| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has clearly described the circumstances as he understands them, so I understand the question perfectly. However, I shall not even begin to attempt to answer it from the Dispatch Box. I shall not ask the hon. Gentleman to write to me because I understand the question; I shall write to him giving the best advice that I can.
Hon. Members come to Ministers with all kinds of cases, but I have not had one quite like that. I recently dealt with a case in which a man had admitted that he was the father, but two years later, after a CSA blood test and court case, it turned out that he was not. Such cases are part of human life.
The hon. Gentleman has asked an important question that deserves an answer, because I suspect that the situation is not unique. I shall seek advice and write to him.
Mr. Burns:
I am grateful to the Minister for his kind offer, which I would like to take up, but to save him and his officials wasting their time, I can tell him that if he contacts Mrs. Faith Boardman, she will give him detailed
Mr. Rooker:
Yes, of course. The specifics of the individual case are one thing, but there is also a general question about the issues that the hon. Member raised, so I will look into the matter and write to him.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 43, in page 79, line 8, at end insert--
No. 82, in page 79, line 8, at end insert--
Mr. Andrew George:
I beg to move amendment No. 81, in page 20, line 7, at end insert--
I shall provide an example of a failure, not by the CSA, but by ourselves as legislators, which demonstrates the need for caution in the Bill. It is the case of a constituent of mine, formerly Dina Russell of Torquay, but known as Georgina McCarthy when, tragically, in May 1998, she was horrifically murdered by her former husband, Paul Russell. The crime occurred in her home in Penzance, in the presence of her one-and-a-half-year-old son, who was subsequently abducted. Her former husband was convicted of the crime in June last year.
That case demonstrates the failure of the system, because everything was done that could have been done in the face of a known and recorded threat. There were witnesses to the fact that Paul Russell intended to murder that poor woman. Every means available within the system and under the law was employed to protect her, but the system itself failed, with tragic results. Paul Russell used family law--section 8 of the Children Act 1989--to obtain a seek-and-find order from the court. The legal process was quashed, but not before it had already provided him with sufficient information to establish in which part of the country his former wife lived. The case exposed weaknesses in court procedure, the Children Act and family law, and flaws in the interplay between civil and criminal law. Court procedures were observed and the police and social services did everything according to the law in order to protect that women, but, ultimately, they and the system failed.
The CSA does not come into that case; Paul Russell did not use it to track down his former wife. However, there is a fear that the provisions of the Bill as it stands might enable women who have been subjected to domestic violence to be tracked down. About 100 women are murdered every year, and about half know their murderer. Far too many women suffer domestic violence; whether that ultimately leads to murder or severe harm, it is obviously not in the best interests of women or children for the system to permit information to be made available to husbands, partners, former husbands and former partners who might use the information to track them down.
I accept that the clause provides a reasonable belt around this issue, and earlier responses from the Minister have reassured me that she and her Department have a genuine intention to ensure that everything is done to protect women who are liable to be threatened with abuse and violence. The purpose of the amendment is to provide braces--I apologise for the use of a male gender metaphor--as well as the belt of the clause. The amendment lays responsibility on the Secretary of State to ensure that information relating to the parent carer remains confidential. That would put an added pressure on the Secretary of State to be extremely circumspect about the circumstances in which information is divulged.
As Members of Parliament, we all have a heavy burden to bear in voting through legislation that could have a damaging effect on people's lives. I appreciate that the amendment would impose a heavy burden on the Secretary of State. Serious concerns surround this issue and I know that the Minister is aware of them. Many
organisations have written to Ministers about the clause and about the evidence that the Secretary of State may require to justify that there is good cause not to disclose information. It is not clear at this stage at what level that evidence is required. One way of providing some assurance is to lay a legal responsibility on the Secretary of State to ensure, in cast iron terms, that the information is protected and that women are protected also within the system.
'(b) in subsection (2)--
(i) for "person responsible for" there shall be substituted "individual", and
(ii) after "this section" there shall be inserted "("the tester")";
(c) in subsection (4), for "the person who made the report" there shall be substituted "the tester"; and
(d) in subsection (5)--
(i) for "the person responsible for carrying out the tests taken for the purpose of giving effect to the direction, or any" there shall be substituted "the tester, or any other",
(ii) for "that person" there shall be substituted "the tester or that other person", and
(iii) after "and where" there shall be inserted "the tester or".'.
'( ) In section 21 (consents, etc., required for the taking of blood samples), in subsection (3), for the words "if the person who has the care and control of him consents" there shall be substituted--
"(a) if the person who has the care and control of him consents; or
(b) where that person does not consent, if the court considers that it would be in his best interests for the sample to be taken.".'.--[Mr. Rooker.]
Amendment made: No. 44, in page 80, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 and insert--
'(3) Except in a case falling within subsection (3A) below, the court shall refuse to hear an application under subsection (1) above unless it considers that the applicant has a sufficient personal interest in the determination of the application (but this is subject to section 27 of the Child Support Act 1991).
(3A) The excepted cases are where the declaration sought is as to whether or not--
(a) the applicant is the parent of a named person;
(b) a named person is the parent of the applicant; or
(c) a named person is the other parent of a named child of the applicant.'.--[Mr. Rooker.]
Amendments made: No. 53, in page 128, line 6, leave out '"55A(5)"' and insert '"55A(6) or 56(4)"'.
No. 54, in page 128, line 38, leave out from "1987" to end of line 41 and insert--
'(a) in subsection (2) to be substituted for section 20(2) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 (report to court about scientific tests), for "person responsible for" there shall be substituted "individual"; and
No. 55, in page 129, line 24, leave out "Where" and insert "This section applies where".
No. 56, in page 129, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 and insert--
'( ) Where this section applies--
(a) if it is the person with care who makes the application, he shall be treated as having a sufficient personal interest for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section; and
(b) if it is the Secretary of State who makes the application, that subsection shall not apply.'.
No. 57, in page 129, line 43, at end insert--
'The Access to Justice Act 1999 (c.22)
. In Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 (services which are not to be funded as part of community legal services), in paragraph 2(3), after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted--
"(da) under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 (declarations of parentage),".'. --[Mr. Rooker.]
Amendments made: No. 39, in page 14, line 22, leave out "the liable person's" and insert "his".
No. 40, in page 15, line 43, at end insert--
'( ) Where a court--
(a) makes a disqualification order;
(b) makes an order under subsection (5); or
(c) allows an appeal against a disqualification order,
it shall send notice of that fact to the Secretary of State; and the notice shall contain such particulars and be sent in such manner and to such address as the Secretary of State may determine.
( ) Where a court makes a disqualification order, it shall also send the driving licence and its counterpart, on their being produced to the court, to the Secretary of State at such address as he may determine.'.
No. 41, in page 16, line 29, leave out "40A(8)" and insert "40A(10)".--[Mr. Rooker.]
'(9A) Where the parent with care has complied with obligations imposed by section 6 of the 1991 Act, the Secretary of State shall be legally responsible for the confidentiality of information relating to the parent with care.'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |