Proceeding contribution from Mike Weir (Scottish National Party) in the House of Commons on Monday, 3 December 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill.
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
I still do not follow what the Minister is saying. When I said, ββIt does not matter,ββ I was making the point that both parents do not have to agree that things have broken down. One parent could decide unilaterally that they no longer like the terms of the agreement, whether or not those terms had been adhered to fully, and then go to the commission. The other parent would have no option. In such circumstances, no one will enter into minutes of agreement lasting more than a year because they could be overturned by the other party in a year and one day. It would not matter whether the terms of the agreement had been fully adhered to, the agreement was working or the payments were being made, or whether there had been capital payments, because a parent could still go to the commission.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 468 c578
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Children Compensation Appeals Crime Civil service Advisory services Asbestos Child Support Agency Fees and charges Information Industrial diseases Maintenance Parents Payments Parliamentary scrutiny Non-departmental public bodies Overseas residence Scotland Respiratory system Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission
- Legislation
- Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-10-23 12:29:01 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_426166
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_426166
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_426166