Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

Conservative Front Benchers support Lords amendments Nos. 86 to 89. I raised this issue in Committee on 11 October last year, when I moved amendment No. 21 to clause 29, which would have required the commission to obtain the permission of the parent with care in writing in order to reduce the liabilities owed to them. I am pleased that that is now in the Bill. It was a concern also widely shared by the Liberal Democrats and others. We are aware of the global figures of £3.7 billion of debt, of which it is generally agreed that about £1.5 billion is collectable. However, this must be gone through on a case-by-case basis. I brought a constituent to see the Minister—he kindly agreed to that—who was owed nearly £40,000 by the father of her two boys. That money was genuinely owed, and based on legitimate income that her former husband had been receiving. She is absolutely determined to get the money back because it will restore the years that the locusts have eaten. This issue goes deep into the heart of non-resident parents who care about this. They think that their children have been deprived of certain things in their childhood and want to make that up to them in later life, perhaps with a deposit on a house because they could not give them treats when they were younger. That is an entirely reasonable expectation. It is up to the parent to whom the money is owed to give their say-so if there is to be any reduction in that money. It is not a question of just tidying up CMEC's books to make it look it better so that it can give a better annual report to the Secretary of State, which then comes before Parliament, that says, ““We've got the debt mountain down.”” We should not look at the matter from that point of view. This was another occasion when the Government got their fingers rapped by a House of Lords Committee—the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In paragraph 152 on page 29 of its third report of the 2007-08 Session, the Committee said that the"““principles of the sale of child maintenance…should be fully debated in Parliament when regulations are first laid under these powers.””" I am pleased to see that one of the Minister's colleagues in the other place referred to that report and agreed to amend the Bill accordingly. Again, that shows support for these important amendments. A vital principle is involved and we shall be pleased to see them included in the Bill.