Children Bill [Lords] : ePolitix.com

Children Bill [Lords]

The Minister for Children, Young People and Families (Margaret Hodge): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

National fostering allowance

'The Government shall by regulations establish a national minimum fostering allowance payable by all children's services authorities in England.'.

Margaret Hodge: I know that Government new clause 17 and the consequential amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be welcomed by foster carers and by organisations such as the Fostering Network that promote foster care and work on behalf of foster carers. I intend to speak to the Government amendments and then respond to the amendments tabled by other hon. Members.

During our discussions on the Bill, strong arguments were advanced by foster carers and their organisations. We have listened to those arguments and are now in a position to respond positively to them. All hon. Members recognise the importance of foster carers, particularly in providing stability and a loving home for the most vulnerable children in our community—those who are looked after by the state. If we are to meet our objective of ensuring greater stability for more looked- after children, it is key that we try to recruit and retain more foster carers in the foster care work force. To do that, we need to put in place a range of measures.

We have already achieved a lot, but I recognise that there is more for us to do. For instance, we are supporting local authorities in recruiting local foster carers in their local communities and we have prepared a pack for local authorities to use for that purpose. The recruitment of foster carers is most sensibly carried out locally and the job for the Government is to support local authorities in that task. We are also supporting the training of foster carers in the local community. For foster carers to feel valued and to feel that they have an important role to play, it is important that they receive continuous professional development and training, to give them a feeling that theirs is a proper profession.

We have also improved the tax and pensions position for foster carers, which has made a welcome change over the past few years. We are putting other measures in place, too. For example, we are developing a national telephone helpline for foster carers, and we hope to provide better support for foster carers who face allegations. We also want to celebrate excellence in foster carers through the introduction of a national award scheme.
For all that, we have had strong representations about what is perceived to be the unfairness resulting from the variability in the allowances paid to foster carers across the country. Those allowances do vary. I have looked at the Fostering Network's figures and seen variations from £60 to £250 in the costs awarded to foster carers for looking after an eight-year-old child. There are even variations within regions, which is difficult to explain. For example, in the north-west region, the allowance paid for looking after an eight-year-old varies from £60 to more than £200 per week.

The Government want to ensure that the allowances for foster carers fully meet the costs of caring for a looked-after child. We want to ensure greater transparency and consistency in the way in which local authorities calculate those allowances. That is why we are introducing the new clause and the amendments that go with it. Over the coming months, we will work closely with the local authorities and all the other stakeholders to come to a sensible view of how we should proceed on these issues.

We must all recognise that there will be variations in the cost for caring for a looked-after child. There will be variations according to the child's age, for example, and regional variations reflecting differences in housing costs up and down the country. There will be legitimate differences in the costs involved in looking after a looked-after child, depending on the complexity of the issues facing a particular child. We need to address what precisely the allowances should cover and decide what should legitimately be included in an allowance and what is perhaps less fair. We also need better to understand the relationship between allowances and the payments that some authorities give to foster carers for looking after children.

We want to examine other issues relating to payment over the coming months. For example, is there sufficient clarity in each local authority about entitlements? Do foster carers face difficulties when claiming one- off grants? Are there inefficiencies in various local authorities in regard to providing information or responding promptly to claims by foster carers? …

Margaret Hodge: That is one of the many issues on which we want to consult with local authorities and other stakeholders, including those organisations that represent foster carers, to make sure that we have a scheme that is workable and fair, and that enables us to recruit and keep more foster carers looking after children.

We already have resources available, about which some local authorities have expressed concern. For example, we have set aside £113 million over this spending review period under our "Choice Protects" programme, which puts a focus on fostering. If we consider the comprehensive spending review settlement, an extra £1 billion will be invested in children's services by the end of the period 2004–05 to 2007–08. We need to discuss local authorities' priorities with them.

I hope that the new clause and amendments are generally welcomed by the House. I look forward to working through the issues with all stakeholders, so that we can create fairness and equity and thereby support all the efforts that we all feel are important to build a stronger foster care work force.

…..

Margaret Hodge: It is a delight to see such consensus not just across the Chamber, but on the Government Benches. I welcome that enormously. Perhaps we should stop our business now.

