That cutting benefits to widow/ers with young children by over twenty thousand pounds is heartless and cruel?

[Somerville]

My DH was diagnosed with lymphoma in 2013 and died in 2014. During both the period he was ill, and immediately afterwards, it was extremely difficult for me to continue working. A well as caring for him and then dealing with the huge administrative burden, I have children for whom continuing to attend school every day and 'cope' with normal life was impossible. Alongside all that I had to somehow try to find a way to live with my own grief. And then get out and learn a living - as a freelancer I'd have had no income at all unless I continued to work.

The bereavement benefits I received helped me immeasurably.

• I got a bereavement payment of £2000 which helped cover the immediate few months after his death when I could barely get dressed - let alone work.

• I also got a monthly amount of widowed parents allowance - about £450. (Non means tested but taxable, meaning that as my earnings increased I returned some of this to the government through my tax bill. However, I knew the safety net was there when my earnings dropped again - as indeed they did at one point when one of my children could only manage half days at school.)

I've remarried so no longer qualify - fair enough - but if hadn't I'd have received this until my youngest child left school.

However, the support available for parents who are experience the devastation of becoming widowed after April 1st this year is changing.

• £3,500 immediately.
• £100 per month for the next 18 months.

That's it.

Research by the Childhood Bereavement Network (CBN) suggests 91% of widowed parents will be supported for a shorter period of time than they would under the current system, which can pay out until the youngest child leaves school. It says the typical working family will lose out on more than £12,000, and expects a working parent with young children to lose even more – £23,500 on average. link here

Widowed parents are lone parents without any shared care with an ex partner. Without any maintenance payments from a former partner. And with bereaved, confused and devastated children.

How about it MN? Am I unreasonable to think this change is cruel? And if not, what can I do about it?

SO when the 18 months are up what happens?
I cannot imagine a mother of young children who has had to leave her job to care for her sick and dying husband being able to pick up her previous job easily. WIll there be any provision by the Government in helping ex Carers to retrain into a more child friendly job? my experience is that employers do not look favourably on the skills of former Carers . And mothers of bereaved children may face more discrimination if the employer thinks more moretime off may be needed in the future to care for the children

as soon as we took out mortgage many years ago - un married and childless we took out insurance even though money very very tight.

Now we are married with DC and still have insurance.

OP, again I don't think that's correct. Have you read the government inquiry on this? LINK HERE. They consulted the many organizations including The Childhood Bereavement Network, Cruse and Citizens Advice among many others.

I found it after then and mentioned £350 again. Your point that sloppiness won't help the cause is correct, and as I said previously, I'm going to start a new thread when I hear back about where energies are best to be focussed on this issue. I think the 18 months might be the key focus. They're fuckers to make out like they're being so compassionate not to end it at an anniversary of the death, when they're cutting it so drastically.

Antiopa There is no extra provision for counselling or help returning to work, or anything. And so many carers/suddenly bereaved parents switch to self-employed work they can do from home, or give up work 'voluntarily' (ha!), that they then often fall through gaps for the criteria to receive other benefits.

Sorry I couldn't find the post where you confirmed it was £350 a month for bereaved parent I only found the one where you weren't sure.

My excuse is t's a long thread 😂

If your partner dies of cancer, you are more likely to be able to access free counselling. I know where I live you can access free counselling and support. If your partner dies of anything else, you have to pay for counselling.

Toast, yes I've read all of that. And the evidence that has been given. Have you?

It is clear that there was an initial consultation in 2012. According to The Child Bereavement Trust;

"In the initial consultation in 2012, the only options for reform which the government sought views on were (1) a single lump sum payment or (2) a smaller lump sum with 1 year’s ongoing regular payments. No other options were offered, although the consultation did ask if it was right to apply the same time limit to those with children as those without."

All of the consulted charities who work with widow/ers with dependant children chose the latter option but added caveats:

"Gingerbread: ‘even under our preferred option 2, making regular ongoing payments for only one year after bereavement is not long enough for parents with children, and we would urge consideration of an extended payment period for the ongoing payments for this group, of a minimum of two years’.
St Christopher’s Hospice: ‘We believe this puts forward a good case for a much longer time limit for bereavement benefit payments to people with dependent children.’
Social Policy Research Unit, University of York: ‘We do not see firm evidence here for limiting the time period of payment of ongoing payments to people, either with or without children, to 12 months.’
Childhood Bereavement Network: ‘One year’s payment is far too short in most cases…the payment term should be significantly extended for all families with children…to take account of children’s need for consistent care.’
Cruse Bereavement Care: ‘The two proposals put forward in the consultation involve providing support for a year. A recurring theme from those we contacted, borne out by our experience of supporting bereaved people, is that for many, life is still far from ‘alright’ 12 months after their loss.’
The Royal British Legion, War Widow’s Association, Royal Air Force Widows’ Association, Royal Navy and Royal Marines Widows Association, Army Widows Association. ‘We are concerned that the focus on the period immediately following bereavement, defined as 12 months, is too short for many individuals, especially those with children. We believe that those bereaved with children should be supported for at least two years to enable them to grieve at their own pace.’

As a result of this consultation the current plans have been made. Charities continue to put up a lot of other objections, too. Including:

"The proposed changes to bereavement benefits will see a significant redistribution of total spend in this benefit area away from children and young people, towards those who do not have children. Excluding legacy benefits and the impact on Universal Credit, we estimate that the share of the annual spend on bereavement benefits which goes to widow(ers) with dependent children will fall from 63% to 40%[1].
While the devastating, premature death of a parent can happen to any child, it is more likely to happen to children in disadvantaged circumstances. Early mortality is closely linked to social class and deprivation: it is poor children who are more likely to be bereaved.[2]"

"In its response to the SSAC recommendation that DWP reflect further on the duration of payments to widowed parents, the Government stated ‘the duration of Bereavement Support Payment (BSP) was discussed at length during passage of the bill’.
We disagree. The majority of discussion time on the Pensions Bill was given to unrelated clauses. An amendment on the duration of payments was tabled too late for Committee stage in the House of Commons (tabling was delayed as a courtesy until after a meeting with the Minister, but was then too late). A further amendment at Report stage on 29 October 2013 was tabled and selected, but not reached, as the House ran out of time."

"Best longitudinal evidence shows ‘late effect’ of bereavement, with new problems emerging for children two years after the death, bringing associated parenting challenges[8]. ‘Family bereavement had continuous, cumulative effects on children’s emotional and social well-being, long after the event happened’[9]."

source

I had a brief skim through of the linked report. It seems that the number eligible if cohabitees are included rises by just 2200 more. It seems really mean not to include these families with bereaved children.

I am glad they are going to include cohabitees.

Toast, yes I've read all of that. And the evidence that has been given. Have you?

You sound tetchy . No, I haven't read all of the reports but I skimmed through them. I hadn't even heard of these benefits before your thread. I knew there were some payments but had no idea what or who they were for.

Museumofcurry Other posters and me were making the point that some people are never healthy. They have a life-long physical or mental medical condition that means they cannot get insurance at all or that it's very expensive and the condition they are most likely to die from is an exclusion

Agreed, but this doesn't mean insurance doesn't work. It means that there has to be support for people having congenital health issues - which there is. You have to be pretty heartless to say otherwise.

My point is that when people say they can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition what they most often mean (statistically) is that they didn't get insurance in their 20s.

It is also interesting to compare the proposed new system with other European countries:

The proposed duration of payments in the UK would be very much shorter than elsewhere.
Germany - Widow(er)’s pension for those bringing up dependent children: 55% of the pension of the person who died, paid indefinitely. Half-orphan’s pension for those up to 18 whose parent died, or up to 27 if in full time education or disabled: up to 10% of the pension of the person who died.
Italy - Survivors’ pension for spouse and any children who at the time of death are minors, students or disabled. 60% of pension to the surviving spouse, 20% for each child, not exceeding 100% in total. Amount can be reduced by 25, 30 or 50% if beneficiary’s income is above a certain level
Poland- Joint pension for all eligible beneficiaries which includes children under 16 or under 25 if still in education, widows and widowers over 50 or raising at least one eligible child. 85% of pension for single beneficiary, 90% for two beneficiaries, 95% for 3+ beneficiaries
Spain - Surviving spouse entitled to pension, also divorced or separated partners and in some cases, unmarried partners. Amount may be proportional to length of time lived together. 52% of deceased person’s entitlement. Children of the deceased entitled to orphan’s pension if under 21, unable to work or under 24 and earning under minimum wage. 20% of the deceased person’s entitlement.

I am glad they are going to include cohabitees

I don't think they are going to include cohabitees

brasty The WPC recommended including cohabits but the government have not done so.

"DWP have indicated that they expect the new system to be saving around £21m a year by 2020/21."

Savings of a whole 21m per year - according to the select committee.

Lies, damned lies and (FUCKING) statistics.

"The Government’s other key rationale for shortening the payment is that the payment is designed to “cover the additional costs following a bereavement” and that these costs, “tend to be more weighted towards the early months”. Minister told us that qualitative research showed that the first year was the most difficult period. However, this research only interviewed people who had been bereaved between 12 and 18 months previously. We were told this meant it did not give an accurate picture of the financial impact after 18 months. "

This is all from the select committee. Remember that at this point the plan was for the ongoing payments to be paid for just 1 year. They go on to recommend that:

"We recommend that the Department adopt a cost-neutral method of extending the BSP to 18 months through a reduction in the lump-sum payment. The Department should consider extending the monthly payments further, as part of its forthcoming review."

So this is not done and dusted. The dept made a commitment to reviewing it further.

Following that link and Somerville subsequent comments
I am now going to view the word "consulted" in a new light. WIth regard to how the DWP reaches a decision it means asking for views on a very limited number of points, it does not equate with listening but it enables the relevant body to dress up the decision by trying to give it some legitimacy that stakeholders were involved.
Sometimes I think the DWP policy department is staffed by people who have no real experience of the shit that life can suddenly throw at you.

Toast it's not 18 years of non means tested benefit. It is the pension that will never be claimed. It is based on NI credits.

That only applies to private pensions

I wouldnt get my DH's state pension alongside my own, no. (Even if I hadn't remarried.)

But IIRC if I hadn't remarried I could have swapped my NI record for his at retirement age - if, say, I'd only worked part-time for some years before his death. So got one full state pension for myself based on his contributions.

I'm trying to work out of this will change, too. The pensions advisory service website has this recent update:

"A new State Pension system was introduced as of 6 April 2016. The benefits payable on your death will depend on when you or your partner reached or will reach their State Pension age. There will be transitional arrangements, so that in some circumstances, people who have made national insurance contributions under the current system will still be able to inherit state pension from a late spouse or partner."

AndNowItIsSeven
Toast it's not 18 years of non means tested benefit. It is the pension that will never be claimed. It is based on NI credits.

I know it's based on NI credits but it's also non means tested. A non means tested Benefit that you could potentially receive for 18 years or however long you were eligible to receive child benefit. You would be eligible if you were wealthy. It is taxable though.

^^ obviously This refers to the existing system not the new system.

I am sorry I am a bit soft hearted but I cannot now get out of my head the image of an uninsurable young father dying in a hospice having the extra stress of worrying how his family will survive when he has gone.

I'm going to die of cancer. I'm going to leave my two children with no mother. That leaves the household without my income. We have some life insurance cover to cover the mortgage but it won't pay it all off. DH will need to find extra money for childcare as I currently (or did before I was diagnosed and had emergency surgery and now chemotherapy) work part time and covered before and after school childcare.
That's just the practical aspects before thinking about paying for a funeral and the emotional support that my family are going to need. I've worked and paid NI. I won't be around to claim a state pension. This is not a "benefit" as others have stated. It will be taxed. It's not a race to the bottom. Well this group doesn't get it so that group shouldn't get it. I seriously can not understand some of the people on this thread and hope that they never have to go through losing a spouse or being diagnosed with a terminal illness.