2. Submissions to Responsible Authorities (in 1997) and their Responses
The Submissions
On 10 November 1997, the Cheltenham Group made submissions about the NAPO policy to the bodies listed below. The submission included a copy of the NAPO policy, our critique, and (for 3 recipients marked *) a copy of the Cheltenham Group’s report The Emperor’s New Clothes : Divorce Process & Consequence.
HM Inspectorate of Probation * (HMiP), who referred the matter to :
Home Office, Probation Unit (HOPU)
The Lord Chancellor’s Dept * (LC’s Dept)
The Law Society (LS)
The General Council of the Bar (BC), who referred the matter to :
Family Law Bar Association (FLBA)
Equal Opportunities Commission * (EOC), who have requested a meeting with :
National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO)
Correspondence following the initial submission
The correspondence following the initial submissions is summarised below, listed under each of the authorities identified above. Copies of the most significant responses from each authority are available in the annex of this report.
HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMiP)
19 Dec 97 : HMiP replies saying that "HMiP does not have any authority regarding the NAPO policy" and other comments and referring to the recent Thematic Inspection of 1997, all of which are irrelevant to the issue; on reading the Thematic Inspection report this appears to have no relevance; HMiP have therefore tried to obscure the issue and accept no responsibility.
4 Jan 98 : CG suggests certain actions, and promises publicity if HMiP do nothing.
26 Jan 98 : HMiP reply ignoring most of CG’s suggestions but stating they have passed concerns onto the Probation Unit, Home Office.
COMMENT : HMiP initially attempted to avoid any action whatsoever, but when pressed did refer the complaint to the Probation Unit, Home Office.
CONCLUSION : HMiP HAVE ACCEPTED NO RESPONSIBILTY THEMSELVES BUT HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER ON TO OTHERS.
Probation Unit (PU), Home Office (HO)
26 Jan 98 : HMiP say they have passed concerns onto the HOPU.
12 Feb 98 : CG write to HOPU suggesting that they may provide a response direct to CG rather than through HMiP.
[6 Mar 98 : CG write to Doug Henderson MP, Minister for Europe, asking him to write to the LC’s Dept and ask for as response from them.]
11 Mar 98 : LC’s Dept write to CG saying that they have referred the matter to the HO.
2 Apr 98 : LC’s Dept write to Doug Henderson MP saying that they have referred the matter to the HOPU.
28 Apr 98 : HOPU write to CG saying that "our position is in accord with the reply [from] HMiP, the policy is produced by NAPO and does not replace guidance produced by the Home Office".
COMMENT : HOPU did not reply for 3 months, then said they would do nothing.
CONCLUSION : HOPU (THE BODY OFFICIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COURT WELFARE SERVICE) HAVE ACCEPTED NO RESPONSIBILTY WHATEVER FOR THE NAPO POLICY AND ITS EFFECTS.
The Lord Chancellor’s Dept (LC’s Dept)
5 Feb 98 : CG have not yet received even an acknowledgement, so send reminder.
6 Mar 98 : as still no reply from LC’s Dept, a request is made of Doug Henderson MP (Minister for Europe) to ask the LC’s Dept for a response.
11 Mar 98 : LC’s Dept write to CG saying that "the matters raised are the responsibility of the Home Office" and they have referred the matter to the HOPU.
13 Mar 98 : Doug Henderson MP acknowledges letter of 6 Mar but appears to do nothing.
17 Mar 98 : another request is made of Doug Henderson MP (Minister for Europe) to ask the LC’s Dept for a response.
2 Apr 98 : LC’s Dept write to Doug Henderson MP saying, as in their brief letter of 11 Mar, that they have referred the matter to the HOPU.
7 Apr 98 : CG write to Doug Henderson MP asking if he will provide the Terms of Reference of the Lord Chancellor and/or his Dept, to determine if the LC’s Dept really has no responsibility.
COMMENT : The LC’s Dept refuse to even acknowledge the submission for 4 months, then send a brief response that they have referred the issue to the Home Office. Doug Henderson MP appears to do nothing.
CONCLUSION : LC’s DEPT HAVE ACCEPTED NO RESPONSIBILTY WHATEVER FOR THE NAPO POLICY AND ITS EFFECTS.
The Law Society (LS)
8 Dec 97 : reply from Secretary of Family Law Committee, stating that it is "a matter for NAPO rather than ourselves".
4 Jan 98 : CG send stern letter to President asking if LS accept any responsibility, and asking that they reply to three questions also asked of the BC i.e. if their members are aware of NAPO policy, agree with it, uphold it or counteract it in their client’s cases.
26 Jan 98 : President Phillip Sycamore responds saying "legislation … is gender neutral" and "solicitors fulfil their duties to uphold the law", and that "I do not believe the LS can do anything further".
6 Feb 98 : CG respond by proposing a meeting to take LS members through contents of The Emperor’s New Clothes i.e. to educate them.
COMMENT : The Family Law Committee and the LS have taken no action whatsoever, either about the conduct of individual solicitors (e.g. who should warn their male clients), or as a body which has considerable responsibility for the correct interpretation of the law. No response is made by LS to the offer of a meeting with CG representatives.
CONCLUSION : NEITHER THE LS, NOR ITS FAMILY LAW COMMITTEE, ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY OF ANY FORM WHATSOEVER, EITHER AS A BODY OR FOR THEIR MEMBER’S BEHAVIOUR WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE.
The General Council of the Bar (BC)
5 Feb 98 : CG have not yet received even an acknowledgement, so send reminder.
24 Feb 98 : BC reply (with letter dated 13 Jan 97), stating that the BC "are not able to provide answers ourselves", and suggesting that we could write to the Family Law Bar Association (FLBA).
27 Apr 98 : confused letter from Heather Hallett QC, Chairman of BC.
30 Apr 98 : CG request explanation, and ask if BC will or will not accept any responsibility for the NAPO policy and their members’ role in this part of the interpretation of the law.
COMMENT : The BC cannot even provide an acknowledgement within 2 months, then on reminder refer the matter to others.
CONCLUSION : THE BC ACCEPT NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER THEMSELVES AS A BODY OR FOR THEIR MEMBER’S BEHAVIOUR WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE, BUT HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO OTHERS.
FLBA
25 Feb 98 : CG write to FLBA, with a full copy of the original letter of 10 Nov 97 and NAPO policy and our critique, asking that they reply to the three questions also asked of the LS i.e. if their members are aware of NAPO policy, agree with it, uphold it or counteract it in their client’s cases.
5 May 98 : FLBA reply saying "FLBE would not feel it appropriate to purport to speak for the views of its individual members" and "I can assure you that the FLBA as a matter of general policy would not support discrimination in any way".
COMMENT : The FLBA cannot even provide an acknowledgement within 2 months. They then say they cannot purport to speak for their members, a very unusual position for a professional body.
CONCLUSION : THE FLBA ACCEPT NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER, EITHER AS A BODY OR FOR THEIR MEMBER’S BEHAVIOUR WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE.
Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC)
28 Jan 98 : CG have not yet received even an acknowledgement, so send reminder.
30 Jan and 2 Feb 98 : EOC phone CG with apology for delay, and saying that their Chair Kamlesh Bahl has written to LC’s Dept for ‘clarification’, but CG refused permission to see correspondence to LC’s.
3 Feb 98 : CG write to EOC Chair asking for explanation about evasive tactics.
18 Feb 98 : Kamlesh Bahl, Chairwoman of EOC replies stating that they have received more than one complaint about the NAPO policy, that their legal advice (presumably a feminist woman barrister with the same agenda as themselves) was that it was unlikely that S29 of SDA75 was useful, that the EOC were seeking a meeting with NAPO about the issue, that she would not provide a copy of her correspondence with the LC’s Dept.
23 Feb 98 : CG write to Kamlesh Bahl at EOC, asking what the aspects were which she had raised with the LC’s Dept, and proposing that the CG, with greater knowledge and evidence about what is going on in this area than either EOC or NAPO, is represented at any meeting of EOC and NAPO (this letter copied to NAPO as a request to attend).
16 Mar 98 : Kamlesh Bahl of EOC writes to CG stating that "EOC has raised those matters which fall within our duties" and "it would appear that a direct approach by your organisation … may now be the best way … forward", also that "a joint meeting … would not be helpful".
20 Mar 98 : CG write to EOC asking if they now will take no further action.
COMMENT : EOC have delayed and attempted to evade the issue, when there is a very clear case against NAPO as a service provider (NAPO to its members and also its members to the public) under SIII of SDA75. They also refuse to divulge correspondence with the LC’s Dept.
CONCLUSION : EOC HAVE ACCEPTED NO RESPONSIBILTY WHATEVER FOR THE NAPO POLICY AND ITS EFFECTS.
NAPO
23 Feb 98 : CG write to NAPO (copy of letter of same date to EOC) requesting that CG, with greater knowledge and evidence about what is going on in this area than either EOC or NAPO, is represented at any meeting of EOC and NAPO.
COMMENT : NAPO have remained silent since written to, and have not even provide an acknowledgement within 3 months.
CONCLUSION : NAPO REFUSE TO ENTER INTO ANY CORRESPONDENCE OVER THEIR POLICY.
Dr John Campion and Barry Worrall met Mr Geoff Hoon MP at 11.30am on Thursday 11 June 1998 in Selborne House, 54-60 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QW. The agenda of the meeting was to present Mr Hoon with information on the Court Welfare Service and the interpretation of family law. Mr Hoon was presented with copies of :
1. The Emperor’s New Clothes, CG, ISBN 1 900080 03 6, 2nd Edition 1998;
2. The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies, CG, 11 June 1998.
Court Welfare Service
Mr Hoon stated that the policy of a trade union would have no effect on the practices of its members and hence on the interpretation of the law, as most people are legally represented in their cases. It is understood that the implication is that this representation would prevent any problems, yet it is clear from the CG’s NAPO report [2] that both the Law Society and the Bar Council have accepted no responsibility for the NAPO policy or for their member’s duties to their clients with respect to this.
Interpretation of family law
Mr Hoon stated that he had personal experience of family law as a barrister and had lectured on the subject. His opinion was that the law was correctly interpreted. He specifically stated that :
- the Cheltenham Group did not, with ‘only’ 350 cases analysed, have substantive evidence of any problems; he said this before he had even read the reports [1, 2] he had just received;
- the Cheltenham Group members present could not objectively assess evidence;
- women were ‘economically disadvantaged’.
Mr Hoon constantly denied any problems in the interpretation of the law but repeated the ‘formal’ position as stated in the written law. He also said that marriage conveyed rights on fathers which unmarried fathers did not have. When asked what these rights were he stated the provisions of the written law e.g. it was possible to apply to court under 'parental responsibility'.
Mr Hoon was shown the probability of various outcomes of marriage and divorce in annex 3 of The Emperor’s New Clothes[1], and asked if his Department had better information. He stated that it was not necessary that this information be collected by his Department and that the burden was on the CG to produce evidence.
Suggestions for further work
Mr Hoon was asked if he would look at further evidence if submitted. He replied, yes in principle, but would not be drawn to state how much evidence would be required.
The meeting ended with no commitment by Mr Hoon to take any action over the NAPO policy or the situation generally.
If you have personal experience of family law, you may wish to write to Mr Hoon to correct him.
Barry Worrall, Coordinator, The Cheltenham Group, 18 June 1998
Annex : Copies of most significant response letters
HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMiP), who referred the matter to HOPU
Home Office, Probation Unit (HOPU)
The Lord Chancellor’s Dept (LC’s Dept)
The Law Society (LS)
The General Council of the Bar (BC), who referred the matter to FLBA
Family Law Bar Association (FLBA)
Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), who have requested a meeting with NAPO
National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO)
NAPO did not reply to our correspondence. This is the letter in which they state that the NAPO 'Anti-Sexism' Policy is "a members document and not available ... for wide circulation".
Return to TENC Annex 4 / NAPO Contents