The Breeder's charter

Jeremy Hunt is on our TV screens rather a lot. Although he runs the culture department, one of the lowest rungs of cabinet Government, he is used more often as the public face of the Government. It's obviously because he's attractive, reasonable and eloquent. The kid will go far!

The other night, though, he caused a stir on Newsnight, in response to the proposal to cap overall benefits, by saying that it is not the Government's role to support the choices of parents. In this he was referring to the choices that parents make when they have children.

I was really happy that someone had finally said that and I couldn't agree more. The edge cases of the benefits system show families, either single parent or with both, who don't work and have too many children. You may say, "what is too many?". I think most normal thinking people will have an idea. And it's probably somewhere below four.

It used to be the culture that you would have children when you could afford to support them. Somehow, amongst the new client state, this has passed by the wayside. It is now seen as a 'right' to be able to have children rather than a privilege, and the way the state doles out the money for each child supports this view. For some, there is no incentive to try to limit the number of children to their means.

This has to change. There has to be responsibility. The fact is that a minority of these families live on close to £100,000 per year with upwards of 8 children need to have a reality check. It is not healthy for the country, either, for children to witness their unemployed parents doing fine on benefits, popping another child out when they feel like it. What kind of moral example is that? One generation on, the problem is multiplied.

The proposed system is harsh for those families, but absolutely necessary. The message has to be sent out. Life on benefits is not an option. Supporting children is going to cost. Responsibility is paramount.

Only then will this problem diminish.

Squiffy.