the Bill for purposes of disturbance payments where modifications of the dwelling are required for disabled persons. The amendment will mean that a disabled adult and a disabled child are defined separately, the latter by reference to the definition in the Bill. The second part of the amendment adds to the interpretation of the 1973 Act in consequence of the first part of the amendment. I commend these necessary changes to your Lordships and beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 43:

Page 111, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 4 and insert: ("—(1) The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph. (2) In section 3 (special provision with respect to certain disposals by children's hearings)—

1. (a) for the words "Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 is that mentioned in section 32(2) (g)" substitute "Children (Scotland) Act 1995 is that mentioned in section 51(2) (i)"; and
2. (b) for the words "to the satisfaction of the sheriff under section 42 of that Act, the acceptance or establishment" substitute "(or deemed established) to the satisfaction of the sheriff under section 67 or 84 of that Act, the acceptance, establishment (or deemed establishment)".

(3) In section 5 (rehabilitation periods for particular sentences)—

1. (a) in subsection (3) (b), for the words "43(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "68(1) (b) and (12) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";
2. (b) in subsection (5) (f), for the words "Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Children (Scotland) Act 1995";
3. (c) in subsection (10), for the words "Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and
4. (d) subsection (10A) shall cease to have effect.

(4) In section 7(2) (limitations on rehabilitation)— (a)")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 43, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 47, 48, 57, 61, 63, 68, 69 and 70. This group of amendments introduces consequential amendments in the list of enactments set out in Schedule 4 to the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 44 to 48:

Page 115, leave out lines 7 to 29 and insert: ("(6) Section 53 (custody order on application for adoption in Scotland) shall cease to have effect.").

Page 116, line 2, leave out ("In section 135(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (interpretation),") and insert: (".—(1) The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph. (2) In section 36(3) (referral to reporter of case of irregular school attendance), for the words from "may" to the end substitute ", where no requirement arises under section 52(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to give information about the child to the Principal Reporter, may under this subsection provide the Principal Reporter with such information.". (3) In section 44 —

1. (a) subsection (1) (referral by court to Principal Reporter of case involving offence against section 35) shall cease to have effect; and
2. (b) in subsection (2) (powers of court where no referral to Principal Reporter), for the words "subsection (1) above, make a direction" substitute "section 53(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, refer the matter to the Principal Reporter".

(4) In section 65B (6) (sending of report in relation to recorded child)—

1. (a) paragraph (a) shall cease to have effect; and
2. (b) at the end add—

and the local authority as education authority shall also ensure that the local authority for the purposes of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 receive such a copy.". (5) In section 135(1) (interpretation)— (a)").

Page 116, line 5, at end insert: ("(b) the definition of "reporter of the appropriate local authority" shall cease to have effect; (c) for the definition of "residential establishment substitute — "residential establishment" has the meaning given by paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression in section 92(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;"; and (d) for the definition of "supervision requirement" substitute— "supervision requirement" has the meaning given by section 69(1) of the said Act of 1995;".").

Page 118, line 36, at end insert:

("() In section 9 (suspension of court's powers in cases of wrongful removal), for paragraph (d) substitute— "(d) making, varying or discharging an order under section 85 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;". () In section 20 (further provision as regards suspension of court's powers)— (a) for paragraph (d) substitute— "(d) in the case of proceedings for, or for the variation or discharge of, a parental responsibilities order under section 85 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, make, vary or discharge any such order;"; and (b) in subsection (5), for the words "within the meaning of Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "(as defined in section 92(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995)". () In section 25 (termination of existing custody orders etc.), subsection (6) shall cease to have effect.").

Page 118, leave out lines 39 to 43 and insert:

("(3) In Schedule 3 (custody orders)— (a) in paragraph 5—

1. (i) for the words "custody, care or control of a child or" substitute "residence, custody, care or control of a child or contact with, or";
2. (ii) in sub-paragraph (iii), for the words "tutory or curatory" substitute "guardianship";
3. (iii) in sub-paragraph (iv), for the words "16(8), 16A (3) or 18(3) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "85 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and
1819
4. (iv) for sub-paragraph (v), substitute—
5. "(v) an order made, or warrant or authorisation granted, under or by virtue of Chapter 2 or 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to remove the child to a place of safety or to secure accommodation, to keep him at such a place or in such accommodation, or to prevent his removal from a place where he is being accommodated (or an order varying or discharging any order, warrant or authorisation so made or granted);";

(b) for paragraph 6 substitute— "(6) A supervision requirement made by a children's hearing under section 69 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (whether or not continued under section 72 of that Act) or made by the sheriff under section 50(5) (c) (iii) of that Act and any order made by a court in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland if it is an order which, by virtue of section 32(1) of that Act, has effect as if it were such a supervision requirement."; and (c) paragraph 7 shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 49:

Page 119, line 12, after ("persons)") insert ("—(a)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 50 to 54. These amendments will further amend the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 by introducing some of the new terminology used in the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 50 to 54:

Page 119, line 22, at end insert ("; and

(b) in paragraph (b), for the words "in the care of substitute "looked after by").

Page 119, line 27, at beginning insert (""for").

Page 119, line 44, leave out ("person in need") and insert ("relevant person for the purposes of section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968").

Page 119, line 49, leave out ("and").

Page 120, line 4, at end insert ("; and

(d) the existing provisions as so amended shall be subsection (1) of the section and at the end of the section there shall be added— "(2A) In this Act as it applies in relation to Scotland, any reference to a child who is looked after by a local authority shall be construed in accordance with section 17(6) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 55:

Page 120, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("(interpretation)") in line 8 and insert:

(". In section 41 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 56:

Page 121, line 19, at end insert:

("Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 26)

. In section 61 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (exemption from secure tenant's right to purchase)—

1. (a) in subsection (4) (f) (iii), for the words "have left the care of substitute "as children have been looked after by"; and
2. (b) after subsection (4) add

"(4A) The reference in subsection (4) (f) (iii) above to children looked after by a local authority shall be construed in accordance with section 17(6) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is another simple consequential amendment to take account of the changes in terminology brought about by the Bill. It makes appropriate changes in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 57:

Page 121, line 23, at end insert:

("Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988 (c.32)

. In paragraph (a) of the definition of "civil proceedings" in section 9 of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988 (interpretation)—

1. (a) the words "under section 42 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" shall cease to have effect;
2. (b) after the word "application" where it first occurs insert "under section 64(6) or (8) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";
3. (c) after the word "established," insert "or of an application for a review of such a finding under section 84 of that Act";
4. (d) after the word "application" where it occurs for the second time insert "or, as the case may be, the review"; and
5. (e) for the words "32(2) (g)" substitute "51(2) (i)".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 59:

Page 121, line 44, at end insert:

("() In section 31(7) (b) (iii) (restriction on applications for care and supervision orders), for the words "the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 60. These are technical amendments which will amend the Children Act 1989 so that references to "supervision requirement" in that Act are drawn from the definition in the Bill rather than from the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 60 and 61:

Page 122, line 7, at end insert:

("() In Schedule 8 (privately fostered children), in paragraph 3(b), for the words "the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".").

Page 125, line 6, leave out from second ("proceedings"") to end of line 8 and insert ("—

1. (a) the words "under section 42 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" shall cease to have effect;
2. (b) after the word "application" where it appears for the first time insert "under section 64(6) or (8) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";
1821
3. (c) after the word "established" insert "or for a review of such a finding under section 84 of that Act"; and
4. (d) after the word "application" where it appears for the second time insert "or, as the case may be, the review".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Repeals]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 62 to 70:

Page 127, line 48, column 3, at end insert: ("Section 88.").

Page 128, line 25, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 5(10A).").

Page 129, line 7, column 3, at end insert ("Section 53.").

Page 129, line 33, column 3, at end insert ("In section 14(1), the words from "Subject" to "certain cases)"").

Page 129, line 34, column 3, leave out ("15(3)") and insert ("15, in subsection (1), the words from "Subject" to "certain cases)"; and in subsection (3),").

Page 129, line 55, at end insert:

("1980 c.44.	Education (Scotland) Act 1980.	Section 44(1). In section 65B (6), paragraph (a).
		In section 135(1), the definition of "reporter of the appropriate local authority".")

Page 130, line 30, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 3, paragraph 7.").

Page 130, line 48, at end insert:

("1988 c.32.

Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988.

In section 9, in the definition of "civil proceedings", in paragraph (a), the words "under section 42 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968".").

