Welfare Reform: Lone Parents
Table of contents:
March 2007:
Seek Work or Face Benefit Cuts!
John Hutton, Work and Pensions Secretary, has proposed changes aimed at getting lone Parents off benefits, in particular that they should seek work when their youngest child reaches the age of twelve years. AHEd members are very concerned that this, once again, discriminates against home educating families. The letter we have written to John Hutton is reproduced on this page.
One Parent Families support charity and One Parent Families Scotland are campaigning against proposals to place tougher work search conditions on those claiming Income Support. They find it useful to hear from people who are also protesting and say this helps them to emphasise to ministers and MPs how difficult the situation can be for lone parents. If you write to your MP about this please copy in this organisation here or here (Scotland) to help their campaign.
Letter to John Hutton
13th March, 2007.
The following letter was posted to John Hutton;
Dear Mr Hutton,
AHEd (1) is concerned that proposals to force lone parents on benefits to seek employment once their youngest child reaches the age of twelve will discriminate against home educating families.
The proposed revenue-saving measures would put all lone parents, who are doing a responsible job in difficult circumstances, under additional strain. This would cause family disruption when a child is at a very vulnerable age. However, it would be particularly damaging for those lone parents who are home educating to be forced to seek paid employment at this time.
Of course AHEd applauds any move to help those parents who want support to enter paid employment, but when parents prioritise the needs of their child they must not be penalised or subjected to pressures that are against the best interest and welfare of their child and it is unthinkable that government policy should be so anti-family. Paid work must not be allowed to take priority over fundamental parenting responsibilities.
AHEd questions the rationale behind what appears to be an arbitrary choice of age limit for these proposals. If a parent needs help to get back into the employment market, it will most likely be required when their child has reached adulthood, not when s/he is just approaching the most intensive period of their compulsory education.
A twelve year old is entering puberty and struggling with all of the associated challenges that brings; the presence of a loving, unstressed parent is a vital factor in helping the child deal happily and safely with those changes. A twelve year old is also having to adapt to the first year of secondary education and looking ahead to the important educational choices that will have to be made in the near future. A fourteen year old is often commencing on an education regime that will bring many extra challenges for which they will look to their parent for help and guidance. This period between childhood and adulthood is a time when a child really needs the presence of their most important role model; it is not a time when their parent should forced to leave them to their own devices.
AHEd supports the comments of One Parent Families (2) and also oppose any extensions in conditionality for lone parents on the grounds that such an approach ignores the fact that most of the target group (those with older children) are already in work and those who are not often have very good reasons. We believe that the proposals will cause unnecessary hardship to families and discriminate against home educators. We strongly urge you to reconsider the obligatory aspect of these proposals and concentrate on helping those parents get back into work who expressly wish to do so.
Yours sincerely,
(AHEd Chair) for the membership and committee of AHEd
2 http://www.oneparentfamilies.org.uk
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
Wrong in principle
(to force work or cut benefits)
The above letter received not so much as an acknowledgement. However, A member of Schoolhouse wrote to her MP about this issue at the end of January. Tom Clarke received the reply from John Hutton:
"..we have been very clear that we are not proposing to force lone parents into work, nor cut lone parent benefits- this would be wrong in principle and damaging to the health and well-being of children. It is a matter of individual choice for each lone parent as to whether they look to move into work or continue to claim benefits"
he then goes on to say,
"I hope this reassures your constituent that our aim is to help those parents for whom work is a realistic option to take the necessary steps so that they can get back to work and lift their families out of poverty"
July 2007
In Work Better Off
"In work, better off' was published on 18 July and sets out proposals to "help people, who have found it most difficult to find work, back into sustainable employment." The aim is "full employment" including lone parents of children over seven years of age who will be expected to claim Jobseeker's Allowance and actively seek work - facing benefits cuts if they fail to do so.
http://www.oneparentfamilies.org.uk/1/lx3x1oix9381x1/0/0/041007/0/0//webchat-with-ministers.htm
To make your voice heard and help with the work of AHEd please join here. Or, to make a comment or contribution please contact us at enquiries@ahed.org.uk
Read the AHEd response to the "In work, Better Off" consultation.
Update: February 2008
Alarming reports ...
Urgent advice sought: Letter to the Minister
Feb 29th 2008: Ahed have written to Stephen Timms MP as below:
Dear Mr Timms,
I am copying this enquiry made to DWP today, to you, as minister responsible for this area. Please advise on this issue as a matter of urgency.
*I am writing because of alarming reports coming to AHEd about the In work better off initiatives with reference to lone parents who elect to educate their own children at home.
The report on the consultation stated "There was a strong feeling that the system should not penalise those who have a genuine need to stay at home and care for their children, regardless of their age. ... It was strongly felt that increased conditionality was not appropriate for:
* parents with disabled children or whose children had additional needs
* carers of both disabled children and adults
* mothers fleeing domestic violence; and
* parents who choose to home educate"
We are hearing about lone parent interviews in which parents are being instructed to force their children to enrol in state education before October 2008, in order that the parent can return to work or face losing their benefits in accordance with new legislation.
Some parents are being told that the law has changed to enforce this and home educating lone parents must return to work and enrol children in schools.
Please advise us as a matter of urgency if there has been guidance or legal changes justifying this information to lone parents who educate their own children at home.
faithfully,
(Chair, AHEd.)
DWP, Feb 29th:
DWP, April 11th:
after two reminders asking about the progress of our enquiry we received:
"Dear Madam
March 2008:
Letter to Mr Balls
following further discussions with members and contacting One Parent Families, we have written a letter to the Secretary of State for Education, Ed Balls MP, for urgent assistance, copied below.
Dear Mr Balls,
We are writing to you for assistance because of alarming reports coming to AHEd about the In Work, Better Off initiatives with reference to lone parents who elect to educate their children otherwise than at school. As you are aware, many parents exercise this option in the best interests of their children. Some of these are lone parents. As well as being a legally, educationally and socially valid option for all, for many children traumatised by bullying in school, home education is quite literally a life saver.
AHEd is being approached by a growing number of anxious and distressed lone parents. Across the country, home educating lone parents are being told by Job Centre advisors that they will lose their benefits in October, and that they must return to work and enrol their children in school. In some instances, parents have been told that the law has changed to enforce this.
AHEd was under the impression that the legislation was not intended to (and would not) discriminate against home educating lone parents; the report on the consultation stated : "There was a strong feeling that the system should not penalise those who have a genuine need to stay at home and care for their children, regardless of their age. ... It was strongly felt that increased conditionality was not appropriate for:
* parents with disabled children or whose children had additional needs
* carers of both disabled children and adults
* mothers fleeing domestic violence; and
* parents who choose to home educate"
AHEd, along side other organisations such as One Parent Families, strongly supports this view. We therefore hope that you will speak to the relevant Minister, on behalf of all home educating lone parents, to gain reassurance that:
This matter is causing enormous distress to parents and children and we therefore request that you address it with urgency.
Yours sincerely,
B. Stark, (Chair, AHEd.) For the committee and membership of AHEd http://ahed.pbwiki.com/ Action for Home Education Group. 3rd April ~ A written ministerial statement was made to both houses of parliament which seems to say that the facility for all lone parents, without exception, to stay on Income Support is definitely to be withdrawn in phases, according to the age of the youngest child. Exemptions to working arrangements are then to be negotiated once the recipient is on Job Seeker's Allowance. In response some members wrote to their MP. AHEd chair wrote to their MP, the Conservative Shadow minister, Stephen Timms, and the lib dem spokesperson for DWP. Alan Meale MP has forwarded the question to the minister, and libdem spokesperson Danny Alexander has tabled a parliamentary question for April 21st after the recess. (see below) 4th April 2008 Dear Alan Meale, I am seeking your urgent assistance with some questions about the government policy about lone parent being moved from income support to jobseeker's allowance depending on the age of their youngest child which is to be progressively reduced to age seven years.
Update: April 2008.
Ministerial Statement:
AHEd Letter to MP:
I have today read this statement from Stephen Timms MP:
http://www.theywork
In this the minister states, "Instead, those who are able to look for paid work will make a claim for jobseeker's allowance and be required to seek suitable employment actively"
Will you ask the minister what will be the factors that will dictate whether or not a lone parent is able to work, other than the age of their youngest child?
I am chair of a group called AHEd who have written to Stephen Timms and the DWP, on February 29th, urgently seeking advice on this issue. You can see our mail here:
http://ahed.
We have received no response.
In March we also wrote to Mr Balls and have received no response:
http://ahed.
In the statement, the minister says that he now intends to implement the changes from November this year, a month later than planned, to "consider some additional flexibilities to jobseeker's allowance".
Will you please ask the minister if these additional flexibilities will take into account those lone parents for whom domestic responsibilities render them not available for work such as those highlighted in the consultation, "In Work Better Off" i.e.
* parents with disabled children or whose children had additional needs
* carers of both disabled children and adults
* mothers fleeing domestic violence; and
* parents who choose to home educate"
The report on the consultation, "In Work Better Off" indicated that it was strongly felt that increased conditionality is not appropriate for these groups. AHEd strongly supports that view along with other organisations such as One Parent Families. We are receiving mail from lone parents with domestic responsibilities that render them not available to work and who state that they cannot see how they can agree to sign a declaration of availability for work when they are unable to work because of domestic responsibilities. Is the government intending to force parents who are not available to work because of domestic responsibilities to sign up for jobseeker's allowance stating that they are in fact available to work?
Yours sincerely,
( )
your consituent
(Chair, AHEd.) For the committee and membership of AHEd
http://ahed.
Thank you for your email of 14 March to the Secretary of State about lone parents who choose to educate their children at home. Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2008/0024273. As I hope you will appreciate, the Secretary of State receives many letters and emails each day and cannot reply to them all personally. I have been asked to reply as I work on the team which deals with home education policy.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) informs me that it has listened to home educators’ concerns about the proposed obligations on lone parents to look for work and how, in their view, this will discriminate against them. It is also aware of our guidelines on home education and how this is a legal option. While I note your concerns about this matter, it is for the DWP to decide on the conditions which need to be satisfied for an individual to be able to claim benefits.
Please let me know if you would like me to send your email to the DWP, so it may provide you with a more detailed response.
Yours sincerely
Denise Hunter
Independent Schools and Strategy Team*
we replied ...
...Will Mr Balls put our questions to the minister? We asked Mr Balls to seek reassurance that:
Does Mr Balls consider that your email offering to post our letter to the DWP is a response to our request? ...
~~~~~
Minister for Children washes his hands!
It's nowt to do with me mate!
We have received the following reply from DCSF, in which the minister for children washes his hands of any responsibility for our childwelfare concerns:
"Thank you for your emails of 8 April in response to mine of 7 April.
Although the Secretary of State has noted your concerns about the proposed obligations on lone parents to look for work, he considers that they are a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
Therefore, I can confirm that your email of 14 March has been forwarded to the DWP for a response.
Yours sincerely
Denise Hunter"
He is the minister for families. He is the minister for children. But as to fears about threats to the welfare of our families and our children - he washes his hands and passes us to another department! What is the point of this man? (Answers on a postcard please.)
~~~~~
Parliamentary Question:
Danny Alexander, MP:
http://www.dannyale
(lib-dem spokesperson for DWP and MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey,) has tabled the parliamentary question outlined in the letter below re lone parent benefits.
Dear ,
Thank you for your email outlining your concerns regarding the conditionality of benefits for lone parents. In response to this, I have tabled the following parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:
Whether he thinks that lone parents receiving income support should be subject to increased conditionality in cases where they are a) parents of disabled children b) carers of both disabled children and adults c) mothers fleeing domestic violence d) parents who choose to home educate.
This question will be tabled when Parliament returns on the 21st April.
Yours sincerely,
Danny Alexander MP
~~~~~
Meanwhile a home educator received a response to her enquiry via her MP about HE lone parents, which included the following:
... "The JSA conditions under which lone parents will start to claim from October contain the flexibility to allow lone parents to tailor their availability for work according to their circumstances...
...A lone parent choosing to home educate their child will not necessarily lose entitlement to benefits, although they will not be eligible to continue to claim Income Support when the new rules are introduced. They will, under the JSA regulations, be required to demonstrate they are seeking work...
...The Government position is that parents who choose to home educate their children will not receive any financial assistance from the State for doing so. It is therefore consistent with the Government principles. Under the new welfare reform changes, we require home educators to look for work when their child reaches the new relevant age threshold...
...For lone parents moving onto JSA, Jobcentre Plus advisers will take into account their individual family circumstances. This might mean, for example, restricting availability for work to school hours. Home education presents certain flexibilities where unlike lone parents who send their child to school, they do not necessarily have to observe school hours, days or terms thus allowing them greater flexibility to fit work around their child's education, i.e. to spread these hours over a year rather than in term blocks...
...The new welfare reform proposals are part of the Government's commitment to reducing child poverty by 2010. We strongly believe that work is the best route out of poverty. It can enable many people to achieve a better standard of living for themselves and their families than can be attained through a life on benefits. Indeed research shows that the majority of lone parents want to work, either now or in the future, since returning to work may help them meet their parental responsibilities...
Stephen Timms"
~~~~~
Costings - HE parent to work:
Income support is a subsistence benefit and cannot be classified as financial assistance from the state for home education. This is a simple attempt to smear these parents, especially with the reference to a preference for spending their "life on benefits." The fact is that the government are proposing the removal of a subsistence benefit to vulnerable families in favour of a forced labour regime that threatens the welfare of children.
Far from expecting the state to support their home education, home educating parents save the state thousands of pounds per year per child whom they educate themselves at home.
If lone parents who home educate are made to join new labour's forced labour programme, and the children forced into state supervised care provisions, AHEd believe the cost to the taxpayer will be greater than allowing the parent to continue on income support for parents who are not available to work until their parenting responsibilities are such that they are available.
.....
Stephen Timms on costings:
In a meeting with a constituent Stephen Timms said that costing based on the above are "unrealistic," after all parents would also lose other benefits that are dependent on income support - like housing benefit! (and more.) The proposals, says Timms, will make life more rewarding for individuals. Housing benefit and council tax relief are income dependent. Only lone parents gaining work of sufficient financial reward will stop claiming these benefits. As most are being expected to work only 16 hous, this is unlikely to happen.
Child Welfare?
It is the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children receive a suitable education. The option to do this by home education must not be removed from lone parents. Sadly, too many parents home educate because of problems in state schools including serious unresolved bullying issues and child safety concerns:
Each week: 450,000 children are bullied in school
Each year: at least 16 children commit suicide as a result of school bullying
Each year: an estimated 1 million children truant
Each year: more than 1 in 6 children leave school unable to read, write or add up
Every Child Matters?
...
Lifting children out of poverty?
How will it lift children out of poverty to remove lone parents from income support and place them on jobseekers allowance with a requirement to show they are available and looking for work and with financial sanctions imposed where parents find that this is not possible because they are responsible for the day to day provision of their child's full time education? Financial penalty will not lift these families out of poverty.
Where parents either cannot or will not take paid employment, Mr Timms is determined to plunge them into poverty by the removal of benefit and by financial sanction. Parents who are also not able to claim housing benefit may also become homeless. We are concerned about what "other" benefits lost to lone parents the Minister is looking forward to. Loss of health benefits such as free prescriptions could endanger the health of these lone parents.
Is this some kind of Victorian gradgrindian/Cathy Come Home type nightmare we are having?
...
~~~~~
Ministerial Reply:
Here is the Minister's reply to our letter of 29 Feb:
POS(2)4035/213
28 April 2008 (Received 2nd May)
Dear ...,
Thank you for your email about our reforms to benefits for lone parents, and the effects on home education. I confirm that we received other copies of your email, and I hope you will accept this reply in answer to all your enquiries to us on this issue. I am sorry for the delay in replying.
Following the consultation that you mention, we published "Ready for work: full employment in our generation" last December. This document addressed the responses we received. The publication sets out the next phase of welfare reform, including the proposal that from a date later this year, lone parents with a youngest child age 12 or over will no longer be eligible to claim Income Support (IS), and instead may claim Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) or another appropriate benefit. This will be followed by changes in October 2009 where the age limit will be reduced to 10, and October 2010 when lone parents with a youngest child age 7 will transfer to the JSA requirements.
The JSA conditions contain the flexibility to allow lone parents to tailor their availability for work according to their circumstances. Under JSA conditions, jobseekers are normally expected to be available for at least forty hours of work per week; for lone parents under the same regime, the expectation is that this can be reduced to as few as 16 hours per week if, for example, they have caring responsibilities for a child.
Under these conditions for lone parents, JSA regulations will be amended to allow Jobcentre Plus Advisors additional discretion so that any lone parent claiming or receiving JSA will not be penalised if they have genuine reasons, or good cause for not complying with their obligations to seek, or take up work.
The situation is somewhat differant for lone parents who educate their children at home. The current IS regime does not place extra responsibilities on lone parents (other than attending mandatory Work Focused Interviews at certain times during their claim). The Government position is that parents who choose to home educate should not receive any financial assistance from the state. It would therefore be inconsistent with Government principles if under the changes being introduced by the end of this year we were to not require home educators to look for work when the child reaches the new relevant threshold.
The JSA regime should be able to accommodate lone parents who are home educators. This is because, unlike lone parents who send their child to a state school, home education does not necessarily have to observe school hours, days or terms thus allowing them greater flexibility to fit work around their child's education by spreading these hours over a year rather than in term blocks. These lone parents should be able to seek or take up employment of at least 16 hours per week.
In addition, on entering work, lone parents will have access to the additional flexible package of measures we have put in place to support lone parents and ensure they have the ability to remain and progress in work.
Thank you for taking the trouble to raise your concerns with us.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Timms, MP.
~~~~~
Page Information
|
Wiki Information |
Recent PBwiki Blog Posts |
Create your own educational wiki!