Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 7 February 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill.


Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

Does not my noble friend agree that one difficulty with the CSA, unlike other fields where debt is owed, is that you cannot go for a lot of conventional remedies to collect debt—for example, naming and shaming—precisely because there are named and known children involved? It is quite hard to get enforcement procedures that bear on the parent when he does not have property but that do not stigmatise the child. With a lot of debt collection, you can use an element of naming and shaming, public display and so on. It is precisely to protect the children that you cannot do that in this case, which is why we are short of penalties. That is why my noble friend is right to say that, although the provisions are there as a last resort, they need to be there.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c644-5GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Child support Children Debts Bank services Deductions Absent parents Custodial treatment Arrears Child Support Agency ICT Identity cards Interest charges Maintenance Personal income Parents Payments Passports Overseas residence Travel Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission Driving licences 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