Clause 49 - Family proceedings courts
Courts Bill [Lords]
4:15 pm
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
We now come to family proceedings. In due course we shall discuss other matters, such as youth courts. I am especially concerned about such things, not least because in my early years at the Bar I spent much time doing family law cases, both in the magistrates courts and the county courts. At one stage my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who is now in the shadow Cabinet, and I spent much time on such cases, working either together or on opposite sides. We used to meet in courts in places such as Peterborough and work on domestic violence injunctions. Because of the harrowing circumstances in so many of those cases, I am aware of the crucial importance of family proceedings, especially when we are talking about the protection of children.
This group of amendments would require more than changes to clause 49—amendments Nos. 61 and 62 deal with clause 50. Amendment No. 59 would require the Lord Chancellor to consult and have regard to the views of the family procedure rules committee. On considering the matter last night, it occurred to me that I may have picked out the wrong subsection in my amendment. Perhaps I should have referred to subsection (6). If that is part of the Minister's response, I concede at the outset that I may have got it slightly wrong. On looking at how the amendment reads across to clause 50 I realise that I may not have got that quite right.
I hope that the Government will accept that our amendments might offer a better, clearer formulation than that of subsection (6). The Government are particularly keen on so-called pre-legislative scrutiny. However, we are talking about real pre-legislative scrutiny, whereby the views of the family procedure rules committee would be taken into account—this would not merely be a matter of consulting it.
We suggest, in amendments Nos. 30 and 60, that the Lord Chancellor must ensure that there is training and a large enough number of lay justices for the family proceedings courts. We also suggest that exactly the same changes should be made to clause 50, which deals with youth courts. That is just as valid. As lay justices, people need specialist training to deal with the difficult issues arising in youth courts—just as they do in family courts.
I hope that the Government will see that the amendments are genuinely intended to improve the Bill. I have made it clear that they are not perfect, but I hope that the Minister will respond constructively.