Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page



"grant an interdict of any relevant item specified in the interdict from the home, except by virtue of a subsequent order of the sheriff".
If the tools of a trade, a doctor's black bag or a lawyer's books (or whatever it might be) remained in the house, they could be expressly excluded from the terms of any interdict. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw the amendment.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. As usual, I shall read with interest what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 not moved.]

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 173:


Page 58, line 33, leave out ("any spouse or partner of the named person") and insert ("an appropriate person").

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 164 introduced a new requirement; namely that there should be a person specified in the application for an exclusion order:

13 Jun 1995 : Column CWH123


"who is capable of taking responsibility for the provision of appropriate care for the child and any other member of the family who requires such care and who is, or will be, residing in the family home".
Although in most situations that person will be the spouse or the partner of the abuser, that will not necessarily always be the case. The term "appropriate person" was therefore introduced in recognition of that possibility.

This group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 175, 176, 181, 183, 184, 185, 188, 189 and 190, are grouped with Amendment No. 173—makes consequential changes to the exclusion order terminology. I beg to move.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar: There is just one matter; having removed the specification of


"any spouse or partner of the named person" and substituted the words "an appropriate person", may I ask whether the phrase "an appropriate person" will be defined, or are we leaving open the definition depending on the particular circumstances of particular households? It is a matter of information because the new provisions create greater confusion whereas the original terms of the Bill were fairly precise. The phrase "an appropriate person" is very worrying. It may be somewhere in the Bill already—if it is, then I apologise for not having seen it—but I do not see it in Clause 84. Perhaps the Minister could give that point some consideration.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The terminology has been adopted deliberately because the make-up of households is potentially almost infinitely variable. It might be, for example, in the ordinary case—that is the way the original drafting proceeded—that the likelihood would be that it would be a spouse or a partner of the named person who was being excluded who would remain in the house with the child. What is not appreciated is that in some cases an appropriate person might be the grandmother—that is the most obvious one to select. But even though she might be a fairly obvious and predictable individual to be the appropriate person to resume or take on the care of the child in such circumstances, it is virtually impossible to predict a finite list. In those circumstances "an appropriate person" is the best terminology to apply.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 173A:


Page 58, line 38, leave out from ("person") to first ("of") in line 39.

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 173A seeks to limit the extent to which an interdict related to the granting of an exclusion order might affect people other than the named persons. As drafted at present, Clause 71(3)(e) would allow any other person to be named in the interdict and prohibited from taking any step mentioned in the interdict in relation to the child. This would appear to go beyond the reasons for the making of the original order. If there were grounds for any other person to be prohibited through an interdict in this way there would be strong reasons for

13 Jun 1995 : Column CWH124

suggesting that the person should equally be subject to an exclusion order. The amendment takes "any other person" out of paragraph (e) thus making clear that any interdict granted under its terms should relate only to the person named in the exclusion order. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 174 not moved.]

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 175 and 176.


Page 59, line 14, after ("concerned") insert ("or an appropriate person").
Page 59, line 15, after ("member") insert ("or person").

The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 173 I spoke to Amendments Nos. 175 and 176. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 72 [Powers of arrest etc. in relation to exclusion order]:

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 177:


Page 59, line 22, leave out from ("may") to ("attach") in line 23 and insert (", whether or not on an application such as is mentioned in subsection (1A) below,").

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is moved with some reluctance in response to concerns that were raised in another place. The amendments replace the Latin phrase ex proprio motu in Clause 72 with an equivalent form of words in English. The purpose of this provision, namely to empower a sheriff to attach a power of arrest to an interdict whether or not the local authority has made such an application, ought to be clearer. I am bound to say that I think ex proprio motu is a perfectly adequate way of putting it but as that seems to have caused some disagreement in another place we have replaced a worthwhile short Latin phrase with extended English terminology. I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I am unable to call Amendment No. 178.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 178 not moved.]

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 179:


Page 59, line 24, at end insert:
("(1A) A local authority may at any time while an exclusion order has effect apply for such attachment of a power of arrest as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 181:


Page 61, line 3, after ("family") insert (", or an appropriate person,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]

13 Jun 1995 : Column CWH125

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 183 to 185:


Page 61, line 22, leave from beginning to first ("the") in line 23 and insert ("an appropriate person who will reside in, or who remains in residence in,").
Page 61, line 24, leave out ("that spouse or partner") and insert ("the appropriate person").
Page 61, line 27, leave out ("spouse or partner") and insert ("person").

The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 173 I spoke to these three amendments. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 186:


Page 61, line 31, leave out subsection (14).

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 186, I speak also to Amendment No. 191. These amendments are consequential on our decision to replace the word "partner" in Clause 72 (13) with "appropriate person". I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 73 [Duration, variation and recall of exclusion order]:

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 187:


Page 61, line 34, leave out subsections (1) and (2).

The noble Lord said: This is a fairly short amendment. However, it is of some importance and it is raised to discuss the issue of what happens after six months. Clause 73 reads at the moment that after the end of a six months period the exclusion order shall cease, except under the conditions specified in Clause 73 (2) where other steps have been taken to make the exclusion order cease before the expiry of six months.

If we are looking for flexibility in these matters in relation to the welfare of the child, which has been discussed at length—and the amendment, although short, raises the issue—what will happen to the child and indeed to the excluded alleged abuser at the end of six months? I am the first to protect the liberty of the subject but it looks as if subsection (1) may be a very restricting subsection. It may be better to build into subsection (1) some qualification that the court can continue the exclusion order beyond six months on cause shown by whoever the person may be. That proposal does not appear to be covered by Clause 73(3) but, if it is, no doubt the noble and learned Lord the Minister will tell me that I am wrong. I know that the clause says over the page,


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page