Lord Gove (Con)

My Lords, I speak because I was persuaded by the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but I recognise that there are inevitable questions that his case provokes, which have been reflected in the debate. Of course, not everyone has been convinced. I am reassured by the strength of the noble Lord’s case, having spent four and a half years as an Education Minister and one and a half years as a Justice Minister with direct responsibility for liaising with the family courts, and so my respect for those who work in those courts and the judges in them is all the greater for it. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has pointed out, not everyone believes that judges would be the ideal people to make decisions in this case. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with respect, of the case that he made in his wonderful book, Judges, where he said: “So long as men and women continue to wound, cheat, and damage each other, there will be a need for judges … Judges do not have an easy job. They repeatedly do what the rest of us seek to avoid: make decisions”. Each of us may consider either judges or a panel preferable, but there is one key question for those who agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his current incarnation and believe that a panel is preferable. Can we know what the promoter of the Bill understands by “legal member”, and can we also understand what the Government believe the definition of “legal member” to be? What is the threshold, what qualification—