Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 46, in clause 16, page 7, line 22, at end insert ‘(subject to subsection (3))’.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 48, in clause 16, page 7, line 22, at end insert—

‘(2) The Secretary of State must, before Schedule 4 comes into effect, publish a report, including statistical information, on the effect of using the following levels of income variation—

(a) 20% increase;

(b) 15% increase;

(c) 10% increase;

(d) 5% increase;

(e) 20% decrease;

(f) 15% decrease;

(g) 10% decrease;

(h) 5% decrease.’.

No. 49, in clause 16, page 7, line 22, at end insert—

‘(2) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the criteria which will apply to evidence brought before the Commission by a parent with care who wishes to appeal against a maintenance calculation.

(3) A Minister of the Crown must make a motion in each House of Parliament in relation to the report mentioned in subsection (2) before the coming into effect of Schedule 4.’.

No. 47, in clause 16, page 7, line 22, at end insert—

‘(2) The Secretary of State must publish a report, including statistical information, on the likely actual impact of the move from using net income for maintenance calculations to gross income.

(3) A Minister of the Crown must make a motion in each House of Parliament in relation to the report mentioned in subsection (2) before the coming into effect of Schedule 4.’.

No. 14, in clause 57, page 43, line 22, after ‘sections’, insert

‘16, [Duty of HM Revenue and Customs to ascertain financial circumstances of non-resident parent],’.

New clause 2—Duty of HM Revenue and Customs to ascertain financial circumstances of non-resident parent

‘(1) In section 11 of the Child Support Act 1991 (maintenance calculations) after subsection (6) insert—

“(6A) Where subsection (6) applies or an application for a variation under section 28 has been made by either the non-resident parent or the parent with care and any question arises concerning the income of the non-resident parent—

(a) HMRC shall take all reasonable steps to investigate and verify the financial circumstances of the non-resident parent in order to establish his income for the purposes of this Act or regulations made under it;

(b) the non-resident parent shall provide such information as is required by HMRC in order to verify the financial information submitted by him or on his behalf.”.

(2) After subsection (8) of that section insert—

“(8A) In this section “HMRC” means the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.”’.

New clause 3—Enhanced enforcement to coincide with changes to the calculation of maintenance

‘When applying section 57 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall only implement the provisions contained in sections 19 to 28 inclusive of this Act on such day as the provisions contained in section 16 and [Duty of HM Revenue and Customs to ascertain financial circumstances of non-resident parent] of this Act also come into force.’.

New clause 6—Financial circumstances of non-resident parent

‘(1) In section 11 of the Child Support Act 1991 (maintenance calculations) after subsection (6) insert—

“(6A) Where subsection (6) applies or an application for a variation under section 28 has been made by either the non-resident parent or the parent with care and any question arises concerning the income of the non-resident parent—

(a) the Commission shall take all reasonable steps to investigate and verify the financial circumstances of the non-resident parent in order to establish his income for the purposes of this Act or regulations made under it;

(b) the non-resident parent shall provide such information as is required by the Commission in order to verify the financial information submitted by him or on his behalf.” ’.

New clause 14—Provision of information

‘Government departments, non-departmental public bodies and the Courts shall provide all such information as the Commission may reasonably request to—

(a) enable the Commission to form a correct maintenance assessment; and

(b) locate the address, workplace, or other places, where any parent who has an undischarged maintenance liability may be found.’.

Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

The clause deals with changes to the way in which maintenance is calculated. I want to discuss amendments Nos. 46, 48, 49 and 47 and new clause 6.

I want to consider the new clause separately, so I shall start with the four amendments. The amendments address the new assessment process, which will be based on gross income for the non-resident parent with the data coming from HMRC. Although the change to using HMRC to provide the data is welcome, there is a concern that the data will be one or two years out of date, particularly for a self-employed, non-resident parent.

The Bill allows for reassessment, but only if income has risen or fallen by more than 25 per cent. The idea behind the amendments is to reduce the administrative burden on HMRC created by reassessments, which might mean that children end up receiving less under the new system. The amendment asks for an investigation into the effects of varying this level on the  caseload of the CMEC. We also need more information on the proportion of non-resident parents, both employed and unemployed, whose income differs substantially from one year to the next and who may have spells of unemployment in any one year.

I am not suggesting that that should happen annually, but given that we are discussing a new structure and a new assessment, we need to predict the effect of those changes on people in different income bands and the difference that that would make in principle to the level of maintenance that parents with care receive. I put it to the Minister that that could be carried out fairly quickly once the Bill has received Royal Assent, so that we can get some indication of the changes. The Minister may well say that it is a matter for the commission, as it is the body charged with dealing with that, but as Members of Parliament who will be dealing with individual cases, we need to know what information the parent with care will need to provide in order to initiate an appeal. I hope that the Minister can give us some idea of what the level of information will be.

New clause 6 is slightly different from new clause 2. Both new clauses would place a duty on statutory authorities to investigate non-resident parents. In the case of new clause 2, that investigative duty is with HMRC, and in the case of new clause 6 it is with the commission. I want to quote two pieces of evidence that were given at the start of our deliberations about non-resident parents who are self employed. Referring to the resident parent having to provide information to the CSA, as it currently constituted, in order for it to initiate an investigation, Stephen Geraghty said that if the CSA can provide it, it will do so.

Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Energy; Work and Pensions); Angus, Scottish National Party)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is his experience not the same as mine, that parents with care complain that, although they have given the information to the CSA, nothing happens and there is no investigation? The Minister has accepted that that was because the CSA does not have investigative powers in a lot of those cases, which is a serious defect.

Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The CSA has a statutory right to investigate, but it does not have the resources to do so as it is currently set up. Given the situation, I disagree with the proposals to use HMRC. If one deals with a non-resident parent who is a self-employed director of a company, it is quite possible for them to arrange their financial affairs to be, as is said colloquially, more tax-efficient. That may well reduce the visible income and, therefore, the amount of child maintenance to be paid. I know that One Parent Families and Gingerbread have provided a briefing that includes several cases showing how it is possible for not only millionaires but ordinary, self-employed people to change their tax affairs to make it more difficult for the parent with care to pursue their claim.

I put it to the Minister that we should not be putting the onus on the parent with care to have to prove that, because the parent with care may have separated in difficult circumstances and may not be in the best position to know the ins and outs of the non-resident parent’s income—they may only know background information. There is no requirement for the non-resident parent to provide full information to the  commission. Stephen Geraghty’s comment says it all by putting the onus on the parent with care.

I also want to quote Janet Allbeson, who asked us in the evidence sitting where the pressure would come from. As she said, it will be parents with care who are not getting anything at the moment who will think that at least they can get something. However, where will they get the information from? New clause 6 is important, because we are saying that we are introducing a new arrangement, trying to encourage people to make voluntary arrangements and setting up information and support services to enable such voluntary arrangements, but, where a parent is clearly determined to avoid their responsibilities at all costs, there must be statutory back-up to make them declare what they are doing.

Turning to the difference between new clauses 2 and 6, new clause 2 puts that responsibility on HMRC. I put it to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, who tabled new clause 2, that HMRC’s primary responsibility is the collection of taxes—it investigates tax fraud and is keen to ensure that such investigations take place. It is not charged with the effective and efficient calculation of child maintenance, which is still the responsibility of the commission. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that new clause 6, which would give the commission the power to order the non-resident parent to provide the information, is a more appropriate way of going forward.

HMRC will have to be involved and it has the database that will be used to provide much of the calculation. However, where a non-resident parent has been tax-efficient and is therefore avoiding child maintenance payments, perhaps by switching from earned income to dividends, the issue, as far as HMRC is concerned, is dealt with. The issue, however, it is not dealt with as far as the resident parent is concerned because, while that is not earned income, it is still income that the non-resident parent is receiving. I hope that the Minister will look at that. As I said, the first few amendments are probing. We want an assurance that a review will take place before the Bill is operational so that we have an indication of the number of parents whose income changes within a year and what effect that is likely to have on the amount of child maintenance collected by the new procedure. Again, that information should be available from HMRC’s database.

