In this issue:
Limited choice for parents: the government’s vision for ‘the best start for children’
Policies aimed at driving mothers out to work contribute to anti-social behaviour
Westminster Hall debate on parents and family policy
‘Celebrating the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family’
The relationship between the family and the state
Children Act 2004
o Reasonable chastisement
o Information database
o Children’s commissioner
Mother mounts challenge to confidentiality policy
Schools after Section 28
Public funds for Channel 4?
Baroness O’Cathain
Limited choice for parents: the government’s vision for ‘the best start for children’
The government’s ten year strategy for early years and childcare was published alongside the pre-budget report on 2 December 2004. The document, entitled, Choice for parents, the best start for children,1 set forth the following goals:
- 12 months paid maternity leave by the end of the next Parliament, with the option for the mother to transfer a proportion of her paid leave to the father if she wishes;
- 3,500 local Children’s Centres by 2010, offering ‘information, health, family support, childcare and other services for parents and children’ (2,500 to be in place by 2008);
- an ‘affordable, flexible, high quality childcare place’ for all families with children aged up to 14;
- 15 hours a week of ‘free high quality care’ for 38 weeks a year for all 3 and 4 year olds by 2010, with the long-term aim of providing 20 hours a week for 38 weeks a year;
- an out-of-school childcare place for all children aged 3-14 between the hours of 8am to 6pm each weekday (including holidays) by 2010.
False assumption
From start to finish, the strategy is based on the false assumption that mothers want to work and that the lack of affordable high quality childcare is the main obstacle to achieving that objective:
‘high quality childcare is just one of many services today’s families need…Bringing these services together in a more joined up way will help ensure that parents are able to make real choices about their work and family lives’ (1.5).
However, the range of ‘real choices’ outlined in the strategy does not extend to helping mothers to stay at home with their children beyond the first year.
The document itemises the challenges faced by the government in meeting the perceived need for more childcare, offering parents support to balance work and family life, and helping families break out of the cycle of poverty and worklessness. It laments that:
‘too many parents, especially mothers, who would like to stay in work and develop their careers after their children are born are not able to do so, which can have considerable costs to the family and to the wider economy’ (1.8).
However, concern for those parents, especially mothers, who would like to stay at home with their children, but are finding themselves forced out into the workplace is conspicuous by its absence.
Changed priorities
The strategy document notes in passing the findings of a survey showing that 63 per cent of mothers currently in employment wanted to work fewer hours, and 44 per cent of working mothers would prefer to give up work and stay at home with their children if they could afford to do so (2.53), but still fails to acknowledge the changes that occur in the scale of priorities of most women when they have children.
Research undertaken by Dr Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics concluded that women fall into three categories in terms of their choices relating to work and family. There were (i) ‘work-centred’ women who gave first priority to their careers (15-20 per cent of the population); (ii) ‘family-centred’ women who devote their lives to their home and family (also 15-20 per cent of the population); and (iii) ‘adaptive’ women whose lives encompass both work and family (60-70 per cent of the population). Those in this third category tend to reduce their hours of employment or leave the workplace completely when their children are young or when they face other family demands.2
Yet the government appears to be oblivious to the reality that most mothers with young children make a conscious decision to give up work or at least reduce their hours because they positively want to be with their children. For such women neither the affordability nor the quality of the childcare on offer is the issue. There is simply no substitute for the care of a mother for her own child. Her interest in her child is personal, not professional; and what she does, she does out of love, not for money.
Choice for parents seems to celebrate the fact that male employment rates have fallen from around 92 per cent in 1971 to less than 80 per cent today, while over the same period the proportion of women working has increased from 56 per cent to 70 per cent. However, we are still ‘some way behind the Scandinavian countries’. There, 80 per cent of women are in employment, most of them employed full-time, whereas in the UK around 40 per cent of women work part-time.
So, we still have some way to go to achieve the desired ‘gender equality’, and that is where childcare comes in.
The strategy states:
‘It is noticeable that many of the countries where motherhood makes little or no difference to labour market participation – like Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Belgium and France – are countries with well developed systems of childcare provision’ (2.40).
But is this really what we want to achieve? Do we really want to reach the point where motherhood makes no difference to labour market participation? Such an objective is cutting against the grain of the natural maternal instincts of most women, and denying the fundamental needs of young children.
Parental responsibility
In his pre-budget report, Gordon Brown re-asserted the ‘enduring Beveridge Report principles’:
‘that the family is the bedrock of society; that nothing should be done to remove from parents their responsibilities to their children; and that it is in the national interest to help parents meet their responsibilities. ’
And yet behind the rhetoric, what the government is doing is to remove young children from the care and influence of their parents and to place them in state-regulated facilities, while still reserving the right to hold parents responsible for the behaviour of their children in the event of the experiment failing, which it inevitably will.
Like the Chancellor in his pre-budget report, the ten year strategy document also contains some warm and positive references to the importance of parents, but such references are at variance with the overall tenor of the strategy. For example, we are told that:
‘Parents want to secure the best for their children, and to see them fulfil their potential in later life. They will frequently make large personal sacrifices to ensure that this is the case. Parents are the best decision makers about the interests of their children. The role for government is to support parents in the choices they make’ (2.10).
Yet the whole emphasis of the strategy is on supporting parents in the choices they make only if those choices involve leaving their children in the care of others while they go out to work.
‘During the first year of a child’s life, in the majority of cases it is good for the child to receive consistent one-to-one care. For health reasons (e.g. breastfeeding) mothers should have a genuine choice to be the main carer in the early months of a child’s life’ (A.29).
But after those early months, the ‘genuine choice’ evaporates and social and financial pressure is applied to force the mother to withdraw her consistent one-to-one care.
Social engineering
The strategy acknowledges that ‘high levels of group care of poor quality below the age of three can have a small negative effect on behaviour for some children’ (2.16), but the damaging effects of daycare are very much downplayed. Instead, a positive gloss is put upon childcare, which, we are assured, ‘benefits society as a whole’, ‘can play a role in breaking the cycle of disadvantage’, and ‘is critical in supporting social mobility and creating equality of opportunity’. Such terms alone strongly suggest that the vision for childcare set out in the ten year strategy owes more to social engineering than to the true welfare of women, children and families.
Notes
1. Choice for parents, the best start for children: a ten year strategy for childcare, HM Treasury, December 2004.
2. A helpful summary of Dr Hakim’s research will be found in Choosing to be Different: Women, work and the family, by Jill Kirby (Centre for Policy Studies, 2003). Copies are available from the office priced at £5.00 + £1.00 p&p.
Policies aimed at driving mothers out to work contribute to anti-social behaviour
In his Eleanor Rathbone Memorial Lecture at the University of Liverpool on 9 December 2004, Frank Field MP suggested that the rise of ‘yobbish behaviour’ was due to the failure of an increasing number of families to impart social skills to their children. He argued that the government’s policy of driving mothers with young children out to work was one reason for increased levels of anti-social behaviour, and urged that attention be focussed on ‘the pivotal role of motherhood in producing the kind of citizens necessary for a peaceable kingdom’.
“The government sees work as the antidote to many of the social problems inflicted upon us. It does so without ever giving a hint that when and how we work might be a cause of some of the problems themselves. To a large extent the government is correct to reinforce the truth that it is work that helps the world go around. Work is also important in giving us independence, and the dignity that goes with that, as well as, thankfully, providing access to a range of friendships that might not otherwise exist. But does a strategy of work, work, and work again necessarily further the best interests of very young children?
“At the moment most mothers with young children have to work irrespective of what their emotions and instincts tell them. But the blaze of publicity that the government has given to recent research showing the beneficial effect of nursery education on children from the age of two years and beyond also highlights an agenda which the government is less willing to advance.
“The very same study shows that most children are best nurtured by one of their parents in the first two years of their lives. While some fathers have the skills to nurture, and while others might acquire such skills by great diligence, the truth is that the nurturing of their young is natural to most women…
“Children…need the active support of two parents and, where possible, grandparents. Even though this may not be the norm for many families, what is best for children should not be denied for the fear of offending a political correctness. To state an obvious truth is not to attack those families who do not fit this pattern. It is rather to break into the cycle where our silence acts against what children have a right to expect and what both parents have a duty to meet.”
Parents and family policy
A brief report on a significant parliamentary debate
On 7 December 2004, a cross-party group of Christian MPs secured a Westminster Hall debate on parents and family policy. Opening the debate, Alistair Burt welcomed Margaret Hodge’s recognition of the value of marriage when she said: ‘Stability really matters for kids and people are more likely to stay together if they are married’. He recognised the imperfections to be found in marriages and family life and the problems that had to be worked through, but insisted that these ‘should not stop us talking about the ideals to which we can all strive’.
Statistics on family breakdown
Mr Burt urged his parliamentary colleagues to recognise the serious issues related to family breakdown:
- Two-thirds of couples divorcing have children under 16, and cohabiting parents separate at about five times the rate of married parents;
- One in three children will experience parental divorce or separation before the age of 16;
- Nearly one in five babies are born in a home without a father;
- NSPCC research reveals strong links between child maltreatment and other family problems, and shows that children experiencing frequent changes in family structure are especially vulnerable to abuse;
- Children living in step-families are three times as likely to run away from home as children living with both their natural parents, and children of lone parents are twice as likely to do so;
- Children on the at-risk register are eight times more likely to be living with their natural mother and a father substitute;
- Children from broken homes are twice as likely to have behavioural problems, perform less well in school, become sexually active at a younger age, suffer depression and turn to drugs, smoking and heavy drinking;
- Within five years of a child’s birth, only 8 per cent of married couples have split up compared with 52 per cent of cohabitees and 25 per cent of those who marry after the birth.
Mr Burt argued that parents should be careful about their relationship to each other and recognise the costs associated with separation. He made two pleas: (i) that the government should not feel that it has to be the sole provider of support when families break down, but give greater recognition to the valuable work being done by faith groups; and (ii) that the government should be more bold in its commitment to marriage:
‘We should put support into marriage preparation courses run by churches and others and into conflict resolution within marriage, consider restoring financial advantages to marriage, add a marriage message to teen pregnancy prevention, and work with the new grain to make marriage cool again and turn around what is almost a reverse stigma that seems to have grown up around marriage. The financial and social benefits could be huge… For too long, we have been so shy of that that we have ignored the evidence of the benefits of [marriage].’
Marriage or children’s rights?
In response to Mr Burt’s submissions, Hilton Dawson was clearly uncomfortable about the suggestion that marriage had ‘greater qualities than cohabitation’. He criticised the ‘family lobby’ for its fear of the idea of children’s rights. For him, it was children’s rights rather than marriage that needed to be at the heart of the debate on children and families. Referring to attachment theory, he urged that ‘especially in the very early weeks and months of life, children need to have consistent attention from one or two—or perhaps slightly more—significant figures in their lives. Those figures do not need to be married or to be there all the time’.
While Colin Breed did not enter into the debate about marriage, he spoke very eloquently about the importance of the family unit:
‘We have to recognise that families are still the greatest agents of care and well-being in the country. They provide the greatest amount of child care, irrespective of all the nurseries and child care facilities. Families provide the greatest amount of support for teenagers, no matter what other advice they receive at school and elsewhere. Families also provide the overwhelming amount of care for the elderly in our society. Therefore, the best policies that the government could pursue would be to support, reinforce and prioritise policies towards encouraging the family unit as the core of our society.’
He advocated that all government policies should be reviewed in terms of their impact upon the family – ‘family proofing’ as he termed it.
