HL Deb 22 July 1991 vol 531 cc506-11

4 Clause 4, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (2).

5 Page 3, line 2, leave out from 'can' to 'to', in line 4, and insert 'comply with such regulations as may be made by the Secretary of State with a view to the Secretary of State or the child support officer being provided with the information which is required—'.

6 Page 3, line 8, leave out 'child support maintenance' and insert 'amount'.

7 Page 3, line 9, leave out from 'parent' to end of line 12.

8 Page 3, line 25, at end insert: '( ) No application may be made under this section if there is in force with respect to the person with care and absent parent in question a maintenance assessment made in response to an application under section 6.'.

9 Clause 6, page 3, line 43, after '(b)', insert 'she'.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 en bloc. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 15 to 18. These are all minor drafting or technical amendments which improve or tighten up the wording of Clauses 4, 6 and 7.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 en bloc.—(Lord Henley.)

Lord Renton

My Lords, it seems to me that Amendment No. 18 contains a mistake. If your Lordships look at page 5, line 30, it can be seen that we are invited to put in a new paragraph (a) after the word "section" in line 30. However, if that happens it will have a very strange result. It will mean that the words in brackets: but subject to any regulations made under subsection (8)", which seem to be an essential part of the present subsection (6), would be postponed until after the new paragraph (a), to which those words in brackets are not relevant.

Therefore, instead of reading, as Amendment No. 18 does, page 5, line 30, after 'section' insert", it should read: page 5, line 31, at end insert", and then the new paragraph (a) should be inserted. That makes sense.

I do not know if anything can be done to correct what appears to be a clear mistake in the Commons amendment. However, it shows the importance of giving time to consider them. I have not been able to go beyond the next page in my considerations so I am unlikely to be making any further constructive and helpful points. I shall be unable to point out any more mistakes, if there are any. Surely this is a mistake which by hook or by crook—if those are not unfortunate words—should somehow be corrected.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I take the point which my noble friend makes. I spoke to a group of amendments. Perhaps we may take Amendment No. 18 separately when we reach it. I shall then be able to answer my noble friend.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, what should we do without the eagle eye of the noble Lord, Lord Renton? I have said that before and I say it again. When the Minister is considering the very important point raised by the noble Lord, and since we are dealing also with Amendment No. 9, because we have all been trying very hard to remove otiose words from statutes, will he tell me why we must insert the word "she" in Amendment No. 9 at page 3, line 43?

If the Minister will look at page 3 line 43, he will see that it clearly states, referring to the parents of a qualifying child, she shall, if—(a) she is a person with the care of the child; and (b) is required to do so by the Secretary of State, authorise the Secretary of State". Why in the name of heaven—if I may ask that without being profane—does one need the word "she" repeated? As an amendment coming from another place to this House that seems to be a little pitiful.

Lord Renton

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, bearing in mind the contents of the Interpretation Act, the word "he" would have been just as appropriate if that was to be inserted.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, we are dealing also with Amendment No. 5. I desire merely to draw to your Lordships' attention that that is one of the many amendments which add regulation-making powers to the Bill. When it came before your Lordships originally, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, counted 92 regulation-making powers. When it left your Lordships' House considerably more bureaucratised, there were 100. We are now adding more. When the matter came before Standing Committee A, the Minister, who conducted the proceedings with great ability, said that things were not as bad as they seemed, referring to the 100-odd regulations. Some were procedural; some had something to do with the formula.

I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on more than one occasion attempting to obtain the Minister's computation. I finally released him from answering until the end of the Recess because it never occurred to me that we should be dealing with the Bill today. Therefore he is exonerated from blame for not answering my last letter. However, before we conclude the consideration of the Commons' amendments, I should like to know what the computation is regarding the number of regulation-making powers and whether or not he can give the breakdown that I asked for in my last letter.

My other point concerns the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. If I may say so the noble Lord, Lord Renton, slightly misapprehended what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, meant. It is not a question to be resolved by the Interpretation Act. It is a purely grammatical point. I am glad that it was raised because it was a point that I found puzzling—why, from a grammatical point of view, it was necessary to insert "she" at that point.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I shall start with Amendment No. 18. I told my noble friend that I would wait until we reached that amendment but I have received advice and the amendment is correct. The last few words in subsection (6) will be the concluding words of the new subsection (6A).

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may say that he deals with the point succinctly but with little clarity. Perhaps he will concentrate on the words in the amendment tabled by another place, which read, Page 5 line 30, after 'section', insert". Perhaps the Minister, with myself and the noble Lord, Lord Renton—if I may say that with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton—will look at page 5, line 30. The word "section" is the third word in the line. Does the Minister seriously suggest to the House that we are asked to insert, after the word "section" in that line, right in the middle of subsection (6), subsection (6A) which states, It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to comply with any request made under subsection (6)", and then to continue with the words in brackets, but subject to any regulations made under subsection (8)"? Is that the intention?

Lord Renton

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I think one should add that if we were to do that we would have the strange situation of having two subsections followed by some words in brackets which apparently were not intended to be included in any subsection.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I am sorry, but both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, are wrong. The words in brackets move to the end of the new subsection (6A). Subsection (6A) comes in after "section"; the words in brackets follow as the end of the new subsection (6A) and we then continue on with subsection (7). It is absolutely clear and I think that both noble Lords may be a little mischievous in trying to imply a lack of clarity on this occasion.

Lord Renton

My Lords, before my noble friend continues we must get the position right. If what he says is so, will he explain whether the words in brackets at the end of subsection (6) are intended, as would be the result if they come at the end of subsection (6A), to refer only to subsection (6A) and no longer to refer to subsection (6), to which they did appear to refer?

Baroness Elles

My Lords, perhaps I too may intervene. Surely one of the difficulties is the way in which the amendment has been drafted. The bracket in line 30, which states, but subject to any regulations made under subsection (8)", will now read, but subject to any regulations made under subsection (9)". It would be much clearer if the amendment had been tabled more fully in order to explain the change. Subsections (7) and (8) will presumably become subsections (8) and (9) under the new format of subsection (6A) becoming subsection (7).

Lord Henley

My Lords, my noble friend appreciates that the numbering will change but the word s, but subject to any regulations made under subsection (8)", will be attached to subsection (6A) rather than to subsection (6) and will refer to what is now subsection (8). Once renumbered, they will obviously be subsections (6), (7), (8) and (9). I believe that is quite clear.

Perhaps I may turn to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. The noble and learned Lord said that I had not replied to his last letter. I am not quite sure which his last letter was.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I exonerated the Minister because there were so many letters succeeding one another rapidly when I found that we were taking the business today. He is not to blame in respect of the last letter, though I did feel that there was a certain amount of evasion and shuffling in relation to the first two letters I wrote attempting to understand what the Under-Secretary meant in Standing Committee A.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I totally accept that I am not to blame because I did reply to that letter. I replied to it on 11th July. The noble and learned Lord wrote again sometime just before last weekend and asked why he had not received a reply. For that I am not to blame and can only attach partial blame to the Post Office. Copies of the reply of 11th July were again sent last Friday on the signature of my private secretary.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister's private secretary. I received the earlier letter but it crossed a letter of mine.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord accepts that I replied to what amount to his last letter. Since then a subsequent letter arrived this morning to which I shall reply in due course. It may be helpful if I read a short extract from the litter of 11th July to the noble and learned Lord, in case he has not read it. It relates to the question of regultion-making powers and whether or not they are procedural. It is always going to be possible to argue that a specific regulation-making power is or is not procedural. It is also the case that some of the regulation-making powers could be viewed as both procedural and the formula' or as both procedural and 'information gathering'. As this is so much a question of judgment, I do not think it helpful to count up the powers as you suggest. We are, I would suggest. likely to disagree over any definitions chosen. I am sure you would argue that there would not be merit in a debate on the question of definitions. Such an exercise would necessarily involve a heavy commitment of time on the part of lawyers and administrators here". I hope that that will satisfy the noble and learned Lord.

6 p.m.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. I was trying to find out what the Under-Secretary meant when he said 20 were procedural. There were then another few which I believe was double counting. One can argue a great deal about was is procedural. I felt that I was being shuffled off in being told that there was a difficulty over definition. I wanted to know what the department's computation was.

Lord Henley

My Lords, as I said, I do not believe that it would serve any purpose to try to count up the number or decide which were procedural and which were information-gathering. I cannot go beyond what I said in the letter. There remains one last point which was raised by noble Lords concerning this group of amendments. I refer to Amendment No. 9 inserting the word "she". I hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would accept that it improves the grammar and clarifies the point. However, I have obviously failed to do so. I do not accept that the word is otiose.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I rise again to say that the noble Lord the Minister is always courteous and endeavours to help the House. I wish that he would not use words like "mischievous" as regards any of us who are trying to help with this Bill and to better it. The way in which we have all participated on all sides of your Lordships' House during the past sessions of the Bill—tribute was paid to us very generously by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—shows that none of us deserves criticism of that kind. Our criticism is meant honestly and not to create mischief.

Having said that, will the Minister explain why it is abundantly clear what the clause means and what is its subject matter—that is to say, the parent—before one uses the word "she", which is repeated in the lines before the amendment? The noble Lord may well say, "Please get a move on because it does not much matter". I do not mind that. I object that the noble Lord does not seek to explain the reason for the amendment coming to us from the other place saying that we should insert the word "she" in order to make the matter clear. The matter is abundantly clear without it and it is tautologous to repeat the word "she".

Lord Henley

My Lords, I am the first to apologise to the noble Lord for accusing him of mischievousness. I know that he would never behave in that manner in this House. I shall try to remind him if he should ever forget himself and so do. As I said in introducing this group of amendments, they are largely drafting amendments to improve the clarity. Obviously, the noble Lord does not agree with me, but I continue to say that it improves the clarity to insert the word "she" before the clause in order to re-emphasise the fact that "she" is the subject of the clause. Obviously the noble Lord does not accept that. On this occasion I believe that the word improves the clarity.

On Question, Motion agreed to.