Finally, new clause 6 is very important because unless and until we have the statutory back-up for the new system—we partly discussed this earlier—we are still going to let down those children in that particular situation. I appreciate that Ministers may say, “Well, it’s only 7 per cent. of all the cases involved.” Nevertheless, for the children involved that is 7 per cent. too much. We ought to be using this opportunity to ensure that while we are encouraging voluntary agreements, we have a statutory back-up for cases where one parent is attempting to use the tax system to avoid their parental responsibilities.

Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

This important set of amendments and new clauses cuts right to the heart of so many problems that the CSA has experienced in recent years.  It is important that we get this area of the Bill absolutely right. It is a large and somewhat unwieldy group of amendments, so we will probably be spending a little time on it as we go through everything. It merits a serious debate, which I hope all members of the Committee will contribute to fully.

Amendment No. 14 has the effect of introducing provisions in schedule 4 from the moment that the Bill receives Royal Assent, rather than delaying it. That is important because it would give CMEC the power to use HMRC data straight away so that the tougher enforcement powers, which I hope we will discuss later, can be used on accurate assessments. I cannot stress how important it is that the tougher enforcement powers go hand in hand with the stronger enforcement powers because, as we all know from our case loads as constituency Members of Parliament, faith in the system will only be restored if the assessment process is more accurate and if those accurate assessments are enforced.

The National Audit Office estimates that 65 per cent. of assessments put forward for enforcement were incorrect. That is at the heart of many of the problems that arrive in our mailbags week in, week out, and it is deeply unfair to the non-resident parents who have incorrect assessments and highly frustrating for the parents with care and, most importantly, for the children who do not receive the correct amount of money. Amendment No. 14 and new clause 3 are important because they would allow HMRC data to be used straight away and ensure that those powers link up with the tougher enforcement powers, which are going to come in straight away, as my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean will no doubt tell us later.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to get it on the record that this is not a passive, investigatory exercise between parties who just happen to have levels of income or expenditure requirements as givens. Obviously, if somebody is in the “won’t pay” category rather than the “can’t pay” category, they will resort to various devices, with which we are all familiar—such as self-employment—to disguise the nature of their income, and a vigorous, proactive investigation will be needed to get to the bottom of where they really stand.

Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is right. He has, as he often does, put his finger on it by talking about a sector of non-resident parents who perhaps have their own businesses, are self-employed, are slightly more financially literate than most of the population and are able to arrange their affairs in such a way that they can—wrongly—minimise their child maintenance payments. It is important that we deal with those issues.

In discussing this group of amendments, I want to explain further some of the measures dealing with the matter raised by my hon. Friend. New clause 2 would give stronger investigatory powers and put a greater onus on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to investigate and get to grips with the current ability of non-resident parents to pay the maintenance that they should be paying.

I hear what the hon. Member for Rochdale says about new clause 6 and how the tough, investigatory powers should primarily lie with CMEC, whereas my new clause 2 says that the primary focus should be with HMRC. The truth is that we will need the fullest possible co-operation between HMRC and CMEC if the Bill is to be a success. All sorts of practical issues, in terms of data sharing, IT systems and basic communications, will have to be got right if we are to make a success of this. There are different approaches in my amendment and the one tabled by the hon. Gentleman. I will justify why I tabled new clause 2, rather than new clause 6, as I proceed. However, I hope that he will agree that there is, in essence, a fine divide because we will need full and good co-operation between HMRC and CMEC if we are going to crack some of these difficult problems.

Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s points. We will deal with IT systems under the next group of amendments. Does he not accept, however, that CMEC’s prime responsibility is child maintenance and HMRC’s prime responsibility is collecting taxes? Therefore, the body dealing with child maintenance should be the principal body, albeit working closely with the other?

Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I understand that, but let me take the hon. Gentleman back to his party’s previous position, which he is arguing against, if I remember it correctly. He wanted to transfer virtually the whole of the Child Support Agency to HMRC. A little trip down memory lane tells me that he has moved some way from a position about which many of us had to listen to for some time and with which we did not fully agree.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

Is it not also a consideration that, although it is accurate to say that HMRC’s job is to collect taxes, along the way it has become the expert in the assessment of income and the avoidance of Spanish practices to disguise income? It is important that it should be in the lead in smoking out people who seek to conceal their real situation.

Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is right. Let us put ourselves in the shoes of a non-resident parent who is playing fast and loose, frankly, and is morally wrong in not providing the amount of maintenance that should be going to his children. If the telephone rings or a letter arrives on his desk—in the days when we get a postal service back—and one is headed “CMEC” and other is headed “HMRC”, I wonder which would make us quake most in our boots. Whether rightly or wrongly—and for many of the right reasons—HMRC has something of a Rottweiler reputation. For hundreds of years it has pursued us to get money from us, and most of us would say that they probably do that pretty successfully. It has strong, tough powers to do so, and rightly so because the Government need revenue.

People would be more likely to jump if Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs took the lead in assessing the right amount of income as it is HMRC data that will be used. The hon. Gentleman cited  support for his approach to new clause 6 from One Parent Families, but I draw his attention to page 5 of its brief, which states:

“At present, despite extensive powers to seek information and require its production, the CSA simply lacks the confidence and financial expertise to scrutinise the financial affairs of suspected non-resident parents”.

One Parent Families seems to be arguing slightly against its own case.

Under new clause 2, HMRC would have to refashion some of its priorities in pursuing non-resident parents. No doubt, there are those high up in the Revenue who say that the objective should be to go for those cases in which it can extract the most revenue and to ignore some of the smaller ones. I hope the Minister is having conversations with Treasury Ministers about the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission to ensure that when its prior year data is being used, HMRC is committed to the objective of preventing the past financial chicanery and of ensuring that there is full and accurate disclosure. If the Minister has not had such conversations with Treasury Ministers, perhaps he will assure the Committee that he will do so, so that the proposal can work properly and effectively.

New clause 14 is about the importance of all Departments, non-departmental public bodies and the courts sharing and providing all the information necessary for CMEC to do its job. I forgot who said it, but in a previous sitting—in an evidence session or perhaps on Second Reading—we heard about a case in which a non-resident parent pleaded poverty to the Child Support Agency, saying that he could not possibly make the unreasonable maintenance payments demanded of him, at the same time as he was presenting himself to the Home Office as a man of substantial means who could well afford to support the new foreign bride he was hoping to be allowed to bring to this country.

The message needs to go around Whitehall loud and clear that there should be basic data sharing among Departments, which should link up and speak to each other. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues are taking the lead in that respect, and that they have been round, knocked on doors and had conversations to ensure that the data flows. We know from the intractable problems in the past that unless there is the greatest possible sharing of information between Departments to build up a full and accurate picture of the non-resident parent’s state of affairs, we will not crack the problems presented by these serious issues.

The Bill touches on some important matters about the nuts and bolts of getting enforcement to work: using HMRC data straight away; being fair in respect of the tougher enforcement powers; using only accurate data—the data is inaccurate in 65 per cent. of cases; and ensuring that information is shared. This is a large, unwieldy group of amendments, but these are important issues and I look forward to hearing what the Minister and other members of the Committee have to say about them.

James Plaskitt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Warwick & Leamington, Labour)

I shall give a full response to this large group of amendments and I hope that the Committee will bear with me, as there are many very important issues to be considered. I will divide my response into three broad areas.

First, there are those amendments that require the Government to publish statistical reports before the new arrangements for calculating maintenance come into effect. Secondly, there are amendments that have an impact on the timing of the commencement of different parts of the Act, including an amendment which means that collection and enforcement powers could only come into force from the time the changes to the calculation of maintenance come into force. There is also an amendment that would mean that the new calculation arrangements would come into force on the day that the Bill receives Royal Assent. Thirdly, a set of amendments would provide ongoing obligations once the new arrangements are up and running. In particular, they would require routine investigations into all non-resident parents’ incomes.

Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 would require the Government to publish a report outlining the impact on cases of the move to use gross rather than net weekly income when making statutory maintenance calculations, and to make a motion in each House about this report. Using gross income data already held by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs rather than asking the non-resident parent to supply net weekly income details, will remove one of the significant causes of delay in making maintenance calculations.

Our intention is that the effect of the move from net to gross weekly income should be broadly the same across the income range. That is the reason for the new percentages for basic rate cases. I would add that that intention resulted in changes to the rates originally announced last December in the child maintenance White Paper. In particular, it resulted in the introduction of a second set of percentages to be applied to higher income levels.

We already published in May this year information showing the impact of moving from net to gross weekly income in our response to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions’ fourth report. The amendments would require publication of analysis showing the actual impact of the change on individual cases at the point at which it is implemented. In reality, such analysis is unlikely to be available. The first reason for that is because the composition of the case load is likely to change as we start to allow parents to make their own arrangements for child maintenance. At this time there is no way of knowing precisely which cases will remain in the statutory maintenance service and which will leave. Secondly, we would need to make estimates of what non-resident parents’ incomes would be in 2010, and, again we have no way of knowing how accurate such estimates might turn out to be.

Amendment No. 48 would require the Government, before bringing into effect the new rules for calculating statutory maintenance, to publish a report on the effect on maintenance assessments of different levels of income variation. The new calculation rules will include provision for an annual review, so that more recent HMRC data can be used, enabling calculations to be updated. Parents will be able to ask for an alternative calculation based on the current income of the non-resident parent where this differs from the HMRC income data used by at least 25 per cent. That threshold will provide more stability for parents in the amounts to be paid and allow the commission to concentrate on getting money flowing. The amendment  calls for a report showing the effect of different levels of income variation. For the same reasons as those that I gave for rejecting amendments Nos. 46 and 47, it is not possible to produce robust analysis at this time. I should add that the regulations to be made under the Bill, which would provide among other things a definition of gross weekly income and the 25 per cent. income tolerance rate, will be affirmative. We will, therefore, produce relevant analysis to assist Parliament in its scrutiny of those regulations.

Amendment No. 49 would require the Government to publish a report outlining the information that a parent with care would be required to provide when appealing against a maintenance calculation, and to make a motion in each House about the report. We are not planning to change the current process, and parents will have the same rights to query and challenge a decision by the commission as they currently do. That means that there will still be no requirement for an appellant to provide supporting information for their appeal. The only information required will continue to be that necessary for the administration of the appeal to proceed. With that in mind, it is difficult to identify the practical benefits to be gained in publishing a report of the type proposed in the amendment.

New clause 3 would unnecessarily delay the implementation of the new collection and enforcement powers until the changes in the method of calculation of child maintenance are introduced, which is not expected to be until 2010. The purpose of the Bill is to help the commission to collect more maintenance for children. In order to provide the commission with the tools to take firm enforcement action at the earliest possible opportunity, we want to introduce the new collection and enforcement powers as soon as they can be operationally effective. Delaying that can lead only to worse outcomes for children.

In contrast to the previous amendment, the effect of amendment No. 14 would be to bring forward changes to the new calculation rules under the Bill so that they would take effect from Royal Assent, not in 2010 as currently planned. It would also require HMRC to investigate the reported earnings of non-resident parents from the earlier time. In looking to introduce new maintenance calculations from 2010, we are being careful to avoid the mistakes of the past. We know from previous experience that a maintenance calculation scheme cannot be delivered successfully without an efficient and well-tested IT infrastructure. That is particularly true in terms of the need for robust IT to support the commission in its use of HMRC income data.

Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his further elaboration on matters. HMRC data are so important. It is one of the parts of the Bill that we are most enthusiastic about because, as I shall say for the third time, the National Audit Office says that 65 per cent. of assessments are wrong. Is he saying that the reason for not using HMRC data is down purely to IT? I want to probe him further on that. It does not strike me that we necessarily need complex computer systems to achieve a basic level of communication between HMRC and CMEC to start using the data sooner.

James Plaskitt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Warwick & Leamington, Labour)

No, it is not down to that. The matter concerns part of the deliberations that we must go through at this stage. As the hon. Gentleman has referred to it more than once, I return to his allegation that 65 per cent. of assessments are wrong. We touched on that before the recess. He knows that we dispute that figure on the basis of how it has been defined “incorrect”. We are certain that, in reality, the number is much smaller.

I wish also to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of data sharing. I agree with his view. He wants to know whether we are having conversations with HMRC about data sharing. Yes, of course we are. They have been under way for some time. It is important that the data-sharing process is robust precisely for the reasons that he outlined. My general point concerns getting the sequence of the changes right, which is why I am responding to his argument.

If the proposed scheme were to commence before the link conveying HMRC data has been fully established, the efficiency gains from direct access to the data would be lost. Further inefficiencies would be bound to occur if the commission was not given sufficient time to train its staff fully or to develop all the processes needed to administer the new service. The second effect of the amendment would place an ongoing obligation on HMRC to ascertain the financial circumstances of every non-resident parent. In that respect, it is virtually identical in its effect to new clause 2, which would require HMRC to take reasonable steps to investigate and verify such income. The new clause would also add a requirement on non-resident parents to provide HMRC with any information necessary for it to complete that task.

It is important to remember that the information that the commission will use to work out the statutory maintenance liability will already have been looked at by HMRC for historic income data and the Department for Work and Pensions for those in receipt of benefits. To recheck that information for every application to the commission, which we estimate would occur more than 100,000 times a year, let alone at other times when the question about income arises, would be a prohibitively expensive and largely superfluous process. It would remove any efficiency gains from the commission’s direct access to HMRC data and would result in delays to the flow of maintenance, as the commission would have to wait for the income figure to be validated again before a calculation could be made.

The commission will be able to undertake appropriate investigations into any income information, where it believes it to be appropriate, and will still be able to pass on such information to HMRC. Non-resident parents will still be required to submit to the commission such information, if needed, to make a calculation. Failure to provide such information, or providing false information, would leave people open to prosecution. Furthermore, parents will continue to have access to the variations regime, which helps to ensure that maintenance liabilities accurately reflect non-resident parents’ ability to pay.

New clause 6 would provide an identical obligation as that set out in new clause 2 to investigate and verify non-residents parents’ income, except that it places that  obligation on the commission instead of HMRC. My points about the inefficiencies arising from the duplication of effort and the possibility of adding significant delay to the calculation process apply equally, therefore, to this amendment.

Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

Given the Minister’s earlier comments, and the comments that Stephen Geraghty made in the evidence sessions, what step is he planning to make to ensure that the commission or HMRC have employed the relevant people to enable those investigations to take place?

James Plaskitt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Warwick & Leamington, Labour)

This leads us back to the more general debate. We do not want to burden the commission with huge duties of investigation that it is not empowered to carry out. It was that mistake that led to some of the current difficulties with the CSA. However, there are particular circumstances—especially if a parent with care reports and provides evidence—in which the CSA can require information and carry out an investigation. The commission will inherit exactly the same powers. It is important that it has the ability to do that. How it does it, the resources that it brings to bear in undertaking that task, and the skills set that it has to carry it out, are all the responsibility of the commission. It must ensure that that is part of its package, in order that it can act on the authority that it has.

Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

I understand the Minister’s point, but given the quote that I gave from Stephen Geraghty, where the onus is being placed on the resident parent with care, does he not accept that it is often very difficult to provide evidence? What we should require is that when a complaint has been made, rather than evidence submitted, the commission then investigates. That is a lower level of responsibility than requiring evidence, which is what the Minister is suggesting.

James Plaskitt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Warwick & Leamington, Labour)

First, we have the switch to relying on HMRC income data. That is a big step from where we are now. It is far more robust and, as several hon. Members said, HMRC is better equipped to extract that information and people will report changes to it because they are fearful of the consequences of not doing so. That is a quantum change in terms of the quality and robustness of the information that the commission will have about parents’ income. However, it will still have the power to pursue an investigation if, for example, a parent with care refers to it for consideration evidence of a suspicion that the non-resident parent is not giving the correct information—perhaps because there is a mismatch of lifestyle information. We all accept that the CSA has not carried out that function very effectively. There is a duty on the commission, knowing that it has that power and an obligation to perform it effectively, to ensure that it has the right equipment and skills set to carry out that function. I suspect that there will be far less need to do it, given that the essential body of information about income is coming in from a more developed and robust source than is the case at the moment.

Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I must quibble with the Minister’s arguments against new clauses 2 and 6. He used similar arguments against both me and the hon. Member for  Rochdale, saying that our new clauses would weigh down HMRC and CMEC with endless bureaucracy and unnecessary extra checking. I simply draw his attention to the small word “reasonable” in both new clauses, because it is neither my nor, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman’s intention that HMRC and CMEC should waste a millisecond on cases which are clear and which do not need reinvestigating. Without a provision such as new clause 2, however, I fail to see how we will place a legal duty on HMRC to take action in cases that it is not currently investigating because they are not high value.

James Plaskitt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Warwick & Leamington, Labour)

I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to be reasonable—he is a reasonable man—but the trouble is that he is opening the door to the possibility of the commission being swamped with references for investigation, and we do not want to get into that situation. That would not be an appropriate response, given that the income information from which the commission will work in carrying out its functions will in future come from HMRC.

Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

I hope that the Minister appreciates that this is an important part of the Bill. Given what he has just said, what assurance will he give us that the DWP will issue instructions to the commission to ensure that the relevant arrangements are put in place? As he has rightly said, the CSA can statutorily do the things that we are talking about, but it does not. We therefore need to see that steps will be taken to ensure that action is taken where people evade payments.

James Plaskitt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Warwick & Leamington, Labour)

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the commission is charged with delivering in accordance with the criteria set down in the Bill and that it remains accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State for doing so. We therefore expect it to address all its functions and secure them in the appropriate way, which is the whole point of setting it up. It is not for me, at this stage, to prejudge or determine how it will do that, because that is a commission responsibility. However, we obviously want to ensure that that responsibility is met.

In most cases, it is highly likely that the additional effort that we have discussed would result in no change, because the majority of non-resident parents do not manipulate their income, and the information obtained from HMRC regarding their financial position can, as I have said, be safely relied on.

The final provision in the group is new clause 14, which also imposes obligations in relation to obtaining information. It would require all Departments, non-departmental public bodies and the courts to provide the commission with information when a request is made. Such a request would have to be made for the purpose of enabling the commission to make a maintenance calculation or to locate the non-resident parent, but only where maintenance is unpaid.

I want to assure hon. Members that the commission will continue to be able to request information from a wide range of sources, including employers, accountants, local authorities, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Prison Service and credit reference agencies.

Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

On that point, I remember the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), when he and I were on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions in the last Parliament, putting to the CSA’s then chief executive the point that mobile phone companies knew non-resident parents’ addresses when the CSA did not. Forgive my ignorance, but will anything in the Bill enable CMEC to require a mobile phone company, or any other utility company, to furnish a non-resident parent’s address?

James Plaskitt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Warwick & Leamington, Labour)

The matter of the address is important, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised it. At present, the answer to his question is no. I would not want to pursue the matter via the mobile phone companies, but we are looking at the possibility of making further amendments to the Bill to introduce an obligation to report addresses, so the issue is very much in our mind, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

On sanctions, perhaps the Minister will elucidate the following point. If somebody were to give inaccurate information, they would clearly face sanctions. If, however, they were to refuse to give information and did a vanishing act, although they were still living in the house and the letter had been correctly delivered, would that be a breach of the law? Of course, there might be indirect sanctions against them in the form of the imposition of a maintenance order. If such a refusal is not a breach of the law, is that another area that should be tightened up?

James Plaskitt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Warwick & Leamington, Labour)

As I understand it, it is a breach of the law—unless I am subsequently corrected. It is an existing power, and there is a potential fine. That is already in statute, and that power will transfer to the new commission. Therefore it is an offence not to provide the requested information.

Schedule 6 will also allow the commission access to information held by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Northern Ireland Office. Existing provisions already enable parents to disclose information relating to certain proceedings to the agency, if it is required for the purposes of making a statutory maintenance calculation.

Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

I have listened to the Minister’s reassurances. On the amendments, I accept the information and assurances that he has given, but I want to press new clause 6 to a vote.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

We cannot have a vote on new clause 6 now, but we can have one later on. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that indication.

Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Similarly, at the appropriate moment, I would like to press new clause 2 to a vote.

Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.