The Mothers’ Union was one of the signatories supporting a Gingerbread letter to The Times which was published yesterday.
The letter stated:
The government is consulting on plans to charge parents in need of child maintenance for using its child support service. Not only will they face an application charge of £100 (£50 if on benefit), but any child maintenance paid via the collection service will be reduced by ongoing charges of up to 12 per cent. With a week to go before the consultation deadline, we urge the government to think again about its charging proposals. Whilst we support the government’s wish to develop more support services to assist separated parents to cooperate, penalising vulnerable parents when their ex-partners do not contribute satisfactorily to their children’s maintenance does not resolve the issue of the reluctant parent nor does it encourage them to make regular and consistent payments. It just exacerbates the child’s disadvantage and increases the vulnerability of those left directly caring for their children. For the sake of the children concerned, the government must reconsider.
Signatories included:
Rt Rev.Tim Stevens – Bishop of Leicester
Rt Rev. Nicholas Steward Reade – Bishop of Blackburn
Reg Bailey – Chief Executive
Mothers Union
Bob Reitemeier – Chief Executive
The Childrens Society
Anne Marie Carrie – Chief Executive
Barnardos
Paul Ennals – Chief Executive
NCB
Gillian Guy – Chief Executive
Citizens Advice
Fiona Weir – Chief Executive
Gingerbread
Helen Dent CBE – Chief Executive
Family Action
Alison Garnham – Chief Executive
Child Poverty Action Group
Dr Katherine Rake OBE – Chief Executive
Family and Parenting Institute
Satwat Rehman – Chief Executive
One Parent Families Scotland
Alan Bean & Martha Cover – Co-Chairs Association of Lawyers for Children
David Allison – Chair Resolution
Stephen Cobb QC – Chairman
Family Law Bar Association
Philip Moor QC
Linda Lee – President The Law Society
Amy Watson – Coordinator
Womens’ Budget Group
See: http://www.gingerbread.org.uk/content/615/Letter-to-The-Times-31-March