Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 May 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill.
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
My Lords, does not the point that the noble Lord has made illustrate why we need the 12-month rule? I thought he said that because of circumstances, relationships had changed and the non-resident parent had decided he did not want to contribute any more. If he had to wait four years for the PWC to get access to the commission, it seems to me a very disagreeable outcome. I did not pick up the points about the efficiency of the commission, which we could debate endlessly. They will improve, given what is in this Bill. That ability, when circumstances change, for one party or the other to be able to go to the commission seems to me vital. The noble Lord has just illustrated that point.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 701 c982
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Child support Children Disclosure of information Data protection Debts Cooperation Department for Work and Pensions Child Support Agency Credit reference agencies Jobseeker's allowance Income support Offenders Maintenance Parents Poverty Payments Right of search Revenue and Customs Northern Ireland Office Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission 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
- 2023-12-16 00:28:52 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_472160
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_472160
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_472160