NRPs time with QC reduced due to PWC wanting more money...

Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative) | Hansard source

My Lords, this may be thought to be a curious piece of drafting, but it provides a hook on which I can develop an argument. Since Report, I have been made aware of a very disturbing incident which does not appear to be covered by the current wording of paragraph 6 of Schedule 4. The non-resident father of a young child wrote to me to explain that, between September 2006 and June 2007, he had had continuous weekly contact with his child. During that period, there was in place a very amicable private maintenance arrangement whereby he paid his former partner £50 a week. In June 2007, the mother of his child, who was the main carer, was advised by the CSA that such level of contact should entail the non-resident parent paying only £35 a week. She reacted forcibly by limiting the father's contact with his son so that she could continue to receive the £50 a week. The three people involved—the father, the mother and, most importantly, the child—are all losers in this case.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour) | Hansard source

My Lords, we need just one more piece of information. Is the parent with care to whom the noble Lord refers on benefit? His opening remarks seemed to suggest that she was not, in which case the arrangements could go undisturbed, but he then referred to the CSA, which suggested that she was. Could he give us a little more information?