New Clause 19
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
4:45 pm

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 19 has two parts: proposed new subsection (a) would give the parent with care the right to make representations, orally or in writing, to a court or appeal tribunal, if enforcement action is planned; proposed new subsection (b) would give the parent  with care the right to apply to a magistrates court or appeal tribunal in order to make their own enforcement actions.

It is ironic that if the commission or CSA were to initiate an enforcement action, the person directly affected—the parent with care—who might have important information about the financial position or assets of the non-resident parent cannot make any direct representations to the court or tribunal. That seems to go against any sense of natural justice, given that they will be directly affected by the enforcement action. Any decision taken in the court or tribunal will have a major impact on the income that they receive.

During previous discussions, we talked about the small number of non-resident parents who have hidden assets. However, the assets of most other non-resident parents will be more visible, but not necessarily of a type that is reported to the commission for the purposes of maintenance. We should not exclude the parent with care from making representations. I am not saying that they should make the determination, but given that they and the child in their care will be directly affected by the decision of a court or tribunal, they should be allowed to make representations.

Proposed new subsection (b) would provide for what the R (Kehoe) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions judgment specifically excluded. At the moment, a parent with care has no right to recover child care maintenance direct from the non-resident parent. That right was removed by the Child Support Act 1991. I accept that in the vast majority of cases a parent with care would not want to initiate their own action, but I am sure that there are examples of parents with care feeling aggrieved with the CSA, as it is currently operated, for making an enforcement action that did not take account of everything. The second part of the new clause would give them the right to initiate their own action, which we think is a fundamental right.

Proposed new subsection (a) would allow them to make representations, and proposed new subsection (b) would allow them to take action, if they felt that that taken by the commission was not appropriate. If exercised, those rights would be important to the parent with care. They might well not be used often; I suspect that the first right would be used a lot more often than the second. Nevertheless, given that they are directly affected by enforcement decisions, they should be able to make representations. I hope that the Minister will carefully examine that matter and see what we are trying to achieve.

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

I welcome the opportunity to discuss new clause 19. The commission will need to keep both parents informed. However, we must be clear: the commission’s role is to consider the position of both parents and the welfare of the child or children involved. Its duty is not to act solely as the representative of the parent with care.

Clauses 20 to 28 contain a number of administrative provisions to streamline the enforcement process and enable the commission to take swift and effective enforcement action. The parent with care has the opportunity to contest maintenance calculations at an earlier stage, and giving them the opportunity to make  additional representations will not assist the court further in making the right decision; indeed, it could result in a delay to the enforcement process and incur additional costs.

Where enforcement hearings are held in open court, the parent with care can watch the proceedings, although they have no right to make representations to the court. In practice, however, magistrates courts usually hear such cases in the family court, where they have a power to exclude persons who are not directly involved in the case. The court has discretion to permit a person who has adequate grounds for attending to be present, although they still do not have the right to make representations.

Subsection (b) of the new clause would give the parent with care the right to apply to a magistrates court or appeal tribunal to effect collection and enforcement measures under clauses 20 to 28. That would not be feasible, however, as most of those measures would be administrative and the responsibility of the commission, not the courts.

The new clause would therefore delay the enforcement process and greatly affect the court’s business. In view of that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the motion.

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

I have listened to what the Minister has said, but I cannot agree with him. He has not explained how allowing the parent with care to make written or oral representations at a hearing that is already scheduled could delay the decision by the court or the tribunal. As he has correctly stated, the parent with care already has the right to attend, but like someone present at their own funeral, they cannot say anything. In this case, the parent with care should be allowed to say something or to put in a written application. I cannot understand how that would delay the proceedings; it should merely ensure that the court or the tribunal has all the information in front of it before making its decision.

My second point related to whether someone could initiate an action themselves. That is likely to occur in only a small number of cases, but it is nevertheless important that people should have the right to initiate such an action. I would therefore like to press the motion to a vote.