Morning:
6°c
One of Damilola Taylor's killers was back behind bars today - only 16 days after being released from jail. Ricky Preddie (pictured left) was recalled to prison last night after breaching the terms of his parole
More...
Working mothers who earn less than husbands get £40-a-week bonus
Last updated at 08:56am on 24.06.08
Working mothers are set to get a £40-a-week payment, under new Government plans. (Picture posed by models)
Mothers will be offered £40 a week to go back to work under plans unveiled by Gordon Brown.
The scheme would give a couple with children £40 if one parent works and the other, usually the mother, agrees to look for a job. If both work the couple would get £80.
But mothers who choose to stay at home will receive nothing.
For families with a child under seven, the only requirement would be to remain in contact with the job market by attending occasional advice courses by their local job centre.
Once all children are seven, the money would be conditional on taking a paid job.
Aimed at the poorest households, the measure is part of a package set out by the Prime Minister to tackle child poverty, including £200 ‘child development grants’ for parents on low incomes with under-fives, if they agree to improve their children’s lives in ways such as giving them a healthy diet.
But critics said the £40 payments did too little.
Chris Grayling, Tory work and pensions spokesman said: ‘Gordon Brown just doesn’t understand that what Britain needs is not yet more pointless tinkering with the benefits system for working mothers but real action to tackle family breakdown in a nation where millions of people are trapped in benefit dependency.’
The Child Poverty Action Group said the measures lacked ‘the language and bold policies to strike at the heart of the problem’.
Mr Brown’s plans include 30 children’s centres which will be set up in ten areas, offering parents training and work experience.
There will be improved accommodation for teenage mothers and services to boost their parenting skills. A further £20million is being allocated for schemes to tackle child poverty, concentrating on remote rural areas and deprived parts of inner cities.
In a speech to the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, Mr Brown said improvements in social mobility stalled under Margaret Thatcher.
Revival: Gordon Brown hopes the plans will rejuvenate his flagging leadership.
As a result, Britain was left with a ‘lost generation’ of ‘Thatcher’s children’ who were unable to progress and improve their lot in life.
Labour has narrowed the achievement gap between social classes in primary and secondary schools, he said.
But figures issued by the tax analyst Maurice Fitzpatrick of accountants Grant Thornton showed that income inequality has, on average, been higher under Labour since 1997 than over the 18 years the Tories were in power.
A Government study last week showed that mothers who stay at home to care for their children are at greater risk of poverty under Labour.
Ministers said encouraging parents to work was the best way of tackling child poverty.
A child in a workless household had a 68 per cent risk of living in poverty. One in a household where both parents work had only a 3 per cent risk of poverty, they added.
But Labour has been accused of driving mothers back into the workplace in its efforts to tackle child poverty.
Recent figures show the number of stay-at-home mothers has fallen 25 per cent in the past 15 years.
Earlier this year, the adviser brought in to review the Government’s Sure Start scheme for pre-school children, called for tax breaks for stay-at-home mothers.
Professor Jay Belsky warned that toddlers who spend long hours in nurseries or with childminders suffer ‘disconcerting’ effects.
Reader views (20)
Is Emma suggesting that you have to go back to work, abandoning your baby, to be a 'decent human being'? Unbelievable. Nothing is more important than mothering.
Why are people against supporting mothers for the 'care' work they do 24/7? If mums in taxpaying families want to stay at home then good for them - as long as someone is paying tax in the family unit then that's all that matters. It's up to the couple to negotiate who works/who does the caring. The well-being of the child is paramount and their needs should be put first.
As for whingeing people who begrudge parents, let's get one thing straight - taxpayers are already paying for 'childcare' for the nation's children whose parents are out at work i.e they are paying for babies and young children to be handed over to complete strangers rather than being cared for by their own mum/dad. If they had a voice, you can be sure that children wouldn't choose this option for themselves. Children want a parent - usually mum. At present the only mothers who don't cost the state anything are the stay at home mothers with working, taxpaying fathers parenting as a couple. They get no benefits, require no childcare subsidies, live on one often low income and deserve more support than they currently get.
As for trying to get mothers into part time jobs - what are these jobs? Is factory work/ cleaning more worthwhile than mothering the next generation? Social mobility isn't solved by depriving children of their mums!
- Marie, Wiltshire, 25/06/2008 00:00
Report abuse
I find the comments by "Emma" baffling, do you seriously believe full-time motherhood to be not "decent"? Why should my taxes subsidise this state handout? I'd far rather it go to mothers who choose to stay at home and bring their own children up.
- Huw Morgan, London, 24/06/2008 22:23
Report abuse
I went back to work 6 months after my daughter was born. It was the hardest decision but, in the end, my pride, integrity and desire to be a decent human being won out. Why the hell should people get paid for this? And why should I, and the millions of other working Mums have to pay for it?
- Emma, Staines, UK, 24/06/2008 12:40
Report abuse
I have raised both my children single handedly, whilst getting an education and working. I couldn't get any child care allowances because my parents helped with this and were not 'registered'. I could not get any help from their CSA because their father refuses to work. My kids are well behaved, they have a good diet and high grades etc. I am unable to move out of my council house because I can't afford a mortgage and have just been refused a school place for my eldest for being out of all 6 catchment areas. If I sat at home, with their lazy father, claiming all the benefits they threw at me and let my kids roam the streets uneducated so they will be deemed 'special needs' I'd have no problems and an extra £200 to spend
- Melissa, London, 24/06/2008 12:13
Report abuse
Yet againg those with either grown up children or no children are left out and paying for those who have got kids.
- Dr Finlays Casebook, London, UK, 24/06/2008 11:45
Report abuse
The Child Poverty Unit announcement yesterday said this was to engage hard to reach groups like some ethnic minorities who have not been using the important health and childcare services available through Sure Start.
Squiz: are families form ethnic minorities all 'spunking it away on fags and lottery tickets'?
Roberta: are ethnic minority parents less law abiding?
This is racism mixed with prejudice towards those in poverty. It is unacceptable. What has happened to morality in this country if people are so openly bigoted?
Sara is right: this idea is proving successful in New York. It has been a successful idea for even longer in Brazil and Mexico.
Do people not care about children in Britain anymore?
- Tim, London, 24/06/2008 10:19
Report abuse
Why is this only aimed at mothers who earn less then the husbands and for mothers that will go back to work.
I earn more then my husband, which has now left me in a situation where I cannot go part time because of the money. With the increase in the mortgages and the credit crunch this hasn't helped matters at all.
I can only look forward to weekends with my 11 month old daughter, which is normally taken up by cleaning and sorting out other things. My husband does not earn that much.
I think things like this need to be rolled out across the board so everyone can benefit.
If I got this I would certainly go down to a 4 day week.
- Denise, London, 24/06/2008 09:34
Report abuse
Has the country still got so much money to throw away?
- Linda Tricker, Rimini Italy, 24/06/2008 05:44
Report abuse
Another silly idiot plan by this silly idiotic government.
- Fred, London, 24/06/2008 02:23
Report abuse
I don't believe in paying parents to encourage their children to do well in school and behave themselves.
I myself am a single parent who went out to work full-time and got a degree. This has inspired my 7 year old to work hard at school.
Parents need to have goals in life and aim towards them and children will see that anything they aim towards comes with hard work and determination.
As for paying parents to teach their children to behave, I find that disgusting. It should come naturally to parents to want to show them right from wrong!
- Charlene Seed, Wimbledon, London, 23/06/2008 22:27
Report abuse
£200 to spunk away on fags and lottery tickets...yippee! Better than working for a living and/or instilling some good old fashioned family values from the off.
- Squiz, Islington, 23/06/2008 13:10
Report abuse
ha ha this is so funny - is it April 1st..
Decent law abiding working parents who bring their children up well to know right from wrong - we will continue to pay more and more taxes to fund ideas like this.
Rather than give money - do the opposite reduce child benefits - sorry but if you cant afford a child don't have one and maybe teenage girls wont be in such a hurry to get pregnant.
- Roberta, Croydon, 23/06/2008 12:37
Report abuse
But at least this initiative has been tested - and found to work in New York. And is also being rolled out in other countries. Mrs Thatcher did what she set out to and "kill society" - and now the consequences are coming home to roost. If everyone operates on a "I am alright jack mentality" and that extends across the board; then you are going to have to offer incentives.
We are all going to end up suffering unless some effort is made to get those in greatest need; and trapped in poverty are helped to make a choice and strive to better things for their families.
These are some very old chickens coming home to roost.
- Sara, london, 23/06/2008 12:17
Report abuse
Classic Nu Liebour solution, if it doesn't work then throw money at it until it does. These people have been encouraged to have children by the government due to the money thrown at them, now they are to have more money thrown at them to bring up the children properly, what next? Money to be thrown at the kids to not knife and mug people?
- Noel Upbringing, London, 23/06/2008 11:42
Report abuse
As usual this man has no ideas on how to encourage people to make and take responsible actions. He just throws money at the problem. When will he realise that money is not a motivation tool. This is family life not a business
- Cassandra, uk, 23/06/2008 11:11
Report abuse
Once again rewarding those that do not deserve it. These people should be charged with wilful neglect of a proper upbringing and education for their children. I wonder how many other parasites will see this and jump on the band wagon.
- Louie, London, 23/06/2008 09:14
Report abuse
It seems to me the less you do the more you are rewarded.
- Steve, London, 23/06/2008 09:01
Report abuse
Well, this'll work in creating 'social mobility' in Britain for sure. Money solves everything.
Perhaps then they'll also give me 200 quid for raising my nephew because each of his parents couldn't hack the responsibility of such a task.
If you're lucky, that amount will buy you 4 tanks of petrol.
Yep - another great initiative.
- Cw, London, UK, 23/06/2008 03:34
Report abuse
Awarding them for doing what they're supposed to be doing anyway? Yeah, that makes sense.
- Rogan, DFW Texas, 23/06/2008 01:01
Report abuse
New York City's program isn't proven. Just giving money won't solve the problem. If I were a betting woman, I would lay odds that most of the 125 million will be spent on booze, drugs and cigarettes. Better to give vouchers for food and transportation to the docs office for preventive care than put cash in the hands of irresponsible parents. Kiss the 125 million ta ta.
- Mary, Pittsburgh USA, 23/06/2008 00:02
Report abuse
