|Adoption and Children Bill
Tim Loughton: I appreciate the hon. Lady's experience of the matter, and her remarks. I remind her that the new clause refers to video or audio. While video may be an encumbrance or an intrusion and as such make such an interview more difficult, I should have thought that taking an audio recording would not pose that sort of problem. The reasons that the hon. Lady has just stated—that children will say different things to different people in different circumstances—surely make it essential that there should be a proper record, which can be referred back to, of multiple interviews. If what children say varies, would such a record not be better than relying on the impression of the person who conducts the interviews, which may differ from one interview to the next and cannot necessarily be substantiated?
Column Number: 923
Ms Munn: I was about to say that the CAFCASS officer is there to consider the child's needs. Officers see the child in different circumstances and base their conclusions on observation of the child in a number of situations. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, in addition to everything else that the CAFCASS officer has to take into account, such as ensuring that they develop a relationship with a child and that they interview them in appropriate circumstances, they should also become an expert on audio equipment? Is he suggesting that they should carry that equipment around with them, so that at some point someone is able to play back everything that the child has said and make a judgment on the conclusion reached by the CAFCASS officer? The courts generally have a great deal confidence in the CAFCASS officer and usually respect the fact that they have reflected on what the child has said and the circumstances in which they said it.
It is beyond belief that anyone could think that the new clause provides an answer. The issue is enormously important, and it is difficult to get it right. However, experienced court officers are expected to set out in their reports the tensions and difficulties—especially in the case the older children whom we have been discussing—of what the child is trying to express, as well as how they have reached their view and the circumstances in which they have spoken to the child.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight may be ubiquitous, and seems fairly ambitious. He may be proposing the measure with certain situations in mind, but people should reconsider it, because it is not sensible.
Jacqui Smith: Following the excellent contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley, it is hardly worth my while standing up.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham spoke about records not being able to be disclosed without leave of the court. That is true; it and is designed to protect the privacy of the child and the other parties. The parties can, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley pointed out, apply to the court for permission to disclose and that is important, because information disclosed in court may affect other people who also have the right to have their privacy respected.
On the substantive point of the new clause, it is worth noting that audio and video recording are not routinely used or thought necessary by CAFCASS, local authorities or adoption agencies. The Government have not had representations about that from children's organisations or other stakeholders. The court may already consider applications by parties to the case for specific evidence, including video or audio evidence, to be lodged in the proceedings. The child's views may be taken into account in several ways in adoption and placement proceedings, including the presence of CAFCASS officers and solicitors to represent children's best interests.
If there is concern about the extent to which the evidence represents the views of the child, the court process provides the opportunity for statements to be challenged. All children are interviewed sensitively,
Column Number: 924taking into account the circumstances of the individual case and the age and understanding of the child. I agree that we need to ask why children should be subjected to the additional pressure of having their views recorded, when, incidentally, that would not be required of adults. The clause would not apply equally to all children. It could not do so, practically, because some children might be too young to be interviewed.
While the use of recorded evidence is common in criminal proceedings—and my hon. Friend pointed out the reasons for that—there is no such requirement about giving evidence in family proceedings. Children of sufficient age and understanding can be made a party to the proceedings and speak directly to the court.
If the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is mainly concerned about how to represent the voice of the child in the proceedings, my response is that we have gone into that issue at length in Committee. Hon. Members may fear that he is making a misguided attempt to force on to children the recording of their views, and I hope that on his behalf the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will feel able to withdraw the new clause.
Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight will, I am sure, be disappointed, if not wounded, particularly by the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, and the Minister's remarks about his being misguided. I remind the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley that the new clause was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight and that she should not attempt to shoot the messenger. If my hon. Friend is not sufficiently wounded by the power of Labour Members' comments, he may seek to table a version of the new clause on Report, at which point the hon. Lady can target her ire on him directly. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
|©Parliamentary copyright 2002||Prepared 17 January 2002|