Less for the Least

There is scene in Alan Bleasdale’s ‘Boys from the Blackstuff’ when a world-weary DHSS manager (Jean Boht) advises an aggressive colleague from pursuing a prosecution against two unemployed builders, “We’d just be taking from people who have got nothing.”


The same could be said of the current Government plans to set charges on single parents for using the Child Support Agency. They would have to forego 12 per cent of their money; most are paid less than £20 a week.

The House of Lords inflicted a miserable defeat on the Government of 270 to 128 and so sent the unequivocal message that it would have to be amended. But then came brutally terse response from DWP, “We are disappointed the Lords seem content to leave in place a system which has consistently failed children...we will seek to overturn this in the Commons.”

Such defiance in the face of a decisive Parliamentary vote looked like pointless arrogant posturing. The rebels were led by former Tory ministers Lords Mackay and Newton. Even Brian Mawhinney voted against which should suggest a tactical retreat is called for. The Government’s position was to compel couples to seek voluntary agreements. The Child Support Agency was established because voluntary agreements we not workable. To charge the poorest of the poor for a dismal service amounts to a new low in the Victorian patriarchy of the DWP led by IDS and Chris Grayling (pictured).

The substantial defeat was simply ignored by invoking the little used "financial privilege" which was established in 1911 to prevent the peers rejecting Budgets. It can be used on a wider basis, subject to Speaker's agrement, but is a 'nuclear option' necessarily undermining the authority of the upper House. Clearly they don't care.