Proceeding contribution from Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Monday, 2 November 2009. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Community Legal Service (Funding) (Counsel in Family Proceedings) (Amendment) Order 2009.
Community Legal Service (Funding) (Counsel in Family Proceedings) (Amendment) Order 2009
My Lords, first, I thank noble Lords for taking the trouble to attend today and for their support. It is important to have an airing of this very important subject. I should like to make certain that it is understood that I accept the need to make savings and to secure value for money. I have absolutely no objection to the harmonisation of fees for the Bar and solicitors for doing the same job, but not for doing different jobs—that is an important distinction. I accept, as I think I said, that there were improvements in public law payments. These will not take effect until October next year, so we have to go through with the current statutory instrument until then. However, there are not going to be improvements in the private law sector, either in children cases, domestic violence or ancillary relief—that is to say, financial payments. These cases can be as complex, difficult and time consuming as public law cases and, if not well done, some private law cases can become public law cases. There is a long way to go still. I would like the Minister—and particularly those behind him—to reflect on what has been said by noble Lords during the debate. What the Minister has said has not taken us all the way. I particularly have in mind that the warning of the president, Sir Mark Potter, applies now as much as it did before, save in so far as there are some, but not sufficient, improvements to public law. His warning and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is that we need to keep in mind what the family Bar is saying. The Government underappreciate the value of the family Bar—particularly where its ability and experience enables it to obtain settlements which allow people to go away relatively satisfied—when compared to an inexperienced Bar which cannot understand how to settle, and where cases drag on and cost more legal aid money. The longer the case takes, the more it costs, whereas a senior man or woman can get the case over, sometimes on the first day. There is a balance between the costs of cases running on and the extra payment to the more experienced Bar. I am glad there is to be a review; I hope it will involve all stakeholders. The philosophy of separate budgets is excellent; it will be a real step forward for criminal legal aid not to take from the rest of the budget. The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, who wanted to be here but is teaching today, told me in relation to BME women lawyers—barristers and solicitors—that a family lawyer is thought to be a suitable profession for Muslim women. That may be one reason why there are more of them at the family Bar than elsewhere. It is an interesting point that the noble Baroness would have made if she had been here. Motion agreed.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 714 c48-50GC
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Children Care proceedings Barristers Community Legal Service Legal profession Fees and charges Legal aid scheme Domestic abuse Legal representation Family law Forced marriage Family Law Bar Association
- Legislation
- Community Legal Service (Funding) (Counsel in Family Proceedings) (Amendment) Order 2009
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 02:38:23 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_590886
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_590886
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_590886