HC Deb 23 October 1989 vol 158 cc481-3
The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell)

I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 1, line 11, at end insert— '(A) In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.'.

Mr. Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 74.

The Solicitor-General

Following what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health has said, I can add that these amendments are not contentious and I shall deal with them comparatively briefly unless hon. Members wish to ask questions about them. The effect of the amendments is to state as a general principle that the court is to regard any delay in proceedings about children as likely to prejudice the child's welfare. That is something about which the House will agree and I commend the amendments.

Mr. Vaz

The Solicitor-General invited questions on these technical amendments. Does he believe that the amendment pre-empts the debates that we shall hold later on family courts? Does he agree that if we had a family court, it would meet many of the criticisms of the delays that occur when the court system deals with cases affecting children?

3.45 pm
The Solicitor-General

I am sure that the steps that we propose to take and which we shall have an opportunity —I hope not much later—this afternoon to discuss fully will meet the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield)

My point is not so much a question as a contribution about an issue that causes me great anxiety. During the past decade, much of my work has concerned the delays involved in court hearings of children's cases—delays between hearings and subsequently in the appeals procedure.

When considering provision for a child's future welfare, it is vital that circumstances dividing the child from the wider family and that access, when appropriate, to the child by the parent during proceedings be taken into account. Unfortunately, either because of duplicity, pressure of work or lack of communication between parents, the representatives of parents, the wider family, the local authority and the court, in the period leading up to court proceedings there is often a vital breakdown in communications and in the link between the family and the child. When a final decision has been made by the courts that break often leads to an irreversible breakdown in relationships which can cause unnecessary anxiety for children and for the family, the parents, the wider family and especially grandparents.

I do not want to pre-empt future debates on clauses dealing with maintaining family links during proceedings, but will the Minister assure us that statutory instruments will be brought to the House laying down the responsibilities of the court and the local authority to maintain the link between the child and the wider family during proceedings? Such advice should set out the basic tasks that must be undertaken to ensure that the relationship continues for all practical purposes.

When proceedings are pending, parents and the wider family are often wholly excluded from communication with the child—they cannot celebrate birthdays, Christmas or other special events together; they cannot gain access for usual family activities, either. It is vital to lay down in legislative form certain other practical steps that the courts must take. Local authorities and courts must not be given options: we must set down clear duties for them to undertake in respect of maintaining the important link between the child in care and the authorities who are responsible for determining its future welfare.

In many instances, courts and local authorities should be empowered to expedite the following matters: facilities should be provided for preparing meals for children and giving babies a feed. Families should be able to take a child to and from school or nursery if the child is still attending during care proceedings. They should be able to go out on social outings to shops and cinemas and clinics and doctors. Families should be able to clean a child's room, make its bed, wash and iron its clothes, read to it and tell it stories. They should be able to help the child with reading or writing and with shopping for shoes and clothes, with or without the foster parents if the latter are involved in care proceedings. All these are vital in cases in which the courts have yet to decide whether long-term separation from the family is in the interests of the child. In that preceding period the link must be maintained and carefully nurtured, along with the support of professional social workers under the guidance of the court.

It is also important when there is some measure of access to the child during proceedings, that prior to access facilities are provided to choose clothing and the other things that a child needs and which can be provided by a grandparent, another member of the family or a family friend. Those are minimum standards that require to be set down, and without them the situation will remain as it is now.

Efforts have been made to amend the clause. When delays take place—sometimes for legitimate and at other times for not so legitimate reasons—the break-up of the family begins and gathers pace, and further anxieties and pressure are brought to bear on the child and there is extreme pressure on the family. That is unacceptable, given that part of the whole ethos of social work in most cases is to try to retain the link between the family and the child. Even if at the end of the day the court makes a determination order for either a short or a long period, the child will not live in the family context.

At some stage during the passage of the Bill will the Minister provide clear advice to local authorities in court? Where, in specific circumstances, it is necessary to maintain the link with the family, will he set out clear instructions detailing the tasks that will have to be carried out on behalf of the court by the social services to maintain the vital family link?

The Solicitor-General

All those matters are covered at one point or another in the Bill. There may be an opportunity to debate some of them later today. The amendments before us deal with delay and the desirability of avoiding it wherever possible.

Amendment agreed to.

Back to
Forward to