David Cameron: Parents Of Truants Face Benefit Cuts

Parents of children who regularly truant face having their benefits cut, David Cameron has warned, as he opened the first wave of the Government’s free schools.











In a keynote speech on Friday, the Prime Minister said the government's social policy review, set up in the wake of the recent riots, was considering the proposal.

Addressing the Norwich Free School, Norfolk, he outlined Coalition plans to ensure teaching was based on “excellence”.

Controversial reforms were needed to “bring back the values of a good education” because failure to do so would be “fatal to prosperity”.

Mr Cameron said more discipline and rigour were needed.

In his speech, Mr Cameron signalled a return to “elitism” in schools in an attempt to mend Britain’s “broken society” and secure the economic future.

He said discipline needed to be restored in schools, with teachers and heads being given the tools to do this but “restoring discipline is also about what parents do”.

“We need parents to have a real stake in the discipline of their children, to face real consequences if their children continually misbehave,” he said.

"That's why I have asked our social policy review to look into whether we should cut the benefits of those parents whose children constantly play truant.

"Yes, this would be a tough measure – but we urgently need to restore order and respect in the classroom and I don't want ideas like this to be off the table."

In his speech, Mr Cameron also championed the opening of the first free schools, state-funded institutions run by parents, charities and faith groups, independent of local council control. Some 24 have opened this month.

The Prime Minister attacked the “prizes for all” culture in which competitiveness was frowned upon and winners are shunned.

The comments marked the latest in a series of attempts to focus on education in response to the riots that shocked London and other English cities last month.

They follow the announcement by Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, of back-to-basics discipline in state schools.

He plans to give teachers more freedom to search pupils suspected of carrying banned items and to let them use reasonable force in removing the most disruptive children from the classroom.

Mr Cameron sought to move the debate on to standards, saying that a rigorous focus on the basics is needed to give young people “the character to live a good life, to be good citizens”.

The Prime Minister added: “For the future of our economy, and our society, we need a first-class education for every child. Of course, everyone’s agreed on that.

“The trouble is that for years we’ve been bogged down in a great debate about how we get there. Standards or structures? Learning by rote or by play? Elitism or all winning prizes?”

"Every year that passes without proper reform, is another year that tens of thousands of teenagers leave school without the qualifications they really need."

He added: "The most important value we're bringing back to the classroom is a commitment to rigour. Rigorous subjects, tested in a rigorous way.

"However well students perform in their exams, we cannot deny the reality of the past few years. The numbers of people taking core academic subjects - they went down.

"The voices from business concerned about the usefulness of some of our exams - they grew louder.

"We are determined to stop this slide - and already we're making an impact."

Mr Cameron made clear that he was in favour of elitism and not prizes for all.

He added: “These debates are over – because it’s clear what works. Discipline works. Rigour works. Freedom for schools works. Having high expectations works.

“Now we’ve got to get on with it – and we don’t have any time to lose.”

Free schools have provoked fury among teaching unions who claim they smack of elitism and represent an attempt to dismantle the state education system.

But Mr Cameron insisted free schools will “have the power to change lives”.

He also sought to link improvements in education to mending “our broken society.”

“We’ve got to be ambitious if we want to compete in the world,” he said.

“When China is going through an educational renaissance, when India is churning out science graduates, any complacency now would be fatal.

“And we’ve got to be ambitious, too, if we want to mend our broken society. Because education doesn’t just give people the tools to make a good living – it gives them the character to live a good life, to be good citizens.”

He added: "A free school is born of a real passion for education – a belief in its power to change lives.

"It's a passion and a belief this coalition shares. We want to want to create an education system based on real excellence, with a complete intolerance of failure."

The comments come days after Nick Clegg said that parents must take more responsibility. The Deputy Prime Minister insisted that teachers should be left to educate, and not be expected to act as “surrogate mothers and fathers”.

Homelessness Up As Cuts Take Effect

Homelessness is on the rise in the wake of the recession and government cuts to housing benefit, official figures show.












In the three months to June there was a 17 per cent rise to 11,820 in the number of households accepted by local authorities as in priority need of rehousing, compared to the same quarter last year.

