This consultation paper outlines proposals for improving outcomes for families and children who come into contact with the family justice system by providing an effective mechanism for supporting inter-agency working.
Our aim is to ensure that this mechanism supports the achievement of common objectives and a genuine and productive dialogue between all those involved in the family justice system to promote best practice and consistency.
This consultation is aimed at all those who work in or have contact with the family justice system in England & Wales and especially those who represent the views of families and children. It is being conducted in line with the Code of Practice on Written Consultation issued by the Cabinet Office. (The Code criteria are set out in Annex D).
An initial impact assessment indicates that judicial office holders, the legal profession, social services departments, CAFCASS, child health professionals and those groups representing users of the family justice system are likely to be particularly affected. The Government does not anticipate that its proposals will lead to additional costs for businesses, charities or the voluntary sector and, therefore, a Regulatory Impact Assessment has not been prepared. However, any comments that consultees have on this issue will be taken into account in the Government's consideration of the way forward following consultation.
Copies of the consultation paper are being sent to organisations including:
Please send your response by 5 July 2002 to:
Ray Owen
Lord Chancellor's Department
Family Policy Division
3rd Floor
Southside
105 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QT
Tel: 020-7210 1242
Fax: 020-7210 1265
Email: Ray Owen
Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent when they respond.
The Department may wish to publish responses to this consultation document in due course. Please ensure your response is marked clearly if you wish your response or name to be kept confidential. Confidential responses will be included in any statistical summary of numbers of comments received and views expressed.
Paper copies of this consultation paper can be obtained from Esporanca Harvey at the above address or by phoning 020-7210 1242.
The creation of an interdisciplinary structure for the family justice system has been high on my wish list for several years. The delivery of a high quality service to all those who enter the family justice system, whether as applicants or as respondents, must depend on informed collaboration. No one contributor can contribute more than his own best effort. But that best effort can be swiftly nullified by the shortcomings of any one of the many other crucial contributors to outcome. Whilst this applies equally to all our systems of justice it is more acutely true of the family justice system where the judge holds an inquisitorial duty and where the diversity of other professional contributions is so extensive.
Our needs and sense of deprivation were exposed by the termination of the Children Act Advisory Committee. As Chairman of the President of the Family Division's Interdisciplinary Committee, and equally as Chairman of the National Interdisciplinary Forum, I have consistently campaigned for an effective interdisciplinary support structure designed and resourced to raise the standard of performance and service within the family justice system. Equally I have consistently voiced my convictions at the meetings of the National Convention. The first sign of a successful outcome came in the Autumn of 1999 when the Lord Chancellor's Department signified that the case had been proved in principle if not in detail.
The next milestone on the road was the Lord Chancellor's approval, signified the following spring, for the creation of a unified structure throughout the jurisdiction. This approval conferred no special benefit on the family justice system. After all the criminal justice system has had the support of its Consultative Council for some years. To those of us whose first commitment is to the family justice system there often comes a sense, perhaps a misunderstood sense, that our needs are sometimes subjugated to the needs of our bigger brothers.
The publication of this consultation paper marks the third milestone on the road to our goal. There have been many contributors to its creation. First, as their report to the Lord Chancellor on the activity of the National Interdisciplinary Forum makes plain, there has been consistent and enthusiastic support from all within both the national and local forums. That enthusiasm and creativity has fuelled some of the journey. I would also record the contribution of the designated judges who from their care centres have generously responded to surveys which I have conducted to establish both the state of the business committee and the forum in all our care centres around the country as well as the extent of judicial support for the creation of a new structure. Finally for the design and drafting of the consultation paper itself thanks are due to Judge Valerie Pearlman and Judge Susan Darwell-Smith, both of whom have made invaluable suggestions as the draft has developed. The consultation paper is to be widely disseminated and I can only ask and hope that those who receive it will give generously of their time to make their individual responses.
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Thorpe
The family justice system plays a crucial role in protecting families at times of stress and crisis - victims of violence and abuse rely on the family justice system for protection and when families break down it is the family justice system which seeks to protect the best interests of children.
The family justice system cannot work effectively in delivering better outcomes for families and children without the contribution of all those professions and agencies involved. But we do not currently harness the innovations and best practice on the ground in a way which maximises our opportunities to improve the system in the interests of all those who rely on it to protect their best interests.
This consultation paper seeks to provide a mechanism for promoting more effective inter-agency working, for identifying and disseminating the ideas which will really make a difference to families and children.
I am enormously grateful to all those who have contributed to the production of this paper, especially Lord Justice Thorpe and members of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law for their commitment to promoting more effective partnerships in the family justice system.
Rosie Winterton
Parliamentary Secretary
Lord Chancellor's Department
Delivering an effective family justice system which promotes better outcomes for families and children cannot be achieved by Government, judges and lawyers alone - social services departments in children's cases, the police in domestic violence matters, mediators in divorce cases among many others all have a vital role to play.
It is therefore crucial that there are structures in place to support and promote effective inter-agency working and to develop best practice and consistency. While there are a number of advisory groups and committees which support the family justice system, there is currently a good deal of duplication with no one structure which ensures a truly co-ordinated approach.
This consultation paper outlines proposals to achieve that co-ordinated approach and to meet the commitment given in the Government's White Paper Adoption - a new approach, published on 21 December 2000, to improve the structures supporting effective inter-agency co-operation in the family justice system. Responses are therefore sought not on whether there should be such a structure but how this is best achieved.
This paper is not seeking to replace or amend committees or other mechanisms to promote inter-agency working in areas beyond the justice system. However, we would welcome consultees' views on the interrelationships and possible overlaps between our proposed structure and other consultative groups concerned with promoting the welfare of families and particularly children.
We appreciate that there is a fine line to be drawn between promoting better ways of interdisciplinary working and operating what may seem to some as just another consultative forum. However we believe that one way, perhaps the best way, of facilitating closer working relationships is to look at devising practical solutions to practical problems in a manner which builds greater mutual understanding.
The key recommendations are as follows:
there should be one overarching Family Justice Council covering the whole family justice system
the Council should be supported by a series of specialist sub-committees to address specific objectives in detail as and when required
the Council should have direct links with local court based groups to ensure that there is a constructive dialogue between national bodies and local practitioners.
The Council should contribute to better outcomes for families and, especially children, by:
promoting better interdisciplinary working, co-ordination and communication in the family justice system
identifying and promoting best practice in family matters
providing guidance and direction to ensure consistency of practice across the family justice system and reduce delay
encouraging inter-agency commitment to the principles set down by legislation
identifying priorities for research into the effectiveness of the family justice system
ensuring that the key messages from research are disseminated, especially where this concerns the views of those using the family justice system
providing advice to the Government on changes to legislation, practice and procedure which should improve the workings of the family justice system.
This section of the consultation paper is split into four sections:
Questions on which we would welcome consultees' views are highlighted in each section.
Why is interdisciplinary working so important?
The complexity of family cases and the importance of effective interdisciplinary working to meet the needs of children and families is probably best illustrated by two case examples, both of which involve children.
| The first concerns a child at immediate risk of harm.
|
| Divorce of couple married for eight years, two children of four and six.
|
In both of these cases, if any one of the agencies fails to play its part, the result could be detrimental to the welfare of the family. A case may be significantly delayed and delay linked to poorer outcomes in life for children, especially for children in care. Dame Margaret Booth's 1996 study of delay in Public Law Children Act [Endnote 1] cases identified a lack of effective inter-agency communication and co-operation as a factor in delay within the court system. An adversarial approach may encourage conflict, which again is linked to poorer outcomes for the family, particularly in terms of the potential for children to be able to maintain a positive relationship with both of their parents. Delay and conflict also contribute towards increased cost for both the family and the system as a whole.
Interdisciplinary co-operation now
There are a number of existing mechanisms to encourage inter-agency working in the family justice system:
those dealing with operational matters at local courts, such as Family Court Business Committees and Court User Groups
subject based committees which have been set up locally or regionally to deal with specific subject areas, for example domestic violence
advisory groups set up to advise Government on specific family justice issues, such as the Ancillary Relief Advisory Group
committees with a more general remit to encourage partnership working which may cover local or regional areas or all of England & Wales.
Local committees
There are three main types of court based local committees: Family Court Business Committees, Family Court Forums and Court User Groups.
Family Court Business Committees (FCBCs)
Family Court Business Committees involve the principal agencies engaged in dealing with children's cases such as the judiciary, magistrates, justices' clerks, local authorities, the legal profession, officers of the Children & Family Court Advisory & Support Service (CAFCASS)[Endnote 2]. Family Court Business Committees are based at care centres [Endnote 3] and their role is to identify and seek to resolve practical problems with the operation of the Children Act 1989 e.g. communication over the transfer of cases between courts and ensuring that local practices regarding the timetabling of cases are consistent with what local agencies can deliver. Not all courts and agencies which send cases to the care centre can be represented on the Committee, because of the implications for the Committee's size and effectiveness. This problem has sometimes been met by courts taking it in turns to be represented. However, in other areas the problem has led to some courts and agencies feeling disenfranchised from the process.
Family Court Forums (FCF)
Family Court Forums are also based at care centres and again have a Children Act focus. They have a rather wider remit than Family Court Business Committees, involving organisations such as local children's groups, the police and health professionals. These groups are more concerned with increasing inter-agency understanding and sharing best practice. There is a wide divergence in the operation of these committees. Some are very active and have been engaged in drafting best practice protocols and inviting guest speakers to broaden the participants' knowledge and understanding of different agencies within the family justice system. However, others have disbanded or merged with Family Court Business Committees because of a perceived lack of an effective role. One possible reason for this is that many of the Family Court Forum members are also members of the Family Court Business Committee and perceive the meetings to be a duplication of effort and waste of time despite the different focus. Some forums have also seen their role supplanted by other inter-agency groups with similar interests.
Regionally the work of Family Court Business Committees and Family Court Forums is often co-ordinated through circuit [Endnote 4] conferences arranged under the auspices of Family Division Liaison Judges.
Court User Groups
Many county and family proceedings courts host user groups to obtain customer feedback on their services. The operational focus means that in care centres there is a good deal of duplication with Family Court Business Committees and again there is often a high percentage of common membership. In some areas this has led to groups being merged. However in smaller centres these groups provide the only means for building good working relationships with other professionals in the area. They are particularly important for those family proceedings courts which are not asked to participate in the local Family Court Business Committee.
Ad hoc groups
The focus of existing court based groups on Children Act matters or on procedural matters has led to the establishment of a number of local ad hoc groups based at courts around the country which discuss topics such as domestic violence or family support services.
There is currently no mechanism for bringing the contributions of all these groups together so that the many creative best practice solutions they devise can be shared nationally. Both the Family Court Business Committees and the Family Court Forums used to report to a National Children Act Advisory Committee. This was abolished in 1997. Since then discussion across England & Wales takes place through a biennial conference. While widely regarded as an important contribution to effective inter-agency understanding there has been concern that this mechanism cannot provide the day to day scrutiny of practice which can enable problems to be identified and action taken to deliver tangible improvements in services and outcomes for families and children.
National Groups
At national level there are currently two key bodies.
The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law (ABFL)
ABFL advises the Lord Chancellor on family policy generally rather than simply its operation in practice. It was set up with specific reference to the implementation of the Family Law Act 1996. The members of the Board were appointed through an open selection process because of their experience and expertise in family policy rather than having a specific representative role concerning their respective professions. The Board was given a five year term on appointment which is due to expire in April 2002.
A Sub-Committee of the Advisory Board concentrates on children matters. Again the members who participate in the committee are not expected to represent the views of their constituent bodies. Although the Committee's work relates to the whole Children Act jurisdiction, not all participants in the system are involved; for example there are no representatives from the magistrates' courts service. The Committee has produced important consultation papers on the issue of child contact in cases where there has been domestic violence and more recently the facilitation and enforcement of contact orders generally. The Committee's term also expires in April 2002.
The President's Interdisciplinary Committee
This Committee operates under the auspices of the President of the Family Division with the specific purpose of encouraging interdisciplinary co-operation. The Committee meets twice a year and includes (among others) members of the judiciary, the magistracy, legal profession, health professionals and academics. Additionally the Committee has accepted a special responsibility for interdisciplinary education and training by adopting an initiative launched by Professors Murch & Hooper in 1998. Furthermore the Committee is available to undertake specific tasks such as investigating the current provision of forensic expertise with a view to strengthening training and eradicating local anomalies. A biennial conference is organised, funded by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of Health. The discussion papers for this conference are published, widely disseminated (including to all care centres) and available for purchase. The most recent conference took place in September 2001.
A number of other committees are also organised in the President's name, for example the International Law Committee and Adoption Committee. While the membership of some of these committees is shared there is no formal linkage between any of them.
While members of the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of Health attend both ABFL and the President's Interdisciplinary Committee, again there is no direct link between either of these committees.
National Interdisciplinary Forum
In addition to these national bodies a third, the National Interdisciplinary Forum, also took on a role promoting interdisciplinary co-operation. Originally the Forum was set up to co-ordinate the efforts of the local forums convened to provide support to the pilots of information meetings envisaged under Part II of the Family Law Act 1996. These forums included representatives of mediation organisations and children's groups, giving a wider focus than some of the existing operational committees set up under the Children Act. These local groups provided feedback to the National Interdisciplinary Forum on the effects of the information meeting pilots on each professional group involved and the relationships between them. As such the local groups developed a good understanding of local inter-agency relationships. Many of these local groups said that they had found the opportunity to discuss issues of joint concern extremely valuable and that the mechanism might serve a useful longer term purpose to encourage interdisciplinary working.
In its final report, the National Forum made recommendations for improved inter-agency working, calling for a new national structure which would enable some of the partnerships established through the local networks to be maintained. The only mechanisms currently in place across the country were set up to support the Children Act. The National Interdisciplinary Forum saw the need for a structure which would cover all family matters, acknowledging that many areas of family law are inter-related. For example, the majority of Children Act applications arise during the course of divorce proceedings.
Other committees
In addition there are a number of committees, which have been set up to look at specific issues. For example the Ancillary Relief Advisory Group (ARAG) was initiated by the legal profession who sought to make recommendations on improvements to the operation of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 during the passage of the 1996 Family Law Bill. This group was adopted by the Lord Chancellor and has since gone on to produce revised rules for a more effective ancillary relief system. Another working group chaired by His Honour Judge Allweis has looked at the procedure under section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act concerning the arrangements for children in divorce cases. These are both non-statutory groups which have the flexibility to adapt their membership, terms of reference and frequency of contact to meet the needs of the subject under review.
The establishment of the Children and Family Court Advisory & Support Service (CAFCASS) also gave rise to a number of advisory committees, such as the judicial advisory group and ones representing voluntary sector support services and children's and family interest groups.
Agencies have also set up internal and bilateral arrangements to share best practice. For example the Family Law Committees of the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks Society discuss issues of national concern and disseminate best practice. Child Concern tackles issues concerning child protection in the North West. The Family Law Committee of the Law Society has worked with the Solicitors' Family Law Association and Family Law Bar Association to develop a best practice protocol.
There is therefore a good deal of inter-agency discussion and co-operative working. Indeed in some cases there can be too much, with some professionals finding themselves attending a number of groups but discussing the same topics at each. What appears to be lacking is a means of drawing together the existing arrangements to identify issues of common concern and the best practice, which could provide national solutions.
Objectives
The aim of this consultation paper is to seek to fill this identified gap and to develop an integrated interdisciplinary support structure for family matters, which will deliver better outcomes for families and especially children by:
promoting better interdisciplinary working, co-ordination and communication in the family justice system in the pursuit of shared objectives
identifying and promoting best practice in family matters
encouraging inter-agency commitment to the principles set down by legislation
providing advice to the government on changes to legislation, practice and procedure which may improve the workings of the family justice system
providing a means of improving effectiveness at local level as well as across England & Wales
reducing duplication of effort.
| QUESTIONS:
|
The content of this consultation paper has been influenced by feedback from a number of initiatives which reached similar conclusions, that the existing structures supporting effective inter-agency working in family matters needed to be reviewed and improved upon.
The issues can perhaps best be summarised by the findings of the 1999 President's Conference where the need to improve the effectiveness of inter-agency working was the topic of three discussion papers. All three papers raised concerns that existing arrangements :
All of these factors were working against inter-agency co-operation rather than supporting it and so inhibiting improvements in services and outcomes for families and children.
Lack of purpose & momentum
The groups which appear to deliver most have a clear objective. For example the original focus of the Ancillary Relief Advisory Group was to consider the need for reform of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 during the passage of the Family Law Bill in 1996. But the group's work developed to identify, pilot, evaluate and deliver an ancillary relief system which would reduce delay and cost for divorcing couples ensuring full disclosure of information to enable a fair outcome for both parties.
By contrast some of the longer established groups have lost that sense of purpose. This has led to meetings cancelled for absence of items for the agenda. For example the Family Court Business Committees were set up to monitor the implementation of the Children Act. Ten years later their role has lost the sense of immediacy and purpose and focus on delivery which made many of the committees so effective in their early days.
Lack of central direction
Problems have been exacerbated by a lack of direction centrally as to what is wanted from the committees. Family Court Business Committees potentially provide an excellent means of disseminating best practice on the Children Act among all agencies involved in the family justice system and also a method of consulting those agencies as to problems and possible solutions. But they are not consistently used as such. Of the local committees, only those set up to support the information meeting pilots consistently reported to a national body which could then take an overview of the position across England & Wales.
Minutes of all Family Court Business Committees used to be collated and analysed centrally for issues of common concern or best practice. This system fell into disuse because:
some local committees decided to meet less frequently or not at all
local committees were not routinely consulted on delivering change (particularly following the abolition of the Children Act Advisory Committee)
local committees stopped sending in their minutes for analysis and minutes were not chased so the chance of a national overview was lost
local committees received no feedback on how their minutes were used so local committees had no sense that their contributions were valued.
The cyclical effect of no use being made of the committees leading to fewer meetings leading to even less use of the committees has undermined their potential to be effective. In particular it has meant that there is no straightforward way of identifying national problems and disseminating potential solutions and best practice in the interests of families and children. There has not been effective communication between local and national bodies. In the circumstances it is not surprising that some local committees have felt let down and undervalued, believing their contributions have been wasted.
Duplication
The lack of a clear structure has resulted in many of the committees covering similar ground, even if these groups have a slightly different emphasis. The resulting duplication is wasting that most precious resource, people's time, without producing the equivalent benefits. This problem has been mentioned specifically in relation to Family Court Business Committees and Family Court Forums where meetings may occur on the same day with similar membership and agendas.
Overlapping membership
Overlapping membership, particularly of national and specialist committees, can give the impression, however inaccurate, that influence is in the hands of a few people. There is a regional dimension to this, as many of the committees on specific subject areas meet in and have a majority of their members from London.
Unrepresentative Membership
A further perceived problem is that members of national committees do not always have a representative role. Their views are their own and no one else's. This can lead to a process which seems rather undemocratic. It can also make it difficult to deliver change, if the committee member cannot subsequently secure the agreement of their organisation. This is also an issue for locally based committees. For example several local authorities and family proceedings courts may feed into one care centre, but often only one of each will be represented at Family Court Business Committee meetings. If that representative does not consult colleagues, then his or her contribution may not reflect the actual picture.
Legal bias
Because many of the local committees concerning the operation of the family justice system are inevitably based at courts and involve substantial input from the judiciary and the legal profession, some of the agencies who attend meetings have expressed the view that their input has been marginalised. Sometimes meetings have to be held in courtrooms which can further exacerbate the feeling of some agencies that they are there as supporting players with the judge in charge rather than being part of a genuine partnership.
Uneven attendance
All these problems of lack of purpose and duplication have led to falling membership and attendance at committees which has further reduced their effectiveness. For example, Family Court Forums in many areas now take place infrequently or are cancelled because of lack of interest or agenda items.
Lack of clarity regarding resourcing
What can seem minor issues such as who pays for refreshments and who takes and disseminates minutes can cause real friction and in some areas have led to as much discussion of administrative arrangements as to the substance of business. This sends out signals to those participating in committees about the value attached to this work.
| QUESTIONS:
|
Introduction
We believe that the best way forward is to integrate the existing arrangements so that one set of local committees on family work feeds into one overarching council for England & Wales. This Council should work towards agreed objectives for improving the outcomes for individuals and families who come into contact with the family justice system, and especially the outcomes for children.
We believe that this will:
provide a constructive means of harnessing the expertise of all those involved in the family justice system to improve outcomes for families and, especially, for children
provide a more effective mechanism for consultation and identifying and disseminating best practice
enable a purposeful dialogue between national bodies and local practitioners
provide the opportunity to take a holistic approach
reduce duplication.
A new national Council
What should the Council be called?
Our initial suggestion is that the Committee is called the Family Justice Council, to mirror the Civil Justice Council.
What would the Family Justice Council do?
We would need to set the Council the challenging target of improving the outcomes for those who come into contact with the family justice system, and especially children. For example, setting clear objectives for how the family justice system can contribute towards better outcomes for families will also enable the Council to judge its effectiveness.
We have identified the following areas in which specific objectives could be set:
the family justice system should protect those at risk
procedures should be non-adversarial wherever possible, and particularly where children are involved, so as to enable families to maintain a relationship post legal proceedings where this is safe and in the best interests of the children
all those who use the family justice system should feel their voice has been heard, especially children
those using the family justice system should have access to appropriate advice and information, including on alternatives to court based remedies and the wider support services available to them
delay should be reduced
the cost to all those involved should be minimised
procedures should be clear and comprehensible to all who need to use them.
What would its terms of reference be?
In many ways the terms of reference of this consultation paper could form a substantial part of the terms of reference of the Council. Its focus would be delivering better outcomes for children and families by promoting an interdisciplinary approach to the operation of legislation, policy and practice. Its principal role would be to advise on whether existing practices and procedures provide the most effective way of handling family justice and actively promoting best practice.
Possible terms of reference
Ensure the family justice system delivers the best possible outcomes for families and children by:
promoting better interdisciplinary working, co-ordination and communication in the family justice system
identifying and promoting best practice in the family justice system
providing guidance and direction to ensure consistency of practice across the family justice system and reduce delay
encouraging inter-agency commitment to the principles set down by legislation and the objectives for the family justice system
identifying priorities for research into the effectiveness of the family justice system
ensuring that the key messages from research are disseminated, especially where this concerns the views of those using the family justice system
providing advice to the government on changes to legislation, practice and procedure which should improve the workings of the family justice system.
What would the Council look like?
We appreciate that family justice is too broad a topic to expect one national council to undertake detailed work on specific subject areas. We also want to build on the excellent contribution made by those subject-focussed committees such as the Children Act Sub-Committee of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law. We therefore propose that the Council presides over a series of subject based sub-committees which could provide the focus needed on specific subject areas. Those given in the diagram below are examples only. These sub-committees need not be formally constituted all the time but could meet only when there is a specific issue to be tackled. Such a structure would still enable the Council to maintain an overview of family justice as a whole.
How would the Council work?
The agenda of the national council could be divided into three parts:
This would ensure real two way communication between central government and those working in family justice locally.
The Chair of the Council, in consultation with the secretariat, would approve the specific agenda for each meeting, acknowledging that the agenda will only be able to focus on a certain number of priority issues at each meeting.
We suggest that the council should meet four times a year. Minutes of the Council would be disseminated to local committees as well as the core membership of the Council and any members seconded for particular items of business.
The Council should be asked to produce an annual report, reporting to the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health on the operation of the family justice system and encapsulating the best practice and guidance disseminated through the year. The Council could also host a national biennial conference, along the lines of the successful events organised by the President of the Family Division.
| QUESTIONS:
|
The need for a proactive secretariat
For this two way communication system to work effectively the Council needs to be supported by a proactive central secretariat to ensure that:
the Council is kept up to date on common problems and good ideas identified at local level
local committees are kept informed and are consulted on the work of the Council.
We suggest that the secretariat, which will be provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department, should be responsible for:
ensuring local committees are consulted on key issues
collating responses to consultation, identifying common problems and local innovations
providing the local committees with feedback on how their contribution has been used
providing the local committees with feedback on Council meetings
improving access to information, guidance and best practice e.g. through use of websites, e-mail etc.
disseminating best practice and ideas, perhaps through a regular newsletter or magazine in addition to an annual report. This could include advertising seminars or conferences of potential interest.
| QUESTIONS:
|
The membership of the National Council
The Council needs to ensure all those agencies involved with family work are represented, but must not be so large as to be unwieldy. We believe that the Council should not involve more than 20-25 core members plus secondees to deal with specific items. The key word here is "representation". A number of previous bodies have had difficulties because some of those sitting on the committees did so on a personal basis rather than representing the interest of their particular profession.
We propose that each of the organisations identified would select its own representative who would serve for a limited period on the Council, perhaps two-three years. If this suggestion is accepted there may need to be some staggering of departures from the Council to ensure continuity.
There are two potential problems with this approach. The first is that it could lead to the Council being unrepresentative, for example the Council may have a gender bias or not have any representation from ethnic communities. The second is that, while the key professions and organisations involved in the family justice system need to be represented on the committee, the absence of any outside perspective (for example from family policy academics) could lead to the Council becoming rather insular. We would welcome consultees' views on this point.
It will be crucial that the Council achieves a proper balance between effective representation and a manageable size. We appreciate that the Council will need to keep other interested bodies informed of its work and so we have also suggested a list of organisations who should be copied into the papers of the committee routinely and seconded for specific items. We have listed these suggestions separately.
Possible Members
The following Government departments would attend routinely:
Other possible member or groups to be kept informed and invited to meetings as necessary
| QUESTIONS:
|
Sub-Committees
Areas requiring more detailed work could be referred to a sub-committee of the Council. Each of the sub-committees would consist of members with a specific expertise in that area. The membership need not be limited to members of the Council. For example a sub-committee on domestic violence is likely to require input from judges, lawyers, police officers, refuge staff and groups representing the victims of violence. Sub-committees need not be limited to set legal subjects, for example a group might be needed to work on providing information to court users. The committees are likely to need a flexible membership and terms of reference depending on the specific purpose for which a sub-committee is deemed necessary. The sub-committees should be time-limited and/or reviewed regularly to ensure that there is still a need for them to meet. The committees would be required to report back to the national council on their work. This link to the national council would achieve an effective overview of the family justice system as a whole while also ensuring that the work of the sub-committees was effectively disseminated to and could involve local groups.
The secretariat for these sub-committees would be provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department.
| QUESTIONS:
|
Local committees
We do not believe that arrangements for local committees should be over-prescriptive given the need to take into account variations in local need. The key issue is to ensure that:
all the key agencies involved in delivering the family justice system locally are represented
there is adequate communication between the central Council and local groups.
Broadly areas have three main options for linking up with the Council. All these suggestions continue to make use of those bodies already in place.
A network of local committees based at care centres, which could report via regional committees (perhaps based on circuit boundaries) to the overarching Council
A network of regional committees perhaps modeled on circuit, CAFCASS or group manager boundaries reporting to the overarching Council.
For all these we envisage that most areas will wish to combine the existing local committees based at care centres, for example family court forums, family court business committees, family court user committees and any local interdisciplinary forums which continue to meet. This could reduce duplication and enhance the voice of those using the family justice system who are often unrepresented on Family Court Business Committees, that are currently the main forum for delivering the objectives of the family justice system locally.
All these options have particular advantages and disadvantages.
A network of local committees based at care centres, which could report direct to the overarching Council
This would have the advantage of most closely replicating existing arrangements and so minimising disruption to existing structures. It would reduce the potential for duplication and hence wasted resources. It would also enable decisions taken in meetings to have a direct impact on local court practice. However, some of the disadvantages attached to the existing committees would remain, for example not all family proceedings courts are represented on Family Court Business Committees. Ensuring that each Magistrates' Court Committee area is represented could minimise this problem.
A network of local committees based at care centres, which could report via regional committees (perhaps based on circuit boundaries) to the overarching Council
This would be a more costly option, in terms of administration and members' time. The main advantage of such an approach is that it would enable issues such as consistency of practice to be addressed on a broader basis.
On the other hand there is an argument that this could be achieved in other ways. For example, Circuit conferences currently provide a means of bringing together those working within the family justice system and could be used to fulfil this function, perhaps to discuss or feed into the Council's annual report. There is a risk that an additional tier of meetings might do little more than collate local practice, a function which could as easily be undertaken by the secretariat to the national Council.
A network of regional committees perhaps modelled on circuit, CAFCASS or group manager boundaries reporting to the overarching Council
This would involve disruption to existing arrangements and could potentially lead to some duplication as some courts may feel the need to continue to have some kind of court user committee of their own to deal with issues local to them.
Our initial view is that it might be best to start off with arrangements that most closely replicate existing practice with local groups or Local Family Justice Committees reporting direct to the overarching Council and then review how this works before considering what is a potentially resource intensive regional structure. We are working with the Court Service on how administrative support could be provided to care centre based committees. However if a particular area wanted to look at an alternative structure this could be piloted to establish its potential and resource implications.
| QUESTIONS:
|
What would these committees do?
As with the Family Justice Council we propose that the agenda of local committees would be a mixture of national and local topics. The intention is that committees will focus on meeting the objectives of the family justice system locally, but also have a voice in delivering improvements throughout England & Wales. Meetings could be arranged four times a year to fit in with the overarching Council's meetings and to help establish a positive local/national dialogue.
| Sample Agenda Local Issues
National Issues
|
We hope that asking the local committees to consider issues from across the family justice system will give them an ongoing momentum, but in so doing there is a risk that in times of substantial change the committees may have too much to tackle. We would welcome consultees' views on this point.
| QUESTIONS:
|
Who would be on the Committees?
The membership of the local (and, if required, regional) committees could be similar:
As with the overarching Council we would expect members on local committees to play a representative role in respect of their profession/service. This would involve each body on the local committee selecting its own representative. We appreciate this may cause difficulties in some areas as there is not necessarily a direct line management link between all those concerned. Some courts have decided to extend the membership of their committees to include more than one judge, family proceedings court or local authority where this does not result in an overlarge committee. However, a representative approach does have a number of advantages. It:
| QUESTIONS:
|
Who should chair the committees?
At present the designated family judge is required to chair family court business committees. This is because of the judge's key role in co-ordinating the effective handling of family work in the care centre area.
| QUESTIONS:
|
The family justice system can only work effectively, protecting the vulnerable, promoting the welfare of children and providing fair and timely outcomes for families, if all those involved play their part. The existing structures do not help agencies to do this and do not make the best use of much of the excellent work going on in local groups around the country. Also, they do not give a true voice to the men, women and children who come into contact with the family justice system.
We hope that the proposals outlined within this consultation paper provide a means of:
delivering better outcomes for families and children
facilitating partnership
providing a voice for all those involved in the family justice system,
making better use of local best practice
making the best use of those most precious commodities, the time and expertise of those involved.
We do not mean these arrangements to be over prescriptive - we do not wish to deter any local innovations. Our aim is to provide as a minimum, a way of harnessing best practice and improving the operation of the family justice system in the interests of families and especially children.
Booth, Dame Margaret DBE (1996) Delay in Public Law Children Act Cases London, Lord Chancellor's Department
CAFCASS commenced operations on 2 April 2001. It brings together the services previously provided by the family court welfare service, guardian ad litem and reporting officer (GALRO) panels and the children's division of the Official Solicitor's Department to provide a nationally managed service to represent the best interests and voice of children involved in family cases.
Care centres are county courts with jurisdiction to deal with all county court family work.
The Court Service is split into 6 regional areas known as circuits. The South-East circuit is split into two areas, one for London and one for other courts in the South-East. Each circuit has a Family Division Liaison Judge (two for the South-East) - a High Court Judge with responsibility for the judicial management of family work in his or her area.
We would welcome responses to the following questions set out in this consultation paper:
PART 1 - Background & Terms of Reference.
Are there other types of family justice related committees we have omitted?
Which committees function well in terms of bringing about improvements in delivering/identifying best practice and why?
PART 2 - Problems with the Current System
Do the problems we have identified regarding the existing arrangements reflect your experience?
Are there other problems we have not identified?
Which, if any, of the problems do you think is the most important and why?
Has any of the groups in which you are involved taken steps to address these problems, e.g. merging local groups, inviting other members, having election procedures or do you have suggestions you wish to raise here?
What level of administrative support do you think is necessary to make local committees work effectively?
Do you agree that the existing arrangements need to change?
PART 3 - The Way Forward
One overarching national Council
Do you agree that there should be one overarching Council for the family justice system? If not, what alternative do you recommend?
What do you consider to be the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating all the existing committees into one structure?
Do you agree with the title Family Justice Council?
Do you agree with the proposed areas in which objectives could be set for the Council to achieve?
Do you have other suggestions in which objectives could be set?
Are there any issues to which you consider high priority should be given?
Do you agree with the suggested terms of reference for the Council?
Are there other roles you think the Council should perform?
Do you agree with the suggestion that detailed work could be undertaken in subject based sub-committees?
Do you agree with the balance of the suggested agenda?
Do you agree that the Council should meet four times a year?
Do you agree that the Council should produce an annual report?
Do you agree that there should be a biennial national conference?
Do you think the Council should have a limited term, after which its effectiveness should be reviewed?
Do you agree with the role proposed for the central secretariat?
Which, if any, of the ideas for disseminating best practice do you think would be effective? Do you have other suggestions?
What do you think of the suggestions for membership of the Council?
Do you agree with the proposed maximum size of the Council?
Do you agree that the members of the Council should represent their constituent body?
Do you agree that each organisation should select its own representative?
How would this work where there are a number of representative bodies e.g. Law Society, Solicitors' Family Law Association and Association of Lawyers for Children?
Do you agree that the Council should have a broadly equal representation of men and women and involve representatives from ethnic communities?
If yes, how do you think this could best be achieved?
Do you think the membership should be extended to include those who do not work directly within the justice system? If so, how might these members best be selected?
There are concerns in the existing system that committees are too legally biased, would that remain a concern for this Council?
Do you agree with the proposal for core membership with seconded members for specific items?
Who should represent the users of the system?
How best should voluntary sector groups be represented?
Who do you think should chair the new Council?
Sub-committees
Do you agree that there should be specialist sub-committees?
What subjects do you think it would be useful for sub-committees to address?
Do you agree that membership and the terms of reference of the committees should be flexible depending on the issue to be tackled and that they should be reviewed regularly to ensure that meetings are still needed?
What mechanism should be used for appointments to these sub-committees?
Local committees
Which, if any, of these committee structures do you prefer or do you have an alternative proposal?
Would the title Local Family Justice Committee to be an appropriate one? If not, what other titles would you propose?
Do you agree with the suggested subject matter for the local committees?
Is it realistic to expect committees to consider family-wide issues rather than the current children focus?
Of the suggestions for a structure for local committees, which option do you prefer or do you have alternative proposals?
Is it feasible to hold meetings four times each year?
Do you agree with the proposed membership of the local committees?
Do you have any comments about the proposed representative role of members?
Do you agree that local committees should continue to be chaired by the designated family judge?
If not, who would you suggest and why?
Name..................................................
Organisation:
Address:
If you are a representative group please give a summary of the people and organisations you represent
Please send your completed response to:
Ray Owen
Lord Chancellor's Department
Family Policy Division
3rd Floor
Southside
105 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QT
Tel: 020-7210 1242
Fax: 020-7210 1265
Email: Ray Owen
The Department may wish to publish responses to this consultation document in due course. Please ensure your response is marked clearly if you wish your response or name to be kept confidential.
If you have any queries about the consultation guidelines in Annex D then e-mail (Helen Gallagher) or speak to her on 020-7210 8632, the assistant Consultation Co-ordinator in the first instance, or the Consultation Co-ordinator (Peter Jacob) on 020-7210 8516.
Peter Jacob
Head of Corporate Services Secretariat
Room 9.54
Lord Chancellor's Department
Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
The criteria in the Code of Practice on Written Consultation issued by the Cabinet Office is as follows:
Timing of consultation should be built into the planning process for a policy or service from the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage.
It should be clear who is being consulted, about what questions, in what timescale and for what purpose.
A consultation document should be as simple and concise as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.
Documents should be made widely available, with the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.
Sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks should be the standard minimum period for a consultation.
Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly analysed, and the results made widely available, with an account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken.
Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, designating a consultation co-ordinator who will ensure the lessons are disseminated.