Lords Sitting of 29 April 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Whaling: Moratorium
Lord Gridley Lord Gridley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to withdraw from the international agreement on the ban on whaling.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the United Kingdom was among the leading coutries in achieving the moratorium on commercial whaling. We are not prepared even to contemplate lifting the moratorium unless and until certain conditions are met. This is not yet the case.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for than. Answer. Is he aware that only at the beginning of last week there was confusion about the Government's intended position on whaling at the early meeting of the International Whaling Commission? As a consultant on wildlife care, I was pursued about the matter.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government have long been in the lead in pressing for the conservation of whales. The moratorium achieved under the International Whaling Commission is still in place after its review last year. The number of whales taken for scientific whaling purposes during the moratorium has been greatly reduced as a result of the pressures of the International Whaling Commission. Furthermore, the EC has prohibited trade in whale products. The Government will continue to work for the conservation of whales through all appropriate means.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher My Lords, will the Minister accept an assurance that Members on this side of the House fully support the line that the Government are taking in respect of the moratorium on the international whaling, agreement? Countries such as Norway and Iceland like to be thought of in world terms as being environmentally conscious and sensitive. Why are they in favour of ending the moratorium or, if that is not achieved, in favour of a breakaway agreement which will permit them to resume limited whaling? In the light of the position taken by Norway and Iceland, will the Government remind themselves that those countries are affluent in terms of fish? Indeed, in 1990 one-third of all fish imported into this country came from Iceland.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his opening remarks. Iceland has observed the moratorium since it was introduced. However, it continued scientific; whaling up to and including 1989. Norway has not withdrawn its formal objection to the moratorium but it ceased coastal whaling after the
472
1987 season. Since then it has conducted some research whaling. During the past year it has taken only five whales in order to examine the digestive biology of the minke whale. The moratorium on whaling has no connection with negotiations on fishing opportunities. However, during the mid 1970s most countries in the world moved to a 200 mile fishery limit, including the United Kingdom. Our limits were laid down in the 1976 Act. Fishing within the limits of other countries must be a matter for negotiation.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I acknowledge that my noble friend's Answer will be received with satisfaction by whales throughout the world. However, will he confirm that the point is not merely one of conservation but of the inherent cruelty in the methods of killing whales in any form?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend. My right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made clear that we cannot contemplate lifting the moratorium on commercial whaling until certain conditions are met, including the condition that killing must be as humane as possible. Those conditions have not yet been met.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, what scientific purpose is served by scientific whaling? Is it not used by some countries engaged in whaling, in particular the Japanese, as a cover for killing whales for commercial use and food?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government have taken the lead in pressing for scientific research projects which involve taking whales to be modified or withdrawn when they have not been accepted by the scientific committee as being essential for the comprehensive assessment of whale stocks or the development of a revised management procedure. That pressure has resulted in some projects being withdrawn and the number of whales taken to be reduced in others. The international convention for the regulation of whaling provides for whaling under research permits. Therefore, Japan and Norway have been acting within the terms of the convention but have modified programmes in the light of the view of the International Whaling Commission.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in his initial reply, the noble Earl referred to certain conditions being met and he has just named one; namely, the humane killing of whales. Are there any other conditions? If so, can he specify them?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, indeed I can. There are three conditions: first, stocks must be at healthy and sustainable levels; secondly, a satisfactory management procedure must be in place; and thirdly, the methods used to take the whales must be as humane as possible.

Houses: Starts and Completions
2.43 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the figures for new starts and completions of housing in the first quarter of this year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, house building figures for March 1991 are not yet available. However, in the three months up to February 1991, 31,400 new dwellings were started in Great Britain and 43,900 were completed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does she not agree that the figures are somewhat disappointing although there are signs that the building industry is bottoming out? Is she not aware that at a meeting in one of your Lordships' Committee Rooms last week representatives of the Building Employers Confederation told Members of your Lordships' House that tender prices in the building industry are at present the most advantageous in living memory? Therefore, would it not make sense for the Government to allow local authorities to make available increased sums of money from their capital receipts so enabling those authorities and the housing associations to take advantage of the very good terms which can now be negotiated and thereby improve the disappointing figures?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in 1988 private enterprise house building was at its highest since 1973. From that peak and because of the need to raise interest rates to keep down inflation, the fall during 1989–90 was not surprising. However, the Government's clear and prime task remains the overwhelming defeat of inflation.
The noble Lord assumes that local authorities are the only providers of houses. He asks whether credit approvals can be given to local authorities to enable them to spend their receipts. The point has been made a number of times that the authorities with the highest receipts are not those with the highest need. Government compensate for that by making sure that allocations for credit approval go to the authorities with the greatest need.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I reinforce what has been said: the building industry is crying out for a lead. It is up to the Government to give that lead, particularly at this time. Will the Minister not say to those sensible councils—and there are quite a few—which are not allowed to use money from the sale of council houses, that they can now use that money to instruct the building industry to start building houses for them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the same argument applies as regards credit approvals. The areas of highest need would not have the money to spend. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, makes a very important point and I hope that nothing I say detracts from a recognition of the difficulties experienced by the
474
building industry. However, the best thing that the Government can do for the building industry is to continue the downward trend of inflation. That will increase work for the building industry.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, with further reference to the meeting mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, which was presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, are the Government not concerned about the massive ebbs and flows in house building requirements and their impact on training and the retention of skilled personnel? Is the noble Baroness aware that one result is to open up the sector more and more to foreign competition?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand entirely the point raised by the noble Lord about the difficulties experienced by the building industry. When interest rates were lower the industry was in good heart and reached a peak. As I said, in 1988 the peak was greater than that reached in 1973. The best course that we can take for the building industry is to continue our war against inflation and to bring down interest rates as is beginning to
happen.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a serious situation when 121,900 completions represent half the number required to meet the needs arising from new family formation, slum clearance and houses going out of occupation? Does that not mean that in the years ahead there will be a severe shortage of housing which in turn will push up the price of housing and make it less available to those in need at the bottom end of the income scale?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I return to the central point. Economic buoyancy will help the building of houses. I must throw a question back to the noble Lord in view of what the leader of his party said yesterday. If there is no more money to come from the Labour Party for housing, where will it come from? I believe that the noble Lord is suggesting that money from government is the answer to the problem.
I am not apologetic about the Government's record. Since 1979, housing stock has risen by 2 million, which is far in excess of the increase in population. Owner occupation has risen from 57 per cent. to 69 per cent. The Housing Corporation's expenditure is set to rise to £2 billion from f I billion only a year ago. Housing benefit has increased to 100 per cent. of eligible rent and has doubled since 1979. I could continue: I have no need to apologise for the record of the Government. At present there is a problem as regards house building. However, the best thing that we can do for house builders is to make sure that the economic climate is right so that more houses can be built to satisfy the need for them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister chose to accuse my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick of being selective when he spoke of the need for more council house starts. Is it not the case that her answers refer purely to private sector starts and completions? Does the Minister not agree that it

475
would be better if we thought about both the private and public sectors contributing to the solution of housing need?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the figures I gave in my reply related to all housing.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister made a mistake in saying that I spoke only of councils building houses. I did not. I specifically referred also to the Housing Corporation and housing associations. The Minister makes the point that she is defending the Government's record. She must be aware that over the past 13 years since the Government have been in office, 1 he house building record in this country has been the worst of any 10 years since the war. If the end product is that more people are sleeping in boxes every winter, despite the valiant efforts of Sir George Young last winter, does the Minister believe that we as a society should accept that as a cure for inflation? I do not.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it depends to which statistic the noble Lord is referring. If he is referring to the building done between the First World War and the Second World War, that is understandable. It started from an extremely low base.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am speaking of the last world war.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in that case the figures are not the worst if one takes house building as a whole. The noble Lord referred to housing associations. I was saying that their budget is set to rise to £2 billion. The noble Lord's figures may be right if he is referring exclusively to local authority housing It has been a deliberate policy of the Government to switch responsibility for providing houses from local authorities to the private sector and to housing associations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me a question: she is entitled to an answer: she wanted to know what Labour Party policy was on the matter. The noble Baroness will be aware that I do not speak for the Labour Front Bench in an official capacity.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that during any period of Labour government the housing starts figure never fell to the low level that we see today?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot answer that question specifically. However, the record of this Government throughout the past decade in addressing the specific problems of housing, whether new house build, housing the homeless or helping people to buy their own homes, is unequalled.

Factory Inspectors
2.53 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to restore the number of factory inspectors to the figure in post in 1980.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, on 1st April 1991, 650 factory inspectors were in post in the Health and Safety Executive, an increase of 10 per cent. since 1988. Details of further planned increases in the number of inspectors will be set out in the Health and Safety Commission's plan of work for 1991–92 and beyond, to be published at the end of May.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that that is not an Answer to my Question? My Question related to when the Government intend to return to the figures of 1980. It has not been answered. It is the third time I have asked the Question. Does the Minister realise that at the rate he suggests it will take 25 years to get back to the 1980 figure? When are the Government going to improve on their record?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I understand that the HSE has a provisional planned figure of 702 factory inspectors in post on 1st April 1992. Following the approval by the Secretary of State for Employment of the Health and Safety Commission's plan of work for 1991–92 and beyond, I confirm the HSE's target of 702 factory inspectors in post by 1st April 1992. I understand the point made by the noble Lord that the figure of 702 does not reach the figure of 759. However, it goes a long way towards it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to the report of the HSE, there has been an increase in the number of fatalities in manufacturing industry and that that trend appears to be continuing? Does it not seem wrong in such circumstances that the number of planned visits which factory inspectors have been making to manufacturing establishments has declined between 1987 and the present day?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, may be thinking that the number of inspections per staff unit has decreased. While that is so, the total number of inspections by factory inspectors is planned to rise to 177,100 this year. That is a rise of over 50,000 in two years. That is due to the overall rise in the number of inspectors.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that it is wholly unreasonable for the Labour Party to ask these questions considering that manufacturing industry has declined so much under the present Government?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Lord should remember that in recent years the Government have met the HSC's PES bids in full. Gross provision was increased to £184 million in 1991–92; that is an increase of £24 million over 1991.

477
In the 1990 PES round gross provision was increased to £196 million in 1992–93, and £213 million in 1993–94.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is it not a fact that what matters is not the number of factory inspectors but the number of inspections that they undertake, and the adequacy of those inspections? Does my noble friend have any figures comparing now with 1980?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I do not have those figures. However, there was a slight drop in the number of factory inspections in 1988–89; they are now on the increase. HSC's last published plan of work for 1991 and beyond provided for increased numbers of preventive inspections last year, this year and next.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the main point of my question related to the number of fatalities in manufacturing industry, which are on the increase. Therefore is it not necessary for there to be more planned factory inspections rather than fewer? According to the information in the HSE report, there has been a decline since 1987–88. In 1987–88 it was 631; in the following year it was down to 593, and last year it was 570. Is not that entirely the wrong tendency?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, over the past 20 years the number of reported fatal injuries to employees has decreased from around 776 in 1971 to a provisional figure of 339 in 1989–90. The injury rate of 1989–90 is well below the 1988–89 level. I remind the House that the 1988–89 figures include the 167 fatalities that occurred on Piper Alpha.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, apart from statistics, which are so difficult to remember, can my noble friend say whether it is or is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to take this matter seriously not only on humanitarian grounds, but also because it affects productivity? Can he confirm that it is the policy of the Government to increase the inspectorate and ensure that inspections are properly conducted?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I come back to the figures of gross provision which I gave to the House earlier.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, should be that under the present figures we get one inspection per day per inspector? In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is it not correct that if the Government took the matter seriously we would not have a situation such as existed in the middle of the 1980s, since when the accident rate has not decreased but has stagnated?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, since April 1988 the number of inspectors, including 25 railway inspectors, has increased by 136. That is an increase of 11.7 per cent. That is a total of 1,165 in April 1988 increasing to 1,301 in April 1990–91. As I
478
said, further increases are planned in 1991–92. The number of inspectors employed by HSE on 1st April 1991 was the highest since December 1982.

The Badminton Cabinet
3 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to ensure that the Badminton cabinet remains in the United Kingdom.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has deferred the decision on the export licence application for the Badminton cabinet until after 17th May 1991. This is to give an opportunity for an offer to purchase to be made at or above the recommended price of £8,697,000. The National Art Collections Fund, on behalf of the Fitzwilliam Museum, has launched a national appeal to raise the necessary funds. I wish the fund every success in its endeavour.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Do the Government accept that the Badminton cabinet is the finest, the largest and the last of the baroque cabinets made by the famous Medici workshop in Florence? Are the Government further aware that it was commissioned in 1719 by a former Member of your Lordships' House, and that it bears the Plantagenet arms, which came to the Beauforts through John of Gaunt? Does my noble friend agree that, if this masterpiece were to go to the United States, it would be a loss to the heritage not only of this country but of Europe? Does he further agree that if the cabinet remains here, it will be in one of our great museums? At present it is at the Tate Gallery.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the cabinet is a very fine example. There is an appeal in progress. The sum of £2.65 million has been raised to date, of which £1.5 million has come from the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Incidentally, the grant aid for 1991–92 has been quadrupled to £12 million by the Government.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the Badminton cabinet was offered by the trustees to a museum for £4 million, which is half the amount it fetched later at auction? Is the noble Viscount further aware that the same thing happened with the Chatsworth drawings? They were offered for half the price which was eventually reached. Will the Government consider changing their policy so that items of this importance can be accepted before they go to auction and reach inflated prices? Is the Minister aware that, if that had happened in France with a similar historic treasure, it would have been bought immediately by the French state?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. About seven months prior to the sale at Christie's the cabinet was offered by the trustees of the Beaufort family to the Victoria and Albert

479
Museum for £4 million, with three years in which to pay that sum. The trustees of the V&A felt unable to take up the offer.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the whole system of export stops has been rendered farcical by the lack of adequate government finance? Will the Government now consider a system by which, if an export ban is imposed on a work of art, they will find the money so that a national collection can acquire it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government are doing a great deal in this area. They accept heritage items, buildings and land in lieu of inheritance tax dues. Since 1985 over £42 million-worth of tax has been satisfied by such items. The Government offer a significant tax concession to individuals who own items on which inheritance tax is due if the items are sold to an approved institution. Since 1985 items valued in excess of £55 million have been acquired by UK national museums and galleries through the mechanisms of the private treaty sale at a cost to those institut ons of only £25 million.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister spoke about tax allowances. However, does he agree that in this country they apply only after death? There are no tax allowances during a person's lifetime, and that is what is needed. Does the Minister agree that all the facts shout out that not enough money is put into the system?
Last year, out of 15 export stops, only five of the objects were saved and they were at the lower end of the financial scale. Does the Minister agree that if this situatiop continues without the Government intervening and putting more money into these funds, we shall gradually have a draining away of our most valuable pieces of heritage, wherever they originally came from, and that that will be a great loss to the country as a whole?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there are tax concessions for people to give articles in lieu of tax which need not only be on death. They can be gifts made before death. Over the past five years, of the items found to be of national importance in which decisions on licence applications were referred, 51 per cent. have stayed in this country.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, do the Government agree that it is only worth spending this very large sum of money on the cabinet if it is to remain at Badminton? Judging from photographs, to my mind the cabinet is not an outstandingly beautiful object. If it is a very remarkable piece of carpentry which is to be put in to a museum, then it might just as well go to Italy or America. The money saved could be used for things which are essential to this country such as the preservation of buildings which once taken down cannot be put up again. I include also the integral fittings of such buildings.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, makes an interesting point. My noble friend the
480
Minister for the Arts is concerned only with export licences. He is not concerned whether the Badminton cabinet stays at Badminton.
Lord Renton: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, will my noble friend accept that the photographs have not done justice to the magnificence of this cabinet? The noble Lord can see the cabinet for himself at the Tate Gallery. In view of the strong representations made this afternoon by noble Lords, will my noble friend tell his colleagues in the Government who are concerned with this matter that the time has come to revise our system of saving works of art and therefore our export licence system?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is a very fine cabinet. It is currently at the Tate Gallery. I am sure that if any noble Lord wishes to make a donation, it will be gratefully received.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Hooper will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the business plans for National Health Service Trusts.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Child Support Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

Committee Work of the House: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee appointed to consider the committee work of the House:

L. Bancroft,

L. Beaverbrook,

L. Boston of Faversham,

L. Dormand of Easington,

E. Jellicoe (Chairman),

L. Kearton,

L. Pym,

L. Thurlow,

L. Tordoff.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place; That the Committee have leave to report from time to time; That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out; That the Committee do meet on Tuesday, 7 May, at 4.30 p.m. in Committee Room 4.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question of the Chairman of Committees. When was the report of the Select Committee of Selection available to Members of the House? My understanding is that it was available on Thursday evening. If that is so, and the House wanted to consider amendments to the list, bearing in mind that it does not contain the name of a Member of the other sex in your Lordships' House, there is no way in which an amendment could be made by placing the Motion on the Order Paper today. If I am right in saying that the report was laid on Thursday, then Members of the House would have seen the proposal only today unless they came in on Friday morning. I may be wrong in suggesting Thursday, but perhaps the noble Lord can confirm whether I am right or wrong.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am of the opinion that it was available on Wednesday. That is my advice.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Road Traffic Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 21,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 22 to 25,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 26 to 42,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 43 to 46,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 47 to 60,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 61 to 71,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 72 to 77,

Schedule 7.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tay Road Bridge Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time.
Clause 81 [For protection of Scottish Hydro-Electric plc]:
The Earl of Strathmore and
Kinghorn The Earl of Strathmore and
Kinghorn moved the following amendment:
Page 25, line 47, leave out ("19") and insert ("64")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that this amendment in no way affects the content of the clause. It is purely a drafting amendment which corrects the reference in the clause to other sections within the order confirmation Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendment.

Water Industry Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is the first of five Bills on the Order Paper in my name. If I may, I shall speak to all five together, and then move the outstanding four formally, together with the consequential Motion in connection with the fifth. I should like to express my appreciation, and I trust also that of the House, to the Law Commission and the draftsman, who have made such an outstanding job of this enormous consolidation exercise.
The Water Act 1989 substantially restructured the law of England and Wales relating to water. The functions which were previously combined as functions of the water authorities became divided between a new national body known as the National Rivers Authority and the companies appointed to be the new water and sewerage undertakers.
The 1989 Act made extensive amendments to the enactments relating to the functions previously vested in the water authorities and this alone made an early consolidation essential. In addition, the financing of land drainage and flood defence has been significantly modified by powers conferred for the purposes of the new system of local government finance introduced by the Local Government Finance Act 1988. This makes it desirable to consolidate the enactments relating to land drainage, even those which were only incidentally affected by the 1989 Act.
The two main Bills of the consolidation, the Water Industry Bill and the Water Resources Bill, bring together the principal legislation from the 1989 Act and elsewhere dealing with the National Rivers Authority and with the new undertakers respectively.
The 1989 Act also made provision, in connection with its other provisions, for the corporate structure and powers of the statutory water companies. These provisions, together with all the surviving legislation on the same subject from public Acts, are consolidated in the Statutory Water Companies Bill.
Until the 1989 Act, land drainage functions were vested in the water authorities, internal drainage boards and local authorities. The 1989 Act substantially amended the law relating to these functions, and the Land Drainage Bill reproduces the functions of the internal drainage boards and local authorities and the new provisions about drainage rates resulting from the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
Finally, there is the Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill which is ancillary to

483
the four main Bills. It deals with consequential amendments and repeals and transitional and saving provisions relating to the four Bills.
The Law Commission has, in accordance with usual practice, issued a report on the consolidation in which it makes a number of recommendations for minor technical amendments to remove anomalies and inconsistencies which came to light during the consolidation exercise.
There is a special Motion on the Order Paper relating to this consolidation. The Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill is an essential part of the consolidation but it is not strictly a consolidation Bill. It is most conveniently dealt with, along with the other four Bills, by the Joint Committee, but the rules of the House require that the House refer it to the Joint Committee specifically. The other Bills will go through to the Joint Committee in the ordinary course. I beg to move that the first of the five Bills be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.15 p. m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am keenly aware of the restrictive nature of our consideration of consoli cation Bills and I certainly do not wish to trespass on the time of the House or indeed on its rules of procedure. However, there are two matters of drafting which I would wish to draw to the attention of the Joint Committee. There are also some other matters to which I should like briefly to refer. They concern issues where in our view, in regard to the possibility of a choice by the Joint Committee between the provisions which come from the later legislation—the 1989 Act in particular—and earlier legislation, perhaps the wrong decision may have been made.
The first of my two technical points refers to Clause 3 of and Schedule 1 to the Land Drainage Bill. In Clause 3(2) (g) the opportunity has not been taken in the drafting of the Bill to see that all of the electoral arrangements of internal drainage boards are regulated by Schedule 1. I propose to write to the Clerk of the Joint Committee suggesting that this possibility would not be outwith the powers of a Joint Committee for a consolidation Bill. The second issue is in Clause 12 of the Land Drainage Bill where environmental duties which apply to the Minister, to the National Rivers Authority and to internal drainage boards ought, we suggest, also to apply to local authorities which act as drainage authorities. That again is a matter where there is a choice. It would be more logical and rational for these environmental duties to apply to all drainage authorities.
It is a matter for regret that the opportunity has not been taken to resolve the issue of the special status of flood defence committees within the National Rivers Authority. They are the only committees which are not advisory committees. It is regrettable that the opportunity has not been taken to abolish the internal drainage boards, which are no longer required. It is a pity that there is no consideration of the national priorities for the funds from the Government for land drainage. It is a pity that there is no indication that the
484
priorities for works should be areas of high conservation value. Finally, it is a pity that responsibility for land drainage is not transferred from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of the Environment where so many other related obligations lie. These are points which I well understand are beyond the capacity of the Joint Committee. I shall, however, if I may, write to the Clerk to the Joint Committee to make the points which I have outlined briefly.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills will be glad to receive the letter and to consider the matters that lie properly within the competence of that committee.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Water Resources Bill [H.L.]
3.16 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Statutory Water Companies Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Land Drainage Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, for the reason which I sought to explain in opening, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.—( The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message was sent to the Commons desiring their agreement thereto.

Gaming (Bingo) [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—( The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule I [Maintenance Assessments]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 31, line 39, leave out ("zero") and insert ("0.24").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was moved in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It has been retabled to discover whether we can receive a clearer explanation from the Government of how they propose to deal with the problem which is the subject of the amendment.
The amendment aims to ensure that, where an absent parent enjoys a degree of affluence, an equitable share of that income is directed to the children who remain with the caring parent. The amendment seeks to secure an increase in the additional income to a level which is higher than is currently proposed.
There is a wealth of evidence—much of which has been quoted during the passage of the Bill—to show the hardship which many lone parents and their children endure. Even with appropriate benefits and maintenance paid, many lone parents and their children exist on lower income levels than those of comparable two-parent families.
The amendment seeks to ensure that, where the absent parent has sufficient income, the caring parent and the children should have the chance to share in that affluence and to experience a lifestyle which approximates more nearly to the one they might have led had the marriage not broken down. The White Paper proposed that once the maintenance bill was met, the absent parent should pay only 15 per cent. of his or her assessable income as maintenance. As the maintenance bill is set at income support levels, that low percentage ties the maintenance much too closely, in our view, to income support levels.
When the matter was discussed in Committee, the argument seemed to be that the low paid spend a higher proportion of family income on children than do the affluent. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
"But we wish to maintain a proper balance between recognising that children should share in parents' prosperity
486
and the practical fact that this share does not necessarily remain constant as income grows".—[Official Report, 19/3/91; col. 564.]
We believe that that is incorrect. It is common sense that children generally benefit from their parents' higher standard of living through their shared consumption of many items such as home, holidays, cars and so on, and also through the direct expenditure which is made upon them. Indeed, the whole idea of child maintenance in family law contains relationships to the standard of living that the child would have enjoyed if the marriage had not broken down.
By reducing the maintenance calculation so dramatically once the maintenance bill is met, the Government are tying the maintenance bill much too closely, in our view, to income support levels. We know that these are set at subsistence levels. The effect of living at such levels over many years has been the subject of much research which has shown that it becomes increasingly hard to meet the children's needs when there is a long-term reliance on income support.
As regards what would happen to families if they went to the child support agency, once again we detect a difference in treatment between the children of the poorer lone parent, who has to go through the agency, and the children of the richer lone parent, who can afford to go to court to obtain a settlement.
The issue here is most important. We would appreciate a more detailed assurance from the Minister than that which we received in Committee. At that stage the Minister, at col. 564, said:
"I shall certainly consider the points he made as to what the rates should be for those on higher incomes. We propose to consult on the regulations".
The Government may not be too happy with our suggestion of 0.24 per cent. in the calculation. Therefore, may we please be told what figure the Government have in mind? I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I am not sure whether I can take the noble Lord any further than I did in Committee. However, I should stress that the figure of 15 per cent. quoted in the White Paper was given purely for illustrative purposes. I accept that the noble Lord, and indeed many other commentators, may feel that the deduction rate of 15 per cent. is not high enough.
The amendment would ensure that the rate had to be at least 25 per cent. I should emphasise again that this is the rate which applies to assessable income in excess of the amount needed to meet the maintenance requirement. Until the maintenance requirement is met, we propose that the deduction rate should be 15 per cent.
In passing, perhaps I may correct something that I said in Committee. I referred to a "reduction rate". I believe that that was a slip of the tongue and one which I should have corrected in Hansard. I am sure that I meant to refer to the deduction rate.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, myself and many others, would agree that maintenance should not stop with the basic provision, because there will be some expenses which it does not always cover. We agree that children should have a share in parents

487
prosperity. However, the issue is how best to maintain a proper balance between recognising that children should share in parents' prosperity and the fact that this share will not necessarily remain the same as income grows. Parents should meet their basic maintenance responsibility as quickly as possible, but obviously once they have done so the lower rate is appropriate.
I have taken note of what the noble Lord said, what has been said outside the House and all the representations which have been made. We propose to set out the rate for these deductions in regulations and we shall consult upon those regulations. I hope that I can, again, persuade the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. I should stress that I am not completely dismissing the figure of 25 per cent., nor am I saying that it will be 15 per cent. which, as I said, was set out in the White Paper for purely illustrative purposes. However, I believe that the matter requires further thought. With that assurance, I trust the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not sure whether, when the Minister referred to the "reduction rate" instead of the "deduction rate", that was not a Freudian slip. I believe that we are beginning to get the idea that the 15 per cent. figure was purely illustrative and that the figure of 25 per cent. is perhaps on the high side. It would seem that the rate may be between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. However, it would be unfair to ask the Minister to comment on that speculation. I believe that we have got a little further on the matter—although not as far as we would have wished—and we hope that, by the time the Bill completes its passage through this and the other place, we may perhaps have a better idea. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96 to 103 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 34, line 10, at end insert:
("References to qualifying children
. References in this Part of this Schedule to "qualifying children" are to those qualifying children with respect to whom the maintenance assessment falls to be made.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment clarifies the meaning of a "qualifying child" in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1. There may be circumstances where there are qualifying children in the household of the parent with care who are not the children of the absent parent whose ability to pay maintenance is being calculated. They are not "qualifying children" in relation to the assessment of his or her resources, but will be qualifying children in relation to any maintenance assessment of their own absent parent. The amendment merely seeks to put that position beyond doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this is purely a technical amendment. In the circumstances, we have no opposition to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 34, line 10, at end insert:
488
(". Where receipt of maintenance or the reduction in hours for family credit entitlement entail a loss of entitlement to free school meals or social fund payments, the person concerned shall be eligible for such benefits on the basis of low income or family credit entitlement.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also was moved by the noble Earl. Lord Russell, in Committee. We were not at all happy with the answer we received from the Government. Therefore, we have retabled the amendment so as to have a last try at changing the Government's mind. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that, where lone parents are floated off income support through an increase in their maintenance payments, the so-called "passported benefits"—that is, free school meals and social fund payments—are available to those on low incomes.
Under the current DSS rules, health benefits are available to people who are not on income support on the basis of their low income. The DSS compares the "requirements" of the person with his or her "income resources". For example, if the income resources are less or the same as the requirements, such a person will be eligible for full help and even if the income resources are greater they may qualify for partial help.
The amendment seeks to extend to the other benefits in question the principle of the low income provisions relating to health benefits. Such benefits are only available to people on income support. I refer to free school meals, community care grants and the budgeting of loans. The latter two benefits come within the social fund. It is obvious that the loss of those passported benefits will cause a large reduction in the standard of living of many one-parent families. Where there are two children in a family, the loss of free school meals will mean an effective drop in income of 11 per cent. or £8 per week. We all agree that the loss of £8 from a subsistence income will inevitably have a considerable effect and could lead to deficiencies in diet and subsequent health problems for the children concerned.
We are also aware that lone parents are some of the main recipients of social fund payments. In 1989, they received £21 million in the form of community care grants; £16 million in the form of budgeting loans; and £4.8 million as crisis loans. Maintenance payments could help float people off benefits and thus deny them the passported benefits.
One criticism of the Bill is that it is designed much more to reduce expenditure on social security benefits than to help lone parents. The Government's attitude to the amendment in Committee confirmed that view. With all the problems that lone parents face, the loss of free school meals and social fund payments could be a crippling blow. As always, it is the children who will suffer. If the Minister is minded to reject the amendment, will he explain how his rejection will help the children who are the victims? I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Bill sets out a new maintenance system for children. However, the amendment seeks to change the rules of the schemes under which social fund payments are made and local authorities provide free school meals. Neither of those

489
are the subject of the Bill. The amendment therefore has implications which go much wider than child maintenance.
Social fund payments, including budgeting loans, and community care grants, are intended to focus help on those people in the greatest need. A line has however to be drawn between those who can get help and those who cannot, and we believe that the most appropriate place to draw that line is at the income support level. That applies as a general principle and it would be wrong to make an exception in this case.
However, I remind noble Lords that some social fund payments are available to people not on income support or family credit. In particular there are crisis loans which can be paid to anyone who is without resources.
As noble Lords will be aware, local authorities have a duty placed upon them to provide free school meals only to those children whose families are in receipt of income support or to pupils who receive it themselves. The amendment would create new arrangements and responsibilities for education authorities, but again only for this type of case. It would also mean that an amendment to the Education Act would have to be made before it could be implemented.
On the detail of the amendment, a person ceasing to receive income support would be compensated automatically without proper regard to the new level of his or her income. The amendment provides that family credit has to be in payment, but the amount of family credit could be small. I stress that family credit rates also incorporate cash assistance for free school meals, so people protected by the amendment could well be at a significant advantage compared to other family credit claimants.
I note the noble Lord's anxiety about the issue. I remind him of the Government's commitment contained in the White Paper Children Come First, to take action where appropriate to protect those working between 16 and 24 hours and receiving income support at the time of the change. We therefore do not accept that the issues raised in the amendment are for this Bill. We do not believe that it is right to seek to amend the rules of those other schemes just for the peculiar circumstance that has been highlighted by the noble Lord. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he explain the Government's resistance to the amendment, which I understand is on the basis of having to introduce new legislation and of administrative difficulties? As I understood it, the implication was that comparatively few children would be affected. However, it is clear that children will be affected where the mother, or the caring parent, receives maintenance instead of income support when the passport to free meals is automatically removed. Those children will be disadvantaged compared with others. I should have thought that if the rejection of the principle is for administrative reasons only and the need to table an amendment to the Education Act, it is unacceptable. I may have misunderstood what my noble friend said. I should be grateful for clarification.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the rejection is not purely because other legislation would have to be changed. I was trying to show that the amendment goes beyond the Bill and would be treating the children of those parents in receipt of maintenance differently from the children of other parents who are on income support but who then cease to be on income support. In other words, the children of parents receiving income support, and not in receipt of maintenance, if they cease to receive income support would lose their passport to free school meals. If they lost their passport to free school meals purely because of an increase in maintenance but were still guaranteed free school meals, they would be treated differently from other families. I hope that my noble friend will accept that explanation.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I shall read carefully what my noble friend said, but since the Bill has been drawn up so that caring parents should receive maintenance and not income support, that caring parent is putting his or herself in a position where, as I understand it, he or she will be deprived of free school meals for the children. I shall read carefully what my noble friend said and perhaps return on Third Reading if I find that I misunderstood what he said.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is the answer that I expected from the Minister. With respect, it is a bureaucratic answer. I asked the Minister to explain what would be the effect on children, but we seem to be lost because of "this Bill" and "that Bill" and have been told that the proposal could not be implemented. The Bill is about the problems of lone parents and their children. Those problems are highlighted in the amendment. As the noble Baroness said, lone children and their parents will lose. The only way to put that right is within the Bill. We obviously shall not be able to change the Government's mind by argument. The only thing to do is ask for the opinion of the House.
3.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 105) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents. 97.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Grimond, L.

