---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

The group consists mainly of minor and technical Government amendments, but it also includes Opposition amendments to clause 21—““Current account deduction orders””. I will begin by explaining why we have tabled the Government amendments, before moving on to the Opposition amendments. Government amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 11 refer to regulation-making powers concerning appeals. The Government want to ensure consistency across child support legislation where there is a right of appeal to a tribunal. When we considered the appeal provisions in the Bill, it became clear that there were inconsistencies in how various regulation-making powers were expressed. That could have led to confusion about the division of responsibility between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice. The logical way to clarify matters was to place any new provisions on appeals to appeal tribunals under those already in place in section 20 of the Child Support Act 1991. Amendment No. 2 does that. It is similar to a technical amendment to clause 23 that was agreed by the Committee on 11 October. Amendment No. 2 leads to two consequential amendments. Government amendment No. 4 makes it clear that regulations providing for the charging of fees by the commission should be subject to the affirmative procedure, but not those concerning only the procedure and powers of an appeal tribunal considering an appeal. Government amendment No. 11 amends the Social Security Act 1998 to clarify the fact that the reference to fees in clause 6 refers specifically to the regulation-making powers in clause 6(5). Government amendment No. 3 is the result of an amendment tabled in Committee before the summer recess by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), who I am sorry to see is not present. Under that amendment, a copy of any directions or guidance that the Secretary of State issued to the commission would have had to be laid before Parliament. In Committee, I asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment so that we could give full consideration to how powers of direction are used across Government, and to the appropriateness of laying the directions in question before Parliament. In the case that we are considering, the Secretary of State's power of direction would be used only in the most exceptional and time-critical circumstances. The power has been provided because although the commission will be a non-departmental public body, ultimate accountability for its performance will remain with the Secretary of State. We had the chance to reflect on the extent of the power over the summer, and we concluded that when the Secretary of State gives a direction, it will be a rare but important step that warrants the direct attention of Parliament, which will provide the necessary and proper parliamentary scrutiny of the relationship between the Secretary of State and the commission. Amendment No. 3 therefore requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a copy of any directions given to the commission. The requirement is subject to two important exemptions: the first is for information that is commercially confidential, and the second is for information that may relate to specific individuals. The amendment highlights the importance that we attach to parliamentary scrutiny of the Secretary of State's relationship with the commission. It also shows that we welcome the contribution that the Committee made to the Bill, and that we are willing to act on appropriate suggestions. On Government amendments Nos. 6 and 7, if the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is to realise its objectives, it is imperative that it operates within robust and effective governance arrangements, following best practice wherever possible. In the two amendments, it is proposed that the Secretary of State, not the Comptroller and Auditor General, lays the commission's accounts before Parliament. That minor change to the Bill's accounts and audits provisions is in line with recent changes to Government policy, and is supported by the National Audit Office. I reassure hon. Members that altering the responsibility for who lays the accounts before Parliament does not change the Comptroller and Auditor General's authority to audit the commission's accounts, so the change does not weaken parliamentary accountability in any way. The same accounts are being laid before Parliament; it is just a different person who lays them. Government amendment No. 8 enables aliment orders in Scotland to be recognised, alongside other private maintenance arrangements. Paragraph 5 of schedule 4 proposes an adjustment to basic and reduced rate liabilities where a non-resident parent has an existing maintenance obligation for a child, but where that obligation is not part of the statutory scheme. The commission can recognise the maintenance arrangement as though it were part of the statutory scheme, with the result that all the children supported by the non-resident parent are treated equally. In such cases, the existing qualifying maintenance arrangement will be either a maintenance order or another form of agreement that confirms the non-resident parent's responsibility for a child. The amendment seeks to put beyond doubt the fact that maintenance orders made in Scotland—the term ““aliment”” is used under Scottish law—are to be treated as qualifying maintenance arrangements. That will remove the risk of people misinterpreting and thinking that non-resident parents who support children under aliment might not benefit from those children being recognised under the statutory maintenance system. Government amendment No. 9 ensures that the test for the granting of a warrant for commitment to prison in Scotland under section 40A of the Child Support Act 1991 is the same as that for granting a warrant for commitment to prison in England and Wales, and the same as that for making an order to disqualify the non-resident parent from driving under section 40B of the 1991 Act. We recognise the differences between the Scottish legal system and the system in England and Wales, but child maintenance cases should of course be dealt with in a consistent manner across Great Britain. The amendment will help to ensure that the different court jurisdictions reach decisions in the same way. Government amendment No. 10 amends schedule 7 and provides a power, under the affirmative procedure, to change the £800 threshold for the second set of basic rate calculation percentages introduced in schedule 4. That schedule introduces changes to the basic maintenance calculation rate for the future scheme. It amends the existing set of percentages that apply to weekly income of between £200 and £800, and introduces a new set of percentages that apply to any weekly income in excess of £800, subject to a cap of £3,000. The rates were chosen to create approximate parity between liabilities under net and gross income, and the £800 threshold broadly corresponds to the amount of weekly income at which the 40 per cent. marginal income rate tax starts to apply. We have said that we will review the rates of calculation during each Parliament, and we have retained the power to change them where necessary through regulations under the affirmative procedure. Amendment No. 10 would allow that same power to apply to the £800 threshold amount, thus ensuring consistency in the way in which maintenance calculation rates may be amended. The Opposition amendments to clause 21 relate to current account deduction orders. I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendments, as it gives me the chance to update the House on the progress that we are making. The amendments would expand the breadth of deduction orders and allow for periodic deductions from deposits, as well as current accounts. Since we discussed the matter in Committee on 11 October, we have been considering just how far we should take both the periodic and the lump sum deduction orders. We have had further discussion inside and outside Government, particularly with financial institutions. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the representatives of the banks and building societies, who have been extremely constructive in all our discussions. It remains our intention to come back with proposals ensuring that deduction orders have sufficient scope to ensure that non-resident parents cannot easily avoid them. I trust that hon. Members will be content with my response at this stage, and I ask them not to press their amendments.