| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for his clear introduction to the Bill. In broad terms I welcome the Bill, which takes into account much of what came out of the report on the draft Bill earlier this year. Clearly, it is important to see the Bill in context as only part of the wider provisions aimed at helping separating parents while also addressing some of the issues of inter-country adoption.
It is good that the Bill affirms a commitment to the principle that the welfare of the child is of paramount importance in determining any questions related to its upbringing, as outlined in core primary legislation. There are, however, some questions about the degree to which the provisions in the Bill are based on legal and court procedures rather than making more use of processes that are less legal in nature. I know that the Bill is aimed at dealing with the court procedures, but
29 Jun 2005 : Column 261
there is a question about whether other measures would enable some cases not to have to go through the courts.
During the passage of the Family Law Act 1996 and since, there have been constant reminders, not least from these Benches, that it is vitally important that there is proper support for all aspects of supporting adult relationships. Most of that is delivered by the voluntary sector, which has to compete for resources against legitimate demands from other aspects of work with families. Picking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I remind the House that it is vitally important that we see the significance of work that helps to reduce the number of separating families who have to resort to legal and court procedures and the importance of proper resources for that work.
The good news is that the vast majority of separating parents sort out their own situation, and only about 10 per cent resort to using the legal processes. But there is a fundamental underlying question of the extent to which processes that are largely legal in nature are best able to serve couples. Clearly, there are situations in which the stage is reached at which a legal solution is the only way through. However, research commissioned by the Department for Constitutional Affairs that was published earlier this year gave an insight into the reasons why parents go to court, what their expectations are, and whether those expectations are met. It shows that issues of child welfare were not necessarily the driving force behind the conflict. Parents are often angry about other things—financial support, mistreatment or abandonment. Because the courts could not listen to such complaints, parents channelled their anger and hostility into the one issue that the courts could listen to—namely parenting.
In March, the Constitutional Affairs Committee issued a report that concluded that there must be a clear and unequivocal commitment to removing as many child contact and residence cases as possible from the family courts system, with more disputes being dealt with through mediation. Picking up what the noble Lord said in his introduction, I hope very much that the low take-up of the mediation scheme that was recently piloted by the three family courts in London, Brighton and Sunderland will not deter the Government from looking further at the questions of mediation and compulsory mediation.
I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said about compulsion. It feels as though there is a question about the point at which compulsion is used. No doubt there is experience in other places, not least America and Norway, on that. It would be interesting to hear more in the winding-up.
The second part of the Bill acknowledges the principle of inter-country adoption and outlines the procedures to help to safeguard the welfare of the child. However, drawing on the experience of PACT—Parents and Children Together, the Oxford diocesan adoption scheme which handles 60 out of the total of 360 cases annually in this country—I understand that it is a costly
29 Jun 2005 : Column 262
and lengthy business, and is not easily available to people on limited incomes. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said about that.
Concern has been expressed, not least by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, about the introduction in the Bill at this stage of a power to impose a charge for work done in connection with inter-country adoption cases. As has been said, that was not a matter for consultation when the draft Bill was published. Until now, there has been a duty on the local authority to ensure a child's welfare by carrying out welfare supervision once a child has been brought into this country from a non-designated country. The Bill would introduce a change which would enable local authorities to pass on the cost of the processing of the welfare supervision to the applicants. I understand that that could be in the region of £2,500. The question is how enforceable that would be, and whether it could leave the child more vulnerable.
A telling point made by the Inter-country Adoption Centre is that the cost may mean that people have the funds to adopt only once. That could mean that the child they adopt is destined to be an only child or the only child adopted. Where the inter-country adoption is a transracial adoption, it would generally be felt to be in the child's best interests to have a peer with whom to share a common background.
The Bill builds on the outcome of evidence given earlier this year and brings forward a number of good provisions. However, it raises questions about the extent to which processes in this sphere should be focused so closely on legal procedures. It also raises some underlying questions about whether proper and sufficient resources can and will be made available.
4.8 pm
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I was privileged to be a member of the joint scrutiny committee that considered the draft Children (Contact) and Adoption Bill. However, in my remarks, I want to concentrate purely on Part 1 of the Bill.
It would be fair to say that the majority of witnesses who appeared before the scrutiny committee welcomed the Bill in principle, even though a number of witnesses felt that aspects of it needed further consideration. There is no denying that the implementation of the Bill will make a real difference to children and families experiencing parental separation. It is obviously desirable that children have the right to regular contact with both parents following separation. No one would argue against that principle. The circumstances for that contact must be safe and secure, however. Direct contact has to be in the best interests of the child, with every possible measure taken to guarantee the safety of the child when the courts are considering the granting of residence and contact orders.
The system still fails to protect children adequately from abusers who are known to them. The Green Paper, Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities, recognised that there are concerns about children's safety in at least 35 per cent of the 10 per cent of cases that get to court. The links
29 Jun 2005 : Column 263
between child abuse and domestic violence are well established, and domestic violence does not stop when parents separate. Over a third of all domestic violence occurs post separation. My noble friend Lady Thornton and I have raised this issue on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House. We have done so because contact is a particular danger point.
The survey carried out in Bristol in 1999 found that 76 per cent of the children of 130 abused parents were said to have experienced abuse during contact visits ordered by the courts, yet 39 per cent of those women had been threatened with imprisonment for refusing to comply with the contact order. So we must identify any risk at the earliest possible opportunity in the proceedings and the risk assessment should be taken whenever necessary throughout those proceedings.
The House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Select Committee and the joint scrutiny committee both recommended that there should be an extension of the welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989. Although that proposal was not included in the Bill, it is encouraging that the Government are prepared to consider the recommendation further by sending a positive signal to the courts that children generally benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents after separation, so long as it is safe and in their best interests. However, the welfare checklist does not give weight to the child's wishes, views and experiences. Would it not be possible for mechanisms to be put in place for the courts directly to hear the views of the child or children involved?
The courts' ability to impose contact activities—be they voluntary mediation, information sessions, counselling or guidance sessions—when there are breaches of contact orders by either parent are of course welcome. Particularly welcome is the Government's acceptance that such activity could include perpetrator programmes aimed at those who have been violent towards their partners. However, the courts need to exercise caution regarding the degree of change expected from attendance at such programmes.
Whatever provision is made by the courts, there must be a guarantee that the arrangements are immediately available. It is no good if the courts take a decision and someone has to wait some months before he can begin the contact activity. That might mean the provision of extra resources for the organisations concerned.
There were also differing views from witnesses at the joint scrutiny committee on whether there would be any savings from this procedure. Some felt that, as more people might feel they could obtain better results, the procedure would increase court activity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, the Local Government Association is concerned that if local councils are to be responsible for setting up an increased number of contact activities, they should receive extra resources to meet the cost.
Extra resources need to be made available for child contact centres. I appreciate that extra assistance has been given over the past few years to the National Association of Child Contact Centres to improve
29 Jun 2005 : Column 264
standards and that centres that are members of the NACCC are being encouraged to receive accreditation. However, that does not cover those that are not members. Can my noble friend indicate what is being done to ensure that all such centres become accredited members of the association?
The joint scrutiny committee spent a long time discussing the consequences of non-compliance and the action that should follow. They had two concerns: first, in respect of the type of enforcement order that could be imposed; and, secondly, on the continuing welfare of the child. On the first point, the committee was concerned about the definition of unpaid work. It is therefore helpful that the Government's response indicates that the National Offender Management Service will be responsible for determining the nature of the community activity and that that will not involve working with children.
The other concern on this aspect was the suggested curfew requirement and the possibility of electronic tagging to monitor compliance with the curfew. We were particularly concerned about the effect of such actions on the child and that it would clearly be seen as a punishment. It is encouraging, therefore, that the Government have responded by removing both curfew and tagging from the Bill.
I am, however, disappointed that the Government have not responded so favourably in respect of the welfare of the child. It seems to me that the first step in any case of non-compliance should be to find out why the contact order has not been complied with, and, further, for the courts to consider whether the order in current terms is consistent with the court's responsibility to protect the welfare of the child.
The Bill states in Clause 1 that,
in considering whether to make a contact order. It must be right that that principle is followed throughout the whole of the proceedings. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, that principle seems to have been diluted in Clause 4 by the Bill directing courts to take into account only the welfare of the child. That is not sufficient. For instance, as cited by the NSPCC, the imposition of fines, which may seem an innocuous activity, may push children and their parents into poverty, thus causing disadvantage to the child.
While I appreciate that the court will be dealing with a breach of a decision of a court, I still do not understand how, as has been suggested, making the welfare of the child paramount at that stage will fetter the court's discretion and scope to enforce sanctions. I do not understand the logic of that argument. As the right reverend Prelate said, this is clearly a legal Bill. As I am not a lawyer, perhaps I have failed to understand something about the workings of our courts. I would appreciate clarification on why we cannot make the child's welfare paramount throughout the Bill.
That is my major concern about the Bill. Nevertheless, it is right for the Government to have introduced this legislation to assist the 10 per cent of separating
29 Jun 2005 : Column 265
families who seek the courts' help to settle safely the arrangements for their children. I trust that the Bill will have an easy passage through your Lordships' House.
4.16 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |