| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall take a little time on subsection (3), which reflects a recent judicial decision. While I am on my feet, I wish to tell the Committee, unless I am told that I may not do so, that I propose to report the Chairman's conduct to the Procedure Committee. His conduct was not within his power; it was a total abuse of power, as he had not heard what I had to say—which had not been considered—about the noble Baroness's comments. I shall not go into the matter; I shall deal with it before the Procedure Committee. I wished merely to point out that consultation between usual channels does not include myself or other Members of this Committee.
Lord McNally: Would the noble Lord—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Just a moment, please. I was ordered to sit down on pain of being told to leave the room. I have never been subjected to any such indignity by any chairman of any committee or by any Member on the Floor of the House. I make a firm protest that I shall continue to serve this Committee, to do my best, and not to retire as invited to do so.
Lord McNally: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I, too, was rather surprised by the Chairman's attitude. I had assumed that the Grand Committee operated as the House does. I want to ensure that the Procedure Committee is clear on that. A very important principle is at stake: we take great
pride in being a self-regulating House, but if matters are referred to a Grand Committee where the Chairman apparently has powers greater than he would have on the Floor of the House, we have given away something rather more substantial than imagined initially. The matter should be looked at by the Procedure Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: This was an unprecedented occasion where an informal discussion was to take place. The proceedings had not formally opened; therefore, I had no particular authority to do what I have done. I do not regret what I did because I felt that it was important that we get on with the job of discussing Amendment No. 1. No increased authority has been given to me, just some advice from the Public Bill Office, and that is how I interpreted that advice. I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord McNally, too, feels that that is a little severe for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. For the third time, that is unprecedented leeway that I was invited to give to the Committee before the proceedings began. Now proceedings are under way. We are discussing training, about which the noble Lord did not feel inclined to talk. The matter is now closed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Lord Chairman, it is closed here; let the Procedure Committee decide. I do not accept your explanation for one moment.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Perhaps I may seek a little assistance on Amendment No. 1. Subsection (3) of the amendment states:
- "A member of the judiciary may not carry out their functions in relation to matters covered by this Act unless that person has followed a course of training and development covering the matters dealt with in this Act".
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: First, I apologise to the Minister for not being present during her opening remarks. I shall read them tomorrow in Hansard and wise myself up as to the various considerations that were taken on board. As regards Amendment No. 1, my knowledge of the courts is very restricted. I know a large number of magistrates, but, on the whole, I do not know judges in other courts except in an informal way.
Magistrates faced with this Bill might undertake some training led by their clerks, who, I am sure, would draw their attention to any new and difficult issues, which, if the Bill goes through unamended, should be studied before cases come before them. There is nothing odd about that aspect. But, with my knowledge of the courts, I shall not contest what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said because that would be idiotic.
The phrase that caught my eye is in subsection (1) of the new clause. It states:
- "No person mentioned in subsection (2)"—
- "shall be required to carry out their functions".
- "shall be required to carry out their functions".
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I, too, apologise for not being here at the start. I lost the meeting, but now I have found it. I, too, have some anxieties about the amendment, although it is crucial that there is training. I declare an interest as a member of the new board of CAFCASS. I have considerable experience of courts in relation to children as witnesses, as well as within the domestic and criminal courts.
It is clear that people will need training across the board, particularly in the voluntary sector where, often, they do not obtain training because they are marginalised by the Secretary of State from receiving any money. The Government often say that it should be shared, but I think that the noble Baroness knows that that does not always happen, despite encouragement.
However, I should like assurance that if the details of training were not in the Bill, the guidance would certainly contain them. That is where this belongs and where the who and the how can be thought through in some detail. Here is a particularly complex group of people, and training will be different for the different groups.
Lord Ackner: Perhaps I may make a very limited intervention on the case of judicial training. There always has been resistance among the judiciary to suggestions that it should be trained. Lord Devlin himself took the point that judges do not need training. That is an out-of-date concept. Judges of any first-instance kind may need training. That justifies the very considerable expenditure on the Judicial Studies Board. That is fully carried out.
As a judge, one is required to attend these courses. As a judge, one is required to attend a number of training courses. That particularly was the case in relation to the European human rights legislation that we took on board. With great respect to my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson, I do not think that there is anything the matter with that. The Court of Appeal is not required to take on training, for the simple reason that it is expected to understand the law. If it needs training, no doubt the Master of the Rolls could arrange courses. I therefore see nothing wrong with subsection (3) of the proposed new clause.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: If accepted, the clause would go to jurisdiction. That is the problem.
I do not disagree with my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner about the desirability of training. Nor do I disagree when he says that there is extensive training now undertaken through the Judicial Studies Board. That is thoroughly desirable, and I am sure that it will continue. No doubt, it will be broadened in the light of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament.My point is that it is a complete novelty. It is undesirable to have licensed judges in the Court of Appeal or, possibly, in the slightly lower courts. That is what this amounts to. There would be no jurisdiction in Lord Justice X's court unless he had received adequate training. It may be that, administratively, it could be arranged that he did not hear such an appeal, but that is another matter altogether. But this would mean that the man or woman had no jurisdiction, which I find strange.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In replying to this part of the debate, I may say that I interpreted the noble Baroness's amendment as a generic way of asking what is to be done about training. Unfortunately, the flaws in the amendment—I shall not trouble to go through them all—are such that they would have some very unfortunate consequences, as already alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. They are all correct.
The Government recognise the importance of training for those working in the field of domestic violence. Quite properly, that was raised at Second Reading. I made it absolutely clear that the Government would review all the domestic violence training available, with a view to ensuring a more consistent, multi-agency approach.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, would place a statutory requirement for training on the police, the judiciary, and those involved in domestic violence homicide reviews. Because of the scope of the Bill and the terms of the amendment, its effects would be felt throughout the civil and criminal justice system. For example, in the absence of judges with the new training that the amendment demands, there may be delays in the issue of non-molestation and occupation orders, and criminal cases dealing with everything from common assault to familial homicide could not be heard. That would throw the listings procedure into chaos and seriously delay or jeopardise the outcome of a large number of proceedings.
At the other end of the system, as I think was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, senior police officers would be unable to order officers to attend most domestic violence cases, along with incidents of common assault or breach of a restraining order. Similarly, domestic violence homicide reviews, which are intended to be light touch, would also become difficult.
I understand that that is not what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, seeks. We all acknowledge that more work is needed to ensure that training for the police and the judiciary is of the highest standard, and that work already is under way. I should like to
reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that the days when judges denied the need for training have frankly long gone. The criticism, if there is one, of the JSB now is why they do not receive more training. There is no problem about judges wanting to be trained.The police and judiciary continue to make significant progress in training. In 2002, the Central Police Training and Development Authority—Centrex—and the Association of Chief Police Officers published a new six-part training pack on domestic violence, and the National Centre for Policing Excellence is developing new guidelines for police handling of domestic violence cases. In addition, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate will shortly publish a joint thematic review of the handling of domestic violence cases, and we look forward to any recommendations that the report makes on training.
Training for the judiciary is provided by the Judicial Studies Board, which has recognised that training is not provided consistently throughout the magistrates' courts service. In order to support universal delivery, the Judicial Studies Board has developed training materials on domestic violence for use in the training of magistrates, and is providing training for magistrates' trainers in the use of that material.
The Judicial Studies Board also provides a range of courses for judges that covers domestic violence. If and when specific legislation is introduced, the Judicial Studies Board will assess the training needs of the judiciary and make any necessary provision. Finally, a review is under way to determine how many judges are ticketed for different areas of work, after which an assessment will be made about any additional appointments that may be required to fill the gaps.
No one disputes the fact that the police and judiciary need proper training to ensure that they understand the laws they are called on to enforce, and that they do so with proper awareness of the dynamics of particular types of case. I very much take on board what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said about training generally and the needs being of importance to all the agencies. We are keeping that matter very much in the forefront of our minds.
Training is an essential part of implementing new measures and making full use of existing powers, but the amendment would not improve matters. If anything, because of the way in which it is drafted, it is likely to make matters worse for the justice system and for victims themselves. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendments.
I have the privilege of chairing the inter-ministerial group on domestic violence. I reassure the noble Baroness that we are indeed trying to work right across government to see how we can raise the profile of the issue and make sure that there is better understanding. We are working with the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health, the ODPM, which deals with housing, and right across the board. The broad ministerial commitment is very strong, and
we can get the message across and make the situation better. We will look carefully at the whole issue of training. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that her amendments have done what she wanted; namely, to have the issue explored. I hope that the answers meet her concerns.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |