Draft Children's Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Consequential and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2013
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Bain, Mr William (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
† Bingham, Andrew (High Peak) (Con)
† Burley, Mr Aidan (Cannock Chase) (Con)
† Crabb, Stephen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales)
† Griffiths, Andrew (Burton) (Con)
† Hamilton, Mr David (Midlothian) (Lab)
† Lazarowicz, Mark (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
† McGovern, Jim (Dundee West) (Lab)
† Mundell, David (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland)
Nash, Pamela (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
† O’Donnell, Fiona (East Lothian) (Lab)
† Reid, Mr Alan (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
† Russell, Sir Bob (Colchester) (LD)
† Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
† Tomlinson, Justin (North Swindon) (Con)
† Wheeler, Heather (South Derbyshire) (Con)
Sarah Heath, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
The following also attended ( Standing Order No. 1 18(2) ) :
Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 5 June 2013
[Sandra Osborne in the Chair]
Draft Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Consequential and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2013
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Consequential and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2013.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne; I know that you take a great interest in all matters relating to Scotland.
The order is made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient changes to UK legislation in consequence of any provision made by or under any Act of the Scottish Parliament. The order is made in consequence of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011. That Act aims to improve support for both professionals and panel members involved with Scotland’s children’s hearings system to ensure consistency of approach and practice with a view to achieving better outcomes for children and young people.
The 2011 Act will provide for legal and procedural changes to ensure that children’s rights continue to be properly upheld while also bringing the majority of existing law relating to children’s hearings into a single statute. The Act largely restates and updates the law relating to children’s hearings in Scotland. The order will ensure that existing legislation in England and Wales, as well as reserved UK legislation, is updated to reflect those changes. The order also makes cross-border provision to ensure that certain aspects of the children’s hearings system, for example the placing of children in a particular place, apply and can be done in other parts of the UK. The modifications made by the order are largely of a technical nature and will ensure that existing laws continue to operate effectively by recognising the modifications made by the 2011 Act and subordinate legislation made under it.
The order demonstrates the UK Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I hope that the Committee will agree that it is an appropriate use of the powers in the Scotland Act and that the practical result is to be welcomed. I commend the order to the Committee.
2.32 pm
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne.
As the Minister said, the order before the Committee makes consequential amendments to UK statutes arising out of the passage by the Scottish Parliament of the 2011 Act. The Act made reforms to the law affecting children’s hearings in Scotland, including substantial amendments
to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, a pre-devolution Act of this Parliament that is referred to in many other UK statutes.The order adopts the same approach to the definition of “place of safety” in respect of a child who is being removed from its home in circumstances injurious to its well-being. It also reinstates the powers of the police to enforce an order or warrant in respect of a child in Scotland if that child moves to England, Wales or Northern Ireland. These provisions previously arose from the 1995 Act, but they require to be reinstated. The provisions would also apply where a child absconds to a place in another nation of the United Kingdom against the terms of an order issued by a sheriff or children’s hearing in Scotland.
The order also makes it an offence to publish information about a children’s hearing or other court proceedings, including conceivably by the media, under the 2011 Act where that information could or would be likely to identify the child, his or her address, or the school he or she attends. That would also be an offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and mirrors the position under the 1995 Act.
The order also makes provision, importantly, for reciprocal arrangements in relation to the enforcement of a care order made by the courts in UK jurisdictions other than Scotland should the child affected move to Scotland. Similarly, where a child subject to a court order in Scotland moves to another part of the UK, the order makes arrangements for that court order to be enforced in the other jurisdiction as if it had been made there.
The order also permits a court order in respect of a child from England, Wales or Northern Ireland to be converted into a Scottish compulsory supervision order should the child move to Scotland, where the order from the other jurisdiction will then cease to have legal effect.
The Opposition support the entry into force of the 2011 Act and recognise that the order is an important part of the process of ensuring that that happens as quickly as possible. It should also be noted that the arrangements for the mutual recognition, application and convertibility of such court orders are made easier because Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. In the coming 15 months, I hope that point is not forgotten.
2.35 pm
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): We, too, support the order, because obviously the 2011 Act, as an Act of the Scottish Parliament, does good things. The order is an example of how Parliaments can work together, whatever the circumstances, as is the European Union, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman also supports. Scotland has a good, well-recognised children’s system, which as a solicitor I had some involvement with, although in the quite distant past now. These are good requirements, and that we are able to do this shows maturity in the Scottish Parliament—we are able to agree with our friends in other parts of the soon-to-be not-UK in dealing with such matters. I am sure that after independence we will continue to discuss with colleagues in other parts of the former UK.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op) rose—
The Chair: Order. I ask Members to stay within the confines of what we are discussing today and not wander off elsewhere.
2.36 pm
Mark Lazarowicz: I would have been grateful to the hon. Member for Angus if he had given way, but I understand that he has ceased, so this will be my
contribution. I echo what has been said about the order being a good example of the Scottish Parliament working together with the UK Parliament. I merely observe that wise comments could not have been made by the hon. Gentleman were his policies to be successful.