Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

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

7 Feb 2008 : Column GC652

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.

4.15 pm

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 with only 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.

Lord Skelmersdale: I am most grateful. As the Minister has not answered all the points and he will have to write to me, perhaps I may put a thought into his mind. As I understand the situation proposed, there is a leeway of seven days before the operation starts. In these days of electronic transfer of money and so on, there is a potential difficulty. The noble Lord is shaking his head. Have I got it wrong?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: There is a seven-day period somewhere in all of this but I think not where the noble Lord has identified. We need to revert on that to avoid any confusion.



7 Feb 2008 : Column GC653

Lord Skelmersdale: Heaven forbid. The noble Lord might have a sample of my handwriting and the letters might be reciprocal.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): I should point out that if Amendment No. 112 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 113.

Lord McKenzie of Luton moved Amendment No. 112:

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 114:

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,

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.



7 Feb 2008 : Column GC654

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—

Lord McKenzie of Luton: I am not sure that item is in this group.

Lord Skelmersdale: It is not in the right place. I had better stop at this point. I beg to move.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: Perhaps I may start with Amendment No. 135, which seeks not to exclude deduction orders from being used against accounts that can be used only partly for business purposes. In light of the government amendment, of course, this amendment will no longer be appropriate, as the amended clauses will now remove such exclusions. Following on from that, Amendment No. 114 also seeks to extend the scope of deduction orders to all accounts. As we have made clear, we intend to expand the remit of deduction orders, but we do not think it appropriate from day one for deduction orders to be used on every type of account. As I outlined earlier, we would like to see accounts such as those held by more than one person for the purposes of business initially excluded by secondary legislation.

I hope noble Lords will agree that although increasing the remit of deduction orders in the Bill is a positive way to enable the commission to collect more maintenance, it is important to allow sufficient opportunity to consider carefully how far that remit should be extended. I trust that this also addresses the issue raised by Amendment No. 115, which seeks to expand the current account deduction orders to any joint trade or business account.

Amendments Nos. 137, 140, 141, 144, 147, 149 and 155 would prevent lump-sum deduction orders being used in relation to anyone other than licensed deposit takers. During consideration of this group of amendments, we have been unable to find any reference to licensed deposit takers in current legislation. I think that the term used to exist in old banking legislation, but went out in the mid or late 1980s. As a result, we are not quite sure how critical it is.

Lord Skelmersdale: I thought that the Minister was going say the late 1800s.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: The amendment could be used to open loopholes or to encourage non-compliant parents to lodge their money with people who are not covered by the term “deposit taker”. We would like to prescribe others who are likely to hold

7 Feb 2008 : Column GC655

money on behalf of the non-resident parent in secondary legislation—an issue that I also touched on earlier. We are currently further investigating those funds not held in accounts that might be prescribed for the purposes of lump sum orders. However, the amendment would mean money held on behalf of the non-resident parent by, for example, lawyers and accountants would be inaccessible to the commission. That was probably not intended, but it would be the import of the amendment.

On Amendments Nos. 119 and 151, I assure noble Lords that in both instances the clauses already achieve what the amendments strive for in that there is already a power to include in regulations a requirement on the deposit taker to provide details of when an account is closed. Indeed, the banks have an obligation to notify the commission if the NRP closes the account or opens other accounts, where that information is available to the banks.

In the case of a lump-sum deduction order, the greatest amount at which the order will be set is the amount of arrears stated when the order was first made. It cannot be increased beyond that amount and is intended to be collected in one payment rather than over a period. However, it is acknowledged that the order will continue where there is an insufficient amount available to be deducted in that one payment. Again, we touched on that earlier.

Amendment No 126 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to provide in regulations for the circumstances in which a request may be made for a review of a deduction order. It is worth noting that this particular subsection is extended as part of the Government’s amendments. It now includes a regulation-making power to provide a right for the parties affected by an order imposed, including joint account holders, to request a review. This is not an appeal.

The amendment would allow regulations providing for the order to be varied, but only on the initiative of the commission. It would not allow for an application for a review by the non-resident parent. At this stage, we envisage that the right to request a review will be available in cases of hardship or a significant change of circumstances. We are however happy to hear views on the appropriate grounds for review. All the regulations relating to this clause will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Finally, Amendment No. 116 seeks to require the commission to impose an order that applies to maintenance arrears, to ongoing maintenance, or to both. In reality, however, these are the only three options. The current drafting is permissive in recognition that we give the commission the option to use regular deduction orders to collect both past and future maintenance. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale: Two points arise from what the Minister has said. First, not all the amendments are in my name. Amendment No. 115, for example, is not. It is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and I do not know whether he wants to speak. Secondly, the fact that there may be no definition of a

7 Feb 2008 : Column GC656

licensed deposit holder in legislation is no bar on me coining a term for the purposes of an amendment. I still find the idea of the third party extremely confusing. Perhaps the Minister might look at that again. If closing one account and opening another took place in the same financial institution, that would be obvious, and CMEC would be informed if the order had that effect, which I am sure it will. However, if one transfers from, let us say, Barclays to NatWest, that is a totally different matter, and the defaulting non-resident parent would continue to be in default of their obligations until the system caught up with them. That is not a very happy arrangement.

4.30 pm

Lord McKenzie of Luton: I shall reflect on the drafting, but I have tried to do battle with parliamentary counsel in the past and invariably lost. If there was a transfer from one bank to another, the transferring bank would generally know to whom the money was going. That would not be the case if someone withdrew the readies and then deposited them in another bank—or at least the first destination on the transfer, if not the final destination.

Lord Skelmersdale: I seem to remember that there are vast amounts of legislation about money-laundering.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: Does that not help rather than hinder the case?

Lord Skelmersdale: I doubt it very much.

Lord Addington: Most of the amendments in this group have been dealt with in what the Government have said previously, so we will not move those to which we have put our name.

Lord Skelmersdale: I shall not prolong the discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 not moved.]

Lord McKenzie of Luton moved Amendments Nos. 117 to 118:

(a) may not be made in respect of an account of a prescribed description; and(b) may be made in respect of a joint account which is held by the person against whom the order is made and one or more other persons, and which is not of a description prescribed under paragraph (a), if (but only if) regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide.”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]

Lord McKenzie of Luton moved Amendments Nos. 120 to 125:



7 Feb 2008 : Column GC657

( ) if the order is made in respect of a joint account, the other account-holders.”(a) the proposal to make the order; and(b) the amounts to be deducted under the order, if it is made.(a) any representations made in accordance with subsection (1)(b);(b) the amount contributed to the account by each of the account-holders; and(c) such other matters as may be prescribed.”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]

Lord McKenzie of Luton moved Amendments Nos. 127 to 133:

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 [Lump sum deduction orders]:

The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 134 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 135 for reasons for pre-emption.



7 Feb 2008 : Column GC658

Lord McKenzie of Luton moved Amendment No. 134:

(a) an amount stands to the credit of an account held by the liable person with a deposit-taker; or(b) an amount not within paragraph (a) that is of a prescribed description is due or accruing to the liable person from another person (referred to in this section and sections 32E to 32G as the “third party”).(a) may not be made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) in respect of an account of a prescribed description; and(b) may be made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) in respect of a joint account which is held by the liable person and one or more other persons, and which is not of a description prescribed under paragraph (a) of this subsection, if (but only if) regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]

Lord McKenzie of Luton moved Amendment No. 136:

On Question, amendment agreed to.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page