Children and Families Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

With the leave of the Deputy Chairman of Committees, I hope it might be helpful to everyone taking part in this Grand Committee if I draw attention to the revised calendar for this Bill, published with today’s edition of forthcoming business. The calendar shows that the usual channels now hope that we will complete the Committee stage of the Bill in 11 sessions in total—that is, seven more sessions including today. It also sets out the clauses that we hope to cover each day so that people who want to take part in a particular part of the Bill can plan their diaries. The calendar is not binding but it has support across this Committee. We hope we can complete our work here on 18 November. Can I encourage everyone here to try to reach the target today, the group led by Amendment 81, so that we can complete the stage in good order?

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I might make a point, as a Cross-Bencher, about the amount of time that may be allowed on Report. It is a matter of some concern that this Bill has been committed to a Grand Committee when a number of people who are concerned about the Care Bill would have liked to be here. Those people may well wish to speak on Report when they would otherwise have spoken in Grand Committee. Consequently, we may find that Report lasts a bit longer than the Government would choose. Therefore, it would be helpful if the usual channels took that on board in arranging the number of days appropriate for Report.

[Baroness Northover]

I thank the noble and learned Baroness for that comment. I will of course take it back to the usual channels.

Clause 15: Care plans

Amendment 65

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not dwell on this because it rehearses a theme that we spent a great length of time on in discussing Part 1 of the Bill—that is, the importance for children, when their families break up or they are taken into care, of keeping in contact with their birth family as appropriate, particularly with their siblings. The Minister was not the Minister discussing the Bill with us when we talked about Part 1. Therefore, he did not hear the strength of feeling across the Committee on this issue, which was such that the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Nash—acknowledged it and agreed to take the issue of sibling contact back and look at it. So I hope, when the Minister sums up, that I will not need to rehearse the arguments; I hope he will take that on trust and, similarly, look at it with his colleague, the Minister in the Department for Education, and come back on Report.

The amendment is, however, different from the amendment that we talked about in relation to Part 1. It would require the court, at the stage of considering permanence for a child, to pay particular attention to any siblings and where they are, and to continued contact between siblings when making or approving the permanence plan for a child through a care order. Amendment 65 would therefore insert “and sibling placement arrangements” after “provisions”. It is very important that this issue is considered not only by social workers and professionals, as we discussed when we looked at the amendment to Part 1, but particularly at the court stage. Clause 15, as it is worded, does not include arrangements for siblings to be placed together where possible. It does not include anything that requires the court specifically to consider the arrangements for brothers and sisters.

It is essential that this is considered at the court stage because after that, while there are a number of possible opportunities for detailed arrangements in permanence plans to be considered, there are none really to go back and address this issue. Independent reviewing officers, for example, do not have the same authority as the courts to scrutinise care plans and they cannot take the matter back to court directly if they consider that the care plan is deficient in one way or another. They can only refer the matter to a CAFCASS officer who can then maybe bring a claim on behalf of the child if they consider that there are grounds for judicial review or a free-standing claim under the Human Rights Act. In practice, as I am sure Members can appreciate, that power is rarely used. Therefore, it is very important to get these issues about continued sibling contact right in at the front end when the courts are asked to scrutinise the arrangements for permanence when thinking about a care plan.

I will not rehearse all the arguments as to why that is important. I suspect the Minister may appreciate them. I will, though, rehearse one statistic that we used in the previous debate. I hope that the Minister will not say that the courts will do this anyway. The figures that we looked at then suggested that some 63% of children who go into care and have siblings who go into care lose contact with those siblings. Clearly, at various points in the process—in court, through social workers, through the placements—contact is being broken for the vast majority of children who go into care as part of a sibling group. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to look at this and respond positively to it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness in this amendment. At his request, I will also speak to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Is that separate? It is separate, so I will speak entirely to this amendment.

At the adoption stage, Part 1 of the Bill, a number of us spoke about the importance of sibling contact. I made the point—I make no apology for making it again to a different Minister—that the Select Committee on Adoption Legislation took informal evidence from a considerable number of children. One of the points made both by the group who were adopted and the group in care concerned the enormous sorrow they felt at losing contact with the siblings they knew. Very sensibly, one girl said, “I am not concerned about the siblings born after I left the family but I am very worried about my brothers and sisters”. Another child was almost in tears as he was so worried about his younger brother, not knowing what was happening to him and nobody being able to tell him. He said he woke up at night worrying about his brother. That is not acceptable. Therefore, it is important at each stage that those in charge of children or in charge of making arrangements and connections with children have the siblings in mind. The judge may well say that the social workers have given him all sorts of good reasons why they are not going to meet, but it is important that the judge asks. There is no requirement on the judge, or indeed the magistrates in the family proceedings court, to ask that question unless it is in legislation.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)]

My Lords, I know that David Norgrove was very concerned that judges spent quite a considerable time reviewing care plans and that might well delay looking at the future of children. However, I cannot see why this aspect should not be looked at. When the judge is looking at the placement of the child before him, he must look at the whole family, the parental position and what is going to happen to the siblings. Although I understand absolutely why David Norgrove felt that the local authority should be the one looking sensibly at the care plans, I do not at all see why the court should not look at the sibling placement.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 18 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak in place of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, at his specific request. He was here on Monday, but he was just not reached and is unable to be here today. The noble and learned Lord is making a plea for the Family Law Act 1996. As Lord Chancellor then, he was responsible for its introduction in the House of Lords. A considerable part of that Act has not been commenced, but Governments since then have left it on the statute book.

Clause 18 of the present Bill repeals the whole of that which remains of the 1996 Act. The noble and learned Lord has said that since he was involved he felt diffident about raising the issue, but then he learnt that at least some of those concerned with family law did not know that the Act was to be repealed. He felt that he had a responsibility towards those who had supported him to point to this development. Perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I read the noble and learned Lord’s principal concern. He has written that,

“with no-fault divorce which I advanced on the basis that to require a spouse seeking divorce to make allegations about the other spouse which would not require to be proved was not conducive to the vital task of promoting good relations between them for the sake of the children”.

In other words, “no-fault divorce” means that the parties do not rake up unpleasant things about each other which can only be bad for the children. He adds:

“So far as I know its retention on the statute book has done no harm”.

I would add that Part 1 of the Family Law Act 1996 sets out what I do not believe we get anywhere else; that is, the principles of Parts 2 and 3 of that Act. It states that,

“the institution of marriage is to be supported … that the parties to a marriage which may have broken down are to be encouraged to take all practicable steps, whether by marriage counselling or otherwise, to save the marriage”—

which is admirable—

“that a marriage which has irretrievably broken down and is being brought to an end should be brought to an end … with minimum distress to the parties and to the children affected”.

It goes on like that. It sets out in about one page the general principles of good behaviour between parties to a marriage that has broken down. It is sad that there are issues of reflection and consideration before the divorce.

One might say that all that is old hat. Marriages go on, thank goodness. The majority of people who live together do not get married but a lot do. To have these good principles on the statute book has done no harm and will do no harm. It will at least make available to people the desirable end to those marriages that have broken down, and make some effort to remind them that they should try to minimise distress to everyone, particularly their children. I might add grandparents to that. It is sad that it is apparently necessary, under Clause 18, for this Act to be repealed, which is the purpose behind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, opposing that it should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, one of the perils of being a Minister in this House is that the continuity that is one of its merits means that changes to decades-old legislation may mean that we find the author still with us, alive and kicking. We saw something similar on Monday when noble and learned Lords wanted a rematch of decisions made by Law Lords some decades ago. However, that does not mean I take lightly the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. After our Monday sitting, I had a long conversation with Sir James Munby on Tuesday. I mentioned the point raised by the noble and learned Lord. Sir James was somewhat wistful about the ambitions of the noble and learned Lord to bring in the concept of “no-fault divorce”, which had not progressed as much as the authors of the Bill at that time had intended.

I have listened with great care to the points made on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As I have said, I have the utmost respect for the position of supporting the principle of “no-fault divorce”. I acknowledge the expertise of the noble and learned Lord in this area and I know that when he introduced the Family Law Bill in this House in 1995, it was a Bill very close to his heart.

I fully understand that the provisions of Part 2 were intended to save saveable marriages and reduce distress and conflict when it was inevitable that a marriage would need to be brought to an end. While Part 2 retained as the ground for divorce the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, it would, if implemented, have removed the need to establish irretrievable breakdown through one or more facts. I understand why proponents of no-fault divorce believe that the approach in Part 2 would have helped to reduce conflict and acrimony.

However, there are two separate issues here. The first concerns the principle of no-fault divorce in Part 2, and the second concerns the information meeting and other provisions of Part 2 which were an integral part of that policy. The Government in 2001 concluded that the provisions were unworkable, would not achieve the objectives of saving saveable marriages and reducing distress and conflict, and should be repealed. It is that second issue that led us to include Clause 18 in the Bill.

The decision to repeal Part 2 was made in principle long ago on the basis of extensive academic research by the University of Newcastle. The research looked at six models of information meeting that a party to a marriage would have been required to attend as the key first step in initiating a divorce. Part 2 is built around that initial mandatory information meeting. The research concluded that none of the six models of information meeting tested was good enough for implementation nationally. For most people, the meetings came too late to save marriages and tended to cause parties who were uncertain about their marriages to be more inclined towards divorce. While people valued the provision of information, the meetings were too inflexible, providing general information about both marriage-saving and the divorce process. People wanted information tailored to their individual circumstances and needs. In addition, in the majority of cases, only the person petitioning for divorce attended the meeting. Marriage counselling and conciliatory divorce all depend on the willing involvement of both parties.

Repeal of Part 2 has been awaiting a suitable legislative opportunity. The Children and Families Bill now provides that opportunity. Repeal was part of the draft Bill published for pre-legislative scrutiny in September 2012. None of the written responses opposed repeal of Part 2.

The Government have introduced separate measures in Clause 10 to make it compulsory for an applicant in certain family proceedings first to attend a family mediation, information and assessment meeting—I realise we will be having further debates about that on Report. That provision has some similarities with the information meeting provision for divorce in Part 2 and will, we intend, address disputes about children and finances.

Mediators who conduct the MIAM will check with the parties whether they wish to save their relationship, as well as discuss ways to resolve a relevant family dispute with the minimum of distress, including, in particular, arrangements for any children. However, Clause 10 addresses disputes between both cohabiting and divorcing couples.

Repeal of Part 2 is a long-standing commitment to Parliament. There is no prospect of Part 2 being implemented. Therefore Clause 18 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, wanted this matter raised, but he does not wish it to be pursued any further.

Clause 18 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

The answer is yes.

In developing the guidance, we would welcome discussions either bilaterally or by hosting a round table discussion, whichever is more helpful. Once the draft guidance is prepared, we intend to consult publicly before publishing a final version next year. This will give schools one term’s notice of when the new duty comes into force.

I have listened with interest to the debate on the other grouped amendments. I hope the Committee will agree that the amendment I have tabled will help to support a significant group of children, many of whom meet the Equality Act definition of disability, who previously may not have been explicitly covered by the provisions of the Bill. I would like to reflect further on the other points raised in debate today in relation to the other amendments before us and consider them further. In doing so, I would be grateful for the Committee’s help in providing specific examples of other conditions or other groups of children who are having their educational opportunities restricted, and who are not supported by either existing legislation or the provisions of the Bill as they currently stand.

The noble Lord, Lord Low, gave some specific examples, most of which would be covered by the amendment that I have tabled, but other examples would be helpful. It is always a pleasure to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who is one of our country’s greatest athletes—

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I have listened to this debate with great interest, very much as a novice in this area, although I have been governor of two schools where we had disabled children. I got the impression from what various speakers have said in this debate that there are problems for all disabled children, not just individual groups. The Minister should take away the problems of all disabled children in all sorts of schools.

[Lord Nash]

I thank the noble and learned Baroness for that intervention. Clearly, we all got that impression, but we would like help on precisely what category of children are not covered by the existing legislation. I will take away all the points made today and we will reflect further.