Family Justice — 13 Dec 2004 at 21:49

The No-voters changed the motion for debate from:

This House agrees that on the separation of parents, priority should be given to the interests of the children; believes that it is in the best interests of all children for both parents to be fully involved in their upbringing and hence that separated parents should each have a legal presumption of reasonable contact with their children, except where a child's safety would be at risk, so that children are able to benefit from being parented by both their parents, as well as from contact with any grandparents and extended family members able and willing to play a role in their upbringing; regrets the Government's opposition to such a legal presumption, which will lead to yet more children being denied access to both their parents and their extended families; views with concern the Government's failure to implement the Early Intervention Project; and calls on the Government to replace the legal term 'contact' with 'parenting time', to introduce a legal presumption of co-parenting and to introduce early intervention in parental separation, with court-backed mediation and guidelines on parenting-time.


This House believes that, on the separation of parents, the welfare of the children should be the paramount consideration in any family court proceedings concerning the upbringing of a child, and recognises that children benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents after separation, so long as it is safe; congratulates the Government on the proposals in its consultation document Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities, which addresses the realities of the reform that is needed in family justice, including its commitment to legislate to improve facilitation of contact and enforcement of contact orders; notes that the use of the term 'parenting time' in place of 'contact' fails to recognise the important role of the extended family, including children's siblings, in children's upbringing and that contact orders are not only made in relation to parents; and deeply regrets the official Opposition's view that any presumption is needed in law beyond the principle that the welfare of the child is paramount.

which then passed automatically.

Debate in Parliament | Historical Hansard | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 135 (+2 tell)084.0%
DUP0 1014.3%
Independent1 0050.0%
Lab281 (+2 tell) 0069.5%
LDem0 31056.4%
PC1 1050.0%
Total:283 168071.3%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive