Clause 22
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
1:30 pm
Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and 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.