Conservatives are divorced from the reality of family life

Main Image : 

MP Karen Buck argues that Tory plans to give tax breaks to married couples will have adverse effects on the welfare of children 

IT seems as though one of the issues shaping up to be a key dividing line in the coming pre-election months, is one that is least suited to political slapstick – the family. 

Central to this latest debate are ­questions such as whether there should be tax subsidies for marriage, whether poor families are poor because of their own inadequacies, and what government should do about any of this.

All thoughtful people agree that  ­children in loving, stable relationships ­usually get the best chances in life. Single parent families tend to be poorer than those with two parents. (As someone who was brought up by a single parent, I have no romantic illusions about this.) 

Women in particular lose out ­financially after relationships break up. 

A minority of families – regardless of the number of parents – are so chaotic and damaged that they hurt their ­children, themselves and their communities, and their chaos (drugs, alcohol, criminality) can trap them in poverty.

The Conservative commitment to some form of tax relief for married ­couples, though unspecific (we don’t know who will be included, nor how much such tax relief would be worth), takes as its starting point the belief that marriage should be encouraged to ­maximise the chances of a stable upbringing for children.  

Setting aside the fact that it was the last Conservative government that cut the old Married Couple’s Allowance to the bone, and introduced separate ­taxation for men and women, is this the right approach? I don’t believe such a policy is either right or workable. 

Why should children of a broken ­marriage suffer further disadvantage while, in some cases, an irresponsible parent can take their tax break into another relationship? 

Why, when money is tight, should   the better off gain from this policy, ­especially when, at the same time, the Conservatives are pledged to cut tax credits for ‘“middle earners”? Again, given the limits of public spending, how much would it take to make a difference? Wouldn’t most of this money go to those who would get married anyway?

Either this proposal is going to be ­fantastically expensive, begging the question of what else will have to be cut to pay for it, or it won’t be worth enough to achieve anything.

Where we can find agreement in ­principle is about the need to offer deep, long-term support to families in trouble. Government money has flowed into ­family support projects, including ­Westminster’s Family Recovery scheme, to say nothing of our network of ­children’s centres covering most of the borough, and a special court for people with drug and alcohol problems. 

I have seen for myself what good can come from this intensive help – happier, more focused children; parents able to exercise discipline without anger; calmer and better managed lives.

We need to be in this for the long haul. But we must not confuse help for the most troubled with the need to support millions more children in low-income households.  

Most people are poor because of low pay, low benefit levels, poor housing and high costs, not because they are all feckless addicts. 

More and better paid work, affordable childcare, the chance of a decent, affordable home: these are the policies that truly support that majority of families and children, with targeted intervention on the minority who need extra help. 

We have got some of the way there – up to a million fewer children will be below the poverty line ­compared with a decade ago. There is plenty more that could be done. But first, let’s not put the gear into reverse.

• Karen Buck is Labour MP for Regent’s Park & Kensington North.