| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.45 pm
Ms Armstrong: I am speaking in this debate largely because of my involvement, both professional and voluntary, in working with children. In that sense, I disagree with one of the things that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said. I do not see children as an ancillary issue in a divorce. Children and dealing with their problems are the prime concerns of our legislation--both in how we draft it and in how we see it. On that basis, I do not agree with the amendment.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is not present, because we come from similar backgrounds. He described himself as a practitioner in the area, and by that he meant that he was a lawyer. I like to talk about myself as a practitioner
who wants to ensure that matters never get to the lawyers. I want us to make less work for lawyers, by trying to ensure that we give families the right support and framework so that they can begin to resolve problems without getting that far. That is way beyond being optimistic, but none the less it ought to inform the way in which we approach legislation.
I am also sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East is not here because I, too, was interested in the prospect of Auntie Wu. The Auntie Wus are the people who work with families and children and who know them. So they are the people they go to first and foremost. They are the very people who are strongly urging us not to extend the period. From their experience of working with families, they know that, although a year seems like no time to us and we keep saying, "Goodness me, aren't the months going by quickly?", 12 months in a child's life is a very long time.
We should be debating, not the time space, but what happens and what we are prepared to do to enable a family to face what is happening within it and the effect that it is having on the children.
Measures that ought to be in the Bill are not. I hope that we shall consider such measures in Committee, to ensure that the effect on children of the procedures and of the breakdown in the relationship will be faced and that there will be no option other than to face that because of the way in which the process works.
For many years, I have been involved with what is now NCH Action for Children--in the old days, it was the National Children's Home.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:
A much better name.
Ms Armstrong:
Whatever the name, it is the work that the organisation does that I am concerned about. It is a Methodist charity, and I have been involved with it since I was young.
I also trained as a family case worker and was involved as a volunteer in setting up one of the early women's refuges, so I have some experience in working with families facing the worst and most difficult of problems. Without doubt, all the people involved went into marriage thinking that it would be wonderful and that it would solve all their problems. The majority went into marriage without any preparation and also had no preparation for becoming parents.
I grew up in a household that included my grandparents, with other members of the family close by. The family was always much more than merely my brother and me and our mother and father. Far fewer people have that sort of experience now than when I was growing up, because of the difference in social structure and the way in which families live. In such a structure, one learned about parenting because one was part of a larger family and a larger experience.
In recent years, through NCH Action for Children and the Methodist division of education, which has the children's section within it at the moment, we have been constructing and doing much work on parenting courses. They are for ordinary, everyday parents, not necessarily for parents who are in crisis. Indeed, the courses are really not suitable for those in crisis. They recognise that the problems that families confront these days are different and seem much more complex than in previous years.
The experience of working together over a period and thinking about one's problems with children and so forth has been instructive. Courses in schools have grown out of that experience. A school in Durham county is part of a pilot scheme for running parenting courses for adolescents.
I want the Government to think through how they can help people to confront what it means to enter a marriage relationship and to take on children in our society. The Bill cannot do all that, but if in passing it we miss the opportunity to face up to those things, we shall be making some serious mistakes. We must recognise that the world and our society have changed and that the demands on young couples these days are very different and more complex than they were even 25 years ago.
Divorce affects children strongly. The breakdown in the relationship of their parents also affects children. So, whether it is divorce or other forms of breakdown, the effect on children can be enormously damaging. NCH is one of the charities that is concerned with the problem. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has enormous experience in working with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and I have met and worked with him on the issue on a number of occasions.
The children's charities do not simply say, "It's all right, we'll look after your problems." They confront families with what they are doing when they allow relationships to break down. They try to work on that and help families face their problems. They try to find ways in which children can be supported, so that they feel that their integrity can remain no matter what their parents do. They try to allow children to face these terrible issues with some feeling of self-regard and strength.
However, if children's charities are to do that, they need the backing of a framework of legislation that says that when the law is brought in, the needs of the children will be paramount. We say that in the Children Act 1989, and we ought to say it in this legislation. The views of children--the voice of children--should be heard throughout the proceedings. The judge who is taking decisions should ask the sorts of questions that we believe should be asked so that that challenge is met. I hope that the Standing Committee will look at some of those issues.
The NCH began, and has continued, the mediation service in this country. It has been an important way of enabling families who are facing separation and divorce to do so with as little bitterness and recrimination as possible. The worst thing for children is that they are caught in the middle and used as one of the appendages, as one of the accessories, of a divorce--they are bargained over and put one against the other. We cannot frame legislation which allows that or which at least does not diminish it as much as possible.
It is our responsibility to diminish the manner in which children can be used in that way. We should frame the legislation so that we enable couples--whatever their anger with each other--to be helped to think about the future of the children.
Lady Olga Maitland:
The hon. Lady is talking about an important point. From her experience with mediation
Ms Armstrong:
It is a separate issue. The children's charities are involved in trying to support families, which they do in family centres and so on. Family centres work towards reconciliation. Mediation is a different thing. Mediators say, "You may have decided to separate or to divorce, but when you do so, the needs of the children must come to the forefront. The more you are bitter and the more recrimination there is, the less opportunity there will be for the child to grow up feeling respect for both parents. When children are not able to feel respect for parents, it has a damaging effect on them and on their ability to grow up and to mature."
I did a quick survey of mediation services last year when the White Paper was published, and I shall give hon. Members a few examples of what was said in response to a question about how they would face the increased levels of mediation that were envisaged in the Lord Chancellor's initial proposals. Hampshire Family Mediation said:
Lancashire Family Mediation Service said:
Calderdale FMS and Bradford and Keighley FMS said:
Cleveland FMS said:
Leeds Family Mediation Service said:
Worcestershire Family Mediation said:
9 pm
"We are unable to continue our level of provision unless we receive some additional funding."
"We are not equipped at the present time to cope with an increase in work which would inevitably occur if the changes are put into effect."
"We are dedicated, hard working people trying very hard to maintain professional standards on a wing and a prayer and very little support."
"Mediation within services is still in a fragile and vulnerable state due to unstable revenue funding."
"Help--the next three years are crucial to the survival of family mediation and the development of all issues. Mediation--without the support over this short term period it is difficult to see how our service can build on the expertise of 11 years and move into the public sector offering a professional well trained service."
"If we are to continue to offer an efficient service and to cope with the extra cases envisaged it is imperative that we get central government funding. Without this funding we would eventually be unable to continue to operate."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |