OK I've obviously missed a key part of the discussion here because I don't understand the lubey's post at 16:42. But here's a summary of state of play.
? HuntyCat's blog post is entirely about charges to use the CMEC/CSA, and attempts to coerce parents wrt to its use.
? Niceguy's DWP Briefing Note, dated 20 OCt 2011, is about Universal Credit and states: "The current approach of fully disregarding payments of child maintenance received by a claimant who is a parent with care, in order to encourage such parents to apply for child maintenance, will continue under Universal Credit."
Note this isn't the actual Welfare Reform Bill, which I can make neither head nor tail of in this respect, it's simply a briefing.
As far as I can see, both of these can be true. Gingerbread's campaign is all about the charges.
What may interest anyone with energy left is the debate in the Lords on 28 Nov 2011, for which Gingerbread had prepared material. Read from 6pm onwards: "Clause 131 : Supporting maintenance agreements. Amendment 113B"
Their noble Lords agree with Hunty that the charges are intended to deter PWC from using the CMEC/CSA. They ask for (and get) an amendment including: "The main objective of the Secretary of State in applying the provisions of this Act shall be to maximise the number of those children who live apart from one or both parents for whom effective maintenance arrangements are in place."
The point being to ensure this objective is put above the objective of the CMEC/CSA saving the govt money.
Or as Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope puts it, "I will go to the great Parliament in the sky a very unhappy bunny if this one goes wrong as well."
Other supporters of the amendment:
Baroness Sherlock (formerly chief exec of National Council for One Parent Families)
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (chief exec of Relate)
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Don't know if any of the above is any use to anyone.