COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 22 July 1991)

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. In moving this amendment, I should like also to take Amendments Nos. 23 and 100.
The purpose of this new clause is to deal with what happens where a court maintenance order or maintenance agreement exists in relation to a child when the agency makes an assessment in relation to him. The clause replaces subsection (8) of Clause 8, and Amendment No. 21 removes that particular subsection. Amendment No. 100 adds the definition of maintenance agreement to the interpretation clause, Clause 45.
In particular, the regulations under this clause may provide that the order or agreement shall cease to have effect or be modified to the extent provided by the regulations. That is to ensure that the individual is not expected to pay twice in respect of the same liability.
The remaining matters dealt with in the new clause are of a technical and procedural nature concerning the relationship between court orders and maintenance agreements and maintenance assessments, and the relationship between the courts and the agency when the provisions of the Bill come into force.
We said in the White Paper that children who have existing court orders for child maintenance who come within the provisions of this Bill should eventually be able to benefit from the dedicated tracing and assessment services which the agency will provide, including, importantly, the regular review of circumstances. This new clause will provide for that to happen. I commend the amendments and the new clause to the House.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, the House will appreciate the noble and learned Lord's explanation, especially in regard to Amendment No. 23 which is a very long new clause. I shall not delay the House on this occasion or indeed wrestle with the patience of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, I can tell him that the profession is a little anxious about the flexibility and to some extent the vagueness of the clause in regard to the regulations that may be made. I am intimating this to the noble and learned Lord as he may wish to take some opportunity of explaining exactly how the regulations are expected to turn out even before they happen. He may find that the profession will be only too anxious to discuss the ambit of this clause with him.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, the new clause in Amendment No. 23 is long, complicated and has considerable implications for the making of subordinate legislation. It is just the situation that arises 519 under the clause that makes one regret that one simply has not had a chance to work it through. One appreciates the explanation given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. As so often is the case, it was given at a speed faster than my mind can register. There it is. In the circumstances, we are being asked to accept it.
The new clause is headed: Relationship between maintenance assessments and certain court orders and related matters". That, in itself, indicates the very wide scope of the clause and its implications. If my noble and learned friend can give us a really clear idea of how these regulations are likely to work out in practice, I believe that it would be most helpful.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I can explain—although I thought I had already done so—the purpose of the clause. It is to give us a power to link the new agency and its powers with existing court orders. The last thing we want is for the same liability to be covered twice. It is a difficult and detailed matter to say which applies. Obviously the agency will not want to take over the whole burden at once. There are a large number of maintenance obligations in question. We have to do this in such a way that the system will continue to work. One of the difficulties of making such changes is that we must do so while the existing system continues to work.
I readily undertake to ensure that the Government will discuss the details of these regulations with the profession. Obviously, we want to have very wide consultations about precisely how this should be done. My own view at present is that it should happen in stages by reference to some criterion, such as the age of the child. I believe that that would be a reasonable way of doing it because it would give an indication of the period during which an agreement has to run. We are not wedded to any particular method. However, I underline the fact that this is an extremely difficult problem. In principle, what we want to achieve is simple; but the detail of it is quite difficult. I do not think that I can enlighten my noble friend any further on precisely how we shall approach the matter. We shall want to engage in quite detailed consultations on these matters before we make a decision.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I should like to express my gratitude for his further explanation. However, when he says that there will be consultations with the profession can we assume that these will not only take place with the Law Society (which is deeply involved) and perhaps with the Bar Council, but also, in particular, with the Family Law Bar Association?

§ The Lord Chancellor
Certainly, my Lords; I intend to include them very distinctly "in the profession" in regard to this particular matter.