Written evidence to be reported to the House

Part of Children, Schools and Families Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 2:33 pm on 21 January 2010.

Alert me about debates like this

Sir Mark Potter: I would like to see the results of the pilot, certainly. May I pick out three points where misconception has crept in?

One is in relation to adoption. If adoption proceedings are being taken in parallel with care proceedings, they are subject to directions I have given and they become public and open to the press. In private adoption proceedings which are not contested and do not involve abuse, the unanimous position of judges and absolutely everyone is that there is no legitimate reason for the press to be present. So many sensitivities are involved, largely for parents, as well as the child, and it simply is not a matter the public deserve to know about, so far as the intimate details are concerned.

Secondly, there were points when Mr. Satchwell spoke as if the media did not have access already. That development has taken place. This is all about the degree of reporting that is permitted after access has been granted. He was talking about how proceedings should be opened up, but they have already been opened up to the press—what is being controlled is the level of reporting.

Finally, there is a simple reason for warning people about the presence of the media. Judges, wherever they are, get on with their proceedings. If the press are not there, they do not have to concern themselves, even if of their own motion or on the application of the parties they impose reporting restrictions. The reason judges have to be told that the press are there is that from that moment they have to keep actively in their minds, “Might there be a problem here about reporting?”