for the

Family

for the

Youth

for the

Future

Bulletin 119: Spring 2005

In this issue:

AGM and Conference
 

Saturday 25 June 2005

Royal Air Force Club, 128 Piccadilly, London W1

10.30am to 5.00pm 

As 2005 marks the twentieth anniversary of the Law Lords ruling in the case of Victoria Gillick, we have invited Paul Conrathe to speak on the subject of: ‘Parents, children and the law: 20 years on from the Gillick ruling’. Mr Conrathe is representing Sue Axon in her High Court challenge to the government’s policy of allowing underage girls to have abortions without the knowledge or consent of their parents. He also represented Joanna Jepson in her action against two doctors who authorised the late abortion of a child with a cleft palate.

Fatherhood, and more particularly, the absence of fathers, is rarely out of the news and is becoming a pressing social and political issue. We have therefore invited Austrian academic, Dr Michael Waldstein, to speak on the subject, ‘Whatever is happening to fatherhood?’ In addition to tracing recent social trends and their impact on the lives of young people, Dr Waldstein will draw on his personal experience as the father of eight children.

Please do join us if you are able for what promises to be a worthwhile and stimulating day.

 

^ Back to the top ^

General Election 2005: The parties and the family

As we approach the General Election on 5 May, children’s issues have perhaps never before featured so prominently on the political agenda, with each of the three major parties vying with one another to claim the most eye-catching family-friendly headlines.

Labour has published a mini-manifesto, Children, forward not back, in which the party sets out its priorities to ‘help all children reach their potential’; the Liberal Democrats have produced manifesto documents for families and for young people, declaring their commitment to ‘ giving new families a more solid and structured financial start’; and senior Conservatives have delivered a series of speeches underlining the importance of family life.

However, we look in vain for any real recognition of the importance of the marriage-based family for the protection and welfare of children and young people. Under both Conservative and Labour administrations during recent decades, there has been a tendency to regard children as the shared responsibility of parents and the state, with the state assuming an ever-increasing role in their lives. All three parties appear content to see that trend continue. Behind the rhetoric about ‘supporting parents’, the reality is that the personal responsibility of parents for their children is being progressively undermined.

LABOUR

In their introduction to Labour’s mini-manifesto document, Children, forward not back, the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary appear sensitive to the charge of ‘nannying’ and are at pains to stress that:

‘Government should never needlessly interfere in the lives of parents or children. The state does not raise children – people do. But government should not abandon families either. Most parents believe that the role of an effective government is to support them in their choices and to help protect their children from new threats. Parents expect government to be on their side as they bring up their children: providing help, support and security for themselves and their children when it is needed. Labour acknowledges this limited role but also important responsibility for government.’

 

It is, however, difficult to reconcile these fine words with the pursuit of policies aimed at keeping children and parents apart, and minimising, or even excluding, parents from important decisions that affect their children’s lives. Labour’s commitment to ‘ creating universal affordable childcare for children aged three to 14’ is calculated to ensure that growing numbers of children spend less time with their parents than they do currently.

In the mini-manifesto, Schools, forward not back, Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly pledge to ‘make schools hubs of the community’. The document goes on to say that, ‘ The school day can no longer be the limit of what school has to offer… We will ensure that “wrap around” activities are available to all children from 8am until 6pm from 2010. We will ensure these activities allow children to widen their horizons in an enjoyable and useful way… We will be setting out further proposals for ‘extended schools’ in the coming months.’

Although the education mini-manifesto states that: ‘ All our reforms are intended to put parents first, giving them greater power and choice to secure the education they need for their child’, there is no suggestion that Labour intends to reverse its policies in favour of the provision of confidential services on school premises and elsewhere which allow children to keep their parents in the dark about their access to contraceptives and abortions. Neither is there any indication that a third Labour term would see a greater commitment to child protection by means of taking the age of consent more seriously and abandoning the prevailing relativistic approach to sex education in which children and young people are encouraged to make ‘informed choices’ about ‘what is right for them’.

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

In their manifesto for families, the Liberal Democrats make a series of pledges which are chiefly aimed at assisting working mothers. Under the heading, ‘Supporting parents, supporting children’, the document states that a Liberal Democrat government would offer new mothers ‘the option of receiving a Maternity Income Guarantee, equivalent to the minimum wage of £170 per week for the 6 months after the birth of their first child, as an alternative to Statutory Maternity Pay. This would guarantee at least £4,420 for working mothers when they are starting a family.’

In order to ensure that ‘no child loses out on the benefits of professional childcare and educational/social development’, the Liberal Democrats would implement the key elements of the Labour government’s ten-year childcare strategy (see Bulletin118). Other elements of ‘childcare: putting children first’, would see class sizes for 5-7 year-olds reduced from 30 to 20 and the establishment of ‘a new qualification of Qualified Early Years Teacher, at the level of current teaching qualifications’.

While most of the Liberal Democrats’ published policies on children have a definite focus on childcare and working mothers, in a section of the manifesto headed ‘protecting the rights of the child’, they undertake to ‘strengthen the post of children’s commissioner in England’ by making his powers ‘rights-based’, in order ‘to ensure that the best interests of the child come first when policies are proposed and reviewed’.

In keeping with its failure to recognise the role of parents as the primary carers, advocates and protectors of children, the manifesto for young people pledges that under a Liberal Democrat government, young people would ‘particularly benefit from measures to… m ake advice on the full range of contraceptive options available to all patients; provide free condoms in GP surgeries and other sexual health service providers and give better access to emergency contraception, including in pharmacies.’

On sex education, the Liberal Democrat manifesto for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights asserts: ‘Our commitment to include Sex and Relationships Education in the National Curriculum will ensure that children are introduced at the appropriate age to proper information about sexual orientation before myths and bullying take hold.’

CONSERVATIVES

In common with Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative Party is placing a great deal of emphasis on offering assistance to working mothers. Under a scheme entitled ‘Supporting Parents’, the Conservatives are committed to increasing ‘ the choices available to families by making support for childcare far more flexible than it is today, with more money paid out to mothers who return to work earlier.’

The manifesto also contains a pledge to ‘give extra support for workplace nurseries and provide a new network of clubs for older children ’.

Although the Conservatives would scrap the current rules that prevent parents from getting help towards childcare provided by family and friends, they have made it clear that grandparents would only be eligible for childminder grants, credits and other relevant benefits if they looked after at least two other children to whom they were not related in addition to their own grandchildren.

In a recent speech to Community Family Trusts, Shadow Secretary for the Family, Theresa May, cautioned against governments ‘adding fuel to the flames of family breakdown’ and criticised the Labour administration for its proposals to extend licensing hours and facilitate an expansion of the gambling industry, and for a family justice system that was responsible for 40 per cent of separated fathers losing contact with their children within four years. She also indicated that a Conservative government would ‘give proper recognition to marriage’:

‘We will be bringing back the term “spouse” as well as partner on government forms Having a husband or wife is different from a partner, and it does mean something. We should not let political correctness force us to hide it!’

 

However, Mrs May qualified her support for marriage by stressing that at its best the Conservative Party was ‘inclusive’ and that meant ‘embracing family in all its different forms’. The word ‘marriage’ appears only once in the election manifesto – in the context of an attack on ‘Labour’s tax raids’ on marriage pensions.

The Conservative manifesto document ‘Action on Health’ promises a sexual health strategy which ‘will ensure that young people are targeted with a clear message of the risks of early or unprotected sex’, but fails to recognise that the only sure way to avoid sexually transmitted infections is to confine sexual activity to a faithful and lifelong marriage.

^ Back to the top ^

Questions for candidates

While the published manifestos of the three major political parties are disappointing in terms of what they do and do not say about marriage and the family, the period leading up to a General Election provides us with a unique opportunity to raise with our local parliamentary candidates the issues which their leaders and Party machines have failed to address.

The following are suggested as examples of questions that supporters may wish to put to their local candidates, both in private and at public meetings:

  • Given that marriage provides the best environment in which to raise children according to every indicator, how would you seek to give recognition to this fact in public policy?
  • Would you be for or against a change in the law to permit homosexual couples to marry?
  • In view of the health risks associated with male homosexual activity, what measures would you want to see introduced to prevent the promotion of homosexuality in schools?
  • What would you propose the government should do to address the high teenage conception rates in the UK and the alarming rise in sexually transmitted infections among young people?
  • Are you in favour of making contraception and abortions available to young people under the age of 16 without the knowledge and consent of their parents?
  • Would you vote for a law that made it a criminal offence for a parent to smack a naughty child?
  • How would you propose to make it a more realistic option for mothers to stay at home to care for their children if they wish to do so?

^ Back to the top ^

The Price of Parenthood

Jill Kirby,Centre for Policy Studies, 2005; 51pp; £7.50
(Available from FYC for £5.00 + £1.00 p&p)

In this new pamphlet from the Centre for Policy Studies, Jill Kirby documents how the tax and benefits system contains a bias against the two-parent family and has encouraged the growth of lone-parent households.

The figures she presents are stark:

  • The proportion of families with dependent children headed by a lone parent has risen sharply from 15{8280f91348e3f29ebed1ce3c892ba98723ca403e09ee85e84c65855822b2f2c6} in 1986 to 27{8280f91348e3f29ebed1ce3c892ba98723ca403e09ee85e84c65855822b2f2c6} currently;
  • In 1971, out-of-wedlock births accounted for less than 10{8280f91348e3f29ebed1ce3c892ba98723ca403e09ee85e84c65855822b2f2c6} of the total, whereas now over 40{8280f91348e3f29ebed1ce3c892ba98723ca403e09ee85e84c65855822b2f2c6} of births are outside marriage;
  • While the number of babies born within marriage has halved in the past 30 years, the number of children living in lone-parent households has tripled over the same period;
  • One-fifth of births outside marriage are to couples living apart already, and a further 20{8280f91348e3f29ebed1ce3c892ba98723ca403e09ee85e84c65855822b2f2c6} are registered by the mother alone, with no details of the father given. Thus, one in five children is now born into a home without a father.

No less sobering are the economic costs:

  • Lone-parent households are five times more likely than couples to be receiving welfare payments and more than twice as likely to be receiving tax credits;
  • Lone parents receive average tax credit and benefit payments five times larger than couple households;
  • A lone-parent household raising two children costs the public purse over £11,000 per annum in benefits alone.

While the government has acknowledged that family stability is important for child outcomes, such worthy sentiments are not reflected in the tax and benefit system. Mrs Kirby shows how a two-parent family with two children, in receipt of an average annual income of £24,000 is just over £1 a week better off per head than a lone-parent household completely dependent on the state.

Drawing on official statistics from the Department for Work and Pensions, Mrs Kirby finds that the government’s efforts to encourage lone parents into work and make them less reliant on the state have not succeeded. Changes to the tax credit system in 2003 have reduced the incentive for non-working lone parents to take paid employment. Since a lone mother needs to work considerably fewer hours per week than a couple in order to attain the same level of income, many are limiting their hours to take best advantage of the available tax credits.

The current tax and benefit system is such that an unmarried couple is better off financially if partners claim to be living apart rather than together. Mrs Kirby comments:

‘The government does not appear to consider the possibility that state dependency might be replaced by interdependency within families. Certainly the system is not structured to improve the chances of that happening. If an unemployed lone mother marries (or openly cohabits with) the father of her children, she will be penalised through the loss of welfare benefits.’

In his Foreword, Professor Robert Rowthorn from the Faculty of Economics and Politics at Cambridge University, observes how ‘t he state is increasingly taking on the roles normally expected of a husband – providing a stable income for the mother and doing more and more childcare’.

The situation as Mrs Kirby describes it is unsustainable and sooner or later the government will have to face up to the fact that it cannot continue to penalise intact couples and subsidise lone parents indefinitely. When it reaches that point, it would do well to have regard to Mrs Krby’s policy proposals:

‘In order to rebuild family life and cut welfare dependency, Britain must learn some of the lessons of US welfare reform. The bias against two-parent families must be removed and a transparent system of genuine tax allowances introduced to replace the complex, expensive and unfair tax credit system. Welfare support should be limited to short-term relief of hardship. When assessing a family’s needs, both parents should be involved in that assessment, regardless of whether they are living together or not.’

 

^ Back to the top ^

 

Child Rearing for Fun

Anne Atkins, Zondervan, 2004; 288pp; £8.99
(Available from FYC for £7.50 + £1.00 p&p)

Sub-titled, ‘Trust your instincts and enjoy your children’, and written in Anne Atkins’ customary pithy and humorous style, this book is intended to instil fresh confidence in parents as the real experts in raising their children: ‘The professional may know more about children, but only you know your children. When it comes to rearing children, it is we, the parents, who are the real experts; the amateurs, trained by experience, motivated by devotion, labouring for love.’

While remaining sensitive to those bringing up children single-handedly, Mrs Atkins places a strong emphasis on the importance of a stable, secure marriage as one of the greatest assets parents can give their children: ‘Get married, stay married, and we are giving our children the best possible advantage in life.’

She has no qualms about advocating smacking as ‘one of the least acrimonious punishments on the statute books’ and brings some old-fashioned and thought-provoking common sense to subjects as varied as working with professionals, television and computers in the home, mealtimes, boredom and underachievement, chivalry and family traditions. The book concludes with a short section designed to help and encourage Christian parents to share their faith with their children.

All in all, a book well worth reading – more than once!

 A full list of publications available from Family and Youth Concern is available on request, or on our website

 

^ Back to the top ^

Appointment of Children’s Commissioner for England

Professor Al Aynsley-Green has been appointed as England ’s first children’s commissioner. At the time of his appointment, Professor Aynsley-Green was National Clinical Director for Children in the Department of Health and Nuffield Professor of Child Health at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children and the Institute of Child Health, University College London. He took up his new role on 2 March, and will be devoting himself to it full-time from 1 July 2005.

Professor Aynsley-Green has been a longstanding advocate of a statutory office for children, calling for the establishment of a children’s commissioner in England four years ago as the newly-appointed National Director for Children’s Healthcare Services (Guardian, 3 August 2001 ). He will be working closely with the other UK-based children’s commissioners (Nigel Williams in Northern Ireland , Kathleen Marshall in Scotland and Peter Clarke in Wales ), and with their counterparts elsewhere in Europe through the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children.

^ Back to the top ^

Information Sharing Databases

The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, has questioned the purpose of the government’s proposal to establish information sharing databases containing details of each and every child. On 24 January 2005 , he told the Education and Skills Select Committee that he was concerned to ensure that there was no ‘excessive or inaccurate or unnecessary processing of personal information’. ‘Let us not collect information for its own sake, with all the risks of intrusion into privacy and the more serious risks where mistakes are made, where information is not kept up to date.’

In a written memorandum to the Committee, Mr Thomas explained some of his concerns about the ‘cause for concern’ indicator on the proposed databases:

‘There is a danger that child care professionals add a concern as a defensive measure; i.e. they do not have real concerns but are covering themselves. Such over-reporting will have resource implications as erroneous cause for concern indicators will trigger superfluous work and may lead to undue interference in a child’s life, possibly having quite damaging consequences. For example in a case brought to the Information Commissioner’s Office’s attention a small child’s totally innocent comment overheard in a school play ground was misconstrued by staff and led to serious concerns of abuse by the father being entered in official records and despite the initial concerns having been thoroughly investigated and considered to be totally unfounded the records were not updated or deleted. In this case the agencies concerned placed great emphasis on the prompt recording of concerns but gave little importance to the need to maintain the records once created.’

For Family Education Trust’s response to the DfES consultation on information sharing databases, see https://familyeducationtrust.org.uk/pdfs/infosharing.pdf

  

^ Back to the top ^

  

What place for truth in history?

With the endorsement of government ministers and a grant from the Department for Education and Skills, the homosexual lobby group Schools Out! designated February as ‘National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month’. The aim of the initiative was to ‘celebrate all the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans achievements, past and present’.

According to the DfES-funded website, ‘part of the development of this project is to assign an LGBT identity to famous historical figures, who have had it robbed from them’.

In a letter to Education Ministers we questioned the historical integrity of the project, observing that in order to sustain the claim that a number of the figures listed on the Schools Out! website were in fact homosexual, it was necessary to radically reinterpret their words and actions and to sexualise historical documents and events.

In reply, Schools Minister, Derek Twigg wrote that the teaching of history in schools had ‘moved a long way from rote-learning of “facts”’:

‘As important, now, is the recognition, exploration and weighing of the many forms of historical evidence. This approach allows children to explore the wide range of influences, including sexuality, that shaped the very diverse society in which we all now live. In many cases the evidence is incomplete, contradictory, inconclusive and capable of different interpretations – that is a lesson school children need to learn. Teachers are quite capable of matching the range and depth of such exploration to the particular stage of development of the classes they teach.’

 

^ Back to the top ^

 

Angela Appleby

We are very sorry to inform you of the death in January of Angela Appleby, a long-time member of Family and Youth Concern, who in 2003 was the recipient, with her husband Martin, of our Family Life Award. Angela was a tireless fighter for the rights of parents with regard to the provision of contraceptives and abortions to underage children without parental knowledge. She founded a group called Parents’ Network to transmit to all concerned with the welfare of children reliable information about the personal, medical and social dangers of policies so damaging to children and the rights and duties of parents. Her death is a great loss to the pro-family movement. To Martin and their children we extend our sincere condolences.

Valerie Riches

^ Back to the top ^

>