Legislative Scrutiny: Welfare Reform Bill; Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill; Health Bill - Human Rights Joint Committee Contents


2  Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

Date introduced to first House

Date introduced to second House

Current Bill Number

Previous Reports

4 February 2009

HL Bill 78

None

Background

2.1 The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill is a Government Bill introduced in the House of Commons on 4 February 2009. It had its Second Reading on 23 February 2009 and completed its Committee stage on 26 March 2009. No date has been set for its Report stage.

2.2 We wrote to the Minister on 10 March 2009 raising a number of questions about the human rights compatibility of certain aspects of the Bill. The Minister responded by letter dated 25 March 2009. The correspondence is annexed to this Report.[95]

Purposes of the Bill

2.3 The Bill has a number of different purposes, many of which do not engage any human rights. The main purposes with human rights implications are the transfer to LEAs of responsibility for the education of detained children and young people; the extension of the power to search pupils at school; the recording and reporting of uses of force on pupils at school; the provision for the drawing up of children and young people's plans; and the placing of Children's Centres on a statutory footing.

Explanatory Notes

2.4 The Explanatory Notes to the Bill contain a reasonably full explanation of the human rights compatibility of the Bill.[96]

2.5 Prior to publication of the Bill, in response to our call for evidence on the Government's Draft Legislative Programme, the Department sent us a human rights memorandum outlining the consideration given to the human rights issues raised by the main policy proposals in the Bill, including explanations of why the Government believes that any interferences with Convention rights are justified and proportionate.[97] In most instances this explanation is more detailed than that which appears in the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill.

2.6 We welcome the human rights memorandum sent to us by the Department for Children, Schools and Families before the publication of the Bill and we encourage other departments to follow the same practice in future.

Significant human rights issues

(1) EDUCATION FOR DETAINED YOUNG OFFENDERS

2.7 The Bill imposes new obligations on Local Education Authorities (LEAs) in respect of the education of detained young offenders. LEAs with young offender accommodation in their area ("host authorities") will be required to secure that enough suitable education and training is provided to meet the reasonable needs of the children and young people who are subject to youth detention in their area.[98]

2.8 Young offenders are currently excluded from the duties and powers given to LEAs under the Education Acts.[99] The Bill will also change this position so that detained young offenders are subject to the Education Acts.[100] The aim is that their education, so far as is practicable, matches that of children and young people in the mainstream education system.

2.9 The Bill also imposes responsibilities on the LEA where a detained young person is ordinarily resident ("home authorities") to monitor the education and training of a detained child or young person from their area and to take such steps as they consider appropriate to promote that person's fulfilment of his or her learning potential, both while they are in custody and on their release.[101]

2.10 These are measures which positively enhance human rights. As the Explanatory Notes state, they "further implement the right to education in Article 28 of the UNCRC by improving both access to, and the quality of, education available for juvenile offenders."[102] Although this is not mentioned in the Explanatory Notes, the measures also significantly reduce the risk that the present law is incompatible with the right of detained children under the ECHR not to be discriminated against in their enjoyment of the right to education (under Article 2 of the First Protocol to the ECHR in conjunction with Article 14).

2.11 Our predecessor Committee enquired into the Government's justification for not providing children in detention with a statutory right to education in its 2003 inquiry into the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.[103] It asked the Minister whether this was compatible not only with the UNCRC but also with the right of detained children under the ECHR not to be discriminated against in their enjoyment of the right to education.

2.12 It did not find the Government's reasons persuasive and concluded that "the persistence of the Government's resistance to placing the educational rights of young offenders on a statutory footing is a contravention of the UK's international obligations."[104] The Committee recommended that, "as a matter of urgency, the Government bring forward legislative proposals to provide children in custody with a statutory right to education … equal to that enjoyed by all other children." The Government rejected the Committee's recommendation on the basis that it "would not be helpful".[105] The Committee, in its commentary on the Government Response, reminded the Government of its obligation, under both the UNCRC and the Human Rights Act, to provide an equal right to education.[106]

2.13 In its October 2008 Report on the UK, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child again recommended that the UK "provide for a statutory right to education for all children deprived of their liberty."[107] Clauses 47-50 of the Bill make this provision.

2.14 We welcome as positively human rights enhancing measures the provisions in the Bill concerning education for detained young offenders.

2.15 However, we were concerned about the extent to which the Bill as introduced ensured equal access to special needs provision for children in detention. In its 2003 inquiry into the UNCRC, our predecessor Committee received evidence of a Youth Justice Board audit indicating that as many as 50% of all young people in custody would qualify as having special educational needs (SEN), but that only 1% had formal SEN statements entitling them to special provision. The Committee found that the position of young offenders with special educational needs was "of particular concern" and therefore recommended that the Government legislate to provide a statutory right, not just to education, but to access special needs provision equal to that enjoyed by all other children.[108]

2.16 The Bill as introduced provided that when deciding whether education or training is suitable to meet the detained child's reasonable needs, the host LEA must in particular have regard to any special educational needs or learning difficulties the person may have.[109] This fell far short, however, of a statutory duty on the host LEA to ensure that provision is made to meet any recognised special educational needs that a detained child or young person may have, or the delivery of all of the special educational provision set out in the relevant part of any SEN statement which the detained child or young person has.

2.17 At Second Reading the Secretary of State gave his assurance that the Government will take forward this issue "with great seriousness" and the Government subsequently tabled amendments in Committee the effect of which, the Government claims, "significantly strengthens the requirements relating to persons in juvenile custody with special educational needs."[110] The Government's amendments are explained in the Minister's response to our letter.

2.18 The Government's proposed amendments include a requirement that host LEAs use their "best endeavours" to secure that appropriate special educational provision is made for those detained persons who had a statement of special educational needs maintained for them prior to their detention in juvenile custody.[111] Appropriate special educational provision is defined as (a) the special educational provision that, immediately before the beginning of the detention, was specified in the statement, (b) educational provision corresponding as closely as possible to that which was specified in the statement, or ( c) if it appears to the host LEA that the special educational provision specified in the statement is no longer appropriate, such special educational provision as reasonably appears to the host authority to be appropriate for the person. Asked in Committee about whether a "best endeavours" obligation was rather weakly worded, the Minister explained:[112]

    … it reflects the fact that it will not always be possible to supply the exact provision in the statement and it is the same as the duty on governing bodies of maintained schools. We will be issuing guidance on what it means.

2.19 A statement may provide, for example, that a young person should attend a particular named school, and by virtue of the fact that the young person is detained that will not be possible.

2.20 Other provisions in the Government amendments are intended to ensure continuity in provision for special educational needs notwithstanding a period in detention. So, for example, where a person already has a statement of special educational needs, the authority maintaining the statement will be required to keep the statement while the person is detained,[113] and provision is made for the transfer of SEN statements and to ensure that the host LEA is aware that an authority was maintaining a statement for the person prior to their detention.[114] Provision is also made to ensure that home LEAs are aware when a child is released from custody and that the child's statement of SEN is revived and reviewed on their release.

2.21 The Government states that it believes it is essential that education and training in custody meets the reasonable needs of children and young people detained there, "as far as it is practicable within the custodial environment." However, it points out that it is also necessary to consider the practicalities of arranging and delivering highly specialised and discrete provisions for persons in custody, the majority of whom spend only short periods there.[115]

2.22 We accept that it is not necessarily practical for all of the duties imposed on LEAs in the Education Acts to apply to the education and training of detained children, because of the constraints imposed by custody and the length of time for which children are usually detained. We welcome the Government's amendments to the Bill concerning the special educational needs of detained children and young people. We agree that they amount to a significant strengthening of the legal framework for the meeting of the special educational needs of this group of children and young people amongst whom such special needs are particularly prevalent.

(2) POWER TO SEARCH PUPILS FOR ALCOHOL, ILLEGAL DRUGS AND STOLEN PROPERTY

2.23 School staff currently have the power to search pupils and their possessions for offensive weapons without the pupil's consent.[116] The Bill will extend this power so as to include the power to search pupils and their possessions for alcohol, illegal drugs and stolen property, and to seize anything which the person carrying out the search has reasonable grounds for suspecting is a prohibited item or is evidence in relation to an offence.[117]

2.24 The powers to search and seize include a number of safeguards. For example, there must be reasonable grounds for suspecting that the pupil has a prohibited item; only the head teacher or a person authorised by the head teacher can carry out the search; and the person carrying out the search cannot require the pupil to remove any clothing other than outer clothing, must be of the same sex as the pupil and may only carry out the search in the presence of another member of staff also of the same sex as the pupil.

2.25 The Explanatory Notes to the Bill correctly acknowledge that the power to search for prohibited items interferes with pupils' rights to respect for their privacy under Article 8(1) ECHR and that the power to seize items found on a search interferes with pupils' right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 Protocol 1.[118] However, they state that the Government is satisfied that any interference with those rights will be justified and proportionate. It is said to be justified on the basis of public safety and the prevention of disorder or crime and (in the case of the power to search for stolen property) protection of the rights of the owner of the property. It is said to be proportionate in light of the safeguards which accompany the powers. The Departmental memorandum further explains that the existing power, of instructing a pupil to turn out their pockets with the possibility of a disciplinary penalty being imposed for not complying, is not sufficient because it "does not result in the object being discovered."

2.26 The Explanatory Notes are correct that such powers to search for and seize alcohol, drugs and stolen property are in principle capable of being justified interferences with pupils' rights, and the safeguards contained in the Bill are likely to be adequate to ensure that the power is used proportionately. Neither the Explanatory Notes nor the Departmental memorandum, however, refer to any evidence demonstrating the necessity for the new power. Sir Alan Steer's 2005 Report of the Practitioners' Group on School Behaviour and Discipline recommended that "the DfES should monitor, evaluate and publish a report on the use of the new legal power to search pupils without consent for weapons. In the light of that report, they should review whether the right to search should be extended in due course to include drugs and stolen property." The material provided by the Government accompanying the Bill did not refer to any such review having been carried out, or any other evidence of the need to extend the existing power.

2.27 We therefore wrote to the Minister to ask what evidence exists that there is a problem concerning alcohol, illegal drugs and stolen property on school premises; what evidence there is of the scale of that problem and of the underlying trend; and what evidence there is that the current powers to address the problem are inadequate.

2.28 The Minister replied that alcohol, controlled drugs and stolen property were identified by behaviour expert Sir Alan Steer as the items that schools were most likely to need to search for, in his July 2008 Report on pupil behaviour issues, following consultations with practitioners and their representative organisations. This reflected concerns expressed by the Practitioners' Group on School Behaviour and Discipline in their 2005 Report, which highlighted problems of pupils carrying drugs or stolen property. The Government also relies on data concerning exclusions from schools: it says, for example, that in 2006/07 there were 400 "drug and alcohol related" permanent exclusions (4.6% of the total) and 210 permanent exclusions for theft (2.4%); and of the fixed period exclusions recorded, 8,180 (1.9%) were drug and alcohol related and 9,440 (2.2%) were for theft. In a 2008 survey of 1500 teachers fro the NUT, 20% of respondents reported witnessing possession of drugs within their school.

2.29 We are surprised not to have been provided with clear evidence of the scale of the problem of drugs, alcohol and stolen property actually being present on school premises. Figures on the number of "drug or alcohol related exclusions" does not help us ascertain how frequently such items are actually present in schools, since such exclusions may related to the use of drugs or alcohol outside school. In the absence of such clear evidence of the scale of the problem, it is very hard to assess the necessity for the new powers.

2.30 In Public Bill Committee,, it was suggested that a much wider power to search should be provided and the necessity for such detailed safeguards was called into question.[119] The Government resisted these suggestions on the basis that the approach in the Bill, of precisely defining the scope of the power and providing specific safeguards, is to ensure that any potential interference with a pupil's right to respect for their privacy under Article 8 ECHR is reasonable and proportionate.[120] In our view the approach taken in the Bill is correct. In the United States this week, the Supreme Court is considering whether a school which strip searched a 13 year old girl to see if she was carrying ibuprofen pills breached her constitutional right not to be subject to unreasonable searches.[121] The Court is being asked to provide clear guidelines for school administrators about school searches. While there is an important role for the courts to play in ensuring the human rights compatability of laws, we think Parliament should always take the opportunity to define as precisely as possible the scope of powers that could affect human rights and to include detailed safeguards on the face of legislation to ensure that such powers are exercised proportionately. We therefore welcome the Government's aspiration to provide a clear legal framework for searching pupils in schools, with clearly defined powers and safeguards. This should enhance legal certainty for both staff and pupils and therefore advances human rights. However, interferences with Convention rights must be shown by evidence to be necessary. Giving teachers what are effectively police powers to search children and young people, and to seize their property, without the accompanying training in the exercise of such powers or detailed codes of practice regulating their exercise, is a significant step which ought not to be taken lightly.[122] We accept that making such powers available to school staff is in principle capable of justification if they can be shown to be necessary, and we welcome the inclusion of detailed safeguards on the face of the Bill. However, we recommend that the Government publish a more rigorous analysis of the evidence which demonstrates the scale of the problem of drugs, alcohol and stolen property being present on school premises, so that Parliament can make an informed decision about the necessity for the extended powers.

(3) OBLIGATION TO RECORD SIGNIFICANT INCIDENTS INVOLVING USE OF FORCE BY STAFF ON PUPILS

2.31 The current law authorises school staff to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of preventing a pupil from committing any criminal offence, causing personal injury to, or damage to the property of, any person, or prejudicing the maintenance of good order and discipline at the school.[123]

2.32 In our report on the Bill which became the Education and Inspections Act 2006, we expressed our concern about the breadth of the power of members of staff to use force on pupils in schools, and in particular the width of a power to use reasonable force in order to prevent the "prejudicing of good order and discipline".[124] We were concerned that such a widely defined purpose might give rise in practice to a risk of disproportionate use of force, in breach of the right to respect for private life and to dignity and physical integrity recognised under Article 8 ECHR.

2.33 The Government's response to this concern has been to issue guidance to schools on the use of this power: The Use of Force to Control or Restrain Pupils (November 2007). More detailed guidance also exists about the use of "restrictive physical interventions" for staff working with pupils with severe behavioural difficulties.

2.34 The Bill introduces new recording and reporting requirements on the use of force in schools and FE colleges.[125] It requires the governing body of a school in England to ensure that a procedure is in place for recording significant incidents where a member of staff has used force on a pupil and to take reasonable steps to ensure that the procedure is followed by staff at the school.[126] The procedure must provide that such incidents are both recorded in writing and reported to the pupil's parents as soon as possible after the incident. The governing body must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the purposes of recording and reporting significant incidents of the use of force.

2.35 We welcome the new obligation to record the use of force on pupils as a positive, human rights enhancing measure. The availability of reliable data about the incidence of the use of force in schools is an important safeguard against the abuse or disproportionate use of that power, as it enables it to be independently monitored. There is no equivalent provision in primary legislation requiring the recording and reporting of the use of restraint in juvenile secure settings and we have frequently had to remind the Government of its voluntary undertaking to publish quarterly reports of the number of incidents.

2.36 The Children's Rights Alliance for England ("CRAE") has suggested that the Bill presents an opportunity to consider the use of force in schools more generally in light of recent developments concerning restraint in child custody, in particular the Court of Appeal's recent decision that the use of physical restraint is not permissible for the purposes of good order and discipline because it violates the child's right to dignity and physical integrity in Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, interpreted in light of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.[127] CRAE argue that in light of that judgment the power to use reasonable force to prevent a pupil from prejudicing good order and discipline[128] ought to be repealed.

2.37 We do not think that the repeal of the provision concerning the use of reasonable force in schools is strictly required by the Court of Appeal's judgment. The regulations which were quashed by the Court of Appeal in that case purported to give Secure Training Centres the power to use force against detained children and young people "for the purpose of ensuring good order and discipline". The use of force for that purpose in schools is expressly prohibited: the 2006 Act provides that the provision authorising the use of force "does not authorise anything to be done in relation to a pupil which constitutes the giving of corporal punishment."[129]

2.38 It is likely, however, that the Government's guidance to schools on the use of force against pupils will require reconsideration in the light of these recent developments concerning the use of restraint. We asked the Government whether and, if so, how it intends to revise its 2007 Guidance on the use of force by staff in schools in light of the recent developments concerning the use of restraint in juvenile secure settings, including the Court of Appeal's recent judgment, the independent review of the use of restraint in juvenile secure settings, and the Government's response to that review.

2.39 The Government confirmed that it will be reissuing the 2007 Guidance on the use of force by staff in schools to take account of the new provisions in the Bill and of relevant developments arising from the review of the use of restraint in juvenile secure settings. The issues arising from the review of the use of restraint in juvenile secure settings that the Government intends to reflect in the revised guidance include:

  • Making clear that certain restraint techniques should not be used because of the particular physical risks they pose to children and young people
  • Recording being done within 24 hours
  • Reporting arrangements to include an opportunity for the child or young person to give their views
  • The importance of reporting concerns to external agencies such as other local authority children's services, the local Children's Safeguarding Board, the Health and Safety Executive, youth offending teams and the police where a child or young person may be at risk of significant harm

2.40 The Government also intends the revised guidance to reiterate and as appropriate strengthen references to consulting with and informing staff, pupils and parents about the use of force policy; good school practice in assessing the frequency and severity of incidents that are likely to occur; and the importance of schools assessing carefully the training needs of staff, including the need for refresher training. The guidance will also suggest that, where young people move between a school and a juvenile setting, there should be an appropriate exchange of information.

2.41 We welcome the Government's decision to revise the 2007 Guidance on the use of force by staff in schools in the light of recent developments and we look forward to being given an opportunity to comment on the human rights compatibility of the draft guidance before it is finalised.

(4) UNCRC AS STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR CHILDREN'S PLANS

2.42 The Bill places Children's Trust Boards on a statutory footing[130] and empowers the Secretary of State to require a Children's Trust Board to prepare and publish a strategic Children and Young People's Plan.[131]

2.43 In its 2008 Concluding Observations on the UK, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, commenting on the UK Government's overall strategy for implementing the UNCRC, welcomed the fact that the UNCRC had been referred to in the Children's Plan for England, but expressed its continuing concern "that the Convention is not regularly used as a framework for the development of strategies throughout the State party and at the lack of an overarching policy to ensure the full realization of the principles, values and goals of the Convention."[132]

2.44 Our predecessor Committee, in its Report on the Bill which became the Children Act 2004, was critical of the failure of that Act to use the UNCRC as the overarching framework of provision for children in UK law.[133] We agree with that criticism and we therefore asked the Government what, if any, would be its objection to the Bill being amended to require Children's Trust Boards (a) to have regard to the need to implement the UNCRC when preparing its Children and Young People's Plan and (b) to consult with children and young people in the preparation of their plans, as envisaged by Article 12 of the UNCRC.

2.45 We welcome the Government's commitment that children and young people should be consulted when the Children and Young People's Plan is being drawn up, and the fact that this will be made a requirement in the new regulations governing the adoption of such Plans.[134]

2.46 We are disappointed, however, by the Government's refusal to adopt the UNCRC as the strategic framework for Children's Plans. In its response to our question the Government states that it considers it "unnecessary to have any specific provision falling on the Children's Trust Board to have regard to the UNCRC when preparing its plan." The reason it gives is that the UK complies with its obligations under the UNCRC through a mixture of legislative, executive and judicial action, and is content that its legislation is consistent with the provisions of the Convention. It says that the broader issue of embedding the UNCRC into UK policy and practice is covered in the Green Paper on a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, and it would prefer to consider any further legislative steps in the light of that consultation.

2.47 The Green Paper on a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities welcomes public debate on whether children's rights should be included in any Bill of Rights and Responsibilities,[135] and considers that such a Bill "could contain a right for children to achieve well-being, whatever their background or circumstances."[136] It acknowledges that the UNCRC is "the overarching international treaty for children's rights ratified by almost all UN member states. However, it contains no proposal for further embedding the UNCRC into UK policy and practice. If anything, the Green Paper appears sceptical of the value of such a proposal, preferring to emphasise that the goal of achieving improved outcomes for children are pursued in distinctive ways across the UK, and indicating that any Bill of Rights and Responsibilities should allow for recognition that responsibility for many aspects of child wellbeing is devolved.[137]

2.48 We are not persuaded by the Government's reasons for not taking the opportunity in this Bill to embed the UNCRC further in policy-making. The Bill's provisions on the drawing up of Children and Young People's Plans provide an opportunity for the Government to respond positively and constructively to the concern of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child that the Convention is not regularly used as a framework for the development of children's strategies. We recommend that the Bill be amended so as to require Children's Trust Boards to have regard to the need to implement the UNCRC when preparing its Children and Young People's Plan and suggest an amendment below to achieve this.

Clause 188, page 103, line 44, insert:

(6) A Children's Trust Board must have regard to the need to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when preparing a children and young people's plan.

(5) CHILDREN'S CENTRES

2.49 The Bill provides a statutory footing for Children's Centres for the first time by imposing a new requirement on local authorities to ensure that arrangements made to secure that early childhood services in their area are provided in an integrated way includes arrangements for sufficient provision of children's centres to meet local need.[138]

2.50 The departmental memorandum refers to emerging evidence that demonstrates the success of Children's Centres in improving outcomes for young children and their families, reducing inequalities between the most disadvantaged and the rest, and in helping to bring an end to child poverty. It states that establishing children's centres in legislation will safeguard these benefits for children and allow the principles set out in the UNCRC in respect of child development, welfare and health, social equality and education to continue to be met.

2.51 We welcome the Bill's provisions concerning children's centres as human rights enhancing measures which are likely to contribute towards the progressive realisation of the rights of children under the UNCRC.


95   See below, page 120 & 122 Back

96   EN paras 830-853. Back

97   See below, page 122 Back

98   Clause 47, inserting new s. 18A into the Education Act 1996. Back

99   Education Act 1996, s. 562. Back

100   Clause 48, reversing the effect of s. 562 Education Act 1996 for detained children and young people. Back

101   Clause 49, inserting new s. 562A into the Education Act 1996. Back

102   EN para. 834. Back

103   Tenth Report of Session 2002-03, The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, HL Paper 117, HC 81 at paras 56-59. Back

104   Ibid. at para. 59. Back

105   Eighteenth Report of Session 2002-03, Government's Response to the Committee's Tenth Report of Session 2002-03 on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, HL Paper 187, HC 1279, Appendix 1. Back

106   Ibid. at para. 18. Back

107   UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations on the UK, CRC/C/GBR/CO/4 (3 October 2008). Back

108   Tenth Report of Session 2002-03, above, at paras 58-59. Back

109   New s. 18A(2)(b) Education Act 1996, as inserted by clause 47. Back

110   Sarah McCarthy-Fry, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools and Learners, PBC 17 March 2009, col. 368. Back

111   Proposed new s. 562C(3) Education Act 1996 Back

112   PBC 17 March 2009 col. 368. Back

113   Proposed new s. 562C(2) Education Act 1996. Back

114   Proposed new s. 562F Education Act 1996. Back

115   PBC 17 March 2009 col. 371. Back

116   Education Act 1996 s. 550AA. Back

117   Clause 235(1), inserting new sections 550ZA-550ZD into the Education Act 1996 and clause 237(1), inserting new sections 85AA-85AD into the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Back

118   EN paras 846-851. Back

119   PBC 26 March 2009 cols 821-34 Back

120   Sarah McCarthy-Fry, ibid cols 830-1 Back

121   Redding v Eastern Arizona College. Back

122   The Committee expressed similar concerns about conferring police powers on immigration officers in the context of the UK Borders Bill. Back

123   Education and Inspections Act 2006, s. 93. Equivalent provision is made for Further Education institutions in s. 85C of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (inserted by the 2006 Act). Back

124   Eighteenth Report of Session 2005-06, Legislative Scrutiny: Ninth Progress Report, HL Paper 177, HC 1098, at para. 52. Back

125   Clauses 239 and 240. Back

126   Clause 239, inserting new subsection 93A into the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Back

127   R ( C) v Secretary of State for Justice [2008] EWCA Civ 882 (28 July 2008). Back

128   Section 93(1)(c) Education and Inspections Act 2006. Back

129   Ibid., s. 93(4). Back

130   Clause 188(2), inserting new s. 12A into the Children Act 2004. Back

131   Clause 188(3), substituting new s. 17 of the Children Act 2004. Back

132   UNCRC Concluding Observations, above, at para. 14. Back

133   Nineteenth Report of 2003-04, Children Bill, HL Paper 161, HC 537, at paras 14-21. Back

134   Under s. 17 of the Children Act 2004, inserted by cl. 188 of this Bill. Back

135   Rights and Responsibilities: developing our constitutional framework CM 7577 (March 2009), paras 3.66-3.75. Back

136   Ibid. at para. 3.71. Back

137   Ibid. at para. 3.70. Back

138   Clause 189, inserting new s. 5A into the Childcare Act 2006. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 29 April 2009