Lords Sitting of 14 March 1991

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Unemployment Figures
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total number of people unemployed on the latest date for which a figure is available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in February 1991 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 1,977,200.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is it not the case that it was announced today on the radio that the figure is over 2 million? Be that as it may, is the Minister aware that the figure for the unemployed that he has just given us is an affront to a decent civilised society? Will he confirm that there have now been 11 consecutive monthly increases in that total? Before we hear the usual fairy tale about how much better off we are in this country than in other countries, will the Minister say whether there is any truth in recent statements that the long-term unemployed are to be placed on temporary community work projects and that the half million people involved will be taken off the total of unemployed?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord may suggest that it is an affront to this country to have so many people unemployed, but as I believe I said to him this time last month, all increases in unemployment are regrettable. No one should underestimate the difficulties which unemployment can cause for the individuals concerned and their families. However, the latest set of figures does not change the fact that the United Kingdom still compares favourably as regards unemployment with the European Community. As to the long-term unemployed, this is the first time that the figure for the long term, with an increase of 17,000, has risen since January 1986. The noble Lord's other question is pure speculation.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, has the noble Viscount observed what can be described as an odd coincidence? For example, on television's Oracle it is seen that when there is a surge in unemployment there is also a surge in the Financial Times or the Stock Exchange index. I have observed that on many previous occasions. If this apparent conflicting coincidence cannot be explained, will the Government examine it to see what grounds there are for it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the City has anticipated what will happen next. That
286
means that they have confidence in this Government. Inflation is now falling, interest rates will fall and on the back of that new jobs will be created.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, did the noble Viscount read the result of a recent survey carried out by the Amalgamated Engineering Union? It was to the effect that between 1st January and 14th February this year 33,600 manufacturing jobs were lost. That is a rate of 1,000 for every working day, and is continuing. Does he recall that when we questioned his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Young, we were told that these were unreal jobs which would be replaced by real jobs? Does the noble Viscount still say that these are in the category of unreal jobs?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, employment is now 11/2 million more than in 1979. Those jobs which have been lost in manufacturing industry do not counter the fact that manufacturing output is much higher than it was then. Manufacturing employment peaked as far back as 1966. The decline reflects structural change in the modern economy as the service industry has grown. In recent years some jobs previously carried out in manufacturing have been subcontracted to the service industries.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise how the first two supplementary questions from the Opposition answered each other? If it is an affront to society, it is an affront to society all over the world because the world is in recession. Is not the Stock Exchange giving an indication that in its view there is less reason to feel affronted in this country than in most others?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend has repeated a great deal of what I said in answer to the first two supplementary questions.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the figures provided by him today understate the true number of people employed by approximately 1 million? That has been confirmed by a working party established by the Bank of England. Is he aware that the real figure for the unemployed in the country at the moment is nearer 3 million?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the answer is no. The consistent seasonally adjusted unemployment series gives a comparable assessment of trends over time. The Government have nothing to hide on that.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, whatever the true figures may be, do not those released today accentuate the need for the Government to consider introducing special measures to alleviate the plight particularly of young people for whom no work is available?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, on a previous occasion I explained to the noble Lord that the Government have a large training programme both for those who have been out of work for some time and for our young people. Even today, the Department of Employment has issued a new guide to assist those people to find work who are now unemployed.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, am I right that when the unemployment figures start to fall, the noble Lord. Lord Dormand of Easington, will not ask his monthly Question?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I hope it will not be long before we find out.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Viscount mentioned that unemployment figures in this country are lower than in the EC. Is he aware that this country alone within the EC has, over the past 10 years, had a £100 billion bonus from North Sea oil? Investment in British manufacturing industry was mentioned by the Select Committee on Science and Technology under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. Had that money been invested in British manufacturing industry and on unemployment in this country instead of being squandered abroad, our manufacturing industry would be much stronger and unemployment would be much lower. Is that not the case?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we are straying a long way from the Question on the Order Paper. Investment rose to a record level in 1990. Investment in manufacturing industry increased.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figure for unemployed males is disproportionately high? In many areas male unemployment is very high. In certain areas of Glasgow, for example, it is as high as 26 per cent. In Liverpool it is 33 per cent. Even in certain areas of London—for example, Hackney—it is about 16 per cent. The overall figures are reduced because of a much lower figure for female unemployment. However, that is largely due to a proliferation of part-time jobs. Will the Minister comment on those figures as the male unemployment levels reflect a pretty dire situation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, one must go back a little in time to consider this matter. Previously the figure for female employment was much lower than it is at the moment. There has been an increase in the available number of part-time jobs.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since this Administration came to power the method of assessing unemployment statistics has been changed no fewer than 30 times? Will the Minister say whether the figures would have been greater or smaller on each of those occasions? The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked me when I would stop asking the Government about unemployment. I shall do so when unemployment reaches the level that it was when the Labour Government left office; that is, 1.3 million.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe I have answered the noble Lord. The consistent seasonally adjusted unemployment series gives a trend in unemployment. That has been consistent throughout the period the noble Lord referred to.

Heliports: Planning Control
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with existing provisions under planning law for the control of heliports; and what plans they have to strengthen protection against nuisance caused by helicopters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, we are generally satisfied with the existing provisions under planning law for the control of heliports. The Government are considering whether to strengthen protection against nuisance from helicopters. We are taking into account the recommendations made in the report of the Noise Review Working Party 1990.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she not agree that there is a great deal of public anxiety from a safety point of view, particularly in London, about helicopters flying over metropolitan areas? There is also great anxiety about helicopter pads that are used for fewer than 28 days a year as they do not appear to require adequate planning controls.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure on what basis the noble Lord makes his remarks as regards the level of anxiety felt about this matter. The Battersea heliport is up and running. Wandsworth permits 12,000 helicopter movements a year from that heliport. My understanding is that only seven complaints were received about noise nuisance caused by movements from that heliport.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I declare an interest in this matter as an employee of a consortium that is trying to develop a heliport in London. I am also a helicopter pilot. Does not my noble friend agree that a balance must be struck in general terms between the genuine aspirations of those who use helicopters for business purposes and the environmental worries? Is my noble friend aware that there are encouraging prospects of further reducing the noise made by helicopters?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am aware that a great many attempts are being made to reduce the noise from helicopters. I understand helicopters are a lot quieter than they were, and that it is possible to adapt flying techniques to reduce noise. Considerable work is being carried out by industry to develop new tail rotor systems and types of main rotor blades which will provide adequate performance and reduced noise levels. Research is continuing to advance the work in this area.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, while bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has just said about a balance being struck, will the Minister assure us on this point? Will the balance be tilted towards

289
benefits for the environment and for citizens rather than towards benefits for the small number of people who wish to use helicopters?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is for the planning system to strike that balance. However, in advance of any changes, Recommendation No. 30 of the Noise Review Working Party's report has already been adopted. I understand that the body submitting the latest application for helicopter movements in London has conducted a noise survey under the terms of the new provisions of Recommendation No. 30 of the working party's report.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, notwithstanding the implications of the previous question, will the Government bear in mind the fact that the maintenance of London's position as a major commercial and financial centre, both of Europe and the world, depends very much on adequate heliport facilities being available so that businessmen in helicopters can get into London conveniently?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The Government believe that helicopters and heliports have an important part to play in an overall transport system. They are particularly important in ensuring that London maintains its prime position not only as a capital city but also as a financial and business centre. That is especially important in the lead up to 1992 and the single market.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as regards the Minister's response to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will she remind the House that the application for the City of London heliport was not only objected to by many individuals who will be the neighbours of the proposed heliport, but also by the London borough of Southwark—and, overwhelmingly, by the City corporation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that that application is sub judice. There has been a full inquiry and all the objections that have been made have been taken fully into account. No doubt a report on the matter will eventually be given to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State who will have to consider both the objections and the comments of those who believe in the importance and significance of heliports being part of the strategy for London.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is no case for the development of the helicopter industry for tourist use in national parks?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that question is wide of the Question on the Order Paper. It is the subject of another Question. If the noble Lord cares to table that Question, I shall answer it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as regards the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is it not true that the need for helicopters has arisen purely because the rest of the transport system is so bad and gummed up?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not accept that. All forms of transport have a part to play in a major capital city. I strongly believe that heliports will assist world financial and business centres. Helicopters also have a very important role to play in medical emergencies which arise as a result of major accidents. That was seen very clearly yesterday.

Community Charge: Future
3.17 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now abolish the community charge.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, the Government are carrying out a thorough review of local government functions, structure and finance. We will announce our conclusions soon.
Lord Jay: My Lords, as this flagship of the Government's policy has so far produced nothing but confusion, hardship, injustice and huge administrative cost, should not the Government now shake themselves out of their present paralysis of indecision?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, there is no paralysis of indecision. People asked for a thorough review and that is what they are getting. When we are ready to announce our conclusions, we shall do so.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as one of those who took a slightly dim view of the community charge when it was introduced, I congratulate my noble and right honourable friends on this review as there is joy at sinners who repent. Furthermore, while the Government are repenting of their actions, it is absolutely right that they should thoroughly assess the position. There is nothing wrong with big people occasionally admitting that they have made mistakes: in fact, it is to their credit.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thought I was going to agree with the second part of my noble friend's remarks. I agreed with nothing in the first part and half of the second. This is not a matter of repentance. People have asked for a thorough review and that is what they are getting. We are learning from experience. I can speak only from experience of my part of the world where profligate spending by Labour local authorities has made the sale of a new form of financing local government much more difficult. That sale would have been a lot easier if those authorities had behaved responsibly.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord expand on that reply and say who asked for the review? I cannot recall any of us calling for a review. We asked for abolition of the poll tax; that is a different matter altogether. The people of Ribble Valley did not ask for a review; they too asked for abolition. Who asked for a review?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I cannot speak for the noble Lord, but I know perfectly well that in the autumn of last year people were calling for a thoroughgoing review. Incidentally, when the

291
Government said that they were prepared to carry out a thoroughgoing review, every party apart from the Labour Party said that they were prepared to help in that review.
Lord Monson: My Lords, whatever system is brought in to replace the poll tax in its present form, does the noble Lord agree that it is vital that it incorporates some financial disincentive to voting for extravagant and wasteful local authorities? Does he also agree that such a financial disincentive should apply to everyone on the voters' roll and not merely to householders?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will note what the noble Lord said. I can only repeat that profligate authorities have made it very difficult indeed to convince people that the community charge is the right form of tax. If one looks down the list of authorities and compares the performance of Labour authorities with other authorities throughout the country one finds that the Labour authorities have imposed far higher community charges.
Earl Russell: My Lords, have the Government considered the possibility that should they decide to announce the abolition of the community charge, rates of non-payment may regrettably increase? Are they therefore prepared to consider how to ensure that when a new system is introduced charges should not be artificially inflated by a burden of past debt?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Earl is entirely right that in deciding on a new system one has to have regard to the ease or difficulty of payment. Some very wild statements have been made recently. A statement was made yesterday to the effect that £1.4 billion would be saved if there was a better rate of payment. That sum pales into insignificance when one looks at the additional spending by local authorities in the past year. One would save £38 in community charge if one pushed up the collection rate but one has already lost £61 as a result of additional spending by Labour authorities.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that those who are sincere, and I am sure that we all are, in desiring to reduce unemployment will include among their highest priorities consideration of the fact that local government profligacy is a disincentive to starting new businesses in a particular area?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is entirely right. One has only to look at what has happened in Wandsworth and in Lambeth and compare the community charge in the two authorities. If Wandsworth had received from central government the same amount as has been received in Lambeth, Wandsworth would have given a dividend this year rather than levying a community charge.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, why did the Government, having experienced a total disaster in Scotland where
292
3.8 million people did not pay the community charge in the first year of its introduction, still consider it important to introduce it into England and Wales?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I cannot accept that when the English legislation was introduced it was apparent that the poll tax was a disaster in Scotland. I know that in my own part of the world profligate spending by Labour authorities has made selling the community charge increasingly difficult. I suspect that something similar happened in Scotland.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as I happen to live in Wandsworth may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House if he is aware of the fact that the present council is highly unsatisfactory and is denying the residents of Wandsworth the services which are common elsewhere? Will he also recognise that if the electors of Wandsworth dislike what is happening they can dismiss the council? Will he also recognise that if they obtain the same rights towards Members of this House we might be decimated?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the councillors in Wandsworth do not seem to be very unpopular with the electorate, judging by the way the electorate voted in Wandsworth last year.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with reference to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, about Scotland, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that during the first year and a half of its collection in Scotland the community charge was beginning to be accepted quite well and that in the second year there was a modest increase in the charge? Does he agree that it was only in the past year, when the massive campaign against the principle of the community charge and the non-payment campaign were under way in England and local authorities in Scotland threatened an average increase of 29 per cent. for this year, people in Scotland began to get worried?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I should forbear to comment because I do not know as much as I ought to know about what has happened in Scotland. I can draw only on my own experience. I know that an extra charge on the community charge as a result of non-payment by others is very unpopular. I hope that all those who are involved in public life who have not paid their community charge will be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for heaping unnecessary burdens on others.
Lord Denham: My Lords, there is one more Question to come and the House has now decided that 30 minutes is the absolute limit for Questions. It is only fair to leave five minutes for the last Question.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that there are still six minutes remaining. Is not one of the difficulties facing the Government that the poll tax was introduced deliberately in order to benefit Conservative voters and that any fairer alternative will cause howls of anguish from those Conservative voters?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, that is demonstrably untrue, even if one looks only at the experience of Wandsworth and compares it with the experience in the neighbouring authority of Lambeth, where the problems are very similar.

Criminal Law Appeal Procedure
3.27 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the concern expressed by leading lawyers and the public at large concerning the appeal procedure in the criminal law, and specifically concerning the Court of Appeal, they will bring in legislation for reform, or set up a Royal Commission to inquire into these matters.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are considering carefully how those concerns should be addressed. Although the Question does not refer specifically to the case presently being heard by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division it is clear that there is a very clear connection. We consider that it would therefore be very unwise for us to express our intentions on how those concerns should be addressed until the court intimates the result it has reached in that case.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I specifically did not mention any case in my Question? Does he acknowledge that there have unfortunately been many cases of miscarriage of justice which have already been decided and deliberated upon, and that eminent lawyers such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, have made pronouncements about the need for reform and for a commission? Does the noble and learned Lord not think it appropriate to make a definite statement of policy at long last? If not, is he saying that immediately after the present case is concluded it would be his intention to make a statement?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the noble Lord's Question does not refer to the case which is pending. I acknowledge that. However, the matters are clearly connected with the case which is pending and therefore we consider it unwise to express our intentions until that case is concluded. Obviously, when the case is concluded that obstacle to expressing our intentions will have been removed and the answer will be different.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Child Support Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Agricultural, Fishery and Aquaculture Products (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1991, the Second Reading of the City of Bristol (Portishead Docks) Bill and the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1991 will be taken.

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the chair.]
Clauses 1 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Variation of rent]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 9, line 22, leave out ("subsections (9) and (10)") and insert ("subsection (9)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a purely typographical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Right to compensation for improvements]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 20, line 23, after ("(2)") and insert ("to"). The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment
is of a similar nature to the first. I beg to move.
Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Powers and entry and inspection]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 46, line 22, leave out from ("exceeding") to end of line 24 and insert ("level 2 on the standard scale").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment reflects the current position regarding penalties in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Supplementary Provisions with Respect to Payments Under Section 56]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 60, line 18, leave out ("55") and insert ("56").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5. These are corrections of minor typographical errors in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 60, line 20, leave out ("55") and insert ("56").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 9 and 10 agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Consequential Amendments of Enactments]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 6 to 9:
Page 68, line 23, leave out ("34(4) and 35(5)") and insert ("34(5) and 35(4) and (5)").
Page 69, line 32, leave out ("18, 40") and insert ("10").
Page 73, line 36, leave out ("Section 75(1) to (3), (5)") and insert ("Sections 65 and 75(1), (2), (4)").
Page 74. line 11, at end insert:
("(iia) for "the said Schedule 1" substitute "the said Schedule 5";").
The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments are again corrections of minor typographical errors. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [the duty to maintain]:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert:
("( 1 A) For the purposes of this Act, it shall be assumed that a qualifying child normally shares its time with both parents; sometimes equally.").
The noble Lord said: First I should like to say that it is my belief that there is much more to parenting than financial provision. Indeed, there has been too much emphasis on running to ground alleged runaway fathers—not, I note, mothers—for not paying maintenance. Yet often the reason for non-payment of maintenance has to do with the denial by one partner of the marriage to the other of access to and a relationship with the children of that marriage.
I understand that in other countries the law acknowledges the importance of two parents. It tries to ensure that after their parents' separation or divorce children stay in contact with both parents and the wider family and that proper arrangements are worked out for shared parenting. As it stands, Clause 1(1) merely provides that each parent of a qualifying child is responsible for maintaining that child. But that is not enough. In my view a child needs two parents. This Bill should aim to ensure that both parents have the opportunity to nurture the child as well as the responsibility for maintaining the child.
Increasingly, both in the United Kingdom and abroad, it is becoming the case that the correct relationship is a shared caring role. That desirable trend should be encouraged.
I believe that by writing this amendment into the Bill that would be achieved. It is true that Clause 34 recognises in some way that in special cases there can be arrangements for shared parenting, but that clause seems to have been added to the Bill as an afterthought. Shared parenting arrangements are being made both privately and through the courts in increasing numbers. My amendment would make clear that the state wishes to see shared parenting as the norm and not the exception.
We must get rid of the notion that fathers are incidental to the rearing of children. that they are mere cash providers and that their rights in regard to children are inferior. Children need two parents and our law should seek to encourage and promote that happy state.
At Second Reading I suggested that this Bill was not about putting children first but about saving the Exchequer some £400 million a year. Acceptance by the Government of my amendment would certainly go some way toward reassuring people that the Bill is about the welfare of children first and saving money second. I therefore commend the amendment to the Committee and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I am one of those who like purpose clauses, especially when they explain the purpose of the provisions which follow. Although I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is getting at, I have difficulty with the amendment in the word "normally". One must not be too pedantic about this point but I can foresee that in the various circumstances that arise the courts would wonder what Parliament intended by the word "normally".
It may be that in the course of the discussion on this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will elaborate on what he has in mind and perhaps enable us to understand more specifically the intention behind the amendment. But even if he were to do so, that intention would not become part of the law. We need to have it clearly stated in the provisions themselves.
I do not doubt, although I have not so far checked it up, that there may have been occasions in the past in earlier branches of statute law in which the word "normally" was used. However, to use it in these circumstances could give rise, I fear, to quite a lot of argument. Subject to what further comments and explanation the noble Lord may have, I would find difficulty with the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I agree with the intention of the noble Lord's amendment. However, like my noble friend Lord Renton, I believe that it is difficult to write that intention in law. It requires good casework practice rather than good casework law to deal with such cases. Every case is different. While one's underlying desire is to have a relationship between the child and both father and mother, there are occasions when that is not practicable, possible or even wise.

297
Such a principle does not need to be written into the law because it requires good casework practice rather than law.
Baroness Phillips: I support my noble friend on the amendment. One begins to wonder what is normal in our society now that one can decide to have a child without a father. Obviously we no longer know what is normal.
What we do know—I speak as an ex-teacher—is that a broken marriage damages children. Let no one have any doubt about that. It may not be clear at the time. But it is clear that separation does great damage.
We know that the law does not make sense most of the time. We spend our time in this Chamber trying to make it sensible. We have this marvellous word "reasonable". One considers the phrase, "such force as may be reasonable". Who knows how to apply that? I should like to think that "normal" explains the situation that we hope remains: that a child should normally be assumed to see both parents.
I speak as a woman who has always defended the right of the woman. I find that far more women than men now leave the family home. It is sad, but it is happening. It is therefore important to make sure that their rights are covered. If the noble Lords opposite do not like the word "normal" let them suggest another. I am sure that in his reply the noble and learned Lord will explain what is wrong with "normal". Is it wrong now to say that it is normal for people to get married and live together? Do we now apologise for what has been the pattern of life for many years? The word "normally" is simple and explains exactly what we want: for the child to come first in all consideration.
I watch my grandchildren. Their relationship is equally strong with their father and their mother. We must not damage such relationships in any way.
Baroness Elles: I support what my noble friend Lady Faithfull said, although accepting totally what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said: that we all wish parents to maintain and stay with their children. As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said, that is what we used to accept as the normal course of family life.
However, the word in the amendment with which I quarrel is "share". Anyone who has dealings with divorce cases will know that it is simply not possible for both parents to share the time with the child. It is very often extremely bad for a child to have to be removed from its normal home background and to have to spend, say, six months with the other parent, as this amendment suggests. It is simply not feasible, practicable or good for the child. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, every case presents its own problem. The Bill refers mainly, although not entirely, to the father. It is usually the father who leaves the home. It is simply not possible in the vast majority of cases for children to spend half the year with the father who has left the parental home, thus removing the child from its normal secure and confident background. For that specific reason I cannot support the amendment.
>3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I am happy to agree with the propositions on which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, founded his argument. I believe most strongly that there is very much more to parenting than the payment of maintenance. I also believe very strongly that the child needs two parents, and that it is a privilege on the part of both parents to play a part in the nurture of that child. I certainly do not believe that it is right to suggest that fathers are incidental to the rearing of children. I suppose that I have an interest to declare in making that proposition. I am sure that I share that interest with many Members of the Committee. However, I do not entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that the law does not make sense most of the time. I have obviously to raise a qualification about that. So far as concerns the underlying views that we express, I believe that there is not much between us.
The Bill concerns maintenance. I accept that there is much more to parenting than the payment of maintenance. It is extremely important in my view —and I suggest this strongly to the Committee—to distinguish between the obligation to pay maintenance to the child and the right of the child to see the parent. There may be situations in which it is thought inappropriate for the child to see, for example, the father. There may be some reason for that in some cases. If so, it is extremely sad, but it does not affect the obligation of the parent to maintain the child. The two are distinct and I believe that they should be addressed distinctly. The Bill is entirely about the obligation of maintenance.
The purpose of the Bill is to deal with maintenance in the situation where one of the parents is absent from the household in which the child is being looked after. If the position were happier and all children were with both parents, the Bill would be unnecessary. Sadly, as all noble Lords know, in only too many cases there is a separation in the family and one of the parents is absent from the child. As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said, that may be the mother or the father. The Bill does not attempt to distinguish between them but puts an obligation on the absent parent to maintain the child.
The difficulty with the amendment is not that it makes any false assumptions about what should happen but that it does not refer to a typical case to which the Bill applies. Putting in an assumption which, sadly, may not be in accordance with the facts will not assist maintenance. While I entirely understand, and indeed strongly support, many of the sentiments that have been expressed by those who have supported the amendment, I have to say that it produces an assumption which is not material to the duty to maintain expressed in the first clause.
If a child receives day-to-day care from both parents Clause 34 provides for regulations to be made about the way in which maintenance should he assessed and apportioned between the parents involved. That would not be the normal case in which the formula would apply. However, if that situation

299
exists a difference must be made in the application of the formula and we have endeavoured to cope with that.
I entirely support the noble Lord's basic views. I have pointed out the restriction of the subject matter of the Bill, and we have taken account of the possibility that he has put forward in the regulation-making power in Clause 34. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I should be delighted if the normal situation were that a child was in a family with both parents. No obligation to maintain would then arise under the Bill because the ordinary provisions of the household would be shared.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This has been a useful short debate. I appreciate the points that have been made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and also by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. They believe that it would be difficult to define what is normal. Of course, that difficulty is at the root of my fears and my thinking about the whole Bill. Although the noble and learned Lord said that the Bill was about maintenance I fear that we are becoming hooked up on maintenance alone. I view my amendment as a means of trying to change people's attitudes towards marriage and the real needs of children. Children are the main problem when a marriage or a relationship breaks up.
As was shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, the idea is held that usually the man breaks up the married relationship. I do not believe that that is true; it is at least six of one and half a dozen of the other—
Baroness Elles: I was not implying who was at fault in the breakdown of the marriage. Regrettably or not, the usual result is that the father leaves the home while the mother is left to care for the children.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The probably reason for that situation is that court orders, for example, give the mother custody of the child. Naturally the family home will go to whoever has custody and that is perfectly well understood. I am trying to move towards a situation in which the rights of both parents and the needs of the children are paramount. That is why I tabled the amendment and glad to receive the support of my noble friend Lady Phillips. I always respect her views, which are sensible and down to earth.
Clearly I shall not press the amendment to a Division because the subject must be discussed further in much more detail. Will the noble and learned Lord at least give the matter further thought? Will he accept and realise that there is a great deal of anxiety about the problem of access and of a child having a relationship with both parents? Perhaps if I table a similar amendment on Report we might have another discussion in the light of further thought on both sides.
The Lord Chancellor: I well understand the noble Lord's anxieties. We passed the Children Act first and
300
the subject of maintenance has come second. The Children Act deals with questions of contact, as it was called, and residence, and we hope that it will come into force in October. The Act makes absolutely plain that in questions concerning access, as we now refer to it, the court must first consider the interests of children, which are paramount. We have changed the nomenclature in order to focus on matters to which the noble Lord has referred. We have sought to put that aspect first and it is already on the statute book.
I wish to repeat what I said at the end of the Second Reading debate in reply to comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I believe that the right to contact with the parents is the right of the child. The child's interests require that in the vast majority of cases. That is the philosophy on which the Children Act is based. I hope that we have taken the different aspects in the right order. We are not running off with the issue of maintenance alone; the general structure was put in place in the Children Act and we are now dealing with the special and important aspect of maintenance.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I thank the noble and learned Lord. I find his words most encouraging. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("an absent") and insert ("a liable").
The noble Lord said: Running through the Bill is the assumption that there is a caring parent, usually thought of as the mother, and an absent parent, usually thought of as the father. However, as I tried to show when speaking to Amendment No. 1, that is not always the case because often parenting is shared on a reasonable and equitable basis. The word "absent" must be read in that context when considering the ethos in which the Bill is framed.
A quick glance at the newspaper headlines which heralded the White Paper and the Bill show that the word "absent" was used in a pejorative and insulting context. In order to illustrate that point I wish to quote some of the headlines. On 6th February 1990 the Daily Telegraph stated:
"Absent fathers face greater pressure to pay".
On 26th January 1991 the Independent stated:
"Absent fathers rule attacked".
On 18th January 1990 the Daily Telegraph stated:
"Thatcher attacks family deprivation. Fathers to be pursued over maintenance".
The headline did not read "parents" but "fathers". On 18th July 1990 the Independent stated:
"Thatcher to act over absent fathers".
Again, it did not read "mothers" but "fathers". On 30th October 1990 the Guardian stated:
"Agency will trace runaway fathers to make them pay".
Finally, on 16th February 1991 the Independent stated:
"Absent fathers Bill attacked by welfare groups".
Therefore, it is quite clear that the Bill appears to have been conceived in the wrong context, with Mrs. Thatcher portrayed as the avenging angel pursuing errant fathers who do not or cannot pay maintenance as though they were the worst sort of criminals. I do

301
not believe that it is right to criminalise fathers or mothers who do not pay maintenance, because there may be many reasons for that.
We must see parenthood in a quite different light. We cannot go on seeing one parent as the fount of all goodness and the other as the focus of all evil. This amendment attempts to overcome the harshness and "pejorativeness", if that is the right word, of the word "absent", which in many cases is an incorrect and irrelevant description of one parent or another.
I appreciate that it is very difficult to define the parent who is not living most of the time with the child, particularly as regards maintenance. I understand that. The amendment attempts to get over that pejorative and not very nice word "absent" in the context of this Bill and family life. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I wish that we could get rid of the word "absent" altogether. I have received representations from one society which gives a list of the places in which it would like to see the deletion of the word from the Bill. I am not sure which word we should put in its place. However, there is no doubt that the ethos of this Bill in the terms which it uses turns a spouse not living with the other spouse into an absentee, which suggests that he should be at home but is absent. That is the beginning of our indictment of that man.
Secondly, we say to him, "You are absent but you are not going to escape your responsibilities. We are going to make you a debtor and, having made you a debtor, if you do not pay you become a defaulter. If you still do not pay, we shall turn you into a delinquent and punishment may follow". There is no easy ride for the absent spouse because he starts at a disadvantage and can finish in prison.
There are aspects of this Bill which raise questions of prejudice and the word "absent" is one of them. However, I shall say something about the ethos of the Bill at another time. But since we are talking about replacing the word "absent" by "liable", we are beginning our review of the free use of the word "absent" throughout the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: I too have received communication suggesting that the word "absent" should be changed in the Bill. Having appreciated the reasons behind that suggestion, we tried to find a feasible alternative. However, I regret that so far we have not found one.
The point is that if a parent—father or mother—is living in a family with the child, then the ordinary situation would be that no separate payment of maintenance is required because the child is looked after in the family to which both parents are contributing. In some cases the mother may contribute part of an income earned outside the home or she may do the very important job in the home for which income is not usually directly paid of looking after the children and the father. The father contributes from his earnings if he is in work and
302
earning money. Therefore, a situation which requires this type of application arises only when one parent is absent from the home.
Therefore, the essential idea of absence is quite important because that is the basis on which a person becomes liable. The problem about the noble Lord's amendment is that in a sense it undercuts the principle on which liability under this legislation would arise.
We have been careful to talk about absent parents and I cannot take responsibility for the way in which these matters are headlined. If the full terms of the Bill were used, I suspect that they would not make such good headlines. We are responsible for the draftmanship of the Bill which will become an Act of Parliament. We are not writing headlines for any of the organs of the press to which the noble Lord referred. Therefore, the emphasis which the newspapers put on it is a matter for them.
However, as regards the draftsmanship of the Bill, it is necessary to distinguish between the person who is not contributing by direct effort, as it were, to the maintenance of the child because that person is absent and should pay and the person who has the day-to-day responsibility for looking after the child. We call the latter person the caring parent. The balance of the Bill between father and mother is preserved throughout. The noble Lord will find—and I believe that he probably accepts this—that the Bill makes no such distinction between father and mother as do some of the headlines to which he referred.
This amendment would detract from the intention of the subsection; namely, to explain that an absent parent has met his responsibility to maintain his children when he makes periodical payments of maintenance of an amount and frequency determined by the provisions of the Bill.
If any of your Lordships can find a pair of words which would encapsulate the necessary idea without using the words "absent" or "caring", we shall be happy to consider them. We have already given the matter a good deal of thought without any result. I do not believe that being absent implies a degree of wrong but simply means that for one reason or another one parent is away from the child. It is not intended to have any pejorative effect. Equally, "caring" is not intended to be particularly commendatory, although care is obviously to be commended. However, the idea of the Bill is to distinguish between the two situations in which parents may be placed.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment while reserving the possibility that he may come forward with a suitable pair of words in the future.
Baroness Phillips: Before my noble friend decides what to do with the amendment, I notice that the noble and learned Lord criticised my comments that the law does not make sense. As a teacher of English, perhaps I may suggest that the phrase used in introducing the Bill is not particularly good English. It states—and this cannot be contradicted:
"periodical maintenance payable by certain parents with respect to children of theirs".
That is totally unacceptable to somebody who writes good English. However, I decided long ago that the

303
law does not equate with good English. I believe that we have moved away slightly from Shakespeare and one or two other people.
Surely "liable" is a very clear word, whereas "absent" is not. I had a husband who was in public life and he was almost always absent. I remember on one occasion asking him "Do you want me to take a lover or take up knitting? You are never here". I did not take up either. Instead I took up good works, which has not done me much good. "Absent" is a very strange and unreliable word. To my simple mind "liable" seems to be much more explanatory: one is liable for the maintenance of one's child.
I take the point of my noble friend that we must not get the idea that the father is always wrong. That is very dangerous. I worked in the women's movement for years. We wanted acceptance as equal partners in any situation. We must be careful when wording the Bill because it is to become legislation. "Absent" parent sounds as though the man has gone off. It does not follow that that is so.
I am not a very important person but I believe that "liable" is a more explanatory description. One is liable to pay a debt; that may be man or woman, black or white, old or young. I do not understand why the noble and learned Lord does not agree that "liable" is a clearer and more explanatory word.
Lord Coleraine: I hope that my noble and learned friend will continue to search for another word to replace the word "absent". It may be true that absence makes the heart grow fonder but in the context of the Bill one is looking at the absent and paying parent in contrast to the present and caring parent, to the detriment in semantic terms of the former. Perhaps a mouthful such as "non-custodial parent" would fit the bill.
The Lord Chancellor: That sort of mouthful had occurred to us. On the whole we felt that "absent" was preferable. I suspect that the noble Baroness, with her great experience of teaching English, would prefer the simple word "absent" to "non-custodial". "Absent" describes a state of fact. Liability arises from states of fact. "Liable" does not distinguish the state of fact under which the liability arises. That is the problem.
The noble Baroness spoke of her late distinguished husband being absent. Obviously there is no question of the Bill seeking to place blame on someone for being absent. It places an obligation on the person in respect of that and says that if a person is absent that person may meet the responsibility to maintain the child in the way stated. That is a reasonable use of English and is reasonably plain to ordinary people.
I emphasise that there is no intention of using the word in any pejorative sense or to imply blame. I am sure that the noble Baroness did not consider her late distinguished husband to be blameworthy when he was absent. He was very well engaged.
Baroness Phillips: He was liable.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not sure what he was liable for. It appears he was liable to some strictures from time to time in regard to his activities. At any
304
rate, I am sure that it was amicably resolved in the way the noble Baroness described. For my part I do not treat her as an unimportant person; very much the reverse. I know that she has given herself to most distinguished works. However, the suggestion that "liable" is better than "absent" is not one of the most distinguished.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may make a short contribution to the debate. The problem is not concerned with the wording of the Bill but with the fact that every time one mentions the words "he", "parent" or "liability" one associates them with the father. Only when we are able to make clear that when we refer to a parent we mean either the father or the mother will the headlines cease in the papers mentioned: then there will be a clearer understanding of the Bill and happiness on all sides of the Committee.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am obliged to all who have taken part in the debate. Although it appears to be a small point, clearly it is important. As my noble friend Lord Mishcon pointed out, a difficulty arises if we cannot make clear to all, including the headline writers, that the Bill means a mother or a father having the same kind of responsibility for maintenance of the children. Nevertheless, headline writers have filched part of their headline from the Bill. Therefore, we must be careful about the terms we use.
My noble friend Lord Houghton received from the same source —Families Need Fathers—a whole list of what would be consequential amendments if we passed Amendment No. 2. That merely shows how the word "absent" is reflected throughout the Bill. Perhaps I can put the matter another way. When I was at school if one was ill one was "away" from school; if one was playing truant, one was "absent". It is not simply a matter of semantics; it is a matter of what words mean in general terms to most people.
The husband of my noble friend Lady Phillips—perhaps the greatest General Secretary the Labour Party has ever had—was always liable; he was liable to be fired at by all sorts of people wherever he went in the country. It is an important matter. At the moment we have not found a better term than "liable". Clearly in principle there is a lot of support for finding a different word if we can. Perhaps between now and Report stage noble Lords—including the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—could consider the matter and find a solution. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Houghton Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 3
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("of maintenance with respect to") and insert ("towards the maintenance of").
The noble Lord said: I hope that we can dispose of Amendment No. 3 fairly quickly. I am advised that there is no such thing as "maintenance". It is not a proper noun. One makes payments for maintenance; one does not pay "of maintenance".
A number of flaws appear in the Bill which we shall pick up as we go along. I believe this is one of them. Amendment No. 4 is also a drafting amendment. A technical point occurs in the definition of "maintenance". It is payment towards or payment for, but not payment of. Maintenance cannot be transferred in the same terms as money. It is purely a drafting point but probably has some technical advantage.
While on my feet perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 4. It, too, is a drafting amendment in regard to the clumsiness of line 15 of the Bill. If there is any argument I shall not move it, but I think it may improve the Bill in some small way. I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in explaining his amendment has perhaps gone a little deeper than the amendment itself. Amendment No. 3 emphasises that an absent parent is only liable to pay a contribution towards the maintenance of a child, and that may be true, but there may be a contribution from the parent with whom the child is living.
The intention of the clause is to set out the responsibilities of the absent parent. The fact that he is not solely responsible for maintenance is set out in the previous subsection, which states that every parent of a qualifying child is responsible for the maintenance of that child. In the light of that I hope that the noble Lord will feel that his amendment is not necessary.
In regard to the use of the word "maintenance", it is a reasonable use of the word to describe the nature of the payment which is made in satisfaction of the responsibility to maintain. The fact that that is its intention is shown by its proximity to the phrase, "his responsibility to maintain", which we see in line 9 of the clause.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I do not press the matter. It is probably a matter of taste. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("the periodical payments") and insert ("such periodical payments as are").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This amendment is also a question of taste in drafting. We have taken the draft as presented by parliamentary counsel but since the noble Lord has produced this amendment, I am perfectly happy to draw it to the attention of parliamentary counsel as a suggested improvement and take his advice. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me the opportunity to do that and meanwhile withdraw the amendment. If I can, I shall write to him about it in time for the noble Lord to adjust his position if he needs to before Report stage.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Thank you very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Meaning of certain terms used in this Act]:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 17, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
("(a) both his parents are alive and do not live together; or").
The noble Lord said: This is a further amendment to try to remove the word "absent" from the Bill and to replace it with words which provide a much better definition of what is so often the reality of sensible and appropriate arrangements for the care of children. I do not want to pursue the argument further. However, to allow the noble and learned Lord to say something if he so wishes, I move the amendment formally.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord's amendment would restrict the definition of a "qualifying child" to cases where both parents were alive and separated or where the child does not live with either parent. That restriction could well have consequences elsewhere in the Bill. A close and careful examination of those consequences would be required, representing quite a heavy additional task. If the main purpose is to remove the phrase "absent parent", it would be possible, if we manage to hit on a better phrase, to substitute something else. Perhaps we shall not need to do more to the clause than that. As long as we still have "absent parent" in the main part of the Bill, the amendment will not reflect accurately all the circumstances that we need to cover.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: In the light of those remarks I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amenclments Nos. 6 to 9 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 9A:
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("(whether exclusively or in conjunction with any other person)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is one of a series of amendments I have tabled mainly to probe the necessity for certain words in the statute. The background is the criticism which is prevalent of the prolixity and verbosity of our statute book, remarked upon by the Renton Committee on the preparation of legislation. The committee reported in 1975. At that time the statute book consisted of three annual volumes. Did anyone take any notice of what the Renton Committee said? No. Ten years later, in 1985, the statute book had swollen to five volumes even though it contained fewer Acts of Parliament.
The format was then changed in order to make taller and longer volumes. They no longer fitted the bookcases that had been made for the previous statute books, but little regard was paid to that. The statute book was reduced from five volumes to three. However, two years later the statute book returned to five volumes again, even in the larger format. And so it has remained. I hope that the Committee will not think that it is an idle project to try to question even isolated expressions in a Bill.
I invite the Committee to consider Clause 2(3) which states:
"A person is a 'person with care', in relation to any child, if he is a person—
(b) who usually provides day to day care for the child".
Then come the words which I question:

307
"whether exclusively or in conjunction with any other person".
That phrase, I believe, refers to the person with the care and not to the child.
I imagine that the situation envisaged is where a wife has divorced and remarried. She and her second husband look after the child who is a stepson to the second husband. There can be a great many variants of that. It may be that the wife is living with her sister. It may be argued that in those circumstances the mother of the child does not come within the words:
"who usually provides day to day care for the child".
It is difficult to say with confidence that any argument is too silly to be put forward to a court of law. I doubt whether any such argument would carry much weight. If the Committee thinks that it is a fanciful argument, should we not, in the interests of verbal economy, admit that these words in practice and good sense are unnecessary? I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: It is certainly a worthy objective to try to be as succinct as possible in legislation. But experience has shown that one also has to cope with the possibility of ambiguity. If there is some doubt about the meaning of a phrase, then, if it is possible to make clear what the scope of the phrase is, that should be done. As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has pointed out, the phrase,
"who usually provides day to day care for the child"
might or might not apply to a circumstance such as he has mentioned. It is really to remove the doubt that might exist but for the phrase that we have put in the portion in brackets,
"(whether exclusively or in conjunction with any other person)"
to show that a person with the care can have a claim and is a person who has a part of that day to day care provision as well as a person who gives all of it. It is a question of judgment whether a particular doubt of that kind should be resolved. We have thought it right to resolve it in this case in that particular way. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel that this is appropriate in the circumstances.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I put down the amendment very late and I apologise to the Committee for doing so. In view of that I venture to ask my noble and learned friend whether he will have another look at this point. I cannot myself conceive that there would be any doubt as to the construction without these words. But my noble and learned friend takes the other view at the moment. He thinks there might be some doubt. I merely ask him whether he would be kind enough to look at the point again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:
("(3A) For the purposes of this Act a "child support officer" means a person exercising functions specified in sections (powers of the court with respect to maintenance) and 11 below.").
The noble Lord said: It is nice to know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not ready. I am in exactly the same position but I shall try to remedy that situation in moving Amendment No. 10. This is an extremely important amendment, with which, with the leave of the Committee, I shall also take Amendments Nos. 55, 57, 89 and 90.
I am intentionally speaking slowly in case it would be more convenient to the Committee if the Statement were taken, which I anticipate. Therefore if my words are slow and there are gaps in between them the Committee will not think that something has happened to me of a dire physical nature.
At Second Reading very considerable doubt was expressed as to the wisdom of setting up this agency under the jurisdiction of the Department of Social Security. It would be a useless expenditure of time for an amendment to be put down at this Committee stage to abolish the idea of the agency. It would be deemed to be a wrecking amendment. I believe that its success would scarcely be achieved and it would be a waste of the Committee's time. However, what emerged from the debate at Second Reading, and emerged very clearly, was a distinct opposition to doing away with the court's powers in regard to the matters of maintenance in the way that this Bill does. We had very grave doubts indeed, which I hope Members of the Committee will share by expressing their opinion on these amendments this afternoon. I hope that the Government will concede these amendments.
The use of compulsory powers upon one section of our society to have to use the agency and to be debarred from coming to the courts was looked upon at Second Reading by many noble Lords as being a matter of grave concern. We obviously ought to look at this at subsequent stages of the Bill.
Perhaps I may start with this premise. If we wish to have a classless society—the noble and learned Lord will understand why I am using this phrase—it is necessary to treat all our citizens in precisely the same way unless there is very good reason to the contrary —and the reason should be for the benefit of that section of our community with whom we deal in a different way. The fact of the matter is that only those who are to be in receipt of income support, or who are likely to be, are to be barred from the jurisdiction of the court. They are to go to the Department of Social Security to recover their child maintenance payments.
I remember so well the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful—I am sure she will be making her usual effective speech this afternoon—in saying that many people still regard the DSS as being a place which has an office that is very cold, which is very bureaucratic and where it is felt, however wrongly, that they have come for some benefit almost as if it is charity. That is not the way to deal with the maintenance of children. We should not say to any section of our community, "That is where you must apply. You do not have the right to go to a court". There is an even more fundamental objection to this compulsion and to there not being the alternative of court jurisdiction when we think in terms of the family

309
court, the dream of this Chamber and of many who deal with the affairs of the family and are experienced in that field.
The noble and learned Lord was very eloquent and very sincere when, in dealing with the provisions of the Children Act to which he has already made reference, he said how necessary it was that there should be one court which dealt with family affairs and which would consider all aspects of maintenance, residence, custody of children and so on. What this Bill does is to split the jurisdiction. It is not even a sensible split, because quite obviously questions of maintenance have associated with them questions of residence, of housing benefit and so on. In those circumstances, if we pass these measures we shall make the idea of the family court—the one court idea—very much more distant.
I believe that my slow speech has had some effect. If it has not convinced the Committee so far of the effectiveness and the rightness of the amendments, it certainly has enabled an intervention to be made which I think will add to your Lordships' pleasure this afternoon.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord has been gracious enough, aware of the convenience of others, to allow his speech on this very important amendment to be interrupted. He will then complete his speech on the amendment in due course. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Criminal Justice: Royal Commission
4.40 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the Government's response to the decision today by the Court of Appeal to quash the convictions for murder of Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Hill, Robert Hunter, Richard Mcllkenny, William Power and John Walker arising from the two bomb explosions in public houses in Birmingham in November 1974. A similar Statement is being made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary today in another place.
We will arrange for a copy of the court's judgment to be placed in the Library of both Houses as soon as it is available. This case, together with others which have occurred, raises a number of serious issues which must be a cause of concern to us all. It is of fundamental importance that the arrangements for criminal justice should secure the speedy conviction of the guilty and the acquittal of the innocent. When that is not achieved public confidence is undermined.
Under the provisions of Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, any person whose conviction has been quashed on the basis of a new or newly discovered fact following a reference by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary of the case to the Court of Appeal is entitled to apply to the Home Secretary for compensation. The amount will be
310
decided on the basis of advice from an independent assessor. The Home Secretary will of course give careful consideration to any application that is made to him by the six men.
We recognise fully the seriousness of the issues raised by these cases and the Government are resolved to ensure that they are properly addressed. However, it is important to recognise that the Government have already taken a wide variety of measures which ensure the conviction of those who have committed criminal offences and protect innocent suspects. These include the codification of police powers to investigate crime; controls over police interrogations, including the tape-recording of interviews; the reform of the law of evidence as it affects confessions: the setting up of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office; extension of the Court of Appeal's power to order retrials; and improved quality controls over forensic science work.
Many of the cases that have given cause for concern pre-date these developments. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and his predecessors have demonstrated their willingness to look hard and seriously at any evidence presented to them about alleged miscarriages of justice and their readiness when necessary to refer that evidence to the Court of Appeal.
Our criminal justice system deals perfectly well with the overwhelming majority of cases. This should never be forgotten. The cases which are now the cause of our concern represent only a tiny proportion of the work which is carried out to very high standards. I would wish this to be clearly understood so that we do not get carried away with the quite erroneous belief that everything in our current arrangements is flawed.
We believe, however, that it is now necessary to undertake a review of the criminal justice process as it at present stands, taking full account of recent reforms. The aim of such a review will he to minimise so far as possible the likelihood of such events happening again.
The review will embrace all stages of the criminal process. It will consider the investigation and pre-trial stages. That will include the management of the investigation by the police and the role of the prosecutor. It will also include the role of expert witnesses and, in particular, that of forensic scientists and the reliability of scientific evidence. It will review the place of the right to silence in criminal proceedings. It will consider a possible role for investigating magistrates, the conduct of criminal trials and the duties and powers of the courts. In addition, the review will examine appeals procedures, the powers of the Court of Appeal and the investigation of alleged miscarriages of justice once appeal rights have been exhausted, including the functions at present carried out by the Home Secretary.
This review, extending as it does over the work of the criminal courts in England and Wales, is of such importance that we believe that it should be undertaken by a Royal Commission. Her Majesty has accepted this recommendation. We have placed a copy of its terms of reference in the Library of both Houses.

311
Her Majesty has appointed the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, to be chairman of the Royal Commission. We shall announce the members as soon as possible.
The Government's decision to establish a Royal Commission is an indication of the importance we attach to the work of this review. It is our intention that it should be wide ranging and thorough. It must also be carried out as soon as possible. We have therefore asked its chairman to make every effort to complete its work within two years.
The House will of course be aware that in October 1989 Sir John May was appointed to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the convictions of the Guildford Four and the Maguires. In July 1990 he submitted an interim report which led my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, the then Home Secretary, to refer the convictions of the Maguires to the Court of Appeal. The court has yet to hear the case and I would not wish to make any further comment on it while it remains sub judice.
We have asked Sir John May to complete his inquiry into the Guildford Four and Maguire cases. The appointment of the wider inquiry we have announced today is not intended to inhibit him in any way. We think it right, however, to ask him to confine his inquiry to the circumstances of the cases themselves and to contribute his views on the wider issues to the Royal Commission, of which he has agreed to be a member.
All of us in this House must be disturbed by what has occurred in these cases. The objective of the criminal justice system must always be to ensure that those who commit criminal offences are brought to justice, that the guilty are punished and that the innocent, including those wrongly charged with offences, are protected. Valuable reforms have already been introduced in recent years. I believe our present arrangements work well in the overwhelming majority of cases. I pay tribute to all those who endeavour to achieve that. The time is right, nevertheless, to take a fresh look at the existing arrangements to see whether further improvements can be made; and that is why the Government have decided to establish the Royal Commission which we have announced today.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for making a Statement which may be of an historical nature in regard to our procedures in the criminal law. It was just about one-and-a-half hours ago that I ventured to put a Question to the noble and learned Lord regarding whether the Government had any intention to legislate to reform the law or to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into these matters in view of the grave concern expressed by leading lawyers, and indeed the public at large, at certain aspects of our appeal procedures in the criminal law; I referred especially to the Court of Appeal. The noble and learned Lord answered me with his usual courtesy and said that the matter would be considered at the
312
termination of the Court of Appeal's decision in the case of which we are all aware. I do not suppose that he knew at the time that he would be making a Statement quite literally, as I said, one-and-a-half hours later in answer to that Question and that he would also be saying that a Royal Commission is in fact to be set up. That is very welcome news.
However, I believe that I am possibly echoing the views of many Members from all sides of the House when I emphasise the deep concern which has been felt over the past few years about the miscarriages of justice which have taken place. That is not meant to be a castigation of judges. No one has more respect for Her Majesty's judges than I; indeed, that respect is shared by Members on these Benches whom I have the privilege to represent. Nevertheless, we have seen inadequacies in regard to the powers of the Court of Appeal. We have seen that not enough investigatory or inquisitorial powers are given to our courts in order to probe what appear to be miscarriages of justice. The result of that inadequacy is that such miscarriages of justice continue to occur. I should like to pay tribute to the worthy fighters both in this House and in another place who have over the years been prominent in their calls for investigations into such cases and for the righting of what appear to be wrongs.
In his Statement the noble and learned Lord made it clear that he would not comment in any detail upon what was happening in the Maguire case which is being considered by the Court of Appeal. I should like to point out that I made a plea from these Benches in regard to the Maguire case that the Home Secretary should ensure that an obvious attempt was made to prevent a miscarriage of justice taking place by appointing an independent scientist to look into the scientific evidence in the case. Instead of that, the junior Minister, with his usual courtesy, said that he would consult with his right honourable friend. I was told it was the job of the defendants in the case, or people on their behalf, to produce the scientific evidence to upset what had been admitted by the Court of Appeal as being reliable evidence.
What will this Royal Commission inquire into? I ask the noble and learned Lord, whether we are certain that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission will be broad enough to see whether it is right that there should be a separate body consisting in the main—and I stress in the main—of our judges, who will look into questions of miscarriage of justice and have powers to call evidence before them and to inquire into these matters, instead of having merely to look at the evidence produced in a lower court?
Also, will the Royal Commission have the power to say that confessions are not admissible in our courts unless a confession was made before or in the presence of a solicitor, or there was strong corroborative evidence or indeed a video was taken showing the circumstances in which the so-called confession had taken place'? I ask whether the Royal Commission will have powers to consider these matters.
I owe the following observation to my noble friend Lord Richard. I inquire whether it is right and proper that we should consider at this moment various

313
provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill which relate to the powers of the courts and to similar matters, and whether it would be wise to see whether the findings of this commission receive echoes in what ought to be the full criminal justice Bill that we would want to see in the light of its findings. As the noble and learned Lord well knows, it is not often that he is able to find a little nook or corner in the Government's programme in order to bring matters relating to our criminal law before Parliament.
As I said, this is an historic moment. In many ways it is a sad moment: in other ways it is a hopeful moment, because all of us who want to have confidence in the criminal law that has been our pride and heritage have been very upset at what has occurred in recent years. We want to make sure that these happenings do not recur.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his speedy and wide-ranging response to the conclusion of the Birmingham case. Such speed, it might be said, is indeed appropriate after the 16 years which have gone by since the sentences were passed. I will come shortly to the welcome I am able to give to much of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, but first I should like to make one or two other points.
When the dreadful incidents took place which gave rise to these convictions and the long false sentences, as it turned out, I was Home Secretary. Indeed, during the period when the investigations were carried out, that was equally so. A number of years ago I began to feel a general sense of perhaps slightly intuitive unease which I expressed to the then Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary. That was nearly six years ago.
was a little worried as to whether the climate of the time had led to a range of unsafe convictions on a scale which could deal a grave blow to our confidence in the judicial system. I have never since thought it wise to make public pronouncements on these matters, but I did collaborate with a group which was led by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and which also included the noble and learned Lords, Lord Devlin and Lord Scarman, with their great intellectual reputations, and Mr. Merlyn Rees, who followed me as Home Secretary.
I played only a small part in the work of that group, and other groups outside were also working. But I am bound to note what I am convinced is the case, that without the dedicated conviction and moral authority of Cardinal Hume, it is very doubtful whether these miscarriages of justice would ever have been corrected. That is a disturbing thought, which is made all the more disturbing by the wall of judicial complacency which was totally unshakeable until it collapsed under the facts.
Having made those points, I now say that I welcome very strongly the appointment of a Royal Commission. We have been too loath to use Royal Commissions in recent years, and perhaps as a result we have rushed into taking some rather foolish decisions on a range of matters which might have been avoided with a more considered application to the problems. I welcome this Royal Commission and the
314
range of its remit, which seems to me about as wide as it could be. I also welcome the appointment of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, as its chairman. In my view, that is an imaginative and admirable choice.
One cannot feel other than a great sense of concern and disturbance about what has occurred. There is a good deal to be put right. There was point in what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about reconsidering what should he in a criminal justice Bill at this stage. It may be that we have too many criminal justice Bills and they are not always too clearly thought out: each Home Secretary has to have a criminal justice Bill. There will be need for a very important one probably following this Royal Commission, but I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having, after this long and disturbing delay, responded so swiftly today.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for their general welcome of this Statement. I do not wish of course to say anything at all about the facts in connection with any of these cases because what I understand has occurred today is that the convictions of the men have been quashed but the reasons will not be given until later. Therefore I would think it quite inappropriate for me to say anything about that. However, I wish to say that I believe that all the judges who have participated at any stage in these cases have done their very best to carry out their judicial duties having regard to the evidence before them. They have exercised the powers given to them by Parliament to the best of their ability and in accordance with their judicial oath.
As regards the terms of reference, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has said they are about as wide as they could be. That would be my impression also. There are general words opening the description of the terms of reference and in particular there are two paragraphs which perhaps I might quote in answer to the questions which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The subject matter that the Royal Commission is directed particularly to consider, among other things, is,
"the opportunities available for an accused person to state his position on the matters charged and the extent to which the courts might draw proper inferences from primary facts, the conduct of the accused, and any failure on his part to take advantage of an opportunity to state his position".
That is the fifth in the numeration. The eighth is,
"the arrangements for considering and investigating allegations of miscarriages of justice when appeal rights have been exhausted".
I believe that these particularly encompass the matters that the noble Lord asked me about. Of course, as I said, there is a more general introduction.
As regards the Criminal Justice Bill, that is before your Lordships and stands on its own proposals and on the merits of the proposals included in it. We hope that the Royal Commission will consider its remit speedily, but that does not seem to me—and the matter is of course for others rather than for me—to mean that we should not continue to consider the Criminal Justice Bill presently before us.
5 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask my noble and learned friend one question. Has he had the opportunity to see the transcript of the observations made yesterday by counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions? He probably has not. When I read in the newspaper today the somewhat surprising account of what occurred I managed to obtain from the Criminal Division a copy of that transcript, which I have had very little time to read. However, I inquire only for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, referred to a wall of judicial complacency.
On page 2 of the transcript of yesterday's proceedings Mr. Boal, QC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, made three numbered points, which I can read out quite shortly. They seem to me to have great relevance in view of that really rather acid criticism.
"1. We will submit that when one analyses the evidence as it was in 1975, which I will seek to do today, there was a formidable case, justifiably described as overwhelming.
2. We suggest that on the material before the Court of Appeal in 1987, it cannot be regarded as in any way surprising that the appeals were dismissed, nor was it surprising that the judgment ended with the oft quoted words of the Lord Chief Justice."
Your Lordships may remember that those final words were:
"The longer the hearing has gone on the more convinced this court has become that the verdict of the jury was correct.
His third numbered statement was that,
"there remains today, on one view, and upon close analysis, a formidable case against these appellants.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the copy of the transcript has arrived at my office (I think through the courtesy of one of my noble and learned friends) but, as your Lordships will appreciate, I have had my attention devoted to other matters for the past two hours or so and I have not had an opportunity of reading it. I would just say that my response to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said on that matter was contained in the reply that I gave a little while ago.
I think it would be quite inappropriate for me, in the circumstances of the present case and the way in which it stands in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, to make any reference whatever to the facts about it or the submissions that were made. My noble and learned friend has brought these to the attention of the House.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on his last few remarks. I do not think that this is the time for us to be looking at discussions or debates on a transcript that none of us has seen, and particularly on selected passages. There may well he other passages that could be equally forceful on other points of view, and this is not the time or the place to discuss them.
I fully endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said about the part played by the Archbishop of Westminster and all those people, both in this House and the other place as well as organisations outside, who since 1974 and onwards have steadfastly defended the demand for justice in this and other
316
cases. Does not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that it is now time seriously to consider the presence of a lay person in these appeal cases? How much consideration will be given to that kind of lay presence in the Royal Commission? Will there be scope for lay members on that commission? How much will they be involved, rather than just referring it back to the same people who have been involved for all these years?
I do not want to quote any statements at this stage, but there have been a number of important statements that need examination. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, spoke about a wall of judicial complacency, to which the noble and learned Lord referred. Of course, that has happened. We seem to have spent a lot more time and energy in trying to maintain the guilt, or the original verdict—almost as a kind of cover-up—rather than spending a lot more time and energy on pursuing the guilty people who are still at large. We ought to be concerned about that. While we have been going through all this process and spent all this time and these years on it, now we are convinced—and most people have been convinced since the beginning—that we did not have the right people. Does not that concern us? Of course it does.
There has to be some method of speeding up this process so that justice can be done. We must not cover up what is known might have been a mistaken case so that people do not say nasty things about the judiciary. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can tell me that there will be scope for some lay representation; certainly from those people who have been involved with these cases—there are a number of them, and some still going on —who are as well versed in the pros and cons of the cases as any judicial mind. Will there be any scope for those people to be represented or heard at the Royal Commission?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said, it would not be right for me to make any comment on the facts of the case. I have said already in somewhat different words, and I say again, that I believe that all the judges concerned with these cases at their various stages did their best to dispense justice on the evidence before them, in accordance with their judicial oath and having regard to the powers that Parliament gave them.
As regards lay persons on the Royal Commission, I have mentioned the name of the chairman, who is not a lawyer. The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, is not a lawyer or a judge. Therefore, the chairman is a layman in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, used that expression. Clearly the Royal Commission will decide precisely how it will conduct its affairs, but I feel satisfied that it will give ample opportunities to anyone who has anything useful to contribute to its inquiries.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I welcome the Government's appointment of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, as chairman of the Royal Commission. Anyone who has read his works will

317
admire not only their brilliance, intellectually, but also their judicial quality. I am certain that the Royal Commission will be in excellent hands.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his endorsement of our judgment in that matter.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead had to say about the Royal Commission. Will the terms of reference include the funding of forensic science laboratories?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the matter is expressed in general terms. There is a general opening, but paragraph iv states:
"the arrangements for the defence of accused persons, access to legal advice, and access to expert evidence".
That would obviously include the evidence of forensic scientists of an expert character and many other types of expert evidence.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
5.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not oppose the Motion but perhaps we may have an indication as to how far we are expected to progress tonight. I was told that the original intention was to go as far as Schedule 1, but that seems wildly optimistic. A very important Statement has taken three-quarters of an hour. It is most unsatisfactory that a Bill of this importance should be discussed by a few noble Lords in the middle of the night.
It is also unsuitable that a schedule as difficult as Schedule 1, with all its mathematical formulae, should be discussed late at night. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack is a famous mathematician, in addition to all his other accomplishments. However, most of us find the schedule incredibly difficult. It would he unsatisfactory were it to be discussed around midnight, as seems likely. I ask the Government's business manager to make other arrangements. I see that the noble Lord the Chief Whip is ready to respond. I sit down, having, I hope, touched his heart.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, can never speak without touching my heart. Whether it will be touched to the extent he believes necessary is a matter more properly for discussion by the usual channels outside the Chamber. The usual channels can probably be put into operation straightaway but I do not wish to venture a guess as to what they will decide.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House again in Committee on Clause 2, Amendment No. 10.
The Lord Chancellor: First, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his great kindness in accommodating the Statement, not quite in the middle but during his observations. I am sure that it was greatly appreciated by all of us, particularly those who had other pressing engagements but who wished to be involved in the Statement.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may endorse what the noble and learned Lord said on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. He had engagements to fulfil and without the assistance that was forthcoming he would have been unable to make his useful contribution to the debate on the Statement. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Mishcon: Noble Lords are kind but I hope that the noble and learned Lord's reference to those who may have other engagements was not an invitation to Members of the Committee in favour of my amendment to leave the Chamber. Perhaps I may he forgiven if I start again, since parts of my previous humble contribution will perhaps have been forgotten by some Members of the Committee.
Amendment No. 10 is a paving amendment. Nevertheless it fulfils a useful purpose. The work of a child support officer is dealt with later in the Bill. But, although other definitions are given, there is no definition of a child welfare officer. Thus, it is useful to start with a paving amendment stating that,
"a 'child support officer' means a person exercising functions specified"
in the part of the Bill which deals with the powers of the court as regards maintenance and also Clause 11. If I were to say that that was my main purpose, I should mislead the Committee. Many noble Lords are associated with what I seek. The main purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the agency which is set up under the Bill is not one to which people are compelled to go. They ought to have the alternative of going to the court in order to obtain maintenance for children. That is the object of the exercise and in my submission it is fully justified.
Under the Bill there is only one section of our community that has to go—I emphasise the words "has to go"—to the Department of Social Security in order to visit an official of the agency and in order to obtain child maintenance. That is the poorer section of our community, those who are or may be in receipt of income support.
I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will appreciate this phrase. At the moment our courts are open to all. Under the Bill they will be closed to a section of our community who, in order to enlist the aid of the agency, will be compelled to go to the DSS. The only other action people can take is to enter into a voluntary arrangement under the Bill with regard to maintenance. That is completely unenforceable. No court order and none of the machinery under the Bill takes effect.
The Committee may feel that if the argument merely depends upon a principle, however valuable, it would not be enough unless there were strong reasons why a court should be the place where all the maintenance provisions apply in regard to children

319
when we are dealing with divorce cases, separated parents and so on. There is good reason for saying that there should be parallel jurisdiction of the courts and the agency within the Department of Social Security.
Before we interrupted our proceedings on the Bill, I was discussing the fundamental objective of all those who are interested in dealing progressively with family disputes. The dream is of the family court, the one court that will deal with all aspects of family life when matters unfortunately go wrong.
Before the interruption I said that I remembered the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor talking about the value of dealing with matters concerning children in one court. He made that comment when he piloted the Children Bill with amazing skill through this Chamber. The noble and learned Lord would be the first to admit that his skill was in some ways assisted by the support that all Members of the Chamber gave to the principle enunciated in that Bill. There were in fact two principles: the paramount interest of the child and the need for children's affairs to be dealt with in one place.
Maintenance cannot be considered on its own. One must have consistency. The Committee will find that in Amendments Nos. 10, 55, 57, 89 and 90—those amendments are grouped together—and in other amendments that we shall table, consistency is provided for because the formula under which the agency would operate is the formula under which, in similar cases, the courts would operate. However, there are vagaries and different circumstances applying to maintenance. Maintenance is not just a matter that comes up on a computer. The Spastics Society has expressed its worries regarding children who are either physically or mentally disadvantaged. Their care is obviously a matter of deep concern to parents and to society at large.
There are various ways in which a mother or a father—I bow at once to my noble friend who advanced the cause of fathers in a way which warms masculine hearts—may make a maintenance plea which goes outside the formula. Is that only to be the job of an official at the Department of Social Security? The courts have dealt with these matters over the years and they have vast experience of them. Are not the courts to be permitted to deal with these matters? In case the Committee is in any doubt about the prohibitions of the Bill—Clause 7 has some connection with the amendments—I shall read out the Notes on Clauses regarding Clause 7. The language used is so simple that I need not take the Committee through the necessarily cumbrous language in the Bill. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving the Committee, and in particular myself, the opportunity of studying the Notes on Clauses which state in relation to Clause 7:
"This clause defines when the courts can make orders for the maintenance of children. The courts may not normally make orders against a person under their existing powers where the child is eligible for an award under this Bill against that person. The court can make orders for maintenance to or for the benefit of a child in the following circumstances".
The court can make such orders only in the
320
circumstances to which I am about to refer, as against the all pervading power that the courts have at present. The Notes on Clauses continue:
"(i) if payments for child support maintenance assessed under the Bill have been met and the parents are in a position to pay more; (ii) for the payment of educational and training expenses; and (iii) in circumstances where the payment of child support maintenance is not provided for in the Bill".
The doors of our courts are closed to people in the poorest section of our community in spite of the fact that they may want to go there and they may want an order of the court in circumstances which the Committee can well imagine. They may want an order of the court rather than an order obtained —I hope that is the right way to describe it—from a government department. However, they are barred and the door is shut. All that I, my noble friends and those who support the amendment are asking for in the amendment is the ability to choose between the two provisions.
I shall refer quickly to other reasons why the Committee should, in my submission, support the amendments. First, I have made the point that this is not just an administrative matter. Other matters are connected with it and they should be dealt with as a whole, but the DSS will not do that. I refer to such matters as residence and other matters of that kind. The Committee can well imagine that there could be cause for submissions to he made of a rather technical nature—in some cases they may even he of a legal nature —as regards how the formula should be implemented and what maintenance should be awarded in order to vary it from the formula provided under the Bill.
If one goes to an agency, there is no provision for legal aid. However, there is provision for legal aid if one goes to a court. That is another reason why people —especially those people of the category I mentioned —may want and need to go to a court. We ought to have an alternative provision for a reason which would be much better explained to the Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful!. I hope I am not anticipating the speech of the noble Baroness, but I listened to her on Second Reading with great pleasure. The noble Baroness is a much loved and very experienced Member of this Chamber. She and other speakers talked about the atmosphere of the Department of Social Security. That atmosphere is not acceptable to all. There is no blame attaching to officials of that department, or to that worthy department itself, but many people do not find the atmosphere in that department to be one which allows them to talk in a chatty way about their children's needs and to obtain appropriate advice. However, I leave that issue to the noble Baroness as she can deal with it so much better than I.
I have learnt that if one speaks for too long in the Chamber in regard to an amendment, one commits two errors. First, if one has covered all the ground already—I do not wish to do that—one bars other speakers from making points which they can make effectively. Secondly, one can so weary the Committee that it forgets exactly what the amendment is about. I do not intend to make either of those two errors. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on this amendment. He pointed out that a number of us stated on Second Reading that we would prefer the agency not to be connected with the Department of Social Security. We would prefer it to be administered by the courts. However, after many years in the Chamber I have learnt—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has referred to this—that one does not move a wrecking amendment. To propose an amendment in favour of the courts would be a wrecking amendment. Therefore I am taking what one might call the second rung down. The first rung would be a provision seeking to base the agency in the courts. I still believe we had a magnificent opportunity in the Children Act 1989 to establish a move towards family courts. However, this amendment gives people a choice of either going to an agency which is connected with the Department of Social Security, or going to a court.
In order to help us all to make up our minds, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor several questions. First, a number of us are not quite sure how the agency will work. We do not know its structure. I may be right or I may be wrong but I thought that a child maintenance officer would be located in each social security office to help people if maintenance was not forthcoming and see whether they could have income support. Is there to be a child maintenance officer in every social security office? Or are they to work away from social security offices? It is important to know, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, and as I pointed out at Second Reading, people resent going to social security offices.
My second question relates to the fact that social security offices have what are called reliable relative staff dealing with child maintenance. What has happened in the past? Have the reliable relative staff not been able to do the work because it has grown so much, or have they had so much other work that they have not been able to deal with maintenance? It would be helpful to have that information.
It would also be helpful to have some figures. How many people caring for children are receiving income support under the social security system where the husband is not paying maintenance? Has that figure grown considerably, and is that why the reliable relative staff have not been able to deal with the matter?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that in such situations it is very serious for people not to have a choice. If the agency is to be based in the social security office the option of the court must also be available. That choice must be available for carers who do not receive maintenance, whether the carer is independent and does not receive social security or the carer is receiving social security.
I support the amendment, and I should be very grateful if my noble and learned friend could answer my questions.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The amendment puts forward what is admittedly a compromise. Most of us were counting on this opportunity to establish a system of family courts. We derived great heart from what my noble and learned friend said during discussion in this House of a Commons amendment to the Courts and Legal Services Bill when he seemed definitely to encourage the hope of a system of family courts. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, the proposal in this Bill cannot be regarded otherwise than as a step away from that. However, the amendment provides a compromise. It gives concurrent jurisdiction. It would make it easier to marry the system set up in the Bill with a system of family courts when that is ultimately favoured.
At Second Reading I asked my noble and learned friend whether the agency could not ultimately be married to a system of family courts. He was cautious but not entirely discouraging. I would, however, ask about the timing. At the moment family courts are belatedly under consideration. They were first proposed in the mid-1950s and have been discussed continuously ever since. The Government now have them under consideration. I venture to ask my noble and learned friend when the view of the Government will be known.
I ask particularly because I understand that the agency will not be operating properly until April 1993. I can be corrected if I am wrong about that. That would seem to give ample time for closer integration. What is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would help such integration.
The amendment has been so excellently proposed and seconded that I would not be justified in going over again what has been said. However, there is one other aspect to which I would like to advert. It is quite impossible to deal with child maintenance—either by means of a formula or the discretionary decision of a judge—separately from the maintenance of the wife who will generally be the custodian. Yet the maintenance of the wife remains to be dealt with by the magistrates' courts. It is only the maintenance of the child that is dealt with by the agency.
At Second Reading I ventured to ask my noble and learned friend how a typical case would work out under the formula. He helpfully spelt out one example, which I believe is example 3 in the White Paper. I see that he nods. I gave him notice that I would raise the point.
In example 3 the father is on less than average earnings (which will be typical), there are two children under five, and, not surprisingly the mother who is living with the children is unable to work. A computation was made and the maintenance for the two children, if my memory serves, is £46. No allowance is made for the maintenance of the mother. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will help the Committee by saying how that particular problem is to be solved.
For that reason, as well as the reasons so admirably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], I venture to support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: It may be helpful if I say something at this stage, without in any way intending to foreclose the discussion. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, wishes to speak. However, it may be helpful if I set out the position as I see it.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has explained clearly that the amendment is a paving amendment for the proposal followed up in later amendments that the formula should be applicable either in the court or in the agency so that the person seeking the order has an option. That is immediately a matter which will cause difficulty, as I shall be able to show.
We have the option of procedure in court in relation to certain matters over and above the formula but the formula will be applicable in our proposals only through the agency.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Is my noble and learned friend right about that? As I read Clause 7(5) the court itself may in certain circumstances have to apply the formula.
The Lord Chancellor: The general proposal is that the formula will be applied by the agency and the court will deal only with other matters over and above that which is provided for in relation to the agency. Perhaps first of all I may say—some noble Lords may be able to comment on this point—that I am committed to the principle of doing what we can to make the family justice system a coherent and unified system and to have a court structure which is appropriate for the questions for decision which the substantive law leaves open.
The first step in that direction—I believe that it is a big step—was taken in the Children Act which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, received very broad support in this Chamber. It is now on the statute book and, as I said earlier, we hope it will he implemented in October this year. That provides a uniform system of law applicable in all the courts from the level of the magistrates' court—the family proceedings court which will be staffed by magistrates—through the county courts to the Family Division of the High Court of Justice, so enabling a case to be dealt with at an appropriate level of court within the structure, depending on its complexity and other factors which will be set out.
I do not accept for one moment that the establishment of the agency is a step hack from that. I suggest that courts are very suitable for determining matters that require the attention of the judiciary. I include in that, of course, the magistrates' level as well as the professional judiciary. However, I should think it a little hard to claim that the judiciary are the best people to apply a complicated formula. As was mentioned, I myself have had some experience of courts and formulae and I do not believe that courts are the best authorities to apply complicated formulae to particular states of fact.
Modern technology in the form of computers is a way forward in the application of complicated formulae. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to computers in a way which gave them a place but sought to minimise that place in some respects.
324
However, when one has to apply a formula I believe that a computer is a very good way to do it; if, of course, one feeds in the appropriate facts.
Therefore, as part of the policy-making unit which came forward with this Bill, I took the view that it would be best to have a child support agency with the formulae. I am very much strengthened in that conclusion by a letter dated 11th March, which I received the day before yesterday, from the chairwoman of the National Council for One Parent Families. Surely those people, more than any others have the experience. She writes:
"As Chairwoman of the National Council for One Parent Families I wanted to let you know that our Council is in principle in support of the Government's aims in the Child Support Bill".
She is not alone in that because most noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading said the same. She goes on:
"As a recently practising family solicitor with many years experience of matrimonial work, I have been forced to the conclusion that the whole issue of child maintenance must be removed from the courts for both assessment and collection purposes. The Courts have self-evidently failed to ensure that reasonable levels of child maintenance are paid by absent parents on a regular basis. I very much hope that the combination of the proposed Maintenance Formula and the Child Support Agency will overcome the frustrations and anxiety experienced by so many lone parents in securing support for their children.
Our Council does have criticisms of some aspects of the Bill as it is currently drafted".
She goes on to deal with other matters, to which we shall come later, such as what she calls,
"the punitive proposal to deduct benefits from mothers who are unable to co-operate".
The only reason that I do not read all the letter is that I wish to save time.
Lord Mishcon: I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is doing so. However, it struck me that this is a personal letter from the lady who occupies the chair—I cannot bear to use the word "chairwoman"—of that organisation about her experience personally as a solicitor. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that that is the view put forward on behalf of the association? I do not believe that it is.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The lady told me in the first sentence of the letter which I read that:
"As Chairwoman of the National Council for One Parent Families I wanted to let you know that our Council is in principle in support of the Government's aims in the Child Support Bill".
She then goes on to make her statement and I read the words that she used. I leave it to noble Lords to take their own view about it. After the passage that I omitted for the sake of brevity, she continues:
"I realise the problems outlined are not inconsiderable ones, but I am convinced that they can be overcome within the framework proposed by the Government".
That is the problem about punitive effects and so on. She says:
"We cannot agree"—
she says "we"—
"with those who in their campaign for the Family Court view the Child Support Agency as an insuperable obstacle to its achievement. I share the aim of establishing the Family Court"—
she returns to using "I"—

325
"but my own view is that removing child maintenance to an administrative agency is likely to hasten its advent.
Our Council sincerely hopes that the strong voices of those now in opposition to the Child Support Agency as the debate is heard in the Lords will not diminish the Government's resolve to implement a solution that remains the best hope for lone parents and their children that the absent parent's contribution towards their family support can be attained".
There may be a question of construction involved in the letter but at the very least I adopt the views of a recently practising matrimonial solicitor very interested in this area. I venture to think that is the minimum that one can take out of that. The last paragraph to which I referred expressly refers to "Our Council".
Lord Mishcon: I did not mean to amuse the noble and learned Lord and other Members. The lady concerned was expressing a view, as she says, as a solicitor and practising solicitor. The Law Society, which represents the whole profession, is behind this amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: Of course I can distinguish very clearly between the interests of the Law Society in an amendment of this kind and the interests of a practising solicitor who has devoted her attention to the interests of one parent families. The interests of the Law Society and that council may not always be coincident.
Given those views, I have no qualms about recommending the agency to the Chamber. I am strengthened in my concern not to see its field of operations in assessing, collecting and enforcing maintenance whittled down or compromised.
Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, it may help if I explain the nature and size of the task that we shall face in running the new system. I shall try to answer some of the questions put by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. It is estimated that once the new system is in full operation 3 million cases a year will be dealt with. There will be 1 million new cases and 2 million annual reassessments. In many of those cases, and especially those concerning reassessment, there will be no other family matters before a court. Indeed, the only other link that a caring parent may have with the new maintenance system is in relation with its interaction with the benefits system. For many people therefore an agency based on the Department of Social Security will provide a one-stop shopping service.
I refer to more detailed figures. There are now over 1 million lone parent families of which over 700,000 are on income support. In 1989 there were 16,000 applications granted in the magistrates' court, 40,000 applications for variation of maintenance orders, and 85,000 proceedings for enforcement. That gives the Committee an impression of the extent to which the magistrates' courts are presently used compared with the total size of the problem.
I understand the argument that where that is not the case, and where there are related court proceedings, it may seem convenient to give the court the power to operate the formula. However, there are a number of reasons why I do not believe that that would be wise. First, there is a danger, and it is a grave danger, that by burdening the court with new tasks
326
such as tracing absent parents, investigating the parents' means and other relevant circumstances, and with a more active role in collection and enforcement, we may divert the courts from concentrating on their unique contribution to the family justice system; namely, providing a judicial resolution to matters in dispute.
It may help if I give the Committee some idea of how such a situation could potentially increase the workload of the courts. At present county courts and magistrates' courts hear about 185,000 applications for maintenance or its variation in a year. Even if they took only one quarter of the burden of the 3 million cases estimated under the new system, it would nearly quadruple the number of cases with which they would deal. While the formula might simplify the assessment and there would be some relief in enforcement, the job of investigating means alone could make the manpower demands in each case as high or even higher than the present. The plain risk is that the courts would be swamped.
The courts will start on the new system under the Children Act in October of this year. The very last thing that I want—I am interested in making sure that its provisions work—is for the courts to be swamped by work in which they have no expertise; namely, the application of detailed formulae to maintenance, such as is contemplated in the Child Support Bill. Obviously a member of the judiciary is well capable of applying a formula if he or she has to do so, but in my view it is not the natural work for a judicial person.
Secondly—and this adds weight to what I have just said—the court's judicial function will not be needed, save in a few cases. The creation of a formula eliminates the need for any discretion in assessing the amount of child maintenance. It is unnecessary for the courts to continue to be involved in that part of family law in the great majority of cases where the calculation can be done administratively. The courts need only to be involved if a question arises requiring the use of their discretion. Those questions will arise where the parents have an income above that to which the formula applies, where education costs are involved, or where the child is outside the jurisdiction of the formula and the agency—for example, in relation to a step-child. Elsewhere, and certainly for the basic amounts required to keep a child, it seems right to leave all matters of child maintenance to the agency, subject of course to a right of appeal on law or fact to an independent adjudicatory body.
I have said already that we intend to implement the Children Act. It will involve major changes. I do not believe—and I ask the Committee to take this seriously into account because to me it is a very important matter—that we should do anything under the Bill to jeopardise the chance of success of that first step towards unifying the family jurisdiction to which I feel great personal commitment as I believe does the Committee.
Important questions of effectiveness and efficiency are also involved. The tasks of investigating means, making mathematical calculations under complex regulation, and so on, are ones with which the Department of Social Security is already experienced

327
and adept. It seems sensible to build on and use that expertise. rather than to involve the courts which have no relevant experience, if our aim is to ensure an effective and quality service for parents and children.
Further, I doubt that fragmenting the operation of the new system between the courts and the agency could provide a cost-effective or satisfactory service to parents or children. In effect, there would be numerous outposts in county courts and magistrates' courts in addition to the agency's offices and a good deal of duplication and waste. Concentrating all the services available under the Bill in the agency would avoid that.
I do not see the creation of the agency, with sole responsibility for the new system, as inconsistent with the Government's commitment to rationalising and improving the family justice system. Part of that programme aims to ensure that the limited resources of the courts are concentrated on what they uniquely can contribute to the family justice system; namely, the resolution of disputes where an authoritative judicial decision is needed. The agency will carry out what will largely be administrative tasks in tracing parents, investigating their means, and in collecting and helping to enforce maintenance. That will allow the courts to concentrate on their essential adjudicatory function.
I find it slightly bewildering that interested bodies, and people who are willing or positively enthusiastic to see questions about the upbringing of children sorted out by bodies outside the courts, except where a resolvable conflict persists, should be unwilling to see a similar approach taken to maintenance where the task is of a much more administrative nature.
Perhaps I may refer to the details of the amendments later if the noble Lord feels it necessary. At present I do believe that he has not so indicated but has relied on the principle of the series of amendments.
I have sought to intervene at this stage simply to put those considerations before the Committee. I regard them as extremely important. I believe that the Committee should consider whether, if one is setting up a new body to deal with a particular case load, it is right to introduce what will essentially be a new, difficult factor into the assessment of the resources required to meet it.
I have given the figures that my noble friend Lady Faithfull requested. The precise arrangements for the child support officer are matters to be considered. It will certainly be possible to contest the child support officer by means of the social security offices. However, we shall do what we can to concentrate the work of application of the formulae to the facts of a particular case in such a way as to make it as effective as possible.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale asked me about the position with regard to the maintenance of a wife. It is difficult enough to devise a formula for a child in relation to social security benefit. To devise formulae for the wife is extremely difficult. We have not found it possible to do so at this juncture.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I cannot have explained myself properly. My difficulty is this. I can see that one does not want to make a formula for the maintenance of the wife. I asked how the maintenance of the wife fits in with the formula generally and in particular with example 3 on page 12 of Volume 1.
The Lord Chancellor: There is an element of provision for the wife as the carer in the formula provision which deals with the maintenance of the children. So far as concerns the wife's claim for spousal maintenance, that would have to be dealt with apart from this situation. In many cases for one reason or another there is no question of spousal maintenance.
I strongly commend to the Committee our view that we should provide the agency as a distinct body to assess maintenance in respect of the relevant children on the basis of the formula. We should make it necessary for such work to be done by the agency and not provide the option of the court doing so. That would unnecessarily split the workload with advantage to no one and would put upon the courts a burden which at the time in question they would not be well equipped to meet. In any event, it is not the kind of work for which the courts are primarily suited.
6 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for reading the letter that he received from the chairman of the National Council for One Parent Families. I was a president of that council but the chairman who took office 31 months ago has not favoured me with a copy.
I have two comments to make about the letter. First, I welcome the Government's somewhat novel conversion to approving the views of the national council. Secondly, even as a previous president of the national council, I should not seek to claim that it possesses final wisdom in such matters and that its views must be accorded a special precedence. It is to be noted that, almost alone among the large number of voluntary organisations in this field which have briefed Members of the Committee, the national council supported the Government's proposals. I understand that nearly all the other bodies were in opposition.
Much has been said about the issue and I shall not take up the time of the Committee by repeating it. However, I wish to make one point arising from what was said by the noble and learned Lord. He stressed that if the courts were to retain jurisdiction for maintenance, they would not have the resources to deal with the numbers of people involved. But they would perfectly well have the resources if the considerable expenditure which the Government propose to lavish on the new agency were provided for the courts in order to improve their procedures. The trouble all along in this field has been that the courts in order and the social security authorities have been at arm's length, have treated themselves as separate institutions and have rarely co-operated.
One of the central reasons why the National Council for One Parent Families recommended a

329
family court—that is apart from the classless issue mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the hope of getting rid of our three systems of family law and dealing with the situation in which social security law, like the poor law before it, operates as a system of family law—was that under the control of the court would be the deployment of all the welfare services available. The court would have its own staff who would bring those concerned in touch with all the welfare services outside, including the conciliation services. In particular, under the control of the court would be the closest co-operation between the social security authorities and the court.
It is no use saying that that cannot be achieved, that such a system could not work and that it would take up too many resources. If the resources that are to be given to the agency were given to the court we could perfectly well have such an arrangement. It would permit the choice on which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, have laid so much stress; that of whether the cases are to be handled by an administrative procedure run by the DSS or by the courts.
I can speak with knowledge of people's attitude towards the social security authorities, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. During one period of my life I spent a great deal of time working in court collecting offices, courts, supplementary benefit offices and talking to those administering such places. The atmosphere, the furnishings and the facilities of the magistrates' courts, through which thousands of our fellow citizens were and are passing in litigating their matrimonial affairs, were miserable in the extreme, uncomfortable and dirty. However, they were never unfriendly. The staff of the courts worked no doubt as untrained social workers but they exhibited a proper relationship of assistance towards the people using the courts. I regret to say that that was not the case in supplementary benefit offices, and I doubt very much that it is the case today. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will realise that the great majority of people whom he is consigning to the new agency will bitterly resent the procedures and processes to which they will be subjected.
Many of the other arguments on the subject have already been made. I deeply regret the noble and learned Lord's unwillingness to consider the grounds upon which the amendment has been tabled. It was not put forward obstructively but in order to help. It was put forward by all who have spoken on it as a means of retaining what I regard as being of fundamental importance; it is that family matters should be handled by a judicial institution with proper procedures and a high degree of judicial impartiality. It is perfectly possible to achieve efficient maintenance-determining procedures and at the same time that vitally important element.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: At an early stage in the Committee we are being plunged into a mood of deep anxiety about whether we realise what we are being asked to do. The size of the problem and the whole area of activity under this Bill raise questions of considerable social and political significance.
330
We are asked to create a new bureaucracy, to establish a new creation—that is, the conversion of what hitherto has been an obligation between spouse and spouse into a public debt collectable by the agency and distributed in benefits according to the formula upon which the levies are made. In the hands of the agency is placed the equipment of pursuit for recovery of that public debt which not even the police possess. Only the tax gatherers levying and recovering public revenues have the same power as will be in the hands of this agency for the administration of this highly complicated work.
It is perhaps no wonder that the Australians have grafted this problem on to the taxation system. It would be worthwhile to discover more about how they have done that. I recall that in Crosland's time, some of us came together to work out a scheme of minimum income guarantee. That was to be operated through the taxation system. If there was to be a slogan in the matter, it was "pay as you earn; receive as you need". One part of that was the extraction from the taxpayer and the other part was a benefit distributed through the tax system to those whose incomes needed augmenting.
There were many problems about that. One problem which we came up against was in the time of the Chancellorship of the noble Lord, Lord Barber. We went into the scheme in great detail and held 22 Select Committee meetings. We were faced with the problem of how to use a taxation system for this and yet give the benefit to the mother. It was the demand of the women, as expressed through the various organisations, to have the benefit for themselves and for their children in their hands as a right. However, it seemed that it was impossible to find a satisfactory scheme on the lines which we originally proposed.
It seems to me that here we have a means to an end which is out of all proportion to the problem which we are asked to solve. I am groping for the coherence of my thoughts on a situation which offers most disturbing reflections for us this weekend.
However, if we regard the ends as justifying the means, then we are placing this debt higher in social, political and economic terms than the revenues to the state itself. That is what it amounts to. We only justify the means of recovery by converting the obligation of the spouse to an obligation of the state. Therefore the state supervises the spouse's assessment and distribution to the recipient as if that were part of public administration. That is an extremely novel and in some ways dangerous concept to be creating in our social benefit and taxation system.
As regards recovery and the means given to the agency to find and trace people and to impose the formula on them, it would seem very strange if we give powers to the agency which we do not give to the police. Indeed, so much of this is reminiscent of the recovery of public debt by distraint, by prosecution and by other statutory means. How will that be borne? What kind of political reactions will there be? Who will be answerable to Parliament for what happens in the agency? We shall want to know a great deal more

331
about the agency before it can be entrusted with this enormously explosive new feature of our social and marital life.
What are the implications of this scheme on marriage? What are its implications on the reproduction of children? Who is going to have children? Where are we getting to? It is almost impossible to believe that this Chamber and this Parliament will even consider this scheme without a further in-depth study of the problem which has opened out to us.
This is the first round of the challenge to the bureaucratic powers of the agency and the bureaucratic manhunt which this Bill will set in train. We should pause to consider what it is that we are asked to do. This is an inheritance from the matriarch of the Conservative Party which was handed down as a form of discipline on defaulting fathers who must not be allowed to escape their responsibilities. That has now been expanded into machinery, means, staff, chief child support officers and child support officers. In a few moments we shall consider what is the meaning of the word -support" in this context and the many other problems which will arise. Other assaults are still to be made on the powers which it is proposed to give to the agency which is to conduct this highly contentious and delicate task.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I have been very much struck by the amount of modesty which has come over the Committee during the debate on this amendment. With all his experience of the courts the noble and learned Lord argues that the best way to administer the scheme is not through the courts. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. with all her experience of social security and my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris with all his experience of social policy argue that the Department of Social Security is not the best department to administer it. It strikes me that nobody is in a great hurry to take on the administration of this formula.
I have listened with great care to the debate. It seems to me that the proposers of the amendment have made out their case. Three points particularly stick with me. The first is the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that it is impossible to separate the maintenance of the child from that of the mother. That is a point to which I hope to return if we reach the debate on the proposal to disentitle mothers to benefit.
The second point which has influenced me is that I share the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about excluding a large number of our citizens from the courts. The third point is that I listened with great care and attention to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, I fear that he brought out extremely clearly those features about the formula which cause me anxiety.
The White Paper said that the formula was to allow virtually no need for the application of discretion. The noble and learned Lord went even further. He said that it eliminates the need for any discretion. I believe
332
I understood him correctly but will willingly accept correction if I did not. I am not sure that that aim in any administrative function is quite in the real world. When I arrived at Yale I was told that all Yale rules were construed to contain the word "normal". It is difficult to administer anything without discretion. It is particularly difficult in an area of such raw human emotion as exists following the break-up of a family.
One of the reasons I believe it is a good amendment is that if there are two alternative routes for those involved in the unfortunate situation, it will inevitably mean some variation between the remedies that might be applied. The alternative must mean the creation of some area of discretion, however small. In the real world that is to be welcomed.
Baroness Elles: One of the problems of taking part in debates in your Lordships' Chamber is that when one hears opposing views one is not sure what one will end up with. Having heard the brilliant advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I felt I was totally in agreement with what he said, until I heard my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. When he read out the letter from the chairwoman of the National Council for One Parent Families it reminded me of a survey I had undertaken—admittedly some years ago —dealing with one parent families. When asked what was their worst problem in coping with shortage of funds and how to get through the week, I regret to say that 25 per cent. said that it was had service from solicitors.
Today we have spoken about the courts and the DSS; nobody has said how we arrive in court and who looks after us when we get there. If there were 10,000 solicitors like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, there would be no problem. However, there are not; unfortunately, there is only one. He certainly cannot look after all the cases that have to come before the courts.
I regard the setting up of an agency certainly not as an ideal but perhaps as an answer to the objectives we all share. If my noble and learned friend can confirm that it would in no way impede the setting up of a system of family courts, and that it would be regarded as an administrative and executive side of the function of those courts, the idea may be more acceptable to many other Members of the Committee.
I refer to the problem of transferring the number of cases of single parents on income support or family credit under Clause 5 and how they will be dealt with immediately by the agency. Is a transitional period to be allowed? I found no provision in the Bill for that. I do not see how the setting up of such a system and the provision of child support officers would allow around 770,000 maintenance cases to be dealt with immediately. They may involve review or tracing situations.
The problem of the surrounding ambiance of the courts and the DSS is surely something that the Government could attempt to improve. They are both disgraceful. Often they are dirty and unpleasant. The conditions in which people must wait are appalling. They cannot obtain a cup of coffee and there are no

333
facilities for their children. If we are to set up the system suggested we must ensure that we provide the standards people expect today.
If we are to provide people to do this work—it looks as though the provisions will be accepted anyway—we must ensure that they are trained and are sympathetic to those who consult them, particularly women with children because they are the people we are talking about. They are the ones who become distraught, worried, cross and unhappy. Therefore, it is the character of the child support officer who will play a leading role in whether or not the agency will function successfully.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, in beginning his observations, pointed out that these amendments were tabled in a constructive and helpful spirit. I do not believe that anything I said was intended to contradict that; quite the opposite. Amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, are never other than constructive, though from time to time I find myself not in full agreement with some of them. I accept that the amendments were tabled in a constructive spirit and I have no doubt that Members of the Committee will feel that I am endeavouring also to be constructive.
I am extremely committed to the improvement of the family justice system so that we provide a uniform system of administration. The Bill is a good step in that direction because it provides that matters which may be dealt with administratively are dealt with administratively and efficiently on the basis of a formula.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that I had suggested that the application of the formula would he without discretion. That is what I said and what I believe to be appropriate; namely, that where the formula applies it should be applied. Discretion exists in areas not covered by the formula; for example, additional payments in respect of certain heads mentioned in the Bill. The purpose of the formula is that once we find the relevant facts it will provide the answer.
I accept that regulations in Yale may be associated with the word "normal". However, if one wants a formula for calculating maintenance and that is achievable, it must be done on the basis I mentioned. It is not a normative rule, which I assume the rules in Yale to which the noble Earl referred were. It is an administrative system for obtaining an answer. It is a mathematical formula without any norm in it. The idea is that it should apply where the answers are put in.
The noble Earl mentioned the point about excluding some of our citizens from the courts. There is nothing better than suggesting to our citizens that they should not go to court if it is possible to obtain the service elsewhere. Many lawyers spend their lives inviting their clients not to litigate. I am sure that some Members of this Chamber have experience of doing just that. Some matters are excluded from the courts. For example, the matters that are referred to industrial tribunals are excluded. It does not mean that citizens are excluded. It means that certain subject matters are dealt with more appropriately elsewhere.
334
The subject matter of maintenance derived from a formula is better dealt with by an administrative authority such as we are proposing.
In many cases there is support for the child, which is not the same in respect of different obligations as the support which the mother receives. The many cases with which the agency will have to deal will mean there is no question of support for the mother from the same person as has the obligation to support the child.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, suggested that the resources made available to the agency, if made available to the court, might produce the same services as the agency. The problem with that is that it provides choice. The only way in which that suggestion could be advanced would be if the same resources were provided to the court and to the agency so that they could both provide the service and give an option to anyone who wanted it. That clearly illustrates that what the amendment proposes is to double the requirement which would otherwise exist.
I turn next to the question raised by the noble Lord. Lord Houghton of Sowerby, with regard to who would be responsible to Parliament for the agency. The answer is the Secretary of State for Social Security. He is the person under the Bill taking on the responsibility of providing the services. There is no separate mention of the agency. He will be responsible to Parliament for that. The staff of the social security offices are accustomed to that kind of work. The 2,000-odd that we are proposing to transfer from the present department to the agency represent the relative officers under the present system and therefore they have experience of the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, mentioned his experience of social security offices. I may be wrong, but I had the impression that it was not yesterday that he was doing the work to which he referred. Quite a lot of improvement has taken place in the way in which social security offices have dealt with their business in the interim. Anything that we can do to improve them further is surely well worth doing. The point is that very many of the people who will have recourse to the agency will be those who already go to the Department of Social Security. I hope that the Committee will feel that we have had a full discussion of this matter, but that it will not give effect to this constructively proposed amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: The noble and learned Lord has dealt perfectly fairly in argument with this amendment. But that does not mean that on an important matter of principle he has covered the main points that we were putting forward. It is a fixed formula. It is no good arguing that there is no discretion in regard to a formula, and then saying that it is such a complex matter to apply the formula or even to work it out, that officials of the court would be unable to do it. If it is a fixed formula it must be one which immediately fits in with the computer which I described previously, but which necessarily is not always applicable to family cases.
Another principle is that all our citizens should be able equally to enter the portals of our courts. In

335
answer to that the noble and learned Lord said that there was some similarity as regards tribunals set up to deal with special cases. There is no one who can deal with an employer-employee case which is defined as being within the province of the tribunal however wealthy or privileged he may be. That is the tribunal to which the employer and the employee has to go. I wonder how the noble and learned Lord regards it as being perfectly appropriate and proper that someone who falls outside the income support or the credit level is able to go to a court and get an arrangement worked out, however complicated it may be, and to have the matter dealt with by the same judge who is dealing with wife maintenance and other such matters.
If it is so good to have these matters dealt with by an agency, why do we not make it a big one and spend more than £30 million on it? It would save the court a great deal of difficulty as regards its administrative work. Let everybody who has any problem concerning child maintenance go to this glorified Department of Social Security and visit the portals of its agency with great pleasure, possibly leaving a rather extravagant car outside. That is not the way in which we have ever administered our justice. Instead of giving the Committee the tribunal as an example, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could give me an example where a matter appertaining to the rights of a child which are to be maintained, or any parallel matter, and where those who are better off are able to go to court but where those who do not have the wealth of the other party are debarred from doing so.
The noble and learned Lord would have had a much better case if he had said that our argument was that the agency was no longer to operate and that we had come forward with a wrecking amendment because we did not want the agency. In our amendments we have said that those who wish to go to the agency will do so, but they have the right to go to court if they wish to do so. They have the rights of all other citizens. That strikes me as being such an important principle that at this hour of the evening I am not prepared to risk that important principle by taking this matter to a Division. It must await a further stage of this Bill for us to do so. In the meantime I hope that the Government will think again and accept that these amendments are not only constructive but advisable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Child support maintenance]:
[Amendment No. 12 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 12A:
Page 2. line 29, leave out ("person with care or absent parent with respect to whom") and insert ("applicant for").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is another small probing amendment to see if we can shorten and simplify the wording of this distinctly verbose Bill. I ask the Committee to look at Clause 3(3) on page 2 of the Bill, line 29. At the moment the provision reads:
336
"Where a maintenance assessment has been made in response to an application under this section the Secretary of State may, if the person with care or absent parent with respect to whom the assessment was made applies to him under this subsection, arrange for—".
>My proposal is that the subsection should read,
"the Secretary of State may, if the applicant for the assessment ... applies to him".
That is very much shorter and it means exactly the same thing. I believe that I know why the draftsman has avoided that simplicity. There are two applications. However, there is no room at all for confusion. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Under Clause 3, either the person with care or the absent parent may apply to the Secretary of State for an assessment of child maintenance in respect of a qualifying child. The absent parent may wish to have his obligation assessed under the formula and may apply. Clause 3(3) as it stands will allow either party to apply for the collection or enforcement of the maintenance liability.
The effect of this amendment will be to restrict application for collection or enforcement to the party who initially applied for the maintenance assessment. If this amendment is made effective, if I have understood it correctly, the result will be that if the absent parent applies for the assessment to be made, and it is made, the caring parent will be unable to enforce it. That is not quite right. Clearly, the fact that an absent parent for whatever reason made an application for an assessment of his or her maintenance liability should not prevent a person with care from seeking to have the due amount of maintenance collected or enforced if payment of the assessed amount is infrequent or incomplete. It is also intended that the absent parent should have the right to apply for these services, although clearly it is unlikely that he or she will be applying for enforcement action. It is, however, possible that an absent parent may wish to make use of the collection powers held by the Secretary of State. This could occur, for example, where the person with care was deliberately making life difficult for the absent parent, who genuinely wished to meet his responsibilities for his children.
This is certainly a matter which was worth looking at. I should like to thank my noble and learned friend for raising the issue. I hope I have given a reasonably satisfactory answer.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It is very difficult to say that any answer from my noble and learned friend is unsatisfactory. All I can say is that it did not at all meet the point that I made. Instead of the cumbersome phrase,
"the person with care or absent parent with respect to whom the assessment was made",
I ventured to use the word "applicant". The applicant is the person who made the application in line 29. There is no reason at all why that shortening should not take place.
Again, I must apologise for the late tabling of the amendment. In this case, as in the previous case, I thought it was just possible for my noble and learned friend to argue that there might be some doubt which ought to be resolved. In this case it seems to me, if I

337
may say so with respect, plain beyond peradventure. I hope that my noble and learned friend will consent to look at the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12B not moved].
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("in particular").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 37 and 53. These are minor drafting amendments. On consideration we have concluded that the words "in particular", where they are used in the three places mentioned in these amendments, are unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert:
("( )In making any decision under this Act which affects an individual child the Secretary of State shall give paramount consideration to the welfare of the child.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, the change to our programme earlier in the day because of the Statement has meant that my noble friend Lady David cannot be here to move the amendment. If I may, I shall move the amendment in her place.
The amendment is central to the Government's claim that the Bill is intended to ensure that "children come first". If accepted it would mean, for example, that the proposed child support agency, which acts under the authority of the Secretary of State, would be acting unlawfully if it could be shown that a child suffered as a result of a parent losing welfare benefit under Clause 22. I am sure the noble and learned Lord will recognise that the wording of the amendment is taken from Section 1 of the Children Act, which he mentioned when he replied earlier to the first amendment. That section places courts under a similar duty when determining any question with respect to the upbringing of a child or the administration of a child's income.
At Second Reading the noble and learned Lord claimed that the Bill is a natural adjunct to the Children Act, because like the Act the Bill is,
"informed by two central principles or objectives, namely, the giving of priority to the welfare of the child and the primary responsibility of parents for securing that welfare even where the parents' own relationship has broken down". —[Official Report, 25/2/91; cols. 773–4.]
I draw the attention of the Committee to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the United Kingdom has signed and intends to ratify. It states:
"In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be of a primary consideration".
The amendment has a straightforward purpose. It is to ensure that the paramountcy principle incorporated into the Children Act 1989 is applied in all decisions concerning children's upbringing. Any decision affecting a child under the Children Act is subject to
338
the requirement to ensure that the child's best interests will be served by the decision. It is almost self-evident that a Bill introduced with the aim of improving child support arrangements should also adhere to that principle. It should be spelt out on the face of the Bill.
However, as the Bill stands, there are some aspects which appear to threaten the best interests of children, particularly those which impose responsibilities on parents which may increase stress, tension, and even danger within the home—for example, a violent parent—which, if the person with care is in receipt of income support, offer no financial benefit to the children at all, although they reduce government expenditure by some £400 million.
Those with responsibility for the implementation of this measure should therefore be expected to consider the child's welfare before deciding whether and how to pursue their duties as set out in the Bill. That is the objective which the amendment aims to secure in order that children's interests will properly be protected by the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: At the beginning of the Children Act 1989 there is a most excellent purpose clause which says in effect—I am paraphrasing—that the interests of the child shall be paramount in regard to every decision made under the Act. If this Bill were to say —and I do not find it anywhere—that it is to be read as one with the Children Act 1989, it would not be necessary to repeat that excellent purpose clause at the beginning of the 1989 Act. That would have been one way of achieving what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, very properly has in mind. As we do not have such provision in the Bill, a better way of receiving what the noble Lord has proposed on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady David, would be to have it as a subsection under Clause 1, coming at the very beginning and therefore giving it that importance. However, having said that, I shall be interested to hear what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has to say. We should have a provision stating that the Bill is to be read as one with the 1989 Act or something earlier on the lines proposed by the noble Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: The amendment would require the Secretary of State, when making a decision affecting an individual child, to give paramount consideration to the welfare of that child. The Children Act requires the courts to give paramount consideration to the welfare of the child where a question concerning the upbringing of the child or the administration of application of income or property belonging to the child is an issue.
The whole idea of maintenance is for the benefit of the child. The more the child can get in general terms, the better. If the amendment was incorporated in this way it would suggest that maximising the income for the child would take precedence over seeing that the father, if he happened to be the absent parent, or the mother, in the case that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, would like me to consider as the

339
paradigm case—at this time of night perhaps I should do that—had sufficient income. The more one can get for the child, the better.
In this area there is the balance to be struck between the interests of the child and the interests of the person who is paying and the other responsibilities that the person has. Although I fully understand the principle and endorse the principle which is in the Children Act, one has to be careful about the way in which it is applied. The idea of proper maintenance is certainly for the benefit of the child. But I do not think that we can have a situation in which, for example, the interests of the paying parent—or the paying mother in the case I have cited—are left out of the matter. In other words, the parent's needs have to be taken into account. Of course, the formula endeavours to cover that aspect.
I do not wish to push the issue to one side. It may be possible to introduce something which would show that the whole idea of maintenance is for the benefit of the child. I shall consider whether we can do something of that nature. However, the idea of using this consideration to measure the amount of maintenance would create great difficulties. I am aware of the principle which prompted the noble Baroness to table the amendment. However, I hope that the noble Lord who moved the amendment will feel able to withdraw it, at least for the time being, in the light of what I have said.
Lord Carter: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the remarks that he made. I find the distinction between the benefit of the child and the welfare of the child difficult to understand. I should have thought that the two aspects were coterminous. As the noble and learned Lord said, "The more you can get for the child, the better". But surely the formula is intended to protect the absent parent. Its object is to ensure that the absent parent is not, so to speak, "done down". I understand that the noble and learned Lord appreciates the thrust of the amendment. If we could agree upon an acceptable form of words for the Bill in this respect, I am sure that it would prove to be most helpful. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert:
("(10) This section shall not apply in relation to any case in which a parent or other person with whom a qualifying child has his home is a person with respect to whom a court, on or after a decree of divorce or nullity of marriage, has exercised its powers either under section 25A(2) or 31(7) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, by ordering that periodical payments or secured periodical payments in favour of that person should be made or secured only for such term as would enable that person to adjust without undue hardship to the termination of his dependence on the absent parent, or under section 25A(3) of that Act by dismissing that person's application for periodical payments with a direction that he or she shall not be entitled to make any further application
340
in relation to that marriage under section 23(1) (a) or (b) of that Act (whether by consent between the parties or not, and whether or not any consideration may have passed between the parties in relation to such order.
(11) The provisions of subsection (10) above shall apply to any case in which an application for periodical payments in favour of a person with care of a qualifying child against a person who is an absent parent with respect to that child was dismissed, whether by consent or not, and whether or not any consideration passed between that person and the absent parent, on or after a decree of divorce or nullity of marriage before the coming into force of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 as they apply to the exercise of the court's powers under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 subsequently.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment attempts to deal with the situation of a couple who have a clean-break settlement which has either been awarded or approved by the court. Such a settlement probably takes the form of a capital sum for the transfer of property or something of that nature. The amendment seeks to ensure that such cases can be referred back to the court if any further matters arise and that they should not be dealt with by way of assessment by the agency.
A clean-break settlement made a few years previously may be regarded by the mother as being out of date or in need of reconsideration. Whether it was open to review would depend upon the terms of the settlement. However, it seems to me that if a court has dealt with a settlement then any matters arising thereafter should be dealt with by the court and not by the agency. That is the crux of the proposal.
Clean-break settlements will have an effect on the eligibility of the mother to consult the agency. No hardship will arise if those who have had a settlement dealt with by the court can return to the court in order to settle any further issues which may arise. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I question the utility of the amendment. I suspect that we shall have more to say about clean-break settlements when we come to deal with Amendments Nos. 28, 54 and 58. Of course, where children are involved, there cannot be a completely clean break. There can be a clean break between the adults if that is what is necessary or desirable, but a proper clean break between the adults is not intended to be reviewable by the courts or by anyone else; it is meant to be a full and final settlement.
The amendment, as explained by the noble Lord, seems to miss the point which has already been so very well made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor; namely, that there is a distinction between maintenance for the benefit of' the mother and maintenance for the benefit of the child. Indeed, the mother who is forced to accept a clean-break settlement may be in need of more, and not less, child maintenance. If I believed that the amendment would achieve through the back door what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and others were eloquently trying to achieve through the front door by way of Amendment No. 10, I would support it. However, I do not think that it will produce that result; indeed, it could cause

341
confusion and possibly even encourage retrospective attempts to undermine valuable clean-break settlements.
The Lord Chancellor: The effect of these amendments, as I understand them, would be to preclude a child support officer from making an award of child support maintenance where a court has made a "clean-break" order on divorce or has already dismissed an application for maintenance by the absent parent either on her own behalf or on behalf of the child before the clean-break provisions became law. For reasons very similar to those advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I feel that I cannot advise Members of the Committee to accept the amendment.
A basic aim of the Bill is to emphasise that parents must remain responsible for their children until those children can look after themselves. It is, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, not possible to have a clean break from one's children. Under the existing law even when a court considers that substantial maintenance is inappropriate it will normally—although my experience of this is pretty general—make a nominal order. It is always possible to return to the court if circumstances have changed to obtain an upward variation of such an order.
I should also make it clear that, although the formula contains an element to take account of the costs of looking after a child, this in no way represents spousal maintenance. A child, particularly a young one, needs to be looked after, either by the lone parent herself or by someone else. That care costs money, either directly to a paid carer or by the caring parent. It is absolutely right that those costs should be taken into account since they are directly caused by the existence of the child. In no way can they be considered to be spousal maintenance. I should make it clear that there is nothing in this Bill which will affect the courts' powers to make clean-break orders in respect of spousal maintenance. The Bill only concerns maintenance for children, but because children are so important we should not deprive them of the opportunity to seek benefit from maintenance. I hope, in the light of what I said, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Applications by those receiving benefit]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("family credit or any other benefit of a prescribed kind").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is intended to put a grant of family credit outside the range of expenditure of the Secretary of State for Social Security and outside the scope of recovery from the liable spouse. The Department of Social Security is under some restraint from claiming family credit as a refundable item in some cases where expenses are deductible from other benefits paid. I, and other noble
342
Lords, believe that family credit granted in any particular case should not be recoverable as an expense against the liable spouse. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 19, which is grouped with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and covers similar matter, although in a slightly more abstemious way. Amendment No. 18 seeks to leave out the words:
"any other benefit of a prescribed kind".
That would restrict the powers of the Secretary of State to prescribe whichever benefit he may think fit. We feel that this clause has been drafted a great deal too widely and in a way which takes it well beyond the Government's proclaimed intentions. The reasoning behind the Bill is that the taxpayer has an interest because of the expense falling on the taxpayer in the form of maintenance of the child. That creates a logical case within the Government's framework for excluding family credit. That is why family credit is not covered in my amendment, though it is in that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I can see no case whatever why a mother should be disentitled to a disability working allowance, severe disability allowance or a war widow's pension. Those seem to me to be outside the reasoning of the Bill.
This is also the first occasion on which we have to grapple with an issue which will come up over and over again in the course of this Bill, which is the extent of the regulation-making powers conferred upon the Government by the Bill. I feel that the Committee ought to know what it is approving when it makes law, and if it approves the words:
"any other benefit of a prescribed kind"
Members of the Committee are not merely buying a pig in a poke, but are legislating a pig in a poke. We do not know what is going to be done with it. And if something is done by some future Secretary of State maybe many years later, of which we do not approve in the least, it will be too late for us to come hack, like Caligula after an execution that he had ordered in a fit of pique, and say, "Oh, I didn't mean it."
There is a good deal of difficulty about changing what goes into regulations and so the increasing tendency to put vital matters of principle into regulations puts us all into a good deal of difficulty. Rather than wringing my hands about that upon the stroke of dinner, I will only point out that where there is a new procedural development it tends to give rise to an equal and opposite procedural development. So I shall draw the attention of your Lordships to the first report of the Procedure Committee, paragraphs 9 to II, which deal with non-fatal Motions and amendments. There is the sense that it is perfectly in order to put down a Motion inviting the Government to amend what is in regulations and to vote upon that Motion—which has the effect of inviting, not compelling, the Government to change what is in those regulations. I have no wish to see that procedure used widely, regularly or frequently. In some ways it is a cumbersome one, but if the tendency to put

343
everything into regulations goes on growing the tendency to apply this sort of procedure to regulations must also grow. That is the case for this amendment.
Lord Carter: As my name is attached to Amendment No. 19, I should like to support what has just been said by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is clear that we should be told what the other benefits are that it is intended to include. They should be specified in the Bill if the Government intend to include them.
I know the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will be familiar with the debates that we have had about disability and the working allowance, but I am sure he will recognise the considerable importance of this allowance not being included in the prescribed benefits. That would mean that someone who is caring for a child—a lone parent, for example—receiving that benefit or the DWA, as we call it in the Bill —would then be obliged to authorise the Secretary of State to take action under this Bill to recover child support and maintenance from the absent parent.
If such authorisation were to be enforced in the case of the caring parent receiving the DWA, there is a real danger that the benefits of this allowance would be lost. We all know that the intention of the allowance is to encourage disabled people to try out work or to return to work. If someone in that position finds that they will incur a penalty if they help to name and trace an absent parent with whom they prefer to sever all connection, they may well take the decision not to return to work but to continue to survive on invalidity benefit.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am completely in support of the amendment. I wonder whether the Minister can help in regard to the wording. Clause 5 says:
"Where income support, family credit or any other benefit of a prescribed kind is paid to or in respect of the parent of a child she shall, if ... she is a person with care of the child".,lb/>
I wonder whether these benefits are payable only to women, because that is what the clause appears to say. Bearing in mind the discussions that we have had previously in this Committee, and bearing in mind also the sympathetic hearing that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave to my previous amendment, and the sympathetic ear he gave to me and other noble Lords when we were insisting that this Bill ought to be about equality and ought to apply to mothers as well as fathers, this seemed to indicate that he agreed with us very much. In those circumstances, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Henley, would be able to speak to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and ask him to bring forward a suitable amendment at Report stage. Unfortunately, I overlooked to do so at this stage. If he would do that at the Report stage, it would be much better than if I did it.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may deal briefly with the point which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has just made. I shall bring that to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. On the point of the word "she" being used in this context, we shall be dealing with this in connection with a later
344
amendment which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. The simple fact is that we have used the word "she" for convenience here and we have used the word "he" on other occasions. If the noble Lord would care to look at the Interpretation Act—at the moment I cannot remember the date of it or the appropriate clause—he will be pleased to know that we shall be dealing with this in connection with Amendments Nos. 23, 25, 30 and 33. I shall be able to refresh his memory at that stage. The Interpretation Act says in effect that where "she" is used "he" is also understood—and vice versa. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord. Perhaps it has not satisfied him or his noble friends, but we shall be coming on to that particular point in later proceedings.
Lord Mishcon: I would not want the noble Lord to be under any misunderstanding concerning the Interpretation Act, which says just what he said it said. The real point is that when throughout the Bill one has used the masculine more that the feminine, suddenly to find the feminine gender in a clause makes it seem as though one is concentrating solely on the mother and not on the father, who has no rights. It is usual to have a "he" because that always includes the "she". It is most unusual—and as the expert in this field the noble Lord, Lord Renton, may well agree with me—to put "she" just in the hope that people will realise it includes "he".
Lord Henley: On this occasion I think we all know that in most cases it will be "she". Therefore for convenience I think it was perfectly legitimate to use that word on this occasion. I believe, as I said, that the Interpretation Act covers me. I would rather not go down the line of always using the word "he" throughout the Bill because there are occasions when "she" might be more appropriate.
These amendments seek to limit the application of Clause 5. Amendment No. 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would limit it to those caring parents purely on income support, while Amendment No. 19 would limit it to those on income support and family credit, but both would remove the ability to add to those benefits by means of regulations.
Dealing with Amendment No. 18 first, we feel that it is right that family credit, as well as income support, should be included in this clause. Like income support, it is a means-tested benefit, which the payment of maintenance directly affects. The taxpayer has a clear interest in ensuring that, where at all possible, maintenance should be sought where the caring parent is receiving family credit.
Turning to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble kinsman Lord Russell, my noble kinsman said that the clause went too wide in that it allowed other benefits to be prescribed. I give the assurance to my noble kinsman and other noble Lords that this is not our intention. We have only specified income support and family credit because at present these are the only benefits to which application of Clause 5 is appropriate. They are both benefits which are paid because the caring

345
parent's income is insufficient to meet the needs of her family, often because of the failure of the absent party to pay maintenance for his children.
We have no intention of extending it—and I can give this assurance to the Committee—to housing benefit, community charge benefit, or to any of the contributory benefits, or, for that matter, to any other named benefit, and I can run through a few as my noble kinsman did. We have no intention to include war pensions, or attendance allowance, or mobility allowance, but there is the exception of disability working allowance, to which I shall come later.
To explain why we think it important to retain the option to add to these two benefits, income support and family credit, if necessary by means of regulations, it needs to be kept in mind that benefits change over the years. Income support replaced supplementary benefit, and family credit replaced family income supplement. At some later date it may become necessary to replace the current benefits with something more appropriate to the needs of some future time. Clause .5, as currently drafted, would enable us to ensure that it applied to the successor benefits without having to amend primary legislation.
It would be right for me to turn now to the disability working allowance because that was a benefit that both noble Lords mentioned, and it is one, I have to say, that we are minded to include, but we would not be able to include it in the wording of the Bill at the moment because, as the noble Lord will know, disability working allowance does not exist because the Bill has not yet received Royal Assent. Therefore, one has to give oneself this prescriptive power.
We are still, as noble Lords will know, devoting a great deal of time to the Bill that sets out the two new benefits, DLA and DWA. I believe that no one would disagree with the proposition that parents who are disabled are in principle subject to the same responsibilities—and I think they would feel that they should be subject to the same responsibilities— for their children as other parents. Therefore, we feel it is right that the provisions of the new system should apply to them.
If and when the disability Bill goes through Parliament and receives Royal Assent, and disability working allowance comes into existence, we intend to provide for it to be added to the list of benefits to which Clause 5 applies. It would undoubtedly be right to recognise in some way the extra costs they may incur because of their disabilities when calculating their ability to pay maintenance, and we are considering how best to do this. But we believe that it is right in principle to treat disabled parents in exactly the same way as other parents, while making provision for the practical differences in their situation.
It is important that family credit should be a benefit to which the provisions of this clause apply. We should retain, for the reasons I have given, the option of adding to those benefits. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Earl Russell: I warmly welcome those assurances about the Government's intention that my noble kinsman gave me, but I am sure that he will be the first
346
to admit that those assurances have no legislative force. I would prefer to see these matters spelt out in the drafting of the Bill. I am also deeply dismayed by what my noble kinsman said about the disability working allowance. It was my understanding perhaps my noble kinsman will correct me if I am wrong—that that benefit was paid in respect of the person's disability. It is not a benefit paid in respect of a child. Therefore, it is not, so far as I can understand it, a cost that is falling on the state because of the default of an absent father. I do not see why it belongs in this Bill.
If my noble kinsman cannot reassure me further on this, I will have to consult my noble friends over dinner about what to do with regard to Amendment No. 19. We will also have to consider the possibility of putting down an amendment to the disability Bill.
Lord Renton: I appreciate what the noble Earl has said; but surely the Bill would be incomplete without including the reference to family credit, which he wishes to have left out. Surely he accepts that in the light of what my noble friend on the Front Bench said?
Earl Russell: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, wants to leave out the words "family credit". I do not.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. We will reflect on this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("family credit or any other benefit of a prescribed kind") and insert ("or family credit").
The noble Lord said: I have to agree with the words just spoken by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I spoke to Amendment No. 19 in the previous group, and I found the Minister's answer not only unsatisfactory but extremely alarming in what he said about the disability working allowance. We will not take the time of the Committee now, but we shall certainly come back to this question either on this Bill or on the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, or indeed both.
Lord Henley: It would be right for me to respond briefly to one or two of the points. Of course my noble kinsman is right, there would be no legislative force in the assurance that I have given; but I can assure him that there is considerable moral force. I think that assurances given by a Minister from the Dispatch Box carry some weight, and I certainly hope they do in my particular case.
The only other point I wish to make is that I think. as I said, that it is quite right that family credit should be included. Disability working allowance is very much on all fours with family credit, and therefore it is right that it should be included. It is a benefit that the individuals are receiving from the taxpayer, and therefore ought to be taken into account. We have taken on board the point that there might have to be some adjustments in the calculations because of the extra costs imposed naturally on the disabled, and I

347
have said that we shall look into that. But in the meantime it is important that we keep our right to add disability working allowance to the list of benefits.
Earl Russell: May I ask my noble kinsman to clarify a point? He said that disability working allowance was on all fours with family credit. Is disability working allowance paid in respect of a child?
Lord Henley: Perhaps to use the words that disability working allowance was on all fours, was not the right phrase. It is analogous; it is very similar to family credit. It is an income-related benefit. Therefore it is right that it should be included.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Viscount Davidson: Before moving that the House be resumed, perhaps I may suggest that we do not come back to the Committee stage before twenty past eight. I beg to move that the House be resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Agricultural, Fishery and Aquaculture Products (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1991
7.19 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move that the draft regulations laid before the House oil 4th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I must begin by pointing out to your Lordships that an amendment has been made to the text of the draft regulations which does not appear in the version that you have before you. In Regulation I no date for entry into force has been given. This regulation has been amended to state that the regulations enter into force on the day after they have been made. I therefore hope that noble Lords will excuse this omission and will be able to consider the draft regulations, as amended.
These regulations are necessary to implement various EC marketing and processing grant schemes in Great Britain. The grant schemes derive from three EC council regulations: first, EC Regulation 866/90 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products; secondly, EC Regulation 4042/89 on the improvement of the conditions under which fishery and aquaculture products are processed and marketed; thirdly, EC Regulation 4028/86, (Title VIII), on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector.
The first two of these regulations have replaced EC Regulation 355/77 as part of the Community's wide-ranging reform of the structural funds in 1988. The third regulation, 4028/86, covers a number of fisheries and aquaculture measures, including the provision of grant-aid towards certain facilities at ports and landing sites which contribute to improving the processing and marketing of landed fish.
The three council regulations empower the Commission to offer grant-aid from the guidance section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund towards those investments which most closely meet the aims of the regulations in improving processing and marketing conditions and bringing lasting and quantifiable benefits to producers and fishermen.
It is a basic requirement of all the schemes that eligible investments are supported by a minimum contribution from the member state government and these draft regulations provide for and control that funding in Great Britain. This national funding may, for example, be provided under the regional selective assistance scheme which is part of the Government's Enterprise Initiative. But, in any case where appropriate national funding is not available from any other source, the draft regulations empower Ministers to make a grant of five per cent. of the eligible investment expenditure. This is the minimum national payment required to attract EC grant.
The regulations provide for Ministers to approve expenditure for the purpose of obtaining EC and nationally funded grant-aid and for the payment of it in line with conditions including those set out in the Council regulations. Ministers are also empowered to revoke approval of expenditure and to recover grant-aid under certain circumstances which are set out in Regulation 8. That regulation also provides that, except in cases where the Commission decides to recover grant paid—against which we cannot provide any right of appeal—the applicant may be given a hearing before an appointed person.
The draft regulations impose certain obligations on applicants to preserve appropriate records in order to verify claims. They also create powers of entry for authorised officers for the purposes of enforcement and create an offence in respect of false statements made by applicants in order to obtain grant.
The grant schemes which these draft regulations implement are intended to benefit producers and fishermen. This can be done by assisting them to produce high quality, added value products with adequate shelf life and storage capabilities and generally by encouraging improvements in the way products are marketed and processed. Where there is a demand for the recycling of products such as straw, some producer returns from an otherwise waste product will be forthcoming. Consumer demand for high quality and/or novel products can be satisfied, thereby providing legitimate market-orientated outlets for produce. Better returns for producers and better marketing of produce have the added benefit of reducing reliance on intervention as a market of last resort. These grant schemes provide a small but significant amount of aid for the companies concerned. I therefore commend these regulations to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th February be approved. [9th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
7.25 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Earl for the way in which he explained the regulations. We are also grateful to him for drawing our attention to the mistake in Regulation 1, where the date is omitted. I must repeat a demand that I have made on previous occasions and ask whether anyone ever proof-reads regulations. This is not the first time it has happened.
Regulation 3 enshrines the 5 per cent. contribution rule whereby Ministers may make grants for projects which are then able to qualify for aid from the guidance fund. Obviously, the willingness to contribute is necessary for the EC grant to be paid. Thus, the ultimate control of grants is in the hands of the department.
Does the department have any policies or guidelines on the way in which they choose the projects which should be supported? Would there be any geographical or financial balance or qualification on the size of the project? Perhaps the Minister will indicate the guidelines Ministers use in allocating the grants. It is also important for farmers and the agricultural industry for the availability of the projects to be publicised. How is the availability of the projects made known?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his comments. He mentioned two points, the first of which refers to the conditions for the 5 per cent. grant. The back-up grant of 5 per cent. is automatically available to all receiving EAGGF grants where other government grants are not forthcoming. For example, under previous schemes in Great Britain 95 per cent. of the beneficiaries received back-up grants. The remainder received domestic grants from other sources, such as the DTI regional selective assistance scheme.
The second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, related to publicising the grants. Regular departmental press notices and also comprehensive guidance notes are widely circulated to potential applicants. There are also seminars for consultants and potential applicants.
I trust that I have answered the noble Lord's points. If not, I shall be more than willing to write to him. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

City of Bristol (Portishead Docks) Bill [H.L.]
7.27 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Noble Lords will be aware that the history of Bristol is in large measure the history of its port which, for centuries, was one of the most important in the British Isles. There are still major port facilities in Bristol but, during the present century, and particularly in recent years, considerable changes have
350
occurred in the pattern of our overseas trade, in the nature of the goods we export and import and in the way those goods are handled.
All of these changes have affected the port of Bristol, and not the least of them has been the shift in emphasis from west coast ports, such as Bristol, the Clyde and Liverpool, to those on the east coast, such as Felixstowe and the Humber ports.
The port of Bristol at present consists of a number of separate dock facilities spread over a fairly wide area. These facilities amount to the City Docks, the Avonmouth Docks, the Royal Portbury Docks and the Portishead Docks, the last of which are the subject of this Bill. Geographically they are the furthest of the docks from the city centre of Bristol, being 12 miles distant and they are outside the administrative area of Bristol City Council.
As regards the history of the docks, they owe their existence to the ambition of a group of local dignitaries, who in the 1860s became strongly opposed to the Bristol Port Railway and Pier Company's plans to build facilities at Avonmouth. In 1862 the Portishead group formed itself into a company known as the Bristol and Portishead Pier and Railway Company which in 1863 obtained parliamentary powers to build a railway and pier at Portishead. Construction of the railway began in 1864, the line opened for business in 1867 and a year later the pier was built.
Then in 1870 the company announced that powers would be sought to build a dock at Portishead in direct competition with one already planned at Avonmouth by the rival Bristol company. Several years of often bitter dispute followed as the rival groups and Bristol Corporation promoted and discussed the schemes and the finances involved. In 1871 the Portishead company received parliamentary permission to build the docks and pressed on with their construction. Even in those days the project suffered severe constructional delays and was not completed until 1879—two years behind Avonmouth Docks. It appears that Portishead's destiny to be second to Avonmouth was already set at that time.
Early competition between the three separate ports of Bristol, Avonmouth and Portishead was particularly fierce but moves soon started with the aim of bringing the Avonmouth Docks and the Portishead Docks under the control of Bristol Corporation. That difficult task was completed in 1884 when Portishead was purchased for what was then the princely sum of £ 250,000.
In 1892 a scheme was proposed to extend the Portishead Docks into Portbury Marsh, but favour was instead given to the Royal Edward Dock extension at Avonmouth. No major development took place at the Portishead Docks in the first 25 years of its life and the docks appeared to settle down to the minor and humdrum role of importing grain and then timber and some petroleum.
By the turn of the 20th century it was apparent that Portishead Docks would never be a resounding commercial success. The lock facility built in 1879 was already acknowledged as inadequate by 1890. Despite being superb engineers, as your Lordships are well

351
aware, the Victorians did not foresee the great advances in ship design and ship size. That was particularly so in the case of Portishead whose design afforded four feet less water at its entrance than. say, the Avonmouth Docks.
The Bristol Docks Committee tended at first to favour the City Docks and neglected the outports until the early 1900s when again it was decided to favour Avonmouth for investment and expansion because of its better communications. In view of all this, Charles Wells, the distinguished historian of the early Port of Bristol, was able to write as early as 1909 that,
"in the light of subsequent events the making of Portishead Dock appears as a blunder".
I do not usually address your Lordships with such a long tale of woe. However, the tale now reaches a slightly happier moment: namely—as is often the case—that when war broke out, activity in the docks revived. They were well used during the First World War with great increases in grain traffic. Portishead also supplied huge quantities of petroleum in cans to the army in France. Indeed, I understand that 70 per cent. of all petrol for the expeditionary force was shipped from those docks.
During the Second World War the docks were improved by the construction of additional rail sidings and a new quay. However, the tonnage handled was substantially lower than that of the City Docks and represented a small fraction of Avonmouth trade.
Two power stations were constructed at Portishead —one before and one after the Second World War —and they helped the docks, as did the decision in 1949 of Albright and Wilson to lease a 20 acre site adjacent to the docks for a phosphorus factory. That facility went into production in February 1954 and by 1957 to 1958 total trade had reached 820,000 tonnes. Although that sounds a lot, it was just over 10 per cent. of all Bristol's dock trade.
However, in the 1960s trade was maintained at an acceptable level. It was not until the 1970s that traffic serving the power stations declined and both power stations have now closed down. Albright and Wilson continued importing liquid phosphorus averaging approximately 36,000 tonnes per annum, but by the 1980s the demand for phosphate fertilisers and detergents had fallen. To add to the misery, by 1990 the company decided to close the plant. I shall bring noble Lords as nearly up to date as I can. In the year ending 31st March 1990, only 5.640 tonnes of cargo passed through Portishead. That is just over one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the total Bristol port traffic.
I have to say with great regret that the sad story ends even more sadly in that Portishead Docks are now redundant. There is no prospect of them ever again being financially viable. The disadvantages of the docks are such that they have inevitably been the ones to suffer most as the Port of Bristol—I remarked on this at the beginning of my speech —has fought to compete against the background of the shift in traffic from the west coast to the east coast, and has tried to adapt to many other changes, not least the advent of containerisation.
I have spoken at some length on that matter
352
because I felt your Lordships would like to know the background to the decision to seek powers to close Portishead Docks. The council has to come to Parliament to seek such powers because the statutory provisions contained in the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847, and in various other private Acts of Parliament, including those mentioned in the schedule to the Bill, mean that the docks cannot be closed to commercial shipping without further statutory authority. In the absence of such authority, any rights of navigation within the docks will continue, as will the council's obligations to maintain them. Those obligations involve costs which the City of Bristol can ill afford. It is no different from other local authorities in that respect. Furthermore, as long as the statutory provisions remain in force, they effectively prevent the city council from developing the docks in an alternative form.
While the Bill does not in itself seek to authorise development of the docks, it would facilitate development in the future, subject of course to obtaining all necessary planning permissions. In essence the Bill would enable the docks to be treated like any other piece of land. Speaking from my own totally objective position, I have to say that the Bill has the support of all the political parties represented on the city council. I emphasise that I certainly do not regard tonight's discussion as a party matter. I have nothing of a political nature to say. My concern is with economic efficiency and, above all, with the prudent management of the city council's resources. That is especially important in the present day.
I now turn to a matter which is of local interest. Local interest in what happens to the Portishead Docks has focused upon the future of something known as the Parish Wharf. As I understand the matter, we are spending a little time this evening discussing this issue because of the Parish Wharf. Before 1866 a wharf appears to have existed in a creek known as the Portishead Pill. That creek was used by some local people for the loading and unloading of certain cargoes.
As I have explained, the Bristol and Portishead Pier and Railway Company was authorised in the 1860s to construct a pier in Portishead Pill. That pier apparently affected the use of the Old Wharf. As a result, a duty was cast by the 1866 Act on the company to construct a new wharf—the Parish Wharf—which was to be of at least half an acre in extent and capable of accommodating, at any one time, two vessels of up to 50 tons each.
The Act then provided that the Parish Wharf could be used at all times for the loading and unloading of bricks, tiles, coal and culm by all persons who had previously been entitled to use the Old Wharf for such purposes. I was interested to discover what culm was. It appears to be the technical word for coal dust. I was particularly keen to discover the meaning of that word because, as noble Lords know, I am a crossword addict and I am certain that the world "culm" will turn up as an answer to a clue some time in the next year. The Act also provided for a right of way over the wharf for such persons as were entitled to use the Old

353
Wharf. The Act vested the Parish Wharf in the Bristol Corporation as trustees for themselves and all other persons entitled to use the wharf.
In the council's view there is no doubt that in the past certain persons—it is impossible to say who—had a right to use the Parish Wharf to load and unload bricks, tiles, coal and culm. That cottage industry—I hope I may use that expression—existed satisfactorily alongside the much greater commercial business being carried on by the company and, since 1884, by the council at the docks.
It is not disputed that for a long time no one has used the Parish Wharf to load or unload any of the cargoes to which I have referred. However, noble Lords will be aware that there are petitioners against the Bill and they claim that the rights to use the Parish Wharf now extend to a general public right to use it for recreational purposes.
The council does not accept that that is the case.
The council acknowledges that the docks have been used, mainly by an organisation known as the Portishead Cruising Club, for non-commercial activities. That was perfectly acceptable to the council while the docks were having to be maintained and operated for commercial traffic. The problem now is that the cruising club, a sailing club, the Royal Yachting Association and the district and town councils are seeking in effect to force Bristol City Council to keep the docks open in order that a relatively small number of people may continue to make what is at best sporadic use of the facility in a way in which it was never intended to be used.
Not only would that be unfair to the people of Bristol, who would have to carry the cost of keeping the docks open, it could also effectively prevent the docks from being put to some new use. The true costs of responding to the petitioners' wishes would be enormous.
Having said that, I am able to say that the city council is willing to meet the various petitioners to see whether a reasonable solution can be found which would satisfy those who claim to use the Parish Wharf, without placing an unreasonable burden on the residents of Bristol and without preventing a large and unsightly area of land from being successfully redeveloped. If any area of dispute should remain, it will be up to the Opposed Bill Committee to take a view, in accordance with the accepted practice on Private Bills. I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time —(Lord Peston.)
7.31 p.m.
Earl Grey: My Lords, I wish to speak about a provision of the Bill which has caused considerable concern to local people. That is the proposal to close the public wharf at Portishead known as the Parish Wharf. The first reference appears in Clause 2 where it is described as a wharf constructed under an Act of 1866. It may help if I begin by setting out briefly some of the history of a valued public facility.
From time immemorial there has existed a public landing place at or near the site of the present Parish
354
Wharf. Statutory recognition of the landing place is first found in an enclosure Act of 1814. That provided for the enclosure of an area of land not exceeding half an acre as a public wharf for landing, loading and unloading goods and materials brought in or carried out of the parish of Portishead. An enclosure was made in 1814.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has already explained the use of the Parish Wharf under the Bristol and Portishead Pier and Railway Act 1866 and I shall not repeat what he said. Under the Act the company was also required to make and maintain a new road to the wharf and to permit free access to it.
The wharf itself was to be vested not in the dock company but in the former Bristol Corporation on trust for all persons entitled to use the wharf. It is clear that the Parish Wharf was not to be part of the dock undertaking. Accordingly, the Act specifically provided that any vessel not exceeding 50 tons using the Parish Wharf and all goods landed there from such vessels were to be exempt from the company's dues. The docks were eventually taken over by Bristol Corporation as part of its dock undertaking, and Bristol already owned the Parish Wharf, but the Act of 1866 and the general rights of the public continued to apply. Therefore, unlike the dock undertaking the Parish Wharf continued to be held by Bristol on trust rather than as a commercial undertaking. The transfer to the corporation of the Portishead Docks did not make the Parish Wharf part of the dock undertaking.
Although the 1866 Act referred to the use of the Parish Wharf for specific purposes, nothing limited the use of the wharf for any other purpose. In case it should be thought that other uses are more recent developments it is worth pointing out that the 1866 Act would only have mentioned those uses which, but for the exemptions in the Act, would have attracted dues or other payments from users to the dock company. There was no need to mention anything else.
By the time of the Second World War, if not very much earlier, the principal use of the Parish Wharf was for recreation purposes, especially sailing and boating. Here I declare a personal interest for I am myself a keen sailor. I know that the waters in the area can be treacherous and recognise the value to small craft of the ability to embark and disembark in sheltered waters such as those of the dock.
If I may I shall elaborate on the recreational use made of the wharf, which has increased over the years since the war. A docks rally is held there annually with 70 or more yachts from various clubs participating. There are other similar functions, also held at the Parish Wharf, which attract large numbers of local people. I am told that between October and March each year no fewer than 15 yachts are stored on the wharf to allow for repairs to he carried out, and members of the Portishead Cruising Club have for many years moored their boats in the waters adjoining the wharf. As I said, the Parish Wharf is particularly valued because it offers the safest approach to the water in the area. That part of the coast is notorious for its tidal reach, as a result of which it is generally

355
unsuitable for family use. As the Parish Wharf is within the confines of the docks, however, it is protected from that hazard.
At present the recreational use of the Parish Wharf is less than it was, but I am told that it is once more set to increase. There are many local people who remember swimming in the water adjoining the Parish Wharf. That became inadvisable, due partly to the use of the docks by ships carrying phosphorous and partly to general pollution from storm water drains. With the building of a new sewerage scheme (the Gordano Valley sewerage scheme) and the closure of the docks for commercial shipping both those hazards will disappear and the Parish Wharf will again be available for recreational uses which cannot easily be provided elsewhere.
How much the public's right to use the Parish Wharf has always been valued locally is shown by the vigorous way in which that right has been defended in the past. When the former corporation continued to block public access to the wharf after the Second World War—the docks had been enclosed during the war and land access to the Parish Wharf temporarily blocked—an action was brought against the corporation by the commander of the Portishead Cruising Club. The terms of the settlement of that action provided for public access to the wharf for what were evidently recreational purposes. That shows that the corporation then acknowledged the existence of those public rights.
The Portishead Cruising Club has petitioned against the Bill, as have the Portishead Yacht and Sailing Club, the Royal Yachting Association, the Portishead Town Council and the Woodspring District Council—the council for the district in which the Parish Wharf lies. All of those bodies strongly object to the proposed closure of the Parish Wharf.
The Bill provides for the closure of Portishead Docks, which are defined to include the Parish Wharf. Clause 3 provides specifically for the extinguishing of the public right of access to the Parish Wharf. No provision is made for a substitute public landing place. That is quite wrong. It may be that it is no longer possible to run Portishead Docks as a commercial dock undertaking. If that is so nobody objects to legislation being brought forward so as to allow for some alternative use of the dock estate. However, the commercial success or otherwise of the docks has no bearing on the Parish Wharf. The fact that the docks are not prospering does not make the Parish Wharf any less valuable as a recreational facility for local people. In fact, as I have explained, it offers further recreational opportunities.
With the commercial dock undertaking gone there is clearly a need to redevelop the dock estate, and I appreciate that the purpose of the Bill is to allow for that. It is a purpose that I would not want to obstruct, and I should be the last person to say that the redevelopment must be constructed around a public facility. Clearly a balance must be struck. My case is that as the Bill stands there is no such balance. It may be that the redevelopment of the docks will not allow for the continued use of the Parish Wharf in its present
356
position. If so, some equally suitable new site can no doubt be found, and I feel sure that that would satisfy local needs.
I appreciate that it is a convention of this House not to oppose the Second Reading of a Private Bill. Representations from the bodies that I have mentioned will be heard by the Select Committee on the Bill when the points that I have made will be backed up by the evidence of local people and the committee will be able to form its own view. When, as I feel sure will be the case, the committee discovers that the position is indeed as I have described it, it will not need any instruction from this House to lead it to the conclusion that the Bill ought not to proceed unless the committee can be satisfied that the parish wharf will be replaced by an adequate alternative facility in the vicinity of the docks.
I say that no formal instruction is needed but, short of that, the committee should have the strongest possible signal from your Lordships that the existing public facility should not be interfered with and the promoters should know that this is a matter which will be kept in view when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill which was so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Peston who said that he was looking at the Bill objectively. I am very partisan in my support for this Bill because I have lived in Bristol since 1941, and for 17 years had the honour to represent in the other place the constituency of Bristol South. Anyone who consults Dad's Parliamentary Companion for the reason why I left the other place, will see listed that I retired. In that, Dod has lapsed from its normal high standard of accuracy. In fact in my mid-50s I was deselected by my local Bristol South management committee as not a fit and proper person to be a public representative. I used to term the people who did it "the rootless academics", but my great friend councillor Vernon Hicks gave me a new description for such an assemblage of the hard Left; he calls them "the corduroy collective". That is probably an improvement on my version.
The noble Earl, Lord Grey, spoke about the yachtsmen involved in this issue. I should like to put the matter into perspective. The port of Bristol is changing because of geology, geography, the EC and containerisation, about which I know a great deal because I served on the committee which considered the Felixstowe Dock and Harbour Bill. Although I say it in the presence of the Chairman of Committees, I think that that must be the parliamentary equivalent of Agatha Christie's "Mousetrap" as a long-running feature.
When my father went to Bristol before the war, he told me that one could still see the tall ships moored in the centre of Bristol where the flowerbeds are now. The area was filled in and further changes made. I studied the petitions to which the noble Earl, Lord Grey, referred. I am reminded of an earlier experience when I entered the other place in 1970 with regard to the Bristol Corporation Bill, which involved the

357
closure of the old city docks. In passing, I may say that the great loss there was the small Charles Hill shipbuilding yard which had produced a number of corvettes for the Navy during the war and was then engaged in building support vessels for the exploitation of North Sea oil and gas. The closure of that yard was a great loss to Bristol. A number of skilled jobs went with it.
However, we were not lobbied so much about the closure of the Charles Hill shipyard as about the problems of yachtsmen and the various difficulties that they saw for their own particular hobby in the closure of the city docks. On one occasion I received a substantial piece of lobbying from Fred Blampeid, who was closely associated with that lobbying. He said that he was writing on behalf of many of my constituents. I wrote back and asked him for a list of the constituents on whose behalf he was writing. He supplied me with two names and addresses allegedly in Bristol South. I checked them with the electoral register and neither of the people involved lived within my constituency. I do not wish to be too hard on Mr. Blampeid because one of those people lived in Ryde Road in Knowle which was within 100 yards of my constituency boundary.
There is a need to consider the financial burden which will be placed on the people of Bristol if this dock continues and is maintained. One must also consider the future development potential of the site, which will be of great benefit to the people of Bristol. It is a Bristol asset and I hope that it will develop and be used to give financial advantage to Bristolians. I know that your Lordships' Committee will give full weight to all considerations in the petitions and if, as suggested, it is possible to reach a compromise, I shall be more than happy. However, in my view, in supporting this Bill the well-being and needs of the people of Bristol must have priority.
7.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, it may be helpful if at this point I intervene briefly to state the Government's view on the Bill.
It is traditional on Private Bills that the Government take a neutral stance and today this Bill is no exception to that rule. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the power being sought by Bristol City Council to close Portishead Docks and dispose of the undertaking.
It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers that they are seeking are justified. As has been mentioned, there are five petitions against the Bill in your Lordships' House. The petitioners will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The committee will be in a very much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.
I hope therefore that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and will be allowed to proceed in the usual conventional way to committee for detailed consideration.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords who have spoken, and in particular my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe for his support. I echo the Minister's helpful reply that the committee is the correct body to deal with this matter in detail. Therefore I hope that noble Lords will accept that it would be inappropriate for me to enter into debate at this time with the noble Earl, Lord Grey, to rebut his points, although I feel that I could do so. I simply reiterate the central point that the council has said that it will discuss these matters with the petitioners. One hopes that a reasonable end to the matter will be achieved.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1991
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, international conventions provide for the free movement of traffic between countries which are party to the conventions. In this country the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order, made under provisions in the International Circulation Act 1952, prescribes the detail of the various documents, fees, minimum ages and enforcement arrangements which apply to our residents who wish to drive abroad and visitors from abroad who wish to drive here. The principal order giving effect to those arrangements is the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order 1975. The order which is now before your Lordships is a "tidying up" order. I shall now outline the details.
Article 1 gives details of the commencement date for the provisions in the order.
Under Articles 2 and 3 visitors to Great Britain who hold valid driving licences or convention driving permits may drive vehicles covered by their licence or permit for a prescribed period from the date they last entered the country.
It is necessary for the order to reflect the new driver licensing terms of large goods vehicle and passenger carrying vehicle which come into use from 1st April 1991 with the bringing into force of Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Act 1989 by the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Act 1989 (Commencement No. 4) order on that date. This introduces a unified system of driver licensing of large lorries and buses in place of the old system which required drivers of such vehicles to hold an ordinary driving licence in addition to a heavy goods or public service vehicle driving licence. Articles 2 and 3 make appropriate amendments to reflect the new driver licensing arrangements. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.).
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord for outlining the order. It is a very commonsense and practical order. Perhaps the Minister will assure the House that there is no difference in the licensing arrangements and conditions of driving of what I still refer to as heavy goods vehicles and passenger service vehicles. We shall have to get used to the new terms. I believe that I shall receive that definite assurance. We welcome the order.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. However, I am afraid that he and other noble Lords will have to get used to using the new terms.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8 to 8.20 p.m.]

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 5.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 33, after ("is") insert ("claimed by or in respect of, or").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 45. Amendment No. 20 makes the provisions of Clause 5 applicable in cases where the caring parent has claimed benefit but benefit is not yet in payment. It is a small but important change. It is important that the absent parent is contacted and arrangements for the payments of maintenance made as quickly as possible. The amendment also makes the Bill consistent with current social security legislation which enables the DSS to seek maintenance immediately a claim for income support is made. Amendment No. 45 is consequential to Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 33 after ("a") insert ("qualifying").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also the Amendment No. 22. As the clause is currently drafted there is no specific requirement for there to be an absent parent. That was not our intention and Amendment No. 21 rectifies the matter. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble kinsman Lord Russell for drawing it to our attention. I hope that they will consider that Amendment No. 21 achieves the same end as their amendment and that they will therefore withdraw it. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I warmly thank my noble kinsman for those remarks. This is an important moment for me because it is the first time that I have had an amendment accepted. I am delighted.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I should correct my noble kinsman. I was not accepting his amendment but
360
putting forward a government amendment which we consider slightly better. I hope that it goes some way towards meeting my noble kinsman's point.
Earl Russell: It accepts the spirit of my amendment.
Lord Carter: As the government amendment inserts only one word instead of the seven that we proposed I believe that it is an excellent amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 33, after ("she") insert ("(or he)").
The noble Lord said: My amendment deals with the "hes" and the "shes". They appear on about four occasions. I had assumed that where the Bill read "she" it could also mean "he". However, I understand that under the Interpretation Act of the last century while "he" embraces "she", "she" does not embrace "he". Therefore the feminine does not include the masculine. If we are having equality of the spouses, man and woman, pa and ma, where children are concerned we must raise "he or she". I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The amendment is unnecessary because the Interpretation Act 1978 deals with the issue. Section 6 states:
"In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears"—
and no contrary intention appears here—
"(a) words importing a masculine gender include the feminine; (h) words importing the feminine gender include the masculine".
I know that I am anticipating what the Minister may say. I rise only because I wish to retell the way in which Lord Kilmuir always put the rule. It was, "Young man embraces young woman."
Lord Renton: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is technically right. However, we should try to make our legislation as user friendly as possible. It may be that when the husband or the wife, the mother or the father, sees the word "she" the position cannot be understood without access to the Interpretation Act. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will not welcome my suggestion but I believe that a way around the problem would be to insert the words "such a parent" or "such a person" in place of the word "she".
I am reluctant to make that suggestion because the phrase is longer than the simple word "she". However, I do not agree with Sir William Blackstone who in the late 18th century said that husband and wife are one in law and that one is the husband. We have moved a long way from that position. However, on seeing the word "she" the lay person could be puzzled but would be less puzzled by the word "he" and still less puzzled by the expression "such a parent" or "such a person".
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I hope that he has forgiven me for jumping the gun before the dinner break. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, this is an emotive subject. Earlier today I read a number of newspaper headlines. It is clear that as regards the press the gender involved in the Bill, and the gender which will be pursued, is the masculine gender. That

361
has caused a great deal of offence. Therefore it should be made clear throughout the Bill that its provisions apply equally to men and women.
In his earlier remarks the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor emphasised that that was so, that he meant it to be so and that it would be so. Therefore, I believe that it should be placed beyond any doubt that this Bill applies equally to men and women, to husband and wife, and that my noble friend's amendment should be accepted. If it is not accepted at this stage, the Government should come forward with something better; though at present I cannot think of anything better than what my noble friend has proposed.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: There is no question here of gender dominance or sex rivalry. The whole purpose of the Interpretation Act is to enable us to legislate by using a kind of shorthand. It enables us to leave out unnecessary words. The unnecessary words here are "or he" because they are supplied by the Interpretation Act. Our legislation becomes more and more long winded and it will be still worse if we disregard the shorthand of the Interpretation Act. I hope that the noble Lord will be firm on this matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: With respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the pursued parent will not read the Interpretation Act and neither will many others concerned with this Bill and the implementation of it. I believe that it is necessary to ensure, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said earlier, that it is made quite clear in this Bill that there is equality between the sexes. Inserting the words "or he", will help to clarify the position. We are not all lawyers and most of the people involved in this Bill will not be lawyers. It is important that they should understand and be satisfied.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may make an observation to my noble friend. There is great merit in what he said and in what my noble friend Lord Houghton said.However, we are not thinking only of this legislation. I do not believe that in drafting our legislation we want to tell parliamentary draftsmen always to use the phrase "he or she" or, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, "such person" in order to keep away from gender. However, it will be found—and I know the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will agree—that it is not always possible to interpolate the words "such person" because there must be some preliminary words to attach to those words. If the Interpretation Act which lays down that "he" incorporates "she", or vice versa, is not used then on each and every occasion one will have to say "he or she". I do not believe that that is desirable. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will realise that what he suggests, which is otherwise very sensible, applies to other legislation where I do not believe he would think it sensible.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: With the utmost respect to my noble friend, this is a "he and she" Bill.
Lord Henley: I thought that this was to be a short amendment. I express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for making the points which I wished to make. It is important to look at Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to an Act in the last century. Although the noble Lord is a veritable Nestor, I believe that that Act has been overtaken by the 1978 Act. Even the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was not a Member of this Chamber at the time of the previous Act ill the last century.
We have chosen to cast the caring parent as the female and the absent parent as the male throughout the Bill purely for convenience and because that is the reality in the vast majority of cases. I stress that it is in the vast majority of cases. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, shakes his head. Obviously there will be alternatives but the Interpretation Act solves that problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and my noble friend Lord Renton made the point that people reading the Bill may become confused. In all deference to the lawyers who surround me, I point out that in the main one does not expect people other than lawyers to read Acts of Parliament. It is the job of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to read Acts of Parliament but the man in the street generally does not do that. Guidance will be issued by my department and the agency which will make matters clear. It is important to ensure that the Act is sound as regards the Interpretation Act and that it can be interpreted by lawyers and the courts. I do not believe that it is vitally important that the man in the street should be able to read the Act because that is not the way in which Acts of Parliament are drafted. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to intervene.
Lord Mishcon: I only do that by uttering a sentence. The noble Lord does not need a great deal of courage to make that remark in this Chamber, but had he made it in another place I am afraid that he would have been ridiculed.
Lord Henley: I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord. He knows perfectly well that people do not sit down and read Acts of Parliament before going to bed at night, though they may read the very well drafted documents issued by my department which, as I have boasted before in this Chamber, have often received awards from the Plain English Society. Acts of Parliament need not be so clear that the non-lawyer can interpret them. However, I hope that what I have said about Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am sorry I spoke! Our time is too precious to continue the discussion on this matter. It all goes to show that no matter what issue you raise, other Members of the Committee know more about it than you do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 26:

363
Page 3, line 35, leave out from ("child") to end of line 36.
The noble Lord said: This amendment, linked with Amendment No. 24, is so important that it is rather disturbing to find a Chamber with such a sad paucity of numbers in spite of its distinctiveness in quality. It is wrong for us to debate such important matters in this way. It is only because of that that I do not proceed with the amendment. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, did not move Amendment No. 24 for the same reason. In those circumstances, having moved the amendment, I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 35, after ("child") insert:
("(aa) that benefit is payable to her in respect of the child;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 32. These are probing amendments. At present we do not feel that the Bill makes clear the circumstances in which Clause 5 is intended to operate where the benefit is not payable for a child; for example, where the child has capital of over £ 3,000 or perhaps where the child is temporarily not living with the caring parent—and I was careful not to say the mother. These are probing amendments and perhaps the Minister will deal with that point.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I could raise one matter in regard to Amendment No. 27. In the case of a virgin birth where the enforcement officer is asked to recover from the absent parent, how is the absent parent to be traced and how will the money be obtained from him?
Earl Russell: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. There was a small muddle between us. I, too, support Amendment No. 27. The point of the amendment is to confine the mandatory effects of Clause 5 to those who are in receipt of benefit. We hope that that is in line with the Government's intention and we would be relieved to be told so.
The reasoning behind the Bill is in terms of the taxpayer's interest because of the necessary saving in benefit paid to people who, it is argued, should be receiving it from the absent parent. I do not understand why this complex mandatory apparatus should be brought into play in the case of people not in receipt of benefit. I do not see what the Government's locus standi would be for setting up a potentially intrusive and cumbersome apparatus where, as far as I can see, the Government would have no direct interest.
That ties up with the words of Amendment No. 32. That amendment deletes the words which state that the provision applies,
"regardless of whether any of the benefits mentioned there is payable with respect to any qualifying child".
I do not understand why those words are there. The Bill would be more logical if they were omitted.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I find this kind of thing extremely distasteful. Last night there was a programme on Channel Four and lying around the studio, with a number of women who were critical of the Bill, was a poster which said, "Marxist Bill".
364
Whether it is Marxist, Nazi or just plain mean, it arouses people's resentment. It is an indication that it is not the children that are being helped in some of these subsections; it is the recovery from one parent of benefits that have already been received by the other parent.
Is that what the Bill is about? Do the Government want to save a lot of money on social security expenditure? If so, it will be an extremely irksome regime. I wonder whether we understand what will happen when some of these applications are issued and attempts made to enforce them. It will arouse a good deal of resentment. Incidentally, some of those women were afraid of violence from their husbands if they found out where they were. The incidence of violence is not something to be brushed aside, as I know from the experience of a person involved.
These are human problems. The men and women concerned are probably experiencing some of the unhappiest periods of their lives. They harbour resentments; feel affronted and humiliated; feel hard done by and that that is not what life should be about. They see romantic love withering on the bough and all the rest of it. It is not a happy area of human life, existence and relationships.
The drive to make the husband or the man pay is so uppermost in the ethos of the Bill that every item must be attended to. Why cannot the Bill take a more humane and conciliatory line? There is no opportunity here for a conciliatory line; it is all rule of thumb. There are no rules for the child support officer. He will walk about with a pretentious title to which he is not suited—"child support officer". These days everybody is an officer. That is bureaucracy. There must be officers, chief officers, superior chief officers, directors and controllers. We shall see; they will all appear in due course. Do I not know my staff associations? It will be a remarkable instance of the growth of bureaucracy from scratch. It will be an unpleasant sight. I am not sure that it adds to the happiness of the people.
The incidence of the breakdown of marriage and relationships will lead to an expansion of the problem, and it must be included in the national insurance scheme as one of the hazards of life. After all, one may find oneself with a broken marriage much sooner than one finds oneself as a widow. We are sorry for widows but we are not sorry for divorced and separated women. That is all part of the ethos of the scheme.
I find it distasteful that in searching for a remedy for an obvious problem we must go into the realm of pretentious bureaucracy, which will have little or no discretion or room for manoeuvre. It will cost millions in terms of car allowances to track down the culprits. It will be an awful spectacle of our society in the year 2000. The way things progress it will not be in full operation until then.
I register my distaste and shall continue to do so. I believe that there was a different way to approach the matter but it started from the wrong quarter. It is still on the wrong lines. There was an alternative method. Even through this method there was a more

365
sympathetic and humane approach which would have generated co-operation from people rather than arousing their venom and bitterness.
I repeat what I said at Second Reading. The new scheme will create more tears, more bitterness and resentment in the condition of life than if people were left to fend for themselves; to obtain what they could from social security; to get a job, keep their dignity intact and feel that at least they are their own person. That would give them a lot in life. This scheme creeps around them. The support officer goes on his annual rounds of checking up to see that the determination is kept up to date. They will never be free of attention. I deplore it greatly.
Lord McGregor of Durris: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, very interestingly resurrected a proposal first made by Beveridge in his famous report of 1943. It was found difficult if not impossible to enact at that time. Perhaps the Minister would reconsider that proposal in the Beveridge Report and report on its present practicability.
Lord Henley: It is important to return to the amendments on the Marshalled List. Perhaps I could touch briefly on the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who raised the rather topical question of virgin births—though perhaps it has been topical for 2,000 years. I am not sure how it bears on the amendment. I shall consider the matter and write to the noble Lord.
Turning to the amendments themselves, these seek to remove the requirement for the caring parent to claim maintenance where there is no benefit in payment in respect of the qualifying child. In the large majority of cases in which a caring parent makes a claim for benefit for herself and her children, the calculation of her benefit will include amounts in respect of the children. However, there are rare cases— I stress that they are rare—where, for instance, a child may have capital over £3,000 or income equal to or greater than the child's personal allowance or child credit. In these cases the caring parent's benefit calculation will not include a child allowance or child credit for that child.
The Government are firmly of the belief that both parents have a duty to ensure that maintenance is paid for their children where it can be afforded. The fact that there is not a child allowance or child credit in the caring parent's benefit calculation does not alter that belief. It should also be remembered that the need to look after the child is one of the reasons that benefit is in payment to the caring parent. Indeed, the income support calculation will include the family premium even when the only child is one for whom there is no personal allowance; in other words, when the child has earnings over the appropriate amount or capital over £3,000.
We would therefore still expect the caring parent to co-operate with the child support agency to obtain maintenance from the absent parent. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: That advances us a little. I understand the point that my noble kinsman is making about
366
savings. Will be consider redrafting the Bill before we return at Report stage to make it clear that that is the limit within which he intends to use the mandatory apparatus to Clause 5 for mothers who are not actually in receipt of benefit? I appreciate that there is a case for having the child support agency and its services available to all parents should they wish to use them. I cannot understand the case for applying compulsion where the state has no direct interest. Can my noble kinsman undertake either to amend the Bill to make it clear that that is not their intention or to explain alternatively why it is their intention?
Lord Henley: My noble kinsman has misunderstood me. The state does still have an interest. Even though the individual child may have large earnings or a large amount of capital, as it were in the Shirley Temple case of a number of years ago, the family premiums will still be paid to the single parent if she were still entitled to income support. Therefore, the state still has an interest through the benefit system. The Bill does not need amending in that respect.
Earl Russell: We can still ask for the Bill to be clarified to make it clear that it says no more than my noble kinsman intends. At present the provision appears to apply to every single parent regardless of whether any benefit is involved and that I deplore.
Lord Henley: I am not sure that my noble kinsman is right. I shall look at the point he has made without giving any guarantees. The Bill is all right as it is, but I shall look at the matter again before the next stage. If necessary, we shall return to this problem later.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I took the point that he was making. It may be necessary to spell it out in the Bill. I shall read what he has said and perhaps come back to the matter at a later stage or we may have a discussion outside the Chamber. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3. line 38, at end insert:
(1 A) Where the person who is under a duty imposed by subsection (1) has accepted an arrangement which includes a property transfer as outlined in section 7(6A), any assessment of maintenance will take account of the value of the property transfer.").
The noble Lord said: The sensible thing for me to do at this hour is briefly to put the purpose of the amendment and to move it formally in order that the Government may give an indication of their reaction to the spirit of it. Then one can judge whether it is necessary to trouble the Committee with an amendment at a later stage. That would be the normal course if the Government did not accept the principle. In this short analysis of the amendments, I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 54 and 58.
What is behind this amendment was referred to in the speech that I made at Second Reading. I can remember how well the point was put by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in the same debate. We both spoke about the clean break which was the aim for many cases in our very recent divorce legislation. The

367
merit of the clean break was that Parliament appreciated that there was a need in many cases to allow the spouses who had found marriage unacceptable for one reason or another to have another chapter in their lives which might prove a little more successful.
On the basis of the clean-break provision without the maintenance order being made year after year and the parties being brought into possibly quarrelsome contact because of it, the idea was that there should be one provision by way of a capital payment. Usually in the lower and middle income groups the main or only asset was the matrimonial home. That was a way of dealing not only with the clean break but also in providing that the children of the marriage had the security of the family home. There were variations on that by way of the Mesher and the Martin orders and so forth. I do not need to trouble the Committee with those variations. They all conclude with the sale of the house at some time or other and a division of the proceeds. That was deemed to be a not very satisfactory proposal when it came to the security of the family.
One of our objections to this formula so fixed and lacking in discretion, was that this broke the spirit of the settlement the clean break. Therefore, in our amendments we are trying to secure the position in the best way we can. I shall put the matter to the Committee in very short sentences. Amendment No. 28 allows for the substitution of property for cash maintenance. Amendment No. 54 allows the court to set a lower cash maintenance assessment where there is a property transfer. Amendment No. 58 is more limited and allows property substitution only after the basic element of cash maintenance has been met.
I have put the case very briefly. In other circumstances, I would have elaborated on it and sought to have some conclusion concerning the matter. I think it is useful that I outline the purposes of the amendments. I ask the noble and learned Lord to indicate the Government's reaction. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: In view of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has moved the amendment, I shall try to speak as briefly as I can in support of it. He has put the matter so well. As he said, the principle is important. In the usual matrimonial break-up there is, as he said, one main asset which is the house. That is generally hard-earned and still needed by the family. There may be one or two incomes. During the 1970s the Mesher order, named after the case of Mesher v. Mesher (or variations of that case) became popular. The departing husband gave up occupation of the home, but he did not give up his capital interest in the property. It was ordered that if the wife remarried or when the children reached the age of 17 or thereabouts, the house should be sold and each spouse received his and her share.
In the 1980s it was recognised that such orders could be quite hard on the former wife. They stored up uncertainties and problems for her and the children. The wife would be forced to sell up when she was in her 'forties or 'fifties. She would have to try to re-house herself using only a proportion of the
368
proceeds of sale at a time when she might have a limited earning capacity, a limited borrowing ability and probably with no remaining widow's pension rights. Moreover, the family would not have entirely departed, and the sale would be forced while the children might well still need a home base.
These shortcomings came to be recognised and since then there has also been the encouragement, both statutory and judicial, of the clean break. When there are dependent children there can never be a complete clean break, but there can be such a resolution as between the adults who reasonably want finality and certainty so that they can rebuild their lives. Thus nowadays it can be agreed—or, if it cannot be agreed, the court can order—that the departing father transfers his entire interest in the home to the wife who has the care of the children. He may also transfer the contents, the car and everything else that there is to be left behind. That is all done in the context of a jurisdiction which gives first consideration to the interests of the minor children.
When that is the solution, the father may be making a considerable sacrifice. A transfer of property for the permanent benefit of the family can be just as valuable a form of child support as weekly or monthly maintenance payments. I suggest that in those circumstances the father is entitled to expect, in all fairness, that such a transfer of property will be reflected in the amount of maintenance that he is to pay. It is not possible to reflect it pound for pound; but account should be taken of it—to use the wording of the first of the amendments.
When this was discussed at Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when pressed on the point by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that the absent father would have the benefit of an allowance for his extra housing costs. That is perfectly true so far as it goes but it fails to make any qualitative or quantitative distinction between the father who, on the one hand, has just given up occupation of the home for a defined period and given up the use of his capital for a limited period, and, on the other hand, the father who has given up everything and transferred his capital interest altogether. As I understand it, both will have the same allowance for the extra housing costs involved in rehousing themselves elsewhere but the father who has given up all his capital should be distinguished from the father who expects to get his capital in a few years' time. These amendments do not go far enough because they refer just to property transfer. Where there are unmarried couples there may well be a capital settlement which ought to be taken into account.
I referred at Second Reading to the Law Commission Report of 1982 on illegitimacy which was the precursor of the Family Law Reform Act 1987. That foreshadowed the giving of powers to the court to make once and for all capital settlements. I shall quote what the Law Commission said:
"It could be particularly desirable to give the court power to make what would often he intended to be a once-and-for-all settlement in those cases where the father intends to have no further relationship with the child".

369
When that is done it would be unfair for the agency to come back against the father to say, "I know you have paid a substantial capital sum over, or you have transferred the house to the child's mother. Nevertheless, we are coming after you for some more".
I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to indicate how genuine attempts to capitalise maintenance will be covered in this legislation. Unless proper allowance is made for transfers of property and other forms of capitalisation, we shall have a return to measure and all the unsatisfactory consequences; settlement out of court will be more difficult and conciliation will be more difficult because it will take one element out of the package which is at present available to the conciliators in trying to reach a well structured solution. Above all, there may well be a genuine injustice to people who are prepared to give up their capital interests in property. It may well have the result of doing more harm than good.
It is important—and I speak now as a member of the legal profession—that we know now how it will be approached, because it is now that we have to advise people for the future because, as I understand it, this legislation will have retroactive effects.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may take advantage of the very clear exposition of the law and practice by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Meston, to draw attention to a curious and gross anomaly of our law on matrimonial property. As the noble Lords have explained, on the break-up of a marriage on divorce, very often— £in the majority of cases now—the divorced wife will be given an interest in the matrimonial home and, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, added, often in its.contents as well. But if the wife stands by her marriage and the house is in her husband's name, as generally it still is, she has no interest at all. That is an incentive to rush into a divorce as the easiest way out of matrimonial difficulties. Even without that it is grossly unfair to treat a woman who stands by her marriage worse than one who is divorced.
The Law Commission dealt with that situation some time ago in a report called Matrimonial Property —A New Approach. It proposed three Bills. One gave the wife of an existing marriage rights in occupation of the matrimonial home. That Bill was passed by your Lordships. But it proposed two other Bills. The second one gave the wife co-ownership of the matrimonial home and the third gave the wife co-ownership of the chattels in the matrimonial home. There were plenty of precedents for the success of such Bills in statute, mainly in Australia and New Zealand.
Those two Bills were beyond the capacity of a private Member and the Government have never taken them up. However, they remain there as a startling finger of injustice pointing at our law of matrimonial property. I am conscious of having made that point hanging on to the coat tails of noble Lords who have already spoken. Nevertheless, it is an issue that we should not lose sight of while we are discussing family law and family relations.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for the point he made. I shall certainly bear it in mind when considering what our future programme should be. However, I turn now to the amendments before us. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, outlined the principles behind them, I do not think that I need deal with them in detail. According to my advice, I believe that there may be a question as to whether they entirely succeed in achieving his aim.
As I understand it, the amendments have two objectives. The first is to achieve fairness in what supporters of the amendments believe to be an otherwise unfair situation. The second is to allow flexibility in the way parents settle their financial arrangements to ensure that the best use can he made of their resources; and perhaps, most especially, so that the arrangements can secure a home for the children. The Government share those objectives but believe that they are already catered for under the Bill. I appreciate the fact that one likes to forecast the outcome of such matters, but any advice would always have to be conditional upon the final form of the Bill.
As to fairness, the parti and the court in settling other aspects of financial and property arrangements on family breakdown will know how much is payable as maintenance under the Bill and will be able to adjust the other elements to take account of it. I attach importance to that point because one of the views expressed to me by people involved in such difficulties —I mentioned this on Second Reading —is that it is very hard to know what the court may do if one is contemplating divorce. I do not believe that even the most experienced people can be absolutely certain of how such matters may he settled. Therefore, there is something to be said—I put it no higher than that at present—for having at least one definite element in these matters.
What is more, to the extent that any transfer of property increases the transferring parent's costs and reduces his income it will generally be reflected by a lower award under the formula; in other words, if his income is reduced by an increase in relevant cost, then the award made against him will be reduced. That result will be enhanced if the transfer reduces the caring parent's and children's living costs and increases their income. Therefore, if the house goes to the caring parent and the children it will reduce their housing costs and that, in turn, will emphasise the reduction in the award which will be payable under the formula.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, said—I am sure he is right—that that is not the sort of arrangement one can achieve on a pound-for-pound basis as the result of a transfer. The formula is devised in such a way as to give effect to these arrangements ill a way that would seem fair. Nowhere is that result clearer than in relation to the family home and the second objective of securing a roof over the children's head which the Government see as being an important aspect of providing proper care for a child.
As pointed out in the White Paper, it will be for the court to decide how to deal with the family home. I have no doubt that the appropriate orders will be

371
developed in the light of the relevant law. It is recognised that at present the court often orders the absent parent to postpone or forgo his interest in the family home so that the caring parent and the children can remain in the house or have sufficient capital to buy another.
We believe that the court will still be able to make such arrangements in cases where it does so at present. The reasons are as follows. If the family home is transferred to the caring parent, the absent parent's housing costs will generally be increased because he will either have to rent accommodation for himself or take out a higher mortgage than would have been necessary had he received his share in the equity of the house. Under the present system, that fact is taken into account in appropriate cases by the court reducing the maintenance payable. It is from there that the noble Lord derived the observation that the arrangement is not always worked out on a pound-for-pound basis.
The formula will have the same effect. The absent parent will be able to claim his reasonable housing costs against the income assessable under the formula. What is more, because the caring parent's housing costs may be lower than would otherwise be the case, her assessable income, and hence her share in meeting the maintenance due to the children, may be increased which would further reduce the absent parent's liability. In these circumstances, the Government see no reason why the courts with their flexible powers should not continue to achieve overall fairness between the parties and ensure wherever possible that the children are not deprived of their home.
The first amendment to Clause 5 is a slightly different case and not, I think, dealing directly with a formula but dealing with sums awarded over and above. As to that amendment, the reasons given for not allowing a set-off also apply. What is more, the amendment gives no indication as to how any property transfer is to be taken into account, and the Government would be concerned if the effect was to leave a caring parent, who is already receiving state benefits, more dependent on them than would otherwise be the case. To do that would in effect mean that taxpayers, many of whom do not have houses or other property of that kind, would be making a present of them to caring parents. That cannot be right. Of course there is a further point which has to be borne in mind: often these transfers involve the transfer of a mortgage as well as of the equity in the property. That may well be relevant to the amount of state benefit, for example, that the caring parent is able to get.
I have spoken mainly about the home, but a capital settlement, other than a home, on a child would also produce income or be deemed to do so, and that would also be taken into account in the formula as part of the carer's income. So I have to say that when all these proposals were originally being considered this was one of the aspects that concerned me. In the light of the consultations we have had with the professional bodies, I have personally reached the conclusion that the effect of the formula will mirror
372
what the court does. .Of course it cannot be done precisely, but it will mirror it in the proper direction in the way that I have sought to explain. I hope what I have said may be a sufficient answer for the time being to enable the noble Lords who have supported the amendment to consider the position.
Lord Misheon: I am most grateful for the indication of the Government's point of view on this matter and naturally we shall want to look at it very carefully. We may well have to return to it at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("without delay") and insert ("within 28 days").
>The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment, but it raises a point of some importance. It deals with the length of time during which the caring parent has to make an authorisation to the Secretary of State to make an application for maintenance. The amendment proposes to alter the words "without delay" to "within 28 days". We feel that the words "without delay" are both peremptory and uncertain and that seems to us an unsatisfactory combination. There may be good cause for delay: for example, there may be illness. The Bill does not say, "without unreasonable delay"; it simply says "without delay".
The people facing this procedure are likely to be people who are sometimes already in a considerable state of distress and this requirement, spelt out so peremptorily, might serve further to increase that distress. On the other hand, were one facing someone like the Shakespearian character who was always turning up and saying "Anon, Anon, Sir", that could provide an excuse for even further and continued delay. Would it perhaps be more useful to specify a period of 28 days, which is, I believe, quite normally accepted within social security legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I was pleased to add my name to this amendment. I could not help wondering, when I saw the words "without delay", whether this represented the Government's haste to save on social security benefits and that was the reason for those words being used. I think that the parent concerned would need time to take advice, to reflect and to be absolutely sure that he or she understood the implications of the application. I think the point has been well made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We do not seek to spin the thing out unconscionably and it would seem that 28 days would be reasonable.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I do not know whether there is any interpretive authority on the meaning of "without delay". The usual term is "immediately", which is construed in the courts as meaning within a reasonable time. Unless there is other authority, I am inclined to think that "without delay" would be interpreted in the same way. I do not dissent from the

373
argument of the noble Earl, but in my view it would be quite acceptable to leave words that mean "within a reasonable time".
Lord Henley: I take it that the noble and learned Lord is saying that he feels that "immediately" would have the same effect as "without delay" and that "immediately" would be interpreted as "within a reasonable time". I believe, as the noble and learned Lord says, that "without delay" would probably be interpreted in much the same way—although of course I speak without authority.
I do not think we are far apart on this amendment but perhaps I might just explain the Government's view. I hope to be able to satisfy the two noble Lords, whose names are attached to this amendment. When a caring parent claims income support, family credit or, as we agreed earlier, another prescribed benefit she will be required, unless she has good cause not to, to complete and return a maintenance application form. This form will give the caring parent's authority to the Secretary of State to take action to obtain maintenance and also provide information to help trace the absent parent and recover maintenance from him. The present wording of the clause requires caring parents to return the form "without delay", which I imagine the noble Earl feels too imprecise and that is why he has put down his amendment giving a specific time limit of 28 days.
I can understand the advantages to be gained from being as specific as possible in legislation. However, there are on this occasion disadvantages as well. One of the key objectives for the new Child Support Agency is to provide an efficient and speedy service. It is in the interests of the children to get maintenance in payment, and to establish in the absent parent the habit of paying maintenance, as quickly as possible. In many cases the caring parent will have the information that is needed to obtain maintenance readily available, and we think it reasonable that she should provide us with this information as quickly as she can. With a time-limit of 28 days to return the form, some caring parents who could return the form in a couple of days will not in fact do so. This will delay the pursuit of maintenance and may, in some cases, make the tracing of the absent parent considerably more difficult.
Of course, there is another possibility that is obviously much less likely to be common. There may be cases where it is considered reasonable for a caring parent to take more than 28 days to return her form. If we accepted this amendment then we would be unable to take account of such circumstances. In those circumstances, noble Lords might accept that their amendment could be too prescriptive.
I accept that such an eventuality could be much less common but there could be examples, such as going into hospital, illness of the children, illness of the caring parent, or whatever, where a delay might occur. In such a case, to be prescriptive with a figure of like 28 days might be over prescriptive. With that assurance I hope that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Mishcon: Having listened to the debate perhaps I may make a short intervention, again taking
374
it for granted, despite what the noble Minister says, that the ordinary man and woman in the street will read this legislation in regard to the matters that affect them and will want to understand it. Officers may be in exactly the same position, according to the Minister. They, not being lawyers, will also presumably not want to read it, or understand it, but I take a contrary view to him on that.
Would it not be sensible to take account of the noble Lord's very wise words about the occasional case where there would be a reasonable delay and alter the words "without delay" to "without unreasonable delay"? In those circumstances we would get the best of all possible worlds. There must not be an unreasonable delay, but where there is a reasonable delay the officer, or applicant, would know that if they gave good reason there is a chance; whereas the officer may think that he has no right to adjudicate. There has been delay, it has been reasonable, but there was delay.
Lord Skelmersdale: It is perhaps just as well that one of my noble friends is not in the Chamber, otherwise we would have a great discourse on the difficulty for the courts in interpreting "reasonableness".
Lord Henley: I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I shall consider what the noble Lord said because he made a valid point. As I said in my earlier response to this amendment, I do not think that we are that far apart. We do not like a specific time limit of 28 days, but if it is possible to come forward with a better form of words, certainly we shall do so. I give the noble Earl no assurance on that, but certainly we shall look at the possibility.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to my noble kinsman for that assurance. I take his point about the dangers of prescription. I listened with a great deal of interest to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with which I sympathise. Pending the Government's reconsideration before Report, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 29A:
Page 3, line 42, leave out ("or qualifying children").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment again raises a question on the Interpretation Act 1978, following the gender swapping amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. The provision immediately follows that in which the feminine connotation includes the masculine. Perhaps I had better read the provision in Section 6:
"In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears ... (c) words in the singular include the plural".
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, bowed to the Interpretation Act and accepted that it governed his amendment. I hope that the Minister will follow his good example.
On page 3, line 42 of the statute, subsection (2) states:
"That authorisation shall be given, without delay, by completing and returning to the Secretary of State an application—

375
(a) for the making of a maintenance assessment with respect to the qualifying child or qualifying children".
By virtue of the Interpretation Act, "qualifying child" includes qualifying children. I believe that I know why the draftsman has drafted the provision in this way. He has done so probably for two reasons: first, under the formula, a composite sum is worked out for more than one qualifying child. But that does not in any way obviate the operation of the Interpretation Act.
The other reason is that elsewhere in the Act we find the words "qualifying child" alone, quite often denoting only the singular. However, I have been able to find nothing elsewhere ill the Act that would show a contrary intention for "qualifying child" to include the plural in this subsection. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Henley: I thank the noble and learned Lord for raising this matter. I believe that his amendment is intended to ensure that there is consistency in the wording of the Bill. I readily accept that there is room for improvement.
Parliamentary Counsel is already considering whether the clause needs amendment in order properly to reflect the policy intention. I shall certainly pass on to him the comments of the noble and learned Lord and no doubt they will help him in his deliberations. For the moment, since I have listened to what the noble and learned Lord said, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment. We shall certainly examine the point.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am grateful to the noble Lord. In view of what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert ("in respect of the continuous period in respect of which income support or family credit is paid to or in respect of her.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. It will take very little time to explain it. The amendment seeks to make it clear that the authorisation in Clause 5 ceases when the caring parent leaves benefit. The amendment seeks to determine when the authorisation ceases. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: As the noble Lord has said, this amendment seeks, for those caring parents receiving income support or family credit, to limit recovery of child maintenance to that period for which benefit is paid. The effect is that once benefit stops being paid, for example because the caring parent returns to work, the Secretary of State will not be able to continue to recover maintenance on the caring parent's behalf. If she wished to receive maintenance for her children, the caring parent would have to make another application to the Child Support Agency. This would put both the caring parent and the Child Support Agency to unnecessary extra work and, more importantly, may well result in a break in the payment of maintenance. This would clearly have serious implications for the
376
caring parent whose decision to leave benefit may well have been influenced by the belief that she had a regular and secure source of income through maintenance.
The effect we wish to achieve is that a person with care who leaves income support or family credit should be in the same position as someone who had voluntarily asked the Secretary of State to act; that is, the Secretary of State will stop acting if the person with care asks him so to do. We are considering whether a government amendment is needed to this end.
As I have said, we think it right that the person with care should be able to decide whether she wishes to stop receiving maintenance when she leaves benefit. This amendment would mean that she had no choice in the matter. Maintenance would end whether she wished it or not. I do not believe that that would be in the interests of either the children or the caring parent. I do not think either that that is the intention behind the noble Lord's amendment. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that explanation. It is the explanation I wished to hear. As the Minister said, the Bill may require some further amendment to make the point absolutely clear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("he") and insert ("the Secretary of State").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 4, line 12, after ("traced") insert ("(where that is necessary)").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. We are not entirely clear why Clause 5(6) (a) (i) does not include the words "where that is necessary" whereas Clause 6(5) (a) (i) includes those words. I hope the Minister can explain. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I refer the noble Lord to the wording in subsection (6) (a) of the clause. This says that the caring parent shall give the Secretary of State such information "as he considers necessary" to enable, among other things, the absent parent to be traced. So the clause as it stands already allows for information to be provided only where it is considered to be necessary. The amendment is unnecessarily repetitive and adds nothing to the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Carter: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, leave out lines 16 to 19.
The noble Earl said: I can best make the case for this amendment by reading the words I propose to delete from the Bill. These are the words which place a duty on the caring parent to,
"comply with any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection as to the categories of information that he requires".
That is such a general provision as to be something very close to a monastic vow of obedience. It binds the parent to comply with regulations whose purpose has only in the most general terms been specified and whose detail has not been specified at all. We have not been given any opportunity to judge the regulations. The way this subject has been handled in past centuries leads one to the belief that the provision could authorise the most intrusive of inquiries into private lives. For example, it could authorise inquiries into drinking habits or, God forbid, inquiries into smoking habits. It could authorise inquiries into digestion. Before we approve anything like this we should have rather more idea of what we are approving. This is another case of the excessive use of regulations. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I should remind the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 37 which has already been spoken to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with Amendment No. 13.
Lord Carter: I am pleased to support the amendment. Under subsection (6) (a) the Secretary of State seems to have all the power that he needs and there is no justification for such unlimited power to prescribe the categories of information required. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's explanation.
Lord Henley: As the noble Lord said, the amendment seeks to remove from the caring parent the requirement to comply, as far as she reasonably can, with regulations which will prescribe the categories of information to be provided to the Secretary of State for the purposes of her application for maintenance. In each case the caring parent would, of course, still be subject to the general requirement to co-operate. It is only the detailed regulations which would go. On a point of information, the same requirement to comply with regulations concerning categories of information exists in Clauses 3 and 6.
If someone is asked to provide information, in whatever context, it is reasonable for that person to ask, "What kind of information do you want from me?" Both the person requesting the information and the person providing it need to know the type of information which will serve the purpose for which it is needed.
Setting out categories of information needed for an application for maintenance in regulations will provide both parties with a firm idea as to the type of information required. We have still to work out the fine details of what should be included in regulations, but such information as the name and address of the absent parent are examples of the type of information the child support agency will need to have in order to
378
obtain maintenance. I do not think that the smoking habits of my noble kinsman are likely to be listed in the information required.
We therefore see the requirement in the subsection as helping the caring parent as it will make clearer to her what information she should reasonably provide when completing her application form. On that basis I hope that my noble kinsman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I am afraid that the Minister has not answered the very real point that has been made by those who are moving the amendment. We in Parliament want to see to it, even if it is necessary to have affirmative resolutions, that Ministers do not behave in regard to the ordinary citizen in a manner which is repressive and which they can claim comes under powers which were granted by Parliament.
As the Minister mentioned, the information which is likely to be required by the Government, and certainly by the department, for example, in regard to the address and particulars of that kind, falls clearly under subsection (6) (a) (i), which relates to the absent parent to be traced. As many of us do, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave an extreme example in order to show how wrong is the all-pervading power contained in subsection (6) (b). One can go further. Under the regulations it would be perfectly appropriate to ask for the most intimate particulars, especially in regard to a lone parent. When mandatory information is to be required from the citizen the Government owe it to Parliament to describe the nature of the information very clearly so that Parliament knows what it is passing.
As the noble and learned Lord knows, I treat all his remarks with respect; but I have heard him say before in another connection that one has to be flexible, and in parliamentary legislation one cannot do everything that one would necessarily want to do. Therefore, because one cannot amend by insertion except by an amending Act, which is very difficult, it is done by regulation since that is easily dealt with.
The categories have been set out. They can be generalised so that Parliament knows very easily in primary legislation what it is authorising by saying:
"any information which directly bears on"
whatever it may be. One knows exactly with what one is dealing. However, this all-pervading power that is being given in statute is all wrong. This Chamber and another place do not want to give the Government powers, which may be of a most delicate and inquisitorial nature, to do that. I repeat that primary legislation can set out categories without any difficulty in this connection. It should be in primary legislation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Mishcon. This is a catch-all situation. My noble friend is right to say that this kind of wording should not be included in primary legislation. All sorts of delicate questions might be asked.
Earlier, perhaps a little prematurely I asked about the situation of the virgin birth. Presumably that is one of the questions that may be asked. The mother may be on maintenance and when asked, "Who is the

379
father?", will reply, "Well, it was a virgin birth. It was a birth by AID". It is a very delicate matter and I do not know the answer.
In order for the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to be able to write and reply to me, which he promised to do and—I am most grateful to him—let me again try to put the point that I was trying to make to him. Where a single woman has a child by artificial insemination by donor and is drawing state benefits, what is the situation? There has been no physical intervention by a man through normal intercourse so the mother is unaware of the identity of the father. The father of the child cannot be pursued for maintenance and the state could be required to keep the child throughout its whole childhood without any assistance from the father. That is why I raised the point about virgin births, which, as noble Lords opposite will know, surfaced only this week in a most direct manner.
It is also relevant to this particular amendment. Is a woman who is claiming benefit to be required to answer the question whether she was inseminated naturally or by AID? If she answers that it was AID, how is the state to pursue the father for maintenance unless he can be identified by certain records, which records I understand will not be made available to the pursuing authority. That is my point.
I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will forgive me for introducing it at this point, and that he will agree that it has some relevance to his amendments.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I venture to support this amendment because 1 simply do not understand what are the categories that the Secretary of State may devise by way of regulation. Paragraph (a) requires him to be given all the information he needs to trace the absent parent, and so on, and all the information he needs to fulfil his duty under the Bill. However, paragraph (b) follows. Quite apart from the cogent objection voiced by Members of the Committee on the passion for legislating by regulation, of which this Bill is redolent, we are asked to give a blank cheque to the Secretary of State by regulation to list categories over and above the information that he needs for the purpose of the Bill. That seems to me to be completely wrong and quite unnecessary for the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: Before putting my point to the Minister, perhaps I may say that when the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked for a maintenance assessment for "the" virgin birth I think that he meant "a" virgin birth.
In his reply, the Minister referred to Clauses 3 and 6. He said, correctly, that the subsection appears in each clause. However, there is a difference between Clauses 3 and 6, which provide that the caring person "may" apply, and Clause 5 which provides that the caring parent of a child "shall" apply. To be forced to apply for authorisation and for power to be handed to the Government to seek any of the categories of information that they prescribe seems alarming.
380
It is not correct to cite the fact that the subsection appears in Clauses 3 and 6 as sufficient evidence for leaving in Clause 5.
Lord Henley: With all due respect to those who have spoken, I fear that noble Lords may possibly have over-reacted to paragraph (b) of subsection (6). In trying to delete that paragraph, one must remember that the amendment includes the specific phrase,
"for the purposes of this subsection".
Members of the Committee say that we can rely purely on paragraph (a). I wish to make the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made: that new situations arise. The noble Lord raised the question of so-called virgin births and artificial insemination by donors. Do we wish to be over-prescriptive in the Bill as leaving in subsection (6) (a) might be? We have to allow the Secretary of State some discretion. Regulations will come before Parliament. At that point Parliament will have a chance to comment on them. I do not believe that the clause is as wide as Members of the Committee seem to fear.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord sits down, will be intimate what category is not covered by paragraph (a) that he might wish to have?
Lord Henley: The point that I sought to make—I shall make it again to the noble Lord—is that it is the very specific nature of the three sub-paragraphs of paragraph (a) which might prevent some other category which could easily be relevant from being considered by the Secretary of State. Primary legislation is not the way to get round that. Primary legislation is not always available to make such amendments to the requirement of information that he needs.
Lord Mishcon: I am sorry to persist. I promise that I do so for the very last time today. With all his wisdom and with all the advice that he has been given, can the noble Lord give an example of a category of information which would be required which is not covered by paragraph (a)?
Lord Henley: That is the point that I tried to make. The mere fact that we cannot think of some category to go into the Bill is a reason why the provision should be kept open. There is always the possibility that such an eventuality might be considered in regulation.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: A provision such as this is not included in a Bill without the Secretary of State having an idea of what he wants to include in the regulations. That is all that the noble Lord is being asked to say at this time. What are the extra categories over and above what is required in subsection (6) (a)? Until we know that, we have no right to pass this kind of regulatory power. That is quite apart from the fact that it is unsatisfactory for the Bill to achieve what apparently is the object; namely, to have a catch-all clause in case something may hereafter turn up, in which case the provision might be useful.
The Minister must answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. What are the categories?Z

381
What is required, or likely to be required, or might conceivably be required over and above what is required by subsection (6) (a)?
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps, first, my noble friend will tell the Committee whether, under the regulations, it will be possible to insert a negative condition. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, spoke yet again about the subject of virgin births. I suggest that in the circumstances the one issue about which the Secretary of State does not want to know is virgin births. By definition, if a virgin has gone, for example, to a sperm bank, that would not be germane to tracing an absent parent because I suggest that in those circumstances an absent parent would not exist.
Lord Henley: I cannot go beyond my previous answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. As my noble friend said, there might be a requirement for a negative condition to be included in the regulations, as in the case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It is important to have subsection (6) (b) in case such a requirement should arise.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I understand what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, but he is taking the matter too far to suggest that the absent parent does not exist. The only virgin birth of that kind about which I know is that of Christ. The absent parent does exist but he may not be known.
Lord Skelmersdale: It may not be desirable that he should be known.
Earl Russell: I take the point made by my noble kinsman that the powers relate only to the purposes of the clause. I wish to ask him one specific question. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that a professional prostitute should become pregnant and be required to name the father. Under the clause, would the Secretary of State have the power to require her to list the names and addresses of all her previous customers? I should be reluctant to give him that power because I doubt whether she could do so if she were so required.
Lord Henley: I shall take advice on the point raised by my noble kinsman and I shall write to him.
Lord Mishcon: I trust that the Secretary of State would not want the information for his personal knowledge!
Earl Russell: I have thought long and hard about whether to press the amendment. My noble kinsman said that he thought we had overreacted. It is equally possible that Government circles have underreacted. I am extremely reluctant to ask for Divisions at this time of night. That is a course that should be taken extremely rarely but it should not be ruled out of court. I shall not do so on this occasion but the Government should take on board the fact that many Members of the Committee believe this to be an entirely unacceptable style of legislation. If it continues we shall reserve the right to divide the House at any time that it may come before us. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before the noble Earl is given leave to withdraw the amendment, do I understand him correctly that he will return to the matter on Report? I see that the noble Earl nods his head. In that case, I have no objection to the amendment being withdrawn at this stage. However, this is a crucial matter which is typical of the provisions of this Bill and typical of much modern legislation; namely, a regulatory power taken in case, in unforeseen circumstances, it may turn out to be useful. Having said that, I no longer oppose the noble Earl's request to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 4, line 17, leave out ("in particular").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 19, at end insert:("or
(c) make a statement to the effect that there are valid reasons for not providing the information required .").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 39. I have given notice to the Minister that I wished to do that. These are related matters. Amendment No. 38 deals with the necessity to give good cause for not complying with the requirement. Amendment No. 39 seeks to spell out specifically "good causes" and in particular it seeks to allow as "good cause" the threat of violence towards a parent or a threat of violence or sexual abuse towards the child.
That is a very moderate shopping list of good causes and is one which I hope the Government will consider. So far they have shown no signs of being prepared to spell out what they regard as good cause. That is a point on which the Social Security Advisory Committee has commented at some length at paragraph 10 of its second report, which I have mislaid. That committee is extremely unhappy about the Government's refusal to spell out what is good cause. It thought that to leave that to the discretion of adjudication officers was by no means sufficient.
My understanding is that the Government have conveyed to the Social Security Advisory Committee —but not, as far as I can gather, to this Chamber—that they are reluctant to spell out a specific list of good causes for fear that in doing so they may provide men with an incentive to do the acts specified as good causes. As I understand it, the Government's argument is a fear that if a threat of violence is a reason for not naming the father, then fathers will commit violence in order to get out of their obligations.
The suggestion that such an exception would be an incentive to commit violence is as true or, as I prefer to believe it, as false as the suggestion that this Bill is an incentive to commit murder. It is equally true or false that the father may wish to murder the mother in order to escape the obligation of paying maintenance.
It is necessary to say that in that case we are dealing with crimes and if the criminal law is not sufficient to deter people from doing what is involved, then it may be that the penalties of criminal law should be strengthened. Anyone who has had any dealings with the administration of a battered women's refuge—and my wife has—will be aware that that is an area of very intense and almost reflex fear among many people. People who feel that fear will reveal the whereabouts of that absent parent only with the utmost repugnance. In fact, it is much more likely that they will not provide the information at all and we shall find ourselves dealing with a disentitlement to benefit, a diminution of the child's income and a departure from the principle of the White Paper that children come first.
Mutatis alutandis, all that can be said also in the case of a child who has been subjected to incest or sexual abuse. There again, there will be a reflex fear. I can see no useful purpose being served by telling the offending parent precisely where to find the person against whom he has offended. That is becoming very near to being an accessory before the fact in a crime. I should be most reluctant to be a party to that. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have considerable sympathy with the purpose of this amendment but I venture to question whether its terms are acceptable. The amendments states:
"make a statement to the effect that there are valid reasons for not providing the information required".
In that case, all that is required is a statement saying, "I have valid reasons for not providing the information required". What is needed is a statement indicating in general terms the nature of any reason for withholding information. As the amendment is drafted it will not take any of us any further.
10 p.m.
Lord Henley: I shall reply to both Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. Amendment No. 38 is an attempt to negate the whole purpose and effect of Clause 5. The clause places a requirement on a caring parent who is receiving income support, family credit or any other prescribed benefit to authorise the Secretary of State to recover child maintenance from the absent parent and to provide whatever information she reasonably can that will help to do so. The amendment means that a caring parent could avoid that obligation by merely saying that there are good reasons why she should not provide the information. I do not believe that such a provision is either desirable or necessary.
Amendment No. 39 sets out on the face of the Bill that the requirement to co-operate in obtaining maintenance established by Clause 5 shall not apply in cases involving violence, rape, incest and any other form of unlawful sexual intercourse. Of course I accept the concerns behind the amendment.
Amendment No. 38 is not desirable because it would apply to a parent who did not have good reason but simply did not want to have contact with the father regardless of the interests of the child. We are all agreed that it is not right for an absent parent to
384
refuse to pay maintenance for his children when he can afford to do so. That simply transfers his personal responsibility for supporting his children to taxpayers, many of whom are bringing up children of their own. It is equally not right for a caring parent to refuse without good cause to co-operate in efforts to obtain maintenance from the absent parent.
Without good cause is the key. We have always recognised that there will be circumstances in which it would not be right to require the caring parent to co-operate in obtaining maintenance. We have already said that we will make exception where rape or incest is involved. There has been much concern that violence should be accepted as good cause. The SSAC, for example, said that while accepting that the threat of violence may be difficult to prove, women could be put in the position of having to choose between the risk of violence and a benefit reduction which would lower her living standards.
We have given careful thought to what has been said on this issue. Our proposals are aimed at putting the interest of children first, and their interests are not served if risk of violence to the caring parent is increased. So we agree that if on the evidence before us we are satisfied that there has been a history of violence in a case or the parent has well founded fear that seeking maintenance will put her or the child at risk of violence, that will be accepted as good cause.
We will ensure that child support agency staff are trained to recognise and to deal sensitively and carefully with these cases. We propose to set out main grounds for good cause in regulations. They will not provide detailed, all-encompassing and rigid lists but a sensible framework. A detailed and rigid list is neither possible nor sensible. We do not want to add to risk by spelling out just what an absent parent needs to say or do or threaten to do to avoid maintenance. There will be flexibility and scope for other grounds; for instance, where the caring parent genuinely does not know the identity of the absent parent. That may deal with the point raised more than once by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. We propose to consult on what goes into the regulations and here we hope that the expertise and good sense of the Social Security Advisory Committee will be invaluable. It is well used to advising and consulting on benefit issues.
Maintenance is in the interests of the children and also the caring parent. It is a portable income and helps the caring parent if she wishes to return to work. The child support agency will be able to do a lot to help obtain maintenance, even if the parents do not want to have dealings with each other. For instance, the agency will ensure confidentiality of information and it can act as a buffer between the parents and do all the work in getting maintenance from the absent parent. In the light of what I have said and the consultations and the flexibility that we hope to bring to bear, I hope that my noble kinsman will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McGregor of Durris: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can help me with a point which he has already raised. Let us suppose that there are two or three possible parents. As I understand it, tests can answer with certainty the

385
question of paternity. Will it be the intention of the agency to compel those who are possible parents to undergo tests? Alternatively, if there is no compulsion but the parents are asked to undergo tests, will the agency wish to draw inferences from a refusal to undergo tests? In these difficult circumstances it will be helpful to know what the Minister envisages.
Lord Henley: We shall come to the very sensitive subject of blood tests and whether compulsion is required. Before responding to the noble Lord at this hour of the night, I should like to take advice on that point. I can write to the noble Lord which might help.
Lord McGregor of Durris: It will certainly help. It is a very important issue.
Earl Russell: I am not certain whether I heard my noble kinsman aright. If I did, he was giving a specific assurance that domestic violence will be regarded as a good cause for not blaming the absent parent.
Lord Henley: I shall spell out clearly what I was trying to say. I said that if there has been a history of violence or the parent has other good grounds to fear that seeking maintenance will put her or the child at the risk of violence, that would be accepted as good cause. There will have to be evidence. I do not think that one can go down the line suggested by the noble Lord's first amendment. There he is saying that an assertion by the caring parent would be sufficient.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. There is a specific clause in the Bill dealing with the situation that he posed. Clause 20 says:
"(1) Where—
(a) a child support officer is considering whether to make a maintenance assessment"— and
(h) the alleged parent denies that he is one of the child's parents; and
(c) the child support officer is satisfied that the case does not fall within one of those set out in section 19(2). the Secretary of State or the person with care may apply to the court for a declaration".
Therefore the matter is in the hands of the court. It is covered by Clause 20.
Lord McGregor of Durris: Thank you very much.
Lord Henley: I thank the noble Lord. I had in fact received a note exactly to that effect. It is obviously a matter for the courts and not for the agency.
Earl Russell: My noble kinsman's assurances on domestic violence seem to be not quite as helpful as I
386
hoped they would be. He seems to be saying that domestic violence will only be regarded as a good cause if it takes place in the presence of witnesses. I am reminded of the Adultery Act—
Lord Henley: If the noble Earl will give way, I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that there had to be evidence. The noble Earl will know—if he does not, he can certainly consult lawyers—that there are forms of evidence available in these circumstances other than witnesses.
Earl Russell: There may of course be bruises. There may be dispute about how those bruises originated. If that is not a requirement for witnesses, I do not see what it is. In fact, I find it very hard to see how domestic violence can be proved, except by the woman's assertion. If that is not sufficient, I think we shall encounter problems to which we shall have to return at a later stage of the Bill. I was going to say that it reminds me of the Adultery Act 1650, which made adultery a criminal offence and then insisted that conviction should require that the crime be committed in the presence of two witnesses, which, of course, it very rarely is. There is, I believe, one known conviction under that Act. I should be a little unhappy at the thought that there might be only one woman who might secure exemption under this clause. Clearly at the moment we are running into misunderstandings. On the basis that I shall return to the matter at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
The Bill was brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past ten o'clock.