Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Later on, I shall speak to my amendment that partially deals with this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman might wish to join us in the Lobby if I press it to a Division. I want to be as quick as I can, because other hon. Members wish to speak and we have a lot of work to get through. If the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) is tempted to press amendment 74 to a Division, I will encourage my colleagues to follow me into the Lobby. I should like to speak briefly to amendments 91 to 102, 83 and 103, which are in my name. I listened carefully to the Minister when he referred to amendment 91. He said that the words ““or other intimate”” are not necessary, which I accept. They probably are otiose, and therefore that point has been dealt with. I dare say that much of what the Justice Secretary will say tomorrow on self-defence will also be otiose, but that is another debate for another day. Amendment 92 would broaden the definition by removing the words ““physical or mental abuse”” and replacing them with"““any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (whether physical, mental, financial or emotional)””." The Minister knows that many people wrote to right hon. and hon. Members and we heard lots of evidence on a subject that has exercised many in the Chamber this evening just as it exercised those in Committee. I have begun to question whether pre-legislative scrutiny is worth anything, because if we get hundreds of pieces of evidence from informed bodies, people at the sharp end and practitioners, and then decide to do little or nothing about them, the process is brought into disrepute. Amendment 93 would insert the words"““or where an allegation is made that B has been abused by A or is at risk of being abused by A””" to line 4 of page 103. Paragraphs 10 and 11 to schedule 1 provide for legal aid for the alleged victim in family cases involving domestic violence or child abuse. However, they do not provide for aid for the adult against whom the allegation is made. The amendment would bring the alleged perpetrator back within scope. That might sound strange, but I shall explain the thinking behind it in a moment. Amendment 96 would insert the words:"““Civil legal services provided to an adult in relation to proceedings for financial relief in respect of a child who is the subject of an order or procedure mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)””," and amendment 97 would add the words:"““Civil legal services provided in relation to proceedings in which the court is considering giving a direction under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 (direction to authority, where care or supervision order may be appropriate, to investigate child's circumstances)””." In responding to points made earlier, the Minister said that the section 37 investigation could well amount to nothing. However, such investigations are not taken lightly. They are always instigated on basic evidence, and caring for that child is not a routine matter, but an extremely important one. Amendment 98 would add"““Civil legal services provided in relation to proceedings arising out of a family relationship involving a child in respect of whom a court has given a direction under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 (direction to authority, where care or supervision order may be appropriate, to investigate child's circumstances); and ““family relationship”” has the same meaning for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as it has for the purposes of paragraph 10””" to line 39. That would have the effect of bringing within scope both proceedings leading to an order under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 and all subsequent steps in family proceedings after a section 37 order has been made. It would also ensure that the person against whom allegations of abuse are made is brought within scope. Amendments 100 to 102 are consequential amendments. Their purpose would be to amend paragraph 13, which provides legal aid to child parties in cases that come under the relevant parts of schedule 1, but not to adult parties. That provision will result in unrepresented adults being forced to cross-examine expert witnesses and, in many cases, even the child concerned. The amendments would therefore bring adult parties in such cases within the scope of legal aid provision. Amendment 103 relates to the director of the Legal Services Commission. We debated in Committee the role of the commission, the independence, or not, of the director in arriving at decisions and the question of whether those decisions will simply be cost-driven. The amendment is designed to deal with those issues. It states that"““the Director must determine that an individual qualifies for civil legal services where the services relate to a matter falling within paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 and—""(a) the individual has been admitted to a refuge for persons suffering from domestic abuse;""(b) the individual has obtained medical or other professional services relating to the consequences of domestic abuse, or""(c) an assessment for the purposes of possible mediation of a family dispute has concluded that the parties need not engage in mediation as a result of domestic abuse,""and in this subsection 'domestic abuse' means abuse of the kind to which paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 relates””." The intention is self-evident. I declare an interest at this late stage in my remarks. I practised family and criminal law for 15 or 16 years as a solicitor and for an equal number of years at the Bar, so I have some understanding of how the family courts work and would therefore gently admonish the Minister: the word ““custody”” went out of favour about 12 years ago—but that is by the bye. My background in this area of law leads me to believe that these changes might well have a devastating effect on families and, even more importantly, children. Both, of course, are closely interrelated: if it is disastrous for the family, it is obviously additionally disastrous for the young child as well. What is more, I believe that the Government's decision to press ahead with a weakened definition of ““domestic abuse”” will result in many women—for it will be overwhelmingly women—entering into court proceedings alone and without legal aid funding.