Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 30:"After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—"    ““GUIDANCE (1)   The Secretary of State must issue guidance to the court. (2)   The guidance must outline the circumstances under which the court should exercise its powers under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (powers of court in certain family proceedings) in order to achieve the best interests of the child. (3)   Before publishing guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult and seek approval from— (a)   experts in the development and safety of children; (b)   the family courts of England and Wales; (c)   any other person who appears to him to have an interest or expertise in the issue. (4)   The Secretary of State may not issue the first edition of this guidance unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament. (5)   The Secretary of State may, from time to time, revise the guidance, subject to the provisions of subsection (3).”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the other leg of my child safety priority agenda this evening and I hope that it will find favour with the House. There are two important contexts in which harm typically needs to be addressed in private law cases. The first is the clear evidence that children being exposed to ongoing conflict between parents causes them emotional harm. That point has already been alluded to. It can arise as a result of the contested proceedings themselves and is recognised in Section 31 of the Children Act 2002, as amended. The second is where allegations of harm are made by one party against the other, which obviously need to be investigated as a matter of urgency to ascertain the risk to the child, either from the allegation of harm being substantiated, or emotional harm being caused by a false allegation of harm being made by one warring parent against another, possibly to boost their case in respect of another issue. It is imperative that harm is explored precipitately once evidence of it emerges in whichever of these contexts and that where there is prima facie evidence of harm the court uses its powers to direct the local authority to investigate under Section 37 of the Children Act 1989. Thereafter the public law provisions of that Act would be invoked to ensure the child’s safety and protection unless inquiries by the local authority under Section 37 reveal absolutely no evidence of harm. It is very important that the private law provisions of the Children Act focus on private law issues and do not attempt to be a second tier system for protecting children, which would replicate or worse still dilute the existing protection system and inevitably confuse practitioners, leaving children at greater risk of harm. The best way to avoid this would be to issue guidance to courts on when and how the Section 37 powers should be exercised, which is why I have tabled this amendment. Section 37 is the vehicle that gets private law cases into public law so that they can then be dealt with. I have set down a process to devise the way in which guidance for the courts on the consistent exercise of Section 37 powers should be done in cases where there have been allegations of harm or in particularly high conflict cases. My intention is to bring more consistency and rigour into the whole process. I have reason to believe that such guidance would be welcomed by the courts. I draw the attention of the House to the wording of my amendment. Subsection (2) refers to the guidance being used,"““in order to achieve the best interests of the child””." Subsection (3)(a) provides that the Secretary of State shall, before publishing the guidance, consult and seek approval from,"““experts in the development and safety of children””." It is of course important to consult child development experts but in this particular case people who know about the issues relating to the safety of children should also be consulted when devising such guidance. My amendment also provides that the draft of the guidance should be laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. That would make it quite a strong vehicle for bringing consistency and rigour into the system. Standing alongside the successful amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Gould of Potternewton and Lady Thornton, an amendment such as this would certainly help to satisfy all of us that the issues about potential harm to children are being addressed seriously. I beg to move.