COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 8 November 1989)

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their 720 Amendment No. 1. In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 93.
The effect of these four amendments is to state as a general principle that the court is to regard any delay in proceedings about children as to be likely to prejudice the child's welfare. It does this by removing that proposition from Clauses 10(1) and 27(1) and promoting it to Clause 1 where it applies to all proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises including, for example, wardship proceedings. At present the principle applies only to Section 7 orders in the private law sphere and to limited types of public law proceedings. After the welfare principle, the need to avoid delay is one of the most important policies underlying the Bill. It is therefore proper that it should appear in Clause 1.
The only other amendment of this group that I need to mention specially is Amendment No. 93 which extends the range of proceeding in which the court is required to draw up a timetable and give directions to ensure it is complied with by applying the amended Clause 27(1) to proceedings in which the court is hearing an application for any order under Part IV of the Bill, for example, for the discharge of a care order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ Lord Prys-Davies
My Lords, we welcome the amendment which established in Clause 1, the opening clause of the Bill, the principle that a delay is likely to be prejudicial to the interests of the child. We welcome that principle and that it should be established in Clause 1 of the Bill. It has been estimated that the Bill will increase considerably the number of cases that could come before the courts. Mindful of the present delays in the courts, we are bound to ask whether adequate resources will be made available so that the courts can cope with the increased volume of work without lengthening the delays. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell the House now, or possibly later at a more convenient stage, how much thought is being given to the need for additional resources.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, this is an amendment that really should be welcomed. The first clause of the Bill as printed contains some welcome but rare statements of principle. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out earlier, it can be done and we are doing it again to great advantage. These are the kinds of precedents to be followed as regards the mass of detail that we shall have to consider later.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and to my noble friend Lord Renton for welcoming the amendment. I attach a great deal of importance to the proper implementation of this measure. Noble Lords can take it that we shall be extremely careful to try to measure resources to what is to be required of the courts. One of the present problems is that it is 721 difficult to know exactly what demands will flow from the Bill.
We are making arrangements for this matter to be very carefully examined as we proceed with implementation for which rules of the court will be required. In the light of the consideration of these matters by the inter-departmental working group to which I have referred, the arrangements will take full account of the need for resources. One of the important points is to give this principle the kind of emphasis that I am sure all of your Lordships feel that it should have by putting it into Clause 1 of the Bill.