| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
| Date | Increase% |
The percentage increases to ministerial salaries for the last five years are given below:
| Date | Increase% |
There was no difference in the percentage salary increases between Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State or Parliamentary Under-Secretaries.
Further information on current and historical rates of ministerial salaries is available in the Libraries of the House.
All Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries are entitled to claim the same parliamentary allowances as any other hon. Members. Previously, Ministers were paid the London supplement as well as claiming additional costs allowance (ACA) for their constituency home unless they were provided with an official residence. This arrangement ceased on 1 April 2005 and now Ministers can opt to receive London supplement instead of eligibility for ACA.
Business Questions (Correction)
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Helen Goodman): During business questions on Thursday 15 May 2008, The Leader of the House said:
“My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has tabled a written ministerial statement on the report by Imelda Walsh, who conducted her review at the Government’s request. I thank her warmly for the work that she has done, and for her report.” (Official Report, 15 May 2008, Vol. 475, Col. 1549).
Unfortunately, this was incorrect insofar as it states that a written ministerial statement was issued. In fact, the Prime Minister announced in an oral statement on Wednesday 14 May that the Government would take forward the recommendations of the Walsh review to extend the right to request flexible working to parents of older children. The Walsh review was published on Thursday 15 May.
Work and Pensions
Joint Birth Registration: Recording Responsibility
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (James Purnell): My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Family and I are today announcing publication of a White Paper, “Joint Birth Registration: Recording Responsibility”, outlining the Government’s proposals to require unmarried parents to register the birth of a child jointly and to make birth registration a more accessible process.
In June 2007 the Government published a Green Paper seeking views on their proposals on making joint birth registration a legal requirement. There was a good level of response and today we are publishing a White Paper which sets out firm proposals which have been informed by the Green Paper consultation and further work on this issue. Copies of the White Paper are available from the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
Currently there are up to 45,000 children born in England and Wales each year who do not have both parents identified on their birth certificate. It is the Government’s ambition to significantly decrease the number of sole registrations in England and Wales.
Registering a birth is a significant act. It is one of the first milestones in the life of a child which can shape its future identity. It is also a key moment for parents, when a mother and father publicly acknowledge that they have responsibility for their child—not only as its legal representative, but also in the expectation that together they will safeguard and promote their child’s health, development and welfare.
“Joint Birth Registration: Recording Responsibility” sets out changes to the law in England and Wales to make joint birth registration a legal requirement for all unmarried parents unless this is decided by the registrar to be impossible, impracticable or unreasonable. Alongside this the White Paper sets out a series of non-legislative measures to promote and support joint birth registration and changes to give mothers a right to insist that the father acknowledges his responsibilities to his child by registering on the birth certificate. Equally, it gives a father a new right to insist that he is registered.
Last year’s Green Paper acknowledged that there will be situations where a joint registration is not a possible or desirable outcome and so set out a list of specific exemptions where a sole registration would be permitted. Following response from stakeholders, we have broadened these exemptions to cover situations where the registrar believes a joint registration would be impossible, impracticable, or unreasonable. Mothers will not be required to name fathers, and fathers will not be permitted to be recorded if a joint registration would compromise the safety and well-being of the child or mother. In developing legislation the Government will work further with stakeholders to ensure the protection of vulnerable women and children.
| Index | Home Page |