|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vulnerable families face hardest child benefit cuts
By Nick Tarver
PLANS to cut child benefits for people who earn more than £44,000 a year could hit some of the most vulnerable families the hardest.
That is the view of child welfare experts in the borough after Chancellor George Osborne announced that from 2013 child benefits will be denied to families which have at least one parent earning more than £44,000 a year.
But critics have pointed out that a couple who both earn just under the threshold individually but have a combined salary of almost £88,000, would keep their benefits,
whereas a family with a single earner who brings home just over £44,000 would lose theirs.
Dee Eimer, chief executive of Enfield Parents And Children charity, a charity based in Montagu Road, Edmonton, which helps about 1,500 families in the borough, says single parents and those of children with special education needs, such as autism, will be hurt by the cut.
But Conservative Enfield Southgate MP, David Burrowes, who has six children himself and will personally suffer financially from the cuts, said he supports the decision, which could save the government £1billion a year.
Ms Eimer said: “The first thing that strikes me is that there are a lot of single-parent families in the borough, for whatever reason. I think there’s a feeling of unfairness if you don’t consider combined salaries. A single parent could be just over the threshold and lose out.
“Parents of children with special educational needs often have to spend more on their children, so there needs to be a better way of making calculations.”
Ms Eimer said the varying cost of living around the country should also be taken into account, as rent and mortgage payments are often higher in London.
And she added that the reception to the announcement has been mixed from the parents she has spoken to. “Some people have seen it as a universal allowance which they’ve valued and welcomed,” she said. “At the same time, others feel that if you really don’t need it, then you shouldn’t get it. But even parents we might consider to be on a middle income say they don’t fritter it away. The money goes towards important things for their children.”
The universal benefit, worth £20 a week for the first born and £13.20 for every subsequent child, was introduced after World War II to encourage a growth in the birth rate and has remained at the heart of successive governments’ family benefits policies.
Mr Burrowes said he understands why the announcement by his party has caused such a debate and that he has been contacted by numerous constituents objecting to the plans.
“Any report of cutting benefits is bound to cause concern to people,” he said. “I’ve had a large number of constituents who have complained – more about the apparent unfairness between the two-earner families who fall below the threshold and those single-earner ones that don’t.
“I’m acutely aware of the situation, having six children myself. You could describe me in parliament as the fattest turkey voting for Christmas. People sometimes accuse MPs of being divorced from the impact of the decisions they make, but this is an example of how we’re all in this together and no one should be excluded.
“We have to make savings to the ballooning welfare budget so we can focus welfare where it always should be – for those who need it the most.”
Mr Burrowes said the government chose to cut the benefits in this way as the tax system is based on an individual’s income and not the total family income, claiming any other way would cost more money.
He said: “The government wanted, in the simplest way possible, to have a mechanism where savings are achieved. There could not be a way of avoiding this anomaly of a couple having a combined salary of £80,000 but still keeping their benefits, without fundamentally changing the tax and benefit system, which would cost more than we would save.”
