UK Parliament / Open data

Family Justice

Proceeding contribution from Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 12 January 2006. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Family Justice.
: People are told what the likely outcome will be if they do not come to an agreement. That is not the normal process in a court proceeding. The solicitor acting for one side may tell them what the outcome might be if they do not agree, but the judge will not normally engage in that kind of process. That illustrates the fact that mediation allows for an approach that differs greatly from usual court proceedings. The Committee felt that it would have been much better if a Florida-type model had been piloted, perhaps at the same time as the family resolution project. The Government said in their response that they felt it was"““not . . . suitable in this jurisdiction.””" We thought that it might be made suitable, and I hope that the Government might have change their view since then. We are glad to have the Minister of State here with us this afternoon, and she can tell us more later. I very much welcome the fact that through the Children (Contact) and Adoption Bill the Government are addressing the lack of effective and usable enforcement measures, which is another problem that would be faced by the constituents of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone). They get the court judgment that to some extent meets what they believe they ought to have, but it then it is repeatedly not enforced. Clearly the courts will not make a bad situation even worse by sending a mother to prison for failing to carry out contact orders. A family already in crisis will be in an even bigger crisis if that course is taken. The Bill offers some new avenues, including what I presume is intended to be an equivalent of community service—the unpaid work provision—and compensation as a possibility where a financial loss to the other parent has been caused. For example, a holiday may have been cancelled because the contact arrangements have not been adhered to. Few things discredit the court system more than the perception that its rulings can be flouted with impunity; we have to change that perception. However, the powers of the court will not be sufficient in themselves to deal with the problem. The courts need to remain actively engaged in cases where contact orders are being ignored, and CAFCASS officers need to be proactive in supporting court orders and quickly bringing the cases back to court where necessary. We pointed out that the Government's own welcome proposals in that direction represented a radical change and a major new responsibility for CAFCASS, which will need more caseworkers with relevant skills and quite a change in culture to carry through the proposals. How confident are Ministers are that that will be achieved? One of the most difficult issues that we considered was that of safety and domestic violence. Groups representing victims—

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

441 c150-1WH;441 c151WH 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

Westminster Hall
Back to top