Welfare bill suffers Lords defeat over child support

 
House of Lords generic image The Welfare Reform Bill has already run into trouble in the Lords

Related Stories

The coalition has suffered its biggest defeat in the Lords since being elected over plans to charge single parents to use the Child Support Agency.

An amendment by Conservative peer Lord Mackay was backed by 270 votes to 128 - the largest in a series of defeats for the Welfare Reform Bill.

He argued it was unfair to charge lone parents who had tried and failed to get their ex-partners to pay maintenance.

The government said it would seek to overturn the defeat.

On Monday, the government was defeated in the Lords in a vote on its plans for a £26,000-a-year household benefit cap.

That amendment, put forward by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, was backed by Labour, Lib Dem and crossbench peers, but the government has insisted it will press ahead with the plan.

Wednesday's defeat over child support was by a majority of 142 - the previous largest defeat was a loss by 112 votes on plans to abolish the chief coroner.

The BBC's political correspondent Ben Geoghegan said the latest defeat was particularly significant, not just because of its scale but because the rebellion was led by a former Conservative minister and supported by so many party grandees.

The list of Tory rebels included former ministers Lord Lawson and Lord Carrington - who, like Lord Mackay, both served under Margaret Thatcher.

Cross-party support

The current system costs the taxpayer £460m a year and ministers say it leaves 1.5 million children without effective financial support.

Welfare Reform Bill

  • Has completed its Commons stages and is now in the Report (penultimate) stage in the Lords
  • Ministers have already said they they will overturn Lords defeats in Commons
  • Unless and until agreement on differences is reached the bill is likely to "ping-pong" between the Lords and Commons

They want to encourage parents to come to their own arrangements rather than relying on the state to set child maintenance payments.

They are seeking to introduce an up front charge of £100 or £50 plus a levy of up to 12% on maintenance payments if a single parent had taken "reasonable" steps to get the other parent to come to a voluntary agreement on child support.

The government says the poorest parents will only have to pay £20 up front and charges will not apply in cases where there has been domestic violence.

But Lord Mackay said: "I am entirely in favour of that but if that proves impossible where the woman is at the stage where there is nothing more she can do, the only thing she can do is pay.

"And what does that do? If anything that might make her not go to the Child Support Agency at all and the child may lose their maintenance."

Labour peer Lord Morris said he was "aghast" at the plan, asking: "What is the purpose of imposing on the most vulnerable people a charge of this kind?"

Tory peer Lord Newton of Braintree said he had "no problem with the case for reform", but the proposals were "not just".

Cross-bencher Baroness Butler-Sloss, a former family barrister and judge, said there were fathers "who would simply not pay".

She told peers: "The idea that a mother in very poor circumstances, where the father has left her with young children, who finds herself having to seek social benefit from the state which she may not have sought before ... she then has to pay a fee for the welfare of her children, where she may not have any money and he may have some, it is profoundly unfair."

'Financial incentive'

Speaking on behalf of the government, minister Lord De Mauley said Lord Mackay's amendment would require the state "to try to arbitrate" on whether a parent had taken reasonable steps.

Start Quote

It is right and fair that there is a charge for using a service that can cost the taxpayer around £25,000 per case”

End Quote Department for Work and Pensions spokesman

He said parents could challenge the decision, adding to the "cost and complexity" of the system, and even if they were allowed to offer a "self-declaration" that they had taken all reasonable steps, the scheme would cost £200 million to the end of March 2019.

He said there must be a "clear financial incentive" to encourage parents to reach their own maintenance settlements, adding: "We no longer require parents to use the CSA. We do not want it to be the default option.

"We don't want to return to the days when the state is encouraging parents to blame each other."

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: "We are disappointed that the Lords seem content to leave in place a system that has consistently failed children and we will seek to overturn this in the House of Commons.

"Our reforms would see a doubling of support for families going through a break-up to come to their own financial arrangements with a far improved statutory scheme in place for those that really need it.

"It is right and fair that there is a charge for using a service that can cost the taxpayer around £25,000 per case and almost half a billion pounds per year."

 

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    -22

    Comment number 95.

    It should be the responsibility of parent to bring up the children not the state, providing everything. If mother & father are unable to feed, cloth & provide a roof, they should be informed about contraception as well, as they know about all the benfits available.

  • rate this
    +33

    Comment number 79.

    They should charge the partner be that male or female. who refuses to pay and uses devious methods to get out of paying support like woring cash in hand, declaring bankrupcy hiding cash in the current partners / parents bank accounts etc.

  • rate this
    +37

    Comment number 78.

    From my experience the CSA are absolutely useless and they let my ex build up over £5k of arrears because of their incompetence so to ask people to pay for an almost non-existent service is unbelievable and just typical of this "out of touch with normal people" government. Have to add though that my local lib dem mp wrote to the CSA on my behalf and only that got their attention.

  • rate this
    +24

    Comment number 77.

    My ex used the CSA because she refused to communicate about ANY issues with me. She went to the CSA and received less money (i was paying more than the requirement). Why should i be surcharged because she is unwilling to communicate?

  • rate this
    +13

    Comment number 66.

    Common sense at last! If I had had to pay to use the service I wouldn't be getting ANYTHING. Why? Because in coming to a voluntary arrangement with my sometimes violent ex a) I would open myself up to manipulative mind games, b) I'd have to take his word on any income as I wouldn't have investigative powers, c) he'd never stick to the arrangement and I'd have no financial means to take action.

 

Comments 5 of 8

 

More Politics stories

RSS

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.