When the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill (FHDV) collapsed in ignominy late last year after the Daily Mail dubbed it a charter for 'live-in lovers', the Lord Chancellor's political star fell some way along with it.

So the safe passage of the Family Law Bill through Parliament is immensely important to him as the Bill's main sponsor.

The Bill, introduced in the House of Lords, includes a modified version of the ill-fated FHDV Bill.

It was always likely to antagonise the anti-divorce lobby, many of whose members believe any and all such legislation inexorably raises the divorce rates.

Despite the volume of noise generated by certain controversial clauses, the government has the broad support of the opposition, the Liberal Democrats, the Church of England, the Law Society, the Solicitors Family Law Association, the Family Law Bar Association, and many other organisations.

Each has specific concerns, but all believe that the Bill represents an improvement over existing legislation.Key parts of the Bill are skeletal, with the gaps due to be filled in by regulations after pilot projects are completed.

Important issues -- like that of who might be exempted from the requirement to use mediation -- will largely escape parliamentary scrutiny.

It also means that many details are still up for grabs and that pressure applied now by lobby groups could win dividends.

So far, after five days of discussion before the House of Lords sitting in committee, many amendments have been laid but none yet voted upon.

The first real test for the Bill -- and the Lord Chancellor -- will come in the next few weeks at report stage, when votes will be taken on amendments.

The Bill must then pass through the Commons.

With cross-party support the government has an excellent chance of pushing it through intact, although some backbenchers may view the Bill as immoral or a vote-loser and so resist.

However, the government's dependence on the opposition parties' support will make compromise more likely on amendments which have widespread backing.Amongst other concerns, the Law Society is worried that the Bill's central presumption in favour of mediation over legal advice will put pressure on legally aided couples to mediate, regardless of their needs.

The Society has long supported the use of mediation, but fears that a massive extension of the role of a developin g, yet largely untested, profession involves great risk.So far, the Bill's critics have drawn some blood by tabling a number of hostile amendments.

Early on they were vociferous on what they saw as the brevity of the 12-month minimum 'cooling-off' period before divorce; on the perceived lack of encouragement for reconciliation, and even on the abolition of 'fault' -- the main plank of the Bill.

Family lawyers reacted fiercely to a proposal by rebel Tory peers, led by Baroness Young, to extend the waiting period to 18 months.

The SFLA urged peers to back the Lord Chancellor, arguing that marriages would not be saved by altering the Bill.

'Extending the waiting period would hit children the hardest, leading to greater uncertainty and dragging out the bitterness often inflicted on them,' said the SFLA's chairman, Nigel Shepherd.Lord Mackay has consented to consider representations, whilst politely and firmly rejecting more extreme proposals.

He is rock solid on 'no fault' and has not yet moved on the one-year waiting period.

'So far as I am concerned, the position is that the government's policy as regards the period remains at one year,' Lord Mackay told peers.Two of the more extreme amendments -- tabled with little expectation of their adoption -- would prevent couples with children under 16 or 18 from divorcing.

Ostensibly in the interests of the children of divorce, the measure could legally bind a reluctant couple together for 17 years or more.

This was going 'too far', said Lord Mackay.He was barely more enthusiastic about a 'pension-splitting' amendment, which has all-party support in the Lords, including that of the Bill's arch-enemy, former law lord Lord Simon of Glaisdale.

Lord Mackay promised to 'consider sympathetically' the proposal to allow pension funds to be split into two upon divorce.

Of the 12 peers who spoke on the amendment, proposed by Baroness Hollis of Heigham, Labour's social security spokesperson in the Lords, all agreed that such a change to the present law was desirable.

The Lord Chancellor reacted by pointing out the undoubted complexity of splitting a pension, which was 'rather a special asset'.A palpable scepticism then swept the House, according to observers present, when Lord Mackay raised an objection seemingly calculated to appeal to anti-divorce peers.

The amendment would actually provide an incentive to divorce, he claimed, outlining a scenario whereby elderly couples would exploit tax breaks for pension fund members by divorcing en masse, splitting their pension funds and remarrying.The Lord Chancellor, knowing the depth of feeling around him, agreed to consider the amendment 'sympathetically'.

His reservations are said to be influenced by hostility among Department of Social Security advisers, who object on cost and complexity grounds.

DSS officials have not come up with concrete objections on cost grounds, although they may yet do so.

If then, as seems likely, the Lords approve the Hollis amendment, or one similar, Lord Mackay's only option would be to consider overturning it in the Commons.

This could carry a high cost in terms of public and political support and he might be persuaded that it would be simpler all round to acquiesce.