Child Care and Family Services Legislation (Hansard, 18 April 1988)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale)
My Lords, I cannot at present add to 1207 the reply given by my noble friend Lord Arran to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood on 27th January that we shall introduce legislation on child care and family services as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.

§ Baroness Faithfull
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. However, is he aware that the courts, the probation service, social workers and the families themselves will be disappointed and distressed, taking into account that in 1984 there was a report from a committee in the House of Commons; in 1985 a consultation paper; and in 1987 the White Paper? If the Minister's reply means that there is insufficient parliamentary time, when will we have some legislation?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, my noble friend will know that I cannot, with the best will in the world, anticipate the contents of the Queen's Speech for next Session, or indeed for any other Session. Having said that, I hope that there will be no undue delay in bringing forward legislation on this important matter.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, bearing in mind the supplementary question asked by the noble Baroness, may I ask this question. Can the Minister say why the Government are giving top priority to bitterly opposed legislation concerning such matters as social security, education, the poll tax and optical and dental charges, rather than to this measure (which is likely to receive support from both sides of the House) as regards which there is a deep sense of urgency that it might do some good for the people of this country?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I cannot and do not accept that the Government have their priorities wrong. Reasonable time must be allowed in all legislation in order to prepare major overhauls—in this case that of child care law. As regards social security and the other issues, reasonable time for preparation has been given. The fact that we are seeing an upsurge in interest at this time—which is the point of change—is hardly surprising. However, the noble Lord can never say that inadequate time was given to the preparation of social security changes.

Viscount Tonypandy
My Lords, the Minister apparently believes in the infallibility of the Government's judgment on this matter. Therefore will be accept that there is in this country a deep disquiet about young people in danger and about the effect on family life? While I realise that all governments are entitled to choose their priorities, will he convey to his colleagues in the Government and to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that there is deep disquiet because the matter to which the noble Baroness has drawn our attention is being pushed further away and it should be reconsidered?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, it would clearly be impossible to have legislation in this Session in respect of the White Paper mentioned in the 1208 Question. As I have said, I hope that there will be no undue delay in bringing forward legislation on the matter and I stick by that statement.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, is it not the case that the competing jurisdictions between the various courts which now handle matters in the field of family law have become a matter of general dissatisfaction and discontent and is this not an urgent matter to which, in the battle for priority, priority should be given?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, to an extent I agree with the noble and learned Lord. The Government are obviously concerned to achieve the best possible arrangements for dealing with family business in the courts, wherever they happen to be and at whatever level in court hierarchy they may be. However, the Government's first priority is to get right the substantive law, especially that concerning the upbringing of children, and then to examine the structure and procedure of the courts.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, if the Minister agrees that there is a priority importance in abolishing the conflicting jurisdiction of courts, will he not also agree that added to that is the priority to deal with juvenile delinquency? Is he aware that one of the causes of juvenile delinquency is the way in which matrimonial disputes are dealt with and the divorce rate is increasing? Accordingly, will the Minister tell his right honourable friend who is dealing with the matter—and perhaps also the noble and learned Lord sitting on the Woolsack—how much importance is given by the Opposition in this House to the creation of family courts?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that that message will not go unrecorded or unreported.