Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from John Penrose (Conservative) 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

Let me return to the Minister's point about parents defining when something has broken down. The burden of his response seemed to be that he is reluctant for the Government to set a definition, so may I encourage him to be a bit braver? I say that because the Government have already set some boundaries around what they regard as an acceptable degree of change in income for any arrangements made directly through CMEC in the first place. The Government said that income has to vary by 25 per cent. or more before parents can go back to CMEC for a change in maintenance arrangements. If the Government are willing to set that 25 per cent. boundary as a minimum level of change before people can go back, why are they not willing to apply the same principle to people wanting to start a new claim through CMEC because they want to vary something decided on by the courts? Surely the same principle should apply.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
468 c590 
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