| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Family Law Bill [Lords]
31. Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from the Roman Catholic Church in relation to the Family Law Bill [Lords].[11789]
Mr. Jonathan Evans: I have received a number of representations from Catholic organisations in relation to the Government's divorce reform proposals.
Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Has he read the article by Cardinal Hume, published in The Tablet on 20 January 1996, in which he admitted that his earlier statements about the Family Law Bill were wrong, and that he did not support it in its present form but had serious reservations about it?He said that the Bill needed to be strengthened, that he opposed the idea of the no-fault clause, and that the time delay of one year was far too short.
Will my hon. Friend reassure me that he will listen carefully to Cardinal Hume's representations, bearing in mind the fact that he represents the enormously strong feeling of the vast majority of people?
Mr. Evans:
I always pay close attention to Cardinal Hume's opinions. I am aware that, in October 1995, the
My hon. Friend mentioned Cardinal Hume's article in The Tablet. I have a note of an interview that Cardinal Hume gave to the "Today" programme that morning.He said:
Later, he said:
I hope that my hon. Friend also listens to what the cardinal has to say.
Mr. Alex Carlile:
In his dealings on the Bill, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that, in the part of rural Wales that he and I know well, there is significant anxiety about the poor funding of conciliation services, including Relate? Will he try to ensure that one of the Bill's consequences is that matrimonial conciliation services can function at least as effectively in rural Wales as anywhere else in the country?
Mr. Evans:
I recognise that it is important that we have effective conciliation services, but it is also important to recognise that conciliation cannot be forced on people involuntarily. It is also important that there should be no confusion between mediation--which is an important part of the Bill--and conciliation, leading, one hopes, to reconciliation. All those services are very important and, as my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has said in debates in the other place, the Government attach great importance to them.
Mr. Tracey:
Whether we or anyone else has misread Cardinal Hume's words, my hon. Friend should be well aware that there are singularly grave misgivings about the present terms of the Bill.
Mr. Evans:
I am very keen, as is my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, to take on board all those misgivings.I am very aware that many of those anxieties were expressed in Committee. It is important to have the detail of matters about which such misgivings are expressed because, as we found in Committee, many of those misgivings can be answered by what underpins the Bill. What underpins the Bill is, first, the wish to ensure the end of the quickie divorce--which, we feel, does not support married life, in which context my hon. Friend's position and mine are hardly dissimilar--and, secondly, the wish to take out of divorce much of the acrimony that the current system perpetuates.
32. Mr. Cohen:
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to make mediation binding in divorce cases; and if he will make a statement.[11790]
Mr. Jonathan Evans:
The Government have no plans to make mediation binding in divorce cases.
Mr. Cohen:
Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree with the letter from the Lord Chancellor's Department of 9 January 1996, which said:
and
If mediation is not binding, will not a stronger party have a vested interest in ignoring its process and outcome? Surely the inexorable logic of the statements in the Lord Chancellor's letter is that mediation should be binding.
Mr. Evans:
A mediated agreement can be made legally binding if the parties subsequently agree that should be the case. The hon. Gentleman seems to be proposing that the mediator should supplant himself as some sort of tribunal chairman or in a judge's role--not something that the Government intend to advance.
Sir Sydney Chapman:
I am deeply reassured that mediation will not be binding, because, however much it should be encouraged, many people who deal professionally with divorce cases believe that binding mediation would be counter-productive.
Mr. Evans:
Mediation must, by definition, be voluntary--no one can be compelled to make use of it.If a mediated agreement is reached between two parties, I see no objection to the parties subsequently carrying it forward as an agreement in writing--in which case, it would take on a legal character. We need to make that distinction clear.
34. Mr. Harry Greenway:
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the provision of legal aid to Mr. Ian Brady.[11792]
Mr. Jonathan Evans:
Decisions on the granting of civil legal aid are taken by the Legal Aid Board according to statutory tests. It is essential that decisions on the granting of civil legal aid are made independently and are seen to be free from political or Government interference.
Mr. Greenway:
I well understand my hon. Friend's point, but is he aware that many people are extremely puzzled that Ian Brady has been granted legal aid to challenge in the High Court a judgment by the Press Complaints Commission, which does not have any judicial authority, while other people who appear to be much more deserving cannot obtain legal aid?
Mr. Evans:
I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend from other correspondence received in my Department. I am pleased that my hon. Friend recognises that, for the reasons that I outlined, it is inappropriate for Ministers to comment on individual cases. In such circumstances, the matter is one for the Legal Aid Board. I am sure that my hon. Friend will draw his remarks to its attention.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)
(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the future management of the LTS Rail line in light of the events over the weekend.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young):
Last Thursday, shortly before Enterprise Rail was due to take over the LTS Rail franchise on Sunday morning, after a routine audit of the system for allocating ticket revenue, the British Rail Board was made aware of certain ticketing irregularities in the company's accounts relating to the allocation of revenue from Travelcard between LTS and London Underground Ltd.
The board immediately instituted an investigation, which is still continuing. The Rail Regulator is also carrying out an investigation under his powers under section 55 of the Railways Act 1993.
In the circumstances, the franchising director decided that the transfer of LTS to Enterprise Rail should be postponed pending the outcome of the investigations. For the time being, LTS Rail will therefore continue to provide services as a subsidiary of the British Rail Board.
The House will understand that, as there remains a possibility of legal action, it would be inappropriate to comment on the specific allegations under investigation. Financial irregularities, whether in the public or private sector, are unacceptable and have no place in the modern railway.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
While I much appreciate the Secretary of State's action in such a short space of time, as the alleged accountancy malpractices appear to be disgraceful and dishonest, will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance that, before Enterprise Rail is given the opportunity to run the service to Southend and to deliver the pledged benefits of more regular services and new trains, any such alleged malpractices will be entirely weeded out and the persons who have been guilty of them held responsible? Will my right hon. Friend give the further assurance that, before any other steps are taken, the House will be given a full statement on how the irregularities occurred and, more important, the steps that have been taken to resolve them?
Sir George Young:
I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks. In relation to his first point, I have the franchising director's assurance that he will not be transferring LTS Rail until the allegations have been fully investigated. The franchising director, the Rail Regulator and British Rail will have to be fully satisfied that ticketing and revenue management are completely in order. As for the hon. Gentleman's second point in relation to the outcome of the investigations, in the first instance that will be a matter for British Rail and for the regulator. Should further legal proceedings be necessary, publication of full details may not be appropriate. I will, however, ensure that the House is made aware in general terms of the outcome of the investigations.
"I have not changed my mind. That seems to me to be a misreading of the text".
"I still support the Bill . . . I do not side with the critics of this Bill."
"mediators are required . . . to protect the interests of the weaker party"
"required to remedy any imbalances of power"?
3.31 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |