Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) 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
I certainly do not disagree that there should be definitions of responsibility, the engagement of parents and the welfare of their children, all of which goes beyond a definition of maintenance whether it is focused just in terms of money or on a more general provision of facilities. But I come back to the point that Clause 4 is about taking responsibility for maintenance, not the wider issue, important though it is. It may well be that in some circumstances it is quite a small step, but I am sure that with her great experience, the noble and learned Baroness would acknowledge that there can be other circumstances where it is quite a big step. That is why we believe that the balance struck here to promote maintenance is right. The broader issue is something for part of a broader government agenda.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 698 c324GC
- 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 02:33:54 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_440067
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_440067
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_440067