---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

moved Amendment No. 182: 182: Clause 29, page 32, line 26, at end insert— ““(c) make provision for an appeal by a parent with care against any decision taken under this section which in the opinion of the parent with care is inimical to the interests of the qualifying child.”” The noble Lord said: In speaking to the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 183 and 212. Under the debt management powers available to the commission, we are trying to ensure that the parent with care has the protection that we would want under the set of circumstances where a power to treat liability as satisfied is being considered. These are probing amendments. Perhaps the Minister would explain the Government’s view of the amendments and say whether they would consider the issues raised. Amendment No. 183 and the consequential Amendment No. 212 give either parent the right of appeal against a decision of the commission regarding the offset against child maintenance liabilities of another sum paid by the non-resident parent. However, there is some superficial comfort available in the DWP notes on secondary legislation arising from the Bill, which state that the regulations will specify that the parent with care will need to agree to the payment being offset against liability. During the debate in the other place, in the Public Bill Committee, my reading of it was that the Minister, Ms McGuire, expressly did not say that. As I understood it, she said that the regulations will specify that the parent with care must have agreed to the other sum being made. She went on to say that it would not be appropriate to seek the parent with care’s agreement for the payment of the offset when they have already agreed to the payment being made in the first place. There may have been some ad libbing that confused the issue, but I picked that up. It seems to contradict what was said and the intention carried in the secondary legislation notes. This is a potential area of dispute, as I know to my cost from a previous incarnation as a Member of Parliament. The non-resident parent often argues that a particular sum that has been offset has been received by the parent with care, but it was for an item of expense that had nothing to do with child maintenance. That happens quite often. My contention is that the right of appeal, if at all valuable, should be available to both parents; for the non-resident parent if the commission decides not to offset and to the parent with care who does not accept a determination to offset. That seems to have been rejected in the Public Bill Committee on the basis that it would not be appropriate to allow appeal rights in respect of any discretionary decisions. Providing an appeal right is likely to create a delay and a layer of complication and bureaucracy. That was maintained on 11 October in col. 365 in the Public Bill Committee. My contention is that appeals tribunals exist precisely to allow fresh scrutiny of discretionary administrative decisions. To deny the right of appeal to the parent with care, who stands to lose child maintenance which she is owed and who disputes the said payment by the non-resident parent or the reasons for it, risks, in my view, a potential prima facie breach of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act. It is important to get this ironed out now. There is confusion in my mind about the policy intention and I am still seized of the need to try to secure as much protection as we can for the parent with care in circumstances where power to treat liability as satisfied is being considered by the commission. I beg to move.