Clause
25
Disqualification
for holding or obtaining travel
authorisation
Danny
Alexander:
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’.
The
Chairman:
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:
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—
2.25pm
Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House.
2.40 pm
On
resuming—
Danny
Alexander:
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.
Mr.
Harper:
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.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Mr. James Plaskitt):
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.
2.45
pm
Danny
Alexander:
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.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
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:
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?
Mr.
Plaskitt:
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:
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.
Mr.
Harper:
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.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
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.
Mr.
Harper:
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:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Weir:
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.
3
pm
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.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
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.
Mr.
Weir:
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.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
12.
Division
No.
13
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Danny
Alexander:
I beg to move amendment No. 86, in
clause 25, page 19, line 7, leave
out subsection
(b).
The
Chairman:
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:
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.
Mr.
Harper:
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?
Mr.
Plaskitt:
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.
Plaskitt:
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.
3.15
pm
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:
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.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
12.
Division
No.
14
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Danny
Alexander:
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?
Mr.
Plaskitt:
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we do not
consider the employment circumstances of people in such
situations?
Danny
Alexander:
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 (Wirral, West) (Lab): 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:
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.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
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.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 25
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
26 to 28 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