The figures show that on almost all measures homelessness is now rising, reversing a trend that has seen more or less continuous declines since 2003, according to Crisis, the homelessness charity.

A report commissioned by Crisis and carried out by academics at York and Heriot-Watt universities to coincide with the figures warned the “worst is yet to come” after the combined effect of the economic downturn and significant cuts to housing benefit takes hold.

“Government reforms, in combination with the pressures of the economic downturn seem certain to increase all forms of homelessness, from rough sleepers on our streets to homeless people hidden out of sight,” said Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick of Heriot-Watt’s institute for housing.

The latest figures are the first since cuts to the local housing allowance for new claimants – an allowance that determines housing benefit levels – were introduced in April. There has been a big percentage rise, although small numerical increase, from 1,460 to 2,130 in the number of households accepted as homeless because a private rented tenancy has come to an end.

The report for Crisis notes that during the last big housing recession in the early 1990s, homelessness fell as lower house prices eased access for first time buyers, releasing homes for rent.

That is unlikely to happen this time, the report says, as available lettings in the social rented sector are down and first time buyers still face difficulty in getting mortgages.

On top of big housing benefit cuts, the government is moving towards more “flexible” tenancies in social housing while pushing up rents for new homes to 80 per cent of market levels. Both moves will weaken the safety net function of the social rented sector, the report says.

Leslie Morphy, chief executive of Crisis, called on the government to reverse the housing benefit cuts and withdraw its plans to no longer pay benefit on actual housing costs, instead providing an allowance. “We need the government to change course now or risk returning us to the days of countless lives facing the debilitating effect of homelessness,” she said.

Grant Shapps, housing minister, urged those threatened with homelessness to seek help as early as possible, arguing that a wide range of support remained available to people struggling to stay in their homes.

No work, No Money, No Security - What Would Life Be Like If I Lost My Job?

For Jon Robins it's a hypothetical question, but what he learns about that possible future reveals the devastating situation that an increasing number of credit crunch victims and their families are facing.









The small waiting room at Brighton and Hove Citizens Advice bureau, based in Hove town hall, is heaving. The network of bureaux is at the sharp end of the credit crunch and reports a 52 per cent rise in the number of inquiries relating to redundancy in the past six months.

Cash is here to examine the catastrophic impact that job loss can have on a family's financial wellbeing. What happens when a breadwinner suddenly loses his or her job and there are young children to clothe and feed, not to mention the mortgage and bills to pay?

'It isn't just the fact that people lose their job, but that their whole lives can unravel. Everything can fall apart - that's what is so terrible,' says Sheelagh Reid, a 61-year-old adviser who has volunteered at Brighton Citizens Advice for 15 years. The experience can be as upsetting for advisers as it is devastating for clients, she adds. 'I enjoy my work but I wouldn't want to do more than one day a week. It's draining.'

She is considering the financial fate of a fairly typical household that has been abruptly deprived of a £40,000 salary. For the purpose of this exercise, I am playing the part of a breadwinner who's been comfortable in his well-remunerated job for 14 years prior to falling victim to a tanking economy. My (fictional) family has, by today's standards, an unremarkable level of indebtedness: £80,000 to pay on the mortgage and £4,000 outstanding on the credit cards.

Even so, the prognosis is grim. A person 'like the hypothetical you', as Reid puts it, 'is unlikely to have much put by the way of savings. People just don't save any more ... so, sadly, redundancy can destroy marriages and the whole fabric of lives can fall apart.'

It is a view shared by Beccy Boden Wilks from National Debtline, who advises me over the phone before I set off. She reckons the average Briton's savings would only last 52 days if they were to lose their job. According to the Yorkshire building society, average monthly outgoings are £1,445 and the average accessible savings are £2,474. 'Losing a job leaves us incredibly exposed,' she says. 'Few of us would be immune.'

These are questions I asked Citizens Advice:
How much would my employer have to pay if he sacks me after 14 years' faithful service?

Reid wants to know if I have contractual rights exceeding the bare legal requirements. No, I don't.

People are often shocked at how little statutory redundancy pay is, she says. 'You don't get anything until you have been working there for two years and there is a maximum amount you can be paid' - one week for each year's service up to the age of 41 and then one and a half weeks per year, capped at £330 a week.

For the hypothetical me, with my 14 years' service, that adds up to £4,620. If my redundancy pay was meant to be a cushion to soften the blow, then, as Emily Ballantyne, the specialist advice unit manager at Brighton CAB, says it's rather threadbare.
How much will we have to live on?

The answer is £140.38 a week. OK, that's an estimate, but it's likely to be as little as that. According to National Debtline, we would get Jobseeker's Allowance (£94.95 for a couple), £14.08 in tax credits (because I have been working and just lost my job, they are lower than they would have been if I hadn't been working for the past two years), and £31.35 child benefit. 'From that sum you'd have to pay your mortgage, utilities, telephone, car, insurance - everything,' says Boden Wilks. 'The only thing you aren't going to pay out for is council tax' - apparently, I'm entitled to council tax benefit.
How am I going to be able to pay our mortgage?

I'm probably not. It's easy to see that without payment protection insurance (which neither I nor my fictional self have), I'm not going to be able to cover my monthly mortgage payments of £550. 'You need to contact your lender if you have no insurance. Say that you are on Jobseeker's Allowance, you can't afford your mortgage but you're looking for work and hoping to get work,' advises Boden Wilks.

From 5 January, the government will step in to help homeowners with their mortgage interest after 13 weeks of unemployment. The maximum size of mortgage qualifying for help will also rise, from £100,000 to £200,000. But although my £80,000 mortgage is the right size to qualify for help now, because the hypothetical me was made redundant before 5 January, I won't qualify for help for 39 weeks.

So what do the mortgage companies have to say? Lenders can begin court action when homeowners are two months in arrears (though the pre-Budget report wants them to wait three months at least). The sooner I contact my lender, the more options I have, Sarah Robson from the Council of Mortgage Lenders tells me. 'There's no one-size-fits-all approach. The lender will assess the individual situation the borrower is in and try to find a reasonable repayment option.'

This could mean moving on to an interest-only loan, taking a payment holiday or extending the length of the mortgage. As Ballantyne is quick to point out, an £80,000 interest-only mortgage with a 5 per cent interest rate would still cost me £333 a month. The best scenario is a payment holiday, she adds.

Unfortunately, my notional mortgage company (the Halifax) tells me that it doesn't offer them in the event of redundancy. A spokesman says they might agree 'a reduced payment or a nil payment for a period of time' (apparently not the same as a payment holiday). I have not missed a mortgage payment for 14 years; could I have a nil-payment period? That will depend on my circumstances, he tells me.
What about my £4,000 credit card bill?

Sort out your priority from your non-priority debts, advises Ballantyne - and remember that 'credit cards aren't priority debts. Most people don't understand that. Priority debts are your rent or mortgage, fuel bills and council tax. Non-priorities are unsecured loans - credit cards, store cards, and catalogues.'

Creditors with non-priority debts will scream loudest, ring you up at home and deluge you with red-letter demands, says Boden Wilks. The reason for that is that their money isn't secured against anything you own, so they're worried they won't get it back.

She recommends I start by filling out National Debtline's budget sheet which enables me to calculate my available income after we've paid mortgage, council tax, gas and electricity. If there's any money left for my creditors, we can work out what we can afford to pay and contact creditors making 'pro rata' offers.

I ring up Barclaycard: 'Will you cut me some slack on my £4,000 until I get back on my feet?' Not exactly; but, as the spokesman puts it, they can 'guarantee that we'll be sympathetic'. He goes on to explain they might use a number of options, 'such as accepting reduced repayments for a period of time or looking to agree a repayment plan'.
What about fuel bills?

Payments can be recalculated and direct debits reset on a lower tariff, says Patricia Ockenden of new watchdog Consumer Focus. 'It all depends on your level of consumption, the property and the amount of difficulty you're in. It's always possible for consumers to renegotiate their tariff and look at other ways of paying for their energy.' She warns me to stay clear of prepayment meters, which suppliers might suggest as a means of economising: 'You have to be very cautious. You could end up paying a tariff far greater than you would be if you paid by a different means and moving back to the standard meter can be costly as well.' Ballantyne agrees - she calls them 'debt recovery machines'. Consumer Focus has good advice if you are having problems paying your bills (consumerfocus.org).

