---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

moved Amendment No. 103: 103: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause— ““Entitlement of parent with care (1) A parent with care may make representations (oral, written or otherwise) in enforcement proceedings commenced under this Act and attend enforcement proceedings hearings brought under this Act. (2) A parent with care may apply to a magistrates’ court or an appeal tribunal for collection or enforcement pursuant to paragraphs 20 to 28 of this Act.”” The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 179, 180, 181 and 213 in my name and the question that Clauses 24 and 26 to 28 stand part of the Bill, as well as Amendment No. 187 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. My amendments in this rather large group are all intended to protect the parent from CMEC impinging on their civil liberties. Before discussing Amendment No. 103, I should point out that there is, I am afraid, a misprint on the Marshalled List: proposed subsection (2) should refer not to paragraphs 20 to 28, but to Sections 20 to 28. I see the Minister nodding, so he obviously realised that when he was preparing his—dare I say?—defence. Amendment No. 103 and our opposition to the Question that Clause 24 stand part of the Bill have been tabled to garner a little more clarity about enforcement proceedings and the role of the parent with care within those enforcement proceedings. Amendment No. 103 would allow the parent with care to do four things: to make representations in respect of the appropriate enforcement action; to be involved in the enforcement action taken by the commission; to be permitted to attend enforcement proceedings; and to take their own enforcement action in certain circumstances. That is currently prevented under the two existing child support systems. It is often the parent with care who has the necessary information in respect of the non-resident parent’s financial circumstances. Especially in the early months following separation, the parent with care will know of any assets held by the non-resident parent, which may mean that the appropriate enforcement action to be taken should include an application for a third-party debt order or a charging order or whatever—the various sanctions that are available to the commission. That information is rarely released by a non-resident parent to the Child Support Agency. Notwithstanding the effects of the interrelationship between CMEC and HMRC, that position is likely to continue in the future. It is often a lack of knowledge of the non-resident parent’s circumstances that leads to a delay of appropriate, or indeed any, enforcement action being taken. Does the Minister not think that, as the remit of the commission is to secure payment with minimum delay, the parent with care should be involved in that process and should be in a position to make representations that will achieve that aim? Would it not help the commission to have the advice of the parent with care? How does the Minister justify the rather unusual situation that the person who generally has financial interest in payment being secured is the only person prevented from making representations about how such payments should be secured? I find it odd that the existing formulation prevents the parent with care from taking any enforcement action in his or her own right, even if there is a complete failure by the child support organisation, CMEC, to take enforcement action, which, therefore, results in a financial loss to the parent with care. I cannot believe that that is really a situation that the Minister wants. I beg to move.