| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that he raised this matter in Committee. At that time, it was my impression that he might have had the support of a majority in Committee for his point of view. However, he did not put the matter to the vote. I wonder whether that was because he had received an assurance from the Government, which has not yet been honoured. Is that why he has had to bring the matter back on Report? What is his reason for returning to it now, given that he did not take the opportunity to press it to a vote in Committee?
Mr. Dawson: I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that I did not have the majority of the Committee on my side. That was made very plain to me during that memorable afternoon. Would that I had.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): I am quite surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. I was flabbergasted that he did not take the opportunity to press the matter to a vote in Committee because, between those Members on our side and those on his side who had spoken to the amendment, we had a majority. I was therefore very surprised to see him duck the opportunity.
Mr. Dawson: I think that the hon. Lady is talking about a different amendment. The one about which she was most critical of me related to part 8 reviews and domestic homicide reviews. I can assure her that I am telling her the truth on this matter. My hon. Friends in the Whips Office know that I have voted against the Government on occasion.
Lords Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Mr. John Heppell): If my hon. Friend could have won the vote, he would have voted.
Mr. Dawson: I think we must respect the sedentary intervention of my hon. Friend.
I hope that we can move forward on these amendments today. The Government tell us that the paramountcy principle outweighs current case law, to which I have referred and which, frankly, does not protect children. I do not trust that case law, which seems to operate against the best interests of children. I honestly do not trust judges to listen properly to children who have experienced abuse. That is hardly a criticism that can be made solely of the judicial profession, but it is very clearly the case.
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1461
Women's Aid has been assiduous in bringing forward young people and putting them into contact with parliamentarians, who are outraged that those young people's voices have not been listened to, and that they or their younger brothers and sisters have been placed in considerable danger and acute risk by the decisions of adults who have not listened to their very real concerns. We shall not get any further forward in this regard without the implementation of section 122 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which would ensure the separate representation of children in private law. This would ensure that the interests of children would be properly promoted in the family courts.
Of course these decisions are some of the most difficult that anyone in public life could ever be called upon to make, and of course honest mistakes will be made, but surely we should work on the principle that it is a child's right to have contact with both parents as long as it is in the child's best interests. I am quite sure, however, that the only way for Parliament to insist that the right of children to be safeguarded is upheld is to pass new clause 1, which promotes the safety of children in contact hearings where domestic violence has been alleged and to support new clause 2, which sets out a helpful checklist to assist courts in that task.
Those amendments support the paramount principle of the Children Act 1989, that decisions should be made in the best interests of the child, and if the Opposition are serious about equal parenting, the amendments are a vital safeguard that they should incorporate in any such approach. Every single Member of the House will be concerned about this issue; every single member of the House should support the amendments.
Mr. Grieve: As I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, I have considerable sympathy for the intention behind his amendments, which we also had a chance to look at in Committee. We fully accept that the need to protect children from violence, including violence from one or other parent, is a very important matter. We are also aware of the risk—we know of such incidents—of children being exposed to possible violence during contact with a non-resident parent. I know that that is a matter of particular concern to the hon. Gentleman. I believe that he may be involved with the passage of the Children Bill, and I should like to offer him some reassurance. The hon. Gentleman is correct that we advocate equal parenting and are in favour of the principle that the normal place of residence of a child is with its parents when living together—a principle to which I think he would not take exception. We also believe that in the event of parental separation, every opportunity should be given to competent and caring parents who are non-resident to provide an input into their child's upbringing. However, we are not seeking to undermine in any way the anxieties that he has expressed in the particular context of the amendments.
The question does arise—I suppose it will arise also on equal parenting but I think it arises more in this context—about whether the framework of proposals that the hon. Gentleman has put forward are necessary to ensure that the court has proper regard to possible abusive relationships within the family unit of the person seeking contact. My own experience of doing
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1462
family legal work, admittedly mostly before the enactment of the Children Act 1989, is that such considerations were very much at the forefront of any decisions that were taken about whether contact should be allowed or residence altered. The checklist that the hon. Gentleman has provided in new clause 2 is the sort of checklist that I would expect the court to go through anyway.
Mr. Grieve: I am glad to see that hon. Gentleman agrees. Although I do have sympathy with the thrust of his amendments, I shall wait with interest to hear from the Minister whether he thinks that their incorporation is a necessity, because, as I think I made clear to him earlier, in my opinion the Children Act as currently drafted does already provide that those issues should be addressed. We also have to bear in mind—I am sure that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) will agree about this as well—that it is an unfortunate feature of many a marriage or relationship break-up that false accusations of abusive behaviour are used by one party or another as a form of leverage in order to try to deny the other party contact or residence with the child. Of course, I accept that the terms of the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman would not prevent the court from considering that possibility.
1.45 pm
I wonder whether I might now discuss new clause 10, which stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and myself and of the Liberal Democrats? It seeks to address the specific issue of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to amendment No. 10. We have already debated new clause 10.
Mr. Grieve: I do apologise. I was indeed referring to amendment No. 10. For a moment, I thought I was completely out of order and was seeking to refer to something to which I could not make reference. That has been known to happen. I am grateful for the correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Amendment No. 10 relates to a person causing or allowing the death of a child or a vulnerable adult. The Minister will recollect that there was considerable debate on this matter in Committee. The Government have set on a perfectly good course of seeking to deal with the problem that arises where two people are charged with murder and it is clear that one or other of them must have done it but completely unclear as to which one. In those circumstances we have had instances where the two carers or parents involved have been acquitted because it has been impossible to tell who was responsible. Clause 5 attempts to deal with that by creating a new offence where a child or vulnerable adult dies as a result of the unlawful act of a person who was a member of the same household and had frequent contact with him.
We are not opposed to that clause. We do, however, have concerns, as the Minister knows, about how it will operate, because one of the effective consequences of the
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1463
clause is a degree of reversal of the burden of evidential proof, because it effectively compels people to give evidence against each other or to face the consequences of their silence.
The amendment that we have tabled on Report deals specifically with the issue of those who may have been subject to domestic violence, because it is quite clear from recorded cases that there may well be instances where a person has acquiesced in violence being perpetrated against a child in the household because they themselves are in fear of violence, and we do not feel that clause 5 as currently drafted has sufficient regard to that contingency.
We are seeking to insert after clause 5(1)(d)(ii) a requirement that, where a person has frequent contact with the child, in determining the reasonableness of the steps which the defendant could have been expected to take, the court should
"have particular regard to the extent to which"
"has been subjected to domestic violence or is in fear of being subjected to domestic violence",
because it must be the case that where someone has been in fear of violence or subjected to violence, they will be in a much less favourable position to take effective steps to protect the child from the risk. It is that point which we think the court should have very much in mind when the time comes to direct a jury, at the end of a jury trial, in respect of such matters.
I concede that it is already possible that that could happen because a judge may do it of his own motion. But although a judge may do it of his own motion, if Parliament thinks that it is a matter of sufficient importance that we should highlight it, I do think that there is a very good argument for including it in the Bill.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |