Lords Sitting of 21 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 Sheffield.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund Act,
Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Act.

Community Charge
Lord Jacques Lord Jacques asked Her Majesty's Government:
What percentage of local government expenditure was funded by the community charge in 1990–91 and what percentage by domestic rates in 1978–79.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the percentage of local government expenditure funded by domestic rates in 1978–79 was 16 per cent. The percentage raised from the community charge in 1990–91 is 28 per cent. However, following the announcement in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is estimated that the corresponding percentage in 1991–92 will be 15 per cent.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Why have the Government persisted in blaming local authorities for the high rate of poll tax when they very well knew that a major cause was the shift from national taxation to local taxation, coupled with the high cost of collection? Is it not a classic case of being economical with the truth?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not agree with the assumption that the major cause of high community charges related to the balance between grant supplied by the Exchequer and by local authorities. The noble Lord totally disregards local authority spending.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, may I, as an inhabitant of wise Wandsworth, which is next door to loony Lambeth, ask whether it is not a little bizarre that we should have heard the supplementary question from the noble Lord opposite?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is entirely bizarre. My noble and learned friend underlines the point that the Exchequer support for people in Lambeth is infinitely greater than for people in Wandsworth.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that that may not be so bizarre when one considers Berkshire, where I live? In Reading I
720
pay a charge of £486. Berkshire has a Tory-controlled county council. It seems that something is more deeply wrong than that. Is it not a fact that local authorities have lost almost £20,000 million in revenue over the past 10 years? Is it not clear from that that it is the Government's policy of making local taxpayers pay more and the Government pay less that has caused the problem? Are not the Government now thoroughly ashamed of themselves?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes the wrong comparison. There has indeed been a shift, which I have recognised, from national taxation to local taxation. However, he totally disregards the fact that all authorities are treated on the same basis at whatever level that grant is distributed. The discrepancy which has been disregarded by noble Lords opposite is the variation in spending levels between one authority and another.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is not the truth the fact that demand for local services is not matched by any enthusiasm for paying? Since we are giving our addresses, is my noble friend aware that I live in Southwark and that prudence in expenditure is not always obvious there?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I too share the delight of being a taxpayer in Southwark. Nobody likes paying taxes but the reason why the Government responded in this year's Budget to the issue of volume of money collected at local level was precisely because the financial burden on local charge payers has reached a level which is unacceptable to local people.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is growing and grave concern á propos the situation in local government in general? Westminster Council and Wandsworth Council were regarded as the Conservative Party's flagships. However, when people look closely at the flag, they are reminded of the skull and crossbones.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure what point the noble Lord makes. However, when one looks at the quality of services in those two authorities, and the cost to their local charge payers, they bear very favourable comparison with many other higher spending local authorities.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the facts given by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in his supplementary question were correct. The Conservative Government inherited a rate support grant of 60 per cent. which was paid to local authorities. Is the noble Baroness aware that the first Secretary of State in the Conservative Government which started these savage cuts was Mr. Michael Heseltine? Is not the measure that will come to your Lordships' House next week -which makes provisions to implement the cut of £140 announced last week by the Chancellor—a result of the appalling situation that developed from the policies of Mr. Michael Heseltine?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, whether the level of grant to local authorities was at 1978 levels or at 1991 levels, it is the variations in spending levels between

721
one authority and another that one has to address when one talks about effective or ineffective local government. It is true, and we have recognised, that the balance has gone too far in the relationship between national and local taxation. That is why my right honourable friend responded very quickly in the Budget to the concern that local people had: that the cost of local services was reaching too high a level.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, it has been calculated that the Government have completely wasted £14 billion on the abortive exercise of a poll tax. They might as well have poured the money down the drain. Will the Minister tell us who will fund that wastage in future? Will the payment fall on the local taxpayers or poll tax payers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there will be many opportunities for the noble Lord to continue to make that point. I simply do not agree with him that that money has been entirely wasted.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, comparisons have been made between Southwark and Wandsworth. Will the noble Baroness give the House the assurance that, if a Question is put down, she will provide details—including the methods of calculation and the assumptions upon which they are based—in respect of each of the boroughs concerned?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with regard to the Question at the Dispatch Box it is not necessary to answer all those questions. If the noble Lord wishes information on the way in which the grant is calculated, I am absolutely certain that he will find it in the Library. If not, I shall be more than pleased to write to him in detail about how the grant is arrived at for Southwark and for Wandsworth.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the correspondence which the noble Baroness offers and for which I am extremely grateful contain details, first, of the calculations, and, secondly, the assumptions upon which those calculations are based?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall make available to the noble Lord in detail in writing information as to how those figures are arrived at.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in Westminster—which she mentions—the poll tax has come down to £36, and that it will cost £42 to collect? What are the Government doing about that ridiculous situation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like to see a chief executive who admits to a scandalously high figure of £42 for collecting one community charge bill. I hope that the leader of Westminster City Council is listening.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, what will be the position in Shetland, where the authority is faced with the possibility of collecting 93p?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the people of Shetland will be delighted at having to pay only 93p.

Gulf War: Attack on Retreating Units
3.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there were any kidnapped Kuwaitis, Palestinian civilians or immigrant workers from the Indian sub-continent in the convoy of vehicles attacked by allied ground and air forces on the road to Basra during 26th-27th February.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, allied forces had instructions to attack retreating units which could continue to pose a threat. We have no information on casualties sustained in attacks on the Basra road.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the situation is surprising because an earlier statement has been made about the attacks? Can he say whether before the attack was launched intelligence forces gave any information to our commanders in the field that what was being proposed was not so much an act of warfare but more an act of mass slaughter?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this was certainly not an act of mass slaughter. Fighting was in progress throughout the area at the time. The troops were attacked just outside Kuwait City and south of Iraqi defensive positions in the Matla Ridge area.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the true master of mass slaughter Saddam Hussein?
The Earl of Arran: Without doubt, my Lords.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some Members of this House would find it incredible if allied bomber pilots were kind enough to land and say, "Tell us where you come from before we bomb you "?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not certain of the noble Lord's question. The coalition made it clear that it would not attack unarmed Iraqi soldiers. The battle was continuing and retreating units continued to pose a threat.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, a number of Ministers, including the noble Earl, assured the House before the event took place that retreating Iraqi forces would not be attacked if they were retreating from Kuwait. How does he square that statement with the operation that took place, because according to all reports not only were a large number of unarmed Iraqi soldiers included but also a large number of civilians of various nationalities?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is reported that a few civilians were on the road at the time. However, I must make it clear that while the troops were retreating they were able to stop at any time, reform and still pose a threat to the coalition forces, which included our own armed forces.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that all the difficulties about which we have heard this afternoon were caused by the brutal invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein? Is it not a bit thick that some of our soldiers who were killed or wounded have not been particularly honoured for their work while others who were wounded because of the invasion of Kuwait have taken priority over British and American forces who fought so gallantly in the war?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the perpetration and the horror of the campaign was due to one man; that was the evil ruler of Iraq, Saddam Hussein.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, unhappily, many French civilians, and to a lesser extent Belgian, Dutch and Danish civilians, were accidentally killed by the allies in the course of liberating their countries from Nazi occupation? Is that not the sad price that one must pay for defeating an aggressive dictatorship?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there is some truth in that, but the question is far removed from that on the Order Paper.

Gypsy Site at Middlezoy: Planning Inquiry
3.14 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the reasons for the delay in announcing the Secretary of State for the Environment's decision on the proposed gypsy site at Middlezoy.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is a very difficult and controversial case which has aroused strong local opposition. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is close to issuing a decision as promised in the written reply to the noble Lord on 12th March.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer and for the fact that progress has been made. Is she aware that planning policy guidance document PPGI dated January 1988 states that the Secretary of State and local planning authorities have a clear responsibility to minimise delay and that planning applications should normally be decided within eight weeks? It is almost two years since the Secretary of State called in this application.
Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State's delay is preventing designation in Somerset and as a result gypsies are buying up small plots of land, putting mobile homes on them and acting completely outside the bounds of normal planning permission; and that causes extreme difficulties for local people, who are not allowed to erect buildings on the sites? That is entirely due to the fact that the Minister has not yet given an answer to the planning inquiry.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree that this is not the best example of trying to prove that my department is improving its record on dealing with planning appeals. Gypsies who are negotiating with
724
landowners and purchasing sites are doing so in order to provide permanent accommodation. However, the site in question is a transit site.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is there not a contradiction in the description? The idea one has of gypsies is that they move on and if they need fixed homes they can hardly be classed as such.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am prepared to accept that there is confusion about the matter. We are talking about travellers —I understand that to be the new term for gypsies—who are more often seeking permanent accommodation.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, are the Zoys, like the Wallops, divided into an upper, middle and nether component, and can the Minister tell us where they are?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am entirely incompetent to answer that question.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the Minister. Is she aware that Middlezoy, among other places, is near the site of the battle of Sedgemoor? Is she further aware that such homes are being put on sites that would not be available to other people under the planning permission regulations? In one case, where a caravan was ordered to be removed from the site by the local planning authority, the owners of the site said, "In that case I shall sell it to gypsies ". Indeed, he has done so and there is a gypsy caravan there.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's concern for the difficulty to which he refers. Until a decision on the site is made it is difficult for Somerset to deal with the problems surrounding travellers or gypsies, whatever one wishes to call them. I accept the significance of the decision and hope that it will be made soon.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Blatch will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the local government review. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Belstead who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the re-organisation of further education.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the Committee stage of the Child Support Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill will be taken.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved. That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 107:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause: ("Maintenance collection
.—(1) This section applies where any person ("the liable person ") is liable to make payments of child support maintenance.
(2) The Secretary of State may order that maintenance will he collected in like manner as income tax in order to secure the payment of any amount due from a liable person under the maintenance assessment in question.
(3) Maintenance may be collected in like manner as income tax so as to secure the payment of—

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

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

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

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 107, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 130. This amendment deals with the best way in which to enforce the collection of maintenance. As we know, the proposed child support agency will have the power to collect maintenance on behalf of the custodial parent, and to require deduction from earnings where appropriate. Also, if there are arrears, the child support agency has various powers of enforcement.
We are anxious because we believe that there may be problems with the enforcement of collection. Deduction from earnings orders could be evaded by change of employment and there is the problem of ensuring payment from those who are self-employed. Therefore, we do not believe that such orders are the appropriate measure to use.
Perhaps a better way to enforce effective collection would be by use of the Inland Revenue's resources. There is an old saying in farming that only three things in life are certain: death, Quarter Day and taxation. We should like to take advantage of that.
As we know, the Inland Revenue has to trace people for taxation purposes and it would be possible to enforce collection through the changing of tax codes. That would make it harder for liable persons to avoid payment through change of employment if they are on the PAYE system.
The anxiety we have is whether the child support agency, which is based in the Department of Social Security, will have sufficient experience to perform effectively and adequately its enforcement role. If not, the result will be that many one-parent families will be no better off.
The simplest, the most cost-effective and reliable means of enforcing collection would be to use the resources of the Inland Revenue because of the possible ineffectiveness of the enforcement measures in the Bill.
Amendment No. 130 is technical and makes the necessary changes in the Bill to enable the enforcement powers to be given to the Inland Revenue. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): It may be worthwhile taking time to explain, first, why we believe that the child support agency is the better agency to enforce the collection of maintenance; and, secondly, to set out the problems which we see in the noble Lord's amendment which attempts to shift responsibility for collection on to the Inland Revenue. I assure the noble Lord that in framing these proposals, we considered carefully and fully a number of different ways in which maintenance could be collected and who should be charged with that collection.
As the Committee will know, the Government's proposal to create a child support agency (CSA) will place the responsibility for all stages of child maintenance, in most cases, on a single body. The CSA will be a purpose—built organisation with its own independent identity, and dedicated to one purpose—that is, providing an effective and efficient service in tracing absent parents and assessing, reviewing. collecting and enforcing child maintenance payments, and offering advice and information. The provision of the quality of service which children and their families are entitled to expect will generate very substantial volumes of activity. It is estimated that, when it is fully up and running, the CSA will have some 2 million customers and will make around 3 million assessments every year.
The CSA will be accountable to Parliament through my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the department deals with people from all walks of life on a day-to-day basis—from payment of child benefit to nearly 7 million families for over 12 million children, through collection of national insurance contributions for 58 million accounts, to paying retirement pension to over 10 million pensioners. It is therefore highly experienced in dealing with complex questions relating to people's incomes.
It makes sense for responsibility for the CSA's work on child maintenance to lie with the Secretary of State for Social Security. Three quarters of lone parents receive a social security benefit (either income support or family credit). Some 855,000 lone parents receive income support. Furthermore, the DSS already has considerable experience in dealing with maintenance matters. It arranges for voluntary payments of maintenance to be made to over half of the lone parents on income support who are receiving maintenance. The DSS also collects maintenance for one quarter of the lone parents on income support who receive maintenance. Two thousand five hundred posts are already allocated to this work within DSS, and it is important that the CSA should be able to build on this foundation. It will employ some 4,700 staff in all, specially trained to deal with all aspects of child maintenance.
I turn now to the Inland Revenue which is the subject of the noble Lord's amendment. The Revenue —with its well-tried PAYE system for the collection of income tax from employees —was a possible candidate. But the PAYE system is concerned with the

727
collection of tax and, under separate social security regulations, with the collection of another duty, national insurance contributions. It is not designed or intended for the general discharge of liabilities or the collection of debts. And the Board of Inland Revenue is charged, under the Taxes Management Act, with the care and maintenance of the tax system. Maintenance payments are not a tax. It would be both impractical and inappropriate for the Revenue to be involved in their assessment or collection.
There are many very serious practical difficulties involved in trying to adapt to this task a system designed to a much more limited end. The PAYE system is aimed at collecting the income tax due on their wages and salaries from employees as efficiently as possible while ensuring that the confidentiality of their tax affairs is maintained and the compliance burden on their employers is minimised.
Tax is deducted by employers from earnings by reference to tax tables and a PAYE code for each employee. Tax is recovered on subsidiary income or chargeable benefits by an adjustment to the code. The PAYE code number effectively prevents a portion of income being subjected to tax. By reducing the coding, the amount deducted by the employer increases.
The positive element in most taxpayers' coding is limited to their personal allowance. This already causes problems in cases where there are significant benefits to be assessed. The tax code would simply not be large enough to cover maintenance payments.
The introduction of a new and separate element such as maintenance would require the redesign of accounting systems, of many of the forms used internally and externally and of employers' manual and computerised payroll systems. Any system which complicates PAYE would be opposed by employers' representatives. Larger organisations would have to change their computer programmes. Smaller ones will have to spend more of their own or their employee's time.
I have sought to explain why we believe it sensible that the new arrangements for collecting and enforcing child maintenance should be brought together in the agency as a responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I have outlined also why we do not think it right that the Inland Revenue should be used for those purposes which would give it a role which is well outside its proper scope and functions. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister, but I am not sure that he has convinced me. For example, he mentioned the experience of the DSS in the administration of the social fund. The DSS spends no less than 31 per cent. of the total expenditure on the fund in administering it. However, I have tabled a Question on that issue. That is to be raised next Thursday and the matter can be dealt with at that time. In passing, it is not the case that the DSS is wholly effective in all the matters with which it deals.
I understand the point which the noble Lord makes about the PAYE system. I was amused when he spoke about the complications caused to computer systems.
728
I do not know whether the noble Lord has been watching the news in the last couple of days. If so, he will have seen the complications and wastage of time and money which has arisen in local authority offices as regards the alteration of computer systems.
As someone who has worked with the PAYE system, I am not convinced that that system could not be used. We are talking about the effectiveness of collection and attempting to collect the money as effectively as possible. We wish to ensure that the collection can be effectively enforced. There is anxiety about the CSA and how it will work. The PAYE system is already in existence and we believe that it could be adapted for these purposes. Therefore, I shall ask the opinion of the Committee on the matter.
3.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 107) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents.111.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lawrence, L.

Birk, B.

Leatherland, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Brightman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Peston, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Phillips, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Richard, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Sainsbury, L.

David, B.

Scanlon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Shannon, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Stallard, L.

Donoughue, L.

Stedman, B.

Ennals, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gallacher, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Halsbury, E.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hayter, L.

Walston, L.

Hirshfield, L.

White, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.[Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes, L.

Willis, L.

Jacques, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Butterworth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Caithness, E.

Allerton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Alport, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ampthill, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Belstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Blatch, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Blyth, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Boardman, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

729

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L.

Munster, E.

Dormer, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Downshire, M.

Nelson, E.

Eccles, V.

Norrie, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Northesk, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Faithfull, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrers, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Flather, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Flowers, L.

Pender, L.

Fortescue, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainford, L.

Reay, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Rees, L.

Gisboroughk, L.

Renwick, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Richardson, L.

Gridley, L.

Rodney, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sandyis, L.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Strange, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcarron. L.

Ilchester, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Joseph, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kimball, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Terrington, L.

Knollys, V.

Teviot, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Ullswater, V.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Waddington, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Warnock, B.

Mersey, V.

Westbury, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wise, L.

Montgomery of Alamein. V.

Wolfsonws, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Henley: This may be a suitable moment to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Local Government Review, England
3.38 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg leave to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the local government review. The Statement is as follows:,lb/>
"The House will remember that when I announced the review on December 5th I explained the comprehensive nature of our review. For the first time we are looking at the structure, functions and finance of local government in the round.
"I should like to thank the very large number of people and organisations who have put forward their views. I do not need to tell the House that they have not always been compatible with one another.
"We took as our starting point our firm belief that the local delivery of certain services—many of them essential—is a central feature of a pluralist
730
society. Local government must enable local people to exercise continuing influence over the quality and the range of the services which Parliament entrusts to them.
"Local government is responsible for the efficient delivery of these services. We need responsible elected local authorities not only to provide a check and a balance to Westminster but also to reflect the multiplicity of aspirations amongst local communities.
"But given the primary responsibilities of central government, local government cannot be a fully independent power in the land. It traditionally derives its power from Parliament, and it must complement and not compete with central government in its activities.
"Within this framework, we believe that councils should be accountable for their actions and that there should be a direct and visible relationship between the costs of services and the local bills to which they give rise. We believe that those bills should be spread widely and fairly throughout communities; that they should bear some relation to people's ability to pay; and that it should be possible to levy and collect them without difficulty.
"These principles are guiding our review. I am able to announce today some interim conclusions and in other areas to narrow the options so as to proceed to more detailed consultations.
"Many parts of England now have in effect unitary local government. The GLC and the metropolitan county councils were abolished in 1986. The ILEA went in 1990. There is little demand for their restoration. Indeed it is difficult now to perceive any real role that they played.
"But outside the main conurbations, leaving aside the valuable role played by parishes, the system of two principal authorities in each area still prevails. The usefulness of two tiers is being questioned. Also being questioned is the continued existence of certain of those authorities which were created by the local government reorganisation of 1974, but which have not succeeded in inspiring local loyalty. Another challenge is that the role of authorities is changing as they increasingly become enablers rather than direct providers of services.
"There is therefore now an opportunity to think afresh about the structure of local authorities. But the Government do not see this as an opportunity to impose a new pattern of local authorities according to a national prescription. Nor do we believe that it is necessary to have a uniform pattern of authorities in every part of the country. Local people should have an important role in determining what structure of local government best reflects their community loyalties. This does not mean therefore the wholesale abolition of either county councils or district councils, nor even unitary authorities everywhere. It means arriving at the right solution for each community. We intend to adopt a practical approach in response to local views and local conditions. But it seems likely that we shall move to a larger number of unitary authorities.

731
"We shall therefore be consulting on the proposition that a local government commission shall be charged with responsibility for evaluating the most appropriate form of local government for individual areas, taking account of the wishes of local people and putting forward proposals for reform. It will proceed area by area.
"The reduction in the local tax burden and correspondingly larger contribution from central taxation announced in my right honourable friend's Budget Statement implies a need to consider whether a number of functions should now be brought into or financed directly by central government. This would be without further changes to the balance between central and local taxation.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education is bringing forward today proposals for such a transfer in one area of his responsibility.
"The issue of how local authorities are managed is no less crucial.
"The problems which local authorities face are compounded by the cumbersome internal arrangements for the management of councils. The committee system, which dates back to the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, requires that all the decisions are taken collectively by large numbers of councillors, in full council or committees. Too many councillors spend too much time achieving too little.
"Consequently it is difficult for local government to attract and keep enough men and women of the right calibre both to lead what are now multi-million pound organisations providing a range of key services, and to represent properly the interests of the people who elected them.
"We therefore believe that there should be a new look at the internal workings of local authorities to improve the decision-making process. I shall issue a consultation paper on these issues.
"Alongside that, we also want to develop further the idea of the enabling council. Many of the Government's policies have been designed to move power to individual members of the community; in particular the right to buy, the tenants' charter and local management of schools. Compulsory competitive tendering has also been part of this process and we will be looking at ways to make it more effective and to carry it forward. In particular, we will be looking at new areas where contracting out should be applied. These will include professional and technical tasks as well as manual tasks. Housing management, legal services and computer services could all be added to the list. The success of a local authority must be measured not by its size but by the quality of the services delivered, from whatever source; by its responsiveness to its clients and customers; and by the value it squeezes out of each pound of taxpayers' money.
"I now turn to the question of finance. A local tax base is essential if there is to be any meaning to the concept of local government. But local
732
government services cost a great deal of money—more than £50 billion in the coming year—and the burden on local taxpayers has become too great.
"We have therefore decided to make a fundamental shift in the amounts which central and local taxpayers pay towards the cost of local government services. This change will take effect in 1991–92, and will reduce local taxation to a level that should be sustainable in the longer term.
"The first consequence of this was announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday. We have concluded that it is right to reduce the present average headline community charge of £392 in England for 1991–92 by £140 to £252. The average amount payable by charge payers, after allowing for the community charge reduction scheme and benefits, will then be considerably less than this. To secure this my right honourable friend is providing a further £4.25 billion from national taxation to local authorities.
"As a result, in 1991–92 the community charge will be raising less than rates in their last year. For the coming year locally raised finance will fund 22 per cent. of local government expenditure, compared to 34 per cent. this year. And these figures are before the substantial benefit of rebates and the community charge reduction scheme.
"To achieve these objectives my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and I are today introducing in the House a short Bill. If enacted, this will have broadly three effects.
"First, it will provide that the community charges which authorities have set for 1991–92 are replaced the day after the Bill's enactment by new charges £140 lower. Councils will not need to meet to set the new charges, but they will be treated in all respects as if they were set by authorities in the usual way.
"Secondly, my right honourable friends and I will be empowered to pay grants to charging authorities to make up the loss of income resulting from the reduction in charges brought about by the Bill's provisions. It is also our intention to pay grant to cover authorities' additional administrative expenses arising as a consequence of the Bill. "All this means that where authorities have already issued their charge bills for 1991–92-and I know that some authorities have done so-they will, after the Bill's enactment, need to issue fresh bills reflecting their new lower charges. We propose to amend the regulations on the community charge demand notice slightly to provide the basis for the new bills, but we believe not in ways that would result in significant changes to authorities' computing arrangements.
"We are revising the profile of payments from the non-domestic rates pool to ensure that our proposals have no significant effect on local authorities' cash flow.
"These proposals do not affect the operation of the community charges' reduction scheme or

733
community charge benefits, though it will of course be necessary to recalculate entitlements under both schemes.
"My department has written to local authorities, and to the local authority associations, explaining the details of all these arrangements. Clearly it is desirable that the new charges should be in place at the earliest opportunity. Accordingly, we shall be looking to Parliament to consider the Bill as a matter of urgency.
"Having reduced community charges to reasonable levels, we will expect local authorities to restrain their spending to keep them at those levels. I shall therefore be prepared to use my capping powers rigorously again in 1992–93.
"Having achieved a reasonable balance between funding from local taxation we need to address the question of the local tax itself.
"I referred briefly in my opening remarks to the principles which I believe should underpin any form of local tax. Let me spell them out.
"First, accountability. As far as possible, a local tax should buttress the accountability of a local council to its taxpayers. People should be able to see some link between what they are being asked to pay and what their council is spending.
"Secondly, fairness. Nobody likes paying taxes. But in our society taxes have to be basically acceptable to taxpayers; and to achieve that they must be perceived to be fair.
"Thirdly, ease of collection. Any tax will require administrative arrangements to collect the revenue, including measures to chase up those who are late in paying. But if the tax is too difficult to collect the costs of collection become unacceptable.
"Fourthly, most people should make some contribution. We believe it is right that, as far as possible, any tax should take some account of the number of adults in each household, so that they contribute to the cost of services provided by the local councils which they elect. This principle has gained a wide measure of acceptance.
"Fifthly, restraint. No tax is acceptable if it is levied at penal rates either as a result of local authority overspending or because the burden on any individual or household is excessively high. We are adamantly opposed to excessively high bills for a minority of electors—a feature of the old rates system.
"In accordance with these criteria we have reached our conclusions about the future of the community charge. In spite of the comprehensive system of income related rebates and the reduction scheme we devised, the public has not been persuaded that the charge is fair. We have therefore decided that from the earliest possible moment the community charge will be replaced by a new system of local taxation.
"After a careful reappraisal of the options we have decided in principle to bring forward a new 'local tax' under which there will be a single bill for each household comprising two essential elements: the number of the adults living there and the value
734
of the property. There are a number of ways of assessing values, on a capital or a rental basis, which require careful evaluation and extensive discussion and consultation. But it is our intention that the system we introduce should have the following features. It should reflect people's concern that the system is fair; the balance of funding as between central taxation and the new local tax should be broadly in line with that announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday. It will be essential to ensure that local taxpayers do not face undue changes in their bills as a result of the introduction of the new local tax arrangements. There will therefore need to be arrangements to protect them during the transition to the new system; it should ensure that regional variations in property values do not lead to disproportionate bills in high price areas; there should be rebate arrangements to protect people on low incomes from making a disproportionate contribution to local taxation; there must also be restraints to ensure that local taxpayers do not face excessive bills as a result of overspending by local councils, either before or after introduction of the new system. There are a number of ways—including capping —by which this may be achieved.
"I made clear at the beginning of this Statement my commitment to the institution of local government. But for its part local government has to recognise economic reality and the duty and responsibility of central government to manage the economy. Central government also has a duty to protect local taxpayers from excessive bills.
"1 intend to publish a consultative document after the Easter Recess setting out alternative approaches and dealing with these issues.
"The Government have no present intention to propose changes to the uniform business rate.
"My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales will be making separate Statements about the outcome of the review as it relates to those countries.
"Let me summarise. We have already dealt with the burden of the local tax. I shall shortly publish consultation papers on structure, internal management and the new local tax. We will conclude the period of consultation in the summer. Depending on the outcome of that consultation, we intend to introduce legislation setting up the Local Government Commission and providing for the new local tax in the next Session of Parliament. We anticipate that the first of the new authorities could be in place by April 1994. We shall consult local authorities on the basis that the new tax could be in place in 1993–94.
"In conclusion, we believe that the proposals which I have outlined today will establish a system of local government which will carry through into the next century. These proposals are designed to end the sterile quarrel between supporters of central and local government. They should attract men and women of sufficient quality and commitment to restore authority to and confidence in local

735
government. They should enhance the quality of services and give extra momentum to the pursuit of value for money. They should result in a local government which puts people first. I commend these proposals to the House. "
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.56 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating that lengthy Statement. Unfortunately, what it gains in length it does not gain in precision. If we contrast it with the inspired leaks which came from the Department of the Environment on Monday of this week, we find that almost every single important issue which could be a bone of contention has now been fudged. This Statement has Cabinet blood all over it, on every page and in every paragraph.
I must start by questioning whether it is right for a Cabinet of this type to blame 40 million people for misunderstanding the purposes of the poll tax. I did not hear anywhere in the Statement a word of apology for the chaos which has been brought to this country over the past three or four years by the introduction of the poll tax. All we are told, blandly, is that the people of this country have not been persuaded that it is fair. Does it ever occur to the Government that it may be their fault that the poll tax is not fair and that the perception of people is right now and was right at the time when the poll tax was introduced?
We can spend relatively little time in discussing this Statement and in considering the questions to ask in looking at the structure element. Almost every one of the significant statements which were leaked on Monday has been withdrawn. We are now told that there will he consultation on the proposition, not that there should be a change, but that there should be a local government commission which will consider changes. The most we are told, in order to make sure that neither the county councils nor the district councils get up in arms about it, is that there may, at the end of this process, be a larger number of unitary authorities.
We are not told anything significant about the functions of local authorities, although we understand that there is to be a Statement in a few minutes which will affect those functions. One must ask the question: if the functions are to remain as they are, how can the financing system which is suggested here possibly be adequate to the task?
When we turn, as the Statement rapidly does, to the question of finance we must look first of all, again as the Statement does, to the proposals made in the Budget which are to be the subject of a Bill in your Lordships' House next week. It is not clear from the Statement that the £140 which is supposed to be applied to all people in this country will apply to less than half of the people in this country, because the £140 rebate will not apply to anybody who at the moment has a rebate; nor will it apply to anybody who is at the moment benefiting from transitional relief. Therefore it is simply not the case, as the Government have been claiming, that £140 will be taken off everybody's poll tax bill. I should like the
736
Minister to indicate to the House exactly how many people will get the full £140 and in how many cases that £140 will be reduced by the incidence at present of the rebate and of the transitional relief.
That brings me to the question of transitional relief. How will the new transitional relief he calculated? Will it be added to the existing transitional relief, or will the existing transitional relief be allowed to run its course before the new system is introduced? We have here a recipe for chaos.
The Statement refers to the burden of the rates, and the burden of the poll tax and the burden of any new tax. Is it not the case that the rates, when they were abolished, took up on average 3 per cent. of household income on average earnings, whereas the poll tax, even after the Budget measures and even after the Bill is passed next week, will still take up 2.9 per cent. of average household earnings? In other words, there is no proposed change from the rates. The change is simply from the increased burden which has been a feature of the poll tax. Is it not the case that, at the same time, the burden of value added tax on a household on average earnings will rise from 2.7 per cent. to 5.8 per cent.? Ordinary people and those on lower incomes will be suffering particularly.
The Statement is also virtually silent on the valuation base. It leaves open the question of whether it will be on capital or rental values. No doubt that has been done to satisfy those in Scotland who feared another revolution if there were to be a further valuation and the possibility of moving over to capital values. But on what basis is the decision to be taken? After all, the issues have been well exposed over many months. Surely the Government should he giving some indication of what the basis will be.
More important, what is to be the second element of this new local tax? It has been described as being an element based on the number of people. However, will it be a higher tax on those households with more than two people or a lower tax on those households with fewer than three people? Whichever is the case, what is the basis upon which it will be collected? Will it not require a register rather like the one which was used for the poll tax, with all the inherent costs involved? Further, will it not also involve all of the problems of collection and of chasing payment which occurred with the poll tax but in this case for a smaller amount? Therefore, will it not be systematically more inefficient as a tax than the existing poll tax—even, I have to say, than an existing poll tax?
Moreover, who is to be responsible in a household for collecting this extra money from additional individuals? If it is to be the householder, does that not mean that we shall have 14 million individuals in this country—that is, heads of households —conscripted as involuntary poll tax collectors? I suggest that what the Government are proposing is the privatisation of the collection of the poll tax. They know that they cannot do it in the public sector, so they are now proposing to put that burden on every household in the country that contains more than one person.
In order to evaluate those suggestions we must know which functions are to be the responsibility of

737
local government and which are not. There is no suggestion that there has been consideration of what functions are properly a matter for local discretion as opposed to those in which local authorities act as the agent for central government.
There is still a reference in the Statement to "capping ". How can that sit happily alongside the proposal for accountability? The Government have had all these years to establish a local government finance system which would achieve accountability. The test of accountability is that you do not need capping; you are able to trust local people because you have got the tax system right which enables them to make their own decisions as to what they want to spend in their area. Is it not a profound confession of failure that we have a continuation of capping under the proposed new regime?
There is no indication in the Statement about who gains and who loses. I suspect that that is deliberate. I say that because I believe that the very large number of people who gave their support to the poll tax because they agreed with it will now find that they are no better off at the end of the day.
What we have before us is claimed to be the abolition of the poll tax. However, what we have in practice is a property poll tax. The Government are claiming that this is a surrender; but in fact it is a demand for a ceasefire on inadequate terms. We on these Benches refuse to accept the surrender. We refuse to accept that the battle is over and that the poll tax has been abolished by these proposals. We shall continue to fight for a fairer and juster system of local government finance.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful to the Government and to the noble Baroness for the Statement, not least because it is a relief to have the proposals before us after they had been so extensively leaked and trailed in the press. However, it must be a surprise to the House to note how strangely incomplete the Government's proposals are, even for an interim Statement.
We in the Liberal Democrat Party have been glad to take part in the consultations to which the noble Baroness referred. On the question of the future structure of local government, I should like to think that our advice has had some effect. I notice that the Statement concluded with the longstanding Liberal slogan of "People first ". However, it is a shame that the Government did not feel it right to listen to our advice on the need for a regional level of government or to our proposals for a local income tax which the noble Baroness and I had the honour to discuss during the debate yesterday evening.
We agree with the Government's proposals on structure to switch to a patchwork of preponderantly unitary authorities. There is a welcome emphasis in the Statement on the wishes of local people. However, can the noble Baroness say how the wishes of local people will be ascertained on this very specific matter? In the Statement the Government say that they will proceed area by area in changing the structure of local
738
government. But over what period of time do they envisage this happening before we have reshaped local government in Britain?
So far as concerns finance, the Statement talks of a "fundamental shift" from local to central finance. We should all acknowledge what that means. A fundamental shift in finance inevitably means a fundamental shift in responsibility. Is that not putting the cart of finance ahead of the horse of structure and function? Should we not first have addressed the question of structure and the functions of local government and then reached conclusions on the proper method of finance?
It seems that the hasty and last-minute switch of taxation will create considerable administrative problems for local authorities, and especially for their treasury departments. They are already bothered and bewildered, if not exactly bewitched, by the Government's chopping and changing. I am glad that the Government are proposing to recompense for the costs of the proposed changes. I am quite certain that a government of this financial prudence would not have entered into an open-ended commitment without having an idea of what the costs would be. I shall be most interested to hear from the noble Baroness what order and magnitude of costs we are talking about for this maladministration. How are local people who are paying their charges by direct debit or standing order to be treated over the coming months during this period of uncertainty? It would be most valuable if the House were to be given more information on that aspect.
I turn finally to the meat of the interim Statement; namely, the so-called local tax. I believe that the Government want to calculate liability on the basis of the value of the property weighted by the number of people living in it. But, alternatively, is it to be calculated by the number of people living there weighted by the value of the property? It is quite impossible to tell which aspect will fundamentally affect the nature of the way that the tax is calculated, collected and understood by local voters. The proposal sounds suspiciously like a poll tax plus. I notice that in the rather vague system proposed the need for rate capping will still apparently remain.
In conclusion, I believe that the poll tax can now be seen fairly and squarely for what it is: the most massive piece of maladministration of this century. Can the Minister tell us, from beginning to end of this unhappy saga, what the cost of the poll tax to Britain will have been? Before we close its eyes and say goodbye to it—and it sounds as though that will take an unconscionably long time—may we know what it has cost? I believe that this House and the country have the right to know the figure.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for responding so thoroughly to the Statement. However, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that it is a bit rich to criticise the Statement as lacking precision. The Statement was as full as it ought to be at this stage. There would have been legitimate criticism if I had made an entirely definitive Statement without any consultation, following what has already been a

739
collection of concerns and representations from individuals and organisations. My department has been presented with a great deal of information. In the circumstances, we think it entirely proper at present that the people of this country—that is, in England, Scotland and Wales—should have an opportunity to discuss the finer details so that we ultimately achieve a system which is agreeable to as many people as possible.
The noble Lord made the point that some people would not receive the full benefit of £140. The only people who will not receive the full benefit of £140 are those for whom less than £140 wipes out the community charge altogether. Anyone who is paying the community charge will be eligible to receive up to the full benefit of £140. The people of Wandsworth will reach zero before the full benefit of the £140 is felt.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that response. Will the Minister say how many people fall into the category that she describes?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord has merely to look at the local authority tables to see what the community charges are at the moment. We know that for Westminster the resultant figure is £36; for Shetland it is 93p. —Shetland has already taken the decision that there will be no charge for the people of Shetland—and that for Wandsworth it will be zero. It would be wrong for me at the Dispatch Box to go through each and every local authority's community charge. The point was also made about people paying a reduced community charge as a result of rebate, the community charge reduction scheme or transitional relief. Again, all those calculations will be done on the basis of the lower community charge. The £140 will be applied and the calculations will follow.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is critical to our evaluation of the £140 figure. Will the Minister tell the House how many people in this country are paying £140 or more and will therefore receive the full £140? That figure cannot include those for whom the rebate or transitional relief bring the theoretical poll tax of their local authority below £140. If the poll tax is £400, and they are paying 20 per cent., they are paying £80 only and will not receive £140 back.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, £140 is deducted from the community charge. I know the point that the noble Lord is getting at, but if a student is paying, for example, 20 per cent. of £400 now, that £400 will be reduced by £140 and the student will pay 20 per cent. of the remaining sum.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, exactly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, therefore the full effect of the reduction of £140 will be of benefit to the charge payer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rest my case.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amount of money raised by local authorities by a local tax will be the equivalent in today's terms of £7 billion. That also
740
answers the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. The balance has been decided and all the details about functions and structure will follow. The balance has to be struck between the bill met by local people and that met by national taxation.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that poorer people will be seriously disadvantaged by moving the money from local taxation to VAT. That is not entirely true. First, they would have to spend many thousands of pounds to discount the benefit of £140; and, secondly, because of the zero rating of the many fundamental goods and services that impact on lower income families, the change will not impact upon them as seriously as he suggested.
Many of the detailed questions I was asked are subject to consultation, and it will be for all noble Lords and the people of England, Scotland and Wales to become involved in that process. I hope that noble Lords opposite will feel able to participate in that process, in contrast to their decision not to participate in the review so far. I hope that they will change their minds.
Only yesterday the noble Lord appeared to be making fun about people in a house other than the house owner having to pay. Again only yesterday, the noble Lord, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, during the debate on the community charge, claimed that all adults, living anywhere in this country, paid their share of the rates. The unfairness of the old rates system was that it did not reflect whether one person or four, five or six lived in a house. The consultation process will take into account that unfairness.
The noble Lord's reference to capping leads me to ask noble Lords opposite a question. Are they saying, or will they say, to the country, that they believe that local government spending should go unfettered, and that there should be no limit on local government spending? That is what I deduce from what the noble Lord said. The noble Lord criticised the Government Statement for saying that there must be a limit on public spending. I rest my case on that.
The noble Lord asked for details about gainers and losers. That will be set out during the consultation process. It will depend upon the scheme that is adopted. I have no hesitation in saying to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the battle is enjoined and we shall enjoy it.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, also said that the Statement was strangely incomplete. Had we been entirely definitive at this stage, he would probably have been the first on his feet to ask why we were making final statements when we had not gone out to public consultation. The noble Lord was also forthcoming as to the details of the support that he and his noble friends would give to a local income tax which was described in some detail yesterday, and that they would support regional government as part of the restructuring of local government. I welcome his comments. The points were well spelt out yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who said that there might be a different solution for different parts of the country. I cannot be specific about time. If it is agreed that a local government commission should be set up,

741
it will be for that commission to determine the pace and speed. We expect work to take place fairly quickly.
I believe that I have addressed the points about functions being dealt with first, and on the balance to be struck between local and national taxation. I accept that the issue of functions is important, and that functions should come before structure.
I have already said that the costs of administration will be met. I was asked how the change would impact on direct debits and bankers orders. I see much less of a problem with direct debits than with bankers orders. People paying by direct debit may have a difficulty with the first payment if an individual does not have time to stop it. The sum will be adjusted by the second payment. A person who has negotiated a direct debit arrangement with the bank will be informed of any change of deduction. The same goes for bankers orders. It will be up to individuals, if they wish, to withhold the first payment until they receive the new bills. We expect people to receive their bills during April and certainly no later than the early part of May.
I was asked about the value of property and the number of people living in it, and how the charge would be determined. Those points will also be subject to consultation. The final question I was asked related to the cost of implementing the poll tax from beginning to end. I do not have the figures now, but I shall write to the noble Lord with that information.
4.19 p.m.
Lord HaiIsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend two simple questions. First, is she aware that all three Front Bench speakers fired their discharges into the air at approximately the speed as a Kalashnikov rifle fired in the streets of Baghdad, with the result that private Members of the House found it difficult to follow them?
My second question is rather different. Having regard to the fact that structure was at the heart of the review, have the Government considered, or will they consider, as part of the review and consultation, the repeated revival in every central government review of local government since Redcliffe-Maud of the suggestion of a wider system of regional government units which would make easier a solution to many of our problems—problems of quangos, with possible demands of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and a local income tax? Will the Government give consideration to that as part of their further examination of the matter?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on my noble and learned friend's first point, again I apologise to the House for the speed with which on the detail I responded to the questions of noble Lords opposite. In defence, however, I tried hard to make my initial Statement audible to all Members of the House. The answers to most of those detailed questions were contained within the main Statement.
Regional government does not feature in the Government's thinking in terms of restructuring local
742
government. However, I have no doubt that my noble and learned friend has made sure that his views on that issue are well known in my department.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Baroness two questions. As I understand it, the poll tax was always based on the Government's principle that everyone should pay it. In the summary of principles at the end of the section on the poll tax, the Statement said that most people should pay. Is that a change in the Government's policy? Has it been forced by practice or is it a reflection of the fact that the deduction of the £140 from certain poll taxes will mean that people like the residents of Wandsworth will apparently pay nothing?
Secondly, I feel that the noble Baroness has done no more than evade the question put to her by my noble friend from the Front Bench, Lord McIntosh. He asked how the Government equate accountability with capping. Are the Government saying that local electors should be entitled to control their own local councils, provided they do so in the way that the Government wish? If that is the case, are the Government saying that they know better than the electors how the councils are to be controlled and to what extent accountability will be accepted? If that is so, it is not accountability; it is merely limited accountability.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, I make no apology for saying "most ", because even under the poll tax it is most people who pay. Although the principle is that all people should be accountable and should pay, there is a series of exemptions. I shall not go through the list. The noble Lord is well aware that some people do not pay the poll tax.
Again, I must draw out noble Lords opposite on this point. We say that we want the maximum amount of autonomy to operate at local level. However, at the end of the day we take the view that the charge payers, the taxpayers, must be protected from irresponsible, high-spending local authorities. I reiterate the question publicly: is it right to deduce from what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and other noble Lords said that those on the other side would allow unfettered, high spending from local government?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as regards the review of the structure of local government, will my noble friend say a word about the Government's thinking on the situation in many parts of the country where top tiers of local authorities raise large sums? They do it not by imposing charges directly upon the citizens but by issuing a precept to a lower tier authority. That authority then has the responsibility, without any argument, of raising the money. Given the gap in accountability which that situation produces, will the Government give urgent consideration to putting it right?
My other question is this. I was extremely sorry to hear the Minister say that the Government were not thinking of doing anything about the uniform business rate. Is my noble friend aware that it causes

743
great difficulty to a number of small companies, particularly in the South of England? It needs further examination.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend in his first point echoes a real concern that has come through in many of the representations made to my department. That issue will have to be addressed either through a movement towards unitary authorities or perhaps by making absolutely clear one local authority's accountability to its local electorate. For example, that could include separate billing. However, the issue will form part of the consultation process. I can say no more than I have said on the uniform business rate.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness what are the implications for the police service? She indicated that there would be no uniform pattern of local government and we very much welcome that. Is it suggested that people in a local community should make representations to the new Local Government Commission as to whether they wish to retain a county police force? Or does the Home Secretary propose to make some scheme or set up an inquiry? There is now great uncertainty in the police service as to what the Government have in mind and, in my view, it is highly desirable that the matter should be cleared up as soon as possible.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. He will also know that the Home Secretary has a large say both in financing the police forces and in operational control over them. I understand the noble Lord's point and we do not have it in mind to move to a national police force.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend from the bottom of my heart. I was one of those who thought that the poll tax was the taxation policy of Selim the Sot, and I said so. Perhaps I may blow my trumpet a tiny bit. I also suggested in your Lordships' House that there should be a human-weighted property tax. Nothing is more satisfactory for a humble Back-Bencher than to hear important Front-Benchers coming forth with the same idea. Therefore, I sincerely congratulate the Government.
I wish equally to congratulate them on going so far and then saying, "We must think the next stage through carefully. People must be allowed to have their say ". This is surely what accountability and democracy are all about. It is a vast improvement on what went before.
Finally, one minor point and one less minor point. First, when it comes to what we may call rates, for want of a better word, and the rate bills going out to council houses, we should make absolutely certain that it is correct that the bills for the rent and the bills for the rates are totally separate so that there can be no confusion. Furthermore, I wish to underline the point that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made on the uniform business rate. Those authorities who previously tried to keep their business rates low in order to attract business felt very hard done by when their rates were greatly increased. Otherwise, the Government must be congratulated on showing
744
courage and an ability to say so when they are wrong. That is something on which one should always be congratulated.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we know that there has been considerable concern on the noble Lord's small point about whether rent and rate bills will be sent out separately. That view has been put to my department and the issue will be addressed during the consultation.
I know how strongly my noble friends Lord Onslow and Lord Boyd-Carpenter feel about the uniform business rate. I have said that I cannot elaborate on what we have said. We have no plans for change. However, I must remind the House about the changes for businesses made in this week's Budget by my right honourable friend. There are considerable benefits for them and I suspect that in total they outweigh some of the disadvantages perceived by my noble friends in terms of the impact of the UBR on businesses.
I welcome my noble friend's comments about the Statement. We now look forward to hearing the detailed proposals of noble Lords opposite. They have criticised us for scanty information, but that is nothing compared with the scanty details we have received about their proposals.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wish to ask the Government two detailed questions which are important in terms of the administration of the arrangements in front of us. As we are all aware, the administrative costs of collecting the poll tax are incredibly high. We are grateful that the Government have realised that the poll tax is unfair, but we are a little sad that they do not seek to abolish it.
As regards administrative costs, I wish to pay tribute to the men and women who work in the treasury and benefit departments of local councils and who, over the past few weeks and months, have given an incredible amount of dedicated service to ensure that the poll tax bills are correct and are sent out in a timely fashion. I know that many of them have worked seven days a week and some of them have been on call 24 hours a day to encompass that job. Most of them have completed it. We should express our heartfelt thanks to them for having done so. Many of them plan to take a well earned rest, if not a holiday, over the next few weeks. However we now seek to impose a continuing administrative burden on them in terms of the £140 rebate. The Government have said they will reimburse local authorities the administrative costs involved. But will the Government reimburse administrative costs with a bonus for those dedicated men and women who will have to do their work virtually all over again over the next few weeks and months?
My second question relates to the public perception that no one needs to pay poll tax bills until July. That is the perception among the public and it will result in a reduction in local authority income and cash. To fund their services local authorities will have to borrow money. Even though interest rates have decreased slightly, local authorities will still have to

745
borrow at high costs. Will the Government give us an assurance that all those extra costs of financing the reduction in income will be met by the Government?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have no intention of reimbursing local authorities for foregone moneys that have not been paid by local residents. There is no question of the Government condoning withholding payment to local authorities until July. I am not sure where the noble Lord obtained his information on that point. We expect that most people in this country will know what their bill is in April, and we expect payment to follow. We would not expect to meet foregone moneys that have not been paid by people who refused to pay. We hope that local authorities will vigorously pursue those who have refused to pay so far. There is no intention on the part of the Government to pay costs plus a bonus. We shall certainly meet costs, but not any bonus. The cost of collection is £50 million. That is twice the amount that the former rating system cost to be collected. The Government have estimated that it would cost £50 million to collect a local income tax.
Viscount De L'Isle: My Lords, as regards capping, I express the hope that in considering expenditure by local government, the Audit Commission will install an audit system by which local authorities—irrespective of the way they may emerge under the terms of the commission—are made to adhere strictly to their responsibilities which should be well defined. Nothing has scandalised the people of this country, irrespective of the opinions they hold, more than the ways in which certain local authorities have spent public money on objectives which no one supports. Some former governments have appeared to allow local authorities discretion in the way they spend their money and that has brought local government into disrepute. I hope that strict audits will be carried out of local authorities to ensure that they adhere to their responsibilities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we see no cause to end the work of the Audit Commission or that of the district auditor. We would expect that with clearer understanding on the part of people who are paying for services and with stronger accountability on the part of councils, the incidences referred to by my noble friend will be eliminated.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Baroness replied to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham on the subject of direct debits and bankers orders. Will the Minister go a little further and say whether the Government advise people to cancel their bankers orders and to stop their direct debits immediately until the proper amount is determined? In considering the rating element—I use that term for want of a better phrase—in the new system, has any consideration been given to that being based not on capital values or on the developed value of property, but rather on the site value of property?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, all of those options will be considered in the course of the consultation to arrive at what we consider is the fairest possible
746
assessment. It would not be the Government's intention to advise people to cancel their bankers orders. We envisage that the necessary information will be made available to people quickly, and soon after the beginning of the financial year. We would expect people who pay by direct debit simply to have an adjustment made by their banks. As regards bankers orders, we expect adjustments to be made very quickly after the first payment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness has repeatedly challenged this side of the House to declare our policy on this matter. However, this is not a debate about our policy; it is a debate about what the Government have done. What they have done is to impose, quite wrongly and against all advice, an administrative and financial nightmare on local authorities and a financial nightmare on the people of this country. That is why the Government have had to take the step they are now taking.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I shall come to my question. The figures that have just been published, which show a rise from 16 per cent. to 28 per cent. in the payment made by local taxpayers for local services, give the lie to all the criticisms that have been made of local government over the years. We now know whose fault it was that local government expenditure increased and local taxation increased. Does the Minister agree that what the Chancellor did on Tuesday was done not so much to mitigate the effects of the Government's policies, but rather to help the Tory Party win the next election? Is that not what it is all about? I repeat a question that was asked earlier as the noble Baroness did not reply to it. How will the population be consulted about the new local authority boundaries? In Wiltshire, for example, if Swindon wants to become an all-purpose authority, can it be overruled by the rest of the people in Wiltshire? People will want to know whether that is the case.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as regards the final question of the noble Lord, he will have to become involved in the consultation process to obtain detailed answers to his question. The noble Lord again falls into the trap of considering only what is collected locally when he considers the costs of local government. The costs of local government are met by a combination of local and national taxation. All that has happened is that the shift has gone back to 15 per cent. The figure rose to 28 per cent. but went back to 15 per cent.—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: By the Government!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was done by the Government. However, the noble Lord totally ignores the level of spending and the overall cost of local government. As regards the point about detail, I said that the public will be interested in the details of how the party opposite intends to impose a property tax linked to ability to pay. The public will be interested in the assumptions of that tax and the basis on which

747
it would be conducted. I take it that the noble Lord's party is just as interested as we are in courting the electorate before the next election.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
4.39 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 27 [Liability Orders];
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 20. line 32, at end insert:("; or
(iii) the preferable option of Community Service Orders has been fully exploited. ").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to consider Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 together with Amendment No. 108. Throughout the Committee stage it has become quite clear that the Bill is not really concerned with putting children first but with saving the Treasury money and pursuing unfortunate parents with a diligence which is usually reserved for hardened criminals. My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has used some very apposite descriptions of the Bill. His description of the Bill last Tuesday (at col. 577 of Hansard) as the grubbiest and most unprincipled Bill in his experience was very apt indeed. I should like to add the adjective "poisonous ". Much of the venom is contained in Clauses 27 to 32 and the related Scottish clauses which seek to criminalise parents, many of whom are already enduring stress and are also likely to be financially distressed.
The progenitors of the Bill seem to have had scant regard for the feelings of children and the effect upon them of criminalising and perhaps pauperising and gaoling their father, or perhaps even their mother. Of what long-term benefit is it to the children for the liable parent's goods and moneys to be seized? And what of the children of a second family, who will be devastated by such seizure? Heaven knows what benefit the children will derive from one of their parents being committed to prison, at a huge cost to the taxpayer, where he or she will have no opportunity to provide for the children in any way.
My amendments would have the effect of softening the whole process somewhat —not a lot, but somewhat —in that community service orders could be used in preference to a court appearance which might result in pauperisation or the loss of liberty. It would enable the liable parent to continue to work, or be available for work, and at the same time pay his or her debt to society—and I say "debt " for want of a better word.
Furthermore, the amendments require that no liability order should be made unless there has been a social services investigation of and report on the likely effect on the children of the absent parent and upon any child who might be resident with him. Surely nobody, not even the Government, can be against such a procedure. If such reports are not to be an important part of the whole procedure then in many cases family life will be thrown into utter chaos, with baleful effects on the children whom this Bill is supposed to protect. If we really believe that children come first, and if we are to take the Prime Minister
748
seriously when he talks about a caring society, then the least the Government can do is to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support the amendment that has been moved with great conviction by my noble friend Lord Stoddart. We believe that it is a helpful amendment because it makes available to the Secretary of State or to a court the power to make a community service order in lieu of distress, if distress is unlikely to be available or to be successful, or instead of committal to prison.
One had understood from paragraph 5.23 of Volume One of the White Paper that the agency would have the full range of powers which it might need in order to carry out its duties of collecting and enforcing maintenance. One power which is missing is the power to apply to the court for a community service order in lieu of a commitment order. There are provisions in other legislation for a community service order to be made, but I am not sure whether those provisions are as yet in force.
If the Committee makes that power available to the court or the Secretary of State it follows that the regulations should be made to define in what circumstances the remedy or power should be made available.
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Clause 27 deals with the making of a liability order. The purpose of a liability order is to make available certain of the court's powers. The clause is not concerned with imprisonment. The purpose of the liability order is to enable a declaration to be made that has the effect of establishing the existence of the debt.
Members of the Committee are aware that the agency is to have power to make assessments, but before it goes on to exercise certain of the enforcement powers it requires, as a preliminary, an order from the court in effect showing that the court is satisfied that the debt exists. Therefore, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I do not believe that we are in community service order country at this stage but when we come to the provisions of the Bill dealing with imprisonment the question of community service orders will have to be considered.
I am not aware of the provisions to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred. There may be some confusion about the matter, but we shall have an opportunity to discuss it later.
However, at this stage the liability order is intended only to establish the existence of the relevant debt and to enable the Secretary of State to make use of some of the powers of enforcement which he could not use without the order. The imprisonment sanction comes right at the end of the procedure. It would be more convenient for me to explain in that context how a community service order might or might not fit in.
At this stage the liability order is made, as Clause 27(3) makes clear, if the court is satisfied that the payments in question have become payable by the liable person and have not been paid. There is

749
therefore an opportunity for the liable person to question his liability and the question of nonpayment. Those two matters have to be established before further powers can be exercised. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I do not believe that this is the place for me to answer some of the noble Lord's more general comments on the Bill. I do not accept for a moment what he said about the Bill being unprincipled. I believe that it is a Bill for putting children first and for ensuring, as far as possible, that where a parent is liable for their maintenance under the Bill that maintenance is enforced against the parent. There are many safeguards, which we shall come to, but the purpose of the Bill is to enforce the maintenance obligation of a parent in respect of his child. That is an obligation which has been contained in the law for a long time and which has been regarded as part of the ordinary responsibilities of parenthood. The Bill is intended to make that effective and to produce a reasonable system for making it effective.
I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will not press the amendment. We shall address some of his anxieties later.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I do not wish to delay the Committee for more than a moment or two and I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for intruding a personal experience on the Committee. I have strong reservations about the use of "press-ganged " community service. For a number of years I was chairman and one of the trustees, along with the late Lord Selwyn Lloyd and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, who is happily still with us, for the Young Volunteer Force Foundation. I believe that combining voluntary service with obligatory community service is not really the right sort of mix. In any case, I have my doubts about coercion for community service.
We should not be too ready to extend the area of use of this alternative to other forms of punishment; and of course it is other forms of punishment that we are considering when community service orders are made. This is not community service by a person who has been convicted but a method of "working off " a liability which might otherwise take a different form. I hope my noble friend will take account of that. I do not consider community service orders to be suitable for incorporation into this Bill.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I first reply to my noble friend Lord Houghton. I understand his aversion to the use of community service orders—indeed, he has had a great deal of experience—but the fact is that, in my book anyway, it would be far preferable for the liable parent to be able to keep most of his assets which he may need for the upkeep of a second family. Certainly it would be better than going to prison for him to be required to embark upon some form of community service, in which case he would be able to continue to work in order to pay his maintenance and at the same time maintain his second family. Therefore, perhaps that is an option that must be considered.
750
Moreover, when we pass the Criminal Justice Bill we shall be encouraging the courts to make more community service orders. Indeed, magistrates are already making much more use of community service orders to keep people out of prison. Therefore, it may well be a legitimate use of the community service order in this particular case. However, I appreciate my noble friend's point of view. We are not in the realms of criminality but of non-payment of certain obligations.
To some degree I was encouraged by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. He seemed to accept that perhaps the community service order could be part of the remedy for non-payment. Whether he is going to say that at a later stage I do not know, but if he were to do so—
The Lord Chancellor: I should not like there to be any misunderstanding. It would be more comprehensible if we were to discuss community service orders in relation to imprisonment. I do not wish to anticipate the argument at this stage because that could lead to confusion, but it is in that context that the matter arises. Of course, I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view that a community service order is preferable to imprisonment but I shall have to explain, in the context of the imprisonment provision, just how this does or does not fit. I should not like to give the noble Lord undue encouragement; all I am saying is that this is not really a suitable point at which to discuss the matter. I am not in any way wishing to inhibit the noble Lord but I think he will find that it is more appropriate to discuss this question in relation to the possibility of imprisonment, which we shall come to later.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: What the noble and learned Lord is saying, of course, is that I put down this amendment at the wrong point in the Bill. I will certainly take his advice upon that and perhaps it is a matter that we can discuss on Clause 32: indeed, I am sure we shall discuss it.
The noble and learned Lord did not mention, perhaps because he thought we should discuss it later, the social services report. I think such reports are most important and I would welcome his view on that. In my view it is essential, before any enforcement takes place, to consider all the circumstances of the child for whom the father is liable and perhaps the second family that the man has fathered or the woman has mothered. Also, bearing in mind that we have all kinds of social services reports for all sorts of crimes, surely in this regard it must be written into this Bill that there should be a social inquiry.
The Lord Chancellor: I did not deal with that expressly because I sought to explain that at this stage we are dealing with a liability order and the purpose of a liability order, as the last part of the wording says, is to deal with cases where,
"the payments in question have become payable by the liable person and have not been paid ".
A social services report cannot help on that point. That is a matter which does not depend on anything that the social services could help with. The agency will have the evidence and the information on which that is based. Clause 27 gives the liable person an

751
opportunity to challenge allegations of fact before anything further happens in the way of enforcement which may be consequent on a liability order being taken. I am also happy to discuss social services reports in relation to Clause 32, but I think at this stage they may give rise to a certain amount of confusion. We must keep our debates on a reasonable level so that we understand the purpose of these reports. I am suggesting to the noble Lord that, although I understand why he has tabled the amendment at this stage, it is easier and more comprehensible to discuss it in relation to Clause 32.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I understand that, and I see that I have Amendment No. 114 down on this very matter. In the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 20, line 39, at end insert ("subject to the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) below.
(4) Where the Secretary of State applies for a liability order, the magistrates' court or (as the case may be) sheriff may remit the case to the Secretary of State who shall arrange for it to be dealt with by a child support officer.
(5) The court may, in remitting any case under this section, give such directions as it considers appropriate. ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment does no more than attempt to fill what seems to a small gap: namely, there will be authority for the Secretary of State to apply to the magistrates for a liability order but there is no corresponding provision to enable the magistrates to return the case to the agency if circumstances have arisen in which the absent parent has no capacity to meet the liability order. Things may happen swiftly—for example, disability, illness or unemployment. Therefore would it not be sensible, rather than chasing the father to the court and then back again if it proves to be unnecessary, simply to enable the court to pass the case back to the agency for it to consider any new circumstances?
5 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: What I find particularly worrying about Clause 27, if I have correctly understood it, is that once the Secretary of State has obtained his liability order it is open to him to proceed to levy distress without further reference to the court. He will obtain his liability order if he can produce evidence that there is an order of the agency in existence and that the liable person has failed to make one or more payments. That is the only evidence that he would have to produce to the court and the court would then have no discretion in the matter but will issue a liability order.
Once the agency has the liability order it is obviously in business to enforce payment. My fear is that the official may fail to pay due regard to these circumstances and the liability of the parent and that his vision may be too limited. The amendment moved by the noble Lord is again helpful because it introduces a safeguard.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can also explain whether the Secretary of State will make an
752
application exparte or will the liable person have notice of the application and have an opportunity to go to the court to explain his position, or indeed will he have a copy of the notice of the application? It may be that I missed the reassuring reply, but that is my worry.
The Lord Chancellor: As I said, the purpose of the liability order is in order to give in court a check that the payments in question are payments for which the liable person is in fact liable, and, secondly, that they have not been paid, as a preliminary to any further procedure of enforcement in respect of these matters. My understanding is that the magistrates' court would not make an order without due notice to the person against whom the order is sought, and also that the person against whom the order is sought will have an opportunity of disputing either or both of these branches of what the court has to be satisfied about before it can make a liability order. The liability order of course presupposes that the person in question—the liable person—has been given the notice of the agency's determination of the maintenance payable by that particular person.
If the Secretary of State applies for a liability order and these conditions have not been made out then that is the end of it so far as the Secretary of State is concerned. He cannot go further to make enforcement. What the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has proposed is unnecessary if he is thinking of a case where the Secretary of State has failed, because in that situation it will go back in the sense that he cannot go any further forward in the way of enforcement without the liability order.
The only purpose of seeking the liability order is restricted to these two questions; namely, whether the payments in question have become payable and whether or not they have been paid. These are the only questions that arise in respect of a liability order. If the Secretary of State does not satisfy the court on these matters then the court will not make the order and the Secretary of State is thereby debarred from going any further in the enforcement procedure. That is how the matter is intended to work.
Obviously if circumstances change the Secretary of State may be able at a later stage to come back to the court for a liability order in different circumstances, but so far as the initial application is concerned, if he fails to prove one or other of these matters then the liability order will be refused and there is no need for a remit. That is the situation as I see it, and accordingly I do not see that it is necessary to give the court power to remit to the agency.
There is implied in the noble Lord's approach to the matter the giving of some further powers to the court over and above what this clause deals with; but on the basis of what the clause deals with the amendment is not necessary because the matter is left with the agency if the Secretary of State fails in his application to the court by failing to prove one or other, or both, of the necessary prerequisites for a liability order.
Lord Prys-Davies: If at the hearing it became clear to the court that the liable person might have been in great difficulties in complying with the order—he

753
might have been ill or he might have lost his job—the court would be in no position to make a recommendation to the child agency. It would not be in a position to require the child agency to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances of the liable person. The child agency would get a liability order because it had established that there was an order and that he was in default. It seems to us that the court ought at that stage to be able to make a direction that the child agency should consider the circumstances of the liable person before it proceeds to take action because it has obtained a liability order.
The Lord Chancellor: The situation is that if the Secretary of State—and it is a power in the Secretary of State to enforce the maintenance obligation—is in a situation to demonstrate that the person in question has the obligation for a particular amount and that the amount has not been paid, then it is for the court to decide that question. If there is some situation developed under which circumstances have changed, then there are of course ways in which you can undermine—as we looked at earlier—the existing assessment. For example, if the person had lost his job, then the existing assessment would be capable of being changed in order to take account of that circumstance.
The liability order is intended simply as a check by the court, and putting the court in the position to check that the necessary conditions for enforcement have been established. Obviously the situation so far as enforcement is concerned is then in much the same case as would be any other debt of this character. It will come finally to the ultimate enforcement situation, which is dealt with in Clause 32, and the conditions that must be satisfied. The purpose of Clause 27, which we are dealing with just now, is simply the one that I mentioned, and it is not intended to take account of any supervening circumstance. That is supposed to be taken into account under the procedures for assessment by the agency.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I certainly do not wish to press the amendment at this stage, although I should like to read carefully what has been said and if necessary come back to it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Regulations about liability orders]:
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: May I ask one question about Clause 28? It is on the word "regulations ". I am anxious that a misunderstanding may be cleared up. If there was a misunderstanding I ought to say that it was entirely my fault.
A matter of great importance, because this is an enabling Bill, is when we shall see the regulations. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to say that
754
we would see them before Third Reading. However, he may well have intended to limit that commitment to the regulations under Clause 22. If there was an error, it was mine because when I read Hansard I believe that the commitment should be understood as limited to Clause 22.
I should like to know when we shall see the various regulations. Until we see them we cannot understand this legislation.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble friend Lord Henley gave an undertaking which is superseded in the event because the Committee took out Clause 22. The undertaking was to provide before Third Reading, first, the information which was asked for about the proportion of reduction in the relevant benefit that would be allowed under the provision, and, secondly, the maximum duration for which that reduction would be permitted. The clause having been taken out, there is no subsisting obligation on my noble friend in that respect.
I take the view that it would not be appropriate to have the regulations until the powers are granted. A good deal depends on the terms in which the powers are granted. We have indicated strongly that we would wish to have very wide consultation before the final terms of the regulations are settled. It is in order to deal with that general problem that we have used a method, with which I know my noble and learned friend is not entirely happy, of indicating in at least some cases the heads of subject matter with which the regulations may deal. I am in no position to promise that the regulations in anything like their final form will be available until the Bill has gone to another place. Indeed, I would not expect the regulations to be in their final form until after the Bill has been enacted. Obviously one has to take account of the full terms of the Bill in considering the proposed regulations.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I confess that I cannot understand why, if sight of regulations can be vouchsafed under Clause 22 before the power to make them is enacted, that cannot be so with other regulations. It is important that we should be able to see these regulations. It is not sufficient to say that we have indicated in the Bill the kind of regulation that they will be when a large number which are very important can be made under the general heading which is particularised often also in an ensuing subsection.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to do something better for us. Perhaps he will let us see the regulations in draft before we reach Third Reading of the Bill.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Enforcement of liability orders by distress]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 21. line 26, at end insert:
("(iii) any item relating to the children's family background or which it might reasonably be expected that the children will inherit; and ").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple and I hope easily understood amendment. It seeks to protect items, perhaps of value, from seizure where such items might have an important link with the past, might have been in the family for a long time and would form part of the child's identity and inheritance. Noble Lords opposite understand more clearly than I do the value of inheritance and family identity. I have never inherited anything in my life unfortunately; I feel deprived. I am sure that noble Lords opposite would not wish possessions which provide identity and continuity to be seized and lost for ever to the children simply to satisfy the short-term needs of the Treasury.
I shall take no more of the Committee's time. I believe that that explains the amendment. I hope that for once the noble and learned Lord will he sympathetic and will accept the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not sure whether the noble Lord included me among those noble Lords opposite who were concerned with inheritance. I am sure that he has inherited a great many of the characteristics which he displays for all our interest, instruction and entertainment from time to time.
The effect of the amendment would be to say that the officer exercising the powers of seizures under this provision would be restricted from taking such matters as related to the children's background of which it might reasonably be expected that the children will inherit. That would put an impractical and rather unreasonable burden on the bailiff in this country and the sheriff's officer in Scotland executing his responsibilities. It would mean that before any goods could be taken in satisfaction of the debt, the bailiff would have to consider whether any of the goods could possibly be those which would be passed to the children on the death of the liable person.
The noble Lord is seeking to protect the interests of the children, and I sympathise with that intention. However, I doubt whether this is a practical way of doing that. The noble Lord always refers to the Treasury. Important as the Treasury is, this is not primarily a matter for the Treasury. It is a matter between the parent and child. It is the parent's obligation to maintain the child at the time that the enforcement is going ahead that is in issue. One knows very well that in seeking sometimes to evade obligations, promises are made about payment at a future time. I am sure that the "cheque in the post " reply in respect of debts is one well known to Members of the Committee. When the post arrives sometimes the expectation is not entirely fulfilled.
It would be even more remarkable for me to seek to fulfil my present obligations to pay for my children by saying that I intend to meet those obligations in due course when I pass away and that I shall leave some item to my children as part of their inheritance. That is a deferred way of dealing with the matter.
Apart from that consideration it is difficult to see how the officer in question could properly perform such a duty. How will he find out the information? Will he accept the liable person's word that he proposes to leave something to the children, or what? How does one determine what would be regarded as
756
being reasonable to leave to the children? Secondly, the amendment does not specify directly which children are referred to. However, I assume that they are the children in respect of whom the liability for maintenance arises.
I sympathise with the view that it would be good to protect for the child in the future an item that might be available for him. However, the important point is that there is a present obligation of maintenance and it is that to which the enforcement relates. It is not practicable to restrict the goods which can be used in order to satisfy that obligation in the manner proposed by reference to a fairly vague possibility of future inheritance. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the manner in which he dealt with the amendment. I accept that I have inherited my character, which I hope is good, and my general demeanour from my parents and their ancestors who came from north of the Border, Wales and England. I am a true Briton and I suppose that is why I am chairman of the campaign for an independent Britain. However, I was trying to point out that I have not inherited any material wealth.
I realise that it might be difficult to define exactly the items that have been in the family for a long time. It could be difficult to be certain that they would be handed on to the children for whom the parent was liable. It is a difficult problem. People who have long family histories and old homes and estates will understand, although they may not be involved, that something that one desires to be passed on to one's children to be kept in the family in perpetuity could be distrained upon simply to have cash to help the Treasury, or to help the person who for the time being has charge of the child. Something which is of long-term significance could be sacrificed for short-term expediency. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): If Amendment No. 112A is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 112B or 113. There is a misprint in Amendment No. 112B. It should read:
"Page 21, line 46, leave out paragraph (h) ".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 112A:
Page 21, line 43, leave out subsection (8).
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 112B. The clause is concerned with the grave remedy of distress. That is a powerful mode of execution and in this case it is used to execute generally on goods for liability orders.
That being such a potent mode of execution, the first matter to which I wish to draw the Committee's attention is that this clause, like so many others in the Bill, is no more nor less than a peg on which to hang regulations. The regulations will bite on the individual citizen. Secondly, the regulations are subject only to the negative resolution procedure. I have tabled a later amendment to make the regulations under subsection

757
(4) subject to affirmative resolution procedure. That is an error and should read "subsection (7) ". I am advised that in due course the correct way to deal with the matter is to ask the Committee to treat it as a printer's error. However, in doing so I must put on a white sheet and tell your Lordships how the mistake arose.
I draw the Committee's attention to the terms of subsection (7). It states:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations supplementing the provisions of this section ".
That would have been a provision close to the heart of Henry VIII or James II. It is nothing other than the taking of power to right Acts of Parliament supplementing what is in the statute. However, I shall return to that matter in due course when discussing Clause 38.
I draw attention to a matter to which my noble and learned friend has referred. Subsection (7) gives a general power to make regulations in a permissive form. Subsection (8) states, again in a permissive form, that the regulations may in particular do (a), (b) and (c). Since that is a particularity of a generality it is obvious that, strictly speaking, as my noble and learned friend always says, that subsection is unnecessary. I know that he will say that recently I reinforced his point in my plea to see the regulations before the Bill passes. Nevertheless, it is most unsatisfactory to have such a vague, general power and then to have particularities. That is all we have before we pass the Bill into law and it leaves us incognisant of what the supervening regulations will be under subsection (7).
Also, I should like to ask my noble and learned friend about subsection (8) (a) and (b). Subsection (8) (a) states:
"provide that a distress under this section may be levied anywhere in England and Wales"
I have surmised—and my noble and learned friend will correct me if I am wrong—that that is because distress is levied by sheriffs' officers and that power extends only to the borders of the county. However, there may be another explanation. In any case, I do not see why this particular provision is necessary.
Paragraph (b) is the subject of a particular amendment. It provides that the Secretary of State may, by regulation, cure any defect or want of form in the liability order. Want of form would be serious enough because what is being asked for is power to cure something which is defective in law. However, it goes far beyond want of form in the preceding words as if any legal defect can be cured by the waving of a regulatory wand. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: We have gone over the general argument more than once and I cannot elaborate on what I have said before on that point. My noble and learned friend illustrates the importance of having such provisions by his comment on subsection (8) (b). I have considered carefully what he said. I think it may be right that we should reconsider the terms of that provision.
758
As regards paragraph (a), the idea is that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to make regulations which would make the authority of the court apply in England and Wales in respect of a liability order; in other words, a liability order would be given general effect.
In relation to the later amendment to which my noble and learned friend referred, on which he spoke about the possibility of wearing a white sheet, I do not believe that there is any need for that. I understand the provision which he had in mind.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My noble and learned friend does not yet know that the fault was entirely mine.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand the situation, and I do not mind whose fault it was. I understand that the later amendment refers to subsection (7) and I shall be happy to consider it on that basis, without any necessity of a white sheet.
As I said, the situation as regards paragraph (a) is that it makes it clear that the authority of the court applies to England and Wales. The details of Scottish law on this matter are different. Therefore, it was thought right that an England and Wales provision should be provided for in regulations. In the light of that explanation, I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for offering to reconsider this provision. I am grateful to him also for his generosity in saying what he did about the possibility of correcting my mistake.
With regard to paragraph (a), I did not altogether follow what my noble and learned friend said about the court levying distress. My understanding is that distress is always levied by the sheriff or the under-sheriff or his officers. I thought that for some reason that was intended to allow execution outside the shire boundary. However, if I have that wrong my noble and learned friend will perhaps reconsider the matter to see how far and in what respect it is necessary to make that provision.
As regards paragraph (b), my noble and learned friend, perhaps because it is not yet formally before the Committee, did not refer to that. However, it is symptomatic of this Bill that power is taken by regulation to cure an illegality; that is, not merely a defect as to form but, as is clear by the contrast, a defect as to substance. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112E not moved.]
Lord Henley: My Lords, this may be a convenient time at which to take the second Statement. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Further Education: Reorganisation
5.37 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the Government's plans for the reorganisation of further education in England.
"We are determined to achieve better standards throughout the education service. The national curriculum is improving teaching and motivating young people in schools as never before. Parental choice is being exercised in more and more schools. A new and clearer system of vocational qualifications is beginning to open up exciting opportunities for school-leavers. The proportion going on to higher education has nearly doubled since this Government took office. But we still lag behind our competitors in the participation of our school-leavers in further education and training and their achievement of useful qualifications.
"I believe that the further education colleges have a vital role in providing education and training for both school-leavers and adults. They have never in the past been given the attention that their importance in education policy would justify. Through links with business they are well placed to provide the knowledge and skills needed in the workplace. The Education Reform Act has given them greater managerial autonomy and they are recruiting more students. But they are still subject to bureaucratic controls from local authorities. They lack the full freedom which we gave the polytechnics and higher education colleges in 1989 to respond to the demands of students and of the labour market. The polytechnics are demonstrating quite spectacularly the gains in increased student numbers and increased efficiency without any loss of academic standards which can be achieved with full independence.
"The Government therefore propose to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to form a new sector of post-16 education from April 1993 by taking all further education colleges offering full-time education and all sixth form colleges out of local authority control. They will be funded directly by the Government, through a council appointed by and responsible to me. The funding regime will consist of a basic annual budget together with an element dependent on the numbers actually enrolled. It will be designed to provide a powerful incentive to recruit additional students and reduce unit costs. The further education colleges will also assume responsibility for some adult continuing education.
"Spending by local authorities on further education colleges and sixth form colleges in England currently totals over —2 billion of current spending and —100 million of capital. That will
760
become central government spending, with a corresponding reduction in grant to local authorities.
"The colleges will work closely with the training and enterprise councils. The Government attach great importance to the developing partnership between TECs and other local interests in education and training. We have already given TECs specific responsibilities in work-related FE. They and the new independent colleges will have much to gain from close co-operation. The colleges will own their assets and employ their own staff. They will provide for an ever-increasing proportion of our young people the preparation they need for their working life in the rest of this decade and in the 21st century.
"I have a duty to ensure that the interim period before the establishment of the new independent sector is as smooth as possible. We must place the interests of the students first and ensure that the work of colleges continues undisturbed. I intend to give the right of transfer of employment to the staff of the colleges which will form the new sector.
"I intend to vest the institutions, which I propose being free-standing corporate bodies, with the land, buildings and plant which they currently use. I intend to seek Parliament's approval in the legislation which I shall introduce for a measure which requires my specific consent for all disposals by local education authorities of land or interests in land, including buildings, used or held or obtained for or in connection with the purposes of the institutions.
"I am concerned that local authorities should not enter into contracts which bind the colleges beyond 1st April 1993, when they begin to manage their own affairs. Such contracts should be entered into only with the specific consent of the governing bodies of the institutions affected. Contracts for a consideration having a value in excess of £50,000 will in addition require my consent. The forthcoming legislation will seek Parliament's approval to a measure having this purpose. I shall also seek Parliament's approval for appropriate sanctions where consent has not been obtained in advance.
"I shall seek Parliament's approval for these measures to have effect from midnight tonight. In this way, I intend both to put beyond any doubt the long-term future of the colleges and to enable the transition period to be as smooth and trouble-free as possible. I am placing further details of these measures in the Official Report. My department will be writing to all LEAs to explain how these measures will be applied.
"These developments will still leave much of the education of young people with school sixth forms. I should like to assure the House of my determination to see good sixth forms continue. Whether under local authority control or in the grant maintained sector, proposals for the opening of new sixth forms and the closure of existing sixth forms already have to come to me for approval. I

761
shall use the powers available to me to see that sixth forms thrive and to encourage choice between schools and colleges wherever possible.
"This new sector of education will have a great deal to offer our young people. Indeed it is the education and training of our 16 to 19 year-olds which will be at the heart of a White Paper which will come jointly from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment and myself. That White Paper will contain further details of the proposals I have described. I believe that these proposals will be widely welcomed by all sections of the community. I commend our proposals to the House."
That ends the Statement of my right honourable friend.
Following is the statement referred to above:
"The details of the measures for which I intend to seek the approval of Parliament are as follows.
The Government propose to introduce legislation this autumn to form an independent sector of post-16 education from April 1993. All further education colleges, maintained or assisted by a local education authority, offering full-time education, including tertiary colleges, and all sixth form colleges—that is, maintained schools which normally only provide education for pupils who have attained the age of 16 —will be taken out of local authority control. They will be funded directly by the Government through a new council appointed by and responsible to the Secretary of State. New sixth form colleges and further education colleges, including tertiary colleges, which are established after this announcement will also be funded through the new council, including any grant-maintained sixth form colleges.
Institutions in the new sector (apart from voluntary sixth form colleges) will be free-standing corporate bodies and will be vested with the land, buildings and plant which are currently used by them. I intend to seek Parliament's approval to legislation which requires the specific consent of the Secretary of State for all disposals by local education authorities of land or interests in land, including buildings, used or held or obtained for or in connection with the purposes of the institutions. I shall seek similar powers to ensure that the LEA's interest in any land, including buildings, used or held or obtained for or in connection with the purposes of a voluntary sixth form college are not disposed of without the specific consent of the Secretary of State and that the LEA conveys its interest in these to the trustees of the school.
The disposals of land or interests in land requiring the consent of the Secretary of State will include outright sale, granting or other wise disposing of any leasehold or other interest in land, direct sale and leaseback, any mortgage or other charge designed to raise capital on the security of the land. It will also include any disposal which is made in return for the supply of goods or services. In referring to disposals I include entering into any binding obligation to make a disposal of the kind in question.
To ease the interim period before the establishment of the new sector, I am concerned that local authorities should not enter into contracts which bind the colleges beyond 1st April 1993 when they begin to manage their own affairs. Such contracts should be entered into only with the specific consent of the governing bodies of the institutions affected. Contracts for a consideration having a value in excess of £50,000 will in addition require the consent of the Secretary of State. The forthcoming legislation will seek Parliament's approval to a measure having this purpose.
I shall also seek Parliament's approval for appropriate sanctions where consent has not been obtained in advance. With the disposal of land or interests in land without the consent of the Secretary of State, there will be a power of compulsory purchase with a right of recovery from the local authority of any compensation payable. In the case of contracts, including contracts for disposal, entered into without the consent of the governing body concerned or,
762
where applicable, the consent of the Secretary of State, there will be a right of repudiation, and such repudiation will be deemed to be a repudiation by the relevant local authority, so. that any liability in damages will remain with the relevant local authority.
I shall seek the approval of Parliament for these two measures to have effect from midnight tonight. This statement does not affect enforceable obligations entered into before midnight tonight. "
5.43 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for the Statement. I welcome the fact that the Government have at last recognised and admitted that after 12 years of Conservative rule we still lag far behind our competitors in the participation of our school-leavers in further education and training and in their achievement of useful qualifications. What saddens me about the Statement is that it is driven by panic measures to get out of the appalling mess created by the poll tax and not determined by genuine educational considerations in relation to the future of further education. Moreover, the Statement suggests that the problems of further education can be solved merely by structural changes relating to whether they are under local authority control or under a funding council which is controlled and funded centrally.
The problems of FE concern standards, quality and the participation of young people and adults; they do not concern structures. The Government have lamentably failed to improve post-16 opportunities. They have under-funded national vocational qualifications and, above all, done little about the confusing jungle of qualifications and courses—confusing to parents, teachers and young people.
The Statement represents a massive U-turn in the Government's thinking less than a year after the last major reorganisation of FE, with the introduction of local financial management and restructured governing bodies in further education colleges. When these measures were being debated in Parliament in another place the then Minister of State in the Department of Education, Mrs. Rumbold, praised the role of local authorities in running further education and rejected proposals for change and centralisation. What has happened since then to alter the Government's view? What new educational arguments are they deploying? The main argument for these proposals is that they take £2 billion out of local government spending rather than that they are based on any proper, thoughtful and considered analysis of the likely educational benefits with respect to the quality, standards and participation to which I referred earlier.
I wish to ask a number of specific questions in regard to the Statement. Am I right in assuming that a new Bill is intended rather than simply amending the 1988 Act? What consultations are taking place or will take place regarding the composition of the new council? The Statement suggests that members will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Are we yet again to increase the powers of the Secretary of State for Education to determine what happens in our education system without involving the many other partners in the system?

763
Could the Minister say how these massive changes of the kind entailed in the Statement could be introduced in a period of not much more than 15 months? We are told that the legislation is planned for the autumn and implementation by April 1993. By the time the legislation is enacted, if indeed it ever is enacted, we shall certainly be to Christmas, leaving a very short period to plan a totally new system.
The Statement suggests that the budget of FE colleges will be based in part on the numbers recruited and that there will be incentives to recruit more students and reduce the unit costs of the institutions. That must give rise to two very major anxieties. First, the FE system was described by a recent Secretary of State for Education, Mr. Baker, as the Cinderella of the education service. Funding is certainly not generous at present. How can we ensure that yet lower unit costs will not lead to lower standards?
Secondly, pressures on institutions to recruit more students must mean a threat to the sixth forms, which remain in the secondary schools under local authority control. I always thought that the Government were attached to maintaining the sixth forms. Is this no longer the case? The method of financing the colleges will encourage poaching by the colleges from the sixth forms in the local authority sector. The Statement refers to an ever-increasing proportion of our young people being catered for by the colleges. Today many sixth forms are barely viable in terms of numbers. That surely will kill them off in spite of what the noble Lord said in the Statement.
I welcome the fact that staff will be transferred by right to the colleges in the new sector. I am concerned that these institutions are to be vested with the land, buildings and plant which they currently use. Are the local authorities to be compensated for the loss of the land, buildings and plant? We must remember that FE colleges, tertiary colleges, sixth form colleges, land and buildings have multiple uses. For example, many adult education classes are held in these premises. I assume that adult education will remain a local authority responsibility, though nothing was said about that. Where are those classes to take place in the future?
I understand from the Statement that voluntary colleges will be affected. I wonder whether the Churches have been consulted about that.
This Statement also says nothing about part-time study and whether the new council and its institutions will be fostering part-time study to take place alongside full-time study. It says nothing about ways of combining academic and vocational study and allowing young people to mix the two in a desirable way with a simpler system of qualifications which is at the centre of the Labour Party's policies in this area. I fear that these proposals will disrupt the good work that has been done by LEAs in linking work in FE colleges and work done at the top end of schools.
There has been no national planning of FE in the same way as there was a system of national planning of higher education under the national advisory body before the polytechnics were taken out of local authority control. The new system of planning will have to he invented from scratch. It is most unclear to
764
me how a national body will be able adequately to take into account the needs of local areas, local industries and local employers which are such a central part of the function of further education.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate has frequently reported favourably on the planning and management of FE by local authorities. I wonder whether the Government have given up listening to their own advisers. Unfortunately, this Statement misses the opportunity to improve the quality of education at the post-16 stage. Instead it plays around with structures at the expense of genuine education reform to get the Government off their own poll tax rack. There will be further massive disruption to the education system with little foreseeable educational benefit.
Fortunately, with the Government's timetable to bring the proposals back to the House in the shape of a Bill, by then we shall hopefully have had a general election. In that case the Government will have been replaced by a Labour Government which will not determine the shape of education by panic measures to get out of the problems caused by the poll tax.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is an optimist. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for repeating the Statement made in another place. The commitment of the Liberal Democrats to improving training in skills and vocational education is deep and long-standing. I do not think that any noble Lord who has listened to my noble friend Lady Seear on this subject will doubt that for a moment. That is why, when I have read previous statements by Mr. Eggar on this subject, I have been inclined to respond warmly to them. When I read the advance press release which forecast, with a fair amount of accuracy, some of the points in the Statement, I responded warmly to that also.
Now we have the Statement I cannot help feeling that it is really something of a damp squib. There are some rather Panglossian notes in it. I do not think that I know of any teachers, even those most enthusiastic for the national curriculum, who believe that it is improving teaching and motivating young people in schools as never before. It is rather an extreme Statement. There is nothing in this Statement about what appears to us on these Benches to be the greatest weakness in arrangements for vocational training. That is the grave lack of funding which has been affecting the Training and Enterprise Councils as many others. At the moment Training and Enterprise Councils are in a very difficult situation indeed. When I heard that this Statement was coming I had hoped that it was going to indicate the commitment of some additional funds to solving these problems. I am deeply disappointed that it has not done so.
I share the suspicion of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, of the funding arrangements proposed under this measure; namely, the incentive to take additional students and thereby decreasing unit costs. This pressure to increase so-called efficiency by decreasing unit costs is one which signals a hidden danger. There is pressure here to cut quality. I do not see how greater efficiency can be achieved without cutting quality. If we cut the quality of our industrial

765
training that is not going to enable us to catch up with our international competitors, which I thought was one of the major objects of the exercise.
I agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, about fiddling with structures and finding a measure for opting out, which is yet another proposal against local authority. Coming from this Government it has a certain knee-jerk quality. There may be a case for this measure, but I do not believe that this Government are the best people to convince us of it. My noble friends will scrutinise the White Paper with a great deal of care to see what kind of a case is made out for the measure. The only one we have made out in the Statement is that local authorities are bureaucratic. No doubt they are, but are they the only bodies in the world that are bureaucratic? Is the council to be set up under this measure not to be bureaucratic? If it is not, how is it to function? We shall need a good deal more information about the role and function of this council.
There is a point I wish to raise because we shall have to return to it. Unlike the Universities Funding Council, and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, I very much hope that the council will be able to give advice to the Government in public. The difficulties caused by the inability of the Universities Funding Council to do that emerged very clearly when Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer last gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee. That is the kind of difficulty that we do not want to see recurring.
There are a good many difficult problems which will need clarification. I understand the purpose of the point made about the disposal of assets. But the word "contracts " in the Statement is rather vague. I am not at all sure how far it extends. For example, does it extend to preventing a college from taking on a major building repair contract some of which now cost over £50,000? The effects of deferring these projects can make them cost a lot more than that. We need a great deal of clarification on that matter.
We need a lot of clarification on what is going to happen about the role of sixth-forms, which will remain a very important part of our education. We need to know whether anything is to be done to enable those who do not leave school to do things enabling them to develop vocational skills.
Speaking as an academic, we must recognise that, valuable though academic education is, it is not the only valuable form of education. We also need to know whether this measure is to apply to Scotland, where in many ways arrangements are extremely difficult. Finally, when dealing with local government, we should remember that we are not dealing only with efficiency. Local government is not only about efficiency, but about consent; and consent is something which matters in our political system.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, though the questions that they have asked me may cause some difficulty, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their response to
766
my right honourable friend's Statement. The noble Baroness began by making the point that what is important in these matters is educational considerations and not structures. The aims of my right honourable friend's Statement are to try to increase participation in the further education sector; to increase the freedom of colleges to manage and to try to have a greater responsiveness to the demands of the student population for the courses which they not only want but also need.
The noble Baroness was perhaps a little brusque —indeed, her remarks were echoed by the noble Earl —when she said that this matter was really about transferring resources from local to central government. There is a little more in it than that. The noble Baroness upbraided the Government for not listening to the inspectorate. Perhaps I may remind her that Her Majesty's Inspector, the Chief Inspector no less, made absolutely clear in a recent report that the institutions which are now completely independent, which is exactly what this Statement is attempting to achieve —namely, the polytechnics and colleges which have become independent under the Education Reform Act —have responded enthusiastically to their new status. The report also said that independence has resulted in better planning mechanisms and clearer objectives. That is precisely what we want now to achieve with the FE colleges.
With that as the basis for what I am saying, I shall try very quickly to cover the other questions which the noble Baroness asked me. She asked about a new Bill. Yes, indeed, legislation is flagged up in the Statement. I am afraid I cannot answer her specific question on exactly the form it will take. We will have to wait to see how we attack the drafting.
The noble Baroness referred to consultations. She will not he surprised when I say that many college principals have been saying that they would welcome the opportunity to exercise greater control over their own affairs. I give the assurance that my right honourable friend will be taking account of the views of interested parties as the legislation is being drawn up. The noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked what would be the effect on sixth forms. It is very important that I should remind your Lordships that a specific passage in the Statement makes clear my right honourable friend's adherence to thriving, good sixth forms.
The noble Baroness asked about three other areas. First, she asked me whether compensation would be paid to local authorities so far as concerns the transfer of land, buildings and other assets. These assets have been paid for by local taxpayers and community charge payers. Local people will continue to have access to the facilities for which they have paid, which in a sense covers another point made by the noble Baroness. Under the new regime colleges would be even more responsive to local needs and demands. Therefore, I do not think we are in a compensation paying situation.
Secondly, the noble Baroness asked about adult education. I know that, in the White Paper which is to

767
come, it is the intention of my right honourable friend to make a detailed announcement of policy on the area of adult education.
Finally, the noble Baroness raised the most important question of voluntary colleges. There will be consultation, for instance, with the churches, as the legislation is drawn up to ensure that interests of the voluntary aided sixth form colleges are taken into account. The point I should particularly like to underline is that their status as voluntary aided colleges will continue to be protected.
The noble Earl made the point that it sounded as if the Government intended that there should be cuts in funding. I think I have paraphrased him reasonably accurately. Perhaps I may just make the point that it is possible to achieve increases in participation without constantly having to increase expenditure so far as concerns unit costs. That, I put to the noble Earl, is something on which the polytechnics, in their independent status, have proved him wrong.
The noble Earl said that more information would be needed on the new council. I entirely agree with him on that. I must ask him, if he will, to await the publication of the White Paper.
The noble Earl also, I think quite predictably and understandably, asked exactly what was meant in the Statement by contracts. In the interests of brevity, perhaps I may say that the Statement does include a reference to the fact that there is a Written Statement which is to be printed in Hansard at the same time. That would repay a reading so far as concerns the meaning of contracts and the intentions on contracts of my right honourable friend.
Finally, the noble Earl asked whether this was a Statement simply for England. It is, and we must await the intentions so far as concerns the Secretaries of State for the different territorial parts of the United Kingdom.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend one general question. I congratulate him wholeheartedly on what I believe is a step very much in the right direction. I have never wholly reconciled myself to what happened under populist pressure in the years 1963 to 1964, whereby there was an almost total amalgamation between responsibility at the top for schools and responsibility at the top for scientific research at universities and in higher education generally. Will he, even at the back of his mind, contemplate the possibility of bringing together the polytechnic section, scientific research and university education, not of course in an identical body in every case, but at any rate in such a way that they are not starved of funds and there is not this competition between schools and higher education research which has resulted from the 1963 and 1964 changes? I ask him that simply because I believe that, in the end, we shall be driven in that direction.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble and learned friend, with his enormous experience of education, asks an interesting question. He would not expect me
768
to try to follow him down that road. I am very glad that my noble and learned friend took the opportunity to ask his question, but it does go wider than the Statement which I am making this afternoon. I give my noble and learned friend an assurance that I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend to his comments.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we all welcome the attention the Government are giving to the post-16 sector in education. Unfortunately, we come back to the state we were in earlier this afternoon in welcoming the interest but not agreeing with the end result of the analysis. It points at one of the difficulties of not having two tiers of local government. The alternatives appear to be either local government control or national government control.
Perhaps I may touch on two specific questions. First, will the colleges inherit the liabilities as well as the assets involved in their operations? That is a fairly simple question. Secondly, under local authority administration—I describe it as administration rather than control, because even there FE colleges have a certain amount of independence —the FE colleges are structured in such a way as to provide an integrated range of services, if I may use that word. But if they have to stand alone in a national arena the circumstances of their existence will be completely different. Will the Government permit local authorities to reorganise the colleges within their boundaries in such a way as to provide a more sensible arrangement for groups of buildings and for the provision of services when they come under national administration rather than local administration?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's last question is almost certainly no, because what he is really saying is that the local authorities should be able to step in and pre-empt the proposals of my right honourable friend. What is more specifically the answer to what the noble Lord has said is that, as from midnight tonight, my right honourable friend is saying that there cannot be disposals of or changes in land holdings and other assets without his agreement, an agreement which I think he would not wish to withhold unreasonably. However, he feels very strongly indeed that when the colleges become independent, as he intends on 1st April 1993, they should have the assets which they will need not for their own glorification but for the service of the people of the locality. The noble Lord first asked me whether the colleges would inherit the liabilities as well as the assets. I must seek refuge from that particular subject. It is of course a very good question, but the noble Lord will have to wait for the publication of the White Paper.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in view of the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and others about central government control, will my noble friend accept that our experience in the secondary sector in the past has shown that what is proposed does not provide central government control; it provides an enormous incentive to excellence. Will he take it from one who taught for 10

769
years in the secondary sector, partly in direct-grant institutions and partly in local authority funded institutions, that the direct grant system, which appears to me to be analogous in some respects to what is now proposed, singles institutions out into a position where they are given funds which are finite and are charged to do their best with them? The resultant determination of the staff and their perception of the true interests of the institutions are highly beneficial. In the past, it led to a performance which meant that most of us on this side of the House deeply regretted the abolition of the direct grant schools. Moreover, the rightness of our regret was borne out in the event in that we were in time in 1979 to prevent the abolition of direct grant grammar schools in Northern Ireland. The performance indicators invented by the Government which abolished direct grant schools in this country have shown ever since that those schools produce the best results.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what my noble friend said. However, at the risk of being repetitive, perhaps I may simply refer to the HMI report by the Senior Chief Inspector which stated clearly that the institutions which have become independent under the Education Reform Act have begun to show that they have clearer objectives than before and better planning mechanisms to achieve them. That is not a government statement; it came from HMI. Without wishing to be combative, I believe that there are local authority controls which can arguably be removed. The proof of the pudding is to be found in the words from that HMI report.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, when we were discussing the setting up of the UFC, it appeared that probably the majority of academic and senior academic opinion in Scotland was in favour of the funding of universities under the same system as existed in Great Britain; that is, without a separate UFC. However, I understand that there has been a change in the position. I merely ask the Government—I hope that they will agree—to take full consultation in Scotland about the special needs of that country. Scotland will of course have special needs and some supervision will be required. Such needs must be taken into account. I believe that there is a growing belief in Scotland in academic and other circles that separate funding in Scotland would probably be a good idea.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should just like to emphasise the fact that the Statement I repeated extends only to England.
Lord Grimond: Oh!
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in the circumstances, therefore, it will be for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make the pronouncement of what he intends to do as regards the general context of today's Statement; that is, if that is what he wishes to do. In the meantime, I can assure the noble Lord that I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what difference the proposals will make to the status of the academic staff of polytechnics? For example, will it bring them into a different field of analysis and comparison with the academic staff of universities? I raise this issue because when I undertook the inquiry into teachers' pay many years ago I was astonished to find that, as polytechnics came under the control of local authorities, the pay of their academic staff came to be reviewed as part of the area of teachers' pay under the Burnham umbrella. That not only caused difficulties; it also created a sense of being second rate in the minds of the academic staff of the polytechnics. Moreover, it eventually led to quite serious difficulties. We had the job of relating the pay and conditions of the academic staff to those of the teachers whose status was being quite significantly upgraded, especially as regards the top posts.
When we had completed that task, the university teachers and others concerned who had been waiting for us to finish then had a strong complaint that new relativities had been created which had to be rectified as part of their outlook on the economic value of their academic qualifications. That was quite a nuisance at the time and gave rise to serious difficulties when the pay of university teachers was considered immediately after my review of teachers in polytechnics. I should like to know whether the position has changed or whether it will be changed under the new scheme. Where will the polytechnic staff go for the adjudication of their remuneration under the new funding arrangements? I should be very glad if what is proposed removes the problem to which I referred.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I genuinely wish that I could help the noble Lord. However, I do not believe that I can this afternoon. That is partly because I do not think that I am competent to do so and partly because the Statement is not about polytechnics; it is about further education colleges. I must rest my case on the fact that in his remarks the noble Lord has gone very much wider than the content of the Statement. However, if I can help in any way by writing to the noble Lord I shall endeavour to do so.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to make a few comments and ask several questions. My remarks directly relate to the Statement; they are not about something quite different, as has been the case with some of the previous points which have been made. I was most surprised to read in the third paragraph of the Statement that further education colleges,
"have never in the past been given the attention that their importance and education policy would justify ".
That indicates to me the most abysmal ignorance of the education system by the Secretary of State. Further, from various remarks which have been attributed to him recently, it seems that he has much to learn. Further education colleges have been doing a good job. Indeed, they have very often taken on young people who did not progress very well in the ordinary school system but who have subsequently done very well indeed. They have also been extremely flexible in responding to business needs in the community. Those

771
words made me feel very angry. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the colleges are doing an extremely good job.
The other sentence which surprised me is to be found at the end of the first paragraph on page 2 of the Statement. It reads:
"The further education colleges will also assume responsibility for some adult continuing education ".
I must point out that these colleges have been dealing with many adults for a long period of time. They will not "assume " this responsibility; they have already done so. Those words also irritated me.
I have a question to ask about buildings. Where huge building operations are planned or where they have already been started, who will have responsibility for looking after them between now and April 1993? Then there is the question of governing bodies. Will they be constituted just as they are at present? Will parents be involved? Of course parents are very much involved with sixth form college governors and tertiary college governors. I should just like to know whether they will still be involved in governing bodies.
Finally, would it not have been more rational to issue a White Paper and then hold consultations, after which time legislation could have been introduced? The Government seem to have got the process the wrong way around. Of course we know the reason why: they want to get rid of some more money from the poll tax. In conclusion, can the Minister say when we can expect the publication of the White Paper?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hope that the White Paper will be published shortly. The noble Baroness chided my right honourable friend on his ignorance of the further education sector. I do not believe that he would in any way disagree with what she said about the good job that further education colleges have been doing for a long time. However, he feels—this is on the statistics available—that greater participation rates are needed and that—I am repeating this point for a second time—in the light of HMI's views, the probability is that we can do something about increasing participation rates by allowing the colleges greater freedom to manage, thereby making them more responsive to student wishes and demands. We may not agree on that point, but I thought that I should set out again my right honourable friend's thoughts.
Again, the noble Baroness will not expect me to say anything about adult education. With respect to buildings, the existing colleges and the local education authorities will be responsible for them until 1st April 1993—at least that is the philosophy of the Statement that I have repeated —when they will become independent. The contracts will contain measures to take account of the new situation. If there are contracts which extend beyond 1993, those contracts are called into question by my right honourable friend's Statement.
On governing bodies, I ask the noble Baroness to await the White Paper. There was nothing in the Statement to suggest that there would be a change in the composition of governing bodies.
Lord Annan: My Lords, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, a number of noble Lords from these Benches have been talking about the further education sector over the past months. It is a great pleasure to see that the Government are taking it seriously, although no doubt what the noble Baroness said about the Government's motives is true.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. First, will the further education council concern itself with what the noble Baroness referred to as the jungle of qualifications and the relationship of the numerous industrial training bodies which have been set up? I hope that attention will be paid to that issue, and also that the council will see that the further education colleges maintain their existing strong contacts with the businesses in their areas and with their needs.
Secondly, will the further education council consider the curriculum, in particular A-levels and the qualifications required to enter the colleges? I shall be grateful if the Minister will say whether any oversight of the school's curriculum will fall within the remit of that council. Lastly, is the Minister aware of what a pleasure it is to see him answering for education again after 20 years?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is kind of the noble Lord. It came as a slightly unexpected pleasure this afternoon. The answer to his last question is that the council will be responsible for funding provision. Once again, I am afraid that only the bare bones of the proposal have been included in the Statement. The council will not be running A-levels, as suggested by one newspaper today. The Schools Examinations and Assessment Council is the body responsible for overseeing and advising on all assessment and examination matters, including A-levels.
The noble Lord kindly welcomed the fact that we were making the Statement today. He referred, as did the noble Baroness, to the jungle of qualifications. The Statement does not propose that the council will become involved in such matters. It is a subject in which the National Council for Vocational Qualifications is immersed at present. It is endeavouring to classify them and is making some progress.
Finally, the noble Lord made the point to which I believe we would all say, "Hear, hear! "—that he hopes that the colleges and local businesses will come closer together. The Government hope that the TECs, as they are called, will, probably through the aegis of the council, be able to increase their input in that area.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
6.25 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 29.
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 22, line 5, after ("to ") insert ("an award of costs against the court or the person levying distress and ").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to deal with what seems to be an omission in Clause 29(8) (d). The clause provides that if distress is wrongfully levied, the absent parent may recover his goods if they have been distrained or obtain an award of

773
compensation if they have been sold. The amendment would have the effect of enabling that absent parent to obtain also an order for costs against the court or the bailiff who had wrongfully levied the distress. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The clause provides for enforcement action by distraint where the liable person has not made maintenance payments following an assessment and a demand for payment and subsequent to the obtaining of a liability order from a magistrates' court. The amendment is to that part of Clause 29 which sets out what matters may be provided for in the regulations—another illustration of the possible value of such provisions. The subsection of the clause which the amendment seeks to change provides for an appeal to the court against distraint action by the liable person. The appeal may be against distraint that has taken place or has been attempted. As the clause is drafted at present, compensation may be awarded on a successful appeal if it were found that the distraint was wrongly carried out or carried out against the wrong person. The court will also be able to decide on the disposal of goods distrained if they have not yet already been disposed of. Those provisions are modelled on existing legislation for distress action in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and do not introduce any novel powers; they merely carry forward into the Bill the powers which the courts already have in respect of appeals against distress action. The effect of the amendment would be to provide in the regulations that the court would award costs against itself and against the Secretary of State in addition to compensation. Compensation can be awarded in such circumstances through the existing court processes if the action which is in question was as a result of an error either by the court or the person levying distraint.
We believe that the provisions for compensation provided for in existing legislation which will apply to the Bill are sufficient to deal with incorrect actions of distraint. As the Bill makes clear in this subsection, an appeal against a distraint action will be to the courts and the regulations will make provision as to powers of the courts in awarding such compensation.
I hope that the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment in the light of that explanation. In that situation, the person levying the distress is the Secretary of State rather than the bailiff.
Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord just one question. Who will levy distress on behalf of the Secretary of State? Will it be a servant of the agency acting in the course of his employment or a certificated bailiff? I ask that because the NCC has recently severely criticised the use of certificated bailiffs.
The other question does not arise under this amendment but under Clause 29. Does the reference to "special damage " in subsection (6) also include the costs of the aggrieved party? I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could throw some light on these matters.
The Lord Chancellor: The question of costs will be regarded as incidental. On the powers dealing with an appeal, the person authorised to execute the distraint would be a certificated bailiff; that is, a person certificated for that purpose, not an employee of the Secretary of State in the ordinary case.
I am aware of the views of the National Consumer Council in relation to certificated bailiffs in other connections. These matters will have to be considered. I should have thought it would be better for the person who is responsible for exercising these powers to have been certificated under the provisions. No doubt even people who are certificated can have their conduct further improved and perhaps some action needs to be considered on that. However, I believe that this is the appropriate way for enforcement to be taken.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Following the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I was going to ask about "special damage ". Perhaps it is more convenient to do so now in view of the recent colloquy than wait for the Motion that the clause stand part.
What is involved here? It may be a term of art. My recollection is that a bailiff may, when exercising distress, knock down the front door. However, that recollection may be derived from Pickwick Papers rather than any textbook of law. Does "special damage " mean damage over and above what a bailiff may. in the course of executing the distress, cause legitimately or at any rate without complaint by the person against whom distress is levied? Before my noble and learned friend answers, perhaps I may also ask what is the meaning of "and no more " in line 40.
The Lord Chancellor: My understanding of the phrase "special damage " is the ordinary meaning, that it is not a question of general damages but of pointing out a specific loss that the person has incurred. When the provision says:
"special damage (and no more) "
it means to restrict the matter to that. I sympathise with my noble and learned friend in sometimes finding it difficult to know whether one has picked up one's information from a textbook of law or Pickwick Papers. However, the situation is that the bailiff cannot break down the front door under the powers given to certificated bailiffs in our law.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 31 [Enforcement of liability orders by diligence: Scotland]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) moved Amendment No. 113A:
Page 22, line 29, at end insert ("and, in connection therewith, for the opening of shut and lockfast places ").
The noble and learned Lord said: A Scottish court order includes authority for commissioned officers of court to open shut and lockfast places in order to carry out a poinding. This amendment will make clear that

775
a liability order also provides that authority. As noble Lords will be aware, this is a well-established procedure and subject to proper controls, such as the giving of advance notice to the debtor. It is in the best interests of the maintenance debtor and the maintenance creditor that the law on this matter should be clearly stated, hence the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Commitment to prison]:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 23, line 15, at end insert:
("(5A) No warrant may be issued under this section without a Social Services report on the likely effect on the children, including any other children residing with the liable parent. ").
The noble Lord said: I do not wish on this amendment to enter into a debate on the whole question of the imprisonment of liable fathers or mothers. I shall make my remarks brief as I have already commented under Clause 27.
I cannot believe that the Government want a liable parent to be committed to prison without the court first having had the opportunity to consider a social services report. There is not only the financial effects on the children but the whole ethos of the children's lives where a father has been sent to prison. It is not only the father of the maintained children but the children of the second family with which a father or mother may live. It may well be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell me that the matter is already covered under the existing court procedures. However, it is not clear to me that it is. Frankly, it must be made quite clear that we shall not send defaulting liable parents to prison without first having considered all the effects, particularly those on the children of one, two or even more families. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall respect the noble Lord's wish to avoid getting involved in the full debate about imprisonment in response to this amendment. However, what is envisaged in Clause 32 is very much a last resort situation. It is obligatory on the court, before there is any question of granting a warrant under subsection (2), to inquire into the means of the liable person and whether there has been a wilful refusal or culpable neglect on his part. That is a wide inquiry.
In this case, it is a requirement that it should be done in the presence of the liable person. In other words, he must come to the court and the court will have a full opportunity of inquiring into his circumstances. It will not be possible to grant any warrant under this provision unless the court is satisfied that having regard to his means there has been a wilful refusal or culpable neglect on his part.
The noble Lord may feel satisfied that that is an immediate inquiry with the liable person present. All the circumstances in which he has refused to pay will be examined in the inquiries. If there are other matters into which the magistrates wish to inquire before
776
granting a warrant, they will have full discretion to do so. However, the Committee will appreciate that there is no obligation on the magistrates to grant a warrant, even if they are satisfied that one may be justified. They merely have a power to grant a warrant, but they have wide discretion in the matter. I therefore believe that all the circumstances of a case can be made available to the court.
It is also worth reminding the Committee that it is intended that the formula should take full account of all the responsibilities of the liable parent in the manner prescribed. I hope that is sufficient comment at this stage. Obviously we shall have to consider the matter fully in connection with the full debate on imprisonment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am afraid that I am not at all happy with that reply. The powers, and indeed the abilities of magistrates, are simply not adequate to examine all the circumstances—irrespective of what has happened before—which must necessarily be examined before a person is sent to prison. They will not be able to reach a proper conclusion unless an independent body, such as a social services department, has undertaken a proper inquiry. As far as I can ascertain, there is no provision in the Bill for such an inquiry. A court is not a suitable place—I refer to the matters that I outlined in my opening remarks—for such an inquiry to take place.
I do not know whether I shall press the amendment but I feel unhappy about the reply that the noble and learned Lord has given. It is not satisfactory and I ask him to bear in mind that we may be sending a person to prison. We would by that action take him away from his children. We would take away the opportunity for him to work —irrespective of whether he contributes to maintenance—and we would confine him to a prison where he will get into bad company and perhaps emerge as an even worse person than when he went in. That too may have an effect on his children from a former marriage and on the children of a present marriage. It is essential that we do everything we can to ensure that all the circumstances of a case are known. I believe that only through an inquiry conducted by a social services department can we be sure that that will happen.
Baroness Faithfull: It is a little difficult to take a decision on this matter until we have heard the big debate on the subject of prisons. Some of us will have suggestions to make as regards alternatives to prison. If those suggestions were accepted, this provision would not be necessary. I say that although my suggestion may not be accepted. Nevertheless we need to hear all the arguments before we take a decision on this provision.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have a query which arises out of something that my noble and learned friend said. He said that the formula will take account of all liabilities. I have been trying to find out how far an order for spousal maintenance affects the formula. I am not asking my noble and learned friend to reply to that query now. However, I should be grateful if before the next stage I could be apprised of where the

777
formula takes account of spousal maintenance and how it affects Example 3 of Volume One of the White Paper.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I believe I said that liabilities would be taken into account in accordance with the formula—that is certainly the phrase I had in mind—because the formula is intended to take account of a person's expenses and that kind of thing. As regards spousal maintenance, I must have failed to explain to my noble and learned friend how I envisaged this provision working. The formula is designed to ascertain in respect of a particular case, in the given circumstances to which the formula is applied, the amount of child maintenance that is payable. The money that is left over from child maintenance is available for spousal maintenance. The ordinary powers of the court to operate on that, having regard to the amount of the child maintenance, will continue. It will be for the court to determine, in the light of the responsibilities of the liable absent parent for the children, what sum, if any, should be paid by the absent parent in respect of spousal maintenance.
As I have already said, there is an element of maintenance for the caring parent in the formula in respect of the cost of caring for the child. That is part of the maintenance award in respect of the child. However, in as far as spousal maintenance is required over and above that, it will be fixed by the court in accordance with the law presently operated by the court, having regard to the responsibilities for maintenance determined under the formula. I would expect a court to have information about that at the time that the spousal maintenance was finally fixed.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that reply. I now understand the position rather better, but I confess that I still do not understand it fully. The element in maintenance relating to the expenses of a caring parent who cannot herself work is very small. I again refer to what my noble and learned friend termed the typical case that is mentioned in Example 3. I believe that in that example the father was left with £92. Of that a certain amount is represented by the exempt element. I have forgotten how much that is, but I believe it is about £46. Can the court make such an order as it considers just out of the father's £92 in the case of a wife who has, to all intents and purposes, no means and is bound to the house to look after the children, or is it restricted to the difference between the exempt element and the £92? Finally, when an order is made, are not all the computations thrown out kaleidoscopically?
The Lord Chancellor: No, that is not the result. In calculating the amount that is payable in respect of maintenance, the exempt income has to come into play at the first stage of the calculations. One then discovers the result of the calculation.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend. When he refers to the calculation, is he referring to the impact of the formula or the calculations made by the justices?
The Lord Chancellor: I am trying to explain in broad terms how I understand the formula to work. The detail of the formula has been examined in respect of Schedule 1. First of all one applies the formula. The exempt income comes into the calculation in determining the amount of maintenance payable by the father—to take the typical case—in respect of the child. Let us say that there is one child, or two children, in the typical example to which my noble and learned friend referred. The exempt income is then used for the purpose of determining the maintenance award. Once the maintenance award is determined, one knows what the free income of the father will be after providing maintenance. The court will then be able to make an award out of that free income in respect of spousal maintenance to the mother.
The principles upon which the court will work are the principles upon which the court works now in determining how much should be given by way of spousal maintenance. The court will know for the future the element of spousal or carer's maintenance which is included in the formula award. It will have regard to that in making the award. However, the award of spousal maintenance operates on the money that is left after the award of maintenance for the child or children in respect of the formula has been taken into account.
Lord Prys-Davies: Assuming that the formula has been correctly understood by the official and correctly applied, it could nevertheless lead to an unjust result —which is an issue that we discussed the other day in Committee. In those circumstances, should the courts not have before them evidence of that unjust result for the liable parent? If it has led to hardship, is it not very likely that the social service report would pick up that fact so that the evidence would be before the court when deciding whether or not to issue commitment? Unless there is such a fallback position, it would appear that there is no means of adjusting the situation until new regulations are made in order to correct a defect in the formula which was not foreseen when the formula was drafted.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of the formula, and the reason for having a formula, is to provide a just result in all cases. I admit that it is possible that even the formula may not be 110 per cent. perfect and a situation might arise which would call for modification of the formula. However, the underlying purpose of the formula is to attain a just result in all cases. I hope that the cases in which it would not do so would be extremely rare.
I have to point out that if the formula produces, for example, a larger payment than justice should require, that would become evident in an inquiry such as is proposed in Clause 32. The circumstances that have to be inquired into relate to whether there has been a deliberate failure to pay which is a wilful refusal and culpable neglect on the part of the parent. That can

779
only be determined on the basis that money is available and the refusal to pay is a wilful refusal, the circumstances otherwise being in favour of payment. The objective is only to deal with the person who, having had a proper award made, then says, "No, I understand all about it but I am just not going to pay that money for my children". That is a typical case which the provision is intended to cover.
We have to proceed on the basis that the purpose of the formula is to attain justice. The thrust of the whole system is to achieve justice by means of the formula. That is why it needs to be very detailed and take account of the great variety of circumstances which may arise. One has a choice between such a system, which applies to a great number of cases—3 million in all,, both new and variation cases—and a discretion, which it is impossible to apply consistently. The formula aims at consistency and where it applies, it ought to produce the right answer.
Accordingly, I submit to the Committee that it is not right in this system to seek modification of the formula. One is looking for an ultimate sanction which is properly protected against misuse. That is where the inquiry in the person's presence into his means is a necessary preliminary to any exercise of that power.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We have had a longer debate on the amendment than I had anticipated; but the matter has aroused considerable interest. While I understand perfectly what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about applying the formula and that the formula is meant to be fair, as I showed earlier in our debate, the formula could be very unfair to many liable parents, especially where they have high costs of access.
It may very well be that the child support officer making the assessment might think that he has made a fair assessment under the formula; but because of the associated costs, it is impossible for the maintenance to he paid in accordance with the formula. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies made the point that injustice could result from applying the formula. The amendment is intended to introduce an independent authority such as the social services to provide the court with an independent view as to whether or not there had been wilful refusal to pay.
Having said that, and bearing in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, although I am very tempted to do so, it would be wrong to press the amendment. There is an opportunity to come back to the matter at Report stage if we are not satisfied with what is brought forward. I have to say to the noble and learned Lord, whom I very much like and respect and who I know is very sensitive about these issues, that I remain very unhappy about the matter. With those words, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment—at least for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 23, line 27, at end insert:
780
("Pending the making of such regulations section 79(2) and (3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and the rules made thereunder shall apply.").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Meston has been driven from the Chamber in pain to the dentist and has asked me to move the amendment on his behalf.
Clause 32 provides for commitment to prison, which remains the sanction for non-payment of maintenance orders unless the High Court or county court judgment summons procedure is invoked under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. The draftsman of the Bill clearly had the 1980 Act in mind when producing Clause 32. Subsection (10) applies Section 80 of the Act whereby the debtor can be required to turn out his pockets or his or her handbag. For some reason subsection (8) provides only for the possibility that regulations may be made similar to the provisions of Section 79 of the 1980 Act. Section 79 provides for release from custody on payment and for pro rata reductions in the sentence to be served when part payments are received. It is not clear why this part of the clause does not unconditionally allow for such a provision to be written into the Bill. Amendment No. 115 incorporates Section 79 until regulations are made, and in case they never are.
Amendment No. 116 incorporates Section 94 of the 1980 Act, which prevents arrears accruing while the debtor is in custody, unless the court otherwise directs in an extreme case. It also incorporates Section 95, which gives a power to the court on hearing an enforcement application to remit arrears wholly or in part. It is to be expected that courts would adhere to the practice of usually remitting stale arrears which are more than 12 months old. If arrears and interest under Clause 33 are allowed to accrue while the debtor is in custody and probably not in receipt of income, any payments which he makes during that period will or should be applied in or towards the discharge of the continuing maintenance assessment, with the result that the arrears which sent him to prison might never get cleared and might even lead to the possibility of a second imprisonment for the same arrears. It is all the more important that the courts have some discretion and control at this stage, because prison for this sort of debt is intended in theory to be coercive rather than punitive.
Secondly, imprisonment does not automatically clear the slate. Thirdly, the formulae in the Bill are very inflexible and should be subject to court control and modification when the last resort is used or invoked. Finally, if prison is to be retained, only the most recalcitrant should be vulnerable; but that is a point which the noble and learned Lord has made repeatedly.
Given the provision for interest and the absence of any power to remit arrears under the Bill as presently drafted, do the Government see arrears of child support being provable in bankruptcy, unlike periodical maintenance payments at present? I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall deal with Amendment 115 at this moment. We intend to have regulations which, among other things, mirror the provisions of

781
the Magistrates' Court Act and the rules made under them. As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has said, the intention of this clause is coercive and not punitive. The idea is to persuade the person in question to perform his maintenance obligations and therefore I do not think that the full form of the magistrates' courts provisions is so appropriate. There, there is a pro rata reduction because there is a penalty in question which is being redeemed, as it were, in part from day to day by the service of a period of imprisonment.
We have in mind regulations which would be more appropriate to this subject matter and would deal with the situation on the same general lines but tailored more to the particular situation. There is no question of Clause 32 being brought into force until the regulations are made to come into force with it on this aspect of the matter. The point made by the noble Lord will be covered in the regulations. That is probably better than trying to incorporate the less appropriate provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it might be a convenient moment to break now. Perhaps I may suggest that the Committee does not resume its deliberations before five minutes past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [H.L.]
7.5 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 31 [Listed building provisions, etc., not to apply to works]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved the following amendment:
Leave out Clause 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment which stands in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Park and Lady Birk. I do so in the absence of my noble friend Lord Montagu, who is unavoidably detained abroad. My noble friend is chairman of the Historic Monuments and Buildings Commission, otherwise known as English Heritage. He would have spoken with those interests principally in mind. I thought it proper to seek to protect those interests and the interests of the public as a whole because I share his concern and was for a time the sponsoring Minister at the Department of the Environment for English Heritage. However, I speak on my own behalf and not on behalf of any organisation.
The amendment seeks to delete Clause 31 from the
782
Bill. The effect of this clause on its own is to remove the whole area covered by the Bill from the planning legislation designed by Parliament to protect listed buildings in conservation areas, leaving the promoters free to alter or even to demolish the buildings in question without interference. Normally such treatment would require the consent of the local planning authority. This was the form in which Clause 31, as it is now numbered, was introduced into your Lordships' House.
At this point I believe I should say two things. First, the purpose of the laws passed by Parliament to protect listed buildings, which would be set aside by the clause, is not—I repeat, not—to preserve second-rate buildings in aspic for ever; nor is it to frustrate desirable development in any way. The laws were passed by your Lordships in order to ensure that where a building was of some merit the pros and cons of knocking it down or altering it should be properly weighed up in the light of the views of qualified people before the action was taken.
That is a reasonable safeguard which acts in the interest of the local community as well as in the national interest. However, it is extremely tedious for developers, who have both to justify any plans they have for change and to forgo the saving otherwise open to those who are prepared to drive a bulldozer through our heritage. That was the form in which Clause 31, as it is now numbered, was introduced. Since its introduction the effect has been narrowed by the introduction of Schedule 6, which specifies those buildings to which these provisions would apply; that is to say, to which the protective provisions would be disapplied.
The effect now intended is to permit total demolition of only one building, as I understand it, and the alteration for agreed purposes but to a completely unlimited extent of the remainder. That is certainly an important limitation. Even though the proposal remains very substantial in its effect, I might have been minded to let it pass uncommented on were it not for the much larger effects that setting such a precedent would cause.
Why, your Lordships may well ask, if this was so important did not English Heritage formally petition against the Bill before? Why was it not represented before your Lordships in Committee? A full answer to that question is necessary and useful because it teaches us a great deal about the proposal which is before us. The proposal is not new in the form it came to us. It was made before in another Bill—a much bigger and more controversial Bill—which became the King's Cross Act. The attempt to free the developers in that case—
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am very sorry but I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend Lord Elton to repeat that remark. He referred to another Bill which became the King's Cross Act. I believe there are two points which should be made. The first is that it has not actually been in this House yet and so has not become an Act. Secondly, the clause to which my noble friend is addressing himself was withdrawn in another place.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend nearly makes my point for me. I take his point about the Bill not being enacted. The withdrawal of the clause was precisely the matter to which I wished to draw your Lordships' attention, but I should not have done so in such a vigorous tone as my noble friend has kindly interjected into the debate.
The attempt to free the developers in that case from the tiresome burden of keeping the law was made before another place. The reasons your Lordships have not seen it and will not see it is that the other place threw it out. The attempt in that case appeared as Clause 19 of the Bill as then presented. The effects were similar in their intention.
The reaction to it by the committee in another place is instructive. First of all, in paragraph 48 of its report it says:
"We have unanimously decided to delete Clause 19 from the Bill, for two reasons. First, the exemption from normal planning procedures conferred by the clause would have resulted in the function of planning authority devolving upon Parliament, and in practice, upon this Committee".
In the next paragraph it says:
"We further note that had we chosen to assume the role of planning authority, we would have been handicapped by the fact that English Heritage, who have statutory obligations as the Secretary of State's advisers in these matters, were not entitled to appear as a party before us; their locus standi was challenged by the promoters on a technicality, and disallowed by the Court of Referees".
I hope my noble friend will bear that in mind when he comments on this amendment and gives his reaction to it.
The second reason given by the committee was:
"in our view it would set a deplorable precedent".
My last quotation is:
"We consider that the enactment of Clause 19 would have placed in jeopardy the whole existing system of safeguards for listed buildings under the general law. We observe with concern that despite the promoters' assurances that Clause 19 will not constitute a precedent, similar clauses have been included in several of the private hills deposited in the present Session";
and in heavy type,
"We urge that committees dealing with clauses which are open to the criticisms which we have made in respect of Clause 19 should have no hesitation in deleting those clauses".
In the light of that precedent history, of the fact that it operates with constraint of funds and that the cost of being petitioned against and being represented in the King's Cross case was of the order of £60,000 —I think it was £57,000— in fees additional to those it would have incurred by normal listed building procedures, I think that English Heritage would have been open to criticism had it incurred a further £40,000 or so in this case, feeling that the point had been made for it.
Were this a Committee stage, as I wish it were, I would rest my case there, but as it is Third Reading and we cannot cut and come again in debate, I suppose I should briefly look at what powers might nevertheless be open to the promoters for maintaining this otherwise wholly objectionable provision in the Bill. First, I would hope that the promoters would undertake that the guidance of English Heritage on the buildings listed in Schedule 6 would actually be adhered to. If that were the case, I think in the short term the damage would be minimal. I shall come to the long term in a moment. If they cannot do that
784
—and I presume it is through my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes that they will do it, but she may be unable to do it on their behalf —I suggest that the costs of the representation of English Heritage which must follow would be considerable and ought to be borne by those who would benefit from it, or at least from some funds other than those supplied by the taxpayer for maintaining planning law.
Either of those provisions would protect the position as it would be immediately after the enactment of the Bill, but the precedent is more dangerous, as a committee in another place made clear. I hope that my noble friend will agree that the voice of English Heritage, appointed by the Government and funded by the Government to protect the built heritage from depredation, should have a right of being heard in proceedings on Private Bills of this nature. Will he bear in mind that the costs, as I have said, of appearing are considerable? The costs of parliamentary agents in the King's Cross case were, as I understand it, of the order of £20,000, and of counsel of the order of £27,000. That is nearly £50,000, and there are four or five such Bills liable to come through every year.
We are actually talking about that undertaking, if it is given, costing English Heritage £250,000, which is a sizeable slice out of its annual budget, which we provide out of central funds provided by the taxpayer. That money, and the effort that could be bought with it in the normal procedures of English Heritage, are not something for which you can make a contra account entry against the £50,000 or the £47,000. It is additional. I think that we, as beneficiaries of the work of English Heritage, have a right to expect that its budget is protected from this additional burden.
If those two things could be arrived at I, for one, would be greatly reassured. I hasten to add that I do not in any way wish to belittle the diligent work of your Lordships' Committee, very succinctly and well put in its special report, although I have to say as one with a close interest in the heritage that I differ from the balance of desirability it applied in the case of what is now Clause 31, although it was not then. I shall listen with great interest to the promoters and to my noble friend—indeed to all other arguments. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, it may be helpful to your Lordships if I intervene at this stage to briefly state the Government's view on the Bill. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers being sought by London Underground Limited. As the House knows, the Bill will enable major works to be undertaken at London Bridge, Holborn and Tottenham Court Road Underground stations to relieve congestion and improve conditions for passengers. The works at London Bridge are essential if the Jubilee Line extension is to bring more passengers to that station. Moreover, the works at

785
Tottenham Court Road will have to be carried out before an East-West Crossrail station could be opened there.
I must make it clear at the outset that the Government oppose the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Elton, but I hope that what I have to say will be of some comfort to him.
I know that the committee that examined this Bill was understandably concerned about the provision in Clause 31 —originally Clause 28—of the Bill which seeks to disapply listed building consent controls. In the Bill as introduced the clause provided a blanket disapplication. During the committee proceedings, London Underground submitted amendments which have the effect of specifying those buildings which will be affected by the works, and showing whether they will be demolished or altered. Only one listed building (at Holborn) would be demolished. The other buildings that are specified for demolition are not listed but are situated within conservation areas at London Bridge and Tottenham Court Road.
However, the planning authorities for the sites affected by the proposals in the Bill withdrew their petitions against the Bill. In their special report on the Bill the Select Committee inferred from this that these authorities were content to allow the disapplication of listed building consent to be retained in this case. Your Lordships' Select Committee consequently concluded after very close and careful scrutiny of this issue and of the other provisions in the Bill that the Bill should proceed. The Bill now includes a schedule of buildings affected by the works so that the intention of the promoters is clear.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was also concerned about upholding the normal statutory arrangements for protecting listed buildings and reserved his position on the clause in a report to your Lordships' Select Committee. His view now—in common with mine—is that there has to be a very compelling reason for making an exception, given the forthright condemnation of the provision in the King's Cross Railways Bill by a committee in the other place, to which my noble friend Lord Elton has referred.
However, we believe that there is a restricted class of strategically important developments being promoted in pursuance of government policy objectives that could be at risk if promoters were not able to secure all the consents necessary for their projects from one procedure. There is some force in the argument that if Parliament sees fit to authorise such schemes it will be unreasonable for the promoters to be required additionally to apply for listed building consent to demolish or alter the required buildings. This is a sensitive issue and in accepting this compromise solution the Government are concerned to safeguard English Heritage's position as expert advisers on conservation issues. That means in practice establishing a mechanism for English Heritage to contribute to the consideration of works private Bills by parliamentary committees so that they are in a position to make informed decisions about the listed building aspects of the proposed development.
786
This would mean that, first, English Heritage should have a right to appear before Select Committees on matters within their competence; secondly, clauses of a Bill should contain details of the buildings which would be affected and in what way: blanket clauses would not be acceptable; thirdly, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for a project —which we plan to make compulsory for a Bill of this kind —would contain an account of its effect on the built heritage; fourthly, promoters would be obliged to consult with English Heritage; and, finally, the Government would expect to report against Bills whose promoters seek a blanket disapplication of listed building controls or who do not consult English Heritage on these matters.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has today written to the chairmen of London Regional Transport and British Rail advising them of these compromises.
In line with this, for these cases—which will be few and far between—the Secretaries of State would be prepared to support clauses which disapply the controls in respect of particular specific buildings and for particular works. We therefore find acceptable the amended clause which has emerged as a result of the deliberations of your Lordships' Select Committee. As I have already said, the works at London Bridge and Tottenham Court Road stations are essential for the construction of new proposed underground lines for London; respectively the Jubilee Line—the Bill for which is before a committee in the other place—and the proposed East-West Crossrail route. We believe that for this Bill the compromise clause maintains the proper regard for the legislative controls designed to protect the national heritage while averting any duplication of effort and the potential risk of Parliament's wishes being overridden by a planning authority.
Against that background I urge the House not to agree to the proposed amendment and to allow the Bill to pass in the form in which it emerged from your Lordships' Select Committee. Congestion on our transport system is an important matter of public interest. If we were to stop this Bill from making progress we would be holding up, perhaps for some considerable time, measures which we all recognise are urgently needed to relieve congestion on London Underground.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask him to consider between now and the end of this short debate my point about costs and whether the procedures that he suggests would be in some way less expensive than the normal procedure of petitioning and representation. If not, has he anything to offer on that score? I thought that I ought to ask him now rather than in my reply.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I may or may not be able to give my noble friend a reply before the end of this debate. I certainly take careful note of what he said. I shall ensure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is made aware of his concern.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I shall try to keep my contribution short because I agreed with everything he said.
Perhaps I may take up one point raised by the Minister in opposing the amendment. He spoke of it being a compromise position. It is not. It is not the blanket clause that existed in the King's Cross Bill until it was taken out by another place. However, the provision still does a great deal of damage. The Minister stated that the listing of buildings is covered in Schedule 6 of the Bill. But that refers simply to the listing of buildings and does not provide any justification for the works or any mechanism whereby the competent authorities can ensure that the scope of work is strictly limited. Nor does it leave with the Secretary of State, the local authority or English Heritage any control over the extent, design, structure or materials of any alternations or extensions. It is merely a list of what is supposed to happen under the Bill.
I find the provision very strange and disturbing. For five years I was responsible for heritage in the Department of the Environment. Since then I have spoken from this Front Bench on the subject. In this debate I am putting forward entirely my own views. We do not treat it as a party matter. It worries me how easy it is to erode the protection of listed buildings and conservation areas unless the legislation which is consolidated in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is strictly adhered to.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out succinctly and strongly what happened with the King's Cross Bill. The Minister did not think that there were other such Bills. However, the committee in another place thought that there were a number of such Bills. A number of London Transport Bills and other Underground Bills are on the way. What is the point of passing legislation to protect parts of our heritage —some of which, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, are of higher quality than others—just to ride roughshod over it? I find that quite appalling.
The King's Cross Bill has been referred to. It has not yet reached us. The Minister said that it was up to Parliament to take a decision about these matters. I believe that the Minister was taken by surprise. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, asked a Question in February 1989. I intervened to refer to the King's Cross problem. In April 1989 the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, asked a Question. Many of us felt that in both cases the answers were unsatisfactory.
I consider that the amendment is right. I am glad to hear that action will be taken in the future. I believe that something could have been done before now. The letter to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, from the Secretary of State for the Environment dated 14th February listed the points that the Minister has now made. However, that does not alter what will happen to this Bill unless the amendment is agreed to, or unless our strong feelings are made clear to another place so that it can consider the measure with the utmost care. I am not happy that the Bill should proceed with Clause 31 included.
7.30 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I shall not detain the House too long. I rise to support the amendment. I listened with great interest to the reasoned approach of my noble friend Lord Elton and to the passionate oratory of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It is sad that my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu cannot be here tonight. It is a case of Hamlet without the Prince because he has been so robust in his defence of the rights and duties of English Heritage and the tradition of supporting buildings of outstanding architectural merit by listing. If it is Hamlet without the Prince, at least we have Hamlet with the ghost, even if it takes such substantial form as my noble friend.
The Royal Fine Art Commission also supports the amendment. We are not a conservationist body. Our job is to promote good, contemporary architecture. Let us have listed buildings, yes, but not listed buildings at any price. I make that point because, while it might be thought that English Heritage had a vested interest in the matter, the Royal Fine Art Commission is not open to such a reflection. We believe that if a listed building is inferior to the building that is promised the listed building should be allowed to go. The commission supported the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, in his efforts to secure planning permission for No. I, Poultry. I congratulate the noble Lord on his perseverance and stamina in pursuing the cause of that building. Even my noble friend Lord Montagu might congratulate him on that aspect of his activity. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, and Poultry is a contemporary version of the story of Bruce and the spider and had an equally happy ending.
If one supports the amendment one should make clear the fact that the Select Committee has greatly improved the Bill. There is no doubt about that. Clause 31 is a major advance on Clause 28. That overrode all listed legislation and was an intolerable proposition to be put forward yet again, particularly in the light of what was said about, and what happened to, Clause 19 of the King's Cross Bill.
In addition to the constructive work of the Select Committee I also recognise the important statement that was made tonight by the Minister. It was contained originally in a letter to my noble friend Lord Montagu from the Secretary of State and was dated 14th February. That was suitably so because it was a Valentine on this issue. No one should underestimate the importance of what my noble friend has said tonight. The four propositions constitute a new charter in this matter and will be welcomed by all who are concerned with the future of listed buildings.
The objection in principle remains. The objection to the clause is that it effectively excludes many normal planning procedures, not only in relation to listed buildings but also non-listed buildings which may have architectural merit. Unlisted buildings can also be aesthetically important; for example, buildings in conservation areas. Listing is an imprimatur but there is nothing exclusive about it; it is an additional support.

789
I do not believe that the promoters of the Bill have produced a case for creating a situation in which no justification is needed for the demolition of a building, no limitations are set and which excludes the Secretary of State and English Heritage from having their normal say in the matter. It also excludes the Royal Fine Art Commission. We are part of the planning process and exist precisely to advise on such matters as design, structure and materials. That is not in respect of old buildings as such but of extensions to old buildings and new buildings which may replace the old.
The most powerful argument before your Lordships' House was presented by my noble friend Lord Elton. It is the argument of a precedent. If the Bill were accepted we should have precedent for inclusion of similar clauses in other Private Bills. That is the important point. We can see what has happened because the fate of Clause 19 has not deterred the promoters of Private Bills. They are trying the same game over again. At the risk of producing a further explosion from my noble friend Lord Mountevans, I must point out that, when Members of this House and of the other place have made their views so plain on the matter, it is extraordinary that we should be back at square one.
I trust that my noble friend Lord Elton will continue robustly to pursue his views. It is important that there should be a deterrent to other people who wish to follow the same Star Chamber course in this respect. Of course it is up to him and to the other movers of the amendment to decide what to do, but I believe that the argument for setting a precedent is decisive. I hope that this precedent will not be set by the House.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, as chairman of the Select Committee I wish briefly to give the reasons why we issued our report and took such decisions. We were much influenced by the amended Clause 28 —Clause 31 as it now is. It was well restricted in respect of the building and what could be done to it. We were conscious not only of the vital importance of the scheme, which was not in argument before our committee, but also of the urgency which we saw in all the justifications of the Underground plan. Tottenham Court Road in particular is already overloaded. The dominating argument in our decision was time; we did not want any unnecessary delay in getting the scheme started. As the Minister said, if the matter goes back to the local authorities delay, and possibly substantial delay, is inevitable.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Birk prefaced her remarks by saying that she was speaking in a personal capacity. I must make it clear that the Opposition is completely neutral on the matter and that my remarks too are made in a personal capacity.
My position is one of division. I too am keen to enforce environmental and conservation provisions. Equally, I am concerned with the problems of transport and congestion. I was greatly influenced by
790
paragraph 7 of the report which pointed out that the planning authorities had withdrawn their petitions and were satisfied with the Bill as it now stood.
It is interesting on Second Reading that apart from myself only three other noble Lords spoke on the Bill —the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees and my noble friend Lady Phillips. The question of Clause 28 was not referred to. We were dealing with the pertinent questions raised by the Bill; that is, safety and congestion issues and a need to get on with the work. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on expense. However, the question of English Heritage and listed buildings was not mentioned on Second Reading. I raised two issues concerning the London Bridge and Holborn works. I said that I hoped that the Select Committee, to which the Bill was to be referred, would take those matters into consideration. No one asked that the question of listed buildings and English Heritage should be taken into consideration, which is rather unfortunate.
From the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I can understand that a petition was not presented on grounds of cost. I believe that the Minister's statement is helpful for the future, and also as regards the point that the Bill should go forward as the chairman of the committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, said. From my standpoint it is important that the works should not be delayed.
The problems of congestion at London Bridge, Tottenham Court Road and Holborn are such that it would be a tragedy—and I believe that one can use that word—if these works were delayed because of the need for considerable discussions before a new decision could be taken. I believe, as does the Minister, that these works should proceed, providing as they do safeguards for the future.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I too found what the Minister said extremely helpful, as was the statement by the chairman of the committee. However, I wish to express my strong support for the principle behind the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
I speak as chairman of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England. Thus I share fully the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord on behalf of English Heritage. The Royal Commission's interest is that it has a statutory right under the planning legislation to be notified of listed buildings which are to be demolished, and also has a right and a duty to make records and take photographs of such buildings before demolition takes place.
I understand that an exclusion clause proposed when the first King's Cross Bill came before the appropriate committee in another place met with strongly adverse comments. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, quoted what I was going to quote about the committee's view that no such clauses should be permitted in future.
On that occasion, the Royal Commission was granted the right to petition the committee in order to secure the withdrawal of the clause—Clause 19. In the

791
event British Rail inserted a protective clause which respected our interest and Clause 19 was rejected by this House.
Since then, on the advice of our legal advisers, the commission has had to seek to secure the insertion of similar protective clauses in this and no less than three other Private Bills because of the precedent created by the procedure adopted in the King's Cross Bill. That is a very time consuming exercise and costly for the taxpayer, as my noble friend Lord Elton said. However, we are obliged to do that to protect the interests of the commission. We too have a limited budget. Surely it is unacceptable that such Bills should repeatedly be framed to circumvent the existing planning and listed buildings legislation which Parliament put in place and from which we derive our statutory powers.
I understand from a letter which I received this afternoon that Camden Council remains as anxious as the commission about the proposed diminution of its powers. I was reassured to note that the Select Committee of this House views with anxiety any proposals to reduce the protection given by general legislation to historic buildings. While I must reluctantly accept the committee's final conclusion that the inclusion of Clause 31 is justified since the committee was anxious about a possible delay to an important project—and I see that point—and its members have clearly weighed very carefully the arguments for and against, I urge the House strongly to note the dangerous implications of what can only be the creation of a damaging precedent.
We are seeing a progressive erosion of the statutory powers which the planning and building legislation was designed to assure to us. This makes it difficult, and could ultimately make it impossible, for the commission to fulfil its recording role and for English Heritage to act to protect threatened buildings.
I was reassured by what the Minister said, and, should this amendment he withdrawn, I hope that a message will go back to the other place which may in the long term produce a decision of principle in our favour. That would mean a general agreement that such exclusion clauses will not be accepted in future.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, perhaps I may introduce my speech by apologising to my noble friend Lord Elton. I was not seeking to shout him down but I was putting forward a point which I may put again; namely, that the King's Cross clause is irrelevant to our debate today. That was a blanket clause and our debate this evening on the deletion of Clause 31 is very specific.
As a first-time buyer on one of your Lordships' Select Committees I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Hood and other Members of the Committee sitting in this Chamber for making my first committee such an instructive and enchanting experience. I believe that that is a duty which we should all undertake from time to time and I am grateful to the committee for its support.
I shall continue to urge rejection of the amendment, and at the end of my speech I should like to comment
792
on the Minister's speech which probably wrong-footed or flat-footed many of us who had planned to speak this evening.
Having sat on the committee, I was anxious about this issue and I did some research. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara will recall the occasion on 13th April 1989 when I spoke in support of the Second Reading of the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill and my noble friend put the views of the Government. That Second Reading was moved by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu who, alas! is not present this evening. Perhaps I may quote some of the remarks he made. He said:
"It may be appropriate if I now speak as chairman of English Heritage … Although we shall wish to express concern over the detailed design of this scheme and the actual route where it affects Mayflower Park and the city walls"—
and it is worth adding that the city walls of Southampton are a conservation area—
"we are confident that the matters can be resolved. We certainly should not wish to oppose the scheme in principle.
The detailed evidence of the petitions is of course a matter which can be examined by a Select Committee. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in expressing great faith in the ability of the Select Committee procedure of the House of Lords to give petitioners a fair hearing and to produce an objective and politically unbiased report on the scheme. [Official Report, 13/4/89; col. 452.]
As my noble friend Lord Hood explained, after we produced our special report I began to wonder about this matter. I did some research and asked myself some questions. As I understand it, our authority—and after all it was Parliament which gave to English Heritage its authority, and I believe that Parliament can take that away if it so wishes —was based on Section 42 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 which provides that local Acts have effect subject to the provisions of the town and country planning legislation.
I was concerned that those who had the opportunity, such as English Heritage and the Royal Fine Arts Commission, did not petition your Lordships' committee although there was an opportunity to do so. Therefore, my reading of the law, as it is, is that the decision which we took was within our legal power.
I appreciate the arguments which have been made about "gang-bang" clauses. We were not looking at a "gang-bang" clause but at a very specific clause. I then wondered, discussed and read about possible reasons for seeking dispensation, as Clause 31 does, from what I call conservation area consent. I came to the conclusion that the first is that there is an interlocked transport and conservation issue.
I fully support those who argue for conservation. But noble Lords will be aware that I have frequently argued for the viability, well-being and safety of London Transport. Where the issues interlock, I felt it right that the safety issues came first; after all, we are discussing a Bill entitled the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill.
I accept the conservation issues. Our attitudes towards conservation are very personal. We tend not to be too concerned if the area in dispute is not adjacent to our own; if it is on our doorstep, we become concerned. It is a kind of reversed NIMBY-ism. I feel that the committee, and the

793
evidence before it, addressed the conservation issue. When I was looking through the Order Paper of another place a few days ago I discovered an Early Day Motion which referred to 930-odd endangered buildings in central London. I wondered whether the Astoria Theatre and other sites were on that list, or whether they were only included when this Bill was introduced.
The promoters opted for the Private Bill procedure. One of the matters of which they were aware was the need to avoid the repetitive process of consideration within Parliament by the two Houses—one could call it overlap—and decision-making by the local authority manifesting itself in terms of clauses such as Clause 31, in its disapplication of a conservation area rule.
I return to what I said earlier. The planning authority had the opportunity to object. It did not do so. In a way I would have been happy if it had; it has more expertise than I as to whether the buildings covered by Clause 31 genuinely merit conservation area status. I should have liked to hear the views of the local planning authority.
There is also a matter of timescale involved. If a duplicate process exists, if one deletes Clause 31 and goes to a planning inquiry, slippage will occur. I believe that Tottenham Court Road specifically, while not a matter of national importance, is a matter of regional importance. It is not a pleasant station to use. I am not convinced that it is safe. I am sure that noble Lords are mindful of the recommendations in the report on the King's Cross disaster. That is one of the points that underpins the Bill.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Is he aware that paragraph 42 of the Select Committee report on King's Cross deals specifically with the question of delay? It states that there has never been any delay in a Private Bill because the matter has been discussed and all the points considered. Has the noble Lord considered also that if it goes to the other place, and they take the view that was taken in regard to King's Cross station, that it may be delayed then? The question of delay should not be taken into account in these circumstances. It is not a matter that is particularly urgent and the process could work both ways.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I was not aware of the specific clause mentioned by the noble Baroness. The report suggests that there has been no instance of delay. I would argue that if we go down the road we are asked to go down tonight by those who propose the amendment, there could yet be delay on the Bill.
As I said earlier, I am not convinced that King's Cross is a relevant example. It is dead and gone; I have a different attitude towards King's Cross. I hope that the Bill will shortly come to this House and progress will be made on it for different reasons.
The statement of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara was interesting. It probably compromised several speeches that had been premeditated this evening. Several of us who work the transport scene in the House are anxious that reform of the Private Bill
794
procedure is slipping. Only six months ago my right honourable friend the Leader of another place spoke of it being a matter for the next Queen's Speech. It is now a matter of when parliamentary time permits.
Promoters of Private Bills—not only transport Bills which is my favourite subject—and others, want firm rules and guidelines. They may not be happy with the reform proposals but at least they will have a level and defined playing field.
The first point made by my noble friend, that English Heritage shall have the right to be consulted, is an excellent one. That would pre-empt the debate this evening. As have other noble Lords, I have argued on King's Cross. I think that Clause 31 is specific; whereas the King's Cross clause, which we have been discussing, is not. It is a blanket clause. The demand for specific clauses is essential.
The environmental impact study is important. The requirement that the promoter shall consult English Heritage —which slightly overlaps the first one—is important. Reserving the right of the Government to reject is equally important. Therefore I welcome what my noble friend called a compromise. I hope that it is not only circulated in a letter to the chairman of British Rail and LRT, but also to others in the business.
Finally. I come to the title of the Bill. It is a "safety measures" Bill. I appreciate that conservation is important; but safety is much more important. In urging your Lordships to reject the amendment, perhaps I may express a personal view. There is only one place where conservation should come before safety, and that is in the dictionary.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I listened with interest to the points made on the amendment, with which I cannot agree. I agree with my noble friend Lord Elton on one matter, and that is my regret that my noble friend Lord Montagu is not present. We went to great trouble to ensure that the debate came after the 20th, when we were advised that he would be back in this country. Evidently his plans must have changed.
I have a great interest in historic buildings. I am a member of the Heritage of London Trust; before that I served for many years on the Historic Buildings Committee of the Greater London Council. Therefore I do not take lightly any damage or change in historic buildings. Likewise, I do not believe that every listed building is as marvellous as we like to think. In London many marvellous buildings were listed and then the list seemed to grow non-stop. Many people on the Historic Buildings Committee were not so impressed by the later listings; but that is another matter.
As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, the aim,
"is not … to preserve second-rate buildings",
but buildings of some merit.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene, it is important. I did not say that it was to preserve them. I said that it was to ensure that proper consideration by qualified people was given to demolition or change before it was carried out. That is quite different.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I wrote down in quotes that what he said was that, "it was not the aim to preserve second-rate buildings but buildings of some merit".
The question of speed is important. It must be appreciated that the Second Reading of the Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred, took place on 8th March 1990. It has taken a long time to reach this point. There were 36 petitions lodged. Why did English Heritage not lodge a petition? We were told that there was a problem with money. One does not need to be represented by counsel; anyone can appear and act as one's representative before these committees. It could be done in a more economical way by an officer of English Heritage, or the Historical Monuments of England Commission appearing.
There has been much talk regarding whether or not this will create a precedent. In one way everything creates a precedent. However, the argument of the promoters of the Bill is that each case should be treated on its merits. My noble friend the Minister made the same point in his contribution.
Clause 19 of the King's Cross Bill is a parallel to Clause 28, but it is not a parallel to Clause 31. All the discussion directed towards a parallel with Clause 19 is irrelevant because that provision is not the same. The King's Cross Bill is a very much bigger scheme and time is not so important on that. It is not a provision which is designed to bring in safety measures for people. Therefore, I believe that there will be continuing consultation on King' Cross. My noble friend Lord Elton also referred to the Court of Official Referees disallowing the King's Cross Bill. That does not apply to this House. There are similar Bills which are referred to in paragraph 50. After tonight's debate we shall find that the tone of the clauses in these Bills will be amended and in future specific properties will be listed. Discussion will go on, and I do not think the same blanket situation will ever come back.
Everyone who has a relevant interest should have the right to be heard. Individuals can petition a Standing or a Select Committee on the Bill. The Government said that if there was a blanket measure, or a complete lack of consultation, they would oppose. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that she did not feel that this Bill was justified. It is important to establish that point; though noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who had been at the earlier proceedings had gone into the matter at that stage. It should again be drawn to the attention of noble Lords that the Fennell Report contained 157 recommendations. The recommendation relevant to this matter was that:
"London Underground shall undertake an investigation of the problems of passenger flow and congestion in stations and take remedial action".
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I said that that particular clause was not justified. I did not say anything about the whole Bill not being justified. As regards not
796
taking up the matter earlier, the noble Baroness is right. I agree that in this instance English Heritage has been slow off the mark and negligent.
8 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. The purpose of this Bill is to bring into effect the recommendations for three of the busiest stations; namely, London Bridge, Holborn and Tottenham Court Road. These are cul-de-sac or dead-end stations. They are stations with an exit at one end. They are an enormous hazard which has to be dealt with. These three stations have only one route to the street yet the Fennell Report said that two independent means of escape other than by train are required for new stations. We believe that greater access for safety purposes has to be provided.
Congestion is a regular occurrence. For London Underground and passengers, congestion and lack of safety go together. London Bridge station was built in 1900 and since 1981 the use of the station has increased by 92 per cent. I shall not go into detail on this because I know that noble Lords would prefer shorter comments. The present ticket hall at Holborn was built in 1906. It served the Piccadilly Line and it was altered in 1933 to serve the Central Line as well. It was used by about 35 million people in 1990; an increase of 50 per cent. since 1981.
Tottenham Court Road station we all know. It is one of the least attractive stations in London. It dates from 1900. It was built to serve the Northern Line and it now also serves the Central Line. Every year 35 million passengers use that station and it is the sixth busiest station in the whole system. Use of that station has grown by 57 per cent. between 1981 and 1989. It is quite clear that all these measures are very much needed, and needed rapidly.
The promoters of the Bill are perfectly happy to go through full planning procedures with local authorities for what is to be built above ground. I say to my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley that his interest lies in the replacement of buildings. He will certainly have an input in that regard in terms of the contemporary architecture which will replace buildings which have to be demolished. He said that the House had made its views very clear. He referred to the King's Cross Bill. I reiterate the point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Mountevans; namely, that this House has not made any views clear on the King's Cross Bill because it has not yet reached us. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is aware of the need for progress in this matter. I was interested in what he had to say.
The name of my noble friend Lady Park is often confused with my own. I do not know whether she is aware that an advance clause has been agreed with the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments of England. That gives her all the assurances that she sought and is to be included in the Bill in the other place. It would have gone into the Bill already but for the fact that the unopposed committee was discharged and therefore there was no opportunity to include the clause, but it has been agreed.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on that. My noble friend is perfectly right in saying that that is the point I made in my speech. We had been obliged to negotiate on the advice of our advisers about the clause and to initiate similar negotiations as regards three other Bills. That is why I said that I support the principle behind this amendment. I still believe that the question of precedence is an urgent one. We were advised by our legal advisers to go for negotiating a protective clause because that that was all that was open to us to do effectively. That does not alter the fact that we feel strongly that it makes good sense for the principle to be accepted in future.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it is Third Reading and noble Lords have been popping up everywhere which is rather contrary to our processes. My noble friend Lord Elton made the point that he would like to see costs awarded. As I have said, I do not think that would be reasonable because there are much less expensive ways of putting one's case. Entirely apart from whether or not I like the idea, the technical position is that costs are only awarded under the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865 where a Select Committee decides unanimously that the promoters for, or the petitioners against, a Bill referred to the committee have behaved unreasonably. Unless that has been changed a formal procedure therefore already exists.
It has to be appreciated that this Bill has gone through a full committee over a long period. Thirty-six petitions have been presented and considered, some of which have been withdrawn. English Heritage has not put its case, which is a great omission on its part. It has failed to do so to this day. The chairman of the committee has spoken very clearly about the considerations that his committee has given this Bill. It is entirely appropriate tonight that the Bill should go forward to the other place where there will be a further opportunity to raise any points that have not been covered in this House. I hope that my noble friend Lord Elton will not press his amendment.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, although it would not be proper for me to express any views on the merits of Clause 31, I should like to make a few factual observations that concern Private Bill procedure. I was very glad that tribute was paid to the work of the Select Committee under my noble friend Lord Hood. As the House has heard, the Select Committee which considered the Bill did not, in, the event, hear any argument or evidence against what was then Clause 28 of the Bill. The special report from the Select Committee explains the reasons.
Opposition to the clause was specifically included in the petitions lodged by the London boroughs of Southwark, Camden and Westminster in respect of the sites within those boroughs affected by the Bill. All three petitions were withdrawn before the committee came to hear evidence on the clause. The clause, as originally drafted, as your Lordships have heard, contained a blanket disapplication of the general statutory provisions concerning works affecting listed
798
buildings and buildings within conservation areas. In committee the promoters submitted amendments which have the effect of specifying the buildings which are to be demolished. Clause 28, as amended in this way, has become Clause 31 in the present Bill. The Select Committee therefore took the view that the opposition to the clause had been withdrawn, at least so far as concerns proceedings in this House.
Erskine May, on page 942 of the 21st edition, makes it clear that Private Bills are occasionally debated at Third Reading and may, less frequently, be opposed. It gives some recent examples. This Bill is not opposed and has been given its Third Reading. But it is perfectly proper that this amendment should have been tabled. It is not the practice in this House to have a Report stage for Private Bills and Third Reading is therefore the only opportunity the House has to review the decisions of its Select Committees. If your Lordships wish to overturn the decision of a committee you are of course entitled to do so.
Where a decision of a Select Committee is in issue on Third Reading the House would expect to hear from the committee the reasons for its decision. I am sure the House would not lightly decide to overturn the decision of one of its committees. We have heard this evening from the chairman of the committee and from one of its members explaining the reasons for their decisions in this case. I am sure the House will consider carefully what they have said.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend and I hope that the House will consider carefully also what I am about to say, though I say that in all humility. The Bill before your Lordships is about safety. I should make it clear that nobody whose name appears on this amendment wishes to do anything to obstruct the proper course of safety. It is my belief that nothing proposed in this amendment would so obstruct the proper course of safety. I shall explain why in a moment.
I begin by referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who questioned what I said about the purpose of listed building consent procedures, because that is what this is about. She had misheard me. I read from the same manuscript and in the same tone of voice I hope:
"the purpose of the laws passed by Parliament to protect listed buildings … is not—I repeat, not—to preserve the second-rate buildings in aspic for ever; nor is it to frustrate desirable development in any way. The laws were passed by your Lordships in order to ensure that where a building was of some merit the pros and cons of knocking it down or altering it should be properly weighed up in the light of the views of qualified people before the action was taken".
I shall be very brief, because I am sure that your Lordships are not as hungry as I am for dinner but hungry for the next stage of the main legislation before the House. May I briefly say therefore that time appears to be the essence of the argument against this Bill. It is suggested that, by depending on established, tried and trustworthy procedures, the development which is necessary to save lives would be frustrated. This Bill was introduced in 1989. The King's Cross Bill was introduced in another place in November 1988. I do not think the parliamentary procedure is any quicker than the planning procedures in other

799
legislation. That in fact uninterlocks the planning and safety issues which were interlocked by my noble friend Lord Mountevans.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes skilfully sought to seduce my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley—with what success I know not—from his support of the amendment by saying that we were not talking about precedent. I think that this is a question of precedent. It is that I am most worried about, because precedent entails cost.
In a moment I shall give way and hope the Minister will tell me what he has decided in the interim. We must all pin very great importance on his statement that any procedure of the sort he suggested, which is attractive, would be exceedingly rare. I am not sure how that is to be secured—I presume by an instruction to committees —because I am sure it will not be secured if an attempt is made to secure it by exhortation to promoters.
The question of locus standi also arises because, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has pointed out the representations by English Heritage, which has been lambasted by not being here, could only be made in this House, which would be a disadvantage for a Bill starting in this House and a disaster for Bills starting in another place.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I ask the noble Lord to give way. That is not correct at all. English Heritage will be just as entitled to make representations in another place.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, perhaps I may also pop up, with your Lordships' leave, and say that the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, which now seems to have become a recurring theme in this debate, is a question of les absents ont toujours tort.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not know about that, but popping up has certainly become a sort of mushroom experience in this debate. I wonder whether my noble friend could at this time, if I were to sit briefly now, take an opportunity to pop up, since the precedent is now well established in this debate, and tell me something about costs.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend invites me to intervene briefly. I would emphasise that this is my preliminary advice on the matter only. We would need to discuss with the House authorities how to ensure the automatic right for English Heritage to appear before Select Committees, which would avoid the expense of petitioning. Alternatively, English Heritage could present its views in a report submitted through the Department of the Environment—a procedure which I understand was followed in the past by some public bodies. I emphasise that those are only my preliminary views.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to my noble friend. We started with a blanket. We then had a blanket with holes in it. We now have a blanket with holes in it which is not to he used very often and, it is to be
800
hoped, a blanket with holes in it not to be used often and the expense then to be minimal or elsewhere defrayed.
My views, which remain strong against the precedent in this Bill, are to some extent allayed by what my noble friend has said. I believe there is more work to be done in another place. I hope another place will read our proceedings as carefully as we have read its proceedings on the King's Cross Bill and that it will come to the right conclusions.
I am most grateful to your Lordships. I am sorry that it has taken so long but I think it has been worth making the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
8.19 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 32.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McGregor of Durris: In opposing the Question that Clause 32 stand part of the Bill, I must now ask the Committee to examine the utility of sending maintenance defaulters to prison. I wish to begin by saying that I have no intention of testing the opinion of the Committee. I wish to attempt at this stage to present the noble and learned Lord with an argument, in the hope that he may be willing to consider at least some parts of it. I apologise to the Committee in advance as I shall take some time to explain the background from which this atavism stems.
The Debtors Act 1869 ended the practice by which thousands of debtors were detained every year by sherriffs' officers without any order from a court and incarcerated in the Fleet or similar prisons, the horror of which became a recurring theme of novelists from Fielding to Dickens. For decades lay, legal and parliamentary opinion urged the abolition of imprisonment and the creation in its place of effective means to enable creditors to recover their money.
However, the Act permitted contumacious debtors to be imprisoned for contempt of court, despite strenuous opposition in the mid-Victorian Parliament. The Walpole Committee of 1873 reported that,
"the power of imprisonment for debt as now exercised by county court judges should be abolished".
Governments ignored that recommendation for the next 100 years. Debtors were gaoled for contempt in large numbers—almost 10,000 on the eve of the World War I. The number fell back during the inter-war period but, with the expansion of credit trading in the

801
1960s, it again reached about 7,000. There was anxiety about the silting up of scarce cell space with a large increase in the reception of civil prisoners.
Therefore, the Payne Committee on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts was appointed in 1965. At the request of the then Lord Chancellor, it made an interim unanimous report in 1966 that committal to prison under the Debtors Act and the judgment summons procedure in the county court should be abolished. The Payne Committee found that judges had neither the time nor the information,
"to distinguish in all cases between the recalcitrant and the inadequate debtor … (and that) … the procedure"—
the judgment summons procedure—
"is not compatible with the administration of justice, especially in circumstances involving the liberty of the subject".
That system disappeared as a result of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, though imprisonment was retained for Crown debts and for default on maintenance.
As regards maintenance, the Payne Committee was divided. Half of the 12 members wished imprisonment to be abolished immediately, three of them were in favour of abolition in the future and the other three wished to retain it permanently. The arguments were again examined by the Finer Committee on One-Parent Families which reported in 1974. It recommended unanimously the abolition of imprisonment forthwith.
Members of the Committee must rake over these arguments this evening. I think that the most useful procedure would be for me to quote from the two reports and, lest noble Lords should feel that I am plagiarising them, I can say that as a member of both committees I drafted the sections of the reports which we shall now consider. Moreover, having returned to the arguments after many years, I still find them persuasive and indeed compelling.
I shall deal first with the argument based upon deterrence. In the Notes on Clauses it is said that,
"imprisonment is primarily intended as a deterrent",
although the notes do not distinguish between general and specific deterrence.
So far as concerns general deterrence, the Payne Committee gave an unequivocal answer to the following question:
"Does the imprisonment of civil debtors help to inculcate or to maintain among the community the social and moral obligation to repay debts freely contracted?".
The committee could find no evidence that:
"the vast structure of credit trading can depend on the threat of imprisonment which results in a few thousand people being sent to prison, even if it were abundantly clear that those in prison were all deliberate defaulters or dishonest or in some way determined not to pay.
On this view, there is no causal connection between the threat or fact of imprisonment for debt and a disposition among citizens to pay their debts. Similarly, we know of no evidence to suggest that the family and the institution of marriage depend upon the knowledge among husbands that they may land in prison if they wilfully fail to maintain their wives and children. We know that the family is a universal institution and remains, in a variety of forms of which monogamy is the commonest the world over, the basic unit in all societies. It would, indeed, be astonishing if the existence of this institution in England depended on the maintenance of one particular method of enforcing a municipal legal rule. A
802
vast body of (anthropological and) sociological knowledge supports the view of Edward Westermarck that, the existence of marriage does not depend upon laws … if marriage is not an artificial creation but an institution based upon deep rooted sentiments, conjugal and parental, it will last as long as these sentiments last'".
The majority of the Payne Committee concluded by saying:
"Accordingly, we think that the health and stability of marriage and the family in our society are not in any way connected with the retention of imprisonment for maintenance defaulters".
Both the Payne and the Finer Committees examined specific deterrence—I have dealt with general deterrence—in the light of knowledge about the characteristics of civil debtors and maintenance defaulters who had been sent to prison. That evidence derived especially from the findings of a study of civil prisoners and their families by the late Pauline Morris and from evidence from prison governors and other informed sources. Those findings show that such prisoners,
"Apart from knowing little or nothing about the details of their indebtedness, or their financial position generally, were often unable to give coherent accounts of their employment history. Where they were able to do so, they seemed to have been unemployed for long periods, and those who worked did so only erratically. Furthermore, they seemed to have been involved in a great many accidents, usually at work, to suffer from a multitude of physical and mental troubles, not infrequently of the psychosomatic nature. In short, the civil prisoners appeared to be truly social inadequates, needing almost permanent support if they were to survive in the community".
I can confirm that fact because I was detailed by the Payne Committee to interview and report on a sample of 65 debtors and defaulters who were in prison. It was an experience which had a very great impact upon me. Moreover, so far as I was concerned, it had a remarkable deterrent effect. Apart from the minority of such prisoners with past criminal convictions, they were all hopeless, feckless folk, often illiterate, always innumerate and mostly incapable of organising their life. Nearly all of them had multiple debts; and many of the maintenance defaulters passed their time in prison afflicted with an obsessional hatred of their wives insisting that not even torture would make them pay money to such evil people.
When, on an earlier amendment, the noble and learned Lord talked about the typical case, I could not relate his concept of the typical case with my experience or with anything that I had read about such prisoners. The noble and learned Lord might say, as he said on another amendment, that my experience was that of yesterday; but, nevertheless, I have been at some pains to talk to people who are knowledgeable in this field today and who deal all the time with such prisoners. The information I gathered is that nothing much has changed on the central issue of the personalities of the defaulters who are expected by the Bill to respond to specific deterrents. They are not capable of it.
Yet again in this instance we come to a case where, in an important part of the Bill, there is complete ignorance of the world and the people to which it is proposed by the Government to apply it. We do not

803
know, and there has been no work done since of the nature of that done more than 25 years ago by Dr. Morris.
The debtors' characteristics were one of the main reasons which led the Payne Committee to a major recommendation, rejected by the Government, to establish an enforcement office. Because many debtors were feckless and hopeless, and because the majority of them were multiple debtors, the committee recommended that there should be an enforcement office to bring the judgment debts of all courts into one centre where they could be handled by a species of financial social worker who could discharge for such people the functions which the happier part of the community employs bankers, accountants and solicitors to deal with. No government have accepted that indispensable recommendation. Such centres have been set up by the CAB in Birmingham and elsewhere. They have been remarkably helpful in those areas.
The Finer Committee wrote that everyone agreed that sending maintenance defaulters to prison—today's cost I understand is £321 a week—was an essay in economic and social futility for the taxpayer. The defaulter had to be kept in prison where his future earning power was reduced, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said earlier, his wife and family, upon whose maintenance he has defaulted, fell upon (as it was in those days) the Supplementary Benefits Commission, as did his second wife or his mistress and her children if he acquired a second family. That might be a justifiable social cost if the result was to inculcate or strengthen among the population at large a disposition to maintain their dependants; but we know that it does not.
Nevertheless, many involved in the administration of family justice hold that the value of the procedure which permits a court to make a committal order, and then to suspend it subject to regular payments being made, lies chiefly in what the court can threaten. Just as some teachers argue that, although they never themselves use the cane, the sight of one lying on the desk helps to secure obedience and good behaviour from their pupils, so it is said that a committal order will extract money from men who are unwilling to pay but who are more unwilling to go to prison. That is undoubtedly true in some instances.
When Parliament was debating the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Bill in 1978 a Home Office Minister explained that an informal survey in magistrates' courts carried out by his department showed that in nearly 90 per cent. of the cases in which a committal warrant had been issued and then suspended the defaulter escaped imprisonment because he paid up. I am doubtful of that survey and its findings, because in all the time that I worked in the courts I never saw the mythical figure who, when a committal order was made, put his hand into his back pocket and paid off his maintenance from a roll of greasy £20 notes. However, he is said to exist. The findings of that unpublished survey testify to the inadequacy of the machinery for extracting money from those who have it. They do not testify to the virtues of suspended committal orders.
804
The rate of recovery for civil debts has not been adversely affected by the abolition of the threat of imprisonment, despite the evidence to the Payne Committee given by the great majority of county court judges that their power to make suspended committal orders was an indispensable feature of the procedure for enforcing judgment debts.
The Finer Committee regarded an empirical demonstration of the effectiveness of the threat as irrelevant to the point of principle: that if imprisonment is inadmissible as a sanction to enforce family obligations, so equally must be the threat of imprisonment. I do not believe, pathological situations apart, that the policeman and the prison officer are appropriate agents for the regulation of family life, because they bring penal sanctions into a social and personal area where compensation or restitution are the only tolerable aims, and moral denunciation the only proper method of expressing disapproval.
Citizens in 1991 do not regard failure to discharge marital obligations as criminal behaviour; and to treat it as such by imprisoning defaulters damages the law and degrades marriage. The numbers imprisoned over the past 15 years have ranged from over 3,000 to less than 500. The powers of professional judges derive from the debtors legislation and are limited to committal for six weeks. Those of magistrates, to which the agency will go, are harsher and extend to three months, having stemmed from the 19th century bastardy legislation. Professional judges rarely commit when applying the delicate domestic arithmetic required by the test of contumacity. Lay magistrates, on the other hand, used to be more ready to send defaulters to prison under procedures which, like those of the county court judgment summonses, were not compatible with the proper administration of justice when the liberty of the subject was involved.
My fear is that the new agency will be under immense pressure to show results; to show that it is much more efficient than the court system which it replaces. The result will be that, just as the old supplementary benefits commission used to herd women into the magistrates' courts to obtain useless maintenance orders, so this new agency will herd fathers into the magistrates' courts for purposes of securing committal orders against them.
In my view, deterrence is irrelevant in the personal, financial and social circumstances with which this clause deals. I cannot imagine anything more damaging to the interests of children and to their relations with their natural and step-parents than the introduction of the threat of prison into already precarious loyalties and loves.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned the possibility of using community service orders instead of imprisonment. As I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, also stated that she would bring forward a similar proposal. I hope that against this background of the history of the consideration that has been given to committal of maintenance defaulters, the noble and learned Lord will he willing

805
to reconsider this clause and the possibility of substituting for imprisonment as the last resort, some other less harmful and less damaging procedure.
I conclude by citing a sentence from the Payne Committee:
"We have explained why we think the imprisonment of maintenance defaulters … is morally capricious, economically wasteful, socially harmful, administratively burdensome and juridically wrong".
Lest this be thought a dangerous modern view, I end by returning to the old lion Bentham who, more than 200 years ago, recorded his views on imprisonment for debt. They were:
"its inaptitude as an instrument of compulsion; … its inaptitude, applied as it is as an instrument of punishment … and its needlessness demonstrated by experience".
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has given an academic and historical survey of the futility of sending debtors to prison. I wish to transpose his academic recommendations into practical suggestions on practical issues. First, from the point of view of the men going into prison, I wish to comment on one remark of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor: that men who have intelligence, ability and money in the last resort pay; therefore there must be a sanction. I agree. I also totally agree with the historical survey given by the noble Lord, proving that often the debtors who go to prison are in the end those who are inadequate and who will never profit from prison. They learn nothing and come out worse than when they went in. The wives gain nothing because they receive nothing when the man is in prison and they certainly receive nothing afterwards.
Concerning the children, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that they must be considered, although if a man is not paying, he is not paying. One cannot altogether invoke the welfare of the children in the argument. I cannot forbear saying to the noble Lord that I used to take two small boys aged 10 and 12 to visit their father in Winchester Prison. When I got them home, the other children asked, "Where have you been?" One small boy said, "We've been to see our father; he lives in a big house". Children sometimes look at things in a different way from the way we look at them.
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships what happened to the mentally inadequates during the time when I worked as a director of social services, and before that. These people could nevertheless be helped if they were kept in the community. I imagine this still happens, but then all local authorities in England ran industrial training units. When I worked in Oxford we ran such a unit for the men who could not hold down a job, who were inadequate and could not manage their monetary affairs. We put them in the industrial training unit, we approached British Leyland and asked for a contract for the men to carry out simple mechanical jobs in that unit. British Leyland paid us, or the men, for the work that they did under supervision in the unit. At the same time, the men lived in a hostel, well supervised, and were cared for and
806
looked after. After a while, not all but a proportion of the men were able to leave the industrial training unit and take their place in society.
Perhaps I may transpose that suggestion into the Bill and base it on the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. I see that there must be a sanction, but perhaps it would be possible to set up a unit and persuade industry to co-operate and provide a simple mechanical job which could be carried out within the unit. Perhaps hostels could be set up nearby where the men could live. We would then be in line with the National Health Service and Community Care Act allowing for men to stay in the community. The children would not suffer because their fathers would be in the community and could be visited; but they were not in prison.
I am sure my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will say that this would be costly. However, I am quite sure that it would be possible to deal with this matter in the voluntary sector. I would point out to the Committee that two outstanding people in Birmingham were worried about the treatment of men who are child sexual abusers. Those two people were worried that those men were being sent to prison and were not receiving the help they were entitled to. Those two people set up the Gracewell Institute in Birmingham. That institute was a voluntary initiative. It has been a success and the offenders have been looked after and helped in the institute. So far as I am aware, not one of the men discharged from the institute has committed a further offence.
If we could transpose the industrial training unit into our penal system, it would help men to work and they would earn money which would help maintain their wives. A certain proportion of the men would be rehabilitated and could live with their families. Such a system would be an asset to the children of those men and it would save prison places for other offenders. As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has said, it costs £321 a week to keep someone in prison. I believe that the clause should not stand part of the Bill, on the academic and intellectual grounds mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and on the practical recommendations I have made, which I feel could be carried out in our society today.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, for his learned tour de force—I hope I may put it that way—in opposing this clause. We must also be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for giving us the benefit of her long and detailed experience of these matters. I find it incredible that this provision on imprisonment should be contained in the Bill. The Criminal Justice Bill is before the Chamber at the present time and has received its Second Reading. That Bill states in Clause 1(2):
"Subject to subsection (3) below, the court shall not—"
I emphasise"not"—
"pass a custodial sentence on the offender unless it is of the opinion—
(a) that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one other offence associated with it, was so serious—"
I underline the word"serious"—
"that only such a sentence can be justified for the offence; or

807
(b) where the offence is a violent or sexual offence, that only such a sentence would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm".
In this Bill we are bracketing parents who do not pay maintenance with serious offenders and sexual offenders. We cannot do any worse than that. Frankly, it is quite abhorrent to me that we should seek to do so. At the same time as we are telling magistrates and judges in the Criminal Justice Bill that they must not sentence people to a term of imprisonment except for serious offences, we are saying in this Bill that people may be sent to prison for a purely domestic offence.
I must ask the Government and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether a term of imprisonment will wipe out the debt that we are discussing. That is not clear to me. It is not stated that a term of imprisonment will wipe out a debt that has already accrued. I ask the noble and learned Lord: what will be the position as regards further maintenance payments which will accrue while someone is in prison? Will those be set against the offender, and will he have to pay those maintenance payments while he is in prison and is not earning any money? Are maintenance payment defaulters to be incarcerated with thieves, muggers, rapists and the like? If that is the case, is it not likely that inadequate people in particular—such as the people referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—and normal decent human beings will be led into a life of serious crime by association with the perpetrators of serious crime?
When those people come out of prison, will they be more or less likely to obtain a job as a result of that experience? It will be essential that they obtain a job if they are to decide to pay the maintenance which may be ordered against them, or any arrears of maintenance. Frankly, it is absurd and cruel to include this clause in the Bill. I cannot believe that in his heart of hearts the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor really believes that this is a just provision. If the noble and learned Lord believes that the provision is just at this stage, I hope he will think deeply about it after tonight. I am sure he will do that.
There are and must be alternatives to prison. Prison will not solve this problem. On an earlier amendment, I suggested the use of community service orders. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has suggested alternatives, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. There are alternatives and I urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Government to seriously consider the alternatives. I hope that we shall not divide on this issue tonight. I believe that has already been indicated. Nevertheless I hope the noble and learned Lord will be able to tell us on Report that the Government have had second thoughts and that they will take this odious provision out of the Bill and include either the alternatives that have been suggested or alternatives of their own.
Lord Prys-Davies: I can in no way add to the authoritative, impressive and powerful contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. As a member of the Payne Committee and the Finer Committee, the noble Lord is uniquely qualified to
808
give guidance to the Committee on how we should approach Clause 32. I have also listened to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I respect her immense practical experience in this matter. I understand that, in general, she goes along with the thrust of the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, although she has certain reservations. The noble Baroness has proposed a constructive solution to this problem. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will feel able to give sympathetic consideration to that suggestion. From these Benches I am more than content to adopt the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, on economic, social and moral grounds. In our view there is no case for investing the Bill with the aura of criminality.
A few hours ago I referred to certain provisions in earlier legislation which contained a power for a magistrates' court to make a community service order in lieu of a warrant of commitment in certain circumstances. During the dinner break I went to the Library and I am able to refer the Committee to the reference. It is contained in Halshury's Laws of England, volume 13, paragraph 442. I should be doing a disservice to the Committee if I were to attempt to traverse that ground.
9 p.m.
Earl Russell: I shall not gild the lily by expanding on the eloquent and powerful arguments of my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris. I should like to take up two other points. One is the question of a sanction. We on these Benches entirely agree that there must be a sanction for defaulting fathers who do not pay maintenance. We contend not that there should be no sanction, but that this is the wrong one.
1 was extremely interested in the suggestions offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, which seemed to be entirely along the most appropriate lines. We should certainly be very interested in hearing more about them.
I also want to comment very briefly on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, about the potential contradiction between this and the Criminal Justice Bill. I have remarked before that this Government seem to suffer from the lack of what the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, described as a halfback line. There does not seem to be anyone who considers the effect of one policy on another. It might be a good idea if someone did before the Bill reaches the statute book.
The Lord Chancellor: Since the point is fresh in my mind, I shall take up the last point made by the noble Earl. There is indeed a halfback line in this Government, certainly in relation to matters connected with the powers of the courts.
It is important to set out the position regarding service orders and the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull concerning the industrial training centre. That is a valuable initiative. However, those are not sanctions which can be used without the person's consent. One needs agreement to submit to

809
community service. No doubt in the case of industrial training there was no question of compulsion, the people concerned agreed to go and work there.
Baroness Faithfull: My noble and learned friend said with regard to my recommendation that there was no element of compulsion. I believe that I am right in saying that there was compulsion under the Mental Health Act.
The Lord Chancellor: In that case there was compulsion under the Mental Health Act; that would not be available in this situation. An element of compulsion was necessary in order to secure the agreement of the person to go to the industrial training centre. The powers under the Mental Health Act would not entitle anyone to force those people to go to the industrial training centre; but I assume that they agreed to go there in preference to going anywhere else.
The question of compulsion under the Mental Health Act does not arise here. We are assuming that in this case the person in question is wilfully in default as a result of culpable neglect. Therefore the clause as drafted precludes the sending to prison of people who would answer the description given by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull said that there must be a sanction to enforce payment. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, agreed. It is impossible to enforce community service or any such positive action as punishment under any provision; it must always be with consent. I believe that that is the provision to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred. I am not aware of an express power to provide community service as an alternative to a warrant where one is trying to achieve the coercive result of a warrant.
The purpose of the provision is not to put people in prison, it is to ensure that people who have the means to do so pay what they are required to pay in order to maintain their children. We do not want to have people in prison but we want to make sure that people do not readily refuse to pay. I entirely agree with my noble friend and with the noble Earl that a sanction is required. Otherwise there will be a situation in which someone may have plenty of money but it is impossible to lay hands on it.
Prison should be available as a last resort. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, appears to be approaching the matter as if we were creating the power to imprison in isolation from the general law. However, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has so clearly pointed out, that is not the position. Notwithstanding the eloquent testimony of the Payne Committee and the Finer Committee, the present law in respect of maintenance is that the prison sanction exists. We have therefore thought it right to maintain that sanction in this Bill in terms which are extremely carefully delimited.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, questioned the effectiveness of that sanction. The figures that I have tell me that in 1989 25,150 enforcement proceedings were discontinued because the arrears were paid in
810
full, the warrant was cancelled or not issued. That represented 30 per cent. of all applications for enforcement. That figure suggests that the ultimate sanction of imprisonment is effective in securing payment. These are maintenance debtors under the existing law, but they have nothing to do with this Bill.
Against the general background of the law as it stands this is appropriate, but it is very severely fenced around in order to make it difficult to use except in what I would describe as the typical case. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, was referring to people who are actually in prison in the situation which he described. I certainly think that the way this new clause is drafted would make it quite impossible for somebody to be put into prison simply because they were inadequate, unable to manage their affairs or unable to respond to their obligations.
This is an entirely different situation from that in which people are in prison as punishment for a criminal offence. I see no inconsistency whatever between the policy under the Criminal Justice Bill, which I thoroughly support as representing a proper policy, and the policy of having imprisonment as an ultimate sanction in the case of a wilful refusal to pay maintenance for one's children.
The community service orders are only available as a penalty for criminal offences and on the basis that the person prefers, in effect, to do community service rather than go to prison. However, I want to emphasise, because I entirely share the feelings of your Lordships about these matters, that the Bill makes plain that prison is a last resort. There is no question of prison being used as a way of, as it were, paying off the debt. The debt will not be wiped out. The purpose of imprisonment in the case of a person who is wilfully refusing to pay is to oblige him to pay the debt. It is a deterrent, only to be invoked in the last resort when all other efforts to obtain maintenance payments have been made.
The liable person will not be committed to prison until he has had the opportunity to be heard by the court and to give a full account of his circumstances. The court will be required to determine that the person has deliberately refused or culpably neglected to make payment of the maintenance debt. In other words, the court cannot commit the person to prison unless it is satisfied that the person has the means to pay, that the money is there and that the only obstacle is obstinacy.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Tam much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to intervene. I think I heard him correctly when he said that a term of imprisonment will not wipe out the debt. In that case we now have a situation where a thief will have his debt to society wiped out by a term of imprisonment but somebody who does not pay his maintenance will be imprisoned, which is a punishment as well as a sanction. However, the original offence will still remain and perhaps will even be exacerbated by the fact that while in prison that person will accrue further maintenance debt because he will have had no funds to pay the maintenance. That seems to me to be a very unfair situation.
The Lord Chancellor: With the greatest possible respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, he is confusing two different situations. When a person is sent to prison for an offence, that is intended as a punishment for an offence which is past. The facts have emerged; he can do nothing more about it; he has committed the offence and he cannot take it back. I remember reading when I was a little younger that theft is not wiped out by restitution, however complete, or by repentance, however early. So there is no question of repentance so far as that is concerned —obviously repentance is taken into account in mitigation—but there is a past offence of which the person concerned is guilty, and punishment comes along later. That is not the situation.
We are now dealing with a person who has money and is in a position to pay the required maintenance but deliberately refuses to do so. The court is entitled to use imprisonment in order to persuade him to meet his obligation to pay. All that he has to do to avoid going to prison is pay the maintenance. Where a person has committed an offence, such as theft, burglary, or a similar offence, he has committed that offence in the past before a sentence is pronounced. It is beyond his power to recall that. It is a totally different situation and the noble Lord is not comparing like with like.
I have to say that the general law allows this provision, notwithstanding the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, or what is said in the Payne or the Finer Reports. All we are doing is adapting it to this type of situation, with stringent safeguards and, I hope, efficient methods of securing payment. It will be a last resort only available if all other methods fail, and if the refusal to pay is absolutely deliberate or due to culpable neglect: not just neglect, not just inadequacy, not just inability to give one's proper attention to the matter, but culpable, blameworthy neglect, or wilful refusal.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Suppose this fellow who does not pay his maintenance is gaoled for six months, comes out of prison and continues to refuse to pay maintenance. Does that mean he will go back to prison? How many times can this happen? He could be in prison for life under these provisions.
9.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: As the noble Lord said, there are ultimate amounts of imprisonment, but the purpose of it is to seek to secure his agreement to pay. The noble Lord knows very well that magistrates would wish to be actuated by the same sort of motives as he. I do not think that in the situation that we are in these days there is any question of magistrates wishing to put people in prison just for the sake of doing so. The purpose of it has to be taken into account, and the ultimate idea of the sanction is to produce payment.
I do not believe that there is any likelihood of any substantial period of imprisonment arising from this clause. The present maxima in other fields are comparatively small as compared with the sort of term that the noble Lord refers to. The point of it is that the
812
existence of the sanction produces the result. The need to use the sanction is almost nil, but if you take away the sanction altogether you will produce the result where there is nothing you can do.
A person has plenty of money. You cannot get at it because he has it in such a way that it is not possible to attach it by any of the ordinary means by which property is attached, and he just laughs in your face. He has three children very in need of support from him, he has plenty of resources, but is unwilling to devote it to his children, and you cannot do anything about it. That is the sort of situation that this clause is designed to cure.
Baroness Faithfull: Where in the Bill does it say that only men who have money to pay will go to prison? I have not found that. It looks as though there are two sets of people who do not pay who are going to be treated differently. If a man has money and he will not pay, the final sanction is prison. If a man is inadequate and psychopathic, what is the sanction for him? Are there two different channels for dealing with these two types of people?
The Lord Chancellor: Obviously if a person has inadequacy, if there is something wrong with him, he has some mental trouble and cannot pay, then this sanction does not apply. May I refer my noble friend to the clause we are dealing with. It says in Clause 32(2):
"On any such application the court shall (in the presence of the liable person)"—
that is, the person has to be present—
"inquire as to—

(a) the liable person's means; and

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

If the person is suffering from some mental trouble as a result of which he is unable to come to any conclusion on these matters, that certainly would not apply. I would not have thought that a sanction of this kind would be appropriate for such a person.
Then, at the top of page 23 it says:
"If, but only if"—
in other words, the restriction is only to that situation—
"the court is of the opinion that there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect on the part of the liable person it may—(a) issue a warrant".
It is clear from that that you can only have culpable neglect or wilful refusal if the liable person's means are adequate to discharge his obligation of maintenance. That is the only situation in which a warrant of imprisonment is competent.
Of course there is no obligation on the court to impose it. They would have regard to all the circumstances in imposing it. They have of course the power, if they think that bringing it a little closer may be the idea, to go under (b) and fix a term but postpone the issue, and in other words say, "Unless you pay within a certain time this is what will happen to you". That brings it close to the person and is usually successful.
Baroness Faithfull: I am sorry to pursue this argument, but if we had a penal institution of the type that I described, why could not the man who would

813
not pay, but who could pay, go to that institution and be earning money so that he could and would have to pay his wife? Such a scheme would be far less expensive. It would restrict the man's liberty. It would be a much more positive way to treat the man than sending him to prison.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble friend may be thinking of a rather good prison in which there is fine work of an engineering kind and rather more pay than one receives in the ordinary prison system. However, one needs compulsion to send the person there. One cannot send someone to prison or any other institution without compulsion. One needs a power to send the person there.
If prisons run by the voluntary sector are provided, that may be possible under the system. At present, apart from such sanctions as seizing the person's assets, and so on, the only institution available to which one can be committed by compulsion, apart from mental institutions, is prison.
Baroness Faithfull: I am sorry to pursue the matter. Under the maintenance Bill that we passed recently, if a man has money it will be possible to make an attachment of earnings order or to instruct him to make a debit on his bank account. Why did we pass that Act if such provision will not be used in this instance?
The Lord Chancellor: Prison is to be used only if the other methods of enforcement fail. All the other methods will be available. I shall certainly consider whether the present enforcement methods can be strengthened. There are other possibilities. In Scotland we have an arrestment of bank accounts. I believe that it may be possible to replicate that in England by a garnishee order for which there is not yet special provision, and possibly a charging order on real property.
This provision is to operate only where all other methods have failed. The methods under the maintenance Bill that we have now passed from this Chamber are methods of getting at the person's earnings. But people may be in a position to pay and yet are not earning. They may derive their money from other sources than employment.
I believe that I have said all that I reasonably can. I am only wearying the Committee. I commend that Clause 32 stand part of the Bill.
Lord McGregor of Durris: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he stated first that the scheme of the noble Baroness—which I thought pointed in admirable directions—cannot be considered because there is no power of compulsion in the Bill. There are many powers of compulsion in the Bill. If the noble Baroness's ideas are sound, I am at a loss to understand why a necessary power could not be put into the Bill.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord speaks as though the powers of dealing with maintenance defaulters who wilfully refuse or culpably neglect to pay, are somehow a novelty introduced into the law by
814
this Bill. They have been part of our law since the report of the Fischer Williams Committee in 1937. There is nothing new about those powers.
The Lord Chancellor: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. That is exactly what I was saying. I am not under the impression that the position is new; quite the opposite. I am saying that it is part of the general law adapted for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord McGregor of Durris: Exactly so, but every committee that has considered debt has had to face up to the problem of contumacity. What the Payne Committee said, and what the Government accepted when they enacted its recommendations about civil debt, was that we must have a machinery for extracting money from contumacious people. The state cannot accept that somebody has the money but will not pay and therefore must be put in prison. For heaven's sake, let us extract the money as we do in respect of all civil debts!
The last point that I believe it essential to make is that the noble and learned Lord spoke of 30 per cent. of the cases of suspended committals producing the money—
The Lord Chancellor: It is 30 per cent. of all applications for enforcement.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I and people who are concerned in this area know that where there is a threat of imprisonment one of the reasons why the money is not paid is that the person threatened with committal goes to loan sharks and borrows the money, or gets it from his relatives if he does not have it. The essence of this matter is that those who have the money but will not pay always get away with it, because they know the rules and never put themselves into the position of being committed.
I am profoundly distressed by the noble and learned Lord's reply. I had hoped that he would be willing to consider the removal from the statute book at long last of this particular sanction. As he is not, I shall certainly return to the matter at a later stage—
The Lord Chancellor: Before the noble Lord sits down, I understand that one cannot compel somebody to operate in a situation where he is required to do something. One cannot force labour; one cannot force somebody to go to an institution in order to work, as my noble friend suggested. One must first obtain his consent because he is required to agree.
Obviously this is an important matter. We are dealing with the general law, as the noble Lord said. I shall consider all that has been said and wonder whether there is anything further that we can do to strengthen the other enforcement procedures under the Bill. Even when all others are in use, and when all else has failed, the ultimate sanction might well be in that direction. I shall consider everything said by the noble Lords, Lord McGregor, Lord Stoddart and Lord Prys-Davies and my noble friend.
Lord McGregor of Durris: The noble and learned Lord has greatly over-simplified the problem of dealing with contumacity. We have no knowledge of the personalities of the people who are involved. Until

815
we have that knowledge we cannot elaborate effectively on the procedures for dealing with it. All the committees that have dealt with the matter have said that it is an area in which the liberty of the subject is seriously involved.
The opinion of those committees was not properly regarded by lay magistrates, who will be operating the system under the Bill. If one compares the number of committals made by professional judges applying this test with those made by lay magistrates, the result is most worrying. In Scotland, for example, the sheriffs make three or five committals in default of alimony in the course of three or four years. The English magistrates make several hundred.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, will move the amendment formally because I do not believe that it was discussed with the previous amendment and I wish to make a few comments on it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Amendment No. 117 is not moved. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could make his point when speaking to his Amendment No. 117A. I should remind the Committee that if this is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 118.
Clause 34 [Special cases]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 117A:
Page 25, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: As I have been given the opportunity to do so, I shall ask the noble and learned Lord to look favourably on Amendment No. 117. It raises a point which is different from the one discussed by the Committee in the long debate on the previous amendment.
I should like to make two points on that amendment. First, it is a rule of practice although not a rule of law that the courts will not enforce arrears which are more than 12 months distant. Secondly, the common law has elaborate schemes to appropriate payments towards debts. My noble and learned friend will be fully cognisant of those.
However, this Bill is extraordinary. One of the ways in which it is extraordinary is that under Clause 37(2) (c) the Secretary of State is seeking power to appropriate payments towards arrears as he chooses. Taking those two matters together, I ask my noble and learned friend, who is not in a very receptive mood this evening, to look favourably on Amendment No. 117, which does not raise any point which has so far been discussed.
As regards Amendment No. 117A, it formally asks for the excision of Clause 34(2). It gives examples of the sort of regulation which can be made in particularity of the general power given in the previous subsection. The Renton Committee recommended this method of drafting; in other words, the giving of examples. I am bound to say that that seems
816
to me preferable to the system which has endeared itself to the heart of the noble and learned Lord; namely, taking a general power and then setting out endlessly particularities of that general power.
The Secretary of State may make regulations directing grandmothers to suck eggs. In particular he may make regulations as to which end of the egg shall be pierced, what implement shall be used in piercing the egg, and so on endlessly. We have many examples of that in the Children Bill and again in this Bill. This Bill is very much superior.
I ask my noble and learned friend what he considers to be the effect of subsection (2) on subsection (1). Does he agree that, as a matter of construction, regulations may only be made under subsection (1) which are of the same sort as or sui generis with subsection (2)? If so, that would be superior to the method of drafting cherished so dearly by the noble and learned Lord through so many Bills.
Perhaps I could mention one other point at this time rather than on clause stand part. All the regulations in this clause are subject to the negative procedure, except under subsection (4). It is a curious way of drafting when under subsection (3) the Secretary of State is given a general power to make regulations to provide, "with respect to special cases" and under subsection (4) the regulations "may in particular" and those are rightly subject to affirmative resolution. I ask the noble and learned Lord what is envisaged over and above subsection (4) by way of regulations made under subsection (3). Why are they subject only to negative procedure? I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I note what the noble and learned Lord says in regard to Amendment No. 117. My noble and learned friend will read carefully what he had to say. Perhaps in passing I could say that my noble and learned friend is always in a receptive mood and particularly so tonight.
I would not argue with the aim that clauses should not be longer than necessary. However, a balance must be struck between brevity and the need to indicate what the legislation is doing. In this instance, by adding subsection (2) it was our intention to be as helpful as possible in setting out the sort of case where some modification of the maintenance formula may be necessary.
Although that may not be strictly necessary it is worth doing. Without subsection (2) it is not clear what kind of case we would want covered by the clause. The inclusion of subsection (2) is particularly important in view of the powers that the noble and learned Lord mentioned which are given to the Secretary of State in subsections (3) and (4) to modify any provision made by or under the Act which, as the noble and learned Lord said, would be by affirmative procedures. On previous occasions the Chamber has expressed the wish to know more about what we intend to put into regulations. That is exactly what we are doing in subsection (2). Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his Amendment No. 117A.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very grateful for the very clear reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Henley.

817
I hope that I did not suggest that subsection (2) was not a useful method of drafting. On the contrary, it is more useful than the alternative method.
I have one question on a point of law. In the opinion of my noble and learned friend is subsection (1), in view of the drafting of subsection (2), to be read as subject to the ejusdem generis rule? If that is so, it is a very important and valuable limitation. However, what then is the sanction for seeing that regulations under subsection (1) do not go beyond regulations which are ejusdem generis as regards subsection (2)? Is the sanction judicial or purely parliamentary? If it is parliamentary should it not be subject to affirmative resolution?
The Lord Chancellor: With the permission of my noble friend perhaps I may answer that point. As I see it, the situation is that the ejusdem generis rule would not apply because it is clearly stated in subsection (2) that these are examples. I believe that the judicial review is available to control the exercise of such powers on the lines of cases, such as that of Padfield, dealt with in your Lordships' House. The court would look to see what the purpose was to be abstracted from the Act of Parliament in granting the power. It would allow power to he exercised which would be only an implement in pursuance of that purpose.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I cannot see why the fact that subsection (2) is drafted in an exemplary form rules out the application of the ejusdem generis rule to subsection (1), but at ten minutes to ten o'clock it is no time of night to discuss a recondite point of law. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Contribution to maintenance by deduction from benefit]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 25, line 33, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) Where an absent parent is on income support he will be zero-rated for maintenance purposes.").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to ensure that an absent parent on income support will not contribute to maintenance. The idea of deducting a sum from the benefit of an absent parent on income support appears to us to be rather harsh. At the same time it offers little real benefit to the child. It is important that the principle of financial liability towards the children should be recognised. We feel that that can be achieved if the deduction is left in the system but zero-rated, rather like the VAT system, while the absent parent remains on income support.
Absent parents who are on income support have by definition only a subsistence income on which to support themselves and to maintain contact with the children. We understand that the Government propose to deduct a sum for maintenance from the subsistence income even though the income support entitlement of the absent parent takes no account of his maintenance payments or any other expenses.
818
That is unfair and could perhaps result in a backlash against the idea of maintenance in general and the lone parent in particular.
As income support is set at such a low level, the amounts of money that a one-parent family will receive from the absent parent who is on income support will be very small. We believe that, for the lone parent and the children. the disadvantages of a possible backlash of resentment from the absent parent will outweigh the advantages of a very small maintenance payment.
However, as I have said, the principle of maintenance is an important one. Where the absent parent is on income support, his liability for maintenance should he recognised; but, as I have said, the payment should be zero-rated. This would mean that the child support agency would hold information on the absent parent when he found work. The calculation and enforcement of maintenance could then proceed. Income support is designed to cater for individual subsistence and nothing more. Any deductions would not only cause hardship to the absent parent but would also be at such a low level as to produce only a negligible increase in income for the caring parent and the children.
If payments by absent parents on income support are introduced, they should be used only as a method of ensuring that all absent parents are covered by the new system. The useful analogy is with the VAT system, whereby one is in the system but is zero-rated. One is not actually involved in payment but one can be picked up automatically as income increases. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has outlined very clearly the reasons why we tabled this amendment. Amendments are often overtaken by events and sometimes become less significant. This amendment has become a good deal more significant as a result of the assertion of my noble kinsman Lord Henley last Thursday in Committee (at col. 543 of the Official Report) that income support was not a subsistence benefit. I must admit I found that a rather surprising claim and it is one of very direct relevance to this amendment. We tabled this amendment in the belief that income support is a subsistence benefit. That was precisely why we were arguing, as the Social Security Advisory Committee has argued, that a 5 per cent. deprivation is not a notional sum and places a heavier burden on those in receipt of income support than they are able to stand.
I have been aware for quite a long time that there was a widespread feeling, both among groups involved with issues of poverty and among academics working in the field, that income support is actually below the proper level of a subsistence benefit. Most providentially, as it happens, a study on precisely this point by Dr. Sean Stitt of Newcastle-upon-Tyne polytechnic has been published today and reported in today's Independent. I was able to get some details of it at five o'clock this afternoon. That has developed a very powerful case indeed for arguing that income support is below subsistence levels. Dr. Stitt came to

819
the conclusion on food that income support was providing something between 40 and 52 per cent. of a subsistence level, depending on which figures for an adequate level of diet one took. The standards of diet on which he relied were those drawn up since 1979 by the Department of Health and Social Security, wearing its health hat. As he observed, this indicates a gross duality of standards.
The standard the Department of Health was using was levels of diet below which deficiency might develop. He found a similar picture with energy, where, again, he was relying, it seems, quite heavily, on government figures developed by the Energy Efficiency Office of the Department of Energy. It is estimated that there is available under income support £9.75 for heating, whereas it seems the amount needed for those using gas would be £14.27, or using oil, £26.33. It would help to explain why the Government have had so much trouble over cold weather payments. The report makes the point that houses occupied by those less well-off tend to be less well-insulated and therefore less energy efficient. That underlines the point that insulation may actually save money for the Government.
As regards clothing, Dr. Stitt found that the amount provided on income support was between 18 per cent. and 30 per cent. of the amount recommended by the National Foster Care Association. Therefore, he has made a very powerful case which will need to be taken into account when we are considering whether the levels of income support are too low, and that they are perhaps below subsistence level.
That information makes it rather difficult for my noble kinsman to argue that income support is above subsistence level. It also makes it rather difficult for him to argue that parents can spare 5 per cent. out of their income support to pay maintenance payments. Further, it makes it difficult for him to oppose this amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have given notice that I intend to oppose the fact that Clause 35 should stand part of the Bill. However, at this time of night it would be much more helpful if I were to speak to this amendment. As we have already heard, Clause 35 proposes to make deductions from the state benefits of parents who are separated from their children.
I must say that not only do I find that provision to be mean minded, but I also find it to be self-defeating in that the people whom it will hurt are the children. Once again, we have reached a point where the Government are taking action which is bound to hurt the children and not the parents. That is not the intention of the Bill. The White Paper proposal means that income support will be reduced for those parents unfortunate enough to be divorced and unemployed. Those two aspects of life often go hand in hand.
As I understand it, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make regulations affecting any benefit, including disablement benefit, invalidity benefit, invalidity care allowance, mobility allowance, sick pay, family credit, and no doubt maternity allowances for absent mothers. However, if I am wrong in that assumption the Minister will put me right.
820
What is proposed does not go hand in hand with the caring society about which we have heard so much recently and which I frankly believe the Prime Minister wishes to put into operation. The proposition is in conflict with those ideas. I wonder whether the Prime Minister knows what is going on as regards this Bill. Perhaps I should send him a copy of the Hansard report of the proceedings so that he may understand what is happening.
Income support is supposed to be the minimum income necessary to maintain life above poverty level. I believe that very few of us in this Chamber understand what it means to live on income support. We have no concept of what it is like to live on such an amount, let alone what it is like to have £3, £4, £7 or £8 deducted from that sum. It is a catastrophe for families living in such circumstances. I urge the Minister and the Government to take account of that fact.
It seems to me that the clause discriminates against separated parents. As I understand it, parents with children in care do not have any deduction made. Indeed, under the Social Security Act a parent is not liable to contribute during any period when he is in receipt of income support or family credit if the child is in local authority care. Therefore, why on earth should a person who is separated, but maintaining his children, have a deduction of 5 per cent. made against his income support? It does not seem to add up. However, it may be that this is an aspect which has been overlooked. Perhaps the Minister will pay attention to that point and give me a reply. I support the amendment.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I shall add just a sentence to what my noble friend Lord Russell said. Other data have been published recently by the King Edward VII Trust which support the paper that he was citing. I hope the Minister will accept that there is evidence that income support is too low, and will therefore be willing to accept the amendment.
Lord Henley: My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will obviously read everything the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has said. I am sure that he always takes considerable notice of what he says. There is an important issue of principle involved here. The legal and moral obligations on parents who are in receipt of income support are the same as those on other parents. They are responsible for maintaining their children. I am glad to see that the amendment, unlike the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to strike out the clause, recognises that to an extent by proposing zero rating.
It is important that the responsibility for maintenance should be established straight away not least so that liability can be clearly established in readiness for if and when circumstances change. In principle, all parents should make some contribution to their child's maintenance. So when a parent who is fit and able to work receives income support, we propose to make a small deduction of £2 per week at 1991 rates as a contribution towards child maintenance.

821
I take issue with my noble kinsman Lord Russell and the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord McGregor, about the adequacy of income support. Income support is not, and has never been said to be, a subsistence benefit, providing scarcely enough, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested, to keep body and soul together. As I explained last Tuesday, there are many occasions upon which we and all right-minded people believe it to be right to make deductions from income support and other social security benefits. It is right to do so on this occasion.
My noble kinsman mentioned the research conducted by Dr. Stitt of Newcastle Polytechnic. I am grateful to him for giving me warning that he was going to raise the matter. I am aware of the article published this morning in the Independent and the Guardian. I have of course not yet been able to study the report in detail, but I was pleased to see the press release attached to the report. As I have not studied the report in detail, I obviously cannot comment, but if it is based on Dr. Stitt's previous work, I should say that we do not accept many of his initial assumptions about the amounts included in benefit rates for food, fuel and so forth. For example, on diet, there is no reason why people receiving income support should be unable to follow a normal, healthy diet.
Although it is true that income support rates are intended to cover all normal day-to-day living expenses, they do not include, as my noble kinsman seemed to be suggesting, separate amounts for specified items of expenditure. There is no amount specified in income support for heating, lighting and so on, as he seemed to suggest. My noble kinsman mentioned the lack of insulation in many of the homes of the less well off. I refer him to the debates that we had last year on the Social Security Bill, although I cannot remember which clause (or which section of the Act as it now is) enabled my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy to make grants for insulation to the less well off.
We propose to make some deductions towards child maintenance. Other deductions can be made from income support, as Members of the Committee will know, for example, to meet arrears of fuel bills and in future towards the payment of fines. However, the current ceiling on deductions, which is intended to protect claimants from excessive deductions, will continue to apply, as also will a strict order of precedence which ensures that the most essential expenditures have priority. A deduction for maintenance will take its place in this list. It will come after deductions to meet housing costs and other essential expenses such as fuel. These items will appear in the exempt income of someone who is working, so it is right that they should take precedence over maintenance payments. However, maintenance will come above payments due to, for example, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, such as the recovery of overpayments or repayments to the social fund.
Other parents on income support will have their liability established, but their contributions to maintenance will be zero-rated so that no deduction
822
will be made from income support in their case unless their circumstances change. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked about these. They will be those parents who are sick or disabled and unable to work or those who have dependent children for whom they are also claiming income support. Zero-rating, as I have already implied, does not mean that there is no responsibility. On the contrary it means that responsibility has been established but that we accept that in the particular circumstances a zero rate is the most appropriate course.
We do not believe that it would be right for all absent parents on income support to be zero-rated. In particular, we think it right that an absent parent who is fit and able to work and who does not have responsibility for bringing up children should make a small contribution to maintenance so that he makes a start to meeting his responsibility for his children. I hope that with that understanding the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble kinsman will accept that we are going a long way towards meeting the objectives of their amendment.
I do not accept that this provision is in any way harsh. It establishes liability and ensures that a parent who is single or a partner in a couple with no children and who is fit and able to work, while receiving income support is honouring his responsibility—and it is only those people whom we are talking about—for the maintenance of his children in the same way as anyone else. I therefore hope that the noble Lord and my noble kinsman will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell: I accept that in academic terms deciding precisely what is a standard of subsistence is difficult. In querying Dr. Stitt's criteria for this, however, my noble kinsman was not only a little ungenerous, he was also a little unwise. What struck me most forcibly about that research is that the criteria used are almost entirely those developed within various departments of Her Majesty's Government since 1979. So if my noble kinsman believes that they are unreliable, perhaps something should be done about it.
Lord Henley: I should be loth to comment at this stage on my noble kinsman's remarks because I have not looked carefully at the evidence from Dr. Stitt. However, one should be careful, since some of the figures on which Dr. Stitt's evidence is based date back to the old supplementary benefit days and do not relate to what we have now with income support.
Earl Russell: I admit that that point had already struck me. However, it seems to me that Dr. Stitt has taken evidence across a range of dates covering both benefits. As I understand it, my noble kinsman complained of the standard of classification, not the precise figures for particular dates. I have in front of me the section on this which is taken from the Department of Health's recommended daily amounts of food, energy and nutrients for groups of people in the UK. It is published by the Department of Health and Social Security so perhaps my noble kinsman is

823
unwise to run it down so forcibly. Perhaps there should be a little internal consultation here, but clearly, we cannot pursue the matter much further tonight.
I wish to ask my noble kinsman another question. He has drawn attention to differences of academic standards. Can he quote any piece of academic research which agrees with his argument that income support is above subsistence levels?
Lord Henley: We have absolutely no evidence that people cannot manage on income support and on other comparable benefits.
Lord Carter: This is all extremely depressing. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a powerful case. Although the Minister did his best to rubbish the evidence, he did not succeed. What is achieved by all this except to introduce aggravation into what is already a difficult situation? The sums involved are tiny and the Government have at least accepted the analogy of the VAT system and the zero-rating. Therefore the principle of liability is accepted; it is a matter of who is relieved of the liability. I do not wish to take up any more of the Committee's time. All I can say is that I feel Mr. Gradgrind would be very much at home on the Government Front Bench. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 120:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Maintenance disregard for calculation of benefit entitlement
—Where the person with care is in receipt of income support, family credit or housing benefit, such a sum of maintenance as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State shall be disregarded in calculating that person's entitlement to any of these benefits.).
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to ensure that maintenance paid by absent parents on behalf of children whose carers receive income support will go towards the care of the children. I hope that we shall have a little more success with this amendment than we did on the previous one. By way of introduction I have referred to the care of the children or the welfare of the child. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said on the first day of the Committee stage when I moved an amendment to make the welfare of the child a paramount consideration in the Bill:
"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". —[Official Report, 14/3/91; co1.341]
What we are trying to achieve with this amendment is a better overall level of maintenance payments by the use of incentives rather than punishment. However, after the experience of the previous amendment, I am not too sure whether we shall be successful. Knowing that part of the maintenance received will go to benefit children is likely to encourage absent parents to contribute voluntarily and caring parents to assist in making contact with absent parents to determine maintenance assessments. We know that any maintenance received will be
824
deducted, pound for pound, from their benefit, as the Bill stands. This will not only fail to benefit the children for whom this measure is intended, but it will needlessly add to the pressures faced by caring parents and will exacerbate already difficult relationships.
In Australia child maintenance is disregarded, partly or wholly, in the calculation of benefit entitlements by ensuring that in every case where the caring parent is in receipt of income support the children will stand to benefit from any maintenance payments made on their behalf. I emphasise that we are talking about maintenance payments made on their behalf. That seems entirely justified when the overriding aims of the Bill are to improve arrangements for child support and to make the welfare of the child paramount.
We appreciate that the introduction of what might be termed a maintenance disregard will have some cost implications, but a positive incentive of this nature could increase the overall amount of maintenance paid and thus offset some of the additional cost. However, in any case, the consideration of any additional cost must be set against the welfare of children and the protection of those children. Establishing the basis for positive maintenance arrangements which are entered into voluntarily will certainly improve the prospects of achieving better relationships between separated parents. It will also ensure a greater commitment on the part of absent parents towards their children and it will not threaten any hopes of reconciliation where the future of the relationship is uncertain. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: In putting down this amendment, the noble Lord has recognised the influence that features within the benefit system can have in helping those on benefit to work and thus be better off. We recognise that parents who wish to work should be encouraged to achieve greater independence and we are concerned to help caring parents. Lone parents can have particular difficulties to overcome when making decisions about work, having to combine on their own the role of breadwinner with the responsibility of caring for their children.
In the White Paper Children Come First we announced that we propose to introduce a £15 maintenance disregard in family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit, which are benefits available to people who are in work and on low earnings. I noticed that the amendment includes income support, family credit and housing benefit but for some reason known only to the noble Lord does not include community charge benefit or disability working allowance. I leave it to the noble Lord to explain why he decided to include some benefits and to leave out others.
The disregard that we have announced for family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit is intended to help parents who are caring for children to work if they wish to do so. As I said, we propose to extend the disregard to disability working allowance. It will be introduced by amendments to social security regulations. That is because the rules of those in-work

825
benefit schemes, including how income is to be treated and other disregards, are contained in social security regulations.
The maintenance disregards already announced do not include a disregard in respect of income support. We considered very carefully whether maintenance should in any way be disregarded for caring parents in receipt of income support and concluded that it should not. If custodial parents were to receive maintenance in addition to income support payments then the custodial parent would have to earn a higher salary to be as well off in work; so it would act as a disincentive to going to work and further frustrate the ambitions which the parents have for themselves.
In addition, the extension of the £15 disregard to income support would also have the considerable cost of an additional £180 million a year. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I shall have to read with some care what the noble Lord said because we are dealing with a complicated issue. I do not propose to extend the debate on the amendment at this time of the evening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 121:
Before Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Review of family credit entitlement
. In section 20(6) of the Social Security Act 1986, after the words"change of circumstances" there shall be inserted the words"other than a change resulting from a review under section 15 of the Child Support Act 1991,"").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Under the maintenance proposals there will be a review of maintenance where circumstances change. We can see no reason for not also reviewing the family credit arrangements at the same time to take into account the changed income from maintenance. Perhaps the Minister can explain why that should not be the case. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I accept that this is a probing amendment. It appears to have the effect of requiring reassessment of the family credit award only in respect of a change arising from a review of maintenance. In other words, all other changes of circumstance which had occurred since the start of the 26-week award period would be ignored. That could lead to some rather bizarre situations where the family credit had to be reassessed to reflect quite a small change in the amount of maintenance but no regard could be had to much more significant changes which had taken place, such as a change—up or down—in earnings or a change in the composition of the family.
I do not believe that that double standard in responding to changes in circumstance would be justified, and yet the alternative would be to have regard to all changes as and when they occurred, which would change the fundamental basis of the family credit scheme. As the noble Lord knows, once one receives one's payment for 26 weeks it is paid for 26 weeks and does not change whether one's earnings
826
from employment or self-employment go up or down. The amendment would therefore introduce an unnecessary complication.
Lord Carter: I understand the point that the noble Lord made. As I said, it is a probing amendment to establish why that was the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 122:
Before Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Absent parent claiming family credit
. In section 22(8) of the Social Security Act 1986, at the end there shall be added the words ", provided that in the calculation of the income of a person claiming family credit who is an absent parent within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Child Support Act 1991, there shall be deducted the amount of any child support maintenance that he is liable to pay under the provisions of that Act"").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of the amendment is to back up the principle stated in the White Paper that no useful purpose is served by shifting the first family off income support if in the process the second family is shifted on to income support. The amendment refers to the family credit entitlement of second families. In the assessment of eligibility for family credit of second families no account is being taken of maintenance payments under the Bill.
This again is a case of dealing with notional income when we should be dealing with real income, because the income which is going on maintenance is clearly not available for the second family. Therefore it is going to have the effect of shifting the second family on occasion below the benefit level. I shall not again go into the argument about the adequacy of benefit level; but it clearly applies here also, and it is important that in the end we get that right.
The other point of importance which arises here is the possibility of a disincentive to work, because if you do not get family credit and you are paying maintenance you may end up working and getting an amount of money which is below benefit level. I think it is a principle of government policy that people ought not to be worse off as a result of working. That is a principle in which I can see a good deal of sense and one which I think this amendment would help to uphold. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: I was pleased to add my name to this amendment and when the Minister replies I should be grateful if he could deal with the point that many second families will find themselves with a low disposable income after maintenance had been paid and yet they will not be entitled to family credit because income will be too high. This seems to be an anomaly and the amendment would deal with that situation.
Lord Henley: In putting down this amendment, I believe that the noble Lords have been seeking to change the rules of the family credit scheme so that income used to pay maintenance is ignored when calculating family credit entitlement. That would

827
mean that the absent parent receiving family credit would get extra family credit equivalent to the maintenance they were liable to pay.
We recognise it is right that the taxpayer should help to maintain children when their own parents, despite their own best efforts, do not have the resources to do so. However, it is not right that taxpayers, who include other families, should shoulder this responsibility instead of the parents who are able to do so themselves. The provisions of this Bill are intended to ensure that parents meet their legal, moral and financial responsibilities for their children wherever they can afford to do so. An important aim of the new system is to ensure consistency of treatment between people in similar financial circumstances. For example, we do not think it is right that the benefits system should provide help towards the cost of maintenance through the family credit scheme. This would be unfair to absent parents who have the same level of income entirely from earnings; for example, as between a family whose income from earnings are £130 a week and another whose income comprised £125 earnings and £5 family credit per week.
We accept that occasionally there will be circumstances where inescapable financial obligations mean that if an absent parent has to meet both those and the amount of maintenance calculated under the formula, his income would be close to or below that which he would receive on income support. So there is provision for a protected level of income to make sure this does not happen. Nevertheless, if noble Lords are still convinced that there might possibly be occasions when second families are going to be worse off I shall certainly take a look at that; but a protected level of income should make sure that this does not happen.
On top of all this, I have to say that the amendment itself makes even more generous provision to the absent parent, since it provides for his family credit to reflect the amount of maintenance that he is liable to pay and not the amount he is actually paying. Thus family credit would be assessed on the amount he was supposed to pay and would continue—family credit being a benefit, as I said earlier, awarded at a fixed rate for 26 weeks—whether or not he actually paid any maintenance at all to the parent who has care of the child. I hope, with that explanation and that assurance, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to my noble kinsman for his willingness to look at that issue again. The point at issue between us is beginning to get a good deal narrower. We agree with the principle as my noble kinsman stated it, that absent parents should pay for their children when they can afford to do so. The point at issue then narrows down, as to whether they can afford to do so. We need to look at the question of the level of protected income, and whether this will be achieved under this arrangement that the Government propose.
It is essential in making any new system work that there should be a certain modicum of goodwill towards its operation. If we had an effect of impoverishing the second families it could tend to breed what happens easily enough anyway, and that is
828
a growing resentment between the first and second families. That cannot be in the interests of the child. Now we have narrowed down the issue to a point which can be discussed in a limited and practical way, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, while thanking my noble kinsman for his willingness to look at it again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 25, line 41, leave out ("or the person with care (or by both)").
The noble Lord said: I would also speak to Amendment No. 124. Both amendments are supported by the Law Society and by a large number of voluntary organisations. The object of the amendments is to ensure that where the Secretary of State takes action under Clauses 3, 5 or 6 to collect or to enforce maintenance payments, he is only able to charge fees against the absent parent. It would be inequitable for the Secretary of State to be able to charge fees to a child, or a person with care, for any services carried out.
As the need for any of these services should arise only if the absent parent is in default, he or she should be liable to pay the fees. As well as being fairer these amendments would probably provide an incentive for the liable parent to pay the maintenance promptly and regularly, and thus avoid the circumstances where the agency would be obliged to take action against another. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: As the Committee will be aware, we intend to intervene as little as possible in what is essentially a private matter between two individuals. In general, the best arrangement for the payment of child maintenance is, where possible, a wholly private and effective financial arrangement between the individuals involved. Where it is possible for a wholly private arrangement to be made, it is not appropriate for private individuals to pass on the responsibility for making such arrangements to the taxpayer, if they are able to do so, without contributing to the cost incurred by the taxpayer.
The charging of fees to both the parties involved in a maintenance assessment will provide an incentive for them to explore the possibilities of making a private arrangement. If they are unable to make a mutually satisfactory arrangement, then either party may apply to the child support agency. It is reasonable that, in such circumstances, the parties could be asked to make a contribution to the agency's costs if they are in a position to do so.
It would not be reasonable to charge fees to persons with care who are obliged, as a result of claiming certain benefits, to make an application under Clause 5 of this Bill. The exemption in Clause 36(3) (a) will cover all such persons. That is to say, there is an obligation there, in Clause 36(3) (a), on the Secretary of State to make exempting provisions in that case.
It will also cover any party to a maintenance assessment who is in receipt of those benefits. We are also looking at whether there may be additional circumstances in which exemptions to the charges might apply.

829
We are also concerned that a person with care, or the child if applying himself under the provisions of Clause 6 for Scotland, should not bear the cost of the additional action taken against an absent parent who demonstrates reluctance to comply with his responsibilities. We are considering, for inclusion in regulations, ways by which the absent parent can be held responsible for the full cost of any fee to cover action taken to enforce payment, as distinct from determining the amount of it.
In that situation what we have done is to say that if somebody applies for a maintenance assessment, then that person should have to pay for it unless they are exempt under the exemptions. On the other hand, where there is a default and execution is required, then the person who has caused that would be responsible; namely, the person against whom the payment is taken. That seems a fair arrangement. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the explanation. I confess that my attention had not been drawn to Clause 36(3)(a). The Lord Chancellor makes the point very clearly, that distinction will be drawn between making the assessment and taking proceedings in order to enforce the order.
In the light of that response, it may be that those who have instructed us will wish to reconsider the position. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Regulations and orders]:
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 125A:
Page 26, line 37, after ("10(2)") insert ("26, 29(4), 32(8)").
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 125B and 125C. However, I wish to proceed in the way that is convenient to my noble and learned friend. He indicates that I continue. Perhaps he will stop me at any amendment which he is prepared to accept.
The Lord Chancellor: It may help my noble and learned friend if I say that I am prepared to accept Amendment No. 125B.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. In Amendment No. 125A there is a mistake which has already been referred to. Clause 29(4) should read Clause 29(7). I drew attention to it at the time that we discussed that clause. I sought advice on the way with which it should be dealt. I was advised that a convenient course would be to ask the Committee to treat it as a printer's error. However, I cannot do so without telling the Committee that the error arose through my failure to read my own handwriting in my notes. But if the Committee is
830
content, as my noble and learned friend is kind enough to indicate, I should like to proceed in that way with due apologies.
The amendments concern the upgrading of the negative resolution procedure to the positive affirmative resolution procedure. As the Committee knows, this is an important parliamentary point. Under the negative procedure there is the disadvantage that in another place orders are frequently not reached. When they are reached it is often generally at a very inconvenient hour. In both Houses the advantage of the affirmative resolution is that the Minister explains why he needs the order, and its purport; with the negative procedure he replies only at the end of the debate. It is universally accepted that the affirmative procedure affords far better parliamentary control. That was made clear by the Joint Select Committee on delegated legislation of the Session 1972–73. I imagine that it will not be controverted.
The criteria were set out by that committee. I shall read only the headings. The affirmative resolutions should relate, first, to powers substantially affecting the provisions of an Act or Acts of Parliament. The committee contrasted those with provisions of a trivial or tidying up character. The second heading related to the powers to impose financial charges or make other forms of financial provision. The third related to miscellaneous provisions involving considerations of special importance. I find it impossible to see on what principle the Bill proceeds to differentiate between the affirmative or the negative provision or to see any scheme in relation to the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee.
There is another way of looking at the issue. If it is a matter which Parliament is unlikely to wish to discuss, it is reasonable to dispense with any parliamentary control. Secondly, if it is possible that the regulations will be subject to discussion at the wish of Parliament, the negative resolution is suitable. But if it is probable that Parliament will want to discuss the matter, it should be subject to the affirmative resolution. Whether one applies the criteria of the Joint Select Committee or those that I have just suggested, in my respectful submission all these provisions identified in my amendment should be the subject of affirmative resolutions.
When I was dealing with the difficulty of finding either rhyme or reason we passed over an amendment tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate which drew attention to the extraordinary divergence of view between the draftsmen or officials—probably both—of the Scottish provision and the draftsmen or officials of English provision. Those referred to in the amendment of the noble and learned Lord which was not moved are exactly the same. However, the Scottish provision is rightly subject to the affirmative resolution, whereas exactly the same English provision is subject only to the negative procedure. That is consistent with the derogation from parliamentary control which is one of the marks of this Bill. Having said that, I shall turn to the specific

831
provisions. The first is as regards Clause 26—regulations as to deductions from earnings. Is that the one which the noble and learned Lord accepts?
The Lord Chancellor: It may help the noble and learned Lord if I tell him that I am willing to consider the application of the affirmative resolution procedure to the powers under Clauses 29(7) and 32(8). I am willing to accept it in respect of Clause 34(4), which the noble and learned Lord wishes to change to Clause 34. I am willing to accept Amendment No. 125B. Otherwise, I am inclined to leave matters as they stand.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. That should shorten matters. Clause 26 deals with regulations as to the deduction of earnings. Clearly, that falls within the mischief of the second head of the Select Committee's criteria. In my submission, it also clearly falls within the way I put the matter; namely, it is a matter which Parliament will probably wish to discuss. I do not know whether Members of the Committee wish me to go more closely into the provisions of Clause 26. I believe that the noble and learned Lord accepts my point as regards Clause 29(7) so I shall say no more about that.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall consider it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does the noble and learned Lord accept my point in relation to Clause 32(8)?
The Lord Chancellor: I shall consider it in relation to Clauses 29(7) and 32(8).
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am content with that. That is a dispensing power of a statutory provision such as James II claimed and was rejected firmly at the Glorious Revolution. I am sorry to see it creeping in again here. However, I shall contentedly leave the matter to the mature consideration of the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: I am content to consider Amendment No. 125C for the sake of brevity.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: That deals with regulations about incidental, supplemental and transitional powers. It is a Henry VIII clause but it falls well within the justification for Henry VIII clauses as pronounced by the noble and learned Lord on Tuesday. I believe that that may have met with the approbation of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is sufficient to say that, being a Henry VIII clause, it should certainly be subject to affirmative resolution. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I have indicated my position as regards these matters except in relation to Clauses 26 and 37. As regards Clause 26, very similar provisions are already contained in the Community Charges Administration and Enforcement Regulations which were made under the negative resolution procedure. I consider Clause 37 to be an incidental type of power, and the negative resolution procedure is appropriate.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In regard to the first powers referred to by my noble and learned friend, the mere fact that it escaped parliamentary vigilance once is no reason at all, and is contrary to parliamentary and constitutional procedure, why your Lordships should again condone the example. I hope that my noble and learned friend will consider the matter carefully.
With regard to Clause 37, it is sufficient to say that it is a Henry VIII clause; in other words, it gives ministerial power to legislate to supplement an Act of Parliament to arrogate powers that are normally vouchsafed, that ever since 1689 have been vouchsafed to Parliament. The very least that can be done, even if one said that that was a proper use of Henry VIII powers, is to proceed by way of affirmative resolution.
Having said that, I hope that I shall have some support before I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I shall be brief. I hope that I can speak in general to Clause 38, if that is convenient to the Committee. Clearly there has been considerable disquiet that the Bill relies so heavily on regulations in order to give it direction. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor anticipated the criticism when he presented the Bill to the Chamber some weeks ago, when he acknowledged that the Bill contained an unusually larger number of regulation-making powers. He advanced the usual defence that at this time the legislation is necessary to allow for adjustments to be made in the light of experience without needing to find the precious time for primary legislation.
We listened with considerable interest to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. There are at least two main difficulties with this kind of legislation. The committee on the preparation of legislation under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, drew attention to the first difficulty as far back as 1976, when he pointed out that despite the requirements of statutory instruments procedure, the control of Parliament over the detail of legislation is nevertheless diminished.
Distinction is drawn between the affirmative and negative resolution, but as I understand it, even with the affirmative resolution—subject to correction—the Chamber is not entitled to amend the subsequent regulations when they turn up; certainly we may reject them, but that would be contrary to the conventions of the Chamber.
Another difficulty is that we are all familiar with situations which seem at the outset to be matters of detail, or even minor detail, but which grow into major questions. At this stage of the Bill we are unable to say whether or not a matter which is deemed to be a matter of detail is a matter of detail. We have not seen the regulations even in draft form and therefore have no means of forming a valid judgment of whether or not the matter included in the regulations is a matter of principle which should be incorporated or inserted in the Bill.
Before passing the clause I thought it appropriate to remind ourselves of the inadequacy of the statutory

833
instruments procedure for mounting an effective challenge to subsequent regulations, short of throwing them out, and that is not our convention.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. This is a Bill of profound social importance and we are now on matters of high constitutional importance. It is nearly 11 o'clock. It is a parliamentary indecency that we should have to discuss these matters at this hour of night in an empty Chamber. With that objection, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 125B:
Page 26, line 37, leave out ("34(4)") and insert ("34").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125C not moved.]
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Financial Provisions]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 27, line 14, at end insert:
("(2) The Secretary of State shall make an annual report on expected costs and savings in the coming year and actual costs and savings in the past year.").
The noble Lord said: The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill states:
"The improved arrangements for the assessment and payment of maintenance which are provided by the Bill are expected to produce a reduction of an estimated £400 million per year in social security benefit expenditure from the Consolidated Fund".
That is a substantial sum and we know that that is what the Bill is all about. We feel that it is a high figure given the social aims of the legislation. The amendment will allow the review of both expenditure and savings expected in the coming year and the actual costs and savings in the past year. I am sure that the Government will wish to accept this amendment so that they can make clear whether the expected savings arrive. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord is too brief for me—
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying a brief word in support of this amendment. One of the principal arguments for this Bill throughout has been the saving of public money which the Government imagine will arise from it. Many of us are a little doubtful whether it will be quite as large as they suppose. One of the big underlying differences in the whole of our debates has been about the degree of rationality which is assumed. Throughout the Government have assumed that the penalty will deter because that is the rational, economic way to behave. Curiously enough, that unwarranted assumption of rationality is something which Conservatives have often thrown against the other side of the House. This time it seems that the boot is on the other foot.
Since there is here a really major difference about human behaviour as well as about the effectiveness of
834
the Bill, it would be nice to know in due course which of us was right. That is why I am happy to support this amendment.
Lord Henley: I was about to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that he was too brief if he wished me to accept this amendment to which my noble kinsman added a few extra words. As this amendment suggests, we recognise the importance of an annual report detailing accounts of the agency. I can give the assurances that I gave as regards another amendment last Tuesday, or possibly last Thursday, to reassure the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will require the chief executive of the agency to submit and publish an annual report and accounts.
My right honourable friend will also ensure that such information is available through the annual departmental report which replaced the department's contribution to the public expenditure White Paper; or it will also be available in the business plan and report of the chief executive of the child support agency. These will be published. In the light of those assurances I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I was brief because the amendment was so sensible. I was extremely pleased to get that answer from the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No.127 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 40 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I should just like to say what a useful mode of drafting this kind of provision is. We had it in the Road Traffic Bill of this Session. It seems to be a great improvement and a great simplification in the way of interpretation.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Meaning of"child"]:
On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I wish to ask one or two questions. I do not want to suggest far fetched situations which could cause the draftsman to go to elaborate provisions to cover them. However, I find some difficulty with the definition in subsection (2) of "child" or, rather, who is not a child.
Under subsection (1) an infant may in certain circumstances still be a statutory child up to the age of 19, but he is not a child, nevertheless, under subsection (2) if he is or has been married. The age of consent for marriage in England, and I think Scotland, is 16. I do not know why someone marrying between the ages of 16 and 19 should be taken out of the benefit of this Bill.
Perhaps my point on paragraph (b) is more remote. The paragraph states,
"has celebrated a marriage which is void".
I do not know how frequent it is—I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, will know—for

835
marriages of those under 16 to be celebrated. They would be void, and I cannot at the moment see why a young person who celebrates a marriage under the age of 16 which is void should again be deprived of the benefits of the Bill. There is also the case of people who are married under the age of 16 in countries where marriage under the age of 16 is valid or are domiciled in countries where marriage under the age of 16 is valid. There are many countries where marriage is valid over the age of 12 or 14, as it was under Canon Law and as is the case in some civil law countries. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend can help about those instances.
The Lord Chancellor: The principle behind the exclusion is that those who are or have been married are no longer to be regarded as dependent on their parents for the purposes of this Bill, having regard to the scope of the Bill and the formula. The idea is that, on marriage, they come out of the family of their parents and may thereby accept mutual responsibilities with their spouse. The situation is a different one from that of a child dependent on his or her parents.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I say that he told me what I knew; namely, that people who marry over the age of 16 and under the age of 19 are taken out of the provisions of the Bill. That is exactly what the subsection states. I ventured to ask why that was so, and particularly why, if they go through a void marriage at the age of 15, they should be deprived of the benefits of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that my noble and learned friend misheard me. I said that the theory behind the exclusion is that when someone gets married he or she is no longer to be regarded as being dependent upon their parents with an automatic right of support under the formula arrangement. Of course the fact that the marriage turns out to be void does not damage that principle: they have departed from being in the family unit with their parents. That is the principle behind this exclusion.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Short title, commencement and extent, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 36, line 34, at end insert:
("The Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 (c.37)
. In section 4 (amount of aliment) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, at the end there shall be added—
"(4) Where a court makes an award of aliment in an action brought by or on behalf of a child under the age of 16 years, it may include in that award such provision as it considers to be in all the circumstances reasonable in respect of the expenses mentioned in subsection (5) below.
(5) The expenses mentioned in subsection (4) above are any expenses incurred wholly or partly by the person having care of the child for the purpose of caring for the child. " ").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment provides that when making an award of maintenance to the child under Section 4 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 the court may, if it considers it to be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, include an clement for the expenses incurred by the person having care of the child in caring for that child. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 not moved.]
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Shard Bridge Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at three minutes before eleven o'clock.