---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Government amendments, all of which seem entirely sensible, and which tidy up various aspects of the Bill. He spoke about the need for consistency in appeals, and about copies of directions being laid before Parliament. We are particularly keen to maximise parliamentary scrutiny in the Bill. I have no objection to accounts being laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State rather than the Comptroller and Auditor General; I am more concerned about receiving the accounts on time than about who puts them before the House. The points about aliment in Scotland are entirely sensible, as is the test of consistency for a warrant of arrest to commit someone to prison in Scotland, so that it is the same for someone in England. We agree, too, with the change in percentages in Government amendment No. 10. I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that he will return to the issue that the Opposition raised in Committee and today in amendments Nos. 23 to 25, which would ensure that deduction of earnings orders are imposed on deposit as well as current accounts. That is important, because the distinction between deposit and current accounts has become blurred, and in recent years, more accounts paying a competitive rate of interest allow a higher rate of transactional activity, so it would be possible for non-resident parents to try to avoid a deduction of earnings order by using only deposit accounts. Given his reassurance that he will look at the matter again, perhaps in another place, I am happy not to press any of our amendments to a vote.