Forum Topic

Removing the cap on Child Benefit - a good way to reduce child poverty?

This is now very much on the political agenda. It was in in the LibDem and SNP 2024 manifestos but not in the Labour Party Manifesto. Labour  instead promised to develop an "ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty".

Sam Hearn ● 27d94 Comments

Better it's given to families in this Country,  I'm more concerned about billions of aid money sent abroad on hearing how it never reaches the right People, however saying that any funds at the moment should go on defence or there will be no one left her to worry about.

Janice Evans ● 1d

Reform have indicated that the child benefit would be limited to British Nationals. The Conservatives would limit it again to two children. “ Mrs Badenoch said some of the recipients from lifting the cap would be getting additional payments worth more than £14,000 a year from the taxpayer.‘No wonder people are angry,’ she said. ‘While those on the minimum wage agonise over whether they can afford another child.‘People on benefits will get paid an extra £3,500 for every child they have because Labour is lifting the two-child benefit cap.’The Conservatives have already pledged to restore the two-child cap if they win power.Lifting the cap will benefit 470,000 bigger families on benefits, who will gain an extra £3,500 per child. But it will cost the taxpayer £3.2 billion a year. “

Steve Taylor ● 2d

Low pay is at the heart of "child poverty". In a thriving economy with rising productivity and more jobs being created real wage rates will increase over time. How people choose to spend their money e.g. tattoos, hair extensions and fake tans is up to them. Which "next" government is going to impose a 2 child benefit cap? Even RUK supports it ( "Cut benefits for shirkers - Oh I see a passing bandwagon so lets jump on board")

Sam Hearn ● 2d

Some mothers may need to get their tattoos, hair extensions and fake tans done  before the next government imposes a two child benefit cap again.

Steve Taylor ● 2d

They only work less than 20 hours a week so that they can still cash in on the generous benefits provided by the State. They know exactly how to play the system and this Labour government just encourages them.

Steve Taylor ● 2d

Get a proper job full time they are lazy skivers but who can blame them when benefits is a way of life for most, they know how to play the system and can earn more on benefits street.

Jayne Thorburn ● 2d

‘those that do they work an average of 20 hours a week’Many jobs in the gig economy are limited to 20 hours a week by the employers so only working those hours isn’t necessary the fault of lazy skivers.

Peter Evans ● 3d

Well said Sam & Steve, what kind of person has children expecting everyone else to fund them. I feel for the kids giving more money to people who are totally irresponsible is NOT going to solve child poverty. Labour talk about lifting 500K kids out of poverty it is NOT. Throwing money at irresponsible parents many of whom do not work & of those that do they work an average of 20 hours a week is NOT going to help the kids.

Jayne Thorburn ● 3d

If there was child poverty the answer would be to get parents back to work rather than encourage them to breed more.

Steve Taylor ● 4d

Overall, typical, median incomes grew by about 7% (in real terms) from 2009-10 to 2023-24. Poverty levels are calculated using this bench mark. Therefore talking in-the-round those classed as being in poverty are 7% better off than they were in 2010. The best way to reduce absolute (rather than relative) child poverty is to increase productivity across the economy in a sustained and sustainable way.

Sam Hearn ● 4d

'I certainly don’t recognise Cpag.'I'd like to recognize any intelligence in the poster

Davy Jones ● 6d

Thanks for confirming your answer Steve.

Andrew Jones ● 6d

Yes and we’ve since learnt about catastrophisation of facts, fake news and the work of ‘charities’ coupled with the enormous remuneration of directors. The definition of ‘child poverty’ in the UK is called into question. I certainly don’t recognise Cpag.

Steve Taylor ● 6d

So Steve, back in 2023, when you wrote the following:"Twenty-five years ago, a third of children lived in poverty. This fell to 28% by 2004/05 and reached its lowest level of 27% between 2010/11 and 2013/14. After this period, child poverty rose slightly in 2019/20 before falling back to 27% in 2020/21.  The Conservatives have done an excellent job in reducing child poverty to its lowest level this century. Under Labour this would no doubt rise again.  Reeves bleats on about spending responsibly. Empty words when she can NEVER produce a plan or even explain exactly what she means by ‘responsibly’."Was there any child poverty in the UK in 2020/2021? If there wasn't, how could the conservatives have reduced something that didn't exist to it's lowest level this century? If there was, then are you saying that since 2020/2021 the last two goverments have reduced it to 0?I can't square your previous comment that there really is no child poverty with what you wrote in 2023, where the conservatives were praised for doing an excellent job in reducing it.Unless you have had a Damascene moment. Is that what your 'Yes' in reply to my previous post referred to? That you have indeed changed your mind since 2023?

Andrew Jones ● 6d

Quite correct. Hence there really is no child poverty in the UK.

Steve Taylor ● 6d

The concept of relative poverty: As Evan Davis pointed out, if you live in a country where most people do not own a TV then if you do not own a TV you do not feel poor. If you live in a country where most people do own a TV and you DO NOT own one then you feel poor.  In both cases you actual position is the same - you do not have a TV.

Sam Hearn ● 7d

Yes,  and we’ve since learnt about catastrophisation of facts, fake news and the work of ‘charities’ coupled with the enormous remuneration of directors. The definition of ‘child poverty’ in the UK is called into question. I certainly don’t recognise Cpag.

Steve Taylor ● 7d

"It’s quite ridiculous to believe that there is actually child poverty in the UK. It’s absolute nonsense."You seem to have had a Damascene moment Steve.This is what you wrote in June 2023:Twenty-five years ago, a third of children lived in poverty. This fell to 28% by 2004/05 and reached its lowest level of 27% between 2010/11 and 2013/14. After this period, child poverty rose slightly in 2019/20 before falling back to 27% in 2020/21.  The Conservatives have done an excellent job in reducing child poverty to its lowest level this century. Under Labour this would no doubt rise again.  Reeves bleats on about spending responsibly. Empty words when she can NEVER produce a plan or even explain exactly what she means by ‘responsibly’. And in December 2024:Yes I take child poverty seriously, Talbot, but I don’t take everything seriously. How could anyone take Wallace seriously!  I accept your opinion that child poverty isn’t a serious issue for you.And a bit later the same month:And meanwhile, outside the Chiswick Bubble, spare a thought for others, if only for the festive season.“According to data from the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), between 2013 and 2023, approximately 700,000 more children in the UK entered poverty, with the number of children living in poverty increasing from 27% to 30% of the total child population; this translates to around 4.3 million children living in poverty in the UK.”

Andrew Jones ● 7d

We probably help out those places, I would rather it be spent on families here, we send billions abroad not knowing if it reaches the right people.

Janice Evans ● 7d

It’s quite ridiculous to believe that there is actually child poverty in the UK. It’s absolute nonsense. If you want to see real child poverty go to Africa or India or Indonesia.

Steve Taylor ● 8d

Agree, we are in an expensive age right now with the need of technology to get anything done, so that must be a priority In a lot of homes, saying that still don't know how to contact a doctor myself other than a phone call then you wait 2 weeks for them to call you back.

Janice Evans ● 9d

'Diagnosing' poverty is an inexact science in my opinion.I do think that budgeting and household management should be taught at school,(it may well be already but it certainly wasn't when I was ar school),that might help kids come to terms with handling finances a little better later in life.

Keith Iddon ● 9d

Starmer and Reeves claim that they are proud to have ended child poverty with the abolition of the two-child benefit cap from next April. So let’s hope that, in 2026, that’s the last we hear from government, children’s’ charities, NGOs and the rest of the Labour backbench MPs about any children living in poverty. Or is Starmer making it up on the hoof - again.

Peter Millman ● 9d

As we are now learning the definition of "poverty" is a relative and not an absolute term. During the 2008 World Economic Crash the number of children living in poverty perversely actually fell.A household living in poverty is one in which the total household income (net of income tax) is lower than 60% of the median income for a household of the same size.

Sam Hearn ● 9d

Removing the 2 child cap makes for an incredibly irresponsible government because it effectively tells lots of thick parents that it’s now ok to breed with no capped restrictions because the State will support them.

Steve Taylor ● 10d

If you don't have the finances to support child 3, that is irresponsible parenting, which comes under the banner of what's responsible parenting. Not saying anyone is an irresponsible personly, but it certainly would fall into the category

Julian Pavey ● 11d

Of course it does. If you can’t afford to have kids, don’t have any. If you can afford to have one kid, don’t have two because it would be irresponsible.

Steve Taylor ● 11d

It might be responsible breeding, limiting your off spring to 2, but responsible parenting doesn’t have a correlation with how many kids you have.

Andrew Jones ● 12d

Andrew Jones ● 12d

“Plenty of people were probably saying they couldn't afford to have more than two kids even before the cap was introduced.”That’s right. It’s called “responsible parenting”. This government is not encouraging or promoting responsibility. It’s particularly nasty that they now punish savers even more while they encourage people to stay at home and have more kids rather than get back into work. They’re stifling growth and productivity. The case today of a Latvian man living and working in London who arrived in Australia for a month’s work and explained to Australian immigration that he only wanted to stay there a month to work because he was on a month’s sick leave (signed off for stress) from his London job!!  He explained to Australian immigration that it was very easy to get ‘signed off’ in the UK and still get full pay.

Steve Taylor ● 12d

I don't disagree that there may well be plenty of professional couples who have two children arguing that they would love to have more but they simply can’t afford it.Those "plenty of professional couples" may say they can't afford it, but I'd bet that the amount they would expect to spend on a third child would be a lot more than the extra that couples with 3 children might now get after the changes in the budget.In short, the professional couples may well not be able to afford the amount they would want to spend.I wonder how many of those couples who can't afford more kids send the kids they have already have to private schools? ( This is not a go at private schools by the way!).Send them to state schools and they'd probably be able to afford another kid! The extra amount per child that some couples will be getting is similar to the cost of a 1% rise on a £500k repayment mortgage over 20 years.There might well be evidence, but what you wrote isn't it.Plenty of people were probably saying they couldn't afford to have more than two kids even before the cap was introduced.

Andrew Jones ● 12d

Saying that there are 'plenty of professiona' etc. is not evidence where you assert that it is.

Keith Iddon ● 12d

“ there is no evidence that the cap reduced the number of children people had.”Yes there is. Plenty of professional couples who have two children arguing that they would love to have more but they simply can’t afford it.

Steve Taylor ● 12d

In all the debates I’ve heard about the pros and cons of lifting the child benefit cap virtually no one, from whichever side of the argument, has discussed the actual amount received by the claimant. (Only the total cost is occasionally mentioned)For me the principle that additional children require additional help is sound. But the amounts look over generous: first child gets £339 per month subsequent children £292.81. This is in addition to ordinary child benefit which means a total of £451.89 per month for the first child and £296.56 for subsequent children. Is the marginal cost of a third child really as much as the second and a fourth as much as the third?Of course there is then the overall benefit cap which may mean families get less than this. But I wish the actual benefit amounts were a bigger feature of the debate. On the point of encouraging people to have children I don’t think it will make any difference - there is no evidence that the cap reduced the number of children people had.

David Turner ● 12d

The UK State doesn’t need more children at all. It has has a  surplus already to cater for future needs. “ The UK population is currently growing. In the year to mid-2024, the population increased by 755,300 to an estimated 69.3 million people, representing the second-largest annual numerical increase in over 75 years. This growth is primarily driven by net international migration.  Recent Growth: The UK population grew by 1.1% in the year to mid-2024. England saw the fastest growth at 1.2%, followed by Scotland (0.7%), Wales (0.6%), and Northern Ireland (0.4%). Primary Driver: The main factor behind this population increase is net international migration, which is the difference between the number of people moving into the UK and the number leaving. Long-Term Projections: Projections from the Office for National Statistics estimate continued growth for the next decade, with the population projected to increase by 4.9 million between mid-2022 and mid-2032.”

Steve Taylor ● 13d

'if they know the State will take responsibility for their children.'The problem is it's the State that needs the children to replace the country's population, so we can't leave it to individual people without providing them with some encouragement. With the required population replacement fertility rate being 2.1, apparently the US and France manage 1.6, the UK 1.5, Italy 1.2 - and China, er, 1.00!Of course, an alternative way of maintaining our population is with immigration!

Peter Evans ● 13d

“Healthcare systems in France, Germany, and the Netherlands generally outperform the UK's NHS in key areas such as access to care, staffing levels, availability of resources, and certain health outcomes, primarily due to higher levels of spending and different funding/delivery models. Spain is • recognized for its high-quality, accessible, and efficient system that often has shorter waiting times than the UK's NHS.* Denmark: Ranks well in healthcare outcomes.* Sweden: Has a system where patient out-of-pocket costs are capped annually.* Switzerland: Is often ranked high”

Steve Taylor ● 13d

That’s the whole point. Responsible people don’t have children if they can’t afford them. Irresponsible people will continue to go forth and multiply if they know the State will take responsibility for their children.

Steve Taylor ● 13d

I can see why peple get annoyed, especially if they went without children because they couldn't afford them.

Janice Evans ● 13d

I think those countries have higher income tax than we do and certainly not a huge monolithic NHS like we do.

Keith Iddon ● 13d

I must remembered that our benefits are very poor when compared to other European countries. You can see where we stand on table of countries and the benefits they pay, they manage ok.

Nicholas Beard ● 13d

The preferred way to pay for public services and welfare support in a civilised society is by raising taxes on those who can afford it. That also serves to redistribute wealth in our country which at the moment is divided by huge inequalities. But you probably knew that already!If, on the other hand, you believe our society is irrevocably divided into grafters and grifters, workers and shirkers, deserving and undeserving,  then I guess you’d have no welfare support and step over the lazy layabouts as they wrap up against the cold on Chiswick High Road’s extensive pavements.

Peter Evans ● 13d

Where's all the money coming from to pay for even more benefits? I thought they were supposed to be reducing the welfare bill, instead, they've increased it. Whee are all these people/kids that are supposed to be in poverty? We're a first world Country not a third world.

Juliet Hogg ● 13d

Think it mostly goes towards the weekly food bill,  unless they have selfish parents who want it.

Janice Evans ● 13d

there used to be a maxim, better that ten guilty persons escape than that one suffer.There are no doubt people who ‘abuse’ the system, and will be getting more money that is mid-spent and doesn’t reach the children, but unless there is another way of targeting support directly at the children, removing the two child benefit cap means that those children who are in families where the money would actually end up helping the 3rd and 4th children would no longer be ‘punished’ for no fault of their own, and quite possibly no fault of their parents either.Plenty of people have lost their jobs during COVID times, and maybe it’s not always easy to get back to earning what you were managing to get before.

Andrew Jones ● 14d

Although no doubt a number of parents would argue that the money was spent on their kids because they took them to MacDonalds!

Steve Taylor ● 14d

I agree with you, just because extra money is given to parents there is no mechanism in place to make sure it is spent on the children.

Nicholas Beard ● 15d

I’m all for free school meals for deprived children and the two child cap was quite sufficient to help parents with their first two children but cancelling the cap was wrong. There are thousands of irresponsible parents out there who will exploit the system to not get into the job market and, dare I say, many who will spend the money on fags, vapes, booze and drugs.

Steve Taylor ● 15d

Child benefit is for anyone looking after a child and not means-tested, but if you earn over a certain amount you may be required to pay it back. It is not like Universal Benefit, which is related to needs, eg unemployment or deprivation.

Lucy Chambers ● 16d

I am between two stools on this.No one wants to see children or families struggling to make ends,but the long term sustainable solution is getting people into work and off benefits.I also don't think it's a great idea to incentivise couples or single parents to have more children they can't afford to bring up without depending on benefits.

Keith Iddon ● 16d

So the government is encouraging people to breed more to make up for the loss of so many people of child bearing age leaving the country. We lose 110,000 young tax paying  professionals and replace with 134,000 people arriving illegally in dinghies to claim benefits. “Exodus as young workers flee high-tax BritainA net 110,000 16 to 34-year-olds emigrated in the year to June, amounting to two thirds of all those who left the country. Young workers are fleeing Labour’s high-tax Britain, with under-35s leading a near-record exodus...”

Steve Taylor ● 16d

Well they’re just encouraging women to have more than two kids rather than get  back into the job market and contribute to the economy. And the Green Party just say whatever they think will please some people because they know they will never have any power to change anything.

Steve Taylor ● 18d

The real issue is that labour are not united and many have zero understanding of basic arithmetic they are totally divided some should go to Green Party as are hard left campaigners. The country did not vote in hard left policies. Taxes are already too high for everyone and spending completely out of control, along with low productivity it is a lethal cocktail. Past evidence clearly shows more child benefit does NOT lift kids out of poverty. Spend the funds directly on the kids not the parents. Plus check all those on benefits to reduce fraud of which billions is being claimed.

Jayne Thorburn ● 18d

The thing is in 2027 if it increases how much will it increase by?

Nicholas Beard ● 19d

Labour backbenchers are now bullying Rachel Reeves into sending more and more voters to the Reform Party.

Steve Taylor ● 19d

“ nor increased since 2021/22 and is scheduled not to increase until April 2027.””Yes, and we can thank the Tories for that.

Steve Taylor ● 20d

Thank you Keith ! Exaggerating yet again - when will I ever learn.

Sam Hearn ● 20d

£12,570

Keith Iddon ● 20d

The internal politics of the Parliamentary Labour Party means that Reeves has no option but to remove the child benefit cap if she wishes to retain the support of the "Mad Jack McMad, the winner of last year's 'Mr. Madman' competition" wing of her party. Meanwhile the annual personal allowance of tax free income (£12,750) has nor increased since 2021/22 and is scheduled not to increase until April 2027.

Sam Hearn ● 20d

It seems that Reeves is going to remove the two child benefits cap thus encouraging more parents to stay at home rather than get back to work. This government certainly isn’t getting Britain back to work.

Steve Taylor ● 20d

I'm not commenting on the rights and wrongs of immigration. Just on a major change in the birth rate in developed and developing countries. It could not happen without contraception. A fairly new innovation in human history that is having a profound impact of the demography of the majority of the world. Who knew, given the choice women don't want to have loads of children. You are correct, the only thing holding up our population and mitigating against a bigger fall in the birth rate is immigration.It may take a few generations to feel the impact, but it will come, unless there is a reversal in the continuing decline.Interestingly where governments have tried to reverse the trend; China lifting its two child cap, Poland introducing family friendly policies, it has failed. China's TFR is 1, Poland's is 1.1. Both lower than Britain. People seem stubbornly determined not to reproduce or to do so in a restrained way.

Kathleen Healy ● 21d

The growth in population is through immigration which is mainly people of child bearing age. The UK population growth is not the same as the ‘global trend’ you refer to. The UK, like Australia and NZ, needs young professionals to come and work here and have babies. We should have a system like Australia where they desperately want doctors and nurses and veterinary surgeons etc but if you are over 35 you would have difficulty getting in unless you are a senior consultant or  top rated surgeon.  And the Points System is long and drawn out and can years before you are allowed to set foot in Australia. You can’t just arrive and expect to be processed.

Steve Taylor ● 21d

Growing but aging. Increase accounted for by people living longer and immigration not birth rate.A global trend.

Kathleen Healy ● 22d

“ The UK's changing population. The UK population is currently growing. In the year to mid-2024, the population increased by 755,300 to an estimated 69.3 million people, representing the second-largest annual numerical increase in over 75 years. This growth is primarily driven by net international migration.  Recent Growth: The UK population grew by 1.1% in the year to mid-2024. England saw the fastest growth at 1.2%, followed by Scotland (0.7%), Wales (0.6%), and Northern Ireland (0.4%). Primary Driver: The main factor behind this population increase is net international migration, which is the difference between the number of people moving into the UK and the number leaving. Long-Term Projections: Projections from the Office for National Statistics estimate continued growth for the next decade, with the population projected to increase by 4.9 million between mid-2022 and mid-2032.”

Steve Taylor ● 22d

The birth rate falls when contraception is available and women can access education and have choices.Over population is to some extent a subjective concept. Population has grown over time. If resources grow in tandem; housing, healthcare etc. we don't feel the pinch. In the past we have needed immigration to support continued economic growth. Recently arrived communities tend to have larger families, which is holding up the birth rate to some extent, but that doesn't continue with the next generation.A larger population of old folk needs a lot of younger people to work, pay taxes. maintain productivity. The UK is going to be disproportionately old in the years to come. As is most of the world. A scramble to entice young people from abroad is likely. Or a Handmaids Tale scenario.

Kathleen Healy ● 22d

Gosh the reason poor countries have more kids is that the kids work to support the rest of the family and many do not survive, it used to happen in this country centuries ago. The UK is over populated hence all the challenges with NHS, housing etc time to say NO.

Jayne Thorburn ● 23d

There is a demographic time bomb ticking. The UK total fertility rate fell to 1.41 in 2024 down from 1.44 in 2023.In some countries its below 1. China is just above 1. India has overtaken China as the most populous country in the world, but its TFR is only just above 2, so not quite replacement.A few countries still have a high birth rate, mostly in sub Saharan Africa. But nothing that could fill the gap in massive countries like China and India.When the UK's economy was booming and had an insatiable demand for cheap labour, it could replenish from Ireland and the Caribbean, India and other former colonies. There is no country populous enough to provide young workers for an aging, shrinking China.Odd to think that, unless there is a reversal in the birth rate trend, aging countries may in a few years be fighting for the young people from  the few countries with a high birth rate.

Kathleen Healy ● 23d

And Kahn is the prize idiot because the wealthy and ultra wealthy in Richmond, Barnes, Putney etc will never vote Labour. He’s giving away money and they are laughing even though it’s only for Reception and year 1 and 2 kids. In any event it should be means tested and not given to all.

Steve Taylor ● 24d

Khan is playing to the gallery of the families who have the most school age children.Simples.

Keith Iddon ● 24d

Kahn giving away our money to people who can well afford to pay for school meals. Idiocy supreme.

Steve Taylor ● 24d

Steve, not private schools, they surely wouldn't expect their children to get free meals.

Janice Evans ● 24d

Do ALL children in London schools receive free school meals?

Steve Taylor ● 24d

Children in London Schools do have free school meals. The scheme provided meals to 287,000 children in its first year, at a cost of £135m (rising to £140m in the second year).

Sam Hearn ● 24d

It would be as ridiculous to give ALL kids free school meals as it would be to remove the 2 child benefit cap. In this time of Labour’s austerity the child benefit cap should also be means tested. Why should wealthy people get child benefits for their children who are no doubt in private schools?  It’s a total waste of tax payers money.

Steve Taylor ● 24d

What a crazy conversation the majority of parents are responsible and do feed their kids. Totally agree support those parents that can’t. I am sure today teachers are sensitive towards kids in poverty or from just rotten parents. Tough on teachers.

Jayne Thorburn ● 25d

We will have to agree to disagree.

Keith Iddon ● 25d

I think it wrong that parents be assessed for a child to get a meal, and agree with other reasons mentioned, so across the board.

Janice Evans ● 25d

I'm sure they do!

Andrew Jones ● 25d

I know what you mean about stigma,as I was the only kid in the class of 44 who  had to call out 'free dinners' ever morning as the teacher took the register.That was until my dad found out.He accompanied me to school the next day and hed a 'meeting'with the teacher is a small,seperated  storeroom at the front of the class.My father emerged,looked at me and said 'See you later son' and Mr.Watson emerged ashen faced a little later and  never had to call that out again at register.I am sure teachers nowadays have different rules and expectations.

Keith Iddon ● 25d

I am not sure there is a bottomless pit of money for taxpayers to feed every child.I would provide this for every family assessed to be in need of it,perhaps broaden the qualifying criteria a little but I don't see it as a responsiility of taxpayers to pay for the food of children from richer families.When my family returned from abroad in 1968,I was 9 and my father could not get work for a few months and I received free meals at school for that time.When my father found work,that concession ended.It is not the job of the state to make people dependent upon it in my opinion,but to provide conditions where people can depend on the efforts of their own work to provide as much as they can for themselves.I don't see how it can provide everything for everybody at every stage of their life,especially in a democracy where governments change every few years.Parents are the ones who bear the greatest responsibilty to see that their child has enough food,but the state should help where needed.

Keith Iddon ● 25d

Also, offering all kids school meals potentially removes any stigma there might exist if they were only offered to kids whose parent or parents is/are in receipt of benefits.

Andrew Jones ● 25d

Because they will be the ones earning and paying taxes in 15 years time when we're all getting our state pensions, using the NHS etc. etc.?

Andrew Jones ● 25d

Why?

Keith Iddon ● 25d

Yes, give all kids free meals.

Janice Evans ● 25d

Yes, give the under privileged kids free school meals. Don’t give the irresponsible parents more and more money to spend on fags and booze and encourage more breeding.

Steve Taylor ● 25d

I'm told that many children actually eat their packed lunches when they get to school and then don't have anything to eat at lunchtime. This doesn't mean they haven't eaten anything before they left home!  When I was young we had to wait until breaktime for milk and a biscuit and then it was always good to have a hot lunch.  We were hungry again by the time we got home and would have a sandwich several hours before supper. We were lucky we didn't have both parents who had to work the very long unsociable hours some parents do and so weren't latch-key kids.It's so very important for children to be able  to concentrate on school lessons and learn to the best of their ability and since they can't do this well when they are hungry it is so much better for everyone everywhere if this isn't the case.I can understand why there should be a cap on numbers per family and  this is one of the subjects that should be discussed regarding citizenship and personal responsibility in schools so that children are more aware of life's choices before they leave school.  However many families aure blended.

Philippa Bond ● 26d

Simple answer is NO, i am all for looking after kids that the parents can’t be bothered too, give them free school meals, uniforms, found extra curriculum activities, fund school trips and the like. Happy for money to actually be spent on the kids not the parents they should work doing something if only to set a positive example to them. Giving money to parents has been done before and it did not work.

Jayne Thorburn ● 26d

“ they'll soon get the message and stop bothering.”That’ll be good. The population is growing fast enough. With illegal immigrants coming in at 130,000 a year now, if they have 4 kids each, the UK will have more than enough people.

Steve Taylor ● 26d

'If people want kids they should pay for them, not expect the state to shoulder the cost.'But it's 'the state' that benefits from people having children, to maintain a functioning population and the rest, so the state should pay for them. If people are increasingly blamed and made to feel guilty for having children, they'll soon get the message and stop bothering.

Peter Evans ● 26d

“ Access to better education and contraception and other preventative health care both here and abroad seems more effective.”Absolutely!  If people were better educated they would know that if you can’t afford to feed and clothe a child you shouldn’t have them. Removing the two child cap would just encourage irresponsible people to breed more and more. It would also be a USP to criminal gangs encouraging more illegals to buy tickets for their dinghies to cross the channel to Benefits Britain. This country cannot afford to offer more child benefits and it cannot afford to house and feed more illegal immigrants.

Steve Taylor ● 26d

Married couples tend to stick together during their siblings informative years, before the 7 year stitch begins to surface.I personally agree with a 2 child cap, and am against Khan's directive giving primary school children free school meals.Is the cost of a bowl of porridge, or a bowl of cornflakes, or an egg on toast for each sibling raised in London really beyond a family home?If people want kids they should pay for them, not expect the state to shoulder the cost.A compassionate government will always have provisions for those FEW children who are not being properly cared for at home.

Denis I. Fox ● 26d

Agree Philippa, that response smacks of wanting women to return to the kitchen and keeping them 'barefoot & pregnant'. Sounds about right for Farage and his cronies.

Vanessa Smith ● 26d

That seems rather outdated.  Relationships fall apart with or without a marriage certificate.  Access to better education and contraception and other preventative health care both here and abroad seems more effective. Wealth has always come and gone and can be measured in different ways.

Philippa Bond ● 27d

Interestingly, beasty Nigel Farage will do away with a 2 cap child allowance for married couples.This would grant the parents desire to have more children without inflicting an extra tax burden on them.It would also benefit the children by giving them (hopefully) a more stable upbringing by having their parents together.

Denis I. Fox ● 27d