COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 22 July 1991)

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. Clause 6 is concerned with cases where the caring parent is in receipt of social security income-related benefits. We have made clear on many occasions that we think it right that a caring parent in this situation should normally co-operate with the child support agency in obtaining maintenance from the absent parent. Not to do so places a heavier burden on taxpayers, many of whom have children of their own to bring up.
We have also made clear on many occasions that we recognise that there will be cases where it would be unreasonable to require a parent with care to comply with the provisions of this clause. We spent some considerable time on this aspect of the clause when the Bill was with us at an earlier stage in its passage through Parliament. Noble Lords may recall that, when debating at Third Reading what should constitute good cause for parents with care not to comply with the obligations imposed on them by this clause, I said we were considering bringing forward an amendment which provided for exemption from the requirement to co-operate where we were reasonably satisfied that the consequences of seeking maintenance would be a risk of harm or undue distress to the caring parent or her children. I gave an assurance to this House that I would recommend to my right honourable friend in another place that such an amendment should be put before another place if at all possible. I am glad to tell the House that suitable wording was found which resulted in the amendment now before us. At this stage I pay particular thanks to my noble kinsman Lord Russell who took a keen interest in this matter. His contribution has been well-considered and very helpful. I am sure that, although he is still not fully in accord with our aims in this area, he feels that we have moved some considerable way towards meeting some of the concerns he put forward. I commend the amendment to the House.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, I welcome the amendment. I thank my noble kinsman for the efforts he has put into bringing it about.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, I too welcome the amendment. I wish to make a couple of short points about it. There have to be reasonable grounds before the Secretary of State decides not to require the person to give him authorisation. The reasonable grounds are amplified by adding the words, if … there would be a risk of her, or of any child living with her, suffering harm or undue distress". One can imagine circumstances in which the absent parent threatened that unless the authorisation were withdrawn, she would suffer. He would see to it that she did suffer in some way or another. In other words, he would threaten her. Obviously, it would be wrong to anticipate decisions of the court when we say that there should be "reasonable grounds". No doubt the Government thought about that and satisfied themselves that if there has been a threat from the absent parent, with the fear of distress, that would not be reasonable grounds. It would mean that the Secretary of State was conniving at a threat and that would be wrong.
The other matter is a purely drafting point. The amendment states, shall not require a person ('the parent')". The further references are to the parent. It would have been better drafted if the amendment simply read, shall not require the parent and left out the words "a person". I suppose it is now too late to put that right.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for the purpose of clarifying something which may be of concern to the House. This is a risk which "she" has to run or any child living with her. I have taken it for granted—and I should like the Minister to help me on this point and to tell me if I am right or wrong—that as this is a discretionary power vested in the Secretary of State, any child affected by this decision would be covered because of the Commons Amendment No. 1 that we dealt with earlier. The reason I say that is that the wording of this amendment limits the matter to any child living with "her". We could think of many cases. One such case, for example, is that one of the children of both parents is living with the father. There could be a risk of harm to that child or some damage sustained by that child at the hands of the father if this authorisation is given. I am taking this point for granted which is why no amendment was put down. Bearing in mind that this is an exercise of discretion that the interest of any child will be taken into account, will the noble Lord confirm that I am right?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to point out that the amendment relates to any child living with "her". The noble Lord makes a very valid point that it might be another of her children living, as he suggests, with the father and she might fear for that other child's safety. I hope very much that since we have considered the first two amendments 513 today that that would be a matter that the child support officer would take into consideration when reaching a decision under this new subsection.
My noble friend asked about reasonableness, and what kind of evidence one would expect to be produced before the child support officer made his decision on good cause. If there is some corroborative evidence life for the child support officer would be a lot easier, and any corroborative evidence would be welcome. However, the absence of such evidence will not mean that a claim for good cause will automatically fail when we expect that quite often the only evidence available will be the statement of the caring parent. The noble Lord might know of an existing commissioner's decision, which I mentioned at a 1 earlier stage of the Bill, which stated that in the absence of supporting evidence, the claimant's words should be accepted unless it is inherently implausible or inconsistent. That is the approach that will be used here. I beg to move.