This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/04/mick-philpott-benefits-george-osborne

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Don't let Mick Philpott off the hook by focusing on benefits, George Osborne Don't let Mick Philpott off the hook by focusing on benefits, George Osborne
(6 months later)
Among the public hysteria of recent days, let's get one thing clear: Mick Philpott and his two accomplices are responsible for the tragic and awful deaths of six innocent children. Not the benefits system. Philpott has rightly been sentenced to life in prison and anyone who tries to point blame in a different direction, as the chancellor George Osborne has done, is letting these criminals off the hook. The idea that if only the rules of child benefit had been different these poor children might have been spared would be laughable if it wasn't offensive.Among the public hysteria of recent days, let's get one thing clear: Mick Philpott and his two accomplices are responsible for the tragic and awful deaths of six innocent children. Not the benefits system. Philpott has rightly been sentenced to life in prison and anyone who tries to point blame in a different direction, as the chancellor George Osborne has done, is letting these criminals off the hook. The idea that if only the rules of child benefit had been different these poor children might have been spared would be laughable if it wasn't offensive.
People who suggest benefits for children should be restricted for larger families are not monsters. But this is an entirely different question and one that doesn't bear much scrutiny. Most obviously, it would punish children for being born. It is not very smart to use children to make examples of their parents – even if you think people do have children for the extra £13.40 a week. It is certainly not advisable to make national policy decisions about something like child benefit, which affects millions of families, on the basis of one extreme and shocking case.People who suggest benefits for children should be restricted for larger families are not monsters. But this is an entirely different question and one that doesn't bear much scrutiny. Most obviously, it would punish children for being born. It is not very smart to use children to make examples of their parents – even if you think people do have children for the extra £13.40 a week. It is certainly not advisable to make national policy decisions about something like child benefit, which affects millions of families, on the basis of one extreme and shocking case.
What about the financial case for reform? There are a little under 8 million families in receipt of child benefit. Less than one in 20 have four children. Just 1% have five or more children. While spending on child benefit overall is a little over £12bn a year – a not inconsiderable sum – it would save just £310m if payments were limited to three children. That's less than 3% of the total budget. Hardly much help in addressing the government's borrowing problem.What about the financial case for reform? There are a little under 8 million families in receipt of child benefit. Less than one in 20 have four children. Just 1% have five or more children. While spending on child benefit overall is a little over £12bn a year – a not inconsiderable sum – it would save just £310m if payments were limited to three children. That's less than 3% of the total budget. Hardly much help in addressing the government's borrowing problem.
There is nothing wrong with moral principles playing a role in welfare policy – and it's right to expect parents to take responsibility for their children and to work if they can. That's why there is conditionality in the benefits system. And given the pressure on the public finances it is right to look at whether we are spending money in the best way. For instance, we should look to shift resources over time from cash benefits for families to services like childcare that enable parents to work. That would boost employment and family incomes, while growing tax revenues and reducing the demands placed on the welfare state.There is nothing wrong with moral principles playing a role in welfare policy – and it's right to expect parents to take responsibility for their children and to work if they can. That's why there is conditionality in the benefits system. And given the pressure on the public finances it is right to look at whether we are spending money in the best way. For instance, we should look to shift resources over time from cash benefits for families to services like childcare that enable parents to work. That would boost employment and family incomes, while growing tax revenues and reducing the demands placed on the welfare state.
But such long-term reforms are a world away from politicians seeking to make political capital from an appalling crime to bolster their argument for benefit cuts.But such long-term reforms are a world away from politicians seeking to make political capital from an appalling crime to bolster their argument for benefit cuts.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.