Clause 77 - Family Procedure Rule Committee
Courts Bill [Lords]
2:30 pm
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I have one brief question about clause 77 as it stands. Once again, I shall raise a point that has been raised with me by the Institute of Legal Executives. Before lunch we dealt with amendment No. 141, which would have ensured the inclusion of one legal executive who had particular experience of practice in family proceedings. The Government resisted that amendment, and we withdrew it, although we voted on a similar amendment with regard to criminal matters.
The Institute of Legal Executives raised the issue of the current drafting of clause 77(2)(l) and (n). It has offered two alternative interpretations of those paragraphs, and I agree that they could be read in
either way. If the Minister can say today which of the two interpretations is correct, I would be grateful. If not, I would be grateful if he wrote to me and other Committee members in due course—I appreciate that my question is slightly technical. The institute asked whether paragraphs (l) and (n) should be read in the light of preceding paragraph (k), which refers to a person being
''granted by an authorised body, under Part 2 of the 1990 Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court''.
Alternatively, the reference in those paragraphs to one person who has been granted that right could be read in the light of subsection (5), which makes provision for the Lord Chancellor to consult authorised bodies for the purposes of section 27 or 28 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
If the latter interpretation were correct, that could imply that all those with rights granted under either section 27 or 28 of the 1990 Act were eligible to be appointed under paragraphs (l) and (n). However, if the first of the two interpretations were applied, legal executives would not be eligible for appointment, as they currently have no independent rights to conduct litigation. If the second interpretation were applied, legal executives who are granted rights of audience by their institute in the county court or magistrates court could be eligible. The Institute of Legal Executives is obviously hoping that the second interpretation is correct. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that point now, or write to me after he has considered the matter with his officials.