Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his amendment and for this group of amendments. Noble Lords will know that the Church of England has for many years keenly supported a just welfare system as one of the key building blocks of a civilised society. We have always been concerned to ensure that the welfare of children is maximised in any system of benefits and I believe that that must include times of economic challenge. Some noble Lords may know that in the consultation period we said that an effective and sensitive child maintenance system is one that should seek to help parents negotiate their parenting and financial responsibilities towards children. The system should also be operated in tandem with appropriate support services and not discourage people from using it by levying charges. If there are to be charges, surely those charges must apply only where parents can afford it and where maintenance is being paid. I have no difficulty over means testing if the end result is that the very poorest single parents will not face the £50 charge. It is very easy for us—I say, with respect, particularly for those in the south—to forget just how desperately poor some of our people are, and are increasingly becoming. In my own diocese, which covers virtually the whole of Lancashire, between 2007 and 2010 the proportion of areas falling in the most deprived 10 per cent in the county rose from 15 per cent to 17 per cent, the gross median weekly wage in most of the county is some £40 per week below the national average and, even more frighteningly, one-quarter of children live in families where the income is 60 per cent less than the average income. Something like £10 a week in maintenance for these families can be, unbelievably, a lifeline. My newspaper bill is nearly £16 a week, but £10 a week will make all the difference to these families. If a parent has to pay the Government up to 12 per cent of this simply because the other parent refuses to pay their maintenance, once again children will be deprived because of the unreasonable behaviour of the non-resident parent. I found some of the comments that Gingerbread has received from the thousands of parents who have expressed their concerns very moving. I refer to two in particular. One said: "““What people need to remember is that this is money for children—for their uniform, books, toys. People seem to think it is some form of alimony. It isn’t—it’s for a child who deserves better and the government is letting us down by putting through these charges””." Another said: "““Maintenance is the difference between surviving and building a way out of poverty””." They even spoke about saving a little for a rainy day, which we are always encouraged to do. The document went on: "““Surely his father owes him this? I try to do everything else. You are suggesting I lose out because his father won’t pay an agreed amount of his own volition””." Our real concern must be to ensure that disadvantaged children do not lose out in the future. If the average single parent family spends £43 a week on food and is asked to pay a £20 up-front fee and a further £30 application fee, where is it going to find that £43 to feed the family? As they say round our way, you must be having a laugh asking for that money. I think that that is the case. Such charges cannot be right. We must have a system that will safeguard the most vulnerable and not one that succeeds in discouraging low-income single parents, and those where the amount of maintenance likely to be paid is modest. If we cannot bring this about, the result will be that nearly half a million children still reliant on the statutory scheme to collect and, if necessary, enforce payment of child maintenance, will lose this vital source of income.