I am a little perplexed. When we discussed amendment No. 190, it was argued that there should be no discretionary powers, and the provision should be mandatory. Amendment No. 195 has caught my eye. It states:

''vary the order by substituting for the amount required to be paid such smaller amount as the court believes is just.''

That may bring the Scottish provisions in line with those for England, but if the argument for amendment No. 190 was that we should not have the flexibility to vary the amount, why are we now asked to allow the court to order

''such smaller amount as the court believes is just''?

Amendment No. 195 will make the amount adjustable, and that is the opposite effect to that of amendment No. 190. I am curious about that difference.