Examination of Witnesses (Questions 346-359)
18 JANUARY 2005
BARONESS ASHTON
OF UPHOLLAND
AND RT
HON MARGARET
HODGE MBE, MP
Q346 Chairman: Good morning, Mrs Hodge,
Baroness Ashton. As you know, the Committee has been working on
this issue for some time. Why did you decide to make a statement
of policy on the day you were due to give evidence to the Committee
and just before you did so?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
Can I first of all apologise, Chairman, that the venue change
was not given to you, as it should have been, so that you were
not able to attend. I know I have sent to you the notes of Lord
Falconer's opening remarks, but I can only apologise. It was a
cock-up. It should not have happened. The reason was one of logistics.
We were ready to give the statement and, as you know, it is quite
important to timetable these things in consultation with colleagues
across government. We ended up in the position where this was
the best day in order to get the kind of coverage this issue deserves.
We did, of course, talk to your clerk and make sure that the Committee
was fully informed, and I was delighted the Committee was able
to alter the timing in order to facilitate that.
Q347 Chairman: We altered our timing
so that we could know what was happening in the press conference,
which you then moved without telling us.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
I have already apologised for that unreservedly.
Q348 Peter Bottomley: As a matter of
interest, when were the press told it was being moved?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
I think we would have to consult our press officers, but I assume
during the last 24, 48 hours. It should have been reported to
you. There is no excuse for it. I cannot give you an excuse for
it. It was a cock-up.
Margaret Hodge: I think the reason
for it, just to put it into context, was the security arrangements.
Clearly you should have been informed. I think we both sincerely
regret that you were not.
Q349 Chairman: We have gone to some trouble
to make some security arrangements for your benefit.
Margaret Hodge: I know you did.
Thank you very much.
Q350 Chairman: A decision we made, indeed,
when you were subject to an attack. All our subsequent meetings
on this subject have had additional security, so we do not find
it a very convincing reason for not telling us.
Margaret Hodge: I do hope, Chairman,
you were also given information as to what—. I was told
that you were given information prior to the announcement
today as to what we would announce so that you would know what
was in there, and that was our attempt to be both courteous and
inform you for today's proceedings.
Q351 Chairman: Yes, we were. Is the Government
objective to remove private cases from the Family Courts money
driven or outcome driven?
Margaret Hodge: Outcome driven,
absolutely and totally without hesitation outcome driven. This
is, as you know from many years of looking at these issues (much
longer than we have been doing), a highly contentious area. It
is very difficult. We know that for the child's best interests
we need to do all we can to ensure that parents decide between
themselves on the best arrangements for their children and maintain
a meaningful relationship with their children, where it is safe
for them to do so. We know that there has been a growing number
of divorce and separation, we know there are a growing number
of parents, both mothers and fathers, who are unhappy with the
outcomes of the decisions that they themselves take, or the courts
take on their behalf, and we know that there are a growing number
of children who suffer from the consequences of separation, divorce
and the acrimony that is caused if the arrangements are not properly
established; so it is for the child's interest and it is outcome
driven. It is utterly completely focusing the work we are doing.
Q352 Chairman: That being the case, you
recognise, do you, that some of the alternatives cost money and
that resources will be required for that?
Margaret Hodge: Indeed, and you
might quite rightly say that we wish we were to have more resources
than we currently have. I am quite pleased with the additional
resources that we have been able to secure to take forward a lot
of the proposals that are contained in today's announcement. It
is never enough. I would love to be able to say to you there will
be even more money, for example, going into training and funding,
more counsellors for more mediation, but it has been a growth
area. We will continue to look at how we can expand it in an effective
way to secure the outcomes, and I hope that the Committee will
welcome, in the same way as we have done, the additional resources
that we have secured both around introducing the Adoption and
Children Acts, issues around harm and domestic violence, which
are going into the court, the money that we could put into CAFCASS,
the extra money that we are announcing today for contact centres,
which is another element in it, and using money better, so changing
the way in which CAFCASS works so that we can better promote mediation,
conciliation. All those, I think, are putting resources in the
right direction as well as adding new ones. It does not mean we
should not have more, and I will argue that case all the time.
Q353 Chairman: We will come on to CAFCASS
a bit later this morning, but why have you ruled out a statutory
presumption that children should have contact with both parents?
Margaret Hodge: We start from
the principle, which is enshrined in the 1989 Children Act, that
the welfare of children should be paramount; and you can only
have one paramount principle, as you will know, and I know that
the Committee has discussed this and, reading the evidence, obviously
this has been an issue that has been raised. It does seem to us
very clear that for the vast majority of children, providing it
is safe, contact with both parents on an on-going loving, sustained
way is critical to their development. One only has to look at
issues surrounding the development of children in terms of even
just educational outcome to see the impact it can have when children
do not have that, but, because it is in their best interests,
we would want to see it happen on that basis, and we think that
is the right way of approaching it.
Q354 Chairman: You did not address in
today's presentation, as I understand it, an alternative suggestion,
which is that section 1(3) of the Children Act, which has a welfare
check-list in it, could include a requirement that the courts
should have regard to the importance of a relationship between
the children and the non-resident parent. Why did you not consider
that point?
Margaret Hodge: I think we have
to be really careful in this debate that we do not promise parents
something which we are then not delivering. The reality, as you
know, is that all the case law that has been built up over many
years recognises that the best interests of the child are served
by a continuing relationship with both parents where it is safe
for them to do so. It is pointless, in a sense, to change the
law, pretending you are changing something when in reality you
are not. I think that gives false promises and false hope to people
who are really distressed right across the piece on the circumstances
that face them when they separate and divorce and cannot find
an arrangement, or cannot agree an arrangement between themselves.
I strongly feel this, Chairman, in this whole very tense debate
raising false hopes is the wrong route down which to go, and we
do not need to change the law because it is absolutely clear they
are in the case law.
Q355 Chairman: Experienced practitioners,
like those represented by the solicitors from the Law Association,
recommended the addition to the welfare check-list as opposed
to the changing presumption, and judges we asked about it did
not seem concerned about doing that so long as the drafting was
carefully considered. It seems strange to me that a suggestion
that has reasonably wide backing amongst those who have to practise
within the courts should not have received more serious consideration.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
Obviously I have only read the evidence; I was not at the Committee.
I did not interpret what was being said as wide backing. I think
you are right, of course, Chairman, that the SLFA did raise this,
but, as Margaret was just saying, I think it is quite important
that we address the problem that people have identified to be
the problem; and the problem is not that the courts look at this
and say anything other than that it is in the child's best interests,
nor, indeed, that we would all wish to see on-going relationships
for children with both parents, the problem that was identified
is how does one make sure that actually happens? Simply looking
to adding into a check-list something that is already well understood,
is in law, is certainly viewed by the courts as being of critical
importance, is not affected by a change of that nature. What matters
is how you make sure that down the line what is being sought for
these children actually happens. The way that we have approached
it is to say that the principle is right, the law is clear; what
do we now do to ensure that the reality for families and, most
importantly, for children is that they get what is in their best
interests?
Margaret Hodge: Can I add something
to that? I too have read the evidence that you had before this
Committee, but the vast majority of those who responded to the
Green Paper that we published in the summer did not favour a change
in the legislation. I just put that to you. Even the SFLA, who
I know have argued for that, see it as symbolic rather than—
Q356 Chairman: That is exactly the point
I was going to put to you. The Government quite often makes changes
in the law because they think a signal needs to be given, even
though they do not think it will have an immediate practical effect.
Margaret Hodge: Let me come back
on two things. First of all, I think the important signal that
we all need to consistently give is that the interests of the
child must be paramount. That is the absolutely crucial signal,
and I do not want to muddy that signal at all. However, because
we know it is in the child's best interests to maintain a meaningful
relationship with both parents, again where it is safe for them
to do so, we need to demonstrate to parents that that means that
they need to comply with contact orders; and the signal at the
other end, which is the sticks that we are talking about this
morning and which will be considered in draft legislation shortly,
the stronger set of levers that we are proposing to give to judges,
that is the way of signalling that it matters that contact is
maintained. I think muddying the waters at the earlier end does
not help, and I genuinely believe would raise false hopes.
