§ 32. Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds)What recent representations the Lord Chancellor has received regarding changes to the status of McKenzie Friends. [104960]
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock)Since my previous reply on 14 December to the hon. Member, my fellow Parliamentary Secretary has had a useful and constructive meeting with representatives from Families Need Fathers. I and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor have received no further representations.
§ Mr. RuffleyI am grateful to the Minister for that reply. But I should like to ask him again whether he understands that many litigants in person with no legal representation in family court cases find the legal 140 proceedings very worrying; they are very disturbed by them and the proceedings can often be traumatic. For that reason they need a friend or assistant in court with them—that is, they need a McKenzie friend. Given the abolition of the right to a McKenzie friend in chambers or in court, can the Minister give me more detail as to what specific steps his Department will take to reinstate that important right?
§ Mr. LockThe Government have no plans at present to place the role of McKenzie friends on a statutory footing, though we recognise the important role they play in some cases. The judges have developed common law rules so that litigants in person are permitted a McKenzie friend in proceedings in open court, and in most proceedings in chambers, unless the court is satisfied that fairness and justice, or the confidential nature of the information that will be disclosed in the court case—which is why the proceedings may be in Chambers in the first place—do not make it appropriate for a party to be assisted by a McKenzie friend.
The nature of private proceedings may in some cases make it undesirable for a McKenzie friend to be present. The Government are content to leave the development of policy in this area to the courts.
§ Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)Would more McKenzie friends mean fewer lawyers and fewer QCs? That would save us an absolute fortune. Has my hon. Friend seen the article in The Times today, headed
It's time for barristers to fight back",in which Richard Benson QC says that earnings of £500,000 a year are a derisory amount?
§ Mr. LockI am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that article to the attention of the House. I must say that the Government consider that sums paid from taxpayers' funds to barristers may—and we are considering this at the moment—be related to the sums that we pay other very important public service workers, such as teachers, doctors, nurses and social workers. I do not think there are many nurses—despite the generosity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the recent announcement of nurses' pay awards—who are collecting half a million pounds a year.