Clause 2 - General function
Children Bill [Lords]
3:15 pm
Ms Annette Brooke (Home Affairs Spokesperson, Home Affairs; Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
I rise to support amendment No. 53. I was minded to propose the word ''must'' rather than ''shall'', but I did not want to be picky, so I signed up to this amendment. The provisions, as amended in the Lords, are strong, and in the same way as the Minister has conceded that a ''may'' should change to a ''shall'', I felt that the changes were very important. I can only echo the comments that aspects such as the whistleblowing arrangements inspection are so important that to have them blown out of the Bill is amazing. We should therefore reject Government amendments Nos. 166 to 168.
Amendment No. 167 was not touched on earlier, but bringing the outcome goals back into this part of the Bill seems singularly inappropriate. I welcome the fact that the outcome provisions were expanded in the House of Lords and that the amendments there were accepted. I am happy with them.
To return to our earlier discussion, but without rehearsing it again, I make it clear that the rights agenda should be the underlying principle. There is much confusion between principles and outcomes. I
believe that the outcome goals are in a satisfactory place in the Bill now. I therefore speak strongly against the three Government amendments. There have been great improvements in the Bill, but it is now proposed to blow them all away, which is a huge pity.