regarding the NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy and family law

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 family law. Mr Hoon was presented with copies of :

* The Emperor’s New Clothes, CG, ISBN 1 900080 03 6, 2^nd Edition 1998;

* 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. over contact.

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

Back to NAPO page