Clause 6 - Provision as to family assistance orders
Children and Adoption Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Jeremy Wright (Rugby and Kenilworth, Conservative)
I want to make several brief comments about clause 6, which deals with family assistance orders, and to raise again a concern that I raised on a preceding clause about the extra burden that it may put on the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service officers and their Welsh equivalents.
It is fair to point out that paragraph 72 of the explanatory notes states:
“We anticipate that there may be some resource implications associated with the reformed orders”—
meaning, family assistance orders—
“though this may be offset by a reduction in work associated with ongoing court proceedings where family assistance orders are used to facilitate and support contact arrangements.”
In other words, it appears that the Government anticipate that, where they go well, the extra family assistance orders will often pay for themselves, by enabling expensive court proceedings to be avoided. None the less, it seems to Conservative Members that some account ought to be taken of the fact that they may not always pay for themselves—indeed, in many cases they will not. It is clear from clause 6 that the intention in the Bill is that family assistance orders, rather than being an exception, should become the norm. One can see perfectly sensible reasons why that should be so, and no doubt there will be many situations in which the intervention of a family assistance order will be extremely productive. However, it is of concern that if they are to be used much more often and much more regularly, there will be substantial cost implications, given the extra work that CAFCASS and its Welsh equivalent will have to do.
It is also clear from the clause that the duration of the order will no longer be a minimum of six months but will become a minimum of 12. Again, that work load will be extended over a longer period, which is also a matter of concern.
I should be grateful for some reassurance from the Minister that consideration has been given not just to costs to CAFCASS, which may be offset by savings in court proceedings, but to what may happen if those costs are not offset and where the money is to be found given the comments that have been made about the burdens on CAFCASS officers arising from other provisions in the Bill and their existing responsibilities.
The other concern that I want to raise, and on which I invite the Minister to comment relates to the original provision dealing with family assistance orders—section 16 of the Children Act 1989, subsection (3) of which clearly indicates that family assistance orders cannot be made unless the court
“has obtained the consent of every person to be named in the order other than the child.”
I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether, with extensions to family assistance orders, that provision will remain. I should be grateful for reassurance.