Clause 22
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
1:30 pm
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.