My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may make a further inquiry on this matter. My understanding is that under Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 the court has an obligation— whether it is making a private law order under Section 8, a care order under Section 31 or a supervision order—to consult the child on their wishes in so far as they are ascertainable, bearing in mind the child’s age and situation. That is a clear obligation of the court, and failure to do so would be the subject of appeal. However, so far as concerns the obligation of a local authority under Section 17, I accept, and indeed applaud, the fact that great attention has been given to an administrative directive. As I understand it, that could never be the subject of an appeal because it is not a justiciable issue. Nor, as I understand it—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—could it be the subject of an application for judicial review. That is the difference between what is proposed in the amendment—putting something under the sovereign authority of statute law—and what is undoubtedly intended to be an authoritative direction of an administrative nature. Does the Minister agree that my analysis is broadly correct?
Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Elystan-Morgan
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 March 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Children and Young Persons Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
700 c77-8 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:21:36 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455682
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455682
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455682