Parents Against Injustice
Parents Against Injustice
FAMILY LAW WEEK NEWS
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed50496
6 January 2010
Parliamentary briefing paper urges caution over reforms in the Children, Schools and Families Bill
The Interdisciplinary Alliance for Children, a diverse grouping of children-related organisations, which includes the FLBA, the ALC, and the Law Society Children and Family sub-committees, has published a parliamentary briefing paper on Part 2 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill.
Part 2 of the Bill proposes to relax the rules on what can be published by the media in addition to observing family hearings.
As the paper explains, the Bill sets out two stages to implement these measures. Stage 1 of the Bill would allow some reporting of family proceedings. In practice, the Alliance says, Stage 1 may result in little difference to the current position. However, if passed in its current form, enabling clauses would permit the Lord Chancellor to move to Stage 2 and to relax the rules on reporting sensitive personal information (as defined by the Bill). The effect of this, in the opinion of the Alliance, could be that sensitive personal information protected in Stage 1 of the Bill, might then be published unless a court specifically imposed restrictions.
The Alliance states that it is in favour of making the work of family courts more transparent to the wider public but is deeply concerned that any relaxation of the rules on publishing sensitive personal information will increase yet further the likelihood of identification of children and families in press reporting. It says that there are alternative methods of improving transparency which would not subject already highly vulnerable children to a range of further risks.
The Alliance is also seriously concerned that the proposals - particularly in relation to future changes in Stage 2 - have been tabled without adequate consultation or evaluation of their impact.
The paper concludes that:
* These issues are too important to be the subject of rushed and ill-thought-out provisions.
* The possible changes envisaged in Stage 2 should be the result of proper consultation, sensible dialogue and adequate Parliamentary scrutiny.
* There should be no further changes in the absence of an independent evaluation of media access to courts post April 2009, and of the provision on Stage 1 of the Bill.
* The Joint Committee on Human Rights should scrutinise Part 2 of the Bill.
The briefing paper can be accessed here http://www.nagalro.com/docs/Alliance%20for%20Children%20Parliamenta...
and an article outlining the changes proposed by the Bill can be read here
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed46512
Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009-10
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/childrenschoolsandfamil...
6 January 2010
Parliamentary briefing paper urges caution over reforms in the Children, Schools and Families Bill
The Interdisciplinary Alliance for Children, a diverse grouping of children-related organisations, which includes the FLBA, the ALC, and the Law Society Children and Family sub-committees, has published a parliamentary briefing paper on Part 2 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill.
Part 2 of the Bill proposes to relax the rules on what can be published by the media in addition to observing family hearings.
As the paper explains, the Bill sets out two stages to implement these measures. Stage 1 of the Bill would allow some reporting of family proceedings. In practice, the Alliance says, Stage 1 may result in little difference to the current position. However, if passed in its current form, enabling clauses would permit the Lord Chancellor to move to Stage 2 and to relax the rules on reporting sensitive personal information (as defined by the Bill). The effect of this, in the opinion of the Alliance, could be that sensitive personal information protected in Stage 1 of the Bill, might then be published unless a court specifically imposed restrictions.
The Alliance states that it is in favour of making the work of family courts more transparent to the wider public but is deeply concerned that any relaxation of the rules on publishing sensitive personal information will increase yet further the likelihood of identification of children and families in press reporting. It says that there are alternative methods of improving transparency which would not subject already highly vulnerable children to a range of further risks.
The Alliance is also seriously concerned that the proposals - particularly in relation to future changes in Stage 2 - have been tabled without adequate consultation or evaluation of their impact.
The paper concludes that:
* These issues are too important to be the subject of rushed and ill-thought-out provisions.
* The possible changes envisaged in Stage 2 should be the result of proper consultation, sensible dialogue and adequate Parliamentary scrutiny.
* There should be no further changes in the absence of an independent evaluation of media access to courts post April 2009, and of the provision on Stage 1 of the Bill.
* The Joint Committee on Human Rights should scrutinise Part 2 of the Bill.
The briefing paper can be accessed here http://www.nagalro.com/docs/Alliance%20for%20Children%20Parliamenta...
and an article outlining the changes proposed by the Bill can be read here
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed46512
Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009-10
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/childrenschoolsandfamil...
Add a Comment
© 2024 Created by Alison J Stevens.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Parents Against Injustice to add comments!
Join Parents Against Injustice