Letter: Lone parents singled out for blame
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: It is becoming clear that the Government is proposing to take a punitive, rather than effective, approach to one-parent families. In his speech to a Tory Party conference fringe meeting on Tuesday night ('Single parents targeted for welfare cuts', 6 October), Michael Howard referred to the programme in New Jersey, where extra benefit is denied to second and subsequent children born to a mother dependent upon social security.
In fact, the majority of unmarried mothers in this country only have one child, and the added benefit for a second child is a mere pounds 15.05 per week until the child is 11 years old. Obviously, this meagre increase in benefit is not proving an incentive for the majority to have more children.
If Government go ahead with this policy, they know they will be risking the welfare of children. They are ignoring the more progressive elements within the New Jersey programme, which provide child care, training and education, and which lone parents there have found useful aids in returning to work. The Maryland project, which includes explicit sex education, has been the most effective in bringing down numbers of births to unsupported women.
Mr Howard seemed to suggest that children born out of wedlock to one-parent families should be placed for adoption. This is both offensive and cruel.
All professionals working with families these days consider it a priority that families should be kept together. Mr Howard appears to be proposing a return to the beginning of the century when young unmarried women had their children removed from them straight after birth, causing immense distress and trauma to all concerned.
His suggestion seems to be based on the presumption that the children of one-parent families are responsible for the current rise in crime. This is not borne out by the evidence, which shows that many other factors, including the quality of parenting, poverty and bad housing, have greater weight in determining the criminal tendencies of the young.
Yours sincerely,
SUE SLIPMAN, Director, National Council for One Parent Families; MARGARET JONES, General Secretary, Brook Advisory; CHRISTOPHER BROWN, Director, NSPCC; IAN SPARKS, Director, The Children's Society; TOM WHITE, Chief Executive, National Children's Home; MICHAEL JARMAN, Director of Child Care, Barnardo's; DOREEN MASSEY, Director, Family Planning Association; SALLY WITCHER, Director, The Child Poverty Action Group
London, NW5
6 October
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments