Mr.
Oaten: It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship of the Committee, Mr. Cummings.
I do not wish
to delay the Committee, other than to raise a few concerns about the
principle of taking away the opportunity for an appeal to a higher
court. Whenever such a change is proposed, it is worthy of examination.
That is why, in an earlier intervention, I asked the Minister about the
level and the severity of the cases that we were talking about.
Obviously, if they were of a severe nature, taking away that ultimate
ability to go to the High Court would be a matter of concern.
When the
Minister responds, I wonder if she could confirm a few facts. Am I
right in understanding that the current number of cases referred to the
High Court rests at 57? That is an estimate for the last year. Will she
also tell us how much this change will speed up the process? Obviously,
one of the Government’s ambitions is to try to speed up and
simplify the system of justice, but do we know that going to a lower
court is a quicker process than going to a higher court? As a layman, I
would imagine that it might be easier to gain access to a county court
than to the High Court, but what estimate have the Government made of
the time-saving involved? In other words, will there genuinely be
savings in speed and efficiency, as the Minister suggested?
What estimate
has the Department made of the financial saving that will be made? The
explanatory notes say that one of the aims of the change is to
make
“more efficient
use of available judicial resources”.
That could relate to
speed, but the “resources” element suggests that a factor
driving the change is the Department’s cost-cutting plan. We
know that the Ministry of Justice is on target to make £1
billion worth of cuts. Will the Minister confirm whether this change in
the courts is part of that cost-cutting process? Finally, can she
confirm that the Bar Council was consulted and that it raised
objections to the change?
I do not wish
to delay the Committee by pressing for a vote, but I want to put on
record some concerns about these changes. I have a real desire to
understand whether they are designed to speed up the process. If
children are involved, it is always preferable for the process to be
speedy for their sake. However, if the real driver behind the changes
is cost cutting, I would not be comfortable with a system that reduced
the level of justice merely to reduce the Department’s
budget. 2.56
pm
Bridget
Prentice: I will take the last point first. This is
categorically not a cost-cutting exercise. It is about access to
justice. I am on the record as saying—I said it again at a
conference this morning—that the delay in getting children
through family proceedings does huge damage to them. The faster we can
get children through the proceedings, the better. One reason that there
will be shorter delays and a more speedy process is the removal of the
two-stage process by using county
courts. The
hon. Member for Winchester asked about the types of cases involved.
Non-molestation orders, residence orders and contact orders, for
example, will be granted by family proceedings courts, and appeals will
be to the county court rather than the High Court. There will still be
an opportunity for a second level of appeal. If an appeal becomes too
complex or difficult for the county court, the president of the family
division will ensure that an appropriate level of judge is available to
hear the
case. The
hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asked about the written reasons and
what might happen if there was pressure in the magistrates court. The
practice direction will be issued on the same day as the statutory
instrument. That will put an obligation on family proceedings courts to
provide written reasons. Whether or not there is pressure, they will be
under an obligation to do that. Because they welcome this provision, I
expect them to carry it out
correctly. The
hon. Member for Winchester asked about the number of appeals. I think I
said that there were 57; the figure then went up to 60, and it was 45
last year. We are therefore not talking about a huge change in the work
load for county courts. I was also asked about the statutory right of
appeal. Under section 94 of the Children Act 1989, there is a statutory
right of appeal for decisions of magistrates courts on Children Act
applications to the High Court. That route of appeal is now changed.
Other statutory rights of appeal that are amended so that appeals go to
the county court include those relating to domestic
violence.
Mr.
Bellingham: Will the Minister explain how those appeals
are being amended? Are they amended by the new
order?
Bridget
Prentice: They are being amended partly under this order
but also partly under the rules that have been set out by the Family
Procedure Rule Committee. Finally, on onward appeals, I am having
difficulty and I have to confess that I might have to teach officials
some writing skills.
Mr.
Bellingham: Perhaps the Minister could drop me a
note.
Bridget
Prentice: I will.
Second
appeals can be made when the decision in the county court is made by a
judge of a county court and the route is to the Court of Appeal with
permission. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asked whether the
expertise in the county courts would be sufficient. It is, although as
I said, there will be an opportunity for judges to be appointed
specifically if cases are particularly complex. The president of the
family division will introduce allocation to judiciary directions to
specify the level of judge to hear the appeals.
Finally, the
hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asked whom the Government had
consulted. We consulted the senior judiciary, the Council of Her
Majesty’s Circuit Judges, the Association of District Judges,
the Magistrates Association, the Family Justice Council, the Law
Society, the Bar Council, the Justices’ Clerks’ Society,
the Family Law Bar Association, the Institute of Legal Executives,
Resolution, the Association of Lawyers for Children,
Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association, Citizens Advice, the Consumers
Association, British and Irish Association of Law
Librarians—which intrigued me—as well as leading
publishers of rules. We also consulted other Government Departments
such as the Department for Work and Pensions, the Legal Services
Commission and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support
Service—CAFCASS. These are only examples. For once, the
Government cannot be accused of not consulting as widely and profoundly
as possible. I hope that, on that basis, the Committee will approve the
statutory
instrument. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Access to Justice Act 1999
(Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order
2009. 3.2
pm Committee
rose.
| 
