Family Allowances.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18893, 7 January 1927, Page 8

Family Allowances.

It is difficult to argue with so earnest and kind-hearted a man as the Member for Christchurch North on an issue involving women and children. Mr Solland concluded his letter to as yesterday with the remark that "the State "has to look ahead and see that the " children of to-day are given a rea- " sonable chance to grow up healthy, I " strong, and respectable citizens of " to-morrow," and he invited us to suggest some better way of securing this than is provided in the Family Allowance Act. We can only repeat in reply that we cannot imagine anything less likely to produce healthy, strong, and respectable citizens, in Mr Holland's or any other worthy sense, than putting their parents on the dole. Mr Holland of course does not agree that it is a dole, but lie does not say what else it can be, and seems to be worried only by its amount. If "some assistance should be provided for large "families," or some relief, it should be relief which any honest man can accept without any feeling of compunction, or shame, or dependence; but on this point Mr Holland's only clear thought seems to be that when the Prime Minister promised some assistance in his election manifesto " not one "word of protest was uttered against "the proposal." Of course no one dreamt that what was proposed was a direct contribution from the Consolidated Fund. It is really astonishing, also, that Mr Holland should argue that because " the State has recognised "its obligation to men in the middle " and upper stations of life by granting them an exemption of £3O in " their returns for income-tax purposes " for each child" there can be " nothing " wrong in the State assisting a man "with a large family whose income "from all sources may be only one- " third of his more fortunate neigh. " hours." What this means is that if the State abstains from taking something from a man which it could take from him if it liked, it must give somethinr to another man from whom'it has

' taken nothing at all. Mr Holland I seems to regard the Family Allowance j Act as proof that the Government is prepared to do its duty to all classes. He does not see that what is complained of is not the amount of assistant offered, or the fact that it is offered, but the manner in which it is offered. He indeed goes so far as to say that the State, having provided the dole, " steps in and says in effect" that the money is for the children, and ! will, if necessary, be paid to social workers whose duty it will be to" see that the children get it. Instead of being alarmed at the prospect of such an invasion of the life of individuals as charity has brought in it? train in older countries, he welcomes the fact that a man who happens to have many children and little money will be liable to be called on at intervals to show what he has done with his wages, how many pairs of boots he has bought and how many pints of beer, and, if his answers are not satisfactory, to be treated as only social workers can treat people sometimes who are unfortunate enough to be poor but proud. It would be easy to suggest a dozen better schemes if there were any one but Mr Holland who could not think of one; but as Mr Holland promises his " most earnest consideration'' of any better way, we invite him to examine the possibilities of a contributory scheme to which the worker would pay with the employer and the State, and from which he could accept assistance with as little shame as he has in claiming his insurance money when injured by accident or fire.