Why doesn’t the 2 child limit apply to civil servant benefits?!

[Shepherdswarning]

I’ve just realised that education allowances, inc incredibly expensive boarding and ‘continuity of education’ allowances are available to an unlimited number of offspring, if you are a diplomat (or similar).

How is this even remotely reasonable, when benefits are limited to 2 children for the rest of the population??

The costs of employing a person w family in these jobs is already vastly greater than employing a single person (more travel, bigger house) - why on earth should they also get hugely subsidised private boarding school education for 3 or 4 or 5 children???

This feels so much like one rule for us and another for them…

so only one person other than me minds that their taxes pay for this?! I’m totally amazed, I really am.

and yes this isn’t all civil servants - thought that would be obvious enough.

@titchy a couple of dozen? Well then I know them all by name. It’s way more than that!

and btw I was a child educated in a similar way and it seems outrageous to me now…

Presumably you also resent the other employee benefits that all civil servants get then?

Just because something is an employee benefit, doesn’t mean it’s analogous to the UC-type benefits paid to those with low incomes.

No, I don't mind paying taxes to ensure suitable pay and benefits for public sector workers.

Yes

It's unbelievable isn't it. They also get discounted gym memberships and a cycle to work scheme AND free English Heritage membership. Why don't the rest of us get that?

You are being ridiculous and you know it.

One is an employment benefit offered by an employer (which happens to be the Govt.) to its employees working overseas and the other is a State benefit offered to the public at large.

What would you have done about it OP?

The two are not at all comparable.

And certainly a very limited number of service children access private education.

Garrisons and military bases have large, state maintained schools full of the children of service personnel. Service children also attend local, state maintained schools in local towns and cities.

There is a funding stream for service pupils to support mobility, (approx. £300 per child per year) but it is paid to the school and is much less than pupil premium funding (deprivation -£1500/£1000) per child per year.

the MOD spent £84.5m on continuity of education allowance in 22/23

the FCDO spent around £13m in the same period (so diplomats etc)

Ooh, who gets free English Heritage membership? I get it as a member of the CSSC (but I have to pay a monthly subscription)

Give m the size of both those organisation that seems like a drop in the ocean.

For context, as the OP is keen to equate employment requirements to state benefits, the welfare budget in the UK is £330 billion give or take, excluding pensions. That’s £900 million a day, or £37 million an hour. The cost of those education allowances for critical positions is a lot less than 3 hours of the benefits spending for the country.

Absolutely no problem with those who fight for and represent our country including in difficult and hostile places getting their kids educated. I’d be outraged if they didn’t - who would sign up for it otherwise?

It’s an EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT!

it’s for doing their job! It’s not a welfare benefit!

There are very few people in these positions, vs the thousands and thousands of people not working / on benefits.

Struggling to believe you’re not on the wind up tbh…

@Tryingtokeepgoing not equating, no. And it’s not about the money really exactly. It’s that I think it’s an example of double standards.

i also think it’s shocking that govt employees of any kind get more than statutory sick pay, mat pay etc. It massively reduces the upward pressure for change…

if the rulemakers don’t have to live by their rules then it’s hard to get those rules changed…

It isn't a double standard at all. It is for the benefit of children who would also otherwise be uprooted and put into new schools, often not taught in their own language and never have friendships. It is incredibly damaging to their educational outcomes and mental health. Military children are already disadvantaged and you think they should be further impacted.

Would your rather all those people left service?
CEA is only available if the non-serving spouse also moves with the serving one. So she (most of the time) is unable to get stable employment and maintain a career. The alternative is that they live apart and how many relationships survive that for years on end when children are involved? As a country, we do not want to lose our bright, experienced people when they are right at the peak of their careers.

Even if any more than one person agreed with you, it is an incredibly short sighted view and one that would create negligible direct savings.

Why on earth shouldn't public servants get decent occupational sick pay or mat pay etc? Do you want the civil service to be run by people who are unable to get jobs anywhere else?

As to your original question, I'm in favour of scrapping the two-child cap, but you're being completely ridiculous. Employment benefits are offered in order to ensure that the best possible candidates are attracted to apply for certain jobs, and that the best people are retained in those jobs. In case it has escaped your notice, we are not trying to attract people into a lifestyle in which they are dependent on state benefits, nor are we trying to keep them in that lifestyle. Hence the two situations are not remotely comparable.

Who exactly are you talking about op? Civil service is huge and that ‘benefit’ is only available to a very small cohort within the civil service. It’s not comparable to the benefits system which btw I support in principle.

Do you know how hard it is to get such a posting? I’ve tried for years and always come up short. By the time you get success, you’ll have a child or three and the cost is a rounding error compared to UC. Those at post also provide vital functions unlike those on UC.

Why don’t you try and get a job at the CS the ?

How is this even remotely reasonable, when benefits are limited to 2 children for the rest of the population??

Just as a point of fact, they're not. Child benefit isn't. Nor is the childcare element of UC, nor is DLA if applicable. It's actually only the one benefit, the child element of UC.

@Shepherdswarning the education allowance is only applicable to boarding schools for obvious reasons. The only way a family could get their school fees paid and live in London as you suggest is to choose a school that offers boarding and then if you don’t want them to board, for one parent to stay at home whilst the other takes up their overseas postings (which would be non negotiable if you’ve taken the boarding option). So even in this scenario the family is split up because of one parent’s job. Hardly an amazing perk.

This. I think making sure I continuity with my education was the very least the government could do while my dad was putting his life on the line for this country.

Wow really? What sort of calibre of senior civil servant do you think we’d get if we offered a crappy pension, no sick pay or enhanced maternity pay in addition to the crappy salary?

The 'rules' are to set a minimum, not a maximum. Surely that's not hard to understand?

And how can it be double standards - one is welfare, the other is employment. The two are not comparable or substitutable It's like saying the food budget for a patient in hospital is £4 a day, so civil servants should only be able to claim that much on expenses if away from home.

I'd hazard a guess that if we take the diplomat scenario, over which you seem to have a bee in your bonnet, and compared to the benefits to an equivalent level senior professional gets in the private sector the sick pay, maternity / paternity benefits would be similar, and the private sector also include PHI and a decent pension contribution too, along with a decent bonus. Likewise any relocation or temporary assignment benefits will be similar.

You really seem to be clutching at straws now.

The welfare state is a safety net for those that need it
Civil servants pay and benefits are not welfare
Welfare rules don't apply to pay and benefits It's a ridiculous analogy

I would be one of the first to criticise the waste in Government, and management, leadership and efficiency of the public sector, but I don't think employee benefits are a relevant issue. If we want intelligent, qualified and experienced professionals running the armed or diplomatic services then we have to treat them as they would be in other professions.