---

Children, Schools and Families Bill

My Lords, in this group I seek to oppose the questions that Clauses 32 to 42 should stand part of the Bill. In other words, I seek to delete the whole of Part 2. The Minister suggests that it is not a good idea to put things through that are very controversial at this stage. I agree with her regarding Part 2. This part of the Bill was not debated at all in another place. I oppose Part 2 also on the basis that, as the Minister herself admitted in a letter dated 24 March to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, after the Second Reading: ""This was followed in November 2009 with pilots to provide easily accessible and anonymised judgements in some family court cases. These judgements will be evaluated as we move forward"." "Will be evaluated" are the crucial words. I shall explain why. The Government have set up a pilot to try out a different way of opening up the family courts to public scrutiny—an objective of which we approve. Only four months after the pilot began they are seeking to legislate for a different method anyway. The pilot is not complete and its outcomes have not been measured or evaluated as to whether they achieve their objectives without endangering children, families, expert witnesses or any other innocent people. Yet the Government, in their rush to do something before they eventually sigh their last breath, have decided to put into this Bill measures which have raised the utmost concern among many organisations and, in particular, the people who matter most to me—the children. The former Children's Commissioner, Sir Al Aynsley-Green, was fiercely against these measures because he had asked the children and he knew what they thought. His organisation, 11 Million, carried out a survey of children and asked for their views on these matters. He found that almost all children were opposed to the media being allowed into family courts to hear children’s cases. The children also said that they would be less willing to talk about ill treatment by a parent and disputes between their parents. All this was despite them being made aware that there would be a formal ban on publishing information that might allow them to be identified. Most remained unconvinced on the power of the law to protect their privacy. Children also did not trust newspapers to protect their privacy. If children are unwilling or unable to talk about what has happened to them, family judges may be faced with making difficult decisions about their future, in the absence of the child’s evidence about his wishes and feelings. All the young people said that they did not want their parents to speak to the press while cases were ongoing, and some children felt that without their permission parents should not do that after the case was over. Even with information that the press could not name them, children were fearful that sensitive issues about them would appear in the local press, causing them further humiliation. Young people said that judges or magistrates should seek the views of children before deciding whether to admit the press to a hearing about their future care or safety. A paper by Dr Julia Brophy of Oxford University also made it clear that children do not trust judges and magistrates to make the right decisions regarding media access and reporting. She analysed recent studies and concluded that in the face of media access, children may withdraw from the process before judges have an opportunity to demonstrate whether any alleged trust is appropriate. Dr Brophy was scathing about the extent to which the Government had consulted children before bringing forward the measures in Part 2. We have received briefings from many children’s organisations indicating their major concerns about these clauses. We have heard also from the Law Society which states that it supports openness in family cases; however, the need to protect children should be a paramount concern in family proceedings. The Law Society states that it is very important to remember that decisions in family cases will affect children and their parents for the rest of their lives. The court has a strong responsibility to make judgments based on the best evidence available. Much of that evidence may be very sensitive and of a sort that most of us would not wish to be publicly available. There is a balance to be drawn between ensuring that there is public confidence in the process, and the needs of the parties to feel able to be open with the court and to trust the proceedings. The Law Society is particularly concerned by Clause 40, which provides the power to alter the treatment of sensitive personal information. This clause enables the Lord Chancellor to make an order to bring into force amending provisions relating to the treatment of this information. There are safeguards. An independent person must undertake a review, not before 18 months, of the operation of the proposed change and must lay their conclusions before Parliament. The statutory order must also be laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament. However, the Law Society believes that a strong case should be made before sensitive personal information about identifiable individuals can be reported. The society does not believe that openness and transparency will be achieved by publishing sensitive personal information. The lawyers do not understand what benefit would be gained from the media using this information as a means of communicating to the public the operation of the family justice system. They therefore urge your Lordships to delete Clause 40 from the Bill. The NSPCC, too, is deeply concerned that any relaxation of the rules on publishing sensitive personal information will increase the likelihood of identification of vulnerable children and families in local press reporting. It says that the amendments brought forward by the Government in another place do not adequately address the dangers. It does not believe that Part 2 of the Bill will serve the public interest or ensure that family courts are accountable. It, too, urges the Government fully to explore other methods of achieving the desirable level of scrutiny without endangering children. The Children's Rights Alliance for England, along with the Interdisciplinary Alliance for Children, have also expressed concerns. While supporting reform of the family courts in principle, they feel that these measures have been adopted without adequate consultation or an assessment of the potential impact on children. They have even written to the Leader of the Opposition, urging him to get his party to oppose this section, and have quoted the opposition spokesman in another place, who supported that position. We have also heard from the BMA and the Medical Protection Society, which have concerns about the effect of identifying professional witnesses. Both organisations are concerned that these measures are being adopted without the matter having been fully thought through. It is clear that there are major concerns in the country, both on the part of children and families and the organisations that represent them, and on the part of professionals on whose advice court often depends. We in your Lordships’ House have also not had a proper opportunity to scrutinise these measures, including the amendments introduced at a later date in another place. They were not properly scrutinised there, either. I contend that under these circumstances, it would be unsafe to go ahead with Part 2 of the Bill. I therefore invites noble Lords, and especially the Conservative Benches, in the light of the words of their Commons spokesperson, to agree with me that this clause should not stand part of the Bill.