---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

moved Amendment No. 111: 111: Clause 21, page 9, line 34, leave out ““a current”” and insert ““an”” The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendments Nos. 112, 117, 118, 120 to 125, 127 to 134, 136, 138, 139, 142 to 144, 146, 148, 150, 152 to 154, 156, 157, 159 to 164, 166, 167, 170 to 172, and 214. This series of government amendments, which touch on Clauses 21 and 22 and Schedule 7, relates to deduction orders. Before dealing with the specifics I want to take a moment to reflect on the importance of deduction orders as a whole and give the Committee a taste of how I expect them to be applied. At present, the first action the Child Support Agency can take to collect child maintenance from a non-compliant non-resident parent is to impose a deduction from earnings order. Where this is not possible or proves ineffective, the next avenue is enforcement through the courts. Orders for deductions from accounts will provide the commission with a further quick and effective method of ensuring child maintenance reaches those to whom it is due. They will come in two forms. The regular deduction order can require financial institutions to remove money from an account on a regular—normally monthly—basis. That can be in respect of ongoing maintenance, arrears or both. Lump sum orders will operate by first requiring the freezing of an amount up to the maintenance arrears. That will allow for representations to be made as to why the specified lump sum should not be removed from the account, but at the same time it will protect the sum from being moved. Once a final order is made it will operate to remove the amount due in a single deduction. However, if there are inadequate funds in the account the order can stay in force and be used against future deposits. I know that the Committee will already be aware that during debate in the other place, the Government accepted that there would be a benefit to revisiting the reach of deduction orders. We have consulted widely with the finance industry as well as across Government, and we accept the current drafts are too cautious and leave unacceptable loopholes. So we have removed most of the exclusions from the face of the Bill. That said, we recognise that removing money administratively is a very serious step to take. This is particularly the case when other parties may be involved, which is why we feel we must ensure that joint accounts are specifically safeguarded. Similarly we must think very hard before putting a non-resident parent’s business at risk. With this in mind, while we have removed exemptions from the face of the Bill, we will use secondary legislation to limit the use of joint, and certain business, account deductions. However, if over time it is apparent, that moneys are being diverted into these accounts to avoid a deduction order being imposed—that is, if we have evidence to suggest that non-resident parents are organising their finances to avoid these provisions, and hence their responsibilities—we will come back with affirmative secondary legislation to close loopholes. We have also considered the effect of lump sum deduction orders specifically on businesses of non-resident parents. It is not our intention to apply such orders to those accounts that are used solely for the purpose of running a business. We feel that if used on such accounts, the process of freezing funds to impose lump sum deduction orders could put too great a strain on a business. That could jeopardise the income of the non-resident parent and his or her ability to pay maintenance. So, again, these accounts will be excluded by regulation. In recognition of the significance of these measures, we intend that appeals against deduction orders will be heard, as I have intimated, by the county courts, with the exception of appeals against joint account deductions, which will be heard by the High Court. We continue to consult the Scottish Executive to determine the appropriate route for such appeals in Scotland. In addition to these changes, we have also ensured that the making of regulations providing for rights of appeal is mandatory. This further demonstrates our commitment to safeguarding the rights of the individual while addressing the need to ensure child maintenance is collected. In brief, the extended remit of regular and lump sum deduction orders will allow such measures to be taken against funds held in deposit, current and business accounts held in sole names. It will also allow for such deductions from joint accounts but only where regulations have been made for that. This will significantly extend the ability of the commission to collect maintenance from those who currently make it difficult to do so. I hope the Committee will be able to support these amendments. I beg to move.