In this issue:
Annual General Meeting & Conference
Family Life Award
A Date for Your Diary
A Prophetic Voice
Happy Ever After
Bookshelf
Annual General Meeting & Conference
23 June 2001
This year’s AGM attracted just short of 100 members. Once again, a cheerful determination and a refusal to be put down by the many ills of our society was the pervasive atmosphere. The Chairman, Arthur Cornell, in his report stressed that our work was more needed than ever. As a retired headmaster, he said that children themselves knew that they were better off with two parents. Teachers were leaving the teaching profession, he said, because of situations of confrontation almost daily: children know that they can get away with almost anything. Having given his address, Arthur Cornell chaired the morning session with his characteristic efficiency and good humour. Last year’s minutes and the report of the Hon Treasurer, Simon Ling, were approved. The treasurer’s report showed that the trust is in a healthy state and has received continued support. There had been one very substantial donation from a supporter since the close of the last accounting period.
In his Director’s report, Robert Whelan stated that the changes in the trust – moving to London (though the Oxford office is still there) and sharing facilities with Civitas – were working well. The evidence of this was in the initiatives undertaken. The major publishing event had been the report Sex Under Sixteen?, our largest ever research project.
There also had been a mailing to schools to publicise our curriculum material The Other Three Rs and the video The Three Rs of Family Life. A factsheet had been produced by Civitas on cohabitation and this had been distributed to schools together with lesson notes for teachers. Thought had been given to what to do about PSHE (personal, social and health education) in schools and, having given teachers the opportunity to express their views, it had been thought best not to start any kind of organisation for teachers of the subject but to try to produce good material that teachers would want to use.
A substantial donation had been received and would be used to fund two projects: a study of what is the truth about teenage pregnancy in the Netherlands and a project on abstinence education. Robert Whelan paid tribute to Valerie and Denis Riches, both still very much involved. He finished by saying that we had experienced changes but the basic work of the trust had not changed: “We defend the traditional family based on marriage.” He quoted Valerie Riches: “What can we do except tell the truth?”
Hugh McKinney was unable to be present to give his usual parliamentary report but his substantial report was circulated and it can be obtained from the FET office.
The main thrust is that the new parliament could be a very difficult one for those who are working on behalf of children and the family. The report gives figures, comparing rates in Britain with those in other countries for marriage, divorce, cohabitation, children in single parent families, and births to girls under 16. In most of these, the figures in Britain are the worst. Finally, the report encourages members to write to MPs and gives good advice about the best way to do so.
Then Ronald Butt, Betty Lady Grantchester and Dr Trevor Stammers were re-elected as Trustees. On the committee, the following were re-elected: Mrs Anna Lines; Mrs Valerie Riches; Robert Whelan; and Mrs Gillian White. In addition, Mrs Ann Allen from Scotland was elected to the committee.
Local Activities
As last year, an important and encouraging part of the morning was the presentation of reports on local activities. I have reported these at some length to give members an idea of what others are doing and, with permission, I give contacts in case others with similar problems in their areas want to be in touch with them to learn from their expertise and experience. The geographical spread of these reports and the variety of initiatives and activities by people of different backgrounds and beliefs showed the vitality and courage of the work being done by members across the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland.
Muslim Council of Britain
Dr Fatma Amer, Chair of the Family & Women Committee of the Muslim Council of Britain, outlined the structure of that organisation. She explained that the very deep Muslim respect for the family is based on the belief that it is literally a “heaven sent” institution given by God. The Muslim Council of Britain was supportive of the work of FET, and Robert Whelan had been invited to give a talk at the Islamic Cultural Centre.
Sure Start
Mrs Pat Cartwright from Ferryhill, Co Durham, reported in a lively and appealing manner on Sure Start, a government initiative which aims “to promote the physical, intellectual and social development of pre-school children – particularly those who are disadvantaged – to ensure they are ready to flourish when they get to school.” She explained how this lavishly state-funded body had laid plans to locate flats for unmarried mothers and their partners in her daughter’s primary school. A resident had contacted her local MP, one Tony Blair, but he had been of little help. The scheme was scrapped only after the families of teenage mothers objected, protesting that they wanted to take care of their daughters who had “got themselves into trouble”. One of the sad things is that her area has many problems and is short of money, with poor schools and housing. Yet Sure Start seemed to have plenty of money and was always keen to provide day care so that mothers would not be looking after their own children. There is encouragement to make full use of other services including “advice” about contraception and housing. There are Sure Start projects in 25 areas of Britain. Mrs Cartwright described Sure Start as a “horrible scheme”. She ended by posing a splendid rhetorical question to her MP: “Will Leo Blair go to Sure Start?”
Cornwall’s CSA
Miss Ann Whitaker, of Cornwall’s Community Standards Association, reported on something that had happened in Cornwall but is also happening everywhere in the United Kingdom – the creation of a local “teenage pregnancy strategy”. The government’s Social Exclusion Unit had money to spend and was requiring each health authority to devise such a strategy. Just the wrong sorts of things were being proposed, such as sex education for four-year-olds. Councillor Mrs Carlyon, an independent councillor recently re-elected in Cornwall, described something of the fight in Cornwall. Every part of the UK is engaged in producing a similar strategy and if we do not act then we will find that the morning-after pill and other such anti-child devices will be the order of the day. In Cornwall, she was able to make a critique of the strategy and to advocate abstinence education. Her critique pointed out that parts of the strategy were bordering on child abuse. She also managed to encourage a surprisingly large group of people to attend a council meeting where the proponents of the strategy expected no opposition.
Bodyzone
Mrs Eileen Wojciechowska, of Oxfordshire, explained how, almost by accident, she came across the activities of Bodyzone, when she happened to see some material that her daughter had brought home from her local comprehensive school. Bodyzone provides a confidential clinic “service” in schools, i.e. neither parents nor family doctor will be informed. Contraceptives and the morning-after pill could be given to children. Mrs Wojciechowska had had interviews with the chairman of governors of her daughter’s school and with someone from the local health authority promoting Bodyzone in schools. Since Bodyzone was a joint project of the Oxfordshire Health Authority and the County Council Youth Service, it did not come under DfEE guidance with its emphasis on the responsibilities of parents. Mrs Wojciechowska drew attention to the inconsistencies in the way that children were treated: a doctor cannot perform an operation to save a child’s life without parental consent, but the morning-after pill can be given; teachers have a duty to report if a child seems at risk of being under- or over-weight but must not tell parents about under-age sexual activity. She pointed out that she was speaking as a mother and she admitted to a certain nervousness in public, but her informative and well-delivered talk provided important information about the dangers of Bodyzone.
Some members, unable actually to be present, had sent written reports read by others.
Tamzin
The report on Tamzin magazine by Hilary Schlesinger gave news of how this magazine, founded to counteract the harmful effects of some teenage magazines, is progressing well. Thanks to a sponsor, it is now distributed in Singapore, Malaysia and Australia as well as in Britain. It also has a website.
Scotland
John McColl sent a report from Scotland. A great deal of energy had gone into fighting the repeal of the Scottish equivalent of Section 28 with heroic and useful roles played by Brian Souter and the Christian Institute. The new Scottish parliament is pushing many anti-family policies, a number of them promoted and financed by the EU and the UN. There are anxieties about child abuse in children’s homes and a warning that leading children’s charities have supported the employment of homosexuals in children’s homes.
Northern Ireland
Mary Russell’s report from Northern Ireland affirmed that they had fought hard. One threat was a so-called Bill of Rights which would try to undermine the protection of children and the responsibilities of parents. Sex education is being pushed and the FPA has been granted a judicial review of Northern Ireland’s policy of no abortion.
Responsible Society
John O’Reilly sent a report of The Responsible Society in the Republic of Ireland. The story here is of a country that has been good over the years at “catching up” with a number of bad statistics from Britain. The media constantly attacks the traditional values held by the majority of the population. EU pressure has been for the worse.
Duke of Edinburgh’s Award Scheme
Mrs Lucy Whitehouse from Bucks demonstrated how effective one person’s intervention can be. She found a very unsuitable booklet on ‘Sex and Relationships’, recommending sexually permissive and anti-parent websites in, of all things, her daughter’s Duke of Edinburgh’s Award folder. She contacted Robert Whelan at FET who put her in touch with Steve Doughty of The Daily Mail, which featured the story. As a result of this one complaint by a parent, the D of E dissociated themselves from the booklet, which was pulped.
Afternoon Session
After a good lunch, Peter Dawson took over as chairman for the afternoon session, which he handled with his own inimitable flair.
Sandy Bruce-Lockhart
The main part of the afternoon was devoted to three very impressive and heartening talks, the first by Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, the Leader of Kent County Council. He described himself as a farmer but said that three of his uncles had been headmasters. He explained what the council is doing to try to promote family values. This involved the Kent Curriculum Guidance for governing bodies and heads. He pointed out that there were areas other than education where government policies impinged on family life. For instance, the government was trying to force Kent to make about two thirds of its new housing for single people. Kent was resisting this. As regards Section 28, Kent had passed a resolution saying that the Council would not spend any public money on material which promotes homosexuality. Mr Bruce-Lockhart and his wife were thanked for their attendance by the chairman who pointed out how useful the Kent material could be for schools and teachers elsewhere.
Robert Rowthorn
Professor Robert Rowthorn holds the Chair of Economics at Cambridge University and is a fellow of King’s College. He spoke on Public Policy & the Family. He gave a brilliant exposition of how a whole variety of statistics, in this country and from the USA, show that the traditional married family is the best social and economic unit for society. It was extremely encouraging that someone of his eminence is stating such views and producing the statistics to show what we have always believed in our hearts. Those of us in the audience felt that we had been privileged to hear one of the world’s major academics deliver a short lecture on one of the world’s most important subjects.
Nick Pollard
Just as good as the first two speakers was Dr Nick Pollard of the Damaris Trust, the title of whose talk was the same as one of his books: Why do they do that? Understanding teenagers. Dr Pollard, with a most engaging presentation, explained that he had no simple answers, but that his work at the Damaris Trust sprung from his work as a lay chaplain in sixth form colleges. He explained some of the reasons behind the behaviour of teenagers. Again, there was so much good material that I urge members to try the Damaris website: www.damaris.org. Those who do not understand how to get on the Internet should ask any teenager!
The easiest task of the day was mine in making a vote of thanks to all our speakers. Just as the worst job is having to deliver a vote of thanks to a poor speaker, it is simple to thank speakers of the quality and relevance that we had heard. The loud and long applause was its own thanks.
Eric Hester, Vice Chairman
Family Life Award
The 2001 Family Life Award is being presented to Ann Whitaker in recognition of a lifetime’s work of tireless caring and campaigning on behalf of young people and the family.
Having served as a senior medical social worker with a special interest in the young chronic sick, Ann was a co-founder of a charitable trust for the establishment of homes for the rehabilitation of those with serious mental or physical problems. Then, in 1965, she purchased a manor house in Cornwall for use as a medical practice, summer children’s camps, and the meeting place of a local Christian fellowship.
Since 1974, Ann has served as the Hon Secretary of Cornwall’s Community Standards Association which she founded to draw attention to the damaging effects of pornography and the display of violent and other morally corrupting material. In the intervening years, the Association has campaigned vigorously and courageously on a whole range of issues, including film censorship, homosexuality, drug abuse, sex education, school standards, and the rights and responsibilities of parents.
As if that wasn’t enough, from 1983-1998 Ann also found the time to serve as the Principal of Tremore Christian School, an independent day school for boys and girls aged 3-16!
From the heart of Cornwall, Ann’s influence has been felt in the corridors of power by means of informed briefings and research material. Her unswerving commitment to the truth, combined with her clear vision and energy, continue to be an inspiration to countless pro-family groups and individuals throughout the country.
A Date for Your Diary
Next year’s Annual General Meeting and Conference will be held at the RAF Club, Piccadilly, on Saturday 15 June 2002.
A Prophetic Voice
“By far the most important channel of transmission of culture remains the family; and when family life fails to play its part, we must expect our culture to deteriorate. Now the family is an institution of which everybody speaks well: but it is advisable to remember that this is a term that may vary in extension. In the present age it means little more than the living members. Even of living members, it is a rare exception when an advertisement depicts a large family of three generations: the usual family on the hoardings consists of two parents and one or two young children… But when I speak of the family, I have in mind a bond which embraces a longer period of time than this: a piety towards the dead, however obscure, and a solicitude for the unborn, however remote… Such an interest in the past is different to the vanities and pretensions of genealogy; such a responsibility for the future is different from that of the builder of social programmes.”
T.S. Eliot, Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, 1948.
Happy Ever After
Members who attended the AGM will long remember Professor Rowthorne’s powerful speech in defence of the family. Together with Paul Ormerod, he wrote a brilliant essay on the family for publication in Prospect Magazine, April 2001. The essay was published, in a shortened form, in The Observer, 25 March 2001, and is reproduced below by kind permission of Prospect Magazine, www.prospect-magazine.co.uk.
A massive social experiment has been carried out in Britain and America during the last 30-odd years. The values of the 1960s generation have dominated the evolution of family structures. Personal fulfilment has been elevated over old-fashioned concepts of duty and commitment. Divorce rates have soared and lone-parent households have proliferated.
The consequences of these trends are now being evaluated. And serious social science research, dominated in this area by the Americans, is giving the thumbs down to the experiment.
The marriage sceptics have held almost all of the intellectual and political high ground since the 1960s. For them, family structure is simply one more aspect of ‘lifestyle choice’, and marriage holds no particular status. But differences of opinion are starting to emerge. A White Paper on the family was due to be published early this year. But owing to disagreement it has been shelved until after the election.
Much of the discussion in Britain has been dominated by emotion rather than by evidence. Most children, whatever their family background, grow up as well-adjusted members of society. Everyone can point to lone parents or cohabiting couples who have charming and successful children. But it is just not good enough to point to individual examples. To put together a serious argument, we need to look at how the outcomes of different family structures compare on average, across lots of individual cases.
A simple analogy shows very clearly why this has to be done. Driving with a safety belt does not guarantee protection in the event of an accident and in some cases may even be a disadvantage because it may trap the driver inside the car. But usually it is safer to drive wearing a safety belt than not.
Other examples spring readily to mind. The common theme is that most of the time, the outcomes are happy ones. But the probability of an unhappy one rises in certain circumstances. This is exactly the case with family structure. Marriage remains a valuable institution, for the individuals concerned, for their children, and for society as a whole. The empirical evidence is now overwhelmingly in support of all three of these propositions.
It is now clear that children brought up in a stable, two-parent family as a rule do better than in other family types. This is true for almost every indicator used to measure their personal development. Family break-up often damages children, even when it makes one or both of their parents happier. To give just one example, boys living with both natural parents are less likely to commit crime than if they are brought up by a lone parent or in a step-family. Here are some of the ways in which research shows marriage to be beneficial.
On average, married people are physically healthier and have lower mortality rates than single, cohabiting, divorced or separated people. They live more regular and secure lives, and engage in less substance abuse and other harmful activities. They suffer from less anxiety, depression, and other mental ailments. These findings apply to both sexes. In 1972, the American Jesse Barnard claimed that ‘marriage may be hazardous to women’s health’. It is true that men gain most from marriage, but the modern evidence indicates that, in general, women benefit. Married women engage in fewer risky forms of behaviour than single or divorced women, and they receive more financial and emotional support than other women. They are less likely to become disabled in old age or enter a nursing home, they live longer and are less likely to commit suicide. They also report higher levels of emotional satisfaction with their primary partner than cohabiting or other women. And serious violence among married couples is uncommon, while violence of all kinds is much less frequent than among cohabiting couples.
Both physical and sexual abuse are much less frequent for children who live with their married, biological parents than in other kinds of family set-up. By far the riskiest situation for a child is to live in a step-family. And marriages are on average more stable than cohabiting unions. This applies whether or not children are present. The instability of cohabiting unions is to be expected since many of them involve no lifelong commitment and the option of breaking up is consciously preserved.
Married men work harder, earn more and are more likely to have a job than other men. Their stable families create a network of reciprocal obligations between generations, siblings and spouses. Despite the growth of nursing homes and social services, care for old or sick adults in our society is mainly the responsibility of close relatives. Friends and neighbours hardly figure. Modern family trends mean that millions of extra men and women in the future will have no close relative prepared to care for them in sickness or old age. On every measure of achievement and emotional condition, children living with their married parents usually do better than other children. This applies to both adopted and biological children. The children of lone parents on average perform less well on all measures than those with married parents. Part of this gap is explained by the fact that lone parents as a group are relatively poor, but much of it is due to other disadvantages associated with lone parenthood.
Although divorce can be beneficial to children in the case of severe parental conflict, it frequently damages children emotionally and harms their future life chances. The conventional view at one time was that parents should normally stick together for the sake of the children even if one or both of them was unhappy. For decades this view was criticised by therapeutic professionals who claimed that children are better off if unhappy parents separate.
But the traditional view was usually right. Only in high conflict families – a distinct minority of cases – is divorce on average better for the children. The worst situation for children is to be in a continuing high-conflict marriage or in a low-conflict marriage that ends in divorce. Another debilitating aspect of marriage break-up, and of lone parenthood in general, is its impact on family finances. Lone parenthood is a powerful cause of poverty. The stereotype, of course, is the 19-year-old semi-literate mother of two children by separate fathers living in a tower block. Most lone parents are not of this type, but it is universally true that lone parenthood greatly increases the chances of a family ending up in poverty.
All these various findings refer to averages and may not apply in individual cases. Thus, some cohabiting unions are very successful, some divorces may be good for the children, and many lone parents and step-families bring up their children well. But despite these caveats, the scientific evidence in favour of marriage as an institution is now overwhelming. There can be no doubt that, generally, marriage is superior to other family types.
None of this implies a holier-than-thou morality. What goes on behind the net curtains to preserve marriage is not our concern. Support for marriage is based on its practical benefits to both individuals and society. Nor does it imply turning back the clock to the Victorian patriarchs. Relationships within marriage have altered – for the better.
The changed role of women in the labour market has far more implications for personal relationships within marriage than it does for the institution itself. Labour market changes have happened in all Western European countries, yet divorce rates there are much lower than in the UK.
What is needed is a series of measures, each fairly minor in its own way, to nudge the system of family structure back towards a ‘tipping point’, where the popularity and stability of marriage once again becomes self-reinforcing. Small changes in themselves may seem insignificant, but the Long March begins with the first small step.
Robert Rowthorn is professor of economics at Cambridge University and co-author of The Law and Economics of Marriage and Divorce, to be published by CUP later this year. Paul Ormerod, a director of Volterra Consulting, is author of Butterfly Economics.
Bookshelf
The Sex-Change Society by Melanie Phillips is a brilliant work by one of our leading writers on the family. However, soon after its publication, and before it was even reviewed in the Bulletin, it was out-of-print and remained so for some time. We had many requests from members, frustrated by being unable to obtain this modern classic. It has now been reprinted and is available from the Society at the reduced price of £10.00 plus £2.00 postage.
The Facts Behind Cohabitation is a four-page factsheet based on Patricia Morgan’s superb book Marriage-Lite: The Rise of Cohabitation and its Consequences. Designed for use with secondary school students, it presents, in a simple format, the known facts about ways in which cohabiting relationships are not like marriage. Suitable for use in marriage preparation. Send a 27p stamp for one copy. Bulk order: £7.00 per hundred including p&p.