Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 7 February 2008. It occurred during Committee proceeding and Debate on bill on Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill.
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
It is inevitable that the more links there are, the more complexity there is. However, to return to the first of my noble friend’s examples of what a parent with care in the voluntary scheme will be entitled to, the starting point is that they would have a voluntary arrangement for something to which the two parties agree. If that negotiation could be successfully concluded and sustained, it would involve some discussion about the non-resident parent’s other commitments. At the end of the day, if the new parent with care is not satisfied with where a voluntary agreement is heading, they would test the statutory scheme and see what came from it. We acknowledge that there are challenges for parents with care to obtain information, particularly when relationships have been fairly transitory. That is why we have to do all that we can to enhance the variation arrangements and the commission’s engagement with those. I hang on to the point that people are encouraged to enter voluntary arrangements with which they are satisfied. They then negotiate between themselves, with the help of the information and support service. Where the NRP already has commitments, whether under the voluntary system or the statutory system, I imagine that they will inevitably mention them as part of the discussion and potentially dampen the outcome. However, if the parent with care is not satisfied at any point, the recourse to the statutory system will settle in. That is the protection in the scheme. Let me see whether I can address the other points. Perhaps I concluded on what the broad transition was and how we reach 2013. My noble friend also talked about the disparity between the views of NRPs and PWCs. That is a real point. It is not fair to say that the NRPs will inevitably prefer a voluntary arrangement to the statutory system because they will get away with less. Many of them are bugged by having to be in the system at the moment, particularly when it has not really produced more cash for their kids. That drives some, but I accept not all, of the behaviour. I hope that I have dealt with the queries about the IT systems. I stress that it is for CMEC to decide ultimately which system it ends up with. Inevitably it will start off with the system that is there at the moment and will live with that and with the enhancements that will be made through PR1 through much if not all the transition. As I said, however, that is something for CMEC to decide in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked how many schemes had been transferred.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 698 c632-3GC
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Travel ICT Children Debts Bank services Deductions Absent parents Custodial treatment Arrears Child Support Agency Identity cards Interest charges Maintenance Personal income Parents Payments Passports Overseas residence Driving licences Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission Administrative liability orders
- 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
- 2026-10-23 12:26:53 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_444487
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_444487
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_444487