Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 31 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill.


Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

I find this a rather curious amendment from Gingerbread. I am not sure that it is appropriate to put words such as this in a Bill such as this. We all know why child maintenance is important; it is to ensure that a child who lives with one parent has sufficient financial support so that at least financially they are not disadvantaged in comparison with their counterparts in two-parent family homes. However, I wonder how and why the amendment is useful, and whether the reduction of child poverty needs to be stated as one of the objectives of CMEC. Not every case of child separation necessarily means child poverty. Does the noble Lord, Lord Addington, not agree with me that in a situation demanding the allocation of funds what is needed is fairness, which is the prerequisite for trust? Positive discrimination is not needed, as there are always some who object to the discrimination no matter how virtuous it seems. I do not like the amendment, nor do I see a need for it.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c397GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Complaints Child support Children Contracts Contact orders Absent parents Contracts for services Child Support Agency Fees and charges Families ICT Information Maintenance Parents Poverty Parliamentary scrutiny Welfare tax credits Voluntary organisations Separation Children's centres Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission
Legislation
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk