Child Support Collection and Enforcement (Deduction Orders) Amendment Regulations 2009

I shall go back to the impact assessment, but I thought that the figure of £2 million was reached by working with 140 cases, which means 1,680 a year at an average of £1,300. That is what drives the sum of £2 million. However, I shall see if further detail on the point is made available by the time I finish my contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, also said he thought that the commission was not being heavy-handed in its collection processes and that the deduction orders would be a kind of last resort. They will not be in all cases. As I said, we would seek to go down this path only if other mechanisms for trying to encourage non-resident parents to pay proved to be unsuccessful. The arrangements that are currently available to the original Child Support Agency and now the commission comprise deduction from earnings orders, liability orders, bailiffs, third-party debt orders, charges on property, orders for the sale of property, driving licence disqualification and imprisonment. Indeed, in the 12 months to the end of January 2009, a total of 120,970 enforcement actions were carried out. The most recent enforcement figure includes 30 non-resident parents receiving prison sentences, 510 receiving suspended prison sentences, 30 non-resident parents receiving suspended driving licence disqualifications and five being disqualified from driving. We do not apologise for that because it is right that the commission should be tough on those who simply refuse to pay. Indeed, we will have a debate tomorrow during our consideration of the Welfare Reform Bill on further measures set out in that legislation so that we are able to reach those people who will do everything they possibly can to avoid meeting their obligations to their children. It is shocking that this needs to be done, but it is only right that we pursue it. Reverting to the discussion we have just had, I am advised that the noble Lord is right. Some 500 cases per month are dealt with and 140 cases end in deduction, which I believe is the point he sought to press. On the appeal process, an appeal against the calculation may be made to a tribunal. The grounds for appeal against a lump sum deduction order show that the regulations do not actually restrict the grounds for appeal. For example, an appeal may be made where it appears that the amount set out in the lump sum deduction order is wrong or the liable person considers that a reasonable arrangement to pay has been reached. An appeal may also be made to follow on the commission’s refusal to consent to release frozen funds. However, the circumstances where the commission may give such consent are set out in the regulations and therefore it is implicit that a court would consider a repeal against the commission’s refusal to release funds only if it related to any of those circumstances. On the grounds for appeal against a regular deduction order, the regulations again do not restrict these grounds. For example, an appeal may be made that the amount of the regular deduction order is wrong or the liable person considers that a reasonable arrangement has been made to pay the arrears again, and it may also be made against any decision following an application for a review of a regular deduction order. In these circumstances it is implicit that the court would consider the appeal only if it related to the circumstances in which an application review can be made as set out in the regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, sought an assurance that these powers will be used proportionately. Deduction orders will be used only where there are arrears of child maintenance. As I said earlier, the commission will provide the non-resident parent with every opportunity to pay before a deduction order is considered, and there is the right to seek a review. The noble Lord asked for an update on the figures for the age and collection of debt, and I am certainly happy to write to him to ensure that he gets the most recent data we have. He also referred to issues around accuracy. That has been a long-standing challenge for the commission, but the data show that there has been continuing improvement, and certainly the operational improvement plan made a significant step change to the operation of the then agency and now the commission. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked about the Rowley case. I shall get an update on that and make sure that he receives it. He referred to child maintenance and options. That is what we used to refer to as the information and support service when we were debating the Bill. The thrust of that service is to support particularly those parents who were forced to use the statutory system because that is what the legislation required, and to encourage people, again as we debated in the Bill, to seek to make their own arrangements outside the statutory system. It is really focused on that. I have some data about the extent to which the option service has been used. Since the repeal of Section 6 of the Child Support Act, which, as I said, previously compelled people on benefits to use the Child Support Agency, approximately 260,000 parents with a child maintenance interest have made benefit claims through Jobcentre Plus. All these have been offered support from child maintenance options, with approximately 110,000 accepting the support and 150,000 choosing to decline it. The proportion choosing to accept a referral to options has risen since the launch of the service and currently around 50 per cent of the offers are being accepted. I hope that gives the noble Lord a measure of where we are on that service. I hope I have answered the points that each noble Lord was pressing; I am happy to come back if they think I have not. I have committed to write to noble Lords on a couple of points and I am happy to do that. However, if there is nothing further, I commend the regulations to the House. Motion agreed.