JURISDICTION (Hansard, 18 July 1991)

§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause sets out the geographical framework for the jurisdiction of the Child Support Agency. There is to be a simple and easily understood test of jurisdiction —that is, that all parties to a maintenance application should be habitually resident in the United Kingdom. Habitual residence is a test that is already recognised within family law legislation. The agency's jurisdiction for the present will not cover cases where one or more of the parties is habitually resident outside the United Kingdom. Such cases will be, as now, for the courts to decide. The circumstances in such cases are likely to be complex and therefore more appropriate for the courts to exercise their discretionary powers. Also, it would be essential for the courts to deal with a case where it was necessary to invoke any of the international agreements and conventions which provide for the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders. I commend the new clause——

§ Dr. Godman
Again I ask a brief question. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that new clause 3(2) states: When the person with care is not an individual, subsection (1) shall have effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted. Does that mean that, when a child is taken into care to protect his interests against abuse or allegations of abuse or neglect, the social worker or even the foster parent, if such a child is placed in foster care, could not claim on behalf of that child?

§ The Solicitor-General
If I have understood the hon. Gentleman's question correctly, he reminds me that subsection (2) states: Where the person with care is not an individual, subsection (1) shall have effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted. Subsection (1) states:

§ Dr. Godman
I was concerned that a certain section in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, where a child has been taken into care, places responsibility on the local authority to seek, where possible, maintenance from an absent parent. That is why I made my intervention.

§ The Solicitor-General
Under the new clause it would not be appropriate to seek maintenance from an absent parent through the Child Support Agency if the absent parent were not habitually resident within the jurisdiction.

§ Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)
I am still not clear what the Government are trying to achieve in the new clause. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will be able to help me. Clearly, it is intended to provide that if a parent or child is not habitually resident here, the maintenance assessment cannot be made. If that is the case, perhaps the Solicitor-General will elaborate on what would happen in that eventuality. Ideally, a court maintenance order should then be made so that it can be sent abroad to be enforced. Perhaps the Government are trying to provide that in subsection 3(c), but it is not entirely clear from the wording. If subsection 3(c) is not designed to provide for that eventuality, what is its purpose? What does "habitually resident" mean, and who is to decide on the definition?

§ The Solicitor-General
"Habitually resident" means that, as a matter of habit or of normal lifestyle, those persons reside in this country. It is a term of art which means just what one would expect it to mean. If those persons live in France or Germany most of the time, that is where they are habitually resident. The case would then involve complexities with which it would be difficult for the Child Support Agency to deal, although the courts are accustomed to dealing with them. For the time being, therefore, we think it wise that those more complex cases should not be foisted upon the agency in its early years, but should be left to the courts to deal with because the courts are experienced. I hope that that makes the situation clear.