I ask EDF what it can do for me. For its 'most in need' customers, it offers a long-term social tariff. This would include someone on Jobseeker's Allowance if they spend more than 10 per cent of their income on their energy bills (more than likely if I'm on benefits). 'Our customers - including those on prepayment meters - can access our social tariff,' a spokesman says. He reckons that EDF's 'Energy Assist' represents an annual saving on an average bill of up to £184.90, assuming a dual-fuel tariff.
How am I going to feed my family?

Boden Wilks says the guideline for housekeeping for two adults and two children is around £500 a month, a figure agreed between the debt advice sector and credit industry: 'You're not going to be spending that much, though,' she warns. 'Your monthly income on Jobseeker's is only £608.31. You're going to shop as cheaply as possible.'
What you need to know

Is the rule 'last in, first out' still used?
Some businesses may still operate on this basis, but they have to be careful. If all the people made redundant are young, the employees could claim against their employer on the grounds of age discrimination.

How quickly can I sign on?
It depends on your particular circumstances and how your final payoff is regarded by your Jobcentre Plus. The best thing is to ring up (0800 0556688) and provide your details immediately. You will then be given an appointment to see an adviser who can determine when, and if, you qualify.

How much money will I get?
The standard Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) is £47.95 a week for people under the age of 25, and £60.50 a week for over-25s, and lone parents aged 18 or more. You may also qualify for other benefits, so check, either with your local Jobcentre Plus or Citizens Advice. If you are unable to work, you may be able to claim Income Support (the same amount of money) instead. You can claim by calling 0800 0556688 or online at www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk. In Northern Ireland, you claim JSA at a Jobs and Benefits Office or Social Security Office.

Will the money be cut off if I refuse to take a job?
It could be. To claim JSA you must be capable of working, below state pension age, available for work and actively seeking it. If you fail to take up a job offer, or follow up chances of work, you may be penalised. Your JSA could be reduced or stopped for between one and 26 weeks. You can also be penalised because of the circumstances in which you left your last job, for example, if you left voluntarily or were dismissed because of misconduct.

Will I get help with my mortgage?
If you are eligible for JSA or income support, you can claim help with the monthly interest, but not repayment of the loan itself.

When you get help depends on its size (help is only extended to loans up to £100,000) and when you took out your mortgage: if it was before 2 October 1995, you will get nothing for eight weeks, then 50 per cent for the next 18, and the full amount after 26; if you took out your loan on or after that date, you will have to wait for 39 weeks. From 5 January, the waiting period will be reduced to 13 weeks, and the maximum limit raised to £200,000.

Should I use my redundancy payment to reduce or pay off my mortgage?
It depends how much money you get. If you receive a huge amount, then why not pay off at least part of your mortgage? But if you get tens of thousands of pounds or less, you should probably hold onto a large part of the cash to meet bills and in case of an emergency.

I can't afford to pay all my bills - which ones should I concentrate on?
Mortgage or rent, council tax and utilities, and anything affected by a judgement order or bailiff action. If you fail to pay these, you could end up homeless.

I can't manage my debts now I've lost my salary - should I take out one of those plans advertised on TV?
Definitely not. Although they purport to cut your debts, they will charge a large amount to set up the plan. Instead, seek free advice from one of the debt-counselling charities, such as Citizens Advice (www.citizensadvice.org.uk), National Debtline (0808 808 4000), Capitalise (in London - 020 7392 2953) or Consumer Credit Counselling Service (0800 138 1111).

Riots: Coalition Tensions Over Benefits Plan

The flames of the riots have subsided, but the political fall-out has only just begun.











One proposal could lead to people losing benefits if they are convicted.

The Government's most immediate concern is what to do with the hundreds of people who have been arrested over the disturbances.

Many people feel the punishments being dished out are merely a slap on the wrist.

