HL Deb 02 July 1996 vol 573 cc1403-18

9.22 p.m.

Earl Russell rose to move to resolve, That the draft Child Benefit, Child Support and Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 be not proceeded with, and that this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to lay amended regulations which take account of the costs of lone parenthood and leave future changes in benefits more clearly subject to parliamentary control.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, last November there appeared in the Guardian, I know not by what means, a memorandum from the Secretary of State to the Treasury. In that memorandum he set out the view that if his changes designed for the public expenditure round are put forward through primary legislation, he might face a serious risk of defeat in votes. He therefore proposed to introduce them so far as possible by regulation.

The Minister will understand that, in saying that, the Secretary of State has led me into temptation. For most of today the Minister has been dealing with the consequences of one of those attempts to produce change by legislation and I really must say to him after so short a time that we cannot go on meeting like this! In the circumstances, I believe that the Secretary of State might have been wiser to deal with this by means of primary legislation.

We are also continuing a debate, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was joining not long ago, about what appears to many of us to be a process of victimisation; a picking, in the course of a search for expenditure savings, on those least able to defend themselves and from whom, for the very same reason, often the smallest savings can be expected.

The Minister tends to join argument with us on the question of whether there should be savings. We join argument with him on the question of whether he is looking for those savings sensibly or in the right place. That is an argument which I hope will continue and to which I shall return later in my speech.

The effect of the regulations before us, which are manifold and as usual extremely technical and complicated to follow, is an amalgamation of benefits; to amalgamate single parent premium and one-parent benefit with the overall structure of benefits and especially with child benefit. The Government, in paragraph 7 of their reply to the Social Security Advisory Committee, admit frankly that they are doing this because they believe in what they perhaps euphemistically call a narrowing of the differential between benefits for single parents and benefits for others.

Be that as it may—and I do not agree with it and shall return to it in a few moments—that raises the possibility of a constitutional issue because, of course, once the benefits have been merged with each other, we shall no longer be able to take in separate regulations or as a separate issue any attempt to narrow the differential between single parents and other parents. That is a policy issue on which the House is entitled to an opinion. The matter will come before us only on the social security uprating statement.

I imagine that the Minister is familiar with paragraph 12 of the Social Security Advisory Committee's Report. However, our primary concern in that report is with the legal consequences of implementing the proposals. It would provide the Secretary of State with much better flexibility to adjust differential benefit provision for one and two-parent families. The freezing of one-parent benefit and the lone-parent premium in the uprating order for 1996–97 demonstrates that some flexibility already exists and some respondents have suggested to us that that provides an adequate answer since, over time, the differential could be reduced.

Therefore, in effect the Secretary of State is taking power to let the benefit advantage existing for single parents wither on the vine. That is a pattern with which child benefit has made us familiar. While it may be argued in theory that some possibility of parliamentary control still exists, the Motion to resolve may be a very flexible instrument. However, it really is not practical to use that against the social security uprating statement. If the Motion to resolve is to have any teeth at all, it must be in the words that the regulations be not proceeded with and the Government lay amended regulations which specify the savings.

If we were to move that the social security uprating regulations be not proceeded with, we should be taking money out of so many people's pockets and food out of so many people's mouths that, in effect, it would be politically impossible. Therefore, the Secretary of State is taking any attempt at a further reduction of the differential between single and other parents out of the range of parliamentary control. It is that which I regard as a constitutional issue, and I make no apology for using that phrase.

I do not believe the facts of the Secretary of State's argument to be correct. I have a great sheaf of evidence here and the House may be relieved to hear that I shall not go through it all. I am sure that the noble Baroness will find plenty more. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently found, looking at the family expenditure survey, that the costs of a child aged 11 in a one-parent family are typically 30 per cent. of those of a single adult but, in a two-parent family, they are around 20 per cent. of those of a single adult. For children aged 11 to 18, it was found that the costs of a child for a lone parent are about 50 per cent. of those for a single adult compared with less than 30 per cent. for a two-parent family.

That seems to me to accord with common sense because many of the costs fall on one parent just as they would on two. For example, the costs of heating and electricity and much of the basic maintenance such as the replacing of a fridge, if one is lucky enough to be able to do that, are not doubled by the presence of the extra parent.

It is also the perennial problem of fox, goose and cabbage. While my wife was doing work for publication, I have taken charge of the children and attempted to do some juggling. People may say that I do not know very much but at least my ignorance is not total. I found that I always had to be in two places at once and therefore the travel costs were always higher than they would otherwise have been. That is a problem which many people face and it is a substantial part of why single parents are worse off than other parents.

The level on which that is happening is a very low one. If the Minister would look at Nutrition and Diet in Lone Parent Families in London by Elizabeth Fowler and Claire Calvert, he will find a good deal of support for that view. Indeed, he will find, for example, that 35 per cent. of lone parents on low income do not have adequate bedding for all the members of their household. He will also find that 31 per cent. of them lack hot water and that 38 per cent. have a problem with damp. Problems with damp tend to lead to illness. The Minister will talk about saving money. I shall suggest to him that he is simply exporting his costs and landing them on his noble friend Lady Cumberlege. It is not fair to her, to the Exchequer or, indeed, to lone parents.

I am sure that the Minister will run through all the arguments about the taxpayer that he has made before. I believe that the Minister's economies are false economies. I would advise him to look carefully at the research carried out by Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, and others, on The Employment of Lone Parents—A comparison of policies in 20 countries. It is the comparative evidence which really explains why we have so big a problem with paying benefits to lone parents. I will agree with the Minister in that there is a problem.

In the 1960s, only 10 per cent. of single parents were on national assistance. The figure is now nearly 70 per cent., whereas the figure in Germany is still very much what it was in the 1960s; namely, about 10 per cent. That differential must be addressed. I strongly support the right of parents, especially those with young children, to stay at home and not work. I make no suggestions as regards any change in the availability rules. However, when single parents want to work it is a wanton waste of public money to prevent them from so doing. It is cruel to them and it is often unfair to the children, because a happy parent is easier to live with than a frustrated one. Moreover, it deprives the Exchequer of a great deal of revenue.

Therefore, if the Minister starts invoking the interest of taxpayers I shall reply to him, "I am a taxpayer as well as you". There is more to it. A great deal of it seems to result from the cost of childcare. One of the key findings of the comparative study is that we have one of the lowest proportions of single parents working in any of the 20 countries studied. I believe that we come 19th out of 20. We also have one of the most striking differentials between the number of married parents working and the number of single parents at work. Indeed, in many countries there are actually more single parents who work than is the case with married parents. The situation is very much the reverse in this country.

One needs to look at what is actually going on. Professor Bradshaw found that the United Kingdom has the most expensive childcare of any of the countries in his study. The average figure that he found was £347 per month, or 28 per cent. of average earnings. The Minister knows that I have welcomed many times the disregard introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do so again tonight. However, it comes nowhere near that figure. Once again, the Minister will have to face the possibility that he might actually save money by spending a little. Indeed, that is something that every household has to face and perhaps the Minister will also be able to do so.

The next finding in the study was that disregards are much lower in all the other countries reviewed. It was found that housing benefit tapers, or the equivalent, are a great deal steeper in other countries. The rise in housing costs as people begin to work is exceptionally steep in this country, and the interaction between housing costs and childcare costs produces the poverty trap.

If the Minister wants to save money on lone parents—as I accept he does, and as he legitimately may—it is far better, both for the Exchequer and for them, to set them free to do what they want than to introduce niggling little measures of this sort. He may be interested to know that Professor Bradshaw and his colleagues have also reported that in all the 20 countries they have studied, maintenance is not the answer to the problems they have been studying. They also draw attention to the exceptionally poor leave provisions in the United Kingdom—in particular the lack of any parental leave in which the father can join. In many of these families there was once a father; in many of the others one hopes that in future there may be a father or a step-father.

In general, the way in which the problem of childcare must be resolved is in more and more involvement of both parents. The Equal Opportunities Commission is now taking up as many cases on behalf of men as on behalf of women. The rights of men to take part in childcare will be one of the big issues of equality for which to argue in the future. Before single parents can even meet the men, they have to be able to go out into the world of work. For a woman who has been at home with children that is often her only social life. There are a great many reasons why I think the Minister has taken quite the wrong approach, and why I think what he is doing is not at all in the interests of the taxpayer. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Draft Child Benefit, Child Support and Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 be not proceeded with, and that this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to lay amended regulations which take account of the costs of lone parenthood and leave future changes in benefits more clearly subject to Parliamentary control.—(Earl Russell.)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, as we know, most lone parents are divorced, separated or have come out of a longstanding relationship—an event likely to traumatise their children. However, I appreciate that the Minister forbids us to use that word. Essentially, therefore, the Government are freezing, and therefore reducing, benefits for lone parents, presumably in the belief that people are lone parents because the benefits are so generous. That tends to be the argument the Government use whether it is a case of asylum seekers or anyone else. In the Government's view people behave inappropriately because the system is so generous.

Yet at the same time the Government acknowledge that lone parents live in deep poverty. Three-quarters of lone parents and their children were living on or below the poverty line in 1992, compared with fewer than one in five children of two-parent families. To put it another way, 40 per cent. of lone parents have an income below f100 a week compared with only 4 per cent. of those living in two-parent families. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, commented on the Joseph Rowntree research and the implications of poverty. I am sure we would all agree—I think we would not disagree with the Minister—that the only long-term way out of poverty is to re-enter the labour market. Benefits can never produce an adequate standard of living by comparison with what the labour market should be able to provide, particularly if it is buttressed by a minimum wage.

However, as the noble Earl rightly said, these people are unable to re-enter the labour market because childcare costs are not met, even with the latest uprating of the childcare allowance, which in any case is of no value at all to anyone on full family credit. I am not at all convinced that it is right for a lone parent of a young child to be pressed against his will, or by extreme poverty, into the labour market.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, commented on the Bradshaw figures which compared Britain with the rest of Europe in terms of the proportion of lone parents who are not in work. He is right, but I suspect that if one looks back at the earlier Bradshaw research, one will find that is because lone parents in Britain tend to be younger than most lone parents in Europe. They therefore have younger children and the deciding factor both for lone parents and for women in a longstanding relationship as to whether or not they go out to work is the age of their child and not their marital status. I think I am right in saying that about 65 per cent. of all women parents are in full or part-time work once their child passes the age of 11, whereas only about 26 per cent. of those whose youngest child is below the age of five are in such work.

Therefore in a sense we are not exactly comparing like with like once we accept that in Britain, for various reasons, lone parents on the whole tend to be younger than their European counterparts, are more likely to have younger children and are therefore less likely to be in work. I understand that two-thirds of lone parents have children under five years. That would seem to give support to that evidence.

I believe that there is no disagreement—the Bradshaw research and subsequent revisiting of the issue by various studies by Katherine Keirnan and others have indicated—that lone parents want to work. It is striking that once the youngest child is over five years the majority of those lone parents work either full-time or part-time.

The latest research on lone parents and work—I believe that it was commissioned by the DSS—indicates the factors that stop lone parents from entering the labour market. They may become lone parents quite late in life. A divorced woman in her late 40s or early 50s may lack the skills to re-enter the labour market. Alternatively, they may be extremely poorly educated without GCSE qualifications. I am sure we all agree that JET-type programmes or GAIN programmes suitably tailored for the UK are the right way forward.

There is a growing problem about which I was not aware until I read the more recent research. Increasingly something like one lone parent in six is prohibited from re-entering the labour market either because the lone parent or his or her child has a disability or a serious health problem. As we know, disability can break up a marriage. The costs when either that lone parent or the child is disabled are extremely high. Will the Government consider mitigating the worst effect of these regulations on lone parents where there is a disabled member of the family by raising the level of the disabled child's premium, or the disability premium, to cover the moneys lost by freezing rates to lone parents?

I realise that the Minister may not wish to respond to that point tonight, but I shall be grateful if he will at least consider the matter. All the research now seems to suggest that while most lone parents churn through (if I may use that rather ugly phrase) income support—the median time on income support is only about two-and-a-half years; the labour market, family credit, perhaps a full-time job, and back to income support—those who stay on income support for the longest period are those who enter lone parenthood in their 40s, have low educational background qualifications or a disabled child. As we know, where there is disability there are huge additional costs as well as stresses. If the Minister will consider that point, we shall be grateful.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell stated—I am sure he is right—the purpose of the regulations: that the Government seek to avoid the legal challenges experienced in recent weeks by incorporating one-parent benefit into child benefit and lone-parent premium into income support and family premiums. Whether it is legal for government to do that is not entirely clear. Section 145(4) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 states that, No rate prescribed in place of a rate previously in force shall be lower than the rate it replaces". I believe that I have the correct phrase. Hence the Government are clearly unable to do what they would like to do; that is, to cut the benefit. Instead they seek to restructure the benefit by incorporating single-parent benefits into two-parent benefits, thus freeing them from Section 145 which would prohibit a lone-parent benefit, as it stands, from being reduced. In other words, the Government are using restructuring to cover freezing and ultimate cuts.

We regret the loss of one-parent benefit. Although it is incorporated in income support, it is disregarded for purposes of family credit. It is, therefore, a valuable passport from welfare into work, which we all want. It is not tapered; it is not means-tested; it is not a disincentive to move into work; it is not cut as earnings rise. Over half a million lone parents gain from that. They will not do so in future. Frankly, I believe that the Government are making a great mistake.

We are unhappy about these changes. However, having said that, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, moved a Motion which, if we were to support it, let alone if he were to win it, would turn out to be fatal. The elected House has already voted these regulations through. I may regret that; I may deplore it; but they have done so. If an unelected, appointed and largely hereditary House should effectively vote the regulations down, we should be challenging the hegemony of the Commons because, unlike an amendment to a Bill, the Commons could not overturn our vote. We should not merely be asking the Commons to think again, which is perfectly proper; we should be overturning a Commons decision which the Commons could not rescind. By any democratic test, that would be offensive and improper. As a result, although I entirely support the substance of what the noble Earl said, if he were to pursue the matter to a vote we would abstain. In my view, it would be improper for us to seek to overturn what the elected House determined.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Northbourne

My Lords, as I expected, the noble Earl and the noble Baroness have made a number of effective and detailed remarks about the Government's proposals. I intend to make two more widely focused comments which I hope the Minister will be prepared to bear in mind when making the decisions which the Government clearly intend to make as a result of passing the regulations.

I recognise that the Government are on the horns of a dilemma on the issue of single parent benefits. I wish to make two points which should inform the Government in any decision they make. The first is that the committed two-parent family, supporting and caring for its own children, often with the support of the extended family, is generally agreed on average to be the family structure which gives children the best chance of growing up with the love, support and care that they need. I do not say that it is the only structure, nor that it always succeeds, but that it is the most likely to. It is also the family structure which secures the children's upbringing at the least cost to the state and taxpayer. Thus any government who produce tax benefit structures which discourage parents from bringing up their children in a family of two committed parents living together are no friend of children nor of the taxpayer.

The second point is very different. It relates to encouraging lone parents to take employment. There is substantial evidence, both in this country and the United States, that for the healthy emotional development of a young child under the age of two or three, it is critically important that the child should be looked after consistently by one or at most two adults to whom he or she can learn to relate and with whom he or she feels secure. The converse is that a very young child who suffers constant changes in its care and the person who looks after it will tend to become confused and insecure. To provide a consistent, one-person, high quality care, unless it is provided by the mother or a member of the child's family, is possible but very expensive.

I suggest, therefore, that in framing their tax benefits policy, the Government should have in mind two governing principles. The first is not to do anything which will discourage parents from forming long-term stable partnerships, preferably in marriage. The second is not to do anything which will discourage those mothers who want to from caring full-time for their own child during the first two years of its life.

9.48 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I wish to respond to the Motion put by the noble Earl. In doing so it might be for the convenience of the House if I explain the purpose of the regulations standing in my name on the Order Paper which were laid before the House on 5th June.

We are all agreed that this is a difficult problem. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the ideal situation for bringing up a child is undoubtedly in a two-parent family. I may he old-fashioned, as perhaps the noble Lord is, but we probably all agree with the proposition that that is the best possible situation for bringing up children. Unfortunately, over the past few years in this country the growth in the numbers of lone parents has been quite dramatic. I believe I am right in saying that it has been faster than in most other countries around the world, certainly in Europe.

The proportion of one-parent families increased from 12 per cent. of all families with children in 1980 to 23 per cent. in 1994. Of that group, the number of single lone mothers—unmarried mothers, as perhaps my politically incorrect explanation would have it—has almost doubled in the past five years. Single mothers between the ages of 20 and 29 are the fastest growing group of lone parents.

Undoubtedly this is a serious problem. It is certainly not good for the children and it is not good for the mothers themselves. I have no intention of launching into any kind of homily on the subject, but it is something that we ought to note, and we ought to be prepared to say loudly and clearly to young girls that being a lone parent is not a sensible course of action on which to set out. It is not good for the girl herself; nor is it good for the child. I hope we are all agreed on that.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister would accept this but, given that his words will be read in Hansard, I am sure he will want to be the first to say that the figure for teenage mothers, that is, under 20 year-olds—he is talking about "girls" so I assume he is referring essentially to teenagers—is less than 8 per cent. It is falling and is among the lowest in Europe. The average age for someone to become a lone parent is in the later twenties. For the most part it is at the end of the break-up of a stable relationship. Three-quarters of all children born to lone parents have two parents on the birth certificate. I assure the Minister that my information comes from the Rowntree Trust and from well-established research at the University of York.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I have little doubt that every child has two parents. That is a biological fact. The problem is that not all of them have two parents from birth. I said that about one-third are single lone mothers, and I emphasised the word "single". My point is that the number of single lone mothers almost doubled in the five years to 1994. I pointed out that the fastest growing group was of mothers between 20 and 29. If I use the word "girls" it is perhaps because in Scotland it has a different connotation from that which the noble Baroness puts on it, and there is not considered to be much of an age differential when one refers to ladies as "girls". So perhaps I ought simply to say "ladies" of 20 to 29—

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

It is getting worse!

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, that is because the noble Baroness, from the South of England and these cultured shores, is not used to the terminology of Scotland. But let us not argue. The fact is that these ladies, if she wishes me to call them ladies instead of girls—

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

They are "women".

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

These ladies between 20 and 29 certainly seem to be the fastest growing group of single, mothers resulting in lone parent families.

These regulations will incorporate the lone parent premium which has been paid in income-related benefits into the family premium, and it will also incorporate one-parent benefit into the main child benefit rates.

The aim is to provide a more flexible framework within which the Secretary of State can, at each uprating, review the appropriate level of special support for lone parents. He will of course, as he is obliged to do, consider all relevant factors and, when they permit, these regulations will allow him to narrow the gap between the level of both family premium and child benefit received by lone parents and couples. We have chosen this approach because the pace of change will be gradual. So people will be given plenty of time to adjust and there will be no cash losers.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is concerned about the degree of parliamentary control which the new arrangements will bring about. Not counting his Motion this evening, this will be the sixth occasion here and in another place on which Parliament has had an opportunity to discuss our intentions. So the basic principle has received a fair amount of parliamentary attention.

In terms of progress towards narrowing the benefit gap, our intention is to take decisions year by year in the context of the uprating. The uprating announcement is the subject of a Statement in both Houses and of an affirmative order debated in both Houses. Although by convention the order is not opposed, there is still an opportunity to bring concerns to the attention of Parliament. Noble Lords here and honourable Members in the other place will have four occasions a year to raise this issue, as well as all the other opportunities provided by the rules of both Houses for discussing issues of concern, including this one.

The noble Earl and the noble Baroness argue that lone parents are a poor group and should have extra help within the benefits system. They are a poor group, largely because the majority rely on income support which is designed to provide an adequate but not a lavish lifestyle. Lone parents will never be well off unless they can earn their way out of income support. That is why we have concentrated all our efforts on providing pathways out of income support. So the key issue is not whether lone parents on income support are badly off but whether they have greater needs than couples with children on income support.

If we look at work, the Bradshaw Report was mentioned by the noble Earl. The proportion of lone parents in work did indeed fall in the 1980s in line with the increase in the number of single, never married, lone parents with very young children. Obviously, single, never-married lone parents who become lone parents at day one, so to speak, of the child's existence are going to be quite a big percentage of the group with under five year-old children. Our work incentive measures have started to reverse this trend in the 1990s. The proportion in work had risen from a low point of 39 per cent. to 43 per cent. by 1993, reflecting, I believe, the success of the improvement in family credit.

But of course there is a difficulty of deciding whether lone parents should go to work or whether they should stay at home and look after the children, which is the second point the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made. That is a difficult one. It is a difficult dilemma for lone parents because undoubtedly, as I said, they are not going to find themselves well off on benefit. That would be a serious behavioural consequence. If we put up benefits significantly they would have relatively no incentive to go to work.

Equally, they have to decide whether, given their talents, they would be better off in work in the same way as many two-parent families decide whether or not both parents should work. Indeed, an increasing number of families in this country, for a number of reasons, including correct changes in the way we look at women's participation in the labour market, have two wage earners, partly because they like the advantage of two wages but also because increasingly women have every right to careers on their own account. I am sure the noble Baroness agrees with me absolutely on that. These two-parent families with wages coming in also have problems with childcare, so they are in the same position as lone parents. But there is a problem getting lone parents into the labour market.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I do not want to keep intervening but again that statement is not supported by the evidence. The evidence is that three-fifths of households are now two-income families, one-fifth are unemployed and one-fifth have one earner. The reason why only women can afford to work if their partner is in work is two-fold. First, you do not have the poverty trap created by the benefits system. Secondly, two parents mean two sets of in-laws and two sets of opportunities for informal Box and Cox childcare. All the research shows that that is why the wives in a two-party relationship where the husband is in work are able to work. Those opportunities are denied to the single parent.

10 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I do not want to continue the debate on this line but I think there is more to it than the simple economic factors that the noble Baroness has given. I strongly suspect there is a lot of evidence that people who are in work are more likely to marry partners who are also in work. Therefore, I think there are other aspects, although I do not deny that the points the noble Baroness has made play a part. It is not a complete picture by any manner of means.

I turn to the problem of getting lone parents into the labour market. I accept that lone parents have difficulty getting into the labour market. One of the problems, is that many lone parents, especially single unmarrieds, do not have a high educational achievement and therefore their skills are rather limited and their ability to find jobs is that much more limited. I accept that. I also accept that there is evidence of higher than usual incidence of ill health and disability among the children. But the major pilot scheme that we announced last December alongside the proposed changes that I am making will give direct job focused assistance to get lone parents into work. That, we believe, will be more effective in raising lone parents' living standards than, for example, the JET-type schemes in Australia which focus on training.

The evidence from GAIN in America, especially the county in which it has been most successful, is that the most important thing for lone parents is to get them jobs—not so much to get them training as to get them jobs. That is where the real advantage comes. Therefore the pilot that we are doing, directed at getting lone parents into employment, is very important.

I believe that there is no solid evidence to back up the assumption that lone parents need proportionately more money than do couples. The noble Earl tells me that a lone parent with one child has two mouths to feed and a couple with one child has three mouths to feed. When I battled away on another of the Rowntree reports, which figured something called the Gini coefficient, it divided income by the number of mouths to feed in the household. But when I come to look at lone parents, somehow or other the Gini coefficient is set aside and we do not look at that. I do not think that it is necessarily true that lone parents have so much higher costs than a family couple with the same number of children. In fact, other than childcare costs for lone parents, the research by Professor Bradshaw showed that, relative to budget standards, lone parents on income support are slightly better off than couples. Certainly, at certain levels of income from work, lone parents can be better off than couples with the same income from work with the same number of children—one child each, for example. So I do not believe that the case has been properly made out that lone parents have such significantly higher costs—a two parent one child family, let us say, as against a one parent one child family—that we should have the differential in child benefit proposed.

I have outlined some of the reasons why we have decided to have these regulations. I have instanced the increase in the number of lone parent families—three-quarters of a million in 1975; one and a half million in 1994. Their dependence on social security benefits has also increased: 40 per cent. relied on supplementary benefit in 1971; 65 per cent. relied on income support by 1994. Although our work incentive measures have begun to reverse that trend, there is still a substantial extra cost to the taxpayer. I am sorry to mention the poor old taxpayer but he, after all, pays the bill. Benefit expenditure on lone parents is estimated to be £9.5 billion in 1995–96.

We believe quite firmly that lone parents should have neither preferential nor adverse treatment. We want a system that helps and encourages people to support themselves and their families and which minimises the burden on taxpayers generally. Our strategy has three elements. The first is to ensure that both parents take responsibility for their children and that maintenance is properly paid. Maintenance provides an incentive for lone parents to improve their standard of living by seeking work. Over 83,000 working lone parents receive family credit and they also receive maintenance. It is that other parent who I believe has a responsibility before the taxpayer to maintain his child, even though he may no longer live—indeed may never have lived—with the mother and the child.

Our second objective is to encourage lone parents to take up work. Although I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about under five year-olds, I think one could argue the point about under five year-olds both ways. It rather depends on the economic advantage that the lone parent can gain by going into work. In order to ensure that lone parents are better off in work, we have reformed the structure of family credit. We have provided extra help with child care costs of up to £60 a week. I was pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, welcomed that.

If we compare ourselves with other countries, very few other countries take the same view as we do about lone parents and their obligation to seek work. As I recall, we take the view that under 16 years they do not have an obligation. Many of our friends in Europe, for example, have cut-off points at 11 and at five, after which they expect lone parents to look for work. Since 1992 over 200,000 lone parents have moved from income support into work, supported by family credit, and they have gained an average of £30 a week. New measures to help them further include the faster processing of family credit claims, with 90 per cent. of the claims being dealt with in five days. This improvement removes the financial uncertainty by ensuring that there is no gap in income between leaving income support and receiving their first wages.

The pilots I have mentioned should provide opportunities for up to 30,000 lone parents in the pilot phase. That will be coupled with an increase of 18,000 over three years in the 50,000 after-school child care places already made available. None of these measures will force a lone parent to take up work if she prefers to be a full-time parent, but all of them are geared to trying to make sure that if a lone parent wishes to take work then the opportunities are there.

The third objective, as I have already mentioned, is to ensure even-handed treatment of couples and lone parents. That is the guiding principle behind these regulations.

On one-parent benefit, it is important to remember that in 1976 this was originally a temporary advance payment of child benefit for lone parents, because the main child benefit scheme was delayed. Mr. Frank Field, chairman of the Social Security Select Committee in another place, has pointed out that it was, and I quote, never part of any strategy; merely an attempt at a quick fix to appease furious voters". He wrote that in the Daily Mirror on 5th September, 1995. The then Secretary of State—now the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn—said in another place when the Child Benefit Bill was introduced: So there is to be an interim benefit of £1.50 a week for the one-parent family for a year from April 1976 until the child benefit scheme comes into effect … the benefit is purely a temporary one".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/5/76; cols. 337 and 339.] Improvements in help for people in work means that the situation is now very different. Instead of being financially disadvantaged, a lone-parent in work will have more net income than a couple at the same level of gross earnings. The same argument occurs in the lone-parent premium. The single rate is 64 per cent. of the couple rate. A lone-parent will receive at least 73 per cent. of what an equivalent couple family receive before adding the lone-parent premium. It is clearly unfair that this modest differential should further be eroded by a special payment to lone parents.

Finally, perhaps I can say a word about the jobseeker's allowance and the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Pilot Scheme) (Amendment) Regulations, which were laid before the House on 10th June. This amendment is merely to correct the omission which crept into the original regulations when the Maidstone B office was omitted. I am sure your Lordships will be perfectly happy about that.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said I should try not to tempt him into dividing. Perhaps I may suggest that the right reverend Prelate reminds him that one should yield not to temptation. I hope that today, as on other days, I have explained what we are about—not about penalising lone parents but simply putting lone parents and married couples on exactly the same footing when it comes to receiving child benefit and the family premium. We believe that is a right and proper way in which to proceed.

Earl Russell

My Lords, after this afternoon it has been a real pleasure to return to discussing a subject about which we merely disagree. We do disagree quite considerably, mostly about questions which are reducible to evidence and therefore about questions we can usefully go on discussing. I did promise myself this afternoon that if the Minister were once again to invoke the interests of the taxpayer—this mythical single being—I would tell him the story of Mrs. Clare Booth Luce and the Pope. Mrs. Clare Booth Luce, as one or two of your Lordships may remember, was a very doughty figure, a daughter of the American Revolution, U.S. ambassador to the Vatican under President Eisenhower, and a person with whom it was not generally wise to argue. She had an audience with the Pope at 11 o'clock. Another audience was fixed for 12. The next person was there at 12, but there was no sign of the Pope. At 12.15 the secretary knocked. There was no answer. At 12.30 the secretary knocked very loudly indeed. There was no answer. At a quarter to one the secretary took his courage in both hands and went in—and found the Pope cowering in the corner saying, "But my dear Mrs. Luce, I am a Catholic". I am a taxpayer—and I hope that the Minister will not again forget it.

When the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, says that two parents are generally better than one, I give him instant and total consent. If he had left out the word "generally", it would have been quite another matter.

The Minister suggested that I give advice to young girls. I advise him that I am not in the business of preaching ways of life to young girls. I think that a lot of them are better qualified to make decisions on that than I am. I agree with John Stuart Mill that if the behaviour complained of is as detrimental as alleged, the example must be rather a salutary warning than otherwise.

I shall not again go into the whole question of the costs on single parents. It seems to me that the Minister is on weak ground there and that most people's ordinary experience, as well as the bulk of research, is against him. Commonsense is not something conclusive on which to rely, but where commonsense and research both say the same thing, I am at least tempted to believe them and I want some fairly good evidence before I do anything else.

The Minister admits that the basic intention is to narrow the gap. I grant him that Parliament may discuss things, but discussing and controlling are not the same thing. Ministers listen with a certain care when they expect votes which they do not always bring to every occasion. However, everybody is human, so I say no more. I have no moral objection to what the Minister said about the other parent, but I think that he should study Professor Bradshaw's findings in all his 20 countries that that arrangement simply does not yield results. It does not in any sufficient quantity bring in the bacon. That may be a pity, but it appears to be a fact. Attempts in this country to change it have not yet led to any success.

I was extremely interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said about the figures on disability. On her point about age, yes, Professor Bradshaw did say that it was a significant point and that it accounted for part of the differential. He also said that it did not account for all of it. I imagine that there is no argument between us on that.

I was also extremely interested in what the noble Baroness said about Section 145 of the 1992 Act. The possibility of a challenge by the courts is interesting, but I also listened carefully to her noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg on 5th June and I have read the article on his public lecture on the relationship between the Executive and the judges. The noble Lord argued that a great deal of the tension between the Executive and the judiciary is because of a defect of democratic control; because we are leaving things to be done by the judges which we ought to be doing ourselves. I agree. This is the second such example in one day's parliamentary business. We are leaving too much to the judges.

I heard what the noble Baroness said about another place. One must, of course, give due weight to the will of another place, but I do not feel such entire reverence towards it as the elected Chamber as the noble Baroness appears to feel. That is because I am by no means convinced that another place represents the people any better than we do—

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Oh!

Earl Russell

My Lords, that is not just a matter for our own party. It is also because the other place contains no Cross Benches—and a place that contains no Cross Benches cannot represent the people adequately. The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Kempston, shakes his head. I should be most eager to give way to him if he could explain why he does so. I am quite prepared to listen. I do not have an iconoclastic reverence for another place.

I believe that the Motion to Resolve is a very sensible compromise. But it takes two to compromise. The noble Baroness and her party have chosen on this occasion not to join in this compromise, so the Motion to Resolve does not serve its declared purpose. I am not prepared to leave the whole work of challenging regulations to the judiciary. We have spent a good deal of today dealing with the mess that that creates. I believe that Parliament ought to shoulder its own responsibilities. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.