HC Deb 19 May 1978 vol 950 cc1070-4

Amendments made: No. 75, in page 92, line 4 at end insert—

When dealing with a clause that gave power to a single justice to call for reports in certain cases, I suggested that it would be appropriate for the justice's clerk to be able to call for reports. The Under-Secretary of Sate replied that that was the Government's intention but that they intended to make that clear by rule rather than writing anything into the Bill as that was the normal practice. It would seem far more satisfactory if such matters could be written into Bills. However, that was an indication of the way in which these matters work, which I do not think is entirely satisfactory.

The Bill is a complex measure, which repeals completely the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960. It amends 28 other Acts and repeals parts of 24 others, some of which have not yet been implemented, such as the Children Act. We all know the reason for that. However, it means that it is virtually impossible for a lawyer, let alone a layman, to take any Act of Parliament on any topic and to be able to say "This is the law". The probability is that it will not be the law as part of it will have been implemented and other parts will not. Further, it will be subject to consequential legislation, rules, circulars and memoranda.

Having got that complaint off my chest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can say, on behalf of the Opposition, that we welcome the Bill as going a long way in removing the criminal atmosphere from domestic proceedings, and the feeling that some parties to these proceedings have had, that one party was endeavouring to prove guilt or misdemeanour against the other.

I welcome the Bill also as a step towards the establishment of family courts. I repeat the view that I expressed on Second Reading, that the measure will be treated as a step towards family courts and not simply as an excuse for inaction. A good deal of work has been done on the question of family courts, notably by Judge Jean Graham Hall, and by the Finer Committee.

The House will recall that the Finer Committee devoted a good deal of time and trouble to examining family courts and the way in which they might be set up. It set out six major criteria, one of which, in paragraph 4.283, was that the family court will be a unified institution in a system of family law which applies a uniform set of legal rules, derived from a single moral standard and applicable to all citizens.". That is an aim to which all of us would aspire, and we can say that the Bill is a timid step in that direction.

When the Finer Report was considered by the House, the then Secretary of State for Social Services indicated that there were formidable economic, administrative and practical difficulties in implementing the Finer recommendations. Indeed, the right hon. Lady's words were that the Government could see no prospect of accepting the recommendations for family courts".—[Official Report, 20th October 1975; Vol. 898, c. 60.]

That statement was viewed with disappointment by many people. It is noticeable that, although those claims were made that there were formidable economic, administrative and practical difficulties, to the best of my knowledge they have never really been spelt out, let alone investigated.

Perhaps, therefore, I may draw the Minister's attention in advance to a valuable study of the family courts, which has been undertaken by a sub-committee of the Society of Conservative Lawyers and is to be published on Wednesday of next week, showing the way in which such courts could be introduced. I commend this study to the Minister and will make a point of ensuring that he has a copy to study and to pass round his Department.

The document suggests that we could progress by evolutionary rather than revolutionary means towards a family court structure, and that the difficulties are by no means as formidable as they may at first appear. I hope, therefore, that the Bill and the document to which I have just referred will give further impetus not only to discussion but also to action in the area of family courts.

There have been some very useful discussions on the Bill both in Committee and today. It is certainly a measure which has been improved during its passage through the House of Commons, thus perhaps reversing the more common practice, and proving that the Commons has considerable value as a revising Chamber. In expressing the hope that these improvements will be acceptable in another place, we wish the Bill a speedy passage on to the statute book.

4.34 p.m.

Mrs. Hayman

Before the Bill is given its Third Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel that it is only right to explain the somewhat churlish attitude that right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in these debates may have taken to the Bill. It is hard to raise one cheer, let alone two or three, for the measure, partly because, even in dealing with the magistrates' jurisdiction in domestic matters, we have not seen in the Bill a complete abolition of the concept of the matrimonial offence. We have not seen the magistrates' jurisdiction really brought into line with that of the divorce courts. That is a disappointment to us all.

The other great disappointment concerns the courts that will administer this piecemeal reform of family law. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) recommended my hon. Friend the Minister of State to read a pamphlet from the Society of Conservative Lawyers. I recommend him to read the Labour Party manifesto of 1974, which pledged us to implement family courts. It is highly unsatisfactory that we have not progressed in that area. It is one measure which, without straight financial provision to families, would make an enormous difference to the lives of most one-parent families and to the traumas which exist in families when marriages break up. I hope that the next Labour Government will be elected on, among other things, a pledge to implement family courts and that they will have a programme to do so in their first Queen's Speech.

4.36 p.m.

Miss Richardson

I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman). At the risk again of appearing to be a bit churlish, we are very disappointed that the Government did not grasp the nettle and look at this whole matter with a view to introducing the concept of family courts now.

Far from agreeing with the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) that this is a step on the way, I am fearful—I put it no higher—that this new measure will stop us from going forward to a system of family courts. It is so complicated that it will take a long time to bring in all the various provisions, and magistrates' courts will take a long time to get used to it. Therefore, we shall be saddled with it for possibly another 15 or 20 years. I should have preferred that we cut our losses on this measure and started again with a totally new concept.

I am particularly disappointed that we have not got rid of imprisonment for maintenance default. We had a real chance to do something here. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend and I were unable to convince the Committee on that aspect. Be that as it may, we have done what we can to help to improve the Bill. We are grateful to the Government for at least accepting some part of what we suggested.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. John

Despite what has been said, I thank all hon. Members who served on the Committee for their labours on the Bill. We often talk with our tongues in our cheeks about improving a Bill as being the function of the Committee, but I think that has been done here in a number of instances.

Obviously at this late hour I cannot reply in detail to certain points. If the Committee had written into the Bill all the provisions suggested by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), we should not have got through in the time available. We certainly should not have had the consultation which the rules permit us to have. Therefore, I promise to consult all the relevant bodies on the drafting of the rules.

On the question of what we do or do not implement, I am constantly amazed at the abandon with which we set up bodies, such as the Law Commission, and the abandon with which we want to go contrary to their advice when they give it. The Bill is based on the 1971 working paper of the Law Commission, which has been extensively discussed and has met with general approval. When the House sets up a body to give it advice, I believe that it is at least right that it should try to abide by that advice before moving on to some other concept. Unfortunately, we always seem to be four jumps ahead of ourselves on law reform.

I understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) and of the hon. Member for Chislehurst, but I undertake to read the document from the Society of Conservative Lawyers. I have read the Labour Party manifesto. I will re-read it, and that should take care of my summer holidays.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.