Pubblicata sulla lista internazionalefr4e EQUAL FAMILYRIGHTS 4 EUROPE
House of Lords debate on the Child Support Reform
UK House of Lords; 24 July 2006
Analisi del dibattito al senato UK effettuata da Peter Tromp, Fathercare Knowledge Centre, preceduta da una sintesi di valutazione delle posizioni, per ciascuno degli otto Lord che hanno discusso il 24 Luglio 2006. In estrema sintesi, solo i conservatori hanno mostrato attenzione e cura per la tutela delle relazioni che i figli hanno con il padre dopo le separazioni, sia nel garantire continuita' ed equilibrio, sia nel contrastare comportamenti escludenti. Laboristi e Liberaldemocratici si sono dimostrati indifferenti. Dibattito riportato integralmente.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First a summary portraid of the 8 Lords-debaters involved in this debate made by Peter Tromp from the perspective of them showing any concern for either promoting father’s involvement with their children through post divorce equal parenting involvement or better enabling access and contact between fathers and their children:
debaters in green show concern with father’s involvement with their children
debaters in red don’t give a damn about father’s inolvement with their children
Debate summary on the party level:
Liberal Democrats: They absolutely don’t give a damn about father’s post-divorce involvement with their children. Liberal Democrats are exclusively and uncritically supportive to lone care parents only, also when these parents are frustrating access and contact between nonresident parents with their children. They have no concern whatsoever for the interests of father’s and children in being more involved with each other after divorce. Conclusion: Liberal Democrats are therefore an absolutely “no vote” for father’s. To put it differently: Any father voting Liberal Democrat is not having it together.
Labour: They don’t give much of a damn about promoting father’s post-divorce involvement with their children within trhe framework of Child Support Reform policies and pay only unconnected vague lipservice to better contact and access issues without having any intention of connecting those issues up with the Child Reform Policies.
Labour is only paying lipservice to the interests of father’s whom they euphemistically call NRP’s (Non Resident Parents) and generally see and address groupwise in a very gender racist way as being irresponsible and prosecutionable criminals (This is for instance what Lady Hollis said of father’s in this debate: “For example, the NRP may well say, “We’ll agree on 20 quid and you can have it. I know I should be paying 40 quid, but if you go for that, I will duck and weave and you won’t get your money”. He may bribe, lie, withhold information and behave like too many self-employed men by concealing his income. I am sure we all want to ensure that the parent with care has sufficient leverage…”)
Labour on one side proves to be mainly concerned with the interests of lone care parents and in giving “parents with care” sufficient leverage the NRP than at present. Labour wants to ensure that the parent with care has sufficient leverage. The only way to do that is to create very tough reïnforcement measures on the side of the care parents vis-avis the nonresident parents is what Labour states. And they indeed create a massive range of unprecedented discretions and reïnforment measures to come down tough on non-resident parents on the issue of child support.
Labour on the other hand denies the “NRP” that same leverage on the access and contact issue against frustrating care parents, that they call so necessary for care parents on the child support issue. Labour comes down so unprecedented tough on only the Non Resident parents that it results in the senior Lord Stoddart of Swindon remarking his deep concern at the end of this debate: “What about the penalties which non-absent parents will apparently receive, for example, curfews, tagging and loss of passports? Those penalties seem worse than those that muggers and old-people bashers often get from our courts. I hope that has been considered.”
Labour is actively promoting an unequal level playing field, i.e. inequality between both parents. The same that they call absolutely necessary for their favorite care parents they deny to their unfavorite nonresident parents: Allthough they try to cover it up and deny it, they in short are very much promoting gender discrimination, gender racism and even gender hatred (see what Lady Hollis had to say about father’s above when she by accident forgets about covering up and speaks her real mind.)
Conclusion: Present Labour must be a “no vote” for father’s. To put it differently: Any father voting Labour a present is not having it together.
Conservatives: The conservatives are all in favor of coming down tough on nonresident parents not paying child support, but at the same time they are also concerned with creating an “equal level playing field” by also coming down tough on lone care parents frustrating contact and access. Further they are also really concerned with promoting postdivorce equal parenting and with promoting father’s involvement with their children also in relation to the child support reforms.
Conclusion: The conservatives are a “yes vote” for father’s.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
This debater shows no concern whatsoever for promoting post divorce equal parenting involvement and only a very vague concern at adressing failing access and contact between fathers and their children in his opening statement. He doesn’t give much of a damn about father’s involvement with their children. There is nothing on these issues in his original policy statement.
And only when asked about it by the Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative), this is what he said and the lipservice he paid on the matter of contact, making clear that there is no connection with the child support reform policies: “I very much agreed with the noble Baroness’s comments on the contact issue. She was right to refer to the Children and Adoption Bill and to the potential for ensuring that contact orders are both made and well enforced. I am sure she is right to say that we cannot link child support payments to contact, as such a dispute is between the two parents and the person who would suffer is the child who does not receive the flow of money. However, I think that contact is very important. The noble Baroness asked what kind of advice we would want to give parents to encourage them to try to resolve some of these issues themselves. We will be establishing a group across government to consider that, because clearly a holistic, integrated approach in dealing with all matters to do with separation would be very beneficial.”
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative):
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay (Liberal Democrat):
We can be very short about this debater. This debater shows no concern whatsoever for promoting post divorce equal parenting involvement or at least adressing failing access and contact between fathers and their children. He doesn’t give a damn about father’s involvement with their children.
Plays a mayor role in enabling the CSA reform. We can be short about this debater. This debater shows no concern whatsoever for promoting post divorce equal parenting involvement. She pretty much doesn’t a damn about father’s involvement with their children. On the issue of at least adressing failing access and contact between fathers and their children she is only very vague and making clear there is to be no connection made with the child support reform. This is the lipservice she paid to the issue and what she said on it: “I also welcome the emphasis on co-operation in the Henshaw report and in the Government’s report. Anything that reduces conflict, gets parents to come to an agreement and therefore encourages contact must be good for the child. Agreement, co-operation and additional resources to children are all good for their well-being, and we must welcome them.”
Baroness Noakes (Conservative; Sheila Masters)
This debater shows no concern whatsoever for promoting post divorce equal parenting involvement or at least adressing failing access and contact between fathers and their children.
This debater shows no concern whatsoever for promoting post divorce equal parenting involvement or at least adressing failing access and contact between fathers and their children. He doesn’t give a damn about father’s involvement with their children.
This debater shows concern for father’s involvement with their children and states on this issue as follows allthough slightly off-point: “My Lords, I hope I am not alone in my concern about the point on disregard. How can it be right that a father who stays and supports his family will pay a higher effective marginal rate of tax than one who does not? That cannot be right and that cannot encourage families to stick together.”
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Other)
This debater shows concern for the rights of the father’s involved, who are called NRP’s (Non Resident Parents) in he jargon of this debate. This is what he said: “What about the penalties which non-absent parents will apparently receive, for example, curfews, tagging and loss of passports? Those penalties seem worse than those that muggers and old-people bashers often get from our courts. I hope that has been considered.
My final question is on the compulsory registration of fathers. That will be extremely difficult, particularly in the case of unmarried single young mothers who perhaps have several relationships, who may not know who the father is, and who will not disclose the names of all the possible fathers. I hope that the Minister will think about that before he puts this into operation.”
