MSE News: Minister answers concerns on lone parent benefits

seven-day-weekend

I personally feel, like some of the posters above, that a two-parent family should be financially able to have a parent, or both parents sharing the task, looking after their children themselves if that is what they wish, without having to have anything from the State to do so.

The thought of tiny little children not seeing their parents all day until it is bed-time makes me cringe, tbh. As I have said before, people don't leave their dogs in kennels all day, but it is classed as acceptable, in some cases laudable, to leave children in nurseries.

I appreciate that a single parent may not have the choice to make, they have to work and there is only them to provide, but I still think that my idea of several parents sharing childcare is a viable one, at least the children then would get at least some time to spend with their parent, and a family situation rather than a soulless nursery.

TBH, if I had ever been a single parent wth a young child and the choice was never seeing them, never spending time with them, and nursery assistants bringing them up, or living on Benefits until they were five, I'm not at all sure I would not have chosen the Benefits as I think these early years are so important. I don't think it is right for little children to be institutionalised at this age. A good childminder, or friends sharing childcare, fine. Here they have something nearer to a family situation. But not a nursery where the children are just clients.

FBaby

Childcare issue is an excuse, the best one to use to justify a life choice for many. I live in a town where childcare is excellent, 40,000 inhabitants, at least 8 nurseries, many play groups, 8 primary schools, of which more than half of school provide morning/afterschool/holiday clubs as do other providers such as the high school and college. There are PLENTY of opportunities, yet there are still plenty of single mothers not working (some who I know well with children over the age of 5).

As to say that supporting working single parent being more expensive than supporting them being on benefits, that's a very short sighted view. Single parent who work will progess in their career so that one day, they will be able to support themselves and their children fully. I used to get £500 a month CTC when my children were at nursery. I now get nothing, but have started paying taxes at 40% and it won't take long before I will have repay what I generously got in benefits. That would not be happening if I remained on benefits. I would have to be on JSA now as my youngest in turning 8, but would be lucky to get a job at half pay to what I get now.

FBaby

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

The thought of tiny little children not seeing their parents all day until it is bed-time makes me cringe, tbh. As I have said before, people don't leave their dogs in kennels all day, but it is classed as acceptable, in some cases laudable, to leave children in nurseries.

I appreciate that a single parent may not have the choice to make, they have to work and there is only them to provide, but I still think that my idea of several parents sharing childcare is a viable one, at least the children then would get at least some time to spend with their parent, and a family situation rather than a soulless nursery.

Are you sure your view of nursery is not a been tinted?? My daughter was first looked after by her aunt who is wonderful person and looked after her well, but it wasn't working, she was a demanding baby and her aunt struggled to keep up with her. I had no choice but to look for a nursery place and that was the revelation. My daugther was so much happier, not because she wasn't well cared for before, but because she loved the buzz and excitment of nursery, loved being with others and loved being stimulated. She was only 12 months when she started and she loved it. My son went too and enjoyed his time. The nursery was a lovely place, much more like a big family. Until 18 months old, it was one nursery nurse for 3 babies, most being part time, so a lot of time, one for 2 babies or one for one baby only, not much different than for many babies being looked after by mummy. They kept their own routine, feeding and sleeping as they were used to, not having to adjust to nursery times.

My kids are now 8 and 11 and still go back to the nursery to say hello, and we have kept in touch with 3 staff members who still come over to see the kids.

As for time with mum and dad, it is a lot more about quality than quantity. Some working parents are too exhausted to be good parents after work, but many are so happy to see their children at the end of the day that they make feeding, bath, reading time a very special moment, rather than chores as some parents who had their child all day long sometimes consider them.

Indie_Kid

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

The thought of tiny little children not seeing their parents all day until it is bed-time makes me cringe, tbh. As I have said before, people don't leave their dogs in kennels all day, but it is classed as acceptable, in some cases laudable, to leave children in nurseries.

I used to do a work placement in a nursery. I was shocked at the amount of babies (usually younger than 6 months) who attended all day Monday to Friday.:(

Mum used to run a playgroup - so did see us after school (until 2001 ish) and it wasn't just one hour here, and another there.

As to say that supporting working single parent being more expensive than supporting them being on benefits, that's a very short sighted view.

Is it? I posted some figures yesterday (NMW @ 16 hours per week) backing this up.

Oldernotwiser

DX2 wrote: »

I must have missed that.

Your POV is totally valid and I do sympathise with people in your situation. However, it's foolish to ignore the fact that there are many young women who are lone parents out of choice (I know because I've worked with a lot of them). The unfortunate fact is that the easier we make life for people in your situation, the more f eckless young mothers there will be as this will be an even more attractive life choice.

I don't know what the answer is but I do know that there are two sides to this, just like everything else..

DaisyFlower

FBaby wrote: »

Childcare issue is an excuse, the best one to use to justify a life choice for many. I live in a town where childcare is excellent, 40,000 inhabitants, at least 8 nurseries, many play groups, 8 primary schools, of which more than half of school provide morning/afterschool/holiday clubs as do other providers such as the high school and college. There are PLENTY of opportunities, yet there are still plenty of single mothers not working (some who I know well with children over the age of 5).

As to say that supporting working single parent being more expensive than supporting them being on benefits, that's a very short sighted view. Single parent who work will progess in their career so that one day, they will be able to support themselves and their children fully. I used to get £500 a month CTC when my children were at nursery. I now get nothing, but have started paying taxes at 40% and it won't take long before I will have repay what I generously got in benefits. That would not be happening if I remained on benefits. I would have to be on JSA now as my youngest in turning 8, but would be lucky to get a job at half pay to what I get now.

I agree. those quoting lack of childcare or say it "damages" children are usually those on benefits trying to justify not working.

Whilst some children may be needed to sustain life and the economy, those brought up on benefits will in the main go on to claim themselves - that means two generations at least that will take any give nothing back. If we need more taxpayers paying into the system we should concentrate on using state money better rather than throwing it away.

Sixer

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Your POV is totally valid and I do sympathise with people in your situation. However, it's foolish to ignore the fact that there are many young women who are lone parents out of choice (I know because I've worked with a lot of them). The unfortunate fact is that the easier we make life for people in your situation, the more f eckless young mothers there will be as this will be an even more attractive life choice.

I don't know what the answer is but I do know that there are two sides to this, just like everything else..

This is exactly what I was saying about a Catch 22. The unavoidable fact about the benefits system is that it is amoral (not immoral): it doesn't/can't distinguish between subjective definitions of deserving or undeserving cases, nor look into the motivation of individual claimants. A national system can't take into account that some areas have excellent childcare and others don't. All it can do is assess a set of objective criteria to do with household numbers, assets and income.

I think the reason many of the single parents on this thread feel so strongly about it is that it's exactly the same for all other benefits, yet single parents are so often singled out. There are, for example, people on JSA who are desperate to work, and others who have no real intention of getting a job. There are people who are trying to label themselves to get disability benefits and people who are trying to live with genuine conditions and who need help.

For some reason, people seem to want to lump single parents all together in one big homogeneous mass.

Personally, I think there are answers to this that lie outside the benefits system - to take just one example, housing costs as a proportion of income are now twice what they were in the 1960s. This has a massive impact. But that's a whole 'nother thread!

FBaby

sh1305 wrote: »

Is it? I posted some figures yesterday (NMW @ 16 hours per week) backing this up.

Did it follow the participants in the next 10 years +? Are you saying that those working still cost the government the same or more after 10 years of working than those who have been on benefits for years or might still be claiming then after 10 years?

FBaby

Sixer wrote: »

This is exactly what I was saying about a Catch 22. The unavoidable fact about the benefits system is that it is amoral (not immoral): it doesn't/can't distinguish between subjective definitions of deserving or undeserving cases, nor look into the motivation of individual claimants. A national system can't take into account that some areas have excellent childcare and others don't. All it can do is assess a set of objective criteria to do with household numbers, assets and income.

I think the reason many of the single parents on this thread feel so strongly about it is that it's exactly the same for all other benefits, yet single parents are so often singled out. There are, for example, people on JSA who are desperate to work, and others who have no real intention of getting a job. There are people who are trying to label themselves to get disability benefits and people who are trying to live with genuine conditions and who need help.

For some reason, people seem to want to lump single parents all together in one big homogeneous mass.

Personally, I think there are answers to this that lie outside the benefits system - to take just one example, housing costs as a proportion of income are now twice what they were in the 1960s. This has a massive impact. But that's a whole 'nother thread!

I agree with this until your last paragraph stating that the change needs to take place outside of the participants. Yes housing has had an impact, but it has done so on everyone, yet, some single parents wouldn't consider a life on benefits whilst others find all the reasons to justify why they don't have a choice.

The reality is that our nation has been one much more concerned about money and comparing material assets with others than by principles. It is not a question of pride in supporting yourself and your family that give you the self-esteem to better yourself, but of believing that what is a foolish principle is to work hard to get something you can get without doing so. It is about instant gratification rather than planning for the future.

Sues48

I have been following this thread with interest and would just like to add my twopenneth. A lot of the debate seems to be about childcare,or lack of it, but this is only a small part of the problem. Sadly there are small but significant areas, including ones covered by the jobcentre where I work, where families are 2nd or 3rd generation of having never worked, so young girls falling pregnant and going on to become single mothers reliant on benefits see this as the the norm as they have known nothing else. No amount of childcare is going to solve this problem, if no one in you family, or in some cases street, works than it is nigh on impossible to break out of this rut.

Also what a lot of people don't realise is that the father of the children is very often around but the parents choose not to live together as they know that they will get far more in benefits if they continue to live and claim separately.

At the moment, single parents who are required to claim JSA can put so many restrictions on their availability due to childcare responsibilities that it will be almost impossible to force them into work anyway.

I'm not entirely sure what the solution to this problem is, I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the bad old days of single parents being outcasts and couples married in haste often to go on to divorce at later date,we all know accidents happen and relationships break down and the support should be there for these families until such time as they are in a position to suport themselves again.