Sensible benefits cap

FOR years I have waited for a cap on child benefits. I always thought it should be limited to three children. I do not like paying for children that parents can’t afford but insist on having anyway.

The idea of making an exception for multiple births or rape is very fair and considerate in my view.

If the rape details are strictly between the GP and victim and kept confidential then what is the problem? It seems just another anti-Tory witch-hunt to me.

JOHN MCgILL, Dumfries. THE so-called rape clause is really a relief clause which would be applied in a tiny number of cases.

Far from being despicable, it’s actually an attempt to – for once – head off the sort of problems any big bureaucratic undertaking throws up. If the Nationalists object to a cap on welfare let them campaign on that basis – unlimited benefits for all and sundry. They will have to sell that idea to voters who are taxpayers who will foot the bill. Good luck!

J. MOONEY, glasgow. ALTHOUGH the ‘rape clause’ in the new child benefit rules is totally wrong, it has not always been the case that benefits have been paid for every child in the family. In the 1960s, Family Allowance was not paid for the first child in the family, only the second and subsequent children.

D. CONNOR, glasgow.