Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative) 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

Two points arise from what the Minister has said. First, not all the amendments are in my name. Amendment No. 115, for example, is not. It is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and I do not know whether he wants to speak. Secondly, the fact that there may be no definition of a licensed deposit holder in legislation is no bar on me coining a term for the purposes of an amendment. I still find the idea of the third party extremely confusing. Perhaps the Minister might look at that again. If closing one account and opening another took place in the same financial institution, that would be obvious, and CMEC would be informed if the order had that effect, which I am sure it will. However, if one transfers from, let us say, Barclays to NatWest, that is a totally different matter, and the defaulting non-resident parent would continue to be in default of their obligations until the system caught up with them. That is not a very happy arrangement.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c655-6GC 
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