In concluding the debate, the Education Minister Ivan Lewis appeared to accept that there were benefits associated with marriage, but failed to signal any commitment to reflect that fact in public policy:
‘We should promote the benefits of marriage among young people, although we should do nothing that stigmatises adults or young people in different family circumstances.’
‘Celebrating the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family’
A resolution agreed at the recent United Nations General Assembly takes forward the international debate on the marriage-based family
The 59th General Assembly of the United Nations, meeting in New York on 6 December 2004, agreed by consensus a resolution which will strengthen the hand of those working to secure greater respect for the institution of marriage and the family in future international debates.
The resolution, entitled ‘Celebrating the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family’, formally noted the outcomes of the Doha International Conference on the Family held in Qatar in November 2004, including the Doha Declaration.
The Doha Declaration
Presented to the United Nations with the support of 149 nations, the Doha Declaration contains a number of significant statements reaffirming international commitments to the family.
Those supporting the declaration:
- Committed themselves to ‘recognising and strengthening the family’s supporting, educating and nurturing roles’;
- Recognised ‘the inherent dignity of the human person’ and noted that ‘the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care before as well as after birth’, adding that ‘motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance’;
- Reaffirmed that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the widest possible protection and assistance by society and the state;
- Emphasised ‘the right of men and women of marriageable age’ to enter into marriage ‘only with free and full consent of the intending spouses’;
- Further emphasised that ‘the family has the primary responsibility for the nurturing and protection of children from infancy to adolescence… All institutions of society should respect and support the efforts of parents to nurture and care for children in a family environment. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children and the liberty to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.’
Call for action
Taking these commitments into account, the declaration goes on to make a series of 18 propositions, calling on ‘all governments, international organisations and members of civil society at all levels’ to take action in support of the family. For example, the declaration calls for action to:
- Stimulate and encourage dialogue among countries, religions, cultures and civilisations on questions related to family life, including measures to preserve and defend the institution of marriage;
- Evaluate and reassess government policies to ensure that the inherent dignity of human beings is recognised and protected throughout all stages of life;
- Develop indicators to evaluate the impact of all programmes on family stability;
- Encourage and support the family to provide care for older people and people with disabilities;
- Uphold, preserve and defend the institution of marriage;
- Strengthen the functioning of the family by involving mothers and fathers in the education of their children;
- Reaffirm that parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children;
- Reaffirm and respect the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the state and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
For many years, deliberations in the United Nations have been dominated by those pursuing a radical agenda devoted to redefining the family, and undermining the institution of marriage and the responsibility of parents. Against this background, the Doha Declaration comes as a breath of fresh air.
Objections
However, some delegates distanced their governments from the resolution and the declaration to which it made reference. Representatives of the European Union, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Iceland, Liechtenstein and New Zealand rose to dissociate themselves from the declaration. While they professed to value the role of the family in society, they objected that the text of the declaration was not inclusive enough and did not embrace a sufficiently broad understanding of what constitutes a family.
The emphasis on marriage and parental responsibility for children which features so prominently in the Doha Declaration strikes right at the heart of the feminist, homosexual, and rights-based agenda. This point was not lost on the spokesman for New Zealand who complained that the declaration promoted one model of the family at the expense of all others. He said he felt that the present debate on the family was being used ‘to attack long-standing consensus agreements on family diversity, the advancement of women and children’s rights’.
The stance of the European Union and some national governments stands in stark contrast to the statement made on behalf of the United States by Dr Wade Horn. In view of the positive vision it presents of the role of the state in relation to the family, we have reproduced an edited version of Dr Horn’s contribution to the debate at the United Nations.
The relationship between the family and the state
An abbreviated version of a statement delivered at the United Nations’ 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Family on 6 December 2004, by Dr Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families in the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
The U.S. Census Bureau defines a family as ‘two or more persons related by birth, marriage or adoption who reside in the same household.’ Of course, this definition cannot begin to capture the richness of family life – for family life is really about things like celebrating anniversaries, caring for an elderly parent, and tucking in one’s children to sleep.
Still, discussing family life is not simply an appeal to sentiment. Throughout the ages, political philosophers, social historians, and civic and religious leaders have praised the family as the foundation of the social order, the bedrock of nations, and the bastion of civilisation. Cicero, for example, spoke of the family as ‘the first society’ and ‘the seedbed of the state’. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as ‘the natural and fundamental group unit of society’.
The fact is that family is a universal and irreplaceable community, rooted in human nature and the basis for all societies at all times. As the cradle of life and love for each new generation, the family is the primary source of personal identity, self-esteem, and support for children. It is also the first and foremost school of life, uniquely suited to teach children integrity, character, morals, responsibility, service, and wisdom. As the 1994 UN Programme for the International Year of the Family states, the family provides:
‘…the natural framework for the emotional, financial, and material support essential to the growth and development of its members, particularly infants and children . . . The family remains a vital means of preserving and transmitting cultural values.’
These roles of transmitting culture and socialising children make the family indispensable to civil society, as families transform helpless, dependent babies into responsible, independent adults. [As] President George W. Bush has said, the character of a nation ‘begins in the home’.
Given the importance of families to society…, we believe that government, within appropriate limits, should work to support and strengthen families by respecting the prerogatives of families, encouraging healthy marriages, and supporting all families that need assistance.
To support families effectively, however, government must first recognise that families exist apart from the state. The U.S. Declaration of Independence stated that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; in other words, rights that predate the state. The state must recognise and acknowledge these rights – and respect the family for what it is, as a matter of natural law. The state’s foremost obligation, therefore, is to respect, defend, and protect the family as an institution.
Given this understanding of the relationship between the state and the family, what, then, are the principles that guide family policy in America?
First, we believe that government ought to create the conditions that allow strong and healthy families to thrive. Consistent with the UN Declaration that ‘[e]veryone has a right to a standard of living for the health and well-being of himself and his family,’ we believe that government ought to keep the tax burden on families as low as possible [and] create the conditions whereby it is not necessary for both parents to be in the paid labour force to provide an adequate household income. Although government policy should remain neutral as to whether two parents or only one are in the workplace, and if the latter, which parent works outside the home, government policy, we believe, should be aimed at providing parents the option to split their roles and functions in the family if they so choose.
Second, we believe that government should recognise the unique and irreplaceable contributions of mothers and fathers to the lives of their children. Research has shown that mothers and fathers, on average, tend to parent differently in some important ways, offering their children unique skills and gifts. Thus, American family policy seeks to strengthen the bonds connecting fathers to their children, while also supporting the role of motherhood as an esteemed and respected institution in society.
Third, we believe that public policy ought to strengthen healthy marriages and, where possible, the two-parent family. Research consistently shows that healthy marriages benefit children, adults and society, whereas dysfunctional marriages do not. Hence, in America government seeks to promote healthy marriages, not marriage at any cost.
Fourth, we believe government policy should recognise that every child has dignity and worth, and as such ought to support all children and families. Even if government policy does what it can to strengthen healthy marriages, some children will grow up in other situations. Research indicates that these children tend to face increased risks for negative outcomes and have greater needs for social services… While providing a safety net for vulnerable families and children is unquestionably important, there are limits to government intervention. Social services cannot replace the natural, human relationships that are ideal for children’s development. Social services can only supplement what children need most – the love and attention of their mother and father…
President Bush highlighted his commitment to the family when he said:
‘My Administration is committed to strengthening the American family. Many one-parent families are also a source of comfort and reassurance, yet a family with a mom and dad who are committed to marriage and devote themselves to their children helps provide children a sound foundation for success. Government can support families by promoting policies that help strengthen the institution of marriage and help parents rear their children in positive and healthy environments.’
Government policy is limited in what it can do to strengthen families. But what it can do, it ought to do.
The full text of Dr Horn’s statement will be found on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website at: http://peerta.acf.hhs.gov/pdf/Dr_Horn.pdf
CHILDREN ACT 2004
The Children Bill completed its passage through both houses of parliament during the autumn and, having received Royal Assent on 15 November, is now the Children Act 2004. However, on each of the three measures in the Bill with which we were particularly concerned, a considerable degree of discretion has been granted to those responsible for effecting the new legislation. The precise impact of the Act therefore remains uncertain.
Reasonable chastisement
On 2 November 2004, David Hinchliffe’s amendment to criminalise all parental smacking was soundly defeated by 424 votes to 75, while Andrew Turner’s amendment to keep the law as it is was defeated by the narrower margin of 284 votes to 208. During the course of the House of Commons debate, several MPs drew on briefing material provided by Family Education Trust and strongly challenged the myths surrounding the Swedish legislation.
The outcome leaves us with the legal uncertainty of an amendment originally moved by Lord Lester, which passed into law on 15 January 2005. Under the new provision, parents may only use the defence of reasonable chastisement against charges of common assault. The defence will no longer be available to charges of actual bodily harm.
The impact of the new law is far from clear. In an attempt to satisfy backbenchers who favoured a complete ban on smacking, Children’s Minister Margaret Hodge was at pains to stress that ‘actual bodily harm’ could be interpreted very broadly. She stated: ‘actual bodily harm has been defined by the courts as any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort’, and went on to say that ‘actual bodily harm’ did not ‘require that serious injury must be suffered’ and that it was ‘not confined to physical harm but can include psychological harm’.
Much is now left to the discretion of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The lack of clarity could result in different prosecutors applying the law and the revised charging standard in different ways. This gives rise to the possibility that where in one case a parent is charged with common assault and may use the defence of reasonable chastisement, in another case a parent who has acted in exactly the same way may be charged with assault occasioning actual harm for which the defence of reasonable chastisement is no longer available.
The government has made a commitment to review the consequences of the new legislation after two years and will also be seeking parents’ views on smacking.
Information Database
With regard to the introduction of information sharing databases, the Children Act gives something of a blank cheque to the Secretary of State for Education as to whether there should be a single national database or several regional databases, precisely what information should be stored, and who should have access to the data. However, the government outlined some of its current thinking in a consultation document issued by the DfES in October.
In the consultation paper, it was envisaged that:
- The database itself would contain ‘a minimum amount of information sufficient to identify a child and the services the child is receiving. Detailed sensitive information about a child or young person’s needs and circumstances would be kept in individual practitioners’ case records, not on the database ’ (2.12).
- The basic information to be stored on each child would include: name, address, date of birth, contact details of a person with parental responsibility, name and contact details for school or other educational setting, details of GP, health visitor, and name and contact details for other practitioners involved with a child (2.15).
- All children would be included on the database. Since ‘a system based on consent would never be universal and could be likely to exclude the most vulnerable children’, consent would not be sought prior to entering basic data and indicators of concern (2.18).
- Under normal circumstances, the consent of the family would be sought prior to information being shared between practitioners (2.22), though in exceptional circumstances a practitioner may decide that the interests of the child override the duty of confidentiality (2.23).
- Designated practitioners from a wide range of statutory services would have access to the database, including: education, early years and childcare services, Connexions, health, social care, police, prisons and Youth Offending Teams (2.26). A ‘comprehensive audit trail of all access’ would be retained to deal with any abuses of the system (2.29).
- ‘A flag or indicator of concern should be raised only when a practitioner involved with the child wishes to identify him or herself as wanting other practitioners who may access that child’s record to contact him/her because he/she holds important information about the child’ (1.7).
- Under the Data Protection Act 1998, children, parents and carers would have the right to know what information is held about them on the databases (2.33).
- Practitioners within a large number of targeted and specialist services would be able to record their contact details on the database against the name of a child with whom they were working. The list of such professionals includes: SEN co-ordinators, teachers with distinct pastoral responsibilities, learning mentors or EWOs, educational psychologists, Sure Start workers, Connexions personal advisors, youth workers, doctors and nurses from hospitals or specialist clinics, school or community nurses, CAMHs practitioners, social workers, police officers, and practitioners who provide support in areas such as psychotherapy, occupational therapy, learning disabilities, visual or hearing impairment, physiotherapy, drugs or alcohol misuse, sexual health, HIV and teenage pregnancy (3.5).
- The fact that a child was receiving a targeted or specialist service was not in itself a reason for recording an indicator of concern on the database (3.20).
Notwithstanding the government’s attempt to alleviate some of the fears associated with the database proposal, several concerns remain:
1. The undermining of parents
One of the main purposes of the consultation was to consider whether contact details of practitioners providing ‘sensitive services’ should be stored on a child’s record as a matter of course or only with consent. The government was concerned that: ‘it could be counter-productive for practitioner details in relation to specialist services in the areas of sexual health, HIV or abortion to be available to all users of the database’ (1.6).
But the consultation document makes it quite clear that once a child reaches the age of 12, the question of seeking parental consent would ordinarily fall out of the equation:
‘This would be the consent of the child or young person, or if the child or young person is not competent, their parent. Case law and guidance suggests that most children will be presumed to be competent when they reach the age of 12’ (2.21).
Once children have reached the age of 12, the government proposes to treat them as autonomous individuals, unaccountable to their parents, and will offer them every assistance in keeping their secrets safe. The government is sensitive to the concerns of some young people that:
‘their parents might indirectly find out that they are using services when they do not wish their parents to know about this. These arguments could apply to a range of services including social services and services in relation to youth offending, mental health, substance misuse, sexual health, contraception, HIV, and abortion. We do not want to deter children and young people from accessing the services they need’ (3.6)
Once again, the rights of the child are being allowed to take precedence over parental responsibility, and the government appears to have missed the point that when young people want to keep their parents in the dark about something, it is invariably because they are involved in something that is not good for them.
2. The government’s record on databases
The government’s track record with information databases does not inspire confidence. To take just three examples, in recent months major problems of efficiency, accuracy and confidentiality have been experienced with systems operated by the Inland Revenue, the Child Support Agency and the National Health Service.
3. The basis on which all children are to be included
The government justifies including the details of every child on the database in terms of ‘a shift in focus from reaction when things have gone wrong, to prevention and early intervention’ (2.2). However, we are not persuaded that concerns expressed by Earl Howe last July have been adequately answered:
‘The Government want the databases to contain the names of all 11 million children in the country. The vast majority of these children will not be at risk. Yet apparently we need a mammoth system like that in order to pick up those children who may be at risk and to promote the wellbeing of the rest. I need to be convinced about that…
‘Common sense would tend to say that predicting what may happen to a child depends on the knowledge and skill of frontline workers. It does not depend on databases.
‘Databases present us automatically with a paradox. If too many people are allowed access to a database, security of the data flies out of the window. Leaks will be unavoidable and confidentiality will be little more than a fiction. On the other hand, if too few people have access, it is useless as a tool for information sharing… Those who need to exchange information about a child can already do so, perfectly legally. A local authority that needs to know who a child’s GP is has an easy way of finding out—it can ask the parents.’ (Hansard, HoL, 5 July 2004, Cols 598-599)
Children’s Commissioner
The government is due to announce the appointment of the children’s commissioner for England in late February. Advertisements for the position, which carries an annual salary of £100,000, appeared during the autumn. According to the youth work magazine, Young People Now, former Education Secretary Estelle Morris and Labour MP, Hilton Dawson are among the candidates for the post. Carolyne Willow, the national co-ordinator of the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, is also reported to have expressed an interest in the position.
Representatives from the Children and Youth Board (CYB) have been involved in the interview process. The CYB consists of 25 young people aged 11-19 and was set up by the Department for Education & Skills during 2004 to help shape the department’s policies and to advise the Minister for Children, Margaret Hodge. Board members were recruited by Children’s Express, the youth media agency which won a £250,000 contract to run the CYB for a period of nine months.
In addition to its involvement in the appointment of the children’s commissioner, the CYB has also been consulting with small groups of children and young people on a wide range of issues including teenage pregnancy, the youth green paper and information databases.
Further details are available on the embryonic children’s commissioner website at: www.childrenscommissioner.org
Mother mounts challenge to confidentiality policy
A Manchester mother has won the right to challenge Department of Health guidelines which permit underage girls to have an abortion without the knowledge of their parents.
Sue Axon is fighting for parents to have the legal right to be consulted before a girl below the age of 16 has an abortion. The High Court judicial review hearing is due to be held in March.
Mrs Axon’s solicitor, Paul Conrathe has agreed to address our Annual Meeting in June on the subject of ‘Parents, children and the law: 20 years on from the Gillick ruling’.
What comes after Section 28?
Little more than a year after the repeal of Section 28, the publicly-funded Health Development Agency, has issued a document aimed at encouraging positive attitudes towards homosexuality.
Entitled, Stand up for us: challenging homophobia in schools, the 20-page full-colour resource has been written for staff in early years settings and in primary and secondary schools. Schools are encouraged to consider homophobia across the curriculum, ‘actively engage with local LGB [Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual] groups’, ‘celebrate diversity’, and support LGB staff to be open about their sexuality. School staff are encouraged to reassure pupils that ‘it is perfectly OK to be LGB’.
A series of 10 additional online resources has been developed to be used in conjunction with the printed guide. The resource on ‘gender stereotypes and sexual intolerance’ advocates ‘normalising sexual minorities’ by displaying information about services and facilities explicitly catering for LGB young people. It also calls on staff to ‘signal a positive stance on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues through flyers and notices, as well as cultural events, such as Gay Pride marches…’
This kind of radical social agenda will only cause more confusion among vulnerable young people and expose them to increased risk to their physical and emotional health. The overwhelming majority of parents opposed the repeal of Section 28 precisely because they feared it would lead to the aggressive promotion of homosexuality.
Trying to convince pupils that all forms of sexual expression are normal and of equal value will not help those young people who struggle with homosexual inclinations. Such an amoral approach has encouraged sexual experimentation and contributed to an alarming rise of sexually transmitted infections among teenagers.
Stand up for us can be accessed via http://www.hda-online.org.uk and the online resources are available from the National Healthy School Standard website at: www.wiredforhealth.gov.uk
Public funding for Channel 4?
Channel 4 is seeking public funding to avoid an anticipated deficit of £100 million over the next 10 years. Mediamarch coordinator, Pippa Smith writes: ‘Channel 4 TV programmes have been at the forefront of the relentless decline in moral standards in UK media’, and urges concerned members of the public to join in a resounding NO to taxpayers’ money being used to keep Channel 4 afloat.
Mediamarch is planning a peaceful protest on Saturday 16 April 2005 from 1.00-3.00pm outside Channel 4 at 124 Horseferry Road, London SW1P.
For further information, contact mediamarch at: PO Box 353, Cheltenham, GL53 7ZQ. Tel: 020 8467 6452. Web: www.mediamarch.org.uk
New sponsor: Baroness O’Cathain OBE
We are delighted to welcome Baroness O’Cathain as a sponsor of the Family Education Trust. A member of the House of Lords since 1991, Lady O’Cathain has fought fearlessly and tirelessly on behalf of the family and religious liberties.
In 2002, she led the opposition in the Lords to gay adoption (Adoption and Children Act 2002) and defended ministers and other members of non-Anglican, religious organisations from criminal conviction in debates on the Gender Recognition Bill. (Anglican clergy already had an exemption.) She supported the granting of broadcasting rights to religious organisations in the Communications Act 2003.
In 2004, Lady O’Cathain campaigned on behalf of siblings and other close family members to be granted the same legal benefits which were exclusively available to single sex couples in the Civil Partnership Act 2004.