Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 May 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill.


Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

moved Amendment No. 20A: 20A: Clause 27, page 22, line 7, leave out ““make”” and insert ““apply to the court for”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall also speak to the other amendments in this group. These government amendments—which I am pleased to see also have the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, attached to them—move the jurisdiction for making a disqualification from holding or obtaining a travel authorisation order from the commission to the magistrates’ court, in England and Wales, and the sheriff, in Scotland. We discussed this issue in Committee, when the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, who I see is in his place, raised an amendment. I appreciate that the Committee posed legitimate questions in terms of the importance to the individual of holding a passport and the fact that such decisions are usually made by judicial determination. However, I was struck by the similarities rather than the differences in our positions. There seems to be wide agreement that the surrender of a passport, or in some cases the travel element of an ID card, would be a useful tool to gain compliance from some non-resident parents. That is our key objective, as it will contribute to reducing child poverty and ensuring that parents support their children. I therefore acknowledge your Lordships’ concerns relating to that provision and accept that the prevailing view at present is that the decision should be made by the courts. Having listened to noble Lords’ concerns I am content to introduce these amendments, which will mean that the commission has to apply to the court in order to disqualify the non-resident parent for holding or obtaining a travel authorisation, rather than being able to take the action administratively. However, I hope that we can all continue generally to reflect on which decisions need to be made by the courts and which could be made more effectively administratively. To that end, I reserve the right to come back to the House in some future legislation to look again at this decision. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
701 c962-3 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Child support Children Disclosure of information Data protection Debts Cooperation Department for Work and Pensions Child Support Agency Credit reference agencies Jobseeker's allowance Income support Offenders Maintenance Parents Poverty Payments Right of search Revenue and Customs Northern Ireland Office Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission Liability orders
Legislation
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk