| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Tim Loughton: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Lady misheard me, or whether I did not express myself properly, but that is entirely and utterly not what I said. What I said was that—as the Minister had led us to believe would happen—all those cases in which there had been expert witness testimony that was now being called into question should be available to be reviewed. If the result of any such review was that there had been a miscarriage of justice, it should then be available to the parents to apply, where suitable and appropriate, for the children to be placed back with them. That is all that I said.
Tim Loughton: I shall not give way again to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall happily give way to the hon. and learned Lady in a moment.
Of course, there will be a great many cases—I hope it will be most cases—in which the original judgment will be found not to be flawed. However, we do not know that now, so it is essential that we properly review all those cases. That is why it is curious that the Minister prejudged those cases by saying that, even if they were found in the parents' favour, those children should not be restored to those parents.
Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands totally how care orders and adoption orders are made.
If Professor Meadow's evidence had been the sole testimony, and he had been quite wrong, it would not necessarily follow that in each and every case it would be in the child's best interest to be returned—it really would not. I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully what he is saying. He could raise false hopes in so many families; his behaviour here today is quite immoral.
Tim Loughton: I am afraid that the hon. and learned Lady is going completely over the top, given what I have said. I particularly used the phrase "where suitable and appropriate". In some cases—I stress, in some cases—if there is found to be something unsound in the original case, and if a child has been through a series of foster placements or failed adoptions and not been placed in a settled family environment, it might be appropriate for that child to be returned. What is not appropriate is to make a broad-brush statement that it would not be appropriate for any children to be returned to their parents even if it were found that the original case was unsound.
Tim Loughton: I should like to make some progress, and the hon. and learned Lady may well want to make her own contribution later. I ask her, please, not to distort what I have said. I clearly did not say what she claims I did, and it clearly would have been irresponsible for me to do so. What is irresponsible is to say that even if there are found to be flaws, the children have no hope of being restored to their parents. That is unforgivable where the parents who have challenged these cases are concerned.
What does the Minister intend to do to make family courts fairer for all parties? At the moment, children must be represented by a specialist lawyer from the child care panel, but parents are often unable to secure such expert representation. Too often, the interests of parents and children are put in opposition to each other, instead of our following the continental practice, which more readily encourages local authority involvement to rehabilitate children back into their families, if that is possible and poses no danger.
As the editor of the excellent new publication Children Now has put it, there is
- "an increasingly widespread view that family courts are in crisis. Add to that the chaos within the children's guardian service CAFCASS"—
- "where long delays in children being assigned guardians are resulting in cases being drawn out months longer than they would otherwise need to be . . . and the fact that the number of lawyers prepared to take on publicly funded cases is dwindling."
Tim Loughton: I shall wait until the hon. and learned Lady makes her own contribution later.
I shall briefly touch on the children's fund. We welcomed the Minister's U-turn last week, but the 149 partnerships put in place in very worthwhile schemes that have so far helped more than 300,000 children and families across the country should never have been put in this position in the first place. They are still worried about their funding for 2005–06. I saw a very effective scheme in Bury last week, which was tackling bullying in schools. It was funded by the children's fund, but, having taken on fixed overheads and commitments on a three-year time scale, its future had been seriously cast in doubt.
The Minister herself has said of the children's fund:
- "It is one of the Government's exciting and successful innovations to invest in services for a group of children who often miss out: the five to 13-year old group."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 24 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 56WH.]
- "The episode has sent shock waves through the children's sector. Many voluntary agencies and local authorities have been scaling down projects and in some cases, laying off staff. And this shambles could have long term consequences and has undermined confidence in the Government's commitment to preventive work."
- "the attitude of some Whitehall officials who still believe that voluntary organisations are second-class subcontractors, more malleable than private companies, owed less obligation and more easily dumped when the going gets rough . . . threatening to destroy at a stroke all the good will and trust built up between the groups"
There are many other problems that we could touch on in this debate, and I am sure that other hon. Members will do so. There has been a big increase in the number of children being trafficked into Britain for sexual exploitation, and there is a desperate need for new procedures for registering and following up children who arrive alone from abroad. There is a big question mark over the inspection of children's homes by the National Care Standards Commission, whose annual report reveals that 10 per cent. of announced inspections of children's homes were not carried out, and that 47 per cent. of unannounced inspections did not take place either. What will the Minister do about that, as the NCSC is about to be merged into the Commission for Social Care Inspection?
Why have the Government specifically excluded disabled children from full protection in the Green Paper? Experts warn that that will allow disability to disguise abuse. What is the Minister doing about the dramatic increase in child abductions? According to this week's Home Office report, white 10-year-old girls are most at risk in that regard. There were 846 abductions and attempted abductions in 2002–03, an increase of 45 per cent. on the 584 in the previous 12 months. Many of those cases involved looked-after children. The Children's Society has quite rightly highlighted the lack of suitable child protection measures for children in prison, whose numbers have doubled over the last 10 years, and for child asylum seekers. Furthermore, there is still no sign of a national service framework for children or an alcohol strategy.
We have had many warm words from the Government, and many "eye-catching initiatives". They have issued many memos, and many departmental boxes have been ticked. However, their record will be judged on how many children have been helped in the field. How many have been rescued from abuse? How many have been saved from cruel torture or death? How many abusers have been deterred from plying their evil trade in the first place? How many looked-after children have been given a genuine second chance to have the kind of normal, stable, conventional upbringing that we all take for granted, and to which they are just as entitled as anyone else?
The jury is still out on the quality and outcomes of what the Minister has achieved in the last nine months. In terms of the parliamentary time needed to allow input from all hon. Members in debating the necessary measures, there has not been a good start. The Conservatives strongly hope that the Bill to be published tomorrow—and a preparedness to listen to those most affected by its measures—will mark a genuine commitment to bringing about practical action and results, so that we shall never again be faced with the death of another Victoria Climbié as a result of what Lord Laming called "widespread organisational malaise".
DEFERRED DIVISION
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I now have to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day.
On the question relating to Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism, the Ayes were 370, the Noes were 49, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |