Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

My Lords, I support Amendments 33 and 34. I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, to present his apologies as he is unable to be here to take part in this debate. I will also speak to other specific amendments that are in my name. Of course I recognise the need to save money, but equally we must remember the importance of the paramountcy of the welfare of the child in family cases, as set out in Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989, which is still good law. My amendments are all practical and based on practical and personal experience of how family cases work. In this part of the Bill there is a real danger that the welfare of the child may be downgraded and even overlooked if these amendments and subsequent amendments that affect children are ignored by the Government. Amendments 33 and 34 show how children are affected by civil and family law proceedings, either indirectly or directly, and recognise that children have separate interests to their parents—it hardly needs to be said that they are obviously far less well equipped to represent themselves and their interests. There is a serious gap that will, from time to time, need to be plugged. Amendments 33 and 34 refer to one group in particular: children who are involved in immigration proceedings. There are five possible situations that may affect children on immigration issues: they may be facing separation from their parents because of a decision to remove a parent where the child has British citizenship; they may be facing separation because of a decision to remove the child from the United Kingdom although the parents may be here; children who are refugees or whose parents are refugees may be unable to join or be joined by their parents; or they may be unaccompanied asylum seeker children applying for an extension of discretionary leave to remain. I shall deal with victims of trafficking who are also covered by immigration issues under Amendment 61A. I will move on to Amendments 39, 40 and 41, to speak about child abduction both internationally and in England—or in the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Minister will know that children who are abducted from one part of the United Kingdom to another country outside the United Kingdom will almost always come under the international Hague convention, because some 90 countries support it. However, internal child abduction also arises on a regular basis and is an equally important risk in parental disputes. To my dismay, there appears to be no provision to support the children and the parent who has lost the child through child abduction. Ninety-one per cent of the members of Resolution, the family law solicitors, say that abduction is a real risk in the cases which they and their clients are dealing with. I shall cite a case which was referred to earlier this evening by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan—she dealt with Belfast and Barnstaple, while I have Cornwall and Cumbria, but it is all exactly the same story. If a child is taken from Basildon to Belfast—which is in fact under a different legal system, but within the United Kingdom—or indeed from Cornwall to Cumbria, where it is the same legal system, there is a very real danger that that child may never see the left-behind parent again, and the left-behind parent will not have the chance to look after and take an interest in that child. It is absolutely crucial that the left-behind parent gets to the court quickly, to get the relevant orders to know where the child and the parent—usually the mother—are living, and to get orders for the child to be returned to its home. It is necessary to make immediate and urgent applications to a judge. However, there is no provision for this, although there is provision, as there has to be, under the Hague convention. Amendment 41 deals with the various orders that are required to be made for the left-behind parent to get to the court. I hope that this is inadvertent on the part of the Government. I hope that they have simply overlooked this particular specialist form of family law, where the child is seriously at risk in most cases if she or he does not have a chance to retain a relationship with the father. Amendment 42 is rather specialised; it refers to cases where a vulnerable adult—often a woman who has been badly treated by her partner—goes to court for a protection order, and has to face the man who she says has been abusing her, and who will be cross-examining her. It is an extremely unsatisfactory situation, and for the woman—or occasionally the man—who is the victim to have to be cross-examined by the alleged perpetrator, is a form of extra abuse. I move to Amendment 51, which is, if I may respectfully say to the Minister, particularly important. It deals with the issue of mediation. I am totally in support of mediation. It is the most sensible arrangement you can possibly have as far as it goes. However, the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, gave an interesting lecture some time ago in which he criticised the Government for treating mediation as the panacea for all ills, pointing out that it only went so far. Indeed, it does only go so far. I am totally supportive of the good intentions of the Government on mediation. However, Resolution—I come to it again—assess that 41 per cent of its cases are incapable of mediation. There are occasions when the mediator throws up his or hands in horror and says, ““I cannot possibly mediate in this case””. It is perfectly obvious that forced mediation is no mediation at all. Perhaps I may respectfully say that the Government have failed to take on board that there is a group of parents who for a variety of reasons—including drink, drugs, mental health issues or, if I can use the phrase, sheer bloody-mindedness—will not agree to anything. Over the years I tried those cases again and again. The only way that we ever got the chance of a settlement or a proper, sensible outcome, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, will also say, was by two lawyers banging the heads of the parents together. For some of those intractable cases, they got a result. Collaborative law is another way of getting such a result. I will not go through Amendment 51 at this hour, but I would ask the Minister to look at each paragraph of the amendment for the circumstances in which it would be the mediator and not the parties who would say, ““This case is not fit for mediation. It needs to go to court and it needs lawyers””. I make no apology for reminding the Minister that the welfare of the child is paramount. In these cases, it is the child who suffers. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the Norgrove report on family law. In that report emphasis was placed on that very narrow line between public and private law where risk to the child overlapped the two. How on earth will the judge deal with the really serious risk factors where two parents are unfit to make sensible decisions about what should happen to their child; where social workers cannot be brought into the case if they do not agree and judges do not have the power to make social workers start care proceedings; and where guardians are not all that easy to find? CAFCASS is doing an excellent job these days but it is at the limit of its ability to cope. If judges feel that the lawyers are not there to try to settle the case and deal with the worries and needs of the children, he will have to bring in a guardian, which will cause an enormous delay and the child will suffer. I should like the Minister to take on board the fact that parents are creating the problems. They are not solving the problems, and they are not able to solve them without a combination of the judge, the lawyers and, often, the guardian. In the absence of lawyers, I do not know how this group of private law cases will manage. As to Amendment 51, there are also situations where one parent—very often the mother, often for no good reason—refuses to have contact with the other parent and absolutely refuses to turn up to mediation. The mediation would not get off the ground and the case would have to go to court. The child is being deprived of a parent and, without lawyers, the judge would have great difficulties. That is quite apart from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on the clogging-up of the courts. I know from my experience that a case involving two litigants absolutely intending to fight that would not take less than a week. Absolutely rightly, the Government are keen to speed up public law cases. They are very keen to get adoptions dealt with quickly. Private law cases will clog the courts to the exclusion of public law and adoption cases. Finally, Amendment 52 deals with the potential cross-examination of the child by a parent. Where the child is making allegations about the way in which the parent has behaved and there is no legal aid, the parent against whom the allegations are made may find himself cross-examining his own child, which is another form of abuse of the child. It would be extremely serious if that took place. I ask the Minister to reflect on these situations—which are not intended to open the floodgates, but intended to deal with specific problems that are very real and cannot just be ridden over as if they do not matter.