| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bach: My Lords, the children's division of the Official Solicitor's office will no longer exist. I suppose that the noble Earl means officers in that capacity at the moment and who will become an important part of CAFCASS. No, I do not believe that it will increase their powers unduly. We shall have to wait and see what happens as we are slightly in the dark. I believe that the House, particularly the noble Earl and the noble Baroness opposite, wanted some reassurance that, first, we shall scrap the tandem model and, secondly, that those who are not lawyers will not be compelled to appear as lawyers, as they are not bound to do currently. I hope that gives him some reassurance.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken in relation to these amendments in Committee and today. I fully accept that "the tandem model" should not be on the face of the Bill simply as "the tandem model" because that would not explain it, but I am concerned that the principle of a public law case, where a child has the help of a guardian ad litem allied to a solicitor or a barrister, as the tandem model provides, is, as the Minister has said, not defined anywhere. I believe that we have an excellent opportunity to define it in this Bill so that we have enshrined for evermore the fact that there is a right. I do not for a moment dispute what the Minister has said, that it is in the family proceedings rules, but it is not in law. I do not believe it is difficult to define "the tandem model".
I fully understand that in his amendments the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has considerably restricted those who would work with children in private law cases. Before Third Reading I shall reflect on whether I should seek to have the words "of a qualified lawyer" inserted, particularly for private law cases because as the Bill stands at the moment the wording is "may appoint" and I believe that it would help if it were clear that priority should be given to ensuring that the child had that full legal representation. I know that in private law it is not always common for a child to need legal support, but it is not unusual; it is not unknown; and it is absolutely essential that there is no misunderstanding that that legal advice should be available.
I thank the Minister for the care that he has taken in relation to my concerns. I shall withdraw the amendments for the moment. I may or may not return to the matter at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 25:
- Page 7, line 21, leave out ("in the exercise of his functions") and insert ("of a prescribed description").
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, can the Minister explain the significance of moving the words,
- "in the exercise of his functions",
- "in the exercise of his functions",
Lord Bach: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that question. My first thought on it--I shall of course take it away and consider it further--is that it was tabled to cover both subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b), which it would do in any event if it stayed where it was in the Bill. My second thought is that the expression, "of a prescribed description", which the Government seek to include, may be thought to go better with the expression "officer of the Service"; and the last expression currently in the first and second lines,
- "in the exercise of his functions",
However, perhaps I can consider what the noble and learned Lord said and perhaps write to him with the reasoning behind it.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and am content with what he suggested.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27:
- Page 7, line 25, leave out ("magistrates' court or county").
- Page 7, line 25, at end insert ("in the exercise of his functions").
[Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 not moved.]
Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 32:
- Page 8, line 25, at end insert ("and for "that subsection" there is substituted "subsection (1) or (2A) above"").
Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
- Page 8, line 36, leave out ("(other than a chief probation officer)").
- Page 9, line 2, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
- Page 9, line 10, leave out ("Service") and insert ("new employer").
- Page 9, line 14, leave out ("Service") and insert ("new employer").
Clause 20 [Transfer of staff]:
Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 37:
- Page 9, line 29, leave out ("for") and insert ("of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Effect of transfer of chief probation officers]:
Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 38 and 39:
- Page 10, line 43, leave out ("for") and insert ("of").
- Page 11, line 13, leave out ("for") and insert ("of").
Clause 25 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41:
- Page 12, line 26, after ("in") insert ("relation to").
- Page 12, line 27, after ("in") insert ("relation to").
Schedule 4 [Meaning of "offence against a child"]:
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn) moved Amendment No. 42:
- Page 60, line 22, at end insert--
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 42 is a minor technical amendment. It arises in this way.
In another place an amendment was moved by the Opposition Front Bench to increase penalties for child pornography and subsequently your Lordships agreed to that increase. As a result, that offence, which we all treat with great seriousness, became eligible for inclusion in the list of offences to trigger the disqualification order in Part II. The amendment is designed to achieve that and no more; to give effect to
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I want briefly to take another opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord for the consequential amendment and for accepting this amendment. As he said, this is an amendment which is welcomed throughout the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 43:
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, grouped with Amendment No. 43 are Amendments Nos. 44 and 61.
The effect of these amendments is to include in the Schedule 4 list which I mentioned a moment or two ago, the offence of supplying Class A drugs when the supply is made to children. That means that those committing the offence of the supply of Class A drugs, and meeting all the appropriate conditions explained earlier in some detail, stand to be disqualified from working with children.
There were strong representations in your Lordships' House and elsewhere and we put our minds to the question, which is not entirely straightforward, as to whether or not to include misuse of drugs offences in the list of trigger offences. I am grateful to noble Lords who raised this issue. We paid careful attention to what was said and, rightly or wrongly, the consequence which occurred with the two ungrouped amendments earlier may arise, because the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, takes a different view on these matters. However, I am constrained by the groupings. Perhaps I can say, without discourtesy to her group, that she wishes to include cannabis as well; in other words, all controlled drugs, not simply Class A drugs.
We believe that Class A drugs are different. They have always been treated differently in the law. Sentencing for Class A drug offences is much heavier than for other drugs and we feel that one ought to maintain that clear distinction in seriousness. That is the short basis of our proposal. It is not suitable for me to pre-empt any views the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may have. I simply indicate that she has an alternative approach to this problem. I beg to move.
("( ) an offence under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent photograph of child),").
Page 61, line 41, at end insert--
("( ) he commits an offence under section 4(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by--
(i) supplying or offering to supply a Class A drug to a child,
(ii) being concerned in the supplying of such a drug to a child, or
(iii) being concerned in the making to a child of an offer to supply such a drug,").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page