Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 64, in clause 25, page 18, line 18, leave out from ‘may’ to ‘a’ and insert

‘apply to the court for an order to disqualify’.

David Taylor (North West Leicestershire, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment

No. 108, in clause 25, page 18, line 18, leave out ‘make an order’ and insert

‘apply to the court for an order’.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government on the reasons for the range of different levels of appeal that are allowed in the Bill. It relates to the intervention by the hon. Member for Angus on an earlier clause. The current CSA is unable to take enforcement action, other than placing a deduction of earnings order, without applying to the magistrates court for a liability order. If that fails, the CSA can then apply to the courts for a charging order against the non-resident parent’s property, for example.

As the Bill stands, CMEC will be able to apply administrative enforcement—

Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

As I said, the amendment would probe the difference between the various enforcement powers in this and later clauses in relation to the level to which CMEC must go to implement its powers.

Clause 25, on the disqualification for holding or obtaining travel authorisation—for example, a passport—relates to an administrative power. However, a later clause about driving licences requires CMEC to apply to the court for an order. The amendment would insert the requirement for an application to be made to a court for an order in the case of a passport. Why have the Government not been consistent on whether sanctions can be pursued administratively by CMEC or whether a court order should be sought in all cases? Given that these are all powers that relate to enforcement procedures, at least an explanation of why the different levels of sanction, or approval, must be sought before these powers can be implemented is warranted. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

Mark Harper (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Forest of Dean, Conservative)

I shall be brief, because the hon. Gentleman has discussed most of the relevant issues. I simply add one point. He has sought an explanation from the Government. Given our discussion about appeals processes and sanctions, one of the points raised during our discussion of clause 23 was that there is no sense in the sanctions part of the Bill and in being able to pursue sanctions in a different way. Since one has to apply to the court to take away a driving licence, it does not seem sensible that one should not have to apply to the court to take away a travel document. It would make sense to treat those documents in the same way and have a consistent set of processes.

I agree with hon. Gentleman and it will be interesting to hear the Government’s explanation about why there is a difference. If there is not a good reason, it would be helpful if the Committee could be asked to express a view.

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

It’s back to bad cop.

May I clarify a couple of points from previous debates on which I had promised to come back to the Committee? The first relates to the enforcement of fees that may be charged to clients of the commission. The second relates to statistics on income variation, which was raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey.

On the first point—fees—measures such as deductions from earnings orders and deduction orders are to be used for the collection of maintenance due for arrears and may also be used for the collection of fees only. However, I can categorically state that none of those enforcement measures, which are compliance tools—by that I refer to commitment to prison, curfew orders, and the removal of passports and driving licences—would ever be used solely to enforce fees owed to the commission. Such use of those powers would be disproportionate, and that will be made absolutely clear in secondary legislation.

Secondly, I would like provide a brief note of clarification on an issue that arose earlier. The hon. Gentleman raised a discrepancy between the figures that I had used on income variations among non-resident parents and those made available to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions in February 2007. The difference is down to methodology. The figures presented to the Select Committee did not include non-resident parents who had experienced being on benefit in either of the years examined. The figures I quoted include non-resident parents who had experienced such a spell. That is the reason for the discrepancy, and I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

It reassures me, but I think when this matter was raised in an earlier sitting, the Minister said that he would write to the Committee and set out for the record the disparity, the reasons for it and what the correct figures are so that they can be understood. It would still be helpful in accepting his clarification if that happened. I hope he will agree to do so.

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

I am happy to publish the tables for the sake of completeness.

Amendments Nos. 64 and 108 would prevent the commission from administratively disqualifying the non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a travel authorisation and would require the commission to apply to the court for such an order. I do not consider an application to the court to be necessary or appropriate in this context, and I shall explain why.

Where other more direct methods of enforcement have been tried but maintenance still remains outstanding, we need adequate measures in place to encourage compliance from those who wilfully refuse or culpably neglect to pay maintenance. We believe that in the right cases administratively disqualifying the non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a travel authorisation will encourage that compliance. We recognise that this kind of administrative decision making is a major step, but it is a mark of how determined we are for the commission to move swiftly and effectively in the new enforcement regime. We strongly believe that we need the commission to take this action administratively rather than using the court. There are clear reasons for that.

Based on the experience of other countries, especially the United States and Australia, we believe that the threat of imminent action by the Commission will be more effective in securing compliance than an inevitably drawn out court process, which can be further delayed or frustrated by the non-resident parent’s tactics. This measure will contribute to changing the culture of non-compliance. It will reinforce the message that non-compliance will not be tolerated and that the commission will be able to take swift measures to deal with it. We also recognise the need to have safeguards in place. I want to assure hon. Members that caseworkers will receive a higher level of training and guidance to aid them in the decision-making process. The training and guidance will be developed in advance of the legislation coming into force.

There are also a number of safeguards in the Bill. Administrative orders will be made only when the commission is satisfied that the non-resident parent has demonstrated wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay maintenance. That is the same test as is currently applied by the courts in respect of disqualification for holding or obtaining a driving licence. The Bill makes it clear that the commission must attempt, where appropriate, more direct means of obtaining compliance, such as use of the bailiff, diligence, third-party debt orders or interim charging orders. That is an important safeguard, designed to ensure that administrative orders to disqualify are applied where the non-resident parent will not pay, as opposed to cannot pay.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Minister answer the question the other way around? He is making the point that the administrative process is important to allow things to be done swiftly because swift action is more effective. Why have the Government therefore chosen not to allow the administrative process for some of the other sanctions, such as removing a driving licence? I note from a recent written answer that only 17 driving licence disqualification sentences were passed between April 2002 and January 2007. The Minister may think  that that makes his point for him. In which case, why has he chosen not to go down the administrative route for other incentives, given that he believes that the administrative process is much more effective?

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

They are, in effect, two different things. In most circumstances, documents that authorise travel will be used in relation to a discretionary activity such as a non-resident parent taking a holiday. We want to take swift action to prevent that if the money that they are using should be spent on maintenance for their children. A driving licence is quite different. If we move swiftly to remove a driving licence, but the non-resident parent still drives, they are effectively driving without insurance and putting not only their own lives at risk but those of others. In that sense, there are wider ramifications in removing the driving licence. It is therefore more appropriate for the courts to do it.

The hon. Gentleman said that perhaps we should be concerned about the numbers. It is important to bear in mind that it is the threat of that that really matters. It encourages compliance. The test is not how many times we have to take the action, but whether the knowledge that the sanction might befall a non-resident parent induces them to be compliant. Where we can make it known that the possibility of imposing the compliance measure will be swift, we think that the impact on compliance will be greater. That is why we see the process as a more appropriate means of going forward than the court route in respect of the travel authorisation, as in Australia.

The only circumstance in which we would want to reflect differently on the process is if either document were essential for the non-resident parent’s employment. Of course, a court would consider not withdrawing a driving licence in such circumstances if so doing prevented the parent from pursuing their employment. If they cannot pursue their employment, they are not in a position to pay maintenance. The same issue applies in respect of travel documents. If the non-resident parent is a regular commuter overseas by virtue of his work, that would come into consideration and the document might not be withdrawn.

The message that we are trying to get across is that the travel authorisation is much more likely to be used than the driving licence in respect of the discretionary activity, and that its use will be headed off swiftly. The knowledge that that power will be available to the commission will encourage compliance. That is the purpose of doing the two things differently. Having been given those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I understand what the Minister says about the need to be swift and effective, and that the measure represents a real threat. He is actually saying that he expects the power not to be used much in practice because the threat of it, in itself, will be enough to encourage compliance without having to go through the administrative process.

I welcome what the Minister says about those people for whom a passport is essential to their work. Given that the measure will be implemented through an  administrative process, in those cases where CMEC might not be aware that a passport is necessary for work purposes—in spite of investigations that would be carried out, the full information may not be available, although I accept that the Bill allows for appeals—the safeguard in place in a court process would not be available.

I am not sure that amendment No. 64 is the right one to press to a Division, but if the hon. Member for Forest of Dean wishes to do so with his, I would be happy to support him.

Mark Harper (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Forest of Dean, Conservative)

To put it a different way around, there is a clear distinction, in terms of the sanctions, between withdrawing the driving licence and the travel authorisation on the one hand, and those things that affect someone’s liberty on the other. It is right that the commission should have to apply to a court to carry out those sanctions that would affect someone’s liberty.

The travel authorisation and the driving licence options are more alike. The two amendments put the process one way around by suggesting that CMEC should have to apply to the court in the case of travel authorisation and driving licences. Given that the Minister has said that CMEC is trying to use the threat of taking away one of those things to enforce compliance, I would have thought that being able to take away the driving licence would be a much bigger threat and one more likely to enforce compliance than taking away the travel authorisation. In that case, his suggestion that CMEC would have to go to court to do that does not make sense.

I am happy not to press amendment No. 108 to a Division, but I ask the Minister to reflect on Report on whether making the travel and driving licence processes consistent—perhaps making both of them administrative—might make more sense if we are to get proper compliance. I acknowledge what he said about the danger of taking a driving licence away, but, of course, someone would be committing a quite serious criminal offence if they continued to drive, which obviously could be pursued in the normal way.

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

The imperative is not neatness, but effectiveness. We simply want all non-resident parents who are contemplating non-compliance to be aware of the compliance measures that are at the commission’s disposal. I have been trying to emphasise that these are two different types of liberties or rights with different implications. The driving licence proposal inevitably has many third-party implications that the travel authorisation does not. That is a fundamental difference between the two and explains why we think that it is appropriate to go down different routes. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to suggest that we be neat on this matter; we just need to be effective. He should bear in mind the differences between the types of documents and rights that we are dealing with.

Mark Harper (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Forest of Dean, Conservative)

I am still not terribly convinced. We are not arguing for neatness for the sake of neatness, but simply for consistency. We have debated whether, in the modern world, a lot of people depend on travel authorisation for their work and economic prospects, not just for things like holidays. Our proposals are more  consistent than the Minister suggests. In terms of getting compliance from people paying maintenance, he should think about whether the commission could administratively remove people’s driving licences. That might be more effective. It might not happen very often, but the threat of it happening quickly might be more effective in enforcing compliance than the powers currently contained in the Bill.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 92, in clause 25, page 18, line 24, after ‘unpaid’, insert—

‘(ba) the person from whom the Commission has sought to recover an amount in terms of subsection (1) has been given an opportunity to make representations to the Commission;’.

In a sense, the amendment goes over much of the same ground, but from a slightly different angle, so I will be brief. I will push it to a vote if that is what hon. Members want.

The amendment would place an obligation on the commission to hear a representation from the non-resident parent before it can take the view that he or she has wilfully refused or culpably neglected to make maintenance payments, and so make an order to disqualify them from holding or obtaining travel authorisation. I understand what the Minister said about the difference between the administrative position and the court position, but there does appear to be an internal contradiction.

Under the court procedure, the court must hear from the person concerned. For example, the curfew order in clause 26 specifically says that the court must hear from the person as to their means and

“whether there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect on the part of the person.”

There is no such provision in respect of administrative action. If something goes to court, it must hear from the person, but with the administrative action, which can have fairly serious consequences, there is no obligation to hear the person’s point of view before action is taken. That is a contradiction.

I appreciate what the Minister said about the travel document sanctions mostly being for people who are going on holiday. There is, therefore, a difference between driving licences and curfew orders, but it has been pointed out that that is not necessarily the case because the passport can be as important a document for many people’s employment as a driving licence. To an extent, that is reflected in clause 25, which states that before making an order under this section, the commission

“shall consider whether the person needs a travel authorisation in order to earn a living.”

The commission must consider that, but it is not obliged to hear from the person themselves. That seems to be a contradiction because the commission must make investigations under the clause. However, I am at a bit of a loss to understand how the commission can make effective investigations without hearing from the person before it takes administrative action.

I wondered whether the argument for administrative action would be that the measure would be used to stop someone on the verge of flight from leaving the country.

However, if the commission has to investigate whether the person needs a passport, that argument seems to fall away. I am interested in why there is a difference. Would it not be better to be consistent? Whether it is administrative action or court action, the person against whom the action is taken at least has the right to make representations before the action is taken.

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

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s contribution and shall try to reassure him on the points that he has raised. We agree that it is important that non-resident parents can put across such representations, particularly in order to explain why they have failed to fulfil their statutory maintenance obligations. A non-resident parent will receive advance notice of the commission’s intention to make an order to disqualify them from holding or obtaining travel authorisation, for example. They may put forward representations upon receipt of that notice. Additionally, the non-resident parent will have had opportunities at earlier stages in the process to challenge decisions of the commission, including the amount of maintenance due.

As I have tried to point out, the Bill contains important safeguards. The commission may make an administrative order only when it is satisfied that the non-resident parent has shown wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay maintenance. In addition, where appropriate the commission must have attempted more direct means of obtaining compliance such as the use of bailiffs, diligence, third party debt orders or an interim charging order.

Each case will be treated on its own merits. Considering the facts of the individual case will be crucial in determining whether the non-resident parent has wilfully refused or culpably neglected to pay maintenance. Additionally, before making an order, the commission will consider whether a non-resident parent needs a travel authorisation in order to earn a living.

When an order is made to disqualify a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a travel authorisation, the non-resident parent has the option of appealing to the court. If an appeal is filed within 28 days of receiving notice of the order, the order will be suspended and not implemented until the court has had the opportunity to hear the appeal and reconsider the commission’s original decision. Provision is also made for late appeals in the event that the non-resident parent falls to file an appeal within the initial 28-day period.

I hope the hon. Gentleman therefore appreciates that although the measure itself does not give the non-resident parent the opportunity to make representations, the notice of the intention to make an order will invite the non-resident parent to make such representations, if he or she needs to do so. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured and will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

I have listened to the Minister, but I am still concerned and a bit confused by what he has said, as the two provisions are pretty much identical. I do  not understand why the right is not written into the Bill. Although the Minister has assured me that notice will be given and that there will be a right to make a representation, that right will not carry the same strength as rights in respect of other matters. An appeal after the event could still mean someone being without their travel documents for a considerable number of weeks, even if the appeal is heard swiftly. It may well be that the purpose of removing travel documentation is that it may be done swiftly, perhaps, as the Minister said, when someone is going on holiday. There could be many ramifications, because there is no initial right to make representations, so one may be thrown back on having to deal with an appeal.

I am not satisfied with what the Minister has said, and I shall press the amendment to a Division.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 86, in clause 25, page 19, line 7, leave out subsection (b).

David Taylor (North West Leicestershire, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 109, in clause 25, page 19, line 7, leave out from ‘2006’ to end of line 8.

No. 110, in clause 25, page 19, line 8, at end insert—

‘(8) Only the travel authorisation function of the ID card is to be covered by this section.’.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

Amendment No. 86 would delete the reference at the end of clause 25 to identity cards issued under the Identity Cards Act 2006. The reason for the amendment is twofold. First, as the Committee knows, my hon. Friends and I object strongly to ID cards and think that they are unnecessary, costly and illiberal—for all those reasons, the legislation should be abolished and ID cards should not be introduced. That is part of a wider debate and may be beyond the scope of the Committee.

Secondly, in much of the Government’s discussions about their reasons for introducing ID cards, it was made clear that Ministers see them as not only a travel authorisation, as they relate to this clause, but as potentially having a much wider use concerning access to public services. When Ministers have talked about  ID cards, they have talked about their being used to access services at a doctor’s surgery or school. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Angus has said that that is not the case in Scotland, and he is right. He and I agree on that. [Interruption.] There are more than a few things that we agree about. We are interested in the access to medical services that Scots visiting England might have.

The Minister, in his response to earlier amendments, drew distinctions between different levels of incentive or enforcement action and the different levels of protest that would have to be gone through to secure them. He made the point that a driving licence is necessary for someone to carry out their daily life, particularly their working life, whereas a passport might be largely discretionary. His idea that an ID card should simply be seen as a discretionary travel document seems to go against the arguments that his ministerial colleagues have made in favour of ID cards. ID cards have been presented as much more than that, and they could become pervasive in society given the broad sweep of things that an authoritarian Government—such as the one that we have at the moment—might seek to use them for. Above and beyond my objections in principle, I think that practical reasons suggest that it is utterly inappropriate to refer to ID cards in this Bill.

Mark Harper (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Forest of Dean, Conservative)

I have a couple of things to add. The hon. Gentleman has raised the principle, and I want to go on the record and say that the official Opposition do not support the introduction of ID cards, not only for the reasons that he has identified, but because they will be ineffective and useless.

The other two amendments were intended to tease one or two other things out of the Minister. Amendment No. 110 picks up on the point that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey made about the wider functions of the ID card, because there is an inconsistency. Clause 25 specifically mentions the removal of travel authorisation and, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly stated, Ministers frequently talk about much wider use of ID cards, such as entitlement to a whole range of public services and, most importantly in this context, access to the NHS. Clearly it would be inappropriate if a card were taken away and someone was denied access to health care. Ministers have mentioned such uses for ID cards in the past, and it should therefore be made clear that only the travel authorisation function of the ID card can be withdrawn and not any other functions.

Also, I am not certain why section 7(b) only refers to an ID card

“that records that the person to whom it has been issued is a British citizen.”

There are people who father children and live in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it does not seem sensible to use the enforcement power against only British citizens. It would be appropriate to use it against citizens of other countries who happen to reside here and who have an identity card. Identity cards are currently issued to those who are not British citizens but who reside in the UK. Even if one accepts that ID cards are a good idea, it is illogical to use the enforcement power only against British citizens. I would be grateful if the Minister were to confirm that  the only part of the ID card function that we are discussing is travel authorisation and explain how that will be dealt with and the logic behind discussing only British citizens?

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

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and for Forest of Dean for their contributions and their amendments which, I suspect, are inspired by their whole approach towards ID cards. In dealing with their points, I will give a short tutorial on how ID cards would work. I promise that it will be short, that it will answer the questions that have been raised and that it is in order.

To begin with and to be clear, until ID cards are made compulsory, which will happen only after a future Act of Parliament, no individual will be required to produce an ID card in order to access free public services or benefit payments. In the event that such legislation is introduced and approved by Parliament, and in cases in which the commission makes an administrative order of this nature, the Identity and Passport Service will replace the non-resident parent’s ID card with a version that does not record that he or she is a British citizen. The card may be used for access to free public services and benefit payments, but it would not be suitable for travel in Europe.

Mr. Harper rose—

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

I want to finish this explanation, because it is quite involved. If I go through it, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why we are taking our position.

It is not, therefore, necessary to remove ID cards from the definition of travel authorisation or to specify in legislation that only the travel authorisation function of the ID card should be covered by this clause. That is because the existing definition concerning British citizenship is adequate to prevent travel, but still ensures that the non-resident parent has access to free public services and benefit payments, if they are entitled to them.

Furthermore, it should be reiterated that the Identity Cards Act 2006 amended legislation on football banning and travel restriction orders. In situations in which an individual is required to surrender his or her passport under these powers, he or she will, in due course, also have to surrender their ID card, which records that they are a British citizen. Our approach, therefore, is exactly in line with that legislation.

Amendment No. 109 would change the definition of travel authorisation in the Bill, so that it is no longer limited to British nationals. That would allow the commission to disqualify foreign nationals resident in the UK from holding or obtaining an ID card issued under the 2006 Act. The Bill defines travel authorisation in that manner to ensure compatibility with the terms of the 2006 Act and, in particular, with section 39 of the 2006 Act, which deals with the enforcement of football banning and travel restriction orders.

To be clear, foreign nationals resident in the UK are entitled to an ID card. However, only British nationals  have a card that states that they are British citizens, and they may use that card for travel purposes in Europe. Under EU freedom of movement regulations, European citizens require documentation that confirms their identity and nationality. The only United Kingdom documents meeting those requirements are passports and ID cards issued to British citizens under the 2006 Act. It is therefore not necessary to amend the definition of “travel authorisation”, since foreign nationals in possession of ID cards issued under the 2006 Act will be unable to use such cards for travel purposes in any event.

Other forms of enforcement, such as curfew orders, may be used in relation to non-resident parents who are habitually resident in the United Kingdom but who are of a different nationality. The commission therefore retains a range of powers to deal with all non-compliant, non-resident parents.

I hope that, having made it clear how the ID card system works and how it relates to these measures, the hon. Gentleman will now feel able to ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but I do not think that it answered my questions. In fact, it probably prompted more questions than it answered. On that basis, I wish to press amendment No. 86 to a Division.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I should like to make a couple of brief points relating to this clause and to subsequent clauses on enforcement. I will raise them now, with your leave, Mr. Taylor, because they pertain to this clause and may allow me not to raise them in future. I should like to mention the conceptual basis of the enforcement powers that we are considering in respect of both this clause on travel authorisation and later provisions on driving licences and curfews.

On consistency of application, it seems, from the way in which the Minister has described the use of the enforcement powers, that those powers will be tailored as much as possible to the circumstances of the individual. That has been made clear, not least in the  previous debate, where we discussed whether someone for whom a passport is necessary for work but a driving licence is not might have their driving licence taken away, and how someone in the reverse circumstances might have their passport taken away. That seems to make a great deal of sense.

I wonder whether the Minister has considered the extent to which that could lead to discrepancies or perceptions of unfairness between individuals. For example, is there a risk of perceived unfairness in respect of two brothers in similar circumstances facing different sanctions applied in relation to child maintenance?

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

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we do not consider the employment circumstances of people in such situations?

Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

No. I am asking the Minister to explain further his thinking in this area. His response relates to my second point that the sanctions—incentives to pay is another way in which to describe them—can be applied sequentially. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that. For example, if a passport were taken away and that action did not lead to payment, a driving licence could be taken away and sequentially a curfew could be imposed. I hope that, in individual cases, the application of such sanctions would lead to payment. I think that the only sanction that cannot be applied more than once is a commitment to prison. How does the Minister visualise CMEC approaching the use of sanctions in such cases? Does he believe that it might be possible in individual cases to go through the gamut of available sanctions in order to persuade someone to pay? For example, at what point does commitment to prison become part of the process?

Stephen Hesford (PPS (Vera Baird, Solicitor General), Law Officers' Department; Wirral West, Labour)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if we just commit such people to prison, we would not have to use the other measures sequentially or otherwise?

Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

No. Perhaps I am not expressing myself clearly. I am genuinely trying to understand the Government’s thinking on the range of administrative and court-based sanctions that are available to persuade someone to pay and how they might work in practice. When someone has not paid, none of us wants to see that person being made to jump through a whole range of hoops, while no payment is made at the end of that process. The Minister might think that that is not an important point, but I am just interested in understanding how the Government see a range of sanctions working, when more than one might have to be applied in a particular case.

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

I will try to help the hon. Gentleman. He is making rather heavy weather of matters. All we are doing with the clause is establishing the full range of compliance measures and adding some to those that currently exist. Attached to each measure is the appropriate route by which it is pursued by the commission and delivered to the non-compliant,  non-resident parent. That is the simple essence of what the Bill does. The hon. Gentleman’s approach is tempting me to anticipate a range of individual cases that, as yet, are unknown. For obvious reasons, I shall not do that.

We want to give the commission an array of powers, to set in place the appropriate route for the application of those powers and to ensure that they are effective compliance measures. I am satisfied that the clause does that. Beyond that and to go into the hon. Gentleman’s argument, we would have to consider hypothetical circumstances and individual cases. Of course, it is possible to apply sequential use of the sanctions, with the exception of imprisonment. However, the hon. Gentleman needs to remember all the preliminary steps that have to be taken before the sanctions can be imposed. Preliminary investigations and notices, such as prior notification to non-resident parents of the imminent application of a sanction or compliance measures and appeal rights, must be in place before the sanctions can take effect.

We want non-resident parents, who might be inclined to be non-compliant, to be aware that a considerable array of sanctions might bear down on them and that such a regime encourages compliance. They also need to understand that, when appropriate and having taken due regard of individual circumstances, the commission may be able to move swiftly to implement those sanctions. The more that that is understood, the more likely the sanctions are to have their desired effect of increasing compliance.