Care Leavers: Life Chances

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

Sir Martin Narey is conducting a report in relation to children’s homes, and I think he will address that. Charlie Taylor is also conducting a report. I think we need to wait for them.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

The Minister will know that children leaving care are much less likely to go into higher education than other children. Are there provisions to ensure supportive parenting of some sort to see them right through to the age of 21 or so if they go into higher education, to ensure that more of them go and that they do not drop out?

[Lord Nash]

Yes. As the noble Baroness will know, there is further financial support for schoolchildren in care through the pupil premium, and if they go to university there is extra money available.

Schools: Arts Subjects

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Is the Minister satisfied with early education in classical music at schools, the availability of instruments and whether we begin to compare with Venezuela’s El Sistema?

[Lord Nash]

Music is very important for young people at primary school and there are some very good charities operating in this area, such as London Music Masters. I was inspired to see a KIPP school in Harlem in New York, where every pupil is in the orchestra. That is certainly something that all primary schools should focus on.

Children and Families Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As she said, we all know that when parents are in conflict they become engrossed in their own battle and lose sight of everything else of value, including the children. I apologise for my voice; I have just had the flu and therefore missed the first day on Report—some noble Lords will have been relieved about that.

I have talked to many children over the years, through my work at Childline and CAFCASS, who found themselves in that situation. They often feel that they are at the centre of that battle and not individuals themselves. I remember another famous quote that the noble and learned Baroness made at another time: we should never see children as objects of concern but as subjects in their own right. When parents haggle over children as property, it is our responsibility to ensure that their welfare is seen to. What has happened in the outside world is that in our attempt to focus, mainly on fathers, I have to say—there is not a balance between mothers and fathers, but a particular focus on the needs of fathers—we have lost some of that understanding of welfare, and the press really believe that fathers have had a bad deal.

I draw attention to a piece of research that was carried out recently by the University of Warwick under the auspices of the Nuffield Foundation. It looked at a large number of cases—197 were analysed— and determined how the county courts used a number of orders. It found that in contact orders,

“the courts are actively promoting involvement with the non-resident parent under the welfare paramountcy principle without the need for any further additional legislation. In 50% of all parental disputes studied, the post court care arrangement included regular, overnight contact allowing both parents to have involvement in the child’s day to day routine. 25% of cases ended in daytime only contact with the non-resident parent. Contact is often built up gradually by the courts using interim orders. This allows the courts to find an arrangement that works for the parent and the children”.

However, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out, our great concern is for the families who do not go to court. Courts will often find a good solution and be able to work through it. However, there is sometimes a perception among families that there is a presumption that children will be shared. I sometimes think of that picture from the Old Testament of the child being held up by one leg with the sword of Damocles held over it; it was the good parent who said, “No, I don’t want my child to be shared”. That is often what you find: it is the good parent who gives in and gives the child to the other parent, because they want the best for their child. It is therefore on that basis—and before my voice gives out—that I support the noble and learned Baroness’s amendment.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who knows more about children’s law than practically anyone in this House. There is one real problem after divorce, which is that fathers, for whom the door is open, do not come and visit their children. We cannot do anything much about that. The clause may give such absent fathers the notion that they have rights but no responsibilities. If there is one thing that our family courts have got right in recent years, it is the welfare of the child. I very much hope that the House will listen to the wisdom of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and will let the courts get on with the good job that they have been doing without resorting to a rather artificial notion as set out in the clause as it stands.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to which I have added my name. We had a very good debate in Committee on Clause 11 about the status of the presumption that is enshrined in that clause. Concerns about preserving the overriding status of the presumption of the best interests of the child in the Children Act have been largely assuaged.

By definition it is very difficult for both parents and children when a family breaks up, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, has underlined, things can get very heated and parents can get very focused on coming out of that conflict with what they regard as the best arrangements for them.

As I made clear in Committee, I start from the position of sharing the Government’s desire to enshrine in public policy the principle of joint parental involvement in a child’s life, including after separation. I argue that for most children, the paramount principle of the child’s welfare, as enshrined in the Children Act 1989, cannot be fully met unless both parents are fully involved in the child’s life and have a continuing relationship with the child. Perhaps slightly differently to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I think that there is an issue to be addressed here, particularly for fathers. I agree with the Government that the principle of parental involvement needs strengthening.

However, if we agree—as I think we all do—that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child, and that this principle should not be jeopardised or diluted, then we must also ensure that the presumption in Clause 11 is not misinterpreted and applied in ways that can be detrimental to children. Specifically, Clause 11 must not send the signal that parental involvement, which regrettably the Government initially called “shared parental responsibility”, is taken to mean that the child is divided according to some a priori formula, whether that is 50-50 or something else. Clause 11 gives a right to the child to expect continued meaningful involvement by both parents after separation. It must not be interpreted as giving a right to both parents for equal—or near equal as possible—time with the child. I know that the Government’s Explanatory Notes make clear their intentions. But there are a number of reasons why the Minister must take seriously the possibility, indeed the likelihood, of such misinterpretation.

First, the experience in Australia is that 65% of fathers interpreted “shared parental responsibility” to mean equal time. Litigation between parents increased as a result, and they had to change the system. Secondly, as touched on by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth: the clause, unless it is qualified on the face of the Bill in the way that this amendment seeks, could inadvertently increase the risk of harm to children, because only 10% of separating couples resort to the courts to resolve their contact disputes, with the majority of parents reaching agreements privately. There is concern that if it is the expectation of those parents that the law now says that the child’s time has to be carved up, then some parents may seek to use the new changes as a bargaining tool and put pressure on the other parent into making contact arrangements which are not in the best interests of the child.

Again, evidence from Australia suggests that similar reforms resulted in an increased reluctance for mothers to disclose abuse, for example, with many feeling that if there is a legal presumption of shared contact, there was little point in disclosing problems in the family. Given that the vast majority of cases do not go to court, if as a result of Clause 11 there is a common perception that having the child’s time shared out will be the norm in future, then even in families where there is no abuse or there are not problems we may still see the unintended consequence of nomadic arrangements, with a child moving between homes in a way that we would all want to avoid for obvious reasons. This would not be in the interests of most children.

Finally, and very significantly, we have to respond strongly to those parts of the media, which have promoted the interpretation which we are discussing now, despite the best efforts of the Government. I do not believe that any amount of communication or clarification can shift this now. This is why Amendment 14 is so necessary—the Government’s intention and interpretation would be quite clearly on the face of the Bill, and enshrined not in guidance but in law.

Last night we received a policy statement from the Government about Clause 11 and Amendment 14. This makes clear the Government’s intention—it is not to promote a particular division of time, but they feel that the most effective way of dealing with this is through a wider communication strategy to explain to parents what the interpretation is. This is wholly inadequate, for the reason I have just expressed; this view is already well entrenched, partly because of the initial nomenclature of shared parental responsibility and partly because parts of the media have triumphantly proclaimed that this means an equal proportion of the child’s time is to be spent with father and mother. That view is now so well entrenched that I am very concerned about the impact on expectations and, therefore, on negotiations between parents, particularly those not going to court. The most emphatic and unambiguous way of disabusing people of that false impression is to put the amendment alongside Clause 11 into the Bill. The Government will then have something in law that they can go to town about in communications, explaining Amendment 14 if it became part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I have grappled long and hard with this tricky issue. I should like to reduce it to three brief propositions, which have led me to agree with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Brown. First, it is sadly too frequent that we do not know which of two parents may have harmed a child. Each blames the other; it is not provable; and one of them goes on to form another family. There must, therefore, be some danger because the parent either did it or stood by while it happened. Secondly, we are talking about only reaching a threshold. It is not a question of leaping to the conclusion that the child must be removed. It simply triggers the ability of the courts and social workers to investigate what is going on. Thirdly, there is absolutely no possibility of harm ensuing from the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lords, whereas there is a distinct possibility of harm if this amendment is not agreed. A number of distinguished academics have written with great alarm calling for a change in the current situation and in support of the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, with which I hope that the House will agree.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I find myself in a maelstrom of lawyers with no voice. My position is that we been asking two questions which do not necessarily have the same answer. When I read the response from the department about this proposal, it became clear that we are considering two different issues. One is whether a local authority has enough powers to move into a family and take action if it believes that there is significant harm or the likelihood of significant harm. Of course, the ADSS and everyone else will say that they do have enough powers because that is clearly so. The criticism comes when local authorities do not move when they have that capacity.

