| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Heath: I mentioned the issue briefly because I hoped that the Minister would be able to satisfy me entirely on it, and he now has. However, he has not entirely satisfied me about amendment No. 10 and I still intend to press it to a Division, if possible.
Paul Goggins: Whether a glass is half full or half empty is a judgment that I suppose we all need to make. My final point to the hon. Gentleman on this matter is that under the new arrangements envisaged under the Children Bill, all unexpected child deaths will be investigated by local screening teams and wherever it appears that abuse or neglect may have played a part in the death the case will be referred to the local safeguarding children board for a serious case review. The Government are therefore confident that all unexpected deaths will be checked and, if necessary, reviewed so that no cases can fall through the net.
Finally, in connection with her amendment No. 64, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar spoke about the payment of grants to voluntary organisations supporting children who have suffered after witnessing the treatment of others. However, the purpose of clause 50, to which the amendment refers, is to provide statutory authority for regular Government grants to voluntary sector bodies, and that is consistent with Treasury best practice. The clause already provides that the Secretary of State may pay grants to any organisation that appears to him to assist victims, witnesses or other persons affected by offences. Children who have been affected by offences as set out in the amendment are definitely included in that definition, so it is unnecessary to mention them specifically on the face of the Bill. Of course, we will need to watch carefully and make sure that the right amount of money goes to the organisations involved.
Vera Baird: I am sorry to be slightly out of step, but my hon. Friend said that this was his final point and I want to take him back to the question of familial homicide. I am attracted to the idea of putting domestic violence on the face of the Bill because that would make all the parties in any case that might involve domestic violence aware that it is highly relevant. As a result, they will look for it. I appreciate that judges and juries will take domestic violence into account if its occurrence has been brought out into the open, as my hon. Friend said. However, as I noted earlier, women cannot talk about domestic violence or domestic sexual violence, except in very sympathetic circumstances. That is especially true in the aftermath of a trauma such as the death of a child, and such matters often do not come out in time for a trial.
I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to have a solution to that problem now, but I want him to think about it, as I do, because it is a real concern.
Paul Goggins:
I do indeed think about these matters, as they are very important. My point is simply that it may be very relevant that domestic violence has occurred, in which case the court will take that into account. In resisting these amendments, we are saying that such violence cannot be used as an excuse always and in every case. My hon. and learned Friend is referring to those vulnerable individuals who will need support whether they are victims or witnesses, and that
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1476
opens up a broader discussion about the criminal justice system as a whole. We are getting better at supporting people but we need to improve that, so that people in court are able to deal with, and speak about, these matters.
I just want to repeat my final point on the previous matter, which is that we will need to ensure that an appropriate amount of money goes to those organisations working with children.
In summary, I hope that it has been evident from what I have said that I sympathise completely with the motives behind some of the amendments under discussion. However, much of what they seek to achieve will be achieved by the Bill, although some of the amendments go further than what we feel can be justified as necessary. Therefore, I ask that the amendments be withdrawn.
2.45 pm
Mr. Dawson: This has been a good debate, and I am grateful for the support extended by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) supported new clauses 1 and 2. I know that he is an experienced and extremely learned practitioner in the courts, but I sometimes think that he is a little too sanguine about how well they operate. In response to his concerns about whether these amendments are necessary, I simply refer him to some of the statistics quoted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar, and to the abuse experienced by women and children on contact visits. I also point to the number of contact orders made on schedule 1 offenders, and to the horrendous fact that there have been 28 child deaths in recent years.
Reference was made to the question of false allegations. Public inquiries into child deaths over the years have made it clear that an undue emphasis on not being misled by false allegations can lead professionals and practitioners to ignore the very real facts about serious abuses.
I am very sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot accept new clauses 1 and 2. They are entirely in line with the Government's thinking and would only strengthen section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The paramount interest of children should always be served when courts make decisions about their future. The amendments would clarify those best interests and focus the efforts and attention of judges on them. They would make sure that judges were not swayed by the real pressures exerted by the well articulated and strongly expressed views of warring parents.
My hon. Friend the Minister feels that the Government have enough in the way of powers to deal with the very serious problems that arise, but the evidence that I quoted comes direct from the Government and is more recent than the Committee stage of this Bill. The Government have acknowledged that guidelines have not worked completely effectively so far in ensuring that children are safeguarded in contact and domestic violence cases.
Section 120 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 is a great improvement, but there is also a heavy reliance on guidelines. Given the serious facts of abuse, and the
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1477
fact that children's experiences and voices are not heard properly and fully by the courts, I am not certain that my hon. Friend the Minister can be fully satisfied that the Government do not need the measures envisaged in new clauses 1 and 2. Those measures are not being urged on the Government only by hon. Members here today; the need for them has been made clear by organisations outside the House that have daily contact with people going through some of the most horrendous experiences that can be imagined.
I will withdraw new clauses 1 and 2. There has been some discussion about my mathematical judgment in previous stages of the Bill's progress through the House, but I am well aware that I need to take into account forces outside the Chamber.
Mr. Grieve: I am the first to acknowledge that, in the context of the debate, the mathematical calculations are rather stacked against the hon. Gentleman unless he has Front-Bench support.
Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Minister said about serious case reviews, of which Opposition Members were so critical in Standing Committee. I am pleased that that has been resolved and that we have made some significant progress on the matter.
The Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs is about to embark on an inquiry into the work of the family courts. I have no doubt that the question of children and vulnerable adults will come up again and that the Committee will have an opportunity to talk to ministerial colleagues and to the president of the family division of the High Court and her colleagues.
In the hope that we are making some progress, and in the knowledge that progress will be very carefully scrutinised both in this House and outside it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3
'(1) Section 17 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c.23) (witnesses eligible for assistance on grounds of fear or distress about testifying) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) Where the complainant in respect of proceedings relating to any form of molestation, including violence, involving a complainant, a cohabitant, a relevant child or associated persons, is a witness in such proceedings, the witness is eligible for assistance in relation to those proceedings by virtue of this subsection unless the witness has informed the court of the witness' wish not to be so eligible by virtue of this subsection.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |