DELAY IN OPENING UP FAMILY COURTS DISAPPOINTING, SAYS MP

31 March 2009

Stafford’s MP David Kidney says he’s disappointed that there has been a delay in putting into effect Jack Straw’s proposal to open the family courts to the media and the public. As Justice Secretary, Jack Straw announced this change in policy on 16 December 2008 and said he hoped the new arrangements would start in April 2009.

Stafford’s MP David Kidney says more openness is the right approach and so this delay is disappointing:

“It is important to assure all those involved in family court proceedings, and the wider public, that family courts make the right decisions and the way they reach their decisions is fair.

“At the same time, the reason there has been restricted access to family court proceedings is that it is right to protect the privacy of children and families involved in family court cases. Very personal circumstances are disclosed in these court proceedings and these should remain private for the sake of the individuals involved.

“Jack Straw’s plan intends to strike the right balance in providing a more open and accountable system while protecting children and families during a difficult and traumatic time in their lives.

“The new arrangements were due to be started tomorrow but now I have been told that there will be a delay. The Ministry of Justice explains:

“The new measures announced by the Justice Secretary require additions to court rules to be made, and these need to be laid before Parliament before they can come into effect. The new rules will be laid in Parliament in April and information will be available then about the implementation date.”

“There will be many people disappointed by this delay and I will write to Jack Straw to stress that it is important to hurry up and give effect to the statement he made last December. In the meantime, the current rules continue to apply under which the courts can restrict what can be reported in order to protect the welfare of children and families involved but relax reporting rules if an individual case allows this.”