1-20 of 51 results for subject:Separation
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.254 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.003 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Separation
- We searched for
- subject_t:Separation OR subject_t:"Legal separation" OR subject_t:"Marriage separation" OR subject_ses:92969
Year
X
2011
Type
+
Legislation (1)
+
Bills (1)
+
Public bills (1)
+
Private members' bills (1)
-
Ten minute rule bills (1)
+
Members' contributions (39)
-
Oral answers to questions (7)
-
Oral questions (7)
-
Proceeding contributions (25)
+
Parliamentary proceedings (4)
+
Debates (2)
-
Adjournment debates (1)
+
Legislative debates (1)
-
Debates on bills (1)
+
Statements (2)
-
Written statements (2)
+
Parliamentary questions (14)
-
Oral questions (7)
-
Written questions (7)
House
Session
Month
Department
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many additional properties they estimate are occupied in the United Kingdom as a result of family breakdowns; and how many they estimate will be needed in the next ten years.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many additional properties they estimate are occupied in the United Kingdom as a result of family breakdowns; and how many they estimate will be needed in the next ten years.
Asked by
Lord Alton of Liverpool
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Baroness Hanham
(Conservative)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
1 November 2011
Information on the number of properties occupied or needed due to family breakdown is not collected centrally.
According to the latest household projections in the period from 2008-18, the number of households in England is projected to increase from 21.7 million to 24.1 million, an increase of 11 per cent. During the same period, the average household size is projected to decrease from 2.33 to 2.25 persons per household.
More information can be found at: http://www. communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/2033household1110.
Subjects
Housing; Separation
Date
1 November 2011
Reference
12636; 731 c239WA
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, although I confess it was disappointing. Does he nevertheless agree that it is unjust, as the slightly wider Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, recognised some time ago, that cohabitants who separate, no matter how long they have lived together and even if they have children, cannot in England apply to the courts for financial relief to compensate for careers abandoned, time spent looking after children or contributions to their cohabitants’ success, and if so, is it not surely now time to implement the Law Commission’s sensible and limited scheme, which would not undermine marriage or civil partnership and which has been widely applauded by the judiciary and the family professions?
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, although I confess it was disappointing. Does he nevertheless agree that it is unjust, as the slightly wider Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, recognised some time ago, that cohabitants who separate, no matter how long they have lived together and even if they have children, cannot in England apply to the courts for financial relief to compensate for careers abandoned, time spent looking after children or contributions to their cohabitants’ success, and if so, is it not surely now time to implement the Law Commission’s sensible and limited scheme, which would not undermine marriage or civil partnership and which has been widely applauded by the judiciary and the family professions?
Asked by
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
(Liberal Democrat)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
6 September 2011
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the Law Commission for its work, not just on this matter but in general. I am a very firm supporter of the Law Commission and the work it does, and I know that this House has played an important role in bringing Law Commission recommendations into law. However, the Government have decided not to implement the Law Commission’s scheme in this parliamentary term, because major changes to family legal aid are being implemented next year, and further reforms of the family justice system are also on the horizon following the final report of the family justice review, which will be published in October. We do not believe it would be sensible to seek to implement further changes in the law governing cohabiting couples during this period.
Subjects
Cohabitation; Family law; Law Commission; Maintenance; Reform; Separation
Date
6 September 2011
Reference
730 c118
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will introduce legislation to enable qualifying cohabitants to apply for financial relief on the breakdown of their relationship, as recommended by the 2007 Law Commission report on cohabiting.
My Lords, while declaring an interest as a barrister undertaking some family work, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will introduce legislation to enable qualifying cohabitants to apply for financial relief on the breakdown of their relationship, as recommended by the 2007 Law Commission report on cohabiting.
My Lords, while declaring an interest as a barrister undertaking some family work, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Asked by
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord McNally
(Liberal Democrat)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
6 September 2011
Answered on
6 September 2011
My Lords, as has been confirmed in a Written Ministerial Statement, the Government do not intend to take forward the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform of the cohabitation law in this parliamentary term.
Subjects
Cohabitation; Family law; Law Commission; Maintenance; Reform; Separation
Date
6 September 2011
Reference
730 c117
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, when the previous Administration opposed my noble friend’s Private Member’s Bill on this they said that they were going to wait for research on the Scottish experience. We have looked at some of the preliminary outcomes of that research without seeing anything conclusive to persuade us to move more quickly on this issue. My noble friend makes the point, however, as do the Law Commission and many others, that there are confusions and injustices as the law stands. We have not ruled out the Law Commission’s recommendations for all time; we have simply decided that we are not going to do that during this Parliament.
My Lords, when the previous Administration opposed my noble friend’s Private Member’s Bill on this they said that they were going to wait for research on the Scottish experience. We have looked at some of the preliminary outcomes of that research without seeing anything conclusive to persuade us to move more quickly on this issue. My noble friend makes the point, however, as do the Law Commission and many others, that there are confusions and injustices as the law stands. We have not ruled out the Law Commission’s recommendations for all time; we have simply decided that we are not going to do that during this Parliament.
Answered by
Lord McNally
(Liberal Democrat)
Asked by
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Does the Minister agree that where a man leaves his common-law wife with children, it is quite wrong that the state should have to come to the rescue without any possibility of getting the man to pay? When he and his colleagues reconsider this matter, as I hope they will, will they have regard to the experiment in Scotland and the recent legislation in Ireland where, under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010, some perfectly sensible solutions have been included in the Republic as well as in Scotland?
Subjects
Cohabitation; Family law; Law Commission; Maintenance; Reform; Separation
Date
6 September 2011
Reference
730 c118-9
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
One goes out on to very thin ice. I am not sure that it is for a Government to promote marriage any more than it is for them to promote any other forms of relationship...
They say that Elizabeth Taylor was in favour of marriage, because she got married eight times. I understand where the right reverend Prelate is coming from. Of course, the Government try to create the framework within which the relationship of marriage is sustained. These issues are, frankly, intensely personal, and I do not think one should try to give a government or a ministerial answer to them. We live our lives, and we should get on with doing so.
One goes out on to very thin ice. I am not sure that it is for a Government to promote marriage any more than it is for them to promote any other forms of relationship...
They say that Elizabeth Taylor was in favour of marriage, because she got married eight times. I understand where the right reverend Prelate is coming from. Of course, the Government try to create the framework within which the relationship of marriage is sustained. These issues are, frankly, intensely personal, and I do not think one should try to give a government or a ministerial answer to them. We live our lives, and we should get on with doing so.
Answered by
Lord McNally
(Liberal Democrat)
Asked by
Bishop of Wakefield
(Bishops (affiliation))
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will be glad to know that the Church of England supports marriage. It is promoting weddings through expanding the choice of churches available to couples and through its weddings project. In our earlier submission to the Law Commission, we recognised that the welfare of children and the hardship and vulnerability of people whose relationships are not based on marriage ought to be addressed through legal rights. We stand by that, but could we be reassured that the Government will continue to promote the institution of marriage?
Subjects
Cohabitation; Family law; Law Commission; Maintenance; Reform; Separation
Date
6 September 2011
Reference
730 c119-20
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will be glad to know that the Church of England supports marriage. It is promoting weddings through expanding the choice of churches available to couples and through its weddings project. In our earlier submission to the Law Commission, we recognised that the welfare of children and the hardship and vulnerability of people whose relationships are not based on marriage ought to be addressed through legal rights. We stand by that, but could we be reassured that the Government will continue to promote the institution of marriage?
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will be glad to know that the Church of England supports marriage. It is promoting weddings through expanding the choice of churches available to couples and through its weddings project. In our earlier submission to the Law Commission, we recognised that the welfare of children and the hardship and vulnerability of people whose relationships are not based on marriage ought to be addressed through legal rights. We stand by that, but could we be reassured that the Government will continue to promote the institution of marriage?
Asked by
Bishop of Wakefield
(Bishops (affiliation))
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
6 September 2011
One goes out on to very thin ice. I am not sure that it is for a Government to promote marriage any more than it is for them to promote any other forms of relationship...
They say that Elizabeth Taylor was in favour of marriage, because she got married eight times. I understand where the right reverend Prelate is coming from. Of course, the Government try to create the framework within which the relationship of marriage is sustained. These issues are, frankly, intensely personal, and I do not think one should try to give a government or a ministerial answer to them. We live our lives, and we should get on with doing so.
Subjects
Cohabitation; Family law; Law Commission; Maintenance; Reform; Separation
Date
6 September 2011
Reference
730 c119-20
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I think that intervention suggests that it is right for the Government in this case to err on the side of prudence.
My Lords, I think that intervention suggests that it is right for the Government in this case to err on the side of prudence.
Answered by
Lord McNally
(Liberal Democrat)
Asked by
Baroness Deech
(Crossbench)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, I put these points to the Minister on the basis of the hundreds of letters I have had from members of the public after lecturing on this subject, which go along these lines. First, people live together precisely because they do not want to be married and have that law applied to them, and they would see a cohabitation law as a sort of forced marriage—some of them said that they would fail to commit, or fail to stay, if the law were changed. Secondly, the financial relief law is so bad, so uncertain and so expensive that the assets of the couple would be eaten up and in the end the only beneficiaries, given that there will be no legal aid, might be the lawyers.
Subjects
Cohabitation; Family law; Law Commission; Maintenance; Reform; Separation
Date
6 September 2011
Reference
730 c118
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, can the Minister give us a little more detail about why the Government did not find the Scottish research persuasive? Can he also say what the basis of any new review would be if the Government were not minded to take into account the very detailed work that the Law Commission was asked to undertake—it has now taken that into account—and why the Government think that the separation of the two issues is possible?
My Lords, can the Minister give us a little more detail about why the Government did not find the Scottish research persuasive? Can he also say what the basis of any new review would be if the Government were not minded to take into account the very detailed work that the Law Commission was asked to undertake—it has now taken that into account—and why the Government think that the separation of the two issues is possible?
Asked by
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
(Labour)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
6 September 2011
First, the previous Administration did not proceed on this issue when they had the power to do so, although my noble friend Lord Lester had raised it. The Scottish scheme is different in various respects to the proposals for England and Wales made by the Law Commission, and the report on the Scottish scheme, which is only preliminary, acknowledged that its findings necessarily provide only an early-days impression at a time when there is relatively little reported case law under the 2000 Act, with judges and practitioners still feeling their way. The conclusion in the report is that the evidence to date in Scotland means that a similar scheme in England and Wales is unlikely to place significant additional demands on the courts system. The main message to concentrate on is that a significant period of change is due in the family justice system, which we are using to consider legislation in general. We have taken the Scottish research on board, but it is, as I say, rather narrow, very early and not enough to persuade us that we should implement the Law Commission’s recommendations now.
Subjects
Cohabitation; Family law; Law Commission; Maintenance; Reform; Separation
Date
6 September 2011
Reference
730 c119
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I put these points to the Minister on the basis of the hundreds of letters I have had from members of the public after lecturing on this subject, which go along these lines. First, people live together precisely because they do not want to be married and have that law applied to them, and they would see a cohabitation law as a sort of forced marriage—some of them said that they would fail to commit, or fail to stay, if the law were changed. Secondly, the financial relief law is so bad, so uncertain and so expensive that the assets of the couple would be eaten up and in the end the only beneficiaries, given that there will be no legal aid, might be the lawyers.
My Lords, I put these points to the Minister on the basis of the hundreds of letters I have had from members of the public after lecturing on this subject, which go along these lines. First, people live together precisely because they do not want to be married and have that law applied to them, and they would see a cohabitation law as a sort of forced marriage—some of them said that they would fail to commit, or fail to stay, if the law were changed. Secondly, the financial relief law is so bad, so uncertain and so expensive that the assets of the couple would be eaten up and in the end the only beneficiaries, given that there will be no legal aid, might be the lawyers.
Asked by
Baroness Deech
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
6 September 2011
My Lords, I think that intervention suggests that it is right for the Government in this case to err on the side of prudence.
Subjects
Cohabitation; Family law; Law Commission; Maintenance; Reform; Separation
Date
6 September 2011
Reference
730 c118
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, would not the most sensible, the cheapest and the most effective way be for the cohabitants concerned to marry?
My Lords, would not the most sensible, the cheapest and the most effective way be for the cohabitants concerned to marry?
Asked by
Lord Tebbit
(Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
6 September 2011
I think in other circumstances the noble Lord is fairly outspoken against forced marriages.
Subjects
Cohabitation; Family law; Law Commission; Maintenance; Reform; Separation
Date
6 September 2011
Reference
730 c118
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Does the Minister agree that where a man leaves his common-law wife with children, it is quite wrong that the state should have to come to the rescue without any possibility of getting the man to pay? When he and his colleagues reconsider this matter, as I hope they will, will they have regard to the experiment in Scotland and the recent legislation in Ireland where, under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010, some perfectly sensible solutions have been included in the Republic as well as in Scotland?
Does the Minister agree that where a man leaves his common-law wife with children, it is quite wrong that the state should have to come to the rescue without any possibility of getting the man to pay? When he and his colleagues reconsider this matter, as I hope they will, will they have regard to the experiment in Scotland and the recent legislation in Ireland where, under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010, some perfectly sensible solutions have been included in the Republic as well as in Scotland?
Asked by
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
(Liberal Democrat)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
6 September 2011
My Lords, when the previous Administration opposed my noble friend’s Private Member’s Bill on this they said that they were going to wait for research on the Scottish experience. We have looked at some of the preliminary outcomes of that research without seeing anything conclusive to persuade us to move more quickly on this issue. My noble friend makes the point, however, as do the Law Commission and many others, that there are confusions and injustices as the law stands. We have not ruled out the Law Commission’s recommendations for all time; we have simply decided that we are not going to do that during this Parliament.
Subjects
Cohabitation; Family law; Law Commission; Maintenance; Reform; Separation
Date
6 September 2011
Reference
730 c118-9
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, as has been confirmed in a Written Ministerial Statement, the Government do not intend to take forward the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform of the cohabitation law in this parliamentary term.
My Lords, as has been confirmed in a Written Ministerial Statement, the Government do not intend to take forward the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform of the cohabitation law in this parliamentary term.
Answered by
Lord McNally
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Subjects
Cohabitation; Family law; Law Commission; Maintenance; Reform; Separation
Date
6 September 2011
Reference
730 c117
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
First, the previous Administration did not proceed on this issue when they had the power to do so, although my noble friend Lord Lester had raised it. The Scottish scheme is different in various respects to the proposals for England and Wales made by the Law Commission, and the report on the Scottish scheme, which is only preliminary, acknowledged that its findings necessarily provide only an early-days impression at a time when there is relatively little reported case law under the 2000 Act, with judges and practitioners still feeling their way. The conclusion in the report is that the evidence to date in Scotland means that a similar scheme in England and Wales is unlikely to place significant additional demands on the courts system. The main message to concentrate on is that a significant period of change is due in the family justice system, which we are using to consider legislation in general. We have taken the Scottish research on board, but it is, as I say, rather narrow, very early and not enough to persuade us that we should implement the Law Commission’s recommendations now.
First, the previous Administration did not proceed on this issue when they had the power to do so, although my noble friend Lord Lester had raised it. The Scottish scheme is different in various respects to the proposals for England and Wales made by the Law Commission, and the report on the Scottish scheme, which is only preliminary, acknowledged that its findings necessarily provide only an early-days impression at a time when there is relatively little reported case law under the 2000 Act, with judges and practitioners still feeling their way. The conclusion in the report is that the evidence to date in Scotland means that a similar scheme in England and Wales is unlikely to place significant additional demands on the courts system. The main message to concentrate on is that a significant period of change is due in the family justice system, which we are using to consider legislation in general. We have taken the Scottish research on board, but it is, as I say, rather narrow, very early and not enough to persuade us that we should implement the Law Commission’s recommendations now.
Answered by
Lord McNally
(Liberal Democrat)
Asked by
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, can the Minister give us a little more detail about why the Government did not find the Scottish research persuasive? Can he also say what the basis of any new review would be if the Government were not minded to take into account the very detailed work that the Law Commission was asked to undertake—it has now taken that into account—and why the Government think that the separation of the two issues is possible?
Subjects
Cohabitation; Family law; Law Commission; Maintenance; Reform; Separation
Date
6 September 2011
Reference
730 c119
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
I think in other circumstances the noble Lord is fairly outspoken against forced marriages.
I think in other circumstances the noble Lord is fairly outspoken against forced marriages.
Answered by
Lord McNally
(Liberal Democrat)
Asked by
Lord Tebbit
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, would not the most sensible, the cheapest and the most effective way be for the cohabitants concerned to marry?
Subjects
Cohabitation; Family law; Law Commission; Maintenance; Reform; Separation
Date
6 September 2011
Reference
730 c118
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the Law Commission for its work, not just on this matter but in general. I am a very firm supporter of the Law Commission and the work it does, and I know that this House has played an important role in bringing Law Commission recommendations into law. However, the Government have decided not to implement the Law Commission’s scheme in this parliamentary term, because major changes to family legal aid are being implemented next year, and further reforms of the family justice system are also on the horizon following the final report of the family justice review, which will be published in October. We do not believe it would be sensible to seek to implement further changes in the law governing cohabiting couples during this period.
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the Law Commission for its work, not just on this matter but in general. I am a very firm supporter of the Law Commission and the work it does, and I know that this House has played an important role in bringing Law Commission recommendations into law. However, the Government have decided not to implement the Law Commission’s scheme in this parliamentary term, because major changes to family legal aid are being implemented next year, and further reforms of the family justice system are also on the horizon following the final report of the family justice review, which will be published in October. We do not believe it would be sensible to seek to implement further changes in the law governing cohabiting couples during this period.
Answered by
Lord McNally
(Liberal Democrat)
Asked by
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, although I confess it was disappointing. Does he nevertheless agree that it is unjust, as the slightly wider Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, recognised some time ago, that cohabitants who separate, no matter how long they have lived together and even if they have children, cannot in England apply to the courts for financial relief to compensate for careers abandoned, time spent looking after children or contributions to their cohabitants’ success, and if so, is it not surely now time to implement the Law Commission’s sensible and limited scheme, which would not undermine marriage or civil partnership and which has been widely applauded by the judiciary and the family professions?
Subjects
Cohabitation; Family law; Law Commission; Maintenance; Reform; Separation
Date
6 September 2011
Reference
730 c118
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Jonathan Djanogly) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. I wish to make the following Statement to the House announcing the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s report Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown. The Law Commission published...
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Jonathan Djanogly) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. I wish to make the following Statement to the House announcing the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s report Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown. The Law Commission published...
Member
Lord McNally
(Liberal Democrat)
Department
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written statements
Subjects
Cohabitation; Family law; Law Commission; Maintenance; Government responses; Reform; Separation
Date
6 September 2011
Reference
730 c18-9WS
House
House of Lords
I wish to make the following statement to the House announcing the Government's response to the Law Commission's report ““Cohabitation: the financial consequences of relationship breakdown””. The Law Commission published its report on 31 July 2007 but no action was taken by the previous Administration who wished to first seek...
I wish to make the following statement to the House announcing the Government's response to the Law Commission's report ““Cohabitation: the financial consequences of relationship breakdown””. The Law Commission published its report on 31 July 2007 but no action was taken by the previous Administration who wished to first seek...
Member
Jonathan Djanogly
(Conservative)
Department
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written statements
Subjects
Cohabitation; Family law; Law Commission; Maintenance; Government responses; Reform; Separation
Date
6 September 2011
Reference
532 c15-6WS
House
House of Commons
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the needs of parents, grandparents and extended families predominantly or wholly separated from their children as a result of family breakdown.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the needs of parents, grandparents and extended families predominantly or wholly separated from their children as a result of family breakdown.
Asked by
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Hill of Oareford
(Conservative)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
7 July 2011
The vast majority of families make their own arrangements for their children following parental separation, without the need for any kind of intervention by the state. Grandparents and extended family members are often an important part of those arrangements.
Whilst the Government have commissioned research to assess the needs of children following family breakdown (Mooney, 2010 Impacts of Family Breakdown on Children's Well Being), the needs of parents, grandparents and extended family members separated from their children has been less well researched. This is why the Family Justice Review invited evidence on this issue. The panel received evidence from a wide range of organisations, groups and individuals which is helping to shape its recommendations. In addition, the Government published a consultation Child Maintenance Reform: Strengthening Families, Promoting Parental Responsibility in January this year. This consultation included questions on how support services can better support families experiencing relationship breakdown. Once the Family Justice Review Panel has issued its final report in the autumn, we shall give full consideration as to whether further assessment of the needs of parents, grandparents and extended family members who are separated from children is required.
Subjects
Children; Families; Separation
Date
7 July 2011
Reference
10412; 729 c99WA
House
House of Lords
(2) whether the funding allocated for relationship support services with respect to family separation in the next four years is additional to existing grant spending in this area.
(2) whether the funding allocated for relationship support services with respect to family separation in the next four years is additional to existing grant spending in this area.
Asked by
Sheila Gilmore
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Teather
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Department for Education
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
23 May 2011
For answer on
7 June 2011
Answered on
9 June 2011
In December 2010, the Prime Minister announced a dedicated fund of £30 million over the next four years to support couple relationships. The majority of this funding will be allocated to the voluntary and community sector. Prior to this there was no dedicated funding for relationship support services.From April 2006 to March 2011, some funding was granted to voluntary and community sector organisations to deliver relationship support services as part of the Children, Young People and Families (CYPF) Grant programme. This funding was awarded as part of support for families more generally, so cannot be separated out in detail for the whole of this period, but the funding to organisations delivering a range of relationship support over the period 2009-11 was £10 million. In addition, across the period 2009-11 funding of £4.5 million was made available to fund child poverty pilots which specifically focused on supporting parents through separation.The CYPF grant was replaced by the VCS grant in April 2011 with the aim of increasing the take-up and availability of relationship support. Work funded under this grant covers all stages of relationships including those experiencing separation.
Subjects
Separation
Date
9 June 2011
Reference
57634; 529 c462-3W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how much his Department spent on relationship support services with respect to family separation in each of the last four years;
To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how much his Department spent on relationship support services with respect to family separation in each of the last four years;
Asked by
Sheila Gilmore
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Teather
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Department for Education
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
23 May 2011
For answer on
7 June 2011
Answered on
9 June 2011
In December 2010, the Prime Minister announced a dedicated fund of £30 million over the next four years to support couple relationships. The majority of this funding will be allocated to the voluntary and community sector. Prior to this there was no dedicated funding for relationship support services.From April 2006 to March 2011, some funding was granted to voluntary and community sector organisations to deliver relationship support services as part of the Children, Young People and Families (CYPF) Grant programme. This funding was awarded as part of support for families more generally, so cannot be separated out in detail for the whole of this period, but the funding to organisations delivering a range of relationship support over the period 2009-11 was £10 million. In addition, across the period 2009-11 funding of £4.5 million was made available to fund child poverty pilots which specifically focused on supporting parents through separation.The CYPF grant was replaced by the VCS grant in April 2011 with the aim of increasing the take-up and availability of relationship support. Work funded under this grant covers all stages of relationships including those experiencing separation.
Subjects
Separation
Date
9 June 2011
Reference
57635; 529 c462-3W
House
House of Commons