---

Welfare Reform Bill

Before the noble Lord finally withdraws the amendment, I want to ensure that I have clearly on the record the issue of why the administrative system is more effective and appropriate in these circumstances. Where the court deals with travel restrictions, it does so in the light of its prior dealings with an individual who has been convicted of an offence. In the case of defaulting non-resident parents, I suggest that the commission is arguably better placed to decide whether a person has wilfully failed to pay maintenance and, therefore, what enforcement measure is most appropriate because of its prior dealings in that case. It knows the history and the anguish of trying to ensure that payment is made. I suggest that an administrative system allows the threat of imminent action and that it may be more effective than the threat of application to a court, given that the international evidence shows the administrative process to be faster and less resource-intensive. The creation of an effective deterrent, thereby influencing the behaviour of non-resident parents who otherwise might fail to support their children financially, is of particular significance. This change could also lead to a reduction of cases coming before the courts, as I said earlier, enabling them and the commission to concentrate—