---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

I, too, welcome the amendments. The Minister was right to trail them at Second Reading. They are essential, and I am very pleased to see them in the form in which they appear before the Committee this afternoon. I have a number of questions that the Minister may be able to deal with. First, new subsection (1) refers to disclosure of information, "““to a person providing services to the Commission””." The new section inserted at Clause 32 deals with transfer of arrears—debt books being handed to debt collectors to collect. I would like reassurance that subsection (1) in Amendment No. 197, which relates to, "““a person providing services to the Commission””," would exclude debt collectors. I guess that it does. I do not know quite why that sort of phrase should be included in the new section. Perhaps it is just to make provision for unseen circumstances. The rest of it makes perfect sense to me but I do not know why a person providing services to the commission would need to be informed about this sensitive information. It will certainly make it harder to get past the judges. Can we have some clarity about that? Secondly, new Section 49AA(2)(c) talks about the party ““reasonably”” considering that the information is relevant. I do not understand why we need the word ““reasonably””, as I cannot think of any circumstances where anything other than the party judging for him or herself that the information was relevant would be enough. I do not understand why the test of reasonability is there. It might be something to do with human rights or, again, it might be to defend these clauses against the judges, who, in my experience, are rightly sensitive about core information being passed round. That is part of what we would expect them to do, although I think that sometimes they overdo it. If they observe form to the extent that it gets in the way of child maintenance being delivered, that is a separate thing, but I do not understand why the test of reasonability is included. Thirdly, new Section 49AA(5) suggests that one can have lay advice in England and Wales but that in Scotland a legal representative is needed. There may be some reason for that but it is not apparent to me and I cannot understand why there should be a difference. There may be a different set of circumstances in England and Wales in terms of unrepresented litigants and people who can sit beside them in court, but I do not know why it should be that way for England and Wales and yet it is explicitly stated that a legal representative is required in Scotland. This is a brave amendment and I am pleased that the Minister has brought it forward. I think that the provision will be contested as judges will not like it much, but I am pleased that the Government and the department have decided to take them on. However, new subsection (6) provides a bit of a weasel way out. Either we do this or we do not. There is a fallback provision later in new Section 49AB(4), where the Lord Chancellor has a residual role. I may have misdirected myself here as that may refer to an earlier amendment. However, my main point is that Parliament should be firm about this being a priority because it will make a significant difference. I understand perfectly well the points that have been reasonably made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about getting the consultation right here—we do not want to run into the courts—but new subsection (6) seems to give the game away slightly. I want some reassurance that people will not just roll over if the courts say, ““No, you’re not having it because that’s not the way we do things here any more””. ““No veto to judges”” is my plea. Having said that, I think that these are important changes and improvements and I hope that they are given effect and used properly. If the Minister finds undue resistance from the judges, I hope that he will come back and look for help from his parliamentary colleagues. I, for one, will stand shoulder to shoulder with him to ensure that they are not stupid about the way that they seek to retain procedures which have been in place for ages but which might get in the way of child maintenance being made effectively in future.