While the debates will rumble on for a while yet regarding the "Benefits Uprating Bill", at least the idea to limit the payment of benefits to just the first two or three children in a household has apparently slipped off of the agenda. Like stopping under-25s claiming Housing Benefit, I suspect it's been parked for possible use later, either when the Tories feel they have public opinion so poisoned against the poor that they're ready to see their children starve and young job-seekers sleeping in bin bags on benches, or to be pointed at by the Libdems as nasties they've saved us from; at the price of supporting these other vicious measures.
Something which surprised me - though I suppose it shouldn't bearing in mind the notoriously Victorian attitudes of IDS and Co - was that the plans for Universal Credit contain no proposals to apportion benefits between separated parents.
Something which surprised me - though I suppose it shouldn't bearing in mind the notoriously Victorian attitudes of IDS and Co - was that the plans for Universal Credit contain no proposals to apportion benefits between separated parents.
It really does seem staggering that where parents live apart but share the care of their child(ren), there is no provision to pay benefits on a pro-rata basis unless the parents themselves make an informal agreement - either that one pays the other their 'share', or where there is more than one child, that they make claims for one (or more) each. It would surely make far better sense if Mum has 'Junior' for 4 days and Dad for 3, to pay 4/7ths of the child benefit and a pro-rata 4/7ths Child Tax Credit (based on her income) to Mum, and the same to Dad (based on his income) on a 3/7ths basis? It has to be fairer than the present 'all or nothing' arrangement, surely?
In fact, the sum of the parts ideally would be slightly greater than the whole as the cost of heating Junior's room doesn't go away when s/he does - another example of where 'simple' and 'fair' don't make an easy fit.
In fact, the sum of the parts ideally would be slightly greater than the whole as the cost of heating Junior's room doesn't go away when s/he does - another example of where 'simple' and 'fair' don't make an easy fit.
A further complication arises with Housing Benefit. The following comment was posted a few days ago on a thread in my local paper concerning the 'bedroom tax' - or to be precise, the changes in Housing Benefit that will reduce it for Social Housing tenants considered to be 'under-occupying' their home.
“I've never written into a paper before and I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. As a father of a 9 year old, who is disabled and wheelchair bound I am outraged about this. I had to move from a one bed roomed flat to a 2 bed roomed maisonette because of my son's disabilities.
I have my son 3 nights a week, sometimes more. His mother is classed as his carer because he sleeps in hers for 4 nights. But sometimes I have him longer. When he's on school holidays I have him all day (from about 9am) Tuesday till Wednesday evening, Friday morning until Sunday. His mum get respite and goes off on holidays for about 3 weeks a year. During this time I take care of my son full time and I get NOTHING even though I'm using more electric, gas, water, diesel and food.
I know I'm not the only dad, single parent in this position but I am truly scared. I'm barely scraping by now. They think is easy for us and were having an easy time of it. If they only knew how hard it is out here in the real world. It's wrong to rob the poor, why not tax the RICH on their spare bedrooms. I'm sure they get more that way.”
Leaving aside the 'bedroom tax' issue for the moment, and looking at benefits for families again, this has been a problem for private sector tenants for years. More commonly affecting fathers but not exclusively so, and also affecting second families, claimants would find their housing needs assessed only on the permanent occupants of their home, with no allowance for regular access visits at all.
Thus a woman with a teenage son and a daughter classed as resident with her ex-husband but staying regularly, renting a three bedroomed house, is assessed as 'under-occupying' one of those rooms and receives benefit on the cost of a two-bedroom property. Or the young single dad, renting a two-bedroomed flat so his child can visit - except that if he needs to claim Housing Benefit, as an under-25 'absent parent' he'll get only the 'single room' rate - the cost of one room in a shared house. Sometimes it was possible to get additional 'discretionary' payments in these circumstances - if a similar provision exists with Universal Credit, I've overlooked it.
But perhaps the next time someone in Governments starts making pronouncements on responsibility and family values, they'll face some questions on how current policies are supposed to help.
I have my son 3 nights a week, sometimes more. His mother is classed as his carer because he sleeps in hers for 4 nights. But sometimes I have him longer. When he's on school holidays I have him all day (from about 9am) Tuesday till Wednesday evening, Friday morning until Sunday. His mum get respite and goes off on holidays for about 3 weeks a year. During this time I take care of my son full time and I get NOTHING even though I'm using more electric, gas, water, diesel and food.
I know I'm not the only dad, single parent in this position but I am truly scared. I'm barely scraping by now. They think is easy for us and were having an easy time of it. If they only knew how hard it is out here in the real world. It's wrong to rob the poor, why not tax the RICH on their spare bedrooms. I'm sure they get more that way.”
Leaving aside the 'bedroom tax' issue for the moment, and looking at benefits for families again, this has been a problem for private sector tenants for years. More commonly affecting fathers but not exclusively so, and also affecting second families, claimants would find their housing needs assessed only on the permanent occupants of their home, with no allowance for regular access visits at all.
Thus a woman with a teenage son and a daughter classed as resident with her ex-husband but staying regularly, renting a three bedroomed house, is assessed as 'under-occupying' one of those rooms and receives benefit on the cost of a two-bedroom property. Or the young single dad, renting a two-bedroomed flat so his child can visit - except that if he needs to claim Housing Benefit, as an under-25 'absent parent' he'll get only the 'single room' rate - the cost of one room in a shared house. Sometimes it was possible to get additional 'discretionary' payments in these circumstances - if a similar provision exists with Universal Credit, I've overlooked it.
But perhaps the next time someone in Governments starts making pronouncements on responsibility and family values, they'll face some questions on how current policies are supposed to help.
