asked Her Majesty's Government:

When they expect to meet their National Health Service waiting list targets.

My Lords, we are well on course to achieve the 100,000 reduction promised by the end of this Parliament. The latest data (for end February 2000) show that the number of patients on National Health Service waiting lists is now 70,000 below the level inherited.

My Lords, I am glad that the figures are near to hand. However, the 70,000 figure relates to three to four months ago. I should have thought that after 27,000 hours of work the early pledge of a 100,000 reduction would have been better achieved. Have the figures for the waiting list for the waiting list improved? These have doubled in the past three years. I heard the Leader of the House—

Question!

My Lords, I am coming to the question. I heard the Leader of the House comment that the NHS waiting list target was a blip. As a blip is a minor error or deviation, will the Minister agree that the figure was more of a flop than a blip?

No, my Lords; winter pressures had an impact on the waiting list figures, but we expected that. We made the pledge to reduce the figure by 100,000 during the lifetime of this Parliament. We are well on course to do that. Far from the figure being a blip, it demonstrates a consistent approach to tackling waiting lists over our three years in office.

My Lords, after three years it is clear that the Government's concentration on inpatient waiting lists has had the knock-on effect of a severe deterioration in out-patient waiting times. Those have doubled since the general election. Will the Government now abandon these pointless targets; or do they propose to ask Sir Richard Branson to deal with the matter?

My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong in his analysis. Of course we have to tackle out-patient waiting lists with the same determination as we tackle in-patient waiting lists. In the financial year between 1996–97 and 1998–99 the number of out-patients treated rose from 10,248,000 to 10,646,000. At the same time as making considerable inroads into the in-patient waiting lists, we have treated hundreds of thousands of addition al patients. That is a measure of our success.

My Lords, will the Minister assure us that there is no sense in which the number of more difficult cases on the waiting list has been reduced in order to deal with the easier cases? Can he stand at the Dispatch Box and tell us that there is no sense in which that has occurred?

My Lords, the position is clear. In the NHS, emergency cases are always treated first. Urgent treatments are always given priority, but, ultimately, matters rest on the individual clinical decisions of individual doctors.

My Lords, does not the Minister agree that waiting times, not the number of people wailing, is the better measure of the ability of the NHS to cope with the demands placed on it? Furthermore, is it not the case that since the Government took office the number of patients waiting for more than a year to see a consultant has risen from 30,100 to 51,900?

My Lords, if you tackle waiting lists, you tackle waiting times. I remind the noble Earl that, under the Patient's Charter, his party pledged to end waits of longer than 18 months. His government failed to succeed in that pledge. This Government are determined to tackle waiting lists and to speed up treatment for all patients. It is a key indicator in our modernisation of the health service.

My Lords, when the Government stop telling themselves that they are doing so much better than the previous government and think about the present and the future, are they satisfied with the figures which my noble friend Lord Howe has given? Can the Minister say whether they are correct and whether the Government are satisfied with them?

My Lords, as a result of the deficits and pressures on the health service when we came to office, there was at the beginning of our term, as the noble Earl suggested, an increase in the number of patients waiting for treatment. However, in the actions that the Government have taken, a determined effort has been made to reduce that. Therefore, we are very much on course to meet the target that we pledged at the last election.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, in view of the annual Local Authority Road Maintenance Survey published on 17th April, local authorities are receiving enough money to maintain their roads and road safety.

My Lords, the Government have reversed the cuts in maintenance expenditure made during the mid-1990s and are continuing to increase funding levels. Increases in funding take several years to be reflected in condition survey results. We are currently investigating ways to produce a more accurate estimate of maintenance need and are considering whether further funding should be made available as part of the current spending review.

Authorities fund road safety schemes from their transport single block allocations. Road safety priorities are set by authorities in their road safety strategies.

Funding levels in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the devolved administrations.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does he recall that in 1998 the then Transport Minister said:

"Maintenance of existing roads is our number one priority"?

How is it then that on local authority and on national roads the Government have spent less in the past three years than did the Conservative government in the three years previous to that? Is it not also the case that expenditure on local authority roads is set to fall in 2001–02, according to figures produced by the House of Commons Library?

Is the Minister further aware that 75 per cent of local authorities believe that there is a threat to the safety of road users due to the under-funding of road maintenance?

My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's final point, I accept that the conditions survey indicates a problem with a number of local roads, which in certain circumstances can pose a safety problem. However, I entirely refute the rest of his question. As regards local authority roads, the previous government in their last four years cut expenditure by 7 per cent whereas this Government have increased it by 11 per cent in the past three years.

As regards national roads, we have provided more additional funding for the Highways Agency maintenance. The noble Lord might be slightly misinformed about the level of Highways Agency expenditure. That is a common fault in debates because some of the expenditure has been transferred to the GLA and that does not appear in the figures.

Apart from that, we are continuing to increase both the capital funding of maintenance through the local transport plan and the amount allocated in the SSA calculations.

My Lords, as Britain is essentially a road-based economy, does the Minister agree that it is essential properly to maintain our road network?

My Lords, yes. However, I find myself in a cultural warp in that noble Lords are urging me to dig more holes in the roads. However, in a positive sense, the maintenance of roads is important and a proper programme is necessary for Highways Agency roads and local authority roads. Both are being addressed by the Government, but it takes time to feed through. Furthermore, we are still suffering from the cut in the mid-1990s.

My Lords, it is easy to blame this and the previous governments. However, does not the Minister agree that conditions last winter did more damage to the roads than can be remembered during the past 20 years? Rural roads—and I speak particularly about Norfolk where there are several thousand miles—are dehaunched, debanked and all the corners have disappeared. The amount of money required to make them passable by decent traffic in time for next winter is phenomenal.

Will the Government look further into the experiments being carried out in Norfolk on quiet lanes? For a start, I hope that many roads will be shut off and gated in order to stop heavy transport using roads that are unsuitable.

My Lords, according to the latest survey, rural roads are among those which have shown the worst decline in conditions. However, how the backlog is dealt with is a matter for the highways authorities concerned. We have provided additional money and are looking to the coming spending round to see whether further allocations are required. It is most important that if funds are allocated it is within a systematic timetable of maintenance, because it has previously been changed from one year to the next. The Government and a number of local authorities are taking initiatives in that respect.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the increased money which he claims has been allocated to roads—with regard to my local area I believe that that is probably the case in that the present levels provided by the Government are higher than those of the previous government—will make a real difference to the number of roads the technical life of which is now less than 20 years?

Yes, my Lords. If the maintenance programme is allocated according to priority in the way suggested by the UK pavement management system, which local authorities are now adopting, clearly there would be a reduction in the number of roads with the shortest apparent life. However, I suspect that the noble Baroness knows that serious technical arguments exist as to how we measure the outstanding life of roads and, therefore, the maintenance requirement.

My Lords, what steps is the Minister taking to measure the effect on road safety of roads in poor condition?

My Lords, as we spelt out in the road safety strategy which we issued a couple of months ago, among the most important contributors to road safety are the engineering and maintenance of roads. That is stressed in our latest guidance to local transport plans, and local authorities are well aware of and taking note of it. Therefore, clearly safety is mainstreamed into road design and road maintenance programmes.

My Lords, for the benefit of the House, can the Minister clarify the Government's position with regard to congestion charging schemes as a means of paying for increased road maintenance, such as has been proposed, I understand, within central London?

My Lords, the Transport Bill, which shortly will be before your Lordships' House, will provide local authorities with powers to impose road-user charging or workplace parking levies in their areas as part of an integrated transport policy, as agreed by the Government through the transport safety plan.

So far as concerns the position of London, a parallel provision was provided in the GLA Bill passed last year. Given the preparation time and the need to make improvements in public transport, it is unlikely that many of those schemes will come into play in as short a period as three or four years. However, they represent important powers for local authorities, 25 of whom have taken them up as well as, so I understand from matters over the past couple of days, the GLA. They could make a major contribution both to rationing traffic and to financing improvements in public transport and roads.

My Lords, can the Minister say what percentage of capital spending on roads by central government is spent on maintenance? Does he believe that that percentage is adequate, and should it not be constant?

My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord with regard to total capital spending. From recollection, total road spending would account for approximately 40 per cent of the Highways Agency spending. That is the only part that central government spends directly. With regard to the amounts that we give to local authorities, the revenue grant to local authorities has increased over the past three years by 11 per cent and the capital grants provided through the local transport plans have increased by 24 per cent. Of course, I refer to England. Noting the noble Lord who asked the question, the situation in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

My Lords, I note that my noble friend says that the Government are allocating funds on the basis of needs. Does that mean that they take no account of net per capita income in different parts of the country? On that basis, for example, London would receive nothing.

My Lords, I believe that that question raises slightly wider problems than local authority finance devolution and public finances generally. The roads formula is based on a mixture of needs and the general indicators for local authorities. We are examining the basis for the formula and for local government finance in general. However, in principle the money is allocated on the basis of a mixture of general needs and of roads requirements.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have had discussions with the Russian Government on Montenegro.

My Lords, we are in regular contact with Moscow on a wide range of issues, including Balkans affairs. There have been no recent talks specifically on the subject of Montenegro.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, did the discussions include the effect of the grain blockage that Serbia has imposed on Montenegro? How serious an effect do Her Majesty's Government feel that that has had on Montenegrin stabilities? As EU Finance Ministers are about to meet in order to authorise approximately 20 million dollars for programmes to support the 11th June elections in Montenegro, will we be supporting the move to send international observers to the Republic following that initiative?

My Lords, the blockade has obviously caused a great deal of difficulty. The FRY Government have imposed economic measures against Montenegro since late last year and the recent imposition of a complete economic blockade is a significant escalation. However, the EU assistance allocated to Montenegro aims to alleviate the pressures that the blockade has exacerbated. Obviously, the UK condemns those destabilising tactics on the part of Milosevic's regime, and we shall continue to be a strong supporter of Montenegro during its difficulties. However, one must remember that it remains an integral part of the FRY.

My Lords, given the extreme importance of indicating our support for democracy in Montenegro, will the Minister consider further the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about sending a supervisory team for the municipal elections on 11th June in Podgorica and Novi Herzog? Can she also say whether there is any advance with regard to the suggestion that I raised some time ago about the possibility of establishing an EU office in Montenegro in order to make it clear that we are concerned about the future and the stability of that small province?

My Lords, I can certainly say to both noble Baronesses that we shall look at the matter of sending observers. I cannot give a direct answer in relation to that matter, but we certainly understand the issue.

So far as concerns the second issue, your Lordships will of course remember that Montenegro remains an integral part of the FRY, which obviously creates certain difficulties for us. We have a number of outlets in Montenegro which presently are capable of keeping our bilateral relations alive. That situation will continue for the time being.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any lasting and viable solution to the formidable problems of the Balkans necessarily will involve Russia? Will she therefore confirm that, in the regular discussions between the Government and Russia, the Balkans and the long-term solutions to its problems feature highly?

My Lords, I can certainly reassure noble Lords that the Balkans and its problems are issues which continue to be raised between ourselves and the Russians. They are extremely important and obviously we are all trying to do as much as we can to ensure that the Balkans' security becomes a reality and not merely a hope.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the blockade already referred to is illegal in terms of international law? Can the matter be taken to the International Court of Justice? Will she also confirm that any further attempts by the Milosevic regime to alter the status quo in Montenegro will be firmly resisted, particularly by NATO.

My Lords, those issues are causing us great concern. We shall keep them under active observation and consider what best to do next. But the EU has done a significant amount to try to counteract the effect of the blockade by the increase in the assistance which we are giving to Montenegro which is, at present, the most helpful way forward.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have any plans to implement the recommendations of the 1991 Allen report that followed the Hillsborough, Clapham and "Marchioness" disasters, with regard to post-traumatic stress counselling for casualties of major disasters.

My Lords, although never formally endorsed by the Department of Health, the Allen report contained many helpful recommendations for a range of organisations. Some of those recommendations are now dated and we are considering whether new guidance is needed.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I am glad to know that something is being done, not only through government circles but also in other areas.

Is the Minister aware that, of the 70 per cent who are affected in major incidents, 40 per cent are still affected a year after the incident and that undiagnosed and untreated post-traumatic stress disorder causes great problems within the National Health Service? It bears human and economic costs.

I suggest that that is true not only of the large numbers affected by major disasters but also of individuals who are affected as victims of violent crime. Is the Minister satisfied with the progress made in the nine years since the Allen report suggested that there should be a nationally integrated service to provide post-traumatic counselling facilities? I understand that currently such provision is available mainly in London and the South East, with few facilities provided elsewhere, and that at present the waiting time for initial consultation, even in London, is 12 to 18 months. Given the sad inevitability of future major disasters, is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done in that regard?

My Lords, I accept that the noble Baroness has pin-pointed challenges which we face to ensure that a sufficient range of services is available. I assure her that we have established a work force action team that is looking closely at the work force issues which she has raised. I should say also to the House that we have established a national advisory group for psychotherapy which, in itself, is taking an overview of education and training requirements. I hope that that will help us to meet some of the challenges to which the noble Baroness referred.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that stress is a perfectly normal reaction to major disaster and that there is a growing body of opinion which suggests that the wholesale stress counselling of people involved with major disasters may be damaging?

Does my noble friend also agree that, if that is applied to the emergency services and to the Armed Forces, it can be enfeebling and can be similar to responding to a burglar alarm by simply switching off the alarm? We should take great care before we encourage the growth of what I see as a growing stress industry.

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for that point. Of course, one should not underestimate the severe trauma which many people have suffered as a result of some of the tragedies which have occurred in this country. In those cases, it is absolutely right that we should provide the most effective counselling and support service possible. But it is important that we should not push counselling onto people who do not want to receive it. We must accept that in many situations it is normal and appropriate to have emotions of fear and stress.

My Lords, I was present at Hillsborough and witnessed scenes which I hope never to see repeated in my lifetime. Is my noble friend aware that the pain and suffering of the bereaved were aggravated greatly by the media treatment of the disaster? Is he satisfied that the Allen report's six recommendations on media issues have been followed in respect of subsequent disasters? Does he not agree that those should be looked at again?

My Lords, I certainly believe that my noble friend is right to raise the issue of the media and the often intrusive impact which that may have on people who are suffering great trauma. However, as a general point, I believe that we have learnt lessons from disasters like Hillsborough. Certainly, as regards my own department, if one looks at the recent Paddington disaster, there is no doubt that the provision of health services and the coordination between emergency services were excellent. While there are always new lessons to learn, we must recognise that we have learnt from those tragedies. I believe that we have a very good system of emergency planning as a result.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Northern Ireland. That will be followed by my noble friend Lady Scotland who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on Sierra Leone.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday 11th May to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Jay of Paddington to be taken before the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, and also on Friday 12th May to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean to be taken before the European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)

My Lords, I appreciate that it is in no way the fault of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, but I wonder whether I could raise the problem of the confusing way in which these two debates have been scheduled on the Minute.

Noble Lords will have noticed that they were first scheduled in the Minute on 3rd May, when the defence debate correctly appeared as being the first business for next Friday, 12th May, with the Committee stage of the Bill in my name on the implications of withdrawal from the EU as the second business. I am sure that this is indeed the appropriate order and I make no complaint about it, and I am extremely grateful to the usual channels that my Bill should go ahead at all.

But the purpose of my intervention is to point out that in the Minute of 4th May, the batting order was reversed with my Bill appearing to be taken before the defence debate. My fear is that a number of noble Lords—and indeed, one has already spoken to me—will have therefore concluded that they could contribute to my debate and get away in good time for the weekend, probably well before lunch., and may have made arrangements to do so. We are, after all, talking about a Friday in May.

But now the batting order is to be reversed again, back to what it was when we started on 3rd May, which may cause further inconvenience and confusion with both those who wish to speak in the defence debate and in the European debate. So I merely wish to ask the noble Baroness whether she could do something, perhaps with the authorities of the House, maybe to arrange the use of italics, which I understand is quite widely used on the Minute in the other place, so we would all know where we stand on a Friday afternoon in May.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising those matters which, as he says, are particularly relevant to a Friday afternoon in May. I have an elaborate explanation in front of me which I am prepared to convey to the noble Lord in writing or indeed to repeat, but I fear that that may cause enormous exhaustion for the House.

Perhaps I may try to explain the matter in one sentence. The second part of the Motion, which refers to Friday, 12th May, which I have just repeated, corrects what was wrongly printed on the Minute and puts the business back in the order that it should be. I agree with the noble Lord that sometimes the complexities of what appears on the Minute and the reasons that it appears in the order that it does are somewhat difficult to follow. I agree with him that perhaps we need to pursue this issue. The noble Lord may care to raise this during the debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Peston on Wednesday, although I believe the Speakers' List is rather long. I believe that it is an issue which we could usefully address, if not then, perhaps on another occasion.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

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.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

MEANING OF "CHILD"

(" . In section 55(1) of the Child Support Act 1991—

(a) in paragraph (a), for "16" there shall be substituted "17", and

(b) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—

" (b) he is receiving full-time education (including education to the conclusion of a first degree course);".").

The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 2 deals with people who are older than those normally dealt with by the CSA. It extends the right to receive maintenance to the age of 17 or up to the conclusion of full-time education, whichever may be the later.

Where agreements for the maintenance of children are reached by negotiation between parents, it is perfectly common for them to include provision for the higher education of the child concerned. Indeed, that is a point I make from memory and with some gratitude. Where a system is imposed and where people have no right to negotiate and are required to accept particular terms willy-nilly, sometimes there is a feeling that when people have done what is imposed that no more should be required of them.

That is a threat to the continuing education of all children who come under the regime of the CSA. The extension from 16 to 17 is because we do not want children compelled to leave school in the middle of a school year. It is a regular academic convention, fairly well understood in negotiations between the academic community and the Government that financial support lasts until the end of whichever course is in progress.

As a serving university teacher, I must declare an interest in this amendment, a point that applies even more to the second part of the amendment which deals with the continuation of support through a period of full-time education. I believe that the Minister, in her academic capacity, will probably not dispute that point, although in her ministerial capacity she may feel that she must dispute it.

In practical terms, it is now impossible for people to go through a university education without a significant amount of parental support. I do not refer just to tuition fees, although in that context they have not helped. First and foremost, the support available under the loan system and under the access funds, even if the student concerned is extremely fortunate to receive support from them, is simply insufficient to maintain a student for 52 weeks of the year. Without living at home at the parents' expense through a considerable part of the year, people simply cannot get through.

It is no good saying that they should work for the whole of that time. I have learned a great deal more than I would have liked about the difficulties of the labour market in Bournemouth during the Christmas period. They are considerable. Bournemouth is not a unique example. In practice, without parental support, I would not advise prospective students to set out on a university education unless they are mature students with several thousands of pounds in the bank.

If this amendment is not accepted, one of the effects of the CSA regime will be to exclude those affected by it from a university education. That is a classic case of the law of the unintended consequence. I do not believe that Ministers expect any such thing, so I hope that they will consider it. I hope that they will take advice on the matter from sources of information slightly wider than simply the Department for Education and Employment. I hope that they will actually consider the real situation. I beg to move.

I have two preliminary remarks. First, we are now embarking on that section of the Bill concerned with the Child Support Agency and later we shall turn to the section on pensions and other items. Once again, I want to put on record that packaging matters that are totally disparate and have no connection whatever into one Bill is a matter of concern. Perhaps the House can attend to that point in debates that are scheduled for later this week.

Secondly, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, who, before the Bill reached this stage, helpfully held discussions and provided additional information. Also the Explanatory Notes on the Bill are available. I know that to a large extent she has been concerned in such matters. On this side of the Chamber, we intend to seek to improve the Bill in any constructive way in that we can.

The points raised by the noble Earl are important. I am inclined to agree with him that it is difficult nowadays for anyone to complete a university education without a considerable degree of parental support. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say on that subject.

My noble friend has referred to completing a university education, but generally a university education does not start until people have reached the age of 18, whereas this amendment deals with those who are 17 years old.

My noble friend is absolutely right in that respect. Perhaps a commentary on present day life is that on the one hand we have an amendment—

Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The amendment contains two separate clauses: paragraph (a) concerns people up to the age of 17 and paragraph (b) covers,

"full-time education (including education to the conclusion of a first degree course)".

Those are two separate propositions.

I imagine that my noble friend had taken that point. I understand that there are two separate issues, but my noble friend suggests that we are extending the definition of what is meant by "child" to cover someone who by any normal set of definitions, would not be regarded as a child. I leave the Minister to comment on whether that falls outside the Long Title of the Bill.

Perhaps it is also a sign of the times that we are considering what arrangements should be made for parents to support their children who undertake education and in later amendments we shall consider whether those in full-time education should support their children. Both sides of that issue arise and no doubt we shall come to the second matter later in the proceedings. None the less, I believe that the noble Earl has raised an important point. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the subject.

Does the noble Earl, Lord Russell, realise that as a result of his party's activities in Scotland, Scottish university students do not pay the sum required for their fees until they have finished their university courses and are earning, I believe, over £10,000? If this amendment is accepted, does he anticipate that the maintenance for young Scottish students who are at university will be at a different rate and that an allowance will be made? As he will appreciate, this Bill applies to Scotland, and I believe that in sorting out one anomaly he will create another. Perhaps he can tell the Committee how he will make sure that that arrangement is fair.

New Clause 2 seeks to extend the definition of a child, for child support purposes, by raising the upper age limit for child support liability to the date on which full-time education up to degree level ends. Under the proposed new clause children who leave school before that stage would receive child support until their 17th birthday or until they complete full-time education including a first degree course. Currently they remain a child for child support purposes until they are 16 or under 19 and in full-time non-advanced education.

The existing definition of a child for child support purposes reflects the rules of eligibility for child benefit. That is the point at whi.ch children are normally regarded as no longer dependent on their parents for benefit purposes. Much of the benefit system uses entitlement to child benefit as the simplest measure of establishing when a child or a young person is treated as a dependent. For example, young people are no longer treated as dependent for the purpose of assessing the amount of their parents' entitlement to income-based JSA and IS when child benefit ceases. In other words, the child may or may not be entitled in its own right.

This rule is relatively transparent and easy for parents to understand. The point at which child benefit ceases is a sensible and straightforward point at which to end child support liability. We must maintain simplicity in the reformed scheme because we all know where complexity can take us.

Not only would moving away from the existing definition of a child complicate a reformed system; it would also not be clear to whom the maintenance would be payable. Should it be paid to the parent with care, the student, or even to the college? Indeed, in many—if not most—cases both parents would be treated as non-resident parents, thus further complicating the child support rules.

The amendment would also have the effect of defining as children young adults at college or university who are substantially older than 19. If I refer back a few years, I recall that a significant number of the students I taught did not complete their degrees until they were 23 or 24. This would cut across the general responsibility for student maintenance which is based not on support from parents but rather on loans repayable by the young person over time as future income from employment rises.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I do of course favour parental support for students who are, by my definition, adults. However, on the assumption that the noble Earl's amendment were to be accepted, I should not wish to see students at university being treated by their institutions as in loco parentis. That would turn adults into dependent children. I am not sure that the noble Lord would wish to see that either. I am loath to turn adults back into children for the purposes of maintenance.

Furthermore, in extreme cases under existing legislation—Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989—provision is in place for a student aged 18 or over to apply to a court for an order requiring his separated parents to pay maintenance while he attends college. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his desire to see that the parents of young people—I use that expression intentionally—of 17 years of age who stay on at school to carry on their studies continue to receive support. Furthermore, I agree with what was said by my noble friend on the Front Bench. However, I believe that we must avoid a legislative muddle.

As the noble Baroness pointed out, various different provisions relate to the age of young people. That should make us extremely careful in our use of the word "child". A relevant factor which I do not believe was mentioned by the noble Baroness is that when a young person reaches the age of 17, he or she is a free person. If a young person decides to give up his education, under statute, that person is entitled to do so.

Although I have sympathy in substance with the motive of the noble Earl, especially as regards the first part of his new clause, I think that we would be rash to deal with the matter in the way that he has suggested. However, it is an important issue and perhaps on Report, with further thought about the drafting, we can perhaps get it right.

Perhaps I may respond, first, to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I am of course aware of the force of the point that she made. The main thrust of my argument related to the level of maintenance available to the student, not to the tuition fees. However, the matter of tuition fees clearly establishes a difference and that difference should be taken into account.

However, when we discuss primary legislation, I cannot help but think—and here I invoke the words of the noble Lord, Lord Renton—that this is the kind of point that may be a little too detailed to be dealt with in primary legislation. Perhaps I should have provided for a regulation-making power in the amendment. I admit that that cannot be ruled out altogether.

That is all fine, but I must say to the noble Earl that his party has helped to make the university funding system disparate across the United Kingdom. Parents of students attending Scottish universities will not have to pay the £1,000 a year that those at universities south of the Border will have to pay. I do not think that it behoves his party to recommend to the House that students should be treated in the same way at different universities. The Liberal Democrats cannot have their cake and eat it. I believe that the noble Earl must make some allowance for that in his amendment.

I thought that that was precisely the point that I had just conceded. If that was not clear, then I state again that I do concede the point. My query was only whether primary legislation would provide the correct way to respond to it and that is a point on which I shall be perfectly happy to take advice.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, regarding the definition of a child. It is clear that what has been happening over the past 40 years is that social maturity has been getting earlier while financial maturity has been getting later. If the Minister looks at the record of national insurance contributions towards the state pension, I believe that she will probably confirm that a difficulty we are running into is that the proportion of people who have full and adequate contribution records before the age of 25 is going down. It may be that what we need to move away from is the single, isolated definition of a "child". The situation exists and we have to live in the real world. For that reason, we have to cope with it. I am perfectly prepared to entertain the possibility that the amendment I have tabled is not perhaps the best solution. However, before I can be convinced of that, I should be extremely grateful if a better way could in turn be suggested. If this is not the best way, then it follows that there must be a better approach.

I appreciate the Minister's desire for simplicity because it would be awfully nice. However, her pursuit of simplicity resembles a little my childhood game of chess. My game would have been absolutely brilliant if the other player had not moved in the meantime. The world is an extremely complicated place. These problems exist and one way or another we must tackle then.

I do not believe that it is the Government's intention to exclude children benefiting from the CSA regime from the benefits of higher education. However, if it is not their intention, then I believe that they must seek a way to ensure that that intention is not realised by inadvertence.

I wonder why the noble Earl thinks that because we are continuing the status quo on child support we are somehow excluding for the first time children who would otherwise receive maintenance under his proposed amendment from access to higher education? I could take his point if we were changing the situation as regards the age of the child, but that is the existing situation and we are not changing it. As the current Government are seeking to extend access to higher and further education to nearly 50 per cent of the population, I do not understand or take his point.

I did not say, "for the first time". If the M Mister refers to the proceedings on the 1995 Bill, she will see that I raised an identical point. It is not the first time, and I would not dream of pretending that I am raising it for the first time. Furthermore, I suspect that it will not be the last. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

The noble Lord has more intimate conversations with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor than I do.

I thought that we had a joined-up government. I have more confidence in joined-up government than the noble Baroness.

The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made the remarks in answer to a Starred Question. I remember the occasion well.

I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I set down that Question. Unless some thought is given to the issues that I have raised, there is a serious danger that this legislation will be just as unpopular at the 1991 Act. I do not think that it is a good idea to put unpopular legislation on the statute book. We all remember the poll tax.

Amendment No. 4 is a probing amendment about the definition of a qualifying child. It seems strange that if an absent father, who is liable to pay maintenance under the Bill and the previous legislation, moves back in with the mother of the child, the child is no longer deemed to be a qualifying child—so the father does not have to pay. I may have misinterpreted the Bill but that is how it reads to me.

I hope that the noble Baroness has not been briefed to tear Amendment No. 3 to pieces on the ground that its drafting is defective. I confess that the drafting is probably inadequate but I wanted to raise the principle. I beg to move.

The noble Lord has said a number of extremely important things and the Minister will probably have to give a complicated reply. The Committee must appreciate that above all children must benefit from what comes out of the Bill. The Minister may tell us that because of the Bill's interaction with the Children Act 1989 and other legislation, provision is already made for most of the matters of concern to the noble Lord. Certainly, the principle that the child's interests are paramount is in the 1989 Act.

The Bill is difficult to understand because, yet again, we are presented with legislation that is drafted to a large extent in terms of amendments to previous Acts, which one does not have to hand. So a parent will find the new legislation difficult to understand. An overarching clause at the beginning of the Bill to remind parents of their responsibilities would be no bad thing.

Having been involved in legislation about family mediation in Scotland, I know that when separating parents are making arrangements for their children, often it all comes down to a lot of anger with one another over money. It resolves itself into discussions in relation to money and the other important aspects of the position in which their child will be when they separate are forgotten. If this clause is included in the Bill, it will remind parents when they separate, and their legal advisers if they have them, what parenthood is all about.

An overarching clause at the beginning of the Bill, therefore, has much to commend it and I hope that the Government will not resist that suggestion. I can see that the Minister may have to pick up on some of the details of this specific amendment; but if she does not accept it, she may consider introducing something of this kind at a later stage. It would be a human thing to do, and would help parents to meet their obligations under the complicated legislation with which they will be confronted.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, are entirely right to be stressing the need for overarching principles at the start of the Bill. I should briefly like to say that nothing in the amendment conflicts with the other CSA—that is, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995—which lays down in Sections 1 and 2 that parents have a right and duty to maintain contact, in estrangement, with their children. It also lays down that the parent with care must enable that contact.

Perhaps I may briefly say, as someone who has worked with boys and young men over several years in various capacities, that I have noticed the confusion that young men in particular have when their fathers are not in the picture. They are sometimes confused about their sexual identity when their fathers are not around. They are particularly vulnerable to other men on whom they may wish to model themselves, who are perhaps people we would not wish them to admire and copy. It may be difficult for them to forge a special relationship with a woman later in life and start their own family if they have had no father in the picture.

I am not sure whether this amendment is the best way of solving this problem and increasing the number of fathers who continue to be involved with their sons, but it is an important point. I am sure that the Minister will bear it in mind.

I hope that the Government will consider sympathetically the move by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to include this clause, perhaps slightly modified, into the Bill, or something on the same lines.

While we are trying to improve the situation which arises under the Act of 1991, we should seriously make a more positive definition than has so far been made of the responsibilities of parents. I hope that when further considering this matter, both the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, will consider attempting to define the situation that may arise when the parents fail to agree. In those circumstances—it will always be difficult—some guidance may be given, especially when the parents are separated or divorced. In the case of disagreement, it is the parent with custody of the child who should have the last word. That is a point which could be added to the statute.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on having most eloquently distinguished between the things on which we all agree and those on which we do not. His amendment provides a beautifully drafted piece of common ground from which to begin our debate.

I am glad the noble Lord said what he did about financial maintenance not being the whole story; nevertheless. I am grateful to him for having given me an opportunity to stress once again that the obligation of parents to maintain their children is common ground between all the parties who debate this Bill. I first made that point on the Statement preceding the 1991 Child Support Bill. I have made it many times since. I make it again. Any future debate is how that liability should be calculated, apportioned and assessed; never about whether it should exist.

Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl.

If the noble Lord wishes to say that that was not the whole of his amendment, that was exactly the point I was coming on to. If he wishes to say anything else, I shall give way instantly.

I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I was only going to draw attention to the fact that, while he is right in saying that there is consensus across the Chamber on that subject, there is not necessarily consensus across the country. That is why it is so important for the Government to be absolutely clear what they mean.

I do not dispute that point for a moment. I would be happy for that to be put into legislation.

Secondly, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having stressed that this is not just about support, and for putting in the words he has about nurture, love, care, guidance and education. Those things are, in the end, probably much more important. I thank the noble Lord also for having worded that passage in a way which is optative and not prescriptive. We all want those things. But how to get them can be a difficult problem in which the heavy-booted intervention of legislation is not always helpful. To have it spelt out in this general way as something to which we can all aspire is exactly right.

Thirdly, the noble Lord is right about the importance of access. But again I am grateful to him for having stuck to a tone which is optative and not prescriptive. The problems of access after matrimonial breakdown are far more difficult to resolve than most of us realise. Resolution in almost all, but not all, cases is something devoutly to be wished for. But when we are dealing with two people who have been badly hurt, we find that they do not always react with the reasonableness one hopes to achieve in a Committee of this House. So again I am glad that the noble Lord has been optative and not prescriptive.

Perhaps I might comment on a couple of other points in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. In relation to the 40 per cent of nonresident parents who lose contact with their children, I understand that there is some dispute as to the academic validity of that figure, but since my information comes to me under Chatham House rules I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not develop the point further.

I refer to the Lord Chancellor's views as to the obligation to maintain 16 and 17 year-olds. Except for 16 and 17 year-olds, all of us are in a position where a residually and fiduciary liability to maintain us if we become destitute rests on somebody; if we are under 16, on parents; if we are over 18, on the state. But in the case of 16 and 17 year-olds it at present rests nowhere. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made the remarks to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred, specifically in that context. So if the Minister does not wish him to do that, she knows what she can do about it.

The Committee will have listened with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in moving his amendment, given his considerable experience in various parts of London where there are problems of the kind with which the Bill is seeking to cope. It is true to say, as he did, that the previous legislation was not particularly popular; but it was unpopular largely with people who were not accepting the responsibilities which he is seeking to set out in his amendment. While my own constituency experience was in an area that might have been relatively tranquil compared to parts of London, nevertheless one was struck by the fact that a number of parents were not prepared to accept their responsibilities and were positively determined to resist them. We will turn to that aspect later.

There are other aspects of the noble Lord's amendment that will, again, be reflected in our subsequent debates. He stresses that the responsibilities of parents should be held jointly and severally. A considerable amount of the controversy over the Bill relates to the question of whether both parents should pay or only one, and joint responsibility is a very important aspect of that matter. The noble Lord has tabled another amendment to the 1991 Act, which extends the definition of an absent parent by adding the words "or is not contributing to his maintenance". It would be helpful to hear the Minister's comments in relation to that issue. We are also concerned with access.

The amendment is in effect a declaration about the responsibility of both parents. That is important, not least because the Bill is concerned with not only those who have been married and divorced, but with those who have never been married and are still parents, and to a considerable extent with where there have been multiple relationships. Part of the problem is not simply about the relationship of the first family to the second, but in some cases to the third or fourth family, when none of these events has been subject to marriage. The declaration envisaged by the noble Lord has much in its favour. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that point and on the more technical aspects of the matter.

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 seek to place on the face of child support legislation a new framework of obligations within which a reformed child support scheme would operate, emphasising the role of both parents in raising children.

Amendment No. 3 seeks to set out in the Bill the wider responsibility that both parents have to their children beyond the immediate obligations to maintain them when the parents live apart. Amendment No. 4 extends the definition of "nonresident parent" to include those who live with the child and the other parent but who are not contributing to the children's maintenance.

We are reforming child support in the context of the Government's active family policies and the wider responsibilities of parents. As we explained in the child support Green Paper, we are convinced that one of the reasons for the failure of the existing child support arrangements is that they do not work properly with other family responsibilities. We strongly believe that fathers have a vital role to play in their children's lives and should never be marginal to a child's wellbeing.

Paying maintenance is an important part of nonresident parents' continuing responsibilities to their children, but there is more to being a good parent than this. One of the central issues for separated parents and their children is maintaining continuing contact with non-resident parents. The child support reforms set out in the Bill recognise this issue because it is in the best interests of children, for whom appropriate contact can compensate for many of the problems associated with parental separation. There is good evidence to suggest that non-resident parents who have regular contact also tend to provide more maintenance for their children.

I have seen recent research that looked at predictors of good outcomes for the children of lone parents. For daughters of lone parents a good outcome in the sense of staying on at school, doing GCSEs, not becoming pregnant as a teenager and getting a job, was that the lone parent was in work. However, for a good outcome for the sons of lone parents, in the sense of staying on at school, not truanting, not getting into trouble with the police, getting GCSEs and getting a job, the predictor was that he had regular contact with his natural father. For daughters the predictor was that the mother was in work and for sons it was if they had regular contact with their natural father. That is in accordance with what we are trying to achieve.

We all agree that children have the right to the love and care of both their parents, whether or not they live together. A point about jointly and severally has been mentioned on several occasions: under our proposals, both parents would have joint and several responsibility in that a parent with care is providing support in kind and the non-resident parent is providing support in cash. That makes up the joint and several package.

The Government are committed to an active family policy which integrates all activities that affect the family, including maintenance and contact. However, we do not accept that child support liability should be reduced or removed altogether simply because contact arrangements are unsatisfactory. Refusing to pay maintenance adds to the disadvantages of children who have lost contact with a parent.

The new system of child support will be clear and easy to understand. Non-resident parents will know immediately how much they need to pay for their children and how much they will have left to meet their other responsibilities. We will recognise children's overnight stays with non-resident parents by a small reduction in rates of liability. This will go some way to meeting the non-resident parent's expenses, without being so severe as to make parents with care resistant to shared care arrangements.

We will also support a personal, localised, face-to-face service that integrates child support with other family services. There is clearly broad support from fathers for these reforms, and it is clear that nonresident parents in particular want, more than anything else, a system of assessing liability that is simple, transparent and predictable. It is in the best interests of the child to get maintenance flowing as quickly as possible. That is what is driving our child support reforms. Where that maintenance is flowing, it is more likely that the father will seek to sustain contact.

I understand that the amendments are intended to give expression to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which has been reflected in the Committee today, that some children and young people do not receive enough support from their parents. I agree with that concern, but I do not think it is appropriate to make a declaratory statement in a Bill, which should be as precise in its wording as possible. The appropriate place for what one might call a mission statement, is the Green Paper or the White Paper. In quoting those extensively, the noble Lord made it clear that the Government entirely shared the context in which the reforms are put before the Committee.

The noble Lord mentioned—and had support from noble Lords—the concern of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor about the issue of parental responsibility and the maintenance of 16 and 17 year-olds. The noble and learned Lord has explained that there is no specific statutory obligation on a parent to provide for the maintenance of a child who has reached the age of 16 and has offered to consider a review.

Officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department are conducting an internal review of the provisions for these young people before making recommendations about whether a wider review or a full consultation exercise is required.

I welcome the fact that in his amendment the noble Lord acknowledges that parents are not always in a position to support their children as they would wish. That is why we have set in train a wide range of initiatives, particularly where children are in care, in order to ensure that the local authority better delivers its responsibility in loco parentis. Equally, the Department for the Environment, Transport and Regions is working to reduce the incidence of homelessness and rough sleeping among young people, and the Social Exclusion Unit has published reports on teenage pregnancy in 16 to 18 year-olds who are not in education, training or employment, which the Government intend should lead to prompt and effective action, along with the Children Leaving Care Act and the Care Standards Bill, will give additional protection for these vulnerable children.

The amendments clearly go wider than that and fall outside the scope of the Bill, which in this section is concerned solely with the provisions of financial support where parents are living apart.

The noble Lord wants to reconnect maintenance and contact. We know that the men who pay most maintenance are the most reliable payers of maintenance because they tend to be older, divorced men, and more likely to be in contact with and emotionally committed to their children. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was absolutely right that our major problems occur with young men for whom it may have been a casual relationship, possibly a weekend relationship only, who may be unemployed and whose own lives are pretty chaotic. They are very young and may still be living at home with their parents. There, it is often the paternal grandmother who ensures that contact continues and educates her young son in his responsibilities for his child in turn. Where that happens, it can transform the young man's life.

However, as I have already suggested, the right way to sustain contact with the young man is through arrangements that are to be found in the Bill; for example, the abatement of maintenance to encourage overnight stays and the face-to-face interviews that we can offer. Equally, we are obviously concerned about the situation where the parent with care may thwart contact. The Lord Chancellor's Department is looking into the matter to ascertain what sanctions might be available where someone is in contempt of court. But those concerned are seeking to find sanctions that will not bite on the child, which is something that imprisonment might do. There is always the right available to a non-resident parent to consider a change, or to seek a change, of a residency order to ensure that contact is maintained.

I fully recognise the commitment of the noble Lord to improving the circumstances of children and young people. The Government believe that existing provisions in legislation, along with existing programmes in health, in the DETR and through the Social Exclusion Unit, further supported by the passage of this Bill, its implementation and that of the other legislation to which I referred, will provide an effective means of securing the improvements that we all wish to achieve. As the noble Lord said, the context for this was reflected in our Green and White Papers. With that explanation and bearing in mind the fact that we endorse much of what the noble Lord said, although we do not think it right to put a broader description on the face of the Bill, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps she could explain something to me. The noble Baroness mentioned various steps and inquiries that are being undertaken within the Lord Chancellor's Department which are relevant to the noble Lord's amendment, but can she say whether the Government intend that the conclusions reached within that department, which will then be considered and approved by Ministers, will be put forward at a later stage as amendments to this Bill?

No. This is a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department, which, as I said, is currently conducting an internal review. That review may well lead to a wider review, which could go out to consultation. Therefore, even if it were a sensible procedure, the timetabling of all this would not be permitted. In any case, such major issues should certainly be tabled in Committee. From everything that I know about the review of my noble and learned friend's department, it may be several months before it may, or may not, see the light of day in the form of public consultation. So it would not be possible in practical terms. But, even if it were, I would argue that it would not necessarily be desirable because this is a child support Bill from the DSS; it does not seek to address the wider issues regarding the definition of "a child" and who has the responsibility for the child.

If the Lord Chancellor's Department sees fit at some point to produce clauses for an appropriate Bill, that would be another matter. However, even if it were desirable, it could not be done by way of this Bill. Indeed, even if one could, I am not yet persuaded that it would be desirable to do it through this Bill.

The Minister gave a very careful and extremely interesting response to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. She suggested that the noble Lord's amendment goes beyond the scope of the Bill. I can understand the problem in that respect, as I am sure is the case with the noble Lord, who will probably have more to say about it. However, the noble Baroness also said that a broad statement was not a good idea in this Bill and that it would be more appropriate for the Green and White Papers.

Following on from what I said before, surely the noble Baroness does not expect parents to have these Green and White Papers constantly in front of them. They will want to know what the Bill says; indeed, they will want to ask their legal advisers what it means. Should not the noble Baroness take away the matter and think rather hard about whether it is possible to include this kind of statement, which is within the scope of the Bill, in order to help parents understand how the provision fits in with what they consider to be their legal responsibilities? It is no good just saying that such wording is all right in the Green and White Papers. That may be so for us because we can look it up, but parents cannot be expected to have copies of all these documents.

On the contrary. To my certain knowledge we have distributed thousands of copies, including the abbreviated versions of both the Green and White Papers. Indeed, we have received 1,500 responses, followed by many seminars and discussions. I should be most surprised if as many parents were as familiar with the context of a Bill, or of a parliamentary statute. Their solicitors might be, but they would not.

The presumption seems to be that if one makes a declaratory statement in the Bill this will somehow change behaviour and that, therefore, we should accept it in order to encourage rather feckless young men to take on their responsibilities. It is presumed that if these words were in an Act such young men would read the provision and say, "Oh goodness me! Yes, Parliament has said I must do this, therefore I will". That is not what will happen. We might feel glowing as a result, but, in practice, the young men whom we seek to encourage to take on their parental responsibilities will do so because of a series of quite precise government initiatives, including encouraging them to have the residence of the child so that they bond as early as possible and making that possible through an abatement of maintenance.

We shall also encourage young people to take on their responsibilities by working with organisations like the grandparents' organisation and, if I may put it this way, with some of the men's organisations, as well as others. I believe that the way to encourage young men to take on their responsibilities is by engaging in education in schools and by having face-to-face interviews in local offices where any problems that they have about payment can be sorted out. It is also part of our responsibility to ensure that parents with care recognise that, if they wish that maintenance to flow reliably, one of the best ways to achieve this is to ensure that contact is maintained. That will not only ensure that maintenance flows, it is also good for the child. This seems to me to be the youthful, appropriate and practical way in which young men in particular will be encouraged to face up to their responsibilities. It is not a matter of having declaratory statements on the face of a Bill, which, frankly, will have far less circulation than is the case with the White and Green Papers that I mentioned.

I am sorry to trouble the noble Baroness again, but she said that the matters raised in the noble Lord's amendment are beyond the scope of the Bill. However, the first part of the Long Title to the Bill says that its purpose is:

"To amend the law relating to child support".

That is just what the noble Lord's amendment seeks to do.

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He has just made the point that I intended to make. Indeed, the fact that non-financial support is, and should be, included in the concept of child support is self-evident from the Government's Green Paper on the subject.

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her response on this issue. Although we agree on the principles of what is desirable, I believe that we are quite far apart on the way of achieving those objectives. I personally believe that something in the nature of a declaratory statement—an aspiratory statement—should be on the face of the Bill. Indeed, without it, I think that the Bill denigrates the role of fathers, thereby creating a sense of lack of worth and, therefore, unfairness and resentment. I believe that that will motivate against the success of the Bill.

I believe that such a statement should be included in the interests of the better nurturing of children in separated families. The issues are extremely important and it is, therefore, important that the Government should at least give a balanced picture in this respect. In that context, I have to differ with the Minister that the Green and White Papers are adequate. The Green Paper leads up to the White Paper, which, in fact, says a great deal less on this issue. The White Paper then leads to the Bill, which says nothing at all about it.

The conclusion of any reasonable person is that the Government have actually dropped these ancillary considerations. The Government must do more and say what they actually believe. If the noble Baroness can tell me where and when the Government will address these matters in public in a way that will correct the imbalance implicit in the Bill, I shall be happy not to return to the amendment at further stages of the Bill. When are the Government going to say to young men, "If you get a girl pregnant, it is just as much your fault as hers"? When are they going to say to them, "To bring a child into the world when you have no intention of supporting it, caring for it or loving it, is a form of child abuse"? When are they going to say to young mothers, "Your child needs his father. If you exclude the father from his life, you're likely to be damaging your child's chances"?

More simply, when are the Government going to say to schools, "Bring the fathers in to work with you and to support their child's learning. This will help boys and girls to understand the importance of a child to his father"? If the noble Baroness can convince the Committee that all this will happen soon and that it will be said loudly so that the whole country hears, I shall gladly not pursue the issue at further stages of Bill. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The Statement is as follows:

"I will, with permission, make a Statement about recent developments in Northern Ireland, and the declaration issued over the weekend by the Provisional IRA.

"On 11th February, I took the decision to suspend the political institutions which had been established barely 10 weeks earlier under the Good Friday agreement.

"I did so reluctantly, for reasons with which the House is familiar. If I had not done so, there would not only have been a collapse of the institutions, but a total collapse of confidence within unionism, from which the political process would not have been able to recover for a very long time.

"From that moment in February, we and the Irish Government have worked closely, at all levels, to restore the situation. As at so many crucial points in the past, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Irish Taoiseach have committed time and energy on a scale that must be unprecedented for busy heads of government. I have kept in close touch with the Irish Foreign Minister. There have been intensive discussions with the parties, in the most constructive atmosphere. I would like to thank officials in both governments whose efforts have been tireless.

"Our aim has been to achieve the clarity about the IRA's intentions which was noticeably lacking in February; by doing so to rebuild unionist confidence; and thereby to re-establish the institutions.

"This could not be done quickly. Suspension was a bruising experience for all concerned. Unionists were disappointed that expectations raised during Senator Mitchell's review were not fulfilled. Republicans, and indeed many nationalists, saw great symbolic significance in a British Secretary of State acting to suspend local institutions as I did. People of good will on all sides were saddened that arrangements which had promised so much had proved impossible to sustain.

"If unionists need the confidence that the IRA is genuinely committed to the path of peace and willing to put its arms beyond use, republicans need to know that the vision which the agreement offers, of a just and equal society in which both traditions are respected, will actually be realised.

"We and the Irish Government therefore drew up an account of the remaining steps necessary to secure the full implementation of the agreement. Details were communicated to the parties on Saturday morning. I am placing a copy in the Library.

"The two governments believe that these steps can be achieved by June 2001. In a statement published on Friday evening, we have committed ourselves to that goal.

"The two governments also called on the paramilitaries to state clearly and urgently that they will put their arms beyond use.

"For our part, we the British Government indicated that such statements would constitute a clear reduction in the security threat. In response, subject to assessment of the threat at the time, further substantial measures to normalise security arrangements will be taken by June 2001.

"I am not yet able to say what initial measures will be taken. The Chief Constable is considering in consultation with the Army the situation in the light of the IRA statement with a view to what might be done now and in the period ahead if and when the threat reduces. I assure the House, as I have done before, that the security of the public will continue to be my highest priority. There is no question of trading essential security interests for political progress. But equally there is no doubt that the statements of the kind I have described impact positively on the assessment of the threat.

"As the House will know, the IRA made such a statement on Saturday afternoon. In the context of the governments implementing what they have agreed, the IRA committed itself to,

'a process that will completely and verifiably put arms beyond use'.

"That is not maybe, not might, but will. It went on:

'We will do it in such a way as to avoid risk to the public and misappropriation by others and ensure maximum confidence'.

"In the same context, the IRA committed itself to,

'pursue our respective political objectives peacefully'.

"The statement further committed the IRA to resume contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, under General John de Chastelain. It noted that the IRA's arms are `silent and secure', and that there is no threat to the peace process from the IRA.

"In addition, the statement committed the IRA to put in place within weeks a confidence-building measure to confirm that its weapons remain secure. Independent inspectors will scrutinise a number of arms dumps and report to the de Chastelain commission. It will be an ongoing process, with regular re-inspections.

"It is important that we now hear, in similar terms, from the main loyalist organisations.

"Since the IRA made its statement, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have announced that Mr Martti Ahtisaari, the former President of Finland, and Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, the former Secretary General of the African National Congress and now a prominent businessman in South Africa, both widely respected international figures, have agreed to head the inspections. I am pleased to be able to announce that they will pay their first visit to Belfast next Monday, and I am grateful to them for their speedy response at such short notice.

"I regard the IRA statement as a very significant development.

"For the first time, there is a commitment to put weapons completely and verifiably beyond use, in a context which is realistic rather than simply aspirational. There is a real prospect of actually achieving decommissioning—no longer just talking about it, or setting conditions for it which make its realisation less likely.

"There is a more clear-cut assurance of the IRA's peaceful intentions than we have ever heard before. And, as an earnest of these intentions, there is an unprecedented willingness to allow independent third parties to inspect arms dumps containing weapons, explosives and detonators and vouch for their continuing security. An essential element of the scheme is that the process should be continuous, to provide reassurance that dumps have not been tampered with, and weapons have not been removed, between inspections.

"The right honourable Member for Upper Bann has acknowledged the significance of the IRA statement, and the fact that it appears to break new ground. Not surprisingly, he wishes to examine it carefully, and weigh its implications.

"That is entirely understandable. He will also want to be confident, as I will, that in moving forward with the agreement, the traditions and concerns of the unionist people will be respected and dealt with sensitively, just as much as the traditions and concerns of nationalists.

"I believe that all friends and supporters of responsible forward-looking unionism will conclude that the proposals I have outlined today, buttressed by the weekend's statement by the IRA, provide the conditions on which he can lead his party back into government.

"On the basis of such a positive response to these proposals, not only from his party but all the proagreement parties, I can confirm to the House that I will bring forward the necessary order to restore the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Executive by 22nd May.

"In this event, I feel hopeful and confident that the ultimate prize—stable, inclusive government in Northern Ireland and an unbreakable peace—will at long last be within our grasp".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. I am particularly pleased at the possibility that once again we shall be able to restore democracy to Northern Ireland and that the Executive will be reinstated. It was suspended by the Secretary of State with the full agreement and support of my party. I believe that without that action we would not be where we are today with the kind of opportunities that are now ahead of us.

Although I welcome the IRA's commitment to,

'a process that will completely and verifiably put arms beyond use',

I have to be a little cynical. However, this appears to be a step forward. It does indeed appear to go a step further than the IRA has ever gone before. That gives us hope. I should also like to make the point that the so-called loyalist paramilitaries are notably silent. I hope that they will come to the table soon.

However—rather cynically again, perhaps—I believe that we are observing a life-and-death game being played by some of the best spinners in the world on a very sticky wicket. As an Ulsterman, while sincerely hoping that we are watching the end game which will terminate in peace and good will for everyone, I do not believe that life in Northern Ireland is like that. I still need and have to ask for reassurances. I have a number of questions that I should like the Minister to answer.

While welcoming arms and Semtex being put beyond use, how can the Secretary of State guarantee that they will never be used again? That is a serious process. The Sinn Fein Statement refers only to a number of arms dumps being open for inspection. What percentage of the IRA's total armoury will this represent? What is the follow up for the remainder?

Can the Minister again reassure the House that, despite any agreements made recently between the Prime Minister and the Taioseach—I know that this is in the Secretary of State's statement—the process of security normalisation will continue to take into account the threat, as advised by the Chief Constable and the GOC, and that security reductions will not take place for political reasons?

What will constitute a default by the IRA? In the case of an IRA default, what action is the Secretary of State prepared to take? Will the Minister confirm that in the event of a default he will not hesitate to suspend the institutions once again?

The Unionist Party will require answers to these questions. It may not be clearly understood by all of the population of this country, but we are talking about confidence and trust that has been shattered, shattered and shattered again over the past number of years.

The IRA statement refers once again to this process being about removing the causes of conflict—by which it means partition and the British presence. Will the Minister confirm that the acceptance of the Good Friday agreement means accepting the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's position as part of the United Kingdom, and that there can be absolutely no question of that changing without the consent of the people?

Finally, the road to a Northern Ireland settlement has been long and hard. We are still moving—and we are still moving forward—thanks to a great deal of hard work and the patience of many, many people. But no one should be surprised if there are many, many more miles and late nights to go. However, we on this side sincerely hope that the statement from the IRA and this Statement from the Government mean that the future for Belfast and the people of Northern Ireland once again looks as though it might return to normality, and that the people there will be encouraged and morale raised.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State earlier today in another place. I apologise for not being here at the beginning of his speech.

Potentially, the Statement provides the greatest cause for optimism since the Good Friday agreement itself that real progress can now be made in achieving a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. It offers a welcome reprieve from the two steps forward, one step back fandango that has exasperatingly characterised the process over the past two years. The prospects for agreement outlined in the Statement mean, it is to be hoped, that the iron law of history, which has scuppered hitherto all initiatives for peace, is itself about to be sundered. Let us hope and pray that such proves to be the case.

Much of the credit must go to the leaders of the pro-agreement parties. They have worked extremely well during the time since the suspension of the Assembly and the Executive. Most importantly, Sinn Fein has responded to the needs of the situation, which became very acute following the reimposition of direct rule. From all sides of your Lordships' House and beyond went the call for a positive move on arms by the IRA, and Sinn Fein appears to have achieved that. The IRA assurance that its ordnance is no longer to be used for violence and that its neutralising is to be regularly verified by respected international authorities is welcome, if overdue. We on these Benches salute the maturity and skill shown by the three largest pro-agreement political parties during the difficult period since the suspension of the Assembly.

We are grateful also for the efforts made by successive Secretaries of State, all of which have contributed to this apparent breakthrough. The present Secretary of State, Mr Peter Mandelson, has clearly brought his special expertise to the problems raised in the aftermath of suspending the fledgling Assembly. It was a fearful gamble which he has pulled off; he deserves our congratulations. We hope, too, that other paramilitary organisations will respond positively to this IRA statement. But much still needs to be done in the case of Northern Ireland. I hope that the rumours are wrong and that Mr Mandelson is not soon to be reshuffled.

While peace is a necessary prerequisite, the real goal is to see the establishment of authentic, democratic politics in Northern Ireland. The substance of the Statement makes that a real possibility, which all of those who have Northern Ireland's best interests at heart must pray for. The opportunity must be seized. We trust that the forthcoming meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council will support Mr Trimble in the stance that he has taken. I should like to ask the Minister whether he has any information in regard to other paramilitary organisations following suit.

My Lords, I am grateful for the general tone of the statements made by noble Lords from the two Opposition Front Benches; for their recognition of the potential significance of what has happened; and for echoing the remarks of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place that it is important that we now hear in similar terms from the main loyalist organisations.

Perhaps I may deal with a number of the questions raised in the course of the noble Lords' remarks. How can we be sure that the weapons will never be used again? The significance of the Statement is that the IRA leadership has said that it will initiate a process that will completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use. So it is committing itself to putting IRA arms beyond use. How that will be done technically is a matter for discussion between the IRA and the decommissioning commission. The IRA also states in its statement that it will resume contact with the Independent International Commission on decommissioning and enter into further discussions with the commission on the basis of the IRA leadership's commitment to resolving the issue of arms. So how it will be done—the technicalities and modalities of it—is a matter to be discussed with the decommissioning commission. What percentage is envisaged? It is envisaged by the commitment that the IRA's arms will be put beyond use.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, wished me to emphasise that decisions about security are to be made on the basis of the threat that exists at any one moment and not on the basis of trading security measures against political process. I am happy to give him that assurance. As he rightly said, that assurance was given in my right honourable friend's Statement in another place. There is no question of trading essential security interests for political progress.

I was asked what the position would be if there was default by the IRA. Under the statement there is a commitment by the IRA to decommissioning coupled with a commitment to the confidence-building measure of allowing an independent inspection, repeated by regular verifying inspections, of arms dumps. That is the commitment that must be looked at. Let us hope that that is what the IRA does. It would be unwise to say what the consequences of not doing it would be. Let us look to the future. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked me to reiterate that the Good Friday agreement depends on the principle of consent. Of course I reiterate that.

I think that I have dealt with all of the questions raised by noble Lords on the Front Benches.

My Lords, given that the Belfast agreement committed all of the participants to exclusively peaceful means, how do Her Majesty's Government regard this morning's announcement by Mr Adams that his IRA standing army will be retained in perpetuity? Why should a political party in government in Northern Ireland need a standing army? With that goes the fact that some of the IRA's weapons will be stored and protected. Only some, because the Statement itself says that only a number of the dumps will be inspected. Lastly, how do Her Majesty's Government justify that glaring betrayal of those who supported the Belfast agreement, not least Mr Trimble and his colleagues?

My Lords, the IRA statement contains two things: first, an unequivocal commitment to decommissioning; and, separately from that, there is a commitment to a confidence-building measure; namely, the inspection of the arms dumps by the independent observers, Mr Ahtisaari and Mr Ramaphosa. Those are two separate things. It is not being suggested that the inspection of the arms dumps is the decommissioning. That is a confidence-building measure. What is significant, apart from that confidence-building measure, is the commitment itself to decommissioning, something we have not heard before from the IRA, as was recognised by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith.

As to the statement made by Mr Adams, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, referred, unfortunately, I do not know of that specific statement and so I am not in a position to make any comment on it. What is clear from the IRA's statement is that it will initiate a process that will completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use. That is a significant step forward.

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on having got this far, even though there are still hurdles ahead, and I wish David Trimble and John Taylor good luck in the coming days. David Trimble will have to draw again on his reserves of courage and tenacity to see him through the next stage of this important process. Can my noble and learned friend say anything about paramilitary attacks, whether carried out by loyalists or republicans, which have been a scourge on Northern Ireland? I very much hope that the agreement, when implemented, will see an end to these deplorable attacks, which have caused so much pain and suffering to many people there.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks about where we have reached. I share with him the recognition that there are many hurdles ahead. I deplore with him the paramilitary attacks. I very much hope that the effect of the statement and the developments over the weekend will lead to a reduction in the number of paramilitary attacks.

My Lords, in recent years the Government of the Republic of Ireland have played a valuable part in helping the United Kingdom Government to achieve peace in Northern Ireland. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that on this occasion too the Government of the Republic have played a valuable part?

My Lords, I most certainly can. As the Statement made in another place revealed, it was the governments jointly setting out what they thought were the necessary steps to implement the Good Friday agreement that was the start of this recent stage in the peace process.

My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord accept that, as someone who for 25 years was involved in counter-terrorist operations on three different continents, no one wishes more than I do to see this peace process succeed? But will he also accept that it would be very unwise to place too much credence on the unequivocal assurances of terrorist organisations? That way may lie disaster.

Perhaps I may repeat three of the questions which have been raised in your Lordships' House today but which will need answers that will satisfy not only the unionists in Northern Ireland but most of the population of the country whose lives are at risk as much as anyone else's from the operations of the terrorists. First, do we know that all the IRA arms are in the dumps that are being opened to inspection, or are there other dumps with weapons in them that will not be seen? Secondly, is there any way in which it is intended that these weapons should be immobilised, by removing such things as firing pins and fuses, so that they could not be used even if they were removed from the dumps? Finally, how will the dumps be guarded so that if people change their minds about the unequivocal assurances they cannot descend on the dumps, remove the weapons and use them? I do not ask the noble and learned Lord to answer those questions today but can he at least give an assurance that the Government will demand unequivocal and satisfactory answers to those questions before they carry this process any further?

My Lords, perhaps I make clear what the effect of the IRA statement is. It is an unequivocal commitment verifiably to put beyond use the IRA's arms. That is the unequivocal commitment to decommissioning. Separately from that, as a confidence-building measure, is agreeing that the two independent observers should be given access to inspect weapons dumps and that they should thereafter be able to inspect them regularly. It is not being suggested that the inspection of the weapons dumps constitutes the decommissioning, but it is a measure designed to build confidence in the process. There are two separate things in this statement, both of which represent a significant way forward. In order to deal with the commitment to decommission, there has to be a verifiable way in which the arms are put beyond use. That is what the IRA committed itself to in the statement. How that is done is a matter to be determined between the IRA and the decommissioning commission.

My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord explain what appears to be a contradiction in the Statement? He began by telling us that there was an unequivocal undertaking to put the arms beyond use. Then he went on to say that there would be continuing inspection of the arms dumps to ensure that none of the weapons was removed. If they are beyond use, what would be the purpose of removing them?

My Lords, I obviously have not made my position adequately clear. The statement from the IRA is saying that it is giving two separate things. The first is an unequivocal assurance to put its arms beyond use; in effect, an unequivocal commitment to decommissioning. Separately from that, as a confidence-building measure, it is agreeing to the inspection of arms dumps by independent inspectors. It is not suggesting that that equals decommissioning. It is simply a confidence-building measure so that the process can begin and people can have confidence in it. We are not suggesting for one moment that the inspection process of the arms dumps equals decommissioning. It is being put forward as a confidence-building measure.

My Lords, I am very pleased, indeed grateful, for the way in which the Opposition Benches have accepted the Statement. The approach is constructive and offers hope for the measures that lie ahead. I believe that the Statement makes it possible to achieve honest and effective working relationships in Northern Ireland and to promote measures to achieve honourable, just and lasting democratic political institutions which will bring about effective government in the Province.

I should like to comment on one reference in the Statement. It is most reassuring that the Secretary of State made this point; he was aware of how people would feel. He states,

I assure the House, as I have done before, that the security of the public will continue to be my highest priority. There is no question of trading essential security interests for political progress'.

Those are the most potent lines in the Statement. I look forward to enjoying the days ahead when people will work together to meet the need of the people in Northern Ireland for hospitals, work and the care of children. Those essential matters have been neglected for so long.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support for the Statement. I thank him also for drawing attention to a very important part of it.

My Lords, the Minister has been extremely patient while being pushed on a particular point. However, the worry about the phrase "beyond use" is not merely semantic; it relates to the realities. Is it synonymous with being prepared to destroy the weapons or with being prepared, under whatever supervision, to destroy them or surrender them to some other body? Presumably, "beyond use" can equally mean one of those two things: either the weapons are surrendered, on whatever terms the IRA is prepared to accept, to some other body of its choice or to an agreed body; or alternatively, they are destroyed. The phrase "beyond use" worries a number of us. It seems to have some hidden definition, probably known only to the IRA and Ministers.

My Lords, as I have said, the IRA has made a clear and unequivocal commitment to put arms completely and verifiably beyond use. That is what the decommissioning Act required. The Act states that arms must be destroyed or made permanently inaccessible or unusable. The IRA has said that that is what it will do. I do not think that there is any sinister meaning as suggested by the noble Lord.

My Lords, during the first 10 years of the 30-year problem in Northern Ireland, the Army were in charge of security; the RUC was swamped. From 1978, and increasingly, the Chief Constable and the RUC have been in charge of security. Given the announcement made by my noble friend about the role of the two prominent figures from outside the country, what role will the Chief Constable play? Will he be brought into all discussions? He is the one to decide whether he is satisfied with the security arrangements.

My Lords, as I hope the Statement makes clear, it is for the Chief Constable to make the security assessment. Perhaps I may repeat, because it is extremely important, that there is no question of trading essential security interests for political progress. The question of what level of security is required is to be made entirely on the basis of the threat. As has been made clear, if the situation changes in terms of the peace process, that might have an effect on security decisions; but ultimately., it is for the Chief Constable, in consultation with the security forces, to determine the level of threat and make appropriate arrangements.

Perhaps I may take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I am told that the phrase used in the decommissioning Act is "beyond use", the same as that used in the IRA statement.

My Lords, the fact that the statement made by the IRA is one of the clearest that it has made for a number of years has to be seen as a good sign. IRA statements in the past have been criticised for the nature of the semantics used; that is why this statement has to be seen as a good sign.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comment. There is no doubt that this statement is very significant indeed.

My Lords, in the negotiations that took place behind the scenes before the issuing of this statement, was any pressure used on the IRA as an organisation to show its bona fides in this area? From now until June next year, will it stop the knee-capping and the murderous attacks on individuals? The IRA has said in its statement that its arms are silent and secure. Tell that to young people in Northern Ireland among whom there are almost daily knee-cappings. The IRA has said that it wants to build confidence. Will the Minister suggest to it that the best way to build confidence in Northern Ireland is to take steps to prevent such murderous attacks? Will the Minister put a suggestion to the IRA? If it intends finally to decommission by June next year, in the run-up between now and then are we to accept that the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries will be able to carry out such attacks on civilians? Would it be possible after 22nd May, when the institutions are brought back into being, for the IRA to reciprocate by, for example, putting Semtex out of its control? That would build confidence within the unionist community that the IRA means what it says.

My Lords, as I said in answer to my noble friend Lord Dubs, we deplore all paramilitary attacks of whatever sort. We very much hope that they will be reduced as a result of what has happened in the past few weeks.

As I have indicated, the commitment made in the IRA statement is unequivocally to put weapons beyond use. How precisely it is to be done is a matter for discussion between the IRA and the decommissioning commission.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has emphasised two different points over and again: first, the confidence-building measure—namely, the inspections; and secondly, decommissioning. As I understand the timetable announced in the Statement, the date given being 22nd May, it is unlikely, to say the least, that any decommissioning per se will happen before that date.

Confidence-building measures would have to include inspections over the border in the Irish Republic as well as in the North. Otherwise, I doubt that they will provide the confidence that the noble and learned Lord and indeed I would like.

My Lords, the commitment in relation to the confidence-building measure is in respect of inspection by the two named people of existing arms dumps. Where that inspection takes place depends on where the dumps are. I should have thought that they are most likely to be in the South.

My Lords, I am one of those who believe that there has been a limited move forward in the exercise over the weekend. However, I endorse much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and others. I am one of those who, together with a number of other Members of this House, will be making the decision, as part of the Ulster Unionist Council, about Ulster Unionist participation in the Executive. I should like the Minister to be aware that there is not yet sufficient clarification. The answers given today have not clarified much. I should like the Minister to explain what exactly is meant by the word "some"—the phrase "some dumps" is used. We have not received clarification on that extremely important point.

There also seems to be confusion over part of the Statement and the answers given as to whether this is a question of "beyond use" or "decommissioning". The point requires clarification. These are the kinds of issues that we must sort out. Last year the Ulster Unionists bought a second-hand car which did not start. We shall be much more careful next time we buy a second-hand car from the same dealer. I believe that people expect us to do nothing less.

My Lords, we understand that the confidence-building measure will involve arms in three dumps which most likely will be in the South. The dumps will contain a substantial amount of weapons, explosives and detonators. There is no suggestion that these are all the dumps, because this is a confidence-building measure. Those dumps will be inspected by the named independent third parties who will then report to the commission on decommissioning.

My Lords, I speak as an unrepentant, unqualified admirer of the Government's initiative in the peace process. I also congratulate Mr Mandelson in particular on this occasion. Does the noble and learned Lord agree it is inconceivable that the IRA will give up all of its arms without any response from the Protestant paramilitaries? What steps are being taken to ensure that there is some response on that side?

My Lords, I reiterate what has been said on all sides. In the light of what has been said by the IRA, it is important that we now hear in similar terms from the main loyalist organisations. The peace process depends as much on that as anything else.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Sierra Leone which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"Over the past week RUF rebels have broken heir commitment to the Lomé Peace Agreement and returned to conflict. They have made a number of attacks on the UN forces and on demobilisation camps. At least four Kenyan members of the UN forces have been killed in action. Around 500 UN personnel have been detained, including one British IJN military observer.

"At the weekend the rebels appeared to be moving on Freetown. The situation in Freetown is tense. I spoke at midday to our High Commissioner there who reported that the police had been successful in arresting a number of rebel bands and seizing arms which they had been about to distribute.

"Tens of thousands of residents of Freetown loyal to President Kabbah have today marched on the residence of the rebel leader, Foday Sankoh, which they have surrounded. From about one o'clock this afternoon the sound of gunfire could be heard from that location. This development has serious implications for the security situation within Freetown and the future actions of rebel forces commanded by Foday Sankoh.

"Our first duty is to protect the lives of British citizens in Sierra Leone and others to whom we have consular responsibility. We believe that there are up to 500 British nationals in Sierra Leone, mostly in the Freetown area. There is a smaller number of European Union and Commonwealth nationals without diplomatic representation for whom we have consular responsibility.

"Our immediate advice to British residents in Freetown is to stay indoors. This afternoon the High Commission has activated its evacuation plan and is contacting British residents through the local warden network to give them the necessary instructions.

"In view of the limited commercial opportunities to leave Sierra Leone and the current insecurity, we have taken the precautionary measure to deploy a number of British military assets to West Africa.

"The forward elements of the current spearhead battalion, the 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment, arrived in Dakar, Senegal, over the weekend. The battalion is currently moving from Dakar to Freetown. In addition, HMS "Ocean" and support vessels, with 42 Commando and a number of helicopters, are moving towards the region and will be in Sierra Leone early next week. HMS "Illustrious" has been withdrawn from NATO exercises to be used if needed.

"These measures have been taken to ensure that we are best placed to respond quickly to safeguard the security of British nationals. Our forces will ensure the security of Sierra Leone's international airport. This is not only of immediate utility for the evacuation, but is also valuable in allowing the UN forces to continue to build up.

"The UN force is currently about 3,000 short of its mandated strength of over 11,000. We are urging the nations contributing to the UN force to expedite the additional numbers. I spoke last night to Madeleine Albright, and I welcome the US offer to consider a strategic airlift to fly in units from the Jordanian and Bangladeshi armies.

"I have also spoken to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and offered further logistical support, such as vehicles, for the UN force. I pressed upon him that one of the immediate lessons of the past few days is that nations contributing forces to the UN must also contribute the equipment necessary to fulfil their mandate.

"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has just spoken to President Obasanjo of Nigeria, the major regional state, to discuss what immediate assistance Nigeria can contribute to the UN forces.

"The responsibility for the current outbreak of violence lies squarely with the RUF rebels and their leader Forday Sankoh. A year ago he committed himself to a peace process which offered rehabilitation and retraining to his troops in exchange for demilitarisation. Considerable progress had been made on that process. UN forces had deployed across two-thirds of the country, almost half the armed groups had registered at demobilisation centres and a significant quantity of weapons had been surrendered. Work had begun on training a new defence force for the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone and on preparations for democratic elections next year. All that progress has been put at risk by the RUF reneging on the commitments that it made.

"One of the triggers of the current conflict appears to have been the attempt by the UN forces to enter the diamond-producing region which is held by the RUF and provides it with weapons and friends. This development underlines the importance of the international debate, in winch Britain has been a leading voice, for more transparent regulation of the trade in uncut diamonds. We should not allow diamonds to be sold for weapons or at the cost of lives.

"I want to make it clear to the House and to the people of Sierra Leone that Britain will not abandon its commitment to that country. Britain has done more than any other country outside the region to restore legitimate government in Sierra Leone. We are the largest national donor to the peace process. We hosted the international donors' conference earlier this year and we are in the lead in training the new army for the Government of Sierra Leone. We shall continue to take the lead at the UN and elsewhere to restore the peace process. We must not allow a few thousand rebels to prevent the end to violence and the peace in which to get on with their lives, for which the 3 million people of Sierra Leone desperately hunger".

My Lords, That concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and updating the House on what is clearly a very serious situation. We welcome and support the sensible and appropriate measures that are being taken to prepare for any evacuation of British and other nationals. The force that has been assembled for this purpose—one-and-a-half, or perhaps two, battalions and five ships—appears to be quite a large one. I am mildly surprised that there are still 500 British nationals in Freetown and surrounding areas when everyone, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, knows what a dangerous place it has become and how the rule of law has evaporated in many parts of that unhappy, and pathetically poor, country. But if that is what is necessary to get people out safely, it has our full support.

I should like to put a number of questions. First, can the Minister reassure the House that this large force is solely for evacuation and rescue? Can the noble Baroness elaborate on the words "further logistical support"? The House needs to be reassured that this is not the beginning of an entanglement, by a side door as it were, in the whole UN operation that is in difficulties. If evacuation is the purpose, could that be made absolutely clear? When does it begin? We gather that some military units have already been ashore for a day or two in Freetown. What is their aim beyond securing the airport? How long does the Minister think that it will all take?

On the broader scene, the UN operation was supposed to be a showpiece. People were saying that if we cannot get it right in Sierra Leone all hope is lost in Africa, and such words. We should now like to know where the UN operation is heading. At the moment the direction appears to be downwards. What line are Her Majesty's Government taking at the United Nations in support of pulling the operation together? At present, the operation looks in extremely bad shape.

Has the Minister a view, first, on the reports of huge illegal arms shipments going in through Burkina Faso to the rebels to the general chaos of the country? Secondly—my question relates to an issue raised many times by my noble friend on another crisis in Africa, Zimbabwe—has the Commonwealth a role? It is a Commonwealth country. It is part of the Commonwealth scene. I should like to believe that the Commonwealth has a positive role but I have heard nothing of that from the Government.

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. Perhaps I may also express our strong support for the very bold action taken by the Foreign Office to protect the interests and lives of British citizens and others in Sierra Leone for whom we have consular responsibility. I should be grateful if we could express the sympathy of the House for those UN peacekeepers who have lost their lives, many from Commonwealth countries which responded to the request from the Secretary-General to send troops to Sierra Leone.

It seems clear that the betrayal by Foday Sankoh of the peace agreement reached only a few months ago—he was invited into the government in exchange for cooperating on the restructuring of the security forces and the retraining of the army—has been a betrayal not only of his own people but of all the people of Sierra Leone. I hope that the Minister can assure us that we shall not pursue further any attempt to negotiate with a man of such evident false standing.

Perhaps I may ask three questions. The first concerns where our responsibilities begin and end. In the Statement the noble Baroness mentioned that we have consular responsibilities beyond those to British citizens. Perhaps she can enlighten us a little further. Can she also enlighten us on the position we would take if UN peacekeepers close to British forces, in a situation of danger to themselves, were to plead for our assistance to rescue them from, for example, hostage situations?

The second question concerns the position of the diamond trade in this continuing bitter civil war. It is notable that exactly the same has been true in Angola for an equally long time. Can the Minister tell us—she was able to do so with regard to Angola—what steps the British Government are taking to identify rough diamonds and in particular to strengthen the sanctions with regard to trade in Antwerp and other traditional diamond centres which appear not to be upholding the sanctions as much as they should?

Finally—it is the only critical note I have—should we reconsider the link between armies being made available and equipment? Clearly a country such as Bangladesh has no heavy-lift equipment and can get the troops who are so welcome to support the UN effort in Sierra Leone only if equipment is made available. The Minister will be well aware that one of the major UN members, the United States, is almost invariably reluctant to send troops but happy to offer heavy-lift and other essential equipment.

My Lords, I endorse entirely the expressions of sympathy offered in relation to this sad situation. I can reassure the noble Lord that evacuation and rescue is the focus for Her Majesty's Government's intervention—the security of those individuals, the British and those others for whom we are responsible. In reply to the noble Baroness's point, we are responsible for our own British nationals but we have also accepted responsibility in consular terms for EU, US and Commonwealth citizens who may also be there. It is not simply our 500 for whom we express real anxiety.

Our first move must be to secure the airport. It is a central point. I believe that the evacuation of certain British nationals may have started as we speak. That situation is developing rapidly on the ground. Our High Commissioner there will be liaising directly with the other authorities to keep a close eye on that dangerous situation.

I was asked where the UN operation was heading. Noble Lords will know well that this UN operation was put in place as perhaps the most helpful effort in the past 10 years finally to bring security and sanity to this area of the world. It is regrettable that the force—it should have been over 11,000—was only 8,000. We are doing all we can to encourage those involved to send the personnel and equipment as quickly as possible.

I endorse what has been said about the behaviour of the leader, Foday Sankoh. Much trust was placed in him—most importantly, the trust of the Sierra Leone people. The new government was to be a positive way forward. All of us hoped that it could and would be achieved.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, says, diamonds are a matter of great importance. I understand that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is today considering further measures that we can take with our EU partners in relation to diamonds and may be making comments in that regard as I speak but which I am unable to voice fully in this House at this moment.

On arms, we shall consider carefully these issues. I hope that noble Lords will understand that security of our Armed Forces and those currently in Sierra Leone is the most important issue at this time. I am unable to disclose to your Lordships the details in relation to those matters.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. It is particularly welcome news that the Prime Minister is in touch with the Prime Minister of Nigeria and that we have taken such apt precautionary measures at the seizure of the Freeport airfield. I welcome all that. I am sure the Government are right in taking action, as all governments must do, to protect their own nationals when they are in danger.

However, I worry whether that is enough. I do not say that we should do more individually as a country, but it is a terrible humiliation of and rebuff for the United Nations. The United Nations is the only, last, best hope for peace at the beginning of this century. Should we not at least bring together the Security Council for immediate and urgent consideration of the further measures needed to restore the authority, status and reputation of the UN?

My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend that this is a rebuff; and it is a matter that we must all take increasingly seriously. I cannot say whether it would be right, at this moment, to call for a meeting of the Security Council but I can assure your Lordships that every possible way forward is being actively considered. Nothing is being left out.

My Lords, can the Minister say anything about the joint UN/RUF mission which was supposed to locate and, if possible, rescue the UN hostages? The noble Baroness told the House that the British troops being sent to Freetown will not have responsibility for rescuing the UN troops who are being held hostage. If the mission is unsuccessful, what fall-back plans does the United Nations have—was this issue discussed yesterday at the Security Council? —for rescuing the 500 people now detained by the RUF?

What information do the Government have on the allegations of a coup, which was supposed to be launched today, and the arrest of senior RUF personnel, who were alleged to be responsible for it, by troops loyal to the AFRC in Freetown? Have charges been laid against Mr Mike Lamin or others alleged to have been involved in the coup? Do the Government consider that the remit of UNAMSIL was sufficiently clear in that, although SCR1289 required them to provide security, to enable people to move freely and to co-ordinate with the Sierra Leone authorities on the administration of law and order, there is no specific mention in the UN resolution of how they are supposed to respond if they come under fire? Is it the task of UNAMSIL to neutralise any group which fails to honour the peace agreement? If so, is it nor essential that UNAMSIL detachments which find themselves under fire should be able to call for rapid reinforcements from the rest of UN forces in the territory and that they should have the logistics to enable them to do so?

My Lords, understand the noble Lord's anxiety and h:s hunger for in-depth information. I hope that he will understand the limits currently placed on any disclosures I can make as regards precisely what is happening on the ground. We must do nothing to exacerbate or inflame the situation.

Our troops are on their way and we shall know more once we have people on the ground. Their main task is to bring out citizens safely. The situation is rapidly changing and I am sure that the noble Lord knows that UNAMSIL has a broad mandate. It certainly has a mandate to keep its own security as a priority, but this is a fluid and rapidly changing situation. It is perhaps best at this stage for us to respond moderately and to wait to see what we discover in detail on the ground.

My Lords, what consultations have the British Government had with our European partners? After all, one of the contexts of the European defence initiative has been that the operation one might envisage for the new battle reaction force would be to help to prop up collapsing states. Therefore, it seems entirely appropriate that consultations should have taken place.

Furthermore, can the Minister confirm that British interests in Sierra Leone are not simply those of rescuing British nationals? As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a position which the Conservative Party among others is strongly committed to Britain retaining, we have a strong interest in maintaining the authority of the United Nations and, thus, in ensuring that the UN does not fail in its commitment to Sierra Leone.

Can the Minister also comment on the refugee issue? We in this country have learnt bitterly that when states collapse in Africa some of their desperate refugees turn up, legally or illegally, within the EU. We have a substantial Somali community in London and elsewhere in Britain which was not here 10 years ago. I am not sure how they got here, but somehow they did. That confirms that it is greatly in Britain's interest to ensure that Sierra Leone does not collapse as a state.

My Lords, I agree with the import of the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord. We are consulting our EU partners in relation to what is happening in Sierra Leone. It has been agreed that we should take the brunt of the rescue mission, which is why we and our forces are going in to rescue British, EU and Commonwealth nationals from the situation. We are going in not only to do that, but to try to maintain the authority of the UN. The noble Lord is right in pointing that out, but at this stage our primary focus must be to secure the situation and rescue the nationals for whom we have accepted responsibility.

We have a continuing commitment to Sierra Leone and we have tried to make that clear. Once the nationals have been removed, we shall participate and encourage a reconstruction in terms of how Sierra Leone works. The refugee situation will be another complex issue with which we shall have to deal and it is with great energy that we shall try to address our minds to any fall-out that may come from that. However, it is a rapidly developing situation and we are communicating with all our partners to try to get a focused and cohesive response to the difficulty.

My Lords, bearing in mind the complaints that radio equipment did not work for our troops in Kosovo and that the rifles with which our infantry were supplied needed to be modified, can the Minister assure the House that the troops whom we have sent to West Africa have a suitable supply of radio equipment that works and additional equipment which they can lend to UN troops already there so that they can communicate with them? Furthermore, will she assure the House that the troops who have already left have properly modified weapons?

My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that the officers and men and women whom we have sent are appropriately equipped for the task with which they must deal. We understand that that task will be complex.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 5.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 2, line 11. leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").

The noble Lord said: Before we adjourned for the Statements, we were discussing matters of enormous and wide-ranging importance with regard to social security policy. Amendment No. 6 is at the other end of the spectrum, both politically and technically. It seeks merely to increase a time limit in the Bill from one to two months.

Under the Bill, the parent with care has one month in which to respond to a letter telling her that the Secretary of State intends to cease dealing with an application. If she does not want it to stop, she may be considered a voluntary client of the agency without further application. If the parent with care misses the one-month time limit, she can apply for maintenance later and the agency will pursue the non-resident parent from the current date.

With our passionate desire to improve the Bill, I believe that this amendment would be suitable because we know that, one way or another, communications may well be prolonged. Two things may happen if the individual concerned is not aware of the situation within a month: first, there will be further delay while the process that I have just described continues and eventually is concluded; and, secondly, if she goes through those lengthier proceedings, she may lose some degree of maintenance because it is calculated from the date when the new procedure is concluded rather than when she writes rapidly saying that she wants the Secretary of State to go ahead. I hope that the Minister will consider the proposal to be an improvement rather than otherwise. I beg to move.

As clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, this amendment increases the time limit within which a parent with care must notify the CSA if she wants to continue as a voluntary client when she leaves benefit before a maintenance calculation is made.

Clause 1 provides the basis for maintenance calculations. It substitutes a new Section 11 dealing with the rules for maintenance calculations in the 1991 Act. New Section 11 (subsections (3) to (5)) requires the Secretary of State to stop acting on an application for child support treated as made under Section 6(3) if he becomes aware that the parent with care has left benefit before the maintenance calculation has been made.

The treating of an application for child support "as made" when a claim for benefit is made streamlines the way in which parents with care who claim or receive benefit apply for child support. It will ensure that parents with care who claim income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance receive a seamless maintenance service at the same time.

Under the current scheme, a parent with care who claims income support or income-based JSA can be required to authorise the Secretary of State to take action to recover child maintenance. She is not required to do so if there are reasonable grounds to believe that there would be a risk that she, or any child living with her, would suffer harm or undue distress. This is known as "good cause". However, child support arrangements can be made only after a formal application for maintenance has been made.

In the reformed child support scheme, only those parents who need to will take action to opt out of making a claim for child support. That will ensure easy access to the new system which will provide a regular and reliable flow of maintenance and a better service for parents.

However, if a parent with care, who has had an application for maintenance treated as made under Section 6(3), leaves benefit before the maintenance calculation is made, she can instead ask the agency to treat her application as voluntary under Section 4 of the 1991 Act. Action to pursue child maintenance would otherwise cease in those cases. If there is no court order or pre-1993 written maintenance agreement in place to prevent that, the Secretary of State can then continue the process of determining child support liability. That avoids a delay in liability coming into effect.

The parent with care has one month to respond to the letter telling her that the Secretary of State intends to stop acting. If she does not want action to stop, she may then be considered as a voluntary client by the agency without any further application. If the parent with care in this situation misses the one-month time limit, she can apply for maintenance later and the agency will instead pursue the non-resident parent from the current date.

The one-month period exists in the current scheme. It gives the parent with care a reasonable amount of time while not requiring the CSA to suspend action for too long. It is consistent with other time limits; for example, with regard to disputing and appealing decisions. Therefore, the one-month time limit goes across the board.

We have no evidence to suggest that the existing one-month time limit causes a problem a t the moment. I have not heard anything from the noble Lord tonight to suggest that we should extend it to two months, except on an a priori principle as opposed to problems that have been generated. I am perfectly willing to listen but, as far as I am aware, the amendment proposes a solution to a problem that does not exist. That solution, with its extended time period, could become a minor problem in itself. If the noble Lord has evidence from organisations that it is a problem and would like to send me that evidence, I shall of course reflect on it. However, at the moment I have no such evidence and have no reason to believe that this issue presents a difficulty. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord that we keep the legislation as it currently is on this point, and I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

It seemed to me that evidence was unlikely to be readily available—certainly, to me. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a rather simple question in the light of what she has just said. Is it not the case that, if someone misses the one-month deadline, what then ensues before the matter is resolved will take longer than if a slightly longer deadline was in place when the individual could simply go through the initial procedure rather than through the second round?

I believe that that might be true under the existing system. I hope that it will not be true under the future system. Given the simplicity of our arrangements under the future system, even if an application were brand new as opposed to a continuation of one where we had to obtain new information about the ex-partner's circumstances, we would expect to have that information within days and the assessment to be running within four to six weeks. Where one deals with, broadly speaking, continuous information—the same number of children and so on—I would hope to see the new or revisited application triggered even more quickly. Therefore, again, I do not see that it should be the problem that the noble Lord fears.

In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 2, line 28, at end insert—

("( ) The Secretary of State shall report annually to Parliament on the change to the number and qualification of maintenance variations that have been made in the preceding year.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 8. The amendments concern two matters. First, Amendment No. 7 proposes that the Secretary of State should report annually to Parliament on the change to the number and qualification of maintenance variations that have been made in the preceding year. Secondly, Amendment No. 8 proposes that any change in the nature and qualification of maintenance variations shall be agreed and ratified by Parliament before a change can be implemented.

I believe that we are all agreed that the simplified formula is likely to be an improvement—at any rate in terms of timing—on the existing formula under the previous legislation. I believe also that it is generally agreed that there are likely to be real problems in operating the old and new formulas side by side in the transitional period. Clearly, those who under the old formula believe that they are being treated more harshly than they would be under the new formula will feel that they have cause for complaint. Be that as it may, there was a general consensus, certainly in the Select Committee in another place, that the move towards the simplified formula is a good thing.

On the other hand, it is extremely important indeed that there should be adequate variations to deal with particular difficult situations. I believe that in the jargon a variation is described in another form. No doubt the noble Baroness will assist me.

It is "departures".

I am not entirely sure why we are talking about both "variations" and "departures".

"Departures" belong to the existing scheme, "variations" to the new one.

I imagine that the reason for the change in terminology remains shrouded in mystery. We seek to argue, as the Family Law Bar Association has argued very strongly, that if the simplified terms are to be used then there is a need for more grounds of departure. They should not be reduced, as has been suggested. They should cover such matters as higher housing costs, travel-to-work costs, disability costs and so on.

In view of that, there would seem to be a case for the House continuing to be aware of any changes which have been made in the preceding year. As I have suggested, Amendment No. 7 deals with that particular problem.

Secondly, if such departures or whatever are to be decided upon, those matters should be discussed and agreed in Parliament before they go ahead.

Overall, our concern is that despite the simplified formula, the system should be sufficiently flexible to deal reasonably with individual circumstances. Therefore, we hope that the Government will be prepared to accept our proposal. I beg to move.

Earlier in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to the actual effect on children brought about by this Bill. It is extremely important that Parliament should know how it is working out for children. Therefore, the idea of an annual report seems to be excellent.

It is all very well to have a system which is justified as likely to be fair and to talk about the matter generally, but it will be important to know the real implications for the children concerned. This is a way for Parliament to discover and discuss that. I suggest that the Government should give some serious thought to this proposal.

Both these amendments relate to parliamentary scrutiny of variations. Amendment No. 8 will require the Secretary of State to seek the approval of both Houses of Parliament for any changes he wishes to make to the nature and qualifying criteria of the grounds on which he will consider a variation from the normal child support maintenance calculations.

I recognise the noble Lord's concerns to ensure that new variations are not introduced through the back door with the result that the variations scheme simply reintroduces the complexity of the current scheme by another route. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, agrees with the comment made by his honourable friend Edward Leigh in another place when he said that,

"if they load a new set of variations on to the simplified formula, the system will quickly revert to something approximating the present highly complex system".

Members of the Committee will no doubt be aware that we have thought very carefully about which expenses will merit a variation of liability. We may wish to come to that in due course. To put it very simply, the two grounds of variation that we are proposing are, first, where the costs of supporting the child of the first family, including contact, need to be taken into account in order to ensure that the payment of maintenance does not subvert the father's capacity to make contact with the child. Legitimate expenses will be taken into account.

The second is where mistaken or fraudulent information has been given and we want variations on those grounds to ensure that, for example, the father is not living a life style inconsistent with the income declared. Those are the two basic grounds for variations. We are determined to keep it tight. We believe parents should put children, not other expenses, first. All the rules of the new scheme are intended to ensure this.

I am pleased to be able to provide reassurance that Section 52 of the Child Support Act, as amended by Clause 24, already provides that no regulations made under Schedule 4B can be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by both Houses. The new Schedule 4B—as substituted by Clause 6—details the cases and circumstances where a variation may be allowed. It also provides for regulation-making powers relating to the manner in which, and the extent to which, the normal calculation rules may be varied. That includes regulations relating to grounds which are not specified on the face of the Bill itself. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that that affords ample opportunity for debate of any proposed changes, and should provide all the safeguards as regards accountability which are being sought.

Amendment No. 7 appears to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the number of variations, although it may be the nature of them, which he has made in the preceding year. I do not believe that it is necessary that the Secretary of State should do so because the Child Support Agency, through its chief executive, will, as now, compile the relevant information as a matter of routine and publish it in an annual business report. I shall take up the point regarding information about variations and shall try to ensure that that is embedded in any future reports. That will give your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the information which is sought on the basis of which, should he ever wish to, he could raise a Question or introduce a short debate. Therefore, an appropriate vehicle is already in place—namely, the annual report of the Child Support Agency—and it seems unwise to ask the Secretary of State essentially to duplicate that work. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

With regard to the confusion between the number or nature of the variations, that can be covered by asking for both the number and nature of the variations.

What the noble Baroness said about the annual report of the Child Support Agency largely covers the point which I was seeking to make about that and the question of agreeing variations by statutory instrument.

I agree with the noble Baroness that we do not want to have so many variations that we go back to the former complexities. Anyone, like myself, who has suffered from arguing those complexities in the past on behalf of constituents—or sometimes against them—will realise that that is not a route which we want to follow. Indeed, it is not. Nevertheless, we believe that there needs to be a degree of flexibility. As the noble Baroness pointed out, some of those issues arise later in the Bill in specific terms. No doubt we can pursue them at that time. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 2, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 39.

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 79, 81 to 83, 85, 87 to 91, 104, 106 to 108, 200 and 201. This group of amendments is a technical group necessary to improve the drafting of the Bill and to ensure that it achieves what is intended.

Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 90 are minor amendments in connection with the new civil penalty of disqualification from holding a driving licence. Of course, we shall have a substantive debate on Amendment No. 84 regarding that matter. These amendments are necessary because of changes currently being made to the Powers of Criminal Courts Act. The effect is unchanged.

When magistrates' courts have made a disqualification order, the non-resident parent will be required to produce his licence. These amendments concern the powers of the police to ask the non-resident parent to produce the licence if it was not given to the courts. Failure to produce the licence in these circumstances is a criminal offence punishable by a fine.

The new simple system will, for the first time, enable the CSA to devote greater resources to collection and enforcement. We believe that this and the new measures in respect of driving licences together with the ability to deduct maintenance from a wider range of benefits will ensure that regular maintenance payments are secured from the vast majority of nonresident parents.

The other amendments, including a number that relate to Clause 17 of the Bill about civil imprisonment in Scotland, make technical corrections or additions to parts of the Bill to ensure that it achieves what is intended without unnecessary duplication. As I say, these are technical drafting issues. Later we shall come to the substantive issues. With that explanation I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendment. I beg to move.

The Committee will be grateful for that explanation. If the Committee eventually takes a different view on some of the later matters, like disqualification and confiscation of driving licences, no doubt we shall see another set of amendments like these that will put the matter right. That being so, we are grateful to the Minister for explaining it. I do not want to oppose this further at this stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 2, line 40, leave out ("in connection with any other assessment of maintenance").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 89, line 7, at beginning insert—

("( ) Where the amount of child support maintenance calculated exceeds such sum as may be prescribed ("the maximum sum"), the maximum sum shall be payable by the non-resident parent.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 11, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 14 and 17. This is an important amendment that seeks to impose what in current jargon would be described as "an upper limit". There is widespread feeling—again I refer to and support the Family Law Bar Association—for the view that there should be a maximum season on liability and that the basis of saying that the contribution from the absent parent should be unlimited is one that gives us considerable cause for concern.

In effect, it will give the parent with care and, through him or her—although that is not certain—it will give the child the right to share in the income of the non-resident parent without limit. That raises a number of important issues as to what extent it is appropriate to say in a Bill that is designed to protect the rights of the child and that states that the child should be supported, whether the child should have, over and above what may be a reasonable amount for that purpose, an entitlement to the income of the absent parent.

Earlier the noble Baroness sought to argue that, in sharing the responsibility for a child, the parent with care was, in effect, providing the home, and so on, and that it was up to the absent parent to provide the money. That is debatable, not least because, as we know—we shall come to this point later—the income and wealth of the parent with care may be substantially greater than that of the absent parent. At all events, even if the situation is one where the absent parent is rich, or well off compared with the parent with care, it is arguable that there should be some limit imposed on the amount that is transferred from the absent parent to the children of, let us say, a first marriage.

The matter becomes particularly complicated when someone has had several marriages or may have fathered a succession of children without having been married at all. That may be less likely in the case of someone who is extremely well off than otherwise. None the less, it would seem unreasonable that there should be no limit whatever to the amount that is transferred from the absent parent to the parent with care.

The amendments before us seek to deal with that particular problem in a variety of ways. Amendment No. 11, for example, suggests that there should be a maximum sum for which the non-resident parent is liable and that, following the calculation of the amount paid by a non-resident parent, the Secretary of State shall determine the net weekly income of the parent so that there is some degree of equity between the two.

I believe that the Select Committee sought to argue as follows:

"In the final analysis, the child-support formula should be seen clearly to be related to the cost of bringing up children and not as a straightforward 'tax' levied on the non-resident parent. We recommend that the Government should re-examine the possibility of inserting in the legislation an upper limit on the automatic application"—

I stress the words "the automatic application"—

"of the revised CSA formula".

The Select Committee reached that conclusion after taking evidence from a number of witnesses who argued along those lines.

Similarly, we also have in front of us Amendments Nos. 14 and 17 that suggest that the upper limit of child support maintenance may reasonably be of the order of £400 a week for each qualifying child. I do not believe that anyone would reasonably argue that that limit is too tight. Even in the most exotic circumstances, a limit of £400 a week for each qualifying child would seem relaxed. If there were three children, that would mean £1,200 a week from the absent parent to the parent with care. We put that down as a basis for debate.

Clearly, we are not concerned with the vast majority of cases in front of us. The number of people who can afford to pay £400 a week for their child, absent or not, is limited, but to have no limit at all would mean that, effectively, it would become a tax on the absent parent. We believe that in these circumstances there is a strong argument that at least some limit—we can debate the quantum—ought to be imposed. I hope that the Minister is sympathetic to that view. I beg to move.

We, on these Benches, and my honourable friends have discussed at some length, and on a good many occasions, the principles involved in these amendments and in the next group of amendments. We can see a good deal of merit in the arguments on both sides. All of us were extremely reluctant to come to a conclusion until my honourable friend, Professor Webb, finally grasped the nettle and laid down a general principle. Perhaps I may save myself the labour of speaking on the next group of amendments by explaining that the general principle was that in general children ought to share in the increasing wealth of their parents. That means that we decided we would not support this group of amendments.

Suppose a child of Mr Donald Trump were subject to British law. The sum of £400 a week may seem to him or her to be rather mean considering his or her father's resources and could lead to a certain amount of resentment. On the other hand, we felt that some account should be taken, although not in quite the same way or to the same extent, of increasing wealth of the parent with care. Clearly, the Minister is correct that the care is a direct contribution to the welfare of the child and anything that did not take that into account would be entirely indefensible. On the other hand, a situation can exist in which the parent with care may be a great deal richer than the non-resident parent.

We have to try to reduce the resentment that arrangements for child support have created. I can see among those who feel resentment, even at the basic principle, that that is one that could easily be fastened on and could lead to a great deal of complaint. Although we shall not support this group of amendments, we shall support the next group, beginning with Amendment No. 12.

I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. In the course of weighing the pros and cons of the arguments, did he consider, if he decides not to support these amendments, whether the principle should be extended to those whose marriage has not broken down and to those who were never married? Does he believe that the law should indicate that a very wealthy parent must give a certain percentage of his income to any given child?

Subject to the provisions of Amendment No. 15, which we have yet to debate, yes, I think that I would say that.

The noble Earl has reminded us that arguments can be made on both sides as regards caps on maintenance. However, we should remember that when we take into account the philosophy that lies behind the provisions relating to child support in the Bill, we cannot support these amendments. That philosophy is not about need, but rather the rights of a child to support and the responsibilities of parents to give that support, whether they are absent or present.

Where parents remain together, the child would share proportionately in the income of the household. In my view, and speaking with some experience as a lone parent, it is morally unjust if children do not share proportionately in the income because the parents live apart. We should also remember that we are trying to introduce the simplest possible system to improve what is currently in place. These amendments would add complexity and for that reason would make it less effective.

Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, reminded us, this applies to only a very small number of people. The number of lone parent families where this would apply is absolutely tiny. I believe that we should reject the amendment.

I believe that this is an extremely important issue. One can imagine a case where the non-resident parent is extremely well-off and is forced to supply to the resident parent large sun-is of money for the children. I believe that the noble Earl mentioned that those sums would be transferred to the mother of the children. However, the children might not in fact get the money. I do not believe that such arrangements would ever be made in any other circumstances.

In any case, it is not good for children to be given large sums of money when they are young. That could happen unless an amendment of this kind is introduced. The Bill as it stands is contrary to good sense. Indeed it may well be that the children never see the money because the funds would simply be transferred from one parent to another. That will occur not even as a result of unintended consequences, but will be the result of not sufficiently thinking the matter through.

I believe that we would be making a great mistake and I hope that the Committee will support these amendments.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke of sharing in the increasing wealth of families. Unfortunately, in real life family incomes can go down as well as up. In view of the fact that in most families the household wealth will fluctuate over the period that a child is dependent on the family, the introduction of a cap would present an added complication. In order to take account of the fact that the wealth of a family can rise and fall, a cap would be a disadvantage. It would be better to keep the system as simple as possible and to stick to the arrangements that are agreed.

Perhaps I may add my support to the contributions made by my noble friends Lord Higgins and Lady Carnegy. As I understand it, we are discussing support for the child and ensuring that adequate provision is made in all cases. That was my interpretation, not that the Bill aims to give a child a lump sum of whatever size simply because that child has a parent who happens to be wealthy.

I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could clarify what we are considering here. Are we discussing a sufficient sum of money to enable the child to be brought up in a loving environment—I refer to the comments made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne? If it is possible to demand unlimited levels of support from the parent, all that will do is introduce more controversy and bitterness to the relationship. It must be noted that a cap of £400 a week per child is a very high limit.

I believe that we are moving away from the basic intention of the Bill which, as I understand it, is to ensure that adequate support is given to a child. I did not think that we were aiming to secure investment for the future for certain children. Can the noble Baroness make clear to the Committee the intention here?

I believe that we may have forgotten exactly what was the intention that lay behind the introduction of the original Child Support Act. The original legislation was designed to make parents on social security pay towards the maintenance of their children in order that the Treasury could save around £400 million a year. That was what it was all about and I believe that we should bear that very much in mind. The legislation was not introduced in order to distribute largesse from one family to another and thus give some children a lifestyle that perhaps they should not enjoy at a particularly young age.

Furthermore, we should bear in mind that circumstances can change. For example, there may be a separation in a family. A man or a woman remarries and, whereas previously the partner might have been poor or perhaps living on an average wage, through the newly formed couple's diligence and desire to get on, they build up a large business. They then become relatively rich. A part of that success will have been contributed by the new spouse. Why should she contribute towards the upkeep of children who are not hers? I do not believe that circumstances of that kind have been considered. I think that it would be entirely wrong to expect a new spouse to contribute. Because the business would belong jointly to her, that is what she would be doing.

I believe that my noble friend should take heed of what has been said and, if not today then at some stage, consider the force of these amendments. She should give some consideration to what has been said and then bring forward a formula that would set a reasonable limit on contributions that might have to be made—usually, of course, by men.

The proposal has given rise to an interesting debate. The purpose of these amendments is to introduce an upper limit to the amount of maintenance that a non-resident parent is required to pay. This would reverse the Government's present intention that there should be no upper limit to the amount of maintenance payable.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 17 seek to restrict the amount payable in respect of any one child to £400 a week, which under our proposals equates to an annual gross income of roughly £200,000 where there is one qualifying child. Amendment No. 11 provides that the level of the limit, or "maximum sum" is to be prescribed in regulations, although the wording is not entirely clear and we would need to discuss further the details.

I suggest that having an upper limit to the amount of maintenance payable would result in an inconsistency of treatment between non-resident parents with relatively high levels of income and those on more modest sums. Our decision not to introduce a cap was not one that was reached lightly. We have considered the issues very carefully and we accept that there are strong and respectable arguments on both sides. I accept that the matter is quite finely balanced.

As noble Lords have commented, there is a concern that if maintenance is set as a proportion of net income, levels of maintenance where income is very high bear no relation to the needs of the child. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has tonight argued that in those circumstances maintenance payments effectively become spousal maintenance payments. The counter-argument, which was put persuasively by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, is that the children of intact families share in the standard of living of their parents without any limit. Why should the amount that a father spends on his children be less because he is not living with them? It is important to remember that child support rates are not based on a calculation of the child's need for maintenance.

Of a current case load of about 1 million nonresident parents, only 500 have incomes exceeding £50,000 a year and only 120 have net incomes exceeding £150,000. The noble Lord will recognise the point made by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley about having to scrutinise all incomes to protect or cap 120 non-resident parents.

Under the new system, there will be no maintenance requirement but simply a straightforward percentage slice of income that all parents can understand. Maintenance for all children will be based on what a father can afford—not what he or anyone else believes the children need. All non-resident parents will keep a minimum of 75 per cent of their net income in the new liability calculation. If just one child qualifies for maintenance support in the first family, 15 per cent of the net income of a higher rate taxpayer equates to between 9 per cent and 10 per cent only of his gross income. The rest remains with the tax authorities, national insurance and himself. After divorce, the average non-resident parent is 15 per cent better off whereas the parent with care and the children are on average 15 per cent worse off.

I acknowledge that the arguments are finely balanced. Our decision takes account of the various views expressed in the consultation exercise on the Green Paper and in talking to interested groups and individuals. The Social Security Select Committee in another place, after carefully considering many of the points raised today, reached the same conclusion. Placing an upper limit on the amount paid in respect of any one child is inconsistent with the Government's plan for a simple and transparent system of rates that protects the rights of all children to support from nonresident parents, in keeping with their ability to provide. I ask the noble Lord not to pursue his amendment.

This has been a fascinating debate, not least because, in reply to my intervention, we seem to have heard new Liberal Democrat party policy that government should legislate how much should be allocated by parents to their children in any family that has not broken up. If that is the case, we may be in serious trouble.

The noble Lord asked me for a moral principle, not a prescription. I will qualify my remarks. I would hesitate to apply that principle to Augustus the Strong, who had 592 known children.

I always thought that the noble Earl thought that moral principles and what ought to be in legislation were one and the same. We shall, no doubt, pursue that point on another occasion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the Minister said that the income of every non-resident parent would have to be scrutinised to identify those who were to be capped. If we were to insert this simple provision into the Bill, anyone who thought they ought to be capped would say so in response to the agency's inquiries. It is unlikely that the vast majority would need to have their means assessed in that way or would think they were caught by the cap.

The Minister referred to spousal income rather than assistance for the child. On the kind of numbers the noble Baroness was talking about, it is doubtful that the needs would be of such a high order. The amount will be based on what the other parent can afford. We have to take into account the position of second families. In the case of someone who is extremely wealthy and has a second family, paying support without limit on the percentage basis might reduce the income he can devote to the children of the second family. One thing that is indelibly printed on my mind from dealing with such cases is the bitterness of second families, which gives rise to many problems and a determination on the part of absent parents who have remarried to avoid by any means becoming involved with the CSA. On this basis, there could be a redistribution of income from the second family to the first family. There would be a variation on the old purse-to-wallet argument, as to who ought to have the money.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, pointed out that it was not the intention of the 1991 Act—or this Bill, I thought—to lead to massive transfers from one group to another. One could have an extremely rich mother with care combined with an extremely rich absent parent—but the absent father would still have to transfer support, without limit on a percentage basis, to his very rich previous wife. We will need to return to these complicated matters on Report, then reach a view on the balance of argument. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 89, line 7, at beginning insert—

("(A ) Following the calculation of the amount payable by the non-resident parent, the Secretary of State shall determine the net weekly income of the parent with care in like manner to the determination of the net weekly income of the non-resident parent.

(A2) Where the net weekly income of the parent with care exceeds the net weekly income of the non-resident parent the Secretary of State shall in such manner as may be prescribed reduce the amount of child support maintenance payable by the non-resident parent.

(A3) Where the non-resident parent is liable to pay child support maintenance to more than one person the provisions of sub-paragraph (A l) shall apply to each parent with care and the reductions in the amount payable provided for by sub-paragraph (A2) shall apply to the amounts payable to each of those parents with care in receipt of a net weekly income greater than that of the non-resident parent.").

The noble Lord said: With this, we may appropriately consider also Amendment No. 26. The argument is simply that the income of the parent with care and the absent parent should both be taken into account. The Government seem determined only to take into account the income of the absent parent. That was made clear earlier by the Minister when she said that the contribution by the with-care parent was care and that of the absent parent was money. We have grave doubts, believing it important to take both aspects into account.

I did not mean to imply that the father's sole responsibility is that of providing cash support. I would certainly wish to see contact and loving support. But when it comes to determining proper apportionment, all the research indicates that children of an intact family take 30 per cent of its income—not just in terms of food and trainers but housing costs and the like. Therefore, it seems equitable to allocate 15 per cent to the parent with whom the child is living and 15 per cent to the nonresident parent. I was not trying to suggest that the absent parent is only there for the money and the caring parent is there to do everything else.

In the light of the debate we had earlier on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, it is clearly desirable—not least in light of the statistics the noble Baroness advanced earlier—that the absent parent, man or woman, should continue to take part in the emotional and other development of the children concerned. That is something on which we should all agree. Where there is room for dispute is whether, on the other side of that coin, the fact that the parent with care takes most of the responsibility—in many cases not all the responsibility—mean s that he or she should be in some way exempt from paying anything at all. That is a debatable proposition, particularly where, after the marriage has broken down or if there was no marriage at all, the parent with care is better off than the absent parent, whether it be male or female. That gives rise to great tensions and seems to us, in a simple-minded way, to be unfair.

The parent with care ought to contribute, if she is able, towards the cost of the child's rearing in terms of finance. The noble Baroness's position is that, however well off the parent with care is, she should not contribute anything financially. Is that right?

I must challenge the noble Lord. I made it clear that the parent with care contributes her share of the maintenance by providing the lifestyle which the child enjoys by living with her.

But she does not contribute anything at all in relation to finance. Am I wrong?

The child is fed; has its clothes bought; the housing and heating costs paid; school costs, trainers and gym kit paid for. Is that not part of the parent-with-care's contribution in kind?

We fully accept that the parent with care, male or female, contributes in that way. But it is not reasonable to say that that exempts them from making a financial contribution.

That is a financial contribution.

I suppose if one wished to do so, one could evaluate it in a cost sense. But if one does that, then the noble Baroness is hoist with her own petard. She has to argue that that value is the same as the value of the amount which is being contributed by the absent parent. The noble Baroness is not doing that.

I am sorry to get under the noble Lord's feet. I am baffled by this. A child needs support. We know from all the research and experience abroad that in most families that takes around 30 per cent of their income; not in a narrow sense but in the broadest sense of living costs. That is how much is apportioned.

The argument is simple. If the child needs that sum of money, it is reasonable to assume that that should be split 50–50 between the two parents. Clearly, because the child is living with the carer—normally the mother, but not invariably so—the mother is providing that 15 per cent not in cash, but in kind. She has to purchase that kind through cash, including housing costs, food on the table, heating, TV licence and so forth. That is her contribution. The absent parent's contribution towards those living costs, because he is not providing care in kind because it is not an intact family, is the cash. If they were together, he would be providing it in cash because he would possibly be bringing in the earnings and the mother might be producing it in kind. That is being replicated in these arrangements.

I am baffled that the noble Lord is not willing to put a financial equivalence on the contribution made by the parent with care to the cash sum produced by the non-resident parent.

I am happy to do that. But it still seems to me that one ought to take into account the resources of both parties in the broadest sense of the term. As I understand it, that is not what will happen under the Bill as drafted; the wealth of the parent with care is not to be taken into account in determining how the matter should be adjusted. There is a strong argument for saying that that is not the right approach, not least because it will tend to create tensions; it will not lead to a satisfactory arrangement.

In this context, our amendment imposes a limit in that regard. In another place the Australian experience was called in aid. A senior Australian lawyer gave evidence to the Select Committee to the effect that some sort of adjustment ought to be made on the lines that we are suggesting. Perhaps I ought to give the noble Baroness the chance to have a run at this, so to speak, rather than by way of intervention and we can then take the matter forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that this was a simple amendment taking the incomes of both parents into account. But we would argue that the parent with the care of the child gives much more in kind and will make a greater contribution to the rearing of the child. That contribution cannot be calculated on a balance sheet. The amendment seems to argue that it is the incomes of the parents that are important, rather than the needs of the child. But the needs and rights of the child must be paramount and that is what we should be considering.

The Government's clear policy is to lift children out of poverty. So how can anyone seriously propose that if in some instances—a small percentage—the parent taking responsibility of the day-to-day care happens to have a higher income than the non-resident parent, the child should be penalised. The non-resident parent should continue to make a financial contribution to the agreed amount, which is 15 per cent in terms of the first child, irrespective of what the resident parent's income is. In that way, the child will share in the wealth of both parents, as the child would if the parents had stayed together.

The key issue here is children's rights. The children should be allowed to share in the wealth of both parents and not have their income diminished because the resident parent's income increases. Amendment No. 12 will allow the non-resident parent to pay less than the agreed 15 per cent for the first child. That would, in effect, let the non-resident parent off the hook. For example, if the mother (in most cases it would be the mother who would have care and responsibility) worked hard to improve her position and because of that her income rose, then the nonresident parent could have his contribution diminished. That cannot be right. We believe Amendment No. 12 should be rejected and I support the Government's proposals.

I rise to make a short intervention on this amendment. I am somewhat concerned that, if we are not careful, we may be looking at the past when, in this day and age, we should be looking to the future. Many women are managing to hold good jobs—I accept not all and it is the same for men; people's incomes vary enormously. I support my noble friend's suggestion that both incomes should be taken into consideration. I cannot see why the Government feel that they should not.

I listened with care to what the Minister said about the mother—the resident carer is predominantly the mother—giving time and I accept that it is difficult to evaluate time, whether it is a man or a woman. However, that mother may be earning £40,000. Some women are now earning a lot more than that. If the father of that child earns much less money and goes on to re-marry, it would be unfair not to take the earnings of the caring wife into consideration. I should therefore like to press the Minister further on that point.

In many ways, I think the Bill has grown from past experience, when some women were not working. However, in this day and age there are great opportunities for women to earn, and many are taking up that challenge, and that point has a bearing on the amendments.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that this is not an issue of men versus women but about a child's right to support.

I should like to link financial support, emotional support and maintaining contact with children.

We all agree that emotional development is the most important matter. Research has repeatedly shown that absent parents who contribute, whether they are mothers or fathers, are much more likely to keep in touch. The money is almost a symbol of commitment to the child and of their willingness to take, and continue to take, responsibility as a parent, whether or not they are living with the other partner.

The fact that the parent with care is well off does not absolve the other parent of this responsibility. Moreover, it will certainly contribute towards maintaining emotional support, which is very important for the psychological wellbeing of the child.

Would the noble Baroness agree that the emotional support of the nonresident parent will be lost if the whole thing appears to be grossly unfair? I can think of nothing that would alienate the non-resident parent and his or her new family more than if the situation is manifestly unfair.

The Family Law Bar Association thought that the lack of a cap was crude social engineering. I think this is an inadvertent giving-in to feminism, thinking that it will be the woman who will perhaps be better off. It may not necessarily be the case, but it is likely to be. One must be sure that the emotional support of the child comes from both sides. That support will be lost if this is maintained.

I clearly emphasised that the situation applies to either parent and that this is not a women's issue. Emotional support and continued contact are the important factors.

I should like to reiterate some of the points made by the Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. The contribution of both parents is taken into account in the Bill. None of us is saying that the parent with care—and it is nearly always her—does not make a financial contribution as well as a contribution in kind. The Bill is fair: the contribution of the absent parent is the maintenance contribution. The parent with care makes a contribution in kind by giving time and presence, and by fulfilling organisational responsibilities. They may also make a financial contribution. We are talking about a fairness of approach.

However, I challenge the optimism of the noble Baroness. Lady Byford. I deal daily with figures on women's and men's income, and, although I would like to think that in the future the situation will greatly improve, most of the women about whom we are talking, who are the parents with care, will on average be 20 per cent poorer than the parent who does not have the care. Therefore, even though in the future we hope that men and women's pay will become much more equal, we are talking about a lot of poorer women today whose incomes, in their lifetimes, will never go into double figures.

The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, is clearly right about the present balance of income. However, in this and the last group of amendments we appear to be following the principle of Parkinson's law on the bicycle shed: spending an hour and a half debating the bicycle shed and 10 minutes on the nuclear reactor. Both amendments deal with a small number of people. Nevertheless, for the sake of public acceptance, we might as well try and get it right. Legislation since 1991 has conspicuously lacked public acceptance.

I normally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and on this occasion I agree with her about the importance of the implied emotional commitment in the principle of financial support; but she was attacking what the amendment does not say. The amendment does not say that in these cases the non-resident parent shall give no support; it says that that support shall be reduced in such manner as may be prescribed. It does not state that the principle of support should disappear, and that is quite right because it satisfies the point. It merely states that it should be taken into account.

Nobody, as far as I can hear, in any quarter of the Chamber, is disputing the principle that care, with its financial, emotional and work implications, must be taken into account. However, as I understand it, the amendment concedes this principle already and it is not an issue. The extent to which it should be taken into account and in what way is a difficult question. I understand very well why the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has chosen to leave that matter to regulation.

The point remains that if no account is taken of the principle of the amendment, we will have a great deal of trouble with public acceptance of the Act.

Let us imagine two cases that are by no means unimaginable. One is of a highly successful woman barrister, a parent with care, who has kept the children. The husband is unemployed or temporarily employed in a series of part-time jobs, with very little money indeed; and she is earning £200,000 a year, as successful barristers occasionally do. In this situation there will be a certain amount of public feeling. Imagine the heiress of a millionaire who has had an impromptu affair with a bricklayer—such things have happened and will continue to happen. She keeps the child and then the CSA duns the bricklayer for 15 per cent of his income.

That is only one case, but stop and think for a moment about what the Sun will be capable of doing with that case. The Minister knows that I am perfectly capable of snapping my fingers at the Sun—I do it daily. However, I do not think it is particularly wise to make the Sun or the Mail, or their ilk, a gratuitous present of a free issue on which they can go to town as much as they like.

I ask the Minister, for the sake of acceptance of the legislation: please come in out of the rain.

I add my voice to that appeal. I do so because, together with the noble Earl and other noble Lords, including the late Lord Houghton, we spent day after day, night after night, into the early hours of the morning, trying to convince the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clash fern, that the Child Support Act, of which he was the prime mover, would cause enormous difficulties and would alienate people not only from the Act but from the Government. I described it as "another poll tax bit of legislation", and so it has proved. It has not been accepted by either men or women. It has hurt both. Indeed, it has provided little good for both. It was supposed to help women, but it has not helped them at all: it has helped the Treasury. In fact, it has not helped the Treasury because its expenses were at least six-times as much as estimated during the course of the Bill.

We have been through all this before. I do not want my noble friend to do what was done previously and not listen to the words of wisdom that are coming From the Front Benches and, indeed, from some on the Back Benches. I generally support the Bill. It will make a good deal of improvement on what we had previously.

Nevertheless, I do not want the Bill to fail on the basis of public perception and because of a failure of public acceptance, as mentioned by the noble Earl.

There are many parts of the Bill about which we should be worried. For example, we all accept that those who have care of children—mainly women—have a most important job to do and one that is worth a lot of money. But as has already been pointed out, if at the same time the woman is able not only to employ people to carry out those duties but also has a lot of money, surely she should contribute monetarily towards the upkeep of the child, as in the case with wives who go out to work.

We are talking about the rights of children. Of course children have the right to maintenance, to a good life and to a good standard of living. But that is where the rights stop. I hope that we are not presuming to tell people who remain in a marriage or in a partnership relationship that they should be contributing a given percentage of their money to their children. That is something that I would not accept. Up to the age of about 60, I happen to believe that I am far better at looking after the money that they will inherit than they are.

I had not expected my noble friend to finish his contribution by talking about inheritance. However, these amendments seek to change the way that maintenance liability of a nonresident parent is calculated to take account of the income of the parent with care in certain prescribed circumstances.

Amendment No. 12 provides for a reduction in the amount of maintenance payable where the parent with care's net income exceeds that of the non-resident parent. The manner of the reduction is not prescribed but is to be provided in regulations. It is not entirely clear whether the reduction is a pound-for-pound calculation or whether the maintenance would be reduced by a lesser amount. However, Amendment No. 26leads me to think that the latter may be the case.

Amendment No. 26 provides for the net weekly income of the non-resident parent (upon which child support liability is based) to be reduced by a penny for each pound by which the gross annual income from all sources of a parent with care exceeds £25,000, subject to there being a limit that would prevent the nonresident parent's net income being reduced by more than 50 per cent. This would lead to a consequential reduction in the amount of maintenance payable in affected cases. Additionally, this amendment also provides for the calculation of a non-resident parent's net income to include income from both earned and unearned sources.

Perhaps I may leave that last point aside for a moment and return to first principles. I find myself unable to understand why the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, cannot, apparently, understand the Government's position. At the end of the day, the essential issue is not whether the man or the women can better afford to pay maintenance—in other words, setting one off against the other—it is, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, and others, so rightly said, that the child has the right to maintenance from his or her father, irrespective of the income of the mother, exactly as if they were part of an intact family. I believe that that 15 per cent or 20 per cent contribution from him, according to the number of children, is a right that the child has independent of the income of the parent with care.

Members of the Committee may ask why that is so. In response, I should like to suggest four basic reasons—

Perhaps the noble Baroness could clarify something before she leaves that specific point. She argued that the balance would still be this way if the marriage had not broken up and if we were talking about an "intact family". But if it were an intact family and the wife earned much more than the husband, surely she would contribute more.

Yes. She would contribute more because the whole family would enjoy a higher standard of living in which the child would participate. Perhaps I may have another go at trying to see whether I can get the noble Lord to understand our position.

I should like to suggest four reasons why this is a matter concerning the child's rights. The first is grounds of equity. I have already said that research has estimated that around 30 per cent of a family's income is spent on the children and on extra costs; for example, housing, clothes, and so on. The woman contributes her 15 per cent because she maintains the child, while the man contributes his 15 per cent by paying cash maintenance because, after all, the child is not living with him.

Where the woman has a higher income the child enjoys a higher standard of living. That care may be in the form of cash, it may be her time or it may be in the form of opportunity costs. Perhaps I may give the Committee some examples. Let us say that the woman is on £7,500 a year (£150 a week) and the man is on £10,000. He will contribute £30 a week to the child's support, while she and the child will be on £7,500. They will probably be living in modest, rented accommodation and will have to watch carefully what is spent on food. They will probably have to economise on things like fresh fruit, and so on, and will have to search for the least expensive clothes that can be found. Indeed, they will probably have to think twice as to whether they can afford a holiday, other than one which means staying with friends.

I hope that that is not too much of a caricature of how a lone parent on £150 a week might be living, together with, say, the £30 coming in from the nonresident parent. However, let us assume instead that the man earns £10,000 and the woman earns £20,000 a year. What then would the child enjoy? It is possible that the child would be living in an owner-occupied house with more space and a garden, situated in an area that is more attractive to the child in terms of parks, and so on. The extra money would also be spent on heating, lighting, repairs and probably a higher standard of food with more fresh fruit, vegetables and probably—I do not know—organic food. The child would be able to enjoy school trips that the parent on £150 a week would find very difficult to afford. The child would also have the benefit of more expensive clothes; for example, more expensive trainers. He or she would almost certainly enjoy a holiday, possibly abroad. There would also be better transport and a computer.

Those advantages would not come from the man's £30 contribution per week; it would come about because the woman was earning £20,000 a year. As a result, the child would be able to enjoy all of those benefits by virtue of the woman's increased income. She would be paying their joint bills and he would be making a constant contribution related to his ability to pay. The difference in the standard of income between the child whose parent is on £150 a week (£7,500 a year) and the child whose parent receives £400 is huge. It arises because the woman is able to offer a higher standard of living than the child would otherwise enjoy. That is her cash contribution towards paying the bills—the mortgage, the school trips, the holiday and the clothes—and it goes over and beyond her time as carer and her opportunity costs. Indeed, without the child, she might be able to earn even more.

I do not understand why noble Lords opposite do not accept the fact that the difference between the standard of living that the child will enjoy where the woman earns £7,500 and the father earns £10,000 and where the mother earns £20,000 and the father earns £10,000 is expended in part and proportionately on the child. This means that the child is supported in a more attractive and certainly more comfortable lifestyle than would otherwise be the case. That is the first point: the child enjoys the standard of living provided by the parent with care. Therefore, because the mother is paying in kind, so to speak, as well as in cash, the child has a right to expect that the father's contribution should not be reduced accordingly.

Secondly, I turn to the grounds of simplicity. At present, if the man has a second family—whether he has one, two or three children in that second family, and whether or not they are his biological children with the new partner or the step-children whom the new partner brought into the relationship—the children in that family are treated in the same way. They are offset against his income before we apportion the 15 per cent for the first family.

If her income—that is, the parent with care—is to be taken into account, I suggest that the income of his new partner should be taken into account in assessing what she can contribute to the stepchildren, as well as to the biological children, in the second family. If her income as well as the man's is to be taken into account for the first family, one must do that for the second family. However, some of those children will not be their joint children; they will be stepchildren. In that case we should consider the income of his partner's ex-partner in contributing to the stepchildren. While we are considering four people's incomes, we might just as well throw in that of the fifth, which is, of course, the parent with care's new partner's capacity to pay for the new standard of living that may be required, for example, the extra house and so on.

What have we done? We have moved from considering one assessment—the man's—to two assessments—the parents with care—to three assessments—the man's new partner's—to four assessments—the man's new partner's ex-partner—and possibly a fifth assessment—that of the new partner of the parent with care. That comprises five income calculations instead of one. By withholding one piece of information five people could delay the maintenance assessment. Does the Committee in all honesty believe that assessing five people's incomes on a worst case scenario would result in the children receiving more maintenance?

My third point is that on the ground of common sense, that is not worth it. Parents with care generally are poor. Some 96 per cent of parents with care have incomes of under £100 a week. Only 7,000 have incomes of over £10,000 a year. Only 200 in the entire caseload of 1.2 million have incomes of over £25,000 a year. Therefore potentially we could assess five people's incomes in each of the 600,000 or so private cases to calculate the woman's contribution in 200 cases, even though the child already enjoys the higher standard of living that she is providing. The amount that would result from that elaborate la ramie arrangement of maintenance would be small.

For example, a non-resident parent with net earnings of £250 a week and one child pays £38 a week. If the parent with care was one of the 200 I have mentioned—that figure is probably by now 100—with earnings of £28,000 a year, under the penny in the pound formula his maintenance would be reduced from £38 to £33 a week. We would have to consider 600,000 cases and five people's incomes to pick up 200 cases to save him paying a fiver a week. Is that sensible?

Fourthly, apart from the delays in making the assessment, it is also costly. The cost of the IT system—about £10 million a year—would be several times more than the total sum collected. Given that the man's share is net, we would have to do elaborate calculations about whether the woman's was net or gross. I hope that in the light of arguments about equity, simplicity, the standard of living of parents with care who are poor, and the costs and delays, the noble Lord opposite will recognise that this is simply not an amendment that is worth pursuing. I hope that he will concede that point not just on grounds of principle—although there is a principle here about which I feel strongly—but on the ground that such an amendment would produce expensive and complicated outcomes which, because of the delays I have mentioned, would thwart the payment of maintenance to children.

The noble Baroness has produced a wonderful argument and she has all the details worked out. However, she completely neglects the fact that unearned income is not taken into account. That could alter the argument. She clearly has not listened to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who pointed out—I thought this important and I imagine that the noble Baronesses seated behind the noble Baroness saw the point—that one case could completely wreck the whole system in the public's view because of the sheer unfairness of it. I hope that the noble Earl will elaborate on that point.

I understand where the Minister is coming from. She is coming from a formula-based sense of justice. But to my mind she has illustrated more clearly than I could ever have done myself why a formula-based attempt at justice must always be unjust because it cannot take account of circumstances. The Minister has repeated again her arguments about complexity. If you set out to avoid complexity, you set out to avoid the real world. Many people have tried to do that, no one as far as I know has yet succeeded. All the arguments about complexity that the Minister developed are arguments that bite only on those who believe in doing justice according to a formula. We on these Benches are not among that number. We therefore find the basis of those arguments has no purchase on us.

Before the noble Lord sits down I hope that I may respond. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is right to say that we are not taking the woman's unearned income into account; we are not taking the man's into account either. There is entire equity there. The unearned income is taken into account only if it is so substantial that it represents some kind of diversion; in other words, he declares an income of, say, £100 a week but has a lifestyle that requires an income of £500 or £1,000 a week. That would create the basis for a variation. However, as I said, there is equity between both parties.

I am surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked us to tailor our policies to the prejudices or knee-jerk reactions of the tabloid press. He would be the first to ask us not to do this in the case of asylum seekers.

I made clear that I asked the noble Baroness to do this only in the rare circumstance in which their case happens to be just.

I cannot conceive of any circumstances where the parent with care has income where it is just to take that into account given the arguments I have set out. If one does that, one is effectively asking the parent with care to pay twice over, not only in terms of the cash payment of bills incurred as part of the care of the child but also in terms of a maintenance contribution because the other party's maintenance that is received is reduced accordingly. The noble Earl asks the parent with care to pay twice over. I am slightly shocked at the suggestion that we should tailor the provision in case one or two cases are picked up by the Sun. Perhaps the noble Earl did not hear me say that. I am slightly shocked that the Liberal Party of all parties should say that we should be wary of cases coming to the notice of the Sun which might be inconvenient to us and therefore we should treat parents with care unfairly on that ground.

I must ask the Minister to withdraw the word "unfairly". We did not think that what we proposed was unfair and would not have proposed it if we had.

I think that it is unfair and that is why I said it.

We do not.

Of course I would not expect the noble Earl to propose something that he believed to be unfair. However, the fact that he has a belief does not mean to say that the belief is correct. On this occasion I suggest to him that it is not. The provision we propose is fair and decent. The parent with care is providing in kind. That also means paying out cash. The absent parent is providing in cash because he is not providing in kind, in exactly the same way as if they were an intact family.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the formula was unjust. The alternative is to return to an essentially court-based system which I believe many Members on all sides of the Chamber consider to have failed children in the past and, if it were to be reinvented at huge cost and with huge complexity, would fail children again. It would be discretionary and a lottery. It might suit the instincts of angry fathers who want their day in court. However, I am concerned—as, I hope, is the Committee—with the well-being of the child which is not best met by an adversarial situation in which the father seeks to reduce his maintenance. What message does the child get from that except that his or her father does not want to support him to the extent that the agency thinks he should be supported?

We believe that the proposals are simple. Booklets and tables will be available at post offices, surgeries, libraries and other such places explaining net income and the number of children. The man will know what he has to pay. He will pay his taxes, his national insurance and his child support. The woman, in turn, will know what she can expect to receive from the man, whether she is on benefit or in work, from rough and ready assumptions about his income. The woman will offer the child the standard of living that she is capable of, both in cash and in kind. We think that that is fair and reasonable. Any proposal that the parent with care should pay cash in addition seems to me a double whammy and deeply unfair to lone parents.

Let me first pick up the point made by the noble Baroness a moment ago. As she well knows, we are entirely of the view she expressed; namely, that it would be a mistake to go back to the courts and to get rid of the Child Support Agency. We believe that the right approach is to do our best—it is not easy—to improve the Child Support Agency.

While this debate is unlikely to hit the headlines tomorrow, I presume to say that it shows very clearly the ability of your Lordships' House to debate this kind of very complicated issue in a remarkably sophisticated way. It has been enhanced by the virtuoso performance of the Minister. Having said that, she has totally failed to convince me.

Perhaps I may make one or two simple points to start with. First, in the light of the debate that we had on the earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, we are all agreed—it is absolutely common ground—that so far as concerns emotional support and contact with the children, the support of both parents is a matter of great importance. There is no dispute whatever in regard to that.

Let me make another point which has not been raised so far but which is rather implicit in what has been said; namely, that somehow the absent parent wants to be the absent parent. In many cases that is not so. As I well know from my constituency experience, it may be that the marriage broke up in a way which deeply distressed the absent parent. Again, I think that is common ground.

I do not think it is true that a small number of people are affected. There may be a considerable number of situations in which the wife has a higher income and greater wealth—if indeed it is the wife rather than the husband—than the absent parent. There may be a considerable number of such cases.

As to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, that we are seeing greater equality of incomes between men and women, that is certainly the trend. I welcome it. However, it is wholly irrelevant to the amendment we are discussing where we will be looking at what is the income in an individual case. That is what the amendment is about. So I still think it is an important issue.

It is not a case of whether the tabloid press pick up a particular point or not, but a case of whether or not taking into account the income of the parent in care increases the amount of bitterness in the relationship, perhaps with regard to the degree of personal contact and so on between the two parents.

The noble Lord may be going on to deal with this matter in which case I apologise. What is the noble Lord's response to the point I put to him that under the present scheme—for both simplicity and reasons of basic decency—we are not making any distinction between the biological children and the stepchildren in a second family? Does he accept my argument that if there are stepchildren in the second family—and very often if he joins a new partner he may be joining somebody with a child already, who may herself have been a lone parent in the past—then, as a result of the noble Lord's proposals, in all equity we would have to assess her income in regard to her ability to contribute both to their joint children, to her existing stepchildren and, by definition, possibly also to those of her ex-partner? Does he accept that basic argument? Or is it the cascading domino effect; that, once one goes beyond the system we have got, we cannot stop short until all incomes have been taken into account for all responsibilities, for all children, in all relationships?

I was coming to precisely that point. It relates again to the point I was making about bitterness. From my own experience—after all, if I may presume to say so, I have seen this at the front end—it will be difficult to take into account the extent to which there is bitterness between the stepchildren of a second marriage and all the ramifications that the noble Baroness spelt out. None the less, on the narrower issue, one still needs to take into account the income of both parties in this particular dispute.

So, under the noble Lord's formula, where the parent with care had an income of under £25,000, we would treat stepchildren and biological children in the second family in the same way; but if the income was £26,000. we would treat them differently?

I should like notice of that question. No doubt we can return to it on Report. The noble Baroness has rightly raised the ramifications of the whole issue. But one should not suppose that because one does not deal with all the ramifications in the Bill, they are not real issues on the ground. The views of the stepchildren and so on are extremely vivid, if I may put it that way.

It is a precise question. Does the noble Lord accept that the implication of the amendment is that the income of the new partner of the former husband—if I may genderise the issue—would now have to be taken into account if there were children in the second family?

As I said, I should like to consider that point. I am saying that, from my personal experience, it is certainly a relevant consideration. Of course, the argument the other way concerns the complications that the noble Baroness is constantly arguing against. I do not think that because of the second and third order effects, one should not take into account the first order effect. That is what this amendment is about.

I turn now to what is perhaps the most difficult point to put in politically correct terms. It concerns the point referred to by the noble Baroness who raised the question of the contribution made by the parent with care. I certainly think that one can take that into account. We are not saying that the contributions she makes—whether in kind or in money—should not be taken into account. On the contrary, we think that is so. Amendment No. 26 seeks to deal with that particular point. It states, in particular, that however great her income may be, the contribution of the absent parent should not fall below 50 per cent of what is the formula. We are seeking to adjust that. I gather that a similar system is operated in Australia.

My final point before I sit down—I have spoken far too long—concerns the issue of earned and unearned income. I take the Minister's point that we are not proposing at the moment to take into account the unearned income of either the parent with care or the absent parent. Of course, there has always been a long-running debate about whether one should call it "unearned" income. I prefer to use the expression "investment" income. I presume that in the context of this amendment we are talking about investment income.

The noble Baroness raised the possibility that perhaps what is not being taken into account is not investment income but income that is unearned and not announced by one of the partners to the agreement. However, there is a strong argument for either accepting the amendment and taking into account both kinds of investment income; or, even if one did not accept the amendment, taking into account the investment income of the absent parent. I do not understand why that is not happening at the moment.

Statistics show that it is not worth it. The only situation in which people are required to come to the CSA is where she is on benefit and, for the most part, he may be on benefit or he may be in work. Other cases are private cases, and those involved in them can make whatever arrangements they wish. Essentially, they would only come to the CSA as a fall-back if there was a dispute. Therefore, if she is on benefit, by definition she cannot have income of more than £3,000, otherwise it would bite into her benefit.

Equally, if she is on benefit and one looks at her income, it would be a very rare situation indeed where she would be partnered by someone who had such a vast income that—given the variation thresholds—his investment income would make a significant difference to the amount to be assessed. If he did have such investment income, one would expect in any such break-up that some of it would have gone over to her as part of the settlement, at which point of course she would no longer be getting benefit anyway and would not be a CSA client.

I was rather making the point that one should take into account the investment income of the absent parent, if indeed he has some. I do not understand why that is not so. But that is a relatively narrow point.

We have had a fascinating debate. I am interested in all the views expressed—not least those from the Liberal Democrat Benches. No doubt we shall return to the matter when we come to consider it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Before calling Amendment No. 13, I should inform the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 14.