Birk, B.

Halsbury, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hampton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Craigavon, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hughes, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jay, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ennals, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ezra, L.

Leatherland, L.

Faithfull, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Fitt, L.

Longford, E.

Gallacher, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Galpern, L.

McCarthy, L.

Gladwyn, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

491

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Serota, B.

Mayhew, L.

Stallard, L.

Meston, L.

Stedman, B.

Mishcon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Molloy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Northfield, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ogmore, L.

Underhill, L.

Porritt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Walston, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

White, B.

Scanlon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill L.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

Lurgan, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B

Malmesbury, E.

Blyth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Borthwick, L.

Margadale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brigstockie, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cawley, L.

Nelson, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Newall, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Norrie, L.

Cockneld, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

De Freyne, L.

Reay, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Effingham, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Selborne, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Shannon, E.

Flather, B.

Sharpies, B.

Foley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strange, B.

Gainford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gridley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Swansea, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Terrington, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Holderness L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Vinson, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Waddington, L.

Ironside, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Westbury, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

NHS Trusts: Business Plans
3.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the
492
form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question which is being asked in another place on the business plans for National Health Service trusts:
"The prospectuses of the trusts were published last year. There were no secret business plans. The business plans, which are required to be returned to the National Health Service management executive in the early part of this year, are part of the arrangements for monitoring both National Health Service trusts and directly managed units by the National Health Service management executive. As management documents, they were never intended under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to be public documents. The annual report of each trust will of course be published.
"This leads me to a wider point about accountability. For the first time we now have a system in place where, through the contractual arrangements, hospitals will be fully accountable to the district health authorities for the quality and quantity of the services they provide for patients.
"Within this reformed system, my job is to ensure that patients have the access they need to comprehensive, free health care. I exercise this responsibility through a strengthened chain of accountability from districts through regions to the National Health Service management executive.
"With this degree of accountability for the provision of health care goes more delegated management freedom for the hospitals themselves, including directly managed units. It is not for governments to tell hospitals how to organise their services and how many staff to employ. That must be a matter for the hospitals themselves. In a service that employs over 1 million people, it would be ludicrous if Ministers or civil servants attempted to run the service from Whitehall.
"What I sought last year and will seek this year when examining trust applications, is a management team which will match in professionalism the professional standards of the doctors and nurses. For far too long we have had outstanding clinical professionalism allied to second-rate management systems. One cause of that over the years has been the political intervention in what are properly management decisions of which this pre-local elections row, stirred up by the Opposition parties, is a classic example.
"Turning to the situation in London, I have noted the comprehensive review of the hospital proposed by the new management at Guy's. I am pleased to note that it has given a number of undertakings: that patient care will not suffer; that compulsory redundancies will only be used as a last resort; that services in the local community will be protected; that quality of service is an over-riding objective. I am also pleased to be able to reassure the House that Lewisham and North Southwark Health Authority, in whose district Guy's Hospital is situated, believes that the contracts which it has let to Guy's, and to other hospitals, provide satisfactorily for the health needs of its resident population.
"I am also pleased to record that, in Bradford, no reduction in services or activity is planned by the trust. A reduction of 80 jobs has already been achieved mostly by natural wastage and early retirement. It is the judgment of the public health authorities in the city that some increase in emphasis in primary and community services is right for local people. It is likely that, in terms of staff numbers, any reductions in hospital staff would be offset by further increases in community nursing and in the resources available to GPs.
"The proposals put forward by these two trusts illustrate a fundamental point. Neither district health authorities nor hospital managers are any longer prepared to accept that, simply because a hospital has always provided a certain service in a certain way, it should necessarily continue to do so.
"The needs of the patients they serve are constantly changing. Leading hospitals like Guy's and Bradford need to respond to these changes. Hospitals that can adapt successfully to change will flourish and expand. That is what I believe we are beginning to see happen in Bradford and South-East London. And, as any savings made will go straight back into the health service, it will be the patient now and in the future who benefits.
"Labour has nothing to say on health. The Labour leader yesterday finally let the cat out of the bag: under Labour, there would be no more money for health. Labour has no proposals for dealing with the obvious managerial problems of the service: its sole interest is in playing party politics with it. Labour's behaviour over the past few days is the final proof, if any was needed, of that".
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend in another place. I am amazed by the final sentence that the noble Baroness was obliged to repeat. She knows it is not true to say that Labour has no policy on the health service. She also knows that on the previous occasion when we debated the health service in this House, we on these Benches went to considerable trouble to impress upon the Minister the proposals that the party I represent had made on how we should look after the nation's health, not just next year but in the next 10 and 20 years. Those proposals were made after careful consideration and consultation. Therefore, I do not thank the noble Baroness for the kind of party political rubbish that she has repeated. However, I realise that she is not responsible for it: she is only repeating what her noble friend said.
Noble Lords: Right honourable friend!
Lord Ennals: I referred to the Minister's right honourable friend as her noble friend as he may be ennobled one day. It might have been better if the Secretary of State had come to the House of Commons on 1st April—that would, of course, have been April Fool's Day—because that was the day
494
when the new arrangements came into operation. The Secretary of State should have come to the House to explain the implications of the new arrangements for the 58 hospitals and health services which, with his approval, had opted out. He should have come to the House rather than wait for a PNQ to be tabled by the Opposition to force him to make a Statement to the House. He has been forced to make a Statement to defend the loss of 600 jobs. That was done to cut costs in Guy's by 5 per cent. in the first year of operation. I hope we shall be informed how many other thousands of jobs are at stake in the next few months as the other 56 NHS trusts announce their plans for becoming profit-making hospitals.
The Secretary of State seems to be suggesting that the responsibility for this action is not really his. He claims that it is the responsibility solely of the health authorities. I wish to remind the Secretary of State and the Minister in this House that the responsibility for the provision of health services lies upon the Secretary of State on behalf of the Government. The Minister and the Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. The Secretary of State cannot say, "This is nothing to do with me, but I take credit for all the great things we are doing to improve the health of the nation".
It is not obvious that the best way to improve services is to cut costs and reduce staff. I note that Mrs. Virginia Bottomley stated in the press that,
"cuts to nurses, doctors and support staff demonstrated the Government's determination to ensure patients got the best deal".
It is not self-evident that one has to reduce the numbers of doctors and nurses to achieve a better quality of health service. The Statement suggests that there has been some slack administration at Guy's and elsewhere which presents a challenge to the managers of the opted-out trusts. What has Guy's been up to in the past months and years to get itself into so serious a financial mess? We are entitled to ask what that distinguished surgeon at Guy's Hospital, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has been up to in a hospital where so many jobs have to be cut in such a short period of time. I hope that the noble Lord's job is safe as he is a very distinguished surgeon.
I draw the attention of the Minister and the House to what is now happening and what was clearly prophesied when the legislation passed through the House of Commons and this House. We spent many hours debating and deliberating upon that legislation. Each one of the first line of 58 opted-out hospitals and health services was personally approved by the Secretary of State. The decision was forced through in the face of opposition from the medical profession, doctors, nurses, the public—expressed through opinion polls—the community and patients. I have a number of questions for the Minister which arise from the Statement she has been obliged to repeat.
Is it really the view of the Secretary of State that these major job cuts will lead to better services? What service changes will occur at Guy's? What specialist services will be cut and what effect will that have on the treatment of the mentally ill, the handicapped, the elderly and the chronically sick? Did the Secretary of State know that the announcement was to be made by Mr. Griffiths at the time it was made? Will the

495
Minister now say what the prospects are for the remaining 56 NHS trusts and for the services they provide? Are we to expect the same proportions of job cuts as regards the other 56 self-governing NHS trusts? What kind of consultation has been carried out with the professions as regards services and job cuts? I know there was no consultation on the establishment of the NHS trusts but now that they have been established and jobs have been cut and services have been affected, will the Minister say what consultation has been carried out with the leaders of the medical, nursing and other professions?
Will the Minister confirm that the Coopers & Lybrand report stated that three-quarters of the applicants for trust status were already in debt due to underfunding? What notice did the Secretary of State take of that report? What about the massive number of bed closures imposed upon health authorities in 1990 arid 1991 to ensure that, regardless of the effect upon waiting lists, health authorities and trusts would enter the new age without debt? Will the Secretary of State now publish the Coopers & Lybrand report and the 58 business plans so that we may know the basis upon which he took his decisions? The Minister says that the documents were private. But surely we now want a more open service, not a more secret service.
I am puzzled by one thing. Is it not rather sinister that the new trust manager, Mr. Peter Griffiths—he is an able man who is paid a salary of £90,000 a year with two cars, which is more than Mr. Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the NHS, receives—revealed what the position was at Guy's on the eve of the Prime Minster's special summit? Was that a deliberate attempt to show the new-found independence of the trusts by cocking a snook at the Secretary of State? It must have been deeply embarrassing for the Secretary of State. Was the noble Lord, Lord McColl, consulted about the announcement when it was made? Does it not make a mockery of the flagship if the captain is not kept fully informed? I believe that damage to the National Health Service is being done and will continue to be done, and that the Government will live long enough to regret the decision they took to impose this measure not only upon Parliament but also upon the nation against its will.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. However, it is asking a bit much to expect us to believe that this problem has arisen as a result of a desire to improve services. In my view it is purely a financial exercise to balance the books at Guy's.
These are the largest cuts ever to have been made in one year in any authority in the NHS. It is unbelievable that a unit such as Guy's Hospital should need to save £6.8 million in one year. I have been given the reasons. There was an overspend of £1.7 million; there was a higher than expected out-turn in obstetrics; there was the cost of Project 2000; and there was higher than expected inflation. On top of that another £6 million will have to be saved for reinvestment.
Heads, of department were recently given until 17th May to produce cuts of £6.8 million. What jobs of all grades will go at Guy's? I am told that it is hoped to
496
save £3 million on agency staff. How will that affect junior hospital doctors and the hours they have to work? Recently, we were finally able to reduce the hours of hospital doctors. I believe that that is in danger. Equally, the Government agreed that we needed an increase of 2 per cent. overall in the number of consultants. How does that fit in with the possible loss of consultants at Guy's?
My honourable friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, in whose constituency Guy's is situated, visited the hospital this morning. He was informed that 60 to 65 per cent. of activity comes from the local health authority. It is therefore surprising that no local consultation on this matter took place, considering that it is an area of considerable deprivation which will have to bear the brunt of the savings. The inevitable conclusion is that all the unglamorous areas will suffer, such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
Professor Stewart Cameron, professor of renal medicine, quoted in the Financial Times, states that when consultants voted in favour of a self-governing trust they were given to understand that the trust would begin life with a £1.5 million surplus, and not a £6.8 million overspend. He says:
"We must all of us feel, if not cheated, at least that we have been misled … How can we have any confidence in people who have made such a devastating mistake?"
In other words, the vote was taken on the basis of a false prospectus.
Yet Guy's is the hospital which has had a shadow board for a year and which had been assessing the impact of changes.
What worries me even more is that the Secretary of State, Mr. Waldegrave, in an interview on television, appeared unaware of the situation until this bombshell suddenly dropped in his lap. Was it not made clear in Guy's application for hospital trust status that it had this financial problem? It cannot have happened overnight.
We were told that reforms would lead to better care and increased choice for patients. Does the noble Baroness not agree that these large cuts cannot be made purely from increased efficiency? Services are bound to suffer. Under the new National Health Service and Community Care Act the Secretary of State has the right to dissolve a trust. Perhaps he should consider it carefully.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, for their comments on the Statement. As a preliminary perhaps I should say that the reason my right honourable friend did not go to the other place on 1st April to talk about the reforms was because he would have been on his own on that day since the House was in recess.
This is a subject on which we had considerable discussion during the progress of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill through this House last year. There was one aspect of our National Health Service upon which everybody agreed; namely, that some reform was necessary after 40 years of

497
development. The reason for the reforms was to improve efficiency and to provide an even more effective service for the people of this country.
The National Health Service trusts have been created in order to give the service greater flexibility in dealing with problems, particularly some of the inherited financial problems. The various trusts up and down the country are enthusiastically tackling the challenges that face them. When I say that, I am not talking only about the management team. I have now had the opportunity to visit a number of trusts, both at the time when and since the reforms were introduced. There can be no doubt that throughout the service in the individual units there is considerable enthusiasm for the new approach.
Furthermore, when we talk about the job losses announced recently and the example quoted by both the noble Lord, Lord Ennals and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, of some 600 jobs across the board at Guy's and Lewisham, it must be remembered that that is out of a total of some 8,000 employees. In that context I do not believe that the job of my noble friend Lord McColl is in any way at risk.
It has been said, but clearly needs to be said again, that the responsibility for providing for the needs of the local population lies with the district health authority. It is for the district health authority to contract with National Health Service trusts, its own directly managed hospital units, the private sector, or with hospitals in other districts which may provide certain specialist services so that all the needs of the local population are met. The decisions that have been taken at both Guy's and Bradford have been reached after the trusts have assessed the contracts into which they entered with their district health authorities. In line with the whole object of the exercise in introducing the contracting principle, they have assessed their obligation to meet the districts' needs over the period of the coming year and are taking the necessary action to meet that obligation.
I turn now to some of the specific questions raised in the course of the contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked whether it is the view of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that major job cuts will lead to better services. I can do no better than to quote Robin Stott, the medical director of the trust, and Cyril Chantler, dean of the medical school, who said:
"If the trust is to succeed in garnering resources to pay for a large backlog in the maintenance of our premises, accrue funds for new capital developments, meet the increased costs of an ambitious nurse training programme"—
which are the facts which the noble Baroness quoted—
"and redeploy resources into new areas we must first rein back on inappropriate current expenditure. Any review of current clinical and administrative services must therefore consider their quality, relevance and especially their appropriateness to the future needs of the community we serve, the mental health services we provide and the needs of our medical and dental school".
I was asked why we did not publish the auditors' report of the trust applications. The reports received from Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte were not audit reports but management consultant reports on
498
financial viability and information systems. They draw heavily on financial projections and business plans prepared by the trusts which are themselves confidential. Confidentiality is required as the trusts are now in a competitive market and would not always wish their detailed plans to be made available to competitors, just as the Opposition do not wish to make us aware of their detailed financial plans for the health service. Like all such reports, the financial appraisals must also be confidential so that the consultants are free to express frank opinions.
It was suggested that we had allowed hospitals with financial problems to become trusts. As I said, in many cases the financial challenges facing units applying to be trusts would be the same whether they became trusts or remained directly managed. In those circumstances, it was important to look not only at the financial aspects of the matter but at the quality of the management team and its ability to meet the challenges. Where management was strong, it was perfectly reasonable to establish the unit as a trust. In some cases, trust status improved the ability to deal with financial problems which, as I said, was the very reason why trusts were established.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, asked which services would be cut and what would be the effect on the mentally ill, the chronically sick and so on. I understand that the trust management in the two trusts that have been specifically quoted are still working on the detail of the financial measures that they will take but they are committed to maintaining services in line with the contracts that purchasers have placed with them. That goes for all the other trusts throughout the country.
I was asked whether the Secretary of State knew that the statement would be made on Friday, on the eve of the Chequers summit. The answer to that is, no. It was a management decision. Guy's and Lewisham have not been secretive in this matter. They have chosen to be explicit about their strategy and to manage themselves efficiently and effectively, living within their means and providing the highest quality of service. That is not only what we all want but what the patients and people in need of treatment throughout the country also want.
I was also asked about bed closures imposed on health authorities and future National Health Service trusts in the current year. We have established on previous occasions that beds can be closed for all kinds of reasons; for example, as a planned rationalisation or to improve services in other parts of a district. What really matters is the level of patient care. Activity levels have increased steadily in recent years. I understand that it was suggested in the Financial Times by my noble friend Lord McColl—I have not had an opportunity to corroborate the statement, but perhaps my noble friend will take the opportunity to do so this afternoon—that, in making considerable financial savings in his unit at Guy's, he was at the same time able to increase the service provided by up to or over 5 per cent.
I was asked about the prospects for the remaining 56 trusts and their services. I have already dealt with the question of whether there will be cuts or decisions

499
made in other trusts. I should reiterate that all trusts and directly managed units will need to review their services to ensure that they meet the requirements of their purchasers. That may mean increases in some areas and decreases in others, but overall the reforms will ensure more appropriate patient care of high quality in the long term.
As to the question of consultation with the professions about services and the recent announcements, it is for the trust management itself to decide what consultation among staff is required. As all senior staff are involved in management at Guy's, they have no doubt been able to contribute to the budget-setting process. National Health Service staff are covered in terms of redundancies by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act which requires employers to undertake consultation on redundancies at least 90 days before the first redundancy if over 100 redundancies are planned and at least 30 days before the first redundancy if fewer than 100 redundancies are planned.
The noble Baroness said that that situation could not have arisen overnight. It did not, and neither will the cuts and job losses occur overnight. Bradford has already stated that it is talking about phasing those job losses over three years. I understand that at Guy's and Lewisham the period planned is the full financial year and that it is not thought necessary to create redundancies in those circumstances.
I hope that I have responded to the many questions that were raised.
4.18 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the £6.8 million that we have to find at Guy's, is made up of a number of items? First, there is the £2 million overspend last year because we treated more patients. Under the old regime, the more patients you treat, the more you are penalised. That is the basis, of the Government reforms which have been supported by the Labour Party; namely, that money should follow patients so that the more patients you treat, the more money will come into the hospital. That lesion will therefore be corrected soon.
Secondly, we have unavoidable commitments because of the increase in the birth rate. Presumably even the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will not hold the trust at Guy's responsible for that. Thirdly, we have important changes in nurse training arrangements which will be very expensive in the short term. Finally, we had to set aside some 1 per cent. for inflation assumptions.
What has happened at Guy's is unique in the annals of the National Health Service. Within a week or two of the new trust board taking office it quickly assessed the situation and decided to make and implement a decision. We have never previously had decisions like that. Usually, dilly-dallying went on for most of the year and the management was finally forced into making a decision and had to make a crisis announcement. The only option open then was to close large numbers of beds. The trust has said, "Let us make the decision and take action now because
500
then we shall be able to reduce staff gradually and make the necessary savings so that patients will not suffer at the end of the year".
Does my noble friend agree that the costs of London hospitals are far in excess of those outside London and that the costs within London also vary enormously? If we reduce our cost per patient more money will be available to treat more patients, which is what we are trying to do.
Does my noble friend further agree that if one were to ask hospitals outside London whether their hearts are bleeding for Guy's because it has to live within its financial constraints, the answer would be, "not at all?" Hospitals outside London have said for years that London has had too much spent on its hospitals. So there is no support there.
Finally, although people ask for yet more money to be spent on the National Health Service—I understand that the BMA is asking for 17 per cent. More—the question remains for anywhere in the United Kingdom which already has 17 per cent. more: has it done any good? Scotland has 24 per cent. more per head of population spent on the health service and has health authorities which are more overspent than any in England. As a Scot I regret to say that the health of the Scots is no better than that of the English as a result of that additional expenditure.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend
makes important points from his personal and detailed knowledge of the situation. I should like to emphasise that not only at Guy's but throughout the National Health Service more patients have been treated. That is a trend that we want to ensure continues. We want more patients to be treated and the quality of the treatment to be improved.
There can be no doubt that money following the patient and planning over the year to avoid the crisis management to which my noble friend referred form an important element of the future improvement of the service. As for the statement made by Guy's, criticised as it may be at this moment, no one can deny that it is a clear statement. We all know where we are and can plan accordingly. The planning carried out by the district health authority is vital to ensure that the health needs of the district are met. The reforms have been in place for less than a month. We certainly need to see how they progress before any judgments are made. We are not in the business of making instant, overnight judgments.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I for one agree very much that the National Health Service should not be a service about which there is a great deal of party politicking? I am well aware of that. Indeed, I have always believed that it is a great national service and that party politics should not feature greatly in it. But the present Government introduced party politics into the whole business when they decided to alter the basis of the National Health Service without proper consultation either with other political parties or with the wide range of staff which works in the National Health Service. That is why we as an Opposition are entitled

501
—as are parties other than those on the Opposition Benches—to be highly critical of the way in which the Government have handled the whole business of introducing self-governing hospital trusts.
There were inefficiencies in the National Health Service. Nobody doubts that for one moment. However, the best way to have dealt with them was on the basis of consultation and co-operation and not imposition. That is why the Government have got themselves into the present state.
The noble Baroness said that London had too much money spent on its health service. Can she produce the evidence? Were Londoners told that in no uncertain terms before the Government set up the self-governing trusts? I feel quite sure that had they been told there would have been a great outcry. Can she tell us how many more redundancies in how many more hospitals up and down the country—in various parts of the land, such as Reading, Swindon, Exeter and in Scotland and Wales—there will be?
Finally, what does she think will be the future for self-governing hospitals' status if the people working in those hospitals realise that by voting for self-governing status they are voting themselves out of a job?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, from the publication of the White Papers through the passage of the Bill to the acceptance of the National Health Service and Community Care Act, I should have thought that there was ample opportunity for everybody concerned to make their views clearly known. They certainly did so, as I am all too well aware. Furthermore, we are moving on from that position to consider a health strategy which will further benefit the health needs of this country. It was in that spirit that on Saturday at the seminar at Chequers the Prime Minister and leading lights in the medical and health fields discussed that serious subject in the context of the implementation of the reforms.
I do not believe that I said that London had too much money spent on it. The population of central London has fallen substantially, particularly relative to surrounding areas, since many of its hospitals were originally built. It is right and proper that London's share of National Health Service funding should reflect the fact that there has been a movement of population and that new units and services have been built out of central London. Health spending per head in London is still significantly higher than in other parts of the country. I believe that that is the gist of what I said—if not the exact words—and that it was misconstrued.
As to the adequacy or otherwise of consultation, all applications for trust status were subject to a statutory consultation period of three months. Everyone was given the opportunity to comment and all such comments were taken into consideration when the Secretary of State made his decisions. As I said, the decisions were not made on one set of factors—not just on the financial resources of a potential trust—but on factors including the strength of the management team and indeed the reactions to the consultation.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not fair to recognise that Her Majesty's Government have increased the numbers of doctors and nurses quite substantially since 1979? Is it not also true that when my right honourable friend the Member for Finchley was Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury she used to say that the National Health Service was the greatest employer other than the Indian railways or the Chinese army? Therefore, is it not also true to say that there must be in such bodies some fat that can be got rid of to make the service more efficient? It is efficiency to patients which is necessary rather than the number of jobs created or lost. It is fascinating to hear Members on the other side of your Lordships' House saying, "Isn't it disgraceful about job losses?" The National Health Service is not there as an employment agency. It is there to cure you and me of bunions or let us die in peace of cancer. It is not a jobs agency. The sooner that that is realised the better.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding the House that there are more nurses and more doctors than ever before. More people are being treated than ever before. The workforce of the National Health Service is some one million. As I attempted to set in context, the 600 job losses which may take place—not necessarily take place but currently estimated may take place—over the coming year at Guy's, should be seen in the context of the very large total workforce of some 8,000.
Furthermore, partly as a result of amendments—even those made in your Lordships' House—there is no doubt that we are taking very seriously the whole question of evaluation and monitoring of the reforms. As we have always said, these are evolutionary, and if and when it is necessary to improve upon the framework that we have already set in place we shall have no hesitation in doing so.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I am perhaps one of the few people left who fought and worked in the House of Commons for the inauguration of the health service? I regret that we have now reached the stage when the health service is in a very bad state, being treated mainly as a supermarket.
There is a personal matter that worries me very much. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, may know something about this. I am a keen supporter of Queen Mary's, Sidcup, which is heavily overspent as a result of having dealt with so many patients. Unfortunately, that hospital does not have an ENT department, and never has had. Those services are provided by Lewisham. The consultant there—an excellent man—comes to Sidcup, and then his patients who have to be operated on go to Lewisham. It so happens that I was one of those on 26th March when the noble Lord was operating there.
What will happen? Will that service be cut? Will it continue? Will the Lewisham area authority charge Queen Mary's for the service? If Queen Mary's does not have the money, what will happen? This is but one

503
of many problems, and no doubt noble Lords know of others. Something must be done about such a serious matter.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, allow me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on his success in getting the National Health Service up and running in spite of the widespread opposition which, as he must remember, it had to meet from the medical profession in particular at the time.
I should like to take the opportunity of emphasising that the attempts we are making with these reforms are nut to turn the National Health Service into a business but simply to make it more businesslike. I cannot imagine that the noble Lord would wish to dispute the propriety of doing that.
As For the specific example of Queen Mary's Hospital which he quoted, obviously I shall take the opportunity to look into the matter, but it is clear from the arrangements that we have set in place that what should happen is that a district assesses the needs of its particular population and enters into the appropriate contracts with the appropriate hospitals. That is what we are doing, serving the needs of the local population, not keeping people in jobs unnecessarily.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I propose to call Amendment No. 36.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I was assured by the Leader of the House last week that we were allowed. 20 minutes for questions after the main speaker.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I hope I am in order in moving the amendment, which I think has been called.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord opposite is right about the 20 minutes.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us whether the department received any representations from the management of Guy's before the public announcement about the dire straits of their finances, which led the management later to decide to get rid of 600 jobs? Can we have an assurance from the Minister that, unlike in other privatised industries, savings made by the dismissal of those 600 people will not result in higher salaries for those in the top grade?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are talking about a service which is still a public National Health Service. There is no question of privatisation as the noble Lord wishes to imply.
We have said on many occasions that the object of setting up National Health Service trusts, with the additional freedoms which they have as compared with the directly managed units in being responsible for running their own affairs, is to improve services. We want to see that working. We shall not interfere in the way that the noble Lord has suggested. In making a decision to set up all the trusts we took into account both the financial circumstances of which we were aware and the strength of the management team which we believed could put those financial difficulties right.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
4.36 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 10 [Interim maintenance assessments]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 7, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 29
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is yet another attempt to shorten the Bill and therefore to shorten the statute book, which has been growing so alarmingly and so quickly. New volumes are extremely expensive. This is an attempt to cut out a few of what seem to me at first sight to be unnecessary words.
This clause is concerned with interim maintenance assessments, and it is in a totally familiar form. The Minister takes powers in a permissive form to make regulations very generally. In this case he takes a power to make regulations as to interim maintenance. The clause continues in a familiar way, that in particular he may make regulations; in other words, the particularity being within the generality. There is a saying that "The opera ain't over until the fat lady sings", so I do not think the Report stage is over until the Minister has had an opportunity of saying how desirable, even if not necessary—my noble and learned friend always said "strictly necessary"—the form of drafting is. But in the Children Bill, in the Courts and Legal Services Bill, and again here my noble and learned friend has explained that although the particular provision is not strictly necessary it is nevertheless desirable to apprise Parliament of what sort of regulations are intended.
Your Lordships will see from subsection (3) that:
"The regulations may, in particular, make provision as to—(a) the procedure to be followed in making an interim maintenance assessment; and
(b) the basis on which the amount of child support maintenance … is to be calculated".
How much does that really convey to Parliament? Why should we continue to countenance this absurd and lengthy method of drafting? There is another particular curiosity about the clause. The general regulations in subsection (2) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. However, subsection (3) containing the particularities of subsection (2) is subject only to the negative procedure. I shall be grateful if the Minister will deal with that discrepancy.
I suggest that the clause should read:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to"
the particulars in subsection (3) (a) and (b). In other words, I suggest deleting the words "interim maintenance assessment". It is difficult to see at first sight what that provision could contain that is not contained in subsection (3).
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has been kind enough to write to me about the matter. I have been on the move and unfortunately have not been able to see the letter. However, I am grateful to him for writing. The fact that the letter has not been scrutinised by me is entirely my fault.
It is in the interest of doing something, even only a little, to squeeze out of the statute book excessive and unnecessary verbiage that I beg to move.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I support the amendment. I recall that the noble and learned Lord made a similar point in Committee. It was a good point then and it is a good point now. The best that can be said for the words that he wishes to delete is that they appear as a result of an abundance of unnecessary caution in case the Secretary of State can think of anything else about which he wishes to regulate.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has returned to a subject that he raised in Committee. I undertook to write to him and I did so on 27th March. I understand that the letter was posted and that it is not necessarily the fault of the noble and learned Lord that he has not received it. I sent a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which I hope he has received. The noble Lord also looks blank. To lose one letter might be a mistake, but to lose two might be carelessness. I shall try to discover what has happened to the letters—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the fact that I look blank ought not to occasion any reaction in the noble Lord.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's word for that. I shall look into the matter as the letter might assist in our deliberations.
As ever, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is anxious about the clarity of our legislation and the efficiency of its drafting. He seeks to confine regulations under the clause to matters detailed in subsection (3) (a) and (b) which give examples of the issues which the regulations might cover. In Committee I gave a full description of the purposes to which interim maintenance assessments would be put. It is not necessary for me unduly to delay our proceedings on Report by repeating that..
The main purpose of the regulations is to provide for circumstances where the procedures required for interim maintenance assessments will differ from those for assessments made with complete information. Clause 39, the interpretation clause, provides that interim maintenance assessments will be regarded in the same way as maintenance assessments at every point where they appear in the Bill except where prescribed differently in regulations.
Clause 10(3) (a) and (b) give two clear examples where interim maintenance assessments will be different from maintenance assessments made with complete information. However, it may be necessary to prescribe for other matters such as appeals where the procedure system will need to be different in order to prevent that system being used merely as a delaying tactic. We also believe that there will be differences in the procedures for collection and enforcement. All those issues are still being worked through.
I undertake to keep the noble and learned Lord informed of our deliberations on the matter. I shall ensure that my letter of 27th March reaches him and that copies are sent to the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Meston. If we find that circumstances in
506
which interim maintenance assessments will differ from maintenance assessments can be expressly detailed in this subsection of the Bill, we shall be prepared to think seriously about doing so. However, we do not wish unnecessarily to clutter the Bill, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will not wish us to do so.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, asked why subsection (2) is subject to the affirmative procedure while subsection (3) is subject to the negative procedure. Subsection (2) contains the power to make the regulations but subsection (3) does not. It merely stresses what in particular the regulations may cover. If after reading my letter of 27th March the noble and learned Lord has further comments to make, he might wish to return to the matter at a later stage.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his support. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his reply. There is some residuum in the words which I seek to delete; namely, that enforcement may be different. Surely, if enforcement of an interim maintenance assessment is so important, your Lordships should be told in what respect it differs from the enforcement provisions of maintenance assessments.
The Minister mentioned a further issue. Rather than clog up the statute book in this way, surely it would be better to inform Parliament when it is asked to pass what is, in effect, a skeleton and enabling Bill what the regulations will contain. If they are sufficiently important to merit the affirmative resolution procedure, they are sufficiently important for Parliament to be advised of their contents.
In Committee I suggested that Parliament might see the amendments in draft. My noble and learned friend said that that would not be possible until the power to make the regulations had been enacted. However, that runs quite contrary to the assurance which your Lordships were given that the regulations under what was then Clause 23, which was subsequently removed from the Bill by your Lordships' decision, would be shown before the Bill left your Lordships' House. Therefore, I reiterate that when we have a Bill like this which depends on its regulation making power—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, counted 92 powers and there will be more before we have finished because my noble and learned friend has tabled amendments to add more powers—the least that can be given constitutionally is to let Parliament see what those regulations will be.
There is no reason why they should not be published in draft well ahead of the power being given by the statute coming into force.
Finally, many years ago I was interested in a Bill of Mr. Duncan Sandys when he was president of the Board of Trade. It was an iron and steel Bill. I went to him with an amendment to add a provision making a friendly gesture towards competition which was entirely consonant with government policy. However, he had pared down that Bill until every word had been carefully weighed. He was not prepared to see it

507
diluted. With very great respect, I urge Ministers to go through Bills in that way to see what can be expunged and to see whether a particular vague provision like this cannot be more adequately dealt with elsewhere in the Bill.
As I ventured to say on the very first amendment which I moved, words which are plainly unnecessary—and I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, would say this is not such a case—should be expunged. Where it is arguable, a judgment must be made. However, that judgment should not be on each occasion to leave the words in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, to make assurance doubly but quite unnecessarily sure.
With those observations, which I make with all humility, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Information required by Secretary of State]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 8, line 35, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the last occasion in Committee, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies moved an amendment in precisely the same terms. The object of the exercise is to expunge from the Bill the following power which is to be given to the Secretary of State under it:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision authorising the disclosure by him or by child support officers, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, of such information held by them for purposes of this Act as may be prescribed".
Your Lordships will be very jealous of the fact that confidential information is given to a government department and then the power is given to the government department and to its employees to disclose information without saying to whom and with what limitation.
On this amendment which was before your Lordships in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave a very frank response. As I understood him, he assented to the idea that there must be confidentiality. He then used the words which caused us to have second thoughts about obtaining your Lordships' views on the omission of this clause. He said that there must be confidentiality and said:
"Proper safeguards of confidentiality will be maintained".—[Official Report, 19/3/91; col. 576.]
On that occasion he did not tell us the limits or bounds within which proper safeguards of confidentiality will be maintained. So that it is on the record, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will prescribe the limits which regulations will spell out so that we all know that confidentiality as we should want it will be observed in regard to this power to disclose. If that is done, I shall ask the usual leave of your Lordships. However, that should be on the record, and I invite the noble and learned Lord to tell us in broad outline how those regulations will be framed in order to see that confidentiality is secured in the way that I have mentioned. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no question but that confidentiality of information of a personal nature is a matter of considerable anxiety.
508
Officers of the child support agency will be subject to Section 19 of the Social Security Act 1989 which makes it a criminal offence to disclose information without lawful authority. Regulations concerning the disclosure of information will include safeguards to ensure inappropriate disclosure is not made. For example, there will be strict controls on disclosure of information that would help to identify an individual's whereabouts, such as his address or the name of his employer. Such information will not normally be disclosed without the written authority of the individual concerned.
However, it will be necessary to allow some disclosure of information so that appeals may be properly made, to minimise the bureaucratic procedures that clients of the agency will need to follow and to ensure that there is sufficient liaison between the agency and the courts.
An individual can only effectively exercise a right of appeal when he or she is fully aware of the facts on which an assessment has been made. It is intended that all of the information necessary for an individual to understand the assessment will be disclosed. Such disclosure will be the minimum possible information. Names, addresses and employers will not be disclosed. It will be, for example, the number of children, the amount of housing costs or the net earnings. That will be the general situation.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, so far the noble and learned Lord has uttered precisely the same words as are contained at col. 576 of Hansard. I took it for granted that he would not repeat the words which he uttered in Committee but that, as I asked, we should have, as he can give them, particulars of the regulations as he can give them which will protect confidentiality.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I find it difficult to set the scene for this without discussing the subject matter as I dealt with it in Committee. If the noble Lord is prepared to take that for granted, perhaps I may tell him that we are not yet in a position to propose draft regulations. He may take it that we shall do our level best to make sure that the amount of information disclosed will be only the necessary amount required for the purpose of making effective appeals or, for example, for allowing the courts properly to—
5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. This being an area of great sensitivity, is it not a case where Parliament should see exactly where regulations draw the limits? My noble and learned friend is being extremely vague in indicating where those limits should be. I gather that the Ministry has not yet made up its mind on the matter. It is highly desirable that its mind should be made up in an area of such importance, and that Parliament should see the regulations.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, undoubtedly the regulations will be made by statutory instrument and

509
Parliament will see them. The question is what should be disclosed at this stage or what should be said about disclosure.
I am seeking to say that the subject matter is obviously sensitive; it also involves considerable detail. For example, precisely what will be disclosed to the court is a matter of considerable importance and requires to be specified in detail. At this moment I am not in a position to produce the draft regulations. Even if I were, what is sought here is regulation-making power and it is not possible to restrict that by reference to a specific draft. All I could do with even the more detailed draft is indicate the heads under which the regulations may be made.
I do not believe it is possible for me at this stage to say more than that confidentiality will be set aside only where it is necessary for the purpose of the proper functioning of the system and the giving of the necessary information to the individuals concerned to enable them for example to prosecute their appeal or for the court to consider the situation relative to related applications with which it may have to deal.
I cannot do more than indicate the subject matter of the regulations at this stage. Even were I in a position to produce draft regulations, they would do no more than indicate a possible way in which the power could be used. The idea of having powers is to use them properly in the light of the circumstances at the time the power is exercised. That is the best I can offer at this stage.
Disclosure will be allowed only where it is necessary for the court considering the matter of, for example, spousal or child maintenance outside the scope of the formula or some other matter related to the application, and for the proper understanding by the parties to a determination by the agency of the basis upon which that determination was reached.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed by the reply of the noble and learned Lord. I respect what he says; however, I ask your Lordships to consider precisely what we are doing. By legislation we are saying in Clause 12 that the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring any information or evidence needed for the determination of any application under the Act. We do not have a copy of the regulations; we do not know what information will be sought. If Parliament endows a department and its employees with power to ask for information, at least we must see that the information is kept completely confidential unless there are overpowering reasons for departing from that confidentiality.
Only recently we witnessed the nervousness with which people looked at the powers of government to insist upon the completion of a census form, the assurances that they sought in regard to confidentiality and the answer that was frankly given by the Government in that connection. That is all too recent for us now glibly to accept a clause which demands that information shall be given. The Government even sought to include a sanction in case the information was not forthcoming.
510
When one asks the Government to spell out the confidentiality with which they intend to safeguard the information they force an applicant to give, one is told that, although regulations must be made and that they must be specific if they are to satisfy Parliament, they cannot be produced now, at the Report stage of the Bill.
It is a matter which could regrettably form an undesirable precedent. I do not believe your Lordships will be very happy if we accept the clause without assurances and subsequently Parliament, governed by whatever party it may be—including my own—was able to cite this as a power given to a government department. A person is forced to give information; regulations are produced which say that the Government can pass on that information to third parties. But there is nothing on the face of the Bill to describe the confidentiality with which that information will be treated and the limits of that confidentiality. When Parliament, before proceeding with the Bill, asks what will be in the draft regulations, it is said we can be told in general terms but that the Government cannot be specific.
That is a danger sign. Before the caution of yellow turns to red I shall ask your Lordships' opinion of the amendment. If satisfactory assurances had been given I intended to ask leave to withdraw it. No such assurances have been given and I ask for the decision of the House.
5.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 93.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hughes, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Bancroft, L.

Jay, L.

Birk, B.

Jeger, B.

Blackstone, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kennet, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carter, L.

Leatherland, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Craigavon, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Meston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ennals, L.

Molloy, L.

Ezra, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Nicol, B.

Foot, L.

Northfield, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Grantchester, L.

Seear, B.

Halsbury, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hampton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

511

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Walston, L.

Tonypandy, V.

White, B.

Underhill, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Lurgan, L.

Astor, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Auckland, L.

Mancroft, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Margadale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Blyth, L.

Milverton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Butterworth, L.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Norrie, L.

Carnock, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cawley, L.

Orkney, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cons tan line of Stanmore, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rees, L.

Elibank, L.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodney, L.

Erroll, E.

Saint Albans, D.

Ferrers, E.

Selkirk, E.

Foley, L.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strange, B.

Greenway, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gridley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Swinton, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Thurlow, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Waddington, L.

Hooper, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Westbury, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Wise, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wynford, L.

Knollys, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Schedule 2 [Provision of Information to Secretary of State]:
5.15 p.m.
Lords Houghton of Sowerby Lords Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 35, line 36, leave out ("an") and insert ("a named").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my comments follow pretty closely those which the House has just heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and from my noble friend Lord Mishcon. This Bill should have gone to a Select Committee. It needs far closer examination than can be given it by the normal Committee proceedings in your Lordships' House. What astonishes me is that a Bill of this kind, put down for Second Reading on 25th February, attracted fewer than a dozen noble Lords to speak and only two Back-Benchers among my noble friends. My noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon and myself were the only two Labour Back-Benchers
512
to speak on a Bill which has far-reaching consequences for a great many people whom we represent.
This is a Bill for the pursuit of individuals employing all measures that can possibly be given by Parliament. The Bill is to pursue persons who are wanted in connection with the determination of maintenance support which they are required to make in cases where people are applying for social benefits to live on. The more I go into this Bill the deeper my anxieties grow about it. I have spoken to a number of noble Lords who have said, "The more work we do on this Bill the more questions are raised and the more answers are not available because many of them are going into regulations."
The extension of bureaucracy into this field is a very important social measure. When political leaders talk about freedom, yet liberties can be lost casually under conditions of apathy in Parliament, then surely constant vigilance becomes the only safeguard of liberty. We are badly in need of a Bill of Rights. We should know where the limits of the law go and where the limits of bureaucracy can be extended. This time I have left out my main assault on Schedule 2 which I opposed so strongly, and probably at undue length, in Committee because I have discovered things that even I, with my vigilance in these matters, had not fully appreciated.
There are two problems. One is the disclosure of information which is provided for up to a point and which is the subject of this amendment to Schedule 2. The other is the practical use of the machinery of the Inland Revenue to implement the purposes of the Bill. I am not going to deal with that aspect. I want to speak about confidentiality because the use of the Inland Revenue so far does not arise under the Bill. In passing I warn the House of the kind of thing in the background to the Bill.
A briefing was sent to noble Lords by the Family Policy Studies Centre. On enforcement, it states:
"There may be surprise that the tax system is not being used as a way of making automatic maintenance deductions. It is not known why the Government has decided against following Australia's example where the Child Support Agency is based within the Australian Tax Office and has achieved a high level of compliance".
A memorandum sent to noble Lords by the National Council for One Parent Families urged an amendment on the following lines:
"(2) The Secretary of State may order that maintenance will be collected in like manner as Income Tax in order to secure the payment of any amount due from a liable person under the maintenance assessment in question
(3) Maintenance may be collected in like manner as Income Tax so as to secure the payment of—

(a) arrears of child support maintenance payable under the assessment;

(b) amounts of child support maintenance which will become due under the assessment; or

(c) both such arrears and such future amounts".

That is a proposal for the tax system to come fully into play to recover maintenance support payments.
There is a danger here which has to be watched. I shall add another fear. I predict that an attempt will be made to transfer to the Inland Revenue the responsibility for the collection of poll tax arrears. The

513
Inland Revenue machinery, both as regards information and its spread of collecting resources, is obviously vulnerable to those elements in public administration for which governments are seeking more effective answers in taxation at source. I shall not pursue that; it does not arise under the Bill, but one cannot help but have anxieties about what may happen.
I turn now to the very small amendment that I propose. I was unaware that Section 59 of the Social Security Act 1986 had already conceded to the Department of Social Security the right to seek from the Inland Revenue information in connection with the assessment or collection of income tax. It provides:
"No obligation as to secrecy imposed by statute or otherwise on a person employed in relation to the Inland Revenue shall prevent information obtained in connection with the assessment or collection of income tax from being disclosed to the Secretary of State".
Those are the words employed in Schedule 2. However, the power has already been granted to the Minister in the exercise of his existing powers.
On 9th May 1990 the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in another place in answer to a Written Question said:
"Section 59 of the Social Security Act 1986 permits the Inland Revenue to provide information to the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland, in connection with the operation of the benefit Acts, without breaching their confidentiality obligations. At present the information provided is confined to the details required to account for class 1 national insurance contributions, which the Inland Revenue collects on behalf of the DSS, and details of those known to be self-employed to assist DSS in collecting class 2 national insurance contributions".
He went on to state, and here we come to the relevant aspect:
"I have now asked the Inland Revenue to extend the disclosures made under their authority to include the addresses of absent parents and, where appropriate, the names and addresses of their employers, in cases where the absent parent is liable under the Social Security Act 1986 to maintain lone-parent families receiving income support".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/90; col. 123.]
That has already been done. It has been done by request of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the Board of Inland Revenue under the blanket authority of Section 59 of the Social Security Act 1986. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the law as it stands at present to prevent the Secretary of State for Social Security asking the Inland Revenue for particulars of the income, wages and other matters relating to persons about whom the social benefit people may wish to have more information.
The complication here is that for some reason not clear to me—it may be because a child support agency is to be created—we are putting in the Bill provisions already available to the Secretary of State under Section 59 powers of recovery. Therefore it is not very clear whether Schedule 2 to the Bill refers solely to the child support agency or whether it refers generally. We have two separate authorities here; the Social Security Act which gives authority to the officers of the Department of Social Security and now a Bill to give similar authority to the child support agency.
These two provisions have to come together somehow: otherwise, the Secretary of State will
514
operate under Section 59 and the child support agency will operate under Schedule 2 to the Bill. All I can do at the moment is to try, as the main issue has been dealt with in Section 59 of the Social Security Act 1986, to tie down the conditions under which the child support officers may seek information from the Inland Revenue—conditions similar in kind at the present time to those given to the Secretary of State by the Social Security Act 1986.
Amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 108, which go together, require that there should be a named person. Disclosure should be given only in regard to a named person. A child support officer, under some kind of authority given by the Inland Revenue, should not be allowed to wander over all the pay-as-you-earn deduction cards to see whether he can find somebody else he is looking for. If we are to have the right of inspection it should be through a named person and a named person only. That is as far as I can take it. If I seek to remove Schedule 2 altogether and the powers that it confers upon the child support officers with the consent of the Board of the Inland Revenue, I still leave the problem that the Secretary of State already has those powers. If he is going to transfer some of his responsibilities for recovery to the child support agency, then quite obviously he will want to transfer his powers of inspection of information in the books of the Inland Revenue. Therefore, so far as concerns the agency, I want to ensure that it is restricted in its rights of inspection to a "named person" and consent is given in writing.
Noble Lords may feel that the passion I have about confidentiality of Inland Revenue records is unnecessary. But I must emphasise the fact that it is most important. Indeed, it goes far wider than the issue which we are now considering. The nibbles already exist. For example, in the Social Security Act 1986, the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982, the Charities Act 1960, the Finance Act 1986 and the Finance Act of 1972.
Most of the inroads into the confidentiality of Inland Revenue records have been in relation to the collection of taxation. That applies mostly to the freedom of exchange of information between Customs and Excise on VAT and the Inland Revenue on the taxation of companies which may be liable to pay VAT. However, as I have indicated, the danger of the spread already exists. Bit by bit, justified on the grounds of some particular need, we find that the erosion spreads as regards the use of information which is put in the hands of government departments.
I have not had sufficient time to explore the law on databanks and disclosure in that connection. However, there is no doubting the fact that the names of citizens are becoming more readily available to a wider range of people. The names are coming from somewhere. Indeed, names and addresses are being sold in blocks, classified as to social status and likely capacity for levels of consumer expenditure. All these things have their dangers from the point of view of the freedom of the citizen in relation to certain confidential matters which he has had to disclose for other statutory purposes.
I hope that I shall receive some sympathy from the noble and learned Lord on Amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 108. I am not dealing at present with Amendment No. 109 because it raises another issue. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on the background that he put to the amendment. It has two bases: one was the wider constitutional basis, and the other was the basis upon which we run our system of Inland Revenue. The liberty of our fellow countrymen depends upon a balanced constitution in which powers are separated.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, mentioned the massive increase of bureaucracy which is the keynote of this Bill. It means that executive power is being aggrandised at the expense of Parliament, especially in the regulation-making power which takes the place of normal parliamentary legislation, and at the expense of the judiciary. We have not seen the last of that because my noble and learned friend has tabled a most deplorable amendment. It adds to the ouster of the courts which is consummated by Clause 7. It adds to that by making an appeal system not to the courts, which was one of the ways suggested in the Bill, but to an administrative tribunal. All those things, as well as the amassing of information in breach of confidentiality, as we now know, represent an erosion of personal liberty. Even taking one further but massive step, we proceed along that path with very great temerity.
The other aspect concerning the background of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was the nature of our Inland Revenue system. As one who was once responsible in that sphere, I wholeheartedly second what the noble Lord said from his vastly greater experience. Our system of Inland Revenue is, I think, unique. We largely depend on the self-assessment of the taxpayer. That has been so from the beginning. That can exist only if the taxpayer is sure that his confidences to the Inland Revenue will not be betrayed. However, it is precisely betrayal which one finds in the Bill.
Similarly, the Inland Revenue cannot rely upon a frank disclosure by way of self-assessment unless it can assure the taxpayer that it will respect his confidentiality and his confidences. Therefore, although we are from time to time and from step to step concerned in this Bill with small erosions of liberty—more aggrandisements of the executive at the expense of Parliament and of the courts—the issue is, cumulatively, of vast importance, and we take that path at our peril. We would do well to consider carefully the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It goes very much beyond any detail of this Bill; it goes to the very basis of our constitution and to the very basis upon which we collect tax by way of self-assessment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I feel sure that any matters connected with the Inland Revenue referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, would
516
be matters to which your Lordships would attend very carefully, especially so when they are reinforced by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. However, I have to say that on this occasion I doubt whether the fears expressed by the noble Lord are justified by the terms of the Bill. I say that because the Bill does not permit the use of financial information disclosed to the Inland Revenue. The purpose of the clause which the noble Lord seeks to amend is precisely to delimit what it is that the Secretary of State may use revenue information for and what the revenue may lawfully disclose to the Secretary of State.
As the noble Lord pointed out, under the Social Security Acts there is the possibility of a certain amount of disclosure. What we have done here is not just to push that along, but to use primary legislation to define the position regarding the Inland Revenue. That recognises that we appreciate fully the general matters of principle to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, referred and which were touched on by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I utterly reject the idea that the Bill, in any improper way, trenches upon the Inland Revenue system of which those two Members of the House have such intimate knowledge. On the contrary, the clause merely permits Inland Revenue information about the current address or the current employer of the absent parent to be disclosed. It has nothing to do with self-assessment, financial information or anything of that kind. It is a measure of the regard that we have had to the principles to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, referred that that point has been the subject of detailed legislation.
Perhaps I may at long last come to the amendment. The noble Lord is seeking to add the words "a named" in front of "absent parent". In other words, it is "a named absent parent". It is impossible to understand how one could obtain the current address of an absent parent without specifying the name of the absent parent. It is clear that the way in which the clause works would require that the absent parent in question would have to be specified so that his current address could be ascertained. Therefore I do not believe that the addition of the words "a named" or anything of that kind would add to or restrict the meaning or affect the practice. As presently drafted, the information could not be obtained unless a name has been supplied.
The powers of the Secretary of State under the social security legislation, to which the noble Lord referred, are given to him only for the purposes of that legislation. We are seeking to give him power for the purposes of this legislation and restrict it, as I have said, to the current address or current employer of the absent parent—not financial information. That is a restricted type of recourse. The noble Lord referred to memoranda that have been submitted which suggested that the revenue could have been more fully used in the exercise. I need not go into that point in detail because we have not gone down that road. There is no basis for the noble Lord's fears about that matter.

517
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will feel reassured by the fact that the type of information in question is information which, to make it effective, would require that it be related to a named person, because the information is restricted as I have said. I hope that in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Houghton of SowerbyMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his full explanation. However, perhaps I may draw his attention again to Section 59 (2) of the Social Security Act 1986 which provides that for those who are carrying on a trade, profession or vocation, which is assessable to tax under Case I or II of Schedule D,
"disclosure under subsection (1) above relating to that trade, profession or vocation shall be limited to information about the commencement or cessation of the trade, profession or vocation, but sufficient information may also be given to identify the persons concerned".
That means that if a person is assessed under Cases I or II of Schedule D (trading or professional matters upon which one is assessed on profits orgains) such a person is safeguarded against any request by an officer of the DSS to inquire about his income and personal circumstances in relation to that income. But Section 59(1) does not provide any such safeguard in the case of people who are dealt with under PAYE. They are the workers. Those are the people whose affairs are, or can be, laid bare to the DSS in connection, as the noble and learned Lord said, with the operation of any of the benefit Acts. Means-tested benefits are involved. Everything within the DSS which may require information relating to individuals, can be obtained from that given by the worker to the Inland Revenue in connection with his coding or other matters relating to his tax liability.
A distinction is drawn between one section of taxpayers (the better-off on the whole) who have professional advice all the time and the workers who are at the mercy not just of the system of the Inland Revenue itself, which is widespread and complete, but for the purpose of the operation of any of the benefit Acts. What disturbs me is that under omnibus provisions of Clause 59 of the 1986 Act, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can go to the Inland Revenue and say, "Under powers granted under Section 59 of the Social Security Act 1976, please make available to officers of my department information about people dealt with under PAYE". He does not have to come to Parliament for any further authority. He does not have to go to any statutory instrument. He goes merely to the Inland Revenue, to which he has no powers to give directions in this matter, and says, "Will you do it?", and apparently it is done.
Under Schedule 2 of the Bill what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can ask the Inland Revenue to do shall be extended to child support officers. At present, there are two powers side by side: those given to the child support agency, which are limited as I have described, and those given to the Secretary of
518
State and department officials, which are presumably provided for through the action of the Treasury with the Inland Revenue. It means an extension of the area of disclosure under Section 59 of the Social Security Act 1986.
Our safeguards in respect of our personal affairs and our confidentiality are being eroded all the time. Surely one of the conditions of individual liberty is that there are some things that we are not prepared to have disclosed to others. If we are forced to disclose matters relating to our affairs to government departments for statutory purposes, at least some regard should be paid to the extent to which those powers will be granted.
I shall not press Amendments Nos. 106 to 108. Quite honestly, it is futile, unless there is a combined effort on a proposal, to press any amendment in the House on this Bill. However, some day soon there will have to be a major exercise to deal with the position of the Inland Revenue vis-à-vis other elements in our public administration. The erosion of personal liberty within the system of income tax is likely to extend as time goes on.
I do not know how the Inland Revenue will give its authority. If it is left to come under regulations, will it be in writing or by telephone? How this will be carried out is left to a bureaucracy to decide. The question of how it should be dealt with may not even get into regulations nor come to the notice of the House at all. I shall withdraw Amendment No. 106 and not move Amendments Nos. 107 and 108. However, I shall move Amendment No. 109. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 106.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 35, line 48, at end insert ("whose regulations may provide that no person employed by them who has an objection to being relieved of his declaration of secrecy for this particular purpose shall be required to take part in any disclosure").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is directed towards a problem which could arise for Inland Revenue staff. At present, information given by the Inland Revenue relates purely to income tax affairs. Now, the Inland Revenue will supply information for other purposes, for the purpose of the social welfare organisations. In certain circumstances, an officer of the Inland Revenue may find that the child support officer seeks a relative, or even a member of the family. He comes into the office asking for information. I wish to safeguard any Inland Revenue officer from being under an obligation to disclose information which may be to the disadvantage of, or may incriminate, anyone where he feels honourably unable to disclose it. This cannot arise unless disclosure outside the department is involved. Inside the department, everyone is concerned with the administration of income tax. No information given inside the office goes further than the other side of the office for income tax purposes.
However, now someone may come into the office and ask for information regarding the name and

519
address of a certain person. That person may have a relative or close personal friend in the office. I see no reason why an Inland Revenue officer should be forced to give information, at any rate personally. The responsibility should be shifted elsewhere. He should not be required personally to give information which he feels it undesirable to give, having regard to his oath of secrecy. He may not wish that oath of secrecy to be lifted in this connection. It is an important safeguard to give to people engaged in this task. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I venture to support the amendment for the reasons I advanced on the previous one on which voices were raised. It seems to me to be the minimum that can be expected that the commissioners of Inland Revenue should exonerate from the duty of disclosure those who have been reared in the service conscientiously to respect confidentiality.
I believe that in the first line of the amendment the word "may" ought to be "shall". In other words, it should be mandatory on the commissioners to make a regulation respecting the conscience of their subordinate officers. I hope that, if such an amendment is moved at Third Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will regard it favourably. For the reasons that I have advanced previously, as well as those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I hope that the Government will accept this amendment as merely conceding something to perfectly understandable conscientious objections.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has explained that in putting.down this amendment he seeks to allow Inland Revenue employees to refuse to disclose information where the board of the Inland Revenue has authorised disclosure. This would be a marked departure from existing legislation involving disclosure of Inland Revenue information. It appears to qualify the board's right to determine whether the public interest overrides the long-held principle of confidentiality in a particular case. Apart from this objection, it would be out of place for such a provision to be put in legislation which does not originate from the Inland Revenue itself.
The board of the Inland Revenue chooses to authorise disclosure only in cases where the balance of public interest is clearly in favour of disclosure and under statutory powers. To have a provision where individual officers decide whether to disclose would undermine the board's power to decide on the circumstances when disclosure may be permitted and on the principle of public interest. It could also lead to inconsistent decisions. There would be nothing in the legislation to prevent requests for information being passed on to another officer who was willing to disclose the information.
In case it has not been completely understood, I wish to emphasise again that the provision only permits disclosure of limited information: the address of the absent parent and the name and address of the absent parent's employer. This information may be needed to trace the absent parent when other means of
520
tracking him down have failed. As I said in answer to a previous amendment, it is merely an extension of an existing provision to permit the Inland Revenue to disclose information to the Department of Social Security to help trace the absent parent where the person with care receives income support. We are not attempting to conceal the proposed use of Inland Revenue information. It will be public knowledge that this information may be obtained by the child support agency.
In my submission, it would be quite inappropriate to lay down in this Bill provisions for the regulation of the Inland Revenue which are not appropriate to the situation. In view of the limited information in question here and the fact that the Inland Revenue's position and authority are preserved by paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 2, I invite the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, once again I thank the noble and learned Lord. I have taken up enough of the time of the House on this matter. All I can say is that there are always abundant reasons for not taking the actions we wish, simple and elementary though they may be. I shall ask leave to withdraw my amendment and strongly recommend the Inland Revenue departmental Whitley Council to take the matter up itself if it wishes to pursue it. That is obviously a remote possibility; it is not worth flogging it indefinitely. The situation may arise in connection with the new duty which may rest upon Inland Revenue officials. It is surely one of the matters that the Inland Revenue departmental Whitley Council may look at and on which it could reach an accommodation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Powers of inspectors]:
6 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 38:
Leave out Clause 13.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at col. 593 of the Official Report of proceedings in your Lordships' House I stated, at Committee stage on 19th March 1991:
"At Report stage I shall certainly be moving that this clause does not stand part of the Bill unless an amendment comes forward which the Government are prepared to accept".
The amendment I was referring to related to Clause 13 of the Bill. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I remind the House of the powers contained in the clause. It gives the power to the Secretary of State to,
"appoint inspectors for the purposes of this Act.
(2) For the purpose of acquiring information which the Secretary of State or any child support officer requires for the purposes of this Act, an inspector appointed under this section shall have power—

(a) to enter at all reasonable times any premises which may be inspected under this section; and

(b) to make such examination and enquiry there as he considers appropriate".

Your Lordships may wonder what premises may be inspected under the terms of this provision. That is

521
referred to in Clause 13(3) which states that the premises which may be inspected are any premises at or from which,

"(a) any person is employed;

(b) there is being carried on any agency or other business for the introduction or supply to persons requiring them of persons available to do work or provide services; or

(c) any person carries on any trade, profession, vocation or a business of any kind".

At one stage it was suggested that this measure was merely a repetition of a measure contained in another Bill which related to national insurance contributions, maternity claims and other such provisions. Your Lordships may feel that whatever Parliament was minded to do as regards claims made in connection with national insurance contributions or maternity grants it involved at least an examination by the state of what should be investigated in order to ascertain whether a claim was genuine. However, in this Bill Parliament is being asked to sanction (in most cases it is the father of a child or children against whom maintenance is being sought) that at any stage, without obtaining any leave—certainly not from a magistrate and not even from the Secretary of State—an inspector appointed by the department can go to premises where the father is employed and seek such information as he may require for the purposes of the legislation.
In Committee I said that this measure was a gross infringement of the liberty of a subject who has committed no crime and has made no claim against the state for any contribution on the basis of which such a contribution may be made. The individual concerned is a father and an inspector wants to find out information about him for the purposes of the legislation. Presumably the purpose of the legislation is to determine what the father concerned is earning and what he can pay by way of maintenance. In Committee I said I could well believe that such a matter could cause grave embarrassment to an employee and may cause him to run the risk of losing his job. I maintained that an inspector will be asked by an employer what right he has to ask for such information. The inspector will also be asked where he comes from. Presumably the inspector will reply that he is an officer of a child support agency. I should have thought that was good enough. However, the inspector is most likely to say that he is making inquiries on the matter of child support as he believes that the father he is inquiring about is the father of the child.
Such inquiries may presume that the man concerned is a father and there is a marriage, or that he is a father and there is no marriage. Such inquiries may also presume that he is a father who is married and who has a child of which he has admitted parentage but of which his family, including his wife, have no knowledge. Such a situation could be disastrous. In Committee I asked the Government to table an amendment that would afford some protection to the father. I should have thought a little differently about the matter if the Government had subsequently proposed that the inspector had to ask for leave to make such inquiries from someone high up
522
in the department. I had hoped that the Minister in charge of the department would have to sanction such inquiries before the nosey parker—I hope I may be forgiven for using such an expression—went to a man's place of work. However, the Government will not budge on this issue. They have not tabled any amendment despite the fact that I humbly said I would have to retable the amendment unless some protection is to be afforded to the father.
I hope that no party politics are involved in this matter. I should like to believe that if a Labour government had introduced such a provision in a Bill I could have prevented it. I say to Members on the Benches opposite that no party politics should be involved in this matter, and that Parliament must not be allowed to ride roughshod over people in this way, careless of the harm it may cause. A child support officer must not be allowed to enter an employer's premises without seeking leave to do so. I hope that the House will support me on this matter. I hope noble Lords will consider that my noble friends and I were reasonable when we asked the Government at a previous stage of the Bill to offer some measure that would protect fathers. However, the Government have not done so. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I entirely support every word that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. I am reinforced in that view—I do not know whether the noble Lord was similarly reinforced—by the views of the Law Society of Scotland. The powers in this clause appear to be excessive and inappropriate. We must always look critically at any proposal to give powers of entry to public officials. The powers in Clause 13 require particular scrutiny as they give an inspector the power to enter any premises which are covered by the clause—the premises are widely drawn—and,
"to make such examination and enquiry there as he considers appropriate".
The inspector may question people he finds on the premises and he can require any person to furnish,
"all such information and documents as the inspector may reasonably require".
Those powers appear to be additional to the powers granted under Section 58 of the Social Security Act 1986. The inspector can carry out all those provisions without any warrant. All that he has to do is to produce a certificate. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, the clause is not directed at the premises of the person alleged to be the father but rather at a third party—an employer or possibly a past employer or an employment agency. Therefore we are talking about a third party's interests and a third party's premises.
As if that was not bad enough, the provision is subject to a criminal sanction, which we find in subsection (12). Any person who obstructs or delays the exercise of those powers or without reasonable excuse refuses or neglects to answer any question, furnish information or produce a document is guilty of an offence. In the absence of a warrant I suggest that it ought to be a good defence for the person whose premises are entered to say, "Mind your own business. Go away. Come back if you want to with a warrant". We should support the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend upon bringing forward the amendment and on his speech in support of it. There is no doubt that this clause of the Bill is oppressive. Both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, properly made the point that no warrant is required to enter the premises.
My wife is a magistrate, as are many Members of this House. I know that, when the police come to them for a warrant to pursue thieves, murderers, muggers and what not, they want to be satisfied that the police have good cause to enter premises either to search or to interview a miscreant. However, in the case of an ordinary father, whether he is married or not, he may, as my noble friend pointed out, be pursued even to his place of work, causing embarrassment and possible risk to his job.
When I was a young man I went to see the play "An Inspector Calls". I did not believe that that sort of thing could ever happen in this country. But here I find many years later that I am discussing the very same matter in the House of Lords. It can happen here. It is happening here and now. Moreover, the new inspectors are under no constraint as regards obtaining warrants. As we have heard, they may enter premises without anyone's leave at any time of night or day and interview any employer or employee, or any other person, without his or her consent and without notice. He or she may be interviewed alone or in company with somebody else.
Those are almost the powers of the Gestapo, not of a proper investigative agency in a democratic society. It is yet another instance of massive state power being used against ordinary folk where failure to co-operate with the bully boys of the agency can lead to the criminal courts and perhaps, if a person refuses on principle to pay a fine, to prison for contempt of court.
That sounds far-fetched, but it could occur under this clause of the Bill. Thus, even friends and relatives are to criminalised if they refuse to give information to a bullying state agency. Employers will be placed in an impossible situation vis-à-vis their employees. The position of an employee vis-à-vis his employer could be even worse where the agency was pursuing the employer or one of his relatives or friends. Such an employee is damned either way. If he refuses to give information to the inspector he risks being hauled before the courts. On the other hand, if he gives the information demanded by the inspector and such information hurts his employer, he could find his future prospects diminished.
This growing concentration of administrative power puts the individual at a disadvantage and his individual freedom at risk. Time and time again throughout this Bill we have heard of individual freedom being put at risk. I am afraid that this view is not far-retched; these things are happening here and now. The courts, which exist to protect the individual, are being bypassed in the name of administrative convenience. Unfortunately, Parliament, which is supposed to be the protector of individual liberty, seems sometimes to connive with the state to undermine it. Indeed, it seems to me that Parliament,
524
which represents ordinary people and their democratic rights, is becoming an agent of the state in suppressing those rights in Bills of this sort.
A new, softer image is being projected by the Prime Minister, but, though the image may be softer, the reality remains unchanged. This Bill, and this clause in particular, shows that the Government are seemingly careless of individual rights and freedoms, especially when those affected are likely to be ordinary working-class folk without the financial resources to fight the Big Brother state. I feel that, unfortunately, George Orwell was after all right and we are now all animals on the farm.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships have heard powerful speeches in support of the amendment. It would be supererogatory if I tried to cover the same ground. The deepest constitutional, social and personal arguments are being put forward against the extraordinary powers conferred by the clause. I wish to make only two points.
The first is that there is great danger in our concentrating on a provision immediately in question. If I may say so, my noble and learned friend, with his incomparable dialectic and parliamentary gifts, weaves a web of argument which obscures the enormity of one provision after another. It is very important that at each stage we look back and look forward as well as looking on the provisions themselves. If we look back we see the jurisdiction of the courts ousted in Clause 7. We see traditional confidentiality stripped away. If we look forward we see liability orders and the desperate remedy of distress made available, and not only made available but stripped of all the safeguards which the common law has erected round that drastic remedy.
The other point that I wish to make is this. One of the many valuable aspects of the arguments of the noble Lord Stoddart of Swindon has been to remind us—as we should be reminded constantly—that we are dealing with a human being. He is not, in the old phrase, a wolf's head to be hunted. He is not only a human being but he may be a deeply wronged human being. His wife may have got tired of him, preferred some more romantic figure and gone off with him, taking the children. Then, after what is distastefully called a "quickie" divorce, she may have married her lover. She will naturally wish to build him up as a father figure in the eyes of her children.
I cannot think how many times I have been told when trying to keep contact between a child and his father, "There is nothing I can do. The child has an invincible repugnance to seeing his or her father". One knows that that is not a natural reaction of a child. One suspects the psychological pressures and influences, often unconscious, that are brought to bear.
Let us look back to the father, deprived of his family, cut off from his children, seeing another man being built up in his place. That is the man with whom we are concerned in all these extraordinary measures of enforcement. Of course, he should support his

525
children, but there should be reciprocal rights for him. He should support his children, but not every measure can properly be taken to compel him to do so.
I am glad that the noble Lord has moved the amendment and I am profoundly grateful for the three notable speeches that have been made in support of it.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, we have heard some extraordinarily forceful and powerful speeches, not only on this amendment but on previous amendments, from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on the question of confidentiality. Without speaking to the generality of Clause 13, I wonder whether my noble and learned friend, with all his great distinction, has analysed some of the subsections in the clause. I should like to ask him whether the Government will look at the detail of the points that I wish to raise.
Subsection (2), for instance, includes the phrase:
"For the purpose of acquiring information which the Secretary of State or any child support officer requires".
That presumably means that any child support officer can ask for any information that he or she considers should be required in order to obtain a maintenance assessment. Any child support officer throughout the country can therefore pass on any information that he deems necessary and can directly require an inspector, without any superior officer to control the act, to do the things that have already been adumbrated by other noble Lords. If you are to ask an inspector to go into premises and perform the acts and duties stated in the clause there must be some superior control over the child support officer with regard to that decision. It is a major decision interfering in the privacy of people who, as we have said throughout the debate, are in a vulnerable position whether they are the caring parent, the absent parent or the children who suffer as a result of those breakdowns. I should have thought that a child support officer must at least have the agreement of a superior officer before asking an inspector to undertake that kind of action.
Similarly, subsection (4)—I shall not go through all the subsections but only deal with three points that struck me as I read through the clause—states:
"An inspector exercising the powers conferred on him by this section may question, either alone or in the presence of any other person, any person whom he finds on the premises".
Does that provision include children? Does it mean that an inspector can go into any office, agency or business and demand of a child of 13, 14 or 15 information of the kind that is required by the child support officer? There should at least be a definition of the word "person" and some other person to whom application can be made if this is an infringement of liberty. The wording should be revised.
My third point relates to subsection (8) which states:
"the Secretary of State may make arrangements for any of the powers given by this section to be exercised by that inspector".
The phrase "that inspector" relates to an inspector from another department. That provision implies the circulation of confidential information from one department to another; yet, as I understand it, there is apparently no control over child support officers asking for that information. I appreciate that they need certain information if they are to make correct
526
maintenance assessments, and we have been through all that before, but surely a child support officer in a support agency should not have the unmitigated and uncontrolled right to ask an inspector to undertake those acts and to require the information in the way outlined in the clause.
I am sure that, if my noble and learned friend looks at the clause in the light of the comments that have been made—I am sure that he has already read it carefully—he will find many points which need much tighter control and drafting. I should be grateful if he would address the problem in the light of the points that I have raised.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like briefly to ask my noble and learned friend whether he is worried that the clause is out of line with other legislation. Under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and the Children Act 1948 any child coming into the care of a local authority must be assessed for payment. The parents are seen, but an appeal is never made to the place of work or anywhere else without the parents' written permission. If the parents will not give written permission and will not pay the amount we must ask a court to say that we may enter a place of work. That can be done only with court agreement.
Under the Children Act 1989, without a court order no one may enter the home of any parent who is said to be abusing or is thought to be abusing. However, as I understand it, no court order is required under this clause. Likewise, under the health Acts, no health visitor may enter a house, if refused entry, without a court order. It therefore seems strange that no court order is required under this Bill whereas it is required under other legislation.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that this section of the Bill confers extraordinary powers on the Executive. One of the problems is that when governments of any political persuasion have been in office for a long time clauses of this kind creep into Bills. I suspect that in the first or second years of office Ministers would have been apprehensive about giving a state agency the kind of powers that are conferred in this clause. It is excessive to say that officials will be given powers of that kind, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and others, that no warrant will be needed and that there will be a criminal sanction for non-compliance. Where are we going? We all recognise that the noble and learned lord has a decent regard for civil liberties, but this is a wholly inappropriately drafted clause.
I hope that even at this late hour the noble and learned Lord will agree to consider the points that have been raised—the House has been wholly unanimous on this point—and to look at the matter before Third Reading. It would be a great pity if the clause were to be left in the statute and operated by an agency. I do not suggest that the agency concerned would necessarily behave with gross impropriety, but I simply do not like officials of the state being given powers of that kind.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, when the clause states that the inspector may question "any person", does that mean that he can go to any colleague—indeed, the tea lady or any gossip in the company and there are always a great many—to request that information?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the purpose of the provision that we are now considering in Clause 13 is to provide information which is required for the purpose of a proper assessment of maintenance support for a person's children and the necessary information that may be required to enforce it. That is the purpose of this measure. If one sets up a system for maintenance, surely it is necessary to have effective powers of enforcement.
The purpose of the powers is only that of acquiring information. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I believe that when he compared the powers with those of the Gestapo he was guilty of a degree of exaggeration. I suspect that the Gestapo thought that it had considerably greater powers than those of simply obtaining information. With great respect I do not believe that argument on a clause of this kind is assisted materially by what I might refer to as a degree of exaggeration.
The purpose of the clause is quite clear. It is:
"For the purpose of acquiring information which the Secretary of State or any child support officer requires for the purposes of this Act".
In other words, it is information which it is necessary to obtain in order that the purposes of the Act shall be fulfilled. It is not a question of any child support officer thinking of information that he might like to ask of a gossipy tea lady. I should not wish to associate myself with the view that tea ladies are particularly gossipy. I am sure that male messengers are at least as gossipy as tea ladies.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord. I spoke of a tea lady or any gossipy person.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not know whether the just and generous rule is applied in reverse to that. I do not think that I referred to the noble Baroness's remarks in particular but your Lordships may well think that I had them in mind.
The situation is that the information is information which i3 required. That matter is at the root of the warrant, so to speak. Unless the person requires information for the purposes of the Act, there is no power to do anything of the kind that is required in this provision. So it is not a question of any information that anyone may think of; it is information required for the purposes of this Act. Under the Bill a child support officer is an officer of the Secretary of State, who will be responsible for him and accountable to Parliament for the way in which the powers are exercised.
The next point is that the inspector is to have power "to enter at all reasonable times". The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested that it could be at any time of the day or night. I question whether that is a reasonable interpretation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I said that advisedly. I referred advisedly to night or day. It may very well be that when a factory is working nights the only time that the inspector could obtain such information would be during the night.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if it is reasonable to go at night, I can understand. But it is not a question of any hour of the day or night unqualified. I can understand if it concerns people who work at night and it is reasonable to go at night—and there is at least a suggestion that sometimes what goes on at night may require investigation. The point is that the qualification is "at all reasonable times" and not just at any hour of the day or night unless the hour of day or night is reasonable.
Subsection (3) states:
"The premises which may be inspected under this section are any which the inspector concerned has reasonable grounds for supposing to be premises at or from which—

(a) any person is employed;

(b) there is being carried on any agency or other business for the introduction or supply to persons requiring them of persons available to do work or provide services"
what one might call an employment or work agency—

"or"
(c) any person carries on any trade, profession, vocation or a business of any kind".
That is a restriction in the premises to which this provision applies and it is important.
With regard to the information asked for—and this applies to subsection (4) also—the person is to,
"furnish to the inspector all such information and documents as the inspector may reasonably require for the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)"—
that is to say, for the purposes of this Act—for the purpose of ascertaining the whereabouts of a parent and the amount of maintenance which he or she should pay under the Act.
In considering whether a warrant is necessary—and a great deal has been said about that—it is very important to look at subsection (6) which states:
"No person shall be required under this section to answer any question or to give any evidence tending to incriminate himself or, in the case of a person who is married, his or her spouse".
That differentiates this kind of clause very substantially from anything to do with criminal investigation or applications for a search warrant for the purpose of finding evidence of crime.
The purpose of using another inspector—a matter to which my noble friend Lady Elles referred—is to minimise the amount of inspection that requires to be done in relation to a particular set of premises. For example, if an inspector is going for the purpose of a benefit inspection, it is very reasonable that instead of sending somebody else from the child support agency someone should be sent who is already going there. That is the point of allowing another government department inspector to obtain the necessary information. It is wholly intended to help and to restrict the number of visits that would be required.
The visitor requires to have a certificate of appointment before he enters. That, if one likes, is his warrant. His warrant is the warrant that he is an inspector appointed under this clause for the very limited purposes of the clause. The criminal sanction

529
is only directed against intentionally delaying or obstructing a person. It is intentional delay or obstruction. Subsection (12) (b) requires that it be "without reasonable excuse" in other words, that the person refusing or neglecting to answer the question has a reason for doing so.
I have attempted to answer the detailed points on this provision put by my noble friend Lady Elles.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble and learned friend. I also asked for the definition of "person" in subsection (4). I should mention that before the noble and learned Lord goes on to another argument.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think that "person" has been restricted; in other words, it would include a child. I intended to return to that point. A number of matters have been raised which I should have thought were perhaps worthy of special consideration and that is one of them. I have sought to deal in some detail with the general matters raised on the clause by my noble friend to set the clause in context. As I said, the purpose is to ensure that effective means of enforcement are available against absent parents if there is a problem ascertaining their whereabouts or assessing their responsibility. Surely it is vitally important, at least as important as checking on benefits and the payment of national insurance contributions, that parents should be responsible for proper payments in respect of their children. As I have emphasised, the only purpose of this clause is to make that good and nothing more.
I submit to your Lordships that if such a clause is justified (as was implicit in the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with good reason) and such powers exist in relation to social security inspectors for the purposes of benefit, then proper responsibility for one's children is at least as important and effective means of implementation are necessary.
It is vital that the agency has the necessary powers to prevent children being defrauded or I should say deprived of money to which they are entitled. I must not exaggerate when I have been finding fault with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. It could amount to defrauding the children if one were deliberately hiding away or giving wrong information about one's income. I do not wish to exaggerate the matter, but that is certainly a possible case. Proper powers are required to deal with children being deprived of money to which they are entitled.
It is important that the agency has the means quickly and effectively to obtain the information so that maintenance is put into payment as quickly as possible. I am sure all of your Lordships, or certainly those who have had responsibilities in connection with matters of children and single parent families, know of the agonised cries of single parents who, notwithstanding having a court order, have been unable to get the money to which the court finds they are entitled. To follow up a court order in those circumstances is an executive act in pursuance of that order.
In most cases the information will be obtained by
530
post or by telephone calls, but there will be occasions when a visit is necessary. At the Committee stage my noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether any approach had been made to employers. I understand that officials in the Department of Social Security have been consulting representatives of self-employed and employers' organisations and that they meet regularly to discuss the proposals in the Bill to ensure that the measures are implemented with the minimum disruption to business. Obviously, that is a matter which we very much wish to have in mind, and it is the reason why, instead of having a series of inspectors for the purposes of this Bill we are seeking to use those who might be involved in any case. The meetings have been constructive and helpful and I understand that there has been no opposition to the idea of using inspectors. Apart from anything else, inspectors may be able to help businesses by visiting employers who do not have the resources to provide the information by letter or telephone at the speed the agency needs it.
At Second Reading, in Committee and today, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, expressed concern that the absent parent might be embarrassed by the arrival of inspectors at his workplace. The noble Lord took his concern to the length of declaring that the relationship between the employer and the employee might be jeopardised, and that aspect figured in what he said today.
In most cases the inspector would need to visit the pay section only, and no one outside that section need be aware of the visit, let alone the reason for it. I can assure your Lordships that inspectors operating the powers under this clause would be trained to a high standard, and detailed guidance would be given to them. Your Lordships will appreciate that any question of paternity is one not for the agency but for the court. The agency's powers and duties arise in relation only to someone in respect of whom paternity has been established. The inspectors will use discretion and will not divulge the specific purpose of the visit. In that respect they have techniques available to them which would not be available in the service of an ordinary court writ. If an application is made for an attachment of earnings order, some details of the case are given in the order that is granted.
In Committee the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the problems that could be caused by the visit of an inspector to see the husband where the wife and husband jointly run a business. In such cases the agency will already have attempted to contact the husband by post and he will have had ample opportunity to contact the agency to supply the requested information or to arrange for the interview to take place at a convenient time and place.
I recognise that this is an important clause. It is a difficult one, but it has a very important purpose. It is limited to conferring the powers for that purpose alone. That is perfectly plain from subsection (2).
I ask your Lordships not to give effect to the amendment. Obviously, I shall look closely at all that has been said and consider whether anything in particular should be done by way of amendment. I should especially wish to look at the question of

531
whether subsection (4) requires to be limited in some way, having regard to the point that was made by my noble friend Lady Elles.
In the light of those explanations, and of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he agree that the speech just given to us is a classic example of the maxim that the end justifies the means?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I would not agree with that at all. I do not know how classical I should like to claim the speech I have just given to be, but it showed that the end is first of all of importance and if the means are properly restricted in relation to the end that justifies the means. I say that these means are extremely reasonable in relation to the end; they are justified. Parliament accepted them some time ago in relation to social security legislation, and I consider that if they are justified for that they are certainly justified for working out effectively the responsibility of a parent to maintain his or her child.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, before the Lord Chancellor sits down, I wonder if he can help me. I hesitate to enter into a debate in which so many noble and learned Lords have taken part, but I am very concerned that I have not yet heard the Lord Chancellor reply to the fundamental principles involved in the arguments. Nobody in this Chamber was quarrelling about the need to obtain information. Nobody was quarrelling about the need to make a father accept his responsibilities for the upkeep of his children. The argument concerns who should carry out the necessary procedures to obtain the information and ultimately to ensure that the parent is accepting his responsibilities. I have not yet heard the Lord Chancellor reply to that argument.
If, in my perhaps uneducated and naive way, I assume that the courts of this land are an extension of Parliament, surely they should decide on behalf of Parliament what decisions should be taken in regard to the individual. I stand to be corrected, but I understood the Lord Chancellor to say that the Secretary of State would appoint the inspectors and therefore ultimately the Secretary of State would be responsible. That may be true, but the damage to the individual concerned, which was outlined, about somebody penetrating his place of work and asking all kinds of questions which might ultimately lead to his dismissal, would already have been done before the Secretary of State got to know about it.
I am very concerned, like everybody else in the country, about the recent abuse trials. There were junior officers concerned, some of whom certainly would not have had the wisdom or experience of the people in our courts. The outcome was tragic not only for those concerned and their children but for the whole of the service. In some cases, the faith in the service 'Alas damaged almost beyond repair.
This is not a matter that should be settled by noble Lords walking through the Lobby, although I would
532
certainly do so in support of the amendment. If the matter is so settled, the result will be an accident of faith. Peers who are not listening to the debate will walk through the Lobby because they are told to do so. This is not a party issue.
I appeal to the noble and learned Lord to say that he will look at the matter again, and will come back on Third Reading in order to reach an agreement. Failure to agree will continue for years to come. The people appointed as inspectors will in some cases show the opprobrium mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stoddart.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my remarks about the responsibility of the Secretary of State related to the point made by my noble friend about the level at which decisions are taken. The responsibility for that will lie with the Secretary of State in respect of which he is answerable to Parliament. However, the powers conferred are strictly limited by subsection (2) of the clause. The inspectors will be officers of the state. The state will be charging them with the important duty of ensuring that absent parents properly discharge their financial responsibilities to their children.
That is a perfectly legitimate objective. The means being used for obtaining it are perfectly reasonable. If they are reasonable, as I submit, in respect of the amount of benefit and so forth they are at least as responsible in respect of the important issue of a parent's responsibility for the maintenance of his or her child.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, having heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor slightly chastise my noble friend Lord Stoddart, I must not use exaggerated language and I hope that I shall not do so. I did not believe that in this House, which is the nation's safeguard of its liberties, I should hear the noble and learned Lord, whose reputation in the field is unqualified, say what he has said.
The noble and learned Lord said that it was perfectly all right, surely, to give an inspector the right to go to a place of employment without any warrant or approval of a superior officer, let alone the Secretary of State. Having arrived at those premises, he could make anyone whom he met responsible for giving him information for any of the purposes of the Bill. That includes finding out where the person concerned lives, his earnings and whether he has voluntarily accepted overtime. At the end there is a penal clause providing that anyone who fails to give that information might be guilty of an offence.
The issue goes further than that. In seeking to say that the liberty of the subject was very much in his mind and that of those who support the Bill, the noble and learned Lord said, as though it were a great relief, that the person would not be committing a criminal offence and need not give the information if he were incriminating himself. A basic principle of our law, even when giving evidence in a court of law under subpoena, is that one can be relieved of doing so if the giving of that evidence incriminates. Without doubt that is not a defence to this provision.
The noble and learned Lord went on to say that the inspectors have such powers under the Social Security

533
Act 1986. That Act deals with people who are claiming benefits and who, in support of that claim, have given information which the authorities wish to check. As regards this Bill, we are dealing not with someone who has been found to be in arrears perhaps for six months or more, but with someone who may not be in arrears but whose address the authorities cannot discover. An officer acting within his rights for any of the purposes under the Bill can go to the man's place of employment. The man may be living with a lady who is not his wife at an address unknown to the wife. The inspector can say to the employer, "I am an inspector appointed under the Act and I require you to give me information. Where is the man living whom you employ?". The inspector can also ask about the man's earnings, overtime and so forth.
When dealing with the matter in Committee, I tried to adopt a moderate course. I know that the matter is not a political point and no one is trying to make such a point. Noble Lords opposite have supported the amendment. I do not seek to gain a political victory but a victory for the freedom of the subject. That is a completely different matter. If at this late stage the noble and learned Lord said, "I see the force of the argument. I am a protector of the liberty of the subject and of the employee. I do not wish to see the purpose of the Act defeated by somebody losing his job and therefore unable to support his child. I do not wish to run that risk. I am prepared to consider that some authority must be given if only by the Secretary of State", then I would not have achieved everything I had wished for, but at least there would be a break on the issue.
The noble and learned Lord treated the House to a description of inspectors whom he has not met, whom he does not know and whom he will never know. He described them as being people who are discreet and who will behave with the utmost gentility and courtesy. If the noble and learned Lord were giving evidence in a court of law, he might be cross-examined about the basis of his belief.
This is not a party point of view and no one will claim a victory politically or otherwise. If I call a Division, the issue will not be answered, as my noble friend said. Peers will come into the Chamber from various recesses of your Lordships' House, some provided with refreshment and some not, and they will vote without knowing what the amendment is about. I do not want to leave the matter there. I plead with the noble and learned Lord to say that between now and Third Reading he will consider the matter sympathetically and impose some consent before the inspector can use the powers. If it were the Secretary of State, although I should prefer an authority outside the department, I should say that that is a concession and liberty has been safeguarded to some degree. I plead with the noble and learned Lord.
7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in the course of my remarks I said that I would consider carefully all that has been said. Your Lordships know that if I consider anything, I try to do
534
so with as much sympathy as the case appears to require. However, I am not in a position to go further than saying that I shall consider carefully all that has been said. I appreciate the importance of this in considering the way forward.
I am not sure to what extent some of the suggestions may be practical. I am under the impression that these matters are important but I am not prepared to commit myself, and I do not believe it would be right for me to commit myself, to a view that this clause could be substantially modified. I have indicated that I shall consider matters which have been raised. Your Lordships must then decide what action to take in the light of that. I regard those matters as important; but I also regard as vitally important the need for children to receive the appropriate maintenance.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord has forgotten what he said before. That was the reason I pleaded in the way I did. He said specifically that he would reconsider subsection (4), which is limited to an inspector exercising the powers conferred on him either alone or in the presence of any other person. That was the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. I believe that he is now saying that he is prepared to consider the whole clause and the submissions which I have made. In that case, I thank the noble and learned Lord. If there is to be a concession, I hope that that will be made clear between now and Third Reading. If the noble and learned Lord is unable to make the concession, we shall then have the opportunity to raise the matter on Third Reading.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that I said that I would consider all that had been said and in particular the point made by my noble friend Lady Elles. I always seek to consider what your Lordships have said because I regard that as part of my responsibility and because what your Lordships say is well worthy of consideration. However, I wish to make it plain that I am not undertaking that we shall be able to come forward with any concession whatever on Third Reading. I hope that that will be understood and that your Lordships will take such a course as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, advises.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I understand that and would not expect the noble and learned Lord to say more at this stage. I ask only one favour of him; namely, so that all those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and who feel deeply about this know where they stand, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be able to inform us before Third Reading as to what is his reaction. We shall then know what course to pursue. I know that the noble and learned Lord will not regard that in any way as a threat or an inducement to him to make a concession. If it was an inducement, I should be glad about that.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if it were an inducement, it would not be improper. I shall certainly try to inform the noble Lord and those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate of the position so that it can be considered before Third Reading.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cavendish of Furness; My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration be now adjourned and suggest that Report stage begin again at 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill
7.6 p.m,.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill was originally presented in another place by my honourable friend the late Donald Coleman, then Member for Neath. His tragic death led to the Bill passing into the hands of my honourable friend the Member for Caerphilly who, with the support of the other sponsors and with the willing support of the Government, has seen it through all its stages in another place.
The Bill was conceived by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It amends the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to strengthen the prohibition against certain methods of killing or taking wild birds and other animals. At present the Act makes it an offence to employ certain methods. The amendment would also make it an offence to cause or permit others ro employ such methods. That will enable enforcement officers to question employers or landowners who may have instructed or allowed their staff to behave illegally and will bring wildlife legislation into line with legislation protecting domestic and farm animals which contains "cause or permit" provisions.
The need for greater protection is clear. The RSPB produced figures which show that last year alone birds of prey were involved in over 530 incidents of poisoning, shooting and trapping. Many of those incident; were illegal; and, given the size and nature of the terrain over which that takes place, it is safe to assume that the real figure is greater.
Many of our rarest and most beautiful species are at risk. I can give more statistics if noble Lords require them, but I shall not do that at this stage. There is on record at least one case of a gamekeeper who claimed that he had been instructed by his employer to lay poison, and that he was afraid of loosing his job if he did not obey. The gamekeeper was convicted but the employer had committed no offence against the law as it stanch and could not be prosecuted. Closing that loophole would make employers responsible for the acts of their employees and would undoubtedly improve wildlife protection. New Clause 1(4) provides a defence: in cases of accident or mistake.
The majority of farmers and landowners act responsibly. That makes it even more important that those who do not so act are prosecuted. The RSPB is to be congratulated on its dedication to the protection
536
of wildlife, and I commend those members of staff who take considerable personal risks to collect information to illustrate their case.
I am grateful to the Government for their support so far, and I hope that that support is still available to see this Bill safely onto the statute book.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Nicol.)
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, on these Benches we agree wholeheartedly with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said. I do not believe that there is anything contentious in the Bill. Most reasonable people would agree with the simple statement that it makes. It strengthens the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. For the first time it allows the police and others investigating offences where protected species have been "persecuted"—that is the word used by the RSPB—and killed unlawfully to question the real culprits who are the landowners and those who authorise their staff to trap, shoot and poison illegally the kind of wildlife covered by the Bill.
The Bill is in no sense an attack on legitimate field sports, nor will it reduce legal methods of controlling pest species. It is directed to deterring people from using illegal methods of killing wildlife. The background to the Bill is that, in the case of birds, in which I am personally interested, certain species are seriously threatened. As I was discussing outside your Lordships' Chamber with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, there are people—not only young people—who do not appreciate that if these species are allowed to disappear because they are not adequately protected, those who follow will not be able to appreciate the beauty of many species which have enriched our wildlife in this country.
I refer specifically to the red kite. That is a bird which was, certainly during the 16th and 17th centuries, common over London. It was common throughout these islands and particularly in areas of habitation. Now there are only around 60 pairs known to be breeding in central Wales. I am told that the golden eagle is less threatened than it was. The buzzard, which has thankfully recovered in the south-western counties—Devon and Cornwall—is still threatened in southern and eastern England. The Bill will allow those species and others a reasonable chance to increase so that generations who follow will be able to enjoy them in the way that people have enjoyed them in the past.
We thoroughly support the Bill. However, I ask the Minister whether the Government would consider granting an amnesty arrangement, without fear of prosecution, for those who have stocks of unwanted pesticides so as to allow those pesticides to be withdrawn. That would be an additional help.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in the debate. However, I should like to say a few words to indicate how strongly I support what the

537
noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, and how much I hope the Bill will receive the support of your Lordships.
I live on the edge of red kite country in Wales. It is a small and fragile population which has suffered greatly from persecution. There have been deplorable cases recently of red kites being poisoned. It is extremely important that everything possible should be done to stop that.
I feel very strongly also that gamekeepers who take action illegally against birds by putting out poisoned eggs and so forth, are liable to prosecution while their employers apparently are not liable at all. Any landowner whose gamekeeper or other employees behave in such a way should certainly bear a measure of responsibility. That is extremely important.
I hope your Lordships will support the Bill, which is an admirable and very necessary one.
7.14 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Nicol not only on the substance of the Bill, which I support officially from this Dispatch Box, but also on the way in which she introduced it. I congratulate her also on her sense of timing. No doubt my noble friend will have seen today's copy of The Times containing a splendid picture of Gurkhas protecting the last 52 nesting pairs of red kites in Wales. It makes one think that possibly this House is a habitat for endangered species. I cannot imagine many other places in the country where there are as many employers of gamekeepers as there are in your Lordships' House. The Bill brings those employers of gamekeepers to heel.
I see the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, present, who is undoubtedly an employer of gamekeepers. I hope that the Minister, who herself must be an employer of gamekeepers, will ensure that gamekeepers obey the provisions in the Bill.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I had not intended to speak but the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned my name. Like everything else, there are gamekeepers and gamekeepers. I am sure that my gamekeepers do not destroy anything which they are not allowed to destroy. The other day one took great pleasure in taking me out to show me a merlin's nest on my moor, which I was delighted to see.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I never doubted for a moment that that would be the case. However, the noble Earl has given me great encouragement in my belief that the nesting habits of employers of gamekeepers are as I suspected and as I hoped. This is a good Bill and deserves both the unanimous support it received in another place and the support of your Lordships.
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in view of the last comments I should perhaps say at the outset that my name is Lady Blatch and not Lady Chatterley!
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in carrying forward this Bill, which the Government
538
support wholeheartedly. We share her concern about the illegal killing of wild birds or animals, particularly where cruel or indiscriminate methods are used.
The noble Baroness explained that the Bill would make it an offence for a person to cause or permit another to contravene the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which prohibit the use of certain means of killing or taking wild birds or protected species. The Act already provides very strict controls in that area and offenders face heavy penalties. But the Bill would help to strengthen those controls by making people who manage or oversee land responsible for ensuring that they or their employees do not use unlawful means to kill wildlife. We are thankful that most farmers and landowners act responsibly, as the noble Baroness said, and within the law. But, regrettably, there are those who pay little regard to the consequences of using substances or methods which cause unnecessary suffering to birds and animals and put at risk many of our endangered wild species.
The Bill would bring the Wildlife and Countryside Act into line with the equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland. It would also parallel provisions in the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, which controls, among other things, the sale, storage and use of pesticides.
The Bill was amended in another place to reflect the Government's policy on the creation of "causes or permits" offences. It has always been implicit that the successful prosecution of such offences depends on evidence that the accused person had some sort of knowledge of the offence with which he was charged with causing or permitting. It is normal practice to make that clear on the face of the legislation and it helps to clarify the court's understanding of the nature of such offences. As amended, the Bill would make it an offence if a person knowingly caused or permitted another to contravene the Act's provisions for the protection of wildlife.
The House should also be aware that we propose to introduce, in Committee, two further minor amendments to bring the Bill into line with other legislation on the creation of new offences. The first would ensure that the Bill did not come into force on Royal Assent. As is usual, a period of two months would be allowed to give the public an opportunity to become aware of the changes in the law before they started to operate.
At this point perhaps I could answer the specific question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. The two-month period would enable people who possess stocks of unwanted pesticide to get rid of them. We shall of course discuss with MAFF whether further action is required to ensure that unnecessary poisons are not held.
The second minor amendment would prevent the Bill, when enacted, from operating retrospectively. Anything done prior to the Act would not become an offence; only those actions taking place after the Act comes into force would be caught by the new provisions.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that we owe it to ourselves and to future generations to take great care of our wildlife in order to preserve its abundance

539
and diversity. The 1981 Act has been the vital key to establishing comprehensive and effective procedures for protecting species and their habitats. But unfortunately there are those who, by their thoughtlessness or ill-considered actions, undermine these procedures by acting outside the law and ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of people in their concern to preserve our natural heritage.
This Bill would help to bring home to people who use or permit the use of illegal methods to kill wildlife that we are determined to do everything possible to meet our objectives for the protection of our national heritage and especially our endangered species. We must stamp out illegal practices that cause so much unnecessary suffering to our wildlife and the death of species that do no harm. We wish the Bill well in its remaining stages.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in support of the Bill. I understand the amendment that the Government are bringing forward. I feel a little uneasy at the use by the noble Baroness of the phrase "to give them an extra two months in which to get rid of the pesticides". I hope that the result will not be that the pesticides are got rid of by a quick, all-over poisoning of the remaining terrain. However, we shall discuss that during the Committee stage.
The suggestion put forward by the noble Viscount for an amnesty on pesticides is a good idea. It will enable people to return them and perhaps remove the temptation to get rid of them by use. It is greatly to the credit of Members of your Lordships' House, among whom there are so many who employ gamekeepers, that none of them has turned out today to question the passage of the Bill. I take that as very encouraging and as a sign that they are all responsible employers of gamekeepers. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committx1 to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House d o now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.22 to 8.5 p.m.]

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed. Clause 14 [Periodical assessments]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 10, line 19, leave out ("a maintenance assessment") and insert ("maintenance assessments").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a very short point. It arises from my having I believe, misconstrued subsection (1) of Clause 14 which deals with periodical assessments. It opens with the phrase:
"The Secretary of State shall make such arrangements as he considers necessary to secure that where a maintenance assessment has been in force for a prescribed period".
540
I read "a maintenance assessment" literally. I thought at first it meant a particular maintenance assessment, but having reread it and the rest of the clause several times, I think it means—the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong that the Secretary of State may make an order bringing all maintenance assessments to an end after a prescribed period. I therefore propose that instead of "a maintenance assessment" the subsection should read "maintenance assessments". However, that involves a grammatical solecism at the end of the line and it may be that the right phrase is "any maintenance assessment" or "all maintenance assessments". All I can do now is to move the amendment, see the reaction of my noble and learned friend and, if there is any doubt—as I think there may be—ask whether the Government will reconsider the drafting. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the purpose of this subsection is to allow the Secretary of State to make an arrangement for regular review of maintenance assessments. The draftsman has sought to deal with that by taking the singular and providing that where a maintenance assessment has been in force for, let us say, a year the amount of maintenance fixed by that assessment is reviewed by a child support officer. Therefore, if a maintenance assessment has been made on 1st December this year it would be reviewed on 1st December next year; and an assessment made on 1st November would be reviewed on the following 1st November, and so on. The idea is that what is fixed is a period from the making of the particular assessment before that assessment has to be reviewed.
I believe that the clause as drafted has that effect. That is certainly the way I read it. I appreciate, of course, that when one knows what is supposed to be said it often is easier to understand language in that way than if one is reading it without having had anything to do with putting the policy together. I believe that it is reasonably clear. But I shall, of course, be happy to mention the fact to the draftsman.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has made it clear that what it means is assessments. In fact, he used that word. This is one of those cases where one cannot rely upon the Interpretation Act to say that the singular includes the plural. There is a doubt in the matter. It does not seem to me to be a suitable term in this connection. However, my noble and learned friend has said that he will reconsider the matter with the aid of the draftsman. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 10, line 28, leave out from ("made") to end of line 29.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 43, which raises the same point, and Amendment No. 49, which raises a slightly different, though cognate, point. I shall move the latter separately. Clause 14(3) states:
"A review shall be conducted under this section as if a fresh application for a maintenance assessment had been made".

541
That seems to me to be all that one needs to say. The following words,
"by the person in whose favour the original assessment was made",
do not, so far as I can see, add anything to the meaning. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for raising the matter. It seems to me that the words to which he referred may be surplus. I should like to make certain with parliamentary counsel whether there is any particular reason for the use of that expression, but, unless he gives me some explanation which has not so far occurred to me, I propose to put forward a government amendment to the effect suggested by my noble and learned friend.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Clause 15 [Reviews on change of circumstances]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 11, line 2, after ("6") insert ("either of them or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this technical amendment will make it clear in cases where the application for maintenance is made by a child in Scotland that not only the child but also the absent parent or the person with care may apply for a review on the grounds of a change of circumstances. That brings the provision into line with that in Clause 17(2) (b) and subsection (2) (b) of the proposed new clause about the review of decisions of child support officers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 11, line 9, leave out from ("different") to end of line 11.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment raises a point similar to the one I have just made. It arises in subsection (2), which states:
"An application under this section may be made only on the ground that, by reason of a change of circumstances since the original assessment was made, the amount of child support maintenance payable by the absent parent would be significantly different".
Again, that group of words seems to say everything that one wants. So far as I can tell, the words which follow,
"if it were to be fixed by a maintenance assessment made by reference to the circumstances of the case as at the date of the application",
do not add anything to those which preceded them. Therefore, unless those words have a significance which has escaped me, I suggest that they be omitted. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in my view there is a difference. I say that because one wants to know what are the circumstances at a fixed date to ascertain
542
whether or not they have differed from those which existed at the date of application. Line 2 of subsection (2) reads,
"since the original assessment was made".
If the noble and learned Lord's amendment was accepted, the subsection would read as though the application had to date from the original assessment. The final words, which the noble and learned Lord seeks to delete, make it clear that the circumstances which are relevant are those which obtain,
"at the date of the application".
Obviously, the date of application is different from the date of the original assessment. I do not know if that is the intention, but that is what it means.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The idea is to explain the basis upon which the significant difference in an assessment is to be judged. The initial explanation in the provision is thought to be needed to help prevent frequent, perhaps weekly, reassessments being requested by either the absent parent or the person with care.
The clause seeks to strike a balance between not taking account of small changes immediately and the need for a review of circumstances before the next periodic review where, for example, an absent parent loses his job or obtains much better paid employment. The idea is that we must have a change which will reflect itself in a significant difference in the actual amount of child support maintenance payable. In the light of that explanation, I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I understand the point which has been made. However, in my submission, that is completely covered by the words "significantly different". That defines the two points which have to be compared. However, it is not the sort of issue upon which to divide or even argue about at this time of night. I intend to withdraw the amendment. I hope that my noble and learned friend will consider the matter, together with the previous amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 11, line 16, leave out from ("made") to end of line 17.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have just been handed a note which states that this amendment raises exactly the same point as that dealt with in Amendment No. 40. If that is the case, I can rely on my noble and learned friend who said that he would consider it with the draftsman. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I intended to cover this point when my noble and learned friend spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 40. He may therefore feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 11, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I tabled the amendment because I could not see why there should be any date other than the date of the application. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in the amendment, my noble and learned friend seeks to remove that part of subsection (6) which allows the Secretary of State for Social Security to determine in regulations an effective date other than the date of the application for review. That provision is clearly needed as the notification of the change of circumstances can come considerably before or after the change itself. If one knows that at some future date one will lose one's job, that may be notified before it takes place. The paragraph that my noble and learned friend seeks to remove provides that, as will be appropriate in some situations, the assessment may take effect from a date other than the date of the application. For example, as in the illustration I have given, when a change in the person's employment at a future date is known some time in advance. There is a great deal to be said for dealing with the matter in good time. I hope with that explanation my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, that is a completely satisfactory explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Review of decisions of child support officers
—(1) Where

(a) an application for a maintenance assessment is refused; or

(b) an application, under section 15, for the review of a maintenance assessment which is in force is refused, the person who made that application may apply to the Secretary of State for the refusal to be reviewed.

(2) Where a maintenance assessment is in force—

(a) the absent parent or person with care with respect to whom it was made; or

(b) where the application for the assessment was made under section 6, either of them or the child concerned,

may apply to the Secretary of State for the assessment to be reviewed.
(3) Where a maintenance assessment is cancelled under paragraph 15 of Schedule 1, the appropriate person may apply to the Secretary of State for the cancellation to be reviewed.
(4) Where an application for the cancellation of a maintenance assessment under paragraph 15 of Schedule I is refused, the appropriate person may apply to the Secretary of State for the refusal to be reviewed.
(5) An application under this section which is made after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which notice of the refusal, assessment, or cancellation in question was given to the applicant shall not be entertained by the Secretary of State unless it is expressed to be made on one or more of the following grounds.
(6) The grounds are that the refusal, assessment or cancellation in question—

(a) was made in ignorance of a material fact;

(b) was based on a mistake as to a material fact;

544

(c) was wrong in law.

(7) The Secretary of State shall arrange for a review under this section to be conducted by a child support officer who played no part in taking the decision which is to be reviewed.
(8) Before conducting any review under this section, the child support officer concerned shall give to such persons as may be prescribed, such notice of the proposed review as may be prescribed.
(9) If a child support officer conducting a review under this section is satisfied that a maintenance assessment or (as the case may be) a fresh maintenance assessment should be made, he shall proceed accordingly.
(10) In making a maintenance assessment by virtue of subsection (9) a child support officer shall, if he is aware of any material change of circumstance since the decision being reviewed was taken, take account of that change of circumstance in making the assessment.
(11) A maintenance assessment which is made by virtue of subsection (9) shall take effect on such date (which may be before the date of the assessment) as may be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(12) The Secretary of State may make regulations—

(a) as to the manner in which applications under this section are to be made;

(b) as to the procedure to be followed with respect to such applications; and

(c) with respect to reviews conducted under this section.

(13) In this section "appropriate person" means—

(a) the absent parent or person with care with respect to whom the maintenance assessment in question was, or remains, in force; or

(b) where the application for that assessment was made under section 6, either of those persons or the child concerned.").

The noble and learned said: My Lords, with this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48, 50, 51, 58, 57, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56, 46 and 44. The numerical order of those amendments is a little special. I hope that it is in accordance with what was arranged. With Amendment No. 45 are grouped also Government Amendments Nos. 48, 50, 51 and 58. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has tabled Amendment No. 57. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon has tabled Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has tabled Amendments Nos. 46 and 47, as amendments to Amendment No. 45.
Your Lordships will recall that our White Paper Children Come First set out our intention that the first stage of an appeal against a CSO decision should be an internal review conducted within the child support agency itself but by a child support officer who had not been involved in the original decision. Our intention was to provide that mistakes could be remedied in a quick and straightforward way, without the need for any more formal procedure.
We believe that that method has much to be said for it. A number of noble Lords, however, pointed out in Committee that Clause 17, as printed, might offer scope for misunderstanding: in particular, that it gave the appearance of setting out a much more formal procedure than we have in mind. After reflection, we have concluded that it would be sensible to replace the old clause with a newly drafted clause which is before your Lordships as Amendment No. 45.
This clause would allow any party to a maintenance assessment, or an application for an assessment, to apply for a review of that assessment or of the refusal to make an assessment at all. The right to apply for

545
review is unrestricted so long as the application is made within 28 days of notification of the original decision; if the application is made after that, then it must be made on specific grounds—that the original decision was wrong in law, or that it was based on ignorance or mistake about points of fact. In other words, if one wants to have the decision reviewed generally, it must be done within 28 days.
Although the point of that procedure is that it allows errors to be put right quickly and simply, we need to provide that the parties involved know that the application for review has been made. We also believe that it is an important safeguard that the officer reviewing the decision must be a different person from the one who made the original decision.
In the light of the new amendments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon will feel able to withdraw their amendments. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has put down amendments to Amendment No. 45. They seek to provide that after the 28-day period an application for a review should not only be allowed on the grounds that the original decision was based on error or ignorance about a material fact or that it was wrong in law, but also on the grounds that the applicant was prevented from appealing by physical or mental ill health, or absence from the country for professional reasons.
I cannot think of an instance where the assessment would be revised where one of the three grounds had not been satisfied. However, I shall look again at the amendment to see whether a further amendment is required to ensure the right of appeal against the refusal to review where the existence of grounds is in dispute. In other cases, providing they satisfy the grounds, their appeal rights are preserved. In view of that assurance, I hope the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47, as amendments to Amendment No. 45, not moved.]
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am not sure whether this is the appropriate stage for me to deal with Amendment No. 57. I say that because the noble and learned Lord mentioned it in the course of his remarks, and grouped it, so far as I could understand, with the amendment that he moved.
My point is a short one. I tried to make it in Committee. I believe that the hour was as late as this or possibly even later when I did so. The only point I made—and I believe that it still applies, despite his amended clause—is that the procedure provides for an appeal in respect of which, without the consent of the parties necessarily, an order can be made that the appeal shall be dealt with in writing. That is all right provided that the parties consent, but I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will have in mind that the parties in proceedings under the Bill will be most likely to be people who are working class. Some of them may have had the benefit of a good education; many of them will not. So far as I can see, unless an amendment I shall move later is accepted, they will not have the benefit of legal aid.
546
It occurs to me that whereas a parent, or a child if that be the case, can usually express a view vocally, and can possibly be helped to clarify the reasons for the appeal if it is done by word of mouth, the idea of having to put the appeal in writing, maybe unassisted by any expert, will be a severe handicap. The noble and learned Lord may, so far as I am concerned, have his way about an appeal being considered with the grounds in writing. However, in this amendment I ask that that provision be subject to the parties consenting to the grounds being in writing.
8.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, strictly speaking, the amendment to Clause 17 of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would be superseded. I expect to leave out Clause 17 of the Bill and replace it with this less formal review procedure. As was pointed out in Committee, the clause looked rather formal. We have tried to make good that difficulty by removing the formality.
Your Lordships will see that in subsection (12) we have produced the possibility of procedural regulations. Perhaps it will suffice for me to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I shall draw to the attention of the Secretary of State the point made in relation to how he may make regulations under subsection (12). It may well be that one would be able to initiate a review under this less formal procedure without much writing at all. One may simply say, "You must have another look at it". The review procedure is intended to be rather informal, particularly within the 28 days.
The noble Lord may be prepared to leave it on the basis that we shall draw this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for consideration in relation to any regulations he may make under subsection (12) of my new clause. Perhaps that will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord passes on the point to the Secretary of State, I am sure that he will definitely give it favourable consideration. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and in those circumstances I shall ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am completely lost and I know it is my fault. My noble and learned friend is obviously right in that he will move his amendment to leave out Clause 17. I am not sure whether he has spoken to the important amendment substituting an administrative tribunal for the phrase to which exception was taken in Committee; namely, "court or tribunal". The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, clearly made the point that it should be a court. My amendment was directed to that point. I should be grateful if I could be told what amendment I should speak to now and whether I am in order by intervening at Report stage after my noble and learned friend has replied. Therefore, perhaps I should ask for the indulgence of your Lordships.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the effect of what I have just proposed is to insert after Clause 15 a clause that refers to "review" instead of "appeal" as under the present Clause 17. Therefore, in due course

547
I shall move Amendment No. 58—to which I spoke when I sought to explain what I am trying to do—to leave out Clause 17. On Amendment No. 59 I shall deal with questions about the appeal. That may be the point at which my noble and learned friend could introduce the matter he wishes to raise.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble and learned friend. I shall speak briefly to his Amendment No. 45. I wish to make two points, both of which are important in relation to the later amendment dealing with the administrative tribunal. Subsection (6) of the new clause concerns the grounds for refusal, assessment or cancellation. The three grounds are: ignorance of a material fact; mistake as to a material fact; and error of law.
Exactly what is a material fact is a question of law, but we need not debate that because subsection (6) (c) plainly raises a question of law. I wish to ask my noble and learned friend how it is suitable that a question of law should be referred to an official; moreover, an official of co-ordinate jurisdiction and authority to the one who made the assessment which is to be reviewed. The same point will emerge more strikingly when one comes to the attempt to substitute administrative tribunal:; for courts of law.
It has been pointed out on a number of occasions that this is an enabling Bill—a skeleton Bill—and that the real thrust of the measure will appear in regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, told us on Second Reading that there were 92 provisions enabling regulations to be made. The new clause of my noble and learned friend adds three provisions, and his later amendment will produce the century.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to have a review. It is possible that an official may make a mistake in relation to the law. If it can be done, there is no reason why it should not be corrected without going too far.
As regards counting, as I intend to remove Clause 17 one would have to subtract the regulation-making power in that clause if one is totalling the provisions. All I am doing is substituting the power in the new clause for the regulation-making power in the existing Clause 17.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as may be expected, my noble and learned friend is mathematically quite correct. Perhaps the matter could be reduced to a formula in Schedule 1!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lord, I am greatly obliged to my noble and learned friend. I have no doubt that a suitable formula would be almost as simple as those in Schedule 1.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I believe that I do not have to ask the leave of the House to speak. I spoke to an amendment and I am now discussing my own amendment and those moved by the noble and learned Lord. However, in case I am wrong, I hope that I have your Lordships' leave.
I wish to make our position on these Benches quite clear. I do not wish to weary the House by moving
548
hopeless amendments, but in Committee we made clear that we thought that the court ought to have jurisdiction in regard to appeals and that the tribunal was the wrong body for that. We shall have an opportunity to state that quite briefly when the noble and learned Lord 0moves a subsequent amendment.
We realised that the review procedure was a matter for the internal arrangements of the department and we have no quarrel with that, except that we again made it clear that we did not like the idea of a review being carried out by an officer of equal rank to the person who made the original assessment. One had the picture I hope inaccurately—of a colleague walking over to another colleague in the same room or possibly the next room, and saying, "You have been asked to review this matter. I shall explain to you briefly why I made my decision. Do you mind initialling this paper to say that you approve of what I did and said"? That is not a pleasant picture to have in mind when one is considering an appropriate review procedure.
I repeat that I do not wish to weary the House with further amendments, certainly on Report. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he has considered the matter of a superior rank being required of the reviewing officer. Does he wish to give further consideration to that matter, and is it a suggestion that he could accede to? That information would help me considerably when considering what amendments I wish to table on Third Reading.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is a matter of internal review with the opportunity of having the original assessment checked by a different child support officer. It will be for the Secretary of State to make the necessary arrangements. I am not sure that the particular difficulty to which the noble Lord referred would necessarily be conclusively avoided by the provision that he has in mind. I have no doubt that the arrangements that the Secretary of State would make would endeavour to secure that the matter was independently looked at by a different child support officer. That is the aim of subsection (7). It might well be conducive to harmony within the department that such an assessment should be conducted by an officer of a superior rank. However, I should not have thought that that was a necessary arrangement to impose on the Secretary of State. After all speed is also important and such further assessment might depend on the way child support officers were deployed, who was available and other such matters. The idea is that another officer will independently check the work already carried out to see whether the assessment should be amended. I have no doubt that sense will prevail as regards the basic arrangements which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as I understand the noble and learned Lord, he feels that this is not a provision that should appear in primary legislation. However, in the procedure that the Secretary of State lays down, the desirability of having a further check carried out by an officer of superior rank would doubtless be borne in mind. On

549
the basis that that is on the record, I do not ask leave to withdraw the amendment as I did not move it. However, I ask leave to sit down.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I doubt whether that is a matter that I need to put to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Reviews at instigation of child support officers]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 11, line 32, leave out ("or 15 or considering an appeal under section 17") and insert (", 15 or (Review of decisions of child support officers)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 45. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 49 I remind the House that this amendment has, I believe, already been spoken to with Amendment No. 40. I now call Amendment No. 49 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 11, line 38, leave out from ("assessment") to end of line 40.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I adverted to this amendment without dealing with it in detail. Although it was grouped with some previous amendments I believe that it involves slightly different points.
Clause 16(1) states that a child support officer,
"may make a fresh maintenance assessment on the assumption that the person in whose favour the original assessment was made has made a fresh application for a maintenance assessment".
I do not understand what those words add to what precedes them. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, when we discussed Amendment No. 40 I undertook to explain these points. I believe they have considerable force with respect to parliamentary counsel. I intended to cover this amendment and another amendment that has been referred to when I spoke to Amendment No. 40. With that assurance I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, have been slightly puzzled, as the noble and learned Lord has, by the words "on the assumption that". I fail to understand how the assumption can be made. It is possible that a person may have made a fresh maintenance assessment on another assumption. There is no question of the assumption having had to be declared. It is certainly unusual for such words to be put in a statute. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor really feels that these words are enforceable, leaving aside the question of whether they are really necessary, which I doubt.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like—I hope, not foolishly—to make a fresh point. I am not worried that the words may be otiose; rather that they are defective. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will tell me whether I am right or wrong. Clause 16(1) deals with the case of a child support officer not conducting a review under previous clauses of the Bill. The subsection states that the officer is not,
"considering an appeal under section 17 but is nevertheless satisfied that a maintenance assessment which is in force is defective"
for one of three reasons stated in the Bill. I should have thought that if a child support officer found the assessment to be defective and he was making a fresh maintenance assessment, the clause would provide that the effective date from which the fresh maintenance assessment ran would be the date of the original maintenance assessment which he is now reviewing as one of the three matters referred to in subsection (1). Instead of that, he is called upon to make the assumption that,
"the person in whose favour the original assessment was made has made a fresh application for a maintenance assessment".
That might well mean that the child support officer has found the original assessment to be defective and wishes to make an order that it is defective. The date from which the order has to run is not the date one would have thought; namely, the date of the original assessment. The words in the Bill appear to suggest he has to undertake this provision on the basis that a fresh application has been made for a maintenance assessment. I wonder what happens to the effectiveness of the maintenance assessment made meanwhile.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have agreed to look at the matter with parliamentary counsel. I shall put to him all the additional points that have been made. In relation to the last point, the intention is that under the clause the effect of the change will apply as from the date of the new assessment. Normally the new assessment will be effective from the date on which it is made and it will not be backdated. I do not believe that it is the intention that this should be backdated.
Admittedly, the maintenance assessment has been proved to be defective in some way, but the circumstances have come to light later. There has been no review or appeal under the sections that deal with review and appeal and therefore the parties have accepted it; but this matter has come to the notice of the child support officer and he can amend the matter. That is how I understand the situation. However, I shall certainly put the whole matter to parliamentary counsel. I suspect that it is for some such reason that he has, made that assumption.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall make only a brief comment. Since an assessment is in effect, even though it has been found that there has been a mistake of some kind and there is a new assessment, I still wonder whether under the wording of the clause the old assessment is still in being for the interim period. I have made the point, good bad or indifferent, and the noble and learned Lord has been kind enough to say that some consideration will be given to it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we do not need to dwell too long on the matter. That is the point: for the interim period the old assessment will have remained in force. The idea is not to cancel its effect for that interim period. However, we shall certainly look into the matter further.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may presume to say that I concur with the way in which my noble and learned friend proposes that the procedure should work. The matter has to be looked at again, and the only proper course is to thank noble Lords who have raised various points and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
Page 11, line 41, leave out ("or considering such an appear,.
Page 11, line 43, after ("15") insert ("or (Review of decisions of child support officers)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to the amendments with Amendment No. 45. With your Lordships' leave I beg to move Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17 [Appeals against maintenance assessments and other decisions]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 52:
Page 12, line 6, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("such court as the Lord Chancellor may specify").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am in your Lordships' hands. I am not sure whether this is a convenient moment to move this particular amendment. It is very much bound up with the question of a court or administrative tribunal. Perhaps your Lordships may think that it would be better dealt with under my noble and learned friend's new clause.
I am very anxious to know how he would like the matter dealt with.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that it would 131, right to deal with the matter under the new proposals because, your Lordships having accepted my proposed clause on review, Clause 17 will be deleted by Amendment No. 58 in my name. Therefore it would be more convenient if my noble and learned friend felt able to deal with the questions that he wishes to raise in relation to my proposals regarding appeals.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not know what it would be appropriate for me to say—I imagine, "not moved", and then I can return to the matter if necessary at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 53:
Page 12, line 18, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("aggrieved").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I put down the amendment only because on two or more subsequent occasions the draftsman has used the word "aggrieved" in these circumstances.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as a result of what has gone before, Clause 17 will disappear altogether in a moment. It may therefore be convenient to leave the matter.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, is not my noble and learned friend being rather optimistic?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure about that. The fact that your Lordships have already agreed Amendment No. 45 rather assumes that. Therefore my optimism is probably well founded. I am inclined to try to make progress if possible, and 1 had assumed that my noble and learned friend might feel able not to move Amendments Nos. 52 to 56 inclusive. There is a point in relation to Amendment No. 53 but that will disappear on my moving—as I hope to do very shortly—Amendment No. 58.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I respectfully agree with my noble and learned friend. Perhaps it would be most convenient at this stage if I say that I shall not move Amendments Nos. 53 to 56 inclusive.
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 56 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 57:
Page 13, line 11, after first ("of") insert ("with the consent of the parties to the appeal").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I ask leave to withdraw it at this stage—indeed, I ask for it not to be moved.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 58:
Leave out Clause 17.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is the amendment that I have sought to anticipate more than once. I hope that with a degree of confidence I can now move it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Further appeals]:
9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 13, line 22, leave out from ("on") to end of line 23 and insert ("a review under section (Review of decisions of child support officers) may appeal to a child support appeal tribunal against that decision on one or more of the following grounds.
(1A) The grounds are that the decision in question—

(a) was made in ignorance of a material fact;

(b) was based on a mistake as to a material fact;

(c) was wrong in law.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 59, I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 60, 61, 62, 66, 71, 80, 84, 92, 110, 111 and refer also to Amendments Nos. 75, 115, 65, 67, 64, 68 and 69.
I am conscious that I am seeking to deal with a very important subject with a number of government amendments. They all have the same end, and I

553
thought that it would be convenient for the House to consider them together with the amendments to the clause which we are seeking to replace.
We have found the decision about the venue for appeals against decisions made by child support officers a difficult one. The arguments have been finely balanced. In the end we have concluded that the best answer is to set up child support appeal tribunals. These will be specialised, dedicated tribunals. They will be under the aegis of the president of the social security appeals tribunal and medical appeal tribunals. The provisions for that are contained in Amendments Nos. 71 and 110.
Perhaps I may highlight the main arguments that moved us in the direction of specialist tribunals. In many ways the formula reflects the approach which has traditionally been taken to assessing the needs of income-related benefit claimants to cover the living costs of children, and a good deal of expertise in such matters has built up in the tribunals for which the president of the social security appeal tribunals is responsible. In providing that appeals from a child support officer should lie to a tribunal under the president's aegis, we intend to draw on and exploit that expertise for the benefit of children who are looking to an absent parent for support. The tribunals are largely modelled on the existing social security appeal tribunals which are widely regarded as providing a relatively speedy and informal forum in which the parties themselves, either alone or with the help of a friend or adviser, can present an appeal. Equally important, many of the appeals will be of a detailed and technical kind with which tribunals like social security appeal tribunals have become expert at dealing, and we would expect the child support appeal tribunals quickly to develop the same expertise. The tribunal itself will be made up of a legally qualified chairman and two lay persons drawn from local panels and will thus combine legal and technical expertise with local knowledge.
Many would like to see those appeals heard by the courts which hear other family matters. I have to say, however, that in England and Wales at least those courts, for the present, have their hands full in implementing the Children Act and, as I said the other evening, at this stage in the development of the family jurisdiction, I do not think that it would be practical to expect the courts to take on that wholly new type of case, even were it desirable in practice.
Those are the reasons why the Government consider that appeals should go to the new tribunals that I have described. However, the Government realise that it may in the future become desirable to involve the courts. Circumstances change and the pros and cons of allocating appeals to the courts may weigh differently as a result and may weigh very differently when the system has settled down. As many of your Lordships are aware, the Government have embarked upon a rolling programme to review the family justice system, of which the Children Act of 1989 was the first fruit. As part of that programme, the Government intend to review the organisation of family business. It is not possible for me to foresee at this stage what the
554
result of that process will be; but new arrangements may well make it desirable in the future to concentrate appeals in specialist courts together with other family business. Further, experience of how the child support scheme under the Bill operates, especially in relation to connected court proceedings, may lead us to wish to reconsider the position.
To cater for all those possibilities, the new Clause 80 will enable the Lord Chancellor and, in relation to Scotland, the Lord Advocate, to provide, by order, for appeals to go to a court instead of to a tribunal. The detailed provisions of the clause confer the flexibility to do that in relation to certain classes of appeal or circumstances. In relation to England and Wales, the new clause also attracts the flexible powers of allocation and transfer within the court system that were created for children's proceedings by the Children Act 1989 which will apply only to England and Wales when it comes into force in October. The new clause contains power for an order under it to amend primary legislation consequentially. That is necessary because, were a wholly new category of proceedings sent to the courts, a great deal of ancillary provision would need to be made to whatever related primary legislation was in force at the time. At present for example we might wish to amend the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 to put English county court proceedings "family business" within the meaning of the family proceedings rules and/or, if appeals were sent to magistrates' courts, we might want to amend the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to make them family proceedings in magistrates' courts. These are essentially ancillary and subordinate provisions under the new main provision. The nature of the amendments required will depend to some extent on the substantive effect of the order, and of course the order may not be made, if at all, until some years in the future, by which time the primary legislation may itself have been amended, added to or replaced. Our new provisions would render Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 irrelevant.
In the social security appeal system, there is provision for further appeals to be made, on a point of law, against decisions of appeal tribunals. Those appeals go to social security commissioners. It seems right that a similar arrangement should be followed here and that there should be specialist commissioners to deal with appeals against child support appeal tribunal decisions. There will continue to be a right of appeal, to the Court of Appeal, against a commissioner's decision. We hope to bring forward a further amendment at Third Reading which will give effect to that proposal. The subsection of Clause 18 referring to further appeals will be replaced and there will be no requirement for the Lord Chancellor to consult the Lord Advocate. That will mean that Amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 69 will not be necessary.
Before I sit down, I should also mention court proceedings for declarations of paternity under Clause 20. The new Clause 80 attracts the Children Act's allocational powers in the same way as I described earlier in relation to appeals. Amendments Nos. 75 and 115 follow from that and I commend them to the House. They refer to the allocation system of the

555
Children Act applying to paternity proceedings under this Act, which will go before a court. The remaining amendments are minor technical provisions. Amendment No. 84 provides for a definition of child support appeal tribunal in Clause 39 which deals with definitions. Amendment No. 92 extends the provisions of the new schedule about the child support appeal tribunals to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 111 inserts a reference to child support appeal tribunals at the appropriate place in the Tribunals and Enquiries Act 1971 to put them in the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals.
The amendments are closely connected. We have modelled the tribunal on the social security appeal tribunals. In Amendment No. 110, we have made provision which makes it plain that, under the Act:
"A child support appeal tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two other persons... The chairman and the other member of the tribunal must not all be of the same sex."
In other words there must be at least one of each sex in the set of three. I believe that that is an important feature in a tribunal of this kind. As I said earlier in another connection, one hears a lot of complaint particularly from men, that the courts are unfair to men. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, responded to that by 3aying that I would not hear from the people who were satisfied. That is generally the experience of people who respond to letters. The point that I was making was not met by that argument. My point was about complaints from men that they felt that the courts were unfair to them. If the sexes are balanced in the tribunal, it may help to eliminate the feeling that there is any kind of bias, depending upon the sex of those who make up the tribunal. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it would be an abuse of the time allocated to us for this stage of the Bill if I were to go into any detail in regard to the amendment so clearly moved by the noble and learned Lord. With respect, we should deal with the issues of principle and do it as shortly as possible.
As I see it, these are the issues of principle. First, it ought to be the right of anyone who is deeply affected by an order made against him to be able at some stage by way of appeal to go to our courts of law. Secondly, there should never be any discrimination between citizens to the effect that one section of our community in regard to similar matters has a right to go to a court of law and others do not. Thirdly, there is the principle, with which the noble and learned Lord by implication agreed; namely, that it is desirable that the same court that deals with general matrimonial affairs which may relate to parties should certainly deal with all of them where possible.
I preface my last principle with this plea: please do not set up a tribunal or any organisation under an Act of Parliament in the pious hope that one day it may be divested of its authority. Organisations and tribunals have a habit of holding on to jurisdiction however illogical it may be. I hope that I shall offend nobody if I give as a quick example to your Lordships the jurisdiction that was given to the Home Office in regard to magistrates' courts—alone of all courts—a jurisdiction which still remains despite many arguments that come from other departments (I shall
556
not mention which one may be arguing). It would be so much tidier if all our courts were under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
So I adumbrate the last principle. With respect I say, "Don't think that one can airily say that if it doesn't work out well or our courts have more time, then consideration will be given to ending the tribunal's jurisdiction and it will go over to the courts".
In support of those principles, I make the following short points. First, we are depriving a certain section of our citizens from being able to go to the courts on appeal. Some of our citizens have maintenance orders made against them in the courts either by consent or after a tussle in the courts. If things are unreasonable and matters which should have been considered have not been considered by the courts, they have certain rights of appeal. It can be from a registrar to a judge, and it can go even further if matters of law are involved. How odd it is that in this Bill, and not only in this part of the Bill, one sees that one section of the community will only be able to have its appeals heard by a tribunal, respectable though that tribunal may be.
Your Lordships may ask whether they suffer from any additional handicap. Yes, they do. When one is appealing in a court one may have legal aid and will have a legal representative allocated—indeed one may choose one's own—who will argue the case. I think that the noble and learned Lord will reply to me—I hope I am wrong—that that legal aid will not be available to those who appear before the tribunal. I know that he will interrupt me if my forecast, pessimistic though it is, is inaccurate.
The next point that one looks at is the following. As the noble and learned Lord said, it may be desirable that the courts should deal with this matter, but I hope I am not unfairly paraphrasing him if I suggest that he said that the real reason why they are not being given this jurisdiction is because they are full up with cases, especially the duties that they have under the Children Act. Is that a sufficient reason for creating these tribunals and depriving our citizens of certain rights which are available to others, as I have repeatedly said? Would it not be sensible to ensure that the courts are given sufficient judges and registrars to deal with these matters? Would it not be a sensible allocation of money to see that that is done?
I am not aware that the noble and learned Lord has talked about the expense of the tribunals. I assume that they will not be placed in London alone, and that those people who are in the provinces or the rural areas will have the ability to go before a tribunal which is somewhere near them. They would certainly have that facility if they were to go to their local county court or magistrates' court. I should very much like to know the total cost of this, because it may well be that the expenditure of a similar amount of money could give the desirable result which, as I understood it, the noble and learned Lord thought might be the answer to the question.
This is a matter of fundamental constitutional importance. In regard to constitutional matters the citizen relies fundamentally upon your Lordships' House. We have that special duty. I ask noble Lords,

557
even at this late hour, to consider the importance, not of the way in which I have made my submissions—I would not be so arrogant as that—but of the principles behind the submissions that I am making before we just—dare I use the word?—flippantly, and having regard to the time of the evening, agree with these proposals. I repeat that fundamental issues are at stake. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate that.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wonder whether I may clarify one point with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Is he saying that the applicant should go through the appeal tribunal and then, if he disagrees with the final appeal tribunal, go to court; or is he saying that he should go to court from the beginning?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, on the basis that I have not sat down, perhaps I may reply to the noble Baroness by explaining that I meant that it should not be the appeal tribunal at all which deals with these appeals, and that we should not create the appeal tribunals. There ought to be the right to go to a court.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is quite right. This is a constitutional matter. The exclusion of a group of our citizens from the courts is a matter about which we should think long and hard. On these Benches we are in agreement with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord. In particular, we think that his point about legal aid is vital.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, when the Committee stage of the Bill ended we asked when the Report stage would be. We were told that it had been provisionally fixed for the 25th and 29th of this month, but when in due course we looked at the Order Paper there was no sign of it. Day after day and week after week it did not appear. It did not take much knowledge of Whitehall to know what was happening: two government departments were in disagreement about what should be done at the next stage. Those two government departments were obviously those of my noble and learned friend and the Ministry fostering this Bill. Nor was it in the least difficult to ascertain the point of difference. It had been identified in Committee; it was the words "court or tribunal". My noble and learned friend skilfully kept that issue open. Obviously it had to be decided and was no doubt decided in Cabinet committee. I am sad to say that it was decided adversely to the department of my noble and learned friend. That was doubly unfortunate; first because of the merits and secondly because it meant that, due to the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility, my noble and learned friend would be bound to defend what had been decided with all the considerable skill and force at his command.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in his admirable speech has dealt succinctly but effectively with the points at issue. They are points of considerable constitutional significance. The first is the right of an individual to have his rights determined in a court of
558
law. An adjunct to that, as the noble Earl has pointed out, are the rights to representation which can be had before a court of law but not before an administrative tribunal.
We must not minimise the tension that exists between administration and the law; between the bureaucracy and the courts. The courts are traditionally concerned with individual rights. However, the Executive is traditionally concerned with public social order and often the two will be in conflict. They must be held in balance. The courts, with their traditional insistence on considering the individual and his rights, are apt to disrupt the orderly administration—at least as the administrator sees it.
Your Lordships may remember the speeches made, unfortunately, late at night during the Courts and Legal Services Bill by my noble and learned friends the Master of the Rolls and Lord Ackner, dealing with the remedy of judicial review. They spoke of the intense caution that the courts had felt was incumbent upon them in developing that remedy, although it had been widely, indeed universally outside Whitehall, welcomed. The courts were assiduous in not usurping the administrative decision of the Executive. All they did was to ensure that those decisions were made according to law and in the way that Parliament had stipulated. However, in so far as courts have regard to individual rights, and as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has reminded us on many occasions during the passage of this Bill, an infinite variety of circumstance must be taken into account.
A court of law can do that. A formula cannot do that. For example, a formula has no means of weighing what I ventured to labour before your Lordships earlier this evening; namely, the case where the father is an ill-used man. That does not appear in any formula and yet that is a matter, even putting the primacy of childrens' maintenance first, which calls for consideration.
Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is absolutely right to say that the individual is entitled to have his rights determined in a court of law. There is a big difference. The law, with all its faults, is concerned with people. Bureaucracy, with all its virtues, is concerned with personnel. That is a big divide.
On this Bill it has been remarked consistently by all its critics from all parts of your Lordships' House that it is a monstrous accession of bureaucracy—an aggrandisement. Almost everything was secured up to this moment: legislation by regulation-92 regulating powers; the sacrifice of traditional confidentiality and secrecy even in the role of the Inland Revenue; and the intrusion of inspectors into places of employment, which we are satisfied will be very much to the detriment of the employee. Later we shall see the Executive, the Secretary of State, arming himself with liability orders, deduction orders and the right to enforce them by the remedy of distress. Moreover, that violent remedy has been stripped of all the safeguards which the common law erected in respect of it. Only one aspect is missing in that triumph of

559
bureaucracy; that is, an administrative tribunal. That has now been secured. The success has been completed. Let us regret that.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that I am no less zealous than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble And learned Lord, Lord Simon, in having respect for our constitution and the important part which the courts can play in that. However, here we have to find a means of deciding matters affecting children and their parents. We must consider whether, in practice, those courts which may possibly have had such jurisdiction will be the right people to have it in the first instance in the circumstances envisaged by the amendments moved by my noble and learned friend.
Certainly the Family Division would not be appropriate. It would not have the composition and the machinery for the purpose. There is then the possibility of the county court judges exercising such a jurisdiction. However, as is clear from a paragraph in the new schedule set out in Amendment No. 110, the chairman and other members of the tribunal—and we see from the previous paragraph that there are to be two other members of the tribunal—
"must not all be of the same sex".
Here we are striving to find the sort of tribunal which would be appropriate for deciding these particular cases. Ir the circumstances, and having due regard to constitutional principle, it is right to have tribunals of that kind for this specific work. We must not lose sight of the fact that the courts of record, as lawyers know them to be, retain under the Bill a great deal of jurisdiction of a supervisory kind. That appears to be so from various parts of the Bill which are not under immediate discussion.
I raise one doubt in regard to the amendments spoken to by my noble and learned friend. I agree with what he said on Amendment No. 110 and the new schedule regarding the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor with regard to the appointment of the chairmen. Indeed, the Lord President of the Court of Session comes into the matter also. However, whereas I can go along with the provisions set out for appointment of the chairmen and members of the tribunals, I find it strange that Amendment No. 71 provides for various important legal matters to be decided by the Secretary of State by regulation rather than by the Lord Chancellor.
If we look at Amendment No. 71(3), we find that the Secretary of State is to make provision for the procedure of the tribunals; that is essentially a legal matter on which the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor is expected and respected. Further down we find that the regulations are to make provision in regard to evidence. Evidence is essentially a legal matter for the Lord Chancellor rather than a matter for the Secretary of State.
I do not understand why the responsibility for these new tribunals has been divided in this way. I should have thought, if we are to have them, it would build greater public confidence if the whole matter was placed under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor rather than being divided between the Lord
560
Chancellor and the Secretary of State. For those reasons I cannot go along with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon on this occasion, although on such legal matters he and I often agree. The Lord Chancellor should be supported, save that he must be asked to consider again whether the Secretary of State should make the regulations.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he will permit me to intervene. He saw me looking somewhat critical when he said that under the amendments the courts were given certain supervisory powers. I believe he was referring to Amendment No. 80. Those are not supervisory powers. The amendment merely provides that the Lord Chancellor can in fact make an order in regard to England and Wales, as can the Lord Advocate in regard to Scotland, to transfer from the tribunals to the courts if the tribunals are found to be unsatisfactory. There is no supervisory power granted under the amendment. It is purely providing for the alternative. I believe that is right.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I take the point as regards Amendment No. 80, but that is not the whole of the story. The courts will have the power of the judicial review and of orders made in lieu of prerogative writs.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to make a few remarks basically in support of my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I certainly cannot be so eloquent as they were. I want to emphasise the point that here we seem to have a group of people who are going to be denied access to the courts. All through this Bill it seems that these people—the so-called "absent parents" in particular—are to be treated as social outcasts or social lepers without the access to the courts which other people may very well have. I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord will listen very closely to what my noble friend has said.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon also raised the question of the costs of the tribunals. I shall go a little further and ask whether those costs are covered by the estimated £35 million per year which appears in the estimate of the financial effects of the Bill. Does that include the capital costs of £30 million, or will it be additional? Will there be costs in addition to the £30 million for capital? In relation to the effects of the Bill on public sector manpower, will the numbers be increased as a result these amendments?
I turn now to Amendment No. 71. The noble and learned Lord did not respond to my noble friend's challenge about legal aid. It is quite clear that the people appearing before the tribunals are to be denied not only access to the courts but access to proper legal aid as well. Subsection (2) of the new clause states:
"The Secretary of State may make such regulations with respect to child support appeal tribunals as he considers appropriate",
and subsection (3) (c) states:
"as to the persons entitled to appear and be heard on behalf of any of the parties".
I am not a lawyer. Does that mean that provision will be made for people to be legally represented? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will tell me that.

561
I now turn to page 11 of the Marshalled List. Under the heading Membership of child support appeal tribunals, paragraph 2(1) of the new schedule states:
"A child support appeal tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two other persons".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to that and we thought that that would be fair. The tribunal consists of three people, but here we have a clear case where there is a man and a woman. I can see difficulties arising where you may have two women and one man on a tribunal or two men and one woman. The appellants might feel aggrieved because their sex is not properly represented. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give that matter some consideration because in such circumstances problems may very well arise.
On page 13 of the Marshalled List, paragraphs 5(3) and (4) of the proposed new schedule, state:
"(3) The panel for an area shall be composed of persons appearing to the President to have knowledge or experience of conditions in the area and to be representative of persons living or working in the area.
(4) Before appointing members of a panel, the President shall take into consideration any recommendations from such organisations or persons as he considers appropriate".
Can the noble and learned Lord tell me what kind of people are going to be appointed to these panels? Can he give me some idea of the range and qualifications of those who are to be called upon to sit on these tribunals, or given the opportunity to do so? For example, will they be residential qualifications? From which organisations will he take recommendations? As a layman in these matters I should very much welcome replies to these questions from the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think it is important to recollect that we are, at this stage, working on the assumption that the maintenance assessment will be decided on the basis of a formula. Noble Lords who were present towards the concluding stages last Thursday will recall that we had a short discussion about the application of the formula. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will remember what he put on record as a consequence of that consideration.
The situation is that we are deciding, or looking at, a mechanism for deciding the application of a formula for a given set of facts. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has been engaging in speculation as to what happened between the Committee and Report stages. I have to say that it is a pure speculation. I have personally considered this very carefully and reached the conclusion that, at least at the beginning of this matter, the considerations are very strongly in favour of a tribunal which will be very like the tribunal which presently decides social security appeals. The application of the formula, the methods by which it will be applied and the nature of the concepts that are involved in the formula, are all strongly allied to the social security system. I believe that in the circumstances such a tribunal, closely allied to the social security appeal tribunal, is suitable.
That brings me immediately to some of the questions that have been raised. Amendment No. 71 is
562
based on the provisions relating to social security appeal tribunals. The Secretary of State makes the appropriate regulations for these. I have not heard any criticism of that. As regards the provision for—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, surely my noble and learned friend must have heard complaints that there is no legal aid before those tribunals?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am talking about Amendment No. 71 which is dealing with the procedural regulations which apply before these tribunals. I have heard no complaint about these regulations. They are formulated after consultation with the Council on Tribunals.
Amendment No. 71 includes a provision as to the persons entitled to appear and be heard on behalf of any of the parties. I should regard that as an appropriate matter to be dealt with. The situation membership of the tribunals and their cost (covered by the Explanatory Memorandum) is that when the Bill was prepared it was done on the basis that the matter be left open as to whether it should be a tribunal or the court. Obviously, the work has to be done somewhere. The estimated costs are appropriate to cover the tribunal and its membership.
As regards the composition of two women and one man—or the other way about—that is an inevitable consequence of having three members. If one is to get a decision, generally speaking one has to have—although some years ago the Court of Session was a good example to the contrary, generally speaking if one is to get a decision it is necessary to have an odd number of people not odd people, of course, but an
odd number of people. Accordingly, the phenomenon about which the noble speaks is unavoidable. However, I regard it as an important attribute of this tribunal that it should have in it the point of view of both sexes in connection with the matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, pointed out, especially having regard to the organisation which had at least some part in helping him or advising him on the matter namely Families Need Fathers—that aspect must be taken into account.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not realise that there is a little contradiction—I say this with the greatest respect—in his argument? He said first that it was only a formula and therefore a matter of administration which had nothing to do with the courts. However, he went on to say that it was advisable to have a lady and a gentleman on the tribunal because both male and female points of view can be put forward. But is the reaction of a female to a formula any different from that of a male?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have witnessed different reactions to formulae from different people. I do not say that they are always determined by gender. However, the point is that the formula must be applied. The noble Lord has perhaps slightly altered the emphasis of what I have been saying. A formula requires to be applied to a given state of facts. I believe

563
that it may help to have a tribunal which is constituted in a way that at least shows a degree of affiliation with both sexes that may appear before it. The idea of fairness in applying the formula is important. There is nothing inconsistent with having fairness and a formula, and a formula fairly applied. However, I regard the subject matter as being the application of a formula. I believe that that is analogous to the social security appeal tribunals.
I believe that I have dealt with the main points which were raised as regards the regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, asked about the source from which the president of the tribunal would choose the members. First, I assume that the president would proceed very much in the same way as one would expect in relation to other tribunals. He will take representations recommending local people from a variety of local bodies; for example, from the citizens' advice bureaux, trade unions, employers' organisations, chambers of commerce, local MPs and the like. The aim will be to ensure that members are widely representative of local communities. I believe that such a process of consultation will produce the kind of membership which we expect from the social security appeal tribunals which, as I said, is satisfactory.
I turn to the court question raised by my noble friend Lord Renton. I am most grateful to him for his support. I believe that he has correctly analysed the nature f the problem and the way forward. First, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale clearly pointed out, one of the important developments in our law in recent times has been the development of the doctrine of judicial review under which the courts have a supervisory jurisdiction over all lower tribunals. Of course, this sort of tribunal will be no exception to that process.
Secondly, there is no question of some classes of people wing in the courts on this matter and others not. If the application of the formula is in dispute, anyone will be obliged to go—that is, if he or she wants to appeal—to the tribunal. There is nothing new about setting up specialist tribunals for particular subject matters. An industrial tribunal is a good example.. The reason is that a specialist tribunal deals with specialist subject matter, and that is the basis of the present proposals. It is appropriate that the matter should, the first instance, be committed to a tribunal similar to the present social security appeal tribunals. But I have thought it wise—this is reflected in the amendments—to retain the power, for England and Wales in the Lord Chancellor and for Scotland, the Lord Advocate, to direct some or all of the matters to courts rather than to tribunals, if that appears to be right.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that once we set up a tribunal we never take it away. He illustrated that point by reference to the Home Office which is responsible for magistrates' courts. I leave aside the relevancy of the illustration to this issue, but the Government are deliberately making it clear in the Bill that that power is retained to the Lord Chancellor. Your Lordships are aware of what I have said about the nature and number of the applications and the
564
nature of the burden that they would impose. Once things settle down, the burden may become less. At the moment it seems to me to be highly suitable that the appeal should be determined by a tribunal along the lines of the present social security appeal tribunals, modified in the way the amendments suggest, and that the power be reserved in the future as things develop to make new arrangements under which the courts would receive some or all of that jurisdiction.
As I have said, the social security appeal tribunal presently has an appeal to the social security commissioners. I intend to provide a similar right of appeal to commissioners. There is an appeal from them to the Court of Appeal under the present law. So the ultimate jurisdiction of the courts is not ousted. I therefore commend the amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 60 to 62:
Page 13, line 24, leave out ("the court") and insert ("a child support appeal tribunal").
Page 13, line 27, leave out ("court") and insert ("tribunal").
Page 13, line 30, leave out ("court") and insert ("tribunal").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 13, line 31, at end insert:
("(4A) Alternatively, if it appears to the court that the application of the formula has caused undue hardship or discrimination, the court may make its own assessment.
(4B) In cases where the court makes its own assessment it shall have regard to all the circumstances.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment deals with a party who, like Odysseus to Ithaca, finally wound his way through the preliminary procedures to a court. When he arrives, he will at present merely find Procrustean lines of a formula. The purpose of the amendment is to give the court a little more power, specifically the power, if it appears to the court that the application of the formula has caused undue hardship or discrimination, to make its own assessment. It is to get away from the mathematical, platonic adherence to a formula.
Throughout the Bill, we have been returning to the question of the formula. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has recently used the formula as a reason for justifying the exclusion of the courts. I cannot say that that helps to endear the formula to me: I was already worried enough about it. The application of discretion, particularly in any matter relating to disposable income, is vital, because two people on the same paper income are not equally well off. However many circumstances we take into account in the formula, we shall never be able to foresee all material facts. Foreseeing all material facts and feeding them into the formula is something of which I believe only divine omnipotence would be capable.
In Committee I quoted one example of a formula leaving out what transpired to be a material fact. It

565
was a formula for assessing parental liability to contribute to student grants. It took no account of the fact that the family were living with five in two rooms and thought perfectly reasonably that the priority call on the income was to raise money for a house. That is not the only case of that kind when, so far as I can see, the formula takes no account of the health of the parties. That may cause considerable variations in costs.
The case for some discretion in the administration of the formula seems to me to have become a great deal stronger since we have not succeeded in persuading the Government to allow any variation or discretion in dealing with work-related expenses, access costs or any of the other variables. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in what I found an extremely impressive speech, seems to me to have put a great deal of the case in favour of this amendment. He said—and the phrase is memorable—that the courts, with all their defects, deal with people; bureaucracy, with all its virtues, deals with personnel. That is at the heart of why I want scope for the courts and scope for discretion. It seems to me that without it we cannot do justice on the basis of all the material facts. Without all the material facts, what we are doing will not be justice.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has argued the case against this on grounds of consistency. I understand that case. Where it can be truly achieved, consistency is a great virtue and one should aim for it. However, if we achieve an appearance of consistency by treating two cases which are unlike as if they were the same, the appearance of consistency that we get is entirely spurious. I cannot see how justice can be done unless we may have a discretion which allows it to be possible to take into account a material fact which was not foreseen when the formula was drafted. However well the noble and learned Lord and his advisers have carried out their job—and I am sure that they have done their best—they cannot do it all. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the principles of the formula are set out, and there are regulation-making powers in relation to it. The object is to provide a formula which will apply properly to all the circumstances that may be required. That is surely the correct aim of the formula and is one of the reasons why it has an appearance of complexity. The object is to cover all the circumstances as best one can.
The subject is simply to be the maintenance of the children to whom the formula is to apply. It is fairly narrow. In many ways, it is analogous to the provisions that apply in relation to various types of benefit. In my submission, the formula must attempt to provide an answer that will be consistent.
The noble Earl said—and it has been mentioned before—that there are many circumstances. However, a huge number of maintenance obligations arise. If the court is to be asked to exercise a discretion in respect of all these, it must be a question in every case whether there is undue hardship or discrimination, whatever that phrase may mean. Instead of having a formula being applied, without further ado, to sets of
566
circumstances, the possibility of a court assessment in every case would arise. The latter provision has proved to be utterly ineffective in the present law. Accordingly, I submit that the correct way forward is to allow the formula to apply and not to saddle it with court applications in the way this amendment proposes. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
l0 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply, which was very much what I might have expected. In passing, I wish to take up a brief defence of the words "undue hardship or discrimination". I hope that the words "undue hardship" are self-explanatory. By those words I meant to suggest situations where the application of the formula might leave people somewhere near or even below subsistence level. By "discrimination" I intended to refer to situations where the application of the formula did not treat like with like because a material circumstance arose which caused a variation in the formula's effect. That is what I was aiming at. I understand what the noble and learned Lord is trying to do. It is a thoroughly platonic aim and is in its way quite admirable. However, I still think that it is utopian. I do not at present intend to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 13, line 34, leave out ("after consultation with the Lord Advocate").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, after the momentous debates that your Lordships have had on fundamental constitutional principles—that includes the previous amendment of the noble Earl—I am afraid we now come to a small drafting nonsense—a kind of draftsman's tic. The Bill provides that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor shall make regulations; but as those regulations will extend to Scotland, it is considered that a reference must be made in the Bill to consultation with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. That may seem a short phrase and so it is. However, that kind of phrase turns up constantly in the statute book with the result that more and more extremely expensive volumes have to be printed. Those words are completely unnecessary.
The machinery of government takes perfect care of consultation between government departments. I do not suppose that my noble and learned friend would deal with this matter initially, at any rate personally. However, he is the last person to forget that Scotland may be involved in the provision, and therefore that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate ought to be consulted. Whoever draws up these regulations in draft for the approbation of my noble and learned friend, knows perfectly well that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has to be consulted. If he does not, he can and should be made aware of that fact. If my noble and learned friend thinks his

567
department is so incompetent that the staff may forget that fact, he can arrange for instructions to be posted on the walls of the office.
I have had the benefit and pleasure of working with my noble and learned friend's department in a number of capacities and I still receive great help from his staff. I am confident that they are capable of knowing that they must consult another department where another department is involved. Yet I suppose that the phrase comes up on a computer, like, the phrase "with the consent of the Treasury", line after line, page after page, bursting the volumes. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, on this occasion, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I merely remind my noble and learned friend he Lord Chancellor that he is Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, which includes Scotland.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, what my noble friend has just said is true. The minute of Queen Anne concluded that that was the correct title to attribute to the office which I presently have the great honour to hold. However, therein lies a trap in that one might think that the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain could proceed to make rules about the courts without thinking of anyone else. This formula acknowledges the jurisdiction of the Lord Advocate in this particular matter. It is important to recognise the position of the Scottish law officer, with his responsibility for courts in Scotland, in connection with these regulations.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale is correct. The Lord Chancellor's department is extremely efficiently conducted, and would like to take the Lord Advocate along with it. However, there is more to it than that. There is a recognition on the face of the legislation that the Lord Advocate has a proper part in this matter and that the regulations would be sound regulations in the eye of the law only if made after consultation with the Lord Advocate. As your Lordships know, I have been Lord Advocate, and I certainly regard that as important from his point of view.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, every amendment that is put down is the subject of a departmental brief from the Department of Social Security to my noble and learned friend who has charge of the Bill in this House. Each of those briefs ends with the word "accept", "consider" or "reject". Practically every one in this Report stage has unfortunately obviously ended with the word "reject". This is no exception.
My noble and learned friend knows perfectly well that his department will consult any other department which is concerned. It may be the Lord Advocate; it may be the Home Office; it may be the Department of Social Security or whatever. Those words are totally unnecessary. I described them as a drafting tic, and so they are. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 65:
Page 13, line 35, at end insert ("and other interested bodies").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if it is taken for granted that the noble and learned Lord will consult with the Lord Advocate, I suppose that it can also be taken for granted that he will consult other interested bodies. In connection with my previous amendment in Committee, he undertook so to do. On that basis, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 13, line 36, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved].
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 have already been spoken to in connection with Amendment No. 59 and are superseded by the amendments already passed.
[Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 13, line 40, at end insert:
("(8) Any person who is a party to any appeal pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be eligible for legal advice and assistance in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1988 irrespective of the body which the Lord Chancellor shall direct shall hear any appeal pursuant to subsection (7) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this will be an appeal to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As your Lordships will see, the amendment provides that any person who is a party to any appeal—we now know that the matter will go to the tribunal about which we have heard a great deal—should be eligible for legal advice and assistance under the Legal Aid Act. It may well be argued that the person who appears before a tribunal, as he will have to do under the provisions of the Bill, will be denied the privilege given to those who appear before our courts on maintenance matters of being eligible for legal aid. Under the present provisions, those people who appear before tribunals set up under the Bill will not be eligible.
It may be said that if we admit the eligibility for legal aid of those who appear before the tribunal, there is an equal argument that they should have legal aid entitlement before the social security tribunals. I shall continue to press that they should have that right, but there is a difference which I hope that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate. We had the edifying experience on the last occasion of discussing the formula which appears in a schedule to the Bill. The House was somewhat amused when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, proceeded to read out the formula. The noble and learned Lord will remember that we were looking forward to entertainment on this occasion. He, as an eminent mathematician, had promised that he would give an explanation of the formula. We were looking forward to that treat. We have not had it because it has not arisen under the amendments with which we have dealt. The mind of the noble and learned Lord is

569
always clear. But we still wondered whether, even with his explanation, we would walk out of the House feeling that we knew and understood the formula.
What is the position of an applicant here? He will have to argue, as he would not have to do under the social security legislation, about a formula which is literally unintelligible even to those of us who managed to obtain a few passes at O level, whatever the position may be of other people who presumably are such wonderful mathematicians that they cannot even count the number of O levels that they have.
The appellant walks before the tribunal. He is not allowed to go to court; he does not have legal aid; and he cannot afford legal representation. He does not understand the formula in the schedule to the Bill and he cannot obtain any expert advice unless out of sheer charity some organisation helps him. Is that the way that we want to leave even the amendments of the noble and learned Lord in regard to setting up this tribunal in place of the courts where, as I said, legal aid would be available in normal circumstances.
When I first raised this matter I said that I was somewhat pessimistic. Maybe I should not be pessimistic. Perhaps at this hour the noble and learned Lord's heart, which is very much in the right place, will be touched and he will see the justice of the amendment and the injustice of resisting it. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, your Lordships will recall agreeing to my Amendment No. 66 which deletes subsections (6) and (7). The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, refers to that subsection (7), so strictly speaking at this stage of the debate it does not have very much content. However, I doubt whether it is superseded since it is directed to come at the very end of the present provision.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I almost need legal aid myself to deal with the difficulty which the noble and learned Lord raises. He knows perfectly well that the amendment could not have been worded in any other way. If his amendment had been defeated so that the courts and not the tribunal were the bodies which would hear the appeals, I should have been faulted in my amendment because it would not apply. So all that I could possibly do was to say that legal aid should be granted irrespective of the body which the Lord Chancellor shall direct.
Under the amendments that were passed the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given himself the power to direct that the courts in certain circumstances should take over from the tribunals. He would have the power of direction. Although the words "pursuant to subsection (7) above" may not now be quite regular, as he says, there was no other way of wording the amendment. He knows the spirit of the amendment. I merely hope that he will speak to the spirit of it and if subsequently I have to withdraw it because of the words "pursuant to subsection (7)", I shall then know whether or not to return with an amendment at Third Reading.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is a very important amendment. Whether or not it is technically fully correct, it involves points which must be spoken to. Therefore on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches I should like to offer it support.
It is the nature of the Bill that many of the people with which it will deal are people who are on benefit. Those people are not always the ablest advocates of their own cause. What is more, they are not always people who are in the strongest position to undertake a capital debt. At this time of night I do not intend to open up issues arising from the social fund. However, capital debt falling on people who are on social security benefit can be a very grave hardship and not incurring that capital debt may involve submitting to a very grave injustice. It is a dilemma in which I do not want to see people placed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. The grounds for appeal are that the decision in question was made in ignorance of a material fact, was based on a mistake as to a material fact, or was wrong in law.
How is the ordinary little layman like myself to decide without legal advice what is wrong in law? It is necessary for him to have some assistance; otherwise he will be in great difficulty. Or are we saying once again that if you are poor you cannot have proper advice but if you are rich you can? The noble and learned Lord is a fair-minded man, so on that basis alone he should seriously consider agreeing to my noble friend's amendment, and that it be put in order at the third stage of our debate.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I wished to explain the technical position before I read out the amendment so that there was no misunderstanding about it. There may be some question as to precisely whether we are in order.
If I may address myself to the spirit of the matter in the same way as the noble Lord has done, I have to say that if, as I have argued, the appropriate place for ultimate decisions about this matter is a tribunal, then it is right also to say that the appropriate arrangements are those that apply to a tribunal. In tribunals there is provision for appropriate legal advice to be given. I believe that that is the right situation so far as this tribunal is concerned. The general rules of legal aid affecting tribunals would apply to this also. I would regard that as fair in the circumstances of this case, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel that that is so.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I endeavoured to the best of my ability to show the unfairness of the position where the noble and learned Lord agreed that courts might be more suitable tribunals to hear these appeals but, because the courts had so much other work to do, we were going to try out this tribunal idea. It may very well be that in future decisions will be transferred from the tribunals to the courts. To put the applicant in a position where, as a result of the administrative necessity to use tribunals rather than the courts because the courts are overcrowded with work, he

571
would not get the benefit of eligibility for legal aid which he would have got in the court, seems to me a transparent injustice.
Furthermore, the noble and learned Lord referred to the fact that those who appear before other tribunals likewise do not have the benefit of having legal aid made available to them. I endeavoured to distinguish this tribunal from other tribunals by virtue of the complexity of various matters. I am most indebted to my noble friend because I missed the point, which I should have taken, that one of the reasons for the appeal may be on a point of law. How the apllicant is supposed to be able to argue a point of law without legal aid I do not know.
572
Perhaps I may also remind the noble and learned Lord that in 1989 his department issued a report by a lady called Hazel Genn entitled The Effectiveness of Representation at Tribunals. I would invite him—and I do so most respectfully—to read that publication between now and Third Reading and, as a result of reading it and listening to the submissions that I venture to make today, to agree with the amendment at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 71:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Child support appeal tribunals
.—(1) There shall be tribunals to be known as child support appeal tribunals which shall, subject to any order made under section (Jurisdiction of courts in certain proceedings under this Act), hear and determine appeals under section 18.
(2) The Secretary of State may make such regulations with respect to child support appeal tribunals as he considers appropriate.
(3) The regulations may in particular make provision—

(a)as to procedure;

(b) for the striking out of appeals for want of prosecution;

(c) as to the persons entitled to appear and be heard on behalf of any of the parties;

(d) requiring persons to attend and give evidence or to produce documents;

(e) about evidence;

(f) for authorising the administration of oaths;

(g) as to confidentiality;

(h) for notification of the result of an appeal to be given to such persons as may be prescribed.

(4) Schedule (Child support appeal tribunals) shall have effect with respect to child support appeals tribunals.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Disputes about parentage]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No.
72:
Page 13, line 45, leave out from ("assessment") to ("unless") in line 46.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the words sought to be deleted appear at the bottom of the page. The amendment raises a point similar to that discussed in respect of an earlier amendment which my noble and learned friend gave an undertaking to consider. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are distinctions between the amendments. However, I should be happy to undertake to consider with parliamentary counsel all amendments such as this relating to drafting and let the noble and learned Lord know of our views. If he is content with that undertaking it might be of help in respect of time. My noble and learned friend is always willing to talk the matter over with me if necessary and I shall be happy to arrange that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. My only demur is that I shall be more than 100 miles away. However, I am content to leave the matter entirely in his hands and those of parliamentary counsel. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No.
73:
Page 14, line 28, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to a Scottish provision. I did not understand why the applicant had to be in Scotland. It may be the mother of the child, the father or the child who is in Scotland. Not being conversant with
574
Scottish family law, I may have got the wrong end of the stick. I tabled the amendment to leave out the requirement that the applicant should be in Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in English law the word "habitually" would merely cause confusion. In English law the word "resident" is well understood as a term of art. The inclusion of the word "habitually" would give rise to the need for fresh interpretation of the meaning of the term "resident" in the context of this Bill. I am not a Scottish lawyer as is my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It may be that in Scotland the term "resident" is always preceded by the word "habitually". If that is right the phrase should be allowed to stand provided that the paragraph stands.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is important to consider all the relevant legislation including Section 5(1) of the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986. I could go into the matter in detail. However, it may be better to deal with these drafting matters in the way that I have suggested. I shall be happy to send a copy of my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I imagine that not all noble Lords will wish me to enter into a detailed explanation of the matter at this juncture. If noble Lords insist, I am prepared to do so but it may be convenient to proceed in the way that I have suggested. I should like to take the same course in respect of Amendments Nos. 74, 79 and the various amendments to Clause 28. I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon will be prepared to agree to that.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, not only am I prepared to agree to that, but I am most grateful for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Reference to court for declaration of parentage]:
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 15, line 28, leave out from ("means") to end of line 29 and insert ("subject to any provision made under Schedule 11 to the Children Act 1989 (jurisdiction of courts with respect to certain proceedings relating to children) as amended by section (Jurisdiction of courts in certain proceedings under this Act), the High Court, a county court or a magistrates' court.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Regulations about deduction from earnings orders]:
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Enforcement of liability orders by distress]:
[Amendments Nos. 76ZA to 76AB not moved.] Clause 31 [Commitment to prison]:
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris moved Amendment No. 77:
Leave out Clause 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, generously suggested that I should speak first on this amendment.
When the Bill was in Committee I rehearsed at undue length the reasons stated by a majority of the members of the Payne Committee and unanimously by the members of the Finer Committee for the abolition of imprisonment for default on maintenance payments. I do not intend to go over that ground again although I was not persuaded by any of the noble and learned Lord's arguments in favour of committal as a method of enforcement. I shall endeavour to be as brief as the importance of the subject permits.
I begin by drawing attention to one curious feature of the Bill. This has been presented as benefiting children. Nevertheless, it seems to me in origin and purpose to have been framed primarily in order to reduce Treasury expenditure on the casualties of broken homes. None of the Bill's critics, inside or outside this House, wishes to make life easier for rogues who have money but who refuse to support their children. However, such people constitute a fringe of the real problem which arises as a result of the conflict between the duty to support one's children and everyone's right to choose and change marital and sexual partners. Accordingly, many fathers contract duties which, with the best will in the world, they cannot discharge fully out of their small or average earnings. There will always be a limit on the amount which a court or administrative agency can squeeze out of men with dual or multiple commitments.
Most one-parent families will always have to paddle in the mire of poverty and debt. However, I have no doubt that the formula which the agency will apply will squeeze too hard with the many disastrous consequences, repeatedly described throughout the passage of the Bill, upon relationships within the families whose incomes and expenditures will be regulated by it.
Against that background, I wonder why the Treasury failed to note the obvious fact that imprisoning maintenance defaulters is an essay in social and financial fatuity. The taxpayer must find £321 per week to cover the costs of keeping the defaulter in prison and must provide additional income support for, probably, the two families to which the prisoner may have been contributing. Further. when he emerges he will have lost his job; his earnings will have diminished, and his accumulating arrears will have become a millstone round his neck and a source of despair.
That is the father who was described by the noble and learned Lord on the third day of Committee as "the typical case"; sent to prison because he was contumacious; having the money but refusing to pay the order for his children. The noble and learned Lord concluded,
"The only obstacle is obstinacy".—[Official Report, 21/3/91; col. 812.]
I doubt whether such a man is typical of anyone outside a law book.
On that view of the utility of the so-called ultimate sanction of committal, the Payne Committee commented,
"what is required is an effective machinery for recovering money from a debtor who has some earnings, income or assets. If a debtor has money, goods or property, it must not
576
be conceded that it is beyond the power of the court … to attach his wages or assets and realise the sum required to satisfy the debt. If he has no means or assets the threat of imprisonment is futile … We do not understand on what ground the imprisonment of recalcitrant husbands who have the money but refuse to pay their maintenance is to be preferred to action designed to get at their property, assets or earnings".
In 1989 the county courts, in the course of handling more than 2.5 million plaints, dealt with contumacy without any ultimate sanction save the power to commit for wilful disobedience to a court order, which they exercised in that year in 29 instances. Those courts, exercising that jurisdiction, act to get the money, not the person of the debtor.
I shall not weary the House at this hour by listing the objections to the procedure proposed in the Bill, though I must refer to two of them. The agency will apply to a magistrates' court for a committal warrant, which the court will grant just as is done under the present law if satisfied that,
"there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect",
to pay.
Both the Payne and the Finer Committees concluded that the delicate domestic arithmetic required under that procedure when dealing almost invariably with very poor men, was not compatible with the proper administration of justice when the liberty of the subject was involved. They observed from the statistics, and I do not believe that the position has changed in any respect, that lay magistrates in England are far more likely to commit than are professional judges in England and Scotland in circumstances in which the enforcement of an order is involved, when that order has been contracted under circumstances of emotional stress connected with an intimate personal relationship. Very often it is payment by a man who may in any case be hard put to make ends meet, and that may give rise to further stress in the form of divided loyalties and sense of responsibility in respect of his family arrangements. The man's mind may be affected by anger or unreason. Those are precisely the circumstances in which the law should avoid punitive remedies. But, in combination with the normal civil processes for extracting money where it is available to be extracted, the law should be providing as a service of the court access to the advice, guidance and persuasion of an officer of the court who can help such a man to resolve his problems.
My second reason for rejecting this clause is that the agency will be under great pressure to demonstrate that it is succeeding in collecting more maintenance than the courts ever secured. Its servants will believe that threats or the reality of imprisonment will serve them well for this purpose on the Admiral Byng principle. So I expect that the establishment of the agency will be followed by the herding of men into the summary courts in large numbers for committal proceedings. I cannot discover from the Bill what evidence the agency will give to the court for the purpose or how the details of the review system set out in the Bill will work in practice.
I expect that many of the men affected, whom we know to be multiple debtors and many of whom are illiterate, innumerate and so feckless that they cannot

577
order their lives, will end up in prison under this procedure. Many will be of that character. They need the assistance of the kind of enforcement office recommended by the Payne Committee, but rejected by the then government and rejected again more recently by the Lord Chancellor's review of civil procedure. In practice I fear that we shall return to a situation similar to that operating in the county courts before 1970, when the judgment summons system enabled creditors to decide whether their debtors went to prison. Under the agency I fear that it will be civil servants who decide in practice and reality which and how many maintenance defaulters will go to prison.
I do not understand why we cannot adopt for these people the procedure of the county courts as regards civil debt designed to secure the money and not the person of the debtor. Neither must we forget the discrimination that will arise between the people who live at near subsistence level, who may be taken to court for evading or seeming to evade, its orders, and those who may well succeed in avoiding the payment on their orders by turning to the advice of solicitors and accountants who will help them to turn their income into capital and to set up trusts and the like, if they are so minded. We shall no doubt have a system of licensed contumacy.
At Committee stage, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, suggested a non-custodial penalty. I believe that she may speak along those lines on this amendment. I shall certainly go along with such a proposal, albeit rather unwillingly, provided that there is no suggestion of devising a criminal penalty for what is a civil offence. It is high time that we got rid of this unnecessary relic of the 19th century bastardy laws. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there must be an ultimate sanction for the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill. It is just a question of how it is done. In ordinary civil proceedings no committal order is made unless the debtor has the means to pay, and it is proved that he has the means to pay, but wilfully refuses to do so. The question of means to pay is not specifically mentioned in subsection (3), which is the point at which one might have expected to find it. A simple amendment would put that beyond doubt. It may be that, technically, the expression "wilful refusal" covers the point, but I do not know.
I should have thought that the attachment of earnings legislation would cover many of the cases that we have in mind. It is not mentioned here—perhaps it does not need to be mentioned—but I remind your Lordships that it applied to maintenance. I have reason for remembering because I piloted the first attachment of earnings provisions through another place. This is very close indeed to maintenance. I should have thought that attachment of earnings would in perhaps two-thirds of the cases that arise be the right solution.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I have my name to this amendment. I am sorry to see that the
578
noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is not in his place. I was expecting him to speak before me. I very much wish to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, who spoke so impressively and not at all at too great a length in Committee. His unique experience of the Payne and Finer Committees amply justified his discourse on that occasion. I should have thought that the interventions in Committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, would have resulted in some movement by the Government. I am deeply disappointed not to find any concessions from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at this stage. But as things have been, they remain.
I should like to bring in at this stage the most impressive but quite short paragraphs of the Woolf Report in its section on fine defaulters. Lord Justice Woolf and his collaborator, His Honour Judge Tumim, said that the number of people in prison at any one time for fine default is now fortunately small. The number at any one time is 520. However, a substantial number in any given year is surely such a great burden on the prison system in terms of admission, processing and releasing the number is around 17,000—that the Bill ought not to add to that burden.
Apart from the burden on the prison system and its great cost, those 17,000 should not be in prison at all. I thought that it was government policy to take those people out of the prison system. One was looking forward to seeing the Bill help the other legislation currently going through Parliament in its aim to reduce the number of people sent to prison. However, that is apparently not the case. Moreover, Woolf cites the findings of the Gloucester probation service in 1983, which stated that,
"Up to half of all people going to prison in this area got into prison by the back door being committed for fine default".
Surely this Bill should be reducing that half to nil, or nearly nil. But that is not so.
Woolf clearly thinks that it is beneficial to introduce the unit fine system, which was very much welcomed by Members of this House in the Criminal Justice Bill. There is also the attachment of earnings order—that is, where a defaulter has earnings; and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned that point—and even an attachment so far as concerns income support. That is a very drastic measure but, where appropriate, it should be enforced.
I should have thought that the only residual need for a sanction is where a defaulter has deliberately placed his resources beyond the reach of the courts. In that situation, it seems to me that the onus should be on the Government to seek, and legislate for, a non-custodial sanction, such as that called for by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, or sanctions if need be. If the Government are really keen on keeping people out of prison, I believe that that is what they should seek to do.
I found it curious in Committee that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
"We are now dealing with a person who has money and is in a position to pay the required maintenance but deliberately refuses to do so".—[Official Report, 21/3/91; col. 813.]

579
He went on at col. 814 to say:
"It is clear … that you can only have culpable neglect or wilful refusal if the liable person's means are adequate to discharge his obligation of maintenance".
The suggestion seemed to be that it was only in those circumstances that fine defaulters were sent to gaol. I simply cannot adjust to that view. With the huge battery of powers bestowed by this Bill on child support officers, it seems to me that they will be the ones who will be guilty of culpable neglect or wilful refusal if, with those huge powers, in a situation where the person is in a position to pay, they fail to extract the money.
As I said, with all the latest legislation which has been going through Parliament in this Session the only residual need is for a sanction which would apply when a defendant has deliberately placed his resources beyond the reach of the courts. It is only in that remote case—I emphasise those words—that a sanction would be needed. Then, if only there was a willingness on the part of the Government, the ultimate sanction should be a non-custodial sanction or sanctions.
With the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, I believe that the excision of this clause should have the effect of concentrating the mind of the Government to that end; namely, to secure the money and not the person. In other words, the final resort should be non-custodial. Surely that is all we need and want.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, no good and nothing positive have ever come out of sending a debtor to prison. I t is expensive. It brings in no money. It never helps the child or the wife. There are two kinds of debtor. There is the one who can pay and ultimately pays. If he does not, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, there are attachment of earnings orders and various other methods of obtaining the money. In my experience, if the man has money he ultimately pays, although he may go to the last ditch.
The real difficulty arises with the people who cannot and do not manage their money. They find themselves in great difficulty. Money aid centres have been set up. I know of one in Birmingham which has been enormously successful in helping men and women who have been unable to manage their money and who have run into terrible debt. Through weekly interviews the centres have helped them put themselves straight. I should have thought that it would be possible through officers of the DSS to use money aid centres as has been done successfully in the past.
In Committee, I put forward another recommendation. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I do not go into that matter which also concerns debtors under the Criminal Justice Bill. I must apologise to my noble and learned friend for not having been to see him. I have an appointment with the Home Office and the Secretary of State for Social Security to discuss the proposal that I made in Committee to set up places where men could work and earn under supervision. I shall bring that subject up at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in addition to all the points that have been so validly made in the debate, what worries me is the effect on the family. It will not
580
be the wife who will apply for the father to be sent to prison because of a wilful refusal; it will be, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, at the instance of the state, regardless of the mother's wishes. I wonder what effect it will have on a family if a father tells his child, "Your mother is responsible for sending me to prison". It is a ghastly thing with which to face a family.
The noble and learned Lord said on the last occasion, or has since said in a useful memorandum that he issued, that in the ultimate there are few cases which will end in someone being sent to prison. The very fact that again father on seeing child can say, "Mother is threatening to send me to prison" is bad enough. All aspects of the power the question of our prisons being filled and the fact that we are returning to imprisonment for debt—are important; but if we make the welfare of the child and the family the important part of the Bill, the power should not exist.
11 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I shall not speak for long on this subject. I said most of what I wished to say at Committee stage, and do not wish to repeat it. There is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, put an irresistible case for his amendment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept it.
I do not know where we are going. At present we are discussing the Criminal Justice Bill which seeks to keep people out of prison, yet here we are, putting a provision in a Bill which could result in more imprisonment at a cost of £260 for every prisoner every week. That seems to me an enormous cost for the state to bear.
My noble friend mentioned the effect on the family of a father telling his children that the mother had sent him to prison. However, there is an even worse effect. What is the effect on the child when his playmates and schoolmates get to know that his father has been in prison? He will be taunted and teased in the cruel way that only children can taunt and tease. Again, that will have a detrimental effect on the children. We are supposed to be discussing a Bill not to injure but to help children, the Child Support Bill. Far from helping children, sending the fathers to prison will hinder their development and lead to great difficulties for them.
I repeat this point: how on earth will a father maintain his children when he is in prison? How will he be able, when he comes out of prison, to pay the arrears that have accrued and accumulated while he was in prison? Is it not likely that if the state sends a person to prison, when he comes out he will have no job to return to? Thus he is in an even worse position than before he went in and even more unable to meet the maintenance payments, particularly if he is poor.
It seems to me that in the circumstances we should take seriously the alternatives that have been put forward, particularly that of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. That is a real possibility. We must consider these alternatives. They will meet the case if only the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would accept what we say, that there are alternatives to

581
imprisoning people, fathers in particular, who cannot, or even in some cases will not, meet their maintenance payments.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, for the reasons given by noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who supported the amendment, I too support it. It should not be beyond the wit of Parliament to devise an alternative to imprisonment. That is our case. We all agree that there is a need for an effective solution, an effective threat, but there ought also to be an alternative to prison. I have not seen the latest statistics about the number of maintenance defaulters who are in prison. I have not seen any recent study into their background. It may well be that there has been none since those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor.
I assume from what I have been told by the clerk to the magistrates and the registrar of a county court that the defaulters who are in prison probably fall into one of three broad categories: the self-employed, the employed and the unemployed. In the light of the principles explained by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in Committee (at cols. 812 and 813 of Hansard for 21st March 1991), I would be surprised and deeply concerned if many of the prisoners were in the third category of those who are unemployed. I would be surprised if the defaulters in prison were employed persons, as the magistrates' courts have readily available to them the remedy of attachment of wages. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that the problem is presented by the self-employed, some of whom have assets, others of whom do not. To the extent that that is correct, the issue would appear to concern whether there is a realistic prospect of dealing with self-employed defaulters without sending them to prison. I believe that there are a number of alternatives which should at least be explored. We should be in no hurry to include this provision in this Bill.
If the self-employed defaulters have assets, is there any good reason why the magistrates' court should not be empowered to make a charging order or a garnishee order? We might well be told that the magistrates' court does not have that power, but the Bill creates a number of new rights and a number of powers. I should be interested to know whether there are any insurmountable difficulties to giving magistrates the power to make a garnishee or a charging order. If there is an insurmountable difficulty, should not this matter be referred to the county court so that a charging or a garnishee order could be made?
I accept that the situation presented by the self-employed defaulters without assets could be more difficult to handle. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, advocated that the courts should be empowered to make a community service order in lieu of imprisonment. We were told by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that a community service order must always be made with consent. Hitherto that has been the position, but is there any reason why at least the principle of service to the community should not be subject to different criteria called by a different name? Is there any reason why
582
that principle should not also be available to the magistrates' court when dealing with a self-employed person without assets?
I believe that there is one other possibility. I speak subject to being corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—if he were present—or by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. There is the possibility that the arrears could be treated as if they were an income tax charge to be collected by the Inland Revenue.
One is anxious to be as constructive as one can in dealing with this issue. I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether we should not pause for a while to study whether there are other possible alternatives, because imprisonment can turn a person sour towards his family and towards his commitment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we examined this matter in some detail in Committee and it has been raised again today. Noble Lords have been kind enough to refer to my remarks from time to time. I hope that those references have been found to be illuminating. As he usually does, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, put the matter briefly and succinctly in referring to rogues who have money and do not want to support their children. That paraphrase of my comments perhaps illustrates the position rather more dramatically. Those are the people we have in mind as requiring the ultimate sanction of imprisonment.
The Bill as drafted makes clear that imprisonment is a last resort. To take up the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I have in mind to propose amendments to the Bill to give power to make garnishee or charging orders. It is right that that should be done in the county court and therefore a case would have to be remitted to the county court for that purpose.
As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, said, the Payne Committee was keen on a good enforcement agency to extract the money from the debtor. We have adopted that principle in the Bill although the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, does not recognise it as that. The agency is intended to provide effective enforcement of maintenance debts. We have already given powers in the Bill in respect of deductions from earnings orders, distraint, and so on. It is plain that the purpose of the clause we are now considering is a last resort power, as we say in Clause 31
To answer the question of my noble friend, Lord Renton, subsection (2) has to be borne in mind. It reads:
"On any such application the court shall (in the presence of the liable person) inquire as to—

(a) the liable person's means; and

(b) whether there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect on his part".

It is clear, therefore, that the court has to be satisfied that the liable person has means and that it is deliberate or culpable neglect on his part which prevents those means being made available to discharge his responsibilities to his children.
The situation, therefore, is that the Secretary of State applies for the order under this provision. He

583
does so only if he has failed to obtain the money by, for example, distraint. It is only if all other powers have failed that the power of imprisonment is contemplated.
The intention is to replicate the existing law on this matter, though the way in which the clause has been drafted does not do so effectively. At Third Reading, therefore, I shall propose an amendment to make clear that the maximum period of imprisonment is the six weeks which is the present law. That ought to be made plain in any event and I undertake to do that.
Regarding the main point, I believe that it is absolutely clear that imprisonment of people who, for any reason, do not have the money is not at issue. The issue is imprisonment of those who have the money but who do not make it over, either because they do not bother or because they deliberately and wilfully refuse to do so.
Many of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, have said that there should be an ultimate sanction. I know of no ultimate sanction in such a situation other than the sanction of imprisonment. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, talked.of community service. It is my understanding that community service requires the consent of the person being placed on community service because it is not lawful for the state to create enforced labour. In other words, one cannot force someone to do such work. The only ultimate enforcement which is available in that situation is some form of custody.
A great deal has been said about the effect of imprisonment on the person placed in custody. The purpose is not to put people in custody but to obtain payment. I hope that the really effective powers that the agency will have will create a situation in which the money is paid, according to the assessment. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, spoke of the person who did not have the money, but the purpose of applying the formula is to ensure that the person will have the money required. The purpose of the formula and the protected level of income is designed to secure that money is available. So the formula contains that kind of structure.
Reports on civil debt in recent years have generally agreed that imprisonment for default should be abolished, but there has been a significant exception with regard to maintenance arrears. For example, the McKenzie Report of 1958 in Scotland found overwhelming support for the retention of imprisonment where maintenance was concerned while the Payne Committee, unanimous in its recommendation that imprisonment for civil debt should be abolished, could riot agree on maintenance. The Finer Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, was a distinguished member, recommended abolition—
Lord McGregor of Durris: Unanimously.
11.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord says "unanimously". I was about to say that I find it a little difficult to see precisely what were the grounds for its conclusion.
584
I should emphasise that in the vast majority of cases, the threat of imprisonment is enough. The most recent figures suggest that the number of people imprisoned in that respect has fallen. In 1989, 480 people were committed immediately by magistrates to prison as compared with 850 in 1985. In 1989 there were approximately 85,000 enforcement proceedings in magistrates' courts in total. That shows just how effective the system was. Again, reverting to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, in 1989 there were 183 people committed by the county courts, according to my information, under the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 in respect of maintenance debts.
We are not concerned here with fine defaults. I can understand the desirability of reducing the number of people who default. One proposal is the unit fine, a rather rudimentary kind of formula applied to fines which should help to tailor the fine to the person's ability to pay. Our formula is a good deal more refined and detailed, but it is tailored to the person's ability to pay.
The powers that will be given to the Secretary of State and the agency to obtain money from people will be strong and effective. The more effective they are, the less likely it will be that one will encounter a rogue of the quality to which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, referred, who was able to avoid payment.
Accordingly, I regard it as important that the sanction of imprisonment be retained in order that the maintenance cheat will not be allowed to scoff at his responsibilities and to know that he is safe beyond the reach of the courts or his family. I do not believe that it is fair to allow a person of that kind to scoff at the courts while ordinary, law-abiding people are obliged to pay maintenance for their families. The aim is to protect the family and to ensure that such people pay maintenance for their children.
I am certainly not insensible to the concerns of those who wish to prevent imprisonment for maintenance debts being imposed on feckless inadequates. That is a problem which, to the extent that it exists, is addressed in the formulation of the clause. I am certainly willing to consider whether the formulation of the clause requires to be strengthened in that connection. However, that kind of problem cannot be addressed adequately in the context of the Bill and it certainly cannot be addressed, in the Government's view, at the expense of children and the taxpayer by removing what is often the only effective weapon against those selfish and uncaring parents who see no obstacle to dishonourably playing the system and leaving their children to be brought up on other people's money.
I do not believe that it was the intention of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, or of any of your Lordships who supported the amendment to accommodate such people—rogues who are unwilling to pay although they have the money. However, if carried, the amendment would protect those very people. That would be unfair to their children and would risk undermining the morale and resolve of caring and responsible parents. It is an important

585
point. I hope that with the amendments that I have undertaken will be moved, your Lordships will feel that they should decline to agree with this one.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who supported the amendment. Naturally, I am disappointed that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has moved only a very small distance in respect of offering to strengthen the modes of attachment by giving to magistrates powers to make garnishee and charging orders. I hope very much that he will consider transferring the whole of this enforcement procedure from the magistrates' courts to the county courts. Many of the defects which bother me most lie in the procedures of the magistrates' courts. However, this is not the place to discuss these matters.
On the third day of Committee the noble and learned Lord said that he would consider whether there was anything further that he could do. He has considered. As I said, the result is disappointing. But perhaps it suggests the possibility of further consideration before we reach the next stage in the Bill's passage. I believe that every noble Lord who spoke suggested further consideration. I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord will be willing in the next phase, in consultation with those of his colleagues who are affected, to make a further consideration as to how we can deal with this very disturbing problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Arrears of child support maintenance]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 24, line 20, at end insert:
("() In cases where the Secretary of State has assessed the maintenance requirement and determined the amount to be paid by the absent parent and the absent parent has failed to pay, the Secretary of State shall pay to the parent with care that amount of the requisite sum necessary to guarantee the income of the caring parent at least to the level of income support. The Secretary of State shall use his powers under section 3 to recover the whole of the liable sum due from the absent parent and pay on collection any outstanding sums due to the caring parent.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if accepted, this amendment would enable the child support agency to provide minimum maintenance payments for a limited period when the absent parent fails to pay. This will result in more security for lone parents and will help to minimise disincentives to work.
Noble Lords will remember that earlier we had a debate on Amendment No. 38 on the powers of inspection. A phrase was used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which I noted. He referred to the agonising problems of lone parents attempting to get maintenance. That would apply equally to lone parents in cases where there was a delay in the payment of maintenance or if the payments lapsed.
No doubt we can all agree that it is of the utmost importance that the payment of maintenance should be enforced both speedily and effectively. Lone parents need certainty in their financial planning. That is especially true of lone parents who receive either
586
family credit, housing benefit or community charge benefit. Those are benefits which are not immediately adjusted to reflect an interruption in maintenance payments.
This amendment provides for a guarantee of receipt of maintenance payments from the agency which are up to at least the level of income support. We can all understand the consequences of a lone parent who receives benefits or a low wage when there are such problems with maintenance payments. For a lone parent who is wondering whether to take a low paid job and claim family credit and housing benefit, the fear that maintenance payments may be interrupted with no ensuing replacements from a guarantee scheme may well be a decisive factor against taking up paid employment. As such there would be here a major disincentive to work.
The aim of the amendment is quite clear. It is to ensure that the lone parent's income is not disrupted where the absent parent fails to pay the agreed maintenance award. Without this amendment, some lone parents would have to live on incomes which are below income support level, and others would be forced to give up their jobs and return to benefit.
It is clear that some form of guarantee of maintenance payments is essential because the effect of the Bill will be to make many lone parents either wholly or partially reliant on maintenance. At the same time, the measures for ensuring enforcement put forward in the Bill contain some weaknesses which we have discussed as we have gone through the Bill. A deduction from an earnings order can be evaded by changing employment, and the proposals contain no effective method of ensuring payment from the self-employed, for own deduction of earnings is not an appropriate measure.
We believe that it would be better to help to keep the lone parent in work and the guarantee of maintenance payments while the problems with maintenance are sorted out. In addition, if the child support agency had to pay the guaranteed maintenance in case of default, it would provide a great incentive to the agency to ensure that the enforcement of maintenance was effective.
I understand that at present in Sweden they operate a guaranteed maintenance system, and the United States has passed some federal legislation to enable the state legislatures to operate such systems. This is a very real problem for the lone parents who will be affected. The amendment attempts to deal with the problem in what we feel is a sensible way. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if this amendment is not accepted, many children will be much worse off as a result of the operation of this Bill. That would be contrary to the object of the exercise. We support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, many of the child support agency's clients will be in receipt of income support. We are anxious to ensure that their income is disrupted as little as possible by any fluctuations in the amount of maintenance paid. This will be an important factor in deciding on the most appropriate

587
method of collection and payment of maintenance to be used in any particular case. There will be a number of methods of collection of maintenance available, with the most appropriate to a particular case being adopted.
First, we shall be continuing the arrangements for income support claimants where, in some circumstances, benefit is paid gross of any maintenance received, while the Secretary of State collects the maintenance on behalf of the claimant. This ensures that the person with care receives her full income support entitlement.
There will be other methods of collection available which will involve the agency in some form of monitoring role. In the event of a person with care in receipt of benefit not receiving full payment of maintenance, it is intended that the agency will be able to inform the benefit authorities directly, so that the benefit can be adjusted quickly.
Again, I should like to stress the word "quickly". We have quite a good record for the speed with which we deal with claims for income support. The agency will be able to do this through its powers to disclose information in Clause 12(3), which we agreed to retain in the Bill after a Division earlier this afternoon.
This amendment is framed in terms that apply to all parents with care, whatever their circumstances. But if a person with care is not in receipt of benefit, the use of the agency's services is entirely voluntary and it would not be right for the state to intervene if its services were not required. In the same way, it is not right for the taxpayer automatically to take over financial responsibility when an absent parent fails to meet hip liabilities. However, it is right that the state should provide a means by which an assessed maintenance liability can be quickly and effectively enforces should the person with care require that service. This is what the Bill provides.
If such a person with care does not receive sufficient income to support the household while enforcement is being sought, he or she will in the usual way be able to apply for extra support in the form of income support, or family credit, if he or she is working for 16 hours a week or more. Again, I should like to stress the speed with which we hope we can process most income support claims. Our record in this matter is quite good. I hope therefore that in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it appears that the principle of the guarantee is accepted because of income support being paid gross and the maintenance payment being deducted. I do not think we have had an answer to the question of what happens to the children in the cases where there is a gap, where maintenance has lapsed. I agree that if the department can move quickly enough in these circumstances, the problem need not last for too long. I shall have to read with care what the noble Lord has said. I do not think he has given a complete answer, but at this stage of the debate I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Clause 33 [Special cases]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 24, line 41, at end insert:
("and for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that subsection (1) shall be construed ejusdem generis").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I apologise that at half-past eleven at night I am moving an amendment which ostensibly concerns a technical canon of statutory construction. I should not do so if in this case it were not of constitutional importance. It is expressed always in the highly elliptical Latin that appears in the amendment. To say that the term means "of the same sort" conveys little of its operation in statutory construction. Based on experience and common sense and the courts' scrutiny of the way in which Parliament proceeds the term is entirely reasonable.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. If in an agricultural statute appear the words "cattle, sheep and other animals" the courts will conclude that although "other animals" is all embracing what was intended was something similar to cattle and sheep—say, domesticated goats—and would not extend, for example, to a tiger. I said that the matter was entirely consonant with common sense and common experience. If the wife of one of your Lordships were to say that she was going shopping and when asked what she was going to buy said, "A blouse, a skirt and other things", you would be surprised and perhaps pained if she returned home in a pantechnicon with a suite of furniture, though that undoubtedly would be covered by "other things".
The courts therefore proceed with common sense. They ask themselves why the draftsman stated "other animals". The answer is that he may have missed one of the domestic agricultural animals that he meant to cover; for example, goats. The courts will also ask why he mentioned cattle and sheep. The only reason for mentioning them rather than allowing them to be covered by "other animals" was to delimit the scope of the provision.
In applying that to the present clause and special cases it proceeds quite valuably to say that the Secretary of State may make regulations covering special cases and it then gives examples. When I raised the matter in Committee I asked whether my noble and learned friend considered whether it led to a situation in which the ejusdem generis rule would apply. Unfortunately, I had not given him notice of the question. Off the cuff he replied—I shall not say characteristically—no. He believed that it would not extend to examples. However, the fact that it is exemplary in form directly suggests that there is a common factor, a genus, embracing all these examples, and that they are intended to limit the generality of the general regulation-making power. For example, a court which would have to consider this on judicial review would conclude that, although the general power to denominate special cases is all embracing, it would not be proper to designate as a

589
special case, for example, where one of the parents was a member of an ethnic minority because it would not be of the same sort as the example.
Since my noble and learned friend's reaction was negative, I thought it would be better to deal with the matter expressly although my view was that the ejusdem generis rule applied. However, I have made it in declaratory form because it is highly undesirable and often very damaging to express in statutory form what the law would otherwise prescribe.
I conceive that only one possible argument can be advanced against this amendment. It is sometimes said, although on no very good authority and the main authority is against it, that the ejusdem generis rule does not operate in reverse; in other words, if one has the very wide term first rather than last, it is sometimes said that the rule does not apply. I have the authorities here but I shall not trouble your Lordships with them at this hour. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend asked me about this in Committee. I hope that, characteristically, I gave him what I believed to be the correct answer. I hope that that is the characteristic he had in mind rather than suggesting that I always wished to answer him with a no.
The point is that, if my noble and learned friend is right in his construction, the amendment is not necessary. The Bill is not intended to be restricted in that way. These are examples which we have found. They are intended to be useful examples of the type of case which we believe may need to be covered by Clause 33. There may be other cases which we wish to include although they may not be of the same kind.
It may be quite difficult—and I do not believe that my noble and learned friend has addressed this—to say what is the genus of which all these examples form part. The fact that one may be surprised by what happens in the case of one's wife going to the shop will not be a particularly good test. If my wife said that she was going to buy blouses and other things and returned with a pantechnicon full of blouses, I should be fairly surprised about that. It may well be ejusdem generis but the amount may well be considerable. Therefore, I do not believe that that is a very satisfactory test.
These are intended to be useful examples of the type of case which needs to be covered by Clause 33. However, unless it is absolutely essential, I do not wish to be restricted to that type of example. Therefore, unless there is an overwhelming reason for it, I do not feel that this amendment makes a useful contribution to the Bill. I hope that my noble and learned friend, in the light of that explanation—perhaps a little fuller than the one I gave on the first occasion—will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is with no surprise at all that I find my noble and learned friend's brief ends with the word, "Resist". My noble and learned friend says that I have not defined the genus. That is quite true; courts very rarely do. What they say is that something falls clearly outside the genus. The
590
tiger falls clearly outside any genus that might be constituted by cattle and sheep. I gave an example of something that would fall clearly outside; namely, the nomination of a special case where one of the parents is a member of an ethnic minority. My noble and learned friend does not want the generality limited in any way. That is entirely consistent with the whole spirit of the Bill—the gathering of vague powers into the hands of the administration.
My noble and learned friend finally says that if my construction is right the amendment is unnecessary. That is absolutely true. However, it is because he took the other view that I tabled it in a declaratory form. It is because he expressed a doubt that it must be put in. It is, of course, useless at this hour, in the face of the implacable resistance to any modification of any power taken by the Secretary of State under the Bill, to try to call a Division on the amendment. However, the argument stands. I am by no means satisfied with the answer given. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 80:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
("Jurisdiction of courts in certain proceedings under this Act
.—(1) The Lord Chancellor or, in relation to Scotland, the Lord Advocate may by order make such provision as he considers necessary to secure that appeals, or such class of appeals as may be specified in the order—

(a) shall be made to a court instead of being made to a child support appeal tribunal; or

(b) shall be so made in such circumstances as may be so specified.

(2) In subsection (1), "court" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales and subject to any provision made under Schedule 11 to the Children Act 1989 (jurisdiction of courts with respect to certain proceedings relating to children) the High Court, a county court or a magistrates' court; and

(b) in relation to Scotland, the Court of Session or the sheriff.

(3) Schedule 11 to the Act of 1989 shall be amended in accordance with subsections (4) and (5).
(4) The following sub-paragraph shall be inserted in paragraph 1, after sub-paragraph (2)—
"(2A) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) shall also apply in relation to proceedings—

(a) under section 20 of the Child Support Act 1991 (reference to court for declaration of parentage); or

(b) which are to be dealt with in accordance with an order made under section (Jurisdiction of courts in certain proceedings under this Act) of that Act (jurisdiction of courts in certain proceedings under that Act)".

(5) In paragraphs 1(3) and 2(3), the following shall be inserted after "Act 1976"—
"(bb) section 18 (appeals) or 20 (reference to court for declaration of parentage) of the Child Support Act 1991;".
(6) Where the effect of any order under subsection (1) is that there are no longer any appeals which fall to be dealt with by child support appeal tribunals, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate may by order provide for the abolition of those tribunals.
(7) Any order under subsection (1) or (6) may make—

(a) such modifications of any provision of this Act or of any other enactment; and

(b) such transitional provision,

591
as the Minister making the order considers appropriate in consequence of any provision made by the order.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 80 when moving Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Fees]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 25, line 25, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) Where an absent parent is on income support they will be zero rated for maintenance purposes.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have tried to be mindful of the time of the House this evening. Before getting up, I said to myself, "Is your journey really necessary?" But it is of the nature of that question that occasionally one must admit the possibility that the answer may be yes. I think we have a case here where it is.
Amendment No. 81 deals with the case of an absent parent on income support who at present is to be assessed to pay 5 per cent. of his income support towards maintenance. The amendment would provide for the absent parent on income support not to be exempt from liability to pay maintenance—there is a principle involved in the liability which we accept—but to be zero-rated. There is a big difference.
The key point is how adequate a benefit income support is. That is something which goes right to the heart of the social security system. The Government's position can only be consistent and workable if they are right in believing, as my noble kinsman frankly stated was his view in Committee, that income support is above subsistence levels. Unless that is the case people who suffer a deduction from their income support are being brought to a level which is too low to be acceptable.
I shall not develop the argument which I have already had with my noble kinsman regarding whether or not income support levels are too low. That is an argument to which we shall doubtless have to return. It is not essential to the amendment. What is essential to the amendment is the argument that income support is a subsistence benefit. That is the assumption clearly made by all those who have been briefing us for the Bill—the National Council for One Parent Families and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, among others.
I cannot believe that the Government disagree with that. If they thought that income support was above subsistence levels, they would lower it and they have not done so. In practice, I believe that they accept that income support is a subsistence benefit. If being brought below income support is serious for people receiving the full adult rate, it is more serious for those receiving the much lower rate under 25 years of age. That is the lower rate and, as far as I can see, there are no lower costs.
People in that age group may be disproportionately represented among the category of absent parents. If it is serious for the under-25s, it is even more serious for the younger category of 16 and 17 year-olds who are old enough to be capable of coming into the category of absent fathers, and who sometimes do. In that context, we look forward to an announcement when
592
the Government have digested the MORI research on the subject. Failing that, we cannot see any justification for charging maintenance on those who are already on income support. I cannot see that any serious thought has gone into whether they can afford it.
Professors Bradshaw and Millar, whose research underlies a great deal of the Government's thinking on this Bill, have concluded that,
"there is no reliable information on the capacity of (absent) parents to pay, or to pay more, maintenance".
Let us take one example of the kind of case that I have in mind reported by a South Yorkshire citizens advice bureau. A client aged 21 receives benefit of £28.80 a week from which there are deductions for gas of £11.20; rent arrears and water rates, £5.71 per week; and a social fund loan of £1.31 per week. That leaves £10.58 per week out of which £5 per week must be found for an electricity token meter which is recovering a debt. Are we seriously suggesting that it is practical to deduct a further 5 per cent. from that person for paying maintenance? I do not think that it is. If the Government think otherwise, I shall be extremely surprised.
I hope that they have already considered what seems to me to be the very wise observations of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the subject of this amendment. It says:
"We are concerned that this would add yet another item to the growing list of deductions. The proliferation of these deductions is likely to lead to a large number of items competing for a finite amount or the possibility that creditors' bills are met at the expense of food and other essential items of day-to-day living. We urge the Government to reconsider this proposal which appears punitive and counterproductive".
The point about the proliferation of deductions is one which needs taking. A citizens advice bureau in Devon reports a case of a client who is losing 65 per cent. of income support on deductions for rent, water rates, social fund loans and repayment of past over-payments. It is illogical to have a level of protected income for other parents which is above income support level, and at the same time to say that those on income support can afford to have another £2 deducted from a benefit which is small enough in the first place.
I hope that the Government will consider the recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee at paragraph 17, that those already on a reduced benefit should not be made subject to any further deduction. That is a matter that we shall have to discuss further. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I moved this amendment in Committee and was supported on that occasion by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am pleased to return the compliment this evening. I shall be brief. We made it clear in Committee that the Government's proposal is extremely harsh on those who are on income support. We feel that those who are on income support have by definition only a subsistence income on which to support themselves and to maintain contact with their children. The Government have turned down amendments to increase allowances for the absent parent in regard to work-related expenses and so on.

593
In Committee I drew an analogy with zero-rating in the VAT system. The principle of maintenance is an important one. Where the absent parent is on income support the liability for the maintenance should be recognised but the payment should be zero-rated. The child support agency would hold information on the absent parent. When he found work he could then be brought into the system. If payments by absent parents on income support are introduced they should be used only as a method of ensuring that all absent parents are covered by the new system. The useful analogy is with the VAT system. One is in the system but one is zero-rated so that no payment is required. We feel that the Government's proposal in this respect is harsh. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government have changed their view since Committee stage.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I very much regret that I shall not be able to move today. I have listened with great care to what my noble kinsman and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, have had to say. However, I feel that there is an important point of principle here. The legal and moral obligations on parents who are in receipt of income support are exactly the same as those on other parents. They are responsible for maintaining their children. It is important that the responsibility for maintenance should be established straight away, not least so that liability can be clearly established in readiness for if and when circumstances change. In principle all parents should make some contribution to their child's maintenance.
Perhaps I may put the picture straight and remind the House of exactly who on income support will be liable to have some small deduction made. We are talking about a small deduction of about £2 a week at 1991 rates. Parents who are sick or disabled and are unable to work will be zero-rated. Those who have dependent children for whom they are also claiming income support will have their liability established but their contributions to maintenance will again be zero-rated so that no deduction from income support will be made in their case. In other words, we are dealing with those who are able and fit to work but have no dependent children.
My noble kinsman said that he did not wish to pursue his argument as to the adequacy of income support levels. I do not think that we can get much further on that. He considered, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that income support is a subsistence benefit. I do not accept that. We do not believe it to be right for all absent parents on income support to be zero-rated. We think it right that an absent parent who is fit and able to work and who does not have responsibility for bringing up children should make a small contribution to the maintenance of his children. Other deductions can be made from income support; for example, to meet arrears of fuel bills and in future towards the payment of fines. The current ceiling on deductions, which is intended to protect claimants from excessive deductions, will continue to apply.
I should like to say a few words about the case cited by my noble kinsman. It concerned someone in the West Country who had faced deductions of some 65
594
per cent. of income support. I find that somewhat difficult to believe. My noble kinsman made no mention of housing benefit when he mentioned the cost of housing. It would be wrong of me at this stage to comment any further. If my noble kinsman would like me to look at the case I shall certainly do so.
The current ceiling on deductions will continue to apply. The overall maximum deduction for the repayment of debts—to third parties, for the recovery of overpayments, for fines and what we are proposing here—is three times 5 per cent. of the income support applicable amount for a single person aged 25 or over. That is a maximum figure at current benefit rates, as my noble kinsman will quickly work out, of about £6 per week. Deductions for maintenance and fines will also be subject to that ceiling. There will also be a strict order of precedence which ensures that the most essential expenditures have priority.
A deduction for benefit will take its place in that list. I cannot say exactly where it will be in the list because we are still considering the precise details. However, in principle, the deduction from income support as a contribution to maintenance will not take precedence over those expenses which would form part of exempt income for someone who is working and for which deductions from benefit can also be made. It will certainly come after housing and fuel bills.
We do not accept the suggestion that this provision is harsh. It is right that an absent parent's liability should be established. This proposal will ensure that a parent who is fit and able to work while receiving income support is honouring his responsibility for the maintenance of his children in the same way as anyone else. I hope, therefore, that my noble kinsman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for that reply. However, I cannot say that I am satisfied with it. I accept that he has a principle to offer; but most of us have more than one principle. The trouble with principles is that they tend to conflict with each other. What is interesting is what you do when they conflict. We entirely accept the principle that fathers should be responsible for their offspring. That is why we spelt out in our amendment that they should be "zero rated" and not that they should be exempt.
The trouble is that we think there is another principle involved. We believe that people in this country—which, after all, is not yet one of the poorest countries in the world—should not be allowed to fall below subsistence level. Therefore, if the principle that fathers should maintain their offspring brings them below that level, we are of the view that it is unduly single-minded to go ahead and pursue the matter.
I am simply not convinced by my noble kinsman's argument that income support is not a subsistence benefit. This is an issue to which we shall return frequently. It is necessary to point out that we on these Benches, others on this side of the House in general and, I believe, Members in some other quarters of this place, simply do not find that argument acceptable or persuasive.

595
I listened carefully to what my noble kinsman said about deductions. I thank him warmly for his offer to look into the 65 per cent. case. I shall undertake to see that he receives details of it. We are not convinced that a limitation of deductions to 15 per cent. is effective in all cases, or that the figure of 15 per cent. is acceptable. We believe that this is undercutting the social security system as a whole and bringing it into danger.
I have thought long and hard about what I want to do with the amendment. I have taken advice as to whether I should bring the matter back on Third Reading. I have received the advice that too much is brought back on Third Readings and that I would be unwise to do so. I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment and give way on the matter. I believe that the issue involved is too important. Similarly, I am not prepared to accept the principle that, if it is proper for the He use to be in Session, it is totally improper for the House to divide. In the circumstances, I believe that I nave no option but to seek the opinion of the House.
11.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 81) shill be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 27.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Faithfull B.

Russell, E.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Astor, V.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brabazor of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Ferrers, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gray, L.

Vinson, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Waddington, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Wynford, L.

Henley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.5 a.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 82:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Maintenance disregard for calculation of benefit entitlement
. Where the person with care is in receipt of income support, family credit or housing benefit or such other benefit as the secretary of State may prescribe, such a sum of maintenance as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State shall be disregarded in calculating that person's entitlement to any of these benefits.").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of the dozen voters for the Opposition, I wish to move Amendment No. 82. It deals with the disregard of maintenance for family credits. It was one of the sensible observations
596
of the White Paper that no useful purpose is to be served by taking one family off income support if one puts another family on to it.
If a father who has remarried does not receive a deduction for the maintenance that he pays in the calculation of family credits, then the second family will lose what the first family gains. It will become dependent on income support. There will be a disincentive to work and a good deal of hardship will be created. We think that the present system works reasonably well. As so often, I say to the Government, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not feel that there is much to add to what I said in Committee. As the noble Earl knows, we said that there would be maintenance disregard in housing benefit, community charge benefit, disability working allowance and family credit. In passing, I note that the movers have altered their amendment so as to include any other prescribed benefit, just as the Government did when drafting the Bill at some earlier stage. No doubt that was in order to include the disability working allowance. Presumably it would not have been included under the other amendment.
As I explained previously, we considered very carefully whether we should also introduce a maintenance disregard into the income support scheme; but we have concluded that we should not. If there were a maintenance disregard in income support, it would make it harder for the parent to be better off in work. She would need to earn a higher salary to be better off working than on income support. It could discourage her from taking the first steps into work and the achievement of greater independence which we know that parents want.
I wish to make two further points. First, as the House will know, the rules of these social security benefits are set out not in primary legislation but in regulations. The £15 maintenance disregard which the Government have announced will be introduced by amending those regulations, and not by amending primary legislation.
Secondly, it is right for the House to be aware of the not insignificant matter of cost. The extension of the £15 disregard to income support would cost an additional £180 million per year. Resources can only be finite and we believe that the best way to use available resources is to focus them on providing help to parents seeking to continue caring for their children with paid work. We feel that the £15 disregard in family credit, housing benefit, community charge benefit and disability working allowance will achieve this. I hope therefore my noble kinsman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate my noble kinsman on spotting the words concerning any benefit of a prescribed kind. I thank him for pointing that out and I shall try to be more careful in future. I cannot say that I am entirely convinced by the rest of his argument. On the point about costs, I wonder a little whether my noble kinsman has not thrown a boomerang because if those costs are not falling on the Government, they are falling on families who are not

597
going to be able to sustain them. That may carry a great many concealed costs which may be rather greater than those they would incur under the system we are proposing. I am well aware of the cost to the social security budget as I have spoken on that many times. My noble kinsman knows my proposed remedies for that so I shall not go into them at this time of night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Regulations and orders]:
12.15 a.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 26, line 20, after ("section") insert ("3(8)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and the next two amendments are concerned with parliamentary control of legislation in the form of regulations. It is deplorable that the business should be so arranged that we should be discussing something of this constitutional importance after midnight.
On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, informed us that there were 92 regulation-making powers in the Bill. That is far more than the number of clauses in the Bill. Of those only eight were subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. On examination one finds that no regard at all has been paid to what was laid down by the Joint Select Committee on delegated legislation of 1972 to 1973. The committee's recommendation had been accepted by both Houses. That is entirely consonant with the general bureaucratic spirit of this Bill. Your Lordships have today witnessed examples of the ouster of the courts. Here we come back again to the encroachment on parliamentary activity by the Executive.
At Committee stage I ventured to propose a number of amendments under this clause in order to extend the affirmative resolution procedure beyond the eight instances originally fixed. The Bill was already very odd, not merely numerically as I have just pointed out, but in addition the Scottish draftsman had obviously taken a much more proper constitutional view than the English draftsman instructed by the department. One found that in exact counterparts in the Scottish provision the affirmative resolution procedure applied whereas in the English provisions there was the usual downgrading.
I proposed a number of amendments to bring some of the provisions into line with the criteria that the Joint Select Committee had laid down. My noble and learned friend accepted one and was good enough to say that he would consider all the others. Unfortunately the result of that consideration has been almost entirely negative, apart from the case of the amendment that I am now moving. One is bound to point out that that is the minimum that could be conceded because the amendment refers to Clause 3(8), which, unless it was made affirmative, would be an absurd anomaly in relation to Clause 5(7) and Clause 6(7).
Turning to the other amendments, I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I merely go through
598
them quickly indicating the character of some of them and leaving it to my noble and learned friend, who is apparently not ready to accept them. to say how he can possibly reconcile that attitude with the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee which I brought to your Lordships' attention at Committee stage.
The first item is Clause 23(2) relating to the collection and enforcement of various orders for periodical payment, together with maintenance assessment collection. It is a Henry VIII clause, although not particularly objectionable. Being a Henry VIII clause it falls within the first of the criteria as being a matter of importance, which the Joint Select Committee defined negatively as something that was not trivial or transitional. In addition, it also falls within the second head, in that it involves a charge on the citizen.
Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 25 concern deductions from earnings orders. That again is not only a matter of intrinsic importance but also falls within the second financial head and ought to be in affirmative form.
The next item is is Clause 27(1), relating to liability orders, which again is a matter involving a charge on the citizen, to adopt the criterion of the Joint Select Committee.
The last but one is Clause 28(7). That again is a Henry VIII clause, so it should clearly be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It also concerns the stark remedy of distress, which is a mode of execution by self-help which the common law made subject to many safeguards, many of which have been swept away in the Bill for the convenience of bureaucratic order.
The last is Clause 31(3). I do not have a note of that one, but I ask my noble and learned friend to go through them. If he is not disposed to accept any of them, perhaps he will say why, applying the criteria of the Joint Select Committee, he can justify any such refusal. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I entirely accept the amendment. I have looked carefully at the other amendments to which my noble and learned friend has spoken and have concluded that, where they affect provisions of the Acts of Parliament, they do not substantially affect those provisions. I do not believe that they contain power to impose or increase taxation or other financial burdens on the subject; rather, they produce procedures under which already determined burdens are enforced. I do not think that any of them require that the affirmative resolution procedure should be applied to them. I am mindful that the Select Committee report commented that, if parent Acts require the affirmative procedure instead of the negative for instruments which are likely to be neither sufficiently important nor sufficiently controversial to justify such procedure, there may be needless consumption of parliamentary time.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my noble and learned friend said that he did not consider those provisions to be substantial without going on to apply the negative test that the Joint Select Committee

599
proposed. It said that anything was substantial which was not trivial or transitional. Obviously, a Henry VIII clause falls into that category. Obviously, the provisions about distress, deduction of earnings and liability orders affect the charge on the individual citizen
I confess that I am not surprised at the attitude of my noble and learned friend because it is entirely consistent with the general attitude that the department has displayed not only in presenting the Bill but in the brief given to Ministers on the various amendments.
In the meantime, I think that I am right to move the first amendment and to ask leave in due course, in view of the late hour and the figures at the recent Division, not to move the remaining amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 83A and 83AA not moved.]
Clause 39 [Interpretation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 27, line 7, at end insert:
(" "child support appeal tribunal" means a tribunal appointed under section (Child support appeal tribunals);").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Meaning of "child"]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 28, line 3, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to the definition of a child. I raised this mattter in Committee. The Bill defines a child and then goes on to say that:
"a person is not a child … if he—
"(a) is or has been married;
"(b) has celebrated a marriage which is void; or
"has celebrated a marriage in respect of which a decree of nullity has been granted".
I question in particular paragraph (a). My noble and learned friend justified it by saying that the subject, the person—who would be someone anywhere between the ages of 12, in Scotland, and 19, in England; anybody within that age who had married—had entered into a new family relationship. That is true. It is self-evident. What is not self-evident is that in acquiring a new family one discards the old one. In this country we do not practise a form of exogamy. We do not say, "Leave thy father and thy mother and the black tents of thy people". On the contrary, when a girl marries she normally remains in contact with her parents.
I suppose it could be said that when she marries she is playing her own part in the partnership, that she looks to her husband for support and that that should be taken to exonerate her father. I do not think that that is always true. But in any case it does not apply to the young husband. I do not know how that is justified.
However, I am not so much concerned with paragraph (a) as with paragraphs (b) and (c).
600
Paragraph (b) states that one is no longer a child if one has gone through a void marriage. I suppose that the one most likely in this context is a marriage that is void for non-age. Perhaps the two young people (the girl under the age of 16 being pregnant) go through a ceremony of marriage. One ought to note that such a marriage can take place validly so far as celebration is concerned. There is a law of celebration abroad, though it is probable but not certain that if one of the parties is domiciled in England the marriage is void.
If the marriage is void—and there are many reasons other than non-age why the marriage might be void—why does the person cease to be a child by statutory definition? The situation is even odder in the case of paragraph (c). So far as I can see the only case that can be covered by paragraph (c) which is not covered by paragraph (b) is a voidable marriage. The only argument that I can possibly think of is that in some cases a void marriage and voidable marriage give a claim to support from the other party to the void or voidable marriage. That will probably be exiguous in many circumstances. It seems to me that it would be sensible to expunge those two limitations and leave the marriage of the child as being sufficient to take the child out of the benefit of the Bill. I beg to move.
12.30 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor: As my noble and learned friend said, this matter was raised at Committee stage, and I endeavoured to persuade him then that this amendment was not needed. The point is that for the purposes of the Bill anyone who had married, whether or not that marriage was void or had subsequently been annulled, would not be regarded as an eligible child, even though they would otherwise qualify by virtue of their age. The thinking behind this is quite simple. If a person has undergone a ceremony of marriage, he or she may, irrespective of whether the legal status of the marriage had later been called into question, be regarded as having left the ambit of parental support and formed with her supposed spouse a new family unit in which it is primarily the other partner who should give any financial support that may be necessary. The fact that a supposed marriage is in law void or is subsequently declared to be null or void does not, as my noble and learned friend has appreciated, prevent the court from having jurisdiction to order inter-spousal maintenance under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Of course—this is an important point—this does not mean that such children are precluded from seeking maintenance against their parents from the courts. It will then be a matter for the courts, exercising their judicial power, to decide whether in such rare and very unusual circumstances the person should be maintained by the parents or alternatively by the supposed spouse. This is a case which is so exceptional that it would be quite unreasonable for the formula to deal with it. Therefore, it is right that in this case the formula should not apply.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will appreciate that we are not restricting the category of children about which he is concerned from being able to obtain maintenance. What we are doing is

601
excluding them from the provisions of this Bill because the Bill is intended to deal with what, by comparison with these, are reasonably straightforward cases. The circumstances we are now discussing are not straightforward and these seem to us to be appropriate cases for judicial determination.
I hope that in the light of this explanation my noble and learned friend will be prepared to withdraw Amendment No.86 and will not move Amendment No.87.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. He said that in the unusual circumstances the child would be able to claim maintenance against his father. I should be most grateful if my noble and learned friend could explain how that could be done. As I read Clause 7, the court was precluded from considering any such claim, and if it could not be made in a magistrates' court the jurisdiction of which has been excluded expressly by Clause 7, I cannot see how it could be made.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it can be done because the child in question is not a child for the purposes of this Bill. Therefore, the provision of Clause 7 to which my noble and learned friend refers does not apply to him or her.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I can conceive that a child in that position, if he is a child in Scotland, could claim against his father; but nobody has a right to claim maintenance against his father under the Matrimonial Causes Act merely because he is a child in the non-statutory sense and not defined by this Bill. It is true that the mother could claim on behalf of the child, but that is an entirely different case. However, at this hour I think it would be better if I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Clause 42 [Short title, commencement and extent, etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 88 to 90 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 29, line 17, at end insert:
("() No provision of this Act conferring a power to make regulations shall be brought into force until the relevant statutory instrument has been laid before Parliament").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to postpone the bringing into force of the various powers to make regulations until Parliament has seen those regulations. As your Lordships know, there is a vast regulation-making power. There were 92 occasions on Second Reading and now there are more owing to the government amendment. Some powers are wide and some are vague.
When debating Clause 33 my noble and learned friend refused an amendment which would have limited the all-embracing width of the general regulation-making power. Under those circumstances Parliament is being asked to surrender an extraordinary part of its traditional legislative power and
602
function. It is entirely reasonable that Parliament should be able to see what is intended—what the department has up its sleeve—by way of regulations. In Committee my noble and learned friend was inclined to say that that could not be done unless the power had been enacted. Earlier this evening I ventured to point out that that was inconsistent with the Government's concession on Clause 23 providing not only that Parliament should see the regulations but that your Lordships should see them before the Bill passes through this House. I venture to believe that my proposal is entirely consistent with the traditional parliamentary control and management of legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I support the amendment. I shall reserve any speech that I may make until the occasion of the Motion that the Bill do now pass. I pay a sincere tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who at twenty minutes to one o'clock is still addressing this House. He has done so on many occasions without the aid of notes. He has poured out a vast amount of industry in examining the provisions of the Bill and has been a great defender of the liberty of the subject and the privileges of Parliament. I pay that tribute from these Benches and believe that it will be shared by Members in all parts of this House. We should be so much the poorer without him.
Noble Lords: Hear, Hear.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I join the tribute paid to the noble and learned Lord. His contributions tonight have been magnificent. I too support his amendment. On many occasions I have attempted to pray against regulations only to find that although the praying days had not expired they had already come into force. That is like jumping the gun. The problem arises in particular when a Recess coincides with the days concerned. Those days count towards the days for the coming into force but not towards the praying days. When debating regulations we should like to find that they are not already in force. I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend suggested that something I said at one stage was in contradiction to something said on behalf of the Government by, I believe, my noble friend Lord Henley at another stage.
As I recollect the matter, as regards Clause 22 my noble friend indicated that by Third Reading we should be in a position to give more detail of what is proposed under that clause. However, that undertaking has been superseded by events as your Lordships put that clause from the Bill. Therefore, that relieved him of further work in that direction before Third Reading.
What I have said is rather different. I have said that until the statutory power has been finally defined as it is when Parliament passes the Act, it is impossible to say with certainty precisely what will be the terms of the statutory power. While we can sometimes give an indication of what we shall do, depending on what Parliament will do, we cannot always do that.

603
Strictly speaking, it is true that there cannot be a relevant statutory instrument under a power until the power exists. Accordingly, the amendment as proposed is not capable of being fulfilled strictly according to its terms.
One reason for wishing statutory power is often to take account of circumstances as they develop. Where possible we like to consult. The consultation should often proceed in the light of what Parliament has sought to confer. Therefore, I believe that a general provision of this kind is not suitable.
I join with those who have paid tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for the part that he has played in this Bill. He has been with us and has spoken of matters in considerable detail with great knowledge and expertise and it is now 20 minutes before one in the morning. I appreciate that greatly. I have shown already that some of the points he has raised we have been able to incorporate in the Bill, thereby improving it. That we cannot accept all his amendments may be more of a reflection on us than it.s on my noble and learned friend. However, I always consider carefully what he says.
I should add that my noble and learned friend has referred repeatedly to my briefings. I do not know how he knows what is in them. It must be a matter of speculation. I regard myself as responsible for decisions taken about a response to amendments proposed by your Lordships. I do not pass that responsibility to anybody else. I decide whether I am prepared to consider the amendment or what advice I give to your Lordships in the light of the arguments. It is not possible to know the strength of an amendment in this House until one has heard what is said in support of it. Therefore the advice which I am privileged to receive in advance of your Lordships' discussions does not always fully reflect the detailed argument presented by your Lordships in the course of proposing amendments although it is remarkable how often it does reflect it.
On that note, I warmly join with other noble Lords in commending my noble and learned friend Lord Simon although I cannot commend his amendment for acceptance by your Lordships.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Earl for supporting the amendment. I am also extremely grateful for the most generous words pronounced by my noble and learned friend. I hope that I am not ungracious when I say that I only wish that his enthusiasm had manifested itself in acceptance of a greater number of my amendments.
With regard to the subject matter of the amendment, my recollection is that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was quite specific that it would be the regulations under Clause 22 that your Lordships would see in draft before your Lordships gave a Third Reading to the Bill. Of course the regulations cannot be legally in final form until the power to make them has been passed. But what is important in a bureaucratic Bill such as this, unless it is going to drive a coach and horses through the constitution, is that
604
parliamentary control should at least be conceded in the form of showing Parliament what is proposed at the moment to be done by way of regulations.
I can only say—and again I fear it must appear to be ungracious after the generosity of my noble and learned friend—that the refusal of this amendment as well as of the last under Clause 37, is really the final bureaucratic nail being driven into our ancient constitution. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 29, line 21, after (" 2") insert ("and (in so far as it amends any enactment extending to Northern Ireland) Schedule 3").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this and Amendment No. 110 when moving Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 110:
Before Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE
Child Support Appeal Tribunals
The President
1.—(1) The person appointed under Schedule 10 to the Social Security Act 1975 as President of the social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals and disability appeal tribunals shall, by virtue of that appointment, also be President of the child support appeal tribunals.
(2) It shall be the duty of the President to arrange such meetings of the chairmen and members of child support appeal tribunals, and such training for them, as he considers appropriate.
(3) The President may, with the consent of the Secretary of State as to numbers, remuneration and other terms and conditions of service, appoint such officers and staff as he thinks fit for the child support appeal tribunals and their full-time chairmen.
Membership of child support appeal tribunals
2.—(1) A child support appeal tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two other persons.
(2) The chairman and the other members of the tribunal must not all be of the same sex.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) shall not apply to any proceedings before a child support appeal tribunal if the chairman of the tribunal rules that it is not reasonably practicable to comply with that sub-paragraph in those proceedings.
The chairmen
3.—(1) The chairman of a child support appeal tribunal shall be nominated by the President.
(2) The President may nominate himself or a person drawn—

(a) from the appropriate panel appointed by the Lord Chancellor, or (as the case may be) the Lord President of the Court of Session, under section 7 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971;

(b) from among those appointed under paragraph 4 to act as full-time chairmen; or

(c) from among those appointed under paragraph lA of Schedule 10 to the Social Security Act 1975 to act as full-time chairmen of social security appeal tribunals.

4.—(l) The Lord Chancellor may, after consultation with the Lord Advocate, appoint full-time chairmen for child support appeal tribunals.
(2) A person is qualified to be appointed as a full-time chairman if he has a 7 year general qualification (within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990) or is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of 7 year's standing.
(3) A person appointed to act as a full-time chairman shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment, except that he must vacate his office at the end of the completed year of service in which he reaches the age of 72 unless his appointment is continued under subparagraph (4).
(4) Where the Lord Chancellor, after consulting the Lord Advocate, considers it desirable in the public interest to retain a full-time chairman in office after the end of the completed year of service in which he reaches the age of 72, he may from time to time authorise the continuance of that person in office until any date not later than that on which that person reaches the age of 75.
(5) A person appointed as a full-time chairman may be removed from office by the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord Advocate, on the ground of misbehaviour or incapacity.
(6) Section 75 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (judges etc. barred from legal practice) shall apply to any person appointed as a full-time chairman under this Schedule as it applies to any person holding as a full-time appointment any of the offices listed in Schedule 11 to that Act.
(7) The Secretary of State may pay, or make such payments towards the provision of, remuneration, pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of persons appointed as full-time chairmen under this paragraph as, with the consent of the Treasury, he may determine.
Other members of child support appeal tribunals
5.—(1) The members of a child support appeal tribunal other than the chairman shall be drawn from the appropriate panel constituted under this paragraph.
(2) The panels shall be constituted by the President for the whole of Great Britain, and shall

(a) act for such areas; and

(b) be composed of such persons, as the President thinks fit.

(3) The panel for an area shall be composed of persons appearing to the President to have knowledge or experience of conditions in the area and to be representative of persons living or working in the area.
(4) Before appointing members of a panel, the President shall take into consideration any recommendations from such organisations or persons as he considers appropriate.
(5) The members of the panels shall hold office for such period as the President may direct.
(6) The President may at any time terminate the appointment of any member of a panel.
Clerks of tribunals
—(1) Each child support appeal tribunal shall be serviced by a clerk appointed by the President.
(2) The duty of summoning members of a panel to serve on a child support appeal tribunal shall be performed by the clerk to the tribunal.
Expenses of tribunal members and others
7 —(1) The Secretary of State may pay—

(a) to any member of a child support appeal tribunal, such remuneration and travelling and other allowances as the Secretary of State may determine with the consent of the Treasury;

(b) to any person required to attend at any proceedings before a child support appeal tribunal, such travelling and other allowances as may be so determined; and

606

(c) such other expenses in connection with the work of any child support appeal tribunal as may be so determined.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), references to travelling and other allowances include references to compensation for loss of remunerative time.
(3) No compensation for loss of remunerative time shall be paid to any person under this paragraph in respect of any time during which he is in receipt of other remuneration so paid.").
On Question, amendment agreed to
Schedule 3 [Consequential Amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 36, line 39, at end insert:
("The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 (c.62)
.—(1) In section 7(3) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 (chairmen of certain tribunals to be drawn from panels) after "paragraph" there shall be inserted "4A".
(2) In Schedule 1 to that Act (tribunals under the general supervision of the Council on Tribunals) the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place—

"Child support maintenance

4A. The child support appeal tribunals established under section (Child support appeal tribunals) of the Child Support Act 1991."")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 36, line 46, leave out from ("expenses") to end of line 1 on page 37.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, I shall move Amendment No. 112. It is a drafting amendment. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Bill inserts two new subsections to Section 4 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. By removing some superfluous wording the desired effect can be achieved within one new subsection. I believe that is an improvement. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 113 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 37, line 5, leave out ("In section 73(1) of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987") and insert:
("—(1) The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 1(5) (time to pay directions not competent in certain cases) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
"(cc) in connection with a liability order within the meaning of the Child Support Act 1991;".
(3) In section 15(3) (interpretation of Part I), in the definition of "decree or other document", after "maintenance order" there shall be inserted ", a liability order within the meaning of the Child Support Act 1991".
(4) In section 54(1) (maintenance arrestment to be preceded by default) in paragraph (c) for "the aggregate of 3 instalments" there shall be substituted "one instalment".
(5) In section 73(1)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, again on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser

607
of Carmyllie, I shall move Amendment No. 114. I should perhaps briefly deal with the effects of the different parts of the amendment.
The first two parts of the amendment—those to Sections 1(5) and 15(3) of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987—concern the time to pay arrangements introduced by that Act. The amendment will mean that it will not be possible for the absent parent to apply to the court for either a time to pay direction (at the time the court makes the liability order) or a time to pay order (after enforcement action on the liability order has started). That is the present position with court orders for maintenance.
The third part of the amendment will reduce from three payments in arrears to one the level of default needed before a current maintenance arrestment can he put into operation. That will enable a maintenance creditor to act swiftly as soon as there is default to secure payment of the maintenance from the debtor's earnings. It will be particularly helpful where the payments are due monthly or less frequently.
There can be cases where non-payment has been inadvertent on the part of the debtor. Retaining a default requirement but reducing it will assist those debtors who, through oversight, fail to respond immediately on receipt of the notice by the creditor that the court has made a maintenance order against him. The reduction in the level of default required before a maintenance creditor can instruct a current
608
maintenance arrestment should minimise the amount of arrears which could build up and should act as spur to regular and prompt payment.
The last part of the amendment is a minor drafting amendment to remove a superfluous reference to the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 37, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 19.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Harris Tweed Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Adelphi Estate Bill
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons on Friday last agreed to with amendments. The amendments printed pursuant to Standing Order.
House adjourned at nine minutes before one o'clock.