Equal Treatment Directive 79/7
Benefits paid to parents of dependents
(unfinished fathercare.org webpage)
| Applicable
amount for parent, 1 child, Income Support/JSA(IB), date 29 June 2001: |
||
|
Parent with Child Benefit Book (ChB) |
£
99.00
|
|
|
Parent without ChB |
£
53.05
|
|
| Difference in weekly benefit award |
£ 45.95
|
|
|
(this
INCLUDES/EXCLUDES a daily amount for child) |
£ 6.56 |
|
|
||
| Shared
care cases identified on CSA computer system [29 June 2001] |
83,000
|
see note 1)
|
|
JSA(IB)
- [unemployed]
|
4900 |
|
|
JSA(C)
[unemployed]
|
1600
|
|
|
invalid
benefit/disabled
|
2400
|
|
|
Total
of Shared Care cases on 79/7 benefits
|
8,900
|
|
|
||
| Non 79/7 benefit Shared care cases on CSA computer system |
73,800
|
|
|
IS
|
7800
|
|
|
S/E
|
5000
|
|
|
Employed
|
53400
|
|
|
other
|
6200
|
|
|
No
data
|
1400
|
|
| Notes: |
||
| Footnote:
European Union Law Directive 79/7 bans discrimination on grounds of claimant's gender. This ban overrides national legislation in all EU member states. EU 79/7 'Non-discrimination Directive' governs Social Security Benefit Schemes which provide benefits in the event of sickness, accidents at work and occupational diseases, old age, and unemployment . EU 79/7 also bans 'direct or indirect' discrimination when calculating additional allowances paid in respect of dependents. In Jan 2003 the UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (in case heard by Social security Commissioner) conceded that UK regulations using Child Benefit book as 'passport' (when calculating weekly benefit awards made to parents) amounted to sex-discrimination. This was because Economic Expert Report had demonstrated massive indirect discrimination (92:8) against fathers. The case which raised the issue of fathers and children being kept substantially below subsistence income, has been crawling through the legal pipeline since in 1997 (!!!) - and will be once again in the CoA later in 2003. The Court of Appeal faces a stark choice: Either force the UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to assist fathers who care for children (during periods when a father suffers from temporary sickness or unemployment) - or make a ruling which establishes for the whole fatherhood movement to see that there is no social contract between fathers and the social security system. thus creating... Current Social Security system legitimises fathers walking away from children, ie disadvantaging children. Negative CoA decision would self evididently have increased the numbers and militancy of fathers who fight to force change. |
||