Got a question about income support changes for lone parents?

Former_MSE_Wendy

What's this all about?

Lone parents whose youngest child is aged 7 or over will no longer be entitled to income support from this week purely on the grounds of being a single mum or dad. Previously, those with a child aged 10 or over were excluded.

Instead, they will need to work or apply for job seekers' allowance (JSA). If you're not well enough to work you will be able to claim employment and support allowance instead.

The benefits office will provide support such as training opportunities, grants to get back to work and advice on childcare.

Work and Pensions Minister Maria Miller has agreed to be interviewed by MSE with questions from MoneySavers about the changes so we want to know what you'd like us to ask.

However this isn't a 'sort my case' interview, though feel free to use your situation as an example of an issue.

More on the changes...

• Lone parents with children of 12 or under can specify school hours-only jobs without it affecting their benefits.
• A lone parent’s availability for work must take into account childcare responsibilities.
• A lone parent on JSA will not be expected to take up a job if appropriate childcare is unavailable.
• Jobcentre Plus staff will ensure every lone parent is contacted before the changes affect them to give them enough time to claim another benefit or find work.
• Some lone parents will still receive income support if they are in receipt of the middle or highest rate of disability living allowance for one of their children, if they receive carer’s aAllowance or are fostering.

Related Guide: Full MSE Guide 5 minute benefit check

How to have your say

Click reply to post your question below and we'll pick a selection to ask.

The interview will be published on the MSE News site in a few weeks time.

For details of other ways to have your say see the Consumer Power! guide.

[signupbox]box[/signupbox]

newdawn_2

Just wanted to say I think the work that Labour did about reducing the age limit of youngest child is a fantastic move. Too many claimants just had another child when youngest was reaching age 15/16 in order to remain entitled.

Shame the Conservatives will prob use it as an example of how they reducing welfare dependency- just like they are repromoting schemes that already exsist as new concepts-eg supporting disabled people into work/reducing sickness claimants- it's a labour introduction of pathways and fit notes that started it.

rose100_2

Gov is presenting itself as hard on scroungers and helpful to those who are needing training to get work.However its blanket housing reforms are rough justice to those who are ill,making them worse off and adding to their difficulties. Report by mental health foundation [lynne fiedl] recommended that all Gov policy should be assessed for its mental health impact. Gov already knows this as it also is aware of disadvantages to children affected by mental ill health of a parent,it chooses to ignore both as there is no help for parents in these situations. In their defence they will offer up that local authorities can help as well as schemes from building societies,this is untrue and the help offered to some suits those with negative equity only. I have found out! Much is made of the fairness of the cuts but this is an insult to our intelligence,I could have accepted a 5% reduction in my income support and housing issues should be better thought through.It makes no sense to get rid of a mortage which is 1/4 of rent and then make it harder to return to work -economic madness never mind unjust! Punishing people who have tried to be independent as there was no social housing then blaming them for Gov mismanagement- INSANE POLITICIANS!! Lock them up!!

STILL_BRASSIC

Can you please explain why the age of the youngest child has only been reduced to 7 when all children attend school from the age of 4 and many children of single parents attend nurseries (paid for by the state) from the age of 2? They should be looking for work then, not sitting around until the child is age 7.

I am married with two children aged 11 and 12 (the first planned, the second a happy accident!). I returned to a full time job when my oldest was 9 weeks old and again when my second child was 16 weeks, we had no family nearby, they went to a childminder. Not because I wanted to but because the maternity pay was about to stop and we had bills to pay and a family to support. We have only been able to afford one holiday abroad in 12 years, we can't afford to decorate or improve our home. I now earn £18,000 and my husband earns £20,000, we would be much better off financially if we were a one parent family - what incentives do the government give us to stay together?

If I was in charge of benefits I would only give benefits to a single parent for their first child - these women aren't repeatedly getting pregnant by accident - they are playing the system and this is why the country's debt is so huge. They have had it too easy for too long and it's time to get tough.

Should people on benefit be able to afford to smoke? I don't think they should, if they can afford to smoke they're obviously being given too much benefit.
The Government should spend more money on old people who have worked hard all their lives and didn't receive or expect any handouts, they do however deserve a decent worry free retirement.

SuziQ

Should people on benefit be able to afford to smoke? I don't think they should, if they can afford to smoke they're obviously being given too much benefit.

I know why you are saying this, but this is just the thin end of the wedge. How can you possibly dictate what someone spends their money on-benefits or salary? Is it ok to buy alcohol? Chocolate? A new pair of shoes, even though you may already have a pair that doesn't yet need repairing? Is it ok to buy sweets for your child if you are in receipt of benefits? After all, none of these things are vital for life-all little luxuries. In your world, every family would maybe just be given a box of groceries every month, rather than benefits. The box would have to be changed depending on a familie's culture, I suppose...

loobylou2

I think this is an excellent idea but I do wonder how it is going to work as it should be aimed at those who could work but won't rather than those who genuinely cannot work. I have 3 children aged 12,11 and 4 and a partner who is in his 70's and has health problems however I have always worked. It takes me an hour in the morning to get to work and an hour to get back home and it really upsets me as we are on a very low income to see people who could work but won't claiming benefits and generally having a good time at what is because I pay taxes my expense. I've even fallen out with a couple of my friends over it who are single parents with children who are the same age as my eldest 2 and who could work but won't. They seem to> think it is ok to live off the state and on benefits and still seem to be able to have a good time whilst I and other people work to support them and their children and some of the excuses I have heard for people not looking for jobs / refusing to work are quite frankly pathetic. Is the government going to really toughen up on these people as they are the ones who need to lose their benefits not people who genuinely cannot work through ill health ??. There has to be some way of making a distinction here. I wouldn't like to see anybody who is genuinely unable to work losing their benefits but the ones who could work and simply won't work should have their benefits either reduced or stopped.

bestpud

newdawn wrote: »

Just wanted to say I think the work that Labour did about reducing the age limit of youngest child is a fantastic move. Too many claimants just had another child when youngest was reaching age 15/16 in order to remain entitled.

Shame the Conservatives will prob use it as an example of how they reducing welfare dependency- just like they are repromoting schemes that already exsist as new concepts-eg supporting disabled people into work/reducing sickness claimants- it's a labour introduction of pathways and fit notes that started it.

I'm not sure what your point is...

If that was the case, they will simply have another child before the first is 7 now, won't they?

This thread seems to have attracted people with an axe to grind lol!

FWIW I think age 10 is the lowest they should have gone and I say that as a lone, working parent with youngest child aged 9.

I can only work as my ex is able to have our dd when I'm working in the same way we would if together, I guess, as he works week days and I work evenings/nights/weekends.

There is no way I could work these hours if reliant on formal childcare.

I'm not convinced there are that many school hour jobs out there for people with no qualifications and/or experience tbh. Most are shifts or involve weekend work etc. A 10 year old can be left for short periods but a 7 year old cannot imo.

What I'm wondering is whether the reduction in HB for people who have been on JSA for a year or more wil apply to lone parents who have been unable to secure work that fits around childcare hours?

It should if the jobs are there but they turn them down, but I really don't see many school hour jobs crop up around here. Most that do are office based and tend to want qualified and/or experienced people.

FBaby

bestpud wrote: »

This thread seems to have attracted people with an axe to grind lol!
.

And I am another one! Working full-time and supporting your family on your own when you are a single parent is very hard and require a lot of compromises (primarily spending more time with your children), so yes, it doesn't take much to feel that others are taking advantage of a system that is just protecting them. In my case, I just have to turn to my ex and his girlfriend to have the perfect stereoptype of a clever single mum who has figured out how to make the best of what she can get. Single mum of two 9 and 12 yo boys, she made the best of getting all the benefits she could for quite some years. Not getting enough, she decided to get herself a job, but of course working less than 16 hours. Then the change about maintenance took place, she got to keep all of it. Her ex earns well, so she gets a nice little package. Then IS started knocking on her door and she started to get worried she might have to increase her hours and come off IS, so she decided to start a uni course...all paid at the expense of tax payers of course... the first thing she did when she got the grant, she went on hols for two weeks to Turkey... In the meantime, relationship with ex became more serious, they are pratically living together, but are clever enough to make sure to leave no evidence of a relationship, no shared account, no clothes left in each other's home, no bank transfer etc... Ex has been in and out of work for years, and once again is now out of work. What do you do in this circumstances... you just go ahead and have another child... It doesn't matter that you are not supporting the children you already have....Ok, that's my cynical outburst over, but when such situations are allowed to take place, it is not surprised those who work hard but can hardly afford the lifestyle some on benefits do start getting a bit itchy...

On a pragmatic note... isn't there a rationale behind the fact that the earlier a single parent can get back to work, the more likely they are to go up the ladder to the stage of being able to earn enough to support themselves? The problem with allowing single parents not to work until their kid are over 7 is that by the time they are ready to join/rejoin the work force, they are not highly employable for lack of experience/skills. Even if she/he returns to some form of training, it doesn't take away the fact that they will lack serious work experience, and in our current economy what chance have they got when competing with those who have never taken long time of work? It becomes a vicious circle where they can never see a day where they will be better off working then on benefits. This is why I would draw the line at having to get back to work once children are 2 or 3, but benefits paying 100% childcare. At least by the time the children are at secondary school and don't need any childcare any longer, their mum should be able to support herself without anymore reliance on tax payers (or certainly much more limited)

nuttyelle

can i just add as a mum of three (the first caught on pill, and the third on depo, so only one of mine were planned so accidents do happen) i have just 'come off' benefits 2weeks ago to supposedly start work this monday, however i have been unable to and now having hell to get back on them.
the £250 job grant i was promised still hasnt come through and the tax credits still havent been sorted, i can not leave my children at home alone (at 1,2 and 8) and the nursery will not let them start without payment in advance (which is £170 a week and its a full month in advance they need) i dont have that sort of money sat around and no one to borrow off. the jobcentre dont seem bothered in the slightest and wouldnt give me a bridge loan or anything..... and this is a government that wants us to work?????
im sorry but when i do eventually get back on benefits (which i have been told could take upto 12weeks???) i am not going to run this risk again untill my kids are all in school.
im heartbroke over this, im left with no money to feed my kids or put electric or gas in! i wanted to work and now due to their delays and incompetance i have lost the job before i started!
they didnt even help me in my search for jobs in the first place! all i can say is i will become one of the statistic now, at least ill have money for food and bills come in!

DX2

People can slate single parents until they are blue in the face, damned if they do damned if they don't. Just remember that they didn't become single parents all by themself, somewhere there are "fathers/mothers" who neither pay child support or support their child/ren emotionally. A good percentage of single parents could work say nights/weekends if some fathers/mothers bothered to help out with childcare.

About time this government did a lot more with regards to dead beat parents.

FBaby

nuttyelle wrote: »

can i just add as a mum of three (the first caught on pill, and the third on depo, so only one of mine were planned so accidents do happen) i have just 'come off' benefits 2weeks ago to supposedly start work this monday, however i have been unable to and now having hell to get back on them.
the £250 job grant i was promised still hasnt come through and the tax credits still havent been sorted, i can not leave my children at home alone (at 1,2 and 8) and the nursery will not let them start without payment in advance (which is £170 a week and its a full month in advance they need) i dont have that sort of money sat around and no one to borrow off. the jobcentre dont seem bothered in the slightest and wouldnt give me a bridge loan or anything..... and this is a government that wants us to work?????
im sorry but when i do eventually get back on benefits (which i have been told could take upto 12weeks???) i am not going to run this risk again untill my kids are all in school.
im heartbroke over this, im left with no money to feed my kids or put electric or gas in! i wanted to work and now due to their delays and incompetance i have lost the job before i started!
they didnt even help me in my search for jobs in the first place! all i can say is i will become one of the statistic now, at least ill have money for food and bills come in!

It makes me so cross to read this. They should have schemes in place so they pay nursery fees directly this being between the nursery and WTC. What a waste of your positive spirit and determination. That's reality though, the government makes it easier to receive benefits than to work, encouraging those who never intended to work in the first place to remain on benefits, and totally discouraging those who really want to work.