This snapshot, taken on 10/02/2009, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.

Comments (23)

1. Dennis Stepan wrote:

   The tax credit system improves incomes in the short term but provides an excuse for low paying employers (including the government itself)to leave the responsibility of providing a decent income for hard working employees to the tax credit system rather than accepting that responsibility themselves. Whatever the short term benefits the long term effect is to extend and institutionalise the poverty trap for millions of working people who should not have to do a hard weeks work and then have to rattle a begging bowl for government hand outs in order to get an income they can keep a family on.

   #1 – Posted on 17-Oct-06 at 2:12 pm.

2. Name withheld wrote:

   Re: Child Support

   I have been concerned for a few years regarding the child support agency, as I am a single parent with two children and unfortunately no involvement from my ex husband and unfortunately as the Child Support deemed my husband unable to pay (new family and he is working) my CSA entitlement was reduced to nil, I find this worrying as many other parents must be in my situation and I think more ought to be done to help with these people, and I will eventually be forced to take full time work, as my ex husband is unwilling to pay

   #2 – Posted on 17-Oct-06 at 2:26 pm.

3. James Watterson wrote:

   I think one of the key reasons why there has been so much child poverty is that only 2 types of families felt they could afford to have (more) children, the very rich and those already on benefits.

   Those in work often could not afford to do so, particularly juggling the lack of support from most employers including the Civil Service.

   As for the challenge of pepople on Incapacity Benefit, the key surely rests with preventing people becoming ill and claiming it to begin with. This should start with encouraging (or legislating) employers to lower the pressure on their employees and be realistic about the amount of work expected from individuals.

   Far more should be done to provide free or low cost Gyms and Health clubs to working people (not just low incomes/benefits) they would pay for themselves. In my city Leicester anyone over 60 can obtain these free. Great, but for those under 60 - who are needed to stay well, continue working and pay the tax and NIC etc to pay for them there is nothing !

   Good luck with a noble cause.

   James

   #3 – Posted on 17-Oct-06 at 5:14 pm.

4. Mohammed Shafiq wrote:

   The Government should be given credit for lifting so many children out of poverty, the way i see it is had the work of the past ten years not happened there would have been more poverty and depreviation.

   Minister Ethnic minorities are more likely to suffer from poverty,depreviation, unemployment and discrimination. I dont believe the government has seriously tackled this, when the funding for projects has been cut you cannot expect the thrid sector to pick up the bill and work.

   There needs to be a cross government sustained strategy to deal with these issues.

   #4 – Posted on 18-Oct-06 at 9:44 am.

5. Lesley Forster wrote:

   When reforming benefits try to narrow the gap between benefits for two single people and those for a couple. Couples are discouraged from living together with their children as they stand to loose benefits. Advantages to society as a whole would be the release of housing stock for those who need it, children will have both parents living together (and access to extended family), reduction in housing and council tax benefits, reduction in income support etc. Many people claiming as ‘lone parents’ continue to have children by a previous partner whilst claiming income support - this can be very demotivating to advisers. They are trying to encourage people to take up employment to improve their financial circumstances but if they are receiving support from a part-time partner (not declared)they may not be better off working.

   Jim Murphy responded: Lesley you make an interesting point. However,  we feel it’s reasonable to assume that, in general, the living expenses of each member of a couple will be lower than those of a single person. For example, various elements of day-to-day expenditure, such as standing charges for gas and electricity, are levied on households rather than on individuals. That means they are proportionately higher for single people.

   #5 – Posted on 18-Oct-06 at 10:24 am.

6. karen T wrote:

   My family never seems to get any better off. I look forward to my small pay increase each year, but then my child tax credit goes down with a wallop and the bills go up. especially the utility bills. Its hard to keep up.

   #6 – Posted on 18-Oct-06 at 10:40 am.

7. Claire Jones wrote:

   There is no incentive to go back to work. Some people with children who do work are worse off than if they were on benefits. More needs to be done for single parent families who are in debt through no fault of their own but through divorce and separation. They struggle to make a living but want to work but cannot afford to. And those who do choose to work are getting into a worse and worse financial situation.

   Jim Murphy responded: Claire, thanks for your comments. I understand the point you are making. From next April we’ll be introducing a Work Related Activity Premium in pilot areas to help out lone parents. This will give those who agree to take active steps to get back to work an extra £20 a week for up to six months. It’s also worth bearing in mind that the New Deal for Lone Parents programme already offers all sorts of assistance to lone parents including advice on training, childcare and benefits you can claim when you return to work.

   #7 – Posted on 18-Oct-06 at 11:25 am.

8. Mick Keenan wrote:

   Dear Sir/ Madam,

   It is a disgrace that the DWP does not have 0800 numbers in place for all our Benefit Processing Centres as I can understand the frustration of our customers after visiting a front line office to be informed that they will have to pay money they can’t afford to ring their local Benefit Processing Centre to get assistance.

   Many benefit processing sections have only one telephone line available for customer calls due to the high volumes of processing work therefore, in most cases cutomers are waiting on the phone for more than 10 minutes to get assistance which is very costly for someone who is on benefits.

   What is even more ludicrous is that this government is always harping on about getting people out of poverty surely the cost of ringing Benefit Processing Centres at local rates does the opposite.

   The only people who benefit from not having an 0800 Benefit Processing Centre number are the private telecommunication companies so can we please please please change the Benefit Processing Centres to 0800 numbers as this has a direct impact on child poverty.

   By not having benefit freephone 0800 numbers in place DWP front line DWP staff suffer daily verbal and sometimes physical abuse because customer’s have to pay to phone Benefit Processing Centres from outside local JobcentrePlus Offices if they have any benefit queries.

   Regards

   Mick Keenan (DWP)

   Jim Murphy responded: Mick, I agree that making 0800 numbers available would offer a vital improvement to Jobcentre Plus services. So that’s one of the new measures I announced at the end of last month.You’ll find more information here http://www.dwp.gov.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/2006/oct/emp05-301006.asp 

   #8 – Posted on 18-Oct-06 at 2:40 pm.

9. J Midgley wrote:

   As a starter I would like to post a letter which I wrote to my MP a couple of months ago on the subject of carers and Welfare Reform. The letter remains unanswered. It reads:

   One aspect upon which the proposed Welfare Reform Bill appears to be silent is the role of the carer. I myself am one such and I am puzzled as to how my role will be affected should the Welfare Reform Bill become law.

   The Department of Work and Pensions says it expects the number of people who will receive the “Support” element of the proposed Employment and Support Allowance will be much smaller than the current PCA exempt group. As the PCA exempt group is 461,000 and as the are about 4 million carers in the UK of which 444,000 receive Carers Allowance it is clearly the case that the requirement for sick and disabled people to engage in Work Related Activities is going to have a significant impact on the nation’s carers and yet I cannot see any references in the Bill as to what role the carers will play in the proposed Welfare Reforms. This is clearly a very significant omission which needs to be both addressed and clarified. Two obvious situations will illustrate my concerns:

   1) Supposing a disabled person is required to engage in voluntary work (or any other work related activity for that matter). What are the government’s plans for the carer in this situation? Is the carer expected to take part in this work? Is he or she to attend to the disabled person while they engage in this unpaid labour? Is the carer to remain at home? Is the carer to continue to receive Carers Allowance? If the numbers of hours worked by the carer are reduced by the fact of his not being engaged in care for the duration of his charge’s work related activities can he lose his Carers Allowance?

   2) When a sick or disabled person has to attend work focused interviews and complete Work Action Plans at the local Jobcentre Plus will the disabled person’s carer be allowed or required to attend or not allowed to attend? If either of the former two cases represent the government’s intention is the carer to be paid and have his expenses reimbursed for this function or is he expected to perform his duties for free? If the government intends that carers be excluded from the process of interviews etc. what measures are being implemented to ensure the sick or disabled person will be given the required level of support and care while engaging in these required activities?

   I think you will agree that the process of welfare reform cannot be fully addressed without the role of the carer in the reformed process being revealed. I await therefore your considered clarification of the government’s position on this very important issue.

   Please regard this letter as open.

   Regards

   J. Midgley (Dr.)

   Jim Murphy responded: Dr Midgley I would just like to touch on a few of your points.

   We recognise that there are significant numbers on incapacity benefits with very severe conditions for whom a return to work is always going to be tough. While it would clearly be unreasonable to expect them to engage in work-related activity, it would be equally unfair to leave them unaware of the opportunities that are available to them. Therefore, those with the most severe conditions can volunteer for the support available to others. Support offered will vary from Condition Management Programmes to work tasters. However, no one will be expected to actively seek work, either in the support or work-related activity groups. In addition, those who satisfy the medical assessment will get more financial support than they do now as they are most at risk of prolonged poverty.

   That said, we fully appreciate that some people, particularly those with more severe illnesses or disabilities, may never be able to work. We have therefore said that we will provide additional financial support to this group.

   One of the distinct advantages of our reforms will be in helping to “free-up” a carer’s time. While there will be no obligation for a carer to attend a Work Focused Interview with the person they care for, we would recommend that in most cases they do. But we do not anticipate any additional costs to the carer as a result of this. For example,  in certain circumstances interviews can be conducted at the home of the person that they care for.

   We want to make sure the customer is given every help in finding and staying in work. Our Health, work and well-being strategy published in 2005 is designed to encourage employers, employees, health professionals and insurers to join forces in supporting people with disabilities in the workplace. This would mean that a carer would not be required to carry out caring activities whilst the person they care for is at work.

   #9 – Posted on 19-Oct-06 at 6:54 am.

10. Graeme Ellis wrote:

    Reforms to get disabled people back into work are all well and good but they need substence not fair ideas. There are many of us disabled out here who have had jobs and have lost them for whatever reasons and now finfd it impossible to find another job. I personally am 400 applications and only 2 interviews down the line. One job I failed to get because the process of applying and getting access to work help did not fall into the employers need for someone to start ASAP. I believe that the comments made by Mr Cameron of the conservative party open the possibility of a more realistic pathway to work. I am desperate to find work and at this stage in my life would not object to some positive discrimination. A period of time could be set where the public sector could only employ disabled candidates and train them to do the job if neccessary (exceptions would have to be allowed for this of course)

    Jim Murphy responded: Graeme I’m sorry to hear about the difficulties you’ve faced getting back into work and appreciate the points you’ve raised. Personally, however, I don’t see positive discrimination or a “closed shop” as the way forward. What we would much rather see is a real change in employers attitudes. That’s why we’ve set about implementing the most profound extension of disability rights this country has ever seen. In 2004, we extended the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to provide protection against discrimination for an additional 600,000 disabled workers. A further seven million jobs and one million employers were brought within the scope of the employment provisions of the Act. Notably, we are also putting together a cohesive and wide-ranging strategic action plan, developed in consultation with employers and employer organisations that is committed to increasing job opportunities for disabled people. It is clear that the public sector as a whole, and this Department in particular, must set the standard in promoting best practice. You may be interested to hear that, in December, we will introduce the Disability Equality Duty meaning any public body will have to look at ways of treating disabled people equally.

    #10 – Posted on 20-Oct-06 at 10:06 am.

11. Shaf wrote:

    I can’t understand why such a big deal is made of incap claimants - surely there is a larger drain of monies where lone parents are concerned!

    A lone parent sees an advisor once a year but can defer this for a further 12 months if they come up with a plausible reason (usually done over the phone)

    What never ceases to amaze is the lone parents who have been claiming IS for a long time through having separated from their partners but manage to have kids in between whilst still being a lone parent!

    What happens next? They stay on IS, get a £500 maternity grant to buy essentials for the new baby and no doubt in the near future, they will have another babay.

    As a follow-on, they have no work skills, will go to college to study but then complain they are unable to work as childcare costs are too high.

    Why not encourage them to go to college earlier, sanction those having kids as lone parents (”Honestly I don’t know where the kids dad is!!!!”) UNLESS they give the fathers details so that HE can be chased up for maintenance, offer employers incentives to take on lone parents etc. Why oh why does the government not talk to the people involved with working with lone parents (if not the lone parents themselves!) to see how the government can be of assistance rather than being a hindrance!

    Jim Murphy responded: Shaf, it’s worth bearing in mind that the number of lone parents in work is higher than ever before. Of course, we do know that the numbers of people out of work and claiming Income Support remains too high. People in such circumstances can pay a high price for being in such reduced circumstances – often ending up destitute. That’s not a situation we want to continue. So our welfare reform proposals are designed to help lone parents in a number of ways. We will encourage more regular contact with advisers through more work-focused interviews and we will pilot a new financial benefit – the work related activity premium. This will be an incentive for those with older children to prepare for a return to work.

    You can read more about our reforms for lone parents here .
    

    #11 – Posted on 21-Oct-06 at 6:11 pm.

12. peter wrote:

    You can throw as much money as you like at single parents or those who are married (marriage ummm do the labour party even believe this is valid anymore) but when you are on Benefits then any extra money given in increases who say child benefit or child tax credit simply reduces the amount given to you by Housing Benefit, you are no better off it’s just that it becomes a different stream of income, do the government really think we can’t see that? Why do they count these as unearned income? They should ring fence child benefit for the kids, and this should be not be looked at when working out someone’s rent etc Untill some of these child related benefits are protected they simply reduce money we get elsewhere to help pay bills etc

    It’s all good and well saying we all need to keep fit, but at £40-50 a month for gym membership who’s paying, and why do we keep selling off our parks, and why do those on benefits and the poorer folk not get free after schools clubs, i’m afraid it’s only the rich that can aford these and those which are free are over subscribed, and you can’t get in anyway. I think before ministers come up with these ideas they need to think alittle and engage with those that they are aiming these ideas at to see how they would/could work.

    #12 – Posted on 22-Oct-06 at 10:44 pm.

13. Dave wrote:

    I Agree, with most of what people have said here. Marriage seems to have been devalued, and the average working family hit hard. It seems that those who struggle on benefits and have kids seem to have money given with one hand and taken with the other, and still come up with the same amount? Child Benefit should be seen as not applicable when working out entitlement to other benefits. You need a science degree to work out the formula’s infact I saw something on TV six months ago, a programme like Watch Dog, where the reporter asked 5 Cambridge students all studying Maths/Computer Science etc to work out a formula from the Child Tax Credit Form the reporter had the answer hidden away and he gave them seven hours to work it out between them….they came up with the wrong answer, and then they couldnt agree in fact some had another answer..wrong again. Now either Cambridge has gone down hill and students applying and getting in are thick! or the forms for claiming benefits are so over complicated that your mind boggles and you really do not know what it is you might get once you sent the forms back anyhow…

    #13 – Posted on 22-Oct-06 at 10:56 pm.

14. john wrote:

    Scrap New Deal because it is a complete con. For working more than 28 hours a week for an extra £15 pw on top of jsa, new deal is slave labour. You work with a company for less than part-time wages whilst everyone employed in the company gets more than £200 per week!

    Jim Murphy responded: John, I don’t agree with you but of course, you’re entitled to your view. However, one of the main purposes of New Deal is to reintroduce people to the world of work after, in many cases, a long period without employment. The programme gives people training, advice and experience – stepping stones that can help advance their careers. It’s also worth pointing out that there are different types of New Deal. For example, under the New Deal for Young People individuals can take up a Subsidised Employment Option. This means an employer pays going rate for the job and provides customer with appropriate training as they would for any employee. New Deal has helped more than 1.5 million people have work. I’m sure many of those wouldn’t want it to be scrapped. And having a job in itself is often enough to help individuals escape the poverty trap.

    #14 – Posted on 23-Oct-06 at 10:29 am.

15. Emma Blackaby wrote:

    I’m a full time student getting governement funding for attending my course which lasts for 2 years. I was on benefits for 6 months prior to commencing the HND i’m doing and found it a struggle to pay bills,buy food, clothe me and my 2 kids etc. I am a single mother and think that if i want to set my children a good example by studying at college and embarking on a new career earning money then they wont sit on there back sides all day living of the state when they have left school.

    Where i live there’s loads of families living of benefits, on drugs, alcoholics etc where there mums/dads or most of the family are on benefits, how can we break the chain?

    As our future generation are only looking at there role models and the children who are living in poverty see this as the norm there way of life.More re-hab programmes should be made available, a better scheme for absent parents to pay up for there kids, scheme’s to motivate parents into studying at college or gaining experience for work.
    As i said before i’m a single mum with 2 kids struggling at college for 2 years, but would rather struggle and gain a brighter fruitful future for me and my kids than sit on income supposrt wasting away, like alot of people who choose the benefit system as a career path.

    #15 – Posted on 23-Oct-06 at 10:34 am.

16. ALISON REYNOLDS wrote:

    When Child and Working Tax credit was introduced I saw this as a step in the right direction to help the low paid with or without children to increase their income. My opinion has completly changed though since returning to work after a career break. The tax credit system as far as i can see does not encourage people to take on extra work especially if the extra work is intermittent as the tax credit is either reduced or not paid the following year and for people like me who rely on tax credit and budget accordingly find any loss can be a financial disaster and can lead to a person getting into debt. Bring back PAYE.

    #16 – Posted on 23-Oct-06 at 12:10 pm.

17. mike roncone wrote:

    Why is it that, it is illegal to discriminate against the disabled yet this Parasitical government thinks it can, by forcing disabled people back to work and undermining medical opinion.The new reforms for the disabled on Incapacity should be treated with total contempt I am disabled through no fault of mine yet some pigheaded politician thinks they have the right to point a finger and say I could be working for maybe a pittance I don’t think Politicians or the Dwp are qualified to infringe my rights as a disabled person.

    Jim Murphy responded: Mike, I want to assure you that our welfare reforms are not about forcing disabled people back to work or suggesting that people should work for anything other than the right wage for the job. This is all about providing help and advice to those who want to work. I fully appreciate that some people, particularly those with more severe disabilities, may never be able to work. We have said that we will provide additional financial support to this group, without additional requirements.

    #17 – Posted on 25-Oct-06 at 12:55 pm.

18. gerardus Kohlinger wrote:

    The story is nice, reality is darker than ever experienced.
    Take this weekly amount to live on is 26.35 for one adult and one child over 16 but under 18.
    Reason she get Carrers allowens to assist 60 hours a week where the Government refuse to act and that carers allowens is then in full deducted from the income. If you want to talk abouth poverty look arround you Britain is getting poorer by the hour, the MP’s however richer by the hour this a a matter of speaking.

    #18 – Posted on 27-Oct-06 at 12:20 pm.

19. caroline dawn hart wrote:

    I too am a single mum of four, i welcome this opportunity to voice what i feel are the real issues that surround the poverty and struggle many thousands face in bringing up their children. Unfortunately from my own experiences i have found that the very agencies set up to assist and support families like mine are sadly falling far short of the mark. In my own case i am a working mum no easy task with four children, something that has been made considerably harder by the failure of agencies and maladministration of the same. I wish i could say this was now rectified and that my life had been made a little easier but i cant. Instead i find that these failings are repeated over and over again, and the effects are devastating my family. I feel that we have been badly let down at a time we needed all the support and help we could get, in my own case i have indeed decided to take matters futher and have just contacted government ministers to high light my concerns, i do this not only for my own family but also hopefully with a view to making life easier for the many thousands like me trying to bring up our children with values and morals and the work ethic. I believe that you work for what want to achieve and will instill this in my own children, although reforms are needed to support families the agencies designed to support these families need to fulfil their own obligations and deliver the standard of service they were set up to achieve. I feel that the failure of this is adding immense pressure to families who are genuinely working hard to improve their childrens lives and standards, and in real terms the opportunities and potential for these children to go on and have fulfilling and positive lives which will in turn lead to positive and proactive adults. The link may seem tenuous but the view of many is that this is indeed the case, resulting in the Governments initiatives about ‘Every Child Matters’ and the Positive approach to parenting. If the Agencies were fulfilling their role i feel the government would have less families at crisis point which would negate the need for futher interventions.

    #19 – Posted on 04-Nov-06 at 12:38 pm.

20. Norman Lee Plumpton wrote:

    As a politics undergraduate, I have read with great interest the governments proposals for welfare reform, but would like to pose insistence to get tough on people who show attributs to being workshy. Also in particular, the incapacity benefit system is known as “the club”, and that people often get onto IB as an easy way out of finding work. I hope that you will absorb these comments into the policy-making process, and begin to end 3rd generation poverty, and the automatic expectancy by some that the state will provide.

    #20 – Posted on 04-Nov-06 at 11:02 pm.

21. john lichey wrote:

    hi i am a full time carer for my partner does ths reform affect existing claimants or just new claimants

    Jim Murphy responded:  Hello John,

    You may know that our proposals include the introduction of a new benefit called the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), which will combine the equivalent of Incapacity Benefit and Income Support.  We’ll be introducing this for new customers from 2008 and, after that, we’ll look at the best way to move existing customers over to the new benefit. 

    Existing claimants will have their benefit level protected, meaning that nobody will suffer a cash loss. They’ll also be able to volunteer for the work-related support on offer but only if they wish to do so.

    We want to focus on helping people into employment and not automatically assume those with significant health conditions or disabilities are incapable of work. However, we will not be forcing people into work - as I mentioned in my response to J. Midgeley.

    #21 – Posted on 27-Nov-06 at 10:57 am.

22. ian wrote:

    as regards the clampdown on longterm unemployed it’s the same old ideas with a different title and hasnt worked before and still wont work if the goverment stopped eu persons from taking our jobs which the employers exploit by paying them below the minimum wage and also taking a large whack for accomodation the unemployed of this country would be able to find work

     Jim Murphy responded:

    I don’t agree that we’re just repackaging old ideas. There are a number of reasons why we’re tackling the “can work, won’t work culture”.

    We know work is the best route out of poverty. As I’ve said before on the blog, it’s a frightening statistic that you’re more likely to die or retire after two years on Incapacity Benefit than ever work again.

    And, for the UK to be competitive in the global marketplace, we simply can’t afford to miss out on the contributions of people who still have much to offer.

    You might be interested to learn that we’ve recently launched a long-term review of the Government’s welfare to work strategy aimed at addressing economic inactivity and promoting social mobility. You can read more about the review here.

    I disagree with your point about EU workers. They can make a valuable contribution to the economy and there is no evidence that migration has contributed to unemployment or caused UK nationals to be unemployed. There are clearly sectors of the economy, and areas of the country, that are experiencing skills and labour shortages. While we don’t tolerate illegal migration, we believe that controlled migration can fill the gaps in the domestic labour market, ensuring that the UK can compete effectively in an international market. 

    It’s also worth noting that an Office of National Statistics survey estimated that there were nearly 600,000 unfilled vacancies in the three months to October 2006. More than 10,000 new vacancies are placed at Jobcentres every working day; at least as many again come up through other recruitment channels, and in December alone, Jobcentre Plus in Dundee advertised more than 700 vacancies. I hope this reassures you about our approach. I wish you well with your job search.

    #22 – Posted on 18-Dec-06 at 11:37 am.

23. Layna Manning wrote:

    How can children be taken out of poverty when working families are worse of the being on benefits my story is very simple i work part time my husband doesnt as we have disabled daughter(so he is her carer) we claim tax credits which go do each year we also claim housing and council tax benefits but every £1 we have over benefit rates we have to pay 85p towards our rent and council tax so my story is that i go to work for 42p per extra i dont get any help with school dinners(wich would be free on benefits)or bus fares to work so i am worse of by at least £24 per week it is only the fact that i have a had a job since i was 13 years old that stops me claiming benefits and it makes me angry that we are getting poorer than those on benefits

    Jim Murphy responded:

    Please see my response to David on this subject.

    #23 – Posted on 02-Jan-07 at 11:09 pm.

RSS 2.0 feed for these comments .