| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean moved Amendment No. 57:
"Student fees and financial support for students as undertaken by the Scottish Executive
(1) This section applies to any function in relation to student fees or financial support for students that has been transferred to the Scottish Executive by—
(a) the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46),
(b) this Act, or
(c) any other enactment.
(2) In exercising the functions to which this section applies the Scottish Executive must secure that—
(a) no relevant institution charges different qualifying fees in respect of a qualifying course on the basis of the relevant area in which a student is normally resident; and
(b) eligibility for any grant, loan or bursary is not determined on the basis of the relevant area in which a student is normally resident.
(3) In this section—
"normally resident", in relation to a student, means resident at times when not resident at the relevant institution where he is undertaking a course;
"qualifying course" has the same meaning as in section 26;
"qualifying fees" has the same meaning as in section 26;
"relevant area" means—
(a) England;
(b) Northern Ireland;
(c) Scotland; and
(d) Wales;
"relevant institution" has the same meaning as in section 25."
The noble Lord said: I sense that your Lordships do not want a long exposition on the cross-border issues north and south of the border. We have been round this course a number of times, and many of the arguments have been put. I was struck in the previous debate that the Minister indicated that we could expect an announcement from the Scottish Executive in respect of the position of Scottish students "shortly". I do not know, panning back in my mind through the various episodes of "Yes, Minister" that I have watched on television, what "shortly" means. Does it mean next week, or in the next few days? Amendment
13 May 2004 : Column 506
No. 57—with which I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 67 and 112—would effectively prevent the Bill commencing, should it pass through its processes in this House and the other place, without those matters being resolved.
If the noble Baroness is correct that it will be shortly, the amendment will be unnecessary. It might be appropriate to withdraw the amendment at this stage, so that we can return to consider it at a later date. I take it that that later date will be longer away than shortly, in which case it will not be necessary for me to move it again. I hope that the Minister will convey to her colleagues in the Scottish Executive the strength of feeling that is being expressed on all sides of the House about the need—to take the rather good phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt—to know the terms of trade and know them shortly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Triesman: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Act 2004,
Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004,
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,
London Local Authorities Act 2004.
Child Trust Funds Bill
Bill returned earlier from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.
13 May 2004 : Column GC181
Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
Civil Partnership Bill [HL]
(Third Day)
Thursday, 13 May 2004.The Committee met at quarter past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
Clause 41 [Attempts at reconciliation of civil partners]:
On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Wilcox: Clause 41 is concerned with attempts at reconciliation as civil partners. It would allow the court to adjourn an application for a dissolution or separation order if it appears that the civil partners have a reasonable possibility of achieving reconciliation. Clause 41 states that rules of court must make provision for the applicant's solicitors to certify whether they have discussed with their clients the possibility of reconciliation and to provide the applicant with details of persons qualified to help the civil partners effect reconciliation.
We have a few points to raise regarding this clause. First, while reconciliation is welcome at any time in a relationship breakdown, the courtroom seems to be rather a last-chance saloon. There does not seem to be any guarantee as to when the solicitor will discuss with the applicant the possibility of reconciliation. Such a requirement will not be very useful if it is dealt with at the courtroom door. Is there any way of introducing a measure to ensure that this matter is dealt with in a timely way?
Secondly, can the Minister clarify which organisations will be put forward as helpful to the estranged civil partners? Do they have any organisations in mind? I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for her interesting and important probing amendment. I totally agree with her on the central thrust. However, as we see civil partnerships as a new legal status and believe that they have meaning and value, we do not want them lightly abandoned if, on further reflection or with further help, the parties could be helped to sustain them. The noble Baroness is right. The principle of trying to encourage parties to reflect on mediation applies as much here as in other circumstances. I am foursquare with her on that.
As to whether solicitors can and should discuss the issues earlier, I undoubtedly share the noble Baroness's view. One would hope and expect good family solicitors to do that and not simply to file court
13 May 2004 : Column GC182
papers. They should have a discussion with their client about whether it is a reaction to some unfortunate sudden event or whether it is the product of a long-term worsening of the relationship—and therefore, without the solicitor making a judgment, whether there is a case for reflecting on whether the matter needs to be brought to court in order to seek to end the relationship.
As to whether anything can be done to reinforce what is generally seen by a solicitor or family lawyer as good practice in that respect, I should like to reflect rather than speak off the cuff, to see whether anything in current court or legal aid practice reinforces that. I shall reflect, write to the noble Baroness and copy it to the rest of the Committee, because it is relevant. Relate is the obvious organisation that comes to mind; it could give relationship support but there may also be others. Since I am writing to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and copying it to the rest of the Committee, if I can add further thoughts on that I shall do so.
Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps the Minister can clarify one matter. I do not remember the actual Bill, but about seven or eight years ago—I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern dealt with it—there was a suggestion concerning mediation in cases of marriage breakdown. If my memory is right, the whole idea was to do more or less as my noble friend has said—to make the process not so brutal and not so in-your-face in the courtroom, in order to try to overcome the problem and see whether there is a way through in terms of dissolution. Is my recollection correct? If so, could this be used as something that would meet my noble friend's requirement?
Lord Filkin: The noble Baroness's recollection is correct, and I hope that mine is reasonably accurate, too, in what I am about to say. From memory, the previous government, with good intent, brought in the Family Law Act 1996 which had two main objectives: first, to bring in no-fault divorce to reduce some of the adversarialism of divorce; and, secondly, to try to minimise the likelihood that divorces did not needlessly take place. Therefore, it had as Part II of that Act, measures to refer people to mediation before the courts would finally dispose of the cases. I do not believe that there was much disagreement about the intent or the worthiness of that; the problem was that it did not work when it was piloted in practice. The problem—although I was not engaged in these issues at that time—was essentially that most people, when they started to file court papers, had usually already made their decision. Therefore, being taken off to go through a compulsory process of mediation was seen by most as a frustrating irritant, when they knew that they wanted to end the relationship.
That does not take away from the merit of the argument of the noble Baronesses, Lady O'Cathain and Lady Wilcox, that if, at an appropriate time, one can obtain advice and try mediation, that is worth
13 May 2004 : Column GC183
doing. The Family Law Act 1996 seemed to show that it was often too late to try to do that when court papers are being filed.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |