Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

I thank the Minister for his thorough explanation and his customary constructive engagement. I thank all noble Lords for what has been an excellent debate at the beginning of our Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, is quite right to point out the deficiencies of Amendment No. 1. We tabled this to start a debate on early intervention as it is so important. The Minister is right to say that it talks only about social work practices, but we wanted to talk about the whole aspect of early intervention. I realise that objections could be raised to it lacking specificity, but much of the frustration expressed particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, at Second Reading, was on how one drives forward the laudable aims of the Bill and all the other Bills that have gone before it which have sought to do good work for children in care. How does one encourage that best practice? How do we stop, as Henry Kissinger would say, the urgent from overtaking the important? Social workers have to deal with that all the time. I was interested to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that family group conferencing before a child is taken into care is a statutory recommendation in New Zealand. As there is such resistance to the use of that mechanism—I take on board everything that has been said about the workforce not being trained properly—and very low take-up of family group conferencing, it simply becomes another postcode lottery which we must avoid at all costs. I take on board the caveats mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, but as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, says, the words ““where appropriate”” should deal with that. As we have discussed this for a long time, I shall read what the Minister has said in Hansard with care, and for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?