Q357 Peter Bottomley: One of the things
that children benefit from the most is consistent continuing care
and control from parents. One of the things which, I think, has
been absent, both from the evidence to government, from government
and to this Committee is the fact that at least a quarter, if
not significantly more, of children whose parents get involved
in court proceedings, or their children get involved in court
proceedings, get into persistent trouble with the law, and this
is particularly relevant at the moment because of something happening
in my constituency, Worthing, where old people's homes are turning
into children farms, children's homes, without the caring authority
even notifying local social services or police that troubled and
troublesome children are coming. We will be having a separate
meeting with Lord Filkin about this. What is there in all the
processes and procedures that in some way, first of all, alerts
parents to their children's needs for this care and control so
they have worthwhile activity rather than being involved in worthless
activities where they create other victims and become victims
themselves, and how does the integration of government start setting
some kind of aim, if not targets, in reducing the dramatic increase
in the trouble that children get into when they have troubled
family backgrounds?
Margaret Hodge: I am not sure
this is the appropriate forum in relation to the programme, but
I am happy to talk about the issue of looked after children and
those particularly placed outside their area where I think you
are quite right to raise the issues that I know are particularly
pertinent in your constituency at present. I am happy to deal
with that, but I am not sure it is totally relevant to the debate.
Parenting Plans. There is a lot we are doing today, there is a
real menu of propositions that we are putting forward, but the
Parenting Plans and the developments we have made there which
demonstrate in a much more practical way the decisions parents
can take around arrangements for their children which really put
the child's interests first, are part of the practical things
that we are doing in our armoury to get parents to focus on the
interests of the child and give them the stability, continuity
and consistency that, I agree with you, is utterly central to
the good outcomes later in their lives. What are we doing? There
they are. I hope Committee members, if they have not received
them, will receive them. I will make sure that you receive copies
of those today. What are we doing to try and counter some of the
poor outcomes that children from separated families can have if
we do not manage to get the contact arrangements sorted out? That
is part of my much wider programme of reform for children's services,
and I would simply say two principles underpin that reform. One
is to try and spot the signs of things going wrong much earlier,
so as to intervene earlier to strengthen the preventative services,
whilst always realising that the protection service is important,
but getting a shift focused to prevention. The second principle
which underpins the reform programme is trying to reconfigure
the way people respond to children's needs by building the services
round the needs of the child, with the child's voice being central.
Instead of having a child, for example, who may show in a school
the first signs of distress by truanting or bullying or whatever
it is, just having that happening in isolation, people working
in the school will be working much more closely with the family
doctor or with the health visitor or with other relevant professionals
so that they really do work round the needs of children. There
are lots of ways in which we are doing it, but those are the two
principles underpinning our reform agenda.
Q358 Peter Bottomley: Can I observe that
that is a proper response for what the professions might do, but
if I try to talk about more confident, more competent parents,
good enough parents at a time of fractured or fracturing relationships,
is there anything in the Parenting Plans which mentions children
getting involved in crime and is there anything in what parents
can be alerted to about the extra practical things they do to
fill their children's lives with worthwhile activities rather
than just being cut adrift?
Margaret Hodge: There is a lot
in there about the practical things that parents should do. Do
we talk about crime? I think the answer is, "No".
Q359 Peter Bottomley: Yet one male child
in four by the age of 18 or 20 has been convicted of a serious
criminal offence?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
Can I add two things on that? The first is that within the proposals,
the curriculum and PSHEs the whole question of family breakdown
is going to be more fully developed in terms of teaching materials
so that young people understand (a) that it may happen and (b)
the consequences of it for themselves and for their own children
potentially of which the impact on the children would be a critical
part. Secondly, looking at some of the mediation proposals that
we have and the family resolution proposals too, part of that
is the opportunity to talk about the impact on children of parents
not reaching agreement and not finding ways through to the benefit
of their children, of which precisely the point you make about
a child who feels in an impossible situation, who may find themselves
suffering educationally, socially and otherwise (which, as know,
can be the slippery slope, as such), would be part and parcel
of it. We do cover it, not in a heavily profiled way, but in terms
of those two different aspects. All of this is part of Every Child
Matters. All of this is about the integration across government
to develop policies for children that mean that they get the best
start, the best future.
Margaret Hodge: One final point.
These are consultation documents, so no doubt the Committee also
will wish to express its view, and I hear what the Honourable
members say.
|
