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 (4)

1. VIVIEN ROBINSON wrote:

   Lisa Harker’s report was very comprehensive and as a Childcare Partnership Manager I will work out an action plan from it. From Lisa’s comments around employers Jobcentre Plus offer a variety of incentives to employers under New Deal.
   Employers receive subsidies for recruiting 18-24 year olds and 25+ providing they have been out of the labour market for specified time but there is no subsidy for employers recruiting lone parents/parents.Could this be considered?

   Jim Murphy responded: Vivien you’ve made a valid point. We need to ensure, as far as financially possible, that parents can return to work and, in doing so, lift children out of poverty. Engaging with employers is a positive way to identify flexible vacancies that allow parents to fulfil their parental responsibilities, while also enabling them to work. 

   We feel that the employer subsidy available through New Deal 25 plus and New Deal for Young People would not enhance the prospects of sustainable employment for lone parents. However, as you’ll know, lone parents can access the training provision that’s available though these programmes. They’re also entitled to training support which includes a training premium, as well as in-work support.  And parents in employment, including lone parents, also have access to help with childcare, and support through the tax credits system. 

   We’re currently considering a number of the suggestions made in Lisa’s report and we’ll make the information available in the New Year.

   #1 – Posted on 17-Nov-06 at 5:16 pm.

2. Sarah Smith wrote:

   Hi Jim

   I think the Government has done a lot to lift people out of poverty and you obviously have plans to do more, which is very welcome. But I think the key to reducing poverty is essentially work and making work pay. Although some measures have been taken to do this, such as the introduction of tax credits, the high costs of housing and childcare still remain significant barriers to work for those entering low paid jobs.
   The loss of housing benefit in particular rises at such a steep rate when earning that it is a strong disincentive to work.
   If you are in temporary accommodation, the rent for just a small flat can be hundreds of pounds per week. Some people are simply not in the position to find a job which pays enough to cover the costs of rent plus living expenses.
   The earnings disregard for HB is £20, earn more than this and you lose benefit. This really needs updating to take into account today’s housing costs. I understand the need to balance benefit payments against income to provide good value to the tax payer and I wouldn’t expect to be subsidising HB payments for those who earn a good wage, but housing costs are the most significant outgoing from most people’s income and it is a serious problem for those who want to work but won’t earn enough to cover their rent and living expenses.
   Of course there are underlying solutions such as education and skills training to allow people to get better paid jobs or jobs with prospects, but the earnings disregard limit was set years ago and it really should be updated. If this encourages people to enter work you will be making savings on benefit spend in the long-term and crucially making work pay thereby reducing poverty.
   Perhaps you could also have a word with your colleagues in DCLG to do something about the scandalous rent rates charged by landlords for homeless people housed in temporary accommodation?
   Thanks,
   Sarah

   Jim Murphy responded: Hi Sarah.

   Thanks for your positive feedback on what we’ve achieved so far in terms of tackling poverty. I agree with you that having more people in employment and having incentives to work is the key to further improvement. Analysis shows that many more people are already better off in work than on benefit as a result of tax credits. We believe this, and other policies designed to make work pay, have contributed to record levels of employment.

   Our Welfare Reform Bill acknowledges that Housing Benefit has been criticised as a complex benefit and we’re introducing measures to address this. On the specific subject of earnings disregard, we know that ignoring some earnings when assessing benefit entitlement ensures there’s an incentive for people to look for work and stay in employment. Disregard levels are designed to strike a balance between encouraging people to work by ignoring some of their earnings, and using the money that’s available to improve benefit levels for everyone.

   Increasing the disregard would reduce the amount of earnings that are taken into account for those lower down the earnings scale. But it would also make more people further up the earnings scale subject to a reduction in their benefit. This could act as a disincentive for people to remain in employment. Increasing earning disregards would also be expensive and the costs would be significantly higher if we increased other benefit disregards by the same amount.

   #2 – Posted on 23-Nov-06 at 5:47 pm.

3. Hilary Caprani wrote:

   The tax credit system and particularly the childcare element, has undoubtedly helped to raise many families with children out of deep poverty and made it worthwhile for parents, especially lone parents to work. It is disappointing that the government has so far missed its own tagets on reducing child poverty in the UK, but it must be acknowledge that the tax credit system, along with other initiatives have begun to move the trend for poverty reduction in the right direction.

   However, it is essential that the government’s firmly held commitment to ‘work as a route out of poverty’ is tempered with the recognition that parents with young families must be able to retain a balance between work and family life and to have the right to both improve their familiy’s financial position and fulfil caring responsibilities. Many parents want to give their children the very best chance financially, but often feel that this comes at a high price; being comelled to work long hours and having little time left for the important job of childrearing. The DWP should ensure that tax credit rates for families where parents are part-time or term-time workers are adequate and allow flexibility and should continue to press for better wages for part-time workers (many of whom are women already earning disproportionately lower salaries than their male counterparts).

   Families, including those who may have the extra caring reponsibilities associated with disability in the family, should of course have the right to be workers but they must have the right to be parents too.

   #3 – Posted on 27-Nov-06 at 2:53 pm.

4. Neil Harding wrote:

   I’m no expert on this and I recognise how important tax credits, minimum wage etc have been, but isn’t eradicating child poverty mainly just a case of increasing child benefit?

   The evidence seems to show that the vast majority of parents would rather go without essentials themselves than let their children suffer, so increasing child benefit is a direct and simple way of helping these children. I imagine that administratively it is fairly simple as well.

   The first thing I would do is make the payment the same for all children and then increase the amount significantly. To find the money go to the public directly with the case for increased taxation to pay for it.

   Related to this, increase the mimimum wage as much as possible (credit to the govt for increasing it faster than earnings already). The minimum wage benefits mothers the most, because they generally have to accept lower wage jobs. It is still not high enough in high housing cost areas.

   #4 – Posted on 17-Dec-06 at 2:20 pm.

RSS 2.0 feed for these comments .

Post a Comment

We aim to publish a representative cross-section of comments. We will make sure that all comments are taken into account as part of the formal consultation process.