§ The Minister for Children(Margaret Hodge)I share the deep concern that has been expressed both in this House and by the wider public following the Court of Appeal's judgment in the appeal against the conviction of Angela Cannings.
This has been a tragic case and we recognise that there may well be other cases in which parents and children have been wrongly separated. With the passage of time, it is extremely hard to put right past wrongs. When such wrongs are identified, however, we must do what we can. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that there are cases in which children have properly been separated from parents who have harmed them, or their brothers and sisters—cases in which intervention has served to safeguard the children.
Child abuse is a real issue, which can lead to injury and death. It is essential that we maintain our vigilance as a society in responding to this wrong. We must acknowledge the important contributions of all those professionals—paediatricians, social workers, police officers and others—who work to safeguard vulnerable children. I pay tribute to the vital work that those professionals undertake on our behalf.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal, however, made it clear that in relation to sudden unexplained infant deaths in which the outcome of a criminal trial depends exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a serious disagreement between distinguished and reputable experts, it will often be unsafe to proceed. I therefore welcomed the announcement by the Attorney-General on 19 January of his intention to consider 258 past convictions for the murder, manslaughter or infanticide of children under two, in order to ascertain whether the court decision may have been unsafe. The intention is that such cases might then be looked at further by the Criminal Cases Review Commission or be the subject of an appeal.
Since the Court of Appeal judgment, I have given careful consideration to its consequences for cases dealt with by the family courts. The implications are not straightforward. In a criminal case, the court is concerned only with the guilt or innocence of the accused. If there is any reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, he or she should go free. By contrast, in care and adoption cases, the best interests of the child are made paramount.
Although it is ultimately a matter for the courts to determine individual cases that come before them, it is right for me to give proper guidance to local authorities as to how they should proceed. I will therefore write shortly to councils with social services responsibilities to ask them to take the following action. First, I will ask them to consider those cases that are affected by the Attorney-General's review. In those cases, councils should stand ready to act in the light of the outcome of that review.
Secondly, within the next four weeks, councils with social services responsibilities should identify and review current cases. Those are cases in which they have commenced proceedings in relation to a child and in which the court has not yet made a final order. In those cases, councils should consider with their lawyers the implications for those proceedings of the Court of Appeal's judgment in the Cannings case.
38 Thirdly, within the next 12 weeks, social services departments should, together with their lawyers, identify cases in which a final care order was made in the past which involved harm to the child or a sibling, and in which the grounds for the making of an order depended exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a serious disagreement between medical experts about the cause of the harm. In such cases councils should again consider, with their lawyers, whether there are now doubts about the reliability of the expert medical evidence. If that is so, they should—bearing in mind the child's current circumstances and current best interests—consider whether to apply to the court for the care order to be discharged, or whether to support any application that may be made by the parents or the child. When reviewing cases, councils will also need to take into account any fresh case law judgments from the Appeal Court that may be relevant.
The number of cases falling in the category that I am asking councils to review is likely to be manageable, although I do not intend to speculate about the precise number. Our best estimate is that it may number no more than the low hundreds, rather than thousands. I am not suggesting that it will be appropriate in every case, following a review, to apply for the discharge of the original care order. The decision must depend entirely on the circumstances of each case.
Councils already have a duty to review the cases of children who are the subjects of care orders at least every six months. Given the range of public concerns that have been raised, it would not be right to impose an arbitrary limit on the types of case that should be reviewed. The key determining factor is that the making of the care order depended exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a dispute between medical experts.
When applications are made to the court, whether by the local authority, the parents or the child, it will be for the court to decide in all cases whether the care order should be discharged. The president of the family division has set out the arrangements to be followed by family court judges in the light of the judgment in the Cannings case. When applications are made, cases are to be listed as soon as possible for directions before a High Court judge in the family division.
Let me now consider cases in which a child has been adopted. There will be cases in which children taken into care in those circumstances have since been adopted. We all accept that adoption is the best option for many looked-after children who cannot live with their birth families. In the overwhelming majority of cases, adoption gives a child the chance to be part of a loving family for life. I recognise that following the Appeal Court's judgment, there will be concerns in cases in which an adoption order followed a care order that had been made on the basis of disputed expert medical evidence. As I have said, however, the position in civil cases is quite different from that in criminal cases.
After adoption has taken place there are, of course, the paramount interests of the child to consider, and the interests of the adoptive parents, as well as those of the birth parents. The whole basis of adoption is that it ensures permanence and finality for all parties. For that reason, only in the most exceptional circumstances have courts been prepared to set aside an adoption order. It is not for me, or for any of us, to say whether any of the cases with which we are concerned would fall into this category. These are very complex issues, and are of course a matter for individuals and the courts.
39 It would be wrong of me today to give a false impression of the scope for reopening existing adoption cases, when in truth it is extremely rare. That would give false hope to those who might wish to argue that the original adoption was based on flawed evidence. It would risk causing distress to adoptive families where children are happily settled.
If birth parents are worried, they should take their own legal advice and that of a number of organisations that provide support for such parents. If adoptive parents are worried, they should get in touch with the agency that arranged the adoption to seek further information and support. If adopted children are worried, they should talk first to their adoptive parents or. if that is difficult, to another responsible adult.
Under the Government's new adoption support regulations, which came into force last October, every local authority is required to have an adoption support services adviser, which may be an appropriate point of first contact.
These are difficult and sensitive issues, and there are no easy answers. I have set out a route forward for the period ahead, within the limits of my ability to act. With this review, and with the current and forthcoming judgments in both care proceedings and appeal cases in the courts, we will ensure that we are acting in the best way possible to protect the interests of children, both today and in the future.
§ Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)First, I thank the Minister for the advance copy of her statement and for the opportunity that she gave me, and doubtless others, to discuss these matters before she came to the Dispatch Box. She is right when she says that this is a very serious matter, and I welcome the decision to facilitate the local authority review and provide an indication to local authorities of how it should be carried out. It remains a matter of huge public concern. and it relates to what could be one of the worst miscarriages of justice seen in this country for a very long time.
The Minister said that the number of cases is likely to be in the few hundreds, but it is clear from her statement that that relates specifically to cases in which the medical evidence was contested by other medical evidence. Can she give us any indication of how many cases in all there might he that depended on the medical evidence of Sir Roy Meadow, even if that evidence was not challenged? Is she aware that, in many cases—I have this on good anecdotal evidence from within my profession as a barrister—and especially cases heard outside London, when an eminent expert such as Sir Roy Meadow was involved. the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service commissioned joint reports from that expert with local authorities, and individual solicitors representing families did not feel readily able to challenge, or to go about the process of finding somebody to challenge, his opinions?
That is evidenced by the fact that in the answers given to the questions of my noble Friend Lord Howe on 12 February, it was pointed out that Sir Roy Meadow was the preferred lecturer of choice at the Judicial Studies Board for nominated child care judges between 1997 and 2001, and his opinion was taken as gospel. Is there 40 not therefore a danger that we may be overlooking a large number of cases that still require consideration? I say that mindful of the difficulty and of the Minister's relying only on contested medical cases—but I believe that there may be others. Can she assure us that, by not fettering the type of case that can be considered, which she specifically said in her statement, we can allow local authorities to consider other cases, in which the medical evidence was not disputed by other medical evidence?
Concerning the mechanics, the Minister said that local authorities are required to make an informed criticism of their own past actions—that is clearly implicit in the process that she has set in train.
While I hope that they will be able to do so, my experience in representing local authorities in care proceedings and appearing against them suggests that bureaucracies are often ill placed to review their own past assumptions and the errors flowing from them. I appreciate that the Minister can only give a steer in these matters, but should there not be some mechanism for an independent review of the process, particularly if the numbers are as small as the Minister hopes they will be? As I understand it, CAFCASS, as the guardian of the child's interest in court proceedings, would be involved only if the case went back to court. Should there not be a mechanism for enabling its earlier involvement if that were appropriate?
What resources will be made available to local authorities to carry out the review? I am mindful—I am sure the Minister is mindful—of the fact that local authority social services are enormously stretched. Services are often dependent on locum social workers and often come in for criticism because they are so stretched. Will further resources be made available to local authorities that have to carry out this delicate and self-searching process to ensure that they reach the right decision on whether to return to court?
In reviews of cases where a final care order has been made and an adoption may be imminent, can the Minister give the House an assurance that the adoption process will be frozen until the review is completed? The same applies, to some extent, where current care proceedings cases are pending, but it is much easier to deal with them than cases where the date of the formal adoption may lie at the end of the next week.
It is likely that the review will lead—perfectly properly in some cases—to local authorities taking the decision not to reopen some cases. In those circumstances, what notification will families be given of the basis on which the decision was arrived at? Clearly, in some cases, families may wish to challenge the decision, and I am sure that the Minister would acknowledge that, before they embark on what may be harrowing and difficult litigation, it is important that those families have some idea of the reasoning behind the local authority's decision not to go back to court. Will the Minister give an assurance that proper notification of the background reasons for a local authority decision will he given? Will there be an opportunity for legal aid to be made readily available to families wanting to go to court?
Finally, in cases where adoption has taken place, there may be circumstances in which there is no going back, even though a court might otherwise have wanted to reopen proceedings. However, that inevitably raises the possibility that claims for compensation will be 41 made at some later date. I mention that because I urge the Minister to examine that matter now, rather than to let it slide to some later date. If compensation turns out to be payable to families that have been unjustly deprived of children, it is much better to resolve matters in an amicable fashion than to have prolonged litigation over years to come.
When the Solicitor-General made her statement in respect of criminal cases, I said that this is not a party-political issue. It is, however, an issue of great seriousness for the Government, who have to ensure that good government is carried out, and for Parliament, because we have to ensure that injustices are righted. I look forward to continuing to co-operate with the Minister to achieve that end.
§ Margaret HodgeI thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and I assure him that I also view this as an extremely serious matter, in which the House has huge interest and concern. I shall report back as regularly as is appropriate, as I fully intend to keep the matter under review in the forthcoming period.
The hon. Gentleman asked about cases where the evidence was not disputed and the sole basis for undertaking care proceedings for a child was the conduct of a particular individual. He asked whether there would be a review of those cane proceedings and he will know that all care cases are reviewed every six months. I have no doubt that in cases where one particular individual was the sole expert in the proceedings, local authorities will act in a sensible and rational manner and review them.
I also draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention a fact that, as someone who has practised in that field, he will already know—that on the whole, when care proceedings are taken, although medical evidence is one of the issues on which the decision is based, the best interests of the child are seen in the round, and the courts have regard to many other factors before coming to a decision.
In asking local authorities to review cases, I am mindful of the fact that the Cannings judgment and what has arisen from it do not constitute a criticism of local authorities' conduct of care proceedings. New information has come to light, and it is in the context of that new information that we are asking local authorities to proceed as they have done in the past in reviewing the cases of children who are subject to care orders. The issue is therefore not a challenge to the local authority process or procedures. The hon. Gentleman will also know that in every local authority review process, an independent review officer will have a role to play in determining how to go forward with a case, and I think that that provides sufficient independence to give us confidence in the procedure.
The hon. Gentleman asked about local authority resources, and we shall watch that issue closely, because we have always said that we would compensate local authorities for new burdens. What happens will depend on the extent to which additional work falls on local authority departments, especially social services departments. We shall have to keep the matter under constant review.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether, when an adoption was imminent, a decision to adopt would be held, subject to the completion of the review. Of course 42 that is the sensible way forward, and I can give him that assurance. He also asked whether families would be notified about why local authorities had taken particular decisions in reviewing particular cases. Again, that is a sensible idea, and we would encourage local authorities to do that as they come to the conclusions of their reviews.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether legal aid would be available for families. The answer is yes, on the usual means and merits tests that exist for current civil proceedings. He also asked whether we had thought about claims for compensation. We have considered that matter, and I entirely agree that we must keep it under close review, so that should such action be taken by individuals against particular local authorities, it would come as no surprise.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab)Frankly, my question is based on gossip—but it may be informed gossip. Were there points at which the Government machine raised the proverbial eyebrow at the decisions of Sir Roy Meadow, given the fact that many people could not swallow the figure of one in 73 million? Why on earth one in 73 million? Small oddities often reveal bigger oddities, so my question is: were there warnings inside the Department, as there certainly were with other cases in the Scotland Office, about that so-called medical expertise? I am not challenging the medical expertise, but we must ask questions about anybody who could be so silly, statistically.
Margaret Hodge: Whether there is credibility in the evidence given by a particular individual is a matter not for the Department but for the courts. The issues with which we have to deal are incredibly difficult. With judgments in relation to child proceedings in the courts there is often disputed medical evidence, and it is difficult to say that the science is certain. Furthermore, as our understanding of the science proceeds, matters change. There is increased understanding of the issues surrounding the unexplained deaths of children, which has led to review by the courts, and to the decisions of the courts on which we are now acting.
§ Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD)I, too, thank the Minister for her courtesy in providing an early discussion, and for making her statement available in advance. I associate myself with her comments about the tragic cases and extend my sympathy to all those involved. I also associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), which I shall not repeat.
I accept that each case is individual, but people will want reassurance that all councils are following the same procedures. For example, the phrase "best efforts" occurs in the statement, but what monitoring will there be to establish the performance of councils reviewing current cases over the next four weeks? What monitoring will there be across councils to establish uniformity of approach as a result of the review both of current cases and of those cases where a final care order has been made?
Many people face uncertainty—birth parents, adoptive parents and adopted children—so will the Minister consider setting up a national helpline for the first point of contact, with clear routes for further advice?
43 Has there been, or will there be, any research into child deaths that have occurred after an adoption that itself took place because the natural parent was judged to have Munchausen syndrome by proxy? That might shed further light in respect of expert witnesses.
What discussions has the Minister held with colleagues in the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Home Office in the light of the review of the coroner service and the lack of paediatric pathologists? What efforts are being made to fill the vacant paediatric co-ordinator positions in regions throughout the country? It is important that people are not deterred from applying for those vital positions.
Finally, does the Minister agree that, despite the great concern that we are expressing today, if justice is to prevail, the police, social services and other professionals must not be discouraged from fully investigating all cases of suspected child abuse?
§ Margaret HodgeI welcome the hon. Lady to her new position as the Liberal Democrat representative on children's affairs. I concur entirely with her final statement: it is extremely important, in the prevailing climate, to re-state our commitment to all the professionals who work in the extremely difficult field of trying to detect and prevent child abuse and who have responsibility for safeguarding children. Indeed, one of my concerns throughout the process has been to support many of the paediatricians who work in that field, who feel vulnerable and threatened by much of the criticism that has been levelled against them. There are difficulties in recruiting high-quality paediatricians to support the work of safeguarding children. We cannot tolerate that, and we want to support the profession in recruiting and keeping high-quality individuals to work in that field.
The hon. Lady asked whether councils would do as we asked. We are issuing guidance and that will form the basis of the requirement that they act as we have asked them to do. She asked whether we would establish a national helpline. We considered that, but, as a range of support agencies is in situ, we decided that it was better to work through the helplines and organisations that already exist. All local authorities have adoption support facilities and a number of national organisations offer support to all the groups of people who might be involved. Such organisations include NORCAP—the National Organisation for the Counselling of Adoptees and Parents—the Family Rights Group, After Adoption and the Post-Adoption centre. There is a whole range of such groups and we thought it better to work through them.
Any child death, whenever it occurs, will of course be investigated, so I did not quite get the point that the hon. Lady was making about that. Any child death will be the subject of investigation by the relevant professionals. With that, I think that I have dealt with most of the hon. Lady's questions.
§ Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)I commend my right hon. Friend for a balanced and wise response to a very difficult situation. Will she assure me that the independent reviewing officers, who have a crucial role in chairing the six-monthly statutory reviews 44 of children in care, will play a full part in the process? Can she confirm that those officials will have a direct line to CAFCASS if they feel it is necessary in defence of children's rights?
Such situations may involve children who are settled and who cannot possibly be disturbed, but given that care situations and adoptive placements are more open these days, will she assure me that the president of the family division and her colleagues will look more sympathetically upon applications for contact from parents who have been placed in such dreadful and tragic situations?
§ Margaret HodgeFirst, I acknowledge my hon. Friend's important role in supporting social workers in their work of safeguarding and protecting children and the wide professional experience that he brings to the House.
Secondly, I confirm that the independent reviewing officer will play a key role. My hon. Friend knows that we are developing advocacy support arrangements in all local authorities—some arrangements are more developed than others—so that the child's interest and voice are heard in difficult proceedings. There are also a number of national organisations and children's rights officers in local authorities. I hope that the National Youth Advocacy Service and others will play their part—ChildLine is, of course, the first port of call for many young children
Finally, my hon. Friend raised the issue of contact for adopted children, where it may be appropriate for them to re-establish contact with a birth parent. Again, the matter is for the courts, where children's cases may be taken. I am sure that the courts will examine such situations sympathetically where it is appropriate to do so.
§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con)May I press the Minister on the matter of Sir Roy Meadow? Will she assure the House that every case in which he has been an expert witness will be re-examined? There is wide public disquiet.
§ Margaret HodgeThe hon. Gentleman probably knows that we do not keep central records of local authority care proceedings, so there is no way to detect the number of cases in which the advice of one particular individual was used. It would be inappropriate for me, or indeed for him, to pass judgment on all the cases in which Sir Roy Meadow gave evidence, and in particular those involving children, before the General Medical Council has examined Sir Roy Meadow's professional competence and his evidence—Sir Roy Meadow is currently subject to GMC proceedings. I assure the hon. Gentleman that under the guidance that I am publishing, local authorities will review cases in which the decision to take a child into care rested wholly or mainly on disputed medical evidence and make sure that the child's best interest is promoted and protected.
§ Vera Baird (Redcar) (Lab)I compliment my right hon. Friend on the care that she has taken over the weeks to ensure that this difficult matter is dealt with correctly and fairly. Will she consider this possible further step? The local authorities that are being guided 45 to review such cases were, of course, adversarial opponents of parents in cases that relied upon such evidence—they will, of course act with integrity now. None the less, it would perhaps be wise to communicate with the Law Society's family law practitioner group, which is certain to have acted for parents. In cases where such evidence was given, local authorities should perhaps examine their old files and consider whether there is further advice that they should proffer to parents, so that parents are fully apprised of their position straight away. On ascertaining the cases in which Professor Meadow has appeared, it would be a good idea to ask him for his tax records.
§ Margaret HodgeI compliment my hon. and learned Friend on the work that she has done on this difficult issue and the positive contribution she has made to the deliberations on how to move forward on these complex matters. I will certainly consider her suggestion of asking the Law Society family practitioners group to give advice to parents and I will come back to her on that point. We will keep under review her suggestion that we should take further action in relation to one particular individual and his expert witness activities.
§ Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con)In anticipation of the Minister's welcome statement, I spoke not two hours ago to Councillor Judy Seager, the cabinet member responsible for social services for Wiltshire county council. She raised the important issue of what happens when a case has to be reviewed but the evidence was heard in camera. What guidance would the Minister give in those circumstances?
§ Margaret HodgeWe have considered such difficulties and the best advice is that in reviewing whether a care order should be revoked or amended—which is the focus of the review—individual social service authorities will have to look back at the best record they have of the evidence given. I recognise that there is not always a full record of the proceedings, but we can trust the professionals engaged in this review to take a commonsense approach to the matter, to review the reasons why a care order was made and decide whether, in the interests of the child, they should review it and refer it back to the courts.
§ Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye) (Lab)As the father of two adopted sons who are now far too old to be involved in this issue, I am conscious of the concern, distress and apprehension felt by many adoptive parents about what might happen. Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to say that it would be unusual for adoption orders to be overturned or revoked? However, it is important to have some process by which a wrong can be righted, perhaps by a declaration of some kind. Has she given some thought to how the record may be put straight without necessarily overturning adoption orders?
§ Margaret HodgeMy hon. Friend is right to say that it would be unusual for adoptions to be overturned. I hope that I made that clear in my original statement. Whether a declaration could be made in relation to particular birth or adoptive parents is a matter for the courts, and that is why my advice would be for individuals to seek legal advice and return to the courts if appropriate.
§ Mr. George Osborne (Tatton) (Con)The statement by the Minister anticipates the debate that I have been granted in Westminster Hall on this very subject tomorrow. Will she return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raised and say why she is restricting the guidance to disputed cases? Why did she feel unable to issue guidance to local authorities about cases with just one piece of evidence about sudden infant death, given what we now know about the Court of Appeal's verdict in the Angela Cannings case and the case of Sally Clark, my constituent?
§ Margaret HodgeI was mindful of the Cannings judgment, which was very narrow indeed and related to disputed evidence in respect of just one category in which care proceedings and possible adoption proceedings could take place, where an unexplained infant death or multiple deaths had taken place. We broadened that very narrow category to provide for the review of all cases in which an instance of disputed medical evidence was the only or main reason for referring them to court.
I shall simply reiterate what I told the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), which is that in most care cases where only one medical expert has given evidence, the courts and social services departments will have considered other issues in looking at the best interests of the child in the round. We have to trust the common sense of social services departments to ensure that, in their statutory six-monthly review of all care orders, they will have regard to the sort of evidence that led to a care order being instigated in the first instance.
I think we have got things about right in this difficult policy area, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if that proves not be the case over time, I will return to the House with further proposals.
§ Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab)I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. She has referred to the lack of centralised information. In view of the public concern and the serious public policy issues, will she consider publishing some of the results of the reviews that local authorities have undertaken and ensure that the best practice from those reviews is captured and disseminated widely across social services? I hope that, as a result, improved procedures would work through local authorities and not only apply to cases that come under the present review, but improve arrangements for children in care on a much wider basis.
§ Margaret HodgeWe must beware of giving publicity to individuals. This is a very difficult area, and publicising details about how individual cases have been considered is extremely difficult. In dealing with the situation that arises from the Cannings judgment, there has been no criticism of the way that local authorities have conducted the reviews and taken the decisions about whether or not to proceed with action in the courts in relation to individual children. What has happened is that, because of the new knowledge and evidence and because of the judgment of the courts, local authorities must now have regard to the new information that is available to them and consider each child's interests in the light of that new judgment. It is in no way a criticism of local authorities that has led me to make my statement today or has caused local authorities to undertake the review that I am asking them to undertake.