Welfare Reform: Lone Parents
Please see our latest Press Release: Every Single Parent Matters.
Campaign pages start here: Postcard campaign
The continuing saga ...
related links:
history of this story
Government Accused of Impoverishing Children through Forced Labour Regime.
AHEd-Schoolhouse Press Release:
JOINT MEDIA RELEASE FROM ACTION FOR HOME EDUCATION AND SCHOOLHOUSE
For immediate release, Friday 9 May 2008
GOVERNMENT ACCUSED OF IMPOVERISHING CHILDREN THROUGH FORCED LABOUR REGIME FOR LONE PARENTS
Action for Home Education (AHEd) [1] and Scotland's national home education support organisation, Schoolhouse [2], have jointly expressed deep dismay and disappointment at the UK Government's decision to remove the safety net of Income Support (IS) from lone parents whose youngest child is aged 12 years from November 2008. The age threshhold will subsequently be reduced so that, by 2010, lone parents will be required to actively seek work when their youngest child reaches seven.
While the Government claims it will help "lift children out of poverty", the move promises to cause extreme stress and hardship for many families, including those who home educate, those whose children have special needs or disabilities and those who have been abandoned by partners, as well as widowed parents and mothers fleeing domestic violence.
Despite warnings from individuals and organisations representing vulnerable families that children will be further impoverished as a result [3], the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has indicated that it will press on with draconian measures to force lone parents into work as soon as their children reach the designated age threshhold, regardless of individual circumstances.
Danny Alexander MP has tabled a Parliamentary Question [4] seeking Government reassurances in relation to specific vulnerable groups who will be thrown into financial crisis by the new rules and for whom it was strongly felt that there should be no extension of conditionality during the 'In Work Better Off' consultation.
Meanwhile, Tom Clarke MP has indicated that he is to table further Parliamentary Questions seeking clarification from the Minister as to which specific regulations will apply, following the withdrawal of Income Support, to "home educating lone parents who are already engaged in full time employment providing a full time education for their children".
AHEd chair Barbara Stark said: "One of our members received via her MP a wholly unsatisfactory and insulting response from the Minister, Stephen Timms, who suggests that home educating parents can be much more flexible in their working arrangements than schooling parents. Who exactly will be available to look after and educate children while their parents are at work outside the home? These parents are already working hard with parenting and education responsibilities and doing an excellent job. Does the Minister only deem child care and education to be 'work' if it is undertaken by someone other than the parent?"
AHEd and Schoolhouse have challenged the Government to explain how it is possible to lift children out of poverty by removing IS payments from lone parents when they will effectively be precluded from claiming JSA due to already having full time caring and/or educational responsibilities. In particular they have questioned the justification for withdrawing IS from home educating parents when the costs to keep a child in school are considerably greater than the costs of providing benefits.
Schoolhouse convener Alison Preuss said: "These UK Government proposals were first flagged up in January 2007 by one of our members who was concerned that lone parents home educating their children, often through necessity as a result of special needs or disabilities, would have their Income Support withdrawn if they did not make themselves available for paid employment. Tom Clarke MP subsequently obtained assurances from the then Minister John Hutton that home educating lone parents' responsibilities would be fully recognised [5], but the Government has now indicated that no exceptions will be made to its forced labour regime for single parents."
Despite the revenue savings to the Treasury, the Minister suggests that home educating families are receiving a subsidy by accepting subsistence benefits, stating in his letter: "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."
AHEd and Schoolhouse have jointly condemned the Minister's failure to recognise that schools are unable to accommodate the needs of a significant number of young people, leaving some parents no choice but to take full responsibility for their children's education, since schools are unable or unwilling to provide for the needs of individual children. Pete Derby, AHEd Correspondent for Wales said, "the government is proposing to punish parents for taking care of their children. These measures supposedly aimed at lifting children out of poverty will force vulnerable children into dangerous situations. As the minister's predecessor stated, forcing parents to prioritise paid employment above their parenting responsibility would be wrong in principle and damaging to the health and well-being of children."
Former home educator, Karen Best, who was a lone parent reliant entirely on IS until her daughter reached school leaving age, has also spoken out against the government's proposals which she believes will remove an essential lifeline from desperate parents. Describing her own circumstances, she said: "I removed my daughter, who has profound learning difficulties and special needs, from school when she was 10 years old after a prolonged period of bullying which had resulted in her self harming and threatening suicide. I was a single parent on Income Support and struggling to cope financially as well as with an extremely unhappy child.
Since the school and local authority failed to deal with the problems, home education became the only option for us and we never looked back, although I lost entitlement to free school meals and clothing vouchers as soon as I removed my daughter from school and got no support or resources from the local authority. Now, it seems, the Governnment wants to completely pull the financial rug out from under the most vulnerable parents and children. How on earth can they justify impoverishing children and penalising single parents in this way?"
Karen went on to obtain higher qualifications and now works full time in the travel industry, while her daughter Charlene, now 20, is currently on a work experience placement, having previously undertaken supported learning at her local further education college. Commenting on her own experience, Charlene said: "I hated school so much because it was full of bullies and the teachers didn't want to know about it. I have a great life now because home education saved me from the bullies."
Gill Kilner is another parent who with her son, Tom, has never looked back since taking up home education because the school did not recognise his severe dyslexia was making schoolwork impossible. Gill says, "at only nine years old, he was sinking into depression, sleeping badly and starting to behave in very uncharacteristic ways both at school and at home. Thank goodness I was able to home educate. I don't think my son would have survived well at all in the system but ten years on he is still in home education, preparing to go into business."
ENDS
For further information, please contact:
Barbara Stark on (phone)or ahed@ahed.org.uk
Alison Preuss on (phone)or media@schoolhouse.org.uk
NOTES TO EDITORS
[1] See www.ahed.org.uk
[2] See www.schoolhouse.org.uk
[3] One Parent Families/Gingerbread comments on the proposals when first mooted:
"One Parent Families .. warned that any moves to place tougher conditions on claiming benefits for parents with secondary school age children would be the wrong approach.
"Those with children in this age group who are not working often have very good reasons for being at home full-time. Lone parents want help in getting over the hurdles they face when they are ready to work, not further impoverishment when they are needed at home."
[4] Lib Dem spokesperson for Work and Pensions, Danny Alexander, MP, has tabled the following PQ:
"To ask 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."
[5] Excerpts from a reply by John Hutton, former DWP Minister, to Tom Clarke MP in February 2007:
"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.
"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"
~~~~~
The Minister States:
No Financial Assistance!
"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"
Are Home Educators a Special Case?
No!
Here the minister refers to the specific difficulties we bring up in relation to lone parents who are home educating: i.e. they may not be available for paid employment.
But substitute, "parents who choose to home educate their children" with, "parents who choose to stay at home to look after the needs of their children" or, "parents who prioritise their family needs over paid employment," etc etc and you will see that the statement applies to all lone parents. No lone parents should have their parenting responsibilities directed by government dictat under threat of extreme poverty.
(The measures are now starting to be introduced also in two parent families with the partner who is not in paid employment because they are taking care of children and whose spouse or partner is in receipt of JSA also being required to attend work focussed interview after a time.)
The government will no longer support the parent as the main carer of the child. This is a cultural shift. What has always been known as a welfare state, subsistence level, safety net benefit against poverty and deprivation is now rebranded as "Financial Assistance." (Let us call it "F.A." for short. This may already have been thought of.) Anyway, now parents are not going to get it!
Children need parents!
Once we all knew this, however, such is the tragedy of government dogma, ignorance and interference in family life that one feels the requirement to rehearse some baby steps!
Where a child has only one parent, that one parent must be allowed and supported in our society in order to make parenting decisions for that child, such as whether the child needs to be in school or whether the child needs to be at home to fulfil their right to an efficient full time education suitable for their age, ability, aptitude and any special needs they may have. This is the education that home educating parents have been providing for their children, quietly, routinely and without fuss to anyone, often from birth and with excellent results.
Such an education is the child's right enshrined in law; and it is the parent's responsibility to ensure it is achieved. Many families find that the needs of the child mean that one parent is required to be at home looking after these needs. Often this might mean one parent is fully employed at home and not available to take up paid employment. If every child matters to this government, they must accept that this is the right of each child!
The DWP has now put a cap on this right to parent their own child for lone parents on benefits. For them, parental responsibility in this matter will end, replaced by bureaucratic decision and regulation, when the child reaches seven years of age. The argument put forward for this is that child care is available and that the child "should" have settled in school, thus leaving the parent free to take up paid employment. The minister has specifically stated that home educating parents will be expected to take up such employment. If they do not they will lose benefits. Threatening any parent with the well being of their child is a heartless act. The following extract from a comment posted on "They Work for You" (Tom Clarke MP, written answer, parliamentary question,) shows an extreme case for which Mr Timms makes no exception to his cruel ruling that lone parents of children over seven years, and who are in receipt of income support no longer have the right to decide whether their parental duties are such that they are free to take employment:
" I have home edded my son for four years. My local LEA, said in their report, that it is clear that he is thriving.
They expressed a great deal of good supportive feedback, which I am very happy to share with the government as they consider us.
My son is extremely distressed at the prospect of his whole educational support bieng removed. He will have to fend for himself for four hours a day. A long time for a twelve year old. The idea of returning to school made all of his eczema return...
... his stress levels were so severe, his hair started thinning as he was pulling it out. At school he developed a stammer and it has been lovely watching him recover from the ordeals he endured at school.
All of the progress will be severely impeded ... I am racking my brains and in a state of disbelief at the new proposals. They are devastating to our little two person family. We try really hard to get on in life, as its hard when there's only two. Work would just antagonise my situation.
...I beg, anyone out there to quantify the point at which this change in the law is wrong for us. ... Please fight for us.
We are without hope at the moment."
Compare and Contrast:
The Minister (DWP) in 2007
(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"
...
"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"
The Minister (DWP) 2008
(Stephen Timms.)
(lone parents) "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..."
What is this but a forced labour regime under the threat of financial sanction regardless of family need? This will, indeed, be wrong in principle and detrimental to children.
Call to Action!
Are lone parents the new "Undeserving Poor"?
Do you want to see benefits withdrawn and financial sanctions imposed on the poorest families?
Do you want to see lone parents penalised if they cannot combine paid employment and family responsibilities?
Do you support a forced labour regime under threat of extreme poverty?
Does your MP?
Ask them!
The consultation launched by DWP on regulations is very complicated. However, this issue is simple. What is your MP prepared to inflict on the children of lone parents?
Before the summer recess, 2008, MPs will vote on Social Security regulations now being pushed through. Will your MP support attacks on lone parents?
It must remain the responsibility of parents to decide if the need to be available for their children and the demand to take paid employment can be reconciled. In removing the responsibility for this decision from parents and putting it into the hands of advisors at job centre plus who will follow regulations about what is acceptable, the government will be dividing the poor from whom they consider the undeserving. The underserving will face financial sanctions plunging them below the poverty line.
We have seen this attitude before...
In the workhouse!
It is now up to the nation's Members of Parliament. What do they have to say and what will they do for some of the poorest and most disadvantaged of our people?
Vote Against the Regulations!
~~~~~
Write to Your MP:
~~~~~
Sample Letter:
(your name).
~~~~~
find your MP:
Here are some useful links to find and write to your MP. At the first link, you can send a letter to your MP online.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/commons/l/
~~~~~
Campaign Against the Regulations:
Please join in the joint campaign with AHEd and Schoolhouse to stop these regulations.
Page Information
|
Wiki Information |
Recent PBwiki Blog Posts |
Create your own educational wiki!