PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN’S RIGHTS a Consultation Paper on a Commissioner for Children for Northern Ireland
We are not persuaded that there is a need for a Commissioner for Children in Northern Ireland. At the beginning of the consultation document, the assertion is made that children ‘need a champion – a strong independent voice to promote and protect their rights and to represent their interests’ (1.1.3). Similar sentiments are expressed elsewhere in the paper (for example, 2.5.2). However, the ‘need’ is assumed rather than demonstrated. It is also claimed that ‘the need for children to have special mechanisms to represent their interests has been well documented’ (2.4.1), but no supporting reference is given.
Certainly some lobbyists have sought to present a case in favour of establishing special mechanisms for children, but whether they have established a ‘need’ is open to debate. Peter Newell, the co-ordinator of EPOCH (End Physical Punishment of Children), has been particularly active in campaigning for a children’s commissioner. In 1991 he co-authored a pamphlet on the issue which was published by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (subsequently revised in 2000). Since then he has been involved in several ‘commissions’ which have recommended the establishment of a children’s commissioner, including the Gulbenkian Foundation’s Inquiry into Effective Government Structures for Children, referred to in paragraph 5.1.1, and given considerable weight by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.[1] It is also worthy of note that each of three Private Member’s Bills to establish a Children’s Rights Commissioner in England (5.1.1), has been presented to Parliament by the same MP, who in the 2001 debate acknowledged that the bill had been written by Peter Newell.[2]
Mr Newell has presented an argument and has succeeded in persuading a number of prominent figures in the childcare industry to support his campaign, but the case is by no means proven. The Report of the Committee of the Centre states that:
The Commission believes there is a need for a children’s commissioner because several international bodies have called for such an appointment. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has consistently commended the establishment of such offices in various countries, and the Council of Europe in its European Strategy for Children also proposes the appointment of a commissioner or ombudsman for children. We know that children’s organisations in Northern Ireland strongly support the recommendation that a children’s commissioner be established.[3]
In order to keep things in perspective, it should be borne in mind that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child consists of just ten individuals drawn from states around the world and has recently been criticised for adopting radical interpretations of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in its pursuit of an agenda contrary to traditional moral and social norms regarding the family, marriage, motherhood and religion.[4] Similar charges could be levelled against the Parliamentary Assembly in the Council of Europe, and it is significant that while this body issued a recommendation in favour of a children’s commissioner as long ago as 1996, the Committee of Ministers in the Council of Europe has not taken it up. Then, with regard to the interest of children’s organisations in this issue, the possibility should at least be considered that they may have a vested interest in the pursuance of the children’s rights agenda.
Parents, in particular, are notably absent among those demanding a Children’s Commissioner, and yet it is they who spend more time with their children than anyone else, who care for them, know their needs and show a daily practical interest in their lives. The support for a Children’s Commissioner is therefore by no means so widespread as it may at first appear.
We believe there are a number of reasons why the establishment of a Children’s Commissioner would not serve the best interests of children:
1. It would undermine parents
We fully endorse the statement made in the consultation paper that:
Parents are almost always the best people to look after their children and most children in Northern Ireland live in a family with one or both parents and other family members. The family is the main place where children’s needs are met (2.2.1).
However, the implication of the remainder of the document seems to be that children need some form of external enforcement mechanism to safeguard their rights. In paragraph 2.4.1, for example, it is assumed that because children cannot vote, have limited social and economic power, are vulnerable, less likely to have access to independent advice and advocacy, and are subject to certain unique restrictions, that their ‘voice often goes unheard’. However, in the vast majority of cases, children have parents who are well able to represent their interests, and we find it disturbing that the assumption is being made that a Commissioner would fulfil this advocacy role more adequately than parents.
While parents and the family unit do receive an occasional mention in the consultation document, they do not feature very prominently. The paper states that ‘organisations that represent children’ and ‘organisations representing parents’ (1.3.3,4) were consulted at an early stage, but even the separate mention of these groups suggests that parents and children have widely different interests. We would strongly question this assumption. Also, there is always a question mark over the extent to which such groups are acting in the best interests of those they claim to represent. This is particularly the case with a number of groups claiming to represent children. Many of these organisations are increasingly pursuing policies which lead to the removal of children from the protective influence and authority of their parents, which is not in their best interests at all.
Meanwhile, at grassroots, parents are continuing to protect, guide, care and provide for their children. They are the unsung heroes, hidden from the public eye, but available to their children 24 hours a day, seven days a week during their most vulnerable and formative years. The overwhelming majority of parents do far more to promote and protect the rights and interests of their children than any statutory office will ever do. Most children do not ‘need a champion’ at all because they already have one; indeed, many children have two champions, more commonly known as a father and a mother. They live with them, are known personally to them, they are related to them, loved and cared for by them. Parents are far better placed and equipped to represent the interests of their children than any impersonal bureaucratic machine.
No one would dispute that ‘children are often capable of making rational decisions and in any case should be encouraged to develop their decision-making skills’ (7.1.3), but it is better that they should do so under the loving guidance and protection of their parents rather than by the order of an impersonal state-funded office.
When considering the remit of the Commissioner, parents are again by-passed:
We recognise that as potential users and recipients of the services of the Office of a Children’s Commissioner, children and young people are in effect the experts in respect of what functions, role and powers a Commissioner should have. They are the experts at being young and, most importantly, they can offer solutions that adults would not necessarily think of (7.1.4).
We found this a most extraordinary paragraph. The accumulated wisdom of parents, gained over many years, is completely overlooked. It is apparently forgotten that parents have been young themselves and are in fact more ‘expert at being young’ than their children, not only because they have had longer experience of youth than their children, but they also have the benefit of hindsight and can look back and see situations in a more objective light than they did at the time.
A reading of the minutes of evidence received by the Committee of the Centre served only to confirm our view that the appointment of a Children’s Commissioner would seriously undermine the authority and responsibility of parents. We shall give three examples out of many that could be cited:
(a) Professor Dickson of the Human Rights Commission stated:
We would have to concede that parents of very young children should have the right to determine how their children live.[5]
Quite apart from being a somewhat grudging concession, it implies that parents have no right to determine how their children live when they are no longer ‘very young’.
On a related point, it was disturbing to find the Professor asserting:
If competence is deemed to exist, the Gillick principle states that parents do not have the final say, particularly on medical matters.[6]
However, in common with many proponents of children’s rights he omitted to mention that in the Gillick case the law lords ruled that parents may be excluded from decisions about their children’s medical treatment ‘only in exceptional circumstances’. There is an evident readiness to marginalise parents and exclude them from responsibility for their children’s protection.
(b) Dr Rogers of Save the Children expressed concern that:
Too often children have no mechanisms to make their voices heard. They do not have a vote, a union or a complaints system to access the way adults do.[7]
He seems, however, to overlook the fact that children have parents who are well qualified to represent the interests of their children. To suggest that they need a commissioner to speak up for them is an insult to parents. The family unit is a far better context in which the majority of children will be able to address any complaints and grievances than any union or impersonal ‘mechanism’.
(c) Mr Meehan of the Derry Children’s Commission commented:
All other minority groups — and children at 40% is not a small minority — have articulate groups through which they can make their points. Children do not have that.[8]
Again, one would want to ask Mr Meehan where parents fit into his thinking. It is quite disconcerting to see children being referred to as a ‘minority group’ in need of some kind of national representation, as if parents and the family unit did not exist.
Mr Gibson, the Deputy Chairperson, picked up on this tendency to undermine parents in the Committee’s meeting with representatives from the Northern Ireland branch of the British Association of Social Workers. The Association’s submission had referred to ‘children, government departments, statutory and voluntary agencies and research communities’ as ‘the key players’ in promoting children’s rights. Mr Gibson appropriately asked where the word ‘parents’ fitted into the Association’s thinking, but received a less than convincing response.[9]
2. It fails to respect the autonomy of the family unit
The consultation paper states:
Where there is a conflict between the rights of children and the rights of adults, the Commissioner could be required to give priority to the rights of the child (3.4.3).
‘Adults’ here presumably includes parents. If so, we would suggest that the autonomy of the family is being disregarded. Family relationships are very personal and individual matters, and each family is shaped and influenced by certain social, cultural, religious and philosophical factors which are not common to every other family. Values and standards will therefore differ from family to family and this will be reflected in the way children are brought up. We are therefore very wary of any approach which could lead to an official body intervening in the family and siding with the child against his or her parents in the name of ‘children’s rights’.
As Charles Colson has put it:
[We should be] very cautious of recommendations decreasing the role of parents and increasing the role of the state in family life… Children’s rights theory claims to promote the welfare of children. But in reality it throws children into the arms of state professionals – who may be filled with big ideas but empty of the bonds of family love.[10]
In the Committee of the Centre’s discussions with representatives of groups working under the banner of ‘Putting Children First’, Mr Robinson asked the very pertinent question:
What would you do in a situation where you had contact with the parents and the child, and the child wants to go to the right but the parents are determined to pull the child to the left? What does the Commissioner do in that situation? Do you come down automatically on the side of the child all the time, or do you find a balance?[11]
Ms P Kelly of the Children’s Law Centre replied:
It is very hard to generalise, but we hope that the principle on which the commission works will be in the best interests of the child, and that involves listening very clearly to the child’s voice.[12]
This seems to imply that the child knows better than the parent and that the child’s best interests are to be discerned by listening to the child rather than by listening to the parent. It also raises the question as to the standards and criteria by which the Commissioner would evaluate what was in the best interests of the child.
Section 7.2.6 of the consultation document underlines the fact that children do not want bureaucrats intruding into their homes and families:
Almost 90% of the respondents thought that the Commissioner should be able to go into places like children’s homes, schools and juvenile justice centres. From their responses, the majority of those who did not think this was appropriate, appear to have interpreted the question differently, reading ‘children’s homes’ as their own homes and raising concerns about privacy.
This confirms Lynette Burrows’ assertion in our publication, The Fight for the Family:
State intervention into family life is feared and loathed by most children more than anything. They are more troubled by the state interfering than they are reassured by the protection offered. Children do not want rights, they want love and protection and…the majority of them do not want social workers or anyone else coming into their families and telling their parents they are not behaving properly.[13]
However, the family receives very little attention in the consultation paper. In fact, the emphasis on citizenship is so strong that there is a danger of forgetting that children are first and foremost members of a family. For example, the document states:
We must…recognise children as citizens in their own right, and ensure that the conditions exist to enable them to enjoy a happy, safe and secure childhood. We must ensure that they are able to live fulfilled lives and to develop and grow into secure, confident and resourceful people (2.1.1).
The picture presented is one in which the family is absent. The state has become the guardian of the child. It is, however, not the role of the state, but the responsibility of parents to enable children ‘to enjoy a happy, safe and secure childhood’ and ‘grow into secure, confident and resourceful people’.
3. It would undoubtedly be used as a vehicle to advance a ‘children’s rights’ agenda
The consultation document states that the model currently being considered involves the Commissioner in ‘promoting a culture of children’s rights’ and making ‘children and young people aware of their rights and the rights of others’ (3.3.1).
We do not believe the creation of a ‘rights culture’ will serve the best interests of children and families. ‘Rights-talk’ invariably fosters a feeling of ‘them’ and ‘us’ and, rather than building bridges, has the effect of driving people further apart. With particular reference to ‘children’s rights’, there is a danger that the ‘generation gap’ will grow even larger than it is currently perceived to be. Certainly within the home, any talk of ‘rights’ will always lead to a spirit of conflict between parents and children which will damage relationships within the family. This is the case whether we are thinking of ‘parent’s rights’ or ‘children’s rights’. We believe the focus should rather be on the family as a whole, and the responsibilities of parents towards their children and children towards their parents.
Lynette Burrows argues that the ‘rights’ which are frequently claimed for children are little more than the ‘desires’ of some adults to exercise more power over people’s private lives:
The assertion of children’s rights in their current form is both bogus and inconsistent. They do not, for example, propose to raise children to the level of adults where they would be named, prosecuted and punished for violent and disorderly behaviour. Neither are they proposing that children be allowed to choose if they drink, smoke or attend school. The ‘rights’ which they are prepared to support conform to a strict agenda and do not include such things. In other words, we are not talking about genuine children’s rights at all. We are talking about the right of some adults – and certainly not ordinary parents – to decide what children shall and shall not be allowed to do. Children themselves are just the means by which they achieve their aims. Their effect, if not intentions, is to reduce us all to the level of dependent children, waiting to be told by Nanny State what rights we have left with which to control our own lives and make decisions for the welfare of our families.[14]
It is a matter of some concern that an agenda of this sort has been pursued in other countries which have appointed a Children’s Commissioner or Ombudsman. The attitude towards the physical correction of children is a prime example of this tendency. The consultation paper mentions that the Norwegian Ombudsman was involved in the banning of physical punishment (6.3.3). In view of the fact that the Ombudsman used his influence to undermine parents and remove from them the choice of how they reasonably discipline their children, we derive little comfort from the assurance that: ‘The Ombudsman cannot consider individual conflicts between a child and his or her guardian, nor can he or she deal with the exercise of parental responsibility’ (6.3.9).
We are concerned, therefore, that the Human Rights Unit is viewing the Norwegian model favourably, and we note that there is no mention of the family unit in the description of the Ombudsman’s duties in 6.2.2.
There is no doubt that many of the individuals and groups who support the appointment of a Children’s Commissioner see it as a vehicle to pursue a radical agenda. For example, at a meeting of the Committee of the Centre with officers of the Northern Ireland Branch of the British Association of Social Workers, Ms Eagleson stated:
Many individuals and institutions have the power to help or hinder young people to express and claim their rights. For example, parents are still entitled by law to hit their children. Education legislation maintains that the consumers of education are parents and not young people.[15]
She clearly entertained the hope that the Commissioner would end the physical correction of children and also remove from parents the responsibility for the education of their children. With regard to education, we note that in Norway school councils are a statutory requirement (6.3.7). Leaving aside the arguments which may be made in favour of involving children in decision-making in their schools, to make this a matter of law is inappropriate. The decision whether or not to establish school councils can be safely left to the schools themselves in consultation with parents. It would certainly be undermining to parents to have an arrangement whereby school pupil councils were statutory, but parent councils were not.
In the view of many of the strongest advocates of a Children’s Commissioner, a ‘children’s rights culture’ would not only restrict the choices of parents with regard to the discipline and education of their children, but it would also seek to limit the amount of time children spend with their parents during their earliest years.
A representative of the Southern Travellers Early Years Partnership told the Committee of the Centre that:
The fact that ethnic minority children are less likely to access pre-school services is a concern.[16]
She went on to say:
Children from ethnic communities beginning school are disadvantaged because of their limited experience outside the home. They are unfamiliar with educational structures when they go to school.[17]
This is in line with ‘children’s rights’ thinking, which frequently asserts that children have a ‘right’ to daycare, but not a ‘right’ to full-time care from a parent. The assumption is made that it is not good for children to spend too much time in the home environment. However, this is only one way of looking at it. Another way would be to say that it is the children in pre-school education who are disadvantaged, having not had the benefit of more time at home during their early years. We would be concerned if the Commissioner were to pursue an agenda which would make it more difficult for parents to care for their children at home during the early years.
4. It fails to recognise the unique character of childhood
No one would deny that ‘children are human beings’ (2.3.3). However, we are concerned that there are many in the children’s rights movement who seem to regard children as essentially the same as adults. While children are human beings, they are not adult human beings: they are not fully grown and fully-developed and mature. They are dependent on their parents, not only for the provision of their physical needs, but also for their moral training and development. They therefore need the protection that their parents are able to give.
There is a great danger in children’s rights philosophy that adults who have no family bonds and no long-term personal commitment to a child may gain access to children without the knowledge and consent of their parents. In this context there is considerable risk of exploitation. We would consider moves to make contraceptive advice and supplies available to children and young people under the age of consent and the pressure to override the wishes of parents on the kind of sex education their children receive at school as examples of this. It is precisely because children are ‘vulnerable to manipulation, ill-treatment or abuse by those more powerful than themselves’ (2.4.1) that they need the protection of their parents.
We are therefore uncomfortable with the tone of paragraph 7.1.2, when it implies that those who believe in the ‘natural’ authority of parents to decide what is best for their children are wedded to the view that children should be ‘seen and not heard’. To listen to children and give full attention to their feelings and concerns is by no means incompatible with parents taking full responsibility for the way their children are brought up. Neither is the recognition that parents must sometimes make decisions on behalf of their children incompatible with a recognition that ‘children are often capable of making rational decisions’ and ‘should be encouraged to develop their decision-making skills’. Children develop at different rates and no child faces exactly the same decisions. It is therefore not possible to dictate at what age a child should be able to decide x or y. It is part of the responsibility of parents to allow their children to make decisions under their own guidance and protection. This is therefore a matter for parental discretion and not one where the state or any Commissioner should dictate at what age a child should be able to make certain decisions for himself or herself.
5. The powers currently envisaged for the Commissioner are extensive and intrusive
The powers being considered for the Commissioner are immense:
The Commissioner could be given access to all public and private institutions for children (3.4.2).
