My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 15 [Repeal of sections 6 and 46]:

moved Amendment No. 13:

My Lords, first, I apologise to the House. I have an unavoidable commitment which means I have to leave at 5 pm. My timing has been slightly thrown by the Statement. I wanted to speak to this amendment because there is much that is good in this Bill. My noble friend in particular, and officials more generally, are entirely right to congratulate themselves—I certainly wish to do so—on delivering from Her Majesty’s Treasury what my noble friend’s predecessors singularly failed to do; a decent maintenance disregard for new cases and a smaller but still welcome version for existing cases. All of that is terrific. If it works, more money will go to poorer children. That is what we are concerned about and we come to this issue with good will.

The good effects of this on child poverty will be undermined by the new voluntarism, which remains unsafe. Why do we think that because many non-resident parents resist paying when it is a statutory duty, they are more likely to pay when it is voluntary—and to that extent, discretionary, and to that extent, optional? Let me put it bluntly. I fear that the wish of the commission to reduce its caseload will collude with the wish of NRPs to pay less—if at all—and the wish of parents with children to avoid hassle with their ex-partner and to take what is on offer. It is a win-win for everybody except for the one group that matters, which is children. Essentially, the Government are relying on the greater generosity of the disregard to encourage lone parents into pressing for maintenance within a voluntary system. I am not sure whether, in policy or psychological terms, that is sound.

We had similar arguments many years ago about good cause. I was then urged by voluntary organisations to have generous exemptions for good causes such as violence. I now think, on reflection, that those voluntary organisations were wrong and I was wrong. All that did was promote bullying by some NRPs and threats of violence encouraged by some dreadful father’s groups—I will not call them fathers’ groups; they were men’s groups—to avoid the parents with children naming them and the Child Support Agency pursuing them.

Of course, the best option is for the full sum to be paid reliably and voluntarily. If one can remove Section 6 and ensure nonetheless that that happens, that would be wonderful. I do not think that that will be the case. New fathers, particularly new fathers who are coming out of casual relationships where the parent with care tends to be on benefit, as opposed to divorced fathers who tend to have a long-standing commitment to their children, have to be educated into their financial responsibilities. For many of them it will be a grudging process. In fact their own mothers, the paternal grandmothers, may be the key to all of this. We seem to be so concerned to overcome the distinction between families on benefit and the families that are not and to establish a form of level playing field that we lose sight of what really matters, which is to ensure that mothers with care on benefit who have the greatest difficulty getting the maintenance that they are due will actually get it in future.

My noble friend is relying on the information and advice service, but I hope that he is right to do so. I congratulate him on making it as robust as it seems to be but I fear that, over the years and under pressure, it will be one of the things within the DWP to go, in the same way that similar services have unfortunately withered.

I believe that voluntarism should be a reward for steady payment from the NRP, not a risk that we appear to be taking on behalf of poor children. As my noble friend will know, I favour placing everyone on a statutory system and if, after one year, payment flows regularly, as a reward one can move on to voluntarism. That would mean that the lone parent would know what she was entitled to; there would be a year of experience in the pattern of payments; the direct debits and so on would be established; there would be an expectation of receiving the payment and taking it for granted; and the NRP would be likely to be co-operative in the hope of getting and retaining voluntary status. The lone parent would know that she could freely return to a statutory scheme when she was psychologically willing to do so. In other words, we would have conditional voluntarism.

Ultimately, despite all the very good—indeed, wonderful—things that the Bill does for children, I am not persuaded that we have sufficiently built out the risk of going for pure voluntarism. I am not enthusiastic about the amendment because I do not think that it goes far enough, but it is better than nothing at all in the sense that it seeks to track whether money is flowing to children and whether the fears expressed today are warranted as regards the future. I hope that our fears are not validated, but how will we know?

My Lords, I am afraid that I am not particularly enamoured by Amendment No. 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. It would make the abolition of Section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991—which, as he said, requires all parents with care claiming income support or income-based jobseeker’s allowance also to claim child support—conditional. The lifting of the Section 6 requirement would, according to the amendment, be subject to a review after three years. This review would be laid before Parliament to establish, in respect of parents with care on benefit, whether their overall position in relation to the receipt of adequate child maintenance had improved, deteriorated or, as the noble Lord said, remained the same.

I have difficulty with the amendment because I think that it enforces too rigid requirements on parents. Although the Government have an obligation to protect vulnerable citizens—indeed, someone said to me the other day that they are almost a replacement parent in some social security/DWP circumstances—we must not let their parental roles transform the country into a nanny state. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, may point out that there is a risk that when the legal obligation to seek statutory child maintenance is abolished for all parents, the number of parents with care on benefit who receive child maintenance may actually decrease from the already low figure of 156,000. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made the same point.

I think we should recognise that the provision for child maintenance has not gone—the parent has simply been given the choice whether to use CMEC. I can only assume that the responsible and sensible parent will, indeed, claim. For the Government to keep an eye on the private maintenance arrangements—of which, as I said, I am not nearly as suspicious as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—made by those on benefit, as the amendment demands, there must be a voluntary register. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, did not take in that in Committee the Minister said repeatedly that no such register will exist, although I sincerely regret that and do not think that the Minister shone his usual thoughtful light on this subject.

The basic problem, which was almost identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is that the Minister—wrongly, I believe—is adamant that there should be no register of voluntary maintenance arrangements. Therefore, how will it be possible for the Secretary of State to prepare the report proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, in new subsection (2) of his amendment? I remain of the opinion that there should be a way of creating such a register but, even with the length of time that the Bill has taken to get to this stage—we are squeezing against a particularly nasty wire in another place, as the Minister recognises only too well—I have been unable, with the limited resources at my disposal, to find a way to achieve it. Only the Government, with their army of officials, can do that and, regrettably, not only did they not, but they will not do it. I am sure that my great party, in government, will indeed succeed in this. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that this subject remains on the agenda, but I am afraid a little patience is required.

Further, if this Bill is to succeed, we must invest trust in its proposals. If CMEC is to encourage a voluntary sector of child maintenance payments as an alternative to statutory child maintenance payments, the Government must wholeheartedly stand behind their commitment and not temper voluntary arrangements with surreptitious control. This amendment could endanger the anticipated parental enthusiasm and commitment to the new arrangements as a result of state diktat, which, in part, is why the CSA failed. The result would surely be the worst of both scenarios. Until we have a voluntary register, I am afraid the issue is dead.

My Lords, I thank each of the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It has been short but we have a shared vision that we want this to work, particularly for vulnerable parents and children. Clearly, we take different views on some key issues. Removing compulsion by repealing Sections 6 and 46 of the Child Support Act 1991 is the first step in moving to a new system of child maintenance. Compulsion was originally introduced as a means of recovering benefit expenditure and overturns any arrangements that may already be in place, even where these are working perfectly well. Forcing parents to use the state system in this way can result in conflict between parents. We know from our research that many parents would prefer to make their own child maintenance arrangements. As we have discussed extensively, both in Committee and last week, the information and support service will be made available to help parents make their own arrangements and the right decision. Those who do not want to use the statutory maintenance scheme will no longer be required to do so. Parents with care applying for benefit will have their details referred to the information and support service by Jobcentre Plus. If they choose to use the service, all the options available to them will be explained. Parents will be free to make a voluntary arrangement or an application to the statutory maintenance scheme.

Amendment No. 14 would mean that the repeal of Section 6 and Section 46 of the Child Support Act 1991 would only have permanent effect if, three years from commencement, the Secretary of State demonstrated in a report to Parliament that the new arrangements for child maintenance were successful. The measure of success would be whether more parents with care on benefit were receiving child maintenance, and whether the average amount of maintenance pay had increased. I sympathise with the noble Lord’s view that we should monitor the effect of the changes in the approach to child maintenance, and we will do so. There is already a requirement on the commission to report annually on how it is meeting its strategic objectives, its current performance against objectives and targets, and how efficiently and effectively it is exercising its different functions. We have discussed that.

My noble friend Lady Hollis expressed the concern that the information and support service will be squeezed out in due course and that the commission will look to reduce its caseload. This will be very much directed by the targets and framework that the sponsoring department, the DWP, puts in place. It is up to us to make sure that, if that were in the mind of the commission, it does not, and is not allowed to do it. That is clearly the intent. To go further than this, as the proposed amendment suggests, fails to recognise that it takes time to implement such fundamental change for child maintenance, and for the full extent of the benefits to be realised and recognised. We have set out a staged plan for the implementation of the changes within the Bill, which we believe will cumulatively deliver significant benefits for parents and children, but these changes are not due to be fully concluded until 2013. Indeed, the new basis of assessment will not operate until 2010, so to set a decision point within three years of the first change would be to create an artificial assessment. The full range of change planned would not have had time to be implemented and bed in, nor would the benefits have been able fully to feed through.

I believe that the amendment springs from concern that some parents may feel pushed and pressurised into agreeing voluntary arrangements whereas, in fact, they might be better off staying in the statutory scheme; or that if people leave the statutory maintenance scheme we will have no way of knowing what has happened to them or whether an effective arrangement is in place. We take the view that those concerns, although understandable, are unfounded. The commission’s objectives are drafted in a manner that requires it to maximise effective arrangements for all children who live apart from one or both of their parents. If we accepted the amendment, movement to the new system might be further delayed, as we could not be clear what system parents would be moving into.

All parents, regardless of their benefit status, should have the option, supported by the commission where necessary, to decide what are the best maintenance arrangements for them, and, most importantly, their children. Forcing them back into the statutory maintenance system would take that choice away from them.

Amendment No. 13 proposes that Clause 15 be removed altogether. I suspect that this amendment is to enable any further discussion that noble Lords may want to have on the subject, but removing Clause 15 would prevent the repeal of Sections 6 and 46, and leave parents with care on benefit with no real choice as to how they arrange maintenance for their children. Providing parents with choice and promoting parental responsibility is a key part of the changes that we are making to the child maintenance system.

We are moving to a child maintenance system that promotes greater parental responsibility, provides parents with more choice and enables and empowers them to make their own arrangements for child maintenance; and away from a system that was seen to exist to secure child maintenance as a means of recovering benefit expenditure.

The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, raised issues about the register of private agreements. The White Paper made clear that there were arguments both for and against a register and that the commission needed to take a view on whether to have one, with the concept of having a pilot. So we have not ruled it out; it is something on which we wish the commission to reflect.

My Lords, does that mean that there is no need for legislation to create such a register? I think that this is an important point.

My Lords, I do not believe that we would need primary legislation. I will have to check to see whether it will be done by secondary legislation—I am getting nods from the Box. I do not think that primary legislation is needed to secure it; that is the message that I am getting.

I recap on the information and support service, which I know we have been through extensively, but is important. The existing system has only limited effect for the financially or personally vulnerable. The current system of compulsion targets only PWCs claiming income support or income-based jobseeker’s allowance. For those on low incomes but working, there are no focused services; using the Child Support Agency is purely voluntary. Those who feel vulnerable but are not on benefit get little support and even when on benefits, of those who feel personally vulnerable—I understand the point made by my noble friend Lady Hollis—and who apply to the CSA, only 32 per cent of benefit-claiming PWCs receive maintenance. Basing an assessment of vulnerability on receipt of benefits is not a practical option. Being on benefits is not intended to be a fixed state—even more so with the Government's emphasis on helping parents into work.

I hope that I have dealt with the points raised. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment because it would seriously impair the intent of the Bill and prevent something that I think that we all want to achieve.

My Lords, I certainly do not want to impair the overall strategic approach of the Bill. I take from what the Minister said that, whether it comes through annual reports, departmental research, Office for National Statistics research or any other means, there will be some way of identifying—whether it is in three, five or 10 years’ time—whether this is working or not. The Minister is nodding assent, which reassures me slightly. I want to be sure that this House will have a chance to monitor carefully the effects of this Bill.

My Lords, to reassure the noble Lord, I think that it is vital that there is routine, robust reporting on performance, which has to include consideration of how many effective maintenance arrangements are in place and some analysis of their composition.

While I am at the Dispatch Box, let me come back to the register of voluntary agreements and confirm the point that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in response to his point about the need for primary legislation. If the register is just a simple one, it does not need primary legislation. However, if it were then to go on to encompass issues about enforcement, clearly that would require changes to primary legislation.

My Lords, that is helpful. Although these assurances are welcome, I still do not know how the Minister will get the information if these are voluntary agreements. If these new agreements are voluntary, I hope that CMEC or some successor body has some way of finding out about them.

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. We would get details and an understanding of voluntary agreements in part in the same way as we do at the moment, through the Family Resources Survey and other surveys or research that the commission would wish to undertake. That would be the basis of that database and of understanding what is going on.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I think that we are all heading in the right direction. Some of us have more concerns than others, but that is often the way of it. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]

Schedule 4 [Changes to the calculation of maintenance]:

moved Amendment No. 15:

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for moving this amendment, which gives us a chance to talk a little about shared care. I should say up front that I disagree with his analysis. We have always been clear about not linking contact with maintenance. It would be wrong to link those inextricably. Shared care arrangements do not do that. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no inextricable link, which is right, the opportunity to have some financial adjustment to recognise the cost that a non-resident parent might incur in having contact with their children is reasonable.

The noble Lord’s amendment is more to do with the new arrangements in the Bill for the administration of shared care decisions. Currently it is often difficult for agency staff to decide cases where care is shared because the level of care undertaken by the non-resident parent is disputed, or because evidence provided by the parents is of poor quality or conflicting. There are also many cases in which parents have only recently separated and have yet to decide on care arrangements for the children, so paragraphs 6 to 8 are intended to improve the administration of such cases. We know that as many as a fifth of cases on the 2003 scheme have an adjustment for shared care, so these issues affect a significant proportion of the case load. It is a significant issue.

Paragraphs 6 and 7 are intended to allow the commission to look forward as well as backwards in deciding what shared care reduction will be appropriate. This means, for example, that if both parents agree about the level of shared care that is expected, the commission can easily make an assessment based on that agreement. This will usually be administratively more straightforward for the commission than the current position, which requires the agency to obtain and assess hard evidence about the level of shared care in the past period, which is often as long as a year.

Paragraph 8 will provide regulations that allow the commission to make a maintenance calculation on the basis of an assumption as to the level of shared care. This will apply only when parents agree to share care but have not yet agreed on its frequency and there is no current or past pattern of care on which the decision can be based.

The detailed rules will be set out in affirmative regulations, so there will be an opportunity for further debate on this subject and for the commission to consider them. However, our current intention is that the assumption will be that care is shared for an average of one night a week, which is the level required to prompt the lowest reduction in maintenance—a seventh. That is the most common level of reduction allowed for shared care and the assumption will remain in place for a period of up to six months. If, during or at the end of the six-month period, an agreement on the frequency of care has been reached, that will be used as the basis for an ongoing adjustment to the maintenance calculation. If no agreement has been reached at the end of the six-month period, evidence of shared care from that six-month period will be used.

If Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 were accepted, the improvements provided by these provisions would be lost. It would also mean that recognition of shared care in certain cases could potentially be prevented until the first annual review of the case. We are fully aware that shared care is a contentious issue that attracts strong views. However, the consultation on the White Paper revealed no consensus among stakeholders for any change. Therefore, our current intention is that the shared care rules should remain largely unchanged. However, we will continue to examine the rules regarding cases of equal shared care and we wish to involve the commission in deciding the best way of proceeding.

Perhaps I may emphasise to the noble Lord that we had a lot of discussion with stakeholders about what the appropriate approach to shared care should be. Some stakeholders who represented parents with care said that there should be no adjustment, whereas other parents said that there should be much more significant adjustments. In the end, we determined fundamentally just to carry forward the provisions that have broadly operated since 2003. Equal care will be kept under review, in particular, although I think that it is a small percentage of the total case load and it is quite possible that, in these cases, voluntary agreements are entered into in any event.

These matters can be dealt with by regulation in due course, but the particular changes that we are making are administrative to make it easier to enter into shared care arrangements. The current broad arrangement for shared care is not unreasonable. Because there was no compelling evidence or submissions that took us in a different direction, that is where we ended up. However, I hang on to the point that I started with, which is that we do not wish to preserve in the Bill or as part of the arrangements the linking of maintenance and contact. Nevertheless, we need to recognise that contact involves costs and there should be a reasonable reflection of that. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord and he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, clearly the Minister, his colleagues, the relevant section of the department and the CSA do not see this as a problem. However, he has not argued against my basic thought. It is inconsistent to state that a parent’s obligation to maintain a child is not dependent on whether they have contact and then to produce a provision that encourages parents to limit the amount of contact a non-resident parent has with a child in order to maintain a certain level of financial support. There is a basic inconsistency. I should perhaps have said that this is a probing amendment; I take the chiding that he gave me earlier on the placing of an amendment in the Bill, but it was a hook on which to hang my thoughts and statements.

There is a question that ought to be answered at some point. It is not appropriate to answer it today, but it would be helpful if the Minister could write me one of his compendious letters on the subject before the next stage of the Bill. Under the current regime, I understand that there is the one-night trigger point, which starts from the very beginning of the maintenance assessment. He said that, if agreement is subsequently achieved, the changes will be made in consultation with the stakeholders. I think that I remember his words correctly, but he can check his notes. If that is so, there must be some record somewhere of how often that has been achieved. I would like to know the answer to that.

My Lords, I did not mean to chide the noble Lord earlier; if it came across like that, I offer my apologies.

A number of issues arise. We are carrying forward the one-seventh, two-seventh et cetera formula because it is the adjustment that would be made to maintenance arrangements. The administrative arrangements are about trying to determine whether we are talking about one, two or three nights a week. To date we have done that simply by looking back over what has happened in practice, generally over a period of a year, and sometimes over a more representative period. However, it is sometimes the subject of quite a lot of dispute, certainly when someone is close to the thresholds. The administrative arrangements seek to bypass some of those arguments at an early stage. The adoption of the one-seventh approach is our current thinking in circumstances where both parents agree that there is to be shared care but have not established a pattern or settled on what it will be. We want to reflect something in the assessment right from the start and the sensible way to achieve that is with the one-seventh calculation. It is the most common adjustment made when shared care is undertaken as part of an arrangement.

On ongoing arrangements with stakeholders, as we have discussed, they have and will continue to have a wide range of views. There is an issue particularly about equal care and whether any adjustment should be made for it. That is something that the commission would particularly like to focus on at an early stage and keep under review, rather than some of the other issues around the formula.

I hope that that has helped the noble Lord. I acknowledge that, if there are financial adjustments as a consequence of maintenance arrangements, they might drive behaviour one way or the other, but it could equally be argued that making some adjustments to maintenance in order to recognise part of the impact of costs will encourage non-resident parents, so it could cut both ways. I do not think that we have a huge amount of evidence, but I will write to the noble Lord. I do not think that these arrangements are particularly driving behaviours of any kind, although they are certainly drivers of disputes that arise at the margins of the threshold. We are trying to cut some of those down and possibly—this is part of the current thinking—to have fixed-term arrangements for shared care just as we have for the basic assessment. However, if it would help the noble Lord, I would be happy to try to encapsulate this in a note to him and, I hope, to clarify these points.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the additional comments from the Minister. Of course I am going to withdraw the amendment, as I am sure he knows well, but, when he writes to me encapsulating in perhaps more considered English what he has just said, it would be extremely helpful if he could tell me what percentage of cases with shared care have actually been altered under the current arrangements with the CSA. That would be a useful piece of research. He may not be able to do it in the first instance and, indeed, the CSA may not currently have the figures, but I think that CMEC ought to gather them, because I see this as a problem. The noble Lord talks about problems “at the margins”, but I think that they are much more than that; the problems are more likely to be at the centre.

My Lords, I want to make sure that I understand the noble Lord. Would he like an analysis of how many times a shared care arrangement is in place and whether it is a one-seventh or two-sevenths arrangement, which is subsequently changed? I suspect that that would be a horrendous task, because part of the problem, as I have indicated, is that a lot of disputes arise over whether the one-night or two-night threshold has been reached and there are constant changes. Also, for the analysis to be helpful to the noble Lord, he needs to understand where the arrangement has changed and why. It may be that there is a genuine desire to have fuller shared care arrangements or—this is the point that I think the noble Lord is pursuing—this may be driven by someone trying to gain monetary advantage. I think that the analysis will be very difficult. I shall take the point away, but I suspect that on that part of the investigation I shall be unable to satisfy him in his request for information. However, we will see what we can do.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful. The Minister is right that the purport of my request is to get such analysis as it is possible to produce. I accept, of course, that if such an analysis is produced it will not prove the Minister’s or my argument 100 per cent either way, but at least it will be a guide and perhaps we could come back to this on a later occasion. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]

Clause 19 [Transfer of cases to new rules]:

moved Amendment No. 18:

My Lords, some time between 2010 and 2013 there will come a date for all parents with an existing child support case when liability for child maintenance under an existing assessment or calculation will end. On that date, depending on the choices made, their case will either be transferred to the new third child support scheme, detailed in Schedule 4, or be moved to their own voluntarily agreed one, or they will have opted for a continuation of their current arrangements under a new cash transfer service. I suspect that the last of these three options will be the least chosen—in fact, I would be surprised if it were chosen at all—but obviously the Minister must give them that option in the legislation. That date will differ depending on when their particular case is dealt with by the commission.

The Minister will recognise these words, taken from the three-year business plan of the Department for Work and Pensions for the period 2008-11:

“The launch of the Commission will help to transform our system of child maintenance by enabling and encouraging more parents to reach their own child-maintenance arrangements”.

It is therefore important that the Bill contains no hidden administrative disincentives. Against a background where child maintenance arrears continue to grow at the rate of, I believe, £16 million a month, an enormous sum, the current Child Support Agency has made little headway in collecting accumulated child maintenance arrears, even with the improvement plan. With the transfer of existing cases to the new commission for maintenance and enforcement, we remain concerned that insufficient priority will be given to the recovery of the £1.5 billion of child support regarded by the agency itself as collectable. Hundreds of thousands of parents raising children on their own still need the maintenance they are owed. Hundreds of thousands of parents bringing up children alone are owed considerable sums of maintenance.

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for this amendment and his interest in the transfer arrangements. The movement of cases will be one of the most significant challenges for the commission and it is important that this process is carried out efficiently and supports existing clients as much as possible. This amendment would mean that the commission would have to provide each parent with a statement at the point of transfer and each statement would have a breakdown of any debt and whom that was owed to. Any outstanding debt would then be subject to an arranged debt recovery plan.

Although the Bill provides an outline of the process, it will be for the commission to develop the detailed plan that the Secretary of State will need to approve before the transfer process begins. In that plan, we will expect the commission to set out details of how existing clients will be supported through the process. As noble Lords may be aware, I have tabled an amendment to give Parliament the opportunity to debate the regulations in the first instance.

To provide details in the Bill at this early stage in the process may restrict the commission and would not necessarily provide the best outcome for the parents and children concerned, although I would be surprised if the thrust of what the noble Lord proposes should not be encompassed within that. At the time of the transfer to new arrangements, which will undoubtedly be a busy time, the commission will know best how it wants to deploy its resources to meet client needs. Therefore, I suggest that it would not be prudent to commit the commission to such detail at this stage.

I shall try now to deal with the questions raised by noble Lords. The agency’s debt is now the cumulative total of its 15 years of operation, and since 100 per cent compliance is impossible to achieve, arrears will continue to accrue. The agency’s efforts are therefore aimed at slowing the rate of growth of debt. The agency has been successful at reducing the rate of growth from around £20 million per month during 2005-06 to around £16 million per month during 2006-07. I think that those are the figures I gave last week. Other agency figures show that it has decreased again to around £10 million per month during 2007-08. On that basis it would be £120 million during the course of a year, which is less than the arrears that are being collected. So I think that the noble Lord’s proposition would be right; there is some eating into the backlog.

The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked whether the arrangements in place for collecting debt were appropriate. Clearly, there is a challenging legacy. Part of that debt comes from interim maintenance assessments, which in a sense are assessments that are not necessarily based on fact but were made at the time when further details were not forthcoming from the non-resident parent. All of those will have to be sorted out, with discussions and negotiations around them, which is why we have some of the provisions in the Bill. We also have in the Bill extensive compliance powers and the ability to collect on a more rigorous basis than we have in the past. We will be debating one of those powers in the next group of amendments. I believe that that suite of arrangements is appropriate but it will be a significant challenge. As for the priority given to it, that will be very much up to the framework and targets imposed on the commission by the sponsoring department and the Secretary of State. I know that there has been concern that rigour will not be applied to collecting old arrears of debt, but that is certainly not the intent. We need to ensure that that is not the outcome.

I hope that that has helped noble Lords and that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, will be able to withdraw the amendment. There will be a chance to look in detail at the transfer arrangements under affirmative regulations closer to the time once the commission has developed its plans in some detail.

My Lords, I am as ever grateful to the Minister, who is trying to be as helpful as he can. The amendment was drawn in terms of the basic essential requirements that any parent with care could expect in the situation that they will find themselves in after 2010. Anything less than that would be contrary to natural justice. I am absolutely certain that the new commission is not looking for things to do. I am trying to make things as easy for it as possible. But there are some basic requirements. The Minister said that these kinds of services, positions and statements will be carefully considered and arranged between the Secretary of State of the day and the commission at the time. I hope the House is saying to the Minister that any less than that would be inadequate. However, he has given me some reassurance which I am prepared to take at face value. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]

Clause 27 [Disqualification for holding or obtaining travel authorisation]:

[Amendment No. 20 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

moved Amendment No. 20A:

My Lords, it may surprise some of your Lordships that my name is attached to this vast raft of government amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. Supporting government amendments is not something in which I am particularly practised, even after all these years, but in this case I am delighted that the Minister has had the good sense to see that such measures are essential if the Bill is to represent sound practice, which is what we all want.

The amendments revise the provision in the Bill that provides for CMEC administratively to disqualify a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a travel authorisation should that person wilfully refuse, or culpably neglect, to pay child maintenance. This is an aspect of the Bill that these Benches, both here and in the other place, have strongly opposed from the start. I commend the Minister for listening not only to the Opposition but to the learned ruling of your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution, chaired by my noble friend Lord Goodlad, who championed a series of amendments to this effect throughout the Bill’s passage.

I supported my noble friend in Grand Committee not because I disagree with the Minister that the disqualification of a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining travel authorisation is a powerful and, in some cases, needed tool to encourage compliance with payment of child maintenance; I believe that CMEC should be very tough on those who shirk their responsibilities. However, I considered it lunacy to give CMEC a power that is properly held only by the courts. The Bill may have contravened Section 1(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, which confers a right on British citizens to come and go from the United Kingdom,

“without let or hindrance except such as may be … lawfully imposed on any person”,

which I think I am right in saying are the words that appear in the back of a British—or, these days, EU—passport. However, I stand to be corrected. Whether that is the case or not, there was a dichotomy in the Bill that, while passports were to be removed by administrative action, CMEC would still have to go to the courts if it wished to remove the non-resident parent’s passport.

I am only too relieved that the Minister has seen good sense and I fully support this group of amendments, which make the sanction of the removal of driving licences and passports the ultimate responsibility of the courts. I may have been less than fulsome in my praise of the Minister when he moved Amendment No. 9 late on Wednesday night after a difficult day in your Lordships’ House. The amendment was tabled in response to an amendment that I moved in Grand Committee—it was part of a large group of amendments—which concerned what should go in the annual report. He listened to what I said, agreed with it and acted on it. He has done the same today, for which I am extremely grateful.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the trouble to re-examine the policy on this point. Your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution deliberated carefully about the matter. As we discussed in Grand Committee, we were not convinced that the Bill’s policy, which we strongly support, of having an administrative decision followed by a right of appeal with suspensory effect would meet the policy goal of avoiding a drawn-out court process, as opposed to a straightforward power for CMEC to seek an order from a magistrates’ court. The amendments to which the Minister spoke today seek to reflect what we recommended. I note that he reserves the right to come back with future legislation and, of course, no Parliament can bind its successors. We will scrutinise any proposals that come forward pursuant to that intention with the same rigour but, in the mean time, I am extremely grateful and support the amendment.

My Lords, I join in the chorus of praise for these amendments. The alliance of the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Skelmersdale, on the Marshalled List made me feel that I should oppose the amendments as a matter of principle, but I shall not do so. The courts should deal with this matter. It was a step too far for the commission and I am glad that the Government listened to everybody who said that that was the case. These amendments are the way forward. We can all agree on the general objective and, if we can agree on the means, we may well avoid some of the pitfalls that have occurred in this area.

My Lords, I thank all three noble Lords who have spoken. Experience in the US and, I think, Australia, indicates that administrative processes can be effective. However, we have listened to advice. We are a listening Government.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Lord really cannot get away with that. When I got up this morning I did not notice that I was living in either the United States or the Commonwealth of Australia, where conditions are considerably different from those here.

My Lords, it is not appropriate to open that debate at this juncture. However, in large parts of the Bill, we have tried to draw on experience and best practice in other countries. Nevertheless, I shall not revisit the debate. We have ended up with unanimity. As I say, we are a listening Government and I am grateful for the support of all noble Lords.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 20B:

moved Amendment No. 21A:

moved Amendments Nos. 22A to 22C:

moved Amendments Nos. 25A to 25H:

moved Amendments Nos. 26A and 26B:

moved Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B:

moved Amendment No. 29A:

moved Amendments Nos. 30A and 30B:

moved Amendments Nos. 34A to 34C:

moved Amendments Nos. 36A to 36D:

moved Amendment No. 41A:

moved Amendment No. 41B:

moved Amendment No. 42:

moved Amendment No. 42A:

moved Amendment No. 43:

moved Amendment No. 44:

My Lords, as I am not a member of that committee, far be it from me to speak for it, but I am sure that it will be pleased—as is the whole House. The Minister has not seen fit to mess with its findings. I would say to any Minister—I hope that the noble Lord will pass this on and that the Whip is listening—that Ministers mess with the Select Committees of your Lordships’ House at their peril. I am glad that, yet again, the Minister has seen good sense.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 45:

moved Amendments Nos. 46 and 47:

moved Amendment No. 48A:

My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Baroness. If this is a probing amendment, it might be worth running with it. However, I have difficulty in supporting the concept that, when all other systems of pursuit have been exhausted, non-resident parents who can pay but will not pay should not be hit by every means known to man.

I speak from my previous experience as a Member of the other House. The noble Baroness is right to be cautious about this. If we started using this kind of power as a first resort and in a casual way, her concerns would be absolutely fulfilled. She is right to raise these matters. However, when push comes to shove, there are some parents who make a point of giving the statutory maintenance authorities the runaround. In such circumstances, wasting their credit rating is a threat that is probably more appropriate and acute in making them see sense and shape up to their responsibilities than almost anything else—that and selling their houses.

In the past, the CSA has been too slow in using some of the powers that have been available to it. The commission that we are setting up has more entrenched and deeper powers. That is right and proper. Although the concerns raised by the noble Baroness about misuse of this power may be well founded, I cannot for the life of me see that it is wrong. With some assurances that it will be reserved for really hard cases, where all other eventualities have been tried, I cannot see that it is wrong for people’s credit ratings to be attacked positively if that is the only way of getting them to shape up to their financial responsibilities. I would encourage CMEC to do that, but only in circumstances where there are few other alternatives and all the other methods available to them have been exhausted.

My Lords, the amendment would remove Clause 40 from the Bill and thereby prevent the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission disclosing information about non-resident parents to credit reference agencies. Clause 40 has not yet been the subject of debate within your Lordships’ House or in the other place. To clarify, we intend that the commission should have the ability to disclose information about non-resident parents to credit reference agencies for the purpose of linking payments of child maintenance with ability to obtain credit. Where ability to obtain credit is affected—either favourably or adversely—this may result in a tangible impact on the non-resident parent’s lifestyle and thereby create a powerful incentive to make child maintenance payments. We intend that the information will be shared with credit reference agencies by way of electronic data transfer. Any sharing of data will, of course, comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 and Cabinet Office guidelines, in particular the Manual of Protective Security.

Disclosure may take place either where the non-resident parent gives his or her consent—presumably where it would have a favourable impact on the credit reference—or where a liability order is in force. Financial services companies considering applications for credit or other services will, after carrying out a credit check with a credit reference agency, have the opportunity to take the maintenance liability into account.

In January, we published an evaluation which explored the value of child support information in predicting credit behaviour. The indications are that making child maintenance payment information available to financial services companies that are assessing a person’s financial standing would mean that compliance with a child maintenance liability could lead to an improved overall credit rating. Conversely, non-compliance could have a negative impact on credit worthiness; so it should. Further research will be carried out prior to this provision being implemented. Subject to the results of that further research and consultation, disclosure of information about non-resident parents to credit reference agencies will be a significant addition to the commission’s compliance and enforcement tools. It will provide non-resident parents with a real incentive to meet their maintenance liabilities.

I acknowledge that the disclosure of information held by the public sector to outside bodies is a sensitive issue, and individuals have a right to expect that their information is processed fairly and accurately. I firmly believe that disclosure of information about non-resident parents to credit reference agencies is justified in this context.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked whether, where the liability order is imposed, details about non-resident parents will be disclosed to credit reference agencies automatically. The answer is no. The commission would have to consider whether in any individual case the sharing of information is justified. In part, that goes to address the point made by the noble Baroness that in any case where the disclosure could not be so justified, the commission, as a public authority, would be under an obligation to exercise its discretion so as not to share the information.

The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, asked about people being denied access to mainstream credit as a result of the policy and asked whether that would not effectively add to social exclusion. Payment of child maintenance is both a legal and moral obligation and the amount payable by each non-resident parent is based on his or her income. Individuals are responsible for managing their own finances and should ensure that they take payments of child maintenance into account when considering their day to day living expenses and any subsequent application for credit. The key point is that in securing child maintenance payments from the non-resident parent, the commission is guarding against future social exclusion by increasing the income of vulnerable children.

Under current arrangements, where a liability order is in place, information is registered with Registry Trust, which is held electronically. The problem is that, as a practical matter, that has not been helpful to the credit reference agencies in helping to assess individuals’ credit ratings, because it does not give sufficient information. That there has been something disclosed in some public way would not in itself be new when there is a liability order in place. As I said, it would only otherwise be disclosed if there was the consent of the non-resident parent to disclose it. I hope that has allayed the fears. We need to proceed cautiously with this and further research needs to be undertaken. We see it as quite a powerful additional tool in the armoury of enforcement that the commission will need.

My Lords, I thank the Minister. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is right that all efforts must take place to make the non-resident parent pay. I began by saying that it was a probing amendment, and I thank the Minister for his response. I feel better assured that the information will be shared only when it is justified and under very strict conditions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 44 [Use of information]:

moved Amendment No. 48B:

My Lords, again, in a similar mode, I listened to the careful way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, moved the amendment. I absolutely concur with the route that she is taking. Taking out Schedule 6 is a pretty blunt instrument, because it would mean that we could not even share data with HMRC, which is not particularly sensible. The mood in which the noble Baroness introduced the amendment was more of concern about how it is done and about some of the mechanics and safeguards that are necessary. She is quite right to be worried about that as recent child support details have gone awry and gone missing in rather grand form. I hope that the Minister can say whether the Government and the department have looked again at all their compliance and data protection requirements. To remove Schedule 6 would be a step too far.

