The population problem : correspondence between the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Harold Wilson, M.P. and the Rt. Hon. Sir David Renton, M.P.

  • Wilson, Harold, 1916-1995.
Date:
[1967]
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Credit: The population problem : correspondence between the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Harold Wilson, M.P. and the Rt. Hon. Sir David Renton, M.P. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    11/16 (page 9)
    From the Prime Minister 10, Downing Street, Whitehall. 15th May, 1967. Dear David, Thank you for your further letter of April 12 about population growth. I think you will agree that, given our somewhat different approaches to the question, there is not much to be gained from debating particular points by correspondence. However, in your latest letter you touch on an important general point — the need for thorough study of the whole question. This ties in with a suggestion made by Lord Dalkeith in a letter to me of which I daresay you are aware. This is that a Royal Commission, or a standing committee of Members of Parliament, should be set up to keep the whole question under review. I do not underrate the importance of the question, and certainly world population growth poses problems which must deeply concern all of us. But the problems of the forecast growth of our own population in this country seem to me to be much less intractable, and I doubt the need at this stage for action such as you suggest. As part of the Government's planning work there are in fact certain studies in hand extending to the year 2000. These will bring out the implica¬ tions of an assumed population growth to something like 75 million by that time. If any of these implications appeared to be intolerable, we could then consider what needed to be done. But on the evidence I have so far I believe that this country will be able to support a population of this size, and at a rising standard of life. I do not pretend that there will be no loss of amenity, but I believe that careful planning can reduce this much below what is often suggested. In any case, would this alone justify a policy of attempting to influence family sizes ? On that point, and going a little beyond the idea of a Commission, I think it is important to be clear as to what would be involved in any attempt to induce the kind of change in the present trend which I think you have in mind. I fully appreciate the importance of helping people to avoid unwanted pregnancies; we recognized this by our support for Edwin Brooks' Bill. But the population could not be held at anything like its present level merely by action directed to the largest families or illegitimacy. A change would also have to be induced in the outlook of a very large number of parents; even three children in a family might have to be regarded as too many. It is one thing for private individuals or organisations to campaign in this sense, but I think any Government would need to consider very carefully before itself embarking on any course which might seem to involve intervention in a matter of such intimately personal choice. You may like to know that I am writing in a similar sense to Dalkeith. Yours sincerely, HAROLD WILSON. The Rt. Hon. Sir David Renton, K.B.E., Q.C., M.P. 9