Schedule 2 - Curfew orders and supervision orders

Anti-social Behaviour Bill – in a Public Bill Committee am ar 15 Mai 2003.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 241, in

schedule 2, page 51, line 32, after 'authority', insert

'and the designated authority has concurred with the appropriateness of the requirement through its assessment of the needs of the child in accordance with the Children Act 1989'.—[Mrs. Brooke.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Photo of Mr Bill O'Brien Mr Bill O'Brien Llafur, Normanton 2:30, 15 Mai 2003

I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 242, in

schedule 2, page 51, line 35, after 'months', insert

'During the period specified it will be at the discretion of the designated authority in consultation with the Youth Offending Team and relevant partners to determine what the leave arrangements for contact between the offender and his or her family will be, and to determine the programme of rehabilitation for the offender to return home within the specified periods.'.

Amendment No. 243, in

schedule 2, page 51, line 35, at end insert—

'( ) The offender made subject to a foster parent residence requirement will be deemed to be a child looked after by the local authority in accordance with the Children Act 1989 for the duration of that requirement.'.

Photo of Bob Ainsworth Bob Ainsworth The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

I was responding to the amendments that have been proposed. The Bill already ensures that a court would have to consult the local authority about whether fostering was an appropriate response. Furthermore, that requirement would be available only in areas where schemes had been set up. That is why the fostering provision would only be available to those courts that had been notified by the Secretary of State.

The intention of the measure is to address problems within the family, and to work with young people and their parents to bring the family back together, while preventing the young person from being sent into custody unnecessarily. The local authority has an existing duty for looked-after children to promote contact between the child and its parents. Therefore, there is no need to stipulate that in this measure. The legislation, as drafted, allows the youth offending team and the local authority flexibility to determine the intervention programme that needs to be delivered in order to address the young person's offending, and the problems within the family home. There is no difference in principle; there is no requirement for the amendments because what they are seeking to achieve will happen in any case.

Photo of Annette Brooke Annette Brooke Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

Good afternoon, Mr. O'Brien. I am grateful that the Minister worked through the amendments, one by one, and for his assurances.

I am sure that he is aware that there is great concern on these matters. I have had representation from the Children's Rights Alliance for England, which is disturbed that sufficient regard has not been paid to the Children Act 1989. Reassurance, if nothing else, will be needed beyond these four walls.

I welcome the proposals on co-operation between the Home Office and social services. There has been great support for that proposal from the whole Committee, and, I am sure, the whole House, notwithstanding the Minister's colleague, who was not so happy with the proposals. The proposal will need to be adequately financed. That is not something that we are discussing at the moment, but it is vital to have adequate finance and training. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 agreed to.