Welfare Reform Bill

During the past four weeks, and indeed at Second Reading, I felt the need to speak several times about rights and responsibilities. It is hardly surprising, then, that I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his endeavour to make it crystal clear that it is the responsibility—the duty, if you like—of both parents to look after the needs of any children that they bear, whether in or out of wedlock. Indeed, as the noble Lord said, this is the whole philosophy behind the Child Support Act, which, although altered several times by this Government, was introduced and enacted by my party in 1991. Although that Act is 99 per cent directed at the financial security of the child, it covers situations where the non-resident parent has a child living with him from time to time. The Salvation Army recently published a report entitled The Seeds of Exclusion. As yet, I have read only the executive summary. It has a couple of paragraphs headed "Childhood experiences", which point out that negative experiences in childhood have a significant bearing on experiences in adulthood. I accept that it is possible that single parents will have an ameliorating effect on that, but how much better would it be if both parents were involved, even if one of them were on a part-time basis. However, the best advice that I have ever heard given to young people was by the late Reverend Lord Soper. At the end of an "any questions" session in a school, the members of the panel were asked what advice they would give the audience. He replied, "Remember who your parents are", by which he meant, "Your parents’ standards should be your own". Perhaps he meant that but I could, of course, read it rather more cynically as, "Do you really want to grow up like them?". The Bill is trying to change the standards of those affected by it in various respects. Having both parents to look at and, it is hoped, to look up to is a worthy ambition and so I am right behind the amendment.