| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Barker: My Lords, for clarification, will the noble Baroness say whether, when she talks about dealing with her opposite numbers in Europe where there is a particular problem with a country, she means countries in the European Union or countries outside the European Union with which all member states have problems?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I mean countries in the European Union and countries involved with the Hague Convention. We are also keen to ensure that as many countries as possible participate in, join and sign the Hague Convention. I cannot talk about specific things that I am doing at present, but we are keen to ensure that we use our efforts, particularly during the EU presidency, to persuade more countries to be involved in it, for obvious reasons. That is something that I feel strongly about and something that we have done a lot of work on to ensure that it happens well.
I appreciate that the situation is by no means perfect. We are trying to support the voluntary sector, and we are trying to support parents as far as we can. I take on board the comments that have been made. Officials will meet with PACT to discuss what else can be done. I have more statistics, but I cannot and will not release them for the obvious reasons that I have given. I am keen to ensure that we play our full part in the convention and that we support families who are dealing with impossible and harrowing circumstances, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said. I do not think that it is the right place make the amendment, but I am delighted to have had the chance to talk about some of the work that I am doing. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her sensitive reply. I am glad that her officials will contact PACT. I like the idea expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, of government funding for voluntary organisations working in the distressing field of abduction, and I hope that the Government will consider that. I also look forward to receiving the letter from the Minister. In Grand Committee, I said that the words "you will never see your child again" must strike fear in the heart of every parent, and we hope that everything is done to help parents in that most distressing situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
14 Nov 2005 : Column 930
9.15 pm
Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 30:
"GUIDANCE
(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to the court.
(2) The guidance must outline the circumstances under which the court should exercise its powers under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (powers of court in certain family proceedings) in order to achieve the best interests of the child.
(3) Before publishing guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult and seek approval from—
(a) experts in the development and safety of children;
(b) the family courts of England and Wales;
(c) any other person who appears to him to have an interest or expertise in the issue.
(4) The Secretary of State may not issue the first edition of this guidance unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State may, from time to time, revise the guidance, subject to the provisions of subsection (3)."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the other leg of my child safety priority agenda this evening and I hope that it will find favour with the House.
There are two important contexts in which harm typically needs to be addressed in private law cases. The first is the clear evidence that children being exposed to ongoing conflict between parents causes them emotional harm. That point has already been alluded to. It can arise as a result of the contested proceedings themselves and is recognised in Section 31 of the Children Act 2002, as amended. The second is where allegations of harm are made by one party against the other, which obviously need to be investigated as a matter of urgency to ascertain the risk to the child, either from the allegation of harm being substantiated, or emotional harm being caused by a false allegation of harm being made by one warring parent against another, possibly to boost their case in respect of another issue.
It is imperative that harm is explored precipitately once evidence of it emerges in whichever of these contexts and that where there is prima facie evidence of harm the court uses its powers to direct the local authority to investigate under Section 37 of the Children Act 1989. Thereafter the public law provisions of that Act would be invoked to ensure the child's safety and protection unless inquiries by the local authority under Section 37 reveal absolutely no evidence of harm.
It is very important that the private law provisions of the Children Act focus on private law issues and do not attempt to be a second-tier system for protecting children, which would replicate or worse still dilute the existing protection system and inevitably confuse practitioners, leaving children at greater risk of harm. The best way to avoid this would be to issue guidance to courts on when and how the Section 37 powers should be exercised, which is why I have tabled this amendment. Section 37 is the vehicle that gets private law cases into public law so that they can then be dealt with.
14 Nov 2005 : Column 931
I have set down a process to devise the way in which guidance for the courts on the consistent exercise of Section 37 powers should be done in cases where there have been allegations of harm or in particularly high conflict cases. My intention is to bring more consistency and rigour into the whole process. I have reason to believe that such guidance would be welcomed by the courts.
I draw the attention of the House to the wording of my amendment. Subsection (2) refers to the guidance being used,
Subsection (3)(a) provides that the Secretary of State shall, before publishing the guidance, consult and seek approval from,
It is of course important to consult child development experts but in this particular case people who know about the issues relating to the safety of children should also be consulted when devising such guidance.
My amendment also provides that the draft of the guidance should be laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. That would make it quite a strong vehicle for bringing consistency and rigour into the system. Standing alongside the successful amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Gould of Potternewton and Lady Thornton, an amendment such as this would certainly help to satisfy all of us that the issues about potential harm to children are being addressed seriously. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, this is an interesting amendment. In the chief inspector's foreword to the HMICA report, he states:
"We also need to recognise how emotionally wearing it is for the wide range of professionals who have to deal with domestic violence on a near daily basis. As this inspection shows, there is a risk that individuals within agencies sometimes find it easier to down-play or even ignore the presenting signs of domestic violence".
My assessment from the report is that there may be a serious concern about what is going on in a family, but the CAFCASS officers do not know what to do with it, so they shove it under the carpet, metaphorically speaking, or turn away from it. That is partly because they are worn down by the difficult cases with which they are faced, and partly because they do not know where to take such concerns. What I welcome about the amendment is that it says, "If you have serious concerns about the family, we will improve the connection with the professional interventions in public law to make sure that they are dealt with". I look forward to the Minister's response, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for tabling the amendment.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I also think that the amendment is interesting, because the debates on the subject in this House over the past few years have centred around how we make sure that children involved in private law proceedings are granted at least the same protection as those involved in public law
14 Nov 2005 : Column 932
proceedings. That is a legitimate question to ask the Government, and one to which we should have an answer. The amendment may not be the way to do it, but the Government should address it.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |