Skip to main content

1-20 of 94 results for subject:"Family Procedure Rule Committee"

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much the Family Procedure Rule Committee spent on equality and diversity training in the 2022-23 financial year.

Asked by
Julian Knight (Independent (affiliation))
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
23 October 2023
Reference
202434
House
House of Commons

Moved by

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “or require”

Member
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 c278
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 6, which is in the first grouping. On Amendment 1, HMCTS has acknowledged that its assisted digital programme will not be sufficient to support everybody to engage with online processes and has therefore made a commitment that digital services will not be...

Member
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 cc278-9
House
House of Lords

My Lords, Amendment 3 is in my name and in the names of my noble friend Lord Beith and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. This amendment seeks to have the Bill offer a choice to parties between filing forms and other documents under the Online Procedure Rules by...

Member
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 cc279-280
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I can easily follow my noble friend because he has said much of what needs to be said. With Amendment 4, I am trying to explore what the circumstances are in which it would be possible for people to revert to the traditional procedure rather than the online...

Member
Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 cc280-1
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I support what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Beith. I declare an interest as a barrister practising in offline courts. That was the reason I did not participate at Second Reading.

The Briggs report has been referred to, which said at paragraph 6.13...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 c281
House
House of Lords

My Lords, Amendment 10 in my name gives the right to respond, in addition to the person initiating the claim, to choose whether the new procedure applies. Amendment 11 then provides that, in the event of disagreement between the parties, the relevant court or tribunal will determine which course to...

Member
Lord Beecham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 cc281-2
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I support the intentions of Amendments 1 and 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and Amendments 10 and 11 in the name of my noble friend Lord Beecham. In summary, they remove the potential requirement that people must choose between online proceedings and not...

Member
Baroness Drake (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 cc282-3
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the Government’s view was expressed at Second Reading, but Amendment 1 seems to strike at the heart of what is required. Clause 1 states,

“may authorise or require the parties”.

to use electronic means at hearings. That suggests the possibility of compulsion that would not exclude any section of the...

Member
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 cc283-4
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1, 3, 4, 6, 10 and 11, which relate to the operation of the online procedure and how we can ensure that people using it are not disadvantaged. I intend to turn first to Amendment 3, which covers whether a user can choose...

Member
Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 cc284-5
House
House of Lords

Does the Minister accept that nothing in the Bill guarantees that? He gives us an assurance, but surely it would be better to write that into the Bill.

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 c285
House
House of Lords

If every time we legislated we decided to guarantee everything from A to Z, we would end up with very long Bills. The position is this: there is the ability to proceed by way of the paper process. Nothing prohibits it, there is no inhibition on that process, and there...

Member
Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 c285
House
House of Lords

Before my noble and learned friend leaves Amendment 3, I understood him to say he would accept it, so that it would go into the Bill—although without, I hope, the choice of the combination.

Member
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 c285
House
House of Lords

No, I do not accept the amendment. What I say is that there are existing means by which we can assure people that they can proceed by way of a digital portal or by way of a written claim, which will be scanned and taken into the online procedure process...

Member
Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 c285
House
House of Lords

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way again, but I must press him. We are dealing here with fundamental issues of access to justice. Surely if the Minister recognises that paper procedures must always be available to litigants, it is absolutely vital that the Bill says so.

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 c285
House
House of Lords

I am afraid I cannot accept that. There is nothing in the Bill that would prohibit the employment of such a paper process once the online procedure is up and running. Indeed, the noble Lord will appreciate that, when it comes to the making of rules by the relevant committee,...

Member
Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 cc285-6
House
House of Lords

I am sorry to press the point, but does the Minister accept that without the guarantee in the Bill of his intention, we could lose this procedure at some stage in the future, and that this House may well wish to see that guarantee entrenched in the Bill, so that...

Member
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 c286
House
House of Lords

I quite see that this House might wish to see it in primary legislation, but the position is this: a committee will be formed to put forward appropriate rules and regulations for the online procedure, under the essential supervision not only of the Executive but of the judiciary. There may...

Member
Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 c286
House
House of Lords

Perhaps I may press the Minister on one point. It is easy to see that there is a distinction between an online procedure and the way the court works. If it was made clear that the online procedure is largely geared to ensuring that the systems that lie behind it...

Member
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 c286
House
House of Lords

I hear what the noble and learned Lord has said and I will take account of those observations in going forward to the next stage of the Bill. However, at present it is not my intention to accept any of the amendments so far laid in respect of

this matter....

Member
Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2019
Reference
798 c286
House
House of Lords