---

Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 26:"After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—"    ““FUNDING OF COURTS AND CAFCASS: SECRETARY OF STATE’S DUTY    In order to enable the courts and CAFCASS to fulfil their responsibilities under Part 1 of this Act and, in particular, to reach informed judgments on— (a)   the circumstances of the child, and (b)   the order most likely to be in the child’s best interests, the Secretary of State shall provide the courts and CAFCASS with adequate funding and other resources.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government’s case for arguing that we do not need to amend this Bill rests on Clause 1 of the Children Act 1989 relating to the paramountcy of the welfare of the child. If the courts require that the child’s welfare should be the court’s paramount consideration, should not the Government also be required to be concerned to ensure that the child’s welfare is their paramount consideration? Such inquiries as I have been able to make have convinced me that at present that is not the case. The report Domestic Violence, Safety and Family Proceedings quotes criticisms of CAFCASS which clearly relate to inadequately trained staff and pressure of work on staff. CAFCASS is, I believe, struggling manfully to build a team of able, well-qualified officers and to reform the way that it works. To do this job properly over time will involve more resources, not just a few million pounds found from some other budget, but a reliable and consistent funding stream adequate to do the job and to do it to a standard that will, where necessary, ensure the paramount importance of the welfare of each child, not forgetting that there are, alas, an ever increasing number of such children. At least five Members of the House—the noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley, Lady Howarth, Lady Morris and Lady Walmsley and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred in this debate to the problems of funding and staffing of CAFCASS in developing its new role. Children have only one chance to grow up. We should not short-change this chance by prejudicing the ability of CAFCASS to fund its activities. In addition, the evidence seems also to indicate that the courts are underfunded and understaffed, causing substantial delays—one of the most serious problems to the effective functioning of the present system. To resolve this problem will need more specialist judicial capacity and a management organisation and ethos that recognises the importance of early intervention and avoidance in delay in proceedings. That, too, will cost money. It will also need a committed and prioritised source of dedicated Treasury funding. This is a probing amendment to give the Government an opportunity to tell the House what their funding plans are. It will also give noble Lords more expert than I a chance to tell the House whether and to what extent CAFCASS and the family courts are adequately funded or underfunded today. If the Government argue that this is a money matter which should be reserved to another place, I will explain that I do not intend to place a money issue in the Bill. However, this House has the right to be satisfied that the resources will be available for the additional loads that this Bill will place in the courts and CAFCASS. I beg to move.