Take responsibility or take the bus, or stay at home

This week will see the second reading of the Welfare Reform Bill which proposes that virtually everybody who accepts financial support will have to dance to the government's tune. Those able to work must look for it, parents of young children will have to attend training in parenting.

Recently the Work and Pensions Secretary, James Parnell, indicated that he is prepared to get tough on non-residential parents who avoid financial responsibility, - "absent fathers". Among the things mentioned, and which may appear in legislation is the threat to confiscate the driving licences from such fathers and also their passports.

It seems right that men who father children should accept responsibility. One of the problems, it is claimed, is that after separation or divorce the fathers enter other relationships and father still more children. Many of them fail to make their maintenance payments because they cannot afford to support two or more lots of children. If so, this is a sad reflection on our society and source of concern to many others who have to pick up the tax bill for these defaulters.

But to return to Mr. Parnell, how effective is his threat likely to be? If the men concerned are genuinely not able to afford to maintain two families, then the threat has no power. Indeed if driving is needed to get to work, it could even throw some into unemployment, and if they are genuinely that poor how much of a threat is the loss of a passport?

He probably knows that his threats will be ineffective for many absent fathers. He may deter others. Is the point to be making a big song and dance to emphasise how tough the government is?