---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

These amendments mirror concerns raised in amendments debated in the other place that the new calculations rules may not reasonably take account of a non-resident parent’s ability to pay and, in part, they carry on the debate we have just had. It is important that the new rules are seen to apply fairly. However, I do not think that these amendments offer the best way to proceed. Amendment No. 94 provides for an independent assessment of self-employed income in a case where the figure used in the calculation is in dispute. We recognise that a minority of self-employed parents will want to try to obstruct the commission by giving income information which is incorrect or incomplete. We have already taken steps which will seek to deter them. The use of HMRC income data will mean that in fewer cases will information be required from non-resident parents, reducing the opportunity for them to directly mislead the commission. We are retaining the provision which means that knowingly giving false information will be a criminal offence, in the way that it is currently with HMRC and the Child Support Agency. I would also add that where a decision is disputed, there will, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, continue to be a right of appeal to an independent appeal tribunal. A tribunal can serve with a financially-qualified member and is empowered to direct any party to the appeal to supply any information it considers relevant. Amendment No. 189 proposes a change to the variations scheme rather than to the mainstream calculation. It would allow the commission to initiate the variations process itself instead of having to wait for a formal application from a parent. Although we recognise the concerns, there is a serious practical difficulty here. For the types of income likely to be considered in relation to a variation, the information received from HMRC is unlikely, on its own, to be sufficiently comprehensive. To initiate a variation in these circumstances would not result in a fair and equal system. However, we have listened to concerns raised about this matter and, as I intimated earlier, have tabled Amendment No. 101 which seeks to improve the variations scheme for parents with care. Amendment No. 191 would require the commission to investigate a non-resident parent’s income whenever a new maintenance calculation is made or a variations application considered. The commission will be able to undertake further investigations into a non-resident parent’s income where appropriate. In supporting this process it will be able to obtain information from a number of sources, such as local authorities and accountants. If in the course of an investigation, it comes by information which may be of interest to HMRC, the commission will be able to pass that information on through the gateways. We consider that this approach is preferable to investigating income in every case. The majority of non-resident parents are straightforward in their dealings with public bodies. The task of effectively double-checking income information would add greatly to the commission’s workload and, in the case of independent assessment, would add to delay. In most cases, this additional effort would not change maintenance calculations. I would add that we are also retaining the power to estimate income where available information is unreliable, insufficient or atypical. We shall be working with the commission to decide how to make best use of that power. Finally, I remind Members of the Committee that detailed provisions for the treatment of income are in regulations and that Parliament will have full opportunity to debate these. Accordingly, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.