Prasad Rajen: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePrasad Rajen: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13491. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I will take just a brief call on this part to add a little bit more to what my colleagues have just spoken about. Certainly I am particularly pleased to see in clause 35 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill financial or economic abuse being added to the definition of psychological violence because indeed as we go around in our constituencies and in our own communities we see this hidden aspect of violence where on the face of it much is fine and there is a home and other resources but when it comes to taking away from a person the ability to be financially independent to the extent possible that is something that has very caustic effects on psychological well-being. It is a hidden type of abuse and sometimes difficult to prove as well. Some people are quite happy to provide the physical resources but when it comes to finance and the independence that comes with it that becomes a major difficulty. So my first point is that I am glad to see that in the definition and it is something to be supported.But this part of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is like the rest of the bill. It is like the curate’s egg: some parts of it are very good and other parts of it are not. The second point that I do appreciate is Part 2A inserted by clause 52A—the codification if you like of domestic violence programmes. I think it is a good piece of work where indeed a lot of thought has gone into setting out the definitions of family violence programmes the codification of how they are to work. I particularly like the expectations as to how those programmes are to work.Indeed there are any number of programmes where you can refer somebody to a programme not knowing and not having any idea of what is to happen when that person who is to receive assistance gets there. It is quite frustrating because if the expectation is not clear the service is not provided properly and what is needed to address the violent behaviour is not provided in the end a very good opportunity is lost. The person can sign off and say “Yes I’ve gone into this programme and have experienced it.” but indeed nothing much changes. So it is good to see the kinds of expectations that are laid out in new Part 2A. It is quite satisfying for me personally.How referrals are to be made is also much better clarified. Finally judges maintaining a watching brief is also quite important and that is something that we see in the Family Courts already. So those aspects of this part are quite good.But I do want to also add my weight to what my colleague Andrew Little was saying: that if the courts are to provide these services in what is a difficult area of relationships then they also have to be serviced particularly when protection orders are grantedand—probably as important—when an appeal against them takes place. So Part 2 is good in parts and I am really pleased to see those two parts of it but I certainly have a caution that resources also need to be provided. Thank you.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.