One voter argued for “pressure on parents”, and the floor narrowly rejected cutting benefits from families whose children offend. The result was close, but the room’s highest-respected argument belonged to Yes — a telling gap between the line that travelled furthest and the policy voters ultimately refused.
The winning No case was practical as much as moral. Its most-respected voice called the proposal “illogical and discriminatory”, while another argued that “Benefits exist to protect children from poverty” and that pushing families deeper into hardship could worsen the conditions behind youth crime. Supporters of No repeatedly returned to siblings, single parents and children with serious mental-health problems, insisting that parental responsibility did not mean parental control.
Yes voters did not lack conviction. Their strongest argument said, “There has to be some pressure on parents to control their children”, while others framed benefits as conditional support and demanded sanctions for parents who actively enabled offending. But the sharper Yes cases were thresholded and conditional — “not a blanket rule” — whereas the question on the page sounded like collective punishment, allowing No voices to answer a broader proposal than some Yes voters intended.
That puts the vote inside the wider argument over whether welfare should be a safety net or a lever for behaviour: the government’s move towards earlier family intervention and support sits uneasily beside demands for penalties. Even several No voters accepted that parents can bear responsibility, with one saying “some form of punishment for the parents would be appropriate” — just not through benefits, and not at the expense of other children.
The room was not rejecting accountability; it was rejecting hardship as its instrument.
42 Opinions
There has to be some pressure on parents to control their children before they get to the stage that they are beyond control. Only parents can do this and too many of them just don’t bother and let them run wild.
Creating a punishment that applies only to people on benefits is illogical and discriminatory. Parents struggling to raise their children need parenting support, not increased levels of hardship.
I do not believe it would fix anything, especially if we are dealing with problematic family, where lots of members have criminal record as well or single parent one where the parents totally lost control over the child or children. If young persona reoffends or committed serious crime, young offenders' institution or youth custody center can be used. The youngsters need to change live environment and start reeducation as soon as possible.
I think the parents are responsible for their children, but this measure sn't going to help the situation. Some families need early intervention and that should be key. Punitive measures will not act as a deterrent.
Regrettably yes, parental responsibility is important, it is a serious responsibility. A few things are missing in society today such as shame, morality, empathy for victims of crime & proper justice. Some of it is cured by Religion but it shouldn't be dependent on religion. Doing what's good & the difference between right & wrong should be taught from an early age. Bring back shame & bring back justice.
Benefits no that punishment would impact a whole family which is not fair. However some form of punishment for the parents would be appropriate. They are responsible for their children and if they fail to to keep them in check and raise them to respect our laws then maybe community service would be appropriate.
It raises various questions but probably the most important is about what about children with top level mental health problems? This assumption parents can wave a magic wand and just fix all problem and they are all just too lazy when they don't is false.
Benefits exist to protect children from poverty, and pushing low-income households further into financial crisis directly fuels the social deprivation that drives youth crime in the first place. Also what if said offender has innocent siblings? Needless harm to them
It is a matter of parental responsibility. Bad parents who don’t disciple their children should be punished and certainly shouldn’t receive child benefit payments that incentivise them to create more children.
No. The law should be applied equally. Singling out people on benefits is perverse.