More is needed to tackle inequality and deprivation in Britain, but the importance of this week’s step must be recognised
Fairness was what the then chancellor George Osborne said he was aiming at when he introduced the two‑child benefit cap. Each child costs a family more, he argued, and yet only some consider the full costs when family planning. It was an ungenerous take, reducing the complex reasons why people might have larger families to poor choices and welfare incentivisation, and ignoring the impact of events beyond their control, such as illness. If Mr Osborne wanted to change behaviour, he failed: 11 years after the limit for child‑linked benefits was announced, poorer people haven’t had fewer children, they have just suffered more. Above all, his policy punished children, who made no decision at all about the number of their siblings.
This was the legacy: 350,000 children pushed into poverty and another 700,000 deeper into deprivation. Affected households were more likely to be among the poorest universal credit claimants. A disproportionate number were Muslim and Jewish. Children went without new uniforms or extracurricular activities and families skipped meals – all in the name of fairness.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Continue reading...
