| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I hope that I may interrupt the Minister's speech to say that of course I accept that the scope of what was at one time intended to be consulted on has been reduced substantially. However, I think that the Minister would agree, for example, that injuries incurred in the course of work constitute a major and important part of the scheme.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord. Not only do we seek comment on those issues but I am talking to a number of different bodies about the concerns that they have and their alternative proposals. When we dealt with the matter in Committee, I tried to make absolutely clear that this is an open and proper consultation. I cannot pre-empt what its results may be. Noble Lords will know that a variety of consequences may emerge, one of which may be no change. However, I cannot say what will emerge. The usual channels have not reached a decision on recommitment. Therefore, I am not able to assist noble Lords on that matter.
The Title of the Bill refers to domestic violence. However, when the matter was first mooted, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, teased me about the Title and said that it referred also to crime and victims. Therefore, the issues that have been raised are not outwith the scope of the Bill.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness would prevent any provision of the Bill being implemented until my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had laid a certificate before Parliament that all necessary resources would be made available to implement the provisions and to provide any necessary training. If the noble Baroness's amendment were accepted, I would not be in a position to accede to the kind invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in relation to exempting two provisions.
I reiterate what I said in Committee. I emphasised the importance the Government attach to this Bill and the fact that the Government are committed to ensuring that sufficient resources are available before it is commenced. I believe that in Committee I reminded your Lordships what is included in the regulatory impact assessment where we set out the estimated total annual cost of the measure to be about £40.8 million, and the set-up costs.
The Bill will be implemented as and when the necessary resources are available to do so, but so far as I am aware it is unnecessary and, indeed, unprecedented to require a Minister to certify that before commencement. I also indicated that it was more proper for these matters to be considered by the other place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, invites me to issue the equivalent of a Human Rights Act certificate in relation to resources. It is an innovative idea, but not one that we have used thus far.
I seek your Lordships' indulgence to give some information on the wider issue of resources. When we debated the amendment on child contact, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on 28 January I said I would come back to the issue of implementing the new definition of harm and the new forms to highlight domestic violence. I am pleased to report that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton has confirmed that he will now put in train the necessary changes to the Family Proceedings Rules, court forms and IT systems and any additional training required, so that the new definition of harm and new forms are in place by January 2005. From that date, for all applications for orders under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989—regarding contact, residence, prohibitive steps and specific issues—the new definition of harm and the new forms will be used. I intended to give your Lordships a little pleasure by saying that and I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, will not think that I am trying to be unnecessarily charming.
Those changes, taken together with the Children Act sub-committee guidelines on how courts should handle contact applications where domestic violence is alleged, will significantly enhance the ability of the courts to ensure that contact is awarded only in cases where there is no ascertainable danger to either the child or the parent. The new arrangements will give the courts the ability to consider all the issues, make findings of fact where necessary and then decide what best meets the child's needs in individual cases.
Following divorce or separation, we want to encourage contact between children and parents where it is safe for all family members. Matters relating to contact generally are best settled away from the courts, other than when there are allegations of domestic violence or other issues of high conflict. Later this month, my right honourable friend the Minister for children, young people and families, Margaret Hodge, expects to publish the Government's response to the Children Act sub-committee report Making Contact Work. That response will include a range of proposals to help more parents settle issues of contact without going to court.
Moving on to the question of training, there was a substantial discussion on the importance of training in Grand Committee. I made it clear then that the Government recognise the importance of training and will be reviewing all the domestic violence training available with a view to ensuring a more consistent, multi-agency approach. I also set out in considerable detail the training arrangements for the judiciary and
the police in respect of domestic violence. I do not believe that it is necessary to require the Lord Chancellor to certify that sufficient resources will be made available to cover the training needs of the judiciary arising from the Bill.Your Lordships will be familiar with the way in which the Judicial Studies Board undertakes the appropriate training for new Acts and other matters and they have always rightly been commended for the excellent work that they do. The Lord Chancellor will assess the training needs for the judiciary as a matter of course and ensure that they are adequately provided for when the Bill is implemented. The magistracy will now have the benefit of much more guidance and assistance.
I hope that I have fully answered the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and that it is an answer with which they can feel a modicum of contentment.
5 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friends. The Minister says that the Government are still consulting. That is understandable, because we know the length of the consultation period that was published. She also says that there is no decision, as yet, on recommitment with regard to the specific matters that were addressed by myself and my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow—the new policies for funding assistance to victims. I have to say—using the language of this House—it is disappointing that no decision has yet been reached, but I hope that firm discussions are taking place in the background.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway raised a proper question about whether there will be a delay in the implementation of proposals if my amendment were to be added to the Bill. In a sense, the Minister gave him two answers—to say yes, there would be a delay, but she then said that the Government do not normally introduce legislation anyway until the resources are available. So she seemed to be saying that there would not be any more delay than usual, because she properly made the point that the Government introduce parts of Bills as and when it is appropriate—when there are resources or there has been the appropriate training to put those parts of the Bill in place. I think the noble Baroness was agreeing with the sentiments of my amendment, even though she did not wish to do so, because she then went on to say that my amendment was unnecessary—because it is what would happen anyway—and unprecedented.
Much of what the Government are doing at the moment appears to be both "unnecessary" and "unprecedented". The noble Lord, Lord McNally, put it very succinctly when he said he did not know whether this was a probing amendment or whether I intended a shot across the bows. I assure him it is a shot across the bows, which will not surprise the noble Baroness, given earlier conversations. Therefore, in that sense—with a great deal of courtesy to the noble Baroness—I say that, although it is only a shot across the bows, I do intend to seek the opinion of the House.
5.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 92.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Attlee, E.
Bridgeman, V.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Byford, B.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]
Craigavon, V.
Denham, L.
Dundee, E.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elton, L.
Erroll, E.
Fookes, B.
Fowler, L.
Freeman, L.
Freyberg, L.
Glentoran, L.
Hanham, B.
Hanningfield, L.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Kingsland, L.
Laird, L.
Lucas, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
McAlpine of West Green, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Marlesford, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Northesk, E.
Norton of Louth, L.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Patten, L.
Reay, L.
Renton, L.
Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Selborne, E.
Skelmersdale, L.
Stevens of Ludgate, L.
Stewartby, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Ullswater, V.
Acton, L.
Ahmed, L.
Amos, B. (Lord Privy Seal)
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Blackstone, B.
Blood, B.
Borrie, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Burlison, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.
Chester, Bp.
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Crawley, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Desai, L.
Donoughue, L.
Dubs, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Gale, B.
Gavron, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Grenfell, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harrison, L.
Haskel, L.
Hayman, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jordan, L.
Judd, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lipsey, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Marsh, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Mishcon, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Puttnam, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rooker, L.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Sheldon, L.
Simon, V.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thornton, B.
Triesman, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Warner, L.
Weatherill, L.
Whitaker, B.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.17 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 2:
- Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |