---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

moved Amendment No. 114: 114: Clause 21, page 9, line 40, leave out ““the account”” and insert ““any account held by that person”” The noble Lord said: This is by way of a slight parliamentary trick to allow me to say what I want to say, the first amendment in this group, Amendment No. 113, having been pre-empted. In moving Amendment No. 114, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 115 and 116, 119, 126, 135, 137, 140, 141, 145, 147, 149, 151, 155 and 158. All the amendments in this group enforce limits on the commission and narrow its broad parameters into what I hope are specifics. The need for such amendments suggests once again how the Government these days will shy away from including any detail on the face of legislation, thus allowing themselves a free rein when making secondary instruments—not for the first time during our proceedings on this Bill. I do rather object to that. A large number of these amendments are drafting amendments intended to define the proposals made in the Bill more strictly. Thus ““the account”” will become, "““any account held by that person””," and ““third party”” becomes ““licensed deposit taker””. In every case that I have used the phrase ““licensed deposit taker””, I am not absolutely sure that that is what the words ““third party”” actually mean in the Bill. It is confusing to use the same word or phrase in totally different contexts. Precision is important because without it, room is created for error and confusion, which could ultimately impact negatively on the child, something we all want to avoid. Amendments Nos. 119 and 126 would ensure that the Bill denies the non-resident parent the opportunity for malpractice. Has the Minister considered that a non-resident parent may seek to avoid paying his child maintenance fees by transferring his account to another bank? I have just commented briefly on the electronic transfer of money, so perhaps he would like to consider that at the same time. At the moment the transfer happens, the money is lost to the system so far as CMEC is concerned. I have proposed the former amendment to prevent any Houdini tricks and the latter to consider that this might be a circumstance in which an application may be made to the commission for it to review an order. I turn now to a more detailed examination of Amendment No. 181. This is a provision to safeguard against the possibility that the actions of CMEC could restrict parents from fulfilling their financial responsibilities to their child. The Bill should do everything possible to facilitate parents to provide sufficiently for their offspring; it should never hinder the ultimate objective. Noble Lords will be aware that CMEC’s power to confiscate a driving licence is one that the CSA currently holds. In relation to my earlier argument, I must first welcome the fact that a confiscation would occur only after recourse to the courts. I am not opposed to penalising errant parents who refuse to meet their responsibilities—