This current post provides the chance of debating "First versus Second
Families" - see below.
----------
TOPIC:
(Replies to questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security, from
Hansard, 23
Mar 1998). The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for
Women (Ms Harriet Harman):
(SNIP)
I invite the House to consider three further points. We face some difficult
choices in the necessary reform of child support.
First, what is the appropriate balance between the interests of the first
and second families?
(SNIP)
----------
MY STARTER FOR TEN:
The Government's mantra is: "Children are entitled to the financial and
emotional support of both parents wherever they may live". (The CSA is just
concerned with the finance part). So let's look at it from the child's
point of view.
Take a particular parent (the "xxther" - mother or father as you choose).
Then ALL children of that xxther should get the SAME financial support from
that xxther as the rest. ("A child is for life, not just for Christmas").
Financial support includes:
- consumables (clothes, food, etc)
- investment-in-life (education, etc)
- shelter (the marginal extra cost of a bigger house)
- care (ensuring that there is SOMEONE to care for the child)
So instead of "first" and "second" families, from each parents' view there
should be just extended families of children.
The finances should be evenly spread over all children concerned.
----------
John Ward