Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 February 2008. It occurred during Committee proceeding and Debate on bill on Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill.


Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

I was not going to intervene on this because it is a difficult issue, but why does the noble Lord think that? If the self-employed person has, with the help of accountants, declared an income that HMRC has accepted and within the law has clearly abated his returnable income by depreciation for this, that and other legitimate reasons, why does the noble Lord think that CSA staff, without the facilities, resources or information that the tax inspectors have, would be able to do a better job? Given that there is not full payment of maintenance—given the £40 figure—the loss of the additional money is not likely to be borne by the person with care, but by the taxpayer. This is a double question. First, I do not think that you could realistically get at that information. At least—Glory be!—with the tax system we have a better chance. Secondly, it may not matter as much as the noble Lord thinks because it may fall into the headspace between the 40 quid a week disregard in benefit cases and the amount that might have to be paid.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c543GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Children Cooperation Arrears Child Support Agency Custody Liability Income Maintenance Parents Payments Revenue and Customs Overseas residence Self-employed 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