| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
EDUCATION AND SKILLS
Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities
The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): This statement is being made on a joint basis, together with my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women and Equality.
I am pleased to report that consultation document "Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities" (Cm 6273) is today being presented to Parliament.
Parental separation affects many children and their families. When handled well the adverse impact on their children can be minimised. When things go badly the
21 Jul 2004 : Column 34WS
effects can be very damaging for children, both in the short and longer terms. These risks can be reduced if parents can resolve parenting issues in an amicable fashion. Because of social changes, more children experience parental relationship breakdown than a generation ago: 150,000 to 200,000 parental couples separate each year. In addition, fathers are, in general, more actively involved in caring for and helping to raise their children.
Currently, only 10 per cent. of separating couples with children have had their contact arrangements ordered by the courts, though the number of court applications for contact is rising each year, with the courts in England and Wales making 67,000 contact orders last year. The majority of applications are made by fathers, reflecting the fact that most children live with their mothers following separation.
I am clear that there is scope for considerable improvement in the way in which the family justice system, together with its associated services, deal with contact disputes. This view is widely shared among judges, legal practitioners and voluntary organisations. Some fathers' groups assert that the courts and the law are biased against them. I do not accept this view. However, what I do accept is that major changes are needed, in order to ensure that court and other interventions into family life become much more effective in helping to secure effective resolutions which are in the interests of the child. I strongly believe that in most cases it is very much in the interests of the child to have an on-going relationship with both parents. By improving the system, the Government can make their proper contribution to enabling more non-resident parents to enjoy meaningful ongoing relationships with their children.
Following the most careful consideration across Government, we have determined that it would not be helpful, in any practical sense, to revise the principles that currently underpin the central piece of legislation—the Children Act 1989, in particular, the paramountcy principle, which makes the child's welfare the court's first consideration. This primary legislation, as interpreted and defined by the case law, already makes clear that both parents are equal and that both should continue to have a meaningful relationship with their children after parental separation, so long as it is safe. We fully accept that we need to make changes to the current system, and to support parents in settling their disputes, by providing more effective help for them to do so.
This consultation document puts forward proposals which are intended to help those undergoing parental separation to resolve their disputes more effectively so that children's needs are better met. They are based on the recognition that the primary responsibility for caring for children rests with parents rather than with the state. Their aims are threefold. Firstly, they aim to minimise conflict and support good outcomes, both for children and their parents, preferably without recourse to the courts. Secondly, they aim to improve parental access to those services which can enable them to reach agreements. Thirdly, they aim to improve legal processes and service delivery for those who do go to court. While most of our proposals are focused on the
21 Jul 2004 : Column 35WS
10 per cent. of parents who turn to the courts, a number of them are intended to be relevant to all parents who separate.
In developing these proposals, we have listened carefully to what parents and children have said. The consumer Strategy work of the Department for Constitutional Affairs involved drawing together evidence from research and conducting workshops and focus groups with parents. The key message from the parents was that they wanted help and support to navigate the emotional and practical issues they faced during the breakdown of their relationship.
We have also consulted widely with the key stakeholders, including parents' groups, academics, voluntary organisations and service providers, including the judiciary, legal professionals and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). It is this approach that will ensure rapid improvements at local level. Alongside the publication of this consultation document, the president of the Family Division and the chief executives of the court service and of CAFCASS are today writing to all judges, court service staff and CAFCASS officers to begin the process of change.
The consultation period, which begins today, will run until 1 November 2004. Comments and discussions about the proposals will be welcome. The Government plan to implement many of these proposals quickly and robustly and to pursue the legislation that is needed as soon as possible.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
"I Will Write" Replies
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The Speaker has raised with me his concern, and that of other Members, about the number of "I will write" replies to parliamentary questions, and the inaccessibility of the subsequent responses. The matter was also raised by the Public Administration Committee in its report on "Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions" [Third Report, HC355, paragraph 29].
Following discussion with ministerial colleagues, and in consultation with Mr. Speaker and the House authorities, I have agreed the following arrangements, which will take effect from September.
Government Departments will continue to make every effort to provide a substantive answer to every parliamentary question within the customary timescale.
Departments will give "I will write" answers only rarely, when there is particular reason for delay.
At the end of each session, Departments will make every effort to answer questions substantively before prorogation; but, if this is not possible, Ministers will—instead of issuing an "I will write" reply, as in the past—answer the question with the following form of words: "It has not proved possible to respond to the [Right] hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation". It will then be open to the Member concerned to re-table the question in the new session if he or she wishes.
On those occasions where an "I will write" answer is necessary, a copy of the subsequent substantive response will be sent to Hansard and to the Library, and will be printed with the written answers in the next edition of Hansard.
If the subsequent response is longer than Hansard would normally publish, notification will be printed that the response is available in the Library of the House. The response will be available to Members in the Library and to the public on application to the House of Commons information office.
If Ministers wish to provide, in response to a question, personal or confidential information that would not be appropriate for publication, this will be made clear in the answer. The "I will write" formula will not be used and copies will not be sent to Hansard or the Library.
I believe that these new arrangements will substantially reduce the number of "I will write" replies, and make the subsequent responses much more accessible both to other Members and to the public.
Public Bills: Exchanges Between the Houses
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): During the final stages of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill in May, a procedural difficulty arose in the House of Lords. Contrary to the intention of this House, it appeared to the House of Lords that a message from the Commons amounted to a "double insistence" in respect of one Lords amendment. In such circumstances, a Bill is normally lost. However, as this was clearly not the wish of either House, the House of Lords agreed to vary the normal practice in that House, to allow the Bill to continue in play.
The Leader of the House of Lords invited the Clerks of both Houses and parliamentary counsel to consider jointly the lessons learnt from this episode and how best to avoid such a situation in the future. In particular, they were asked to look at the practice of considering amendments in the other House in groups or packages and the procedural consequences which can follow.
Following consideration by a working group of Clerks and parliamentary counsel, the Clerks of both Houses have agreed the following statement of position:
"Before a bill can become an Act of Parliament, the two Houses have to agree on the text. The procedure for reaching agreement appears simple in concept, but can become extremely complicated in practice because of the political context. It may involve, for example, one House having to back away from an entrenched position.
Following Third Reading and passing of the bill in the second House, a list of amendments made by that House is compiled and sent back to the first House for their consideration. If the first House agrees to all of the amendments made in the second House, the bill is ready for Royal Assent. If it does not, it returns the bill to the second House, with reasons for disagreeing to the amendments, and/or with further amendments. The second House then considers the reasons and amendments offered by the first House. The exchanges between the two Houses continue until:
(a) agreement is reached, or
(b) the Session is brought to an end, without agreement having been reached, or
(c) 'double insistence' is reached, which normally results in the bill being lost.
The term double insistence is used to describe a situation where one House insists on an amendment to which the other has disagreed, and the other House insists on its disagreement. If this point is reached, and neither House has offered alternatives, the bill is lost. This doctrine is set out in Erskine May 23 edition, page 639, which, however, goes on to say 'there is no binding rule of order which governs these proceedings in either House, and, if there is a desire to save
21 Jul 2004 : Column 37WS
- the bill, some variation in the proceedings may be devised in order to effect this object.'
In the case of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, two amendments (Lords amendments 1 and 3) were still under discussion in the final exchanges between the two Houses. In the Commons, the two amendments were treated as forming a package, and a single amendment (1C) was considered by the Commons to be an amendment in lieu of both Lords amendments. But the reason given for disagreeing to Lords amendment 3 made no mention of the link between amendment 1 and amendment 3. Accordingly, the Lords Clerks advised that double insistence had been reached on amendment 3, and they advised the Government that it would be necessary to move a motion to vary the normal practice of the House, and thus allow further consideration of the bill. A motion was agreed to on 11 May.
We have been asked to consider the lessons which can be learnt from these exchanges.
By way of background, we note that the speed and complexity of exchanges between the two Houses has increased markedly in recent years. This is due partly to political circumstances, and partly to technical advances in text handling, which have made possible extremely rapid turn-around of bills. Increased speed inevitably carries the risk of misunderstanding or error, and reduces the time available for consideration of the possible consequences of each House's decisions.
Particularly in the Commons, the practice has developed of packaging and grouping amendments during these final stages. 1 Packaging and grouping are useful ways of signalling perceived connections between amendments. But these are techniques for organising debate within each House; neither House can be expected either to discover, or to feel bound to follow, arrangements made by the other for the consideration of amendments. Messages between the two Houses, and reasons for disagreement, are ways of communicating perceived connections between amendments, but these in turn depend upon the terms of the motions in each House. We consider that the wording of motions could be improved, in order to make clearer the links between the different elements of a 'package' of amendments. We also think that the wording should be improved, in order to make the action of one House clearer to the other and, where necessary, to identify any package.
As an example, in a case where one House insists on disagreement to more than one amendment and offers an alternative only to one, intending that single alternative to encourage the other House to reconsider all the relevant amendments, the most certain way of avoiding the need in future for a motion disapplying the double insistence rule will be to ensure that a single motion to disagree is laid before the House along the lines of 'that this House insists on its disagreement to amendments 1, 2 and 3 but proposes the following amendment in lieu of amendment 1'. The other House will then be able to identify the group of amendments as a package.
We are in agreement that in such a case the resultant message to the other House would not amount to a double insistence, whether or not the House receiving it chose to 'unpackage' the amendments for the purposes of debate.
1 In this note, 'grouping' refers to the practice (in both Houses) whereby related amendments are debated together, but the fate of individual amendments in the group is decided separately. 'Packaging' refers to the practice (currently only used in the House of Commons), in the final stages of a bill's passage, where a number of related amendments may be grouped together for the purposes of both debate and decision. So, for example, a motion on a "package" might invite the House to agree to amendments (a), (b) and (c) to a Bill, in lieu of Lords amendments 42 to 44 and 61.
From a practical point of view, we consider that the packaging of amendments has advantages, and that there could be benefits from bringing the practices of the two Houses more closely together in this respect. With this in mind, the Clerk of the Parliaments will invite the Lords Procedure Committee to consider changes to the practice of the House, to allow more flexibility in dealing with Commons amendments which have been packaged.
Although, in many cases, it is likely that the two Houses will be prepared to consider as a whole a package of amendments which has been received from the other House, there will be other cases when either House may wish to consider the elements of a package separately for political reasons. It is not the purpose of procedure to provide political solutions, but rather to facilitate the consideration of options. Each House remains the master of its own procedures, and where there is disagreement about packaging, it will be possible, as at present, for the other House to consider amendments separately to the extent desired."
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |