Family Allowances
SIR,—Mr Jones (January 27) is rightly concerned about rumours that family allowances are to be raised from the third child on—but for the wrong reasons.
Evidence from a number of countries suggests that, of the many factors which can influence the birth rate, family allowances are among the least signi- ficant. It is not even clear that their net effect is necessarily to cause more children to be born rather
than fewer. We do need a population policy—but one based on enabling parents to make rational and responsible choices, not on penalising the children of the poor.
The real weakness of giving help to only the larger families is that such a policy is bound to be in- adequate. Even if an increase as large as £1 per child were given, starting from the third child, it would not be enough to raise above the poverty line most of the families who are now below it. Nor would it give any help to the large number of families whose poverty is caused by the absence or disablement of the breadwinner, rather than by the size of the family.
Paying higher allowances to the first and second children would, of course, be expenVe. Provided that the better-off families' tax allowances were reduced so as to leave them no better off on balance, however, it need cost no more than a small all-round increase for the third and subsequent children.
Secretary Child Poverty Action Group, Skepper House.
13 Endsleigh Street, London WC1
Previous page
