Proceeding contribution from Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 29 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill.
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
The noble Lord has just said that the original intention of the 1991 Act was—again I am paraphrasing—to claw back benefits, and to a great extent he is probably correct. But as I said earlier, we are where we are. The noble Lord gave that as the reason why absent parents in particular have taken against the CSA and the formulas it operates. But he has also said that this scheme is new and different. How is he going to persuade those recalcitrant absent parents that that is indeed the case?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 698 c286GC
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Child support Children Conditions of employment Debts Age Absent parents Child Support Agency ICT Maintenance Parents Staff Standards 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
- 2023-12-16 02:34:50 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_439995
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_439995
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_439995