Children and Families Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)]

My Lords, we are all aware of the passionate concern of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for victims of trafficking, and of the concern of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I support the amendment strongly and do so as patron of the child trafficking unit at the University of Bedfordshire, which does amazing work in supporting young people who have been trafficked. The issue foremost in its mind is the importance of guardianship and advocacy. Children are still at risk and the present arrangements are not adequate. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, eloquently detailed the need for guardianship, and I wish to add a few remarks.

I remember when the noble Lord, Lord McColl, introduced the Second Reading of his Private Member’s Bill on human trafficking to the House in November 2011. These issues came up then. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich spoke of trafficking being an issue for our common humanity. Nothing seems to have changed and, in particular, children who are trafficked need all the help they can get. A guardian who advocates in the best interests of the child is a vital element in that support.

Many of these children remain unidentified unless they are associated with criminal offences. I am thinking of young boys who work in cannabis factories, of which, I read in the newspaper, there are about 500,000 in this country. These boys get caught and the bosses escape. I am thinking of girls sold into the sex trade, who have their passports removed and are kept locked away to have sex with dozens of men a day or are sold into domestic slavery. Sometimes, if these children escape or are discovered, they are passed around the systems. They do not speak much English and they have no knowledge of the support systems that might help them. Many simply go missing.

Even if they are found and receive support, it may be well meaning but inappropriate. I remember one girl who was accommodated in a flat in a suburb outside London with no friends. On Christmas Day, a social worker took round a cake. Apart from that she was isolated, and the isolation of such children can mean that they are at real risk of being unprotected and retrafficked.

These young people need a guardian, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl said, to help with language difficulties, legal issues, accommodation, finding a friendship group and protection. It may be the case that the people who trafficked the young person will come looking for them. Importantly, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, emphasised, the guardian can help with the liaison between the agencies concerned with the child, such as police, social workers, health and education. This is an issue of child protection and should be in the plans of every local authority. Guardianship is the best way to ensure that there is a positive outcome for these children who have undergone the most horrendous and degrading experiences.

The University of Bedfordshire’s child trafficking unit provides interventions for trafficked young people, with individual and group support and education. I want to share briefly the story of one such young woman, just to show that enormous progress can be made with sympathy, understanding and formal support. I first met this young woman when she was about 17 and had been trafficked from a country in Africa. Her English was poor and she was still traumatised. Two years later she came to an event here in the Cholmondeley Room in the House of Lords, where trafficked young people presented their experiences in works of art and short speeches. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, attended and I think he was impressed. He certainly took many photographs.

The young woman I am talking about spoke very passionately to about 80 people. After the ceremony she said to me, “Did you notice anything about me today?”. I said, “Not in particular”, although she was confident, attractive and charismatic. She said, “I read my speech”. Two years earlier she could not read. This young woman, with support and encouragement from guardians and advocates, was now attending college and had ambitions. I do not think I need to say any more about the importance of guardianship and advocacy for trafficked children.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I intended to put my name to this amendment but failed to do so. I have supported each of the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and I strongly support this one. He has set out extremely effectively, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, nearly everything that needs to be said and I do not propose to say very much.

I wish to pick up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said about this being an issue of child protection, among other matters. As I said earlier this week, very often when children go missing from local authority care, the local authorities do not know that they are trafficked children. Therefore, no one is identifying them and looking for them with the special care that is required for this small group of children. They are treated as ordinary missing children who will probably come back. This is a very serious child protection issue.

The other point made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is so important that I shall repeat it. There is a real need for one constant person to take an interest in the child, meet the child early on, offer a mobile phone number, be at the end of a telephone and be able to answer the questions that a child with very limited or no English will need to ask someone who can be there. One of the sadnesses highlighted at the Still at Risk event that I was glad to attend yesterday is that these children have multiple social workers. We all know the underresourcing and overwork of social workers, so can they give a special degree of care to a foreign trafficked child who is not even under a care order? Consequently, they have to cope with no one person in their life.

What the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is suggesting in this amendment is crucial. We are failing a small number of grievously disadvantaged foreign children. We are talking about hundreds, not thousands. There was a particularly worrying case in Kent, where children who had been trafficked into Kent were being trafficked out by the same traffickers. Fortunately, Kent Police got hold of this, but if there had been a guardian, that guardian would have kept in touch with the child, with any luck, and would probably have been able to prevent it as they would be the one person who would know where the child was and, in any event, would be in touch with the suitable authorities to try to deal with it.

I have been talking to Barnardo’s about whether it would be prepared to offer some sort of service. The most important point that it makes is that there has to be a sufficient legal status because the majority of social services and, indeed, the NHS, talk about the confidentiality of teenage children and so on, so they will not necessarily tell somebody coming in what is going on. If the person has legal status, people have to open their records. In the absence of that sufficient legal status, a wonderful organisation, such as Barnardo’s, the NSPCC, the Children’s Society and so on, would not be able to offer that service, even if it were to be financially supported to do it.

The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has raised a very important issue. He and I were, if I may put it rather bluntly, fobbed off by the Government in 2011 and 2012 on the basis that there would be this report, and nothing is happening now. Children are going missing and are suffering the trauma of trying to cope with inadequate English through the multiplicity of agencies with which they have to deal. Quite simply, it is unjust. It is not good enough, and we as a country should be rather ashamed of ourselves.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, made a very powerful case and referred to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report on its inquiry into unaccompanied children. I want to underline that because we took evidence from people in Scotland with experience of the guardianship system there, and I was very impressed by what we were told. We have clear evidence there of how it can work and can support the kind of children whom we have been hearing from. I was not around when the noble Lord first raised this issue, and it is very sad that there has been this long delay. I hope that this House can now do something to rectify that situation.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as a volunteer who has worked with vulnerable children and alongside those working with vulnerable young people. What a privilege it is to listen to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who has been a sustained and passionate advocate for these trafficked children; to hear the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children; and to listen to my noble and learned friend, who is the chair of the human trafficking group and whose name escapes me, incredibly.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

Butler-Sloss.

[The Earl of Listowel]

Thank you so much. That is extraordinary. I do apologise.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

The noble Earl is too young, much too young.

[The Earl of Listowel]

I re-emphasise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that there needs to be training for people working with these vulnerable young people. I am very taken with the notion that there should be volunteer advocates working with them but as a volunteer myself, who has had experience of both very poor support and supervision and very good support and supervision, I suggest that the regulations should be very clear about what sort of supervision, training and support these advocates should receive. That is only fair to volunteers and it will make them much more effective as advocates and supporters of these young people. There is a great dearth of resource in children’s services at the moment and the danger is, if regulations are not clear about what the minimum requirements are, there may be a drive to produce the lowest-cost and lowest-quality advocates for these young people. I had only that comment to make. I very much support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

It was quite a welcome break in this long speech. I am moving Amendment 44 and speaking to Amendment 45. They support financial and other support to family and friends carers. I was summarising briefly the benefits to children of such care and the hardships suffered by family and friends carers. Although there is a duty on local authorities to establish a special guardianship support service, similar to adoption support, this does not give an individual carer the right to a specific service. Moreover, there is no equivalent support service for children in kinship care under a residence order or no order. A survey of family and friends carers shows that those with special guardianship orders are the most satisfied with the legal order compared to those who do not have such orders.

Secondly in the list I started earlier, despite the Government’s 2011 guidance on family and friends care, most local authorities are not proactive in supporting family and friends care. There is no dedicated family and friends care team, for example, in most local authorities. This means that the carers and children are dealt with—here we go again—by different teams in children’s services, who may not have specific expertise.

The third factor is that there are no official statistics published on the number of children in family and friends care either nationally or locally. One analysis by the University of Bristol excludes friends care, for example. Local authorities do not routinely collect such data so it is difficult to see how they can design and finance such services. The 2011 guidance is clear: it requires all English local authorities to have a family and friends care policy stating what support they would provide by September 2011. Sadly, much later after that deadline, more than 30% of local authorities still have not published a family and friends care policy. The guidance does not change the legal position but while local authorities have to provide support for looked-after children placed with family and friends carers, which is 6% of children, they do not have to provide support for the 94% of children in family and friends care who are classified as not looked after.

I am aware that, in the climate of financial restrictions, local authorities are seeking to reduce service provision and that non-statutory services are being cut. My Amendment 44, which mirrors the special guardianship support service required, seeks to redress the shortcoming by requiring local authorities to provide support to meet the identified needs of children being raised by family or friends under a private arrangement or residence order. The circumstances as to when this would apply restrict the support to children who would otherwise be in the care system because they are at risk or their parents are incapacitated, dead or in prison. I hope the Minister will be able to address these concerns and meet with the Kinship Care Alliance to discuss the urgency of this situation.

Amendment 45 seeks to insert a new Section 77A into the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. It aims to ensure that family and friends carers receive a basic financial allowance from central government to support them in raising a child who cannot remain with their parents and would otherwise be in the care system. Support would be restricted to cases of children whose parents are incapacitated, dead or in prison. The amendment would provide the mechanism for local authorities to provide discretionary support to meet more effectively the assessed needs of children in family and friends care under residence orders or where there is no order at all. However, this does not address the additional costs to family and friends carers of raising a child who is not their own.

Of course, the legal liability for maintaining children lies with the parents at all times, even if their children are cared for by someone else. At no point does legal liability transfer to family and friends carers, except on adoption, but these carers often have existing financial responsibilities—for example, caring for an elderly relative or their own existing children.

They may apply for child benefit, although there are sometimes problems in transferring this from the parents to the carer. They may apply for tax credits according to their means, and an allowance for the child where they are in receipt of income support. However, there is no recognition in the benefits system of the additional costs of raising a child who is not their own. Caring for a child, according to the Fostering Network, is calculated to be 50% higher than the cost of caring for a birth child. This is partly due to emotional distress in the children, maintaining contact with parents and other family members and engaging with social workers and health and education staff. This is why foster carers receive specific allowances from local authorities, paid at substantially higher rates than state benefits and tax credits.

Briefly, there are four key financial issues for family and friends carers in raising a child outside the looked-after system. First, there is the immediate cost of a child coming to live with a carer, often, as I said earlier, in an unplanned or emergency situation. Secondly, there are the costs of applying for a legal order to provide the child with security and permanence. Thirdly, there is the lost income resulting from the carer reducing their working hours, leaving paid work, forgoing career opportunities or losing pension rights. Finally, there are the actual costs of raising a child, which may include a larger home, higher utility bills and so on.

When special guardianship legislation was passed, it was envisaged that many foster carers would apply for special guardianship orders for older children in their care. There have been cases of successful orders in such situations but many foster carers are reluctant to apply for such orders because they fear that the financial support received would be inadequate, as compared to the mandatory support they and the child would receive as foster carers. It is likely that more foster carers would apply for special guardianship orders if they could be guaranteed continued financial support. The regulations should be amended accordingly. I hope that these two amendments will be favourably received by the Government, so that family and friends carers get a much better deal.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I support these two amendments. I am either patron or president of the Grandparents’ Association and I have a particular example of a friend of mine, who took over the care of her goddaughter at very short notice. She would otherwise have gone into care. The social workers encouraged my friend to keep the child and to take a residence order. Eventually she got a special guardianship order, which she has at the moment, but once she got the residence order she discovered that the social workers were basically saying, “That’s fine; now we don’t have to pay you, which is a very good reason why we didn’t want you to be a foster mother”. This is not as it should be.

It is not unusual for this to happen. Family and friends who are carers are quite often treated this way. Because they are prepared to care for one of their own family or somebody close to them, it does not become the requirement of the local authority to give them any support. I battled for this friend of mine to have some support and they gave her a small amount as a sort of honorarium. It really was very small indeed. It happens that some quite young grandparents or other carers, having achieved a good position in a job and a comfortable lifestyle, suddenly find themselves, after a daughter or daughter-in-law dies, taking over the care of a child or children at short notice. Their standard of living drops dramatically, often because they can no longer keep their job. They are therefore losing their comfortable lifestyle. Not only do they have an extremely exhausting time caring for their grandchildren, who of course they love dearly. It is also very trying because they find themselves short of money in a way that they had not been when they were ordinary grandparents and out at work.

It is a real need that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has set out with such care and the Government really should be looking at it, because in the majority of cases local authorities will not pay if they do not have to. Many grandparents in the association with which I am connected are in the very position that I have just described.

[Lord Northbourne (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss on this issue. I declare an interest as I am also a member of the Grandparents’ Association. One point that my noble and learned friend did not make is that there is a history of some social workers going round at 2 am with little Johnny and saying, “Are you prepared to take him in? We are otherwise going to take him into care”. Of course the grandparent takes him in and then she has lost her money.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

46: Clause 10, page 9, line 23, leave out “mediation”

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 47 to 52. Despite the number of amendments, this is about one very short point: that in Part 2 of the Bill, which at long last we are getting to, Clause 10 is headed,

“Family mediation information and assessment meetings”.

These meetings are required before a relevant family application is made to the court.

I say at once that I am entirely supportive of the Government’s approach in trying to get parents to agree on their children and to get those who have had failed relationships to agree on how to dispose of any cases they may wish to bring. The problem is the word “mediation”. I have heard from various sources, particularly from lawyers, and one has to bear in mind that there is no longer legal aid in private law cases. Therefore, both parties will be litigants in person and one quite simply has to recognise that we are talking about people who have parted, some of them in extreme acrimony, and all with the real trauma of a failed relationship. They would not be in the family court if there were no failed relationship.

Many of them, I think the majority, are very sensible about making the arrangements that have to be made after their relationship is over, but there are some who need some help and they will not get it from lawyers any more. There is also a small minority, perhaps no more than 5 %, who absolutely cannot agree on anything and take their failed relationship, covered in acrimony and hate for each other, into the arena of the family dispute in the family court. They fight over the house, they fight particularly over the children and they use the arena of the children to fight through their failed relationship. Sitting as a judge, as I did in this area for 35 years, I can tell you how many acrimonious failed relationships came through my hands.

For a minority of people who are brought to a meeting, which is a requirement before you go to court, mediation is like a red rag to a bull. They absolutely will not accept it, but they will have to accept an information and assessment meeting, which is thoroughly sensible. The word “mediation” may well mean that a number of people will refuse to go to the meeting. They are not going to meet the other party or agree on anything and, therefore, they will not go.

All that I am asking for in this long list of amendments is to take out the word “mediation”. I say to the Minister that of course one expects and hopes that the information and assessment meeting would lead to mediation, probably in the same meeting, if it is possible to achieve, but you will not want to stop the ability to give information and assess what is going on by imposing the stumbling block of the word “mediation”. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, we have Amendments 47, 50 and 52 in this group. I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Baroness has said in introducing her amendments, and have some sympathy with the points she makes, but we are approaching the issue in a slightly different way.

We accept that mediation is not always appropriate or of sufficient quality but we support the central thesis in Clause 10 that parents should attend mediation before making a court application. We believe that there are clear advantages, particularly to children, in avoiding the adversarial nature of court proceedings wherever possible, but accept that there will be exceptions.

Our first amendment simply adds flexibility to the clause to ensure that where the court considers it unreasonable families are not required to attend mediation, information and assessment meetings. While we believe that mediation, and ADR more generally, can be very useful means of resolving disputes, they are not appropriate in every type of situation—for example, in cases of domestic violence or child abuse. We are therefore proposing amendments for making clearer the process for deciding on exemptions whereby you do not have to be involved in mediation.

This point was picked up in David Norgrove’s family justice review. At the time, he said:

“There would also need to be a range of exemptions for those for whom an application to court was urgent, or for whom dispute resolution services were clearly inappropriate at the outset. The regime would allow for emergency applications to court and the exemptions should be as in the current Pre-Application Protocol”.

When these issues were debated in the Commons, the Minister stated that the Government had invited the Family Procedure Rule Committee to draw up rules specifying areas where exemptions to the proposed procedure would be appropriate, including domestic violence. The Minister also identified at that time other areas where exemptions might be relevant. These included: a need for urgency; where there is a risk to the life, liberty or physical safety of the applicant or their family; when any delay would cause a risk or significant harm to a child; or where a miscarriage of justice might occur. At the time, we welcomed this commitment. However, we requested that the draft rules be made available to Parliament before scrutiny of the Bill is over. We have now received the letter and its attachments from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, which again states that the Family Procedure Rule Committee will be invited to make rules on these matters. Given that we still have not seen the rules, we ask the Minister again: when will these be made available? How can we be expected to judge whether this provision is sufficient to address our concerns in their absence?

Our second two amendments in this group would insert a definition of an “approved mediator” as someone who satisfies defined training and quality standards assurances and would specify that a mediation, information and assessment meeting would always be held with an approved mediator. These amendments originate from concerns expressed to the Justice Committee in pre-legislative scrutiny that the quality of mediators is often far too low. They tie in with the concerns we have just touched upon: that mediators might have to screen for domestic abuse and safeguarding concerns, which require specialist skills. For example, the Children’s Commissioner for England has highlighted research showing that around 50% of all private law cases involve domestic violence or child abuse. For this reason, it is crucial that mediators are trained and skilled in spotting these issues. It is also important that mediators are trained to listen to and draw out the voices of the children and young people involved.

When this was discussed in the Commons, the Minister said that he had asked the president of the Family Division to revise the existing pre-application protocol to make it explicit that family mediators must be approved by the Family Mediation Council. He said that meant that they would also have to adhere to the code of practice of that council. However, we do not believe that the provision in the code of practice is strong enough. We emphasise again that concerns have been raised about the quality of mediators, even working under this code. We would prefer that safeguards be set out in the Bill.

Although we agree with the aim of the clause and welcome the provision as far as it goes, I hope that the Minister will understand our ongoing concerns and agree to give further consideration to incorporating the additional safeguards set out in our amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My approach to this Committee is that I genuinely do listen and take back its findings not only to my expert advisers but to other experts in this field who are not members of this Committee but will read its proceedings. If people on either side of the argument want to write to me and relate their experiences, we may be able to make a definitive decision on this issue at a later stage. I will certainly not go to the wall over the name that is used; I want an effective process.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I say to the Minister that I am perfectly prepared to be wrong; I often am. However, I think that on this occasion I am probably right and I shall be very interested to see the research. I would very much like a copy of the draft rules. I used to be the chairman of the Family Procedure Rule Committee. I have to confess that I tried not to attend that committee if I could avoid it as it is quite the most boring committee I have ever sat on. However, I should like to see the draft rules and would be most grateful if they could be provided.

The noble Lord knows that it is the practice in the Moses Room to withdraw the amendment and I will, of course, do so, but before I do so I should like to make one or two points. I am extremely indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for making the point that the title should be neutral. That was what I was searching for, although I did not use that word. The neutral title could be “family information meetings” or, as has been sensibly suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, “family meetings”. Family information meetings might be slightly better as people would know that that was what they were going to get.

I am entirely supportive of mediation in the right cases, and in all but 5% of cases it will be right, if they ever go to court at all, which most of them do not. Where neither party is legally aided, they will both battle through the real difficulties of making their applications and so on in the county court or magistrates’ court and try to cope with something which is completely unfamiliar to them. Therefore, the information meeting, and a requirement to have one, seem to me entirely admirable.

The only problem is that there are in a sense two stages to this because mediation is different from information and assessment. It imposes upon people a requirement to try to settle. You cannot have compulsory mediation. You can have compulsory information and assessment, but you cannot require people to settle. That is something I was taught as a young barrister and I have learnt all the way through my legal and judicial career that people cannot be made to settle. The purpose of mediation is to get them to settle or to try to tackle the issue in a better way, but that could be achieved through the provision of information and an assessment. One has to understand that mediation is in a different class from information and assessment.

I throw out my next point as a possibility for the Family Procedure Rule Committee and the Minister’s experts to look at. I am not suggesting that this is necessarily a good idea but I throw it out for consideration. I would be content if the forms that the parties receive put the words “information”, “assessment” and “mediation” in brackets. Parties could cross out the word “mediation” to show that they are prepared to opt for information and assessment but are not prepared to go through a process of trying to make them settle. That might just do the trick if you want to keep the word “mediation”.

However, I am very concerned about the small number of people who are most likely to go to court. You do not go to court if you can reach agreement. Some 90% do not go to court or go to court only to obtain an agreed order, 5% can be persuaded to go through mediation, and probably mediation is just what they need, but 5% cannot. What could happen if there is a requirement for mediation is that particularly the man, although sometimes the woman, will get to the meeting with the trained mediator and the minute the mediator starts to say, “Well, could you not agree to this?”, he will storm out and not listen to what he needs to understand as to how the court proceedings will go. That is my real worry. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 46 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

If Amendment 53 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 54 and 55 because of pre-emption.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I assume that I am allowed to speak to Amendment 54. I agree with, particularly, Amendment 55. It is extremely sensible because it cuts out the division of a child’s time, which all too many lay people see as “shared parenting”. Thank goodness the Government have taken those two words out of the draft Bill.

Clause 11 raises a technical legal point of considerable importance. It will affect the way in which all family judges and family magistrates try private law cases where the arrangements in relation to children have to be decided by the court. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would be affected by it sitting in the family proceedings court. I have discussed this clause with some members of the judiciary, who view it with some concern.

I start with a problem. If the clause becomes law, it will raise two potentially conflicting presumptions for the court to tackle. I regret to say, with the greatest respect, that the Minister will be wrong if he says what the noble Baroness said was in his brief. Under Clause 11 the court, in the various circumstances, is to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that the involvement of each parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare. That is a presumption. However, the whole basis of family child law is the presumption of the paramountcy of the welfare of the child, which is in Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989.

“Where a court determines any question with respect to … of the upbringing of a child … the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration”.

That is engraved on the hearts of all family judges and magistrates. In order not to be appealed, they always put it at the beginning of all their judgments. It is extremely important.

The effect of Clause 11 is to bring in a second presumption. You cannot help it because you are presuming in Clause 11 and you are presuming in Section 1 of the Children Act. Those two presumptions potentially clash. Quite simply, a court can have only one presumption at a time.

This is not just me making a legalistic technical point. People might be forgiven for thinking that I am going back to my judicial days, but I promise that this is far broader than a legalistic point. The NSPCC and Coram are very concerned, and I am happy to adopt the points that they make. They make three very important points: this clause could lead to a shift in emphasis away from what is best for the child towards the feelings and desires of parents; it could inadvertently increase risk to children by putting pressure on parents to agree to contact arrangements that are unsuitable or dangerous in the erroneous belief that a court would order that kind of contact; and the proposed change is unnecessary because no evidence of a bias in the court system has been found.

It is not good enough to have two presumptions that the judge has to juggle which could clash. It is particularly difficult for family magistrates who are not lawyers. It is also important to bear in mind that the litigants in the cases to which this clause applies will be unrepresented in the absence of legal aid. As to the increased risk of harm to which the NSPCC and Coram refer, these unrepresented litigants have gone through the traumatic experience of a failed relationship. As I said earlier, 90% will not go to court, or only for an agreed order, 5% can be persuaded by the family information and assessment meeting and the remaining hardcore 5% will be extremely antagonistic towards each other. Some of them actually hate each other. They can hardly bear to be in the same room and the failed relationship has become corrosive. That is not a happy situation in which to make arrangements for their children. I regret to say that I have said from time to time that when parents are in dispute about their children, they are the last people who should ever make arrangements for their future. They are simply unsuitable.

However, one parent or the other may give way and agree to unsuitable access/contact—two failed words—because of the way in which this clause is framed and in the mistaken belief that that is what a court would order. Although the phrase “shared parenting” has been deleted, the public perception is that they will get 50% of the time. When they are not necessarily going to court, that is what one parent will try to impose on the other. Those who cannot agree are likely to hold out for more contact, and this will lead to increased litigation before the courts. The courts are already beginning to be clogged up as a result of the absence of legal aid in private family law cases, particularly at district judge level, where, I am told, district judge first appointments, which used to last half an hour, now go on for at least 45 minutes. The backlog of cases is bound to grow. Of course, the children will suffer while the parents go on fighting and carrying on their dispute about child arrangements because it will take longer for these cases to be heard.

My experience as a family judge and then as head of the family court is that judges look to parents rather than impose gender discrimination in favour of mothers. I made a very large number of decisions in favour of fathers, although Fathers 4 Justice did not believe me. If it had looked at my track record, it might have seen that that was the case. I cannot tell the Committee what Fathers 4 Justice did for me, but its members did lock the gate on one occasion so that I could not get out and I had to get my husband to get the bolt cutters to open it. They also had Batman and Robin on the roof of the law courts. Noble Lords may remember that they stopped Tower Bridge functioning for a week by climbing up to the top, and they also climbed up on to Buckingham Palace.

I know that fathers do not accept that there is no gender discrimination against them and in favour of mothers. However, as the NSPCC said, there is no independent evidence of a bias. The Justice Select Committee accepted that there was no such evidence, as did, I understand, the Children’s Minister in the other place. There is no evidence of bias in the courts in favour of one parent. Therefore, the changes appear to be based on perceived rather than actual bias. I hope that the Minister and those behind him will look at the experience in Australia. At this stage of the evening, I shall not go into that, but it has been unhappy, and it has used similar phraseology. Much of this otherwise admirable Bill is very much based on the Norgrove report, which interestingly does not support a change to the Children Act.

Having said all that, I recognise and support the intention behind the clause that the importance of both parents should be at the forefront of the court’s mind. It is very sad that countless children are losing one parent, generally the father, who leaves home and there is no further relationship between him and his children. That is a very sad situation. Of course, we must encourage the continuing involvement of both parents so that after they separate, both are encouraged to stay in touch. However, to make it a presumption is a step too far, and that is why I have not sought to delete this clause. I have sought to amend it to highlight the importance of both parents, but not to create a second presumption. My amendment leaves out the word “presume” and inserts “pay particular regard” to highlight to the judge that he or she must,

“pay particular regard, unless the contrary is shown, to the importance of the”—

and then the wording of the clause is followed.

This is an important matter that cannot be brushed aside. I am speaking because of the issue of presumption and the effect that it will have on the public who come to court. From my practical experience, I am extremely concerned about the impact on the overriding presumption of welfare not just in the courts—where I think most judges could cope with the provision, although they do not like to have two clashing presumptions—but in the minds of the public who are trying to come to some sort of settlement. That is worrying, and I ask the Government to look at this issue carefully. My amendment would meet the need to emphasise the importance of the relationship between the child and both parents and the continuing involvement of both parents, but would not create the real problem of competing presumptions.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendments 54 and 55. I have a lot of sympathy with both of them. I should declare an interest as chair of CAFCASS. I, too, fully recognise and support the intention of Clause 11. In the vast majority of cases it is always desirable that both parents continue to be involved in the bringing up of their children after separation, but we all know that there are some cases where that is simply not possible, and that is what this clause is all about.

I thank the Minister for his helpful letter setting out how Clause 11 might be put into operation. I will leave it to those far more learned than I am in legal technicalities to consider whether this creates two competing presumptions or whether one presumption is rebuttable and the other is not. Others will be able to set that out very clearly.

My focus is on the practicalities and how this will impact on a child-centred approach. Our experience at CAFCASS is that sometimes these distinctions, these legal technicalities, are harder in practice to observe in the often very feverish atmosphere of a family court case, something that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, set out clearly for us. Our work at CAFCASS shows how hard it can be to help parents in cases in which there are high degrees of hostility and acrimony to focus on the needs of their children rather than on themselves. Anything that distracts from the focus on the child can sometimes be of questionable value.

Of course, our task at CAFCASS, as ever, will be to promote as full an involvement of both parents as possible to reduce the number of caring mothers and fathers who lose contact with their children after separation in a way that does not make things worse for children. The difficulty that we are discussing can be very much compounded by the invisible nature of the emotional harm that many children experience through no fault of their own when parents separate or divorce. A no-fault approach to separation—it was accepted in divorce cases some time ago—needs to be carried through. Courts can help children who often feel that they are at fault and to blame in some way for their parents’ separation. This emotional harm, unless acknowledged and dealt with properly with all necessary support, can cause a concealed social problem and have long-term costs attached to it.

My key concern about the clause is that parental involvement—I very much support the principle of joint involvement—is seen through a child’s eyes. The situation in which a child finds themselves in after separation or divorce can be difficult, affects schooling and friendships and often undermines a child’s healthy development. Decisions about parental involvement need to support a child’s healthy development, schooling and adaptation to the new situation in which they find themselves.

Finally, each child is unique and a formula of any kind about parental involvement has to be subject to the test of relevance to an individual child, and when courts or CAFCASS are asked to intervene, this is the assessment that they have to make. A statement about the importance of parental involvement is absolutely right in general terms but if in practical terms it is to have real meaning and value for the individual child, that child must also receive the support that they need in the very complex adaptation that they are making.

Certainly, recent research has shown us that children want and need different levels of contact with parents and relatives, and particularly with siblings and friends. It is not just about the parents. We need to ensure that we avoid—and I am sure that we will avoid it—this legislation polarising the contact in any way, in terms of one or both parents agreeing on an enforced basis. Children need a range of contacts with siblings and other relatives to be maintained after separation. I think we all recognise that the law can be a fairly blunt tool, both in its current and proposed forms, to deal with a child’s bespoke and individual contact needs. My plea this afternoon is that this should very much be seen in a child-centred way.