Hon. Members have raised perfectly legitimate issues and demonstrated some of the complexity of the detail that we need to deal with as we take forward our intent to set a national foster care allowances system in process. The letter that was sent by the Association of Directors of Social Services said:

"The devil is very much likely to be in the detail. The ADSS would expect that should the Bill be so amended"

as we are doing today

"there would be detailed discussions about a staged implementation between the Government and local government."

It is because of the complexity of the issues and because we want to take our partners with us—the people on the front line who will have to implement the national scheme—that we are looking at a staged implementation. To help hon. Members, I will tell them what our thinking is, although it is early days.

We want to spend the early part of 2005 in extensive consultation with all interested partners. We hope at the end of that process to be able to set the rates and to publicise them. We hope that that in itself will move things forward and that a number of authorities will improve their rates after we have taken them through the discussion on what is a fair rate for looking after a child. During 2006, we hope to work with local authorities in implementing the rates, as set in 2005. We will then, probably in the beginning of 2007, invoke the power, should that be necessary, if local authorities are not complying with the rates that have been agreed with them. I hope that that gives some hon. Members some clarity about the timetable.

On costs, I accept the commitment given by Government that were we to impose additional burdens, we would provide the necessary funding but I hope hon. Members will agree that looked-after children have to be placed. There is a legislative imperative to do so. If we do not have sufficient foster carers, particularly foster carers in the local community, an on-the-spot decision tends to be taken. Often, the looked-after children are placed in extremely expensive residential accommodation out of the borough. My officials and I will need some convincing during our discussions that setting an appropriate and proper minimum foster care allowance will constitute an additional expense. It could lead to a change in the way in which we spend money, and to an expenditure saving that we could then reinvest in other services that support foster carers or looked-after children. We will keep this issue at the forefront of our minds, but we do not necessarily agree that such an allowance will lead to an increase in expenditure on looked-after children in whom local authorities already invest money.

I do not want to suggest, as I had to do in Committee, that on these issues we are the libertarians and the Opposition are the Stalinists. However, we will not consider using a ring-fenced grant as a mechanism for implementing a minimum foster care system. We will have discussions with the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services, and the various voluntary organisations that represent foster carers. We want, in that partnership environment, to work through what are very complex issues and to establish a workable system.

…

Margaret Hodge: That is just the sort of detailed conversation that we need to engage in with our partners. It was in the light of such issues that I alluded to the "choice protects" grant and to the additional resources that we are putting into children's services during the comprehensive spending review period.

…

Margaret Hodge: I agree with my hon. Friend and I certainly respect his experience, which was gained during many years on the front line as a social worker. But equally, I hope that he agrees with me that it is in the interests of more looked-after children to provide them with the stability of a placement in a loving home with a foster carer. Whatever the shortages, if we can increase the number of such carers—we need to establish a far better basis for doing so than currently exists—using the creation of a national foster allowance system as one mechanism for doing so, that will improve the lives of looked-after children for whom such an environment is appropriate. Over time, that should lead to some savings for local authorities that currently do not commission in a particularly rational way the places that they require for such children.
Given that Members want to speak about other issues, I shall deal briefly with the registration of private foster care. I agree with the House that this is a very important issue that we need to get right, which is why we have secured the relevant power through what is known as a sunset clause. As a result, if we cannot improve the current notification scheme, we can move immediately to a registration scheme without needing to return to the House to obtain primary legislation. The whole House agrees, as do I, that the current notification scheme is not working and is inadequate. But I hope that in the light of the additional powers that we are taking—powers to insist that awareness of the scheme be promoted, and that local authorities monitor their own notification schemes—Members will agree that it is worth allowing time to see whether the system works. With the best will in the world, even a registration scheme might not provide the safeguards and protection that we all seek for such children, who are sometimes the most vulnerable in our communities.

…

Margaret Hodge: This is a difficult issue, but those authorities that are making huge efforts to ensure that the notification scheme works have a far greater number of notifications than those that, in my view, are not making adequate efforts. So monitoring the number of notifications will be just one of the mechanisms that we will use. However, my hon. Friend is right to draw our attention to this issue. We do need to get a better handle on the quantum of the problem, and to focus on the most vulnerable among the broad group of children who come under private fostering arrangements.

I warmly thank Members for their welcome for the new clause. Rather than dividing on this issue I hope that we will unify, so that we can ensure that foster carers are rewarded properly, that they are not out of pocket in caring for looked-after children, and that we grow the foster care work force.
Children's Commissioner: functions

…

Margaret Hodge: I want to begin by assuring all hon. Members that the Government have listened to other opinions, throughout this debate and in connection with every clause in the Bill. The range of amendments that the Government have tabled, in respect of the children's commissioner and of other matters, is proof of that. Not every interested party will agree on every aspect of the Bill, but that is another issue. We have been engaged in a thorough process and have tried to listen to all the issues that people have raised.
In the little time that remains, I want to go back over the principal issues, and the question of whether we are establishing a powerful and strong champion for children. I shall then turn to the issues raised by those of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Wales.

I repeat what I said in Committee: I believe that the commissioner for English children that the Bill establishes—who will also have responsibility for British children on non-devolved issues—will be an extremely powerful and effective champion on behalf of children. In framing the commissioner's powers and duties, we have had regard for the UN convention on the rights of the child, which is why we listened to the arguments in support of amendments tabled in the upper House. As a result, the commissioner must have regard for the UNCRC, which proves that his work has its basis in children's rights.

However, we have also said from the start that we do not wish to establish in England a commissioner whose primary purpose is to police individual rights. A panoply of structures exists already—in the courts and various tribunals—that ensures that individuals can pursue their rights. The commissioner will have the duty to oversee those systems, ensuring that the complaint mechanisms and tribunals work and that the courts defend individual rights.

Yet we also want the commissioner to do more. We want him to look at the outcomes that children and young people say are important, and at the much wider picture of children's lives. He would report to Parliament and elsewhere on all those important matters. As I said in Committee, if a commissioner were in place today, he would be looking at matters such as how children and young people are portrayed in the media, their position in the criminal justice system, and child obesity. The commissioner may well also look at other important issues, but if he had to focus on policing individual rights, he would have no time to do anything else.

I assure the House that under the general functions laid out in clause 2 the commissioner will be independent and able to look at any issue or question.

He will be able to initiate inquires into any case that has wider significance and public policy implications. That is another example of how the Government have listened.

The commissioner will have total discretion over the budgets that he commands, except for the normal considerations of propriety. Another sign of the Government's willingness to listen is the fact that the commissioner will have access to children—a provision that we introduced to the Bill. In addition, the Government have amended the Bill to ensure that the commissioner can seek responses to the inquiries and recommendations contained in reports that he compiles. The commissioner will report annually to Parliament, and I hope that the relevant Select Committees will hold him to account.

Finally, I remind the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that the word "rights" does not appear in the legislation setting out the functions of the disability rights commissioner.

I turn now to the issues raised by those of my hon. Friends with constituencies in Wales. Like them, the Government are anxious to ensure that children in Wales are no less well served by their children's commissioner than their counterparts in England would be. However, we must work within the devolution settlement as it stands. I know that some of my hon. Friends find that difficult, but we do not want the children's commissioner—who will report every year to this House through the Secretary of State for Education and Skills—to relinquish all responsibility for matters in Wales that remain the responsibility of Westminster.
Certain hon. Members have argued that we cannot change the devolution settlement in the context of this debate. I agree, and that is why we tabled three new clauses in Committee to clarify the role of the children's commissioners in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and to enable all the UK commissioners to work together on non-devolved matters. Those amendments were accepted and now form part of the Bill.

We envisage that, in practice, the commissioners will draw up informal ways of working together on non-devolved issues that will be child friendly while at the same time remaining within the terms of the devolution settlement. To deprive children in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales of the services of the children's commissioner in respect of non-devolved matters would not enhance those children's national identity or culture. They will simply lose the services of a commissioner who has a general overview and represents all our children in matters affecting the United Kingdom as a whole that are decided in Westminster. They will therefore be worse off than their counterparts in England. I cannot believe that that is the wish of my hon. Friends in tabling those amendments or of the House, and I hope—

Payments to foster parents

…

Margaret Hodge: It is a delight to see such consensus not just across the Chamber, but on the Government Benches. I welcome that enormously. Perhaps we should stop our business now.

"The devil is very much likely to be in the detail. The ADSS would expect that should the Bill be so amended"

as we are doing today

"there would be detailed discussions about a staged implementation between the Government and local government."

…

Children's Commissioner: functions

…

Margaret Hodge: The Bill needs to provide for what we call the 151st system, which would ensure that all professionals know where to locate a child and that, if that child leaves one local authority area and moves to another, there is a system that holds a record of them until they re-emerge in another area.
I come to a concern that was expressed by several Members. The Bill contains a provision to enable a practitioner to inform another practitioner who subsequently accesses a child's record that they have a current concern about the child. That means that the second practitioner can see who else they should contact as a priority to determine whether their observations are related, so that together they can build a better all-round picture of the child's needs. That represents an added dimension to the information that the databases provide by simply holding the contact details of all the practitioners involved with a child. It will prompt contact and facilitate appropriate discussion to address the problem at an earlier stage. It is not a substitute for action—I said that in Committee and reiterate it today.

One would hope that in most cases placing a cause for concern on a database, as we suggested in the consultation document, would mean that the consent of the child and the family had been sought, and that only in the most exceptional circumstances where the child is at risk of harm and abuse would that happen without such consent.

I shall deal briefly with the important contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead. I provided him with a written answer before the summer recess, in which I said that the databases would comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. I should also like to reassure him and all other hon. Members today. We are establishing a complex system and we need to work our way through a lot of difficult issues. Because we know that Members are concerned about these issues, we have said that we shall come back to both Houses of Parliament to seek affirmative resolutions as we go forward with the regulations and guidance. There is no hidden agenda here. There is no way in which any future Minister could misuse or abuse the powers in this part of the Bill. What we wish to do is move forward to try to establish better systems for sharing information. I hope that hon. Members will be satisfied by those added assurances.

Hon. Members have said that there are many children's organisations that have concerns on this issue. Yes, there are, but even during the first consultation on the first set of regulations, I have already had letters from organisations such as Barnardo's, the National Children's Bureau, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and the Children's Society, all welcoming the consultation in which we are engaged and recognising that it is starting to deal with some of the concerns that they had expressed earlier. Yes, it is only a consultation document, but we will come back to both Houses and use the affirmative resolution procedure to ensure that we have the support of everyone as we move towards regulations. Not to take advantage of this opportunity to provide a tool for professionals to share information, so that they can prevent the unnecessary deaths that we have witnessed, such as that of little Victoria Climbié, would be to miss the opportunity of a lifetime. I am not prepared to do that, and I hope that all hon. Members will share my wish to move forward with this part of the Bill.

...

Reasonable punishment
Margaret Hodge: I recognise the passionate feelings and views held by Members on both sides of the House and I appreciate that new clause 12 is an attempt to be constructive. However, the Government cannot support what amounts to an absolute ban on smacking.
The Government's position remains unchanged: it is vital that we protect children from violence and abuse. The House will know that one of the driving forces behind the creation of my post and the development of this Bill is our determination to strengthen the way that society safeguards and protects its children. That is why we took seriously the representations from the children's charities and others to the effect that the defence of reasonable chastisement was being misused by parents who were harming their children. It is also why we supported a free vote in the House of Lords on Lord Lester's amendment, which would have removed the defence of reasonable chastisement for acts of actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or cruelty. It is for that reason that Labour Members will be offered a free vote on the matter tonight.
I recognise that that does not go far enough for some hon. Members, who believe that the level of harm required by the offence is too great a threshold. However, actual bodily harm has been defined by the courts as any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort. That seems to me to offer quite broad protection. Clause 56 provides additional protection for children and tightens the existing law. Some of the cases in which there was a misuse of the reasonable chastisement defence would no longer be able to use that as a legal defence.

It is nonsense and wrong to suggest that clause 56 would create a new loophole, or that it would legitimise acts of harm and abuse. It tightens the law but it does not change the standard of evidence needed to prove actual bodily harm or anything else, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) suggested.

Clause 56 provides additional protection for children but it does not criminalise parents for administering a light smack to their children. The Government are tightening up on a defence that was misused, but we are not creating a new offence, as to do so would be wrong. Actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm and cruelty do not require that serious injury must be suffered. As the Attorney-General told the House of Lords, actual bodily harm is not confined to physical harm but can include psychological harm, for example.
The Director of Public Prosecutions is reviewing charging standards and the Government are toughening the law. At present, when a decision is being made about whether to pursue charges, no regard is given to children's physical strength and vulnerability. That is what the DPP is considering, and changes that have regard to those matters should be welcomed.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has been critical of Government on this matter, but it recognised the positive impact of clause 56 when it said in its report that
"the combination of the new clause and the new charging standard may well be considered sufficient to satisfy the UK's obligation to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in A v. UK, because it makes the defence unavailable in relation to treatment or punishment which is contrary to article 3."

It would be very odd, to say the least, if anyone who wanted to encourage parents to seek alternative forms of discipline voted to remove this clause.

I turn now to new clause 12, which the Government cannot support. All hon. Members believe that it is vital to strengthen the safeguarding and protection of children, but it would be wrong to create a new offence by imposing a ban on smacking. That would leave parents wondering whether a trivial smack could land them in prison. We cannot deal with the misuse of a defence by creating a new, inappropriate and ill-conceived offence. There is a world of difference between a light smack and violence or abuse. We should recognise that the vast majority of parents understand that difference and would never harm their children deliberately. Some people argue that minor smacks will not be prosecuted, but the new clause would make smacking a crime, so there is no guarantee that that will be the case. It is for Parliament to be clear and to make the law. We cannot expect the Crown Prosecution Service to pick and choose which crimes it does, or does not, prosecute in the light of a clear statement by Parliament that all smacking should be a criminal offence. The confusing gap between the effect of the new clause and the claims made by its proponents, as well as the fact that the Government simply do not believe that every single instance of parental smacking should be treated as a criminal offence, have led to our decision not to offer a free vote. No one decides lightly to smack a child, and most people feel bad and guilt-ridden about doing so. They believe that they have failed if they resort to smacking, but do hon. Members really believe that we can support good parenting by adding to those bad feelings by threatening the strong arm of the law? Is not a better way of changing the culture positively to encourage and support good parenting in the home? That is what our Sure Start programme aims to do, as do the children's fund, through many projects that it supports, and the parenting fund. We want to offer more support to good parents.

I turn to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), which was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I recognise the reasoning of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby in calling for a review of the effects of clause 56 once it has been in operation for two years. I agree wholeheartedly that when significant extra legal protection is introduced by the clause we should look closely at its practical effects. I am afraid, however, that her amendment does not meet its intended objective. None the less, I can give a clear commitment that two years after clause 56 comes into effect we will review the practical consequences of those
changes to the law, and will also seek parents' views about smacking. We will lay a copy of the results before Parliament.

This important debate has rightly engendered much passion in all parts of the House. I understand and respect the sincerity and strength of the views of all hon. Members, but I urge them to consider that while we want to stop the misuse of a defence that could lead to children being harmed or abused—I believe that clause 56 achieves that aim—we do not want to be responsible for introducing a new offence that could criminalise thousands of parents throughout the country who are trying their hardest to do their best for their children. They love and cherish their children, and want to establish a framework of discipline while protecting them from harm and endeavouring to support their well-being. They try their hardest to get it right.

A total ban on smacking could criminalise most parents. That is surely not what we are about. Let us focus on the important job of safeguarding and protecting children who are in real danger of harm and abuse. Let us support parents in that most difficult and important job of bringing up their children. Let us legislate in a clear and practical way, which will properly benefit children and young people. I urge hon. Members to accept clause 56 and reject new clause 12.

Children's Commissioner
Margaret Hodge: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We are approaching the end of the Bill's passage through the House. It is a significant moment. I am pleased to reflect on a process in which there has been a great deal of constructive engagement from hon. Members of all parties who have brought their wide experience, intellect and attention to detail to our deliberations and the Bill has benefited greatly from that.

When the measure was introduced in the House of Lords in March, it was widely and warmly welcomed in and outside Parliament. Many people have waited a long time for the measure. The Bill has acted as a vehicle for important discussion of an exceptionally wide range of issues that are important to children's lives and the outcomes that they achieve. Throughout, there has been a wide consensus about the value and importance of the reforms that we are making. Baroness Howarth of Breckland came up with the catch phrase:
"It is a small Bill with a large heart".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 1287.]

It is slightly larger now and, thanks to this House and the other place, its heart beats even more strongly.

The Government's plans for the commissioner have been well tested during the parliamentary process, and I pay tribute to the parliamentarians and lobbyists who have campaigned for the creation of a commissioner for such a long time. The Government are confident that the Bill, enhanced by the amendments that the House has agreed today, is the best way forward. We will have a strong champion for children with a powerful, independent and manageable role, which will allow them to be an important voice on children's behalf. We intend the commissioner to be appointed early next year, and I am pleased to say that we are involving children and young people in the appointment process. My ministerial colleagues and I look forward to working with the commissioner.

Part 2 of the Bill contains a range of duties and powers for local agencies, which will establish clear lines of accountability for children's services and lead to better arrangements for safeguarding children and planning, commissioning and delivering services. I was pleased that the Standing Committee agreed a Government amendment to introduce the children and young people's planning requirement, which is an important rationalisation of the planning burdens on local authorities and which will be another lever to encourage more effective outcomes in planning, commissioning and delivering services.
The Bill allows us to set up universal information databases, which have attracted considerable attention. I repeat that those databases will in no way be a substitute for action, and I hope that they will provide a valuable tool to help practitioners work together better so that they can more easily identify children and meet their needs.
In response to parliamentary scrutiny, we have made some helpful amendments. The Bill now contains clear descriptions of the information that will be on the database and the agencies that may access it. Crucially, it includes the reassurance that the databases will not include details of case information.

Last week, we published our first consultation document on the difficult issues around the cause for concern and sensitive services. In developing the regulations and guidance, it will be important to respond to the issues raised by the consultation, to continue to learn from the work of the trailblazers and to take into account the issues and concerns that have been raised legitimately during the passage of the Bill. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken pains to ensure that we are aware of the importance of getting the Bill right and of the many things that we must avoid getting wrong.

We have spent a lot of time today debating aspects of the latter parts of the Bill, and hon. Members know that some significant improvements have been made. Today, we have introduced a power to establish a minimum fostering allowance, which is an important step that has been welcomed on both sides of the House. We have amended the Children Act 1989 to ensure that children's feelings, as well as their wishes, are taken into account when assessing their needs in a range of circumstances.

We have responded to hon. Members' concerns by enabling changes to be made to the rules of court, which will help us to represent our constituents without getting into contempt of court, and I am grateful for the work that has been done by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
The passage of the Bill marks the beginning of the important programme of change for children to which the Government are committed. As I have said many times, the Bill provides a legislative framework, rather than all the answers, to improve outcomes for children.

Our purpose is to maximise opportunity and minimise risk; to enhance opportunity for every child; to work to close the gap between those who succeed and those who achieve less well; to make sure that every child matters; and to support our resolve to do all we can to prevent children such as Victoria Climbié from falling through the net and dying at the hands of adults in whose care they have been entrusted.

But it is what happens at the local level, on the ground, that will make the real difference to the lives of children, young people and their families. What will count is our work over the coming months and years with all those who provide services for children at the front line, from strategic agencies to individual practitioners. Our task is to build on the framework created by the Bill to reconfigure our services so that we shift our efforts to prevention while strengthening the safeguarding and protection of children; change services and organise them around the needs of the child, not of the professionals; and ensure that the voice of children and young people lies at the heart of all that we do.

This is a great Bill that will help us to create a step change for children. I commend it to the House.

…

Margaret Hodge: I want to thank everyone, if I may. I thank our Committee Chairmen for the estimable way in which they chaired our proceedings, and all the members on both sides of the Committee for the positive contribution that they made. Even where we disagreed and had some debate, it was all in good spirit. I particularly thank my fellow Ministers, who are incredibly busy people, for the time they gave to supporting me during the proceedings on the Bill, and the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who played an estimable role in ensuring that we all kept to order. I also want to thank the many Back Benchers who served with us, some of whom spoke today. Others who were not called had,

I know, prepared contributions to this important debate. I want to thank the parliamentary officials—

It being 7 o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Click here for the full debate

More from Dods

Advertise

Spread your message to an audience that counts, with options available for our website, email bulletins and publications including The House Magazine.

Find out more about advertising with us