Proceeding contribution from Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 February 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill.
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
Yes, of course. My point is that, if there is agreement between the lawyers about a capital split, that is of no interest to CMEC, is it? CMEC is interested only in weekly income—I am putting it badly. It is interested only in a sum that flows regularly to the parent with care, whereas the courts look at things rather differently for very obvious reasons. I shall have to consider this very carefully and take further advice on this amendment because I am not satisfied with the Minister’s answer, although it has been backed up by the undoubted experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 698 c527GC
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Child support Children Cooperation Arrears Child Support Agency Custody Liability Income Maintenance Parents Payments Overseas residence Self-employed Revenue and Customs 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 02:30:35 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443098
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443098
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443098