Others are concerned about the many young offenders who have been swept up into criminality.

Today both David Cameron and Ed Miliband made speeches trying to unpick the causes of the riots and prescribe their own remedies.

The Prime Minister must walk the political tightrope of reacting decisively and swiftly to the riots, without a knee-jerk response.











David Cameron says he 'fully supports' Iain Duncan Smith.

Ed Miliband has already accused Mr Cameron of "knee-jerk gimmicks".

But the truth is that neither the Prime Minister nor the leader of the opposition have come up with much in the way of concrete policies.

David Cameron’s speech seemed an exercise in re-emphasising what the Coalition is already doing - such as welfare reform, free schools and the British Bill of Rights.

One source close to the Prime Minister confirmed to me that today was more about "re-energising" and "reminding ministers of our priorities" rather than outlining a specific policy reaction.

Meanwhile Ed Miliband bemoaned the "unequal society" and "gross irresponsibility" but refused to nail his colours to the mast of any particular policy initiative - simply calling for a national inquiry.

One new policy is, however, under discussion and it is likely to be extremely controversial.











Lib Dem Simon Hughes says he fears 'knee-jerk' responses.

Work and Pension Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has said the Government is currently looking at removing benefits from people involved in the riots.

When asked about the idea during the question and answer session, the Prime Minister would only say that Mr Duncan Smith had his "total support".

Housing Minister Grant Shapps has already said that he is actively encouraging councils to use their right to evict council house tenants if they have been involved in criminal activity.

But if this is widened to include all benefits, there could be a rocky road ahead for the Coalition.

Liberal Democrat deputy leader Simon Hughes has cautioned against a "knee-jerk" response, and the party's welfare spokeswoman Jenny Willott has said she is "very worried" by the proposal.

And while Nick Clegg is understood to be comfortable with the idea of rioters losing their council homes, it is unclear whether he would be happy if they lost other benefits too.

Cutting Benefits Of Single Parents Will Increase Number Of Kids In Poverty

Slashing benefits of single parents who don't look for work will increase child poverty and family hardship, a report has warned.

Gingerbread, the charity that represents lone parents, wants ministers to abandon the "big stick" of benefit sanctions proposed in the Welfare Reform Bill.















Interviewing 200 single parents it found most were keen to work but felt hampered by lack of support from Government and employers.

Gingerbread chief executive Fiona Weir said: "Single parents are branded bad mothers if they are not there for their children and derided as benefits scroungers if they stay home - they feel caught in a trap."

The Government says getting single parents to work is the best route out of poverty.

But Gingerbread claims welfare reforms will make it tougher for single parents to juggle work with raising a family.

There are 1.9 million single parents in the UK who care for about three million children. Until last year, those with children aged 16 or younger could claim Income Support and weren't forced to seek work.

They had to attend "Work Focused Interviews" at the Jobcentre twice a year to discuss returning to work.

Since then, the Government has introduced a major change, gradually moving single parents with children aged seven and over from Income Support on to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA).

To claim JSA they must attend Jobcentre Plus every two weeks and show they are actively looking for work. Claimants who fail to meet these conditions or who turn down a job without "good cause" can have their benefits cut by up to 40%.

The Bill aims to make parents of children as young as three take part in "work-related activity".

Many single parents are already being squeezed by the recession.

Calls to Gingerbread's helpline suggest more lone parents are seeing maintenance payments slashed as ex-partners lose their jobs.

Gingerbread's research also found many parents were keen to work but said it often didn't pay. "Childcare, travel and school meal costs can wipe out the benefits of many lowpaid, part-time jobs and leave parents out of pocket," says Weir.

Gingerbread wants employers to be more flexible to help single parents juggle work and family responsibilities and says the state could lead by example by offering more flexitime, parttime work and job sharing.

It believes single parents should have childcare costs covered through working tax credits and get their youngsters school meals free.

The DWP stressed the Government was commited to ensuring work pays for lone parents. Work & Pensions Secretary Yvette Cooper has announced a trial that from next year will mean they can earn £50 a week without losing benefits. And the bill has been amended so victims of domestic violence will not have to look for work for three months.

"We need to help families out of poverty by helping parents work, and we will always do so in a way that also supports family life," said Cooper. Here we speak to three single mums facing the challenges...

For expert advice call Gingerbread's free helpline on 0800 018 5026.

The full-time mum

Mother-of-two Jaqueline Carroll says she feels "stuck in a rut" on benefits.

"I want to work," the 33-year-old from Liverpool says. "I think it's terrible that the Government is threatening to take money off single parents instead of help them.

"Some single parents advisers are good - but some ask why you don't apply for jobs starting from 8.30am. When you say you can't because you have to drop your child off at school, they go 'oh you're just being negative'."

Jacqueline was shocked when she went for a supermarket job. "The first thing they said was 'if any of you want cushy hours, forget it. The good hours are for people already here'."

The part-time worker

Wendi New, 40, had to give up her job teaching young offenders in prison when her marriage broke up 12 months ago.

She says staff at her local Jobcentre tried to push her to work at a supermarket, despite her qualifications. Now she has a job teaching children with behavioural problems closer to her home in Lowestoft, Suffolk. She works 18 hours a week and brings home about £900 a month.

"I'd have to work 50 hours a week in a supermarket to earn that. I couldn't do it and look after Hollie. Even now if Hollie's ill I have to take unpaid leave and then I'm worse off than I'd be on benefits."

The full-time worker

Charity worker Sarah Davidge from Bristol wants to work to provide a "positive role model" for her daughters Meg and Beth.

"You have two jobs - work and parenting. But you don't feel as if you do either to the best of your ability. I can't stay late at work and I don't feel able to devote as much time as I'd like going through homework with them."

Sarah admits she is luckier than many lone parents - earning about £25,000 for a 35-hour week, and her employer is flexible about hours.

"But a lot of companies aren't so flexible. The Government should encourage choice, not try to force people to take the first job going."

The Benefit Trap: Working Families Feel The Squeeze

Iain Duncan Smith's tax and benefits reforms are hitting the most vulnerable in society, say leading think tanks, and threaten to undermine any notion that work pays.









Low income families are becoming worse off and the prospect of work less attractive as government reforms of tax and benefits systems aimed at encouraging people back to work take effect.

The warning comes in the wake of a series of reports from respected think tanks that have analysed the impact of the reforms being led by work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

Their findings reveal that an urgent rethink is needed, highlighting problems in the interaction of income tax and tax credits with other benefits.

‘Cuts to childcare tax credits could leave some parents losing 94p for every extra pound they earn,’ according to a report from the Resolution Foundation. It cites the example of a single mother on the minimum wage who would be just £3 a week better off if she decided to work four days a week rather than three.

Lone parents, 92% of whom are women, are worst hit by cuts, losing 8.5% of their annual income by 2015, according to The Fawcett Society. Its analysis was based on research undertaken by the highly regarded Institute for Fiscal Studies using the government's own models.

‘The government talks a lot about promoting responsibility and backing aspiration, but on the ground these cuts are actually stopping single parents from getting on,’ says Fiona Weir, chief executive of Gingerbread that represents lone parents.

‘It is unacceptable that single parents are bearing the brunt of cuts and this research proves again that the government must do more to support single parents, including further investment in childcare, training and employment support.’
Childcare costs

In the past, parents have been able to claim back up to 80% of childcare costs up to £300 a week, depending on income. For a family with two children or more this works out at a maximum of £240 a week. But since April the proportion these costs a parent can claim back has been reduced to 70 per cent and capped at £210 a week – a loss of £30 a week.

The Resolution Report calculates that almost 500,000 working families have lost an average of £426 a year in childcare benefit since April of this year, rising to an average of £600 a year in London, with some as much as £1,300 a year worse off.

According to the Daycare Trust’s 2011 annual survey of child care costs, the average yearly expenditure for 25 hours nursery care per week for a child under two is £5,028 in England, £5,178 in Scotland and £4,723 in Wales. This works out at around £96 a week on average.

But for parents working from 8.30am to 5.30pm childcare costs are nearly double at £172 a week, with some parents paying as much as £11 an hour for child care.