Lords Sitting of 20 June 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Judges: Performance Appraisal
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce an effective formal system of performance appraisal for judges.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice recommended the creation of a formal system of performance appraisal for the judiciary. The recommendation is being considered in consultation with the senior judiciary and the Government will respond to it in due course.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Royal Commission reported two years ago next month, which means that there has been an inordinate delay over the simple principle that there should be appraisal of Her Majesty's judges? Would it not be possible for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues to implement the proposal as soon as possible?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is true that the recommendation was made some time ago. It was one of a large number of recommendations, and these matters take some time to consider. It is not as easy as it seems to have a formal system of performance appraisal for judges. One must take account of the fact that judges, more than members of any other occupation I know, perform their duties in public. There is therefore constant public appraisal of what judges do. There are also arrangements for appeals in which the decision of a subordinate court is subjected to analysis and appraisal by the Appeal Court. I know of no occupation in respect of which there are more elaborate provisions for correcting mistakes than there are in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, it may well be that we have in place already the best possible form of formal appraisal of the judiciary.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, who would undertake the appraising? Would it be those whom the judges found guilty or those whom the judges found innocent?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important question. Considering the nature of litigation and that on the whole it is difficult to satisfy both parties, the number of complaints received against the judiciary is remarkably small. Perhaps that is made all the more manifest by the fact that when anything possible can be said against a judge by way of complaint it is often magnified out of all proportion.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not recognise that the notion of formal performance appraisal being appropriate for all ordinary mortals in business, industry or the Civil Service but not for judges does not convince the public? Will he confirm as a matter of fact that the principle of monitoring has already been accepted in relation to part-time members of the judiciary, recorders, deputy district judges and those who chair Benches of magistrates? Does the noble and learned Lord agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, whose report he recently welcomed, when he says that he,
"sees benefits in a more general extension of monitoring"?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's report contains material on certain aspects of judicial work which he believes might benefit from consideration for appraisal. As regards part-time judiciary who are under consideration for appointment to full-time office, there is a system in place for ascertaining how well they do. Competition for such appointments is strong and therefore it is important to know how well people do in part-time appointments. The noble Lord is correct on the facts relating to that part of his question.
As regards convincing the public, I believe that they have considerable confidence in the judiciary. If there is one manifestation of that which is more evident than any other it is that if there is a matter of real concern, the person who is asked, usually by all parties in the other place, to carry out an inquiry is a member of the judiciary.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that for centuries an automatic form of judicial appraisal has been in operation; namely, considering whether a judge has been upheld or reversed on appeal? That is truly realistic. Any other system would have to be extremely good in order to be better.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the appeal system is an important aspect of any form of appraisal. I would not necessarily attribute a great deal of importance to the number of times a judge had been upheld or reversed. Sometimes there is more than one reason for that, and one would need to examine the full circumstances of the case. The full circumstances are available. Anyone who is interested can usually read the reasons given by the judge and the reasons given by the Appellate Court for either upholding or reversing the judge. Crude statistics of decisions upheld or reversed would not of themselves be reliable. I am sure that my noble friend does not refer merely to a crude analysis of the statistics. But the appeal system enables judgments to be made which are well-informed, formal and effective.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that we agree with him that when problems arise demands are made in the other place for a member of the judiciary to come forward and conduct an inquiry? That being so, is he aware that we particularly regret the campaign which has been waged against Sir Richard Scott by a number of Members of another place to undermine confidence in the report which he is soon to produce?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not aware of a campaign of the kind to which the noble Lord refers. The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I have the fullest confidence in Sir Richard Scott. He is conducting an inquiry in circumstances and according to a procedure which he has explained publicly. I very much regret that what he intended to be confidential communications with a view to giving people fair notice of views he has formed in order that they may be considered fully before he reaches a final conclusion have emerged in the public media, quite contrary to his wishes.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor not agree that following strict logic the fact that judges sit in public and that there is an appeal system is utterly irrelevant to the fact that there is no effective formal performance appraisal? Those points are not relevant to that particular subject. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that every time a request for public appraisal is made, professions always complain that it will be damaging; yet it is working for such professions as the police, teachers, solicitors and so on? Therefore, why should it not work for judges?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, on this aspect my fundamental disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for whose views I have the greatest respect, is that I consider that what I have said is relevant. It is a very general, open form of consideration of the adequacy or otherwise of a judge's work. Therefore, as I said, the judiciary stands in a very different position from those mentioned by the noble Lord in relation to public examination of its work. That is an extremely important consideration in relation to the recommendation of the Royal Commission.

Nuclear Disarmament
2.48 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making towards their goal of complete nuclear disarmament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, we have already made significant reductions in our nuclear forces and made clear that we would join multilateral negotiations for the global reduction of nuclear weapons when reductions by the United States and Russia bring their forces to a level comparable to our own minimum deterrent.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in signing the non-proliferation treaty and in order to make it permanent, the Government, as a nuclear power, reaffirm their undertaking to pursue:
"in good faith negotiations on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament"?
What action, other than the measures which the Minister has already mentioned, are the Government taking or proposing to take in pursuance of that undertaking?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are doing just that and we are pursuing such measures in good faith. But as I made quite clear, we see little point in reducing further our nuclear deterrent, which has already been reduced by some 59 per cent. in terms of the total explosive power of the warheads since the early 1970s. It is at a minimum and we see no case for reducing it further until we see further reductions on the part of the nuclear superpowers.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, as a matter of strict accuracy, does the Minister agree that the non-proliferation treaty makes no reference whatever to complete nuclear disarmament? Does the Minister also agree that complete nuclear disarmament—leaving advanced conventional weapons and other weapons of mass destruction untouched—would be a very dangerous process? Is not the correct goal general and complete disarmament under international control, however distant and Utopian that might be?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. I believe that he refers to Article 6 which talks about pursuing such matters in good faith, which we shall do. However, it also talks about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. As the noble Lord implied, that is possibly a Utopian goal. But it does not stop us pursuing it.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has just been extended for another five years. However, with the collapse or near disintegration of most of the Russian navy, army and airforce, the only forces which are still doing extremely well are the Russian strategic forces, which have no intention of cutting down; nor, may I say, do the Americans. Therefore, does my noble friend the Minister agree that this is definitely not the moment for our Government unilaterally to disarm our nuclear deterrent?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. Perhaps I may assist her and add that the non-proliferation treaty has been extended indefinitely and not just for a period of five years. As I made clear in my original Answer and as I have made clear on many occasions when answering the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, we believe that it is necessary to maintain just a minimum nuclear deterrent.
Lord Howell: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the view that the Government take of the announcement by the United States' Government that they intend to resume nuclear testing underground and that of the French Government that they intend to do the same in the Far East? In view of the fact that those nations signed up to the nuclear test ban treaty, do the British Government regard those announcements with the same dismay as, apparently, do all the other nations? Further, can the Minister assure us that, despite pressure from British scientists, the Government have no intention at all of resuming nuclear testing, which is unnecessary given the facilities now available for doing so by computer in the laboratory?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is entirely a matter for the French themselves to decide whether or not they wish to test. Obviously, the main objective is to conclude the comprehensive test ban treaty. We welcome the fact that

149
the French are still committed to that treaty. As regards the Americans, I am aware of press reports to that effect. However, we are in fairly regular contact with the United States on nuclear matters. We have no reason to believe that they have any intention of abandoning their moratorium on tests. We have no plans to test while their moratorium is in force. But we have made clear that, while working for a comprehensive test ban treaty which will seek to ban all nuclear weapon tests, we reserve the right and have made clear the fact that we must be allowed to take adequate steps to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, if Afghanistan had had a nuclear bomb once upon a time, it is highly improbable that the Soviet Union would have invaded that country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I suspect that that is unlikely. However, that is a hypothetical question. The point is that we would prefer not to see a greater proliferation of nuclear weapons in states which are possibly not quite as stable as the states in which we have the fortune to live.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, on this side of the House, we do not believe that the French decision to resume nuclear testing is one for the French alone? Indeed, it is a matter for the world. Does the Minister agree that, if the United States were to open up the Nevada desert for further testing, it would give the British Government the opportunity—should they wish to take it—to test again in the Nevada desert facilities? Will the Minister give the House an absolutely categorical assurance that the British Government will not avail themselves of that opportunity?
Lord Henley: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's second question, the answer is no. In response to the first question, I have to say that, unlike the party opposite, I am not the French Government. I believe that it is a matter for the French Government and not for us.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has reiterated the fact that he is concerned with the minimum nuclear deterrent? However, a minimum deterrent is often defined as one capable of inflicting unacceptable damage on a possible adversary. Many people would say that a dozen warheads would be enough for that. Why then are the Government insisting on 20 or 30 times that number of warheads?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that we are insisting on what is a minimum deterrent; that is exactly what we are setting out.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I included the word "complete" in my initial Question, because it does in fact appear in the United Nations' document, but that I did not, if I recall correctly, include it in my supplementary question? Does the Minister agree that, if complete disarmament in the however distant future does take place, it will of necessity include nuclear disarmament?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is possible that I was not careful enough in noting the precise distinction between the noble Lord's original Question and his supplementary question.

University and Cadet Forces
2.56 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley Lord Craig of Radley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What level of savings were assumed in last year's defence costs study for the services' involvement in universities and in the cadet forces, and whether these will be achieved.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the defence costs study assumed no level of savings against the services' involvement in universities and the cadet forces. However, we are considering how greater value for money can be obtained in all university and cadet force activities.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does the noble Lord agree that the cadet forces provide a most valuable source of high calibre recruits for the Armed Forces? Can he confirm that the stability which has been promised to the Armed Forces will also apply to the arrangements made as a result of the defence costs study for the cadets and the university service units and that they will be allowed a long period in which to carry out their excellent work?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would be the first to join the noble and gallant Lord in confirming that the cadet forces and the various university forces provide a very valuable source of recruits, although I do not believe that that is their principal value. I believe that their principal value goes far wider than my department; it benefits the entire community and society as a whole. It is for that reason that I and colleagues in my department have had discussions with other departments and especially with my noble friend Lady Blatch in the Home Office on how we can extend assistance to the role of the cadets in various ways.
I should also like to see as much stability as possible throughout the cadets and the various university forces. It is right, however, to continue with a certain amount of work which is in hand to identify savings in terms of bringing greater cost effectiveness while not in any way seeing a diminution of the role of the cadets or of the various university officer training corps or the university air squadrons and their naval equivalent.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us who work with young people who are disturbed, difficult and disadvantaged appreciate very greatly what he says about the attention he is giving to the possibility of extending the cadet force, which is such an enormous help in reinforcing the self-confidence of such people?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very valid point. We would certainly like to do whatever we can to see where cadets can help within the community. That is why, as I said, I have been having discussions with other colleagues throughout government.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his statement is both important and encouraging? Does he recollect a recent debate on the cadet forces which emphasised that although they are useful to the Armed Forces, it is their non-military work which is absolutely

151
essential for the community? If the Minister's reply means—as I believe it does—that he is in touch with other departments to increase the cadet forces, that would be very warmly welcomed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Obviously, the cadets have some military role, but we believe that their wider role goes beyond the department. However, that is not a reason why the department would seek to abandon them. We feel that they can contribute a great deal to society.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the major expansion in the number of universities over the past few years with the incorporation of polytechnics and so on as universities, will the Government consider undertaking a major public review of the involvement of the Armed Forces in universities and other areas of post-school education?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord recognises the major expansion of higher and further education under a Conservative Government that has taken place over 17 years. As regards whether a major public inquiry is necessary to examine the role of the university air squadrons, the university officer training corps or the university royal naval units, that is another matter. But we will continue to support those we have and on some occasions we will establish new ones. We established six new university royal naval units in various universities in September last year. We will continue to keep the position under review.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, with the closure of the junior training establishments which provided so many good young men and women straight from school into the regular forces, does the noble Lord agree that the role of the cadets is vital today? Will he confirm that all initiatives which are proposed by the cadet organisations will be supported by the Government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that depends very much on what initiatives they are. The role of the cadets is very, very important but one should not overstress that role in terms of recruiting. It could very easily damage their role in terms of what they do in the community if they were thought purely to be a recruiting organisation. We recognise their value in terms of recruiting but they are not principally a recruiting organisation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in response to the question of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, about stability, I understood the Minister to say that there was a certain stability but that there were still areas where cost savings might or might not be achieved. In view of the fact that there is apparent stability for the rest of the Armed Forces, can we hear from the noble Lord exactly what cost savings the Government are studying—and where—in the cadet force, as well as a response to the other matters mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord?
Lord Henley: My Lords, to give just one or two examples, I can confirm that the headquarters of the air cadets and the headquarters of the university air squadrons are being co-located at RAF Cranwell and that that will bring significant savings of something of the
152
order of £600,000. We think that there are other aspects of the organisation, particularly of the army cadet force and the air training corps, where rationalisation could be achieved without affecting the service provided to the cadets, and we will continue, as I said, to pursue those.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!

Wheelclamping
3.2 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that further regulation is needed to restrict the clamping of motor vehicles by private persons.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government believe that the activities of some wheelclamping companies are not acceptable. But any remedy to this problem of unscrupulous clampers should not interfere with sensible measures to control parking on private land. The Government see the need to protect both the landowner and the motorist. We are looking for a solution which is cost-effective and which will work.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. Did she note a case last month in which civil proceedings were successful in Newcastle, but only through the determination and the persistence of the victim? Should not more now be done in England and Wales to prevent pirates from operating on waste or unsupervised land, and holding their victims to ransom for large sums? This of course does not affect the need to get permission to park on private land. Will the Government now announce a clampdown on cowboy clampers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first of all, we recognise that to seek redress through civil courts can take a long time and we are seeking solutions which will offer clamped motorists a more speedy solution to their problem. I should also say that only last week my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor warmly welcomed the publication of Lord Justice Woolf s interim report, which will of course speed up the process. We think that will help. But I repeat what I said at the beginning, we recognise that this is a problem. We want a solution but it must be enforceable and cost-effective; and at the end of the day it must work.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is high time to deprivatise the whole of this clamping racket?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure if deprivatising the whole of it is the answer; but your Lordships will know that there has been a good deal of debate over the private security industry—perhaps more than there has been over the wheelclamping industry. I am not sure that the two industries are entirely comparable although I agree that there is some overlap. The important thing is to find a solution which works for wheelclamping

153
and which is cost-effective and enforceable. Where wheelclamping is handled responsibly, it prevents the tiresome habit of parking which sometimes blocks important pathways—for example, pathways into hospitals and schools and other places. But what we want is a sense of balance. Where the cowboys are operating, we want to establish an effective system to do something about that.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House what conclusions were drawn from the consultative paper issued last year?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that it was inconclusive. I am afraid that there was no consensus. There was a good deal of useful information but I am afraid there is no real consensus on this issue. There is a landowning interest; there is a proper business and commercial interest; and there is the interest, as I have already said, of schools and hospitals. However, there is also the interest of getting rid of the tiresome business of cowboy operators in the field. What we are looking for is a solution that will work and will do something about that.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, quite apart from the cowboys, is an owner of private land entitled to detain vehicles and clamp them? How long is he allowed to keep them, and is he entitled to levy fines before they are released?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the law stands at the moment, someone on private land can put up a notice and can suggest that anyone who parks on that land will suffer the consequence of his vehicle being clamped and in order to retrieve the vehicle a fee will need to be paid. One of the problems—I suspect this was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy—is that some people are operating without putting up notices spelling out the consequences of certain actions, and sometimes they are operating without even the permission of the owners of the land. Some people are operating as clampers freely on anyone's piece of land. An owner of private land can use clamping as a deterrent against people parking on the land.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the present legal situation, which was not designed for this at all, is rather confused and is highly unsatisfactory? Is it the understanding—is this right—that the Government are considering the formulation and the introduction of some new legal regime; some new regulations? If they are, can they consider including in that a provision to make it an offence for anyone to clamp a car on private land, or any vehicle on private land, that displays a disabled person's orange badge?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is right; the law is under consideration on this matter and it is inadequate. As my noble friend probably knows, many of the cases which underpin the law of trespass in civil law are of some antiquity and are based on straying animals rather than wrongfully parked vehicles. The relevant legal principles cannot therefore always be stated. My noble-friend also mentioned orange badges. The consultation
154
exercise acknowledged the need to consider the position of orange badge holders. We have not moved from that view—we are looking into that, too.

Business of the House: Debates, 21st June
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Dean of Beswick set down for tomorrow shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Baroness Turner of Camden set down for the same day to two-and-a-half hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Land Registers (Scotland) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill I pay my compliments to the Bill's sponsor in another place, Mr. David Jamieson, the Honourable Member for Devonport, Plymouth for the persistent way he has pursued the subject until finally he received the full support of the Government and of the whole House in another place. I also wish to express my thanks to the Minister in this House for the kind and considerate way that he dealt with the Bill in facilitating its passage through this House.
When the Bill becomes law shortly it will provide safer facilities for young people up to the age of 17 who wish to indulge in sports activities out of doors and may well go a long way to preventing a recurrence of the terrible tragedy in Lyme Bay in which four young people were drowned while canoeing.
Again, I thank everyone concerned. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Dean of Beswick.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Dean of Beswick.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Child Support Bill
3.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I apologise for the state of my voice, but I wish to ask the noble Lord how far it is expected to go tonight and how late we are expected to sit.
When your Lordships debated the report of the Group on Sittings of the House we were assured that in the general way, other than exceptionally, we would adjourn at a reasonable hour. On the basis of that assurance your Lordships even consented to sit on a Friday before a bank holiday in order to debate the most important Bill of the year, the Finance Bill.
The other place has now reformed its hours of sitting and adjourns at a reasonable hour. It is quite wrong that your Lordships' House, a second Chamber—and in the way of second Chambers in general more elderly than the first—but, unlike most second Chambers, unsalaried, should be expected to sit until the very late and very early hours.
The issue is particularly important on this Bill because this Bill is designed to correct the egregious errors that were committed in the 1991 Act. It is accepted that in that respect it is an important Bill. On the 1991 Bill we habitually sat very late at night and into the early hours of the morning. Under those circumstances there could be no effective Division on any amendment. It is only up to, say, nine o'clock that it can be expected that there can be a representative selection of Peers in your Lordships' House to listen to a debate.
The 1991 Act was a legislative disaster. There have been unparalleled protests to Members of the other place. Their postbags have never been so full. That was because your Lordships were effectively prevented from amending the 1991 Bill. Practically everything in the present Bill is designed to correct the 1991 Act on lines that were suggested in your Lordships' House in 1991 and brushed aside with contumely.
Last night I asked how late we would sit and was told that we should continue without any time being fixed. In fact, the House did not get as far as planned but sat until after midnight. That is wrong. It prevents your Lordships from playing a proper role in the constitution. It does not treat your Lordships' House as an effective legislative Chamber. By about 10 o'clock the House was empty except for two Peers on the Opposition Front Bench, one on the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Minister and a Whip on the Treasury Bench. For all the good that was done, the debate might have been carried on round a comparatively small table with a secretary to take down what was said.
I ask with all the force at my command what time we are expected to sit until tonight, and I ask again that it should be a reasonable hour.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I may say that there were two noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I support very strongly what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who more than once in the past has done the House very good service by raising this matter. We want to be told by the Minister not only how late it is intended to sit tonight but also to be given an
156
undertaking that we shall not sit very late with the result that there is no proper debate to allow this House to function properly as a debating Chamber.
There is a further point. We have recently had these very late sittings because there has been a lot of work to do. However, with one recent exception, we have not sat on Fridays. If the volume of business is such, then in order that it should be debated properly it is surely right that instead of sitting late on a Thursday or any other night the House should sit on a Friday, during the hours of daylight, and have a proper debate on these important issues.
If it is not thought likely that we shall be able to conclude the business intended to be dealt with today, I urge my noble friend the Minister that we should instead sit in addition on Friday.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I shall give all my support to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I shall try not to repeat what I said yesterday, but I believe that we must go on protesting at the procedure of this House in Committee on matters of this kind until something is done.
We are not being worthy of our role as Members of your Lordships' House when we conduct our business under the conditions in which it was conducted last night. My noble friends on these Benches are insatiable, incorrigible and almost tireless, but there is a limit to what they can do usefully after midnight, and indeed for many hours before, unless they have other Members of the House with them. I try to help to get the business through at night, up to a certain point. However, .I shall protest and continue to protest until we have a system which is more businesslike.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said that those who remain in the House are not representative. They would not even be representative of a Standing Committee. They are a backroom group coming to the front. They get nowhere. One has only to look at the proceedings. Never were more amendments moved in a parliamentary Chamber and withdrawn than in this one. What is the point of amendments that are moved, seconded and replied to and then withdrawn? Why cannot we have a procedure by which replies to many of the amendments are given in writing? Those who receive those replies can then decide whether to pursue the matter on the Floor of the House. There are many alternatives and ideas as to how we might conduct our business, but this is not the way.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale asks: what time are we going to sit until? Unfortunately the answer does not lie in the hands of the Minister. He would probably be prepared to get the business over and done with and stop at about six o'clock.
What is the other place doing? Has it not debated the Bill? What has it done with the Bill? How is it that so much still remains to be done? What sort of mess are we in? I believe that the Child Support Agency is one of the disasters of this Parliament; and that is saying something. We cannot go on like this. As long as I have a voice at my command, my noble and learned friend will have my support.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the most important thing—it has not been stressed—is that it is impossible to have a proper vote late at night when there are so few people around. If you cannot vote at Committee stage, you are reduced to voting at Report stage. That is most unsatisfactory because you can speak only once at Report stage. The voting time is in Committee, but you cannot do so at 12 o'clock at night when there are only about six noble Lords present. When the people are not here to vote, it destroys the whole constitutional process of revising legislation in this Chamber and of having votes.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, as an alternative to sitting on Fridays—there is already a rumour going around the Palace of Westminster that we shall have a Summer Recess of three months—surely a shorter Recess would eliminate the problem of having to sit until midnight.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in supporting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, in his question, it is worth remembering that it is possible to have Divisions late at night. If there are not enough noble Lords present, the House effectively stops sitting and automatically rises. However, we need to be careful when considering the question. One of the glories of the House of Lords is that we consider virtually all of our business on the Floor of the House where every Member has the chance to contribute. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, mentioned that there seemed to be few people in the Chamber late last night. But I know from personal experience—I was here until the end and I listened to some of the debates from below the Bar, apart from sitting in the Chamber—that a number of other Members were not necessarily in the Chamber but were around the precincts taking note of what was being discussed. It is important that we remember this. It is essential that our business is taken on the Floor of the House wherever possible.
We ought to consider seriously the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that we sit on Fridays. The other suggestion was that we might not have such a long Summer Recess. That is also a matter that we should consider seriously. However, the idea that we should take business off the Floor of the House should be rejected. One of the terrific strengths of our House is that we consider business on the Floor of the House and everyone has the opportunity to take part if they feel it necessary.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the Government Chief Whip responds in a way which I am sure will be helpful, as one of the "usual channels", perhaps I may refer to a dilemma that we face when the time to be allocated to a Bill is considered. One acts with the best of intentions. On this occasion my colleagues who lead so splendidly for these Benches agreed, accepted and approved the suggestion that two days for the Committee stage of the Bill would be sensible. In the event, having agreed that two days were sensible, we are very much "in pawn" to what happens thereafter regarding the number of amendments, whether they are able to be grouped, and whether people are prepared to make progress against the background, the desire, that the House should rise at about 10 o'clock. One then comes up against great difficulties. There is no problem regarding rising at about 10 o'clock, provided that there is an
158
unlimited amount of parliamentary time. As has clearly been seen on this occasion, when considering the manner in which progress has been made, with a Statement spatchcocked into procedures yesterday afternoon, one could have done with more time.
None of the problems is new; they have all been considered previously. I simply state from these Benches that we recognise the great difficulty of trying to marry the two points. My noble friend Lord Monkswell stated that colleagues in this House fiercely protect their right not only to put down amendments but also—it is unusual in comparison with another place—to insist that each be taken separately. As a consequence, in deciding to run its affairs in that way, the House comes up against the problems that we have in this instance.
We have no objection to meeting on Fridays. However, the problem then is that on matters of this kind there could be votes, and Whips could be applied. Colleagues are stating that the solution is not to sit after 10 o'clock but to sit on Fridays until four o'clock or five o'clock, perhaps having to respond to Whips.
Those difficulties have to be taken into account. I simply say that we on these Benches are party to the arrangements that have been made but recognise the difficulties that have arisen.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend on what basis the usual channels decided that the parliamentary time would be only two days. We all know that it is a contentious Bill. We all know that it will take time. How did the usual channels decide that the Bill would take only two days?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from our experience, one looks carefully at the amount of time that has been taken in another place. The noble Baroness shakes her head; she either indicates that we do not do so, or that we should not do so. I simply tell the House the procedure. When considering an estimate of how long is required in this House, we consider the length of parliamentary time that has been taken in another place. We look at the level of controversy that has arisen in another place. We consider the estimate that has been put to us, perhaps two days or three days, and we simply accept it, or say that we can do the job in two days. If we had insisted on three days, there may have been a problem. I speak only for our Benches. The Government have their own timetable to keep. We try to accept our responsibility in Opposition. It is our job to expose defects in a Bill as often as possible. At the same time, we are not in the business of filibustering needlessly.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, although the questions were posed to my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who moved the Motion to resolve the House into Committee, perhaps I may be given the opportunity of replying to this brief debate as I do in part bear some responsibility as to the conduct of business in this House.
I can assure all noble Lords who spoke that I am always deeply concerned when Back-Benchers complain about the lack of time made available to discuss Bills on the Floor of the House. It is of particular concern when senior Back-Benchers, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord

159
Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter raise their questions in the way in which they have.
It is not only my desire but also the desire, I am sure, of the whole House that we should rise regularly as early as possible. However, we do not live in a perfect world where we can organise everything in the way that we would necessarily like.
There are a number of alternatives. Some have been raised in the report to the previous Leader of the House from senior Back-Benchers. The report discussed the case for Friday sittings as well as early rising—up until 10 o'clock. That was all part of a package which included many other aspects, such as the Moses Room procedure for Committees of the Whole House off the Floor of the House, and informal committees between Second Readings and Committee stages. Those ideas are at but an experimental stage. No sooner than the end of the current Session we shall be able to tell whether we can move in the requested direction so as to reduce the amount of time during which the House has to sit late.
As for this Bill, I am happy to admit that maybe in this instance the usual channels got it wrong. Perhaps I may follow the Opposition Chief Whip in explaining the discussions that take place and the considerations that are taken into account before reaching a decision. None of that is arbitrary; it is all carefully worked out. We naturally take into account the discussions in another place, the controversy of the Bill and the debate that took place at Second Reading in this House. In all those cases the discussions indicated that the Bill should be dealt with perfectly well in two days. However, between making that decision and the Committee stage, a great many amendments were put down and it was still uncertain how long it would take to deal with them. As it was, last night's proceedings went far later than any of us would like.
There is another consideration: the overall time in the parliamentary year. I suspect that it is the desire of most noble Lords that this important Bill should receive Royal Assent before the Summer Recess so that its provisions can be put into place. Given that and the minimum timings that we have between the different stages of Bills, it is imperative that the Bill complete its Committee stage this evening.
I hope that there is no doctrine in the House that we should not vote after nine o'clock in the evening. I am sure that the Opposition Chief Whip would disagree with that doctrine, and I am not sure that I should like to be bound to a new convention if that were the case. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said about last night, that although the Chamber may not have been full, in a number of places around the House small groups of Peers were discussing and debating a variety of issues.
I also hope that the House recognises that this year has not been unusual in the number of late night sittings. I hope it agrees that there have been a number of evenings when we adjourned far earlier than was originally predicted.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked a straight question about this evening. I am always in the hands of those who have put down amendments for
160
today, but I hope that tonight we shall not go much beyond 10 or 11 o'clock. However, I repeat that I am very much in the hands of the House on the matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he answer this? If, as he said, it is imperative that the Committee stage should be concluded soon, is it imperative that it should be concluded before Friday? Would it not be possible to meet the general timetable for the Bill by finishing the Committee stage on Friday?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the usual channels always find themselves in the hands of Back-Benchers. But the anecdotal evidence I have is that, although some people may be keen to sit on Fridays, overwhelmingly the response I receive when I suggest that the House should do so is, "That's all very well, but not on my business". There may be an inevitability about sitting on Fridays on this Bill. That depends on the progress that we make this evening.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question of the noble Lord. Will he bear in mind on the allocation of time for future business that time taken in another place may be a misleading guide on Bills such as this, where much of the criticism comes from the Cross-Benches and from our own Benches?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that I indicated, as did the Opposition Chief Whip, that what happened in another place was but one consideration taken into account before the usual channels came to a conclusion on the allocated time.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion. I confess that I was not surprised to hear the words "the usual channels"; indeed, I would have been astonished if they had not come up. We owe a great deal to the usual channels. Although, no doubt, their primary concern is government business, they have regard to our convenience and we are grateful to them. Moreover, we have learnt to admire the individuals who compose the usual channels.
However, we should not be beguiled by their general charm and efficiency, for several reasons. First, the usual channels do not flow through the Cross-Benches. There are now 300 Members on those Benches and so far as I know none was consulted; certainly no one who took an interest in the Bill was consulted.
The second reason is that, on experience, the usual channels seem to have primary regard to putting through government legislation. That is the fundamental problem. There is a tendency to regard your Lordships' House merely as a machine for churning through a mass of legislation. Let us not forget that this piece of legislation is only required because, despite your Lordships' protests, the 1991 Act was defective.
There is a tendency to regard any amendment as something to be rejected, as was summarily done last night. The only amendments to be favourably considered are those embodying the draftsman's second thoughts.

161
There is also this to be said about the usual channels. I venture to adopt what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, once said, that the usual channels are regarded as a conspiracy against the Back Benches. I only add, "and the Cross-Benches". However, in the end we shall find ourselves time and again in this kind of trouble if we have a mass of legislation, much of it ill-digested, some of it quite unnecessary and most of which would have been unnecessary if proper attention had been paid to the criticisms of previous legislation. In the end I hope that that fundamental lesson will have been learnt.
The Chief Whip answered one of my questions directly by saying that we were to try to finish the Committee stage tonight. He answered the other question indirectly by saying that he hoped that we would finish by 10 or 11 o'clock. I cannot conceive of it being possible, with proper discussion, for us to reach the end of the Committee stage of the Bill by that time. I hope that the Chief Whip will be in his place at 10 o'clock tonight to take cognizance of the situation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
3.39 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 58:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
(". In Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act, leave out paragraph 11 and insert—
Effective date of assessment
"11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), a maintenance assessment shall take effect on such date as may be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, and that date may be earlier than the date on which the assessment is made.
(2) Where no maintenance assessment is in force with respect to the person with care and the absent parent, the effective date of a new assessment shall not be earlier than the date on which the assessment is made or, where a notice threatening an interim assessment has been issued under section 12(4) of this Act, the date on which such notice was sent to the absent parent.
(3) This paragraph shall have effect from 5th April 1993.".").
The noble Earl said: I have been listening. Not moved.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 61:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Information: late arrival of assessed maintenance
. In section 14 of the 1991 Act, after subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
"(5) If any maintenance assessed under this Act fails to reach the parent with care within one week of the time when it is due, the Child Support Agency shall so inform the Benefits Agency within 48 hours of being notified of the non-arrival of such maintenance." ").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 61, I am afraid, is moved. I have not become totally immobile. The amendment deals with the distressingly frequent situation where maintenance has been assessed and does not reach the parent with care. Her benefit has been reduced in regard of the maintenance so she is left with the reduced benefit and without the maintenance—and sometimes is in very considerable hardship. I asked the Minister
162
yesterday whether Clause 25 of the Bill might make amendment in this area unnecessary. The point arose on Amendment No. 2. The Minister was not briefed on that point yesterday. I hope that he may be briefed on it now, because, if so, I shall be able to withdraw this amendment quickly. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This new clause in Amendment No. 61 adds to Section 14 of the 1991 Act, which deals with gathering and disclosing information. It proposes that where child support maintenance is normally paid direct to the parent with care and a payment is at least a week late the Child Support Agency will report the delay to the Benefits Agency within 48 hours of being notified of non-receipt. In practice, a parent with care on benefit is more likely to approach the Benefits Agency first when her maintenance does not arrive rather than the Child Support Agency. Even so, this is a good example of why it is necessary for the Child Support Agency to have powers to disclose information to the Benefits Agency, and vice versa.
Although there are already adequate powers in Section 14 of the 1991 Act to allow for this sort of exchange of information, I have some sympathy with the sentiment behind the amendment. However, this is purely an operational issue between the Benefits Agency and the Child Support Agency; it is not appropriate for primary legislation. Both agencies have operational constraints. It would be wrong to require a particular action to be taken which might mean that other action that rightly should have a higher priority has to be put to one side.
In its November 1994 report on child support, the Social Security Select Committee recommended that procedures be introduced between the two agencies so that full benefit was restored as quickly as possible whenever maintenance was not paid properly. As a result, a working party was set up which is currently examining ways to improve the procedures. Some changes have already been made to forms, and general liaison arrangements have been improved.
If a parent with care opts for income support gross, which is the subject of Clause 25—I believe I am right in saying that at least two-thirds do so opt—the maintenance and income support are therefore paid together. She will have no problem. When maintenance decreases, she is already receiving the full amount. Therefore she ought to have no problem along the lines the noble Earl mentioned.
I return to the noble Earl's point about a parent with care who receives a payment directly from the absent parent. I have indicated what the two agencies are doing. I am happy to pass on the point made by this amendment to the working party that I mentioned which is considering procedural changes between the two agencies. While, of course, it is vital that information is transmitted quickly, I do not believe that we ought to require them to adopt a mandatory timescale as set out in the amendment.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am grateful for his sympathy and for the practical expression of it. I am pleased to hear about the working party and happy to accept the reference to it. I understand, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the point that he makes about this provision not being suitable for primary legislation. I believe that it is a rule of

163
construction of statutes that when a point like this gets into primary legislation, you know that it has been going wrong in the past. Since the Minister also knows that, and is concerned about it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 62:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Repeal of s. 14 of 1991 Act
. Section 14 of the 1991 Act shall be omitted.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 64, although it is not grouped with it, and deal separately with Amendment No. 63, although that is grouped with Amendment No. 62. I think that that is the more convenient grouping. I apologise that I did not have an opportunity of mentioning that approach to the noble Earl and to the Minister. I hope that it does not inconvenience them.
Amendment No. 62 proposes to omit Section 14 of the 1991 Act whose rubric is:
"Information required by Secretary of State".
There are no prizes for guessing how that section opens. The words are:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations".
Those regulations require people to give information that is not of the kind normal creditors are entitled to demand. It is exceptional information that is vouchsafed to officials because they are officials.
At Second Reading I cited a passage from the famous book, The Law of The Constitution. One of the tests of the rule of law—but only one of the three—is that officials are subject to the normal law of the land. They are amenable to the same law as that to which citizens are subject. The Bill gives them quite exceptional power. Let us see what they can do with it.
Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 3 to the Bill, under the strange heading, "Minor and Consequential Amendments", states as an amendment to the Child Support Act 1991 in Section 14, the one to which I just referred, that the Secretary of State may hand on the information that is required under that section. He may,
"make use of that information for purposes of any of the benefit Acts or of the Jobseekers Act 1995,"
or equivalent Northern Ireland Acts. In other words, not only is the Secretary of State given exceptional power to interrogate individuals and get information, but he can hand that information on to other social services organisations.
I said that I intended to take this amendment with a subsequent amendment which deals with powers of entry. Section 15 of the 1991 Act reads:
"(4) An inspector"—
that is an officer of the Child Support Agency—
"shall have power—

(a) to enter at all reasonable times … any specified premises … and … any premises which are not specified but which are used by any specified person for the purpose of carrying on any trade, profession, vocation or business; and

(b) to make such examination and inquiry there as he considers appropriate.

(5) An inspector exercising his powers may question any person aged 18 or over whom he finds on the premises.
(6) If required to do so by an inspector exercising his powers, any person who is or has been"—
there follow four different categories—
"shall furnish to the inspector all such information and documents as the inspector may reasonably require".
There is a little left to read but it is not much. Subsection (9) reads:
"If any person … without reasonable excuse, refuses or neglects to answer any question … he shall be guilty of an offence".
Remembering the definition of the rule of law, the Committee will ask where we are going now. The inspector may enter the premises on pain of a penalty. He may put questions to an employer or fellow employees which they must answer on pain of a penalty.
Everybody ought to observe his engagements. Anybody who owes a debt ought to pay it. But let us take the case of a wife under a separation agreement. She has no power to detail a private detective—even if she is owed money under that agreement—to enter premises on pain of a penalty, interrogate her husband, his fellow employees or his employer in order to secure her redress. That is the private individual. The case of any other creditor is similar. Why in this case should exceptional powers be given to the officials of the Child Support Agency? I might further ask whether it has shown since 1991 that it is worthy of such powers. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: The noble and learned Lord, as usual, is quite right. These are the powers to which he alluded in his speech on Second Reading—powers which threaten the rule of law. One of the points about the rule of law is that it should produce a slightly less unequal relationship than would otherwise exist between government and governed. It should impose an orderly relationship between them. The activities of big brother should be controlled by the activities of the rather bigger parent. That is what the rule of law is all about.
The first amendment that we are discussing deals with demands for information. It has already been used for demands for the most indelicate information from women about the details of their private life. I shall not repeat to the Minister the example that I gave him at Second Reading. I am sure that he remembers it.
The second amendment deals with the confidentiality of Inland Revenue information. It has been hard enough, since taxes began—which is as far back as we have had the state—to get people to give accurate information to the Inland Revenue so that their taxes can be assessed. We can only ask them to do so if they can have reasonable confidence that that information will not be used against them for other purposes. I have known people who would not even go to a tax accountant in their home town for fear that their financial details would become known

165
elsewhere. I thought that this Government were aware of the dislike of paying taxes. But it seems that in this Bill they have forgotten even that.
The third amendment deals with the powers of inspectors who are given rights of entry and questioning in practically any circumstances. In fact, it is the power of snooping. I notice that they have the right to enter:
"any specified premises, other than premises used solely as a dwelling house".
In other words, they may enter the corner shop which is also used as a dwelling house.
If inspectors, without warning and before they have identified themselves, start to enter people's houses in the middle of the night, they may risk a response which might tend to breach the peace. The Government are bringing their own servants into danger. I do not think that that is fair on them.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: We should be grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for keeping an eye on the defects of legislation passed under the influence of prejudice. The year 1991 saw a flowering of the new despotism under the present Government. There had been the Environmental Protection Bill of 1990; and then in 1991 came the Dangerous Dogs Bill and the Child Support Bill. They all encroached on the rights of the citizen, without redress, because the Government felt that the prejudice of the public against the subjects of the legislation would allow them to transgress the normal considerations of individual liberty. The 1991 Child Support Act did that in some important respects. This provision is one of them. Another is the right given to the child support officer, with the sanction of the Inland Revenue, to inspect the pay records in the hands of the inspector of taxes.
I have already said many times that that Act conceded to child support officers what is denied to the police except in the case of murder. That shows the lengths to which the Government will go when they are in search of culprits. The Act was directed against culprits, defaulters, undesirable people—men who had deserted their children and wives. Nothing bad enough can be said against such people. One need stop at nothing when dealing with these people. I shall return to the Dangerous Dogs Act on subsequent occasions. But to deprive the magistracy of its historic right of discretion in sentencing people convicted under matters within their jurisdiction is nothing short of a crime. Yet it was done. The Government persist in insisting that it continues to be done lest the people's terrier might bite somebody.
I believe that that situation is disgraceful. This provision is disgraceful. The incursion into the confidentiality of Inland Revenue records is disgraceful. Why are there such facilities to pursue the objects of this Act?
We must bear in mind that we are handling legislation which is directed against certain persons in the community in the interests of other persons in the community. It is a Bill which rearranges the relationships between people and the community and people and people. It is a delicate operation. There is no question of keeping the balance here; the balance is against the
166
persons who are judged to be in default. No pains are spared in getting at them and pressing them to fulfil their obligations to their families.
Under this Bill we are part of the prosecuting authority. Parliament has put an instrument into the hands of the administration which goes beyond the normal role of the magistracy or the police. This Committee should be inquiring more closely into who is doing this; into whose thousands of hands the implementation of the Bill is being placed? What qualifications do they have? Where do they come from? What is the standard of remuneration? What is the standard of recruitment? They all speak in the name of the Secretary of State. That is why I described the original Bill, when it came before Parliament in 1991, as the grubbiest piece of legislation that I have struck in 42 years in Parliament.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I do not believe that I have ever heard a more moving speech than that made by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I had not intended to talk in this debate but I am minded to because I saw the wise grey head of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. I seem to remember when the Labour Party was in power that Mr. Healey, now the noble Lord, Lord Healey, introduced very wide powers of search and entry for the Inland Revenue. We on this side of the House railed against the rights of entry and the abuse of the state power over private individuals.
What my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale described reminds me of those wartime escape films and of somebody in a long grey overcoat saying, "Ihre Papieren, bitte". This is the instrument of dictatorship. There is already too much of it in existing legislation. Too much power is given to people to enter and search. It should be stopped and reversed for the sake of privacy and the freedom of the individual. We must take notice of what my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I can be clear about what we are doing. I was under the impression that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was moving Amendment No. 62 and speaking to Amendment No. 64.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: That is so. But the noble Earl, Lord Russell, joined in the Motion and also spoke to the second amendment. I entirely adopt what he said; indeed, that was the main theme of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. It is best if all three amendments are taken together because the power of entry, the power of questioning and the power of the infringement of the Inland Revenue confidentiality all go together.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I was going to mention that the noble Earl appeared to speak to the other amendment and I was seeking to be sure that I could reply to all three and perhaps save the Committee a few minutes.
These amendments would result in the removal of the Child Support Agency's powers either to gather or disclose information, which is essential to enable maintenance assessments to be made. It perhaps sits a

167
little oddly with the assurance I gave around 20 minutes ago that the Benefits Agency and the Child Support Agency could exchange information about parents with care in order to ensure that parents with care did not fall between the two stools of income support and absent parent maintenance.
If the amendments were agreed, it would mean that different parts of the Department of Social Security would not be able to exchange information. It would make it very difficult for the agency to trace absent parents with the degree of success they currently achieve. It would mean that the agency would be unable to give details of an application, or a maintenance assessment, to a child support tribunal. Finally, where the agency needs to use a court for enforcement or to establish paternity the CSA would be severely limited as to the information it could give to the court.
Schedule 2 to the 1991 Act allows the Child Support Agency to obtain from the Inland Revenue the current address or the 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. These amendments would prevent all of those arrangements. I do not believe that it is a great challenge to civil liberties; in fact quite the contrary. It would be ridiculous to forbid the agency from seeking information along the lines I have just mentioned.
We recognise that the gathering and disclosure of information is a sensitive subject. Equally, I hope the Committee recognises that parents with care will not always know the absent parent's whereabouts, nor will parents always be able to give the other details needed by the agency. There was some discussion during the Second Reading of the Bill about the information which the Child Support Agency could obtain from the Inland Revenue. I would like to reiterate that the only information that is given to the agency by the Inland Revenue is the current address of the absent parent or the current employer of the absent parent. I must stress that the agency does not have access to anyone's tax returns. However, although the amount of information available to the agency is not extensive, it is vital in the agency's attempts to trace absent parents either directly or through their employers. I am sure that those of us who want the agency to work, who want the parent with care to receive the maintenance due, will find these powers well within what we consider to be reasonable.
In the past year the agency successfully traced over 49,500 absent parents whose whereabouts were unknown to the parent with care. In the past there has been talk of the agency failing to target the so-called "feckless fathers". The agency can be proud of its success in tracking down fathers, or indeed mothers, who disappear without facing up to their responsibilities to their children. The ability to obtain information from the Benefits Agency, the Contributions Agency, the Inland Revenue or employers is essential in this process. Without the help of the information provided, the number of successful traces would reduce to a trickle.
The second arm to Schedule 2 is the provision of relevant information from local authority records. That information has been prescribed in regulations as the
168
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. Those are far from being draconian powers. In fact, the provision is benevolent as it allows for the agency to collect information which would otherwise have to be obtained by the parent.
An important element of the calculation of a maintenance assessment is the housing costs which are net of housing benefit. Details of council tax are needed for assessing protected income which ensures the absent parent and his new family remain significantly above the level of income support. Failure to obtain this information could reduce the speed and accuracy of some assessments.
On the question of the powers of entry, the effect of Amendment No. 64 would be that inspectors appointed under the Child Support Act would no longer have the right to enter premises and request information. The amendment would render Section 15, which provides for the power of inspection, effectively redundant since an inspector would have no greater powers to seek information than a child support officer already has without the benefit of Section 15.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, outlined in the debate at Second Reading and again today his objection to the power of inspection. He argued that these powers were contrary to the rule of law, or at least exceptional powers because they were not rights enjoyed by ordinary citizens. Furthermore, he implied that these powers were in some way unique and specific to the activities of the agency, a point, I suspect, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I said in that earlier debate—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I think the noble Lord is mistaken. I never thought that they were peculiar. In fact I warned against the precedents and that this would be used as a further precedent.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful for that recognition that there are precedents for this power. I was just coming to that for the benefit of those Members of the Committee who may be concerned about these powers. For example, over many years there have been powers to appoint national insurance inspectors. Similar powers exist in regard to Customs and Excise and to the Inland Revenue. Indeed, the powers of appointment available to the agency are a good deal more restricted than those available to other government bodies, since, as the noble and learned Lord will know, child support inspectors can be appointed only for one-off investigations and for a limited and specified period.
The powers of inspection are designed to deal primarily with cases where absent parents, more often than not self-employed absent parents, refuse to provide information or provide information that is wholly implausible. They are intended to be used primarily to gain access to records of business held either by the absent parent or his accountant. The agency can approach employers for information as a matter of course; and while it is possible that inspectors could be appointed to seek information from employers, that is not the primary purpose of the power.

169
The suggestion has been made that the inspectors might enter premises which are also dwelling places in the middle of the night, and that suggestion managed to get the hairs of my noble friend standing up on the back of his neck. But inspectors will not enter premises in the middle of the night or unannounced. The department has proved over many years that it can exercise this kind of power sensibly and sensitively. An inspector can only ask for admission to premises; he certainly cannot force his way in.
To date the agency has used these powers very sparingly. Since it began operations they have been used on a total of just fewer than 50 occasions. I do not accept that these are unusual or draconian powers, and it is clear from the number of times they have been used that they are used only in the most exceptional circumstances. The amendment would be extremely damaging since the power to appoint inspectors in a small number of often high profile and exceptional cases is the last resort in securing justice for the parent with care. Furthermore, while little use generally is made of the powers, the very fact that the agency possesses them is a deterrent to non-co-operation or indeed a deterrent against the provision of wholly false information.
The powers of inspection relating to establishing the income of the absent parent, or in a few cases the parent with care, are clearly the ones I have been dealing with, but there are a small number of cases, which were raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, involving personal questions. There are a small number of cases where paternity is one of the issues and it may be necessary to ask personal questions of the type the noble Earl mentioned. But I stress to the Committee that these kinds of questions are undertaken only in a very small number of cases where paternity comes into question. This is not at all related to the question of powers of inspection, which these three amendments cover.
I do not believe at all that these are in any way draconian, unique or unusual powers. They are sensible powers to give to the agency to enable it to carry out its task, which is to ensure that the absent parent pays the maintenance properly assessed and can be properly assessed for maintenance which can then be paid to help the parent with care and the children of his former marriage. I hope that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Earl will withdraw the amendments in their names. But if they do not, I hope my noble friends will support me in the Division Lobbies.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Listening to the speech of the noble Lord, one would think that he had picked up a brief from the Home Office on the detection of crime.
The Earl of Onslow: Can we not have these people going to get a warrant? If we had the old English system of being given a warrant by the magistrates for inspection, everyone would be happy. What sticks in some of our more libertarian minds is the fact that someone can just go and do it. This is an excuse which is heard every single time these powers are sought for other agencies. The. moment one more power for another agency is produced it is said that it is exceptional but that there is a precedent. That is how the argument on VAT was lost—the noble Lord, Lord Healey, said that the Tories had introduced it
170
for something else. There is this ratchet, ratchet, ratchet—more powers of entry and more abuse of individual liberties. The bureaucratic reasoning of convenience is getting too, too dangerous for our society. We ought to be very, very wary of it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Surely 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. It seems to me that this is a long argument to try to stop what is right being done, and I am very surprised, having sat right through it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Either last night or at Second Reading—I have forgotten which—I asked rhetorically what is the Conservative Party doing supporting this Bill, the 1991 Act and the kind of powers that your Lordships have immediately under review. I was therefore particularly gladdened by the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. The noble Lord the Minister does not seem to realise the kind of powers that are exceptionally—I say "exceptionally"—being demanded. They may not be exceptional in the sense that other government departments may have already grabbed them. But they are exceptional in that individuals who have a grievance, to whom a debt is owed, have no such power and rightly have no such power. It is intolerable in a civilised society that people should have the power of entry and interrogation on the most private matters and to the detriment of a fellow citizen. We give no such power, for example, to the individual mother who was instanced; the individual wife who has been deserted and is owed maintenance. But we give the power to government departments. I was glad to hear a voice—a familiar voice to me—of the Conservative Party protesting against such powers.
I repeat what those powers are. They are now all under the review: the power of entry under penalty; the power of interrogation under penalty, including as to private matters. Those are not the only circumstances in which paternity is an issue, but we would not dream of allowing those powers in any other case. Therefore, the second power is the power of interrogation, including into private matters of finance, marital status and paternity.
The third is very important and was referred to—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to intervene. I hope that I made it clear—if I did not, this gives me another opportunity—that the inspectors with whom we are concerned would not be the people asking the questions about paternity. The child support officers would be asking those questions in the very small number of cases in which paternity is an issue. The question of inspectors and premises is quite different from the issue of trying to establish paternity where it is denied.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord will forgive me if I say that that is no answer at all; because it is an official who has the power, and no matter if that applies in only a small number of cases. It should not apply to any case.

171
The last matter is that of Inland Revenue confidentiality. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has spent many years of his youthful life in the service of the Inland Revenue in one form or another. He is also acutely aware of the social problems with which the Bill and the Act face us. The noble Lord rejects entirely—and entirely correctly—the infringement of Inland Revenue confidentiality. We have a very ancient and peculiar Inland Revenue principle in this country, going back right to the beginning of the system under the second Pitt. I refer to the principle of self-assessment. We rely on the individual to provide information to the Inland Revenue, and we assure him that if he does so and if he gives information honestly, his confidentiality will be respected. The information will not be handed round to any government agency which might care to use it against him. That is what is being done here, and I ask the Committee roundly to reject it.
4.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 62) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Airedale, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Northbourne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Onslow, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Palmer, L.

David, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Faithfull, B.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Fitt, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Foot, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Gregson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Halsbury, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shepherd, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Simon, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L. [Teller.]

Haskel, L.

Stedman, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tope, L.

McNair, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Addison, V.

Bridges, L.

Aldenham, L.

Butterworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cadman, L.

Annaly, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carnock, L.

Balfour, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Blake, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Blatch, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Boardman, L.

Courtown, E.

Borthwick, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

172

Cumberlege, B.

Milverton, L.

Davidson, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Morris, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dormer, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dundonald, E.

Moyne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Munster, E.

Elles, B.

Nelson, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Norrie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northesk, E.

Gainford, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Orkney, E.

Glenamara, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Goschen, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Granard, E.

Radnor, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gridley, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hacking, L.

Rees, L.

Hail sham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Romney, E.

St. Davids, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Savile, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L.

Selborne, E.

Hives, L.

Sharples, B.

Holderness, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hood, V.

Slim, V.

Howe, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Inglewood, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Lucas, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinton, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Terrington, L.

McConnell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Trumpington, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Manchester, D.

Vivian, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Middleton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.31 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 63 to 66 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 67:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Enforcement of assessments
.—(1) Sections 31 to 40 of the 1991 Act are hereby repealed.
(2) An assessment of child support maintenance shall be enforceable in accordance with this section, and not otherwise.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this section, an assessment of child support maintenance shall be enforceable in the same manner as an order made by a magistrates' court (or in Scotland, a sheriff court) for the making of periodical payments for the maintenance of a spouse.
(4) An assessment of child support maintenance shall not be enforceable unless and until there has been obtained from the magistrates' court (or in Scotland, the sheriff court) within whose district the person liable under the assessment resides ("the relevant court") an order authorising its enforcement.
(5) An application for an order authorising enforcement of an assessment may be made to the relevant court by the Secretary of State, or by the person entitled to receive payments under the

173
assessment; and the Secretary of State, the person entitled to receive payments under the assessment, and the person liable under the assessment, shall be made parties to the application.
(6) Before determining such an application, the court shall ensure that all the parties to the application have been given an adequate opportunity to be heard; and any such party may be represented before the court by any person authorised by him, whether or not the representative would otherwise have a right of audience before the court.
(7) The court shall not make an order for the enforcement of an assessment unless it is satisfied that each of the following conditions is fulfilled—

(a) that the time-limit within which an application for a review or appeal in respect of the assessment under sections 17, 18 or 20 of the 1991 Act may be requested or lodged has expired, and that any such review or appeal which has been requested or lodged has been carried out or disposed of; and

(b) that the making of the order for enforcement will not create or contribute to the creation of a serious risk of causing substantial harm to the welfare of any child who is likely to be affected; and

(c) that the making of the order for enforcement will not cause serious hardship or injustice to any person.

(8) The relevant court shall have the following powers—

(a) to make an order for the enforcement of part (instead of the whole) of the periodical amount currently payable under the assessment; and

(b) to remit arrears which have arisen under the assessment.

(9) Any order for the enforcement of an assessment shall specify—

(a) the periodical amount currently payable under the assessment, and the periodical amount (being the whole of part of the amount currently payable) for which enforcement is authorised by the court; and

(b) the amount of arrears existing at the date of the order (ascertained in the light of any evidence of payments made which has been received by the court), and the amount of arrears remaining after any remission ordered by the court.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment deals with the procedure for enforcement. The Act contains numerous special provisions on enforcement; for example, a deduction of earnings order. It is purely an administrative act. It is without any judicial intervention or any consideration of surrounding circumstances. The principle of this amendment is that enforcement would be carried out as with an order of a magistrates' court for spousal maintenance. So an attachment of earnings order by a magistrates' court would remain possible after a proper judicial hearing in which all the circumstances would be considered. It is this consideration of all the circumstances which is vital to us.
If he wanted an order, the Secretary of State would have to apply to a magistrates' court for it. That would have to be done before any enforcement measures. The court would have the right either to grant the order or to refuse it if a review or an appeal were pending if it was not satisfied that the child's welfare was sufficiently safeguarded or that hardship or injustice would be avoided. The court would also be empowered to authorise only partial enforcement and to remit arrears. That is a problem to which we must return.
I understand that this Act was brought in to deal with a real problem. The problem of securing maintenance for the parent with care was urgent and to which attention was overdue. But it is a rule that pendulums always swing too
174
far and that rule has not been broken in this case. The parent with care has rights; but as I listened to the Minister replying to the previous amendment, he seemed to believe that those rights existed with such paramount importance that they blotted out everything else. That is not correcting injustice, but standing injustice on its head. It is a sadly common performance, but it is one which I do not believe has ever done very much to improve the world. I beg to move, and to get back to the rule of law where we belong.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Both amendments seek to introduce substantial and wide ranging changes to the methods of collecting and enforcing child support maintenance. Like so many of the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, they give undue priority to the absent parent at the expense of the parent with care; the children for whom she is responsible, and at the expense of the taxpayer.
If either amendment were accepted, all cases where the absent parent did not voluntarily make arrangements for paying maintenance and any arrears, the Child Support Agency would have to apply to the magistrates' court for an enforcement order. That would cause delays in obtaining payment of maintenance for the parent with care; increase significantly the costs of enforcement, by more than £20 million a year; and result in big increases in the amount of work for the magistrates' courts.
Those courts would also have wide powers to refuse to grant an enforcement order if they considered the order would create or contribute to the risk of serious risk or harm to the welfare of any child likely to be affected, or the order would cause serious hardship or injustice to any person. They would also have the power to write off arrears. But most significantly, Amendment No. 67 gives the power to the magistrates' court to make an enforcement order for less than the full amount of the formula assessment.
The noble Earl has frequently made clear his opposition to this Act and this amendment would totally undermine its principles. The formula assessment was introduced precisely because the previous court system failed parents with care, the children and the taxpayer. Maintenance awards varied considerably and were generally of a low amount, with payment of maintenance often being given a low priority in the absent parent's obligations and expenditure. The formula system which we have devised gets away from these problems and gives an opportunity to the parent with care to look to the absent parent for fair maintenance to be paid on time and as agreed by the agency. The formula already contains a number of safeguards to ensure that the absent parent is asked to pay only an amount reasonable in his circumstances.
The main provision in this Bill is for a departure scheme. We have already discussed these provisions in some detail. The scheme will enable the maintenance assessed under the formula to be reduced in those cases where exceptional circumstances mean that the payment of the assessed amount would cause hardship. No absent parent will be asked to pay an unreasonable amount of maintenance. This not only means that it

175
would be wrong for the magistrates' court to have the power, in effect, to reduce the assessment, but that there is no justification for arrears to be written off.
The amendment contains a number of other provisions that would further undermine the ability of the agency to obtain payment of maintenance in those cases where the absent parent deliberately seeks to avoid his responsibility to his children. It removes the ability of the agency to impose deduction from earnings orders without reference to the magistrates' courts. At present deduction from earnings orders can be issued without the need for this, providing a quick and effective means of getting maintenance into payment when absent parents do not co-operate. It is important for parents with care that maintenance is put into payment as soon as possible and, where absent parents refuse to pay, the deduction from earnings orders procedures help to ensure this. It takes about 25 days to issue a deduction from earnings order via the agency, but would take about eight to 10 weeks to obtain a liability order. Of course, if absent parents comply with their obligations to pay maintenance, the need for a deduction from earnings order does not arise.
In addition, applications to magistrates' courts could be made only when all reviews and appeals had been cleared. But that would create an incentive to absent parents who wanted to avoid paying maintenance to make vexatious applications for reviews of the assessment, or change of circumstances reviews, and to lodge spurious appeals to delay the point at which payment of maintenance could be enforced.
If any Member of the Committee believes that I am imagining those suggestions they should read some of the publications of one of the more vociferous organisations representing absent parents. Sadly, it is true that a minority of absent parents are committed to avoiding their responsibilities. It takes a minimum of several months to go through the process of completing a review and a child support appeal tribunal hearing and then only if all the relevant information is to hand and there are no delays of any kind. If one added to that the later intervention of the courts it is clear that unscrupulous absent parents could see delay being added to delay. The parent with care would be left wondering whether the absent parent was ever going to be called to account to pay maintenance.
We believe that the provisions in the Bill strike a balance between the needs of the absent parent, the parent with care, the children and the taxpayers. The effect of either of the new clauses would be totally to undermine the Child Support Agency's ability to collect and enforce maintenance effectively. There has been some criticism that the Bill does not give sufficient help to the parents with care. These amendments would be of considerable disadvantage to the parents with care because they would have to wait very much longer for maintenance to be paid, even assuming that the magistrates' court granted the liability order.
I believe that there is no justification for the amendments now before the Committee and I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw them. However, I can
176
understand where he is coming from in respect of this matter and that he may feel strongly about it. He may well wish to test the opinion of the Committee and, if so, I hope that other Members will see the force of my argument and will support me in the Lobbies.
Earl Russell: I ask the Minister to withdraw the suggestion that this amendment does anything whatever to encourage those who deliberately refuse to pay their maintenance. An attachment of earnings order from a magistrates' court is not a negligible instrument to secure payment. The Minister's objection to it is that it would produce a delay of 39 days. I believe that 39 days to check whether you have got it right in a matter that is so important to the lives of all the parties concerned is not a negligible expenditure of time. It was extremely unjust and inaccurate of the Minister to make that suggestion. I repeat to him my invitation that he should withdraw it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sure that the noble Earl has no intention of encouraging anyone to delay making their proper payments. I was simply pointing out that there are such organisations. I have the newsletter of one of them in front of me; it is called NACSA. Reading through its pages one sees that the organisation is encouraging absent parents to use any possible means at their disposal, including trying to bring the whole workings of the agency to a halt, to prevent them having to pay their assessment.
Earl Russell: If the Minister wishes, as I do, to discourage that method of responding to political discontent he needs to provide an alternative outlet for that discontent. He needs to persuade people that it is possible to change things by legitimate political channels. That calls for rather more flexibility on his part than he has yet shown.
It is both inaccurate and unnecessary to attempt to count the amendments moved by any Member of the Committee to see which favour one sex and which favour the other. In any event, the Minister has done so before we have reached the benefit penalty, on which I shall have a good deal to say. Therefore, he has a grossly distorted figure. In relation to these issues, to be on the side of one sex or the other regardless of the facts of the case is a cheap and footling way of going about it. Both sexes are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
Justice is proverbially blind. Until we started debating this Bill I had not realised how important that symbolism is. Justice is not interested in which sex you are; it is interested in the facts of the case. I know that the Minister's formula has become a fetish to the Government but the point about a formula is that it gets away from the facts. The Minister has deliberately invited me to seek the opinion of the Committee. I am capable of resisting temptation but I hope that before we return to many issues of this kind on Report there will have been a certain amount of thought on the other side of the Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 69:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Enforcement of liability orders by distress
. Section 35 of the 1991 Act shall be omitted.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment seeks to leave out Section 35 of the 1991 Act, which gives power to the appropriate official to levy distress on non-payment of a liability order. I have a letter from the Minister, for which I am grateful, but I am afraid that it arrived only yesterday even though I raised the matter on Second Reading and in debates on the 1991 Act. I confess that I did not altogether understand the letter but that may be because I have no recent experience on this technical branch of the law; the law of distress.
Distress is an extraordinary remedy. It goes back to a primitive state of jurisprudence; namely, the state of self-help. Members of the Committee will know that the most striking feature of that time was the vendetta—the blood feud—in which revenge was taken for an injury. The very first steps on control of the self-help was limitation on the number of persons who could seek revenge and on the relationship to the offender of those on whom vengeance might be taken. That is the state of the law from which distress originates.
In other words, it is a remedy of self-help. The creditor could help himself to the repayment of a debt without any judicial process. He did that by seizing the goods of the debtor and holding them until the debt was paid and, if necessary, selling them and recouping himself for the debt.
Obviously, that remedy of self-help, of distress, required to be as anxiously guarded against for its abuse as the vendetta and the blood feud. Both common law and statute intervened to limit the way in which distress might be levied in order to ensure that it should not be abused. As I understand the noble Lord's letter—and I confess that I have not had time to study it properly—he is saying that Section 35 does not provide any extraordinary remedy; that it merely provides the same sort of right of distress that is now available to any citizen who alleges that he is owed money. If I have that wrong, the noble Lord must correct me.
If that is so, I fail entirely to see why the section is necessary at all. Why cannot the matter be left to the ordinary law of debtor and creditor? Bearing in mind the extraordinary powers which have been asserted and claimed and, indeed, vindicated recently in the Division Lobby without a hint of any concession at all, I view the distress provisions with very great suspicion.
If they do anything more than that which is available to the ordinary citizen who is a creditor, they give exceptional powers to officials. As I asked before: what are a Conservative Government doing to put forward such claims? What is the Conservative Party doing to support such a Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I support the amendment. Distraint is the ultimate degradation of the citizen. The right to invade his house without his sanction should surely be reserved only for the police with a warrant in search of a fugitive from justice.
Section 35 is an indication of the depths to which the Thatcher administration would sink in the pursuit of a vendetta against a section of the community which the Prime Minister felt was getting away with something. "Make the blighters pay", said she. "Go and do it". This Bill was the outcome.
Although distraint nominally remains in the hands of the taxation authorities, it is extremely rarely necessary to use it these days. We are dealing not with fugitives from justice but with citizens who are in a different relationship to their obligations from others. It is not a criminal matter and should not be accompanied by the extreme power to enter and remove goods and sell them in order to recover the debt. That is the rock bottom of the evils of the Bill which contains so many injustices to a section of the community.
I cannot contain my indignation about the spirit of hostility behind this Bill against people who are believed to be so much in default of their obligations that they have to be treated as though they are thieves and vagabonds, and are subject to every possible device to track them down and bring them to face their charges of neglect.
Therefore, I support the amendment. I must express my regret that the debates at the Committee stage of the Bill have not shown the strength of the Labour Party on issues which affect personal liberty and the freedom of the citizen that I hoped they would show. Populist tactics are all right as far as they go but when you lie low on an issue of profound political and ethical importance, you should be prepared to stand and deliver. I am very sad indeed about that. But I shall not rest on this, as on some other matters, because if there is any point at all in being in Parliament, it is to protect incursions into the rights of citizens which are so easily taken away in panic and fear and in sheer cussedness sometimes because you want to get your own back on somebody who is, in your opinion, not performing properly his citizen's duties.
I do not know what my noble friend thinks about the amendment. It may be that there is something in the letter which he has only just received and which I have not been privileged to see. I have a whole bundle of letters which I have received in the last several days from various sources. I wish that I had received them a week ago. There is a letter in my file which is addressed, "My dear Jack". I assume that that is one of the letters to which the noble and learned Lord referred, but I do not believe that it is the letter relating to this amendment. "My dear Jack, what are you going to do?" I am prepared to support the amendment if the opinion of the Committee is sought.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendment removes totally the provisions relating to the levying of distress. It would undermine the ability of the Child Support Agency to obtain payment of maintenance on behalf of the parent with care and children in those cases where the absent parent does not co-operate in meeting his responsibilities.

179
I repeat again that the agency makes every effort to reach an agreement with the absent parent about the repayment of arrears. 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 he makes prompt arrangements to meet his liabilities. I should re-emphasise that enforcement action is considered only in those cases where the absent parent persistenty seeks to avoid his liabilities.
I accept that it is unpleasant for an absent parent to have bailiffs turn up at his house. But we must remember that the absent parent can avoid the need for this by co-operating with the agency. It is—dare I say to the Committee?—up to him.
With regard to the procedures, I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, would be at least partially satisfied by the fact that the agency has to go to a magistrates' court in England and Wales and to a sheriff court in Scotland in order to obtain a liability order before the final steps are taken.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: But is it not correct that the magistrates' court cannot review the order? It has to take the matter as it is stated by the Child Support Agency.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure about the answer to that question, but certainly the court cannot start to look into the details of the assessment and re-judge the issue. What the court is able to decide is whether or not, in the circumstances presented by the agency, a case has been made—presumably on the grounds that the person has not paid and has persistently declined to do so. It is very much the last possible step that the agency would take. On those grounds, the magistrate or sheriff would have to be satisfied before he took such a step, as is the case with any magistrate or justice of the peace before he actually signs any kind of document in terms of the various orders that he is asked to sign. One has to satisfy oneself that the person appearing and asking for whatever order it may be—and in this case it would be a liability order—has made a justifiable case.
Therefore, while the magistrates' court cannot query the assessment itself, as I explained, like justices of the peace and other such people who are asked to sign documents regarding a wide range of matters in the law, those concerned must be satisfied that the person asking them to sign has made a proper case.
However, the important point is that we are dealing with someone who has had every possible opportunity to obey the law and pay the maintenance to the parent with care of the child or children. That is a fact. We are discussing the stage where we are, so to speak, at the end of the line. No one—such as the agency or the Government—likes to make use of the distress provisions. But, frankly, in those cases I do not see what else one can do except to say to the absent parent, "Well, it's a fair cop. You've won and we can't do anything about it. You can walk away and we can't do anything".
In the case of someone who has a wage, we can use the other order procedure. But, for example, in the case of
180
someone who is self-employed, I regret to say that if he persistently and over time refuses to pay, I believe that the agency must have such a power as a last resort. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5 p.m.
Baroness Seear: The Minister has told us what he thinks the crux of the matter is. However, for those of us who support the noble and learned Lord, the crux of the matter is that the power is in the hands of administrators and not those of the judiciary. That is what we cannot and will not tolerate.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Hear, hear!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not in the least surprised by that because the party that the noble Baroness represents has made it perfectly clear all along that it would repeal the Act; that it does not like the agency; and that it would prefer to go back to the previous system with all its imperfections which, of course, are only imagined by those of us who think of it as imperfect. The noble Baroness obviously thinks that the system was perfectly fair and reasonable.
Baroness Seear: What the Minister is saying is totally untrue. Of course we do not support the wrongs which were done before. It is not a choice between two things; what we object to is what the Government are continuously doing. They are undermining the independence of the judiciary and putting the power into the hands of administrators. That is what we will not tolerate.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that there is a gulf between us on the matter. The previous system did not work in the view of most people. It certainly did not work in the view of the great majority of parents with care. We believe that if the agency had the chance it would and could run properly; indeed, it will run properly once the refinements in the Bill are introduced.
Earl Russell: No one is maintaining that the previous system was perfect. However, did the Minister hear what I said on the previous amendment; namely, that pendulums always swing too far? Will he respond to it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure whether it is the law of physics that pendulums swing too far. If that were so, I do not believe that clocks would work. I understand the noble Earl's point and, to a certain extent, he is right. We are introducing the departure system in the legislation. That means that we recognise that there are some legitimate concerns about the workings of the 1991 Act. We are taking such steps in the Bill and, when they are in place, we believe that the system will run very much better. It is to be hoped that it will work to the benefit of the many parents with care who were not and are not receiving their maintenance because of the behaviour of some absent parents.
However, I believe that there is a political divide. Of course, I am well aware that the Liberal Democratic Party is hoping to gain considerable support from

181
parents with care. In fact, the NACSA newsletter which I have in front of me invites its members to canvass for the local Liberal Democrats.
Earl Russell: Will the Minister take note of the fact that the amendment was moved from the Cross Benches?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Minister has not answered the question that I asked. It is possible that I put it too generally. I asked whether this gives exceptional powers to the agency or its officers—or, indeed, to the Secretary of State—which are not available to the ordinary individual creditor. Perhaps I should put it more specifically.
Section 35(2) of the 1991 Act says that the,
"Secretary of State may levy the appropriate amount by distress",
and "the appropriate amount" is set out in paragraph (b) which refers to,
"an amount, determined in such manner as may be prescribed, in respect of the charges connected with the distress".
Is there any power, except in retrospect, for a private individual levying distress through the courts in the way that the Minister described to fix his own amount of the charges? That is the first specific question.
Looking a little further on at subsection (5), one finds the words:
"No person levying a distress under this section shall be taken to be a trespasser—

(a) on that account".

Is that not an extraordinary provision? The law normally says that any illegality constitutes the person levying the distress a trespasser.
However, subsection (7) says:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations supplementing the provisions of this section".
Is that not also an extraordinary provision? What other creditor can alter the rights of distress? But it does not end there. Subsection (8) says that the Secretary of State may,
"provide [by regulations] that such a distress shall not be deemed unlawful on account of any defect or want of form in the liability order".
If my recollection of the law of distress is anything like correct, that, too, is an extraordinary provision.
I believe that I passed over a subsection that I should have mentioned. Subsection (6) refers to,
"special damages by reason of any irregularity",
whereas subsection (5) refers to a person being "taken" to be a trespasser,
"from the beginning, on account of any subsequent irregularity in levying the distress".
Is that according to the ordinary law? My recollection is that certainly an illegality relates back. I do not understand the reference to an irregularity. There are three things that are hedged round the law of distress. One is that an illegal distress renders the proceedings void from the beginning and gives rise to special damages, the second is an irregularity and the third is an excessive distress. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain the meaning of irregularity here and explain whether it does not—as in the cases to which I have referred since intervening on this occasion—confer an
182
extraordinary power on officials which the ordinary individual creditor going through the court does not enjoy.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not intend to get into a legal debate with someone of the noble and learned Lord's eminence any more than I would take myself to Wimbledon in the next week or two and ask to play against the No. I seed. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept that I am not going to get into too deep legal waters with him—I fear he knows his way about much better than I. In the first place of course an ordinary individual can apply to the court for a debt judgment and can then apply for distress—and the CSA is no different—once the liability order is obtained from the magistrates' court. Therefore, the procedure of distress is—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I come back to my very beginning. If this is no more than any ordinary creditor can enjoy, why do we have this section at all?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I knew that I should not have played legal tennis with the noble and learned Lord. It is a matter of where the agency starts in making these formula assessments. As I said earlier, the magistrate (or the sheriff in Scotland) will not be in a position to get into the detail of how the formula assessment has been made up and whether it is right or wrong. That is not part of his role. I am not sure what the magistrate or the sheriff does in the case of an ordinary and private individual and to what extent the sheriff or the magistrate would explore whether the debt was a proper debt and what evidence was in front of him that it was a proper debt. Clearly the agency starts from the assessment formula—it is a public agency—and therefore it comes to the court with a debt which it has arrived at through the formula and through the fact that the absent parent has not paid, not just for a week or two but for some considerable time.
The noble and learned Lord asked whether I could give any other examples as regards the regulation-making powers. The regulation-making powers relating to distress mirror the provisions in the County Courts Act 1984. On the question of the provision relating to trespass and whether it accords with the ordinary law, there are parallel provisions in the same—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. I am afraid that I do not understand—probably because I have not looked at it recently—his reference to the County Courts Act. Surely under that Act there is no power for the individual creditor to fix the charges. But that is what is done in this statute and that is the matter to which I referred. The noble Lord is looking at the Act. It gives the Secretary of State power to fix the charges which he considers are incidental to the distress. It is that I am asking him about.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The position is as I have tried to explain. The Secretary of State of course, from this point of view, is the agency, and that applies too to its officers who are going to the court. I imagine

183
that the charges are the charges relating to what the absent parent owes. I shall not continue to discuss these legal technicalities with the noble and learned Lord because, as I said, it would be as if I had attempted to play the No. 1 seed at Wimbledon when my tennis is not just poor but non-existent. The point is one of principle and that is what I invite the Committee to agree with me on.
The point of principle is that, if in the last analysis an absent parent has proved to be totally unwilling to pay his maintenance to the parent with care and to the children, we either take these drastic steps—I accept that they are drastic and I trust that they would be used only in extremis— or we simply hold up our hands and say, "Well, boy, you have got away with it. You have played us to the end game and the House of Lords has taken away our powers to make sure that you pay at the last". I do not believe that the Committee wants to do that.
Earl Russell: Does the Minister understand the case that argues that no intention, however good, should be pursued in total isolation from other considerations? His intention is good, but the Minister knows what is paved with good intentions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The intention is indeed good and I am glad to hear the noble Earl underline that. The problems of the absent parent ought to have been and will have been attended to through the assessment and through the departure, but we are talking about someone who is simply not paying. In those circumstances, as I have said, there has to be a final stop so that the absent parent cannot get away with it. Organisations like the one I mentioned would advise every absent parent to take the same route and, regrettably, a few would probably do so.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: This is the first opportunity that we have had in this Chamber to review the Act which was passed several years ago and of which the Government have now had several years of experience. The noble Lord will have seen this amendment down on the Marshalled List. Can he say what use Section 35 has been in the recovery of payments from any person under the 1991 Act? Is there any known case of distraint? If not, or if it has been practically unused, can we not remove this theoretical incursion into the dignity and the rights of individuals? Why keep it in and let it stand as part of the monument of hostility and venom against this group of our citizens?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The process has been used by the agency. I indicated why I thought it was necessary. The important point is that it is there also as a deterrent. It is not just a matter of the number of occasions on which it has been used, but the number of occasions on which it has been helpful to show an absent parent in these circumstances that, if he does not pay, there is a final action which the agency can take, which is unpleasant for everyone concerned and which the agency does not want to take but which has to be there if people are not to get away scot-free and pay nothing at all.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: We have at last got to the point of principle. The noble Lord says in effect that no one need suffer the inconvenience and humiliation of distress if he pays the debt. That is like saying that no one need suffer a black eye from the police if he is prepared to go quietly. That simply will not do.
The debate has been worthwhile, if only for the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It ill-becomes the noble Lord or anyone on the Treasury Bench to sneer in those terms at the Liberal Democrats. They have played a valiant part in this Bill, as in the 1991 Act, approaching it with great knowledge of the social background, the benefits system and with respect for the rule of law.
I asked the noble Lord a number of questions, which he declined to answer on the grounds that they were legal questions. In my defence, I say that I questioned this provision back in 1991 and again at Second Reading. However, the Minister may want to think about what has been said. It is obvious that this is a matter to which we shall wish to return at Report Stage, if only to highlight the particular matters to which I referred and which the Minister sidestepped. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 70:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Commitment to prison: evidence
. In section 40 of the 1991 Act, in subsection (11) (c), before "evidence" there shall be inserted "prima facie").
The noble Earl said: This amendment also concerns the rule of law, but is in a very much more minor key. It is one to which I hope the Minister may respond favourably without too much difficulty or without great sacrifice.
The amendment deals with the clause in the 1991 Act bestowing a power of imprisonment, against which my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris fought so heroically in 1991. At present I am not attempting to remove that power. I am taking up only one point in subsection (11) (c) of Section 40 of the 1991 Act, which concerns evidence. It states:
"that a statement in writing to the effect that wages of any amount have been paid to the liable person during any period, purporting to be signed by or on behalf of his employer, shall be evidence of the facts stated".
I propose to insert the words "prima facie" before "evidence".
I do not object to the use of the evidence, I ask for it to be possible to deny it. The word "purported" in the 1991 Act itself indicates the possibility of a need for challenge. I ask for the support of any Member of the Committee who has ever received an inaccurate payslip. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the amendment relates to the provisions for committal to prison. As the noble Earl pointed out, its purpose is to give less weight to statements obtained from an absent parent's employer that wages had been paid. Such evidence is of course relevant for the court to consider when deciding if there was wilful refusal or culpable neglect on the part of the absent parent.

185
In our earlier debate on issues surrounding collection and enforcement of child support maintenance, I made it clear that we do not envisage that the provisions relating to committal to prison will be used on many occasions. The agency has never used them. However, there will be some cases when it appears that the absent parent had the ability to pay but deliberately refused to do so and an application for committal will be appropriate.
Presumably the noble Earl intends with this amendment to make it more likely that a court will refuse an application. However, I can see no reason why a statement from an employer should carry less weight than other evidence, even when I hear the noble Earl mention mistakes in payslips. It is also important to understand that the Act does not make a statement from an employer conclusive evidence. It is for the magistrates to consider that evidence, along with any other evidence put forward by the Child Support Agency or the absent parent. In the previous court system there was always the power to send maintenance defaulters to prison. Therefore, this is not a new provision in this particular field.
My response to the noble Earl touches on a very fine point. It is for magistrates to consider that evidence. I suggest that if payslips are wrong, that is part of the evidence that the absent parent will lead.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister. When he said that it is not conclusive evidence, he gave me the point for which I ask. It is possible to challenge it. I am very glad of that assurance, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 71:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Arrears
. In subsection (3) of section 41 of the 1991 Act, at end there shall be inserted, "provided always that, if the absent parent shall resume residence with the parent with care, the Secretary of State may, with the agreement of the parent with care, waive any arrears, or any portion of arrears; if it appears expedient to him to do so, and provided always that no arrears shall be collected unless it is conducive to the welfare of the child to do so."").
The noble Earl said: This again is an issue which I argued at some length in 1991. It concerns the levy of child maintenance from the absent parent on income support. Income support is not a particularly generous benefit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wonder whether the noble Earl is speaking to the right amendment. Amendment No. 71 was grouped and discussed with a previous amendment. I wonder whether the noble Earl is perhaps speaking to Amendment No. 72?
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I should be speaking to Amendment No. 72. However, at least I am talking about the right subject. After the Jobseekers Bill I am very relieved about that.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 72:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Contribution to maintenance by deduction from benefit
. Section 43 of the 1991 Act shall be omitted.").
The noble Earl said: I rise to move Amendment No. 72, which deals with the levy of child maintenance from an absent parent on income support.
When we debated Amendment No. 52 last night the Minister said that the income support rates provide a benchmark for assessing need. I told the Minister then that I was grateful for those words and that he would hear them again. That is precisely the point. It is not a generous benefit. It is not intended that such a large surplus should be left over that people are capable of paying large sums in addition.
That is not all. We have heard many times in this Chamber, many of them before the Minister came here, of the number of deductions to which people on income support may be subject: for gas, water, electricity, rent, Social Fund loans, court fines and many others. There is a rule in the department that deductions should not normally rise above 15 per cent. If the Minister were to wish to give me a crumb rather than the whole substance of the amendment, he might concede that levies of child maintenance should be subject to the 15 per cent. rule, because beyond that people are getting very near the bone. They are getting to the point where one needs to consider the risk of malnutrition.
The Minister may also consider whether, from the point of view of the department, the procedure is cost effective. At the moment the levy of £2.30 a week is levied on 18,300 parents, which is 10.5 per cent. of the total assessments. That is an awful lot of work to collect a very small amount of money. I am not sure whether it is a cost-effective use of money, and I am sure that it is not a cost-effective use of the time and effort of the agency. It takes a great deal of time to collect these small sums, and the Minister must face the fact that the agency has been overburdened with work to a far greater extent than the Government ever foresaw.
If the Minister gives his usual reply that the absent parent must pay and that maintenance must take priority over all else, and he gives that priority over the need to avoid malnutrition and over the interests of the Treasury and efficient government, then I shall think that the Minister is in danger of obsession. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment seeks to remove the requirement for absent parents who receive income support to make any contribution to child maintenance by way of either current payments or arrears.
I have made it clear sufficiently often that the Government believe that all absent parents should normally provide at least a small contribution towards their children's costs. The amendment would mean treating income support recipients more favourably than absent parents with similar levels of income from other sources. The standard current maintenance contribution in these cases, £2.35 per week from April 1995, provides a small but continuing recognition of the financial responsibility which parents have for their children.

187
When I mentioned the bench mark, I was well aware that the noble Earl would come back at me. However, £2.35 is not a huge amount, although I fully accept that we are not talking about large incomes. On the other hand, I believe that the point about the continuing recognition of financial responsibility is important. We recognise that it would not be right to expect absent parents to pay maintenance in all circumstances. Therefore there are some groups which are not expected to make that contribution. Those who are aged under 18, those who are sick or disabled, or those who have a child living with them are not expected to make that contribution. The income support recipients who contribute will be those aged 18 or over who are seeking work. When they find work the fact that they are already paying the modest amount of £2.35 will be a useful indication and reminder to them that when they start work they will have to provide support for their children.
We also recognise the need to provide additional safeguards for those absent parents who have failed to budget for other essential expenditure and who could face eviction from their homes or disconnection of fuel or water supplies. Deductions from income support to meet rent arrears or fuel or water charges are given priority over child maintenance. It is the one exception that I think I shall make to my usual principle—just in case the noble Earl jumps up to say that I contradict much of what I said. However, in those very special cases we accept that those deductions should be given priority. When those deductions apply, the £2.35 contribution to child maintenance is not required.
Given the existence of those safeguards, I do not believe that it would be right to go the step further and treat all unemployed absent parents who receive income support differently from those with similar income from work.
I hope that with my explanation of the exceptions that are in the system already the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: Before we go further, perhaps the Minister will assist me by telling me what general principle governs the few cases which are excepted from the Government's normal rule. If we can discover the general principle, we may be able to consider it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Sometimes one looks at the practicalities. The practicalities are that we are talking about people on income support. As I mentioned earlier, we have already excepted those who are aged under 18, sick or disabled, or who have a child living with them. They are not expected to make a contribution. We have considered the special circumstances of those who have problems paying their rent arrears or fuel or water charges. We believe that in those circumstances it would be right to make a small breach in the general principle. I am a little surprised that the noble Earl encourages me to stick to the broad principle.
188
A principle is not in any way limited if we are prepared in very exceptional circumstances to depart from it. I believe that these are very exceptional circumstances, whereas most of the other circumstances from which I have been invited to depart are not exceptional.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I should know this, but I do not. I am not sure whether the Minister should have mentioned the Social Fund loan deductions. If he did so, I did not hear him. Do they also take precedence? My understanding is that they do. In other words, one is not referring only to the mandatory court-imposed repayments, but also to the Social Fund loans.
We come up against a real problem. There is so much top slicing of benefit that living standards are depressed well below income support levels. Perhaps the Minister can give guidance on this.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall have to take advice before I can give any guidance on Social Fund loan repayments.
Earl Russell: The Minister misinterpreted me. I do not object to his having more than one principle. With regard to principles, there is genuinely safety in numbers. Principles need social sense just as much as human beings. If the Minister has a second principle which can keep company with his first principle, I hope that they may have a reproductive faculty so that in the end we gain a few more.
I ask the Minister a slightly different question. What is the general category to which the individual list of exceptions belongs? Is there a general category, or are the exceptions arrived at randomly? If he will enlighten me on that, I should find it helpful.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The exceptions are not in a general category; nor are they arrived at randomly. Each individual circumstance is considered. Like the other three more general cases to which I referred—the child living with the person, those under 18, and those who are sick or disabled—a decision has been taken that an exception shall be made in the case of rent arrears and fuel and water charges.
Earl Russell: I wondered whether the Minister might say that the common factor in those cases was that they all involved hardship. Indeed they do. My contention is that this also is a case which involves hardship. The basic levels of income support do not leave much margin for safety. As the noble Baroness said, benefit is so consistently top sliced by deductions for this, that or the other that it is normally down to the bone. For example, I do not see why child maintenance and Social Fund loans should be forced into competition with each other so that if you pay one, you necessarily have to default on the other.
The Minister was not present when we last debated the National Children's Home report on levels of debt and hardship among those on benefit. It was somewhat distressing. So was the National Consumer Council report, Your Food: Whose Choice?, which argued that

189
in a great many areas of the country, especially those remote from cheap shops, there is real difficulty in securing an adequate diet on income support.
It is in that context that I believe the attempt to levy child maintenance on absent parents on income support causes real hardship. If hardship were the governing principle of the Minister's exceptions, I believe that he would accept the amendment. Perhaps he will consider the issue before a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 73:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Applications by those receiving benefit: failure to comply
. Section 46 of the 1991 Act shall be omitted.").
The noble Earl said: The amendment concerns the 20 per cent. penalty on the parent with care if she refuses to name the father of the child. This House defeated the Government on that issue in 1991. However, as that occurred on Budget day, no one outside these walls noticed.
It is an issue of considerable importance. A great many women for a great many reasons—some good, some bad and some indifferent—are extremely reluctant to name the fathers of their children. It may be that they are protecting someone's reputation. It may be that they are afraid of violence. Although we are grateful for the provisions relating to harm and undue distress, there are still problems regarding their operation.
For many centuries sporadic attempts have been made to force women to name fathers. Those attempts have always failed. The sense that it is a sheer impertinent intrusion into privacy has a great deal more power than this Government have ever understood. That is one argument.
The second is the level of the benefit penalty, which is 20 per cent. of the absent parent's income support, followed by a further period of 10 per cent. I have already argued against the 5 per cent. deduction from the absent parent, so a fortiori I must argue much more strongly, as I have done before and will do again, against a much larger deduction from the parent with care. This is yet another case in which the welfare of the child principle in Section 2 of the Act does not bite on the Bill as it should.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who argued with great confidence that the deduction of 20 per cent. from the mother's benefit had no harmful effect on the child. That is not credible. The removal of 20 per cent. from the household budget cannot be without effect on the child. One does not have separate small portions of butter, one marked "hers" and the other marked "theirs". If there is a total reduction in household income, the whole household must suffer. This is a draconian penalty which shows that the Bill is not being brought in in the interests of the parent with care—much though they have been invoked—nor in the interests of the children, but in what was mistakenly believed to be the interests of the Treasury.
We have heard of about 18,000 cases where the benefit penalty has been imposed. I have given the Minister notice that I wish to ask what has happened
190
to those cases. How many of them have, under duress, subsequently named the father of the child? How many have refused to do so and remained on reduced benefit through to the end of the period? When they have, has the reduced benefit penalty been imposed on them a second time for refusing to do it? How many of them have succeeded in corning off benefit in lawful ways? How many have been arrested? How many have simply disappeared from the records? A government who claim, as this Government persistently do in social security matters, to monitor the effects of their legislation cannot refuse to monitor the effect of the benefit penalties which they impose. If the Minister has no answer to the questions, it is an alarming piece of ignorance.
Many women have come off benefit altogether rather than submit to the intrusive personal inquiries. The last figure I saw for them was, as I recollect, 50,000. However, that was some time ago and it may well be out of date so I am willing to be corrected. The Secretary of State suggested that that was a measure of fraud. I asked at Second Reading—so the Minister has had notice of my question and he has also had notice privately—whether there was any evidence for that suggestion of fraud. If so, in what proportion of the large number of cases? We need to know why those people have gone off benefit and what has happened; what visible means of support they have, what hardships they have endured and what ways they have found of scraping a living. It may be miserable or degrading. If we do not have that information, we cannot monitor the effect of the policy. Here we have a continuing injustice—of which this House disapproved once and I hope that it still does. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: 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. Just as we expect absent parents to meet their responsibilities and pay maintenance where they can afford to do so, so it is right that parents with care should co-operate in the pursuit of that maintenance unless they have good reason not to do so. It is not right that the burden should fall to taxpayers, many of whom have children of their own.
No parent with care has her benefit reduced without very careful consideration and, even after the benefit reduction has taken effect, she is able to come forward with fresh representations at any time. I probably misheard the noble Earl, but I should make clear that the reduction is 20 per cent. in the initial stages and then 10 per cent. of the adult income support allowance for people aged over 25. It is not 20 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the parent with care benefit. It is the adult component.
Before I turn to the noble Earl's major point, he mentioned the parent with care protecting someone's reputation. The agency will do everything possible to preserve confidentiality. For example, it will correspond

191
with the absent parent at an address other than his home. It will not say that it is the Child Support Agency if it has to telephone the absent parent's workplace in order to contact him. The agency will take steps to try to ensure that confidentiality is observed. However, I do not believe that it should become such a great concern that it overrules the facts. I frankly suspect that in the circumstances being considered the person may be well able to look after the child and pay maintenance.
The noble Earl asked a more general question about what happened to women who go off benefit, which he has asked on a number of previous occasions. The department does not keep details of people who cease to be benefit claimants. There is clearly much coming and going with benefits and it would be a huge task to keep details of everyone who left benefit and what happened to them. Would it be for a week, a month or a year? I can imagine a Bill being brought forward to give some agency the power to follow someone in their career and what they do in order to ensure that it can collect the information required to obtain a picture of what that person does after she comes off benefit. I can imagine a Minister presenting such a Bill and the kind of reaction that he might deservedly receive.
As to the specific point of reduced benefit directions, I have already mentioned that 18,000 parents with care have had a reduced benefit direction. It is worth emphasising again—and I do so from memory so someone will correct me if I am wrong—that about 73,000 parents with care have had their reasons accepted for not saying who the father was. Returning to the figure of 18,000 parents, we do not have specific information about the outcome of reduced benefit directions and what happened with them. If it is some consolation to the noble Earl, the department is currently conducting a wide-ranging review of the operation of the good cause provisions on the instigation of the Social Security Select Committee of another place. The review has already invited comments from groups advising parents with care, including the Child Poverty Action Group and Women's Aid group, seeking to gather evidence of the impact of the policy from a wide range of sources. The report will be presented to the Select Committee in this financial year.
I hope that that shows that we may be in a position to give the noble Earl some indication on one of the questions which he asked. I also hope that he will agree that the power to impose the 20 per cent. reduction is regrettably needed; otherwise parents with care would simply decide that they did not wish to have any more to do with the absent parent or would rather carry on with income support and not draw the absent parent into the agency's ambit. That would be wrong because the person who picks up the tab for that decision is the taxpayer.
Earl Russell: Before the Minister sits down, can he answer my questions about the women who have gone off benefit altogether rather than face the provisions of this Act?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought that I had answered that question when I said that we do not keep track of people who go off benefit, either in general or
192
specific terms. I am afraid that we do not have any particular evidence that we can give about what happens to women who leave benefit in those circumstances.
Earl Russell: If the Government have no evidence, why did the Secretary of State say that these cases were evidence of fraud? Had the Secretary of State any basis for making that charge?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am interested that the noble Earl has raised the question of fraud. At least some of those cases will represent collusive desertion; collusive desertion does exist. In other cases, we accept that the partner with care has perhaps had second thoughts and the partners have returned to living together. That may well be one of the outcomes. The parent with care may have taken up work, or may be living with a new partner. It is certainly difficult to believe that parents with care leave income support and then proceed to live on nothing. After all, they would be better off refusing to co-operate and accepting a reduced benefit direction. So they are not just saying, "I am not going to say who the father is. I can't really give you any good reason, but I am prepared to accept the reduction". They are in fact saying, "I don't want any income support". There are probably a considerable number of reasons why they leave income support. But it seems hard to believe that they choose to live on nothing when they could have stayed on income support, even at the reduced levels.
Earl Russell: The Secretary of State has used the whole of this category of women as evidence of fraud. Indeed, he has taken it as a quantification for fraud. Can I take it that the Secretary of State made that allegation entirely without evidence? If so, will the Minister convey to him my request that he will withdraw it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall certainly look at what my right honourable friend said. I am not prepared just to accept this discussion on its face value. As I indicated, there will undoubtedly be some who will have been in collusive desertion; some who go back to their partner; some who re-partner; and some who find a job. If the noble Earl thinks that government ought to indulge in the kind of work that would be necessary to answer all these questions, then one or two people may agree with him. I do not agree with him at all.
Earl Russell: What I do believe is that governments should not adopt policies in total ignorance of their likely effects. The Minister knows perfectly well that I do not suggest that everybody who is not on benefit should be studied all the time. The Minister knows—or at least, he knew when he made the last up-rating statement—the word "pilot". The Minister knows that there is such a thing as academic research, which can be done with a controlled sample. It is perfectly possible to commission research on the effects of disentitlement to benefit or reduced benefit directions. It is criminally irresponsible of the Government, and indeed careless of public money, to implement this provision without having any idea of its effects.
The Minister once again invoked the interests of the taxpayer. Once again, let me remind him that I am a taxpayer and as such I am ashamed that my comfort

193
should be based on taking bread out of the mouths of women and children who have done nothing wrong except wanting to protect their private lives. I can see no justification for that.
We simply do not know what has happened to most of those who have gone off benefit. I agree with the Minister that they are probably not living on nothing—from which the question necessarily follows: are they living legitimately? That raises a question as to whether they may be costing public funds a great deal more than they otherwise would.
The Minister praised the confidentiality provisions. In the light of a lot of the cases that have come into my postbag, I am extremely surprised that he is so confident of the confidentiality provisions of the agency. If the Minister were a woman, dealing with a man in a prominent position in the public eye and in whom the press might take an interest, would he take the risk that the confidentiality provisions would be observed? If the person were in the entertainment industry and certain tabloid newspapers would pay many thousands of pounds for the information, would the Minister trust junior, ill-paid officials to resist the temptation in all circumstances? I am not sure that I would. And I am not sure that a great many other people would, either. There is a great deal more mischief in this provision.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should have thought in the kind of hypothetical situation that the noble Earl suggests, the man involved might happily be perfectly prepared, and certainly able, in the light of the kind of definition that the noble Earl put forward of his position, to pay the maintenance required for any such child on a private basis, and the mother would not have to go to the income support system in order to seek maintenance for herself and the child.
Earl Russell: I did not for one moment suggest that the man in this situation would be blameless; quite the opposite. Indeed, the woman in this situation might be suffering from foolish good nature. But is that a quality to which we must apply such ferocious legislative penalties? Is a lingering affection for somebody one has once loved so gross a crime? I am very surprised that the Minister should think so. In the meantime, I do not think that I can get any more answers out of him, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 76:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Fees
. Section 47 of the 1991 Act shall be omitted.").
The noble Earl said: I can deal with this amendment quite briefly. It deals with the requirement to pay fees to the agency for its services.
There is a problem with the agency in that the amount ii is demanding is too heavy. It is causing very great
194
hardship. On top of that, to be asked for fees for a service that one did not request, appears to many people to be adding insult to injury.
I appreciate that agencies cost money. But whether those costs should fall on individual parents, or whether they are costs that are more properly attributable to the whole of society, and indeed to those very taxpayers whom we are so often told are benefiting from the Act, is a question that deserves consideration.
The fees can create a real burden. They certainly cause a great deal of anger. They certainly contribute to the cumulative shock when the maintenance demand, the fees and the arrears all arrive at one and the same time.
The Minister is rightly concerned with the need to collect money. But a lesson that he might have learnt from the failures of the poll tax is that the best way to collect more money is to acquire a rather greater degree of consent to the procedures that are being operated than he has at present. If the Government want to make the agency popular enough to work, this is something that they could very well do. As the Minister's honourable friend Mr. Burt said in the other place on 15th December last, the agency does indeed need friends. Is the Minister not prepared to do a tiny little hit to win it some? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sure that those who are interested in this particular field will be aware that fees have been suspended for two years from April of this year. As the Child Support Agency .acknowledged, it has not been able to provide the level of service that people have a right to expect. The principle of charging fees remains entirely sound. Where the Government provide a service, it is usual to charge a fee which recovers the full cost of the service provided. I must point out to the noble Earl that under the previous system of child maintenance, parents often had to meet the legal costs of consulting solicitors and going through the court system.
Now that the Child Support Agency provides that service, it would be wrong for the taxpayer to subsidise those parents who can afford to pay. It is important to remember that fees are charged only to those parents with care and absent parents who are in a position to pay the fees; in other words, non-benefit cases. Parents with care and absent parents receiving income support, family credit or disability working allowance and absent parents whose maintenance is restricted by the protected income provisions are exempt from the payment of fees.
The fees have been suspended. But, leaving that aside for the moment, it is not that they are imposed on absolutely everyone. A very large number of people who come into the categories I mentioned are not asked to pay fees. It is only those non-benefit cases who are asked to pay fees. As I pointed out, under the previous system, to which the noble Earl would like to move back provided there were some changes, such parents undoubtedly would have had to meet legal costs and the costs of going through the court system.
However, the point that I want to make to the noble Earl is that the fees have been suspended for two years.

195
because, as I acknowledge, the agency has not delivered the service that it ought to have done. With that reminder—I am sure that he was well aware of it—I hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: As the Minister suspected, I was aware that fees had been suspended. "Suspended" is described in "1066 And All That" as "a modified form of hanging". My request was to delete the modification. I do not see why the fees have not been abolished.
The Minister's comments about the services of a solicitor show that he has not understood the point of the amendment. In paying fees to a solicitor, you pay for something which you yourself have requested. There is a certain fairness in that. In this instance, people are being forced to pay for a service which they most certainly have not requested and which in many cases they most earnestly desire to avoid. That is a very different matter. It shows how much the customer model of public service has got out of hand. These people are not the customers of an agency any more than the inmates of a maximum security prison are its customers. I am aware that in strict government logic I ought now to call them such, but I do not do so.
There has not been a meeting of minds. We cannot go any further now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 77:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Obtaining information by menaces or false information,
.—(1) Section 50 of the 1991 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) A child support officer who obtains information under section 6(9) (a) by means of menaces or false information shall commit an offence and in all such cases the Child Support Agency shall pay damages to the parent with care, and shall have no further jurisdiction in the case." ").
The noble Earl said: This is another amendment which covers the case about which I wrote to the Minister last Tuesday and which we discussed last night on Amendment No. 45. The Minister will remember it well. I should like to thank his honourable friend Mr. Burt for the speed with which he replied to my letter. His reply was in my box yesterday evening and I found it this morning.
As the Minister may remember, the issue was whether the case should have been before the agency at all. In effect, Mr. Burt's argument was that it was right that it should be before the agency because the parent with care made a voluntary application for maintenance. What he does not deal with is the other part of the letter that I wrote to him about that case. The parent with care did sign an application for maintenance, after an interview in which she was told that she would lose all her benefit if she did not sign it. That was "all"—not 20 per cent. but the whole lot.
I do not for one minute blame the Government for that. I have written to Ministers about many similar cases in the past. Their responses have lacked for nothing in concern, courtesy or consideration. I do not suggest that they have one scintilla of blame for that. I suggest that this is only the umpteenth of a long succession of cases of that type and that Ministers have not so far been able to stop them.
The Minister may say that the provisions of this amendment are draconian. They provide that a child support officer who obtains information by menaces or false information shall commit an offence and in all such cases the Child Support Agency shall pay damages to the parent with care and shall have no further jurisdiction in the case. That is draconian. Any historian finding that in a statute would immediately conclude that milder provisions had not been effective. Any future historian looking at this amendment and drawing that conclusion would be right. So, should the Minister say that it is too draconian, I hope also to hear from him some way in which he can make certain that such a case does not happen again and that, if it does happen, something will instantly be done about it and redress will be offered. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Child Support Agency has been aware of the sensitive nature of its work from the outset. All staff likely to be involved with the interviewing of parents with care, or absent parents, undergo training which was devised in co-operation with Relate, which was formerly the Marriage Guidance Council.
In the agency's annual report, it admits that mistakes have been made. Forms have been sent to the wrong people; errors have been made in calculations. But those mistakes need to be kept in perspective. In my experience there are usually two sides to every story. Often, the press are quick to work up some small event into a sensational headline. But staff in the agency cannot defend themselves by revealing the true story without breaching their rules of confidentiality.
The noble Earl mentioned a particular case regarding a letter that he sent to my honourable friend Mr. Alistair Burt. I mentioned it last night and said that a reply was on its way to the noble Earl. As I said then, I cannot go into any of the details of that case because of those same rules of confidentiality. They bind Ministers just as surely as they bind staff. But, as the noble Earl is well aware, we are more than willing to look into specific cases brought to our attention where support staff have used menaces or lies. I can assure him that they will be thoroughly investigated.
I know that Miss Chant, the Chief Executive of the agency, takes allegations of that nature very seriously indeed. If such a case did come to light, the staff involved would be subject to the strong disciplinary action that is available within the agency. Civil servants, including child support officers, are expected to maintain a high standard of integrity at all times. They should remain impartial in their dealings with clients. The agency's staff rules and conditions of service set out the relevant provisions and any breach of these rules may result in disciplinary action being taken against the officer concerned.

197
There is no reason for such unacceptable behaviour. Where the parent with care refuses to give the information without good cause, even though she knows the whereabouts of the absent parent, there is a proper procedure to be gone through and, ultimately, the sanction that we discussed earlier. The Secretary of State also has considerable powers for tracing, which involve using the department's own records, information which is a matter of public record, the Inland Revenue's records, and information from the absent parent's employer. All that should mean that unacceptable behaviour is absolutely and totally unnecessary, as well as uncalled for.
I do not see the jurisdiction of the CSA as something to be taken away because of a perceived mistake, or even misconduct, by an officer of the agency. The child support system is now the main method of getting child maintenance in this country. There will always be a need for the courts to become involved in a minority of cases—for example, where one of the parties lives abroad. However, I cannot see any situation where it would be right for the agency to lose jurisdiction as a form of punishment.
This amendment is unfair to the very many civil servants who are doing an honest job in what is a difficult and sensitive area of people's lives. With my explanation and assurance to the noble Earl that any cases which he draws to our attention will certainly be investigated, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: While not supporting the wording of the amendment as it stands, nonetheless the noble Earl, Lord Russell, touched on a very real fear. I am sure that the Minister believes the words of his brief and every Member of your Lordships' Committee hopes that what he said would prove in the end to be correct. The trouble is, we all know that in other areas of life—for example the workings of bailiffs, private security firms, debt collectors and so forth—there is a culture of being "heavy" to obtain information.
Perhaps the Minister can help us on this. Can he give us an assurance that no collection of such information will ever be privatised outside the directly employed Civil Service? Most of the experience of that kind that I have had in local government has not been through the bailiffs attached to the sheriffs' courts, where they are properly trained and legally certified officers, but with the introduction of private "heavies" who operate by menaces. Can the Minister give us that assurance?
Secondly, can the Minister also assure us that explicit and careful guidance will go out to the officers of the CSA and that such guidance will be posted in the Library so that we can look at it, and if we are not happy with it, we can come back with Starred or Unstarred Questions at a later date? If the Minister can give us those assurances or perhaps come back to us with information at a subsequent date between now and Report stage, then some of our worries may be removed. However, the noble Earl has a real cause for concern, knowing, as I do from local government experience, just how slender is the pathway between what is an acceptable quest for legitimate information and an unacceptable quest.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I complained yesterday—humbly, I hope—that the Minister had set his face against every single amendment that we put forward; that there was no sort of flexibility, no resilience; that he was apparently oblivious of the fact that this Bill and its provisions have been necessitated because that was the attitude taken during the proceedings on the 1991 Bill, when one amendment after another moved in your Lordships' Chamber was rejected in much the same manner as the Minister manifested yesterday.
I have been waiting avidly for this amendment because I thought that here at last there would be something that no reasonable Minister could possibly reject. The amendment asks that the obtaining of information by menaces by an officer of the Child Support Agency, or by false information, should constitute an offence. Should it not? Obtaining money or property by menaces is an offence under the Theft Act and this is just a step to obtaining property and in fact obtaining money. It is no answer to say, "There are disciplinary proceedings to deal with it".
This jurisdiction has been seized, has been arrogated from the magistrates' courts. The magistrates have been exercising this jurisdiction since 1895 and suddenly, in 1991, there is a hunger for arrogation in Whitehall and at a sweep the whole jurisdiction is removed from the magistrates to the Child Support Agency. Judging from the Minister's assured performance at the Dispatch Box, one would have imagined that the original Act had been an unqualified success. In fact we know it was a major legislative disaster. If it had been left in the magistrates' courts, what would one say of a magistrates' clerk who elicited information in these circumstances—by menaces and by force or by false information? Would it be an answer to say that no clerk ought to behave in that way; that if he did the Magistrates' Courts Committee could take disciplinary action? Anybody saying that would be laughed to scorn.
It would be an offence and rightly an offence. That is no more than the noble Earl is asking and I find it depressing in the extreme that the Minister is sticking to the same brief: that nothing must be altered beyond what has been conceded under pressure; the very least being given, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter. It seems to me that, if there has even been one instance of this sort of behaviour on the part of a statutory agency which we erected to perform this jurisdiction, we ought to be saying that obtaining information for the purpose of the agency, for the purpose of the Treasury—I take no objection to that myself, naturally—in that way is an offence and should be declared an offence. I hope that the noble Earl will persist. .
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe I am in some difficulty with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I understand that on this issue whatever I do I shall not satisfy him, short of actually returning this jurisdiction to the courts.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In relation to this amendment I would be perfectly satisfied—it is really for the noble Earl—if he accepted the amendment subject to any necessary redrafting.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was intending to go on to say that of course some amendments open up the considerable divide between the noble and learned Lord, the noble Earl and myself in regard to the agency. I have tried, in at least some of the amendments—not, I accept, all of them where it was a bit more head to head—to explain how the procedures work and I hope that I have encouraged Members of the Committee who tabled the amendments to believe that the position is not as bad as they fear; that the situation they have devised to bring before the Committee is not the real one and that checks and balances are in place in the system.
That is what I tried to do in relation to this amendment. I tried to say, in the first instance, that there are two sides to many of the stories we read and, of course, confidentiality means that the staff of the agency and indeed Ministers cannot answer the cases. I am not complaining about that. That is perhaps the downside of confidentiality in regard to the agency.
I indicated that where any member of the staff goes down the road suggested in the amendment, then the agency itself will take vigorous action on those breaches of the rules and that may result in disciplinary action within the agency. That is a system which works within the whole Civil Service, not just the agency. I hope therefore that the idea has been scotched that an official of the agency, a child support officer, could act in the kind of way described in the amendment and get away with it.
Turning to the two points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, we have no plans to privatise the agency. Our present concerns are much more directed at, and our time is taken up by, making sure that the agency actually works. The noble Baroness inviting me to contemplate other changes is just going many, many bridges too far. I am happy to give her the assurance she asks for.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It was not quite that point, although I am glad to have the Minister's statement on the record that he does not contemplate privatising the Child Support Agency, for which much thanks, I suppose. I was asking really whether he contemplates the Child Support Agency using other than its own officers to collect information; in other words, whether he expects possibly to use other means, mechanisms, bodies or people as information collectors who might then seek to collect that information by inappropriate means. I was asking whether all such tasks will only and entirely be performed by accredited civil servants.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I would have to be careful about answering that question because I would need to know exactly all the ins and outs of the agency at the moment and whether it uses some outside resources from time to time of different kinds from the ones the noble Baroness specifically asked me about. For example, going back to an earlier question, if it had to use bailiffs, it is doubtful whether they would be
200
bailiffs employed by the agency. They would be outside bailiffs. They might be sheriff's officers or other bailiffs. But, so far as concerns the central core of her question, my answer stands. The people involved in this kind of work would be civil servants.
The noble Baroness asked about guidance. I think I have answered this point on a number of occasions but I shall have to check whether this kind of guidance is in the form of guidance notes or a guidance booklet. As I think I indicated yesterday, such guidance is available to the public on request.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful in different ways to the noble Baroness, the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord the Minister. I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble he has taken. The noble Baroness has got us assurances which I am glad to hear and which I am afraid I shall look in the mouth because that is, after all, the duty of Opposition Benches. The noble and learned Lord is of course right that obtaining money by threats or false information is an offence. A disciplinary proceeding is not always an adequate response to an offence. But I will say to the Minister that I did not intend this as an attack on the agency as a whole, on Ministers as a whole or on anything but the fact that there are a certain number of jacks in office who, given power, do abuse it. I am well aware that the agency makes mistakes. I have read the press reports of the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee yesterday in which Sir Michael Partridge called the target of one in four assessments—no more—being wrong by 1996 an ambitious one. As I have said many times, I do not blame the agency for that. I blame the body of work that it has been asked to undertake.
What I really did not hear from the Minister was any mention of the word "redress". I heard what he said about disciplinary proceedings. That is not as good as what the noble and learned Lord and I wanted but it does at least show what I am certain is a genuine concern. But a wrong has been done to an individual here. In this case the woman has been forced to inflict an immense burden on the father of her child, the man whom she loves and the man with whom she is now living. That is a burden of arrears which he is unlikely to pay off over the rest of his life. That will have been an injury to her. To force her to do that by means of false information is something for which reparation is owed to her.
I understand why the Minister said that depriving the agency of jurisdiction was an extreme power. But there is such a thing as the law of agency. The agency does have a responsibility for the doings of its employees. If our employees do wrong to someone, we may, if they are about our official business, be answerable. It is under those circumstances that I recommended the remedy of loss of jurisdiction. I am not wedded to the remedy specifically but I think there is a certain equity in it. What I am really concerned about is that right should be done to a person who has been wronged. In this case wrong has been done both to the absent parent and to the parent with care. I have taken up both cases, I hope with equal vigour. That, I am certain, is typical of the agency. I should like to think it is typical of me also. But I suspect that on the individual case, as regards

201
which I agree with everything that the Minister said about confidentiality, we shall do better talking about it privately.
The noble and learned Lord has tempted me, just as the Minister previously tempted me. I am afraid that once again I must resist temptation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 78:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Disclosure of absent parent's address or telephone number,
.—(1) Section 50 of the 1991 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1B) Where an absent parent instructs the Child Support Agency not to reveal his address or telephone number to the parent with care, any employee of the Child Support Agency who reveals them shall be guilty of an offence, the Child Support Agency shall be liable in damages to the party affected, and it shall have no further Jurisdiction in the case." ").
The noble Earl said: This is another amendment dealing with matters of confidentiality and again arises from my postbag. That postbag is becoming enormous and I am not sure that I would not support repeal of the Act just to get rid of the postbag. That is not the most serious of reflections and I hope it is taken in the spirit in which it is meant.
The case involved an absent parent whose ex-wife was addicted to the making of harassing telephone calls. Any of your Lordships who have been victims of harassing telephone calls may understand the kind of irritation that they cause and the sense of intrusion into the privacy of one's own home. That man was also facing an assessment which was cutting him absolutely to the bone. Looking at the figures, I did not see how he was managing to pay it. He not once but twice had his phone number disclosed to his former wife, who starting making harassing telephone calls at all hours of the day and night. He was forced, not once but twice, at considerable expense to himself which he could ill afford, to change his phone number.
Confidentiality applies to both parties. The argument of wrong to the individual for which redress is deserved applies to both parties and the arguments about the law of agency apply to both parties. I have raised one of these questions for a parent with care and one for an absent parent. They have much more in common in their common interest in opposing the Act than either has with the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I respectfully suggest that we should take care not to do anything without justification which will be deeply resented by the staff of the Child Support Agency. There are staff instructions to cover this point. I doubt whether we are justified in making a rule in an Act of Parliament about it. I offer this only as a cautionary note about carrying something a little too far. I feel quite certain that the staff will have the strongest instructions as to how they are to behave. The main risk is not the disclosure of confidential information so much as applying undue pressure on an absent father to come to terms, and if he fails to do so then there is a penalty in the locker that can come out to persuade him.
202
It is undue persuasion. I would not go so far as to say it is coercion but I do not think there is a need to safeguard anyone from menaces. However, we have just gone over that ground. I have something of a distant brief for my old colleagues in the Civil Service. I do not want to see them given the kind of treatment that the Act is giving to the absent father. We can take the civil servant as being a straightforward and honest person who complies with the general rules of behaviour in a very difficult occupation. I can think of no more difficult occupation than that of a child support officer.
A friend of mine was talking to me about being in the Customs and Excise enforcement division for small businesses. I asked him whether he was liking his work. He replied, "Well, there are too many tears in it". I believe that there are too many tears in this legislation. There should be some consideration in this regard.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for his remarks. It is pleasant to be roughly on the same side just occasionally. He makes a very valid point, which I have made on a number of occasions, about civil servants and the officials of the agency.
This amendment addresses the matter of where an employee of the agency gives the absent parent's address or telephone number to the parent with care after the absent parent has specifically said he does not want the information revealed or where a parent with care has made representations about good cause and then has her address revealed to the absent parent. The noble Earl's amendment would have that employee guilty of an offence. The Child Support Agency would be liable for damages and would lose jurisdiction.
It may be helpful if I explain that Section 6(2) of the 1991 Act applies where a parent with care is not required to authorise the Secretary of State to recover maintenance because if she did there would be a risk of her or any child living with her suffering harm or undue distress. Normally this decision will be made before the parent with care has given the agency any details of the absent parent. Where the parent with care has not authorised the Secretary of State to act, the Child Support Agency will not contact the absent parent if from other sources he knows who he is and where he lives.
I would like to draw attention to Section 50(1) which the noble Earl seeks to amend. It says:
"Any person who is, or has been employed in employment to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if, without lawful authority, he discloses any information which (a) was acquired by him in the course of that employment and (b) relates to a particular person".
That means that, subject to the other provisions in Section 50, an employee of the agency who without permission reveals information, including the address of an absent parent or a parent with care, is guilty of an offence. That applies in all cases unless the parent has agreed to the information being disclosed. There are no provisions for the address of one parent to he given to the other.

203
Regulation 8 of the Child Support (Maintenance Assessment Procedures) Regulations, Regulation 9A of the Child Support (Information Evidence and Disclosure) Regulations and Regulation 17 of the Child Support Appeal Tribunals (Procedure) Regulations expressly prohibit the disclosure of an address or other information which could lead to a person being located. I am satisfied that these existing provisions are entirely adequate.
Of course, agency staff are human and there is always the possibility that information may be given in error. There is always the possibility that someone may be able to read the forms upside down, for example. Where that happens the staff would certainly be subject to internal disciplinary action and the agency would consider whether compensation was justified in each case.
I hope that I have assured the noble Earl that there are defences in place to prevent the staff of the agency giving the name and address of one to the other. I hear what he said about the cases. I reiterate that there are two sides to every situation. When I was listening to the noble Earl, I thought that if I were one of the parents and wanted to find out where the other lived, on the assumption that I had any relationship with the children—and all of us who have children, even if they are now grown up, will know that they can easily be induced to part with knowledge—I would have a readily accessible source for that kind of information.
Lord Kilbracken: That is to be greatly deplored. Should not the child be prevented from obtaining information from one parent for the other?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was making a point about where the parents lived. Obviously the child is going to live with one of them, and the other will be well aware of where that is. The child perhaps visits the other and is also well aware of the address. The main point of my argument is that there are many more easily accessible ways to find the name and address of the other half than trying to get it from a Child Support Agency officer. I hope that my assurances about the powers which exist to prevent that kind of thing happening are helpful to the noble Earl and that he can withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Earl decides what to do about his amendment, I ask the Minister whether he is aware of any such cases. Can he tell the Committee what disciplinary action followed for the officers concerned?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not believe that the noble Baroness will be surprised when I say that I cannot answer that question at the moment. I shall certainly look into it and return to it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I can understand the Minister being unable to respond in a detailed way. The point is that there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest that there is a wide gap between what the Minister wishes to be the case and what may he happening. I believe that the most helpful way in which we can pursue the degree to which there is that
204
gap and the degree to which we need to strengthen the Bill to make sure that it is narrowed and not widened is to get a reply in the form which the Minister has just indicated.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall certainly do two things. Depending on the outcome of this amendment, I shall draw the concern of the Committee to the attention of Miss Chant and I shall seek answers to the questions posed. I shall write to the noble Baroness with the usual copies.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pinpointing exactly our concern. It is the difference between what the Minister wishes and what we wish was the case and what in fact is the case.
I also heard the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I take his point about the reactions of other staff of the agency. I repeat again that I was making no attack on the agency as a whole. The agency has been put there to do a job and it is not to blame for the job it has been asked to do. In the end, the responsibility must rest with Ministers for giving it that job.
I insist that this is taken only as a way of controlling an individual Jack-in-office and not as a reproach to the whole of the agency staff. I take the point which the noble Lord makes, that were this provision to be on the statute book, that might be a distinction which I would be unable to sustain. I do not intend to press this amendment, as I believe the noble Lord suspected. While I am on my feet I make that distinction clear.
I say once again to the Minister that this type of disclosure is happening far too often and causing a great deal too much harm and distress. It is diminishing the reputation of the agency and making it harder that it should ever succeed. He knows that as well as I do and there is no point in wasting words on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 80:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
Day to day care
(.—(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 "26 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: This amendment deals with the 104-night rule, which has caused a good deal of concern. The rule is that in cases of shared care, if the child spends 104 nights in the year with the absent parent, the absent parent gets financial recognition for

205
being responsible for shared care. If the child spends 103 nights with one parent or, in the case which the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, recounted to us last year, 99 nights of the year, that is 99 not out. It counts for nothing. No century is achieved. Naturally, that has caused a good deal of ill feeling. It is an arbitrary line and the reason given for specifying 104 nights—that it represents every weekend in the year—rather savours of being plucked completely out of the air because no arrangement happens every weekend of the year. There are things such as illness.
The second part of the amendment deals with cases where the child should have spent 104 nights of the year with the other parent but access has been denied. I know that the Bill is not intended to deal with that. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained that clearly in 1991, but the 104-night rule, as it works at present, gives the parent with care an incentive to deny access. The amount of anger that is caused by such cases is hardly imaginable if one has not encountered it. Giving people an incentive to do that is extremely unwise.
The inflexible insistence on 104 nights is not necessary for any reason that I have yet heard. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about why he thinks that it is necessary and about how more flexibility could be achieved. It seems that whenever flexibility would be a good thing, the Government do not want it, but whenever it is a bad thing, they seem to want it. If the Minister can tell me that I am mistaken in that, I should be very grateful. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: I wish to support the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as strongly as possible on this amendment and particularly on subsection (2), the purpose of which he has explained with his invariable lucidity. As he indicated, I have an interest to declare in the shape of a young son who is now 13 and who spends a very considerable part of each year with me, although much less than I had thought until I came to work it out for the purpose of speaking here today.
The noble Earl mentioned the figure of 99 days. That was indeed the number of days that Sean spent with me at that time, but the years go by. I suppose that he comes to me more than 95 per cent. of such children can visit their fathers; namely, for half of every holiday, half of every half holiday, and every other weekend. Nowadays he goes to school on Saturday mornings, so he does not come to me until about 12 o'clock. If he stays until midnight on the Sunday, for the purposes of this provision that counts as only one night.
Therefore, I have calculated that there are about 38 weeks of term time in the year, which contain 35 weekends, and he comes to me for 17 nights. There are about 100 days of holiday and he comes to me for half of them, which is another 50 days, with three extra nights for half-terms. That means a total of only 71 nights a year, which is nowhere near the figure of 104 which is the minimum for this purpose. Yet I really do not see how he could come to me much more. Obviously, he will come for only half of each holiday
206
and will have every other weekend with his mother. That seems to be just about the maximum amount of time that that child can spend with his father. Furthermore, if he were a weekly boarder or a termly boarder, he would spend exactly the same amount of time each year—the same number of nights—with his mother and with me, yet in calculating the amount that should be paid by the father under the Child Support Act, that cannot be taken into account at all, although not only is it costing the so-called "absent father" a lot of money in living expenses and so on, but during that time the child's mother is not incurring any expenses. In addition, in my own case I have to buy three return tickets from London to Ireland, which cost about £400, yet that cannot be taken into account either.
I cannot understand why the figure of 104 days (or the provision in general) should be included in the Bill. If the child is with the absent parent for any period of time, clearly what that parent is spending he is saving the mother in expenses and he should not have to pay as much as would otherwise be the case.
I cannot sit down without saying once again how deeply I and, I suppose, all divorced fathers resent the description of them as "absent fathers" or "absent parents" and the description of the mother as "parent with care". That gives the impression of the mothers being so caring and of the fathers not caring at all. It implies that the father is absent when, in my case, I am present for 71 nights of the year and it is his mother who is the absent parent. I suppose that that phrase is now passing into accepted legal language. Perhaps it is a lucus a non lucendo, but in any case I resent it very much.
I should also like to draw attention to one point on subsection (3). At the bottom of page 7 of the Marshalled List we start off in the male gender—here I use the word "gender" in its correct sense for once. The amendment states:
"to have care of a child where he would have actual care".
However, when we turn the page we move into the female gender because the amendment then states:
"a person shall be treated as not having care of a child where she has actual care in consequence".
I wonder what implications the noble Earl may see in that switch. We are always told that the male embraces the female, but is it also the case that the female embraces the male?
Earl Russell: Yes, it is. It is a politically correct use of non-sexist language, but I do not think that it does any harm.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not think that I shall follow the noble Earl down that road. It is nice that the noble Earl has had to answer a question about one of his amendments. That makes a change from the general run of things this afternoon.
This amendment seeks to reduce the number of nights of care which an absent parent has to provide for a child before his maintenance liability is reduced. It also provides for an absent parent to be treated as caring for a child where the person with care is denying him his rights of contact with the child under the terms of a court order.

207
The existing provisions mean that an absent parent's maintenance liability is reduced where he is providing a significant amount of care for a child. The Government believe that an average of two nights per week—104 nights per year—continues to provide an appropriate benchmark. We do not consider that the proposed benchmark in the noble Earl's amendment, which amounts to one night of care per fortnight, represents a genuine sharing of responsibility. That level of care does little to help a parent with care with the day-to-day problems of bringing up a child.
The noble Earl invited me to contemplate some flexibility. It is interesting to note that his amendment is no more flexible than the current situation. It simply reduces the number of days from 104 to 26. I suggest that he has chosen to do that because it would be difficult to devise any kind of guidance or system which would be flexible in this regard. I freely accept that it is difficult to decide where the borderline comes. A line must be drawn; my line is 104 nights and the noble Earl's is 26.
I know that maintenance and contact are sometimes linked in the minds of parents, although they are separate issues. Maintenance is a legal and financial obligation that absent parents are required to discharge irrespective of whether or not they have contact with their children. Contacts are a matter for the courts to decide in the best interests of the child. We understand the frustration of people who are denied any right granted to them under a court order, in particular where the right is in respect of a child. The important consideration for the absent parent is that he should have the contacts with his children that the court has agreed and it is open to him to apply to the court to have his order enforced.
It would not be right for the agency to become involved in those sensitive issues. The only proper question for the agency is how long a child is, in fact, spending with his parents, since that affects the actual level of costs incurred by the parents. The task of deciding who bears the main costs and who has the main care of the child is difficult. If one were to reduce the number of nights from 104 to 26, many parents with care would find their maintenance reducing without, I suspect, their outlay reducing in any way.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, raised the question of fares and so forth. Of course, the departures will be the yardstick on this issue and what is just and equitable as regards the fares required to maintain the contact between, if I dare say it, the absent parent and the child or children.
This is an issue in respect of which I believe a line must be drawn. I understand the noble Earl's point that 104 is a little high and that 26 is his preferred number. I feel that 26 is far too low. Taking an average of two nights per week is, I think, a reasonable way to look at this. That does not mean to say that it will necessarily be two nights every week. Of course it will not, because holidays will come into the picture and on occasions it may in fact be seven nights per week. What is important is the total and the way in which we balance it. If the absent parent has the child for no more than 104 nights,
208
clearly the parent with care has the principal responsibility for looking after the child and the main costs. That is the reality of the world. She—in the main it will be the mother, and I am not even beginning to be politically correct—will have the main costs of looking after the child. She must ensure that the child is ready for school and is clothed and that she provides a home for him or her so that the child can live the majority of his life with the parent with care. That is the reality.
Lord Kilbracken: I forgot to mention that I have no financial interest to declare because my financial affairs do not come under the aegis—if aegis it be—of the Child Support Agency. I emphasise the fact that most young children go to their fathers from early on Saturday morning to late on Sunday evening. That long period is counted as only one night for the purpose of reckoning up the 104. The Minister appeared to indicate that there may be an intermediate figure and that the 104 would be reduced a little. Anything would be better than nothing.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. His case is one which compels attention. The point he makes about the weekend being defined as one night is significant. If we are talking about benchmarks, we need to know the general principle that is to be met before we can even begin to discuss what is the appropriate benchmark. You cannot make a benchmark until you know what you want to use the bench for.
My general principle is that one should recognise shared care where possible. In normal circumstances—not all—it is better for children to live with two parents than with one, even if they have to do so in two different homes. Therefore, I would recognise any sharing of care subject only to a de minimis rule. I believe that 26 nights is an ample interpretation of a de minimis rule.
I do not know what the Minister's general principle is. It sounds as though he is acting on the assumption that there is only a single parent who can have care. That is not in accord with the way in which modern family law is going. It is not in accord with the way in which cases are settled under the Children Act. It is not in accord with the way in which many men think about fatherhood or with the way in which many women now think about motherhood. I think this is an old-fashioned general principle and I believe it may have the effect of making separation even more traumatic for many children than is necessary. If that is the Minister's general principle, it is not satisfactory.
He has not told us why he believes that 104 nights is an appropriate benchmark. If I put words into his mouth I shall be entirely happy for him to tell me what is his general principle and I shall give way to him to do so. But I shall take his silence for consent if he does not intervene. The Minister spoke constantly about money going from the parent with care to the absent parent as a result of accepting the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, was right in saying that, while the child is staying with the other parent, the absent parent is for the time being the parent with care. It shows how difficult it is to reconcile the terminology of the Bill

209
with real family life. I have no more to say on the subject now. I hope that there will be further thought later and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Deferral of right to apply for maintenance assessment]:
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 86 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 14, line 38, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 87 relates to a Henry VIII clause, which is Clause 18(5). That clause allows the Minister to bring pre-1993 cases within the scope of the Act at some future date best known to himself.
Henry VIII clauses are always looked at with care in this House. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee recommended that it be subjected to the affirmative procedure. I would not argue with that if I were concerned only with the exercise of delegated powers. In fact, I am not; I am concerned also with the policy intention that is embodied in that delegation of power. Therefore, I have a double cause for concern.
The effect of this is to allow the Secretary of State under the spirit of the commencement clause in the 1991 Act, which I once described as being by Henry VIII out of Humpty Dumpty, to bring pre-1993 cases into the Act at any time he sees fit. The Government, in paragraph 3 of their memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, argued that this power should be looked on kindly because it is for a beneficial purpose. That begs a big question. I am aware that the Government intend the Act to be beneficial—I did not say to whom. They must be aware by now that that view is not universally shared. They must be aware in particular that that view is not shared on these Benches. I take a dim view of giving the Minister a power to do something which should not be done at all by means of a Henry VIII clause without any further legislation. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It was originally the Government's intention to take on during 1996–97 those cases where there was an existing maintenance arrangement and the parent with care was not receiving benefit. In order to allow the agency to concentrate upon the introduction of the departures system, we have had to introduce the measure in Clause 18 of this Bill which defers the take-on of those cases. The subsection which the noble Earl seeks to delete will enable the Secretary of State to reactivate the take-on of these pre-1993 non-benefit cases by order. We cannot currently predict when that might be as first we shall need to ensure that the departures system is working effectively.
It has always been the Government's policy intention that all cases should eventually have access to child support maintenance under the 1991 Act. That has been fully explained and is well understood. Clause 26 of the Bill provides a clear commitment to allow parliamentary debate about the eventual take-on of the pre-1993 non-benefit cases by seeking to repeal these deferral
210
provisions by way of an affirmative order, which is the strongest system of control over secondary legislation. In these circumstances, although the Committee may well regard this subsection as containing a Henry VIII power, it is wholly appropriate to provide for it. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee concluded that:
"The House may consider that the affirmative procedure provides the appropriate degree of parliamentary control".
Therefore, it is a rather special kind of Henry VIII clause which deals with the decision that we have taken to defer the take-on of those cases. It gives the Secretary of State power, through an affirmative order, to start the take-on of those pre-1993 cases. I suspect that the noble Earl would prefer that the cases were never taken on. But I hope that he will accept my explanation, although I realise that he will perhaps not agree with it, and withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister is quite right that I would prefer those cases never to be taken on. I notice that Miss Chant yesterday, giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, said that people resented the reopening of court settlements. I do not believe that the Government have ever taken on board quite how intense that resentment is. In fact, it led one person to write to me saying that the 1991 Act was unconstitutional. I explained to him with some care why those words could not be accurate but I understood the sentiment behind them. Those are dangerous sentiments. If the Minister wishes to avoid them growing, he should not attempt to override court settlements by means of a power which is itself inherently likely to be rather debatable. Therefore, in this regard the power is debatable and the policy intention is debatable. I object to the union of those two together.
If the Minister must insist on the take-on of previous cases and if he is still in a position to do that, I suggest that he should do it by primary legislation because this will be a major contentious issue. I still see some force in the old convention that regulations should deal only with minor matters. The Minister may wish to claim that this is a minor matter but it is not; it is contentious. If it must be done at all, this is not the right way to do it. I hope that the Minister will think again. However, I do not believe that he will do so this evening, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I suspect that it is something of a record that at seven o'clock in the evening the Opposition begin to move their amendments. However, it may be worth making clear that we have not intervened on the vast majority of the amendments moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because on these Benches we are not seeking to wreck the Bill or to substitute a different sort of Bill. We arc trying to make this Bill work more equitably and efficiently than it has done so far. As my honourable friend in another place said, we are not engaged in trench warfare. I hope that the Minister and the Committee have had evidence of that this evening.

211
I should like to ask a number of questions in relation to this debate. First, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said on a previous amendment that Clause 18 will defer indefinitely the taking on of all maintenance cases where the parent with care is not receiving benefit. In those cases, the existing court settlement stands. On these Benches we have always said that we did not believe that the Act should have been retrospective. We believe that it should have started in 1991 with a clean sheet and with new cases only from then on.
Virtually all the problems which the Government have faced have been caused by retrospection, where settlements have been overturned which were entered into in good faith as a result of court decisions. Those settlements may have been generous or they may have been unreasonable, but people went on to shape the rest of their lives in the expectation that they would stand. Indeed, in consequence of that, we have urged the Minister to accept that court settlements in relation to property should be taken into account in the maintenance formula. Therefore, we start from the position that we do not believe that the 1991 Act should have been retrospective. It should have started with a clean sheet, as happened in Australia. The vast majority of the distress and concern may not have occurred had the Government gone down that road.
However, the Government have overcome one unfairness—that of making the law retrospective—by removing that but only for a particular class of absent parent. For some there is retrospection but for others there is not. That seems unfair because it depends entirely on whether the parent with care is on benefit. Therefore, by removing one unfairness the Government have created more unfairness.
Perhaps I may illustrate the unfairness. The Government made the point repeatedly that the old court system was unfair. It was erratic in relation to the awards made and was inconsistent. We do not disagree with the Government's assessment. Yet now they are allowing those court settlements to stand even though they have judged them to be erratic and inadequate where the parent with care is not on benefit. In other words, a mother on a low income who is in work and receiving maintenance is not eligible for the more realistic CSA maintenance figures or collection and enforcement role. She is dependent on a court settlement. In theory she may return to court to seek a revision upwards to bring the settlement in line with something more realistic, but unless there are new circumstances, and without legal aid, it is likely to be a fruitless exercise for her. Therefore, a parent with care who is on a very low income will be stuck with a court settlement which when it has suited the Government has been denounced.
The right answer may be for that mother with care to have the court order adjusted to a more realistic level, but there is a problem of inequity in that regard. In particular, it means that lone parents with care who have come through the CSA because they were receiving income support and then go on to work a year or two later will receive much higher maintenance awards than those who never received benefit. Therefore, it is
212
advantageous to come out of work and move on to benefits so that the maintenance contribution is forced up through the CSA and then return to work. I suspect that that was an unintended consequence of what the Government have done. But I foresee that becoming a path that it will be in the interests of many parents with care to follow. That would be regrettable.
I turn now to my third point, where I believe I may have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is the matter of retrospection for parents with care who are on benefit but not for those who are not on benefit. That is also unfair to many absent fathers, half of whom are in second families. The new partner of such a man is very likely to bring children with her—the absent father's new step-children. On that marriage, the new partner has lost her own right to income support as she is now in a new relationship. Therefore, she has lost her independent right to use the CSA to collect maintenance from her first husband. He may now get off scot-free.
That means that the absent father of the first family is now supporting his own first children, his partner's step-children and any natural children of that second marriage. But, through her, he does not have any way of making the father of his partner's children contribute to their maintenance because the CSA has withdrawn from that collection role. In other words, he is being asked to support not just his present family and his second family; he is being asked to support three families: his present family, his first family and the first Family of his new partner. That is financially impossible. That is what the Government have constructed in their, perhaps, hasty changes.
The Government found themselves in a position where many parents with care did not want the old system overturned. However, the Government overturned it whether or not they wanted it where they were on benefit. The Government also found that other parents with care would like the old system overturned, but that is not possible because they are not on benefit. In other words, the Government have gone not with the grain of what people want; they have gone with the grain of what the Treasury demanded—to claw it back when people are on benefit whether or not they want to do so and ignore it where they are not on benefit whether or not they want it.
We understand the Government's dilemma, but they put themselves in that position in the first place because of the inappropriateness of the 1991 legislation. What they have now done, while seeking to mitigate some aspects of it, is to create new unfairnesses. I await to hear what the Government say as to how they propose to address the new unfairnesses that they have created while addressing the old unfairnesses of the 1991 Act.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The background to Clause 18 is well known. Within the finite resources available it was clearly necessary for the Child Support Agency to take on cases in stages. The original programme was for those cases where the parent with care was not receiving benefit, and there was an existing maintenance arrangement, to he able to apply to the

213
agency on a phased basis during 1996–97. Clause 18 defers the take on of those cases and ensures that the courts retain their powers to act in determining maintenance in those cases.
The measure will leave the agency free in 1996–97 to focus its attention on the introduction and smooth implementation of the departures system. I think that we are all agreed that everything possible must be done to secure the efficient operation of the new system. It would be extremely imprudent to overload the agency with a fresh tranche of cases during the same period, particularly as it is likely that many of those cases would want to apply for departures.
We have been criticised for not learning from our past mistakes. By deferring the take on of those cases we will ensure that the CSA will not be in the position of having to assimilate and deliver new procedures, at the same time as it experiences the increase in workload that would inevitably follow if a new group of people were allowed to apply to the agency.
The cases being deferred will only be ones that have access to the court system, although of course I fully accept, as the noble Baroness said, that that system is less than ideal. We are agreed on that point. That is why we are both keen on the idea of a child support agency: a consensus between parties which I thought might have appealed to some people in this country who are always saying that we are too confrontational and that there should be more consensus. But the moment we have a consensus on something—even if it is just in principle and not on some of the detail—they promptly start screaming and changing the word "consensus" to collusion. However, that is quite a different tale and perhaps I should not be tempted too far down that road at this time of the evening. But it is an interesting phenomenon that we are seeing and political correspondents may well take note of it.
As I said, those cases will be those that have access to the court system. Therefore, as well as protecting the taxpayer, our priorities must lie with the group of parents who have most to gain from applying to the CSA: those who currently have no child maintenance. If that is because there is no court order, or written maintenance agreement which was made prior to 5th April 1993 and the parent with care does not receive income support, family credit or disability working allowance, the parent may apply to the CSA immediately.
Where the parent with care is receiving one of those benefits and wishes to be taken on, she may ask the CSA for early take on and the agency will treat that request sympathetically. The only cases which Clause 18 defers involve those who are able to take action for maintenance through the courts. While some parents with care in that category would undoubtedly obtain more from a child support assessment, as the noble Baroness pointed out, they cannot be said to be the ones with the most to gain.
Therefore, 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, as I said, I have some sympathy for those parents with care who receive only a small
214
amount of maintenance through a court order while their current partners pay out a larger amount in child support maintenance. I believe that that was one of the examples mentioned by the noble Baroness. However, those parents with care are able to apply to the courts to have their orders varied.
As I said, I believe that that is an example of the Government doing what we have been encouraged to do on a number of occasions not only in this Committee but also in other committees; namely, to learn from our mistakes, from what went before and from our experience with the agency. We are doing that and we are attempting to ensure that the phasing arrangements of new people coming into the agency's care will in fact be such that the agency will be able to cope with the cases that it already has and, indeed, cope with the new departure system which is a recognition by the Government that some steps must be taken to improve the situation.
The noble Baroness mentioned Australia where there was no retrospection. I am afraid that my reading—and I must say that it is rather one-sided because it tends to come from a source hostile to agencies in principle—suggests to me that the Australian experience was not exactly painless. Therefore, I am not entirely sure whether that is the best case to pray in aid. The justification for doing so is the experience that we have had. We wish to be sensible and ensure that the system beds down with the new departures. I fully accept that some of the cases brought to my attention by the noble Baroness appear to be unfortunate and that it would he better if we could deal with them inside the agency. But the simple fact of the matter is that we must look at the wider picture of making the agency work eventually for everyone. That is why we have taken the powers in Clause 18.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may briefly respond to the Minister. First, I do not believe that any of us would deny the administrative pressure that the agency is under and the need to ensure that it not only delivers assessments but also that it does so accurately, especially in the light of the report of the Public Accounts Committee. At present, I believe I am right in saying that one assessment in two is incorrect. Therefore, it is clearly right that the agency should slow down its speed of taking on new cases to ensure that the assessments are accurate. We do not challenge that fact. However, given the need to prioritise the taking on of cases by the CSA, we object to the fact that it is taking on first not the cases where the parents want the agency to intervene but where the Treasury wants it to do so.
Where parents want the CSA to set the maintenance level and to be the collection enforcement agent, we believe that that should be the mechanism for prioritising rather than the mechanism which the Government have adopted which is to take on, whether they want it or not, those cases where parents are on benefit and ignore, again whether they want it or not, those cases where the parents are not on benefit. It seems to me desirable at this stage, given that this Act has had such an unfortunate history, if the Government

215
can now work with the grain of what people wanted rather than against it. This discussion has allowed the Minister to make moves in that direction.
The second point I want to make is in terms of the level of awards based on court settlements that are going to families where the absent father's new partner is bringing her children into the relationship; in other words, the step-children. We hope that court settlements will gradually float up to a more realistic level; but again I hope that between now and Report stage, when we may want to revisit some of these issues, the Minister can give us some guidance whether as regards a family in that situation who are, as it were, looking after the children from the three forms of family, there is some way to encourage court settlements to move upwards, possibly through a departure system where this can be taken into account. I do not know whether there could be a departure system for the CSA as a collection agency but perhaps we can explore this further. I think there is a real problem here which may, if we are not careful, damage the second family to such a degree that that family breaks down, as the first family has already done. That was one of our fears.
Finally, I was delighted to hear the Minister say, to the sound of violins, that he was learning from past mistakes; that we of course wanted him to learn from past mistakes; that he will continue to learn from past mistakes and why should we prevent him from learning from past mistakes? That is splendid! What we actually want is that the Minister should learn from his past mistakes, but that he will also recognise that those mistakes might not have occurred if the Minister had done something else—that is, listen to the Opposition at the time. I hope that as we go through to the Report stages of other Bills which are currently before the Chamber which concern social security and other fields, the Minister will say to his colleagues, "Do not do as I have done, which is to be forced to learn from my past mistakes; but do as I ought to have done, which is listen to the Opposition at the time the Bill is going through the Chamber. If you do that we may get better legislation and less legislation because we shall not need to return to it to amend it".
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Fees for scientific tests]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 16, line 31, after ("out") insert ("(otherwise than under a direction or in response to a request)").
The noble Lord said: Clause 21 provides for the Secretary of State to recover DNA test fees where—
Baroness Trumpington: My noble friend should speak also to Amendment No. 89.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend has pointed out that I am also speaking to Amendment No. 89. The noble Baroness said that it was some time since she spoke; it is some time since I moved a government amendment, as is quite clear. Perhaps that is a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon
216
of Glaisdale, has made on a number of occasions today. I shall start again. In moving Amendment No. 88, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 89.
Clause 21 provides for the Secretary of State to recover DNA test fees where, following a DNA test, an alleged parent admits paternity or a court judges him to be the father. This amendment restricts this recovery power so that where the test is taken at the direction of the court, the Secretary of State must apply to the court for the fees to be included in costs awarded to him if he is successful in establishing paternity. It would not be right for officials acting for the Secretary of State to have the right to recover DNA test fees in the circumstances where a judge also has the discretion to award these fees as part of the costs of a court case. In theory there could be a conflict in that in the unlikely event that a court declined to award costs to the Child Support Agency, it would still be able to recover DNA test fees using the new statutory right provided in Clause 21. This amendment recognises the important principle that officials should not be able to bypass the court's discretion to award costs. I invite the Committee to accept these two amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I have no objection to the substance of these amendments, but it is an appropriate place to ask one question that I have been wanting to ask the Government for some time. They show a great deal of confidence in DNA testing. Are they aware that that confidence is by no means entirely shared by all the academics who are competent to judge it? Are they aware of the dispute in this area; are they following it, and will they keep a scintilla of an open mind and consider that their reliance on DNA might just possibly be mistaken?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Government follow all these matters with considerable interest and have some high-powered scientific advisers who can give them advice. I cannot vouch for the present one, but I can certainly vouch for the chief scientific adviser to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, who has recently retired. He was an eminent scientist and he was a Scot, needless to say. I am quite sure that he and his colleagues would follow all these matters. I have done so because I have a small interest in the world of science.
I know that there is a little bit of an argument—as the noble Earl has drawn to my attention—but when it is a matter of paternity cases where there are three samples and we know where they have come from, the matching is extremely accurate. I think the doubts the noble Earl has cast in that case would not be justified. However, I can assure him that the Government are always open to new advances in science. I hope that he can accept that assurance. As I have said, in the particular case that we are considering, the science is pretty well accepted by everyone. The noble Earl shakes his head. I was going to say that does not include every scientist because there is always one person who still does not believe what all the rest believe.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 17, line 12, after ("tests") insert:
(""direction" means a direction given by a court under section 20 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 (tests to determine paternity);
"request" means a request made by a court under section 70 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 (blood and other samples in civil proceedings);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Civil Evidence Bill [H.L.]
7.27 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Viscount St. Davids in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
Admissibility and proof of Ogden Tables
(".—(1) The actuarial tables (together with explanatory notes) for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases issued from time to time by the Government Actuary's Department are admissible in evidence for the purpose of assessing, in an action for personal injury, the sum to be awarded as general damages for future pecuniary loss.
(2) They may be proved by the production of a copy published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
(3) For the purposes of this section—

(a) "personal injury" includes any disease and any impairment of a person's physical or mental condition; and

(b) "action for personal injury" includes an action brought by virtue of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 or the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 9 and 10. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has explained that he sadly is unable to be with us this evening, asked me to consider including in the Bill the recommendation of the Law Commission that what are known as the Ogden Tables should be admissible evidence in personal injury actions. These are actuarial tables issued from time to time by the Government Actuary's Department and published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. They can
218
be used to determine the capital value of the sum to be awarded by the court as damages for future pecuniary loss. The recommendation was contained in the Law Commission's report on structured settlements and interim and provisional damages. The Government announced on 22nd March this year that they had accepted the report.
The draft clause makes it clear that the tables and notes are admissible evidence, notwithstanding that they are hearsay, and provides that they can be proved simply by producing a copy published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The notice provisions in the Bill are not appropriate to their use.
The Law Commission commented in its report that the use of Ogden Tables should make for greater consistency in courts and that their use should be encouraged.
I hope that the clause that I have brought forward will be satisfactory to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I commend it to the Committee.
Amendment No. 2 extends the new clause on the admissibility of the Ogden Tables to Northern Ireland. The rest of the Bill does not so apply, since the hearsay rule is currently the subject of consideration by the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland. It is right that it should have the opportunity to consider that general matter, which is the main subject matter of the Bill. The applicability of the Ogden Tables in Northern Ireland seems a wise move. Therefore I have tabled Amendment No. 2.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are amendments to the Long Title of the Bill to take account of the introduction of the new clause on the admissibility and proof of the Ogden Tables. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 14 agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Clause 15 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 11, at end insert:
("() Section (Admissibility and proof of Ogden Tables) (admissibility and proof of Ogden Tables) also extends to Northern Ireland.
As it extends to Northern Ireland, the following shall be substituted for subsection (3) (b)—
S. I. 1977/1251 (N.I. 18)
"(b) "action for personal injury" includes an action brought by virtue of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Act 1937 or the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order I977.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 45, leave out ("in subsection (1) above").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. Amendment No. 3 is a drafting amendment to remove

219
a redundant phrase and to ensure consistency between the English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish drafting. Amendment No. 8 removes a redundant phrase from the consequential amendment to the Vehicle and Excise Registration Act 1994. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 11, line 13, leave out from ("`"copy'") to ("and") and insert (", in relation to a document, means anything onto which information recorded in the document has been copied, by whatever means and whether directly or indirectly,").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
Amendment No. 4 is a drafting amendment. Most of the consequential changes to legislation in Schedule 1 provide a free-standing definition, using that in the Bill, instead of referring readers to the Bill to find the definition. In other words, if one is looking at another statute, instead of having to come to this Bill to find the new definition, one can find the new definition included in that statute by amendment.
However, not all of the amendments do that consistently. This and the following three amendments ensure that a consistent approach is followed throughout the schedule. The amendment covers the definition of the word "copy" in Section 72 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have a similar purpose. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7:
Page 11, leave out line 16 and insert (""has the same meaning as in Part I of the Civil Evidence Act 1968" substitute "means anything in which information of any description is recorded.".").
Page 11, leave out lines 45 to 47 and insert:
(""5.—(1) In Part II of this Act—
'document' means anything in which information of any description is recorded;
'copy', in relation to a document, means anything onto which information recorded in the document has been copied, by whatever means and whether directly or indirectly; and
'statement' means any representation of fact, however made.
(2) For the purposes of Part II of this Act evidence which, by reason of a defect of speech or hearing, a person called as a witness gives in writing or by signs shall be treated as given orally."").
Page 12, line 40, leave out from ("proceedings'") to end of line 41 and insert ("means civil proceedings before any tribunal in relation to which the strict rules of evidence apply, whether as a matter of law or by agreement of the parties, and references to 'the court' shall be construed accordingly;".").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, and since the amendments are all connected, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 13, line 18, leave out ("in subsection (1) above").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
In the Title:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
Line 1, leave out ("and").
Line 2, after ("evidence") insert (" and the admissibility and proof of official actuarial tables").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill [H.L.]
7.36 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 15 [Evidence of agreement to marry]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 11, line 31, leave out ("of betrothal").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 represent minor and drafting amendments that have arisen following further consideration of those agreed at the Report stage of the Bill.
Amendment No. 1 is intended to widen the types of ceremonies which can be adduced in evidence of an agreement to marry. The amendment therefore includes those who have undergone a marriage ceremony outside the requirements of English law, as well as those who have undergone betrothal ceremonies. Your Lordships will remember that that question was raised by a number of noble Lords. I believe that we have found a neat way to accommodate an enlargement of the circumstances that might be covered, by shortening what was already contained in the Bill.
Clause 17(1), which was added as a result of consideration by your Lordships in Committee and on Report, currently refers only to an undertaking being given by a respondent. A situation could arise, however, where it was necessary to take cross undertakings. That point was drawn to our attention by a practitioner who saw the Bill as reported. The point was made to us that undertakings might well be given by others than the respondent. Obviously your Lordships would wish to cover those undertakings. I am grateful for that information. It shows the importance of practical points of that kind being drawn to our attention in time. Amendment No. 2, therefore, is intended to clarify that the court is able to accept such undertakings from the applicant, the respondent or any other party to the proceedings.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 represent minor drafting improvements to Schedule 3. Amendment No. 5 represents a consequential amendment to Schedule 5, deleting "rights of occupation" in favour of the new term "matrimonial home rights".
Amendment No. 6 is intended to allocate to the Family Division of the High Court proceedings arising from an appeal from an order or decision under Section 63(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to enforce an order of a magistrates' court. The amendment adds proceedings under the Bill to paragraph 3(d) of Schedule 1 to the Supreme Court Act 1981.
As your Lordships see, all the amendments' are minor and drafting amendments. Therefore, I have spoken to them together. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted a few words on Amendment No. 1. It is a happy issue out of our afflictions. The amendment addresses the one unresolved issue which remained after Report stage in relation to the questions: who are associated persons, and how is that status to be established? The amendment completely meets our anxieties and we are most grateful.
Perhaps I may add my tribute to the draftsmanship, which is hardly short of genius. By the deletion of two superfluous words, the entire problem is removed. Would that all government amendments were at once so accommodating and so economical.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I completely associate myself with those words. In general, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his officials for their continued consideration of the Bill through all its stages, with the result that it arrives in this form. In particular, I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, in congratulating the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the lateral thinking which has brought about this rather neat amendment, Amendment No. 1.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the amendment. I believe that the matter arose from an amendment that I put forward at Committee stage which attempted to bring back into the Bill one of the group of associated persons which was in the Law Commission Bill but not in the Government's Bill.
It has been quite a long and interesting haul from Committee stage, through Report stage, to Third Reading. However, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He has written to me about the matter. He has taken infinite trouble to try to get it right. We are all grateful, and happy at the result. I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Undertakings]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 12, line 13, leave out ("the respondent") and insert ("any party to the proceedings").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to Amendment Nos. 2 to 6 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Amendments of Children Act 1989]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 25, line 42, leave out from ("authority") to ("period") in line 44 and insert ("have removed the child from the dwelling-house from which the relevant person is excluded to other accommodation for a continuous").
Page 27, line 32, leave out from ("applicant") to ("period") in line 34 and insert ("has removed the child from the dwelling-house from which the relevant person is excluded to other accommodation for a continuous").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 5 and 6:
Page 32, line 7, at end insert ("and for "rights of occupation" there is substituted "matrimonial home rights").
Page 32, line 45, at end insert:
("The Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54)
. In Schedule 1 to the Supreme Court Act 1981 (distribution of business in High Court), in paragraph 3 (Family Division)—

(a) in paragraph (d), after "matrimonial proceedings" there is inserted "or proceedings under the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Act 1995", and

(b) in paragraph (f) (i), for "Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976" there is substituted "Family Homes and Domestic Violence Act 1995".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I nearly missed the cue. It would be quite remiss of me if I did not say that at its inception this was a Bill which we on the Opposition Benches were as anxious to see enacted as were the Government. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepts that. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Law Commission. As it celebrates its 30th anniversary, it is good to see if not a stream, at least an escalating rivulet, of Law Commission Bills proceeding to the statute book.
Our proceedings have demonstrated how a Bill which in essence is not controversial can improve from an exercise in listening to informed witnesses, and, perhaps even more importantly, listening to one another. That we owe in large part to the chairmanship at the Committee stage of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. We owe him a great debt of gratitude.
I should add our thanks, too, to those who took the trouble to give evidence in Committee, both orally and in writing. I found myself persuaded on a number of issues by having the benefit of their experience and wisdom.
I believe that it was a good Bill when it was introduced, and that it has improved in the course of our deliberations. May that be the fate of many future Law Commission Bills.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I echo everything that has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. Indeed, this was a good Bill; it is now a better Bill as it passes from this House. The procedure of the Jellicoe Committee which this Bill enjoyed has proved

223
particularly valuable. It enabled the Special Public Bill Committee of the House to give detailed thought to the Bill. I would certainly wish to join in paying a sincere tribute to our chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. It was quite apparent to everyone on the committee that he undertook an immense amount of concentrated work behind the scenes.
It is a characteristic of the Jellicoe procedure that there arrives a large amount of solicited and unsolicited material which has to be absorbed in a relatively short period of time. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, marshalled that evidence before the Committee, in such a way that it was presented to us in a manageable and logical form. It enabled the questioning of the witnesses who gave oral evidence to be greatly enhanced in both content and form. I hope that the procedure will be used again in similar circumstances and that future Committees will have the services of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman.
I pay tribute to the responsive and speedy way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his officials, and indeed the draftsmen of the Bill, dealt with the various suggested amendments for the benefit of the Committee, and subsequently for the benefit of the House at Report stage and Third Reading.
The remarkable feature of the Bill is that at every stage there has been room for some further improvement. I hope that your Lordships will wish this Bill well as it proceeds to another place.
Baroness David: My Lords, as a Member of the Special Public Bill Committee on the Bill, I should like to associate myself with what has been said. It is almost the first time that this procedure has been followed with a Bill that is not too controversial, with success. However, it was to me the most fascinating experience. The Bill had been prepared by the Law Commission; we considered it rather good to start with. There were only two exceptions in the Bill produced by the Government to what had been proposed in the Law Commission Bill. It was of particular interest that in the course of the Committee stage a good many more changes were brought about as a result of the evidence and the lawyers on the Committee. However, I still believe that it was good that we had a few lay Members to ask some questions. I refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is a lawyer. He probably is. However, Members of the Committee, and in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, brought forward many questions. I believe that it is a much better Bill than the Bill which came before the Committee in the first place.
It has been an extremely interesting experience. I hope that more Bills will go through this process, although I understand that it involves an enormous amount of work for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I should like to add my tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. He undertook a huge amount of work in the background. The first index of queries that he produced was of tremendous help to the Committee. I pay great tribute to his chairmanship.
224
I wish the Bill well. I hope that it will hurry through the other place and will soon receive Royal Assent.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I feel somewhat overwhelmed by the kind remarks which have been made on my chairmanship. Leaving that aside, I am a committed supporter of the Jellicoe procedure. As we have a few moments to spare, perhaps I may add a few words about the procedure. Apart from the fact that it saves much time on the Floor of the House, in my submission it tends to produce a much better Bill of the type suitable to be referred to the Committee than if the Bill had proceeded along normal lines. The procedure is not suitable for a party political Bill on which the Government or the Opposition will put a Whip, but for other Bills it has a great future.
As some noble Lords know, before the Committee sits, the Bill is sent to about 100 informed sources, as I shall call them, for written comments. After that, a few people appear before us in person who give us their views orally. As a result, any problems are exposed in due time and the improvements which can be made come before us for consideration. After that has taken place we have an informal discussion on draft amendments before anything is done formally. Then after that informal discussion we meet for a proper Public Bill Committee.
As a result of the preliminary discussions, we usually seem to reach a consensus and only occasionally do we need to divide. When we sit as a Public Bill Committee, we all vote as informed Peers. We know what we are voting about and the result is that at the end of the day we have a much better Bill than would have resulted from the normal process.
I wish to add only one further point. In December of last year, the Select Committee on Procedure of the House made eight recommendations. The first was that further opportunities should be found for the use of Special Public Bill Committee procedures, in particular for Law Commission Bills and also for other Bills introduced into either House. So far, a Special Public Bill Committee has dealt with only law reform Bills, three in number. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor can say whether there is any prospect of the procedure being used for Bills other than law reform legislation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the last question which my noble and learned friend asked before I come to more general matters. The criteria for using the system would be that the Bills were not of a party political controversial nature; secondly, that they are of a type which would profit from the extended examination of evidence which is involved in the Jellicoe procedure; and, thirdly, that they are generally welcomed in principle in the House when they are given a Second Reading. In the cases in which the procedure has been used, I have been careful to seek to secure agreement in advance for the whole course of the Bills. I wish to acknowledge openly and warmly the assistance that I have received from the Opposition parties. The result has been that the procedure has been

225
based on a confidence that the matter has been thoroughly examined here before the Bill is sent to the other place.
I believe that Bills other than Law Commission Bills would fulfil those criteria. The subject matter could be quite varied and I hope that in due course my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman will have the opportunity to sit on a Jellicoe committee dealing with a Bill which did not originate from the Law Commission. I do not believe that I can go further than that at present.
I warmly associate myself with all that has been said about the distinguished chairmanship of my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman. I learnt of some of his many distinguished qualities in my earlier existence, but this is another and extremely important chapter in his achievements. He has sat as chairman on three occasions: once last Session and twice this Session. The first two were extremely technical Bills in the sense that they were of interest to lawyers and perhaps only those who practise law. Obviously, any law has consequences for others, but the Bills were of particular interest to lawyers.
This Bill is quite different; it is of great interest and importance to a wide spectrum of practitioners and people who have a general interest both in domestic violence and in matrimonial homes. We received help by way of evidence from a large spectrum of organisations with knowledge relevant to the Bill. At the beginning, I was slightly nervous about that applying, but I could see it as a way forward and hoped that it would work. The results have fully justified seeking the agreement to use the procedure which I obtained from those representing the Opposition parties.
At one time it was suggested that the Jellicoe procedure allowed matters to go through the House on the nod. I do not believe any noble Lords who served on any of the Jellicoe committees would regard that as remotely being true—quite the opposite. The Bills that are taken by this method are thoroughly considered in all their aspects and exposed to testing by the views of those who are expert on the subject. For my part, I feel confident that the Bill in its present form has been fully considered, and that we have had the benefit of great help.
I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and all other noble Lords who have spoken, in thanking the organisations and practitioners who have taken part and given so fully of their time in helping us. I am sure that the Bill is better as a result. I do not think it would be right to single out particular people because we were helped by many organisations, as noble Lords who were on the Committee know. All the assistance was extremely valuable.
I also wish to say how grateful I am to those noble Lords who served on the Committee. It is a demanding task; much time and effort was devoted to it. One cannot become a master of such a Bill without a good deal of time and effort which all members of the Committee gave. I am grateful to them and I am sure that the result is all the better for it.
On behalf of my officials and myself, I am grateful for what was said about us. We have found it a rewarding way of helping matters to proceed. The
226
measure is extremely important, it deals with a sad area, and all of us would like to see domestic violence completely eliminated. However, we are dealing with the real world and I hope that we have managed to produce the best possible regime for dealing with such delicate matters.
I join with noble Lords who wish the Bill a speedy passage in the other place. It goes there in a state such that the other place can have confidence that it has been thoroughly examined. I join also in the thanks to the Law Commission for the work that it did, not only in preparing the draft Bill and the report with which it was associated, but also for the help that it gave us with our evidence during the course of our proceedings.
On the whole this has been an extremely valuable exercise. I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part. I am also grateful to those who did not take part in the Committee but who have been confident in our work and have been willing today to pass what we have done.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Baroness Trumping ton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8 to 8.25 p.m.]

Child Support Bill
House again in Committee.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Certain arrears
. —(1) This section applies to arrears of child support maintenance which are payable under an assessment which was made at a date later than the dates of the period in respect of which the arrears in question are payable, and which were not also payable under an assessment which was in force during the period in respect of which they are payable.
(2) Arrears to which this section applies shall not be enforceable except with the leave of a judge of the Family Division of the High Court (or, in Scotland, of the Court of Session).
(3) In any proceedings concerning such leave, the person entitled under the assessment, and the person liable under the assessment, shall be entitled to be heard; and unless the judge otherwise orders, their costs of the proceedings shall be payable by the Secretary of State on an indemnity basis.
(4) In any such proceedings—

(a) the judge shall not give leave unless he is satisfied that it would be unjust not to do so, and

(b) he shall have power to remit all or part of the arrears in
question.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment deals with arrears. The Committee may be aware that the procedure has been that arrears accumulate from the date when the parent with care signs the maintenance application form but they come as a bill to the absent parent only when he gets the maintenance assessment. Since the agency has been so severely overburdened and since the body of work has been such that it could not keep up with it, a very long time has been elapsing between those two events.
One of the biggest shocks affecting those who have received maintenance assessments is the enormous weight of arrears that comes with the assessment. I have already mentioned a case in which the arrears for someone with very little income had accumulated to £2,600. I believe that probably that resulted from an error, but the perfectly genuine cases of arrears become backbreaking.
That may have the effect of preventing the absent parent from paying a maintenance assessment which he might otherwise have been perfectly well able to pay. It is never worth breaking the camel's back when one has to rely on regular financial support afterwards. Here there is a situation with which it might be in the Government's interests to deal, apart from any consideration of justice.
I understand that a concession has been made on this matter for the future. No doubt the Minister is about to tell the Committee all about it. But the effect of the amendment would be to extend that concession back to 1993. So it would deal with weights of accumulated arrears which in many cases will never be paid off and which lie on people who have a horror—with which this Chamber is familiar—of being severely in debt.
In any of those cases applications over arrears would have to be made to a judge of the Family Division, who would have to decide that it was unjust not to enforce them. So before the Minister starts to hold forth as he has done many times about absent parents deliberately evading their obligations, let me stress to him that this amendment would do absolutely nothing for any absent parent who was deliberately evading his obligations. If, in the opinion of the judge—I have confidence in our judges and I hope that the Government do too—it would be unjust not to enforce them, then they would be enforced. But where the arrears arise perhaps from the agency's inability to keep up with its work or where they arise from complications, cock-ups or inaccurate information in the assessment, they might be remitted. Some remission is essential both for the absent parent's ability to go on paying and for any kind of continuing consent to the system, in which the Minister has an interest. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In my time it was the general practice of the judges of what is now the Family Division not to enforce arrears of more than one year. That practice was based on long experience of justice. So far the amendment of the noble Earl is entirely in line with it. I also venture to think that the discretion that he gives to the judge would be exercised precisely in the way that he claims.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment provides that arrears of maintenance due for the initial period—that is, the period from the date on which liability commences up to the date the assessment is made—shall be enforceable only with the leave of the Family Division of the High Court. It also enables the court to remit all or part of the arrears, and requires the Secretary of State to meet all the costs of the application unless the judge orders otherwise.
228
It will always be the case that initial period arrears will occur in cases where there is no court order in force because in such cases liability starts before the date on which the assessment is made. The noble Earl alluded to the two changes introduced in April that will limit the arrears payable in such cases. First, where the absent parent returns the maintenance inquiry form within four weeks of its issue providing certain basic information to enable the case to be progressed by the agency, the liability for maintenance will start eight weeks from the date the maintenance inquiry form was issued, rather than the date on which it was issued. Secondly, in cases where delay by the Child Support Agency has contributed to the arrears, only six months' arrears will be enforced if the absent parent pays his ongoing maintenance and maintains an agreement to repay the six months' arrears.
But where initial period arrears do arise and the absent parent does not co-operate in making arrangements for payment, there is no reason why normal enforcement action should not be taken. When the maintenance inquiry form is issued the absent parent is given clear advice about the date from which he will be liable to pay maintenance. In addition the Child Support Agency will make every effort to reach an instalment undertaking that repays the arrears at a reasonable rate over a period of time, before enforcement action is considered. In such cases payment of arrears and current maintenance will be limited to a maximum of 33 per cent, of net income, ensuring that the absent parent does not face an undue burden in repayment.
To require an application to the Family Division of the High Court in cases where the absent parent refuses to come to an agreement in respect of initial arrears is entirely unnecessary. Given the advice to absent parents about the date from which liability starts, the provisions relating to instalments, and other provisions relating to the date liability starts and the amount of arrears that will be collected, there is no justification for arrears to be remitted by the court. Furthermore, it would be wrong for the taxpayer to have to meet the costs of the application to the court, as provided for in the amendment, since such an application would only be necessary in cases where the absent parent refused to come to an agreement with the agency about repayment.
Although the noble Earl hoped I would not say this, it is worth pointing out that the new arrangements we are putting into place will encourage an absent parent to respond timeously, and if he does, then the amount of potential arrears—as long as he pays—will be greatly reduced. As I say, the agency can come to an arrangement within the 33 per cent, of the net income on repayments, which we believe is reasonable. Any parent about to come into the circumstance of being an absent parent must by this time know that he will be expected, via the agency, to pay maintenance to his children if they are being looked after by his former wife and not by himself.
The noble Earl said that the amendment would have a retrospective effect. I am advised that it would not have a retrospective effect; any arrears before the Act came into force would still be due even with his

229
amendment. I do not believe he meant that, but that is the case. From now on the situation will be as I described; that is, that previous arrears will still be due. I would hope that the agency would be able to come to a reasonable arrangement with absent parents in regard to paying them. They are not simply arrears to the agency; they are arrears to the parent with care.
Earl Russell: Many times today I have been reminded of a debate in 1991 on whether the payers of 20 per cent, poll tax should be pardoned any further pursuit. That was the occasion when the Opposition Benches tabled an amendment, together with us, to put that practice of pursuit to a stop. The Government brought in the noble Lords, Lord Hanson and Lord White—those well-known champions of the poor—to oppose it, and succeeded in voting it down. With his obsessive concentration on wilful refusal, the Minister is beginning to sound rather like that. It is a familiar voice—Whitehall playing the tune of the retreat from Moscow, and it does not do it very well. The Minister seems to think that from now on all arrears will be entirely justifiable to collect; that nothing can possibly go wrong again and they all live happily ever after. It is not like that, as anybody who has the misfortune to deal with the CSA already knows very well.
Let me take as an example the case of a regular payment direction pending appeal for a departure. That regular payment direction may be set at a level which is actually too high for the absent parent to bear successfully. That could give rise to arrears. There are many other circumstances in which arrears could arise, including failure to co-operate by the parent with care. I was interested that Miss Chant said yesterday to the Public Accounts Committee that even mothers will not co-operate. I do not know why she is so surprised; I warned her in 1991 that that would be the case; or rather, to be more precise, I warned her predecessors.
The Minister does not understand the horror which a great many people feel on facing a great load of debt. He does not remember the very effective speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on the student loans Bill in 1990. He brought that horror to the attention of this Chamber. His prophecies about what people would feel are entirely accurate. To people who feel that way, saying that they can pay in instalments is not adequate. They feel stigmatised by carrying a load of debt. If the Government really have hostility to inflation as they make out, they should not so much stigmatise thrifty habits of mind and bring them into so much trouble.
I do not see any understanding of the case that is being made. But I am getting used to that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Repayment of overpaid child support maintenance]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 18, leave out lines 15 to 24.
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 91 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 92, which is consequential upon it. The amendment deals with the
230
situation where the absent parent has made an overpayment of maintenance. It strikes out the existing provisions of the Bill and provides instead that,
"The Secretary of State shall make full reimbursement of any such overpayment to the absent parent as soon as practicable, and in any event within 14 days of the date on which it should have become apparent to the Secretary of State that such an overpayment had been made".
The Minister heard me talking earlier today about redress. On that occasion I was speaking on behalf of the parent with care; this time it is on behalf of an absent parent, but the principle is the same. If you cause damage to someone by unlawful or negligent acts, you owe them compensation. If the Minister asks, "Why the taxpayer?", I would remind him of the law of agency. The CSA is the agent of the state and therefore ultimately of the taxpayer. It is a claim that the Minister has made on its behalf many times; and since he allows so much for the agency, I think he ought to allow it against the agency as well. If you do injustice, you should put it right. It is just like the principle on which I brought up my children. If you make a mess, you clear it up. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These two amendments make substantial changes to the provisions in Clause 23 for dealing with overpayments of maintenance. The effect would be that the Secretary of State would be required to reimburse all overpayments, and within a specified time limit.
Since the child support scheme came into operation a reduction to current maintenance has been the way in which overpayments have been dealt with. We accept that this does not always deal with overpayments satisfactorily, which is why this new provision has been proposed. But I believe it is right that an adjustment to the current assessment should remain the first consideration.
Payment of child maintenance is essentially a matter for the parents of the children. Overpayments occur for a variety of reasons and it would not be right for the taxpayer to have to step in immediately to sort the matter out. A reduction to the current maintenance assessment, where this is possible and reasonable, remains the most equitable way of initially dealing with overpayments. The right of the absent parent to be repaid can be balanced against the needs of the parent with care and children to receive regular maintenance. The regulations relating to the adjustment of maintenance assessments on account of overpayments were amended in April to give the child support officer greater discretion in setting the amount of the reduction. This will ensure a fairer outcome in most cases. But we accept that there will be a number of cases where a reduction to the current assessment is not possible or practicable, and that is why we are proposing the provisions in Clause 23. There may be no assessment, for example, where the child is no longer in full-time non-advanced education or the assessment is already at the minimum amount, meaning no adjustment is possible; or an adjustment may be inappropriate because, for example, it would take an unreasonable

231
length of time to repay the overpayment. However, it would not be right for all cases to be dealt with under these provisions.
The amendments also introduce a 14-day time limit for making reimbursement, but I believe this is impracticable. It is not clear from the amendment just when the clock will start ticking, but in cases where a revised assessment results in a lower award, the Child Support Agency will be able to calculate the overpayment immediately and will deal with it as soon as practicable.
But, more importantly, the amendments would place operational constraints on the agency and would undermine its ability to organise all aspects of its work. The agency deals with a huge range of different tasks in making assessments; undertaking reviews; dealing with routine queries and correspondence; and collecting payments and passing them on to the parent with care. Imposing such a time constraint in respect of one particular activity—I have already mentioned this today—would have considerable implications for the way in which the agency manages its workload. Other activities do not have such time constraints, and there is no reason why the reimbursement of overpayments should be treated differently or have priority.
Of course it is right that overpayments are calculated as quickly as possible and appropriate action taken to ensure that the absent parent is repaid in the most appropriate way. The agency aims to ensure that all its work, including that of overpayments, is processed as quickly as possible. In considering the wider issues of processing work in the Child Support Agency, time limits prescribed in legislation for certain actions can only hinder rather than assist in providing a satisfactory level of service. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: That most of my amendments should be mistaken would merely mean that I was subject to the human condition. That they should all be mistaken would offend against the law of averages. I really had hoped that in the whole Bill there might be just one single amendment which would find the Government's favour because some of them were actually meant to be helpful.
I am sorry that the Minister has not seen it. He talks about placing operational constraints on the agency. But does he understand that the agency itself is placing the most severe of operational constraints on practically everyone else? Why should the agency be free of operational constraints while everyone else is more and more tightly restricted? That is the kind of question that was in the mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he introduced the concept of the rule of law. We have an agency which is more and more being given the discretion to do absolutely whatever it likes, with the Secretary of State to back it up. This is arbitrary government. It is something which we have a long history of resisting and which we were supposed to have a Parliament in order to prevent. I cannot see that it does very much about it.
232
I am sorry that the Minister does not understand the point of the amendment. He keeps on talking about absent parents refusing to accept their liabilities. What I see is a Secretary of State refusing to accept his liabilities. But if we were to attempt to deal with him with even one-hundredth of the vehemence used in the pursuit of absent parents, the squawking would be heard from here to Timbuktu. I hope that at some time the Government will hear something. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 18, line 33, at end insert:
("() Subsection (3) shall not apply where the overpayment has arisen as a result of administrative error on the part of the Secretary of State, his servants or agents.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 94. Both amendments deal with the matter of overpayment but from a rather different direction from that in the last group of amendments.
Amendment No. 93 deals with the situation where the overpayment has arisen as a result of administrative error on the part of the Child Support Agency. The effect of the amendment is obvious from its wording. It is intended to protect parents with care from the requirement to repay a debt to the agency where the agency itself is responsible for an overpayment being made. The Minister will not want me to labour the figures, which have appeared in the press only today, about the mistakes that have been made by the CSA.
Although the Government's intention to recompense an absent parent who is overpaid is to be welcomed, in fact the clause also makes it clear that the Government intend to go after the parent with care to recoup the losses of the offer the Government have generously made. This clause would help absent parents, but parents with care also need to be adequately protected against the considerable number of administrative errors which have been made and are likely still to be made by the agency. If the agency has admitted fault in causing an overpayment, the parent with care should not then be made to repay the debt to the agency.
I shall not be at all surprised if the Minister argues that if the parent with care was overpaid she should ultimately pay it back. However, in most of the cases—we are dealing here with people who are not very well off and will not have large savings or anything like that—the money will already have been spent and therefore the parent with care will need to manage on less money each week in order to repay the debt to the agency. In other cases the parent with care will suffer an actual overall financial loss should she be required to repay the payment.
For example, in the case of parents with care who are claiming family credit, they will lose in three ways. First, they will be claiming a reduced level of family credit to take account of the higher or overpaid maintenance payments. That underpayment, as we would describe it, will not be recompensed. Secondly, the readjustment of maintenance to the lower level will

233
reduce their income, which may not be readjusted immediately due to the current six months rule on family credit, a point to which we shall return on later amendments. Lastly, if this clause remains, they could be asked to repay a debt to the agency. So they are caught with a troika of injustice.
This amendment was not proposed in the other place, but the Government have said that they intend to use their discretion when looking to claw back a debt from the parent with care—I think that the Minister indicated that in his reply to the last group of amendments—but they do not want any amendment to take away their discretion. This amendment would not remove discretion, but would simply limit discretion to cases where the overpayment was not made as a result of an error on the part of the agency.
I turn now to Amendment No. 94, which deals with a situation where the overpayment has arisen as a result of an interim maintenance assessment (IMA) being paid by the absent parent. The effect of the amendment, if accepted, is to ensure that where an overpayment has been made by the absent parent due to his non-co-operation, the agency would not offer compensation to the absent parent. If, due to the non-co-operation of the absent parent, an interim maintenance assessment is imposed by the agency, in the new regulations the absent parent who then co-operates will only be liable for the lower maintenance level. In some cases an overpayment of maintenance will result if the IMA was enforced.
The amendment will ensure that any overpayment would not be recompensed by the agency and therefore, under the terms of Clause 23, the parent with care would never be asked to repay the overpayment.
At the seventh sitting of the Committee in the other place the Minister said that the situation will not often arise. However, he said that the Government should not be constrained from recovering such money from the parent with care when it is right, on behalf of the taxpayer, to do so. As I say, the Minister said that the situation will not often arise.
The Government are right in saying that that will not often happen as in most cases the benefits will have been reduced to account for the higher payments. The Government are worried that the clause will take away their discretion to recoup the overpayment on behalf of the taxpayer. If this amendment is not accepted, it will mean that the agency can recompense the absent parent for what effectively amounts to non-co-operation, and then expect the parent with care to pay it back. It is reasonable to expect the parent with care to pay back an overpayment in certain circumstances. The legislation should allow the CSA the freedom to do that, but not when the debt is due to the non-co-operation of the absent parent. It is entirely wrong that if the absent parent refuses to co-operate the consequences which I have described follow. That is extremely unfair. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: The arguments for this amendment have a very large area of overlap, both with my own arguments for the previous amendment and my arguments against deducting income support from the
234
absent parent, on the principle that an injustice is an injustice no matter to what sex it has been done. I warmly support this amendment. I do not believe that the Minister understands at all quite how burdensome it has been in many cases attempting to get clawbacks from those people who are existing very close to benefit level. That is something which is capable of causing shock and a very severe hole in the budget. Once one gets into debt anywhere near benefit level, one is carrying burdens which it is not easy to get out of. I wish the department would do some research on that problem because it is very badly needed. I do not see any reason at all why the Minister should not accept this amendment, and I hope that he will do so.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These amendments would remove the ability of the Child Support Agency to recover from the parent with care a reimbursement of overpaid maintenance made by the absent parent where the overpayment is due to official error or an interim maintenance assessment.
I can appreciate the concerns surrounding the recovery from the parent with care of reimbursements made to the absent parent. As was said in another place during the passage of this Bill, it is not intended that recovery of reimbursements is sought in all cases. Consideration will be given to the circumstances of the parent with care and her ability to repay. It is not intended, for example, that recovery will be sought in any case where she receives income support or family credit, however the overpayment arose. There will also be other cases when the particular circumstances are such that recovery will not be appropriate.
In any case where recovery is considered appropriate, we shall not normally expect the parent with care to repay the money immediately. It will be possible to make an instalment arrangement to repay the relevant amount at a reasonable rate over a period of time.
I have listened to the debate and we need to think carefully whether it would be right to ask the taxpayer to bear the cost of repaying overpayment where the parent with care can in fact afford to do so. I am willing to consider very carefully whether there are specific circumstances—I mentioned some which have already been made clear in the other place—in relation to which I can give an undertaking that overpayments would not be recovered from a parent with care. On that basis, and with my explanation of how we would treat income support and family credit, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am not quite clear whether the Minister was indicating an administrative discretion or that he will bring forward an amendment at Report stage which goes far to meet the case so persuasively put by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Perhaps he will clear that up.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In answer to the noble and learned Lord, I was not going as far as to say that I shall come forward with an amendment at Report stage. I made clear that we said in another place that it is not intended that recovery of reimbursements is sought in all cases. I mentioned two of them; namely, receiving income support and family credit, however the

235
overpayment arose. We are looking at overpayments which have arisen as a result of the agency itself due to administrative official error or an interim maintenance assessment. As I have said, I am prepared to consider the matters which have been raised and I shall see whether I can give an undertaking at a later stage that overpayments will not be recovered from the parent with care in other circumstances which I shall then specify.
As regards the specific question, subsection (3) of the new Section 41B inserted by Clause 23 enables the Secretary of State to prescribe the circumstances in which recovery will be sought. Those regulations will be the appropriate place in which exemptions from recovery will be specified. As I have already said, we intend that particular consideration will be given to cases involving official error. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Lord.
Lord Carter: That is a helpful answer. Before deciding what to do with the amendment, as the Minister referred to subsection (3) which requires the relevant person to pay to the Secretary of State the whole or a specified proportion of the amount, would the specified proportion be nil in some circumstances?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That will be one way to specify who was not going to pay. I shall have to take advice on that. As I said, the regulations would be the appropriate place to say in which cases there would be exemption from recovery. I do not believe that would meet the suggestion made by the noble Lord. However, in those regulations we shall be able to do what I have already suggested that we intend to do in certain cases. The other cases I shall seriously consider in the light of what has been said.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. That shows that occasionally regulations have their good points and allow a degree of flexibility. We shall not be harrying the Minister on this, but we shall certainly be watching the point very carefully. We may need to put down probing amendments at a later stage to stiffen the Minister's resolve. There is a glimmer of light there. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
9 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 95:
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 the parent with care or any child that would be affected by a reduced benefit direction is disabled."
(3) After subsection (7) insert—
"(7A) The child support appeal tribunal shall have the power to alter the time and level of the reduced benefit direction according to the circumstances of each case."
(4) In subsection (11) leave out "such amount, and for such a period as may be prescribed" and insert "no more than 10 per cent, of the personal allowance being claimed by that parent, and for a period not exceeding sixteen weeks".
(5) After subsection (11) insert—
"(12) Where a reduced benefit direction is issued, it shall take priority over other loans, and shall not be made in addition to other loans being repaid from that person's weekly benefit." ")
The noble Lord said: This is a new clause to be inserted after Clause 23. We return to the point about reduced benefit directions. The effect of the amendment would be threefold: to ensure that families which are particularly vulnerable due to one member being disabled do not have to pay a penalty by way of benefit reduction; to ensure that younger mothers who receive a lower rate of benefit do not pay a higher percentage of their benefit as a penalty than other, older mothers; and to ensure that a reduced benefit direction does not run concurrently with other reductions in benefits.
There has been some anecdotal evidence of fraud—I stress that it is anecdotal—in terms of absent parents attempting to make up the lost benefit in return for an assurance from the parent with care that she will not co-operate with the agency. Before the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to intervene, I repeat that that evidence is anecdotal. However, there are also many cases where the parent with care has good reason for not wishing to co-operate, but where her reasons do not fall under those considered to be "good cause" by the agency. In those cases, we are concerned that the penalty is harmful to one-parent families which are already struggling on low levels of income.
The amendment seeks to limit the penalty and, in the case of families having to cope with disabilities, to remove from the Secretary of State the power to make a reduced benefit direction. By giving the power to vary a reduced benefit direction to the appeal tribunals, as is mentioned in the amendment, the provisions can take into account the welfare of any children involved by looking at the individual circumstances of each case.
The amendment also seeks to ensure that those living on benefits are not reduced to unacceptably low levels of income by the imposition of a penalty on top of other repayments, such as for arrears of water rates, overpayments, and repayment of crisis loans from the Social Fund. The Government have argued in the past that the penalty is necessary to ensure the co-operation of parents with care. We do not go all the way with the Government on that, but, although there is no reason to repeat all the arguments now, we can see the Government's point where no good cause, has been shown. However, reducing the income of a family to below subsistence levels can only be harmful to the children involved.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister can see that there is a problem. The wording of the amendment might not be perfect, but this is Committee stage, and the amendment is intended to highlight what we feel is a threefold problem. I hope that the Minister will give it his sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: This is a good amendment and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on tabling it. It is not quite as good as getting rid of the benefit penalty altogether, but I fancy that the noble Lord would not disagree with that.
If we have to have a fallback, this is as good as we can get. In subsection (2), the case for the disabled is extremely strong. The extra expenses of disability are a great deal more than the OPCS calculated, and make the benefit penalty more punitive than it would be for anyone else.
Subsection (3) imports a very welcome discretion which, to my delight, is administered judicially and not administratively. It allows the penalty, such as it is, to be apportioned to the circumstances of each case.
Subsection (4) reduces the benefit penalty to 10 per cent. It also reduces the period for which it lasts. It is almost identical to an amendment that I pushed to a Division on consideration of Commons reasons in 1991. I support it not one whit less strongly now than I did then. I have always thought that the 20 per cent, rate of reduction was absolutely penal and entirely without any justification in any reason that was put forward for it. If there must be a reduction, 10 per cent, is about as much as is compatible with subsistence—and even that is pushing it a bit, as I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, agrees.
However, probably the very best part of the amendment, like the very best wine, is saved until last. I refer to subsection (5), which provides that the reduced benefit direction takes priority over other loans and that those should not be repaid from a person's weekly benefit during the period of the reduced benefit direction. The Minister keeps talking about priority for child maintenance over other commitments. Why should not that apply where there is actually a hungry child hoping to eat as a result of it? The Government do not do nearly enough to study the effects of "top-slicing"—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, recently described it—as a result of the long series of deductions from benefit. The rate of deductions for court fines, for example, is often penally steep.
The purpose of benefits is to allow people subsistence. That is in our national interest. It is in the interests of common humanity and in the interests of all concerned. The amendment would go a significant way towards getting us back to that, and I am happy to support it. I am glad that the noble Lord moved it. If he does not manage to get it accepted tonight, I hope that he will persist with it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Under the 1991 Act, 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 for not doing so. We have already discussed that in some detail earlier today. If she fails to give her authority without good cause, her benefit may be reduced by 20 per cent, of the income support adult allowance for six months—I think that I underlined earlier that the 20 per cent, reduction impinges only on the adult allowance portion—followed by a reduction of 10 per cent, for the next 12 months.
238
Amendment No. 95 seeks to change a number of matters relating to reduced benefit directions. I should like to restate that I believe that it is right that the parent with care should co-operate with the agency unless she has good cause for not doing so. Taxpayers should not have to shoulder the burden. No parent with care will have benefit reduced without careful regard being given to her circumstances and those of her children. The purpose of the benefit reduction is to make a parent with care think carefully about her decision not to co-operate. We believe that the current amount and duration of the reduction achieves that. We have already discussed that when dealing with amendments tabled by the noble Earl.
Amendment No. 95 would make changes to reduced benefit directions. Directions could not be imposed where the parent with care or any child affected by the benefit reduction was disabled. Secondly, child support appeal tribunals would be able to alter the amount and duration of the reduction depending upon the individual circumstances of the case. Thirdly, the maximum amount and the duration of the reduction could be lessened. Fourthly, a deduction could not be made where the parent has a loan which she is repaying from her benefit.
We believe that the amount and duration of the benefit reduction is set at the right level and should neither be reduced nor made subject to the discretion of appeal tribunals. Parents with care should know the consequences of their refusal to co-operate when they make their decision whether to comply. They should not be uncertain about how much the reduction will be or how long it will last.
Under the 1991 Act, the parent with care already has the right to appeal to a child support appeal tribunal, which will consider whether or not the reduced benefit direction was properly imposed. If a parent were successful on appeal she would be repaid any benefit due.
That leaves two issues; waiving the reduction where the child or the parent with care is disabled and waiving it where the parent has other loans. I am willing to look further at the noble Lord's suggestion relating to those two factors. I will look at cases of disabled parents and children and at cases where the parent is already having deductions made from her benefit, for example, to cover rent arrears at the time the reduced benefit deduction is made. Perhaps I may make it clear that I will look at those two issues but that I am rejecting and not promising to look at the other two issues. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister has shown some small mercies and for that we must all be grateful. He has put forward a great deal of argument for justifying the imposition of a benefit penalty, which was relevant to a previous amendment but not to this one. He has given no justification for making the penalty 20 per cent, and not 10 per cent. Is there any reason for that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I gave that justification earlier today. It was that the penalty must be such that it is meaningful but at the same time we must balance that with the fact that we do not wish to deprive the parent with care of her benefit. It must be

239
of such a size that it is realistic and that it will act as a deterrent to someone who without good reason is not giving the name of the absent parent.
As I said earlier, in 73,000 cases we have accepted the good reason and have not pursued the matter. In 18,000 cases we have imposed the reduction. It is a matter of balance—20 per cent., 15 per cent., why not 25 per cent.? It is 20 per cent for six months and 10 per cent, for the following 12 months. That appears to us to be a reasonable balance, leaving the parent with care with some of her income while at the same time making it clear to her that we do not believe her actions to have been reasonable. I know that the noble Earl does not agree with me on these issues but it lies in the hands of the parent with care to restore her benefit to 100 per cent.
Lord Carter: I suspect that the real reason why the figure is 20 per cent, is the sophisticated reason that it is twice as much as 10 per cent.
I am almost overwhelmed by the Minister's response. As regards the first two amendments that I moved yesterday, which now seems a long time ago, the Minister was most helpful and promised to look at one of them. He promised to look at the first two amendments that I moved tonight. However, he has cherry picked as regards this amendment. I did not believe that he would buy subsection (4) but it was worth having a debate. However, he has promised to come back on the disability and loan issues. He has been most helpful and I congratulate him. It shows what one can do when one sets out to improve a Bill rather than mortally to wound it. I understand the Minister's comments—they are not assurances—which are most helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Compensation payments]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 19, line 7, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 96 deals with Clause 24, which overall is one of the Bill's more welcome clauses. But, as usual, this Government have shown themselves to be the Old Man of Thermopylae; they never do anything properly. Having introduced a welcome concession they have not done so thoroughly and have not made it properly effective.
Perhaps I may explain the context. The clause deals with the situation which came to light during the debate on the February 1994 regulations. For some people, they meant a reduction in the maintenance that they were paying and for the parent with care a reduction in the maintenance which she was receiving. But if those people were on family credit it was fixed only once every six months so they had lost a large part of their income for whatever period of the six months remained until the next assessment.
On the debate on the regulations the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and I attempted a vigorous right and left—and I did not say which was which. That has been heard. In this clause we now have a provision for making compensation, through the machinery of family credit,
240
to a parent with care who has lost some of the maintenance that she was receiving and whose income has therefore dropped.
The first point that I make about that and other later amendments is that instead of saying the Government "will" do something, we have instead the tedious words:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations".
My first question is whether the Secretary of State will introduce these regulations. Are the Government making a firm commitment to bring in regulations to introduce this concession which, in principle, is extremely welcome, or are they saying only that they may do so?
If the answer to that question is reassuring, which I hope it will be, then I shall ask the Minister why, if he means "shall" he says "may". Why do these Bills perpetually give the Secretary of State weasel let-outs in every direction when the Government will not, for one moment, consider giving them to anyone else? Why should the Secretary of State be free to escape from every obligation when everyone else is bound? That does not seem fair to me. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Government made it clear in the recent White Paper Improving Child Support that they intend to make compensation payments to parents with care who are in receipt of family credit or disability working allowance if their maintenance assessment is reduced as a result of changes in child support legislation.
In April, your Lordships approved a number of changes to the child support regulations; and because those changes led directly to reductions in many maintenance assessments, we have, in advance of this Bill, been compensating parents with care who have lost out as a result.
There will, however, be circumstances in which it will not be appropriate to make such payments. For example, we do not think that it would be right to compensate parents in the same way if a departure order leads to a reduction in their maintenance. Departure orders merely allow some discretion to Child Support Agency officials to take account of certain aspects of parents' circumstances for which the normal formula does not allow. So a reassessment as a result of a departure order is different from a reassessment flowing from changes in the rules governing the maintenance formula.
Similarly, there may be circumstances in the future where a change in the legislation is needed to restore the policy intention; and it may not be appropriate to make compensation payments in those circumstances. So we need to leave ourselves free to look at future changes as they are made and to decide then whether or not it is appropriate to make compensation payments. Further compensation exercises will be triggered when we decide, in relation to subsequent changes in legislation, that compensation is warranted. This will then be achieved through a provision in the legislation which introduces the changes.
I assure the Committee that it is the Government's intention to compensate parents where maintenance assessments are reduced by a specific change in the

241
legislation which introduces a clear change of policy. We intend to lay general regulations under this clause in the autumn setting out the basis of how compensation payments will be calculated and administered.
Although I may not accept the "may" and "shall" exchange, I hope that my assurance will reassure the noble Earl of my intentions in that regard.
Earl Russell: I am afraid that it does not. Together with my Amendment No. 96, the Minister has answered Amendment No. 97. I hope that it may be convenient to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the Minister to deal with those amendments grouped together.
On Amendment No. 97 I intended to refer to what the Government told the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee; namely, that there is no commitment to compensate for all changes which could reduce maintenance payments. The Minister has confirmed that but I do not understand why not. We are dealing with subsistence. There is no reason why some changes should result in a guarantee to maintain the subsistence and some should not.
The Minister said that he would offer compensation for any specific change in policy. He then said that he would not offer compensation for the effects of a departure. He seems to have contradicted himself because on 23rd January he told the House that the introduction of departures was a significant and specific change of policy for which the Government deserved very great credit.
The Minister really cannot have it both ways. Is the introduction of departures a change of policy? If it is not, why did he and his honourable friend Mr. Burt spend so long telling both Houses that a departure was something which could never ever, under any circumstances, be allowed? It really illustrates the principle that "never" is a short time in politics.
It seems to me rather more important, as the Minister has admitted that compensation will not be given in all circumstances, to ask what other circumstances apart from departures will not be covered. It is a yawning pit. As an Englishman, I cannot help wondering whether the Minister is planning a new battle of Bannockburn. Although, as I said, I am an Englishman, I speak as a descendant of Robert Bruce.
It is most unfortunate. It is not at all clear what is being put before the Committee. If they can depart in one circumstance, they can do so in two; if they can do it in three, then they can do it in four. Indeed, they could even decide to do so in all cases individually. Is there any circumscribing principle covering the limits which the Government put on that doctrine? I should like to hear what that is before we leave the matter.
Lord Carter: Amendments Nos. 98 and 100 are tabled in my name. I should prefer to deal with those separately, because we are now dealing with Amendments Nos. 96 and 97. I believe that the noble Earl put his arguments extremely well. The noble Earl referred to a change of policy which is not a change of policy. I believe that something called the Scott Inquiry has been dealing with that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am asked to respond to the points made by the noble Earl and also to bring in Amendment No. 97 in my response. The latter amendment simply removes the words "in prescribed circumstances and". I know that it may sound like splitting hairs, but the point about the changes that we have made to the departure order—which we believe are significant—is that they may or may not necessarily lead to any changes in the reduction of maintenance. They are departures from the formula and, as I said, they allow important discretions to the Child Support Agency official. Of course, if the absent parent does not agree, then he can appeal. Indeed, both parents can appeal but, by and large, I suspect that it would be the absent parent who would wish to appeal to the tribunal in the case of departure orders. They are there in order to ensure that in very special circumstances there can be a deviation, an alteration, from the formula.
That is the point that I am trying to make about departure orders. They are akin to a change in circumstances in the absent parent's position and/or the position of the parent with care. There is no intention to compensate family credit claimants for the normal variations in maintenance. I can see the noble Earl's point if he is saying that that should apply in the first instance due to the change that we have made. But then, when the system is up and running, a departure may be made as the result of changes to the position of the absent parent or the parent with care who makes such a request. In those circumstances, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to make the changes that we propose ought in other circumstances to be made to family credit.
Earl Russell: Is family credit a benefit which is means tested or is it morals tested?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, it is not morals tested. However, as the noble Earl knows, the point is—and we shall come to deal with this in more detail later when we come to the related, although not linked, amendments—that family credit is paid for six months. In fact, quite considerable changes can already take place during that period. No change is made either up or down to the level of family credit; for example, someone could find himself earning more money than he earned on the day of application for family credit but he would continue to receive the benefit at that level until the end of the period, when it would be recalculated. Of course, conversely, he could receive less money and the opposite situation would occur. The key to family credit—it is an important key—is the six-month period over which it operates. We have to be careful about departing from that important principle in family credit.
That is the general position on family credit. It is there for six months. What we are proposing to do in the Bill is to make an exception to that position in the case of changes which come directly from our legislation and impinge directly on the parent with care. We believe that the departure system may or may not impinge on someone—it will, of course, always be there—whereas the changes that are made to the income of the parent with care will run on. A departure system will continue to be there and we do not propose that we

243
should make changes to family credit in the future just because an application for a departure is upheld and the amount of money coming to the parent with care is reduced. I rather hoped that there might be some small welcome for what we are doing in this regard. I appreciate that people would like us to go further, but I am afraid, for the reasons I have explained; I do not believe that we can.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord has not answered what was perhaps my most important question. Is there any circumscribing principle at all limiting the Minister's right to decide circumstances in which compensation will not be paid, or is this right arbitrary and unlimited? I would like an answer to that question as it will be important to a great many people.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I sometimes have quite considerable difficulty in getting my mind round the questions that the noble Earl asks me because I live in a reasonably simple world and he seems to live in an extraordinarily complex world. The position is as I have outlined. We have taken this power. I wish I could find my copy of the Bill. However, everyone else has a copy and they can read the provision. I thank the Deputy Chairman for handing me the document. Unfortunately, it is not much of an advance.
As I said, we have taken this power in order to be reasonable and helpful in the changes we are making by legislation. We will prescribe the situations where we consider there ought to be changes made to family credit. I do not wish to try to see into the future and decide what other circumstances may or may not arise. That takes us over the issues which the noble Earl has gone over time and again. I and my honourable friends in the other place have made it clear what we intend to do with the power we are taking in this Bill at the present time. As I have said on a number of occasions, I do not have a crystal ball to see in what way it may or may not be used by Secretaries of State in the future.
Earl Russell: Is the Minister really telling me that Secretaries of State can use this to do absolutely anything they like; that they could withdraw the whole effect of the clause if they chose? If that is so, I find that a deeply improper method of legislation. If it really is the case that the Secretary of State can do whatever he likes, he is absolutely without control. Here we have the merging of a constitutional principle about the drafting of legislation with a practical principle of social security about the welfare of individuals who are short of food. This is an amendment about people who need to eat. They do not need to eat one bit the less because the Minister wants discretion. I ask the opinion of the Committee.
9.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 96) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 48.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Carter, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Palmer, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Ezra, L.

Russell, E.[Teller.]

Seear, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Howe, E.

Annaly, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller]

Astor, V.

Total: 26

Balfour, E.

Kimball, L.

Barber, L.

Long, V.

Blaker, L.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McConnell, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Middleton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dudley, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrers, E.

Rawlings, B.

Flather, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Goschen, V.

Strange, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Torrington, V.

Hacking, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Wakeham, L.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.36 p.m.
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): If Amendment No. 98 is agreed to, I have to inform the Committee that I cannot call Amendment No. 99.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 19, line 9, leave out ("compensation or partial") and insert ("full").
The noble Lord said: As Amendment No. 97 has not been moved—it was grouped with Amendments Nos. 98 to 100—I shall move Amendment No. 98 and speak to Amendment No. 100. I shall leave the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to deal with Amendment No. 99.
Amendment No. 98 is intended to ensure that family credit or disability working allowance claimants are fully compensated for the reduction in the maintenance assessments which are brought about by amendments to the legislation.
The White Paper suggests compensation for half of the reduction in the assessment for the remainder of the benefit award. But we feel that that is inadequate. Even with 50 per cent, compensation, because the level of family credit or disability working allowance is set for a period of six months and cannot be reviewed during that time, claimants with awards over £15 a week will be worse off than if they had never expected any maintenance.
The Minister dealt with the six months' point on the last amendment. However, it is important in the context in which I move the amendment.
The point was not debated in another place. We wish to press the Government for full compensation for all low income persons with care. If full compensation was defined as being equal to the reduction in the maintenance assessment, I am advised that the estimated cost would be an extra £1 million in 1995–96.
The effect of Amendment No. 100 is similar: that no family credit or disability working allowance claimant ends up worse off than they would have been without any CSA assessment. It is calculated that 70 per cent, is the rate at which the benefits are withdrawn as income rises. This is the group of people which the Government aim to encourage—the parents in low waged work. Those people are already losers as a result of their maintenance assessment being reduced. That will not be reinstated by recalculation of the benefit at the end of the six month award.
Compensation of 70 per cent., if agreed, would never mean that parents with care end up by gaining overall as a result of the reduction in their maintenance assessment. However, it would ensure that no claimant for family credit or disability working allowance would end up worse off than if he had been assessed at the reduced rate of maintenance at the time either of the benefits were calculated.
It is a complicated point. I think the Minister will understand the point we make. The issue relates to the previous amendments. However, the amendment deals with the issue from a slightly different direction. I shall be interested to hear the Government's response. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Amendment No. 98 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my Amendment No. 99 are identical, for all practical purposes. If there is any reason for distinguishing between them, it would be purely drafting. I cannot imagine what it would be, but if the Minister has a preference I am sure that neither the noble Lord, Lord Carter, nor I would argue against it.
Amendment No. 100 is obviously a fallback position. It would be better than nothing, assuming that we had lost both the other two in the Lobby. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will agree that it is only if we cannot possibly win either of the others that we will settle on Amendment No. 100.
We are dealing here with people having enough to eat. We are also dealing with the fact that people's outgoings are normally proportional to their income. If they are on a very low income, the proportion may be tight, so suddenly withdrawing a large proportion or even a significant proportion of their income will cause
246
a considerable shock to the family's economic system. For example, it may interfere with their ability to pay their fares to go to work.
It also rather defeats the purpose of the concession embodied in Clause 24. I said that the Government were playing the Old Man of Thermopylae. On 23rd January I was pleased when I heard that they were making the concession but it was not until I saw the way that they had done it that I realised that my pleasure had been premature and I am now sorry.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: To a certain extent we must retrace our steps, but for completeness, especially in the record, it is probably worth doing that and I hope that the Committee will bear with me.
Clause 24 provides for the payment of compensation to persons with care in receipt of family credit or disability working allowance who suffer a reduction in their maintenance assessment as a result of changes in the child support legislation. If a person with care is in receipt of income support, that benefit can be increased immediately to balance any reduction in the amount of maintenance that they receive. Similarly, housing benefit and council tax benefit can be increased by 65 per cent, and 20 per cent, respectively of the amount of the reduction.
Family credit and disability working allowance, however, cannot be increased in this way. One of the most important features of the benefits is that they are payable at a fixed rate for 26 weeks at a time, based on the person's income at the time that they claim. I do not believe that anyone disputes that the great advantage is that it gives the claimant a secure source of income for the six months, even if his or her other income should increase.
However, it also means that the benefit cannot be increased to take account of a drop in other income such as maintenance. So in the desire to have a fixed six-month period, there is the inevitable consequence that there could be variations in both directions which the family credit does not take into account.
Normal fluctuations in maintenance are, I contend, similar to fluctuations in earnings or other income and therefore do not warrant special arrangements. However, we decided that there is a special case where a reduction in the amount of maintenance that a person receives is the direct result of a change in the child support legislation. The clause therefore provides for persons with care who are in receipt of either family credit or disability working allowance to receive compensation payments.
It is necessary because of the technicalities involved to have a power to prescribe the detailed circumstances in which compensation will be payable. The Committee will have the opportunity to debate the regulations in due course. We have already been making compensation payments extra-statutorily to those parents with care whose maintenance assessment was reduced as a result of last April's regulations. They have been paid on the same basis as we have set out in this clause and we propose to set out in regulations.
We intend to provide for the compensation to be at the rate of 50 per cent, of the reduction in the maintenance assessment. For many parents with care on

247
family credit, that formula will provide full compensation for their actual financial loss. Indeed, some will be over-compensated.
In proposing compensation by this route we are seeking to strike a balance. There is no direct connection between the level of the maintenance assessment and the level of maintenance taken into account in the family credit award, except that the amount taken into account cannot exceed the amount of the maintenance assessment at the time that family credit is claimed. The amount taken into account for family credit is based on the actual maintenance in payment in the period before the award. That is the first important point. The other important point that is worth making is that there is a £15 disregard which Members of the Committee should bear in mind when they do the arithmetic regarding the consequences of our proposal.
If compensation were based on the actual loss of benefit, over 40 per cent, of parents would not be assisted, even though they would have lost maintenance. For the majority—some 33 per cent.—that is because the maintenance received is less than the £15 disregard. The remainder, some 8 per cent., would not be assisted because they already receive the maximum family credit for their type of family. A compensation system based on the maintenance assessment is the only way to address their loss of income.
In the majority of cases the maintenance assessment is higher than the amount taken into account in the family credit assessment or than the parent with care's actual income from maintenance. There is also the question of timing: because family credit is paid at a fixed rate for six months, some parents will begin to receive maintenance in that time, which will lift them off family credit altogether when the next benefit is reassessed. When payment is first made, those parents on family credit will be what I might describe as gainers for the remainder of the six months until the six-month period for reviewing family credit comes up.
I appreciate that the rate of 70 per cent, is intended to reflect the fact that the effect of the taper in family credit is that reductions in income are generally compensated at the end of the award period by an increase in family credit to the extent of 70 per cent, of the reduction. But as I have pointed out, the majority of family credit awards take into account much less maintenance than the maintenance assessment itself. So even compensating at 70 per cent, of the reduction is giving much more than could be received in increased benefit.
Taking all those factors together, we took the view that there was no simple way to compensate exactly for losses suffered. But it was clear to us that compensation at the rate of the full difference between the old and new maintenance assessments would be over-generous. In some cases, the proposed 50 per cent, rate will provide full compensation for the financial loss. In others it will be less than the loss, and in some it will be more. The issue is complicated.
I have some interesting arithmetic here which I think I will resist the temptation to share with the Committee at this time of night and perhaps without an overhead projector or a blackboard (if anybody uses anything as
248
old-fashioned as a blackboard). In the circumstances we believe that our proposal strikes a fair balance. I hope, with that rather complicated explanation, the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: While the noble Lord, Lord Carter, decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps I may intervene. The Minister's arithmetic has in some ways assisted us. I am grateful to him for the amount of time that he took to explain it, which was helpful. However, it also illustrates how reliance on a formula tends to conflict with any genuine concern with individual cases. The Minister said that some would benefit and some would lose. There is no attempt to judge a case on its merits.
Another matter puzzles me. The Minister announced a 50 per cent, formula according to which the payments operate. If that is the Government's intention, it is at least clear. But why did they not say that in the Bill? Then we should have known where we were, and, had we so wished, we should have been able to put down an amendment to change 50 per cent, to 60 per cent, or 70 per cent., or even perhaps 40 per cent. This is another example of the way in which the reliance on delegated legislation must diminish parliamentary control. This Government keep on talking about parliamentary sovereignty. In fact, their practice is coming near the point where it puts the very survival of Parliament in danger. I really do wish that they would think about their drafting before it is too late. They believe that they make the law and we rubber-stamp it. If that is a correct understanding, what are we all doing here at this time of night?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will not object if I respond. I had a small chortle at the rubber stamp. If it is such, it is not an easy rubber stamp to operate, I can assure the noble Earl. On occasions this Session it has proved a quite impossible one.
Let me reply to the noble Earl in this manner. My observations should not be read in any way other than as a general comment. I am not in any way suggesting any thoughts on the matter. Starting at 50 per cent.—let us say for the sake of argument that the Government decided in the future that it was not working in the way in which they had intended or hoped that it would work. There is the availability in regulation to make a change: 60 per cent, or 40 per cent., whichever way the change might go. Parliament in general, both Houses, would be able to give their views, although I fully accept all the arguments put forward by the noble Earl about the way in which this Chamber has to give its view.
I am not entirely sure about this matter. Indeed, I may have second thoughts about it. The noble Earl mentioned the inflexibility of the formula. In fact, the problem that we have here is not the formula as we are using the word this evening—namely, the Child Support Agency formula. The problem is the way in which we have correctly (I think I am right in saying that for everybody) devised family credit to make it a payment

249
which lasts for six months and it gives some security and constancy. That is the difficulty when it comes to working out compensation.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister, not for the content but for the fullness of the answer that he gave to me and also to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He said that many parents would receive full compensation. Obviously, by inference, that means that not all parents will receive it. He said that others would be over-compensated.
There is one thing on which I should like to congratulate the Minister. As I sat here making notes, I thought back over the years in which I have been involved in social security. At least the Minister has not used the phrase used by so many of his predecessors in this Chamber; namely, swings and roundabouts. When that phrase was used, I always had to point out that it has not statistically been proved that swings do equal roundabouts. But we shall have to read this debate very carefully. Perhaps I may say to the Minister as kindly as I can that it was one of those answers that I am sure read much better in the original Sanskrit. It was very complicated. We must look at it and take advice.
We do not agree with the arithmetic. I have many figures with me but I shall refrain from giving them to the Committee at this time of the evening and at this stage of the Bill—more particularly in the absence of my noble friend Lady Hollis, who has a previous engagement this evening. She is a great expert in these matters and I know that she wants to come back to the Minister on decoupling and the period of six months. She has some interesting ideas on that and we might have to come back to the matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 99 to 101 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 19, leave out line 33.
The noble Earl said: This amendment proposes to delete from the Bill the line in Clause 24:
'"relevant time' has such meaning as may be prescribed".
Some members of the committee remember the case in the Jobseekers Bill, in which there were terms which had "such meaning as may be prescribed". The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked to be told of any cases in which those words had been used in previous legislation. I understand that he is still waiting for his answer.
But, thanks to the efficiency of the Minister here, I am not still waiting for my answer. I am grateful to him for his trouble. I do not know that I am entirely reassured, though. The Minister has come up with two previous examples. The first is from paragraph 4 of Schedule 4A to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which provides that a lease for the elderly is excluded from the operation of the relevant part of the Act in certain circumstances. The term "lease for the elderly" has such meaning as may be prescribed.
The other example comes from Section 117(2) of the Reserve Forces Act 1980, which prescribes that the term "active list" shall have such meaning as may be
250
prescribed. In fact, so far as the Minister and his staff discovered—I am sure that they have done their best—there are only two previous examples in all legislation. That seems to me to be two too many.
But even having said that, one could understand where the meaning of the terms "lease for the elderly" and "active list" may change. But putting into a Bill the phrase that such words will have,
"such meaning as may be prescribed",
is simply using a control over language to acquire a control over legislation which did not appear in the original draft. That is most improper. It is a form of words which should not appear in any Act of Parliament. I should like to know whether the Minister can convince me to the contrary. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I support the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on this point. Subsection (2) contains definitions of "child support legislation", "compensation payment", "qualifiying person" and "reduction"; but there is no definition of "relevant time".
The Government have gone to the trouble, on the face of the Bill, to define carefully those other terms but they then introduce this catch-all,
"relevant time' has such meaning as may be prescribed".
If the Government have gone to the trouble of defining those other terms, why is it so hard to define the two words "relevant time"?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I support Amendment No. 102. The two measures which are to be construed together are both in substance and in form the very quintessence of bureaucracy, and this is the quintessence in legislative form: "X shall have such meaning as may be prescribed".
What are we here for except to express in the law the words by which the citizen is to be bound? Yet we are now asked to agree that a word shall have such meaning, "as may be prescribed". I care not how many precedents have been infiltrated by this department or any other into our legislation. It is high time that we brought that practice to an end.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The words "relevant time", which the amendment would prevent us from prescribing, appear in the definition of "qualifying person". They enable us to provide that a person will qualify for compensation only if he or she had a maintenance assessment at some earlier date. The earlier date is the "relevant time", and that is eminently sensible.
Having the power to prescribe the "relevant time" enables us to pinpoint the date on which we require the person to have had a maintenance assessment to be a "qualifying person". Without that power, the provision is left blowing in the wind.
As the Committee knows, our intention is to base the compensation payments on the reduction in the maintenance assessment brought about by the change in the child support legislation. We therefore need to provide for the starting point to be the maintenance assessment in force when the child support legislation

251
changes take effect. We therefore intend to define the "relevant time" as the day before the revised maintenance assessment takes effect.
That is our clear intention. I hope the noble Earl does not think that there is anything suspicious or underhand about that. Perhaps I may go on to say that, if a future government decided to pay compensation on the actual loss of family credit or disability working allowance, then it would be necessary—as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, invited me to do earlier—to define "relevant time" in relation to the date of the family credit or DWA claim. There are options as to how to define "relevant date" according to what one wishes to achieve. I have explained what we wish to achieve and what that relevant date will be in our case. I hope that I have also explained, rather unusually perhaps, to the noble Earl—the noble Earl may think it unusual for me to look into the crystal ball to envisage what future governments may or may not do—that in this case it is rather easy to consider another possible scenario dealing with the same problem, especially as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has raised it this evening. With that explanation I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw the amendment and noble Lords will not feel that I am asking for some unnecessary and draconian power for the Secretary of State.
Lord Carter: As I understand the Minister's answer, he seems to be making it easier for a future Labour Government to make changes, which I think is an extremely good idea.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for that point, which brings to our attention one of the fundamental issues about this kind of provision. I have no argument with the Minister's definition of what he actually intends to do. If he had put that into the Bill we would not have argued with it. I entirely accept what he said in his letter:
"But I can assure you that such powers in the Child Support Bill have been drafted with no such purpose".
He means no sinister purpose. But the Minister and all who advise him must get used to the fact that when we look at what is in effect a delegated power like this we are not only concerned with the immediate policy intention. The immediate policy intention may be entirely acceptable. What we look at are the vires. We look at what may be done with this power at some time in the future by some government in the future.
We never assume that any government are trustworthy, even if we were in charge. No one is trustworthy in office. Power needs control. What I look to see is whether there is any circumscription in the vires. Whenever I find, "This word has such meaning as may be prescribed", there I see something where there is no limitations in the vires. It is an absolutely unacceptable method of legislation at all times. The only way I can explain to the Minister that it will be so is to ask for the opinion of the Committee.
10.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 102) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 29.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kilbracken, L

Carter, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Palmer, L.

Dubs, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Seear, B.

Ezra, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

Long, V.

Barber, L.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

McConnell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lore Chancellor.]

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rawlings, B.

Dudley, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Goschen, V.

Trumpington, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Wakeham, L.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.10 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 19, line 47, 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: I shall try to be brief in moving this amendment. However, it raises an important point. In the report on the Child Support Agency by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, paragraph 34—I shall not read out the whole of it—dealt with what it described as,
"many other cases of serious distress arising from the maladminstration of the CSA. It is quite within the power of the DSS to apply greater discretion in its consideration of 'worry and distress' payments and to remove the current requirement of medical certification before any such payment is made".
Its recommendation which, as your Lordships will know, appears in heavy type at the end of each paragraph stated:
"We recommend that the DSS consider discretionary payments for 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".
That recommendation is repeated in paragraph 28 of the Government's response to that document, but it is completely ignored in their answer. I am sure that the

253
Minister has a good reason for that, but so far as I can see, the Government make no attempt to answer the recommendation that was made in the previous report. They have reprinted it—they have had to because it appears in heavy type and recommendations are always reproduced with the Government's response—but, so far as I can see, they have completely ignored it.
Given the acknowledged poor performance of the CSA in its first two years, the amount of compensation that has been paid out as a result of that poor performance has been derisory. The Parliamentary Ombudsman's report documented the problems being caused for families by the poor service being provided by the CSA. The Select Committee's report, from which I have just quoted, severely criticised the DSS for the limitations placed on its compensation scheme. Those limitations were the requirement for medical certification or proven malice from officials. As I have said, the committee used the phrase "worry and distress", which we have repeated in the amendment.
We should all prefer the problem to be solved by a dramatic improvement in the performance of the CSA but, if we go by the figures which appeared in the press today to which I referred earlier, that will be a long time acoming. If that were to happen—if the performance were to improve—the amounts to be paid out under the compensation scheme would not be great. However, while the problems remain at their current level, we feel that CSA clients must be guaranteed some form of compensation, otherwise pressure will remain to keep the ex gratia scheme very limited. The severity of the administrative problems and errors are illustrated by the fact that the ombudsman had insufficient staff to investigate all complaints against the CSA and therefore will be restricting investigations to issues which he has not yet covered.
As I have said, I should like an answer from the Minister if the amendment is not to be accepted. Perhaps he could also say why the recommendation which was made by the Select Committee was completely ignored in the Government's response. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, seeks in this amendment to provide statutory provision for compensation payments in circumstances where a person has been caused financial loss, worry or distress as a direct result of the activities of the agency.
The amendment is framed by way of an addition to Clause 24. It would, in fact, have been more appropriately placed as a new clause since Clause 24 does not deal with compensation related to the administration of child support. That is a technical point and I will not rest my case on it.
Members of the Committee will no doubt be aware that, notwithstanding that child support legislation makes no provision for compensation payments of the type referred to in the amendment, there are nevertheless administrative mechanisms for compensation to be considered in appropriate cases. If someone considers that they have suffered a financial loss or undue delay
254
as a result of an action or omission on the part of the agency, they can contact the agency, which will deal with cases on an individual basis. This is in line with practice which operates elsewhere in the Department of Social Security.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised the issue of the ombudsman's criticism. The Permanent Secretary at the department made it clear in his evidence to the PCA Select Committee that the agency now operates general DSS arrangements for compensating actual financial loss. He made it clear that special payments were considered where it was clear that agency error had resulted in an actual financial loss to a customer.
The Department of Social Security special payments 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. Compensation may be considered where an individual has experienced undue delay or suffered an actual financial loss as a result of official error. Compensation arrangements specifically designed to cover the work of the agency are being developed and it is hoped to introduce them in the near future. There are no plans to introduce these arrangements on anything other than a discretionary ex gratia basis. We do not consider that specific provision needs to be made in primary legislation.
Were a compensation scheme to be placed on a statutory basis, it would be necessary to regulate, I believe at some length, for the detail of the scheme. That would inevitably limit the extent to which it was possible to deal flexibly with the individual circumstances of each case. We believe this flexibility to be a great advantage of the current arrangements and therefore consider the introduction of a statutory scheme to be unnecessary as it would not in itself guarantee a better standard of redress to customers of the agency.
I turn to the issue of compensation for worry and distress. I should make it clear, as did the Permanent Secretary yesterday in his evidence to the PCA Select Committee, that the Government do not accept that compensation should be paid in all cases to those falsely identified as absent parents. I imagine that that is the circumstance in which the worry and distress arises. Maintenance inquiry forms clearly state that they are issued on the basis of information provided to the agency by the parent with care. Absent parents are invited to contact the agency for information if they believe that they have been incorrectly identified as an absent parent.
We do not accept the need for a statutory right inside the child support legislation to receive compensation on those grounds because the right to compensation already exists under common law. I hope that with those explanations of what we are doing in the agency to address at least some of the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—although I accept not others—he will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Seear: Once again, the Minister does not appear to understand why we are so dissatisfied with a great deal of this legislation. He is making the department judge and jury in its own case. That has

255
happened again and again and for a long time. It is part of what years ago Lord Hewitt called the new despotism. It is by now becoming a long-established, long-toothed despotism. We wish to have embedded in the legislation a right to compensation and not compensation graciously given by the department which is inflicting the injury. That is totally unacceptable.
Lord Carter: The Minister's answer was not very satisfactory. He read out almost word for word the answer which the Government gave at paragraph 29 of their response to the Select Committee which dealt with the recommendation that financial compensation should be paid to those identified falsely as absent parents through the maladministration of the CSA. The point that I made was that the report then went on to deal with the other recommendation about discretionary payments for worry and distress. That was ignored completely in the Government's response. It has not been ignored by the Minister but he certainly skirted round it to some extent by concentrating on a point which I did not make about absent parents.
I do not wish to labour the point now. It would perhaps have been better to draft this as a new clause. We are not happy about this. There is still anxiety about worry and distress. While the Minister spoke, I was trying to look at the evidence which Sir Michael Partridge gave to the Select Committee, and in part he was fairly po-faced. I shall read it again, but we shall wish to return to this matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Payment- of benefit where maintenance payments collected by Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Regulations and orders]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 21, leave out lines 20 and 21.
The noble Earl said: I hope that the Minister will succeed in assisting me a little on this amendment. I hope that the two previous Divisions may have done a little to concentrate his mind. But in order to give a satisfactory reply he will need to understand what it is that he is being asked about.
Clause 26, to which the amendment relates, deals with the power to make regulations and control of statutory instruments. It deals with what is affirmative and what is negative. The lines which I propose to delete state:
"Any such power includes power…to provide for a person to exercise a discretion in dealing with any matter".
If those words mean what they appear to mean, the whole Bill is redundant and we have been wasting our time for two days. Therefore, I wish to ask the Minister about the vires conferred by those words.
I do not wish to hear about the policy intention because, especially in the context of the CSA, I am certain that it will not be the last policy intention and that we shall have more changes. I want to know what is the vires. What can be done under this clause and,
256
even more important, what cannot be done? Is there any way in which this power is circumscribed? Is there anything which a future government cannot do under this clause and, if so, what can they not do? What limiting principle is it governed by? If it is not governed by any limiting principle, I do not see any point at all in passing parliamentary legislation.
There must be some sort of control. We certainly cannot accept that executive power should be capable of doing absolutely whatever it likes; that it should have discretion to change the rules in the middle of the game and to give things to one person and to take them away from another entirely as it thinks fit. That is arbitrary power. That is what the rule of law and parliamentary government are supposed to prevent. Therefore, will the Minister tell me, please, how that power is circumscribed and by what principles? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may deal first with the actual provision. The provision to which the amendment relates is a normal one and is parallel to a provision already in the 1991 Act. I know that that does not carry any weight with the noble Earl. Indeed, I believe that I have understood that much, although according to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I have not understood much else. It will enable regulations made under what will become Section 10 of the 1995 Act, which deals with the child maintenance bonus, and Clause 24, which deals with compensation payments, to allow for a person to exercise discretion in a variety of circumstances. Therefore, it is not an unlimited power over the whole field. It is circumscribed as regards the two issues that I mentioned—that is, the clause dealing with the child maintenance bonus and with Clause 24 which deals with compensation payments.
As I mentioned, the power to exercise discretion is contained in the 1991 Act and in the Social Security Contribution and Benefits Act 1992. The power is not used extensively. However, it can prove useful in cases where it might not be possible to set out all considerations in advance. One of the great arguments that we had only yesterday—but it seems like over a week ago—was about whether legislation should just enunciate a few principles and then leave everything to the discretion of the people who run the system. Now I am being caught with the vice coming the other way when I want a little discretion. I see that the noble Earl wishes to intervene. Well I did say that the vice was coming the other way, so I give way.
Earl Russell: The Minister is significantly misrepresenting what we said yesterday. That misrepresentation illustrates the heart of the problem. We propose that general principles should be left to the discretion of the courts and not to the discretion of those who run the system. The difference is fundamental. If the Minister does not understand that, he cannot answer anything.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No one will be able to run any social security system if there is no discretion at all and if one is not allowed to have the matter outlined in regulations. All sorts of social security systems, including this one, would have to be run by the courts. I do not believe that that is a sensible

257
proposition, although, probably, I have misunderstood again. It seems to me that if the accusation applies to the Child Support Agency, it must apply to all the other benefit systems operated by the department, many of which are operated through regulations and also with an element of discretion.
I was trying to illustrate why we believe that the provision is necessary. I wanted to do so by considering the child maintenance bonus as introduced by Clause 10 of the Bill. As a general principle, people accrue a bonus through maintenance paid while they are receiving income support. When they move into work the bonus is paid in respect of all the maintenance received up to that point. We discussed some of the difficulties which might arise. It is possible that we shall need an element of discretion in its application. For example, a person with care was not receiving maintenance due while on income support perhaps because the absent parent was refusing to pay or perhaps he had appealed against the maintenance assessment. The person with care then moves off income support into work. At that point, the arrears are paid after the time limit for claiming the bonus had passed.
It would be reasonable to have a provision to allow an adjudication officer the discretion to treat those late payments in such analogous circumstances as if they had been paid on time and to accrue a bonus accordingly. Those were some of the issues which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, raised with me yesterday. If the proposed amendment were accepted, there would be no scope for regulations made under Clauses 10 and 24 to provide for a person to exercise discretion. The loss of flexibility appears to offer no advantage to any party.
I should like now to answer one of the noble Earl's questions in the latter respect. The power to exercise discretion is confined within the bounds of the regulation-making power in the Bill. It is not, therefore, an unfettered discretion. As we discussed on a number of occasions, any regulations have to come before Parliament—affirmative ones in one way and negative ones in another—and, therefore, the Executive is, at least to a certain extent, called to account and asked to explain any changes that it makes in regulations. Indeed, I presume that I will be asked to explain any regulations that are made in the first instance under those pieces of legislation—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does the Minister not recognise that there is a difference in parliamentary control whether the legislation is primary or subordinate?
10.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, of course; indeed I do. I clearly recognise the difference between primary and secondary legislation. I am not sure where that leads us. I believe that we could not enact all the legislation which we enact as regards the ways we attempt to run—dare I say it?—a fair system in this country of, say, social security. I am not sure that the noble Earl agrees with me that it is a fair system, but (hat is how we attempt to run it, and that is how I believe any government would attempt to run it; that is, primary
258
legislation followed by a great many regulations to operate a system. If I remember rightly, there are over 1,200 benefit offices dealing with many people with quite different circumstances. It is not easy to legislate for that in primary legislation.
We have had this debate a number of times in this Bill and on a number of occasions on the previous two Bills that I have piloted through this Chamber. I hope I have tried to explain to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, what we intend to do here and that it is not as unfettered a provision as he seems to think it is, just like all the other prescriptions we discuss which he seems to think give the Executive unfettered power. I have to tell the noble Earl that speaking as a member of the Executive I do not feel I have unfettered power.
Earl Russell: The Minister is not the first representative of an Executive to say that he does not feel he has unfettered power. King Charles I said in 1641, "I do not feel in myself any such excess of power". Those words are familiar. I accept it feels that way to the Minister; it does not necessarily feel that way to the rest of us. He is of course right; it is not a reassurance to us to say that it has happened before. He heard my noble friend Lady Seear refer just now to a long-in-the-tooth despotism. We hope it might at some time receive a departure direction. However, I appreciate the attempts the Minister has made to describe the circumscription of the vires. I hope to hear him say that it is confined to the regulation-making powers in this Bill. It is confined, I presume, in spite of the general wording, by its presence in this clause. That is one mercy. He said—if I heard him right—it was further confined to the child maintenance bonus and compensation. That restricts it a great deal further. What I cannot actually see, in words which are governed, as far as I can see, by the provision,
"Any power under this Act to make regulations or orders",
are any words there imposing this specific restriction. If the Minister could direct my attention to such words I would be grateful and I would find it extremely helpful.
The Minister says that we want a system with no discretion at all. Of course we do not. Like Lady Bracknell we say, "Discretion to do what, may I ask"? We want to see discretion governed by general principles and by vires which are circumscribed enough for us to understand what they mean. The Minister referred to discretion for an adjudication officer. That in many circumstances—we had a good few of them on the Jobseekers Bill—can be entirely acceptable, but he ought to remember that there is, in our eyes, a fundamental distinction between judicial and administrative discretion.
My noble friend Lady Seear just now used the phrase, "judge and jury in its own case". It is not the court's own case save only in the sense that it is hearing it. It does not have an interest in the decision. The Secretary of State regularly has an interest in the decision. That is the principal reason why we do not think that he should be trusted with the amount of discretion that he is claiming.
If our positions should at some future time be reversed, and should we be tempted by the arguments that the Minister is deploying now, I hope he will

259
remind us of these things that we are saying at the moment. People in office need to be reminded of what they said in Opposition, as we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, earlier this afternoon. Is the Minister in any position to assist me yet about the circumscription of the vires to the child maintenance bonus and to compensation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think I am. As regards Clause 26, the two regulations that we are discussing, and which I have mentioned, are the only two regulation-making powers brought in by this Bill. The other regulation-making powers we have discussed are insertions in the 1991 Act and are therefore controlled by the equivalent clause at the end of that Act.
Earl Russell: I am very relieved to hear it. Like Tom Lehrer, I find that there was a reason. That does just enough for me to save me from completing my hat trick, which I had not wanted to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Short title, commencement, extent etc.]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 22, line 40, leave out ("paragraph 1") and insert ("paragraphs 1 and 15 A").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 110 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 113.
These are minor, technical amendments which rectify omissions from the Child Support Act 1991. The Child Support Act currently refers only to Part I and Part III of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and does not indicate to which schedule the parts belong. The amendments make clear that it is Parts I and III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 which are amended.
The amendments also rectify a similar omission from the parallel amendment to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, where again the relevant schedule is not indicated.
I hope that the Committee will accept the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. Ill:
Page 29, line 33, at end insert:
(". In section 33 (liability orders), at the end add—
"(5) If the Secretary of State designates a liability order for the purposes of this subsection it shall be treated as a judgment entered in a county court for the purposes of section 73 of the County Courts Act 1984 (register of judgments and orders).").
The noble Lord said: I seem to be coming into my own in what I hope is the home stretch regarding amendments.
This amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to apply for a liability order to be entered in the register of county court judgments. I believe that it will encourage absent parents to pay their child support maintenance liability, particularly in cases where they are self-employed. Experience in other areas has shown that the threat of an entry in the register acts as an incentive for debtors to pay their liabilities because it can result in difficulties in obtaining credit for personal and business purposes.
Unfortunately, there are some absent parents who are reluctant to pay maintenance, and where the absent parent is self-employed there is a particular difficulty because it is not possible to issue a deduction from earnings order. If the absent parent does not co-operate in making payment, it is necessary for the Child Support Agency to apply to a magistrates' court for a liability order. That is then followed by distress action, or if this is ineffective by garnishee proceedings or charging orders in appropriate cases.
But that process can be protracted and some absent parents are deliberately unco-operative, using every means to avoid or delay for as long as possible payment of maintenance for their children. It is therefore right that we do everything we can to ensure that parents with care receive payment of maintenance promptly.
Liability orders will not be entered automatically in the register. When a liability order is granted, the absent parent will be warned that consideration will be given to making an application if the absent parent has not made arrangements to meet his liability within a reasonable period. This measure is not intended to be punitive, and absent parents can easily avoid the consequences by co-operating with the agency and making an agreement to pay maintenance and to contribute to clearing the arrears. But I believe that it is right that we do all we can to frustrate the deliberate attempts of a few absent parents to avoid meeting their responsibilities for their children. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I seek a little clarification. The Minister proposes to give judicial force to an administrative decision. He proposes to do something, as he said, which will affect people's credit rating. That is a matter on which damage done through an error may be with one for the remainder of one's life. So mistakes need to be carefully supervised, and any real injury done to someone ought to be a matter for compensation. Can the Minister tell me, first, whether that will be so?
Secondly, when the Secretary of State designates a liability order for entry as a judgment, will the court be bound automatically to register that judgment or will the courts have power to conduct a hearing to see whether the facts are as stated? It is the second question which is crucial. I need to hear the Minister's response. With such a power, the provision is acceptable. Without it, at this time of night it would put us in considerable difficulties.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hesitate to intervene at this hour. Indeed, I regard it as quite disgraceful that we are still sitting here after half past ten—again a very late

261
sitting on the second day of this Committee. Indeed, to conduct our business like this is virtually a frustration of your Lordships' legislative role in the constitution.
However, I have a question that I should like to ask the Minister because I confess that at the end of our discussion on the remedy of distress I was left in a state of considerable confusion. I realise that that was partly because I had not had time to master a letter which the noble Lord had written to me which I received only yesterday morning, although the matter had been raised on both the 1991 Act and at Second Reading of the Bill. The other reason was that the noble Lord was not at the time in a position to answer in relation to the specific matters to which I referred in Section 35 which seem to give the Secretary of State exceptional power as a distrainer—powers well over and above those that the ordinary creditor has.
I understood the noble Lord to tell me that there were, in fact, no exceptional terms: that what was in question was merely the procedure under the County Courts Act which is, I believe, that which is now referred to. If that is so, I ask again why Section 35 is necessary. Is there any other purpose than to give the Secretary of State exceptional powers of distress, well over and above what is enjoyed by the ordinary citizen? Why cannot the powers under the County Courts Act which are now to be invoked not sufficient?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The two debates are linked to a certain extent. I did my best to explain the answers to the points raised by the noble and learned Lord from the point of view of a layman in the law. I am sorry that he is still in doubt as to whether I gave him a proper answer. I shall certainly read again what happened earlier and if I feel it necessary I shall write to him in order to—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I did not complain when the noble Lord declined to answer in regard to the specific matters to which I drew attention. The question now is a perfectly simple general one: why is Section 35 necessary at all if the powers exist under the County Courts Act 1984?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for clarifying in my mind what I have no doubt was absolutely clear in everyone else's as to the question he asked. I shall go back a little in order to deal with the questions in order. We are discussing someone who has declined to pay over a considerable period and there is no other possible way of ensuring that he pays. Those are the circumstances.
As I said in my introductory remarks, in the first instance it will require a liability order from a magistrates' court. That order will have to exist and we have discussed it. The absent parent will know about the order and, if I recollect what I said earlier, he will have the right to make any points he wishes to the magistrate. If the magistrate grants that liability order, once again the absent parent will be given time to deal with the problem and prevent the next step being taken. In a way I am trying to help the noble Earl, to show that there are plenty of opportunities for the person to reach an agreement with the agency to prevent each step in the process from happening.
Earl Russell: The Minister is being helpful, but perhaps I may ask for crucial clarification. Has the court the right to refuse to enter?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We discussed what the court could or could not do earlier, but my understanding is that the court does not have the right to refuse to enter and that is the position. We have reached the stage where a liability order has been granted by the magistrates' court.
Baroness Seear: Is the noble Lord telling us that all the court can do is to rubber stamp a decision which has already been made? If not, what can it do that is different?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My problem is that, as the noble Baroness knows, I am not a practitioner in the courts. I have given my understanding of the position and, if in practice the position is different, I shall tell her.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Will the noble Lord forgive me again? He has not answered my question at all. He has merely repeated the argument that there is no need for distraint or distress if the debtor goes quietly. We have heard that argument and are not impressed by it.
However, that was not what I asked. If a liability order is issued in the magistrates' court and it is registered under the County Courts Act, why is there any necessity for Section 35, unless it gives remedies to the Secretary of State over and above the ordinary remedies under the County Courts Act? That is the question and I hope that the noble Lord has now received the answer.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for helping me. I was coming to the answer but I was trying to address two issues at the same time—the issue that he raised and the one raised by the noble Earl—and to look at the procedural point.
We have a liability order from the magistrates' court. The question is then: why do we need Section 35? The liability order from the magistrates' court will have the status of a county court judgment. Therefore there will be no role as such for the county court. The order would go directly on for registration. As I say, the liability order is not a county court judgment. If it were, this provision would not be necessary. Perhaps that answers the noble and learned Lord's question.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am afraid that it does not. Would not the county court order follow if it were applied for?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe I pointed out earlier that we are looking for a simpler proceeding, not one that takes time but one that will deal with the proceedings expeditiously. I explained that the order will have to go to the magistrates' court, so there will be a judicial stage, and the person involved will certainly know all about it at that stage. He will then have the opportunity to do something about it before it is moved to the next stage; namely, to be registered.

263
Because the order will have the status of a county court judgment, there will be no role for the county court. It would go directly for registration.
I can appreciate that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Earl do not particularly agree with what I am trying to do here; but I hope that I have explained the position. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: This gets worse and worse as it goes on. The Government are moving into the courts and using them to rubber-stamp an administrative decision. The point about a judgment is that it follows a hearing; and it follows consideration of evidence by an impartial authority. That is what the Secretary of State cannot pretend to be.
I have sympathy with the Minister not being a lawyer; after all, I am not either. Clearly a lot of questions have been raised tonight that were not foreseen and on which expert legal advice is needed. Would it be for the convenience of the House if the Minister were to defer moving this amendment until Report when he has been better advised about it? I hope that he will do that. It will be very difficult if he does not.
Lord Carter: I have listened to this debate with great interest. This is a point which I am sure could be answered in correspondence. I am satisfied with the Minister's answer. If the noble Earl decides to divide the Committee, I shall persuade my colleagues to vote with the Government.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is late, and we shall be in the same position at Report stage. I have tried to answer all the questions. In particular, perhaps I may clarify this point—I might have made a mistake earlier on. The magistrates' courts would always have a hearing before making a liability order. I hope, given that additional explanation, the noble Earl will accept that I am not withdrawing the amendment and that he must do what he feels he must do.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 30, line 8, after ("or") insert ("under").
The noble Lord said: This amendment clarifies an earlier amendment introduced during the Bill's passage in another place. The Bill, as it was originally introduced, made provision for regulations made under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 4B to be subject to affirmative procedures. However, prompted by an Opposition amendment to reconsider the schedule, we judged that it would be right for all regulations made under it to be approved by both Houses before coming into effect.
But it is possible that the current wording of the Bill could be interpreted to mean that affirmative procedures apply only to those regulations made under Part 1 of Schedule 4B, which was neither the Opposition's
264
intention nor ours. The proposed amendment will put the matter beyond doubt. I therefore ask the Committee to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. This point was raised by my colleagues in the other place. It was a sensible one. The Minister has now put the matter right.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 30, line 23, at end insert:
(" .—(1) In paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 5 (amendment of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975), after "Part I" insert "of Schedule 1".
(2) In paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 5, after "Part III" insert "of Schedule 1".
(3) In paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 5 (amendment of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975), after "Part I of insert "Schedule 1 to".").
The noble Lord said: 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 Amendment No. 114:
Page 30, line 23, at end insert:
("Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c. 5)
. In section 170(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (the Social Security Advisory Committee)—

(a) in the definition of "the relevant enactments", after paragraph (aa) insert—

"(ab) section 10 of the Child Support Act 1995;"; and

(b) in the definition of "the relevant Northern Ireland enactments", after paragraph (aa) insert—

"(ab) any enactment corresponding to section 10 of the Child Support Act 1995 having effect with respect to Northern Ireland;".").

The noble Lord said: As the Child Support Bill currently stands, issues arising from a payment of the child maintenance bonus could not be considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee. It was never our intention to exclude payments of the child maintenance bonus from the scrutiny of the committee. This amendment makes sure that issues arising from a child maintenance bonus payment made under Section 10 of the Child Support Act 1995 can be dealt with by the Social Security Advisory Committee. That is achieved by amending the definition of enactments given in Section 170(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, in relation to which the Social Security Advisory Committee can give advice and assistance, to include Section 10 of the Child Support Act 1995.
A similar change is made to the definition of the Northern Ireland enactments which are relevant to the Social Security Advisory Committee to add any Northern Ireland enactment corresponding to Section 10 of the Child Support Act 1995. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at four minutes before eleven o'clock.