---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

moved Amendment No. 94: 94: Schedule 4, page 66, line 44, at end insert— ““( ) require the Commission to instruct an independent assessment of any self-employed non-resident parent’s income when an agreed income figure continues to be in dispute after 28 days of a maintenance claim being made which assessment will be binding on all parties for the rest of the financial year.”””” The noble Lord said: This is another look at requiring the commission to instruct an independent assessment. Amendment No. 101 looks at the commission’s duty to investigate. Amendment No. 94 requires the commission to instruct an independent assessment of any self-employed non-resident parents when there is a dispute after 28 days. From what he said earlier, I guess that the Minister’s case will be that this will become a lot less contentious and more straightforward. We all hope and pray that that is right. However, when I was a solicitor in south-east Scotland, professional disputes of many kinds where you could not get two parties to agree were resolved by being taken to arbitration. There were different systems for doing that in different parts of professional and agricultural life. A person of skill came in who knew what they were doing, who had a bit of experience and a track record in the area, and in whose judgment people could have confidence, and simply cut the Gordian knot by making a recommendation. That finding was accepted by both sides and the world went on its weary way with the dispute resolved. This may again be perceived by the department as an extra complication, but in circumstances where there still may be confusion and disagreement between the assessments made, it is worth looking at in a probing amendment. It would be good to hear what the department feels is there by way of merit that might be used in deploying it. Amendment No. 191, also in my name and that of my noble friend, looks at placing a statutory duty on CMEC to investigate a non-resident parent where there are grounds for suspecting that the information held regarding his income does not give the full picture. We have discussed that before. Indeed, Amendment No. 191 was run in the Public Bill Committee in the other place with a slightly different wording. The departmental response was that there would be a danger that the commission might be swamped with references for investigation, and that the future reliance on HMRC data would solve many problems. This amendment has been refined to make it clear that CMEC would be expected to investigate only where there really were grounds for suspicion, so that there is no prospect of any fishing expeditions without them. I hope that that new wording might be more acceptable to the Minister. Looking at why we need Amendment No. 191, there is no doubt that the agency and CMEC going forward will have a considerable array of methods and powers to investigate financial circumstances. As I understand it, the staff guidance at the moment says that decision-makers are not required at any time to undertake independent investigations. In practice, that leaves parents with care to prove the NRP’s financial circumstances by themselves. As I argued earlier, I do not think that is fair. The balance is against the parent with care. I believe that the new system we are setting up should try to create a more level playing field, otherwise it will still be too easy for non-resident parents to evade their responsibilities. I beg to move.