Brave new world

Harriet Harman has given us a glimpse of her philosophy with some peculiar and worrying statements on marriage.

At the moment two parents with children are penalised in the taxation system, and would do better if they lived apart. (It is understandable that the Harman side should produce some single parents protesting about Cameron's proposals which would give a slight tax advantage to married couples, but in many ways this is merely removing the disincentive to marry and remain married.)

Should marriage be encouraged in this way?

It is obvious in Harman's brave new world there is an absence of commitment, and children may find themselves living with a succession of "parents", and Harman and parents are only concerned about parental rights. What about obligations?

Every study I have seen has come to the same conclusion, although starting from very different points. Children in families with two parents present do better in every measure of well being - social, health, intellectual, educational. A child's needs are for a mother and a father present, and their life chances are reduced with the absence of one, in general.

Of course death may rip a family apart, mother and father may find it impossible to live together and one or both may be more concerned about their own needs than those of their children. The fact remains, regrettably, that all statistical studies show that where both persons are present and caring for a child, the child will be better off for that.

In a situation where many of our problems in society can be traced back to dysfunctional families, I applaud Cameron for offering a small inducement to persuade parents to stay together for the good of the children. The present situation penalises married parents and sends out an unfortunate message.