Page 131, line 14, at end insert:

("1993 c.9.

Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993.

In paragraph 8 of Schedule 3, the definition of "criminal proceedings", the words "under section 42 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968".")

On Question, amendments agreed to.

8.13 p.m.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

The Children (Scotland) Bill which, as amended, is before your Lordships' House for a Third Reading today is a significant step forward in Scottish children's legislation. It is no exaggeration to say that it represents a historic advance on the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and other legislation, which has in its time served us well.

The Bill defines the responsibilities and rights of parents. It promotes the welfare of children. It improves the protection of children. It brings adoption law up to date. The Bill implements the undertaking to legislate which we made in our White Paper, Scotland's Children in 1993. It also implements important parts of the Scottish Law Commission's report on family law.

This Bill has been the subject of careful and helpful consideration in this House. In procedural terms, the Bill has followed an unusual course which, I think, noble Lords have found useful. In particular, the Committee stage of the Bill took place off the Floor of the House. This released it from some of the usual constraints on time and enabled us to consider the extensive and complex issues raised by it more fully. I am very grateful to noble Lords for the amount of time and care which they have devoted to the Bill, in particular at the Committee stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said, debate was carried out in a spirit of constructive and understanding cross-party consensus.

I am particularly indebted to my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser, who was involved with this Bill from its very early stages when it was being drafted in consultation with various groups in Scotland, and all the way through to just a few days ago. I am also indebted to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate who, at comparatively short notice last week, lent us his wisdom and guidance on certain crucial matters. I must also thank my noble friend Lord Balfour, who is assiduous in his reading of the legislation, both for his comments on its substance and in making sure that the draftsmen have got it right. Once again, I will pass on the compliment paid to him behind his back by one of the officials, who remarked that he has a higher scoring rate than Gavin Hastings. The accuracy with which he managed to spot certain drafting matters continues to impress.

The noble Baroness, Lady Saltoun, was indefatigable in her efforts to bring this Bill forward and improve it during its passage. I would say the same of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. They all spent a considerable amount of their own time and interest in seeking to make sure that this Bill leaves the House in as good as state as it possibly can.

My noble friend Lady Carnegy, who made a tremendous contribution at Second Reading, was, sadly, not with us for all the intervening stages. However, she has still contributed to the final shape of the Bill. I must also mention the memorable maiden speech at Second Reading from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the Lord President, and the wisdom that he brought to our debate on the report on corporal punishment.

As noble Lords will know, we have considered a substantial number of amendments to this Bill while it has been before the House. Over 300 amendments have been made. This reflects the careful attention that has been given by noble Lords to the detail of the Bill in ensuring that it works well to the benefit of Scotland's children.

Major improvements have been made as a result. I would mention in particular the amendments which now make it possible to exclude an abuser from the family home on an emergency basis while still retaining the safeguards of a very early hearing before a sheriff on whether or not to confirm the original emergency exclusion.

A new clause has also been added to provide a proper procedure by which new evidence can be considered. This amendment to the Bill arose out of the difficulties which had arisen over the case of the South Ayrshire children. It removes the need to make use of the nobile officium, which was considered an unsatisfactory way of considering new evidence. It is important in issues of the welfare of children to ensure that, if there is significant new evidence which needs to be considered, there is a clear procedure for doing this.

As a result of amendments brought forward by noble Lords, we have also added to the Bill a clear right for the child to attend his or her own hearing. This is in keeping with the greater emphasis on the rights of children. Important and useful amendments have also been made to the arrangements for warrants arising from child protection orders. These clarify procedures and provide safeguards for children.

Many other helpful changes have been made and, without wanting to single out any noble Lord in particular, I would express special thanks to all who have taken part. We now have before us a Bill which I consider to be substantially improved and one which will contribute significantly to promoting the welfare and protection of Scotland's children.

We now need to look forward to the major process of implementation. This will involve regulations and rules of court; guidance and training for all those involved in implementing the Act; information for children and their parents in a readily understood form; and information for the general public.

The Bill has been well described as setting a challenging agenda for the future in the interests of Scotland's children. It is certainly an extensive agenda and we shall be planning its implementation with great care so that all the parts are prepared and in place to ensure successful implementation. We still have to make decisions on exactly when the Bill's provisions are to be implemented, but we need to be realistic and follow an adequate timescale.

It is only right that we take account of the capacity and readiness of the new councils to assume their responsibilities under the Bill. At the same time we wish to ensure that the implementation programme has the benefit of responsible and informed opinion. This means that there will be wide consultation on important aspects of implementation—including rules of court—and we look to all those concerned with the Bill to make positive contributions to that process.

The Bill is a valuable statement of children's law based on clear principles. It is designed to benefit all the children of Scotland and their families. I am grateful to noble Lords for the close and co-operative interest they have taken in it. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I warmly welcome the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, to his new job. I know that he will not take it as any reflection on him when I say that I am very sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, is not present this evening to see this Bill safely through its penultimate stage. But I now see him entering the Chamber, and I am so glad because the Bill is his baby. Scotland owes him a considerable debt of gratitude for its conception and birth.

First, the noble and learned Lord consulted representatives from various children's organisations about the content of the Bill before it was finally drafted. Next, I am sure that he fought hard to persuade the Government to make time for it and played a great part in formulating the new, experimental procedures which took place at Second Reading in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh; later before the Committee stage when the Standing Committee took evidence; again in Edinburgh, from many of the children's organisations which were interested; and when having the Committee stage off the Floor of the House. Our thanks are due to him for ensuring that the Bill has reached this stage. I certainly hope that he is very proud and happy about it. To all those noble Lords, whether or not Members of the Scottish All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children, and to those who assisted us, I extend my warmest thanks as Lords' Convenor.

I know that some noble Lords still have concerns—that became quite clear this evening—and some would have liked further amendments. But I hope that they will recognise that there is a balance to be maintained between the interests of children and those of the general public, between what is ideal and what is practical and between the extent of provision which we would all like to see and what can be afforded.

Before we finish, I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, could tell us when the guidelines on interviewing children are to be published. Some of us would very much like to know that. Meanwhile, we shall see how the legislation works. If problems arise—we hope that they will not—we shall see then what can be done. I hope to see the Bill receive Royal Assent before we rise next week.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for their help, patience and reassurance throughout the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. I also welcome the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, as the new Scottish Whip. I hope that he will enjoy dealing with Scottish business.

As the Bill has been classified as non-controversial and enjoys all-party support, so there has been a greater need to clarify at the margins and seek reassurance that any loophole spotted will be plugged, at least in guidance.

I pay considerable tribute to the help and advice that I have received from the Consortium for the Children (Scotland) Bill, serviced by Children in Scotland and the Scottish Child Law Centre, representing 80 childcare organisations in Scotland. In particular, I pay tribute to the outstanding contribution of Dr. Kay Tisdall, whose new employers, Glasgow University, will be pleased to gain her full attention. I should also like to thank parents for raising the relationship between independent schools and the Children (Scotland) Bill.

Perhaps I may comment on the use of the Moses Room for the Committee stage of the Bill. The advantages were considerable in that the Ministers and their advisers were seated together and could confer speedily. Moreover, there was room for everyone to spread their papers on the tables in front of them. The downside of using that location was that apparently the acoustics below Bar are very poor. Considering that there were a number of well-paid advisers present, that was perhaps a pity.

Finally, I wish this Bill well as it proceeds to the Statute Book. I look forward to its early implementation.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, about the progress of the Bill. It started off on a pretty shaky foundation—not, that is, the Bill itself, but the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children. We were very fortunate to find a slot in the legislative procedure. I shall not go into the reasons for that. This is not the time to make any political points.

The Bill has taken a fairly protracted way through the legislative procedure. We join with the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, in paying tribute to the people who briefed us. We must be frank about the matter. One cannot use one's imagination on Bills such as this except to a limited extent. We must be instructed by the people who deal with children and know the problems. As the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, said, we now have a better Bill than when it came into your Lordships' House.

I should like to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, who, as I said, has been very co-operative from the beginning. It was pointed out to me that he now appears to have taken a seat on the Bishops' Benches. I wonder whether he has been elevated to one of their posts. He keeps moving upward all the time. But perhaps his choice of seat was just accidental and he will take his place on the Government Benches in due course. I am sure that, as yet, he has not become a Bishop.

We are very grateful to him. Everyone involved in the consultation process is grateful to him for his consideration of the issues which were raised. He did not agree with some of them but agreed with others. That is his privilege. But everyone recognises his unfailing courtesy towards those who raised the points. His successor, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has had an opportunity for a short time to take part in the debates and he echoed the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, to the Bill.

This is the moment when we all congratulate one another and say what fine fellows and ladies we are. I shall not shrink from that. We have done a lot of hard work on this Bill. Everyone in your Lordships' House who has contributed to it has done a lot of hard work on this Bill. I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, as one who really makes the Government think. I have never met his equal as a scrutineer of legislation. There is a parallel with Long John Silver and the parrot. I am sure that some Ministers might have felt at times that the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, was like Long John Silver's parrot, pointing out deficiencies in the legislation. It is always a pleasure to hear his contribution to debates.

We on this side of your Lordships' House have views about the continuation of this House in its present form. I wish that some of the detractors of your Lordships' House who speak without knowledge of what happens in this Chamber could come here for a few days to see the work done to get legislation through. This Bill is one of the better examples which demonstrates the purpose of the House of Lords from the legislative point of view; namely, to take a Bill, grab it by the throat, make it a little better and send it back to where it came from in the hope that it will be accepted in the other place. We have had many examples of that in the various matters that have been considered.

I make only one further point. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, spoke about the Moses Room. There is one problem about that room, which is that it can become a little too cosy. Because this was an all-party Bill, we got over that problem. But I am not sure that it is the proper place to hold discussions on a more controversial Bill. Until the noble Earl told me this morning, I did not realise that the people sitting in the seats at the far end of the Moses Room who were interested in the Bill could not in fact hear what was going on because the microphones were only used for reporting the proceedings. I may be wrong about that, but I believe some of them felt rather deprived, having come all the way to hear the debate and not being able to take part.

The second point made to me is that the reports of what happened in the Moses Room are not officially recorded in Hansard. They are separate reports. If we are to use those proceedings, it may be an idea that the reporting should be part of the Official Report. People buy the Official Report in the hope of seeing what has happened and find that there is no sign of the debates. Perhaps that is something which the House authorities can consider.

In any event, it has been an enjoyable experience and I join with other Members of your Lordships' House in thanking everyone for the pleasure of dealing with this Bill.

8.30 p.m.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, at this stage I join with what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said. If another Bill is taken off the Floor of the House, its proceedings should be attached to the daily Hansard that comes out of the proceedings of the Whole House. It is a good point and I am grateful to the noble Lord for making it.

Of all the legislation I have followed through your Lordships' House, none has ever had the care and attention to detail that this Children (Scotland) Bill has received from my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser and my noble friend Lord Lindsay and the Scottish Office. More than half of the clauses and schedules of this Bill are introducing new ideas to protect the youngest members of our society.

In its passage through Parliament this Bill has been practically rewritten to meet proposals from all sides of this House and of the political spectrum. It seems a pity to me that the electorate of Scotland are not aware of how much the laws and general welfare of Scotland have been improved by this Conservative Government.

Finally, I wish my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie every success in his new position as the Minister for trade and industry, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay every success in the Scottish Office.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, told us how important it was to be instructed by people who deal with children. I should like to say what a pleasure it was to instruct him on this matter. As the father of five children I have had considerable dealings with them and that may be why he listened so thoughtfully to everything I said from the Dispatch Box today.

He mentioned also that the passage of this Bill would be enlightening to the detractors of this House. He may ponder on the fact that his party are generating quite a lot of detraction of this House. When we think of the contribution to this Bill from the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, my noble friend Lord Balfour and others, some of the plans that his party has for this Chamber would have robbed this House of that calibre of scrutiny.

I can say to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that the guidelines will be published shortly—and that is "shortly" in the dictionary sense of the word rather than in the shut-out sense that is sometimes used. I am especially glad that my noble and learned friends Lord Fraser and the Lord Advocate, if not in their normal seats, are in their places. I shall not repeat what I said about them both in their absence. My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser heard the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, give him just praise for the quality of the Bill. It is perhaps fitting that they should sit on the Bishops' Bench; their guidance in spiritual and other matters is undoubted.

I can but reiterate that this Bill is a valuable statement on children's law based on clear principles. It is designed to benefit all the children of Scotland and their families. On that basis, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.

On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before nine o'clock.