This would presumably include voluntary groups such as Sunday Schools, church youth clubs, Crusaders, Scouts, Guides, Brownies etc. Many workers in such groups would not welcome the involvement of the Commissioner in their organisations. Yet the consultation document goes on to suggest that ‘the Commissioner must be free to operate without interference from Government or public authorities’ (4.1.1), and even that it might be made a criminal offence to obstruct the Commissioner in carrying out some of his functions (3.4.4). These are considerable powers to be granted to an unelected, unaccountable officer.
Later in the chapter on ‘The role and remit of the Commissioner’, the document states:
Many people believe that for the Commissioner to be effective as a champion for children, his or her remit should include every public authority with which children may come into contact, and every matter which affects their daily lives (3.6.10).
This is an extremely broad and wide-ranging remit, and one which it is proposed to impose on those who would be strongly opposed to the idea of having a statutory office monitoring ‘every matter’ that affects their children’s lives. The language here is alarmingly vague, as it is elsewhere in the document. For example, paragraph 2.5.3 reads:
The Commissioner should promote the participation of children and young people in society and ensure that they are consulted on matters affecting them.
The scope of the ‘matters’ in view is not defined. If they include family matters, parents are clearly being by-passed and undermined. The Commissioner’s office would be promoting the view that the state has responsibilities towards children without reference to their parents, demonstrating an alarming lack of respect for the family unit. We therefore take little comfort from the assurance that: ‘The aim…is not to usurp the role of parents or to add another tier of bureaucracy, nor to merely duplicate or take over existing functions’ (2.6.1). While it may not be the stated aim, it will inevitably have that effect.
The tendency to undermine parents in the name of ‘children’s rights’ is illustrated by the suggestion of Committee of the Centre member, David Ervine, that the Commissioner should have the capacity to instantly put an end to the physical correction of children in independent schools. Professor Dickson of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission agreed and added:
[C]hildren are so vulnerable that it is probably appropriate that special powers be given to a Children’s Commissioner, even if they intrude upon the rights of parents and other adults.[18]
Not only is the assumption being made that physical correction a breach of human rights rather than a matter on which parents may be left to decide, but the suggestion that the Commissioner could be granted the power to pass laws without parliamentary debate and scrutiny is highly undemocratic.
6. There is a danger that the remit and powers of the Commissioner could be further extended
The remit of the proposed Children’s Commissioner is already a broad one, but there is a tendency for the functions and powers of such offices to be further extended, sometimes at a rapid rate.
In Wales, for example, the first Children’s Commissioner took up his position in March 2001, with responsibility towards children in the care system. However, already the Commissioner’s powers have been extended and new functions introduced, so that his principal aim is now defined in terms of safeguarding and promoting the rights and welfare of all children in Wales, not only those in care (5.2.3).
It is similarly anticipated that the remit of the Children’s Rights Director in England will be extended – even before the first postholder is appointed:
[T]he Care Standards Act 2000 established for England a Children’s Rights Director within a new National Care Standards Commission, to ensure that the issues of children’s rights and safeguards are given the highest priority by the Commission. The Commission will be established in April 2002 (5.3).
The consultation document continues:
The functions…are…restricted to those children who are recipients of care services, although the Government intends to consult on whether this should be extended (5.3.2).
As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, we note that from the outset it is proposed that the remit of the Children’s Commissioner should ‘include all children in Northern Ireland up to 18 years of age’ (3.6.3), and not only those in the care system.
While the consultation paper suggests that the Commissioner would not ordinarily become involved in domestic disputes within families, the door is left slightly ajar to such involvement:
We believe, however, that the Commissioner should not become involved in specific, individual disputes between a child and his or her parents or guardians, nor in disputes between parents or guardians concerning the exercise of parental responsibility, unless, after a thorough assessment of the situation, the Commissioner believes that the interests of the child will be neglected (3.6.5).
7. It represents the creation of an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy
From reading the consultation paper and the minutes of evidence relating to the report of the Committee of the Centre, we cannot help feeling that the expectations of the proposed Commissioner are largely unrealistic. For example, bullying is cited as an example of a problem to be addressed by the Commissioner. Dr P Rodgers of Save the Children stated:
The Commissioner would work for those children who, for example, suffer in silence because of bullying… The Commissioner would have a very strong role to play in terms of ensuring that schools, for example, have policy and practices for dealing with bullying.[19]
However, with the best will in the world, the Commissioner would not be able to wave a magic wand and make bullying disappear. There have perhaps never before been so many agencies offering assistance to bullied children. Existing structures can be used to ensure that schools have adequate policies and procedures for dealing with this problem.
We are inclined to agree with sentiments expressed by Mr Cobain, a member of the Committee of the Centre:
Why do we need another layer of bureaucracy on top of what already exists? A Children’s Commissioner is not going to make any difference…We are talking about building another structure.[20]
We would also point out that there is no guarantee that the Commissioner would represent children, still less families. When asked by a delegation from the Western Young People’s Steering Group about the possibility of setting up ‘a subgroup to act as a medium between children and the Commissioner’, the chairman of the Committee of the Centre, Mr Poots, replied:
I understand what you are saying. I can see the appeal of it, but I can also see difficulties in setting it up and how representative it would be of young people’s views. I do not represent the views of all the people of the same age group as myself, by any stretch of the imagination. Not even all the members of this Committee would represent the views of all the people in Northern Ireland.[21]
We would argue that precisely the same problem applies to the establishment of a Children’s Commissioner. Which young people’s views will the Commissioner represent? We submit that it is far better that parents are left to represent the best interests of their own children.
Conclusion
We live in an age where children and childhood are very easily sentimentalised. It is relatively easy to gain support for any cause which claims to ‘do more for children’. Promises of more funding for children’s health and education will always be vote-winners, for example. Likewise, if the government announces that it is going to set up an office to reduce child abuse, eliminate bullying, and give children a better start in life, few will rise up to oppose it.
However, as we have attempted to show in our response to the consultation document, we fear that the creation of a Children’s Commissioner is undesirable because it:
· undermines the role and responsibilities of parents
· fails to respect the autonomy of the family unit
· would undoubtedly be used as a vehicle to advance a radical ‘children’s rights’ agenda
· fails to recognise the unique character of childhood, and
· represents the creation of an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.
We are also concerned that the powers currently envisaged for the Commissioner are both extensive and intrusive, and the experience of other countries leads us to fear that there is a very real danger that they would be further extended.
We note that there are plans to develop an over-arching children’s strategy in Northern Ireland (1.2.1). With regard to this we would urge that:
(a) due respect is paid to the views of parents as those who have the primary responsibility for the care and nurture of their children, taking care to avoid the imposition of any particular parenting philosophy and style;
(b) children are viewed first and foremost as members of a family, rather than independent citizens of the state. We are concerned by the growing tendency among public policy-makers to divorce children from their parents in their thinking.
Children are people with individual needs which are most effectively met in a personal way within the family. They should therefore not be viewed as subjects of the state in isolation from the family. They need parents to guide, direct and protect them. It is when society begins to lose sight of the importance of parents and the family unit that children are at risk of being treated as objects.
We therefore conclude that children do not need a Commissioner. What they need more than anything else is a mother, father and a loving home. If the government is concerned about promoting the best interests of children, the most positive thing it can do is to promote stable family life, based on marriage, and encourage children to value and respect their parents.
References
1. Committee of the Centre, Report into the Proposal to Appoint a Commissioner for Children for Northern Ireland, Volume 1 – Report and the Minutes of Evidence relating to the Report, (2/00 R) para 3.1.2.
2. HC Deb (2000-01) 363, col 606.
3. Committee of the Centre, op cit para 3.1.1.
4. Fagan Patrick F, ‘How UN Conventions on Women’s and Children’s Rights Undermine Family, Religion and Sovereignty’. Washington: The Heritage Foundation, February 2001.
5. Committee of the Centre, op cit, para 41.
6. Ibid, para 52.
7. Ibid, para 179.
8. Ibid, para 620.
9. Ibid, paras 711-715.
10. Charles Colson, A Dance with Deception, Word, 1993, p179.
11. Committee of the Centre, op cit, para 285.
12. Ibid, para 286.
13. Lynette Burrows, The Fight for the Family, Oxford: Family Education Trust, 1999, p54.
14. Ibid, p74.
15. Committee of the Centre, op cit, para 688.
16. Ibid, para 319.
17. Ibid, para 323.
18. Ibid, paras 54-58.
19. Ibid, paras 181, 252.
20. Ibid, paras 226.
21. Ibid, paras 531.