| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
(a) the nature and severity of the ill-treatment;
(b) how recently the ill-treatment occurred;
(c) the frequency of the ill-treatment;
(d) the risk of further ill-treatment occurring;
(e) the physical, sexual or emotional harm inflicted on the child or harm suffered by the child as a result of seeing or hearing ill-treatment of another person;
(f) whether the other party to the proceedings—
(i) considers that the child will be safe while the abusive party has residence of, or contact with, the child; and
(ii) consents to the abusive party having residence of, or contact with, the child;
(g) the wishes of the child, if the child is able to express them, and having regard to the age and maturity of the child;
(h) any steps taken by the abusive party to prevent further ill-treatment from occurring;
(i) any other matters as the court considers relevant.".'.
Amendment No. 59, in page 2, line 24, clause 1, at end insert—
'(7) If an offence has been committed under this section, a court before which a person has applied for an order under section 34 Family Law Act 1986 (on applications in private law for the disclosure of information as to the whereabouts of a child and orders authorising the taking charge of and delivery of a child) should have regard to this offence before granting the order.'.
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1458
Amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 4, clause 5, after 'dies', insert 'or is seriously harmed'.
Amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 11, after 'death', insert 'or serious harm'.
Amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 17, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d)(ii), in determining the reasonableness of the steps which D could have been expected to take, the court shall have particular regard to the extent to which D has been subjected to domestic violence or is in fear of being subjected to domestic violence.'.
Amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 22, at end insert 'or serious harm'.
Amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 32, at end insert 'or serious harm'.
Amendment No. 61, in page 4, line 5, at end insert—
'(8) For the purposes of this section, a person (D) who is a victim of domestic violence should not be regarded as having caused or allowed a child or vulnerable adult (V) to be injured or killed unless there is clear evidence that this person (D) actively contributed to the injury or killing of a child or a vulnerable adult (V).'.
Amendment No. 62, in page 5, line 36, clause 9, after 'death', insert 'or suicide'.
Amendment No. 72, in page 5, line 36, after 'death', insert '(including suicide)'.
Amendment No. 63, in page 5, line 36, leave out
'a person aged 16 or over'
and insert 'an adult or child'.
Amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 36, leave out 'aged 16 or over' and insert—
'(other than a person aged 16 or under in respect of whom a Serious Case Review has been undertaken)'.
Amendment No. 64, in page 33, line 15, clause 50, at end insert—
'(3) The Secretary of State may make grants to voluntary organisations under this section for the purpose of providing appropriate protection and support services for children who have suffered impairment due to seeing or hearing ill-treatment of another person. Any payments will be subject to such conditions as he considers appropriate.'.
Mr. Dawson: First, I should like to acknowledge the work of Women's Aid Federation of England, which campaigned assiduously on contact in relation to domestic violence. I want to acknowledge its work in helping to develop the worthy amendments and new clauses.
I make no apology for returning to this issue, which I raised on Second Reading and in Committee. Everyone should acknowledge that, in recent years, at least 28 children have been murdered by their fathers during the course of contact visits, and we really should not leave the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill without fundamentally addressing that issue by changing its provisions.
1.30 pm
I am surprised that I have to move an amendment such as this again. The Government have expressed their determination to make contact safer, and I do not think that anyone would doubt their determination for an instant. The Opposition—who I understand are now set on a policy of equal parenting, although I am not quite sure what that means—have also assured us, during the
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1459
passage of the Children Bill, that they do not intend to put children at risk in any way. One would hope that there would be complete agreement among the 659 Members of Parliament on this issue. At least the Government acknowledge that there is a problem in this regard, but I am worried that some of the key issues have not been addressed, especially in Committee, and that the significance and seriousness of the problem seemed to be skirted over.
Since Committee, we have seen the publication of the Green Paper, "Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities". Paragraph 47 of the Green Paper rightly acknowledges that the Court of Appeal has generally approved guidelines developed by the Children Act sub-committee to ensure that,
"where domestic violence is alleged, the courts must make a finding of fact as to whether or not the alleged violence has occurred and, if it has, what impact it has had on the child."
"Any harm to the child as a result of the violence must be taken into account in the decision on contact and what kind of arrangements should be put in place to ensure that it is safe."
That is all well and good, and it relates to the discussions that we have had throughout the passage of the Bill, but unfortunately, paragraph 48 of the Green Paper goes on to report that
"the implementation of these guidelines has been patchy."
I am sorry to say that that statement contradicts the assurances that we were given by the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), that the principle was robust and would provide the assurance that hon. Members required. I was not reassured in Committee, and no one who reads the Green Paper will be reassured. The Government do not believe that we have a proper system in place at the moment.
That word "patchy" is one of the most grotesque understatements ever to be put before the House. It refers not to the failure of certain judges to observe some arcane guideline or dusty element or principle in the further reaches of the law, but to the colossal failure of some judges in our family justice system to protect children. We all know what happens to the most junior social workers who make colossal errors of judgment and fail to prevent children from being murdered. We know what happened to the social worker in the Victoria Climbié case, for example. She was sacked, vilified and pilloried, and her life—or certainly, her career—has been ruined.
But what of the judge who ignores guidelines and orders unsupervised contact with schedule 1 offenders? That was recently reported by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to be happening on a large scale. What of the judge who puts a belief in the virtues of contact ahead of the paramountcy principle embodied in the Children Act 1989? What of the judge who considers that there should be a higher standard of proof where there are allegations of the sexual abuse of children? What exactly should we do when children are murdered during the unsupervised contact ordered by a judge? Are those distinguished gentlemen—they are almost invariably gentlemen—even asked to contribute to the part 8 review? Who questions their judgment when they get it wrong?
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1460
The Government have responded to what they regard as an inadequate situation by, finally, proposing to bring into law by January 2005 section 120 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which amends the definition of significant "harm" to include the witnessing of domestic violence. That is important; it constitutes a vital protective step. The only other thing that we have been promised, however, are robust monitoring arrangements. As I have said in regard to the Children Act sub-committee guidelines, what we have had so far has not been good enough, and has been acknowledged by the Government to be inadequate. We need to make significant changes to the Bill before Parliament can be satisfied that we really are starting to protect children in these most difficult and, in some cases, dangerous circumstances.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |