I wrote the following article for
Socialist Campaign Group News August 2007
Tory proposals on family and taxation
The Tories’ latest ideas on welfare (not yet policies) are
outlined in a report by short-lived Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith. The report attacks lone parents, with conditions on
benefits starting when the youngest child is five; threatens child benefit and claims
married people should get a tax break.
In the Daily Mail, David
Cameron said conditions on lone parent benefits are needed because of fraud. However, the percentage of Income Support paid
fraudulently to lone parents has gone down from £360m (9.3%) in 97/98 to £130m (3.3%) in
05/06.
Sadly, the
predictable Tory attack on lone parents echoes the Government’s policy which is to
end entitlement to income support to lone parents with a youngest child aged 7. Yet, in the Green Paper proposing this change as of
2010, it is pointed out that since 1997 more lone parents are working than ever before. The voluntary approach, under the New Deal for Lone
Parents, is working and should be improved, not abandoned. Support
for parents should be tailored to individual needs particularly to deal with the breakdown
of work placements, a common occurrence when parents are juggling with work and looking
after children. We know most lone parents want
to work and availability of good quality affordable childcare is the key to helping them
do so, not imposing unnecessary conditions. Also
sometimes it is the right choice to decide to be a full-time parent, for example if a
child has a disability or the family is going through emotional stress. So why waste scarce resources adjudicating on such
matters when the money could be productively spent on childcare?
The Tories’ idea for a transferable married couples tax
allowance, worth around £20 a week, which they cost at £3.2bn a year, would penalise
children whose parents choose not to marry. They
argue increasing marriage rates leads to better outcomes for children. However, most couples who go on to have a
successful marriage are self selecting and have already lived together in a stable
relationship. The Tories acknowledge a
‘selection effect’ but rely on longitudinal studies conducted amongst US
population samples, to insist marriage is a cause of better relationships. As for UK evidence, they refer to one study from
2003 ‘showing how the risk of family breakdown amongst low-income families is
increased significantly where couples were unmarried’. Yet this does not provide an argument to show that
those who married within this low-income cohort weren’t already the most stable of
this group.
At least the Green Paper does not contain such a proposal. It does state we need to take more account of the
parenting responsibilities of all families on benefit and elements of the New Deal for
Lone Parents are being expanded to couple parents in pilot areas and in London. This is welcome.
Mandatory work-focused interviews every six months for partners of
Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants with children are also being introduced. As long as those who choose not to work because
they decide it is in the best interests of their children are not penalised, interviews
could be a positive way of engaging women who want to work but in some cases face barriers
from home.
The Tory report also recommends
‘front-loading’ child benefit with more given to parents for children 3 or under
but reduced when the same child is older. The
idea is to help parents stay at home with their children in the early years. However, under a system of inspections by health
visitors, those judged as failing parents would lose the ‘front-loading’
entitlement. This is a
bureaucratic, unworkable attack on child benefit, which has always been unconditional and
was introduced to ensure at least some reliable financial support for feeding and clothing
all children. Older children still need this.
I support giving parents with young children more money
but not at the expense of children when they are older.
The Tory report does flirt with the idea of ‘Home Care Allowances’
as used in Norway and Finland but they express concern that this could ‘more easily
facilitate un-partnered child bearing’.
Aside from whether trying to tell people what relationships they
should form works, the welfare state is not there to judge people but to provide
assistance fairly and according to need. The
suggestion by both the Government and the Tories that people struggle as lone parents
because of the benefit system is an insult to those who manage without a partner in
extremely difficult circumstances. How we help prevent avoidable relationship breakdown
does need to be addressed. Spending money on
developing counselling, mediation, and legal services to help those experiencing the pain
of family break-up would be a better start – and it wouldn’t cost £3.2billion!
social security |
