---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

I do not think anything proposed here would preclude more than one go at a lump sum. But there is a distinction between them. If there is a lump sum which deals with arrears, and then arrears subsequently build up again, another process for another lump sum would be perfectly possible. The noble Lord is quite right to say that there is a limit in these arrangements that states that the account cannot go overdrawn. But you can have more than one bite at the lump sum; you can take it in tranches when there is funding in the account. Also, of course, the first stage of the lump-sum process is a freezing of the accounts. This at least keeps the accounts whole so that the assets cannot be dissipated very quickly. Although a process may be underway, that does not preclude alienating the assets in the interim. But the processes being administrative, they should be speedy and limit the scope for that. I was going on to explain why some of the limitations are in regulations and why we need to reflect on them in relation to lump-sum deductions, particularly on business accounts. We are not proposing to start with business accounts because if a lump sum was taken from a business account it could have quite a significant impact on that business, particularly if there was a freezing of the resources in that account. It could have all sorts of ramifications for the wages bill, for dealing with suppliers and for the survival of the business. So that is quite a difficult one. The same considerations do not arise with the protections that you need when accessing other accounts for regular payments. We plan to continue the current kinds of constraints where—for example, for deductions from earnings orders—you cannot take more than 40 per cent of a person’s net income. So there is a limit on what can be taken in any event. Obviously, it is more likely that that kind of constraint would be aligned with what routinely goes into a business account if it is reflective of income. There are difficult issues around joint accounts, particularly in the kind of situation to which the noble Lord referred, where you have an NRP with a new partner and they have a joint account. Sometimes the past relationships and past obligations are not necessarily known and the extent to which the new partner would want to share resources in that joint account may raise some issues. When we get to those regulations we will need to think them through in some detail. On deductions from earnings orders, it is not only the bank accounts where money is held that can be accessed; potentially, money held by accountants and solicitors on behalf of individuals can be accessed as well. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked which accounts might be excluded. These may include accounts such as trust funds where the non-resident parent is not entitled to the moneys held within the account. That is an example of the kind of account that might be excluded. I am conscious that I have dealt only with some of the quite detailed points that have been raised. I should like to read the record and revert in more detail so that noble Lords are satisfied. Obviously what we are trying to do here is to add significantly to our powers of enforcement, particularly, following on from the point raised by my noble friend earlier, in view of how difficult it is in some circumstances to reach NRPs who will not pay.