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

I beg to move amendment No. 120, in schedule 6, page 69, line 8, at end insert—

‘5A (1) This paragraph applies to information which is held for the purposes of Court proceedings in which the non-resident parent is a party—

(a) by the Court, or

(b) by a person providing services to the Court.

(2) Information to which this paragraph applies may be supplied—

(a) to the Commission, or

(b) to a person providing services to the Commission, for use for the purposes of functions relating to child support.’.

The amendment is relatively simple. It would make the schedule more comprehensive. It already covers sharing information between the commission and a range of Departments, but it omits allowing the commission to receive information from a court if it holds information for the purposes of child support which would be useful to the commission. The amendment would widen the scope a little to allow a court to share with the commission information that it held about an action to which the non-resident parent was party. We think that that would be a helpful provision which does not appear to be included at present.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the amendment. We have no objection in principle to what he wants to achieve by it, but there is a difficulty about the means. If he will bear with me, I shall explain what that is.

We agree that it is right that parents or their representatives should be free to disclose information from court proceedings to the commission if they consider that such information would enable the commission to make fairer and more accurate maintenance calculations and, in short, provide a better service to parents and children. In most cases the information that would be disclosed would be details about a non-resident parent’s income, obtained in private proceedings, such as ancillary relief proceedings in divorce.

By removing the current need, in certain proceedings, to apply to the court for permission to pass that information on to the commission, we may speed up the process of getting maintenance flowing to children and ensure that maintenance calculations are fair and accurate. We support the free passage of information between parties to court proceedings, their representatives and the commission where that would help the commission to fulfil its functions more effectively, and we are working to find the best way to achieve that agreed objective.

The amendment would capture the information held by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and potentially information held by expert witnesses, which might include, for example, information on psychological assessments of parents and children. We are sure that that was not intended by those who drafted the amendment. It is not clear, at  this point, how best to achieve the objectives that the hon. Gentleman and I share. It may need a change in primary legislation, or it might be possible by changing court rules. The relevant court committees, including the family procedure rule committee, are the bodies that make rules of court. They would need to discuss and consider proposed rule changes, and appropriate consultation would be needed before that could happen.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

I appreciate the Minister’s care in explaining his thinking, and his welcome for the concept that my hon. Friends want to advance. Does he agree that at least in principle it would be better if the documents in question were court-generated documents, made available to the commission, rather than reports, perhaps at second hand, from one of the parties to the decisions, that are merely relayed to the commission? If there is, as it were, an official imprimatur, there will not be a great evidential argument about who has produced half the evidence, rather than the whole bundle.

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

That is exactly the issue that must be investigated. We want to achieve the supply, from court proceedings to the commission, of information that will help in getting a maintenance assessment done and in getting maintenance flowing. Devising a rule as has been suggested may do that, but everyone needs to look into what the practical implications of that approach would be. It sounds neat, but it might also exclude certain documents, which, nevertheless, could help to serve the purpose of the commission as to maintenance.

That is why we want the court committees to consider the matter. That will get us the best advice on how to proceed. There is no objection in principle to what the amendment is intended to do; we support that intention. It is a question of finding the right method. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment and leave it with us to figure out the best way to proceed.

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

I welcome the Minister’s comments. Given his summary of the considerations, and his assurances that the matter will be looked at by the appropriate court committees, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.