Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I accept that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 53 as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.

Clause 56 [Duration, recall or variation of child protection order]:

The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 149:


Page 43, line 32, leave out ("regulations") and insert ("rules").

The noble Earl said: When we were discussing Clause 53 I referred to the fact that we were dealing with rules.

7 Jun 1995 : Column CWH108

This may be the result of a slightly misplaced correction when "the Secretary of State" was removed from part of this clause at the Report stage in another place. I am suggesting that on this occasion "rules" should be substituted for "regulations". I beg to move.

The Earl of Lindsay: It is with great pleasure that we see my noble friend back on the field with us again. He is absolutely right—this amendment corrects an error contained in Clause 56(7)(d) which refers to regulations made under Clause 53(6). The reference should be to rules made under Clause 53(6). Therefore, I urge the Committee to accept my noble friend's amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 57 to 59 agreed to.

Clause 60 [Referral to, and proceedings at, children's hearing]:

[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]

Clause 60 agreed to.

Clause 61 [Warrant to keep child where children's hearing unable to dispose of case]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 151:


Page 48, line 26, after ("may") insert ("require any person named in the warrant").

The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 151, 152 and 153 are minor amendments and place a duty rather than a discretion on a person named in a warrant issued by a children's hearing to keep the child in a place of safety. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 152:


Page 48, line 27, leave out ("permit any person named in it").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 153:


    Page 48, line 29, leave out ("require any such person").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 62 [Application to sheriff to establish grounds of referral]:

[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]

The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 155:


Page 50, line 38, after ("three") insert ("working").

The noble Earl said: Reference has been made in other parts of the Bill to three working days. On this occasion we should also consider whether to add the word "working" to the Bill. I beg to move.

The Earl of Lindsay: The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Balfour would provide that a child kept in a place of safety under an order issued by the sheriff after he has concluded that the grounds for referral to a children's home have been established shall only be valid for three working days commencing with the date on which the child was first taken to a place of safety.

I assume that my noble friend is concerned about the position where the child is taken to a place of safety

7 Jun 1995 : Column CWH109

towards the end of the week. Emergency hearings, however, can be arranged at any time to meet the requirements of the children's hearing system and of the family circumstances. It is not necessary to specify three working days. This is a change to the existing provision in the 1968 Act. It would lead to the child being kept longer than is absolutely necessary if the hearing was not to be held until the third working day as against the third day. Even the Scottish warrior Gavin Hastings did not convert all his kicks in his last match, and I am afraid that this time my noble friend's amendment is one which should be withdrawn. So I would ask him to do that.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the Minister sits down, I have some sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has said. Are we distinguishing between a working day and a dies non?

The Earl of Lindsay: If I understand the noble Lord correctly, working days are taken to be Mondays to Fridays. No doubt the noble Lord works all seven days of the week, but Saturdays and Sundays are not usually included.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar: For legal purposes, and in the Criminal Procedure Act and so on, we have the dies non on a Sunday sometimes not regarded as being a vehicle for calculation of figures, and that is why I asked seriously whether a working day is being interpreted as Monday to Friday. What happens if a child is taken in on a Friday?

The Earl of Lindsay: I refer the noble Lord to Clause 84 and the definition of "working day". It means:


"every day except—
(a) Saturday and Sunday;
(b) December 25th and 26th; and
(c) January 1st and 2nd."

I hope that answers the noble Lord's query.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar: It has certainly answered the question but it is not very satisfactory from the point of view of the child. If "working day" means every day except Saturday and Sunday, and it does not mean Christmas Day or Boxing Day, and it does not mean January 1st or 2nd, it is not much consolation to the child that this has been built into the Bill. It might be something to look at again.

The Earl of Lindsay: I stressed that an emergency hearing can be arranged at any time to meet the requirements of the children's hearing system and the family circumstances. It is the amendment that is seeking to introduce "working" into this definition. The Government are intent on resisting this amendment so that the children's rights are properly protected.

The Earl of Balfour: I am glad I tabled this amendment. I am very pleased to know that there can be very short notice in calling a hearing and that it can take place within three days, regardless of what day of the week the child is taken into care. In that respect, I am very much relieved to know that it can be dealt with as quickly as possible, perhaps with just a day between. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lindsay for

7 Jun 1995 : Column CWH110

giving me that information and I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 62 agreed to.

Clause 63 [Continuation or disposal of referral by children's hearing]:

On Question, Whether Clause 63 shall stand part of the Bill?

The Earl of Balfour: Subsection (6) states—and I am sorry that I have not managed to write to my noble friend about this:


"the day on which the subsequent hearing of the child's case by a children's hearing begins". I wonder whether the Government might consider including the words "is completed", because on reading the clause I felt that the word "completed" would be more satisfactory. Exactly the same point arises in subsection (8):
"A warrant under subsection (7) above shall cease to have effect on whichever is the earlier of—
(a) the expiry of twenty-two days after the warrant is issued; or
(b) the day on which the subsequent hearing of the child's case by a children's hearing begins." Again, I feel that adding the words "if that is completed" might be an improvement to the wording.

The Earl of Lindsay: Given the normal pedigree of my noble friend's amendments and suggestions we would like to consider what my noble friend proposes and write to him in due course.

Clause 63 agreed to.

6.15 p.m.

Clause 64 [Disposal of referral by children's hearing: supervision requirements, including residence in secure accommodation]:

[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 157:


Page 52, line 23, after ("may") insert (", without prejudice to the generality of that subsection").

The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor amendment to clarify that the conditions which may be imposed in a supervision requirement are not restricted to those set out in subsection (5)—that is, to require the child to submit to any medical or other examination and to


"regulate the contact with the child of any specified person".
The power to impose conditions is intended to cover a far wider range of specifications. The amendment will make that clear by removing a possible restriction on the imposition of conditions. I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour: May I take this opportunity to ask a question? Clause 64(6) states:


"A children's hearing may require, when making a supervision requirement, that any place where the child is to reside in accordance with the requirement shall not be disclosed to any named person or class of persons." That is fair enough. What concerns me is that we are in a way excluding whoever had parental responsibility for the child before that occurred. I just wondered whether

7 Jun 1995 : Column CWH111

the person having parental responsibilities should be at least notified where the child is.

Subsection (8) states:


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page