Results 101–120 of 3500 for (in the 'Commons debates' OR in the 'Westminster Hall debates' OR in the 'Lords debates' OR in the 'Northern Ireland Assembly debates') speaker:Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 79, 81 to 83, 85, 87 to 91, 104, 106 to 108, 200 and 201. This group of amendments is a technical group necessary to improve the drafting of the Bill and to ensure that it achieves what is intended. Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 90 are minor amendments in connection with the new civil penalty of disqualification from holding a...

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: moved Amendment No. 10: Page 2, line 40, leave out ("in connection with any other assessment of maintenance"). On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, agreed to. Schedule 1 [Substituted Part I of Schedule 1 to the Child Support Act 1991]:

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The proposal has given rise to an interesting debate. The purpose of these amendments is to introduce an upper limit to the amount of maintenance that a non-resident parent is required to pay. This would reverse the Government's present intention that there should be no upper limit to the amount of maintenance payable. Amendments Nos. 14 and 17 seek to restrict the amount payable in respect...

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I did not mean to imply that the father's sole responsibility is that of providing cash support. I would certainly wish to see contact and loving support. But when it comes to determining proper apportionment, all the research indicates that children of an intact family take 30 per cent of its income--not just in terms of food and trainers but housing costs and the like. Therefore, it seems...

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I must challenge the noble Lord. I made it clear that the parent with care contributes her share of the maintenance by providing the lifestyle which the child enjoys by living with her.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The child is fed; has its clothes bought; the housing and heating costs paid; school costs, trainers and gym kit paid for. Is that not part of the parent-with-care's contribution in kind?

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is a financial contribution.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry to get under the noble Lord's feet. I am baffled by this. A child needs support. We know from all the research and experience abroad that in most families that takes around 30 per cent of their income; not in a narrow sense but in the broadest sense of living costs. That is how much is apportioned. The argument is simple. If the child needs that sum of money, it is reasonable to...

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I had not expected my noble friend to finish his contribution by talking about inheritance. However, these amendments seek to change the way that maintenance liability of a non-resident parent is calculated to take account of the income of the parent with care in certain prescribed circumstances. Amendment No. 12 provides for a reduction in the amount of maintenance payable where the parent...

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes. She would contribute more because the whole family would enjoy a higher standard of living in which the child would participate. Perhaps I may have another go at trying to see whether I can get the noble Lord to understand our position. I should like to suggest four reasons why this is a matter concerning the child's rights. The first is grounds of equity. I have already said that...

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Lord sits down I hope that I may respond. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is right to say that we are not taking the woman's unearned income into account; we are not taking the man's into account either. There is entire equity there. The unearned income is taken into account only if it is so substantial that it represents some kind of diversion; in other words, he declares...

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I cannot conceive of any circumstances where the parent with care has income where it is just to take that into account given the arguments I have set out. If one does that, one is effectively asking the parent with care to pay twice over, not only in terms of the cash payment of bills incurred as part of the care of the child but also in terms of a maintenance contribution because the other...

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think that it is unfair and that is why I said it.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Of course I would not expect the noble Earl to propose something that he believed to be unfair. However, the fact that he has a belief does not mean to say that the belief is correct. On this occasion I suggest to him that it is not. The provision we propose is fair and decent. The parent with care is providing in kind. That also means paying out cash. The absent parent is providing in cash...

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord may be going on to deal with this matter in which case I apologise. What is the noble Lord's response to the point I put to him that under the present scheme--for both simplicity and reasons of basic decency--we are not making any distinction between the biological children and the stepchildren in a second family? Does he accept my argument that if there are stepchildren in the...

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: So, under the noble Lord's formula, where the parent with care had an income of under £25,000, we would treat stepchildren and biological children in the second family in the same way; but if the income was £26,000, we would treat them differently?

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is a precise question. Does the noble Lord accept that the implication of the amendment is that the income of the new partner of the former husband--if I may genderise the issue--would now have to be taken into account if there were children in the second family?

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Statistics show that it is not worth it. The only situation in which people are required to come to the CSA is where she is on benefit and, for the most part, he may be on benefit or he may be in work. Other cases are private cases, and those involved in them can make whatever arrangements they wish. Essentially, they would only come to the CSA as a fall-back if there was a dispute....

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 15 seeks to change the way that child support liability is calculated in cases where the non-resident parent has children living with him in a second family. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, the amendment provides for the non-resident parent's liability to children in his first family to be a proportionate share of his liability for all the children in his first and second...

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (8 May 2000)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, that was indeed one of the areas of complexity that we did not want to get into--because, if we did, we should have to see whether the child support was adequate; we should have to chase the income of his new partner's ex-partner's income in order to make that calculation. Either we strip all of this out, on the grounds that the numbers are not worth the pursuit, or we include it all. I...


<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>

Create an alert

Did you find what you were looking for?

Advanced search

Find this exact word or phrase

You can also do this from the main search box by putting exact words in quotes: like "cycling" or "hutton report"

By default, we show words related to your search term, like “cycle” and “cycles” in a search for cycling. Putting the word in quotes, like "cycling", will stop this.

Excluding these words

You can also do this from the main search box by putting a minus sign before words you don’t want: like hunting -fox

We also support a bunch of boolean search modifiers, like AND and NEAR, for precise searching.

Date range

to

You can give a start date, an end date, or both to restrict results to a particular date range. A missing end date implies the current date, and a missing start date implies the oldest date we have in the system. Dates can be entered in any format you wish, e.g. 3rd March 2007 or 17/10/1989

Person

Enter a name here to restrict results to contributions only by that person.

Section

Restrict results to a particular parliament or assembly that we cover (e.g. the Scottish Parliament), or a particular type of data within an institution, such as Commons Written Answers.

Column

If you know the actual Hansard column number of the information you are interested in (perhaps you’re looking up a paper reference), you can restrict results to that; you can also use column:123 in the main search box.