Question 3: Should we do more to ensure that our support for lone parents is accessible and useful for all groups, in particular those with disabled children and those from certain disadvantaged groups and areas?

No. Support should be accessible for all groups if they require support. Support should be freely accessible and not mandatory. Government outcomes should not be measured by levels of uptake of support otherwise there is the risk of pressurising parents who do not want or need help in getting into employment, to utilise these services. A support service should be freely offered to those who require it and not enforced on those who do not. The term "service resistant" blames lone parents where they do not take up services that are not appropriate for their family needs. There will always be a proportion of lone parents who are not available for paid employment because of family responsibility. For those parents mandatory "support" is harmful and damaging to the interests of their children, rather than being "useful." The requirement to use "support" prioritises paid employment over family responsibility in the drive toward the aim of full employment. The term "service resistant," used by government reveals the mandatory intentions of government towards "helping" lone parents into paid employment. We are concerned that the needs of children should be protected in any plan to promote employment of lone parents and any assistance offered should not result in pressure to work where parents are not available for work or financial sanctions against the families of lone parents who are not available for work.

Question 4: More frequent Work Focused Interviews are currently offered to lone parents in the two years before their eligibility to Income Support is lost. As the age of the youngest child is reduced, should other forms of support be provided, and over what period prior to loss of eligibility?

This question makes it perfectly clear that the reduction of the age of the youngest child is already a foregone conclusion, betraying the fact that this consultation is a sham. Eligibilty should continue until Child Benefit ceases to be payable for the youngest child. “Staying at home or returning to work must be a choice for parents, and our role is to make that a real choice – to make both staying at home and returning to work practical and realistic, so that parents can do what is best for them and their children.” (Ed Balls, speech to Daycare Trust, 17^th June 2007)

Offering more frequent interviews puts more pressure on parents to accept poor employment offers and to put their children at risk by accepting employment when they are not really available for work due to family responsibilities. Despite the words "offering interviews", the overwhelming atmosphere is one of force and threat, where parents are put in fear of losing their income if they do not respond in a manner in which governemnt prefers, rather than in a manner which is best for their children's well-being. The rhetoric and the reality of choice and assitance appear to be far removed.

Question 5: For lone parents who move onto Jobseeker’s Allowance when they lose Income Support eligibility, what forms of support (in addition to those provided to Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants who are not lone parents) should be available, and over what timescale?

Lone parents should not be moved onto a conditional benefit. Lone parents of dependent children must be allowed to prioritise the needs of the child. Eligibility to Income Support should continue until Child Benefit ceases to be payable for the youngest child. The questions suggests that lone parents *will* lose their eligibility to Income Support based on the age of their youngest child in the government drive toward full employment. Many lone parents are in paid employment, but due to their specific difficulties find it more difficult than others to stay in paid work. In spite of this 69% of lone parents whose youngest child is over eleven years are in paid employment. We welcome specialised, personal support to return to the labour market for these parents who are available in the labour market but face difficulties finding work, however, these measures must not be mandatory. The right to Income Support, a subsistence benefit, must not be arbitrarily withdrawn from families of lone parents who are fulfilling family responsibilities.

Question 6: Jobseeker‘s Allowance recipients can, in certain circumstances, restrict their search for work to a minimum of 16 hours per week. Should additional flexibilities be available if the proposed changes are made?

The proposed changes must not be made. The right of parents to bring up and educate their own children must take precedence. If a single parent wishes to work from home for even one hour per week the system should be flexible enough to accomodate this whilst ensuring that the family benefits and does not lose out financially.

Question 7: What form might a ‘better off in work’ assurance for lone parents take?

Not sure.

The form of language assumes that the only way in which a family can be "better off" is financially through paid employment only. We find the assumption that lone parents are not working while they are fulfilling their real responsibilities to their families insulting to parents in difficult and demanding circumstances and are concerned that the welfare of children will be adversely affected by a policy insisting that lone parents must be in paid employment. In reality, families need to be able to reach their own balance between the various forms of well-being - financial well being is only one aspect of well-being. The assurance families need is that their own assessment of their well being is understood, accepted, and will not be compromised by a myopic focus on well being in the purely financial sense at the cost of the other needs of children. “Staying at home or returning to work must be a choice for parents, and our role is to make that a real choice – to make both staying at home and returning to work practical and realistic, so that parents can do what is best for them and their children.” (Ed Balls, speech to Daycare Trust, 17^th June 2007)

Question 8: Are any special provisions required for lone parents who move onto benefits other than Jobseeker’s Allowance (for example, Employment and Support Allowance or Carer’s Allowance)?

Not sure

AHEd believe that the current rule of eligibility until the child reaches 16 years of age is the minimum acceptable standard and income support should be available to all lone parents whose children are receiving education

Question 9: In addition to the improvements in childcare provision and the right to request flexible working, is there further support that should be provided to help lone parents into work and support them whilst there?

The "right to request flexible working" is toothless and pointless, unless it is backed up with a requirement on employers to provide this (genuine and supportable business reasons notwithstanding). Many lone parents who would like the opportunity to earn would welcome the opportunity to work from home, and to be able to adjust their hours of work on a frequent basis. Historically, this degree of flexibility has proved too difficult for the benefits system to cope with effectively, and parents often make the choice to stay out of work rather than risking family stability by struggling with this.

Question 10: What more could we do to help working families – especially those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds – improve their earnings and lift themselves out of poverty?

Lone parents should not be required to accept work which will result in the impoverishment of their family. Lone parents must not face government imposed financial sanctions as a result of fulfilling family responsibilities that cause them to be unavailable for paid employment. Help should be optional and not mandatory.

Question 11: What more could we do to help ethnic minority women, particularly of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin, overcome specific barriers they face?

Lone parents should not be required to accept work which will result in the impoverishment of their family. Lone parents must not face government imposed financial sanctions as a result of fulfilling family responsibilities that cause them to be unavailable for paid employment. Help should be optional and not mandatory.

Question 12: In exchange for more specialist support, are we right to ask more of those who have been unemployed and receiving benefit the longest?

NO. This is blackmail. If government have more specialist support available, it should be offered to ALL lone parents who WANT support.

Question 13: Should there be any exceptions to this approach of increased conditionality and increased support?

The approach should not be implemented. AHEd believe that the current rule of eligibility until the child reaches 16 years of age is the minimum acceptable standard and income support should be available to all lone parents whose children are receiving education We do not agree with conditional benefits for lone parents.

Question 14: Is a structured, progressive regime of support and conditionality at fixed intervals the right approach?

No. Conditionality for lone parent income support eligibility and the requirement to move to job seekers allowance imposes sanctions on lone parents and their families. We welcome personal support and incentives for those parents who are in the labour market. Those who are not available for work becuase of family responsibilities must not be penalised. AHEd believe that the current rule of eligibility until the child reaches 16 years of age is the minimum acceptable standard and income support should be available to all lone parents whose children are receiving education We do not agree with conditional benefits for lone parents.

Question 15: Should some people be enabled or required to enter the Gateway stage more quickly than others, taking account of their employment history or needs? Which groups should be ‘fast-tracked’?

No. There should be no "requirements" to accept any state "support" - this is an oxymoron which reveals the true nature of these proposals.

Question 16: Should we require a period of work experience from those who do not succeed in getting work after benefiting from a more intensive level of help from specialist providers? How can we best ensure that this work experience is beneficial?

No. Using lone parents to provide such enforced unpaid labour, removing them from their extremely valuable role in the home, will not be beneficial and risks harming family stability.

Concluding Comments

These proposals discriminate against lone parents who choose to home educate their children, effectively taking away their legal choice to do so. AHEd will oppose any such discrimination against our members and against the right to home educate.

Until recently the government have been at pains to reassure enquirers that there is no intention to "force lone parents into work or cut lone parent benefits." and have agreed that this would be wrong in principle and damaging to the health and well-being of children."

In addition we have been assured that it "is a matter of individual choice for each lone parent as to whether they look to move into work or continue to claim benefits." This consultaion appears to be in opposition to these reassurances. The DWP concluded in their five year plan that ‘it would be wrong simply to move lone parents from income support onto the Jobseeker’s Allowance regime. AHEd members agree that this would be cruel and inneffective as a means of providing support for lone parents who wish to return to the labour market.

We are concerned that the needs of children should be protected in any plan to promote employment of lone parents. Any assistance offered should not result in pressure to work where parents are not available for work or financial sanctions against the families of lone parents who are not available for work.

The paper acknowledges that Job Centre Plus (JCP) Advisors would need discretion to take into account family circumstances and therefore availability for work. Availability for work of lone parents with dependent children should not be assumed on the basis of the age of the youngest child. Therefore no support offered to find suitable work should be mandatory and parents should not be moved onto a conditional benefit such as job seekers allowance. Entitlement to Income Support should not be arbitrarily withdrawn.

We are particularly alarmed that parents may be moved onto a benefit where we believe it is possible to lose benefits as a sanction, whereas Income Support is protected in the interest of the welfare of children. Is the government planning to take steps to ensure that families are not left without benefits because the parent is taking care of family responsibilities and is, therefore, not available for work?

As a voluntary group working for the rights and freedoms of home educating families, we are aware of thousands of families who choose to home educate their children, for a wide variety of educational reasons, but also for the additional benefits to the emotional well being and the health of their children. In law, home education is equally valid with school education. It is sometimes essential for the health, safety and well being of children where the school sector does not meet their needs, or even threatens their well being, and it is the duty of parents to ensure that their children are suitably educated in accordance with section seven of the Education Act, 1996. More than 360,000 children are injured in schools each year, 450,000 children were bullied in school each week of last year, at least 16 children commit suicide each year as a result of school bullying, an estimated 1 million children truant every year and Treasury statistics show that more than 1 in 6 children leave school each year unable to read, write or add up.

http://ahed.pbwiki.com/Anomaly+Figures

This consultation bases its expectation that lone parents will be available to work on the basis that children will be in school and the assertion that childcare is now available. However, childcare is not always available or desirable, particularly for example in the case of older children or children with complex or special needs. AHEd members believe it is quite simply wrong to move lone parents onto jobseekers allowance on the basis of these assumptions and that the proposals should therefore not go forward. The DWP concluded in their five year plan that ‘it would be wrong simply to move lone parents from income support onto the Jobseeker’s Allowance regime: an unrestricted requirement to search for work is inappropriate given the complex and difficult circumstances many lone parents face. We think such an approach would expensive, unfair and ineffectual' - AHEd members agree.

AHEd members are fully aware of the effects that financial poverty can have on the well being of children and families. We agree that lone parents should not be mandated to take a job if this does not make them better off than claiming benefits. Unfortunately, 23 per cent of children with a working lone parent remain poor; poor and deprived of their parents and the social, moral and emotional benefits a present parent provides.

(Figures from Households Below Average Income 2005-06)