---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

moved Amendment No. 76: 76: Before Clause 15, insert the following new Clause— ““Information to be supplied by the Commission Where the Commission has determined an application for maintenance under the Act and as a result a sum of child maintenance is payable, the Commission shall furnish the parent with care and the non-resident parent, at three-monthly intervals after the date of determination, with a statement setting out the following— (a) the amount of the weekly liability, and accumulated liability over the three month period; (b) the amount paid by the non-resident parent over the three month period and dates when the payments were made; (c) the amount of any arrears which has accumulated over the three month period; (d) the total amount of any arrears owed to the parent with care.”” The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 76 takes us on to another important aspect of the work of the commission. It relates to the information requirements; that is to say, the obligations to be imposed on the commission and on parents to supply information. My noble friend Lord Addington and I have tabled five of the amendments in this group and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has tabled two important amendments on the same kind of territory. I shall start by making the case and asking a few probing questions about the quarterly financial statements that the amendment suggests be provided to parents. All of us who have experience of case work relating to the Child Support Agency understand perfectly well that one of the biggest bugbears and causes of contention between two parents is often an irreconcilable dispute about the figures on what has been paid in, what has been paid out and what is owing. It drives a wedge between parents; it is the biggest cause of aggravation, and leads to bad temper, anger, confusion and a great deal of very bad faith on both sides. At a stroke, if it could be magicked—although I am not suggesting for a moment that it is as easy as that—if there was some definitive accepted statement of the real situation, on an accurate, real-time ongoing basis, that would deal with a lot of the confusion and anger that arises in these circumstances and avoid a lot of disputes. The quintessentially simple idea is that once a quarter, both parents would get a statement through the letterbox, as I do from the Bank of Scotland, saying how much I owe. Then they would be capable of accepting the information in front of them and make their dispositions accordingly. If we could get into that situation, the resolution of these disputes would be easier. The Minister was trying to help us last week by explaining that the new computer release, PR1, will sort some of the glitches in the current system and give enhanced facility and specification. One thing that I would like to know is whether PR1, if or when it is introduced in the course of the financial year, will provide that functionality and, if it can, how quickly it would be possible—if the Government decided to move in that direction—to produce that level of service. In particular, when the new statutory scheme starts in 2010, I would be very disappointed if we could not get, if not this precise proposal, something like it that serves the same purpose. If there were to be a regular flow of statements setting out the current position for both sets of parents, it would be strongly my advice that the user groups dealing with these groups of parents should be embraced in setting up the information and setting it out in a user-friendly way so that the best value could be obtained from any such initiative. So it is an important suggestion. It would help if it could be done; if it cannot be done, I should like to know why. If a technicality is getting in the way, I should like to know if there are other ways around it. Amendment No. 81 and Amendments Nos. 83 and 201 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, move into the territory of information being made available to the parent with care. Again, some of the same preliminary arguments obtain. Resentment and bitterness results when uncertainty about financial circumstances is evident. It can also prevent unnecessary appeals. From my experience of dealing with casework, the odds are stacked against the parent with care in trying to work out whether she has a case for variation or appeal. It is a high test to get a variation and an even higher one to get an appeal, but only then does she get access as of right to the level and quality of financial information that would enable her—and it is invariably a her—to decide whether she has a case or not. It is very cumbersome, stressful and expensive set of circumstances to contemplate. At the moment, to put it crudely, the system seems simply to accept what the non-resident parent says. It is almost taken at face value. Experience since 1993 is that that is not a safe position to be in. Perhaps the casework that reaches those who are trying to help people consists of the aberrant cases, which involve the small percentage of people who are trying to swing the lead. But it seems wrong that the dice are loaded so self-evidently against the parent with care. That is the experience that has built up since the old and new schemes of the CSA were put into place. This legislation gives us a chance to try to redress that balance—and if we do not take it, that would be a great shame. The amendments deal with some of those important issues. Amendment No. 77 specifically asks for a duty to be put on the commission to ask for that information. At the moment, the requirements are so soft that unless the NRP—usually the absent father—refuses, delays or deliberately and fraudulently makes a statement, nothing much more is done about it. The request to furnish information is made so that the Secretary of State can make his assessment of potential liability. It certainly is true that the NRP commits an offence if he makes a false declaration or fails to provide it; but he has got to be asked. In Amendment No. 77, I am saying that we should always ask all of them, ab initio, right at the start, so that if the answer comes back wrong, deliberately or otherwise, the situation can be dealt with at that time. We should be asking some very basic details about all his income sources, and it is key that he must be asked basic questions detailing all his sources of income. I agree with HMRC that that is going to be an easier place to start the income trail, but it is not by any means the end of the story on the totality of income or assets available. If we are interested in trying to generate the best outcomes for children, simply adding another step that asks every NRP to supply basic details of all his income sources gives you a very much stronger position to start from. Looking at the figures for the year to March 2007, I notice 481 prosecutions for failing or misrepresenting circumstances. That is a tiny proportion of people who are doing this. Okay, prosecutions are hard to get, and the agency has been in a bunker trying to get through the legacy issues, but that is not adequate. The Bill gives us a chance to address it, and I will be very disappointed if we cannot get some improvement on the current situation. Two amendments that are slightly off beam of the others are Amendments Nos. 202 and 206. Amendment No. 202 looks at risk assessment being required by the Office of Government Commerce or whoever—I am indifferent as to who does it, but the OGC is probably best qualified to do it—to make sure that there is rigorous, adequate protection and thought given to data sharing. We have noticed laptops going astray and CDs being committed to the post and lost. We need to lock this down in policy at a very early stage. I do not even know how long records are kept for or what the policy is for access to records, but in terms of loss of data, error, system failure and transmission of case data around the system, we need to have rigorous protection in hand. If I can get an assurance about that I will be happier. Amendment No. 206 is an invitation to make clear the fact that the courts with jurisdiction and hearing cases in these matters are not going to be stymied by people saying that they cannot have data either from HMRC or elsewhere. I beg to move.