Wednesday, May 18, 2011

First evidence session of Child Maintenance Inquiry

It has been pointed out to me that the first evidence session of the Work & Pensions Committee's inquiry into Child Maintenance took place on Monday. The Committee was chaired by Dame Anne Begg and witnesses included Gingerbread, June Venters QC and Stephen Geraghty, former Commissioner of CMEC. A video of the meeting can be viewed here.


  1. Thanks very much for that John. I have just looked at it and will continue to do so.

    Some points spring to mind. 1. I like the woman on the left (as you look) the most and the woman on the right the second most.

    I found the bloke caring, but not really representing anyone. I make the point (again) that they have not invited families need fathers or fathers for justice, where they should have, but have gingerbread. That is a disgrace.

    2. Four Fifths of the room are female, half of those involved are male. They are over represnted. I'll go along if they like.

    3. They start with the false assumption that the nrp is richer than the pwc. This is not always the case (as in my situation), and undermines the respect they are seen in.

    A broad brush agreement imposed by women on men is REALLY asking for trouble and sadly will cause the same difficulties.

    I agree with the woman lawyer on the right (as you look) that the matter should go back to the courts.

    I like the way they consider contact as relavant. Not the way they want to play Robine hood with the NRP playing the wicked Sherriff. Not good at all or truthful!!! Or fair indeed. Should also have talked about shared care.

  2. The Gingerbread woman was remarkably narrow minded and not caring about the NRP or him and other children or families at all. Hope people see through her as I thought she was shallow.

    Did agree with the Dame, was a lively session. Think the Tories should never have got the Government involved in the first place with the csa. Can't see which way this is going. Whereever it goes (unless it goes back to the court and the legislation on this since 1992 is scrapped) it won't go there with much conviction or confidence from the sound of these people and these self proclaimed experts, with no evidence and 'progressive' nonsense.

  3. And the panel were all Labour politicians sadly. Not good or representative at all, but I think I may have said that. Just substantiating the point.

  4. At least its a better and more holistic debate than the original CSA debate. That's not saying much though. Doesn't make it a good debate though. Was not and is not for the reasons above.

    Sir David Henshaw's very considered advice at the end of his very detailed testimony to leave things as they are (with except of needing more computers), I do actually agree with.

    If not to go back to the courts, then, when in a hole, stop digging.


Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.