WARDSHIP AND ADOPTION CASES (Hansard, 27 July 1966)

§ 39 and 40. Mr. Abse
asked the Attorney-General (1) whether he is aware that the delay in the determination of a wardship proceeding impinging upon the prospective adoption of two sisters has been condemned by the Court of Appeal, and that the presiding judge stated that the rules of the court covering such proceedings urgently need revision; and, in view of the fact that this judicial comment follows his attempt to secure changes in the practice of the Chancery Division which would materially reduce the time which elapses before a case is heard, what further action to prevent delay is now to be taken to expedite hearings in wardship and adoption proceedings;

§ 42. Mr. Deedes
asked the Attorney-General what proposals he has for accelerating the work of the Chancery Court; and the Chancery Judges.

§ The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones)
I am aware of the dissatisfaction expressed by the Court of Appeal at the procedure in the Chancery Division in wardship and adoption cases. The delays are due to a variety of reasons, in particular the increase in the number of wardship cases from 102 in 1955 to 424 in 1965, and the fact that legal aid enables these to be fought more strenuously than in the past. Practice directions have been issued with the intention of reducing delay in the earlier stages of proceedings, but the speed with which the cases are decided depends to a large extent on the parties themselves. My noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor and the Chancery Judges are urgently considering the position with a view, to amendment of the Rules of the Supreme Court if necessary. My noble Friend considers that the problems of delay ca n be dealt with more satisfactorily 1718 in this way than by referring the matter to the Law Commission, which is however engaged in a long-term review of the structure of the courts dealing with family matters.

§ Mr. Abse
Is the learned Attorney-General aware that on the last occasion when this question was raised it was suggested that the rules would be altered. Is he further aware that these changes are proving remarkably ineffective, and that these delays will bring our legal system into disrepute, besides causing irreparable harm to children, often subjecting them to lifelong emotional maiming? On the second Question, will he remember that he has not indicated what the Law Commissioners are doing? Are they setting up a separate committee to deal with this complex matter, which is causing such disturbance among parents, foster parents and would-be adopters?

§ The Attorney-General
The Law Commission at the moment is engaged on a long-term review of the structure of the courts dealing with family matters and with family law in general. I am aware of the anxiety of the people affected, and so is my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and the Chancery judges.

§ Mr. Deedes
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that about two years ago his party undertook to fulfil massive and early law reform? Where is it?

§ The Attorney-General
It is taking place massively, and at the present time. It required a Labour Government to introduce a Law Commission, a statutory body concerned with law reform whose output will be a great step forward in law reform any minute now. The problem will be in providing time for these changes in the law. I am delighted to see that at last some interest in law reform has appeared on the benches opposite.

§ 41. Mr. Whitaker
asked the Attorney-General what the average length of delay before adoption cases have been heard in the Chancery Division has been in each of the last three years.

§ The Attorney-General
The average interval between the issue of an originating summons for an adoption order and the making of an order on the summons 1719 was 21 weeks in 1963, 17½ weeks in 1964, 18 weeks in 1965 and 23 weeks in 1966 to date.

§ Mr. Whitaker
Will my right hon. and learned Friend, with his well-known humanity, recognise that these delays cause irreparable harm to the future of young children? Does he agree that the Chancery Division, with its lengthy delays, bears far too much resemblance to the description in "Bleak House", and will he adopt the advice given by the Chancery Lord of Appeal about the future of the Division?

§ The Attorney-General
These matters are now under urgent consideration. The recent appointment of an additional judge to the Chancery Division will reduce the delays, and it may well be that changes in procedure will effect a further improvement.

§ Sir P. Rawlinson
Will the Attorney-General note that there is wide support for the idea of a Family Division of the High Court, to which all these matters and all matters affecting family life should be sent?

§ The Attorney-General
I am reassured by that information. The problems of family law are now under consideration at various levels, and we expect some fundamental changes before long.

§ 43. Mr. Archer
asked the Attorney-General whether he will ask the Committee on the Age of Majority to present at an early date an interim report on the procedure of the Chancery Division in ward of court proceedings.

§ The Attorney-General
The Committee on the Age of Majority is not concerned with the procedure in cases affecting wards of court but only with the substantive law, such as whether there should be any change in the present power to make anyone under 21 a ward of court. The Committee does not intend to present an interim report, but it is hoped that its full report will be available at the end of this year or shortly afterwards.

§ Mr. Archer
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a considerable body of evidence on this subject has been given to the Committee by the Chancery Bar Association? Will he bear in mind the fact that if this reform is 1720 delayed by two or three years it will not assist the unfortunate children whose cases are listed for hearing now?

§ The Attorney-General
I do not think for a moment that there will be a delay of that length of time. The Select Committee will be reporting by the end of the year.