Lords Sitting of 6 July 1995

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

BBC Charter and Agreement
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the draft of the new BBC Charter and Agreement will be published.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, the Government intend to lay the draft Charter and Agreement in the autumn.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply and congratulate him on his promotion to a new portfolio. Will the Bill to combine the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission be brought forward before the draft Charter, because the two interact very closely?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his kind opening remarks. As has been intimated, we have stated our intention to effect the merger of the BSC and the BCC and we hope to introduce a broadcasting Bill next Session to implement our cross-media ownership and digital broadcasting proposals. It is likely that this will include provisions to merge the two bodies. We hope to have tabled the draft Agreement and the draft Charter in the early autumn.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join in congratulating the Minister. Can he give an assurance that there will be a substantial debate in your Lordships' House on the draft Charter and Licence in the overspill period? Can he give any information as to what decision, if any, has been made with regard to the BBC transmission services?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, any debate would be a matter for the usual channels in the ordinary way. There will certainly be a debate in the other place and I expect that there will be a demand for a debate in your Lordships' House as well. The noble Lord asked about transmission services. As the noble Lord will know, that matter is currently under investigation.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, there have been reports in the newspapers that a special committee has been set up by the BBC to investigate the use of bad language and other similar trends of recent years. Has that anything to do with the publication of the Charter and Agreement? What powers does the committee have? What is it all about?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can confirm that we welcome the announcement this week by the chairman of the BBC's board of governors, Mr. Marmaduke
1238
Hussey, that the BBC is to hold a conference on standards of taste and decency to identify what audiences find acceptable. It is expected that new guidance to programme makers will emerge as a result. We think it most important that these matters are dealt with in a manner which is acceptable to the public at large.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when the two bodies come together we hope that the new body will have more power than the two had separately? At the moment they seem very flabby, and very reluctant to uphold decency, condemn violence and carry out a number of other things they are empowered to do but never seem to. When "The Last Temptation of Christ" was broadcast, it was very heavily criticised by large numbers of people but the BSC and the BCC said that it did not count as a religious programme. That is how they got round the mistakes they made. The BBC would not allow it to he shown on its channels.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his remarks, which I know echo the views of a large number of people. The new Agreement with the BBC will place specific obligations on the corporation to avoid offending against good taste and decency and not to abuse religious views. Those will replicate the requirements of the Broadcasting Act 1990 in respect of commercial broadcasters. The BBC's governors will be responsible for approving appropriate standards for BBC programmes.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his promotion. Given his obvious good sense, I am sure that he will work very closely with the BBC. Will he accept from me that, given the huge number of hours of programmes put out on radio and television by the BBC, what is really surprising is how few grounds there are for serious criticism?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his good wishes. Those are normally a preface to a difficult question. In this instance I am glad to be able to confirm that we believe that the BBC sets itself the highest standards and that in most instances it reaches them.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House whether there will be any provision in either the Charter or the Agreement to require the BBC to act with integrity and responsibility? I have in mind in particular the quite indefensible behaviour in publishing parts of a highly confidential draft report of the Scott Committee. If there is no such requirement, why not?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his comments. It must be emphasised that there is an overriding duty of impartiality on the BBC and on broadcasters generally. I hope your Lordships will forgive me but I have not seen the details of what might or might not have been a draft. I am not in a position to give any precise and helpful reply to the noble and learned Lord. However, I shall make sure that when matters progress further he is kept fully in the picture.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps I may emphasise that I was not talking about impartiality. I was talking about integrity.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend, along with others, on becoming, as it were, another sort of usual channel, may I ask him whether we can hope that when the draft Charter and draft Agreement are published the structure that they reveal will mean that the governors of the BBC are at a sufficient distance from the day-to-day managers of the BBC, and sufficiently distinctly serviced, to be at arm's length from the corporation when enforcing the terms of the agreements he has just described?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. The BBC is subject to regulation by its governors. Therefore, it is important that the governors remain sufficiently at arm's length from the management of the corporation to be able to do exactly what my noble friend describes.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we join in the congratulations to the new Minister and assure him that, provided that he is as positive and helpful as his predecessor, we shall give him an equally easy ride. Within the context of broadcasting statements, will he confirm that announcements on the sale of BBC transmitters and on digital broadcasting will be made before the House rises? Most importantly, will he give an assurance that there will be an opportunity for full public consultation on those proposals?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for his kind remarks. I can assure your Lordships that I shall endeavour to do everything I can to ensure that I have as easy a ride as I can achieve. The Government are considering the way ahead on digital broadcasting and will issue proposals as soon as possible. There will then be an opportunity for consultation on the proposals.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that when the regulatory bodies fail to take firm and decisive action over offensive material shown on programmes, Her Majesty's Government will call those regulatory bodies to account?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is a matter for the regulatory bodies to exercise their discretion on the basis of the facts they have in front of them. One of the important characteristics is that BBC public broadcasting is kept at arm's length from the Government.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, may I also congratulate the Minister. When he comes to consider the draft Agreement, will he bear in mind the extraordinary contribution of the World Service of the BBC in providing an amazingly accurate and honest description of international affairs? In central and eastern Europe in particular it does remarkable work. I hope that the Charter and the Agreement will reflect the tribute that we wish to pay.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in recognising the contribution of the World Service. Of course, it does a good job not just for our own country but for the rest of the world.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!

National Lottery
3.11 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will conduct a detailed review of the operation of the National Lottery and its effect on charities.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, all aspects of the National Lottery are being kept under review, but we believe that it is much too early in the life of the lottery to be considering making changes at this stage. The Government have made a clear commitment to monitor charitable income, and are considering how best this can be carried out.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, while congratulating the Minister on his new appointment today, may I ask him whether he is aware that I do not join in the arrangement to give him an easy ride? Is the Minister further aware that the National Lottery is rapidly becoming a national scandal as regards the income of charities? Is he also further aware that Camelot, the company that runs the National Lottery, is taking for itself in terms of expenses and profit, a sum in the region of 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. of the weekly income, and that the contribution to charity has dropped from the projected 8 per cent. to only 5 per cent., while medical charities in particular are suffering as a result of that drop in income? Will the Minister today give an absolute guarantee that the Government will make good the shortfall in the income of medical charities, otherwise how can we cure illness if we cannot do medical research?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is muddling two slightly separate things. Of course, we are all in favour of having as much research into medical matters as possible. At the same time, it was Parliament that set up the National Lottery and stipulated the way in which the proceeds of the lottery should be distributed as and when they were available. It is not right to look at this matter in terms of a particular shortfall in one area or another of charitable giving and spending. We now have a new situation. It is important for your Lordships to realise that it appears that charities as a whole may be benefiting by up to £320 million a year over and above the revenue they had before. We do not accept that it is necessarily the case that charitable giving has in fact declined because of the lottery. Because we take the matter seriously my noble friend Lady Blatch has had discussions with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. The Government are still considering how best it can take the matter forward so that we can debate this issue on the basis of fact rather than surmise.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that up to 26th June this year 486 projects received lottery funds to the tune of £95 million,

1241
including the arts, the environment, sports, etc., and yet not one penny has gone to one project covering medical research? Can the Minister tell the House when medical research, and especially cancer research, will benefit from lottery funds?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is important that your Lordships understand the way in which the lottery money is divided and distributed. It is divided according to a formula laid down in the Act and then distributed according to a timetable. The National Lottery's Charities Board is not making any grants at all until October. It is up to that body to determine how it distributes the money which it will receive from the lottery. While it has indicated that it will place priority at this stage on charities concerned with poverty, it has not excluded the possibilities of medical research or, for that matter, any other charitable purpose, if it feels that the applications made are appropriate to receive disbursements.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, has my noble friend had time to be aware of the fact that the income of the Football Trust has been reduced by 40 per cent. since last year, and that although we have been able to help the larger clubs to a very great extent, we are now facing great difficulties in providing help to the smaller clubs whose own resources are much less?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I am aware of the problem to which he alludes. But there has been a reduction in pools' duty. In addition, I understand that the way in which the football pools themselves have been conducting their own business has changed. We believe that that will go a significant way towards ensuring that they recoup some of the losses which they believe they have suffered.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when this matter was last discussed at Question Time in this House on 6th June, his predecessor stated—reported in Hansard at col. 1259—that the research into the impact of the National Lottery on charitable income had begun? Shortly after, in a letter to a colleague in another place, he adjusted that position and said that it had not yet begun. Will the Minister take this opportunity to help the House and clarify the exact position?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to clarify what appears to be a degree of misunderstanding on this matter. I can confirm that the Government have given a commitment to monitor the effect of the National Lottery, and that they are still considering how best to take this forward. I hope that that makes the position clear beyond any doubt.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Lord. Is he aware that the National Lottery has not been detrimental to all charities? Is he further aware that the British Red Cross Society has actually augmented its funds in its 125th anniversary year, having raised more money than ever before?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. The British Red Cross is a most worthwhile charity, so it is encouraging to hear that it is
1242
doing so well. As I said in response to an earlier question, it is important that we deal with this kind of topic on the basis of evidence rather than supposition.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Treasury receives week by week 12 per cent. of the total takings from the sale of lottery tickets in the previous week? In view of the fact that the lottery is such a financial runaway success, will the Government consider reducing that 12 per cent., as it already represents over twice what each of the individual five good causes are earning?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful for that remark. I know of no current government plans to do what the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I join in the congratulations that have been expressed to the Minister. Does he agree that, although it may be too early to measure the overall effect on the income of charities as a result of the operations of the lottery, there are some specific effects which are already discernible? Is he aware that one of them is the enormous drop in the level of funds allocated to the arts by the charitable organisations sponsored by the football pools? Is he further aware that these losses are not going to be made up from other sources, and that many of the arts bodies have to face discontinuities in their income which are severely embarrassing?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as in all matters, the world is continuously moving on. One has to try to deal with these matters in the context of the realities of the time in which we are living. The National Lottery is now part of British public life, and that is something which organisations will have to take into account when making their plans.

Fish Stocks: Common Fisheries Policy
3.19 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to prevent the possible total disappearance of fish stocks in the waters affected by the common fisheries policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the European Union's common fisheries policy exists to provide for sustainable exploitation of the fisheries resources in the waters of member states. The UK fully supported the recommendations in the direct declaration adopted at the recent North Sea conference to improve the operation of the common fisheries policy. To that end, the UK will continue to press for and to support appropriate Commission proposals to improve regulation and control of fishing activity and to improve the state of scientific knowledge on which to base such proposals.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer and congratulate him on his well deserved promotion to the Ministry of Defence. No doubt his mind is more consumed with nuclear weapons than fishing boats at the moment. Therefore, I shall not

1243
press the international point about the importance of the UN agreement on Straddle stocks but refer instead to the common fisheries policy promotion, which does not appear to be working. I wonder whether my noble friend will consider bringing forward the question of the common fisheries policy at the forthcoming IGC where we shall have a veto—there will not be majority voting—so that we can consider the number of boats at sea. Perhaps he could also mention the fact that the common fisheries policy is trying to limit the number of Spanish boats at sea—
Noble Lords: Question!
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, would my noble friend comment on the fact that the common fisheries policy is trying to limit the number of Spanish boats at sea, while the European Commission is busy commissioning new fishing boats for the Spanish fishing fleet, and—
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks and entirely agree with him that the conservation of stocks is a prime duty of the European Community. That is why the annual agreement on total allowable catches is conducted against a background of expert scientific advice. My right honourable friend the former Minister established a group to look at all the options for improving the CFP. It is expected to have completed its task by the end of the year. It is a wide-ranging review and appropriate recommendations will be brought to the attention of the European Commission. Meanwhile, as your Lordships will be aware, the central issue is that the available fishing effort is greater than the fish stocks can stand. To that end, we aim to reduce the size of our fleet in common with other member states, including Spain, to meet our MAGP targets through decommissioning, for example.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as this is the noble Earl's last appearance with the agriculture brief, perhaps I may thank him from this Dispatch Box for the unfailing courtesy and helpfulness that he has shown in his three-and-a-quarter years at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and wish him well in his new post.
In the circumstances, perhaps it will be appropriate if I ask the Minister an easy question today. Does he agree that the common fisheries policy, as it has developed, is beginning to make the common agricultural policy look like a beacon of common sense and sweet reason?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. I too have much enjoyed and appreciated our exchanges over the Dispatch Boxes over the past three-and-a-quarter years. I very much appreciate the constructive way in which he has approached our exchanges. In reply to the noble Lord's question, to put it at its mildest, the CFP is far from perfect. In particular, it is too bureaucratic. As I have said, we are reviewing our approach to it and shall continue to press for improvements. However, there are benefits as well as drawbacks to the CFP and any changes will need to be considered with great care.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that since many fish migrate between waters near the shores of different countries, regulation and restraint are what matter most in the areas in and near north-west Europe because fishing methods and technology are now lethally effective?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend draws attention to an extremely important point. Although one may have capacity targets, total allowable catches and technical conservation measures, they have to be enforced properly. It is perhaps a truism to say that fish are no respecters of boundaries, but the CFP is a more effective vehicle for policing those boundaries and the entitlements of member states than unilateral action could ever be.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that efforts to reduce fishing by decommissioning seem to be more than outweighed by the efficiency of the vessels which catch the fish? As there is considerable evidence, as submitted to the North Sea ministerial conference, that supplies of cod in the North Sea are likely to fall below what is renewable, what do the Government propose to do?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government's decommissioning plan is only part of a raft of measures which we hope will deliver the necessary results in terms of conserving stocks, which is most important. The Government recognise that in the longer term the state of North Sea cod stocks remains a matter of concern. It is important that total allowable catches are set at prudent levels. However, given the large size of that stock, which at current reduced levels still numbers over 500 million fish, and its extensive distribution, it is not thought likely that North Sea cod will become extinct, as has been predicted in some quarters.

Dr. Hastings Banda
3.26 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they are making to the Government of Malawi to ensure a fair trial for Dr. Hastings Banda and others.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Malawi Government are obliged to give Dr. Banda and his co-accused a fair and public hearing. We expect those obligations to be fulfilled completely. We shall be monitoring the trial and note that the defence counsel is British. There are no grounds at this stage for us to make representations.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for her helpful Answer, perhaps I may also thank her on behalf of the people of Malawi for all that she has done over many years to help that very poor but very beautiful and kind country. However, in view of what she has just said, is my noble friend aware that on 14th February 1995 the Director of Public

1245
Prosecutions of Malawi said on the BBC World Service that the decision to arrest Dr. Banda and others was entirely political and not made by his department?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am always pleased to do all that I can for poor countries in the world. I was, of course, aware of the comments that had been made on the BBC, but not all comments that have been made on the BBC and in other places about that situation have been wise or accurate. We have sought to ensure that the trial is properly conducted. We have through our "Good Government" initiative arranged training in the UK on the conduct of jury trials for Malawian judges, including Justice Mkandawire who is presiding at this trial.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind that this country of ours is looked on throughout the world as the country that created democracy and decent justice? To that extent, will she add to the excellent statement that she has just made by assuring the House that we shall attempt to get the support of all democratic countries on this issue? I believe that our country can provide that lead and that we shall be supported.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this is a very vexed issue but, as the noble Lord knows, we have not only sought to promote sound democracy in emerging countries, but to ensure that they have the training and the institutional capacity to run a proper judiciary which has due respect for human rights. It is critically important that human rights are properly respected both in Malawi and other countries. There have been improvements in the past year or so in Malawi. Where democracy is to flourish, it is right that there should be freedom of the press, freedom of speech and full regard for the courts of law.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Dr. Banda is a very old man with a very long and distinguished record of public service? Will she assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are watching carefully to see that, if he has to be put on trial at all, he has a fair trial?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are all aware of the many years of dutiful service that Dr. Hastings Banda has given to Malawi. We have been at pains to ensure that any trial, and particularly this trial, is conducted properly. The trial is now expected to start on 10th July when the judge will hear pleas. The jury selection is planned for 11th July. The whole world's eyes will be on the conduct of justice in Malawi. That is absolutely right and proper.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that merely because of the tyranny and repression which characterised the previous regime it is tremendously important that this trial, of all trials, should be conducted in a way beyond reproach? Does she realise that she will have the full support of this side of the House in ensuring that that happens? Will she inform the House how much priority is given within the aid budget towards strengthening the administration of justice as part of good governance in the third world, to which the Government are committed?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. He is absolutely right: this trial must be conducted in a way that is beyond reproach. That is why the United Kingdom has focused much of its support for good government on the proper training, for jury trials, of judges and of others. I can give the noble Lord details of the training attachments: six High Court judges and two Supreme Court judges are being trained in this country; and three jury trial workshops are being conducted in Malawi to ensure that that happens. I am glad that we have the full support of the Opposition. All the work that we are doing in institution building in Malawi and other countries is designed to make them self-sufficient in running a system which is responsible and which enables every person to be heard before a court, with a proper defence, and that they be judged innocent until they are proven guilty.

Employment Rights Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this or the next Bill standing in my name on the Order Paper and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee on either of them. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I shall beg to move in each case that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Tribunals Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Evidence Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Child Support Bill
3.34 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Applications for departure directions]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment which dealt with the question of how applications for a departure direction made outside the 28-day time limit without good reason should be handled.

1247
The Minister kindly indicated that he was sympathetic towards the intention behind the amendment and agreed that we would be able to deal with it on Report.
The amendment achieves the effect which both the Minister and this side of the House agree is desirable; namely, that persons who apply for a departure direction outside the normal 28-day time limit without good cause can nevertheless have their applications considered from the date of their application. The Minister was kind enough to write to me to say that he has examined the question, has consulted parliamentary counsel and has been advised that the powers in new Section 28G(4) inserted by Clause 7 are sufficient to enable regulations to be made to achieve the results that we want and that subsection (4) of the new Section 28A inserted by Clause 1 can simply be removed, and that is the effect of the amendment.
It would be helpful if the Minister would give some commitment as to the content of the regulations under new Section 28G(4). One of the effects of the amendment would be to delete the reference in the amendment tabled in Committee to allow claims to be considered where there is good cause for their application. I understand from the Minister that that will be catered for in regulations. He was kind enough to send me an example of the existing regulations which makes it clear that that can be achieved.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation as to the content of the regulations. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, in Committee I listened carefully to the comments on this subject of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I indicated then that I would reflect on what he said. I have decided that I find his arguments persuasive. Our purpose in including a time limit for applications for a departure direction was to reduce as far as possible the period of uncertainty which would exist for both the parent with care and the absent parent while there was a possibility that the amount of maintenance fixed by the formula assessment might be altered.
We were concerned that people should not delay making application, although of course if there were good cause for so doing we proposed that late applications should be accepted. We felt that it would be unfair to the other party if the absent parent or the person with care was able to let the matter slide but then ask, perhaps some time in the future, for a departure which would affect the amount due right back to the date when liability first started.
As I have said, on reflection I agree that it would be equally unfair to exclude someone from any chance of a departure because he or she had failed to act promptly. I am content to accept the proposal that an application made later than 28 days from the issue of a maintenance assessment should be considered but that any direction which results will not be backdated beyond the date of the application unless there was good cause for the delay.
In due course, we shall bring forward regulations to that effect, using the delegated power in subsection (4) of the new Section 28G as introduced by Clause 7. I am happy to recommend that the amendment be accepted.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for the letter that he sent me. I hope that he finds this habit-forming as the day wears on—the evening, I suspect—and it is therefore with some confidence that I seek the opinion of the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Preliminary consideration]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert:
("(c) that the entitlement of a person with care to any maintenance disregard calculated in accordance with section 36(5) (bb) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 would be lost or reduced.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 13. This is an amendment about the maintenance disregard—one of the most important issues in the Bill. We on this side support the principles of the Child Support Agency: that absent fathers should support their children and should do so by paying maintenance consistent with their means, thus allowing many first families to float off of benefit. We agree entirely with that. Where the father can pay, he should pay. It is not the taxpayers' job to pick up that bill and his responsibility. The trouble is that in paying maintenance most fathers will make their first families no better off. In many cases, they will make them worse off than if they had avoided their responsibilities and not paid. The amendment addresses that issue.
Why are first families no better off and often worse off on maintenance than they are on income support? Eighty pounds of maintenance would displace £80 of income support, which is what a lone parent with a couple of children might receive. In that situation, a lone parent with two children would be no better off but no worse off. However, when that same lone parent was receiving £80 per week from income support, the benefit carried with it a passport, a portfolio, of other benefits; for instance, free school dinners worth £10 a week for two children, access to the Social Fund for cold weather payments and budgetary loans, and even housing renovation grants.
A woman receiving the same sum from maintenance as from income support loses those passported benefits that are attached only to income support. She is therefore worse off. She received the additional benefits on income support because it was thought that at that level of income she was so poor that she needed additional support. Yet with no extra income, the same sum being paid by maintenance, that additional sum has been taken away from her.
Therefore, given that first families will be worse off if the absent father does his duty and pays maintenance why should those fathers willingly pay and why should mothers willingly co-operate with the CSA to make themselves poorer? The Child Support Agency has lacked consistency. We all know that, and the Minister has accepted it. It has lacked consistency because it has lacked legitimacy and it has been seen as unfair. Hence this amendment, which allows the mother to keep a

1249
modest fraction of the maintenance. We are talking about £5 to £10 per week—a disregard—before it is deducted pound for pound from her income support. That modest disregard would, roughly speaking, compensate her for the loss of passported benefits such as free school dinners which she would have received if she had stayed on income support. She would be no worse off for obeying the law. Surely that is what we want to see. Surely that is reasonable.
To what are the Government objecting? They have offered three reasons for objecting to the proposal. Their first argument was cost, their second was disincentive, and their third was that the Government were helping mothers anyway by a back-to-work bonus. None of those arguments is sufficiently persuasive to overturn the amendment.
As to cost, a modest disregard to the mother of, say, £5 per week would cost about £85 million after the back-to-work bonus had been netted off. I accept that that is not a small sum but it is almost exactly the sum which the Government have allocated to absent fathers to soften the effect of the CSA. When the Government allocated that £85 million they did not talk about additional costs but about reduced savings. I agree with them; we too are talking about reduced savings for the parent with care. Fewer savings will be flowing because some modest protection will be given to the mother with children in order that she is not worse off. I am sure that today the Minister will not wish to argue that £85 million given to fathers is reduced savings but that £85 million given to mothers is additional costs. I am sure that in all consistency he will wish to apply the same standard in an even-handed way to both parties.
The Government made more of their second argument that a modest disregard would deter lone parents from returning to work. I ask the House in all reasonableness whether a modest disregard of £5 to £10 per week will make a difference as regards a lone parent returning to work. Will £5 per week be the key determinant of whether a mother returns to work? Of course not—we know that that is not the case. Most lone parents want to work. They remain on benefit for an average of only two to three years until the youngest child is of school age. They usually then come off benefit and go back to work. They have been unable to return to work earlier because they have small children of one or two years of age and they do not wish and often cannot afford to find alternative child care for their infants. Are we really pressing reluctant mothers to leave tots of one to two-and-a-half years of age in the hands of others? Are we really saying that having lost their fathers they should now lose their mothers to work, against the wish of their mothers? And that from the party of the family!
What above all restricts women returning to work is child care on the one hand and the lack of available jobs on the other. But once the children are of school age, most lone parents find their way back into the labour market. Whether they do or not, I am sure that all noble Lords will acknowledge that a £5 or a £8 disregard will make no difference whatever. In any event, the Government have accepted that part of the maintenance will be rolled up and returned to the mother at the rate of £5 per week as a back-to-work bonus when she
1250
returns to work. Why? This is not a Jobseekers Bill; it is meant to be a Child Support Bill. Why then are we giving her a rolled up maintenance disregard, called a "back-to-work bonus", when she is returning to work and therefore has the prospect of being better off rather than when she has children who are dependent on her and when she cannot work and is poorer? That is deeply perverse.
The Government have accepted that with the back-to-work bonus women receive a modest fraction of the maintenance as a disregard. However, they give it to the mothers when they need it less rather than when they need it more. They give it to them when they are leaving their children to work rather than when they are staying at home to care for them. I call that wrong-headed. Lone parents on benefit are very poor. They are often ill-fed, ill-clothed, in poor health and in deep debt. Replacing income support with maintenance will make many of them poorer still.
At a time when the Government are aiding absent fathers—and quite rightly—it is not fair that they are ignoring the plight of mothers who are always much worse off than absent fathers, given the construction of the maintenance system. It is not fair. But we know that mothers with care will not go on strike; they will not desert their children; they will not defy the law; and they will not refuse to do what they are required to do. Whatever the price, they will look after, stay with, and care for their children and to that extent he law-abiding. We punish women for the fact that they obey the law and we have been rewarding the men who break it. I believe that that is unfair.
This amendment would be more even-handed. It would balance the situation between mothers and fathers. It is simple and it is not expensive. It would stop women being worse off by going from income support to maintenance and it would support what will always remain a fragile first family. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before I get down to business, I hope that I shall be forgiven for taking a moment to congratulate Mr. Alistair Burt on his promotion to the rank of Minister of State. It is a well earned promotion and I am happy to congratulate him on it. I wish to say to those outside the Chamber who may read the debate that Mr. Burt is not to blame for this Act being on the statute book. Actions against him personally are not the way to change it. An Under-Secretary in our system is a private soldier in the ministerial army. He does not give orders. It is a mark of his unusual stature among Under-Secretaries that even though these changes are quite inadequate he has managed to produce as much change as he has. If we are looking for people to blame for the 1991 Act, we do not look for Under-Secretaries who came in afterwards. But we must reflect that the classic line that the evil that men do lives after them is a sexist remark.
Now that it has been decided that the attitude to broken marriages—which I might perhaps describe cursorily as the Gospel according to St. Mellons—is

1251
apocryphal within the Conservative Party, perhaps we may give slightly more thought to this issue than it has been possible to give it before.
At this stage, I shall not take up the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about rewarding those who break the law. She is wrong and we shall return to that on another occasion. But in this instance, and for once on this Bill, these Benches and those Benches happen to think alike. This is a good and important amendment and on these Benches we support it with all the strength that we can muster.
One important argument in favour of the amendment is that it gives people an incentive to pay. A large number of men want to support their children but they do not wish to pay more to relieve the Treasury or other taxpayers. If people who are asked to pay maintenance knew that their children would be better off as a result, there would be a much greater degree of compliance than there is at present.
If, as the Government presumably want, the Act is to survive at all, it is necessary to make people a great deal more willing to comply with it than they are now. It would make the women, many of whom are extremely poor, better off than they are now instead of having them, as they are as a result of the present operation of the 1991 Act, often worse off than if they remained on benefit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is quite right about the effect of passported benefits. I had hoped that, as we had in 1991, we might have an amendment to deal specifically with that problem. On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, divided the House upon the matter and I very much wish that he had been successful.
Of course, the provision of school meals is likely to affect the vast majority of people affected by this Act. If you have a large family and you lose free school meals, you are losing a very substantial part of your necessary weekly income. Therefore, many women who receive maintenance as a result of the implementation of the 1991 Act are worse off than they were when they received benefits.
Again, if we are to achieve the consent which the Act needs for its operation, it is necessary that somebody should be seen to benefit. If this amendment were agreed to and the disregard were to be made sufficiently large, we might perhaps be able to argue that some of the poverty among women had been relieved. On these Benches, we should very much welcome that.
The next important matter is that the amendment would make it easier for the women concerned to enter employment. I simply do not understand why the Minister thinks that it would act as a disincentive. One of the greatest difficulties if you are trying to get off benefit into employment, especially if you are a single mother in that position, is the costs created by returning to work. You need to pay fares. Certainly if you are living in or near London that is likely to be a substantial cost. You will need to arrange childcare, and we shall return to that later. But the initial costs of childcare, especially the costs before the first pay cheque comes in, can be a considerable handicap in returning to work.
1252
This amendment would play a small, modest part towards solving those problems. For that reason, we welcome it.
The effect might be similar to, for example, the jobseeker's grant and other measures announced in the last Budget. On these Benches, and I believe on the Opposition Benches generally, we welcomed those measures. It is in that same spirit that we propose the amendment.
We do not believe that the back-to-work bonus is a substitute and, frankly, it appears to us to be a gimmick. It does not do very much to help. Regular money coming in every week would do a great deal more.
The other matter which I believe is particularly important in relation to the amendment is that it would provide women with an incentive to co-operate with the Act. Miss Chant, giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, said that even women were not co-operating with the Act. I do not know why she was so surprised. That is what most of the rest of us expected. But if we want them to co-operate, we must give them an incentive. We must try to get back to the spirit of legislation which helps people to do what they want to do in any event. That greatly reduces the problems of enforcement.
Of course, if we were to give women a carrot to operate the Act, we should not need the stick. If there was a disregard, we could do without the objectionable benefit penalty which has caused a good deal of hardship and injustice and a great deal of administrative labour and general confusion. Therefore, if we lead people to act in their own interests instead of harrying, chasing, whipping and scorpioning them and so on, we should get on a great deal better. This amendment would do a great deal of good and we are happy to support it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not wish to say anything on the merits of the amendment but I should like to address a few words about the phrase with which the noble Baroness introduced it; namely, that she is in favour of the Child Support Agency. I can only say that if she is still in favour of it after its disasters, anomalies and administrative chaos—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I said that I was in favour of the principle of the Child Support Agency. I chose the word deliberately because I did not wish to be associated with the administrative chaos that has subsequently followed.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the principle of the Child Support Agency was that a jurisdiction that had belonged to the justices of the peace since they were set up in the 13th century was transferred to a government agency. That government agency was to apply a series of formulae which your Lordships will have an opportunity to examine on a later amendment. As I said, that has caused not only administrative chaos but also grave hardship, great injustice and such indignation that the postbags of Members of another place were even fuller in relation to that matter than they were in relation to the poll tax.

1253
If one can believe that the Child Support Agency is right in principle, that is the charm of fidelity to an idea rather than to experience. It is very natural that anyone who seems to have the gift of perennial youth should tend to be caught in a political time warp. I fear that that is what has happened to the noble Baroness. We are so much in her debt that we try to exculpate her and find a scapegoat. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has such a fund of good will, we tend to blame him. He should have told the noble Baroness that Sidney Webb is now dead. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Can he explain the exact connection between Sidney Webb and the maintenance disregard?
4 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I was taking up the very phrase with which the noble Baroness introduced the amendment and which should not go undisputed; namely, that one favours the Child Support Agency as against the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace. As I said, the justices of the peace were established in the Middle Ages. They took cognisance of the maintenance of children in the parish and of deserted women and enforced the obligation on what we now call the absent parent. They did so under common law until the end of the last century when their jurisdiction was codified in the 1895 Act. They were then to do what the Child Support Agency was supposed to do—to ensure that absent fathers maintained their children so far as was reasonable in all the circumstances. That is exactly what is claimed for the CSA and in respect of which it has woefully fallen down.
The justices of the peace—the magistrature—no doubt being human beings, could have been improved in their proceedings. Indeed, I know that the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have ideas which I share on how the system might be improved; that is, by the institution of a family court. That was powerfully argued, too, in 1991 by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. What he said on that occasion could well bear rereading, if I may make so bold with the noble Baroness.
In the Courts and Legal Services Act we welcomed a measure that your Lordships will remember—the specialist family county court. We welcomed it as a step towards a family court. The 1991 Act which is now under review, confirmed in that respect by this Act, was a notable step away. I was presuming to complain of the noble Baroness being caught in a time-warp in that no one had told her that Fabianism is not at the top of the agenda of her party at present; that a centralised bureaucratic state is no longer to be advertised; that the apparatchiks of the Soviet empire are not to be admired; and that that empire should no longer be regarded as the fatherland of the working class, or the monster at its head referred to affectionately as "Uncle Joe". All that is gone.
However, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was particularly to blame in not having drawn to the attention of the noble Baroness the fact that Clause
1254
4 has now been revised and that Clause 28 is now considered to be seven times more important. For those reasons, the Child Support Agency—a body of bureaucrats—has arrogated the jurisdiction that was being carried on by the body which is called "the great unpaid" and at great cost. What the noble Baroness said at the outset should not go entirely unchallenged, at least from these Benches.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, and with the leave of the House, I have one question for him. Does he consider that his attitude to the amendment—and, indeed to later amendments—will be regarded as attempting to wreck the Bill?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, if we could only come rapidly to Amendment No. 15 which deals with the appointment of a child support advisory committee and pass it, then nine-tenths of the remaining amendments on the Marshalled List could be withdrawn. That is the way to do the business this afternoon.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if we could only come rapidly to Amendment No. 47, I suspect that your Lordships might be a great deal happier. However, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the congratulations that he extended to my honourable friend Mr. Alistair Burt. I am grateful for what the noble Earl said about my honourable friend and I shall certainly pass those remarks on to him.
Both the amendments that we are discussing deal with the maintenance disregard in income support. In fact, this is the third time during the proceedings on the Bill that we have discussed the issue. It is clearly a subject which generates strong feeling on both sides of the House—or perhaps I should say on all sides.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, argued his case—and I shall not deal with it in any great detail because it goes quite a long way from the subject of the amendment—against the whole concept, preferring that such matters be returned to the court system which, clearly in his view, was markedly better. I have already explained to the House that the previous system had many inconsistencies in it. Indeed, the figure arrived at as maintenance through all those inconsistencies was often extremely low, partly because the Bench knew that the taxpayer would pick up the tabs in any case. Even when granted—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, was it ever as low as the one penny a week which the CSA managed in one case to leave to a divorced father?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that that question is terribly relevant. Indeed, that was part of one of the difficult administrative problems that we had. It is not a matter of the principles of the way that the system works. That ought not to be the case and I hope that it will not be the case in the future. I do not know whether the courts went as low as awarding one penny; indeed, I doubt whether they did. But the awards were certainly not very high and they certainly did not cover anything like the costs of the children. Moreover, in very many cases, even when they came to a conclusion, the courts did not have the

1255
mechanisms for ensuring that the money was paid. Perhaps the parents with care in those distant halcyon days when the courts had such responsibility would not join the noble and learned Lord in thinking that that was a sensible way to work. I see that the noble Earl wishes to intervene. I give way.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. However, as he introduced such a general point, perhaps I may ask him, before he again blames the courts for what was wrong in the old system, to think about the points made on Second Reading by his noble friend Lady Faithfull.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords, but I should point out that I did not introduce the subject; indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, introduced the more general debate. However, I have thought about that and I noted what my noble friend said. I believe that I indicated in Committee—although, if I did not, it is because it has arisen since—that I actually had occasion to discuss those days with someone who was in the post of looking after parents with care and trying to secure money from absent parents. I have to say that her recollection of the situation does not match that of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. In any case I suspect that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will never be persuaded by anyone, far less myself, as regards his view that lawyers and courts ought to be left to deal with absolutely everything and that they can be relied on to do it in a totally sensible way.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I apologise for again intervening in the noble Lord's speech, but are the courts not being left to deal with the maintenance of the mothers? If they can deal with the maintenance of the mothers, why can they not deal with the maintenance of the children? Is it not quite ludicrous to suppose that those two matters can be adjudicated upon differently?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, what the courts do now in the case of divorce—as the noble and learned Lord knows—as regards the relationship between the husband and wife is to attempt, as far as is humanly possible, to institute what I think is called a clean break. As I believe I have said on a number of occasions, there can never be a clean break from the children, and that is where the Child Support Agency comes in. As I indicated as I was about to leave this particular diversion, I doubt whether I shall ever be able to persuade the noble and learned Lord that any system would be an improvement on what the courts did or would do if they were granted the powers to look after these issues again.
I shall deal first of all with Amendment No. 13 as it is the key amendment which introduces the disregard. We have given considerable thought to the arguments put forward both here and in another place for a disregard. But despite the passionate and eloquent speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and others, we remain firmly of the view that a maintenance disregard in income support is not the best way of providing help for lone parents or other parents with
1256
care. In a speech in Committee which some noble Lords will remember as it covered much the same ground as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned in her speech today, she gave five reasons in favour of her proposal. While she has not enunciated them as five points this afternoon, I believe she has encompassed every one of them in her contribution. I wish to consider each of them separately.
The first point that the noble Baroness makes, and I have no doubt that she will return to it on a number of occasions during the day, is that lone parents and their children are poor. However, I should point out that we already spend—or taxpayers spend—something like £9 billion each year supporting lone parents. That is a considerable sum. Since 1979 poorer lone parents have seen a real increase in their income. It is also the case that since 1988 extra help, which is now worth over £1 billion a year, has been given to low income families, and of course that includes many lone parents. It is important to recognise the considerable amount of money which has already been spent on supporting lone parents and to ensure that any additional expenditure is effective. I believe that overall the child maintenance bonus will be of more real and lasting benefit to lone parents than would a disregard in income support.
The second point is the loss of passported benefits such as free school meals and free prescriptions for the parent with care when the payment of maintenance lifts her off income support. This implies that maintenance is somehow different from other sources of income which may also lift parents off income support benefits or indeed all benefits. We must remember that the financial provision for children is properly the responsibility of parents who can afford it and should not be passed on to the taxpayer through the benefit system. Parents with care lifted off income support may in any case be able to claim housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as help with NHS charges, on grounds of low income. They may also be eligible for family credit if they take up employment, and family credit rates include an element to cover the costs of school meals. I recognise that some parents with care will have to meet charges from which they have previously been exempt, but receipt of maintenance is in this respect no different from receipt of other forms of income.
I believe that the noble Baroness suggested that the £5 disregard would somehow compensate for the loss of passported benefits. I do not believe it would because, if the parent with care stays on income support, she receives the passported benefits regardless of whether there is a disregard. All a disregard does is to shift upwards by that amount the level of income at which the parent with care would be floated off income support. Once floated off, at whatever level of income she loses these passported benefits.
The third point made in her speech on a previous occasion by the noble Baroness was that a maintenance disregard would give an incentive to both the absent parent and the parent with care to co-operate in seeking and paying maintenance. I believe that point was also made by the noble Earl. I have previously made the point that I do not believe that a disregard will

1257
encourage absent parents who are reluctant payers to become committed payers. Many who refuse to pay take this line on the grounds of their fundamental objection to the child support system and not because maintenance is fully taken into account when assessing income support. As I said on 19th June, the regular receipt of maintenance can transform the lives of parents with care and their children by opening up opportunities for employment. This fact alone ought to be enough to convince absent parents that maintenance was of value to their children if they were genuinely looking to be convinced that they should pay. The claim that a disregard would encourage parents with care to co-operate is equally debatable. Reference was made in Committee to the possible collusion between parents with care and absent parents to avoid the effects of a reduced benefit direction.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The point about collusion has been made many times before. Is there a single piece of hard evidence to sustain it, and, if so, could we please hear it?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was in the midst of explaining that. I shall not produce hard evidence because I am simply speculating that it may happen. To the extent that this may happen, it is a risky route for the parent with care as she will have no means of ensuring that the absent parent will actually pay the money he offers each week. She will also be acting fraudulently if she fails to declare any maintenance received. The maintenance bonus, which forms part of this Bill, will give parents with care a real bonus when they begin work of 16 hours or more a week. Parents with care will come to realise that they are losing money if they collude in this way.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that the back-to-work bonus was a gimmick. He seemed to suggest that a £5 a week disregard would help the parent with care at the moment that that person decides to move into work from being out of work. I suggest to your Lordships that the back-to-work bonus that we are instituting in this case would build up over what I accept is quite a long period. Nevertheless it will build up and it will give the lady—it usually is a lady—a great deal more than £5 in the week or two in which she makes the leap from being out of work to being in work.
I would therefore suggest that it is not a gimmick but rather it is an important way to help a parent with care move from income support to being in work. I have said this in relation to the Jobseekers Bill as well as here. The parent with care will have various start-up costs associated with a return to work. It is for that reason that in this Bill and in the Jobseekers Bill we have instituted the back-to-work bonus, as we called it in the Jobseekers Bill, so that people will have something to use to cross that bridge. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis; and it is important that we try to find a way across that bridge. To be honest,I do not think that
1258
a £5 a week disregard is anything like a substitute for a back-to-work bonus which would be paid at the time the bridge is crossed.
The fourth point—it is a point which is often made and it has been made again today—is about greater equity between parents with care and absent parents in the context of the package introduced by this Bill and the changes to regulations which we introduced in April. As I said in my response at the time, a number of measures in the Bill benefit the parent with care, for example the departure scheme, the child maintenance bonus and the compensation for family credit and disability working allowance recipients. But the measures both in this Bill and in the changes to regulations which I introduced to your Lordships in April will remove the legitimate causes of concern of absent parents and should ensure that more of them co-operate in meeting their maintenance liability. That should ensure that more maintenance is paid more regularly to more children.
The noble Baroness referred to net costs of £85 million for the £5 per week disregard. I believe that she calculates that as the long-term costs of the disregard less the cost of the child maintenance bonus. We calculate that the long-term costs are £110 million. Whether one looks at it as reduced savings or increased costs, £85 million is a significant sum to spend on a disregard in income support, with all its disadvantages.
Both I and my colleagues in another place have said that we think that it is right that resources should be directed at easing the transition from income support into work. Furthermore, the long-run costs of disregard were calculated on the basis that that disregard would apply only to cases where maintenance was being paid. The amendment provides for disregard to apply to all maintenance due. I believe that that would be inappropriate since it cannot be right to disregard something that is not actually being paid; it would also further increase the cost to the taxpayer.
However, to respond to one of the points that was made, there is no assumption on our part that lone parents should be at work rather than at home. I fully accept that some parents with care will decide that it is appropriate to stay at home to care for their children, particularly when those children are young. It is for the parent with care to decide what is right for her. Surveys of lone parents show that most want to return to work, and the child maintenance bonus will help them to do so. A parent with care who builds up the bonus steadily over time, say from the time her child is a year old, will be entitled to the full £1,000 if she starts work when the child starts school.
The final point made by the noble Baroness was the need for extra help while the parent with care is on income support because many already work and incur child care costs. However, lone parents already benefit from a higher disregard of earnings within income support, getting a £15 disregard compared with the £5 given to others. That is given in recognition of the extra in-work costs, including child care in those cases where it is needed.

1259
As I said at the beginning, we have considered this issue seriously. I listened to and have considered the points made by your Lordships when we debated the matter at Committee stage. However, for the reasons that I have outlined, I remain of the view that this is not the best way to proceed.
As the noble Baroness explained, Amendment No. 2 is intended to ensure that parents with care who benefit from the disregard proposed by the amendment I have just discussed are protected from losing any of the benefit of that disregard as a result of a departure direction in favour of the absent parent. It is consequential on the major amendment, and my arguments are similar.
For all the reasons that I have put forward, I cannot accept that we should have a child maintenance disregard for this particular type of payment. I know that the noble Baroness feels strongly about the matter. It is not that I do not understand the argument, but I believe on balance that the position we have taken is the right one. If the noble Baroness decides to put the amendment to the test I invite my noble friends to support me.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first I should like to comment briefly on the contributions of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I appreciate that we disagree on the principle of the Child Support Agency, but I am happy that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who frequently shares the same view on such matters as I do, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, nonetheless support the amendment. The amendment would ensure that women with children—the parents with care—were no worse off because they received maintenance rather than income support pound for pound. It provides that no one should be worse off because they co-operate with the agency and replace their income support with maintenance. Without the amendment many women will be worse off as a result of co-operating with the agency. That is a fact.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, teased me, as to be fair he warned me he would, about Fabianism. He said that I was not aware that the age of Fabianism was dead. However, as George Bernard Shaw and the early Fabians argued, Fabianism was the application of reason to social problems. Is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, quite so sure that he wishes to dissociate himself from that? Does he really favour its opposite, irrationality?—and that from a very distinguished Law Lord.
As for the Government's view and the points made by the Minister, I rather feel that they have helped to reinforce my points for me, even if the Minister answered the speech made in Committee rather than on Report.
First, we argued then and now that lone parents are very poor. The Government did not deny that. Secondly, we argued that under the Bill those poor lone parents will be made poorer still because they will lose passported benefits. The Government did not deny that.
Thirdly, we argued that such a modest maintenance disregard would increase co-operation and consent to
1260
the Bill. The Government doubt that. However, it is the case that 18,000 mothers with care are refusing now to co-operate with the agency for apparently no good cause. We do not know the reason, but it is certainly not because of a fear of violence. Is the Minister so sure that some of those mothers with care would not now be co-operating with the agency if they were to receive a maintenance disregard? There is anecdotal evidence on our side. There is none on the Minister's side. Therefore, we have no reason not to believe that a modest disregard would ensure that more mothers and more fathers would willingly co-operate with this law. Surely none of us doubts that co-operation and consent are at the core of the CSA, as reformed, being effective in the years to come. Without them, it will not be effective.
Fourthly, the Minister referred to the back-to-work bonus which, as he said, is a maintenance disregard paid when the mother leaves her children to go back to work. The Minister said, perfectly reasonably, that that is a decision for the mother and the Government should not make the decision for her. She must judge when it is right, and it would be unreasonable for her to leave her children when they are very small. We agree. It is the mother's choice. Then why is it that the Government are loading the maintenance disregard to construct that choice so that the mother is given a bait—a carrot—to go back to work? If the Government were genuinely neutral about allowing a mother to make the best choice given the age of her family, she would have the choice of a maintenance disregard paid weekly or a maintenance disregard rolled up as a lump sum to be paid at the point when she returns to work.
The fact that the Government will not offer that choice between the two options means that they are loading it in favour of the mother with young children, who may be a year old or two-and-a-half years old. She is being persuaded and pressured by the Government, as a result of the back-to-work bonus, to leave them in the hands of someone else, often reluctantly, to go back to work. As the party of the family, and as the House of the family, we should not do that.
The Minister said that it was the mother's choice. What the Minister accepts and did not challenge at any point in his reply is that a mother with care receiving maintenance in place of income support will often be worse off. Is that what we want? Do we really want a mother with care to be worse off unless she is forced back into work by the back-to-work bonus? Is that fair? Is that reasonable? Is it even-handed? Is it wise social policy? I do not believe that it is, and I shall seek the opinion of the House on the matter.
4.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 151.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Avebury, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Judd, L.

Birk, B.

Kennet, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cross, V.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Monkswell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Donoughue, L.

Nelson, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Ogmore, L.

Eatwell, L.

Peston, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Ezra, L

Rea, L.

Falkender, B.

Redesdale, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B

Rochester, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Freyberg, L.

Scanlon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stedman, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Strafford, E.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hanworth, V.

Tope, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Tordoff, L.

Haskel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wharton, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

White, B.

Hooson, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Chesham, L.

Abinger, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Addison, V.

Cockfield, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Courtown, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cox, B.

Ampthill, L.

Craigavon, V.

Arran, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Astor of Hever, L.

Balfour, E.

Cranworth, L.

Barber, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Davidson, V.

Beloff, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Birdwood, L.

Denham, L.

Blatch, B.

Denman, L.

Bolton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Donegall, M.

Brentford, V.

Downshire, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Dudley, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Burnham, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Cadman, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Caldecote, V.

Elles, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Elton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Ferrers, E.

1262

Finsberg, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Flather, B.

Moyne, L.

Foley, L.

Munster, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Newall, L.

Gainford, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Norfolk, D.

Geddes, L.

Norrie, L.

Gisborough, L.

Northesk, E.

Goschen, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Gridley, L.

Onslow, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Orkney, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harrowby, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Pender, L.

Henley, L.

Perry of South wark, B.

Hogg, B.

Pike, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hooper, B.

Pym, L.

Hothfield, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Howe, E.

Rawlings, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renwick, L.

Inglewood, L.

Romney, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Salisbury, M.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kimball, L.

Sharpies, B.

Kingsland, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Knollys, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Knutsford, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Lane of Horsell, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Leigh, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Lindsay, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Suffield, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

Lucas, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Torphichen, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Waterford, M.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wedgwood, L.

Westbury, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Merrivale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Mersey, V.

Wise, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wolfson, L.

Milverton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wynford, L.

Mountevans, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert:
("() Where—

(a) as a result of a review of the current assessment, a fresh maintenance assessment is made which results in a reduction in the child support maintenance being paid to the person with care, and

(b) that person with care is in receipt of family credit

the amount of family credit shall immediately be re-calculated to take account of the reduction in child support maintenance.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I speak also to Amendment No. 46. The amendment refers to the issue of family credit. The income of many lone parents in low paid work will come from three quarters in future: their earnings; their

1263
maintenance; and their in-work benefit, family credit. There are 250,000 parents with care who are on family credit. However, unlike income support, family credit is calculated for six months at a time. There are perfectly sound advantages in that approach but in the context of child support there is one major disadvantage. I suspect that the Government recognise that it is a major disadvantage. I believe that we should, if we can, overcome it.
If family credit is fixed for six months at a time to top up the low pay plus maintenance to the prescribed figure and the maintenance falters or falls, then, because family credit is fixed for that period the sum will not rise to compensate for the loss of maintenance. Therefore the parent with care, struggling with small children, in low paid work, will find herself without the full family credit that she needs.
Why would family credit falter? Why would maintenance falter? For two obvious reasons. First, the absent father may fail to pay regularly because he seeks to avoid his responsibilities and, secondly, because his situation has changed. For example, he may have lost his job or taken a different job with lower pay and his maintenance contribution falls. But because the family credit is fixed for six months at a time, the woman may be stuck for five months on family credit which is lower than it should be because it was calculated when her maintenance was higher than it is. We believe that that is deeply unfair; hence this amendment which would uncouple family credit from maintenance payments. In other words, in addition to the woman's low earnings, she would receive family credit as in-work benefit. In the amendment we ask that the CSA should collect and keep from the absent father the maintenance to which the woman is entitled. The CSA would instead pay it all to her.
Thus, as with income support, the CSA would hand over the £15 disregard and keep 70 per cent. of the maintenance collected over and beyond the income support level. In an age of computers it would not be difficult to calibrate the family credit calculations. The proposal means that the CSA would pay the family credit plus maintenance jointly and assume that the maintenance remained constant at the figure first thought of when family credit was set. The CSA would then be responsible for collecting the maintenance from the father just as with income support arrangements. There would be no difference. That would protect the six month rule but would ensure that the parent with care was not penalised should maintenance falter. It need not be compulsory and provided that the Child Support Agency collects maintenance efficiently, the only cost would be administrative. If the agency does not collect efficiently, then it is not fair that the burden should fall on the parent rather than the CSA.
In such a situation, knowing that the additions to the woman's income are secure and in addition to her earnings from work, she can rely on a family credit and maintenance figure that remains unchanging. Provided the mother knows that, then, as the parent with care, she would try to remain in work. But without the amendment, should her maintenance falter and her
1264
family credit not float up to reflect it, the wise woman will leave work and go back onto income support to obtain a new adjustment of benefit. None of us would wish to see that, but it would be entirely sensible and rational for the woman.
I believe that the Government understand the problem because they have made adaptations to family credits following their own change in regulations so that the woman is not worse off. We are saying that the woman should not be worse off if the husband's circumstances change and, as a result, the family credit is frozen at an unrealistically low level for six months at a time. The amendment would take away the problem of the six months rule. It is sensible, not expensive and would make the Bill work better. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the basic case for the amendment is one which the noble Baroness and I both made in response to the regulations of February 1994. The case is a strong one. The Government's response to it in Clause 24 of the Bill, though better than nothing, is definitely not adequate. The amendment will make it a good deal better. We are happy to support it. I shall not gild the lily because the noble Baroness put practically all the arguments in favour of the amendment.
However, I ask the Minister one crucial question. Is it the purpose of the 1991 Act that the parent with care should benefit? If the answer is yes, then the Minister must accept the amendment. If the answer is no, then it would be a strong argument in favour of the repeal of the 1991 Act.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, these two amendments are both concerned with the way in which child maintenance is taken into account in awards of family credit. Amendment No. 3 is concerned with the fixed award period of 26 weeks. This is a very important feature of the family credit scheme because it ensures that the working family has a stable source of income for the 26 weeks. It works to the advantage of most families because increases in earnings during that period are not eroded by reductions in the benefit. The amendment would breach that fundamental feature of the scheme by providing for the family credit to be reassessed when the maintenance is reduced. But, of course, maintenance can go up or down. If the amendment were accepted, it would not be reasonable to take account only of reductions in maintenance without also taking account of increases of maintenance or where maintenance is awarded for the first time.
At present, persons with care gain the full advantage of new awards of maintenance or increases of maintenance until their family credit becomes due for renewal. There is no reason why maintenance should be treated any differently from any other income taken into account in the family credit assessment. It could be argued that any other income would be likely to increase or decrease. Changes in maintenance are part of the usual pattern of income which can increase or decrease throughout the award and do not warrant special provision.

1265
Furthermore, it is difficult to see quite how the amendment would work. Because compliance is not 100 per cent., family credit needs to be based on actual maintenance being paid rather than on the maintenance assessment itself. If the maintenance assessment reduces, it is likely to be several weeks before a clear pattern of compliance emerges. It would not therefore be feasible to provide for an immediate reassessment of the family credit.
Taking account of changes in circumstances turns a simple scheme, the family credit scheme, providing a guaranteed source of income, into a much more complicated scheme with the inherent problems of delays and mistakes. We have recognised that there is a particular problem when maintenance is reduced because of a change in the child support legislation. That is why we have included in Clause 24 of the Bill provision for compensation to be paid to parents with care in this situation. In fact, we have already, in advance of the Bill, paid compensation to parents with care whose maintenance assessment was reduced as a result of the changes in child support regulations which came into force in April.
Amendment No. 46 builds on a long-standing arrangement whereby a single payment is made to people on income support which represents the total of their maintenance and their income support. It seeks to extend that arrangement to family credit and disability working allowance. The amendment is complemented by Amendment No. 3 which provides for the review of an award of family credit or disability working allowance when maintenance is reduced.
This payment arrangement is entirely suitable for income support, and for income-based jobseeker's allowance when it is introduced, because income support is calculated according to the amount of income received each week and takes maintenance fully into account. If the amount of maintenance due to be paid in any week is not received, the benefit recipient is entitled to receive an equivalent extra amount of benefit. Making one payment for the total of maintenance and income support avoids the problems for both the claimant and the Benefits Agency which would arise from the need for a revised assessment to be made each time maintenance was not received.
But the basis on which family credit and disability working allowance are paid is completely different. Both benefits are awarded for fixed periods of 26 weeks and take account of the amount of income being received immediately before the claim rather than the amount received week by week. The benefits take no account of fluctuations in any income during the 26 weeks of the award period. Non-receipt of the amount of maintenance taken into account in calculating the award does not result in extra benefit being due, as it does in income support. We should be getting away from the basic principles of these benefits if we treated maintenance within family credit and disability working allowance in the same way as it is treated in income support. An important further difficulty arises from the fact that—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Can he explain his reasoning further? He said that we should not treat maintenance within family credit in the same way as we would treat it within income support. I believe that that was the sense of it. Can he say why not?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have explained that. I am surprised that the noble Baroness asks why. She knows that if income support is calculated at, to take an example, £50 a week it may represent income support of £30 and £20 maintenance. But that person in receipt of income support is still due £50 whether or not he or she is in receipt of maintenance. If the income support or the maintenance goes down, the person will still receive the £50.
The point of family credit is that it contains a £15 disregard. I shall come to why there is a significant difference between the two. As I tried to explain to the noble Baroness, with income support, maintenance is taken into account pound for pound against the benefit. But in family credit, the first £15 and at least 30 per cent. of the balance is disregarded. As a result, only the remaining balance can be provided for in any payment which represents the total maintenance taken into account, and indeed the benefit itself. For example, out of a maintenance payment of £20 a week, no more than £3.50 would be taken into account in the assessment and so be provided for in the benefit payment. If the payment is £20, a £15 disregard leaves £5; 70 per cent. of that is £3.50. It would simply not be possible to provide for the full payment of maintenance. To do so would mean the benefits system covering expenditure that was greater than the benefit entitlement. In comparing a person in receipt of family credit who has no maintenance with a person who receives maintenance, the noble Baroness asks us to take a road that could mean that if the maintenance were not paid the taxpayer would end up paying through family credit more than the person was entitled to, and more than was received by the next-door neighbour in the same circumstances except as regards maintenance.
Revising awards of family credit each—
Earl Russell: My Lords, it becomes important to ask the Minister whether he intends to answer my question: was it the purpose of the 1991 Act that the parent with care should benefit? If I do not receive an answer, I may find the Minister's silence eloquent.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl, with his clever question, knows jolly well that the answer is that it is to benefit the parent with care. Earlier, I pointed out how family credit works. The parent with care, already on family credit and beginning to receive maintenance income during the—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the Minister's pardon. He said just before my intervention that it was wrong for a woman receiving maintenance to be worse off than a woman not receiving maintenance. If the purpose of the maintenance payment is to benefit the woman, why?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, either the noble Earl misheard me or I did not make my point about the neighbour carefully enough. I attempted to

1267
draw a comparison between two people living side by side, one of whom had no cause to receive maintenance but whose circumstance of work and family was the same apart from not being in a position to receive maintenance—perhaps, for instance, because her husband was dead—and in receipt of family credit, and a woman living next door, for example, doing the same job, in receipt of the same income and the same family credit but also in receipt of maintenance. I was trying to explain that the amendment could result in a situation in which, if the absent parent ceased to pay maintenance, one woman would receive a family credit payment of something like £66.50 in the example I am using, whereas the other woman would receive only £50. That was the comparison I was trying to make; it was not a comparison between one parent with care receiving maintenance and another not receiving maintenance. I know that this is a complicated issue. I hope I have made my point clear.
The important point is that, looking at family credit as a help for all people on low incomes who take low-income jobs and have family responsibilities—taking the whole field and not just the narrow field of people receiving maintenance—the great merit, the principle, of family credit is that it runs for 26 weeks. If we start to break it down only on the plus side, as the noble Baroness wants to do, and one section is eligible for family credit, it becomes very difficult to argue against the woman whose income goes down at work during the 26 weeks; and it then becomes very difficult to argue against recalculating family credit if the maintenance goes up, or indeed, as I mentioned in my speech, if the maintenance starts during the 26-week period. There is huge merit in the 26-week period being fixed. Leaving aside all the problems that I mentioned in relation to the arithmetic of family credit, I do not believe that it would be sensible and wise to go down either road that I am invited down by the amendments. I am afraid that I cannot accept either.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister—at least I think I thank him—for that reply. We have now debated two amendments. The first related to the fact that, as a result of this Bill, parents with care out of work can be worse off. We tried to remedy that in the previous amendment with a maintenance disregard. Noble Lords overwhelmingly defeated that attempt and accepted that parents with care out of work can, and perhaps should, be worse off when their maintenance displaces their benefit. That was the last decision of this House.
Now we are dealing with a second amendment which relates to the fact that the parent with care who is in work and on family credit can also become worse off by receiving maintenance because of the six months rule. The Government rejected the first amendment. I had hoped that they might not reject the second.
I believe that the Government misrepresented the function of this amendment—whether as the result of an error of draftsmanship on our part, which I hope is not the case, though perhaps it may be, or because they misunderstood its purpose, I do not know. But it is not the case that with this amendment we argue that family
1268
credit should be constantly reassessed in the light of maintenance. That is not our argument because we do not want in any way to impugn the principle of the 26-week rule. We are trying to uncouple family credit from maintenance arrangements. In other words, we are making use of the fact that the CSA could be a collection agency for family credit and maintenance, as it is for income support and maintenance. Just as, if maintenance falters, income support goes up, there is no reason, since the CSA is a collection agency, why, if maintenance falters, family credit should not go up.
The Minister says that that can also apply to earnings—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in the example I tried to give, I suggested to the noble Baroness that the payment could actually exceed what a person was due under family credit. So the noble Baroness asks us to go a great deal further than she tries to make out in her speech.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure the Minister would not want me to toss back at him the phrase that he often uses to me; namely, that if he could contain himself for just a moment I shall be very happy to come to that point. The Minister will perhaps forgive me; it was irresistible, and I promise not to say it again.
This amendment would uncouple family credit from payment of maintenance. The Minister made the point that if family credit were to float up and down according to maintenance, it might equally apply to earnings. That is not so. We accept that family credit is an in-work benefit associated with earnings level. The difference here is that maintenance is meant by government to displace family credit pound for pound, once the disregard and the 70 per cent./30 per cent. taper are taken into account. That is why it is in a different category from that suggested by the Minister.
The technical issues of the £15 disregard, the 30 per cent. balance, and even the fact that someone might appear to he paying more are all mechanical matters. It is perfectly possible to write into the programme that no one should receive more under this arrangement than they would if they received no maintenance whatever. That is perfectly easy to put into any such programme. It is a mechanical and technical matter which can easily be overcome.
The fact remains that, as it stands, if a woman goes on to family credit, goes back to work, receives maintenance and that maintenance falters, her family credit does not float up to compensate; she is worse off. At present she would be wise to do what neither the Minister nor we would want her to do; namely, to leave work, go back on to income support, float up the calculation and start afresh. If she did that, she would be financially very sensible. As the Bill is now structured, she would have a perverse incentive to leave work in the hope of—I give way to the Minister.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness is very keen on the perverse incentives. All these systems have their difficulties at the margins. But does she agree with me that, if a woman comes in the second half of the 26 weeks and has a job, it would be puzzling and perverse of her if she were to leave

1269
work because of the problem illustrated by the noble Baroness. Just a few weeks later there would be a total recalculation on her new income which would last for the next 26 weeks and—dare I say it?—during that period her maintenance would backup and she would receive the benefit of that without her family credit being reduced.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister is entirely right. If she is towards the end of her family credit period and her maintenance is falling, she may very well make a rational calculation that she should stay where she is because the situation would improve for four weeks' time—but not, if it were to improve for five months. Nor, if she has the offer of a job and she cannot guarantee the flow of her maintenance or that family credit will sustain her if her maintenance were to drop in the future, can one expect her to go into work with the same confidence. She would not have the same surety of income that she has on income support.
The Government have structured the Bill so that family credit is fixed, even though maintenance may falter, whereas under income support, if maintenance falters, income support picks up the stress. For a woman with only marginal advantages from going into work—given childcare costs and that the work is part-time, say, 16 or 17 hours or so, so that she is over the income support threshold—that degree of irregularity of income, if that has been her experience, will deter her from going back to work.
It would not be difficult for the Government to ensure that the woman can rely on a combination of maintenance plus family credit, if they accept the amendment and the two are uncoupled in the way proposed. It would not threaten the six-month rule but would give her the surety of income to which she is surely entitled. I feel very strongly about this matter. In fairness to women who will be very vulnerable under a 26-week rule, if the Government do not accept this amendment, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
5.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dubs, L.

Avebury, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Foot, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Butterfield, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gregson, L.

Carter, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

David, B.

Haskel, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Donoughue, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

1270

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ogmore, L.

Jeger, B.

Rea, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Redesdale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Judd, L.

Rochester, L.

Kennet, L.

Russell, E.[Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Seear, B.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Tope, L.

Molloy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Monkswell, L.

White, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Goschen, V.

Abinger, L.

Gridley, L.

Addison, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hardwicke, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Arran, E.

Harrowby, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Henley, L.

Balfour, E.

Hogg, B.

Barber, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hooper, B.

Birdwood, L.

Hothfield, L.

Blaker, L.

Howe, E.

Blatch, B.

Inglewood, L.

Blyth, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Killearn, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Kimball, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Knutsford, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Burnham, L.

Leigh, L.

Cadman, L.

Lindsay, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Long, V.[Teller.]

Chelmsford, V.

Lucas, L.

Chesham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cranworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mersey, V.

Daventry, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Davidson, V.

Milverton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Denham, L.

Munster, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mutton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Newall, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Donegall, M.

Norfolk, D.

Downshire, M.

Norrie, L.

Dudley, E.

Northesk, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Onslow, E.

Elles, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orkney, E.

Elton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Finsberg, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Flather, B.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gainford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rathcavan, L.

Geddes, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gisborough, L.

Rees, L.

1271

Renton, L.

Swansea, L.

Renwick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Romney, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L

St. Albans, Bp.

Torphichen, L.

Salisbury, M.

Torrington, V.

Seccombe, B.

Wedgwood, L.

Sharples, B.

Westbury, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Windlesham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wise, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wolfson, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Suffield, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 4 [Determination of applications]:
5.10 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 32, at end insert:
("() Where the chairman of a child support appeal tribunal directs that documents are to be produced to the tribunal by any person concerned with a departure application he shall have the same powers to enforce that direction as a district judge in a county court would have were he dealing with the application.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with a matter which has been drawn to our attention by the Law Society regarding the production of documents at the child support appeal tribunal. It was discussed in Committee in the other place. The Minister there, Mr. Burt, was interested in the amendment. However, nothing has happened since and so this amendment is a genuine probe to hear what the Government's views are.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the chairmen of child support appeal tribunals have the same powers to enforce directions that documents should be produced as a court would have. Failure to make provision for this will mean that tribunals may be unable adequately to deal with appeals because they cannot ensure that full documentation is produced to them. There have been some concerns about the way in which the child support appeal tribunals are operating. That is relevant to the amendment.
We are advised that they already have a substantial backlog of work in dealing with appeals which have already been lodged. Legal aid is not available to individuals appearing before the tribunals. That impedes individuals' ability to put their cases forward. In Committee we discussed the fact that the chairmen of the appeal tribunals are legally qualified but they are by no means all family lawyers and they may therefore lack an understanding of how an award of child support maintenance relates to other financial provision made on divorce or separation. As we know, the lay members of tribunals are, by definition, not legally qualified and their experience of family law as a whole is likely to be limited. The tribunal system also fails to provide continuity between sittings. We are advised that the Law Society fears that the effect of those factors will be an unpredictable exercise of discretion, even though that discretion will be circumscribed.
When the matter was debated in Committee in another place the Minister, Mr. Burt, said:
"I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment on the basis that I shall give the matter active consideration. He has raised an issue and, after discussion with officials, I am not sure about it. I need to talk to the independent tribunal service and, possibly, to the Lord Chancellor's Department about the full implications of the amendment. We may return with an amendment confined to the production of necessary documents without extending the powers too far".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 30/3/95; col. 71.]
I think I am correct in saying that we have heard no more. If would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what the Government's view on this matter is. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has explained, this amendment seeks to give new powers to the child support appeal tribunal chairman to enforce any direction he may make concerning the production of documents in relation to a departure application. The amendment proposes that he should have the same powers as a district judge would have in a county court.
Your Lordships will have noticed that the amendment seeks to give these new powers only to tribunals hearing applications for departures. However, if I listened to the noble Lord correctly, that is unintentional and he is probing me about any child support tribunal. On that basis, I shall try to explain what the position is and why, when my honourable friend Mr. Alistair Burt looked at this, he was persuaded that he did not need to take any further steps. In order to do that it may be helpful if I explain that the powers of a district judge in a county court broadly allow him to strike out pleadings, to dismiss an action altogether or to commit the offending party—that is, send him to prison for a short period for contempt of court.
For the purposes of comparison I should explain that a tribunal chairman may by summons, or in Scotland by citation, require any person to attend as a witness at a hearing and to answer any question or to produce any documents requested at the hearing. Where a tribunal chairman directs someone to produce documents and that direction is not complied with, it is possible under the present rules of the High Court to obtain a subpoena in aid of an inferior tribunal. If the person still does not comply he may be held in contempt of the High Court and committed to prison. That course is currently available but, clearly, it is not an attractive option. Imprisonment would really serve no useful purpose. I do not believe it is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in proposing the amendment to be so extreme as to allow for the imprisonment of an uncooperative parent in these circumstances. But that, ultimately, would be the effect of the amendment.
The powers given to the Secretary of State under Section 15 of the 1991 Act can, and will, be used to obtain information for a tribunal if required. These powers, as your Lordships are well aware, are substantial and should mean that any information which is being withheld from a tribunal can be obtained. Anyone who continues to obstruct an inspector intentionally or who refuses to comply with requests for documentation can be taken to the magistrates' court

1273
and, on conviction, may be fined up to a maximum of £1,000. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a considerable deterrent and in the circumstances more appropriate than imprisonment.
I should also explain that the provisions in the new Schedule 4A, as introduced by Schedule 1 to the Bill, enable both the Secretary of State and a child support appeal tribunal to decide an application on the basis of the evidence before them where information is not forthcoming. There is therefore no question of an application being left in mid air, so to speak—a decision one way or the other can always be made. Someone refusing to give documents to a tribunal cannot stop the tribunal coming to a decision.
We believe that there are adequate powers available to enable information to be obtained in connection with departure applications and that the proposed new powers are unnecessary. With that explanation of how the system will work, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. The intention of the amendment was to get the Government's views on record. I am not sure about the amendment being extremist It was the extremists of the Law Society who actually drafted the amendment. They were anxious to probe the point. The Minister has given a satisfactory answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Departure directions]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, leave out lines 36 to 43.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10. This is a consequential and interrelated group of amendments which is put down with both drafting and policy intentions. Amendment No. 7 deals with a Humpty-Dumpty clause—that special expenses are whatever the Minister says are special expenses. Amendment No. 5 deals with what I think I might christen a Cambises clause. Cambises, King of Persia, had a law saying that he might do whatever he liked. Clause 6(3), to which it refers, says that the Secretary of State may lay down by regulations any factors which are to be taken into account in departure directions or any factors which are not to be taken into account. It really does say that he can do whatever he likes.
With the amendment I should like to consider Amendment No. 10, which is replaced by the draft of my Amendment No. 8, which is what I might call a matron's clause—any child of a prescribed kind. I am becoming a little tired of these unsatisfactory prescriptions. But it is not only concerned with the drafting. It is also concerned to lay down some clear policy grounds to govern the drafting of departures under the Bill.
The Secretary of State believes that he can lay down the grounds of departure in detail, piecemeal, and by regulation. That will prevent any parliamentary control of the grounds for departure and will stop any attempt
1274
to amend them. Since the grounds for departure are the heart of the Bill, that will prevent us from exercising our revising functions where they are most likely to be needed.
Following the principles of the Renton report, we do not attempt to enshrine all the grounds of departure in primary legislation in a sort of exhaustive list. We recognise that there is a need for flexibility, but what we argue is that regulation is the wrong way to exercise that flexibility. It is, of course, of the essence of the case for the system of departures which is now being introduced that it is designed to deal with unforeseen cases, for which the 1991 Act did not provide and where the formula failed to work equitably in a particular case.
But it is of the essence of the Secretary of State's regulation-based approach that it cannot, by definition, provide for the unforeseen: it can only allow for departure in cases the Secretary of State has foreseen, before they happen. Therefore, the approach must always involve injustice the first time any unforeseen problem comes up. Since Secretaries of State are not equipped with a crystal ball, any more than that enjoyed by the rest of us, such cases will be frequent. There will be no way of dealing with the child support equivalent of the man who was condemned for an incestuous marriage because he had married his deceased wife's sister's niece by the father and not the mother. It took the discretionary power of the prerogative of mercy to deal with that. No regulation could possibly have foreseen it. The Secretary of State, even with the flexibility of a contortionist, cannot lock the stable door unless the horse is already stolen.
In fact, the attempt to deal with extraordinary cases by total enumeration is necessarily doomed to failure. It is that approach which explains why, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has pointed out, the number of pages of regulations each year increases so alarmingly. But that is a labour of Sisyphus: it will never achieve its objective.
The only way to provide a discretion for extraordinary cases in which the formula does injustice, which is what the Government wish to do, is to adopt the principles of the Renton report: to lay down a series of general principles and to leave it to a court or a tribunal to decide whether the individual unforeseen case is covered by the principles.
In this case, unless the Secretary of State wishes otherwise, the task will presumably fall to a child support appeal tribunal. That means that the Secretary of State must make the painful sacrifice, at some stage, of losing control of the evolution of his legislation. He may find that distasteful, but the parents of laws, like the parents of children, must accept that in the end they acquire a life of their own. That is inevitable. So that is why Amendment No. 8, which is the key amendment, attempts to lay down general principles. I do not know whether they are the ideal general principles; I am not wedded to every detail of them.
If the approach is accepted, but the detail is not, I shall be very happy to engage in discussions between now and Third Reading about how it could be made more acceptable. Paragraph (2) (a) of the amendment lays down, first, a mandatory series of general principles

1275
for which the Secretary of State shall give a departure direction. The Minister will no doubt object that these have the effect of lowering the priority given to child maintenance. If he does that, we shall join issue with him.
The Government were right, in 1991, that the priority given to child maintenance needed to be increased, but they are not right in arguing, as they did in Committee, that child maintenance needs to be given priority over all other expenses whatsoever. That is an obsessive view and simply not in the real world. The protection it purports to give—and I say "purports" advisedly—to children subject to the 1991 Act is one which children of two married parents, living in ordinary conditions, have never enjoyed and never will enjoy.
The first category in the amendment covers expenses on which it would be unlawful for the absent parent to default. I find it very hard to see how a government committed to the rule of law could oppose such a provision; and if they do oppose it, they contribute to an erosion of respect for the law. That is a matter on which governments of all complexions must set a good example. To be told that we are bound by law to break the law, tends to invite the famous response that "the law is an ass". I would not wish to be a party to using this Bill to do that.
The second category in the first part of Amendment No. 8, covers expenses the absent parent could not cease to meet while remaining in employment. If the Government really want to increase child maintenance they must accept that if fathers cannot work they cannot pay maintenance, and therefore anything which prevents the absent parent from working defeats the object of the exercise and, incidentally, it is against the interests of the taxpayer because it reduces the number of taxpayers and therefore increases the burden on those remaining.
The third general principle, which to me is a basic part of the equity of child upbringing, is that all the children of one person should have an equal call on him. The Act should not lay down any standing division between Cinderella and the ugly sisters; such divisions do have a reputation for being self-reversing. In fact, the proviso that I have added gives that principle a paramountcy over the others. Children who are the subject of an assessment under the Act may not be left worse off by the effect of departures than other children whom it is the absent parent's duty to maintain. That may possibly assure the Minister that maintenance under the Act will not be allowed to slip too far down the list of priorities. It puts a brake on the operation of this amendment.
The amendment deliberately uses the general principle,
"other children whom it is his duty to maintain"
rather than the matronly phrase,
"other children of a prescribed kind"
which is now made unnecessary. There is no need to wander through a burgeoning maze of regulations, enumerating stepchildren, stepchildren-in-law, adopted children, orphan children taken on, and all the rest. Some are bound to be missed out. The question of whether it is a person's duty to maintain a child is
1276
precise enough: it is legally verifiable. It does allow for all the other cases, like the child of the next-door neighbour whose parents are killed in a car crash. The child is taken on so that someone shall look after it. If we discourage people from doing that sort of thing, we diminish ourselves as a society and put a burden on the taxpayer, for which there is no need.
Paragraph (3) of the amendment, on the other hand, is permissive rather than mandatory, and reads:
"The Secretary of State may give a departure direction [if it appears to him] unreasonable, impossible or against the public interest, to require [an absent parent] to withdraw"
from a particular expense.
There is one case to which I would like that to apply, which I have found many times in my postbag. I refer to people who are maintaining their aged parents, often keeping them out of the clutches of care in the community by doing so. It is not in the taxpayers' interests to stop them doing that. I shall not go on enumerating cases. It is of the essence of Paragraph (3) of Amendment No. 8 that, by giving the Secretary of State a discretion bound by a firm general principle, it obviates the need for regulations. It saves the need for the telephone-directory style of legislation and it gives us something which might just work, unlike the Bill as we have it. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I support this amendment for the reasons given by the noble Earl, which need no expatiation. I only add this and I do it at the risk of annoying equally the noble Baroness and the Minister, which would be a formidable combination to antagonise. I merely emphasise that the considerations which are set out in Amendment No. 8, upon which the noble Earl enlarged, would be just the sort of considerations that a magistrates' court would have weighed. Such courts would also no doubt weigh the objections which the Minister may be about to urge and, with the infinitely different circumstances between one case and another, they would have made an order which would be far more satisfactory than anything thrown up by the formula. I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me for saying that, in the circumstances, this is second best, but, given the circumstances, it is something that we should adopt.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, these amendments concern provisions in Clause 6 and in the new Schedule 4B as introduced by Schedule 2. All of the amendments remove the right to make regulations, which I do not suppose will surprise those of your Lordships who have been with us during our deliberations on three or four of the Bills with which we have dealt this Session.
Amendment No. 5, which seeks to amend Clause 6, will be familiar to those of your Lordships who attended our debates in Committee. It concerns the power to make regulations to clarify those factors which should or should not be taken into account in considering whether it would be just and equitable to give a departure direction, and it provoked a lively discussion about the need to afford Parliament the opportunity to

1277
consider both the general principle behind, and the detail of, any legislation before it. The remaining amendments deal with special expenses which may be cited as grounds for an application for a departure direction. It is appropriate to take them together, but I shall speak first to Amendment No. 5.
I have already mentioned that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, expressed concern at Committee stage that the use of delegated powers in effect made it impossible for Parliament to have any input. I do not accept that—and I hope I can reassure your Lordships on that point. As I explained during the earlier discussion, the purpose of the regulations which will be made under the delegated powers in the new Section 28F, as introduced by Clause 6 of the Bill, is to prescribe particular factors which ought or ought not to be taken into account during the consideration of whether it would be just and equitable to all concerned to give a departure direction. For example, we do not intend that the question of who left whom, and in particular any apportioning of blame, should colour the judgment of the officer who is considering the departure. We may well, therefore, introduce regulations to provide that no regard should be had to the circumstances of the parents' separation.
Perhaps I may offer your Lordships a further example. We may prescribe that regard should be had to the level of any previous court order in deciding whether to give a departure direction. If the departure would reduce the maintenance payable to an amount less than the court order, it is right to ask whether that is fair.
Your Lordships may have noticed that the effect of this amendment, which does not remove the preceding paragraph of the clause, would be to focus the consideration of what was just and equitable exclusively on the financial circumstances of the absent parent and the person with care and the welfare of any child likely to be affected by the direction. For the reasons I have explained, we believe this is to give it too narrow a consideration. There is a need to specify other factors, and setting those down in regulations provides the necessary flexibility to add to or adjust them in the light of experience.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is always asking me about the need for regulations and about how they will be dealt with. These regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure and so will be debated by Parliament before they come into effect. Setting down specific factors in legislation will guide decision-makers at all levels. Not only staff acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, but also child support appeal tribunals, will apply the regulations in reaching a determination. That would not be the case if, for example, the factors to be taken into account were simply set down in guidance, which would be guidance only for staff acting on behalf of the Secretary of State.
We do not intend that any regulations will be overly restrictive or will constrain the decision-maker's ability to exercise proper discretion. Certainly they will not attempt to give comprehensive guidance as to the correct course of action in any particular case or set of circumstances, but it will be right in some cases to provide clear guidance on what should or should not be relevant to a decision.
1278
The next amendment, Amendment No. 7, which was also discussed in Committee, would make it possible for an application for a departure application to be made by any absent parent who had an expense not taken into account in the formula assessment. Your Lordships will be aware that the departure system is intended to allow for some flexibility in the small number of cases where the application of the maintenance formula causes genuine difficulty. But we must be able to prescribe the circumstances in which a departure can be requested; otherwise we risk a return to a totally discretionary system where it would be possible to place virtually any expense before the duty to support one's own child.
During the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, there was considerable discussion of the categories of expenses which should be included in the list and my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security gave an undertaking that we would be keeping the list of special expenses under review and would make adjustments if that proved necessary in the light of the piloting exercise. I am happy to reiterate that before your Lordships.
As I have already said in relation to the previous amendment, any regulations made under these delegated powers will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will be brought before Parliament for further consideration. Because the particular grounds will be set out in regulations, we shall be able (with the consent of Parliament) to fine-tune the system once it is up and running, should practical experience suggest that that is necessary.
I turn now to Amendment No. 8 which not only removes the power to make regulations but also substitutes a new sub-paragraph (2). I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the new sub-paragraph appears to relate only to absent parents' circumstances. It is the Government's clear intention that both the absent parent and the person with care should have equal access to the departures scheme, provided of course that their circumstances were appropriate, and this amendment would cut across that. It would result in a very unequal scheme which would favour the absent parent and reduce maintenance payments by allowing the absent parent to place any of his other expenses above his children's needs.
I also find it strange that the amendment requires the Secretary of State to make a departure direction in respect of the full amount of certain expenses. This approach seems at odds with the whole concept of the new system of departures which is designed to permit people's detailed circumstances to be taken into account and to allow the position of both parties to be weighed carefully. The upshot might well be that some, rather than all, of an expense might be allowed. The noble Earl himself has railed against the rigidity of the formula, but when flexibility is offered (as it is here) he chooses to hem it in with restrictive provisions.
We spoke about these amendments at considerable length in Committee, and although I am happy to rehearse all those arguments again, perhaps I may concentrate on one or two of them. In doing so, I turn to Amendment No. 10. The noble Earl has explained that his main purpose in tabling this amendment once

1279
again is to prevent the Government taking delegated powers to provide for the detail of this ground for a departure from the formula in regulations. I hope that once I have explained the reason for this provision and why it contains a power to make regulations, the noble Earl will recognise that the provision is intended to widen the scope of the departure scheme and that the regulation-making power is necessary in order to prevent the Bill becoming cluttered with detail.
This amendment relates to the provision for special expenses departures, in this case on the grounds of previously incurred debts. As your Lordships will be aware, debts incurred during the former relationship between the parents which are the responsibility of one of the parents will be one of the grounds for a departure from the formula. A departure will be considered where the debt was incurred while the absent parent was still living with the parent with care and the child to whom the assessment relates and the debt was incurred for certain specified purposes.
The principal situation we have in mind is where debts were incurred for the benefit of a child who was a dependant at the time but is no longer dependent. Such a child is not included in the current assessment and, without this provision, debts incurred on his or her behalf would not be eligible for consideration. However, we recognise that there may be a number of further situations where we would want to provide for a departure direction to be given, and those would be too complex to detail in primary legislation, which is why the provision contains a power to make regulations.
There may, for example, be situations where we might want to provide for a departure in certain circumstances where debts were incurred in respect of step-children. As step-children are not allowed for in the maintenance assessment, except by virtue of a departure direction, this amendment would exclude debts incurred for their benefit. I doubt very much whether the noble Earl would like that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the Minister will forgive me, I do not believe that he has read subsection (2) (b) of Amendment No. 8 which gives the Secretary of State full discretion to deal with such things if he wishes, which I presume he will.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I hear what the noble Earl says, but I believe that the point that I am making about these debts is the proper one. If we leave the Bill as it is and do not make the amendments, those situations can be taken into account. I do not see the need—if I understand what the noble Earl is saying—to take out a lot and then, so to speak, put back a little, because the provision which the noble Earl seeks to amend, together with its delegated power, is one that seeks to widen rather than narrow the scope for departures on the grounds of previously incurred debts, and secondary legislation is essential because of the many different circumstances that can arise.
I have spoken at some considerable length, for which I apologise. But these amendments raised some important issues and I hope I have explained the Government's position fully. I hope that the noble Earl
1280
can withdraw the amendment, but I know from our debate today, and the longer debate we had in Committee, that he feels strongly about these matters. If he decides to put one or other, or all, of the amendments to the test, I hope that my noble friends will support me.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the care of his reply. It was thorough and full. I cannot say that I found it persuasive. I do not think the Minister expected that I would. He is of course right, but I was led into this issue by the effect of regulations in restricting the power of this House. I have realised, as I thought more about it, that that is an entirely inadequate expression of the criticisms of the regulation-making way of legislation. That is since a re-reading of the Renton Report on the night before the Committee stage of the Jobseekers Bill, because I now see that the regulation-making way of legislation is intended not only to restrict Parliament, or even necessarily primarily to restrict Parliament; it is intended also to restrict the sphere of decision which is left to the courts. That is perhaps the most important thing about it and the most important reason why we should deplore it.
Let us listen to the language that the Minister has just been using. He said "We" may prescribe, or "We" do not intend. The entire assumption is that his will is law; that he is operating a civilian system—he can make the law mean whatever he likes. I do not believe that the Minister has yet understood the criticism developed ably—far more ably than I could ever do it—in the Renton Report that the draftsman cannot foresee all circumstances.
It is no use listing all these circumstances in regulations. You are bound to get it wrong. You must lay down a principle and lose control of the crucial stage. Give it up. Let the legislation grow up and let the courts decide what it means. If you cannot do that, then the law has never fully been accepted. It has not been left to go through that process of evolution and growth which any law ought to do on its own account.
The Minister was most resistant to dealing with any expense which was not foreseen. He knows that he will do injustice by that. There will be expenses which were not foreseen and which ought to have been foreseen. He says, "If we allow any unforeseen expense, we may return to the discretionary system". It makes the 1991 Act sound so vulnerable. This is one of those creatures that cannot abide the light of day. It is a Bill that cannot abide evidence; that cannot be brought into contact with real cases. I do not believe that that is the mark of good legislation. If it does bring the Bill into line with real cases, is not that a good thing rather than a bad thing? If it is designed to fit the real world, and not just to assert one single and lonely principle, is not that an improvement?
But the Minister did make one single criticism in which I see force. He said that the amendment dealt only with departures for the absent parent and not for the parent with care. He is right about that. Before I push the amendment to a Division, I should put that right. Therefore, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 29, at end insert (", and
(c) of the consideration which has taken place under section 2 as to the welfare of any child likely to be affected by his decision").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 16, 20 and 32 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. With this group of amendments we return to the crucial question of the welfare of the child. I do not intend to repeat the whole of the debate we had in Committee, but we felt the issue was important, and we are not satisfied with the answer that the Minister gave in Committee. It is an important point to which we should return to see whether we can press the Government to go a little further than they seem prepared to in Committee.
All the amendments deal with the welfare of the child. It is a concept with which all of us involved with the 1991 Act are familiar. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the parties are notified about the ways in which the welfare of any children involved is being considered when departure directions are being formed. We are trying to stop the business of an official just having to go through the motions as regards the child's welfare and to try to sharpen up the whole concept.
I pointed out in Committee, as did the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that when we were dealing with the 1991 Bill we moved successive amendments at each stage—in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading—to try to meet the points that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made in relation to the welfare of the child. We accepted his assurance that if he accepted our amendment on Third Reading it would be changed in another place. It duly was, and the provision became Section 2 of the 1991 Act.
As we know, under that section the welfare of any children has to be taken into consideration when discretionary decisions are made. I underline that it is the "welfare of any children", but only when the people concerned are involved in discretionary decisions. In this case, the amendment deals with those affected by departure directions.
What aroused our concern—I do not apologise for returning to the point which was made in Committee—were the remarks of the counsel representing the Secretary of State for Social Security in the Biggin case who said:
"As long as the agency notices welfare in passing it cannot be challenged on the ground that it did not attach sufficient weight to it. Welfare is not a paramount or even particularly significant consideration".
Perhaps I may examine those words and consider the assurances that we were given in our discussions on the 1991 Act. Counsel, who was presumably advising and representing the Government in the Biggin case, said that provided the agency notices welfare in passing it cannot be challenged that it did not attach sufficient weight to it. As I pointed out previously, he said that welfare is not even a particularly significant consideration.
For all those reasons, we must ask the Minister to spell out in greater detail the way in which he believes that officials, when considering such matters at tribunals
1282
and so forth, will meet the requirements of the 1991 Act and assure everyone that they are taking the welfare of the children into account. Reference was made to guidance notes and to a code of practice. It is extraordinary that the code of practice is not already in place on this issue which has been on the statute book since 1991.
We are advised that in practice the welfare of the children is not taken into account. It appears that officials are working on the basis of the wording which counsel gave in the Biggin case rather than the requirements of the 1991 Act. For those reasons, we are anxious to ensure that the welfare of the children, which I am sure we all agree is most important, is taken into account. I am deliberately avoiding the word "paramount" because I understand the legal problems that arise. We want the Government to explain exactly how it is proposed that the welfare of the children should be taken into account.
I do not intend to speak in detail on the amendments in the group tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am sure that he will do that most adequately. However, perhaps I may ask him to explain a matter which arises in Amendment No. 20. Subsection (2) of the new clause states:
"in this section 'ordinary circumstances' include any circumstances which are not extraordinary or amazing".
We have heard many remarks—perhaps I dare say lectures—from the noble Earl about the need for accurate definitions. Perhaps he will give examples of circumstances which are extraordinary or amazing. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in supporting the amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 to 20 and 32. I believe that they are a great deal stronger than the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. When we discussed the matter in Committee the Minister did not seem to think there was much of a problem. He assured me most earnestly that the welfare of the child was taken into account. Perhaps it is, but I do not see exactly what changes because of it.
In Committee I quoted to him a good deal of information about cases which are being heard in court. I am told that more information is on its way to me and he may hear more of that on Third Reading. I wish to draw his attention to the recent report by the Children's Society, Losing Support. It draws attention to the effect that the Act is having on the welfare of the child. It states:
"Many of the lone mothers criticise the negative impact of the legislation both on the relationships between former partners of first families and on second families. The lone mothers contrasted these actual effects of government policies with the rhetoric of family values and back-to-basics which were current at the time these interviews were carried out. They did think it was causing a great deal of difficulty in keeping up contact between the first and second families".
Of course, the requirement to take account of the welfare of the child, if it is to be of any force, must bite on more than just the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State. Speaking as a taxpayer, and I stress that, I do not want to impose maintenance which is contrary to the welfare of the child. It is not the kind of thing from which I want to benefit.

1283
Amendment No. 32—which is placed, as the Minister advised me in Committee, in Section 52 of the 1991 Act—makes the welfare of the child bite on the regulation-making powers so that the Secretary of State shall not make regulations which are contrary to the welfare of the child. There is a very strong case for some action on that front. When we discussed the matter in 1991 we believed that the amendment, which I recollect was tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, but to which we all spoke—
Lord Carter: My Lords, it was tabled in my noble friend's name in Committee but I took it on for Report and Third Reading.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon and I congratulate him on it. We thought that it would make more difference to the welfare of the child than in the event has been the case. We thought that the child would be the better for it. Unless there is power to vary the assessment because it is acting against the welfare of the child that section is nugatory. It was not our belief when we passed the provision in 1991 that it was as nugatory as it has turned out to be. I believe that it needs strengthening.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, surprised me by speaking for a shorter time than I anticipated and certainly for a shorter time than he spoke in Committee. I hope that that augurs well for the rest of the evening and that he has decided to make shorter speeches.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, propose in their amendments to make all the decisions in relation to child support subject to the welfare of any child concerned and not just discretionary decisions. Of course, discretionary decisions are subject to the welfare of the child. The overall effect of the amendments would be to return to a discretionary system for determining maintenance and for dealing with other aspects of child support. I know that that is not the intention of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, but it is certainly the intention of those tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I do not believe that he would deny that.
Section 2 of the 1991 Act exists to ensure that the welfare of the children who may be affected is given due weight when discretionary decisions are taken on cases. I have no evidence, and I do not believe that any evidence was laid, to suggest that officials are failing to do that. Therefore, we should be clear that the 1991 Act already ensures that proper consideration is given to the welfare of the children concerned.
Several references have been made to the debate on amendments tabled on this issue in 1991. I wish to return to that Act later. As the noble Earl reminded the House, I was not present at the time and he kindly suggested that I can, so to speak, escape responsibility. I must tell him that it is kind of him but I do not particularly wish to escape responsibility. I believe—and the noble Earl has heard me say so previously—that it is right, proper and just that absent parents should pay for the children of their first marriage if they can afford
1284
to do so. That should not become a cost on other taxpayers, many of whom have families and will be no better off than the absent parent.
My noble and learned fellow clansman the Lord Chancellor said in 1991 that it is an underlying objective of the child support. scheme to provide for the welfare of children and one of the most important issues which affects them; namely, the provision of maintenance by the parent who is not the person who has care of the child. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I totally and completely endorse the words of my noble and learned clansman. In this case, not only am I being loyal to the Government, although I was not a Member at the time, but I am following that good Scottish trait of being loyal to my clansman. In this case, he is a slightly superior clansman, so that is further reason for being loyal to him.
Lord Carter: My Lords, surely it should be "clansperson" and not clansman.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that in the days when the language of the Scottish clans was devised, political correctness had not yet entered the landscape. "Clansman" also encompasses—and for my part will continue to encompass—clanswomen. All your Lordships will have heard of the major endeavours of that famous clansman, or clanswoman, Flora Macdonald, when she helped Bonnie Prince Charlie to escape. But that is a story which is a long way over the sea to Skye from this discussion.
The whole purpose of the legislation is, self-evidently, to benefit the child in that it provides for the assessment of the parents' financial liability for their children. The formula takes proper account of the financial needs of the children, both of the children for whom maintenance is an issue and of other children in the households concerned through the various allowances in exempt and protected income. As your Lordships will know, in the exempt income total housing costs are taken into account as are the children of the second marriage or relationship. In the protected income, any children of the second household are also taken into consideration in relation to calculating protected income. The aim of securing the welfare of the child is achieved by introducing a formula based on objective criteria rather than on discretion. The formula takes account of all the circumstances of all the children involved in the case. It considers the children of the absent parent—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, when the noble Lord refers to the formula, is he referring to the formula in Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act or some other formula?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am referring to the formula used by the Child Support Agency, which comes from the 1991 Act. It considers the children of the absent parent as well as the children for whom maintenance is being sought through, in relation to the absent parent, the calculations to arrive at the exempt and protected income.

1285
It is important for Parliament to consider the position of all the people with an interest—and I know that it sometimes irritates at least some of your Lordships, including the noble Earl, when I say that—for example, the children, their own parents and the wider community of tax payers. I do not believe that those of us who want to see the child support scheme working effectively would wish to see a return to wide discretion in the calculation of maintenance, or in other aspects of the scheme.
At Third Reading, in 1991 the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that there were certain parts of the 1991 Bill, such as the calculation of the maintenance formula, where it was evident that the welfare of the child was taken into account. If he will allow me to remind him, at that time the noble Lord had particular concerns about the requirement to co-operate with that provision as it was then drafted. The Government listened to what was said at that time and strengthened that provision to ensure that parents with care would not be required to co-operate if to do so would lead to a risk of harm of undue distress for them or any of the children living with them. We shall return to that matter.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, challenged my authority to describe Parliament's intentions in 1991 because he rightly pointed out to me that I was not there. That is the classic defence of the Glasgow man lifted by the police: "It wasna' me, I wasna' there". But it is clear from the Official Report—not from my recollection or interpretation, because I was not there—that, as I said in Committee, it was never the intention of Parliament that Section 2 of the 1991 Act should be used to undermine the basic principles of that Act. Yet the noble Earl's amendment would import substantial discretion into the scheme, and would make it extremely difficult for staff to make decisions. It would have the effect of undermining the Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, speaking in Committee, expressed his concerns about what was said in a recent High Court case. I shall call it the B case in order to preserve the anonymity of those involved. We must look at that case in its context. That was a case in which Judge Thorpe commented. In that case, the original appeal to the magistrates' court was principally on the grounds that the CSA had failed to consider the welfare of the children of the absent parent's second family and that the magistrates should, therefore, quash a deduction from earnings order against the absent parent. The magistrates held that the agency was bound to consider the welfare of the children and that there was no evidence that it had not done so.
The absent parent made an appeal to the High Court and it is comments at the appeal hearing made by counsel for the Secretary of State which were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in Committee. Counsel pointed out to the judge that in his view the Secretary of State could not be challenged on the weight to be given to the welfare of the children in this case. The welfare of the children was not the paramount consideration. He also said that issues relating to the breach of Section 2 by the Secretary of State were in
1286
any event matters for judicial review rather than for the magistrates. In that case, the judge agreed with the Secretary of State.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, alluded to other cases. In one case, the commissioners said that the welfare provision was applicable only in relation to the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State or a child support officer. The making of a maintenance assessment was an absolute duty, not a matter of discretion, and so Section 2 had no application.
The commissioners went on to say that even in discretionary matters, Section 2 provided only that the Secretary of State or the child support officer "shall have regard" to the welfare of any child rightly to be affected by the decision. The provision did not say that the child's welfare should be a paramount concern, only that it should be taken into account. Those cases illustrate that the welfare of children is not the paramount consideration. The Section 2 provision in the 1991 Act is, therefore, working as Parliament intended.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised the issue of notifications to the parties in cases concerning a departure from the formula assessment. When we discussed this amendment in Committee I was able to tell the noble Lord that staff are asked to keep a note of any information relevant to the welfare of the child which comes to them, and to consider it when they make their decision. If it affects their decision, the matter will already be covered by the existing wording of the clause. Where it does not affect the decision, the amendment would lead to gratuitous information about the parent's family circumstances being passed to the other parent. We shall have to give a great deal of information to each parent about the other. I do not want to add unnecessarily to the information about the family circumstances of one parent that is conveyed to the other parent. I believe that that concern was raised in Committee. Clearly, at least a number of your Lordships share my concern that we really want to keep the amount of information which flows down to a minimum.
I will turn now to Amendment No. 32. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has again returned to an issue that he raised in Committee. The amendment would require the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State to have regard to the welfare of the child when they make legislation under the 1991 Act.
We have discussed issues relating to welfare of the child at some length, both today and in Committee. I do not intend to repeat all that I have said previously. However, as I said in Committee, I do not believe that it would be right to import such a requirement into regulation making powers. Parliament has decided that child maintenance should be dealt with through a formula which takes due account of the needs of all the parties involved: the children, their parents, and the taxpayer. As I said when we last discussed the matter in Committee, Parliament also decided that, fundamentally, the welfare of the child is best served through the support of his own parents based on their ability to pay. The House is aware that there are already safeguards to ensure the proper use of regulation making powers.

1287
As I have explained, consideration of the welfare of a child is already given due weight in maintenance matters. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to insert into the Bill the amendments as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
I turn now to deal with the two very much longer amendments tabled on the basis of proposed new clauses by the noble Earl. Again, Amendment No. 19 was discussed in Committee. Amendment No. 20 offers a small variation on the text of Amendment No. 19 but does not alter it in any significant way. Both amendments introduce a new clause to set down all the children whose welfare should be considered when discretionary decisions are made by the Secretary of State or child support officers. Its meaning is not entirely clear, since it seeks to transfer a definition of welfare from the Children Act 1989 which does not actually exist.
Therefore, as I said, the noble Earl's amendment seeks to incorporate the definition of "welfare" from the Children Act 1989 into this Bill. In Committee, I explained that Section 1 of the Children Act relates to specific limited circumstances and to the decisions of courts in those circumstances. The wording of the Children Act section does not readily translate across into child support legislation.
From the words that he used in Committee, I rather inferred that the noble Earl wishes to make the welfare of the child paramount. The latter is the word used in the Children Act. However, as the amendment stands, it is difficult to establish precisely what the noble Earl hopes to achieve. As I said, it would mean that the welfare of the child would have to be paramount in the drafting of any regulations. The amendment includes amending regulations, but Amendment No. 20 does not. Any breach of the duty to consider the welfare of the child or children would be actionable in the civil courts, with the Secretary of State being liable for breaches by child support officers, rather than the child support officer himself having that liability.
I indicated earlier in my response that it would not be right to make consideration of welfare the paramount issue. If it were paramount, it would be above any other consideration and would mean that the needs of all the other parties to the process would become secondary. Where there were children in both the households involved, it would be extremely difficult to make a decision in a case.
I know that the noble Earl is especially concerned with second families. However, we must remember the position of first families. I should like to share with your Lordships some statistics which I believe underline my case. Frankly, no matter how far the balance is tilted, the first family is almost inevitably always in a worse position than the second family. For example, 84 per cent. of parents with care are on income support. It seems to me that their children will always be worse off than the children in the absent parent's new family. Moreover, 11 per cent. of parents with care are on family credit. In the majority of those cases also the children of the assessment will be worse off than those in the absent parent's new family. That fact is stark but
1288
true. It should give us pause for thought about the relative position of absent parents, even those with unavoidable expenses, and the children for whom they pay maintenance.
I should remind your Lordships that the Child Support Bill was introduced to redress the balance, which had become heavily weighted in favour of the absent parent and the second family and to restore some of the position of the first family by ensuring that they had a fair share of the absent parent's income. But even the current formula does not result in children of the first family being as well provided for as those in the second family. The children of the second family, even where the protected income calculation is appropriate, will be better provided for than those in the first family in the vast majority of cases. To do as the noble Earl is consistently chipping away and urging me to do,—namely, to change that balance even further in favour of the absent parent's family and against the first family—would, at least in my judgment, be totally and completely unfair.
In his two major amendments, the noble Earl wishes to make a breach of the duty imposed by Section 2 actionable by means of civil action. As your Lordships know, people who are aggrieved by discretionary decisions by the Secretary of State may already seek judicial review of the decision. On previous occasions the noble Earl has cast doubts on the integrity of the people who—
6.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister once again, but he will know that judicial review is a very limited remedy. To succeed, one has to show that the Secretary of State was behaving quite unreasonably.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords; of course I accept what the noble and learned Lord has to say on the matter. That is indeed the case. However, the suggestion being made relates to the Secretary of State. As we all know, the position of the Secretary of State is a little like that of man encompassing woman, in that he also encompasses the officials of the CSA. The accusation being made is that they are bound to act unreasonably, almost as if it is in the nature of the beast to do so. It is my contention that the people in the Child Support Agency are doing their job to the very best of their ability. Indeed, they often do it in the face of quite deplorable behaviour from some of the people who have organised themselves in the campaign on behalf of absent parents. It is quite deplorable behaviour.
It is one thing—although, perhaps, it is not even one thing—and bad enough when some of my honourable and right honourable friends find their houses surrounded by absent parents causing a great deal of mayhem; but it is quite another thing when officials of the CSA find themselves in exactly the same position. That is absolutely unfair. As I said, the CSA officials are doing their best to run the system in difficult circumstances and, in fact, they do put many maintenance payments through to the parent with care and the children of the first marriage. It is largely the

1289
man in such cases—and, indeed, I am sorry to say it as a man—who feels that he no longer ought to have the proper financial responsibility for his own children in the first family.
Although the noble Earl's amendment would make the Secretary of State liable for the actions of child support officers in that context, it would, nevertheless, create a quite intolerable situation for individual staff members, who would be fearful that their reasonably made decisions would be subject to court action simply because one or other of the parties objected to them. I do not suppose that the parents with care would object very often, but, having read the literature of the organisation called NACSA, I have little doubt that a whole army of people would be encouraged to do so. Indeed I suggest that this document in a kind of quizzical way by deploring what steps people may take lays out the steps it would like them to take to upset the workings of the agency. To give them any more routes to frustrate the work of the Child Support Agency would simply add to the difficulties the agency has in carrying out what the great majority in Parliament, with the exception of course of the Liberal Democrats, wants; namely, for the agency to collect money from the absent parent and pass it to the parent with care. I am sure that the population at large is equally determined to ensure that that will happen.
Of course the debate has centred on the difficult question of the welfare of the child. Every child has a right of care from his or her parents. Parents generally have a legal and a moral obligation to care for their children until they are old enough to look after themselves. Unfortunately, in today's world the parents of a child may separate and in some instances the parents may not have lived together as a family at all. Although events may change the relationship between parents, for example when they part or when they divorce, those events cannot in any way change their responsibility to the child or the children who are, so to speak, left behind by that relationship. The payment of child maintenance is one crucial way in which parents fulfil their responsibilities towards their children and towards the welfare of their children. That is why in the 1991 Act we proposed a new system which was part of a wide-ranging series of measures to tackle these difficult issues of the breakdown in relationships and what happens afterwards.
It is relatively simple—however, I use the word "relatively" advisedly—to deal with the problem when there are no children. However, your Lordships will understand why I used the word "relatively" because there were difficulties when we discussed the Pensions Bill as regards the payment of pensions on divorce. However, when children are involved, this matter becomes doubly difficult. We wanted to make sure in the review in 1991—Parliament agreed with the Government—that it was in the interests of the child to emphasise parental responsibility and the need for one parent to help with the maintenance and the finances of the parent with care.
That is the situation. I am more than reluctant. I am unwilling to accept the various amendments which would incorporate further difficulties into the legislation
1290
and which would try to tie down further the definition of welfare of the children. I shall not discuss who the children are whose welfare is to be taken into account; that was discussed in Committee. I believe I have probably spoken for too long, or perhaps for long enough depending on one's point of view. But dare I say that I am gently trying to get my revenge on some noble Lords who make me listen to their rather long speeches? I hope I have tried to explain where we are coming from and why I cannot accept the amendments. I hope that, with that explanation, the amendments will be withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, this is an extraordinarily difficult and important issue. Perhaps I may say that it is one I have had to live with for many years. I am far from convinced that any of the formulae that have been put forward meet the case. However, I think it may be possible to find one. Is the Minister prepared to go so far as to say that he will consider the matter with those who are interested in it between now and Third Reading?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for agreeing with me that this is an extremely complex matter. As I said and as will be obvious from previous amendments, we reflect on the issues that are raised in Committee before we reach the Report stage. We shall reflect on what has been said today in looking forward to the debate next week. However, I would be leading the noble and learned Lord up the proverbial garden path if I were to suggest to him that I had any reasonable hope of satisfying him or others on this issue by offering to discuss it with them. I must politely stand my ground and decline his suggestion.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it would not just be a question of satisfying us; we would hope to be able to satisfy the Minister and meet the arguments that he has brought forward.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister has certainly given a full reply and I was moved by his eloquence, particularly when he appeared to find it inconvenient that children should be involved in the Child Support Bill. I found that argument a little hard to follow. On reflection it might have been better if we had, as it were, degrouped and taken the amendment that is in my name alone and then perhaps dealt with the noble Earl's amendments. They are in the same group and they deal with the same subject but the Minister made a fair point on that matter. My amendment is intended to deal only with departure directions whereas the noble Earl's amendments are much wider. I emphasise that it is only in the case of departure directions that the welfare of the children would have to be notified to the parties as regards how that had been taken into account.
I was disappointed that the noble Earl did not give the definition of extraordinary and amazing circumstances that I had asked for; perhaps we can try again at a later stage. I congratulate the Minister, or at least his officials, on their assiduity in looking up what I said on Third Reading of the 1991 Act. I should warn the

1291
Minister that if we return to what various people said on the 1991 Act he may come to regret it. The Minister also referred to what I had described as the case of B and mentioned the decision of Judge Thorpe. I was surprised because I am sure that the Minister knows what Mr. Justice Thorpe said with regard to that case, as I quoted in Committee:
"If it [Section 2 of the 1991 Act] has so little influence on the discretion to enforce the formula assessment, the heading words of the section seem hollow indeed. I am not convinced that the agency is at liberty to decide whether or not to issue a deductions of earnings order without giving considerable weight to the welfare principle".—[Official Report, 19/6/95; col. 87.]
I also quoted, again at col. 87, the words of counsel in that case. It was an extract and so perhaps misleading; one would need to read the whole transcript. But he did not say that welfare in this particular case is not paramount or even of particular significance; he simply said it as an absolute:
"Welfare is not a paramount or even a particularly significant consideration".
It may be worthwhile the Minister reconsidering those words to see what counsel was driving at. I accept the point the Minister made. We certainly discussed the matter over a long period during the passage of the 1991 Act, and we discussed the legal effect of "paramount". I can see that in the Children Act, which is obviously all about children, one can make the welfare of the children paramount. However, in this case there are other people besides the children who have to be taken into account and therefore that welfare cannot be paramount.
I wish to make it entirely clear from these Benches that we agree that absent parents should face their responsibilities. NACSA, the organisation which the Minister mentioned, is perfectly entitled to protest legally and to express its views about the Child Support Agency. However, I agree with the Minister's strictures as regards the behaviour of some of the members of NACSA towards officials and others.
I did not think that we would convince the Minister but we have had a useful debate. We may want to return to the matter on Third Reading to see whether we can press the Minister further. However, the Minister has given a full reply which I shall wish to read. I believe that I can detect what the Government feel. However, we will need to be convinced that the officials have been given enough guidance in the form of the code of practice and other guidance. The Minister said that the Government are determined that the welfare of all children in these cases should be taken into account. We have to make sure that the officials know that and that the guidance and codes of practice are sufficiently strong to ensure that that happens.
I shall read with care what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Departure Directions: The Cases and Controls]:
6.30 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 26, line 22, at end insert ("including the costs of car ownership when it is impossible or unreasonable to expect the applicant to travel to work by any other method.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 9, I hope that I shall be a little more brief than we were with the last amendment.
The amendment allows for departure in respect of the costs of car ownership where it would be unreasonable or impossible for the parent to travel to work by any other means.
The basic argument is simple. There are many places where a person without a car cannot work. If he cannot work, he cannot pay maintenance, which is not in the child's interest. If he cannot work, he cannot pay taxes, which is not in the taxpayers' interests either. Therefore, priority must be given to allowing people to continue working. A formula which does not achieve that is not achieving its object.
The Minister gave me a little ground for faint hope when we discussed this matter in Committee. I am not building too much on that, but I should like to know how far the Minister's thoughts have progressed. He said:
"we are looking at how to deal with the costs of travelling to work if the person concerned must go by car".
He said that he was concerned with the problem of,
"how to define car costs as opposed to petrol costs when it comes to how much use a person makes of the car for one purpose against another",
and:
"I hope that I have indicated to the noble Earl that we are looking carefully at how we can make some allowances for those costs".— [Official Report, 19/6/95; col. 98.]
If that is an invitation to further discussion I should be happy to accept it. If he has any specific form of words in mind I should be very glad to hear it. If he has nothing in mind I suggest that there is a case for allowing the whole of the road fund licence and the insurance as a basic cost, because without that a person simply cannot work at all. If one possesses a car one may use it for other purposes, but the essential factor in these cases is the need to allow people to work. That is the hub of the whole argument and, in the hope of hearing the Minister's further thoughts, I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I intervened briefly when we discussed the matter in Committee, and I shall be brief again. The noble Earl has a point when he refers to the costs of car ownership. One could be pernickety and say that this is a running cost and the ownership of a car is a different matter from the running costs, and so on. However, the noble Earl has a point. Perhaps I may repeat what I said in Committee. It is possible to separate from the costs of car ownership that proportion which applies to travel to work. I hope that if he is not happy with the wording of the amendment the Minister will be able to suggest wording that will meet the point that the noble Earl has made.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this is the same amendment as the noble Earl tabled in Committee. He wants to hear my further thoughts on the subject. In order to give him my further thoughts, perhaps I should for completeness remind the House of what I said in Committee.

1293
I said then that the Government intend to bring forward regulations for each of the grounds for departure listed under the category of special expenses. The detailed criteria for the granting of departure directions for each of the grounds are being considered, including the possibility of making some allowance for the costs of car ownership, at least in limited circumstances. The report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee explicitly approved our approach of secondary legislation to provide the detail of the departure scheme.
The issue of whether some account should be taken of the costs of car ownership where use of a car is essential for the purpose of travelling to work raises issues that need careful consideration. Most people—and I emphasise "most"—have the option of using public transport to work, although I acknowledge that there will be instances where individuals have no option but to travel to work by car, for example, where there is no public transport or perhaps in the small number of cases where a disability makes use of public transport impractical.
The noble Earl's amendment highlights the high cost of car ownership. Indeed, he narrowed that down in his contribution and referred in particular to the road fund licence and insurance costs, which are two costs that we all recognise as being considerable. I recognise that the costs of car ownership can be high. However, it would be rare for someone to run their car for the sole purpose of travelling to work and not use it for other social and leisure purposes. Would it be right, therefore, to make allowance for the costs of car ownership ignoring that fact? It is easy to narrow down the cost of fuel used in the journey to and from work. Where people travel by car purely as a matter of personal preference there is a strong argument that petrol costs in excess of the cost of public transport should not be considered for the purposes of the departure scheme. I believe that the noble Earl will agree with me about that.
I am asked whether I have some specific words in mind. At this stage I do not. However, I can make it clear that at this stage nothing is ruled out. There may be a case for including in the departure scheme some recognition that in a small number of cases individuals will have no choice but to travel to work by car. If that is so, details will be brought forward in regulations and your Lordships will have the opportunity to consider our proposals then. I take on board the point made by the noble Earl that the road fund licence and insurance are clearly identifiable costs. Insurance varies with the type of car but is fairly independent of the car you have and its value.
At this stage we wish to preserve the flexibility to develop the system in a way that is fair to all concerned. I am sure that the noble Earl appreciates that his amendment would erode that flexibility. I appreciate that I have not gone much further, if any further, than in Committee, but I have underlined the fact that we are looking seriously at this issue. I understand the point made, but there are some difficult issues to be addressed. How does one determine that it is essential? There could be an argument about that. How does one determine the costs?
1294
The noble Earl has made his point forcefully on two occasions and in today's debate has made a suggestion concerning the road fund licence and insurance. I hope that he will leave the matter on the basis that we shall try to deal with these issues in secondary legislation which at some stage, probably next Session, I (certainly after yesterday) shall bring before the House. We can then have a discussion on those proposals. I hope that we shall be able to look seriously at these points.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. He is saying in effect that nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. I remember those words. I gave them the benefit of the doubt before. I turned out to be right. If I give them the benefit of the doubt again, I hope that I shall once again turn out to be right. However, I ask the Minister not to wait too long, because once a person has to sell his car then for him work is ruled out. We do not want that to happen too often.
With that one final thought, and with warm thanks for the Minister's care in working out the arguments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 26, line 40, at end insert:
("() child care costs incurred by a person with care who is in full-time or part-time employment;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, who is not available at the moment to move the amendment, I want to make the fairly obvious point that we are all agreed that we want to encourage people to take employment if they possibly can when they have care responsibilities. However, the amount of money that is allowed under the government scheme to help with child care does not meet all the costs of child care which can be incurred in many cases. To have to pay that additional cost may well stop someone taking a job which, if they wished, they would be able to take. Therefore, in calculating the amount of money which should be paid by the absent parent, the child care costs should be taken into account. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I had not noticed that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, had left the Chamber.
The noble Baroness outlined the purpose of the amendment. As she said, its effect is to allow child care costs to be included as grounds for a departure. The amendment would allow lone parents access to the departure system where they have increasing work-related expenses. The maintenance formula is such that it takes the lone parent's work gains into account but not the costs. When a parent with care returns to work and/or increases her working hours, her increase in income will be taken into account and at a certain point will begin reducing the level of maintenance which is payable by the absent parent. However, the formula does not currently include the work-related costs in exempt income.
We believe that there is a strong case for including child care costs in exempt income in the formula, which we would prefer. However, the Minister might like to

1295
touch on another option when he replies: to allow those with particularly high care costs access to departure. When we discussed the matter in Committee, the Government argued that existing legislation already covers child care costs. We are advised that many lone parents who want to work have prohibitively high child costs. For example, parents with care who have more than one child or whose child care is significantly higher than the average of £40 commonly referred to may be prevented from taking employment. In addition, it is also true that a relatively small percentage of lone parents are expected to benefit from the child care disregard; and certainly those who are in greatest need—for example, those on maximum family credit—will not benefit from the disregard. Even though the current legislation may offer some help to some people, the departure system should be available where that is not the case.
As we have already mentioned in Committee, the increase in maintenance would be granted only if the absent parent had the resources and it was fair and equitable to do so. If he has the resources, we believe that it would be fair to allow the parent with care to seek an increase in maintenance on the basis of work related expenses, including child care costs.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, proposes that child care costs of a person with care should be eligible to be treated as a special expense for which a departure direction could be given. The Government, of course, recognise the importance of child care in the context of assisting lone parents back into employment. However, although at first sight this would appear to be a reasonable amendment—it is one which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, indicated that he supports—there are strong arguments against allowing a departure on these grounds.
Current legislation makes substantial provision for child care costs. The first provision is in the child maintenance calculation itself. The first stage of the assessment process is to calculate the "maintenance requirement", which is the amount deemed necessary to meet the basic needs of the child or children. The maintenance requirement is based on income support rates and includes an amount intended to reflect the fact that there are costs associated with child care. This so called "carer element" is currently set at £46.50 if the youngest child is under 11 years of age. Where the youngest child is aged 11 but under 14 years of age, the amount of the carer element reduces to £34.88 on the basis that the need for day-to-day care lessens as children grow older. The amount reduces still further to £23.25 when the youngest child is 14 or 15, and is removed completely when the child reaches age 16.
It is important to understand that the carer element was specifically included in the formula in recognition of the fact that persons with care have costs, mainly in terms of earnings that they forgo, if they stay at home to provide care for their children, or conversely that they incur costs in providing for care if they decide to go
1296
out to work. Therefore the formula assessment already provides a significant sum that can be put towards child care should such costs be incurred by the person with care.
Additional help is available where the person with care is working and is eligible for family credit. In such cases up to £40 of child care costs can be offset against income before any entitlement to that benefit is assessed. Furthermore, the first £15 of any maintenance received is ignored when family credit is assessed. A person with care whose income is above the level where she will qualify for family credit should be better able to meet the costs of child care and will still benefit from the carer element in the formula. To make a specific allowance in child support would be to duplicate the child care provisions in family credit by allowing for the same cost twice.
I ought to reiterate that the departure system is designed to deal with issues that have been of major concern since the Child Support Act came into operation. Child care costs of the parent with care in the context of child support were not an issue on which we received significant representations when the review was taking place. I do not accept the need for the amendment.
The carer element in the formula and the maintenance and child care disregards in family credit provide, I believe, sufficient help with those expenses. With that explanation of how we understand the answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I follow the argument of the Minister that an element of child care is included in the original estimate. But child care costs vary considerably. For example, a child may have some disability, or may need very close attention because of some handicap from which he or she suffers. Those children cannot be given child care at the price included in the maintenance grant or in the amount that the Government allow towards child care costs for someone in employment.
The Minister stated that in the majority of circumstances the child care costs would be covered by the other elements to which he referred. However, in saying that he implies that there is a minority for whom it would not be the case. In such circumstances, surely it is not unreasonable for the absent parent to make the additional payment, and therefore justify the departure. It would enable the caring parent to take a job and to be satisfied that a child who may have some specific difficulty is in good care for which she or he has to pay more money. In those exceptional circumstances, would it not be possible to make a departure?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. She referred to disability. Departure is available if there are extra costs arising from disability. While I know that that response does not address all her concerns, for that specific group the departure system is available.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister has not answered my point. There can be other exceptional circumstances. He said that disability is covered. The important issue is that the caring parent should feel free to take employment and should not be inhibited from doing so because of exceptional costs of child care.
However, from what the Minister said, and thin as the House now is, it would be absurd to press the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 26, line 40, at end insert:
("() costs incurred to support a young person in further or advanced education;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an amendment on which I asked for consultation between the Department of Social Security and what will now be the Department of Education and Employment. I bring it back chiefly in order to find out whether that consultation has taken place; and, if so, to what effect.
The amendment concerns the costs of the parental contribution to higher education interacting, as it must do. with child maintenance. Depending on who is paying the parental contribution, it may affect either the parent with care or the absent parent. If one of them is paying the parental contribution to university—it is quite heavy—some allowance must be made for that in terms of a departure direction for maintenance paid, or, as it might be, received, under the formula. If an allowance is not being made, then any child of a family which is subject to the Child Support Act will not be in a position to obtain higher education. To put it mildly, that would be a pity and capable of being regarded as unfair.
It is possible for consultation which might avoid the problem. I move the amendment again simply in order to ask whether it has taken place. I look forward to the reply and I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Earl explained, the amendment would provide for a further ground on which an application for a departure could be made; namely where special expenses are incurred in supporting a young person in further or advanced education. The provision would apply where, for example, a student is living with an absent parent who is therefore assessed for student grant purposes and he is also paying child support maintenance for younger dependent children who are not living with him. It could also apply where a parent with care of dependent children also has a child in further education living with her for whom she is assessed for a parental contribution to the grant.
We all acknowledge the importance of educating our young people. However, the amendment would have the effect of placing expenses incurred by a parent for that purpose above the responsibility to meet the basic needs of their dependent children. I cannot accept that that would be right. I shall not go into whether it would happen all that often because, as William in Just William said, it stands to reason that the children in the first family are likely to be older than the children in the second family. Although I freely accept that the noble
1298
Earl will be able to give me examples where such a case might arise, we must recognise that where a parent with care has young children for whom she receives child maintenance under the formula, as well as an older child in college, she would receive no additional maintenance in respect of the student. The maintenance she received for her dependent children would be added to her other income when her ability to make a parental contribution to the student grant was assessed.
If an absent parent is allowed to apply for a departure on the grounds that he is supporting a young person in further education, the corollary would seem to be that he should also support any other child of his who is in full-time education: in other words, he should pay maintenance for a student child who lives with his former partner. Nor does the grant system require an absent parent to make a parental contribution towards the grant for his child who is a student, if the young person lives with the person in care.
We have always made it clear that a parent's first duty is to provide for the basic needs of their own dependent children, whenever they are in a position to do so. It would be quite wrong to let the costs of higher education for an older child take precedence over the basic costs of supporting a younger child.
When this amendment was debated at Committee stage the noble Earl highlighted the interaction between child support maintenance assessments and the way parental contributions to student grants were assessed. He expressed a hope that the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education would consult with a view to ensuring that the two systems were not in conflict. I can assure him that consultation with officials from the Department for Education has taken place and that we are satisfied that there is no inconsistency in the way the two systems operate.
I should explain that, when a parent is assessed for a contribution to a student grant a standard allowance of £75 is made for any other child who is wholly or mainly dependent on that parent. It is irrelevant whether the dependent children actually live with the parent or not. The allowance applies, whether it relates to children in the parent's current family or children living apart from him but for whom he pays maintenance.
It is worth considering what the consequences would be if the amendment were to be accepted. Two-parent families who have a child in further education as well as responsibility for dependent children qualify for an allowance of £75 in respect of each of those dependent children. An absent parent would qualify for the £75 allowance for the children for whom he pays maintenance but on top of this he would also see a reduction in the maintenance amount he is liable to pay. So he would gain twice compared with parents who had stayed together to raise their children.
The result in the case of a parent with care who qualified for a departure on these grounds would be an increase in the maintenance due from the absent parent, in effect making him pay for a child who is no longer dependent under the terms of the Child Support Act.
The Government's proposals for the departure system are, as I have explained, the culmination of a thorough review of the system during which representations were

1299
received from all quarters. After careful consideration a list of special expenses was drawn up which reflect the areas of major concern raised during the review. I must stress that the departure system is designed to deal with the kind of expenses that have created the greatest difficulty since the Child Support Act came into operation. It is not our intention to allow a long list of expenses to be cited as grounds for a departure order.
As I said this afternoon in relation to another subject, in this case also the issue of costs associated with supporting young people in further education was not raised as a major area of concern in the context of child support.
I remain of the view that there is no strong case to include those costs in a scheme intended to relieve areas of greatest pressure. Indeed, it would have the effect of introducing an inequity, for the reasons I set out a moment ago. With that explanation and the assurance that we have talked to officials in the Department for Education, I hope that the noble Earl can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, in view of what the Minister said about the ages of children, he might be interested to know that my youngest child is considerably younger than my four grandchildren.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I must declare an interest in the field. If the Minister believes that children at university are not dependent children, he is severely mistaken. They are certainly dependent children because they cannot pursue their chosen path without parental hacking, save in the case of parents in quite considerable poverty.
I must also ask the Minister to check how many parents affected by the CSA are paying more than £75 a year per child. I would bet that many assessments are extremely low, unprofitably low, but he will find that many people pay a great deal more than that.
The matter of priorities which the Minister argues is in the end self-defeating. He will produce a situation where, if he gets everything the way he wants it, children are maintained until they get to the point of needing higher education. Then, just when they are about to be able to reach the kind of career for which they may be suited and which they may want, all support will cease. That will produce large numbers of people who do not go to university at the proper time, who wish to go later as mature students and defer regular earnings until they are well into their late twenties or occasionally even their early thirties. In Germany, Chancellor Kohl has found that the prolonging of higher education has done a great deal to undermine the funding of pensions. If the Minister produces that kind of situation, he will find it has much the same troublesome effect.
At the very least, we must consider uprating the £75. However, before deciding what to do with the amendment, I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me in what Act, regulations, guidance or other document the limit of £75 is to be found. If he can tell me that now, it would materially assist me.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Earl that now. I do not know quite what "now" means, but I shall be happy to write to him as soon as I can about where in the legislation, secondary legislation, or whatever it is, the £75 is lodged.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I too have a pile of paper and I understand his difficulties. However, if he were able to address the point in time for us to table an amendment on Third Reading, I would much appreciate it. This is not a satisfactory situation. I do not think that we can leave matters there. However, as we cannot pursue the issue any further tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 13 not moved.]
Clause 10 [The child maintenance bonus]:
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
7 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
Child Support Advisory Committee
(".—(1) There shall be a body to be called the Child Support Advisory Committee, referred to in this section as "the Committee".
(2) The Committee shall consist of not less than eight and not more than fifteen members appointed by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State shall appoint one member of the Committee to chair its proceedings.
(4) In appointing the members of the Committee, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of appointing persons with experience and knowledge of—

(a) family proceedings and the work of family courts;

(b) child support legislation; and

(c) the welfare of children.

(5) It shall be the duty of the Committee to advise the Secretary of State on the working of child support legislation, and to make recommendations, when it sees fit, for amending such legislation.
(6) It shall be the duty of the Committee to prepare an annual report and to submit it to the Secretary of State.
(7) The report prepared under subsection (6) above shall include—

(a) details of the number of child maintenance assessments made in the year, and an analysis of their effect on child welfare;

(b) details of the number of departure directions made in the year, and an analysis of their impact on the effectiveness of child maintenance;

(c) details of the number of reviews undertaken by child support officers in the year, and an analysis of the results of those reviews;

(d) details of the number of appeals made to child support appeal tribunals in the year, together with an analysis of the grounds of appeal and the findings of the tribunals, and the Committee's assessment of any implications of that analysis for the reform of child support legislation; and

(e) any other matters which the Committee considers appropriate.

(8) The Secretary of State shall lay copies of each report made to him under subsection (6) above before both Houses of Parliament.
(9) Any expenses incurred by the members of the Committee appointed under this section may be reimbursed by the Secretary of State out of moneys provided by Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although this amendment is rather long, I shall be quite brief in my remarks. I should simply like to have the views of the Minister on record regarding the proposals that have been made, and of which I am sure he is aware, for the child support advisory committee. There was a debate on this amendment in the other place at Report stage. Although it was fairly long, it was quite hard to pick out of it much about the child support advisory committee. It seemed to cover a large number of other issues. I felt that it would be helpful if in this House we could hear the views of the Government.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a consultative and evaluative committee is established, similar to the one that exists in Australia, continually to monitor and evaluate the operation of the child support scheme and to make recommendations for its improvement.
At present, the only ways in which child support legislation is examined are by the House of Commons Social Security Committee and by the Department of Social Security through its day-to-day monitoring of the scheme; through research studies; and by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman). We know that the Social Security Committee's reports are extremely valuable. However, given the committee's workload, it is not able continually to monitor the child support legislation in detail. The research studies that the department organises will also no doubt be valuable, but they are designed to be of a long-term nature and, as they are not independent of government, may not cover all the aspects of the child support legislation and its effects which they should. The Ombudsman also performs an extremely useful role in examining individual cases where maladministration has occurred. However, he too is unable to provide truly comprehensive long-term reports into the operation of the scheme. We therefore believe it to be essential that an independent expert body is established continually to monitor child support legislation and standards of work in the Child Support Agency, and to make recommendations for improvements. I believe it is correct to argue that, had such an advisory committee been in existence when the 1991 Act came into operation, we might well have avoided a great many of the problems that led to this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Lord explained, this clause provides for an advisory committee to advise the Secretary of State on the workings of the child support scheme. Let me say straight away that we value consultation. That is why there was a wide-ranging consultation exercise before regulations were made under the 1991 Act, and why we took careful note of the advice in the 5th Report of the Social Security Select Committee, and of the views of other interested parties, in developing the improvements to the child support scheme of which the provisions in this Bill form a key part. We also have a constructive dialogue with many representatives of absent parents, parents with care, and those with experience of family law issues.
1302
In developing the changes that we announced in January, we consulted with eminent family lawyers and we corresponded frequently about the child support scheme with many organisations, including the National Council for One Parent Families, the Child Poverty Action Group and the Law Society. Whatever problems we have had with child support, I do not think that they have arisen for lack of consultation. Therefore I am not sure how this particular clause could assist.
In addition to the function of overseeing legislation analogous to that of the Social Security Advisory Committee, the proposed child support advisory committee would be required to monitor operational aspects of child support. It is in this area that the proposed annual reports of the committee would focus. In this respect, the committee would duplicate the role not only of the Social Security Select Committee of another place, but also of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the National Audit Office, and the Chief Child Support Officer.
Both the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the National Audit Office reported on the operation of the child support scheme. They drew attention to problems with these operations and Ministers have indicated the steps that are being taken to address these problems—in particular by improved methods within the agency for measuring accuracy, additional checking and enhanced training for staff. Many of the changes announced in the White Paper, Improving Child Support, are also aimed at improving the operation of the scheme. I have no doubt that both the Parliamentary Commissioner and the National Audit Office will continue to provide valuable information on the areas where we can improve the scheme, and Ministers will continue to respond positively to this feedback.
Noble Lords will be aware that the post of Chief Child Support Officer was set up under the 1991 Act to advise child support officers on the performance of their duties. His functions, which he discharges independently of Ministers or the Department of Social Security, include monitoring child support adjudication and reporting annually on performance. His annual reports contain much that is of use in identifying areas where further work is needed, and I know that he and managers in the agency are committed to working together to improve performance.
As noble Lords will recognise, the department and the Child Support Agency itself are involved in an ongoing process of evaluating the effectiveness of the policy and of the operations. This goes beyond responding to external comment and advice. The agency is seeking the views of key stake-holders by means of regular meetings and has set a challenging charter standard which will be monitored carefully. Officials will continue to monitor the policy, and particularly the changes introduced in April and through this Bill. The departure system will be piloted before full introduction to identify and solve any unforeseen complications.
So there is clearly considerable overlap between the functions of those who already advise on child support and the tasks for the proposed child support advisory committee. In my view, this inevitable overlap would

1303
seriously hamper the effectiveness of an advisory committee in this field. I believe that there is quite simply no distinct role for such an advisory committee, either in advising on areas where legislation could be improved, or in monitoring the performance of the agency.
I have explained in some detail what happens at the moment and the kind of way in which the current system responds to the sort of things that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, would like to see his child support advisory committee do. In addition, I am perfectly happy to give a clear commitment to continue to respond positively to constructive suggestions for improvements in child support from wherever they come. I hope that, with that explanation of how we look for advice and who is there, set up statutorily, as some of the bodies in question are, to look at the Child Support Agency and advise us—sometimes in quite robust reports, it has to be said—the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that very full reply, which is now on the record as we wanted. Without attempting to turn the knife too hard, if the consultation and dialogue that the noble Lord describes had taken place in the run-up to the 1991 Act and after, we should perhaps not have needed this Bill. Not all the problems that have arisen, but certainly a large number of them, could perhaps have been avoided. However, we are all grateful now for the consultation machinery that is available. The object in having an independent committee was to formalise the procedure, to make it independent of government and to make it objective. However, considering the range of the consultation in which the Government are now engaged, perhaps the committee is not required. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Women's Refuges
7.8 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to improve the provision and funding of women's refuges.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should first like to offer my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for their help in getting this Question arranged and on the Order Paper.
It is a relief, after the business in which we have been involved, to be discussing a completely non-party subject. So far as I can see, the sympathy and concern on this issue are shared among all three parties and those of none at all. The only division—and it is one that runs
1304
through all parties—is between those who are familiar with the priorities of these issues and those who are not; and that can very easily be dealt with.
Recently I came across a letter dealing with this subject. Since it deals with a lot of the issues that we come across over and over again, perhaps I may quote it:
"This morninge, about the breake of daye, there come to my gates the ladye Kennedye in very straunge and wreached manner, bare legged in hyr petycott and an olde cloake, and hyr nightgeare in greate fryght and almost starved for colde. Shee desired houseroome and fyre of my wyffe hyr coosen in this extremitye, beinge as shee sayde dryven oute of hyr house by Sir Jo. Kennedy and with greate violence breake in upon hyr, and shee stole awaye in this sorte at a back doore. Much terrefyed with his furye and violence in forcinge hyr house with a greate companye as shee sayes [and] left hyr with my wyffe; untyll hyr mother sende for hyr … and my selfe unwyllynge to deale in a matter between man and wyffe but could not turne hyr away".
Your Lordships may have noticed something a little unusual about that letter. It was written in 1609. It was addressed to Robert Cecil, first Earl of Salisbury and first Viscount Cranborne. The sister of the unfortunate woman concerned happened to be my ancestor.
That letter illustrates two points that we too easily forget. First, this is not a new problem. Secondly, it is not confined to any one social group of people; it may be found anywhere.
Again, your Lordships will have noticed the visible reluctance in the voice of the lady's host. The lady clearly could not remain there very long. That is why it is important in any review of the homelessness legislation which may take place that a woman who has been the victim of domestic violence, even when she has temporarily taken refuge elsewhere before going to a refuge, should not be regarded as intentionally homeless. There is nothing intentional whatever about that situation.
In that case, the man concerned was not only a batterer but also a pursuant. Unusually, he chose not to pursue the lady but the man with whom he believed, perhaps wrongly, that she had been having an affair. With a company:
"of furious Scots armed [and with] snippers and searing irons",
threatening to use him "worse than a Jew" he turned up outside the man's house at break of day. Fortunately, the man was virtuously in bed with his own wife and, even more fortunately, he woke up. They escaped across the fields, he leaving his breeches and his lady by his side in her smock with her petticoat in her hand.
People sometimes think that refuges are too worried about concealing their location for reasons of security. But that kind of story still happens and has continued to happen for a long time. So long as it happens, security will be necessary.
Again, as we have seen from those letters, there is a need for co-ordination. This issue cuts across every departmental boundary in Whitehall and every departmental boundary in a local authority. Sometimes that is very serious. In local authorities, refuges tend to rely on housing services for capital funds and on social services for running costs. Although there are areas where social services and housing departments communicate extremely well, that is not always the case.
Also occasionally the generosity of one is not matched by the generosity of the other and trouble results. Whitehall involves the Environment Department on the housing angle and local government angle; the Home Office on the criminal angle; and the Health Department on the social services and welfare of children angles. The Education Department is involved because schooling of the children whose life has been interrupted presents quite a serious problem; and social security services are involved because housing benefits provide much of the basic income on which a refuge works.
Those people do not always know what the others are doing. Refuges are not just a housing service. They involve practically every kind of welfare imaginable. I have with me a list which comes from a county council source. It lists bodies which have to be consulted in the course of dealing with a single case of domestic violence. It begins: the hospital social work team; the education welfare services; special education needs support services; educational psychology service; the police; the Crown Prosecution Service; the Probation Service; prison services; the diversion unit; and magistrates' courts. So far that is only one third of the way through it, but I cannot use up too much of the House's time on one list. Maybe the House will take the point.
One needs a co-ordinating principle and funding as well. The sources of funding can be as manifold as the range of problems that have to be dealt with. Some funds come from central government, some from local government and from some charitable funding. The Home Office takes the lead on some aspects, the Department of Social Security takes the lead on others, as does the Department of Health. Also involved are the Housing Corporation, the Rural Development Commission, the Benefits Agency, City Challenge and, we hope, the Single Regeneration Budget—we would welcome assurances on that. Each of those bodies tends to he earmarked for a particular purpose. It is no good having the most perfect provision for the care of children if there is no money to repair the building.
So, clearly, there need to be some kind of co-ordination. That must be done without discouraging the voluntary initiative, which is what makes refuges so cheap and effective. Some kind of central co-ordinating principle is needed. In fact, the administrative systems work in some ways rather better when dealing with either the Scottish Office or the Welsh Office, where there is not the problem of Whitehall boundaries. There is one co-ordinating department which is capable of looking at everything.
If I knew how to achieve that result in the departmental structure of Whitehall, I should have found the Philosopher's Stone. I want to ask whether some thought can be given to finding a more coherent way of tackling the problem than is done at present.
There is also need for a bigger supply of refuges. In 1975, the Home Office Select Committee recommended one place per 10,000 people. We are only 35 per cent. of the way to that figure and the demand now is much greater. The returns from refuges in the latest Women's
1306
Aid report reveal that 63 per cent. wanted more bed spaces; 31 per cent. wanted more re-housing; one refuge could accommodate only a third of the women referred; another had to refuse refuge to 224 women, which represented 65 per cent. of those who contacted it; and another had 5,594 referrals, with 320 taken in.
The effects of refusing a woman refuge and the consequences in what she might have to do instead are quite serious. At the moment, the cost for the whole of the refuge movement is only £17 million. That is only twice the cost of running this House. It is not a very big drop in the ocean of public spending. Although this House provides outstanding value for money, I believe that refuges, in terms of what they do, provide rather better value for money. The report by Women's Aid published in January asks for another £33 million to deal with needs such as the care of children, the care of buildings and increased provision of bed spaces. The sum of £33 million is still less than the running cost of another place. If my calculations are correct, it is one fifty-seventh of a penny on income tax. That is hardly an overwhelming contribution to public expenditure.
The Treasury may well say, as Treasuries tend to do, "They all say that". Well, no doubt they all do. But that is where the interesting questions begin about how cost-effective provision is. Any time one is costing any proposal for spending public money one should also cost the effects of not spending it. That is one of the acid tests of whether one is getting value for money. One manager in a housing department was faced with the cost of putting up three families in a refuge or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and found that putting them in a refuge could save, just for the three families, £30,000 a year. There is plenty of pressure on other homeless services—25 per cent. of the people taken in by the rough sleepers initiative are domestic violence victims and the cost of putting children into care, which tends to happen if there is not a refuge, is enormous. If the Government think of value for money, they could not find any better method than this.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for raising this issue. He did so with a typically outstanding contribution. I am also particularly pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is to respond to the debate not only because he is a very distinguished parliamentarian but also because I read with great interest his comments in the previous debate on 26th October 1992. I have no doubt that the noble Earl will recall every word that he said in that debate. I shall certainly be asking him one or two questions about his comments when the time comes.
On that occasion the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said:
"The importance of the subject is only just beginning to be recognised".—[Official Report, 26/10/92; col. 995.]
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, quoted the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as saying that, and went on to say:
"It is a terrible indictment if we are only just beginning to understand it. It is a terrible indictment that there should be such a previously unthought of aspect of life".—[col. 1003.]

1307
I am afraid that the indictment is even greater than that. Although I am not enthusiastic about former Members of another place talking about what they said and what they did 'many years ago—that is rather overdone occasionally—I must tell the House that I raised this issue in another place in 1973. In fact, I was the first Member of Parliament to do so. There was a great deal of jocularity then. Some journalists and some Members of Parliament said, half jokingly, that the women deserved the beating and that it was a perk of marriage. That kind of jocularity is exactly the wrong note to strike on a major social problem. But that was the atmosphere of those times when the issue was first raised in the House of Commons.
At that time I asked the Home Secretary to make domestic violence a criminal offence and to discuss it with the chief constables. I asked the Attorney-General to make sure that injunctions were heard without delay. I asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, the much loved Keith Joseph, who later became Lord Joseph in this House, to establish a network of refuges. I asked the Prime Minister, Edward Heath, whether he would establish one Minister to co-ordinate all the requirements for battered women. On all sides in the House of Commons it was not a party political issue. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also made that point. All sides pressed the issue from 1973 onwards in parliamentary Questions, Early Day Motions, debates and deputations to Ministers. That started in 1973 and yet today we have to have a debate in the House of Lords asking for improvements in funding for refuges and for a network of refuges. After all this time the indictment on successive governments is a serious one—and I include the Labour Government of 1974–1979.
There have been some improvements—notably in police attitudes and aspects of that nature—and many more refuges have been set up, but we have failed. Why is that so? We have failed because the significance of the term "domestic violence" is not really understood by the public and indeed by many parliamentarians. When the public think of domestic violence they imagine a domestic row between two people and then kissing and making up. They see that as the end of it. My wife Pauline and I saw the reality in November 1972 when we visited Chiswick Women's Aid. There we saw a decrepit old house with 130 women and children in the most abysmal and appalling conditions. What was interesting was the atmosphere. It was a very peculiar one. It was an atmosphere of great distress because these women had been very badly beaten. Yet in a curious sense it was cheerful because they were in a refuge and away from the brutality that they had known.
When one sees the kind of person who has been battered and beaten one begins to understand what the term "domestic violence" really means. What we saw were people who had been bruised, cut and even scalded and burned. They had been really brutally attacked. Their bones had been broken and their spirits had been crushed. That is the reality of domestic violence. No one really understands that until they see the problem. But most people do not see the problem. What they tend to
1308
see are the husbands or boyfriends appearing in court, well dressed and well spoken, and saying that it was a misunderstanding between them and their wife or their partner. The real guilt and the real brutality is obfuscated and disguised.
Because the public and many parliamentarians do not understand that, they do not give the issue a high enough priority. If dogs were treated in this way there would be marches on Parliament. There would be outrage in the press and elsewhere. But in this case it is only women or, as the police say—or the police used to say—they are "only domestics". The phrase "only domestics" was a kind of shorthand for getting round the problem, for evading it and for avoiding it. The police have improved since then. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he was at the Home Office, was very active in ensuring that the police played a more important and constructive role. The Metropolitan Police in particular have been splendid and have set up the kind of domestic violence units that are so valuable and which have been copied elsewhere.
Erin Pizzey, who ran Chiswick Women's Aid in those days, was a great pioneer. She wrote a very revealing book entitled Scream Quietly or the Neighbours will Hear. That was a very revealing title indeed. Erin Pizzey really began this whole campaign. Organisations like the Women's Aid Federation have carried on that fine work and have established a series of refuges throughout the country. The Women's Aid Federation offers very great protection but clearly it needs resources and assistance from the Government.
When the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, replies to this debate I hope that he will acknowledge that the present provision is an inadequate patchwork of refuges. I hope that he will acknowledge that local authorities are far too jealous of people moving in from outside into their refuges. Some, but not all, are very selfish. It is immoral that it should depend upon geography and where a woman lives as to whether or not she receives this kind of protection.
I conclude by referring again to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. In 1992 the noble Earl, in a very helpful speech which I am sure he will remember very vividly indeed because he has a fine memory, said:
"The Department of the Environment will be considering what changes in local authority and housing association practices and legislation may be needed".—[Official Report, 26/10/92; col. 1006.]
I am very glad that he made that promise and gave that undertaking. I am sure that he has been working very hard ever since. As that was nearly three years ago, I am sure he has made great progress.
I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give a positive and constructive response to his own statement when he winds up this debate. I appreciate what he and the Government have done so far. I appreciate the work of active people like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and, above all, people like Sandra Horley, who is carrying on Chiswick Aid and the people who run the Women's Aid Federation. They are the people who are keeping the flame alive. I also congratulate the women themselves who have made a great contribution by

1309
fighting back and insisting on better provision. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give them a satisfactory statement tonight.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I follow two noble Lords who have distinguished records in raising the issue of domestic violence and in particular the need for refuge provision onto the public agenda.
Our society provides something of the order of 200 times as many sanctuary places for animals as it does for women victims of domestic violence. That says a lot about our society. It is our duty to try to rectify the discrepancy in those numbers as fast as we can. We do not know the real scale of the problem. By definition it is one of those areas which, to a very large extent, must remain hidden. But we do know that 18 per cent. of all murders are of women by the husband or partner. That is the tip of an appalling iceberg, but it probably gives some indication of the scale of the difficulties.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, referred to the development of work in a number of areas connected with domestic violence over the past few years. In particular he mentioned domestic violence units run by the police. The development of that work has been admirable. I am only recently acquainted with the refuge movement, but seeing the development of that work has been very encouraging. Much more discussion between different agencies and different departments of local authorities and so on must take place, but there is still a need for basic refuge provision. When I say "basic" I do not mean that the provision itself should be basic. It is very important that the facilities provided are welcoming and homely. The breadth of the problem was referred to, using those very terms, in the Home Affairs Committee report of February 1993. The language of the report is rather more prosaic than that used earlier this evening by my noble friend Lord Russell, but the point is very much the same. At paragraph 129, the report says,
"Our first concern is on housing matters, and especially the provision of refuges.… The present number of refuge places is less than one-third of the number recommended as an 'initial target' … in 1975".
My noble friend Lord Russell reminded us that the number has grown very little since then.
The report continues:
"When refuge places are scarce, we have already argued that the police may not be able to secure a woman's safety when they attend an incident; that crime cannot be prevented as easily; that a woman may be deterred from following through a prosecution; that community-based sentences for offenders may cause dangers to the victim, and that there is a particularly acute problem in rural areas and in provision for ethnic minority women".
That is a more prosaic way of putting the very telling points that came from the letter.
Inadequacy of refuge provision results primarily from inadequacy of funding. A diversity of sources of finance is referred to, leading to what ACPO called a lack of,
"adequate funding and inconsistent spread of refuges".
That is the very point the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, made as to the lottery to which women in this situation are subject.
1310
Referring to service providers, the report calls for a coherent national funding strategy. It states:
"We are convinced that an adequate response to domestic violence will be impossible unless refuges and move-on housing"—
that is very relevant as we come to discuss the housing White Paper and no doubt the housing Bill in the next Session—
"are available to victims of domestic violence".
The report concludes:
"We recommend that the first priority for Government action on domestic violence should be the establishment of a central, co-ordinated policy for refuge provision throughout the country. We believe that this could well be the single greatest cost-saving measure that could be taken".
Co-ordinated funding does not mean that the funding has all to come from the centre by way of direct provision. There is a debate which needs to take place as to whether funding is best provided centrally or at local level. I believe that central funding tends to a little less transparency as to how decisions are made on the way funding is divided. The refuge movement would be the last to claim that it can do everything. There are many worthy recipients of the funding that may be available.
In any event, local funding, as currently structured, is very heavily dependent on central grants. We are not talking about different pots of money. There is a problem with local funding. Refuge provision at a very local level, and only at that level, is insecure and inadequate. Refuges must have at least a regional perspective.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, referred to insecurity. To those who say that it is simply a matter for local authorities, I say: imagine being afraid to go out to the shops or the market in case you bump into the person from whom you have fled. Imagine fearing sending your children to school in case they encounter their father who, at the very least, will revive all the confusion and problems to which those children must be subject, and at worst, may cause mental or physical injury or use the children as a method to find you.
My noble friend Lord Russell referred to different aspects of the issue and sources of funding. As co-chair of Refuge, as the Chiswick Refuge is now called, I am very well aware that in attempting to raise funds as a charity, abused women are not as attractive as children. That is a problem for a charity. How honest are we with the public about the real issue? Of course, the children are important, but they come along with the women who need to be the prime target and the prime recipient of assistance.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs referred to refuge provision as the "first priority" and the Government's response—I refer to recommendation 38 in the 1993 report and to the Government's response at paragraph 103—acknowledged the valuable role played by refuges, saying that the issues,
"will be relevant to the inter-departmental discussions on refuge provision, due to begin shortly".
Much reliance is placed on those interdepartmental discussions, particularly by the individual women concerned and the refuge movement which awaits, and

1311
is desperate for, the outcome. Indeed, they start from a position of desperation. I cannot think what it must be like to be driven to flee one's home and to seek refuge.
My noble friend Lord Russell referred to the value for money of such provision. Providing for abused women includes child care provision, children's homes, social workers and so on. Much of that work is taken on board by refuges. A year or two ago it was estimated that if all the children at Refuge in Chiswick were in local authority residential care, it would cost about £19 million a year.
We have talked about the varied nature of the problem and I well understand the need for interdepartmental talks. I welcome a cross-disciplinary approach, but not if the outcome of those discussions is kept to the people in those discussions. I do not welcome them keeping their thoughts to themselves.
There is a strain not only on the individual women; there is an enormous strain on those who work in refuges both as paid staff and as volunteers. There are many volunteers. I am accustomed to having messages left on my answerphone from Refuge which start, "Sally, it's 11 o'clock at night and I've just got home from the office." I applaud the people who are prepared to work with the energy and commitment with which so many in that movement work, but I do not think that we should demand it of them.
In a way, this debate is back to front. I should have liked to hear first from the Minister because this is not a new debate. I do not believe that any of the points being made tonight will be new points. I look forward very much to hearing the reply of the noble Earl.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on his new portfolio. Ministers come and Ministers go, but the noble Earl seems always to be on the Front Bench. He is now on the Front Bench as Minister of State at the Department of the Environment. I congratulate him most sincerely and hope that we shall have many exchanges in the future.
I thank also the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for tabling this Unstarred Question which, as the Minister will recognise, raises a matter of great importance. As my noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Earl have said, we need to look back into history. In 1975, the Select Committee in another place recommended provision of one refuge place for a woman and her children for every 10,000 of the total population. Currently, only one-fifth of that recommendation has been met, yet all surveys show that the number of women suffering domestic violence and seeking refuge places has gone up. As local police said in a survey conducted by the London Housing Unit in 1994,
"unless you phone early in the morning it's hard to get places … there needs to be more refuge space available and more information".
That is the background to this evening's debate.
The Government have continually asserted that refuge funding is best provided at a local level. My noble friend Lord Ashley dealt with that problem. While there is
1312
merit in that idea, the Government's ideological insistence on moving housing provision away from local authorities to other agents allows local authorities much less physical and financial scope with which to provide refuge accommodation—and for that the Government must take responsibility.
As my noble friend Lord Ashley said, there is a clear need for a strategy at a higher level than that of the individual local authority. That is a role for the Government. Many women fleeing from domestic violence, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, described graphically, wish to move from their immediate location, but not so far as entirely to lose contact with their surroundings. That is illustrated by analysis of the current composition of refuge residents: few previously lived in the immediate vicinity, but the majority lived within a reasonable radius. Those facts should not detract from the fact that local government, in its enabling role, should play a particularly important part in the provision of women's refuges. However, local authorities must be given the resources to do that and they must work to a co-ordinated strategy.
What should that co-ordinated strategy be? It can be set only by the Government. I quote again from the 1993 Select Committee report from which the noble Baroness also quoted. It recommended:
"The first priority for Government action on domestic violence should be the establishment of a central co-ordinated policy for refuge provision throughout the country. We believe that this could well be the greatest cost-saving measure that could be taken".
In introducing the debate, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned costs and rightly said that, while the provision of refuges costs money, it is worth remembering the money that is already spent on the consequences of domestic violence. There is the cost to the NHS of patching up battered women and their children. There are also policing costs. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his previous incarnation, will know all about that. There are also the costs resulting from retaliation by battered women, such as the cost to the courts and legal aid system. All those costs could be avoided or lessened if more women who are subject to domestic violence had a refuge to which to go.
After the most recent Select Committee report was produced, the Government set up an interdepartmental group, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned. I have heard nothing about that interdepartmental group other than in a Written Answer last November in which Mr. Robert B. Jones, MP, replied:
"The provision of women's refuge is best decided by local authorities and other agencies taking into account issues such as the local supply of housing available for short-term use in emergency situations. The ministerial group on domestic violence met on 17 May"—
that is, last year—
"and discussed, among other issues, the need for a centrally co-ordinated policy on refuge provision. The Group agreed to consider this further at its next meeting".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/94; col. 728.]
Therefore, I ask the Minister whether there has been another meeting. If not, why not? If so, what were its

1313
conclusions and recommendations? Will the noble Earl be good enough to say what the group is about and what it proposes to do?
We have now had the Government's White Paper on housing and, to be honest, I can only say that it will worsen the housing situation and the problems of women's refuges. During 1992, 11 per cent. of homeless households were due to domestic violence. Those figures do not include women who leave violent men and stay with friends before declaring themselves homeless.
The Government's view seems to give greater weight to waiting time. Women suffering from domestic violence do not put themselves on a waiting list and declare that they will flee a violent situation in a year's time. That is not the way the world works. During that time they will subject themselves to whatever violence they may be suffering in the home. When they decide, they decide to leave. They become homeless and need housing as an emergency. If all that is on offer is unsatisfactory temporary accommodation, with little prospect of permanent housing, and the fear that if they cannot find a permanent home their children will be taken into care, how many women will remain longer in violent situations?
It is our view that many women tolerate violence at home for months or years simply because they have nowhere else to go. The most urgent need is for a safe place that will accept them without notice and provide the practical and emotional support that they will generally need. There is an urgent need for the Government to provide a national strategy and a clear mechanism for funding to ensure that there is somewhere else for them to go.
I hope very much that the Minister, in his new guise—although he knows about this problem from his previous guise—will be able to give the House many assurances that the Government take the problem seriously and that the noble Earl's Question is properly put.
7.53 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for having given your Lordships the opportunity this evening to discuss what is a very important subject. As so often, he has illuminated his speech with a personal anecdote, as well as lacing it with a touch of history. That always adds a bit of glamour and excitement to his speeches.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, fell into the trap of saying how boring it is when people refer to speeches they made previously—and of course promptly referred to the speech he made in 1973. I do not mind that in the slightest. It was a good thing that he made that speech. He was good enough to remind me of what I said in 1992 when I was in the Home Office. Such reminders are not always particularly convenient, but I was grateful to him for jogging my memory this evening.
Which department takes responsibility for answering a Question depends upon the way the Question is phrased. The Question in 1992 was phrased in such a
1314
way that it fell to me in the Home Office to answer it. Due to the way the Question is phrased this evening, it falls to me in the Department of the Environment to answer it. It just so happens that it is the same person answering the Question, although each Question referred to a different department. It is one of the hazards that one tends to be caught by when there are ministerial musical bumps.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, will of course know from what I have to say that, having had the privilege of being in the Department of the Environment for at least some nine hours, I am already an expert on the subject which he has sought to bring to your Lordships' attention. First, we should all be concerned about battered and abused persons. It is horrifying. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, referred to people who have been bruised, battered, scalded and had their bones broken. Frankly, that leaves the imagination almost incapacitated.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, when that happens the police are involved—a point about which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was concerned. In 1980 Home Office guidance was issued to chief officers of police. It emphasised that assaults within private relationships are no less criminally serious than violence which takes place between strangers. The guidance encouraged police forces to establish force policies on domestic violence. All police forces in England and Wales have a force policy on domestic violence. That emphasises the overriding duty to protect the victim and children from further attack; the need to treat domestic violence as seriously as other forms of violence; the use and value of powers of arrest; the dangers of seeking reconciliation between the assailant and the victim—although one may try hard and think that one is doing the right thing, in fact it may be counter-productive—and of course the importance of record keeping to enable chief officers to monitor the effectiveness of that policy in practice.
The first thing we must do is recognise that individuals who leave home to escape domestic violence need help to start a new life. Many have nowhere else to live, and many often need assistance to obtain alternative accommodation. Many can benefit also from practical advice, and from just the sheer, simple support at a time of emotional distress.
Women's refuges, or other forms of temporary accommodation, address the immediate housing needs of women who flee from domestic violence, but bricks and mortar are not the only answer to the problem. Whether women are in a refuge or elsewhere, the fundamental requirement for success in helping victims of domestic violence is the effective co-ordination of all the services available—some from the private sector and some from the public sector. All noble Lord were right to draw attention to the fact that it is the co-ordination of the different services which is so important.
Victims of domestic violence have to be considered, first, as individuals. Second to that is the fact that they are victims of criminal abuse. The kind of help which they need and which they will want will vary from person to person. Not all victims of domestic violence need to make use of refuge accommodation. Some may

1315
prefer to stay with their family and friends or to move into ordinary housing as soon as possible. Other forms of emergency accommodation can also help.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was concerned that under the reform of homelessness legislation women should not be regarded as intentionally homeless. That is right. Under the proposed reforms, people who flee domestic violence will continue to be considered unintentionally homeless if they would risk violence by returning home.
The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said that there should be some form of central co-ordination. Co-ordination is important, but it should be at the local level because that is where the services are provided. The agencies have to work together. Of course centrally we are also co-ordinating policy through the interdepartmental group. We support co-ordination of the voluntary sector by funding the Women's Aid Federation. But it is bound to be for local authorities to assess the need for refuge provision in their area and to decide the level of funding that is appropriate.
It is important to achieve the right balance between providing emergency accommodation, on the one hand, and action to help people to obtain longer-term housing, on the other hand. In some areas it may make most sense for the housing authority to apply its resources to helping individuals to move on into ordinary housing. Any form of central government policy which prescribes a particular quantity of refuge housing would remove the flexibility that local authorities need to have. It is only at the local level that the need for refuge services can be properly assessed. That does not mean to say that it is not equally important at the local level for all other services—including, if necessary, the police—to be co-ordinated too.
However, many other people in society rely on housing assistance or other forms of services that are provided or supported by local authorities. There are, for instance, the elderly, the disabled, the mentally ill and the homeless as well as women who have been beaten up or abused by their husbands or, as in the current day unattractive vernacular used by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, their partners.
It would be invidious for central government to try to specify precisely what level of resources in terms of money or units local authorities should make available to address a particular need. It is, after all, the authorities themselves which have the responsibility for providing those services to the public and for justifying how they have applied and allocated their resources against all the demands that are made on them.
However, it is right that there should be a statutory safety net to ensure that vulnerable people have access to the right accommodation. That safety net is provided by the homelessness legislation. It is set out in Part III of the Housing Act 1985. The Government have plans to reform that legislation but the new legislation, whenever it comes forward and whatever it is, will continue to provide a proper safety net for the same
1316
groups of people as it does at present. That includes people with children and single people who are vulnerable because they have suffered violence.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked what action the Government have taken to ensure that tackling domestic violence is given the appropriate priority by all departments. The interdepartmental groups have been set up at official and ministerial level to take forward the Government's response to domestic violence. The official group has met four times to discuss the proposals in the key areas in raising public awareness and improving inter-agency co-operation to tackle domestic violence. The proposals were endorsed by the ministerial group on domestic violence at its inaugural meeting on 17th May. We remain determined to tackle what is an important issue.
We all want to help, whatever our situation may be. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, believed that there should be central co-ordination. I agree that there is value in that. But there is central co-ordination. The local authorities must take the lead in devising exactly the kind of strategies that need to be in place to address the housing needs of the victims of domestic violence in their areas, in addition to all the other problems that they face. The Government, in their turn, are ensuring as far as possible that decisions on spending are consistent with what individual authorities are doing.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it is vitally important that there should be co-operation between the agencies. Clearly, it is vital for housing authorities and housing associations to work closely with social service departments and voluntary sector agencies when they develop their proposals for new housing association refuges and running the existing ones.
The Government also contribute indirectly to the provision of refuges and to their running through the substantial revenue and capital resources which we make available to local authorities. Where people cannot afford to meet the full costs of their accommodation from their own resources we provide financial assistance through the housing benefit system. That housing benefit is available to people irrespective of the type of accommodation in which they live.
The voluntary sector agencies play a vital role in running refuges and providing services in co-operation with statutory bodies. In order to help the voluntary sector in this work the Government are providing more than £150,000 of funding to the Women's Aid Federation in England in 1995–96. They are providing £49,000 towards a national telephone helpline. Furthermore, £55,000 is being provided over three years to fund the Women's Aid Federation's national housing co-ordinator. We are supporting other women's aid organisation in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Domestic violence is a very important subject and, like most difficult subjects, it is not one to which an easy solution can be found or which will disappear by government legislation or government or local authority funding. Basically, it must be the co-ordination of everyone's good work and efforts, supported by the

1317
appropriate funding. However, because it is an important issue, the inter-departmental official group on domestic violence was set up.
I have referred to that group which is due to meet soon in order to discuss the provision of women's refuges and other matters related to domestic violence. It will report to the ministerial group on domestic violence so that Ministers themselves can consider the matters and how best to take them forward. We shall look carefully at what is said in the official group but, as yet, I do not believe that a case has been made out to change what has been the long-standing policy of the Government as a whole—that local authorities should have the responsibility of deciding how to address the housing and other needs of the victims of domestic violence. However much there may be ministerial co-ordination—and that is right—and however much there may be an inter-departmental group working to see how we can pull together all the services—and that is right—in the end the problem must be addressed locally by the local authorities and the local agencies.
In so far as the noble Earl's Question has drawn attention to the problem tonight he will have done a service to your Lordships and to others too—
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is he aware that he has fallen into the trap of offering the House a contradiction? He has suggested a co-ordinated response and insisted that it should be local, although he knows full well that local authorities are intent and determined on being totally autonomous and there is no real prospect of proper co-ordination.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I accused the noble Lord of falling into a trap. He has responded by offering the same compliment to me. I do not believe that I did fall into a trap. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that there should be some form of central co-ordination in order to overcome the problem. I have tried to say that there is because there has been the co-ordination of Ministers and of government departments. However, there is no difference in saying that, while at the same time saying that it comes down to the local authorities and the people of the locality to address the problem.
The noble Lord shakes his head, but I cannot understand how he can believe that it should be for the Department of the Environment or for the Home Office to say how the problem should be dealt with. The way in which it should be dealt with must be a local matter. The fact that it should be dealt with and the funds that should be addressed for it are matters for central government.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may apologise for prolonging the debate. I appreciate that after nine hours and perhaps 10 minutes he will not be in a position to give a detailed response. However, as regards the ministerial discussions, he raised the question of reporting back so that those involved in the work at local level, in the voluntary agencies and so forth are fully informed of ministerial thinking and are able co-operatively to take the issue forward. Will he expand on that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am becoming rather nervous that we are now out of order because I have been invited to make three speeches. However, I shall ensure that account is taken of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

Child Support Bill
8.10 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 23 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 24:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Provision of information to the Secretary of State: repeal of section 14(4) of and Schedule 2 to 1991 Act
. Section 14(4) of and Schedule 2 to the 1991 Act shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to Inland Revenue confidentiality. The matter was gone into slightly in Committee because the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, raised it on another amendment which I moved. I should say that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who has his name to this amendment, has suffered a slight accident and has had to go into hospital. I know that all your Lordships will wish to concur in sending him a message of goodwill and good wishes for his rapid recovery.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry that he is not here to speak on this amendment because, although at one time I was a Minister responsible for the Inland Revenue and have dealt with Inland Revenue cases both at the Bar and as a judge, that is slight experience compared with that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. He devoted many years of his valuable life to the service of the Inland Revenue in a number of capacities. He was always urging—and I venture to second this—that Inland Revenue confidentiality should be respected.
I reminded your Lordships in Committee that our Inland Revenue system is in many ways peculiar. I know of no other system which relies to the same extent on self-assessment. But that self-assessment depends on an assurance of confidentiality. The provision which this amendment seeks to expunge—and it is now in a more correct form than it was in Committee—is to be found in the second schedule to the 1991 Act. It enables the Secretary of State and his officials to breach Inland Revenue confidentiality for the purposes of the Child Support Agency.
I have been long enough hereabouts to recognise the sound of entrenching tools in Whitehall. They have been very noticeable this evening. It is perfectly obvious that the department made what I think would be agreed generally, although it will not concede this, to be an egregious error in the 1991 Act, and it is now in a Maginot line. It is entrenching itself and taking a firm stand behind formulae which are worked out most capriciously. I have a whole list of cases with which I

1319
shall not trouble your Lordships at this hour of the night. But perhaps I may mention one. The Child Support Agency, evidently on the formula which your Lordships will be looking at later, made an assessment which left a father with 1p per week.
Although the Minister and his department despise the magistrature, is it really conceivable that any rational Bench would commit such an error or make the other egregious decisions which have been freely publicised? I sympathise with what the Minister said in support of the Child Support Agency and its officers. They were subject to great provocation and unfairness. It was not their fault that they had to administer an unworkable Act. It was the fault of the Government in arranging that they should have to do so by using their Whip in the other place and by using the management of business in this House so as to preclude your Lordships from amending effectively the 1991 Bill, although its defects were recognised clearly and identified. Some of those defects are rectified in this Bill.
One other matter to which I should refer is a heading to a leader in The Times of 23rd December 1993. It is headed
"Keeping the Flaws The reform of the Child Support Agency is disappointing".
The leader spells that out in detail.
The Minister has rightly been staunchly loyal to his department. He has defended the officers of the Child Support Agency, who, as I say, were not responsible for the policy which they had to implement. But we should not lose sight of the fact that the 1991 Act was a major act of bureaucratic aggrandisement.
There was a good deal of slow, bureaucratic aggrandisement from 1945 when the Labour Government made use of the powers that had been vouchsafed to the Executive in wartime; and, indeed, that aggrandisement, a slow process, went on after the Conservatives came to power only ending with the disaster for the Conservative Government of Crichel Down, which resulted in the resignation of an able and popular Minister. That Minister took the blame for the bureaucratic errors of his department; and that should be a warning.
That is the general background: an unprecedented act of bureaucratic aggrandisement, seizing the jurisdiction from the magistrature, which had exercised it since the Middle Ages and done so under statute for a century, and vouchsafing it to a government agency charged with applying an inflexible formula. However, it did not rest there. They had to show that the Child Support Agency could do at least as well as the magistrates. That could only be done by arming the officials with exceptional powers.
In Committee we discussed—and I took the matter to a Division, so I only mention it in passing—the power of those officials to enter private premises on pain of a penalty and to interrogate on pain of a penalty the employer, the father and the fellow employees. In addition to those powers, the 1991 Act assumes power in the officials to breach Inland Revenue confidentiality.
1320
I leave the other matters aside, but they are essential background—the bureaucratic aggrandisement, the power to enter private premises, the power to interrogate employers and fellow employees to elicit information that will strengthen the arm of the agency.
We now come to the breach of Inland Revenue confidentiality. I venture to say that that confidentiality lies at the very heart of the functioning of the Inland Revenue in this country. It is quite intolerable that officials should be given the ability, that no private creditor has, of being able to breach Inland Revenue confidentiality. I hope that the Minister will not say that that power is only used in certain circumstances and only as a last resort. That simply will not do. It ought not to take place at all. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for not being in my place when he introduced his amendment. However, I believe that he made some friendly remarks about my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I am informed that, although my noble friend has had to have some treatment, he is now progressing well, although he will not be able to join us for the rest of this evening's proceedings.
As always, the noble and learned Lord made a very powerful case. There is but one point that I should like the Minister to clarify. As I read Schedule 2 to the 1991 Act, it seems to me that the access to Inland Revenue records only applies to the address of the employer of the absent parent. However, I should be most grateful if the noble Lord could make that crystal clear and confirm that that is the only information that can be obtained from the Inland Revenue and that no other information of any sort can be so obtained in connection with the work of the Child Support Agency.
Further, as regards local authority records, under the same schedule, can the Minister confirm that it is only the information regarding benefits—that is, housing benefit and, as it was then, the community charge benefit which is now council tax benefit—that can be obtained. It is extremely important that those points should be emphasised.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may start in the elegant legal words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and say that I concur with the remarks made by my colleagues about the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I very much hope that the noble Lord will be back with us in time for us to hear his voice raised on the issue next week when we come to Third Reading.
Section 14(4) of the 1991 Act introduces Schedule 2 which allows the Child Support Agency to obtain from the Inland Revenue the current address or current employer of an absent parent. It also allows the agency to obtain from local authorities details of housing benefit or council tax benefit which are needed in the assessment formula. The amendment proposed would remove those two provisions.
We had a full discussion in the House during both the Second Reading and the Committee stages of the Bill about the information which the Child Support Agency is able to obtain from the Inland Revenue. I would like

1321
to repeat and re-emphasise that the only information that is given to the CSA by the Revenue is—as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me to confirm—the current address of the absent parent or the current employer of the absent parent. That is done by means of correspondence. Therefore, there is no suggestion that people from the agency can actually sit down and look at a person's file to see what the other aspects of his position may be as outlined in the Inland Revenue returns. As I said, it is done by correspondence and those concerned can only ask the following two questions if the agency needs to know the answers. Question one: what is the address of the absent parent? Question two: who is the current employer of the absent parent?
The agency does that when it is unable to trace an absent parent or the absent parent's employer. Then it sends a standard inquiry form to a central point within the Inland Revenue. That form is then returned with the absent parent's address and that of his employer, where it is known. As I said, officers of the agency do not visit the Inland Revenue premises and they certainly do not see any individual's tax returns.
During the Committee stage of the Bill the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, seemed to compare the Child Support Agency with a debt collection agency. The CSA is much more than that. It has now taken over from the courts jurisdiction for the assessment, collection and enforcement of child maintenance in the majority of cases. I very much appreciate that that is where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and I part company in that we do not agree with that takeover of what had previously been the role of the courts. As I said before, two of the many reasons for the introduction of the agency were the courts' general failure to trace absent parents and their lack of success in enforcing orders once they were made. The agency has had the same problems, but we are determined that it will be more effective than the courts in achieving fair and regular maintenance for more parents with care. However, to achieve that, the agency plainly needs to have more statutory powers than a simple debt collection agency.
In explaining why the provisions of Schedule 2 were introduced, I can do no better than to remind your Lordships of the commonsense contribution made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who said that,
"the whole thing depends on the wife who is left with a child by a man who by now dislikes her and has another wife. It is perfectly obvious that that man will not easily pay what he ought to pay".— [Official Report, 20/6/95; col. 170.]
The noble Lord was surprised at the length of the argument that we had on that subject in Committee; indeed, so was I. Sadly, it is true that many absent parents try to avoid being traced and, when traced, try to avoid paying maintenance. In the past year the agency successfully traced 49,600 absent parents whose whereabouts were unknown to the parent with care. The agency has had success in tracking down fathers, and indeed mothers, who disappear without facing up to
1322
their responsibilities. Without the help of this simple information from the Inland Revenue, the number of successful traces would reduce significantly.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. With the leave of the House, it would perhaps be helpful if I asked a question now as the answer might be forthcoming from other sources. Are there other examples of where this power is used? Is it used only in connection with the Child Support Bill or are there other areas where there is access to the Inland Revenue or local authority records? It would be helpful to know that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may return to that in a little while because I wish to discuss the point about local authorities that the noble Lord raised. The second arm of the schedule which would be removed by the noble and learned Lord's amendment concerns the provision of relevant information from local authority records. I reminded your Lordships that the relevant information has been prescribed in regulations as the eligible rent for housing benefit purposes, the entitlement to housing benefit, the council tax payable and the entitlement to council tax benefit of either the person with care or the absent parent. The provision is beneficial because it allows the CSA to collect information which it would otherwise have to obtain from either parent; or, alternatively, the other parent would have to obtain it from his or her ex-other half.
An important element of the calculation of a maintenance assessment is the housing costs, which are net of housing benefit. The net council tax is needed for assessing protected income, which ensures that the absent parent and his new family remain significantly above the level of income support. That is why I find it strange to hear for the second time the case that the noble and learned Lord refers to of the person left with a penny. I would need to know a good deal more about that before I could comment on it. As I said, these calculations about housing costs and net council tax costs are very important; the net council tax is needed for assessing protected income. Failure to obtain this information could reduce the speed and accuracy of some assessments. That leads to some of the problems which have beset the agency. I must inform your Lordships that I cannot understand why the amendment has been drafted to remove this provision.
I was asked who has similar powers. The Contributions Agency can similarly ask the Inland Revenue for the address of a person who is in arrears of contributions, or it can ask for his employer's address. Therefore the Contributions Agency already has this power. If we lived in a world where the absent parent always made himself available to have his maintenance assessed and where, once assessed, it was always paid, it would not be necessary to have access to the limited information on addresses which the Inland Revenue is asked to provide. Lamentably, we do not live in such a world and therefore there is a need for the agency to be allowed to receive limited details from the Inland Revenue's records.

1323
Provided that this information is carefully handled by the Inland Revenue and by the agency, I am afraid that I cannot see the great matter of principle which so concerns the noble and learned Lord. I could see it if the agency were asking to see all of a person's records, but as regards the two questions that the agency is allowed to ask the Inland Revenue and to which it expects an answer, I do not think any reasonable man or woman would consider that that trespassed on individual liberty or freedom. Therefore I am afraid that once again I must reject the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am afraid once again in the reply of the Minister there has been a quite perceptible note of antagonism to absent fathers—indeed there was hostility. That was marked earlier and it has been marked again. One of the wise things that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in Committee was that there are few men in this country who can afford two families. That was said repeatedly at the time of the Divorce Reform Act 1969, which ushered in an enormous spate of divorces in spite of it being sold to the public as a kiss-and-make-up Bill.
It was said on that occasion by Lord Hodson, who was the foremost matrimonial judge in this country, and by Lady Summerskill, with a lifelong devotion to women's rights, who recognised immediately that to allow polygamy, albeit successive polygamy, not simultaneous polygamy, was disastrous to the status of married women. What has happened is that society has allowed people to have two families, and it is perfectly absurd that the Department of Social Security has got into a false position that it should blame the absent father. That is the first thing I would say.
The second thing is that I would like again to quote what I have quoted from Dicey on previous occasions when he is describing the rule of law. He states:
"every man whatever his rank or condition is subject to the ordinary law of the realm … universal subjection of all classes to one law administered by the ordinary courts".
He was dealing there expressly with the systems of administrative law on the Continent which put officials in a privileged position. That has never been our way until very recently. All persons—the ordinary debt collector and the official debt collector alike—should be subject and amenable to the ordinary law of the land. At this time of night, and having made a brief reconnaissance outside the Chamber, I see no point in wasting your Lordships' time with a Division. Without being in any way convinced—on the contrary, believing this to be an important point because the rule of law is an important principle—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 25:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Appeals: amendment of section 20 of 1991 Act
. In section 20 of the 1991 Act (appeals), in subsection (1) (b), at end insert—

"(c) to refuse an application for a maintenance assessment;

(d) to make an assessment;

(e) to refuse an application, under section 17, for a review of a maintenance assessment;

(f) in determining the amount of an assessment;

(g) to cancel an assessment;

(h) to refuse to cancel an assessment" ").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 25, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 26. The matter of the two amendments is different but the area they cover has a certain amount of similarity. They both deal with the question of appeals. Amendment No. 25 would cut out the internal review which was provided in the 1991 Act and which adds to the delay, adds to the difficulty and adds to the obstruction. I can remember in 1991 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, waxing particularly eloquent against this internal review on the ground that it simply did not partake of the character of an appeal. It is an appeal to the same body which originally made the decision, and that is not what we understand by an appeal. The large number of decisions needing to be corrected is really much more an indication of poor adjudication and poor administration at the lower level. Indeed, those errors are so many and the number of missing papers so great that it is often not until there is investigation from outside that they come to light.
I heard the Minister speak in defence of the agency earlier today. I did not intervene because I had no further locus standi on that amendment and I remembered that we are at Report stage. However, the Minister knows that in general I do not believe that the agency is to blame for what is wrong with the Bill. Ministers are responsible for the load they have placed on the agency. Since the Minister knew that, I thought that he did not need to take the general distrust of power which I believe every parliamentarian must have in all circumstances as personal hostility to the agency. That was a little unnecessary of him.
Amendment No. 26 is much more far-reaching. It provides, in case of error, for a genuine appeal to the High Court. It also gives the High Court authority to override the Act itself where that is necessary to prevent hardship or injustice to any particular person. I am sure that the Minister will not like that. However, from 1991 onwards it has been one of our substantial criticisms of the Act that it does not provide any proper machinery for appealing against an assessment.
Over and over again in my postbag I have found that what most frustrates people in appealing against an assessment which appears to them patently unjust is that they are unable to get any judicial recourse to appeal against it. That is all part of what the noble and learned Lord meant by describing the 1991 Act as a threat to the rule of law. I do not believe that the Government can imagine the frustration and disillusion that results

1325
from facing what people see, rightly or wrongly, as an unjust act by an executive power and being unable to query it, challenge it or bring it to scrutiny before any higher authority whatever.
Under Amendment No. 26 the court would be allowed to correct any error of fact or law involved in the decision appealed against. Due to the amount of work the CSA is asked to undertake, rather than through any incompetence on its part, the papers of the CSA are in such confusion that until it faces an outside authority with power to compel it to produce documents a great many errors will never be sorted out.
The power that the CSA enjoys would have been draconian enough if all its decisions had been accurate, but at present it seems that no more than 50 per cent. of its decisions are accurate. Enjoying that much draconian power and immunity from questioning in defence of decisions, some half of which are wrong, is too much. That is why it is important to be able to appeal against the CSA to a proper court—the Family Division or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.
Ever since I arrived in this House I have been hearing arguments about the need for a proper family court. I have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, speak eloquently and persuasively on the subject. If the Minister has not learnt yet he soon will that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is usually right even if, as in this case, it takes three years for her rightness to become apparent.
Although they deal with very different points, both amendments need to be taken seriously. The provisions of Amendment No. 26 go a long way to make the internal review seem even more unnecessary and time wasting than it seemed in 1991. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained, the two new clauses he proposes concern appeals. Amendment No. 25 deals with appeals to a child support appeal tribunal while Amendment No. 26 deals with appeals to the High Court.
Amendment No. 25 proposes to make provision for child support officer decisions relating to the refusal, cancellation, making, or adjustment of the amount of a maintenance assessment to be appealed directly to a child support appeal tribunal. Noble Lords will know that the 1991 Act provides for a statutory review of such child support officer decisions by a second child support officer. The new clause offers an alternative avenue for disputing a child support officer's decision—directly to an appeal tribunal. However, it does not do away with the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. The effect of the new clause is to give the aggrieved party a choice of whether to ask for a review by the CSO or to go straight to a child support appeal tribunal.
The statutory review which is carried out before an appeal can he lodged serves a useful purpose. It reduces the pressure on the appeals system. There are times when matters of grievance can be dealt with simply and quickly by a second child support officer reviewing the maintenance assessment. There is no need for an appeal.
1326
In effect, the second-tier review acts as a filter mechanism to identify such cases and avoid clogging the system. Currently only around one case in five of those reviewed under Section 18 of the Act continues on to appeal. Before anybody says that the other four out of five have had their appeal rights denied, I should point out that the right of appeal is automatic should either party be dissatisfied with the result of the review.
Therefore, it is not so much, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested, an appeal to the same body. The second-tier review process is not an appeal at all. It is an opportunity for either party to ask for a different officer to check the assessment to ensure that it is correct. If either party then disagrees with the outcome, there is the automatic right of appeal to a tribunal.
If, instead of applying for a review by a child support officer, everyone sought to appeal, the number of appeals launched could increase fivefold. It is entirely appropriate for people to apply to the child support officer in the first instance if they are unhappy about any aspect of the initial decision on child maintenance. If he agrees the decision is wrong, he can put it right. There is no need for cases to go to a tribunal unless people are unhappy about the outcome. I cannot understand what is wrong with that. To go down the road suggested by the noble Earl would undoubtedly increase the number of appeals made to tribunals and make the problems of the tribunals even greater and the delays which the parent with care would face in getting maintenance ever longer.
The effect of Amendment No. 26 would be to undermine all first and second level decisions on the assessment, payment and collection of child support maintenance. As the noble Earl explained, it would abolish the child support commissioners and allow any decision of a child support officer, a child support appeal tribunal, the Secretary of State, a magistrates' court or a sheriff's court to be challenged in the High Court. There would be no requirement to seek leave to appeal. The High Court would accept all comers.
Child support commissioners are appointed by the Crown. They are barristers, solicitors or advocates of not less than 10 years' standing. Their role is to consider points of law raised by decisions of child support appeal tribunals. It is a well-established process which also applies in other areas of social security. The commissioners, whose legal standing is equivalent to High Court judges, provide a valuable function in establishing case law which then applies in later cases.
I know that the noble Earl regards the abolition of the child support legislation as his main aim. I believe that these two amendments would disable the legislation and get quite close to that position by the route that he suggested in the two amendments. By providing for the Family Division of the High Court to hear any challenge to a decision on child support, the amendment in effect returns questions to the courts. Such a move would result in a great deal of extra work for the High Court and the Court of Session in Scotland and people would wait a very long time for the outcome of their case. Other cases currently heard in the High Court and the Court of Session would suffer equally. Frankly, I do not believe that that is an acceptable way to proceed.

1327
Your Lordships will not have failed to notice that all the costs would fall on the Secretary of State unless the court decides otherwise. That would, of course, be a considerable and most unwelcome burden on the taxpayer. I am afraid that vexatious litigants would take every opportunity of pursuing their cases, especially if there was absolutely no possibility of them having to pay any of the costs. I do not believe that that is right.
I am sorry to tell the noble Earl that I think neither of his amendments are sensible. Both would increase costs and, more importantly, cause unacceptable delays. I believe that they would go a long way towards undermining the objectives of the Child Support Agency. The provisions would certainly add to delays. There are people who would use the procedures that the noble Earl would put in place as a way further to clog up the machinery of the system, to aggravate the system, to delay the system and to bring it into disrepute.
I cannot possibly accept the amendments. I am sure that the noble Earl is not in the least surprised at that. I hope he will withdraw this amendment. If he does not do so, I hope my noble friends will support me.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for one point in that reply. I am grateful for his admission that the second tier review is not an appeal. In 1991 we spent a great many hours seeking to induce his predecessor to agree to precisely that point. I am very glad that we have won the point now, even if somewhat belatedly. It does not partake of any of the proper characteristics of an appeal. The name of the officer undertaking the review is not given. The complainant does not know whether the officer is a different person. If we do not know who the person is, we do not know whether there can be conflict of interest or whom to hold accountable for the decision.
That is not justice; it is administration. It is at the heart of our complaint that administration is taking over from justice.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Earl giving way to me. Surely if the aggrieved party can have the problem resolved by what the noble Earl calls an administrative process, that is a perfectly satisfactory solution. A solution is reached a good deal more quickly and more easily, with the backstop that if the person is not satisfied his right of appeal is not altered.
Earl Russell: My Lords, that argument would carry a good deal more weight if the CSA were capable of getting more than 50 per cent. of its decisions right. Judging by some of the correspondence that I have seen from the CSA, I wonder whether it always knows that it has conducted a second tier review. Internal communication within the CSA seems to me to be a good deal less than perfect.
I cannot help wondering whether the Minister would entrust his car to a garage where there was a 50–50 chance that the garage would remember to tighten the wheel nuts. I can tell him that I would not. It makes the case for a proper appeal procedure all the more important.
1328
I was a little disconcerted by the Minister's argument that we cannot have a proper appeal procedure because people might use it. It reminds me a little of the case of,
"A man in the restaurant at Crewe Who once found a mouse in his stew. Said the waiter, 'Don't shout, don't wave it about, Or the rest will be wanting one too'"
Yes, indeed, if justice is available, the rest will be wanting one too. If injustice, or perceived injustice, grows, then so must recourse to the courts to deal with it. The argument that everyone might want it is one which does a great deal more than I hope the Minister intended. One could use that argument to wipe out practically any appeal against an action of power. That really would be contrary to the rule of law. I hope that it is not what the Government intend.
In one form or another, we shall have to look at the issue again because as it stands at present the situation is totally unacceptable. I do not think that we shall get any further by pursuing the matter across the Chamber tonight. Therefore for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 27:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Enforcement of liability orders by distress: repeal of section 35 of 1991 Act
. Section 35 of the 1991 Act shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to the remedy of distress which is vouchsafed to the Secretary of State in addition to the other powers that I rehearsed earlier. As your Lordships know, distress stems from a very ancient and primitive sphere of jurisprudence; namely, the time of self help.
When I raised the matter in Committee, I asked the Minister a number of specific questions about Section 35 of the 1991 Act. I also asked him a general question. The noble Lord was not then in a position to answer those specific questions which he said were questions of law. I have today received a letter from him dealing with the specific points that I raised. I am most grateful to him; I have had time to read the letter before the debate.
I do not propose to refer to the specific points, although they may arise on the general question which I asked the Minister and which remains unanswered. It is this. Section 35 gives the Secretary of State the right of distress. Does it give him additional powers over and above the ordinary rights of distress? If so, what are those powers? If not, what is the sole purpose of Section 35?
The matter arises in this way. Section 33(2) of the Child Support Act 1991 states:
"The Secretary of State may apply to a magistrates' court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff for an order (a 'liability order') against the liable person".
Under subsection (4) neither the court nor the sheriff is given power to question the maintenance assessment under which the payment for child support maintenance falls to be made. In other words, as I understand it, they

1329
may not question the operation of the formula, however defective it has proved in the past. That comes under Section 33, liability orders.
Section 35 states:
"Where a liability order has been made against a person ('the liable person'), the Secretary of State may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the liable person's goods".
Perhaps I ought to read from subsection (7):
"The Secretary of State may make regulations supplementing the provisions of this section".
One then has a liability order obtained from the magistrates' court. I now read from Halsbury's Laws of England in the edition edited by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. I need read only the first few words of Section 5 in the article on distress:
"5. Distress under Magistrates' Courts Act 1952".
That Act has now been consolidated. Paragraph 442 states:
"Jurisdiction. Where default is made in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a magistrates' court the court may issue a warrant of distress for the purpose of levying the sum".
In other words, when a liability order has been obtained from the magistrates, the magistrates may issue a warrant of distress.
I have examined the procedure under the Magistrates' Courts Act and there is some difference from Section 35. One asks why it exists. I ask again: what additional powers have been taken? Why is it necessary to have Section 35 at all when the issue of a liability order may immediately result in distress under the Magistrates' Courts Act? Either Section 35 gives additional power once again to officials or it. is unnecessary. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment, to which I have put my name.. Distress is an extreme power. It provides the right of entry; it lays down in Section 35 that no one is to be a trespasser. It is almost the nearest thing allowed under the rule of law to a Hobbesian state of war. It is an act almost forcibly to take what is owing to one.
That is an extreme power which may be justified in a situation which is properly controlled by the rule of law. In some cases, that extreme power needs to exist. But to be subject to distress for an assessment against which one has no legal appeal and which stands a 50 per cent. chance of being erroneous is too much. The contrast between those two things shows quite how far the 1991 Act went in exalting the powers of the Executive against the powers of the law.
If one is to be subject to those powers, one must be able to appeal against them. If the powers are to be claimed, there must be some good reason for believing that the debt which they are being used to collect is due. Without the right of appeal and with that rate of error, I do not see how we can have that.
There must also be some reason to believe that the debt can be recovered. We may find that that presents some difficulties. According to the report of the Audit Commission, which appeared an hour or two too late for us to use it in Committee, the agency itself told the
1330
National Audit Office that the total outstanding debt contained a growing core not yet quantified which was not likely to be collected.
So if we use distress to try to collect something that is not likely to be collected because the person does not possess sufficient property, we are getting into uncomfortable territory. I am reminded of a document I once saw recording the distresses taken from John Hampden's tenants for ship money. They had taken away from them as distresses their family Bibles and their frying pans. They were getting down to the bare minimum. We do not wish matters to get to that point. Nor do we want distress to be used where the legal powers are inadequate.
Another point which was made by the Audit Commission and which I do not believe the Minister will be able to get round is that many of the debts arise from interim maintenance assessments. Because they are incorrectly dated, they are legally unenforceable. If I am to be the victim of a distress for an inaccurately assessed debt on a maintenance interim assessment which is not legally enforceable because the date is wrong, I cannot do anything with the bailiff who comes into my property. What appeal have I? Is that not being subject to an arbitrary power? And is it not the kind exaltation of the Executive which is very hard to combine with the principles of government by consent?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have again proposed this amendment which removes totally the provisions relating to the levying of distress. They are concerned that Section 35 of the 1991 Act—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I venture to point out that it does no such thing; the power to levy distress remains under the Magistrates' Courts Act.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords, but I believe that the noble and learned Lord will agree that it removes the provisions as they apply to the Child Support Agency, giving it a different route to that which I believe the noble and learned Lord would prefer it to have.
Both noble Lords are concerned that Section 35 of the 1991 Act gives the Child Support Agency exceptional powers, and that this section is not needed—as the noble and learned Lord pointed out to me in his intervention—as there is an existing debt enforcement process in the county court. I should first like to remind the House of the efforts the agency makes to reach an agreement with the absent parent about the repayment of arrears before enforcement action is considered. There are a number of safeguards in place that limit the amount of arrears payable, the amount that the agency will seek to collect and the maximum amount of current maintenance and arrears repayments in cases where the absent parent makes prompt arrangements to meet his liabilities. Enforcement action is the last remedy for the agency in cases where an absent parent persistently seeks to avoid his liability.

1331
For the sake of complete clarity I shall ask noble Lords to bear with me while I explain the stages in the agency's enforcement process in detail, relating them directly to the processes a private individual has to pursue to obtain the remedy of distress. First, the agency needs to establish that a debt has arisen and should be pursued. A magistrates' court must grant a liability order before any enforcement action by way of distress can be carried forward. As I explained in Committee, the court has no jurisdiction over the amount of the weekly maintenance assessment. That is a matter decided by the agency using the maintenance formula. Where a parent disputes the assessment, he or she has a right of appeal to an independent child support appeal tribunal. However, the court must be satisfied that the amount of debt stated on the application for a liability order is in fact owing and has not, for example, been paid in full or in part. All applications are heard in court and the absent parent may give evidence if he so wishes.
Section 35 of the 1991 Act provides for action to be taken to enforce the liability order by way of the levying of distress. This is necessary because all the liability order does is confirm that the debt is due. If Section 35 were taken away, the agency would be unable to use distress as a method of enforcing child support maintenance since, as there is no debt judgment from a county court, it would not be possible to apply to the county court for this action. Without the remedy of distress—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am so sorry to intervene again. If I may say so, the noble Lord has entirely missed the point. There is no question of a county court order. It is a question of an order of the magistrates' court. I read the section and the provision. It is an order of the magistrates' court which can be enforced by distress. The liability order is an order by the magistrates' court to pay.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. However, I understand that an ordinary company, let us say, wanting to levy distress because a debt arises has to go to the county court for a debt judgment. I shall come to why we believe that this is the right procedure in a moment. I am saying that the agency goes to the magistrates' court; and I explained what the magistrates' court may or may not do and how it can establish what it is asked to establish, namely that the debt is owed and that it has not been paid either in whole or in part.
As I was saying, without the remedy of distress it would be much more difficult for the agency to obtain payment of maintenance quickly and effectively in those cases where absent parents refuse to meet their responsibilities to their children and where a deduction from earnings order cannot be used. The provisions in Section 35 give enforcement powers to the Child Support Agency which closely resemble the process in county courts. The decision to use magistrates' courts for liability orders, rather than the county courts—I hope that this helps to answer the noble and learned Lord's point—was taken with the intention of being helpful to the parents. Magistrates' courts are often more local and therefore easier to attend than county courts.
1332
An individual taking proceedings in the county court must first obtain a debt judgment and the debtor has an opportunity to attend court to defend the application if he wishes. The liability order process that I have described is similar, though taken in the magistrates' courts rather than the county court. If payment is not made following a debt judgment in the county court, the creditor can apply for a warrant of execution. But I should stress that that is, in most cases, an administrative procedure which does not involve the leave of the court. I do not, therefore, accept that the agency has exceptional powers in respect of distress. Creditors enforcing debt through the county court can have distress proceedings initiated on the basis of an administrative decision.
Section 35 of the 1991 Act does, of course, contain important safeguards to ensure that the absent parent is always left with certain essential items, including clothes, bedding, furniture and household equipment; and tools and other work equipment. There is also the right of appeal to the magistrates' court if the absent parent feels that the proceedings are irregular in any way.
I have been asked why it is not a magistrates' court order for distress. That would involve the agency going back to the magistrates' court, which is a two-stage process. The order for distress would normally be issued administratively and the agency has instead been given powers to act on the liability order. This is a simpler and quicker process to deal with the problem. I must say, frankly, that the problem will only come about and the person will only have that visited upon him if he is simply just not prepared to play ball with the agency and is showing no signs of paying the maintenance due to the children of the first marriage.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the distress provisions that the agency may use are the last resort in a well regulated process. The agency does not have exceptional powers. In Section 35 it has the means to use well-established procedures of debt recovery to secure maintenance payments for children whose absent parents are refusing to meet their responsibilities.
Earl Russell: My Lords—
9.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I fear that the debate is getting a little out of order. The House may find it helpful if I remind noble Lords that it is possible to ask the Minister at the end of his speech short questions for elucidation before he sits down. There is no provision for interrupting a Minister in the middle of his speech at Report stage.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was summing up and was about to say that I do not believe that these amendments are in any way helpful to the cause that at least I and, I suspect, most noble Lords and members of the public are trying to pursue; namely, to make sure that children in these circumstances get the maintenance that they are due from the absent parent. Therefore, I hope that with my detailed explanation, in addition to the letter that I wrote to him, the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, we are greatly in the noble Lord's debt. He has had an extraordinarily difficult brief to make good and has done it with force and patience. But I must, I hope with all respect, ask him to look again at this matter. He has talked all round the issue but has not faced it.
It is neither here nor there that any of those remedies—the right to intrude, the right to interrogate, the right to infringe Inland Revenue confidentiality and the right to levy distress—are only ultimate sanctions. The noble Lord says in effect—in fact, I believe that he said it in terms—that the debtor has only to co-operate and he can avoid all those unpleasant consequences. That is neither here nor there.
The question is whether Section 35 gives any additional powers. If it does not, it is unnecessary and the noble Lord can accept the amendment. I can put the matter very briefly again. Under Section 33, the Secretary of State may apply to a magistrates' court for a liability order. That is an order saying that the parent in question is liable to pay a sum. Then under Section 35, the Secretary of State, having obtained a liability order, may levy distress.
But what the noble Lord has not faced at all is that there is power under the Magistrates' Courts Act. I read the passage, as it is very short, and I can read it again:
"Where default is made in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a magistrates' court—
a liability order—
"the court may issue a warrant of distress".
The only answer to that is to go back to the magistrates' court. Is that really so onerous? Must he really have Section 35 so that the Secretary of State may exceptionally, unlike the ordinary creditor, proceed administratively to distress? If so, so much the worse.
I ask again. Does Section 35 give additional powers? Obviously it gives one additional power because, characteristically, it allows the Secretary of State to make regulations supplementing that section—the distress section. There is one other subsection that I notice is discrepant with the Magistrates' Courts Act and that relates to special damages. As it is in different terms, one expects it to have some different meaning. In his letter the noble Lord did not go into that and, as we shall certainly have to return to the matter, I shall not pursue it today. But we are exactly where we started.
A liability order is an order to pay and then distress can be levied under the Magistrates' Courts Act. That is the beginning and the end of the, matter. The only difference is whether the Secretary of State, unlike any other creditor, can proceed immediately by administrative action to levy distress or whether he is required to go back and obtain automatically, as I read the law, a warrant for distress.
As I said, we shall certainly have to return to the matter. The noble Lord may be able to find an answer to the question that I put. If so, I should be very grateful for a letter before Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 30:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Reduced benefit directions: amendment of section 46 of 1991 Act
. In section 46 of the 1991 Act (failure to comply with obligations imposed by section 6), after subsection (5) insert—
"(5A) The prescribed amount of the reduction under a reduced benefit direction shall be no more than five per centum of the personal allowance payable in respect of the parent with care." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 31, with which it is grouped. The amendments concern the benefit penalty—the penalty which is imposed on the parent with care if she refuses to co-operate with the agency, to name the father and authorise the agency to take action. At present the penalty stands at 20 per cent. for one year and 10 per cent. for a further six months. It has been my contention right from the beginning that that penalty is too draconian, that it too much threatens both the mother's and the children's ability to maintain an adequate standard of living sufficient for health. In fact, the amendment is very much like one I moved on Commons Reasons in 1991.
We have now a very considerable body of evidence—I mention in passing the National Consumer Council and the National Children's Home, and the Minister knows the references—which indicates that on income support it is difficult to maintain an adequate standard of living. With reduced benefit direction it becomes, on occasion, very difficult indeed. When the benefit is subject, as is too often the case now, to a whole series of other deductions, then it can become very hard indeed. Those may include social fund loans, gas, water, electricity, community charge arrears still being pursued—and it is really about time that that stopped—occasionally court fines, arrears of rent and utility charges of all sorts. They are a much bigger part of the expenditure of people on benefit than they were five years ago.
There is a normal rule in the department that deductions from income support should not exceed 15 per cent. of benefit. Even that is arguably too much. But that rule, where it applies, is better than nothing. However, there is no such rule covering deductions under the benefit penalty. The Minister could perfectly easily bring that benefit penalty under the operation of the 50 per cent. rule. But leaving the deduction, if it remains at all, at 20 per cent., amounts to cruelty and, what is more, cruelty not only to the mother but also to the children. I cannot see how one can have a 20 per cent. reduction in the mother's income without it affecting the children also: it must. If the total household income is reduced that much, there is not the money to go round.
The Minister believes that deductions of this sort are not sufficient to act as an incentive to co-operate. But I do not believe that he has understood the psychology of those involved. There are some women who simply will not have anything whatsoever to do with the man with whom they have been previously involved. For them 20 per cent. is not enough and the statistics show that there is quite a number of them. I believe that there is no

1335
penalty known to the law which could be sufficient. In fact, I have known cases where even the penalty of death would not have been sufficient to induce co-operation. Some of those women I have known quite well and I know of what I speak.
There are others who are capable of being led by economic incentives, as the Bill proposes. For them a very small incentive is sufficient. So if they are capable of responding to an economic incentive at all, then I believe they are capable of responding to an economic incentive of 5 per cent. So I do not believe that the Minister will find a very great increase in the number of parents refusing to co-operate if this reduction were to be introduced. But even if that is not the case, it is my opinion that a reduction in the level of 20 per cent. is simply not tolerable: it is an injustice.
Amendment No. 31 deals with a point with which the Minister, after the Jobseekers Act, will be familiar. That is the right to enjoy benefit pending an appeal. If an appeal is to mean anything one must not be deprived of benefit until the appeal has been heard. If the Minister argues otherwise, I hope that he will watch the danger of once again falling into the trap of saying, "We cannot have more appeals for fear that everyone might want them". If people are aggrieved they have the right to appeal. I do not believe it right that they should be penalised for doing so. The Minister knows the arguments about this matter and I hope that he has thought about them a little more since the jobseekers' legislation. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said in Committee, Section 46 of the 1991 Act provides for a child support officer to impose a reduced benefit direction in respect of a parent with care who has refused to co-operate in the pursuit of maintenance without good cause. The purpose of the benefit reduction is to make a parent with care think carefully about her decision not to co-operate. It is right that parents with care should co-operate in the pursuit of maintenance unless they have good reason not to do so. It is not right that the burden of maintenance should fall to taxpayers, many of whom have children of their own.
Amendment No. 30 seeks to reduce the amount of the reduced benefit direction to 5 per cent. of the income support personal allowance. A parent with care who receives, or whose current partner receives, a relevant benefit must give her authority for maintenance to be pursued from the absent parent unless she has good cause not to do so. If she does not give her authority without good cause, her benefit may be reduced by 20 per cent. of the income support adult allowance for six months, followed by a reduction of 10 per cent. for the next 12 months.
A reduction to 5 per cent. of the personal allowance would not be effective. It is right that parents with care should co-operate with the agency unless they have good cause not to do so. Taxpayers should not have to shoulder the burden of supporting other people's children unless that is unavoidable. I must stress again, as I did in Committee, that parents with care have their
1336
benefit reduced only after very careful consideration. Even after a benefit reduction has been imposed, the parent with care may give her co-operation at any time and the benefit reduction will be lifted. Alternatively, she may come forward with fresh representations about why she should not be expected to co-operate and these will be considered.
Amendment No. 31 would prevent a reduced benefit direction from coming into force until any appeal against it had been dismissed by a child support appeal tribunal. Parents with care are given every opportunity to make representations and to consider their position before a reduced benefit direction is imposed, and no benefit for a parent with care is reduced without very careful consideration having been given to her case and that of her children.
I could outline again the procedures leading to a benefit reduction, but I did that in Committee and, as your Lordships know, arguments that have been fully deployed in a Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on Report. Therefore, I do not intend to repeat the considerable arguments that I put forward about how the procedure works and the checks and balances which it contains.
However, Amendment No. 31 would mean that, where there is an appeal against the reduced benefit direction, it would in effect be suspended, or would not take effect, until after the tribunal had rejected the appeal. That would encourage parents with care to appeal against the direction simply to delay its coming into force. That is not a proper use of the tribunal service or of Child Support Agency resources.
As I said at greater length in Committee when I explained the safeguards, we believe that the safeguards which are in place protect the parent with care before a reduced benefit direction is imposed. We believe that they are fully adequate. Therefore, with that somewhat briefer explanation than I gave the noble Earl in Committee, I hope that he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not find the Minister's answer at all persuasive. He says that his department never disentitles anyone without very careful consideration. That is the voice of the Executive believing that once it has thought, it must necessarily be right. That is not always so.
The Minister invokes the interests of the taxpayer—and we are going to hear a bit more about the interests of the taxpayer when we reach the next amendment. I do not think that it is necessary to serve the interests of the taxpayer by reducing people to a standard of living where they are in danger of malnutrition. Indeed, I do not believe that it is in the interests of the taxpayer to do so. It may be expensive.
I do not think that the Minister has considered the alternative means of occupation which women might find if they are driven below what is about the lowest reasonable level of subsistence. As a taxpayer, I am ashamed to use such methods—and I am ashamed that my own standard of living should depend on that. I believe that that view will be widely shared around the country. The Minister shakes his head, but we shall have

1337
the opportunity to ask the country soon enough. The Minister might listen to the country when he will not listen to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 33:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Short title, commencement and extent, etc.: amendment of section 58 of 1991 Act
. In section 58 of the 1991 Act, in subsection 2, at end insert—
"subject to the provisions of subsection 4A below, after subsection 4, insert—
(4A) At or before 6th July 1996, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a Report on the net saving or loss to the taxpayer resulting from the implementation of this Act." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment asks for a report on the net gain or loss to the taxpayer as a result of implementing the 1991 Act. The Minister has been holding forth a great deal—most recently on the previous amendment—about the benefit to the taxpayer from implementing the principles of the Act, but that is rather begging the question, because it is a very wide open question as to whether the taxpayer does in fact benefit at all from the 1991 Act.
I am sorry for putting the amendment down late. The Minister knows, I think, what finally provoked me into doing it. It was a press report in the Independent of 29th June which claimed that the agency had benefited the taxpayer by £1.5 billion since 1991. I rang up the Minister's office because I wanted to see the figures upon which the DSS, which was the stated source, had based that. It appears that that press release never went through the DSS press office. If the Minister has discovered where it came from, I would be glad to know, because if the author of that report had any figures which I do not know, I am perfectly willing to listen to them.
I do not assert that my calculations on this are necessarily accurate. That is why I am calling for a report: so that there can be an independent, impartial attempt to assess what in fact are the gains and losses.
Savings to the taxpayer may come in two possible forms. They can come from maintenance collected or from benefits saved. It is difficult to be certain of maintenance collected or assessed for the reason I was touching on just now: that the Audit Commission found the CSA's accuracy rate was about 50 per cent. In fact the agency and the Audit Commission had a good deal of discussion about what was collected. Their figures are approximate. But they seem to be fairly close to each other, and we can take them to have a rough approximation to accuracy.
The Audit Commission found that the agency had collected £74 million in the financial year 1994–95. Of that, it had paid out £26.7 million to the parents with care and £47.8 million to the Secretary of State. By contrast, maintenance uncollected stood at £525.5 million, of which £87 million was owing to the parent with care and £438 million to the Secretary of State.
Unlike the Government, the Audit Commission does not see wilful refusal as a sufficient explanation of that shortfall. It finds that the total outstanding debt contains
1338
a growing core, not yet quantified, which is not likely to be collected. That is the agency's own evidence to the Audit Commission.
The Audit Commission found that 29 per cent. of those arrears arise during the period between when the absent parent is sent the maintenance inquiry form and the making of an assessment or an interim assessment. That is precisely the period which produces massive assessments of arrears which tend to break the back of the camels upon which they are loaded. The Audit Commission finds also that a number of the interim assessments cannot be collected because they have been given incorrect effective dates and are not legally enforceable. So that backlog of arrears is not necessarily likely to be cleared very fast.
The Audit Commission also found:
"The backlog of very old cases is likely to contain disproportionate numbers where the maintenance yield will be low even when assessments are completed".
It does not hold out much hope of improvement in a level of return which, as it runs at present, is unlikely to cover the CSA's operating costs. We get a superficially slightly more encouraging picture from a Written Answer at col. 164 of 7th March in another place. That shows a level of maintenance collected of £135 million. However, when it is broken down it emerges that £108.61 million is collected under arrangements made by the old liable relative unit. It is pre-1991 maintenance still coming in.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, pointed out on Second Reading, it has a much better record than the CSA. According to Miss Chant's Answer to Donald Dewar on 7th March, the CSA claims to have collected only £44.48 million. That is rather less than the Audit Commission credits to it. The difference is not perhaps profound but it illustrates the difficulty of arriving at accurate figures on the subject. That is one of the reasons why I am calling for a report.
Is the picture any better when we look at benefit savings rather than maintenance collected? At first sight, as regards the 7th March Written Answer, the picture looks rather better. In that Written Answer, Miss Chant claims a figure of £186.83 million for benefit savings. But that too evaporates when it is broken down. Only £20.43 million of that is savings as a result of the collection of maintenance. The remaining £165.95 million is listed as non-maintenance cessations following action by the agency.
That is a very carefully chosen Whitehall form of words indeed. In other words, in plain English, the women have simply gone off benefit. Before we give any credit to the agency for their going off benefit—or discredit, as the case may be—it would be nice to know why they have gone off benefit.
The Minister is estopped from claiming that that figure is an achievement of the CSA because in Committee he admitted that he had not the first idea why they had gone off benefit. In his own words:
"it would be a huge task to keep details of everyone who left benefit and what happened to them".—[Official Report, 20/6/95, col. 191.]
That is fair enough, but, if he says that, he cannot insist that that £165 million should be counted as a saving

1339
achieved by the agency. Some part of it may be. It may be a large part or it may be a small part, but at present, so far as I can discover, we simply do not know. If we are to assess the consequence of the Act to the taxpayers, we need to know.
The Minister referred to a lot of coming and going on benefit. In saying that, he touched on the nub of the problem. Before the CSA came in, each month an average of 24,000 single mothers went off benefit for the normal reasons; because they got a job, they got married and so forth. Have all those ordinary "goings off" benefit, which occurred frequently before the Act, been listed as though they were achievements of the CSA or does, as I suspect, no one know the answer? If we do not know the answer, it behoves the Minister to show a good deal less confidence than hitherto in claiming that the Act has been for the benefit of taxpayers.
We have a clear figure for the gross income raised by the agency; it is £64 million if we accept Miss Chant's figures and £67 million if we accept the Audit Commission's figures; £44 million or £47 million in maintenance collected; and £20 million in benefit saved. Any income generated by the agency above that figure rests only on conjecture. But to obtain the real figure—the net figure for which I have asked—we need to calculate it net of the costs of running the CSA.
The costs of this Bill alone come out at £34 million for 1996–97, if the calculations in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum are correct. I do not know—and I should like to know—whether the calculations in the memorandum are inclusive or exclusive of the costs of employing 750 additional staff. If inclusive, they will be rather poorly paid.
There are start-up costs of the CSA which the Minister on 25th April said were £146 million. I shall give the Minister the benefit of the doubt on that or any possible doubt that I can find. I am not calculating that into any annual figure because I do not know over how many years it needs to be divided. Moreover, I am not calculating any of the income which might have been collected by the Liable Relative Unit if it had continued. It might well be a great deal more than the agency has brought in but, since there is a doubt, L propose to allow the Minister the benefit of it.
On the other hand, the operating costs of the CSA must be allowed. On the Minister's own figure of 25th April, that was £139 million. Those must be allowed in full. Therefore, counting the costs of this Bill and the Minister's Answer, the costs of running the CSA are running at at least £173 million per year. Therefore, at the most generous figure to the Minister at which I can arrive, the CSA is costing the taxpayer a net loss of £109 million every year. It would be very nice to know whether that figure is anywhere near accurate. If it is, everything that the Minister has said about the interests of the taxpayer should be retorted upon him. I do not believe that the Government know any better than I do whether it is accurate. That is why I am asking for a
1340
report, because I should like to know whether the CSA is a white elephant or only a very pale grey one. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Earl has explained that this clause provides that the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report detailing the net savings or loss to the taxpayer resulting from the implementation of the 1991 Child Support Act.
First, perhaps I may deal with the great mystery which the noble Earl managed to make out of the report in the Independent. In fact, the six-line article, which in the jargon of newspapers is called a filler, was not taken from a statement issued by the DSS. In fact, it was information from a freelance journalist who took it from the Permanent Secretary's comment to the Public Accounts Committee. I am quite happy to tell the noble Earl that the summation is correct although the reference to benefit fraud may perhaps not be entirely accurate.
I should say at once that we have no objection whatever to informing Parliament of the financial effects of this or any other legislation which my department has brought before your Lordships' House. Indeed, this rather abbreviated report comes from the Permanent Secretary's comments in public to the Public Accounts Committee. Most important Bills with financial implications are prefaced with a financial memorandum which indicates the expected expenditure consequences of the legislation proposed. The Department of Social Security produces an annual report which indicates the cost of its business. That report is available in the Library.
Further, in relation to child support, the annual report of the Child Support Agency also provides information on the cost of the agency and on benefit savings resulting from its work. Noble Lords can see from the 1995–96 business plan that the agency's benefit savings forecast for this year is £540 million, which was a figure used by the Permanent Secretary to get to the £1.5 billion as reported in the Independent. The financial allocation to the agency in the same year is £183 million. Over the first two full years of operating the provisions of the 1991 Act, the CSA was allocated £294 million in running costs and recorded benefit savings of £897 million.
Of course, those benefit savings come from a number of different directions. However, if the savings are as imaginary as the noble Earl thinks, why does he continue to tell us about all those absent parents throughout the country who appear to be being asked to pay, and are paying very considerable amounts of maintenance? I find that a little unusual. If the agency is not collecting very much money, then the size of the absent-parent problem, if I can call it that, in the country must be a good deal less than the noble Earl suggests.
The figures that I have given are those that we are making perfectly clear in public, both in evidence and in parliamentary Answers. They also appear in the agency's report. Therefore, even on that limited measure, the Act has led to considerably more savings to the taxpayer than expenditure from the public purse.

1341
Although progress on the wider aims of the legislation—to ensure that maintenance is assessed and collected effectively—has been much slower than we would have hoped, the agency is now showing real improvement in output and productivity.
It is not because of any wish to conceal the figures that I cannot support the amendment; indeed, I have suggested that the figures are freely available elsewhere. It is because to place on the statute book an obligation of that nature (an obligation which, once complied with in 1996 would cease to have any effect) cannot be justified. It would look very odd if, a few years down the line, one were to read in the Child Support Act a provision, made long ago, requiring the Secretary of State to make a report some years previously which no longer had any effect.
I will reflect further and discuss with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and with the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, whether those figures should form a permanent part of the agency's annual report. In my view, the laying of such a report before the House would then be wholly redundant as the information would be available elsewhere. Indeed, all agency reports and the department's own report are available. Therefore, while I appreciate what the noble Earl is trying to find out, I do not believe that it needs to be done by the means proposed. The information is available in the various reports I mentioned. I believe that it shows that the agency has succeeded in very difficult conditions to make the savings for the taxpayer that I outlined.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him two questions. First, can the noble Lord tell us when the evidence of Sir Michael Partridge to the Public Accounts Committee to which he referred will he available? Secondly, does the Minister dispute any of the figures I put before the House and, if so, which?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not know when the Permanent Secretary's comments will be published. In fact, they may have already been published. Of course, that is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee in the other place. The hearing was conducted in public, as is obvious because a freelance reporter was present. I am afraid that I cannot help the noble Earl in that respect. However, I can perhaps write to him if he needs to know exactly when the material will be published.
In response to the noble Earl's second question, I am afraid that I have not gone through each and every one of his figures. Frankly, I find it difficult to follow them all. Moreover, I suspect that one of the ways by which the noble Earl arrives at his conclusions is by doing a lot of discounting—for example, by saying, "Those savings would have been made anyway", "That can't be counted", and so on. I have given the figures that we believe are accurate both as to the cost of the agency and as to the amount of benefit saved.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He has given me one useful piece of information; he has given me the present operating costs of the agency which, at £183 million, are rather higher than
1342
any figure I had available before. That makes the picture look rather worse than I thought. However, the biggest mystery here is the £897 million of benefit savings. This is the hub of the argument. If the Minister can give me only a little information he might he able to keep me quiet.
In the reply to Mr. Dewar of 7th March there is a category of non-maintenance cessations—benefit ceases following action by the agency. We need to have some information before we decide whether or not to give the CSA any credit for those figures. I do not prejudge that point either way until we have some evidence, but we must have evidence on that. Can the Minister tell me, as he has supplied the figure of £897 million in benefit savings, whether that figure is corrected for the number of people who on average would have gone off benefit anyway? Can he tell me what reason he has for connecting that figure with any action by the agency?
He asks me why the problem of absent parents asked to pay is so acute if the agency is collecting so little money. Of course, the agency is consuming its own receipts to the tune—the Minister says now—of £183 million. The other point to which I have drawn his attention many times is that absent parents are being asked to pay what they do not have. The Minister's answers are getting to sound more and more like the Government's defences of the poll tax where they always insisted that the money must be there if only people would try hard enough to get it. In the case of arrears from the poll tax, they are still insisting on that point and not getting very far with it either. I suspect that after the agency is abolished—which I am sure one day it will be—we will still have this problem of pursuing arrears left over from it.
The Minister says the information is all available but he knows as well as I that there is more than one way in which information can be presented. Even with the best will in the world there is more than one way in which information can be presented. I would like to see someone with competence have a look at this information but as I shall not get anywhere asking that tonight I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment and return to this subject in the form of Starred Questions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 34:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Calculation of maintenance: repeal of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 of 1991 Act
. In Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act, paragraph 4 shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we have heard much this evening about the formula which is indeed what the department, the Child Support Agency and the noble Lord are clinging to. Perhaps that argument reached its crux when the noble Lord said, while keeping quite a straight face, that the welfare of children could be safely left to the operation of the formula. Therefore, the time has now come for us to look at that formula.
The amendment I am moving, which I tabled in a slightly different form at Committee stage, is to remove what seems to me a self-contained provision of the schedule setting out the formula—Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act. I did not move it at Committee stage because it had failed to be called at virtually midnight. The position is not much better tonight as regards your Lordships' role as a legislative Chamber which listens to debate, and after listening to debate comes to a decision in the Division Lobbies. Therefore, I shall not put the amendment to a Division.
I am not sure whether it is a wrecking amendment because I do not understand the formula. In that I believe I am not alone because I have yet to find anybody who claims to understand it. Even my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was invited on several occasions in 1991 to explain how it worked. He is a famous mathematician, so perhaps we lesser mortals may be excused for not understanding it. However, the Minister has had ample warning of the topic that is to be raised, so I turn at once to this provision of the schedule.
Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act reads:
"Where the result of the calculation made under sub-paragraph (1) is an amount which is equal to, or less than, the amount of the maintenance requirement for the qualifying child or qualifying children, the amount of maintenance payable by the absent parent for that child or those children shall be an amount equal to A x P where A and P have the same values as in the calculation made under sub-paragraph (1)".
Sub-paragraph (3) reads:
"Where the result of the calculation made under sub-paragraph (1) is an amount which exceeds the amount of the maintenance requirement for the qualifying child or qualifying children, the amount of maintenance payable by the absent parent for that child or those children shall consist of a basic element … and an additional element".
The basic element is A x G x P where A and P have the same values as in the calculation made under paragraph 2(1) and G has the value determined under sub-paragraph (2).
We turn to G, which is an item in the basic element, which your Lordships remember is A x G x P. G equals MR (the maintenance requirement) over (A + C) x P. If my recollection is right, A is the assessed income of the absent parent and C the assessed income of the other parent. Therefore we have to add G to A x G x P, G being the maintenance requirement—which is calculated under paragraph (1) of the schedule—over (A + C) x P. That is not merely where it stopped. However, I ask the noble Lord not only to explain that, and what follows, but to say frankly whether he considers that the child support officer, the absent parent, or the caring parent, can possibly understand what it is all about. Those parents ask for bread and they are given a formula.
However, the formula goes on. There is an additional element. Your Lordships remember that there is a basic element and an additional element. The additional element is this:
"Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the additional element shall be calculated by applying the formula—AE=(1 - G) x A x R",
1344
and your Lordships will remember the complicated equation of "G". "A" has the same value: in other words, the absent parent's assessed income. Your Lordships already have the formula for "G". There are no guesses as to what "R" is:
"R is such number greater than zero but less than 1 as may be prescribed".
However, lest we should be unsatisfied, the sub-paragraph goes on. There is an alternative formula. The provision states:
"Where applying the alternative formula set out in subparagraph (3) would result in a lower amount for the additional element, that formula shall be applied in place of the formula set out in sub-paragraph (1)".
I have just read that out. The alternative formula for "AE" is:
" Z x Q x (A/A+C)".
I have already reminded your Lordships of "A" and "C".
Your Lordships will be able to guess that,
"Z is such number as may be prescribed; and Q is the aggregate of any amount taken into account by virtue of paragraph (1) (3) (a) in calculating the maintenance requirement; and any amount which is both taken into account by virtue of paragraph (1) (3) (c) in making that calculation and is an amount prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph".
I repeat those last words:
"an amount prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph".
I wait avidly for the Minister to explain that extraordinary farrago, and even more eagerly for him to tell us frankly whether he believes that ordinary absent parents, ordinary caring parents, can possibly understand what they are being offered. If they cannot understand, it is most improper legislation. It is just the legislation of the bureaucracy which animates this whole scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I have listened to 10 minutes of explanation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I hope that I have been paying adequate attention to proceedings on the Bill tonight. The noble and learned Lord made the formula reasonably clear, step by step. I am sure he will accept that when he compares what he explained with some of the green pound calculations which we, as agriculturists, have to carry out, it seems fairly simple.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does the noble Lord think that he would understand how much maintenance he was being offered under the formula and why?
Lord Lyell: Certainly not why, but I suspect that the officials who are explaining it to the absent parents or the concerned people would master the formula fairly quickly. The noble and learned Lord put his finger on the reason for his amendment when he said that it would be difficult for the official to explain why. In my own mind, the reason for the complicated formula is that the whole area is fraught with many factors which have been brought in step by step as the legislation has proceeded.
It takes me back to my 0-level mathematics and algebra, remembering the simple rules and simple drills. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will accept

1345
that now students of O-level mathematics are masters of fairly simple calculating machines. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble and learned Lord said, but I hope he will accept that he explained the matter so well that he made it much simpler to me.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Lyell sits down, if he has understood it he can perhaps explain it to me.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships' House, not tonight as I look happily at the gleam in the eye of my noble friend on the Front Bench who is burning to explain it himself. He can do it in half the time.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has read out the formula used in this instance. Of course, given way he put over the formula, it sounds complicated. However, as my noble friend Lord Lyell pointed out, a simple blackboard or, in these modern days, an overhead projector would allow a child with a fairly basic knowledge of algebra to follow the formula. There are not too many complications in it; it is all letters. There are no sines and cosines, no tangents, integrations or differentials. If the noble and learned Lord thinks that it is a difficult formula, then he has clearly not seen any of those used by mathematicians, engineers, designers and a host of other people whose formulae would give him much cause for complaint.
The formulae are laid out and what the letters say is clearly laid out. It is complicated, but when it is seen on paper it is a good deal easier to follow than when it is read out. I have to tell the noble and learned Lord that that is the case with all formulae of any kind, even simple ones.
The amendment would mean better off absent parents paying only the maintenance requirement calculated for their children's basic maintenance needs. They would no longer pay the additional element, irrespective of how high a level of income they have. The formula which the noble and learned Lord read out was part of the formula laid down in order to calculate the additional element.
Perhaps I may explain it without the use of the formula, which is a good deal easier in speech. The maintenance requirement is calculated using income support rates as a benchmark for the basic needs of the children. The absent parent is required to contribute towards this figure from his assessable income at the rate of 50 pence in the pound. Assessable income is net income less allowances for living expenses, housing costs and any allowable travel-to-work costs. If he still has income left after meeting the maintenance requirement, he continues to contribute but at the lower rate of either 15, 20 or 25 pence in the pound, the exact rate depending upon the number of children for whom he has liability. This extra contribution is the additional element that the amendment would abolish. The additional element is intended to allow children in first families to share the prosperity of an absent parent as they would have done if the parents had not separated.
1346
The deduction rate is set lower than that used to meet the maintenance requirement in recognition of the fact that the proportion of income a parent retains for his own use is likely to increase once the basic needs of his children have been met.
If the amendment were accepted, the maintenance requirement, which is fixed by reference to income support levels, would be the maximum payable for any child, even if the absent parent were wealthy. Very few children whose parent with care was on income support would see any improvement at all in their standard of living unless the parent with care obtained a so-called top-up order. This would involve going to court for the initial order and further applications to the court for any future variations. So the parents with care involved would suffer the inconvenience which the one-stop service provided by the agency was intended to avoid; would probably incur extra costs; and all this with no guarantee of a successful outcome.
Earlier in the Report stage I drew attention to the fact that, whatever iniquities are being laid at the door of the agency and the formula, the fact is that most first families are still poorer than second families. That is particularly true if the man in question has a reasonably high or very high income. His second family will enjoy all those benefits. If the noble and learned Lord's amendment were accepted, a man's first children, for whom I believe he has considerable responsibility, would receive nothing other than the bare minimum. I cannot believe that that is right.
We fully recognise that there comes a point where maintenance is providing quite a high standard of living for a child and it would not be right to require more under a formula approach. So current rules already ensure that an absent parent's maintenance liability does not increase indefinitely as his income rises. We consider that these rules are fair.
It is important to remember that from April 1993 all separating couples, with the exception of those where the taxpayer is not involved and the parties are able to reach an amicable agreement, have to use the Child Support Agency to make arrangements for child maintenance. This amendment fails to recognise that many of those involved will have incomes well above those paid to income support recipients. It is quite illogical to suggest that liability in such cases should be restricted to the maintenance requirement, which is based on income support levels. The additional element represents a logical method of ensuring that better-off absent parents make a contribution to maintenance that is commensurate with their level of income. It is a necessary part of the scheme.
The noble and learned Lord has a bit of fun at my expense on the issue of the formula. However, I hope that he realises that the additional contributions represent a serious point. There are good grounds, to which I believe the great majority of people would subscribe, for agreeing with that.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, on a point of information, does he agree that it is unusual to expect a layman to read an Act of Parliament and use that as his guide? Is he aware that the excellent

1347
Child Support Handbook, produced by the Child Poverty Action Group, was reviewed by Woman's Own as giving,
"a thorough explanation of the system";
by the New Law Journal in these terms:
"It is hard to beat the CPAG guide … it is outstanding value for money. It is clearly written and easy to find your way around";
by Legal Action as,
"Very readable … it gives a good and easy-to-understand exploration of the formula";
and by The Adviser in this way:
"This book will undoubtedly take its place as the standard and indispensable guide for advisers"?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I am reading Child Support: The Legislation, a commentary by Edward Jacobs and Gillian Douglas. If we are advertising books, we might as well both do it. The noble Lord makes a very valid point. The handbook is clearly set out, and anybody going through it will be able to work out the amounts; and certainly with the help of the agency an absent parent can clearly see how the conclusions were drawn.
But the main point of this amendment is the one that I make about an absent parent who has a reasonable standard of living and a reasonable income. My contention is that his first child or children ought to share in some of that prosperity.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord has explained the object of the formula but not at all how it works. His speech has once again been redolent of objurgations against absent fathers. He deals with the very rare case in which the absent father has a high standard of living; he keeps a second family and the first family is on the breadline.
I have spent much of my life dealing with such maintenance problems. Throughout this evening what the noble Lord has been pursuing is a vendetta which the department and the Child Support Agency have maintained against absent parents. As I said earlier, picking up an observation of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the normal picture is that ordinary people, overwhelming in number, cannot afford two families. As soon as the divorce law is altered, enabling an ordinary person to have two families, in the overwhelming majority of cases both families go down to the poverty line—both of them. It is quite wrong to draw the picture of the poverty stricken first family and the opulent second family, rolling in wealth. That can hardly happen except in a minority of cases.
We greatly welcome the advent to our debate of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. He invited the Minister to say that the officials could explain the formula to the unfortunate parent. In that the noble Lord was woefully disappointed. There was no such explanation. If the formula is so explicable, why has there been this state of egregious error in assessing maintenance payments under the Act? The truth is that the officials, no more than my noble and learned friend the famous mathematician, have been able to understand what this
1348
is about. All that they would be able to do would be to fit figures to corresponding letters and work out a formula.
As I said, it is simply not good enough to legislate in this way such that the people who are affected cannot understand what is happening to them. I have no sympathy at all with the violence shown to the child support officers. But many of the people have felt deeply ill used because, instead of an explanation, they are given a formula that they cannot understand even when it is explained to them. As I said, I do not propose to press this amendment to a Division. Accordingly, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 35:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Exempt income of absent parent: amendment of Schedule 1 to 1991 Act
. In Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act, after paragraph 5 there shall be inserted—
"5A.—(1) Regulations implementing paragraph 5 of this Schedule shall ensure that the exempt income of an absent parent or a parent with care includes—

(a) an allowance in respect of the full amount of any council tax or water charges in respect of the parent's home;

(b) an adequate allowance in respect of the liabilities referred to in sub-paragraph (2) below.

(2) The liabilities in question are any debts, obligations or other liabilities of the relevant parent which—

(a) are legally binding on him (whether under civil or criminal sanction); and

(b) arise from transactions effected, or events occurring, before the date specified in sub-paragraph (3) below.

(3) The date in question is—

(a) in the case of an absent parent, that on which he first received a maintenance enquiry form under this Act;

(b) in the case of a parent with care, the date on which she first submitted to the Secretary of State a completed maintenance application form under this Act.

(4) An allowance in respect of a liability referred to in sub-paragraph (1) (b) above shall not be regarded as adequate within the meaning of that provision, unless (on the basis of weekly equivalence) it is at least equal to—

(a) the amount payable periodically by the parent in question in respect of the liability in question under arrangements which were in existence at the date referred to in sub-paragraph (3), where such arrangements then existed; or

(b) in any other case, the minimum amount which would be necessary to enable the liability to be discharged by periodical payments within 12 months of the effective date of the maintenance assessment in question." ").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 35 is, in effect, a rule of law amendment. It deals with certain other expenses which should be taken into account. It proposes an allowance in respect of the full amount of any council tax or water charges and an adequate allowance in respect of a number of others. It applies to both the absent parent and the parent with care, so the Minister cannot answer it by continuing to preach the gospel according to St. Mellons.
The liabilities for which an adequate allowance is to be made are debts, obligations or liabilities which are legally binding under civil or criminal sanction and arise from transactions before, in the case of the absent parent, he first received a maintenance inquiry form or,

1349
in the case of the parent with care, when she submitted a completed maintenance application form. In other words, it deals with liabilities honestly entered into before any liability under this Act arose—in short, with prior liabilities.
The Minister will be in considerable difficulty if he starts trying to argue that this is downgrading the priority for child maintenance. Child maintenance is necessary but I cannot see that it should be argued against the law. The Minister argued when we were on this matter last time—I am trying not just to repeat what I said before but also to respond to what he said—that this would create an improper difference between families subject to the CSA and other families outside. That is not a valid argument. It is really quite the other way. All the rest of us, if we have binding legal liabilities which we cannot get out of, have to meet those liabilities and we have to attempt as best we can to maintain our children out of what is left.
If I were to owe a large debt to my bank I would not be able to get away with telling my bank that I could not pay it because I had to maintain my children. I do not think that it would be particularly impressed. If I were so unwise on my way home tonight as to drive in a way which incurred a court fine I could not tell the court that I could not pay the fine because I had to maintain my children. I would get very short shrift indeed for that answer.
I do not see why people who are subject to the CSA should be in precisely the same position. They, too, have certain legal liabilities which they must meet—under civil or criminal sanction, in the words of the amendment—and if they do not, they suffer penalties. If the formula is having the effect of putting them in a position where they cannot meet those liabilities—which I know from my postbag is often the case—account must be taken of it.
We have a government who purport to uphold the rule of law but tend to see the rule of law in ways almost exclusively to their own advantage. But that is not what the rule of law is about. The rule of law is supposed to be an impartial rule between subject and ruler. We need some recognition of the need for people to keep the law. If the Minister argues otherwise, he must insert into the Bill, which he presumably still could do at Third Reading, a proviso allowing people, in order to enable them to pay their child maintenance, to default on their court fines, to default on their legal debts, to default, indeed, on their income tax. If he did that he would be going against a very long history of the Crown's attitude to its own debts. It would be a profoundly mistaken approach. If he has any respect for the rule of law he ought to accept this amendment. I should like to hear what he is going to do about it. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this amendment would extend the range of expenses which can be included in exempt income, which is the part of a parent's net income which is not available for payment of maintenance. It represents sums allowed for a parent's basic expenses.
1350
Exempt income includes standard amounts for the normal living needs of the parent and any of his children who live with him; an allowance for housing costs and, where appropriate, an allowance towards the cost of travel to work. In addition, an absent parent keeps at least 50 per cent. of any income over and above his exempt income. The broad principle is to ensure that all absent parents should retain a substantial proportion of their net income after paying maintenance, so that they have flexibility in planning other expenditure. The Government recently underpinned this principle with a provision to cap maintenance payments at 30 per cent. of an absent parent's net income.
The amendment proposes making provision for council tax. There is no allowance for council tax in the basic maintenance calculation. It is an expense to be met from the margin of income left over after maintenance has been paid. An allowance for council tax is, however, included in protected income. So there is a safeguard for less well-off absent parents. Water charges should similarly be met from the absent parent's remaining income after maintenance. I would remind your Lordships that people on income support have to meet these charges from their benefit. After all, an absent parent would be left at least with benefit levels in excess of these levels. So absent parents would not only have the equivalent of income support rates allowed before maintenance is calculated, but they would actually keep a large proportion of their income above these levels. Therefore, they are not in a different position from someone on income support who has to meet these charges from that income support.
The proposal would also make allowance for any other legally binding liabilities which were incurred before the Child Support Agency's involvement in the case. Allowance would be made irrespective of the amounts involved, of whether or not the parent could afford to meet the liability when it was first acquired; or of the nature of the debt or obligation, even if it was for luxuries or for some other purpose which might reasonably be considered less important than the support of the parent's own child.
Your Lordships will be aware that the departure system proposed under the Bill will make provision for certain debts and other financial commitments where these are causing difficulty. We believe that the departure system, with its provision for discretion and for balancing the interests of all parties, is a more equitable way of dealing with these issues than that proposed by the noble Earl, which would allow any and all such liabilities automatically to take precedence over the child's needs.
The noble Earl's proposal also includes provision for liabilities under criminal sanction. Fines are a sanction against people who break the law, not against their children. To suggest that an offender should be able to offset a fine against his child support liability strikes me as totally unacceptable. I am not going to fall into the rather clever, but totally false, trap that the noble Earl tried to lay for me, that if I am not prepared to allow it to be offset, then I should excuse them from paying a fine. That really is a false trap. The position is that anyone who incurs fines has to try to pay for them out

1351
of income. They are allowed to pay them in weekly instalments to the court, so there is a way in which they can spread their fines. I shall resist saying that they should avoid getting themselves into a position of having to pay fines in the first instance. The fact is that I do not believe that it would be in any way proper to say that payment of a fine incurred by an absent parent should be given precedence over the maintenance due to his child.
The exempt income calculation already makes allowance for a parent's basic living costs, and he keeps at least 50 per cent. of his income over and above that. The new provisions for departures from formula assessments, which we have already included in the Bill, will deal with exceptional expenses. I believe that this amendment goes much further than is acceptable. With my explanation of where I stand on this, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister has not fallen into what he described as the trap that I have set him but he has fallen into the one that he set himself. He has fallen into the trap into which all Administrations have fallen since records began -of believing that things are as they appear when Ministers read their papers in their offices. They are not.
If the formula was working as the Minister thinks that it is, his argument would be perfectly reasonable. If there were enough basic income left over to meet all the obligations, or even to create a reasonable chance that, with care, one might meet them, what the Minister says would be perfectly accurate, but he simply is not aware of how small is the proportion of their income over which most people can exercise choice. If the Minister had seen as many payslips and statements arising from the Act as I have from reading my post-bag, he would know perfectly well that for a great many people the reasoning that he has put forward—sound though it might appear in principle and in the abstract—simply will not work because there is not enough money. Governments ought to know what it means not to have enough money - it happens to them often enough. It happens to other people as well.
If one had proposed to increase taxation by the amount that some people's costs have been increased by the increase in child maintenance, those on the Government Benches would have created such an outcry that you would have heard it from here to kingdom come. They really do not know what is going on out there. Some day I hope that they will know. I hope that a certain amount of constituency casework might bring it home to them. I shall not do it tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 36:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Day to day care: amendment of regulation 1 of the Child Support Regulations 1992
.—(1) The definition of "day to day care" contained in regulation 1(2) of the Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992 (as amended) shall be amended as follows:
(2) For "104 nights", or each occasion where that expression occurs, there shall be substituted "52 nights".
(3) At the end of the definition there shall be inserted—
"(iii) a person shall be taken to have care of a child where he would have actual care if a court order which is in force were being properly complied with by another person, and a person shall be treated as not having care of a child where she has actual care in consequence of her failure properly to comply with a court order; and for this purpose a court order shall be regarded as properly complied with by a person only if she makes every reasonable effort to give effect to its terms and purposes.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment deals with what has become known as the 104 nights rule. It provides that care is to be treated as shared if the child spends 104 nights a year in the care of the allegedly absent parent. That is recognised as creating a situation in which the absent parent becomes, for the time being, a parent with care and the formula is adjusted accordingly.
There is one small defect in the wording of the amendment. If by any remarkable chance the Minister feels inclined to accept it, we shall have to tidy it up later, but since that is an unlikely eventuality, I thought it better not to withdraw it and bring it back on Third Reading in a redrafted form since the principle can perfectly well be debated now.
The insistence in the Act that only one parent can be treated as having care while the other is deemed to be "absent" runs against many recent developments in family law which have tended towards thinking in terms of shared residence and of both parents as being continually involved. When it can work with reasonable harmony - of course, it cannot always - that is very much in the interests of the children and is to be encouraged. The insistence that only one parent is to be treated as having care tends to go against the pressure that the law has rightly been exercising in other fields to try to push the parents to recognise a continuing sharing of care even after divorce. You have to go a certain amount against the grain to get that through to divorced parents. But the legislation pushes them back towards an attitude into which many of them fall too easily anyway—of thinking of only one parent as having care.
It was, I think, the original intention of the rule as now drafted that the 104 nights represented every weekend of the year, so that any care less than every weekend of the year was to be ignored. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, made the important point that for practical purposes, if you have to be at school on a Monday morning, the weekend is one night even if it may be two days. So in fact every weekend of the year, which was the Government's original intention as I understand it, is represented by 52 nights, not 104.
There is some case for arguing that the amendment is not only good in itself; it is a more accurate representation of the Government's original intention than the bureaucratic, as distinct from imaginative, drafting of the 1991 Act succeeded in achieving on its own account. This deserves consideration. There will be more heard of it until something is done about it. At some time the conflict between this and the development of family law will need to be resolved. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I supported the noble Earl when he put down a comparable amendment in Committee and I have added my name to the new version he has put down today. First, I agree with him very much that it is considered more and more important in our courts that care should be shared by both parents, although of course to talk about care and control nowadays is now no longer appropriate since the Children Act when care and control ceased to exist, and instead we talk about residence orders and access orders. So to talk about a parent with care is inappropriate.
I have objected again and again to the use of the phrase "absent father". Without going into that again, I intend to speak, and always will speak, about the "so-called absent father".
Since Committee I have tried to look with more care at this legislation. I have found out, and realise fully, how extremely complicated it is. I agreed completely with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, was saying about the complexity of the formulae that are used, which really are incomprehensible without the assistance of an accountant and a solicitor, preferably armed with a very sophisticated computer. It seems to me most unfortunate that in legislation of this kind it should be impossible for those who are personally involved (the father and the mother) to work out either what sums should be payable under the Child Support Act or a great many of the other details in this legislation.
The noble Earl has indicated that there is a slight flaw in our amendment, if I may use the first person plural, in that it refers to:
"For '104 nights', or each occasion where that expression occurs, there shall be substituted '52 nights'".
Unfortunately, on studying the legislation I could not find any occasion on which 104 nights occurred. The phrase instead is "two nights a week". So this should be amended on a later occasion by substituting:
"For 'two nights' a week 'one night' a week";
that is, on average throughout the year.
What precisely, I ask, is the significance of these two days per week on average throughout the year. I had not fully realised what it meant. What I think I found, but I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, is that it is laid down in one of the schedules—for heaven's sake do not ask me which of them—that certain of the outgoings of the so-called absent father are claimable 100 per cent. by him as exempt income, but with certain other outgoings only a fraction of them is claimable. That is the same percentage as the percentage of nights a week spent on average over the year with the child. That is presumably because it is recognised that the more time a so-called absent father spends with his children the more compensation he deserves.
It is obvious that it can never happen that the child spends an average of more than three-and-a-half nights a week with his so-called absent father because if he did he would be spending exactly as much time with the father as with the mother. I do not believe that even the Government could then continue to refer to the father as
1354
being absent. But if the father did spend an average of three-and-a-half nights a week with his child then three-and-a-half sevenths, or 50 per cent., of these sums would be claimable. If he spent an average of two-and-a-half nights a week it would be two-and-a-half sevenths, or five fourteenths, and so on.
Under the Act as it exists at present, if the average number of nights spent by the father with the child is under two a week—if it is 1.9 a week, and decimal points are perfectly possible—no such sums are claimable as exempt income. This amendment would bring down that minimum figure from two nights a week to one night a week.
As I stated in Committee, I have an interest in the matter as the father of a young son from whose mother I am unhappily divorced. However, I have no financial interests because my matters have never come under the Child Support Act. I gave the example of my own case. I have very liberal access, by normal standards, to my young son. I spend more time with him than 90 per cent. of fathers in my position; it comes to 71 days a year, which is 19.5 per cent. of the days in the year. That is the equivalent of 1.365 nights a week.
Therefore, a father in my position spending so much time with his son would not be eligible for relief under the Act as it exists at present. However, under the amendment that I have tabled with the noble Earl he would be. Even in that case, the financial benefit to him would be only a small fraction of the extra costs to him of those 71 days with his son or daughter. That is probably, let us say, £700 a year. In my case it is usually much more, plus the fares between here and Ireland and my own fares to his mother's home and so on. At the same time, the mother makes considerable savings because for those 71 days she has no expenses in respect of him.
I ask the Minister once again: why should that not be taken into account? Why should the so-called absent father receive no compensation whatever for that? Why is it completely ignored?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We had a debate on a similar amendment in Committee. Indeed, it was an almost exact replica. The normal duet of the noble Earl and myself was changed into a trio by the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I shall not risk boring the House by repeating the arguments I put forward in Committee.
As I said then, the amendment is founded on a misunderstanding of two related but entirely distinct concepts: that of care and that of contact. The Government clearly support—as did the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in his speech—the principle that following the break-up of a relationship, children should keep in touch with both parents where that is in their best interests. But there is a clear distinction between contact visits, even if those involve overnight stays, and providing for the regular care needs of the child.
For there to be shared care, the absent parent must be making a substantial contribution to the care needs of the child and thus incur a substantial proportion of the costs associated with his support. The existing provisions allow for an absent parent's maintenance

1355
liability to be reduced where he is providing a significant amount of care for a child. We believe that the average of two nights a week continues to provide an appropriate benchmark. Much was made of school and Saturday and Sunday and the fact that if the child goes to school on Monday morning the chances are that the child will return to the parent with care on Sunday evening. But Friday night has been ignored. I assure your Lordships that in Scotland that is considered to be part of the weekend. After school on Friday, there will be plenty of time for the child to join the absent parent to have a two-night weekend, which gives him the whole of Saturday and Sunday until the evening.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. But many children, including my own, have to go to school on Saturday morning.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that many children have to go to school on Saturday morning. I suggest respectfully to the noble Lord that those children who go to school on Saturday morning clearly have parents who are paying school fees. That will assuredly take them beyond the scope of income support and the remit of the Child Support Agency, as the noble Lord suggested. I am afraid that I shall not consider too carefully the needs of people who can afford to send their children to boarding school because they will not be encompassed by the agency's work. It is more likely to affect children attending state schools who probably live near the parent with care and, therefore, there is not much of a problem in relation to Friday night.
One night of care per week is 52 nights per year. Of course, the chances are that 14 nights may be taken as a holiday period and, therefore, it is not a case of every weekend in the year. If the figure were dropped to one night of care per week as representing a genuine sharing of responsibility, we should be disadvantaging seriously the parent with care because it is most unlikely that where that amount of care is being provided by the absent parent there will be any noticeable reduction in the costs of bringing up the child for the parent with care. It would be unreasonable to make her suffer a drop in the income she was receiving while having to look after the child. As I said in Committee, 104 days is a reasonable, sensible figure at which to draw the line. I hope that, having heard my argument again, the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the problem with all the reasoning based on the Bill is that it all starts from the premise: either one parent or the other. That is not a very constructive approach for dealing with parents who are separated. It tends to produce a picture in which children are assumed to have to choose one parent or the other. Sadly, sometimes, it is that way. But one does not need to create an administrative framework which makes it that way when it does not have to be so.
The other matter which strikes me increasingly as I listen to the Minister is that the present method of calculation—two nights per week—has a strong built-in bias in favour of two separated parents living in close
1356
geographical proximity to each other. Those, of course, are precisely the ones where help to maintain contact is least needed.
Let us suppose, for example, that one parent is in London and the other is in Oban. Would the Minister wish to encourage the child, who may be quite young, to set off from Euston Station after school on a Friday and go to Oban that same night? It is quite a long journey for a seven or eight year old. Even without invoking anything quite as extreme as Oban, I still think that, as a parent, when a child comes rather tired out of school late on a Friday afternoon, and with Friday trains stopping earlier and earlier each year, I should hesitate to encourage him to go on a very long journey that night.
Therefore, the two nights a week will really only apply where the two separated parents live in fairly close geographical proximity. Well, it is hard enough for parents to keep contact with their children if they are a long way away. My honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood had one absent parent in Roxburgh, while the children were living in Plymouth. He had no end of trouble keeping contact over that. In that position, one really cannot manage two nights a week of contact. It does not mean that one wants any less to see one's children.
I cannot help suspecting that the Government fixed on the formula of two nights every week simply because it is administratively simpler. That is no way to treat real people. Can they not use a little imagination? However, it is clear that we shall not get imagination tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Deferral of right to apply for maintenance assessment]:
[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 14, line 8, at end insert:
("(12) Nothing in subsection (10) or in any commencement order or regulation under this Act shall have the effect of preventing or delaying, transitionally or otherwise, the making of an application for child support maintenance under this section by a person who, or whose partner, is subject to an assessment of child maintenance as a result of an application under section 6 of this Act." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the above amendment deals with a situation which has come to be known among those involved with the legislation as the "pig-in-the-middle" situation. It is a situation where the first wife is on benefit and has come within the legislation, so the husband of the first wife is paying maintenance. He is married to a second wife, herself divorced from a previous husband, who has not been on benefit. Her former husband has not been brought within the legislation and is, perhaps—as we on these Benches have always admitted some parents do—evading his responsibilities. It does happen, although it is not the normal situation.
In such a case, the unfortunate man is paying out maintenance for one lot of children, but his wife, who has another lot of children—his step-children—is not getting anything coming in for them. Therefore, in effect, the man is carrying the whole weight of supporting two lots of children. It is one of many cases in which the Government's principle that children must be the responsibility of their natural parents does not

1357
work in practice; indeed, any principle quite so general very often does not. I hope that the amendment will receive some consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as your Lordships know, the Government's original plan was that all cases would come into the agency's jurisdiction within four years. However, because of the problems faced by the agency and the need to introduce new procedures, particularly the departure scheme, that will not prove possible.
Once again I have to reiterate to your Lordships that the highest priority for take-on are those people who have no access to the courts, or those who are claiming benefit and who are being supported by taxpayers. Of course, I do have sympathy for those parents with care who receive only a small amount of maintenance through a court order while their current partners pay out a larger amount in child support maintenance to their first wives and first families. However, those parents with care are able to apply to the courts to have their orders varied. The mere fact that the family finances have been affected by a child support assessment is a change of circumstances which could be put to the court in support of an application to vary the order. We do not want to jeopardise the smooth introduction of other provisions by taking on these cases immediately. I am beginning to get a bit uncertain as to what we discussed in Committee and what we are discussing on Report but I certainly know that this matter was discussed in another place. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear in this instance, we do not believe that we can give way to this request. My suggestion is that the parent with care in those circumstances should consider returning to the court to have the order varied.
11 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I understand the point that he is making. Perhaps where the procedure he suggested for any reason does not prove effective he might consider this as a case where a departure under this new Bill might be allowed because there are some cases where hardship does arise, sometimes because there is no money to be recovered from the former husband of the second wife, sometimes because he is perhaps ill, mentally ill, or out of the country. In particular, if he is out of the country returning to the court to recover money can be very difficult indeed. So there is, I think, a slightly bigger problem here than the Minister has allowed for, but he is awake to its existence. I thank him for that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Non-referral of applications for maintenance assessments]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 15, line 17, leave out ("person") and insert ("parent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment resolves a minor technical inconsistency in the wording of Clause 19 which occurred when an amendment was made to the clause in another place. Clause 19 currently
1358
refers to the person with care (page 15, line 17) but later refers to the same individual as the parent with care (page 15, line 28). The amendment corrects this minor inconsistency by using the phrase "parent with care" in both instances and I commend this minor amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Disputed parentage]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 16, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 and insert ("any other proceedings concerning the qualifying child with respect to whom the declaration of parentage was made."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 41 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 42. The two amendments deal with a rather complicated point which in each case was debated in Committee in another place and the Minister in each case said he would consider them further and respond, but I do not think he has done so. This will give the Government an opportunity to do that. I quote from Standing Committee E:
"The new subsection 27(3) to the Child Support Act 1991 inserted by the clause provides that a declaration of parentage made under the Act shall have effect in relation to proceedings under the Act and other proceedings for related court-based applications for maintenance for children. The purpose of the amendment is to extend the effect of that provision so that a declaration of parentage made under the 1991 Act has effect whenever a question about the child's paternity arises in other proceedings, saving those with care from having to make more than one application for a declaration of parentage in relation to the same child.
The Government may oppose the amendment on the basis that it would allow women on benefit to apply at the state's expense for a declaration of paternity that they could then use for other proceedings, but that argument is flawed for three reasons. First, other declarations in family proceedings are generally binding—for example, sections 56 and 58 of the Family Law Act 1986, dealing with declarations of legitimacy and legitimation. Secondly, if the declaration is not binding in all other proceedings relating to the child and a second declaration has to be sought, the cost to the state will be increased, since individuals in that category are likely to be eligible for legal aid. If individuals in that category are not on benefit, the agency will not undertake work to obtain a declaration for them. Thirdly, that argument ignores the state's interest in obtaining the declaration. The agency applies for declarations in benefit cases only when it is thought that some financial benefit will accrue to the Government through benefit savings due to higher maintenance payments".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 25/4/95; col. 185.]
As I said, when this was debated in the other place in Committee the Minister, Mr Arbuthnot, said,
"In view of the wide range of situations that could be affected by the amendment, I shall consult my colleagues in other Government Departments about the best way to proceed and I shall return to the House on Report to advise honourable Members of the results".— [Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 25/4/95; col. 186.]
I do not believe that the matter was discussed on Report in the other place.
Amendment No. 42 is also rather complicated. Section 26 of the Child Support Act 1991 currently provides that an alleged absent parent is deemed to be an absent parent where, for example, the child is adopted. The fact that that section does not currently incorporate the current common-law presumption of legitimacy and the statutory provisions concerning legitimation means that formerly married absent parents

1359
are able to manipulate the agency by denying paternity. The purpose of the amendment is therefore to ensure that the common-law presumption of legitimacy and the statutory provisions concerning legitimation are incorporated in the Child Support Act 1991.
Again, this issue was debated in Committee in another place, and, again, the Minister promised to consider the matter further; but there has been no response, so far as I am aware.
It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the Government's position on the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the amendments have already been discussed in another place.
Amendment No. 41 would allow for a declaration of parentage under Section 27 to be relied on in any future proceedings involving the qualifying child. While it would not necessarily be disadvantageous for all those involved to use the paternity declaration made under the Child Support Act, we would need to ensure that there were adequate safeguards if the declaration were to be valid in determining wide-ranging issues relating to a child's upbringing, and this cannot be done without full and proper consultation. Similarly, we would need to consider whether a declaration of paternity obtained for non-child support purposes, other than those currently set out in the Child Support Act, should be binding for child support maintenance assessments.
Amendment No. 42 is concerned with presumptions of paternity. There is already a presumption in Scottish statute law that a child of a marriage is deemed to be the child of both parties to that marriage. The 1991 Act recognises this presumption so that, in Scotland, a child support officer can make an assessment for maintenance if the alleged parent was married to the child's mother at any time between the child's conception and birth. Amendment No. 42 would extend the presumption of paternity to England and Wales. Such a presumption already exists in common law in England and Wales and it may be desirable to establish it in statute law. However, again we need to consider possible implications for other areas of law such as property and inheritance, registration of births, parental responsibility, immigration, residence and contact issues. Responsibility for those issues ranges across a number of different government departments, and the implications need to be fully considered and discussed.
The Lord Chancellor has general policy responsibility for family law issues, and he has agreed to co-ordinate a consultation exercise on both of these matters. I understand that the exercise will commence shortly. However, such an exercise could not be concluded in time for any changes in the law to be introduced in this Bill.
I appreciate that that may come as something of a disappointment to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, but I hope that he will understand that, while I very much take the points made in his amendments, there are other wider issues which my noble and learned friend the
1360
Lord Chancellor will have to consider and that we shall have to consult on these matters before we can come to any conclusion.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. That is what the Minister said in the other place on 25th April. I thought that by now the consultation might have taken place. It would be helpful if we could be given some idea of when the Lord Chancellor's work will be completed.
I am pleased to know that, as is often the case, Scottish law deals with a problem that is not dealt with in English law. However, I am surprised that the Minister referred to parents who were married between conception and birth; surely it should be before conception and birth.
However, I understand what the Minister said. At least the Government recognise the problems. I hope that when the Lord Chancellor's group completes its work they will be able to deal with this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Limits on reduced benefit direction
(".—(1) Section 46 of the 1991 Act shall be amended as follows—
(2) After subsection (5) insert—
"(5A) Subsection (5) shall not apply in cases where—

(a) the person with care or any child that would be affected by a reduced benefit direction is disabled, or

(b) the benefit entitlement of the parent with care has already been reduced by reason of a deduction to pay any outstanding debt."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 48 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I believe that that amendment is a good example of what one can do if one's intention is to improve the Bill and not to wreck it. Amendment No. 43 was tabled before I knew the exact timetable in which the Minister intended to put down his amendment. I am fairly clear that Amendment No. 48 deals with the point that I raised in Committee. The Minister kindly agreed to come back with his own amendment to deal with the matter through regulations. I refer to the exemption from benefit reduction of parents who are disabled or who have a disabled child, and those who are already repaying a loan from their benefit.
I shall formally move the amendment. If the Minister will speak to his amendment, Amendment No. 48, to explain how the provision overtakes mine, I shall beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 43. He can then move Amendment No. 48 on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to withdraw his reference to wrecking the Bill. If I had intended to wreck the Bill, I would have moved very different amendments from those that I have moved.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have not the slightest intention of withdrawing that remark.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, during Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Carter, tabled an amendment so that where a parent with care who refuses to give her authority is disabled or has a disabled child, or where deductions are being made from her benefit to repay a debt, her benefit would not be reduced. I undertook to consider his arguments on both those points.
It is right—we have discussed it earlier—that parents with care should co-operate with the agency in pursuing maintenance unless they have a good reason not to do so. Only if a parent with care co-operates can maintenance be sought from the absent parent. As I said earlier, this financial burden should not be passed to the taxpayer. Even where parents with care are disabled, or have a disabled child, their duty to co-operate remains.
However, I considered and reflected on what the noble Lord said at Committee stage. I am persuaded that where a parent with care, or her child, is disabled the benefit reduction may cause particular hardship. The Government agree with the noble Lord that benefit should not be reduced in these cases. My amendment will provide the necessary power to set out the detail of this exemption in secondary legislation and will enable other categories of parents with care to be exempted in the future if the need for such exemption arises.
If we were to exempt parents who are repaying loans by deductions from their benefit we would be discriminating against those parents who are better able to budget or who choose to pay off loans themselves without involving the benefits system. However, I accept the noble Lord's concern and I have decided that a reduced benefit direction should be suspended while a parent with care is having deductions made direct from her income support, to pay outstanding debts such as for fuel or rent arrears. If deductions cease the reduced benefit direction will be reimposed, but existing legislative safeguards will apply and the parent with care will be given adequate notice and will be invited to reconsider her refusal to co-operate. Again, I will be setting this out in full in regulations as soon as it is practicable.
The benefit reduction is intended to make the parent with care think carefully about her decision not to co-operate and, as I said earlier this evening, I believe that that is right. However, the amendment in my name will mean that, in specific circumstances, where the reduction will cause particular hardship, the reduction will not be imposed.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will withdraw Amendment No. 43. I commend Amendment No. 48 to the House.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. We began the day with the Government in fact drafting an amendment for me to improve the Bill. Amendment No. 48 certainly improves the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 43.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Compensation payments]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 19, line 24, at end insert:
("() The Secretary of State shall make provision for payment by him to qualifying persons of sums by way of compensation where financial loss, worry or distress has been caused to that person or a member of his family by the actions or inaction of the Secretary of State, a child support officer or any other person carrying out duties in connection with child support legislation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed the issue, I said that I would come back with the matter at Report stage. It is a simple point. In Committee I referred to paragraph 34 of the Third Report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commission for Administration on the Child Support Agency. It recommended that the DSS considers discretionary payments regarding worry and distress caused by the maladministration of the CSA, removing the insistence that there be medical certification of harm or proven malice from officials.
When the Minister was kind enough to respond in that Committee, he rather avoided the point and answered one which I had not made. I said then that I should like to read again what he said and reserve the right to come back at Report stage. It would be helpful if he could deal with the point. In the Government's response they ignored it. It would be helpful if we could have the reasons why they wish to ignore—if they did—the recommendation from the Select Committee about discretionary payments for worry and distress. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, St. Jerome said that no man should be patient when taxed with heresy. I do not see why I should be patient at the charge of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, of wrecking the Bill. I was distressed to discover that the charge was first made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in Committee at practically the only moment in the whole of the Committee stage when I was out of the Chamber. I thought that that was a little ungenerous as a choice.
The noble Baroness made the charge against all my amendments. That is an extreme charge. Even the noble Lord, Lord Denham, in all his glory, never went so far as that. It did not appear to me to be the case that an attempt to introduce a little respect for evidence and for law was wrecking the Bill. I did not believe that the Bill was so easily wrecked; if it is, then it is not a tribute to it as a Bill.
I was also somewhat distressed throughout the Committee stage that the Opposition showed so little understanding of all the issues arising out of the rule of law and that they had so little to say and so little understanding of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on Second Reading. It does not encourage confidence in what they might do in office.
I was also disappointed that every single one of the amendments moved by the Opposition in Committee favoured the parent with care. I know injustices are being done to the parent with care. I have tried to put some of those injustices right, but to argue that the Government have put right all the injustices to absent

1363
parents in the Bill is, first, in the nature of administration, improbable. Secondly, according to the past conduct of the Opposition, if the Government had put them all right, it is extremely improbable that the Opposition would have agreed that that was the case. Compared with their otherwise creditable conduct in 1991, the Opposition's conduct on this Bill shows quite how much they have been taken over by political correctitude. I deplore it. I had not intended to say all that but the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked for it and he got it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think I will intervene too much in the dispute apart from saying that the noble Earl would be insulted if I did not say that had I accepted all his amendments he would have changed the Bill and the 1991 Act out of all recognition. I believe that that is what he intended to do and I am happy that I have been able to resist him on all the occasions on which he tried.
I turn to the substance of the amendment. Your Lordships will he aware that there are already administrative mechanisms for compensation to be considered in appropriate cases. I explained in Committee that where a customer of the agency considers that they have suffered financial loss or undue delay as a result of an action or omission on the part of the agency they can contact the agency. Their case will be dealt with on an individual basis in line with practice which operates elsewhere in the Department of Social Security.
Under the department's special payment arrangements, compensation may be considered where an individual has experienced undue delay or suffered an actual financial loss as a result of official error. These arrangements, which now also apply to the Child Support Agency, have been in place for almost 20 years and provide for payments to be made on an ex gratia basis. We plan to introduce compensation arrangements specifically designed to cover the work of the agency shortly, which will also be on a discretionary ex gratia basis.
We do not consider that specific provision needs to be made for compensation in primary legislation. If a statutory compensation scheme were to be introduced it would be necessary to regulate at some length for the detail of the scheme. This would inevitably limit the extent to which it was possible to deal flexibly with the individual circumstances of each case. Flexibility is a great advantage of the current arrangements and I consider the introduction of a statutory scheme to be unnecessary as it would not, in itself, guarantee a better standard of redress to customers.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made the point that the Government had not fully answered one of the recommendations of the PCA Select Committee—namely, that the Department of Social Security should consider discretionary payments for worry and distress caused by the maladministration of the Child Support Agency, removing the insistence that there be medical certification of harm or proven malice from officials. He
1364
also referred to the evidence that Sir Michael Partridge gave to the Select Committee and indicated that he would return to this point.
The Permanent Secretary made it clear in his evidence to the PCA Select Committee that the Government did not accept that compensation payments should be made, as a matter of course, for worry and distress. He stated that they would be considered only in instances of proven malice on the part of officials, or where worry and distress was alleged to have been caused as a direct result of maladministration by the agency and there was medical evidence that a person had suffered a material and objective injury directly attributable to the agency's actions.
Sir Michael pointed out that it would not be consistent with government policy generally, and contrary to practice in other government departments, to make compensation payments on the grounds of worry and distress where neither of these factors was present. It would, in any case, be an extremely difficult and highly subjective exercise to try to place a monetary value on the appropriate level of compensation for worry and distress in individual cases. Furthermore, it would open up the opportunity for people to claim compensation for the most trivial or vexatious reasons.
For the reasons I have given, we do not accept that there is any general need for a statutory right in child support legislation to receive compensation, where there is already a discretionary scheme and, as a last resort, a right to compensation exists under common law. With that explanation spelling out the position we are taking up on the Select Committee's point, I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister.
To respond to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, it seems extraordinary to me that his major constitutional point on the rule of law, and all the other points that he raised, were apparently completely ignored and overlooked by his Liberal colleagues in the other place, who said nothing on this Bill, so far as I can make out, in any of the areas that he raised. When the Bill came to this House he decided to take up all these points. I will certainly not take any lectures from the noble Earl when the latest report from the Network Against the Child Support Act (NACSA) states that,
"There is no doubt that the Liberal Democrats are delighted with the sudden input of support for their party from NACSA supporters. Campaigners in many areas … helped them during the council elections. Word from Lib Dem HQ and the ecstatic Liz Lynne is that they have already had a foot high stack of support pledges from NACSA supporters … These are people who, a page or two later, advise people to lie and to harass. They say … Around 150 NACSA stalwarts turned out at Brierley Hill to harass the life out of the inmates of the Dudley CSAC",—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/95; col. 667.]
etc., etc.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was in the Chamber when the Motion, That the Bill do now pass was moved in 1991. Does he remember that I told the House then that the Bill would prove unenforceable, as it has?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I said much the same thing. That is why we have this Bill that tries to improve the working of the Child Support Agency. I was about to say that prima donnas on an ego trip are not the best way to improve a Bill. Perhaps I shall not say that since it will upset the noble Earl.
I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. He has now given me the answer that I was hoping—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, very reluctantly I have to interrupt the noble Lord, partly because he quoted various remarks about the Liberal Democrat Party, which he read at such speed that they were totally incomprehensible to me. They did not sound very flattering. I should like to be able to argue with the noble Lord, but, as he did not make it at all clear what he was saying and as it is now half past eleven, I do not intend to do so. I merely wish to register that I think the whole of this little episode is rather unfortunate.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right, but I did not start the "little episode". To the Minister I say that this is the answer that I wanted. It is not entirely satisfactory, but it is the answer that I was hoping to get when I raised the point in Committee. As he has now answered the point that I made then, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 19, line 33, at end insert:
(""partial compensation" means a weekly amount not lower than any difference between the child maintenance taken into account when the family credit or disability working allowance was calculated and the new child support maintenance assessment;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with partial compensation. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that no claimants for family credit or disability working allowance end up worse off than they would have been without any CSA assessment. It takes into account the Government's argument that not all FC and DWA claimants have the full CSA assessment taken into account in the first instance; for example, if the absent parent had not been making the payments before the benefit calculation.
We suggest that compensation should equal the amount of maintenance taken into account after the £15 maintenance disregard has been applied, where this is larger than 50 per cent. of the actual reduction. There were some objections from the Government to that approach in the other place. Therefore, we have produced a compromise position. The increased expenditure involved is insignificant. We accept that this will be slightly harder to administer, but there should not be a large problem as the payments are being made by the FC and DWA unit, which has access to the figure used in the last benefit calculation.
In the light of that introduction, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with the level of compensation to parents with care on family credit for reductions in maintenance. We discussed much earlier today aspects
1366
of family credit and how maintenance impacts on it. We have now come to this amendment which is about the compensation being paid.
As drafted, the clause provides for the method of calculating the compensation to be set out in regulations, which your Lordships will have the opportunity to debate in due course. We intend to provide that the compensation will be at the level of half the reduction in the maintenance assessment for the outstanding period of the family credit award.
For many families, that formula will provide full compensation for their actual financial loss. Some will even be over-compensated. That is because the maintenance assessment and the amount of maintenance taken into account in the family credit assessment are often different. The amount taken into account in the assessment is the actual amount of maintenance being received in the period immediately before the claim. In many cases, that is considerably less than the maintenance assessment itself. The noble Lord's amendment recognises that by providing that the compensation will be based on the difference between the amount of maintenance taken into account in the family credit assessment and the new maintenance assessment.
We considered the option of basing the compensation on this method, as proposed in the amendment, but the problem with that solution is that it would make the compensation exercise much more complicated and time-consuming. It would be necessary to examine the details of the family credit assessment in each case, whereas the method that we propose relies simply on the reduction in the maintenance assessment itself without the need to refer to the details of the family credit assessment. This enables the Benefits Agency to make the payments very quickly, as soon as the family needs them. The noble Lord's amendment would slow down the process, with the risk that the family would have to wait some time for the money which it needs.
Furthermore, many families would be likely to receive less compensation under the noble Lord's amendment than they will do under the broad brush scheme. I fully accept—I believe I said it previously—that this is a broad brush scheme, but I believe that it is one which delivers what we all want as quickly as possible. Any attempt to fine tune it in order to make it a more detailed scheme, treating every case and every family credit separately, would complicate the issue and take up much more time. Looking at it in the round, it would not be to the advantage of the parent with care, who could have to wait some considerable time for her compensation.
I understand the noble Lord's point but I hope that, with my explanation that perhaps the broad brush approach is the best one to stick with, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as the Minister said, what we have now is a broad brush approach. We did not feel that the way that we suggest is that much harder to administer because all the figures are available.

1367
However, I should like to read what the Minister has said. It is a complicated point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Payment of benefit where maintenance payments collected by Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Short title, commencement, extent etc.]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 23, line 8, leave out ("and 17") and insert ("16A, 17 and 18").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 49 and 50. Amendments Nos. 47 and 50 are minor and technical amendments. Amendment No. 50 corrects a minor drafting error in an earlier amendment. However, Amendment No. 49 introduces a new provision relating to expenses for people attending hearings before a child support commissioner. Such a provision already exists in social security legislation and the new paragraph we propose to add to Schedule 4 to the Child Support Act 1991 by means of this amendment to Schedule 3 to the Bill will mean that a consistent approach is taken for child support cases. Our colleagues in Northern Ireland propose to bring forward legislation along these lines for their own purposes in due course. The amendment therefore proposes an amendment to paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 to the 1991 Act to prevent provision for travel and other expenses from applying to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 49 is a technical amendment which gives effect to this exclusion.
Amendment No. 49 also ensures that a further provision in the Bill, which we had always intended should extend to Northern Ireland, does so. This provision enables issues arising from the payment of the child maintenance bonus to be dealt with by the Social Security Advisory Committee. The necessary amendment to Clause 30 was overlooked when we introduced that provision through an amendment agreed in Committee. With that explanation, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 31, line 3, at end insert:
(". In section 46(5) (circumstances in which child support officer may give a reduced benefit direction), after "may" insert ", except in prescribed circumstances,".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 49 and 50:
Page 31, line 28, at end insert:
("16A.—(1) In Schedule 4 (Child Support Commissioners), after paragraph 2 insert—
"Expenses of other persons
2A.—(1) The Secretary of State may pay to any person required to attend at any proceedings before a Child Support Commissioner such travelling and other allowances as, with the consent of the Treasury, the Secretary of State may determine.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), references to travelling and other allowances include references to compensation for loss of remunerative time.
(3) No compensation for loss of remunerative time shall be paid to any person under this paragraph in respect of any time during which he is in receipt of other remuneration so paid."
(2) In paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 (application of Schedule to Northern Ireland), after sub-paragraph (b) insert—
"(bb) paragraph 2A were omitted;".").
Page 32, line 3, after ("Ireland;") insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

King's College London Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Pensions Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before midnight.