I appreciate the point that the Minister made. It would be utterly inappropriate to make it a rule that an IRO should be legally qualified and in a position to determine whether there was a prima facie case under the Human Rights Act. That must be right. It would limit the field enormously and point in an improper and wrong direction—an irrelevant direction—as far as the qualities sought in an IRO are concerned. On the other hand, to say that it is for the courts to determine ignores the point with regard to the green baize door. The courts are not able to look through the green baize door; the IRO is able and is charged to do so. It may well be that the answer lies in what the Minister has already suggested, that if the IRO believes that there is a breach of human rights law, it is not for him or her to adjudicate on the matter, but to consult CAFCASS. If an undertaking can be given that the IRO would consult CAFCASS and say, ““I have deep suspicions about this case and would be grateful if you would formally consider it””, we would have the best of all worlds. Is that what is intended?
Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Elystan-Morgan
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 16 January 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Children and Young Persons Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c551GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:30:31 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_434993
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_434993
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_434993