The noble Baroness is quite right and she reflects the view on all sides of the House that these sharing powers need to be handled with careful compliance rules and protocols, bearing in mind that the commission is not the department. As Members of Parliament we are able to have direct access to Ministers and hold them to account. That is not necessarily going to be the case in these new circumstances where these important bits of data and information containing the most personal details about some of our families throughout the United Kingdom will be handled in future by a Crown agency. That is a different situation. I reflect on, acknowledge and agree with the concerns raised by the noble Baroness. However, the amendment would be a step too far for me were it to be voted on in a Division and agreed to.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I understand that this is a probing amendment and I hope that I can give her and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, the assurances that they seek.

Schedule 6 enables certain relevant information to be supplied to the commission by HMRC, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Northern Ireland department to enable the commission to carry out its functions relating to child support. That is a very important caveat. In turn, the commission is also able to supply information to those government departments to enable them to carry out certain specified functions for which they are responsible. Our plans to support information sharing between the commission, DWP and HMRC will improve administration of the child maintenance calculation regime, by providing the commission with easy access to relevant gross income data.

The problems of the current system have been well documented. By not having to ask non-resident parents for income data in the majority of cases, and by being able to rely on already available income data as provided by HMRC, we will improve the efficiency of the assessment process and provide a better service to parents.

Removing Clause 44 and Schedule 6 would mean that the commission would have to request income information from the non-resident parent. That would undermine the case for basing liabilities on gross weekly income. It would also carry the risk that current delays in calculating maintenance and getting money to children would be repeated in the future scheme. Obtaining income data from HMRC will also provide vital support to the proposed system of fixed-term awards, helping to ensure that maintenance calculations are kept accurate, up to date and easy to administer.

We cannot overstate the necessity of a simple and efficient calculation system for the smooth running of the child maintenance service. We estimate that the commission will be able to obtain data for about 90 per cent of all non-resident parents by combining information available through the gateways. This includes the self-employed, who have proved particularly difficult to assess in the past. We are currently investigating the most effective way to transfer data. Although ultimately this will be a decision for the commission, we will start work as early as possible to ensure that the IT is efficient, functional and, above all, secure. The information the commission will receive will not be substantially different from the information currently used by the Child Support Agency to make maintenance calculations. The Data Protection Act 1998 will apply to this information, which will be processed in accordance with the Act.

Section 50 of the Child Support Act 1991 will be extended. A person will be committing a criminal offence if they inappropriately disclose information obtained as a result of working for, or on behalf of, the commission. We will publicise the planned use of HMRC data so that non-resident parents, and parents with care, are fully aware that gross income data will be used to make maintenance calculations, and also provide parents with as much information as possible about their claim. We will build in safeguards to ensure that inappropriate or excessive information is not accessible by commission staff and to ensure that all persons with care, and non-resident parents, are aware of the appeals process operated by, and the legal obligations of, the commission.

I hope that I have given the noble Baroness the assurances that she seeks. It is an important area that she has probed, but it is vital that we have these gateways to make a more effective commission.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, also raised some very important additional points to the probing amendment that I put forward.

It is important that these data follow a stringent path through the commission and that they are encrypted. Past difficulties have shown how easy it has been to access data that were not properly guarded with encryption and with policies and procedures. Having been given those assurances by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 6 [Use of information]:

[Amendment No. 48C not moved.]

Clause 53 [Regulations: Part 4]:

moved Amendment No. 49:

My Lords, I say “ditto” to what I said to the previous block of government amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 55 [Regulations: general]:

moved Amendment No. 50:

moved Amendment No. 51:

My Lords, I acknowledge the service that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has done by moving the amendment. It is a very serious and significant issue. I wish to make two points about it. I, too, have seen some of the cases produced by resolution and they are compelling. They make pretty dire reading in terms of their outcomes for the families that they affect. Therefore, I absolutely agree that we need to think this through carefully.

However, a long time ago I was a consistorial solicitor in a family practice in Roxburghshire. In my experience, there is a world of difference between the law that applies to families with assets and incomes on both sides and the arrangements that need to be made sensibly for people on income-support-based JSA. My worry is that if we agreed to the amendment as drafted, you would lock out for four years some of the parents on benefit who entered agreements. That is difficult to contemplate, because the new CMEC—fingers crossed—will, I hope, sort itself out and become an efficient child maintenance collection system, which people will have recourse to with confidence.

The trouble is that you cannot pick and choose. You cannot amend the law to depend on the current net value and worth of the members of the household to whom it applies. Therefore, you have to be careful about how you do this. I just wanted to enter that caveat. I absolutely understand the case that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, made, and I understand that according to evidence there have been dire results for the people affected. But over the piece I am more confident perhaps than I have been that the new commission will set a new benchmark and that the courts will operate a new system in the shadow of CMEC. That will become much more a default situation to which people will be able to respond. I hope that that will help some of the families to which the noble Lord rightly pointed.

My real reason for getting to my feet on this amendment—and I acknowledge the fact that the noble Lord has ingeniously found a way of raising this important question on the schedule—is that there is still a feeling that there is a problem in Scotland, where there are peculiar court procedures, with Books of Council and Session and registered maintenance agreements that are enforceable at first instance, because they are registered in the Books of Council and Session. I know that the Minister and his advisers looked at this—some time ago, I suspect. I had hoped and assumed that the problem had been sorted, but I am told that civil practitioners in Scotland still face difficulties. They would certainly endorse the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to move to a four-year period, because it would give them more scope and room for manoeuvre. I would feel a lot happier if the Minister or some of his advisers would talk to the appropriate committee members from the Law Society of Scotland, who are serious people. They are the professionals who, day after day, deal with the problems to which the noble Lord alluded.

Arrangements that have bad effects on families last for a long time. My special plea to the Minister is that some last-minute conversations could perhaps be had with members of the Law Society of Scotland’s expert committee on these matters to see whether there can be some ring-fencing of the arrangements made in the civil courts in Scotland. The last thing that we want is to have some mad nationalists running around saying that this mad Parliament in Westminster is interfering with our age-old, tried and tested systems of civil litigation in divorce and consistorial cases. That would serve none of our interests.

My main point on this important amendment is to ask the Minister to look carefully again at this and perhaps agree to see representatives—or get some of his advisers to see representatives—who could argue the case regarding the peculiar circumstances of Scotland more adequately than me.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for the amendment, which, as he said, seeks to extend the current period of 12 months during which parents with a court consent order for child maintenance may not apply to the commission for a maintenance calculation. The amendment would prevent those parents from applying for a period of four years. The existing 12-month rule applies when parents have a maintenance order or registered minute of agreement made on or after 3 March 2003. That rule has two main purposes.

First, when agreement between parents breaks down it provides a swift and readily available route into the commission so that children are not left for considerable periods with either no maintenance or inadequate arrangements. Secondly, it encourages agreements that contain levels of child maintenance broadly consistent with the amount calculated under the statutory scheme and discourages agreements that divide property and assets between adults, leaving children without regular ongoing payments of child maintenance.

I want to make it clear that the commission does not wish to intervene or disturb court orders that are working well. It is parents themselves who must decide whether or not their children’s interests are best served by the provision of a consent order, or by a maintenance calculation made by the commission, or by some other route. We do not wish to restrict any effective and agreed maintenance arrangements, in whatever form, to a year, four years or to any other period of time.

The 12-month rule cannot of itself act to set aside a court order and substitute a statutory maintenance calculation. Only the action of one or both parents can do that. Our hope is that parents with effective court orders will not need to turn to the commission for a calculation under the statutory scheme. The agreements will continue and benefit the children for so long as both parents want them to.

During the progress of this Bill, Ministers have listened to a number of differing, detailed arguments on the 12-month rule, both here and in another place. Some amendments have been tabled which propose to remove the 12-month rule altogether; others to extend it to a longer period. The debate throughout has been constructive, but on the issue of extending the 12-month rule I remain unconvinced. Primarily, I am not persuaded because this issue has not been raised—as far as I am aware—by clients of the CSA themselves. Generally, when parents who use the CSA—or want to use the CSA—are unhappy about its delivery, Ministers, and indeed MPs, are quick to hear about it.

I have recently been provided, by the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and his colleagues in another place, with 15 items of correspondence from family lawyers—and I guess this is the correspondence shared with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—giving examples of cases where they believe the 12-month rule may not have helped their clients. However, bearing in mind that some 20,000 consent orders are made each year, this is not a great body of evidence and we would need significantly fuller information before we overturn something that appears to be working well and in the best interests of children.

We want to encourage agreed, effective maintenance arrangements which provide ongoing support for children. As long as parents are happy that their arrangements are providing adequate maintenance for their children, they can continue. We consider that a 12-month period strikes the balance between giving court orders a chance to bed in and providing a means to resolve difficulties quickly and keep payments flowing. If things do go wrong, parents need the choice of a readily available route into the commission. My opinion is that a period of four years is too long to deprive parents of that choice. Parents and children should not be left, for considerable periods, locked into the court system when maintenance may or may not be paid or maintenance arrangements for children may no longer be adequate or working. Parents should have the ability to resolve these issues, gain access to the commission and get payments flowing quickly.

The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, outlined an interesting example of what had happened. First, he assured us that the parties entering into that agreement were well aware of the 12-month rule and what the commission’s arrangements would offer. I suppose the point is that if the non-resident parent wanted a lower level of maintenance to flow, it was always their right to enter the commission and get that from the calculation. I understand that some of the 15 cases that are presented to us are about information flows. We have amended the Bill to enable information provided in court to be shared and, I hope, have removed that impediment.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked about arrangements in Scotland and issues that are seemingly still unresolved there. I am unsighted on that. Rather than try and scramble through my notes, I will talk to officials and perhaps we should discuss that further. It is not an issue, as far as I am aware, that seems to be raging and a major problem. If it is, these things often show themselves, particularly with legislation entering its final stages. The 12-month rule gives time for agreements to bed in and allows swift intervention by the commission to keep maintenance flowing to children, and therefore puts parents with court orders on the same footing as any other separated parents. On that basis—although I am sure he will not be entirely happy—I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment

My Lords, I will certainly withdraw my amendment but I do have to say to the noble Lord that I reserve the right to come back to this issue at the next stage of the Bill. Despite his conciliatory words, I am still extremely disturbed by the evidence that has been put to me, although I accept that it is not a vast body of evidence as the noble Lord said. I ask that the Minister takes up the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, but, please, do not confine the investigation to Scotland. This Bill covers England as well and the Law Society in England is just as reputable a body as the Law Society in Scotland.

The noble Lord, in his objection to the case that I elucidated about the mother, left out a germane series of facts in his refutation of it. The reason the husband is no longer sticking to the agreement is, as I said, that the wife has now met someone else and the ex-husband fails to see why he should be contributing to the household pot. This would not happen under CMEC because he would be forced to continue to contribute to the pot.

Of course, it is optional whether the wife, or the former wife, goes to CMEC. Because of the horror stories that she has heard about the CSA, the length of time it takes to operate, its success rate and all the rest of it—which I accept, with the improvement plan, is indeed improving—CMEC should—

My Lords, does not the point that the noble Lord has made illustrate why we need the 12-month rule? I thought he said that because of circumstances, relationships had changed and the non-resident parent had decided he did not want to contribute any more. If he had to wait four years for the PWC to get access to the commission, it seems to me a very disagreeable outcome. I did not pick up the points about the efficiency of the commission, which we could debate endlessly. They will improve, given what is in this Bill. That ability, when circumstances change, for one party or the other to be able to go to the commission seems to me vital. The noble Lord has just illustrated that point.

My Lords, the noble Lord pre-empted what I was about to say next with an argument of his own. There was a world before the CSA. In those days, the courts had the enforcement powers for the arrangements that they had sanctioned, originally—as they still are—made between lawyers working for both particular sides of this argument. There is no earthly reason why an inconvenienced parent should not go back to court for this operation, which I think is the answer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. I will continue to ponder on the amendment and I reserve the right to come back to it at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 54:

moved Amendment No. 55:

moved Amendments Nos. 55A to 57: