for the

Family

for the

Youth

for the

Future

Bulletin 123: Spring 2006

In this issue:

Annual General Meeting and Conference

Saturday 24 June 2006,
Royal Air Force Club, 128 Piccadilly, London W1
10.30am to 5.00pm.

This year we are looking forward to welcoming Professor Jay Belsky who will be speaking on ‘The Effects of Early Childcare on Children’s Development’ . Professor Belsky is Director of the Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues at Birkbeck College, University of London . He also serves as a Co-Principal Investigator for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, and is an internationally recognised expert on child development and family studies.

Our second speaker, Mrs Lynette Burrows, will address us on ‘The Fight for the Family Goes On’. Mrs Burrows is the author of our popular title on the children’s rights movement, The Fight for the Family, and has also written a common-sense guide to bringing up children entitled, Good Children, drawing on her own experience of raising four sons and two daughters. Earlier this year she attracted media attention when she was investigated by the Metropolitan Police for a ‘homophobic incident’ after she expressed the view on a Radio Five Live broadcast that same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt.

As usual, we shall conduct the formal business of the Trust during the morning, with reports from the Chairman, Treasurer and Director, followed by an opportunity to hear from several of our supporters who have been hard at work in support of the family within their own communities. These brief local reports are intended to inspire and encourage and are often among the highlights of the day.

Please let the office know if you are planning to attend at fyc@ukfamily.org.uk

There is no charge for attending the conference, and we are able to offer a substantial lunch for the subsidised price of £20.00. To reserve a lunch, please send a cheque for £20.00 made payable to ‘Family Education Trust’ to the office at: Family Education Trust, Jubilee House, 19-21 High Street, Whitton, Twickenham TW2 7LB.

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

 

^ Back to the top ^

The Nationalisation of Childhood

In November 2002, the government announced its commitment to develop ‘an overarching strategy for all children and young people from conception to age 19′. The strategy was to be comprehensive and all-embracing, covering ‘all aspects of children’s and young people’s lives’ with a view to achieving ‘the outcomes government wishes to see for children and young people’. Nevertheless, few could have predicted the extent to which the state was to undermine parents and present itself as the guardian of ‘the nation’s children’.

Over recent years, the government’s strategy for children has been unfolded in a series of initiatives: Sure Start, the National Childcare Strategy, the establishment of Children’s Commissioners, the Extended Schools Programme, and the Information Sharing Database for Children’s Services, to name a few. Last November, the Prime Minister hailed the publication of the Childcare Bill with its plans to introduce ‘wraparound childcare’ from 8am to 6pm all year round as a ‘new frontier for the welfare state’.

Opposition to the increased intervention of the state in functions that have hitherto been the responsibility of the family has been stifled by the fear that any critics would be branded hardhearted and lacking in compassion. After all, who could possibly disagree with the objective of the Every Child Matters agenda to ensure that children should ‘be healthy’, ‘stay safe’, ‘enjoy and achieve’, ‘make a positive contribution’ and ‘achieve economic well-being’?

It is for this reason that we are particularly indebted to Jill Kirby for summarising the main strands of the government’s proposals and subjecting them to critique. In 50 lucid and well-reasoned pages, Mrs Kirby contends that, ‘In the guise of a caring, child-centred administration, [the] government is effecting a radical change in the balance of the authority between parents, children and the state. It is nationalising the upbringing of children.’ From her analysis we can identify five major problems with the government’s strategy:

1. It fails the most vulnerable. The findings of the Sure Start evaluation team show that the ‘universal, non-stigmatising’ approach is dangerously likely to put more children at risk and leave the most needy even further behind.

2. It cannot meet individual needs. A centralising, controlling and regulating agenda is incapable of responding to individual needs and so is bound to fail in the delivery of its promised ‘personalised’ services.

3. It creates an unnecessary amount of bureaucracy. There is the very real danger that the new structure for child protection ‘will be so weighed down with inter-professional guidelines, multi-agency protocols and information-sharing procedures that it will generate more of the “bureaucratic activity” which, in Lord Laming’s view, was so damaging in the Climbié case.’ It does not make sense to place the details of all 11 million children in England on a central index, when only 26,000 are currently recorded on the child protection register. As the Information Commissioner put it, ‘If you are looking for a needle in a haystack I am not sure it is wise to make the haystack even bigger.’

4. It refuses to recognise the real-life causes of the worst outcomes for children, such as young lone motherhood and family disruption. ‘Through its determination not to “stigmatise”, the government is turning its back on the most needy’ and ‘undermining the most reliable source of security and well-being for every child: the presence and commitment of both parents’. Rather than drawing every family into the grip of state monitoring and control, the government would do better to design and implement a welfare programme to discourage lone parenthood and encourage committed fatherhood.

5. It will weaken the family unit. As Mrs Kirby puts it: ‘The more power accrued to the state, the weaker the family becomes. By taking away parental responsibilities and introducing a direct relationship between child and state, the government is inevitably creating greater state dependency. Parents will become less able to exert authority over their children, leading to a more dysfunctional and fractured society.’

Behind the government’s rhetoric, Mrs Kirby detects an ideology bearing a ‘remarkable similarity to the Marxist concept in which the collectivisation of childcare was considered essential to achieve an equal society with full productivity.’ She quotes the Marxist dictum, ‘You cannot abolish the family; you have to replace it’ and Trotsky’s explanation that ‘the functions of the family’ must be absorbed by the ‘institutions of the socialist society’.

Such sentiments have been promoted in more recent times by Anthony Giddens who is credited with being one of the architects of New Labour. In his influential book, The Third Way, Giddens explained how the ‘democratisation’ of the family demands that responsibility for childcare be shared not only between men and women, but also between parents and non-parents. He also proposed that in the democratic family, parents would have to ‘negotiate’ for authority over their children.

Few parents are aware of the wide-reaching implications of the government’s strategy for their own children and families. Mrs Kirby has performed a most valuable service in making a wealth of information available in such a concise and readable format. Her booklet, The Nationalisation of Childhood deserves a wide circulation and will hopefully lead to more searching questions being raised about the direction of the government’s policy on children and the ideology that is inspiring it.

The Nationalisation of Childhood, by Jill Kirby, Centre for Policy Studies, March 2006, 52pp, £7.50 ISBN 1 905389 23 X. (Available from FYC for £5.00 + £1.00 p&p)

 

^ Back to the top ^

Youth Matters: Next Steps

On 8 March 2006, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) published Youth Matters: Next Steps, setting out the government’s vision for ‘empowering young people, giving them somewhere to go, something to do and someone to talk to’. It aims to build on the plans set out last autumn in the Youth Matters Green Paper (see Bulletin 121) to ‘transform the lives of every young person in this country through a radical reshaping of provision’.

The 40-page document reports that, ‘Young people’s response to the consultation showed clearly that their parents are their first choice for information and advice’ (para 6.19). Nevertheless, notwithstanding an emphasis on ‘supporting’ parents in their role, it is plain that the DfES paper sees the government increasingly assuming a parental role. For example, the document states:

‘We want young people to thrive and prosper, and to mature as active, healthy and responsible citizens. As they progress through their teenage years we will ensure that they receive impartial, personalised advice to make the right choices; have access to a wider and better range of opportunities; and get extra help when they need it.’ (para 2.6).

Local authorities, we are told, ‘will increasingly act as commissioners rather than deliverers of services… and as champions of children’ (para 2.21).

Although only 33 per cent of adults and organisations agreed with the proposal to introduce an ‘opportunity card’ and 46 per cent were unconvinced, the government is persisting with the scheme. Its only question appears to be whether £12 a month of public money will prove sufficient for a young person to find ‘things to do and places to go’. It is therefore going to run pilot schemes offering £25 per month in selected areas to identify the most effective level (para 4.11).

Youth Matters: Next Steps can be downloaded from the Every Child Matters website at http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/?asset=News&id=37898

 

^ Back to the top ^

The influence of the media on teenage sexual attitudes and behaviour

A survey conducted by a team of researchers at the University of California has concluded that exposure to sexual content in the mass media has a significant influence on young people’s sexual attitudes, intentions and behaviour.

The team, led by Dr Kelly Ladin L’Engle, surveyed 1,011 young people aged 12-15 regarding the impact of the television programmes, music, films and magazines to which they were exposed. The researchers noted that much of the media that teenagers are exposed to includes sexual imagery but rarely portrays the damaging consequences of casual sexual encounters or communicates healthy sexual messages. Rather, the majority of sexual content in the media tends to depict risk-free, recreational sexual behaviour between unmarried people.

The study, which is published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, found that the more teenagers were exposed to sexual content through the mass media and the more they perceived support for teenage sexual activity in what they viewed and listened to, the more likely they were to become sexually active and to report an intention to engage in sexual intercourse in the near future. Even after considering the influence of family, religion, school and peers, the influence of the mass media continued to have a significant effect on the sexual intentions and behaviour of young people. It was thought likely that sexual content in the media, combined with the weight of peer pressure, may dilute the more traditional influences that come from family, religion, and abstinence-based sex education.

The researchers considered that the mass media may serve as a kind of sexual ‘super peer’ for teenagers, because sexual content in the media was ubiquitous, easily accessible, and sexual messages were delivered by familiar and attractive models. Young people were more likely to adopt behaviour depicted by characters who were perceived as attractive and realistic, and who were rewarded rather than punished for their behaviour.

The article concludes with a call to practitioners and researchers concerned with teenage sexual activity to give due attention to the influence of the media on teenage sexual behaviour, alongside other influences, including family, school, religion and peers.

L’Engle, Kelly Ladin; Brown, Jane D; Kenneavy, Kristin; ‘The mass media are an important context for adolescents’ sexual behaviour’; Journal of Adolescent Health 38 (2006) 186-192.

 

^ Back to the top ^

Role of school nurses to expand

The government has issued fresh guidance for headteachers, teachers, support staff and governors to help them expand or develop a school nursing service that includes the provision of confidential contraceptive and abortion advice to underage pupils.

According to the document, Looking for a School Nurse? the provision of contraceptive advice, together with ‘emergency contraception’ and pregnancy testing on school premises, will prevent teenage pregnancies and reduce the rates of sexually transmitted infections.

The guidance states that one of the ‘advanced functions’ of the school nurse will be to act as a ‘trusted confidante’, able to ‘offer support and advice to young people concerned with issues of sexual identity’, with a view to making homosexual pupils ‘confident about sexual identity’.

Alongside the guidance to schools, the government has also published the School Nurse Practice Development Resource Pack, offering best practice guidance to school nurses and public health officials.

The guidance states that ‘school nurses can raise sexual health and relationship issues with young people and make sure they have access to the kind of information and services they need.’ As part of ‘best practice’, school nurses are encouraged to:

  • Provide and promote confidential drop-ins at school and community venues ensuring they are linked to wider primary health care, family planning and genito-urinary medicine (GUM) services. Consider the use of new technologies such as texting or e-mail to improve access.
  • Ensure that sex and relationship education [SRE] programmes and services meet the needs of ethnic minority, disabled, bisexual, transgender, gay and lesbian young people. Confront discrimination and challenge prejudice such as homophobia.
  • Support young women to access services to make timely choices about emergency contraception, pregnancy or abortion.
  • Clarify the purpose and boundary of your role within SRE, ensure it is clear to young people, use ground rules in sessions and remind young people where they can access confidential support and information.

In the press release announcing the publication of these two guidance documents, the DfES and the Department of Health expressed their desire to give a greater priority to school nursing and to vastly increase the number of school nurses. There are currently 2,409 NHS nurses working in England’s schools, but the government aims to have at least one, full-time, year round, qualified school nurse working with every cluster of primary schools and their linked secondary school by 2010′.

Looking for a School Nurse? and the School Nurse Practice Development Resource Pack may be downloaded from the Department of Health website at http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/13/21/96/04132196.pdf and http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/13/20/70/04132070.pdf respectively.

 

^ Back to the top ^

Sexual orientation regulations threaten to undermine traditional morality and religious liberty

Following the enactment of the Equality Act 2006, the Women & Equality Unit has issued a consultation paper prior to issuing regulations to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The government’s aim is to treat sexual orientation discrimination in the same way as discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or disability in order to make Britain ‘a much fairer and more equitable place for lesbians, gay men and bisexual people’.

In addition to covering ‘the provision of goods, facilities and services, and…the exercise of pubic functions, [i]t is also intended that the prohibition will apply to housing, education in schools, advertising and clubs…’

Teaching in schools

Consideration is to be given as to whether teaching in schools should be covered by the regulations, although the consultation document does not spell out what this might entail. However, the Women & Equality Unit has advised Family and Youth Concern that while a faith-based school might reasonably reflect its faith position on homosexuality in Religious Education classes, outside that context, including in Biology and Personal Social and Health Education lessons, a ‘non-judgmental’ approach would be required.

In its section on religious organisations, the consultation document demonstrates a similar resistance to the application of religious faith to every area of thought and life. While the government is conscious of religious sensitivities with regard to homosexuality, it insists that, ‘Any exceptions from the regulations for religious organisations would need to be carefully defined and our starting point is that these should be limited to activities closely linked to religious observance or practices that arise from the basic doctrines of a faith.’

Marriage and civil partnerships

The document also makes clear the government’s intention that civil partnerships should be equated in practice with marriage, when it states that: ‘It will be made explicit in the regulations that civil partners must not be refused services offered to married couples on the grounds of their sexual orientation. This would enable civil partners to bring a direct discrimination claim against a provider of goods and services who denied them access to a benefit or service that was being offered to a married person in a similar situation.

‘Similarly, where mixed-sex unmarried couples are offered a particular services or benefit, it would be expected that these should also, where appropriate, be made available to same-sex couples who are not in a civil partnership.’

A necessary distinction

Throughout the document, the government has failed to appreciate that there is a clear distinction to be drawn between same-sex attraction on the one hand and homosexual activity on the other. The consultation paper implies that moral opposition to homosexual activity represents a failure to respect those who experience same-sex attraction, and does not appear to allow for the fact that it is perfectly possible to show ‘respect for the dignity and worth’ of individuals who are attracted to another person of the same sex without wishing to give the appearance of condoning, approving or advocating homosexual practices. Many faith groups hold that opposition to homosexual conduct is consistent with the created order and thus pays greater respect to the dignity and worth of the individual than does approval of homosexual activity.

There is a very real danger that the effect of the government’s regulations could be to discriminate against those who believe that homosexual activity is morally wrong. In some cases, it could force people out of business or out of their profession if they refused to act against their consciences.

Printed copies of the consultation document, Getting Equal: Proposals to Outlaw Sexual Orientation Discrimination on the Provision of Goods and Services, can be obtained free of charge from the DTI Publications Orderline (Tel: 0845 015 0010). Alternatively, it may be downloaded from the Women & Equality Unit website at: http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/publications/sexo_consult_paper.pdf. The closing date for responses is 5 June 2006.

 

^ Back to the top ^

European Parliament Resolution on ‘Homophobia in Europe’

On 18 January 2006, the European Parliament approved a resolution on ‘Homophobia in Europe ‘ by 468 votes to 149. The resolution defines homophobia as ‘an irrational fear of and aversion to homosexuality and to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people based on prejudice and similar to racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and sexism’.

The resolution asserts that ‘a series of worrying events has recently taken place in a number of Member States’. These include ‘banning gay pride or equality marches’, ‘the use of inflammatory or threatening language or hate speech’ by leading politicians and religious leaders, and ‘the introduction of changes to constitutions explicitly to prohibit same-sex unions’.

Although the term ‘hate speech’ appears four times in the resolution, it is nowhere defined, giving rise to fears that the European Parliament is seeking to stifle any expression of opposition to homosexual practice on moral or religious grounds. The resolution makes no allowances for those who are unable in all conscience to equate homosexual relationships with heterosexual marriage, and dismisses their objections as a cover for ‘homophobia’.

According to the resolution, ‘homophobia manifests itself in the private and public spheres in different forms…which are often hidden behind justifications based on public order, religious freedom and the right to conscientious objection’.

The full text of the resolution, ‘Homophobia in Europe ‘ will be found on the European Parliament website: http://www.europarl.eu.int/

 

^ Back to the top ^

The social costs of feminism

In a recent issue of Prospect magazine, Alison Wolf, Professor in Public Sector Management at King’s College London, argued that the removal of barriers to female participation in the workforce had not been entirely positive for all women or for society as a whole. She highlighted three negative consequences that receive far less attention than they deserve:

  • ‘The first is the death of sisterhood: an end to the millennia during which women of all classes shared the same major life experiences to a far greater degree than did their men.
  • ‘The second is the erosion of “female altruism,” the service ethos which has been profoundly important to modern industrial societies—particularly in the education of their young, and the care of their old and sick.
  • ‘The third is the impact of employment change on childbearing. We are familiar with the prospect of demographic decline, yet we ignore, sometimes wilfully, the extent to which educated women face disincentives to bear children.’

Professor Wolf contends that while a minority of well-educated women make a priority of their careers, for the majority of women their families are their top priority. She rejects the feminist argument that the rapid growth of female part-time work is the result of continuing barriers to female participation and gender discrimination, and holds that the headline figures on the disparity between male and female pay reflect the preference of mothers for part-time work and career breaks rather than ‘some male employer conspiracy’.

The decline of voluntary action and of informal community support networks is traced partly to larger numbers of middle-aged women going out to work, and partly to the ‘professionalisation of almost all occupations and the increasing importance of government in the non-profit sector’.

Professor Wolf concludes:

‘Women today are no more homogeneous a group than men, and the service ethic that traditionally supported civil society and public service has weakened. Families remain central to the care of the old and sick, as well as raising the next generation, and yet our economy and society steer ever more educated women away from marriage or childbearing. The repercussions for our futures are enormous, and we should at least recognise this fact.’

Alison Wolf, ‘Working Girls’, Prospect, April 2006: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7398

^ Back to the top ^

Family structure and children’s educational outcomes

A comprehensive literature review undertaken by a team of researchers led by Professor Barbara Schneider at the University of Chicago has concluded that family structure significantly affects the academic and social development of children.

Having taken account of the various methodological limitations of the studies reviewed, the researchers found that children living with their own married parents:

  • had fewer emotional and behavioural problems,
  • enjoyed better health,
  • did better academically,
  • were less likely to smoke, drink and take drugs,
  • were less likely to be sexually active or engage in crime, and
  • had lower levels of stress, depression and anxiety.

The report, Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes is available from the Alabama Policy Institute at: www.alabamapolicyinstitute.org/PDFs/currentfamilystructure.pdf

The Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values has prepared a summary of the report’s findings which is available at: http://www.americanvalues.org/briefs/No1_Nov05.pdf

^ Back to the top ^

If family structure in the USA were as strong today as it was in 1970:

643,000 fewer children each year would fail a grade at school;

1,040,000 fewer children each year would be suspended from school;

531,000 fewer children each year would need psychotherapy;

453,000 fewer children each year would be involved in violence;

515,000 fewer children each year would be cigarette smokers;

179,000 fewer children each year would consider suicide;

71,000 fewer children each year would attempt suicide.

Source: Paul R. Amato, ‘The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation’, The Future of Children, Fall 2005. Cited in The Center for Marriage and Families research brief on ‘Family Structure and Children’s Educational Outcomes’ http://www.americanvalues.org/briefs/No1_Nov05.pdf

^ Back to the top ^

Teenagers: Why Do They Do That?

by Nick Pollard, Damaris 2006, 137pp, ISBN 1-904753-13-12 £6.99
Available from FYC for £5.50 + £1.00 p&p

In this revised and updated edition of a title originally published in 1998, Nick Pollard seeks to identify the root causes behind teenage drug-taking, eating disorders, sexual promiscuity, and lack of respect for authority.

He argues that many of these root causes lie not so much in the home or in the parents, as in the massive shifts that have taken place in Western culture in recent years. He writes, ‘This, then, is not so much a book about parenting teenagers so much as a book about understanding the culture in which teenagers live.’

In seven highly readable chapters, Pollard considers the impact of post-modernism and relativism, and of a culture that blames behaviour on genes and the environment rather than encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their actions and exercise self-control.

The final chapter pinpoints some of the fundamental questions to be addressed if the culture is to be changed.

^ Back to the top ^

What age of consent?

The government has rejected the Bichard Inquiry recommendation that the police should be notified as soon as possible when an offence has been committed or is suspected of having been committed against a child – unless there are exceptional reasons not to do so’.

The latest revision of the inter-agency guide, Working Together to Safeguard Children upholds the ‘duty of confidentiality to the child’. Professionals are therefore advised that they must consider instances of underage sex on a case-by-case basis and not automatically inform the police.

The fpa welcomed this further undermining of the protective principles that lie at the heart of the age of consent law on the basis that the guidance respected ‘the confidentiality and choices of young people’.

We now have a situation where the so-called ‘right of the child to confidentiality’ is being used to protect lawbreakers and to render children ever more vulnerable to physical and emotional harm.

Working Together to Safeguard Children, HM Government, April 2006:
http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/_files/CCE39E361D6AD840F7EAC9DA47A3D2C8.pdf

^ Back to the top ^

Paternity leave problem

The government has been forced to rethink its plans to give new fathers up to six months paternity leave amid fears that the scheme could be abused by men who have not fathered children. Meg Munn, the Minister for Women, said: ‘Businesses are concerned that while women claiming maternity leave are obviously pregnant, they can’t tell with fathers. Fathers may or may not be married to the mother, may or may not even be living with them.’ However, she described it as a ‘technical’ problem and was confident that a solution could be found.

Sunday Times, 26 March 2006.

^ Back to the top ^

Wraparound childcare warning

The government has been warned that its proposal to provide ‘wraparound childcare’ from 8am to 6pm in every region by 2010 may result in a very different kind of adults from those we might have expected’. Speaking at the Division of Educational and Child Psychology annual conference in January, Dr Christopher Arnold, a senior education psychologist with Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, cautioned that raising children outside the home ‘in an environment with large numbers of children with a very small number of adults, is not emotionally healthy’, and runs the risk that they will become institutionalised.

The Times, 6 January 2006.

^ Back to the top ^

National Parenting Academy

The government is to create a National Parenting Academy for professionals working with children and families, as part of its Respect Action Plan. According to the Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly, the purpose of the Academy will be to equip a new generation of workers with advanced skills particularly to help families where children are at risk of getting involved in anti-social behaviour.’1

In response to a series of Parliamentary Questions, Beverley Hughes, the Minister for Children, stated that the government did not anticipate that the Academy would have a single national base. Rather, it was envisaged that it would take the form of a network of educators attached to existing educational organisations and institutions.

Local authorities and children’s trusts, together with their partners and local professionals who work with children and parents, would be responsible for identifying parents in their local area most likely to benefit from support. They would also be charged with deciding which professionals were best placed to receive training in delivering evidence-based parenting interventions.2

Notes

1 DfES Press Release, 10 January 2006
2 Hansard, HoC 17 Jan 2006, Col 1233W.

^ Back to the top ^

BBC upholds FYC complaint

The Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee of the BBC has upheld a complaint made by Family and Youth Concern about a headline that accompanied a news story on the children’s Newsround website.

The headline had inaccurately stated, ‘Parents who smack now face jail’. We pointed out that not only was this not true as a matter of fact, but that it might also be very distressing for children accessing the site to be given the impression that their parents could be imprisoned for an occasional disciplinary smack. In some situations it could even lead to reports being made to child protection agencies and the police, leading to unnecessary investigations that could both cause considerable distress to the families concerned and waste valuable public resources.

Both the BBC’s Information Unit and the Editorial Complaints Unit initially refused to uphold the complaint, but upon our further appeal, the Governors’ Complaints Committee ruled that the headline breached the BBC’s editorial standards and it was removed.

^ Back to the top ^

Sponsors

We are sorry to report the death of Sir John Peel on 31 December 2005 at the age of 101. Sir John had a distinguished medical career and served as Surgeon-Gynaecologist to the Queen from 1961 to 1973 . He was associated with Family & Youth Concern from its earliest days and we were grateful to have his support as a sponsor.

During recent months we have been pleased to welcome the Viscountess Brentford OBE and the Duke of Montrose as new sponsors.

^ Back to the top ^

>