The question we are considering is when two people have been in a situation where a child has been harmed. Perhaps I may put a bracket around that thought for a moment while we remind ourselves of the time when, if a child was murdered and you could not prove which of two people had done it, both were acquitted. There was a huge campaign by the NSPCC to ensure that that could not happen; that is, if a child was dead and clearly it was one person or the other, both people involved were likely to find themselves found guilty until such time as there was greater clarification. We can close the bracket there and say, “Here we are: we find ourselves in a situation where there are two people involved, someone has committed harm and maybe killed the child”. Recently, I spoke to a serious lawyer and a previous Attorney-General, who I probably should not name at the moment, who said, “If there is the slightest margin that there is a risk that the child might end up dead, what action do you take?

My noble friend Lady Deech has made the speech which I would have liked to have made. She has made important points. This amendment will do no harm. This afternoon, your Lordships have had a real seminar on Section 31 of the Children Act and the level of thresholds. It is important that we take action that protects children if it does no harm. I am more concerned that action is not taken by local authorities than that they are likely to whip children into care. To use a word we heard earlier, the “presumption” that local authorities take children into care wantonly is just not true. In fact, it is very difficult to get your child into care if you want to. A great deal of work and assessment thresholds should be considered.

All we are saying is that to get to the threshold of Section 31 where there has been this risk and there is possible danger, the local authority should be enabled to take some action, which will not necessarily, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, result in the child being removed from home. In fact, it is unlikely, unless there are serious risks, that the child will be removed from home. The amendment will clarify this bit of law. Do not worry if you feel confused: sometimes I find it extremely confusing and, despite what their bosses say, quite a lot of social workers on the ground find it confusing, too.

Childcare Ratios

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, we have the tightest ratios in Europe for under-threes. Other countries manage better childcare more efficiently. Our childcare is very expensive and we are motivated to deliver better-quality childcare and more choice for parents. These ratios will not be mandatory; they will be in childcare facilities only where suitably qualified staff are located and parents may choose whether to send their children to those facilities.

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, are the Government aware that the working mothers of this country do not have time to organise and lobby and that groups such as Mumsnet are not necessarily representative? There are women who go to work and who are ambitious and high up the scale; there are women low down the working scale who cannot afford childcare. The Government have to listen to working women who need affordable childcare. I have been involved in setting up nurseries and, over 40 years, the ratios have changed this way and that way—more square footage this way, more square footage that way—but it does not make a scrap of difference if you have well intentioned staff, and you will of course have several staff in a nursery. The children are no worse off than would be five children at home with a mother on her own. The Government must listen to working mothers who need affordable childcare.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, we are in consultation and we are listening. We are focused, as the noble Baroness said, on better-quality childcare with more qualified staff.

Children: Care

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

As I said, the evidence is clear that high-quality childminders are what we need. The ratios that we propose compare favourably with those of other countries that we have visited. We will take these matters into account in the consultation.

[Baroness Deech]

Does the Minister agree that it is quite unrealistic to expect women to take half the seats in boardrooms and half the top jobs if there is no affordable childcare? Does he agree that, while one may quibble about changes in ratios, there is also too much pressure on women these days to stay at home and be perfect mothers? What steps will the Government take to make sure that, as in other European countries, there is ample affordable childcare to allow women who want to go to work to fulfil their potential?

[Lord Nash]

We are taking steps with our two year-old offer. I agree with the noble Baroness, and Polly Toynbee herself points out that British mothers have one of the lowest employment rates in the OECD because we have the third most expensive childcare, often of mediocre quality. We believe that our proposals will go some way to solving this problem.

Faith Schools: Imported Hate Material

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Baroness Deech]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that school inspectors are trained to prevent proliferation of imported race and religious hate material in faith schools.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, new arrangements for inspecting maintained schools, academies and free schools are being developed, and relevant training on aspects of pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development will be provided to inspectors. Specialist inspectors who undertake work relating to independent faith schools are soon to receive more detailed training to enhance understanding and awareness of the hate material that they may encounter under exceptional circumstances. We are sending a clear message that extremism will not be tolerated in schools.

[Baroness Deech]

I thank the Minister for that Answer but I wonder whether it is not too little and may be too late. Will he promise us that he will address two problems? One is that the inspectorate has so far failed to detect extremist material—for example, that sodomy should be punished by killing. Perhaps the problem is that there are at least two distinct inspectorates. The second problem is that there seems to be a failure of safeguards in part-time religious schools, which seem to have slipped through the net. Will the Minister assure us that safeguards will be put in place—for example, to prevent the excess use of physical discipline in part-time schools?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, lots of points were wrapped up in that question. This is a complex area. I agree with the noble Baroness’s two underlying points, the first being about the need to make sure that inspection is rigorous and that inspectors are trained to know what to look for. Part of the problem is, as the noble Baroness says, knowing what to look for. In spite of the best regulatory frameworks, that will remain a problem but we are addressing it. I agree that the point about supplementary schools and physical chastisement needs to be looked at. A report was published last year by Sir Roger Singleton. He discussed its findings with my ministerial colleagues—particularly the point about physical chastisement. They are reflecting on that and working out the practical implications of his recommendations.

Marriage

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for choosing this topic. I am also very pleased to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on her maiden speech. I am sure that we all wish her a long, committed and happy relationship with this House.

I intend to be largely pragmatic and legal, albeit firmly in favour of marriage, female independence and equality. Bearing in mind the national deficit, my proposals are designed to reduce marriage breakdown but not to involve expensive action. The overall cost of family breakdown has been variously estimated at between £24 billion to £40 billion. As a society, we cannot afford serial marriage breakdown and cohabitation on this scale. Ironically, it is being proposed by the Ministry of Justice that at least £350 million be sliced off legal aid, and the people on whom the cuts will fall are those who are adversely and expensively affected by family breakdown. Let us save a few families and save on legal aid. Sadly the planned cuts to legal aid and to support for citizens advice bureaux may make divorce and breakdown even more likely. If legal advice is unaffordable, couples are less likely to get the information that might help at the outset. Mediation has a place, but it also has to be paid for.

It is marriage that makes all the difference, for only 8 per cent of married parents split up before their child is five compared with 43 per cent of the unmarried. According to the Telegraph, in response to a survey conducted in 2008, children under 10 revealed that if they could make a new rule, they would ban divorce. Marital splits were named by the children as the second worst thing in the world after being fat.

But politicians will not talk about it. We live in a nation that is health obsessed and expects its citizens to take care of each other and the environment. There are government messages about obesity, alcohol, drugs, smoking, school food, eating five portions of fruit a day, AIDS, seat belts, exercise and recycling. We are told that we should say no to supermarket bags and use public transport. You cannot take a photograph of a child or drive children to school without being checked. But a parent may abandon their children and pay nothing for them in the future without any such condemnation. The evidence about broken relationships is off limits.

I have some inexpensive proposals. First, we need to make sure that divorce law is not made any easier. Research across 18 European countries indicates that 20 per cent of the increase in divorce rates during the past 40 years is due to legal reforms. Fortunately, the previous Government did not implement the no-fault divorce provisions of the Family Law Act 1996. I propose the introduction of a waiting period to stop divorce being granted as quickly as it is by adding to the present grounds for divorce a provision that no decree shall be granted until at least 12 months have elapsed from the service of the petition. Others have called for a three-month cooling-off period before proceedings can start, in which finances and the impact of divorce could be explored. Marriage education at school should be promoted as strongly as the health and environmental issues that I mentioned.

Secondly, there should be no more legislation equating cohabitation with marriage. Statistics show that the best thing for children is to live with two married parents. The construction of a forced—indeed, illiberal—law of cohabitation may deter even more men from making any commitment, let alone marriage. We ought not to risk adding to the number of one-parent families by tempting men to walk out before they reach the threshold qualifying period for such a law—say, two years—in order to avoid financial liability, because all recent studies show that Britain's children are near the bottom of European leagues for outcomes. Concern for children should keep us from doing anything that would encourage more instability and abandonment. Cohabitants' children are already protected by Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989.

Thirdly, the Government should swiftly enact a law to validate prenuptial contracts. If these were certain to be upheld, it might encourage couples to enter into marriage without the fear of drastic rearrangements and loss of family assets if the end were to come. Opponents of this seem to think that women marry only for money. This is not so. The current law on maintenance is unfair and liable to be used to split family businesses or inheritance, which would not be subject to such orders in most other countries. Financial provision divorce law is in urgent need of reform so that couples will spend less on lawyers and will be able to divide their marital assets with certainty, as happens in many European nations. This would also make savings for legal aid.

Most of all, we need to hear Ministers speak of marriage with as much enthusiasm as they show in discussions about, for example, the environment—and please may we drop the word “partner”, which should be confined to tennis and solicitors' firms, and be less shy about marital status? After all, being married is the most public way that men and women have been able to invent over thousands of years of showing a permanent bond with each other and with their families. There can be no family tree without public recognition and preservation of its roots.