Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment No. 11. I do not think that it would extend the essence of the law. I do not pretend for a moment to carry these things in my mind, so I have been looking at Section 31 of the Children Act 1989, which sets out the concept of harm to a child. The concept turns on questions of the child’s health, his development and his welfare. The child’s benefit is the obverse of that. It is not merely the negation of the concept of harm, but a positive advance in the other direction—a point that has already eloquently been made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I submit that Amendment No. 11 does not take the law any further. The three matters that it emphasises—health, development and welfare—are already emphasised in Section 31 of the Children Act 1989. As to the fourth matter, "““guidance to the child in a manner appropriate to his age and development””," nobody would for a moment argue that that is not already present in our concept of child welfare. A general question arises, which we debated fully in Committee, about whether we should follow the Scottish precedent. It is a very proper precedent. What Dr Johnson would have said about following the Scottish precedent, I know not, but be that as it may, there is no reason to believe that the needs of children south of the Tweed are different from those of children north of the Tweed. Therefore, I ask the Government to accept that what is already established law in Scotland—which, as far as I know, has not caused any difficulty—should be humbly and chivalrously accepted as part of the law of England and Wales. Finally, I shall reiterate a point I made en passant in Committee. Rather than have an exclusive definition, an inclusive definition would be very much better and would do no harm at all.