| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I give a cautious welcome to Clause 1. I have no specialist knowledge of inter-country adoption and I do not intend to speak at all about it.
I am sure that all noble Lords taking part in this debate are well aware of the importance of what the experts call "attachment" in the upbringing of children. I find the word rather cold and clinical; I prefer a concept such as "long-term forgiving love" as the kind of relationship which is so important for children.
There are three kinds of love that are important for a child: the love between the mother and the child; the love between the father and the child; and the love between the mother and the father. The third kind—the mother-father relationship—is important for two reasons. First, it affects the child's personal sense of security in the family. Secondly, it acts—or should act—as a model for a loving, forgiving relationship from which the child can learn. Sometimes a surrogate father or mother, often in the form of a grandparent or step-parent, can fill the gap when the mother-father relationship is dysfunctional or lacking for some reason. Indeed, other extended family members can fill the gap as well.
I am sorry that the Bill does not address the important issue of the role of grandparents and step-parents. About 1 million of the nation's children live in stepfamilies, and I suppose that something like 100 per cent of them have grannies.
Clause 1 was obviously drafted as a response to the problems of access, which were highlighted by the antics of a pressure group acting for fathers. It did rather a good job, in my opinion, but that is another point. I am concerned about justice for fathers, but, as almost all speakers have emphasised, the well-being of children should be paramount in our consideration of what should happen when families break down.
I hope that I shall not be out of turn if I draw attention to some of the more fundamental changes which will be needed if we are seriously to address the damage done to children by family dysfunction and breakdown, or by the decision of some parents not to make a commitment to a stable, long-term parenting partnership in the first place. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, referred to the importance of reducing the scale of the problem if we are to be able to cope with it.
Research confirms experience in telling us that children who grow up without a stable two-parent family are more likely to have problems in school and in later life. We also know that domestic violence, family dysfunction and breakdown cause emotional trauma for children. We know that relationships within families matter crucially to children. Family structures also matter; some structures make good relationships easier and some make them more difficult. Family structures affect the way that parents and surrogate parents relate to and have good contact with their children, so we should not ignore the importance of family structures.
29 Jun 2005 : Column 276
Successive governments have shied away from recognising those problems because family life and the bringing up of children is, for our society, a very private affair. Parents resent unwanted interference. They want to feel in control. But that does not mean that parents do not want help when they need it, or when they want it. It does not mean that the state could not do more to prepare children for family life and for their future parenting responsibilities.
Today, some 27 per cent of all the nation's children are growing up in single-parent families. According to the latest figure that I have, at least 700,000 of those children have lost all contact with their father. Between 250,000 and 300,000 families separate each year. Domestic violence is on the increase. A very recent report—I received it only yesterday—by Parentline Plus suggests that, by 2010, divorce, separation and re-partnering will be the norm, yet estimates show that at least 50 per cent of remarriages which form a step family also end in divorce, and that 25 per cent of step families break down in the first year.
Has the time not come when we as a society, as a nation, need to decide whether we want to accept these trends as inevitable, despite the unhappiness that they cause and the damage they undoubtedly do to so many of the nation's children—not to mention the unhappiness of the parents themselves? Or do we take our courage in both hands and consider working towards a policy that would encourage fewer broken families and support stable two-parent families—a policy that would enhance the quality of that lifestyle thereby making it more attractive to more people? Is that a credible alternative? I believe that it is. Almost all parents, as they hold their first child in their arms, want to be good parents. They want to do their best for that child and live together in a happy family.
There are many things—all of them beyond this Bill—that could and should be done to solve the problems that we are addressing in this Bill and that could be done without too much intrusive intervention into the private life of the family. I do not want to delay the debate this afternoon by going into any detail on the many things that could be done, but I will briefly mention five.
The first is relationship education in schools, which was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. At every age from five to 15, children should be learning from appropriately trained teachers interpersonal skills appropriate to their age—communication skills, emotional literacy, how to form and sustain good relationships with peers and adults and how to discuss and negotiate without anger. Those and other similar skills are what they will need as citizens. They will need them in work and when they come to form a family.
Secondly, parents and prospective parents need to understand more clearly the responsibilities that attach to bringing a child into the world. That should include responsibility for the social and emotional well-being of the child as well as material support. They also have the right to know what help is and is not available from the state. The NFPI has suggested that a parenting compact between the state and parents might be a good idea.
29 Jun 2005 : Column 277
Thirdly, much of the subsequent argument between parents could be avoided if they understood better at the time of committing themselves to parenthood what each was expecting of the other. Of course, marriage is one way of partially achieving that, but for those who cannot or do not want marriage, should there not be some alternative kind of memorandum of intent which could be entered into, either at the time of the birth of the child or, one might hope, before it?
Fourthly, a blitz is needed to improve the physical environment in which many committed two-parent families are bringing up their children today. The issues considered in that regard should include housing, poverty, debt, health and all the other things that they need. Today we are taking advantage of willing and dedicated parents by not giving them the support that they need.
That leads me on to the final and most important point. In my view, there is a need for government and society to recognise and celebrate those parents who are making a genuine commitment to do their best for their child. We need to recognise and celebrate the public service that such committed two-parent, stable families provide for the nation, and recognise and reward them accordingly. If we have an interest in having more such families, we have to make that lifestyle choice more attractive to young parents than other lifestyle choices.
Those are just examples of the many things, which are tremendously non-contentious, which we could and should be spending resources on doing. Today as a society we are obsessed with the safety and academic achievement of our children, which are both extremely important. But let us not forget that social and emotional well-being are also crucially important. The child's family normally holds the key to the child's successful social and emotional development.
5.1 pm
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I last spoke on this issue during the passage of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. I started my remarks then by apologising to noble Lords who lived through the passage of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, saying that they might experience a sense of déjà vu about what I was about to say. Partly in echo of the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Gould, my remarks today will be a case of déjà vu, déjà vu. The issues that I want to raise today concern children's safety during contact procedures.
In common with many noble Lords, I welcome the commitment made by the Minister from the outset, including in Clause 1 of the Bill, that the welfare of the child is to be the courts' paramount consideration. Indeed, I congratulate the Joint Committee on its very serious consideration of that issue. But I am worried that the fine objective expressed at the beginning of the Bill is not reflected throughout. I am not alone in that concern; it has been expressed here today by other noble Lords, and, I have to report, by many children's organisations with which I am in contact, and by
29 Jun 2005 : Column 278
Women's Aid. It is children's safety-proofing that I and others will seek to bring to bear in the Bill as it progresses through your Lordships' House.
I am particularly concerned that in Part 1, in Clause 11E(2) of Children Act 1989 the words "and safe" are not included in relation to contact and the active direction of it. There are many other places in this Bill where the inclusion of really very simple words—and similar words—would do a great deal to ensure the safety of children and parents.
There are still children, and sometimes parents—usually mothers—who are being harmed and even killed during contact arrangements. We know that that is a very small number, and a small number of a small percentage—that is, 10 per cent—who find themselves before the courts. But the death of even one child at the hands of a violent parent is one too many. If Women's Aid and the NSPCC are still expressing their concern that children have been harmed or abused as a result of contact arrangements after several years of attempting to deal with this issue, I suggest that we still need to take it very seriously indeed.
During a hearing of the Select Committee, on parental contact, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss was asked about judges allowing Schedule 1 offenders to have unsupervised contact with their children. She replied:
That is not good enough. It is totally unacceptable that the family justice system still does not have reliable procedures for checking properly whether or not a parent is likely to be a risk to their child and for assessing and managing that risk.
I am also concerned that there seems to be no UK research into the reasons for non-compliance with contact orders, so the proposed measures seem not to be evidence based and therefore must beg the question, will the measures be beneficial to children? Indeed, as many noble Lords mentioned, why are children's views still not being sought at the outset? As has been said by several noble Lords, I am afraid that that is probably a question of resources. That really will not do.
During the course of the Bill's passage I shall address in detail issues concerning promises and commitments made by the Government over the past three or four years. For example, how effective are the new family court applications? What effect do measures to monitor Section 120 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 concerning the safety of children's contact with violent parents have?
In 2003 the Department of Health stated:
"At least 750,000 children a year witness domestic violence. Nearly three-quarters of the children on the 'at risk' register live in households where domestic violence occurs".
Three years ago, in the Adoption and Children Act the Government recognised the damage that witnessing violence does to children. This Bill takes us a further step along the road to ensuring that contact should be made safe, but I believe that it does not yet achieve that. That is the task before us during the course of this Bill.
29 Jun 2005 : Column 279
5.6 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |