Clause 19 - Parenting orders in cases of
Anti-social Behaviour Bill
10:00 am
Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
Amendment No. 150 is simply a probing amendment. It seeks to delete subsection (1)(b), a rather vague statement that refers to:
''such conditions as may be prescribed in regulations made by the appropriate person are satisfied.''
We should like to have some idea of the sort of regulations that might be made in future before passing firm comment. Is that vagueness simply a symptom of the rushed nature of the Bill, and does the Minister have more up his sleeve?
Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 involve time limits and I will leave it to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to speak to those. The alternatives look rather long. I apologise to the Conservative Front Bench: we should have added our names to amendment No. 51 as it is very important. We need to consider the circumstances of individual parents: a single parent may be able to attend classes only at certain hours of the day; or they might have to take a concentrated course lasting only a short time to fit in with their working hours. More flexibility is needed. If someone is willing to attend more than once a week, we should allow that. I strongly support that amendment.
Amendment No. 151 takes us to the argument about using ''may'' instead of ''must''. We have talked about parenting orders as being part of a process that leads from the parenting contract. We hope that the contract works, because the voluntary process, with the full co-operation of everyone, has to be the best way. Although it may be necessary to go on to parenting orders—hopefully, in only a few extreme cases—we do not want to back the court into a corner in cases in which special circumstances might need to be taken into account. Often, children go off the rails for a short time after a bereavement in the family. The conditions of a parenting contract might not be met in a period of about six months, but it is possible to get that family back together again. The use of ''must'' is too prescriptive in cases in which it might be possible to get back into a parenting contract which, by definition, will always work best.
Amendment No. 152 is also prompted by the Bill's vagueness, which we do not like. It would remove the phrase ''(amongst other things)''. I hope that the Bill will state that all relevant and important factors will be taken into account. Why is that vague phrase needed? If it is appropriate in clause 20, why should it not be found throughout the Bill? Amendment No. 52 would remove clause 20(4), which is a catch-all provision, because we are worried about what it could mean in future. We want to know what we are signing up to. Is the provision another example of the Bill being rushed, with a view taken to sort it out later? Amendment No. 53 is similar to amendment No. 151 and I endorse it.