Skip to main content

CHILD SUPPORT ACT

EDM (Early Day Motion) 36A2: tabled on 22 February 1996

Tabled in the 1995-96 session.

This motion has been signed by 32 Members. It is an amendment to an existing motion.

As this motion is using historical data, we may not have the record of the original ordering, in which case signatories are listed alphabetically.

This is an amendment to an existing motion

This motion was originally tabled by Liz Lynne on 15 November 1995. This is amendment number 2.

View details of the original motion

Suggested amendment

leave out from 'House' to end and add ' firmly supports the principle that parents should honour their obligations to their children and believes that the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 and subsequent child support legislation are the best way to ensure that all parents make adequate provisions to the best of their abilty for all their children; notes that the CSA's figures for the first six months of this year show that considerable progress has been made in collecting, arranging and assessing maintenance as well as in accuracy and speed of payment; further notes that a few honourable Members (principally Liberal Democrats) continue to provide a mouthpiece for fringe organisations seeking to frustrate the will of Parliament as expressed in child support legislation, and is surprised that in referring to a report now well over twelve months old, honourable Members present an entirely unbalanced and inaccurate picture which ignores all the recent progress which the CSA has made in improving its performance .'.

Original motion text

That this House, while firmly supporting the principle that parents should honour their obligations to their children, no longer believes that the best interests of children are served by the Child Support Act 1991; notes that the report Losing Support, commissioned by NSPCC and four other children's charities, concluded that the Child Support Act had done nothing to improve the well-being of children in lone parent families and that, in some cases, the distress and material losses which were experienced by a number of children were damaging; notes further that the Act is harming the creation of new and viable family units; notes that in addition the Agency is less efficient at the collection of maintenance than the Liable Relatives Unit that it replaced and is incapable of producing prompt and accurate maintenance assessments and that for these and other reasons believes the Child Support Act has lost the confidence of the country; and therefore calls upon the Government to repeal the Act, return on a temporary basis tothe previous court system for the settlement of maintenance issues, revive the Liable Releatives Unit and then consult widely on the best way to implement a comprehensive family court system which will allow genuine consistency across all matters of family policy, flexibility into maintenance assessment and foster co-operation between the parties to the benefit of all concerned.

The first 6 Members who have signed to support the motion are the sponsors. The primary sponsor is generally the person who tabled the motion and has responsibility for it. The date shown is when the Member signed the motion.

In addition to the sponsors, the following Members have signed to support the motion.

Devlin, Mr Tim
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Stockton South
Dunn, Mr Bob
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Dartford
Evans, David
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Welwyn Hatfield
Fabricant, Michael
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Mid Staffordshire
Fishburn, Dudley
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Kensington
Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Billericay
Greenway, Harry
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Ealing North
Hughes, Robert
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Harrow West
Jessel, Toby
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Twickenham
Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Burton
Leigh, Mr Edward
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Gainsborough and Horncastle
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Morecambe and Lunesdale
Lloyd, Sir Peter
Conservative
Signed on 27 February 1996
Fareham
Maitland, Lady Olga
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Sutton and Cheam
Mitchell, Sir David
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
North West Hampshire
Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Altrincham and Sale
Neubert, Sir Michael
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Romford
Roe, Mrs Marion
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Broxbourne
Rowe, Mr Andrew
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Mid Kent
Shaw, Mr David
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Dover
Shaw, Sir Giles
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Pudsey
Shepherd, Sir Colin
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Hereford
Sims, Sir Roger
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Chislehurst
Smith, Timothy
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
Beaconsfield
Spicer, Sir James
Conservative
Signed on 22 February 1996
West Dorset

These members had previously signed the motion, but have now withdrawn their support. The date shown is when the Member withdrew their signature from the motion.