Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 79, in clause 22, page 16, line 39, at end insert—

‘32I Freezing Orders

In circumstances considered appropriate by the Commission, the Commission shall have the power to make an application for a freezing order in accordance with Civil Procedure Rules, part 25, and the Secretary of State may make provision—

(a) about the cases and circumstances in which the power under subsection (1) is exercisable, including provision restricting the exercise of that power by virtue of a change of circumstance;

(b) about the procedure in relation to the exercise of such power under subsection (1); and

(c) for any person affected to have a right of appeal to the High Court within seven days of the making of the order.’.

I hope that the Minister will have some sympathy with the spirit with which the amendment is moved, because clearly one of the major elements of the Bill and the Committee’s deliberations is enforcement—the need, recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, to strengthen the Child Support Agency’s ability to enforce its decisions. That ability relates to the CSA’s powers, how it uses those administratively and the amount of resources, effort and energy that goes into enforcement. The powers under clause 22 on lump sum deduction orders are one such method by which enforcement could be enhanced. The amendment simply suggests an additional tool that would strengthen yet further the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission’s ability to take lump sums when a case history proves that that is necessary.

The powers to make freezing orders apply under part 25 of the civil procedure rules, which the amendment would put on the face of the Bill. It would apply in a particular set of cases where, by enhancing the Bill’s provisions, CMEC would be given the power to freeze assets in limited circumstances if there is good reason to believe that a non-resident parent is attempting or intending to remove assets from the jurisdiction of the CSA.

The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, has been dealing assiduously with a case that I have brought to his attention on a number of occasions, and I am grateful to him for his efforts.  While the amendment’s provision would not necessarily relate directly to that case, it would certainly relate to a case where a non-resident parent has disappeared overseas. Although there are powers by which the Government are currently able to pursue such people, they are complex, difficult to use and rely on having good overseas relationships.

Admittedly, the number of cases where one would know for certain that a non-resident parent intended to leave the country as a way of getting out of their obligations and a freezing order could be used, once all other processes had been followed, may be a small. However, using a freezing order in those cases would prevent any assets from being removed until such time as the process of making a lump sum deduction order has gone through, ensuring that maintenance was paid before any remaining assets were taken out of the country. I hope that all members of the Committee think that that would be an appropriate thing to try to do. Freezing orders provide a way of doing that, and I hope that the amendment will be supported.

Mark Harper (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Forest of Dean, Conservative)

I shall speak briefly and in the spirit with which the amendment was moved. I think that it would present a useful addition to the armoury of tools that CMEC would have at its disposal. It may, in those circumstances, be covered by other powers. I will welcome the Minister’s comments and am certainly supportive of the general thrust of the comments from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Minister for Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey for raising the issue addressed by the amendment because it gives us an opportunity, albeit briefly, to consider what additional powers will lead to a faster and stronger enforcement process. As he clearly identified, the freezing order granted by the court could be used to stop someone removing or dealing with assets that they own, including bank accounts. I suspect that many colleagues in the Committee will, at least at one point in their career, have come across someone who attempted to move the proceeds of a house sale out of the country before the Child Support Agency, as currently configured, could get its hands on the money to deal with maintenance arrears. As he said, where there is sufficient evidence that the non-resident parent intends to dispose of assets in order to avoid paying child maintenance, it may be useful to obtain a freezing order to stop them doing so.

However, we have to recognise that applying for a freezing order is a serious step and might sometimes be referred to as the nuclear option. It is complicated and expensive, and the decision is not to be taken lightly. The application would obviously have to be supported by sufficient evidence to convince a court that the order should be granted. For that reason, as the hon. Gentleman also said, it can and should only be used in very specific circumstances where there is factual evidence that the non-resident parent intends to dissipate assets. We probably all have experience of cases where that has happened.

However, there is some merit in the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, and although my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary thinks that I have been far too soft  with the Committee on the last two or three clauses, I ask hon. Members to give me and my ministerial colleagues the opportunity to look at the proposal and consider what has been said. We must also take into account that the civil procedure rules do not have an impact on Scotland and consider how we would manage the situation for the whole of Britain, not just for England.

Initial discussions with the Ministry of Justice have been very positive. However, we need to explore the amendment’s implications. We are willing to consider the proposal and we undertake to consult colleagues from the Ministry of Justice and others on whether the freezing orders could and should be a viable option for the commission. In that spirit, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, which we may return to at a later stage.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I am very grateful to the Minister for her answer. I would not say she was being soft; the purpose of these Committees is to share ideas. She rightly pointed out, as I should have done, that there is an issue relating to Scotland, and I look forward to further deliberations on the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.