The Inter-Departmental Committee on Conciliation: A Negative Report in Every Sense
| Author | Gwynn Davis |
| Published date | 01 December 1983 |
| Date | 01 December 1983 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/026455058303000405 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The
Inter-Departmental Committee
on
Conciliation: A
Negative Report
in Every Sense
Gwynn Davis
Conciliation Research Project, University of Bristol.
A
searching review of the recent Government report on
Conciliation services, concludes that it is superficial, legalistic,
and inadequately researched, with spurious reasoning and
dubious conclusions.
The Inter-departmental Committee on Con-
adds further confusion to a debate which is con-
ciliation was established in March 1982. It com-
fused enough already. In-court mediation appomt-
prised civil servants drawn from the Lord
ments are best viewed in the context of procedural
Chancellor’s Department, Home Office, DHSS,
reform.l In many instances, the presence of the
Treasury, and the Central Policy Review Staff. Its
mediator, whether welfare officer or registrar, will
brief was to report on ’the nature, scope and effects’
not be the most cntical element. It may be more
of existing conciliation services and ’to consider
important that the two sides state their objectives
whether those or further facilities should be
clearly and then meet together in order to try to find
promoted or developed ... within existing
some compromise which can be expressed in a
resource
planning’. It reported its findings in July
legal formula acceptable to both. Out-of-court
this year.
conciliation is a very different animal. There, the
In practice, the Committee concentrated their
mediator really does have a central role to play, but
efforts on trying to establish whether or not out-
equally, he has no formal authority.’ This applies
of-court conciliation services saved money and
to divorce court welfare run schemes as much
as
therefore, whether a national conciliation service
it does to independent services.3 The failure to
would pay for itself. Entirely predictably (and
make
these distinctions with sufficient clarity leads
who’s arguing?) they concluded that it would not.
to a good deal of muddled thinking throughout the
Their central finding is that ’the case for central
report.
government support for a national out-of-court
conciliation service is not made’ . The
only positive
Sufficient Demand?
note in the whole report is the cautious welcome
But the first hint of
the remarkable obtuseness
given to mediation by welfare officers and regis-
of this Committee comes when they address the
trars on
the court premises, as an integral part of
question: Why apply ’conciliation’ to matrimonial
the legal process. The Committee note the initiative
disputes in particular? Brushing aside the fact that
of several Divorce Court Welfare teams in setting
some...
To continue reading
Request your trial