---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

This is an important group of amendments, all of which relate in some way to the operation of the commission’s enforcement regime, although each amendment produces a number of issues within itself. For that reason, I would like to address them under separate headings. I will make reference to the one government amendment in the group and then deal more generally with the clause stand part issues that have been raised. Amendment No. 103 would give the parent with care the right to make representations to or attend any enforcement hearings. It would also allow the parent with care to apply directly to the court or the tribunal for enforcement action. I recognise that this is an issue of major concern and indeed I welcome the chance to debate it. The parent with care’s role in enforcement was discussed in the other place and was raised by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. It is therefore something about which we have thought long and hard. I accept entirely that the commission needs to engage the parent with care when taking enforcement action against the defaulting non-resident parent. Indeed, it would be beneficial for the parent with care to disclose to the commission any information that he or she may have that is relevant to the non-resident parent’s financial situation. But we need to remind ourselves of the commission’s role. Once a case has reached the state maintenance service, the commission is responsible for taking action to enforce payments. However, it has to be mindful of the position not just of the parent with care but of any other parents with care involved with the non-resident parent. It also, of course, needs to consider the welfare of any children that may be affected. The commission’s role is not solely to be the representative of a single parent with care. It is not the same relationship as a solicitor would have with a client. Where enforcement hearings are held in open court, the parent with care is able to watch proceedings, although they have no right to make representations to the court. I understand that, in practice, magistrates’ courts usually hear such cases in the family court where the magistrates have the power to exclude persons not directly involved in the case. The court does have discretion to permit a person who has adequate grounds for attendance to be present, but they would still have no right to make representations. It is hard to see what the parent with care could add to assist the court in reaching a decision. In relation to the parent with care taking their own court action, there are a number of practical considerations. In order to streamline the enforcement process and to allow the commission to take swift and effective enforcement action, a number of the provisions in the Bill have been made administrative—for example, deducting money from bank accounts, issuing liability orders and removing passports—which adds to the current administrative provision of applying a deduction-from-earnings order. Were parents with care able to pursue the enforcement of maintenance through the courts, these administrative measures would not be available to them. With these additional powers, we are confident that the commission will take enforcement action within a reasonable time—that is the nub of the issue here—which will make it unlikely for the parent with care to feel the need to take independent enforcement action through the courts, particularly as there are opportunities for them to make what information they have that may assist the case available to the commission. There is also a real danger that, if the commission and the parent with care had concurrent or interchangeable abilities to enforce, there would be risk of overlap and duplication, which could cause confusion and increase costs. Equally, enabling parents with care to enforce the commission’s maintenance assessments might provide the commission with a perverse incentive to divest itself of difficult cases, leaving parents with care or legal aid to meet the cost of enforcement. If legal aid was not provided, a two-tier system would be created where only parents with care with the financial means to do so would have this option open to them. The obligation to pay child maintenance under the Child Support Act is not a civil debt in the normal sense. In deciding whether to take enforcement action, the commission must not only have regard to the interests of the parent with care, but consider the position of the non-resident parent and the welfare of all the children involved. It would not be appropriate to allow parents with care to take their own enforcement action. However, I accept that we must build confidence in the fact that the Government must not and will not abandon its responsibility to children. Amendments Nos. 179 and 180 would set out in primary legislation that the non-resident parent has the opportunity to make representations to the commission before it makes an order to administratively disqualify him or her from holding or obtaining a travel authorisation. It is of course important that non-resident parents are able to make representations to the commission before such a serious form of enforcement is imposed. We intend that the non-resident parent will have the opportunity to put forward any representations on receipt of the notice that they receive from the commission of the intention to disqualify him or her from holding or obtaining a travel authorisation. A requirement to this effect will be set out in secondary legislation. The Government acknowledge that disqualifying a person from holding a travel authorisation is a very serious measure. It will be employed only after other, more direct, forms of enforcement have been attempted and maintenance remains unpaid. Any non-resident parent who may be at risk of losing their passport will have had several opportunities at earlier stages—