Please note that this is BBC copyright and may

not be reproduced or copied for any other

purpose.

RADIO 4
CURR!" A##AIR$
A!A%&$I$
"' B%$$I!( O# )ARRIA(
"RA!$CRIP" O# A RCORDD
DOCU)!"AR&
Presenter* Camilla Ca+endish
Producer* Ingrid 'assler
ditor* 'ugh %e+inson
BBC
,hite City
-./ ,ood %ane
%ondon
,/- 0"$
.-. 102- 0-03
Broadcast Date*--.//..0 -.4.5-/..
Repeat Date* -2..4..0 -/4.5--..
CD !umber* P%!0406.07"/.40
Duration* -08 -29
"a:ing part in order of appearance*
"he Rt 'on #ran: #ield; )P
"he Rt 'on Iain Duncan $mith; )P
<ate $tanley
'ead of $ocial Policy at the Institute for Public Policy
Research
=ill <irby
Director; Centre for Policy $tudies
Paul %e>is
Presenter of Radio 48s )oney Bo?
=ane; Al:a; Alicia; Be+erley and $ean from @"he Parents
#orum8 at the Institute of Ideas
=ane %e>is
Professor of $ocial Policy at the %ondon $chool of
conomics
=ohn 'aldane
Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for
thics; Philosophy and Public Affairs at the Uni+ersity of
$t Andre>s
CA7!DI$'* #or years; marriage and
the family >ere taboo for politicians. !o> suddenly they
are all tal:ing about it*
Da+id Cameron ad+ocates rebalancing the ta? and
benefits systems to>ards married couples; saying that
Aif >e get the family right; >e can fi? our bro:en
society9.

Andy Burnham; Chief $ecretary to the "reasury; said
last month that there >as a Amoral case9 for promoting
marriage through the ta? system. 'e said AI donBt thin:
the "ories should ha+e a monopoly on this :ind of
thin:ing9.
And (ordon Bro>n; in his recent Party Conference
speech; pointedly said that this go+ernment stood for all
children and families.
$o is the )5>ord about to ma:e a come5bac:C
#I%D* One of the priests in
Bir:enhead commented that one of his mums;
really great mums said could she ha+e a ser+ice
of blessing of celebration that her partnership
had lasted three years. And he didn@t :no>
>hether to Dust collapse and cry at this prospect
or to cheer that >hat a real success it >as; that
it8s three years. But it@s a different >orld; isn8t
it; to the >orld I gre> up inC
CA7!DI$'* #ran: #ield; %abour )P for
Bir:enhead; reminding us >hat a huge shift in attitudes
there has been; in the >ee: that the Eueen celebrates
her F.th >edding anni+ersary. "hat a 45year relationship
is cause for reDoicing >orries Iain Duncan $mith; the
former "ory leader. 'e chairs his party8s $ocial =ustice
Policy (roup; >hich this summer published e?tensi+e
research into addiction; po+erty; debt; and family
brea:do>n.
DU!CA! $)I"'* #rom society8s
standpoint; the benefits of marriage are that it
acts as a huge stabiliser to society generally;
>ithout >hich society >ould become I thin:
Guite anarchic. It intriguingly impro+es the
health of those >ho participate in it Guite
dramatically. I thin: the figure >e came
across; >hich shoo: me actually; >as that the
difference in health outcomes from a single
person to a married person >as the eGui+alent
as if that person had smo:ed all their life and
then gi+en up cigarettes completely. And >hat
>e do find Guite often is that cohabiting
couples; >hen a child arri+es it actually
accelerates the brea:5up; it doesn8t stabilise it.
#or a married couple; it stabilises the brea:5up.
I >ant there to be a debate about this because I
>ant people to understand the balance of the
choices they8re ma:ing.
CA7!DI$'* All political parties are
seriously >orried about drugs; gang culture; gun crime
and teenage pregnancy. Across the political spectrum
there8s increasing concern that these are lin:ed to the
brea:do>n of the traditional family.
?perts are agreed that children do best in stable
settings. But the Guestion of ho> to ensure this really
tests the limits of $tate inter+ention.
Is it the Dob of the $tate to tell us ho> to li+eC And is
the shape of the family the most important factorC
<ate $tanley; 'ead of $ocial Policy at the left5leaning
Institute for Public Policy Research*
$"A!%&* "here are certain things
that place couple relationships under strain and
one of the most ob+ious factors is po+erty. It8s
no coincidence that the brea:do>n of
relationships is highest amongst the poorest
groups. "here8s an intimate relationship
bet>een income and stability; >hich is >hy it
can be important to focus on income rather than
family type. I thin: >e ha+e to loo: at >hy
marriage appears to confer benefits on children
and if you dig beneath the surface you find that
actually couples possibly >ho are more
committed to each other in the first place get
married or they@re better off. It8s not the
marriage in itself that is the thing that deli+ers
the stability.
CA7!DI$'* Across the political
spectrum; both left and right agree that social
brea:do>n is an urgent problem. But they disagree on
>hat causes it. ,hile <ate $tanley thin:s that po+erty
is an important factor; =ill <irby; Director of the
right5leaning thin:5tan: "he Centre for Policy $tudies;
belie+es that the (o+ernment is largely responsible for
undermining the family*
<IRB&* It8s easy enough to
conclude that in Britain >e8+e had a lethal
combination of a ta? system >hich doesn8t and
hasn@t for many years pro+ided any support for
marriage; >hich is in contrast to most other
uropean economies; and >e8+e combined >ith
that a >elfare system >hich penalises marriage.
And so the result has been a +ery damaging
effect on family life; >hich has put Britain ahead
of pretty >ell all other uropean countries in
terms of family brea:do>n.
CA7!DI$'* Is she rightC Can these
problems really be fi?ed through the ta? and benefits
systemC "o ta:e a closer loo: at these money Guestions;
I >ent to see Paul %e>is; presenter of Radio 48s )oney
Bo?.
%,I$* In the past; I thin: the
(o+ernment could say it >as neutral on the
+alue of marriage +ersus non5marriage; but I
thin: there is a changing mood in the
(o+ernment and certainly >e sa> at the
beginning of October the changes to inheritance
ta?; >hich put a huge premium on marriage
because a married couple can no> inherit or
pass do>n to their spouse their unused
inheritance ta? allo>ance and it effecti+ely
means that if they ha+e children or other heirs;
they >ill get double the inheritance ta?
allo>ance >hen the second spouse dies. But
there is one >ay in >hich people li+ing together
ha+e a great ad+antage o+er married couples
and that8s to do >ith capital gains ta? on the
house you li+e in. If you ha+e t>o houses and
you8re married; then you8re only allo>ed to say
one of them is the house you li+e in and any
capital gain on the second home is ta?able. If
you8re an unmarried couple; you are each
allo>ed to ha+e a principal residence; >hich can
be one of those homes; and so in effect you get
double capital gains ta? relief.
CA7!DI$'* And ho> much money
are >e tal:ing about potentiallyC
%,I$* Oh; it could be a great
deal because e+en at the +alue of an a+erage
home; you8re tal:ing about certainly tens of
thousands of pounds of ta? >hen you sell it.
CA7!DI$'* 'a+e >e scrapped some
ta? brea:s for married couplesC
%,I$* &es; >e got rid of the
married couples allo>ance. $o I don8t thin: the
(o+ernment is completely neutral. ,here it is
neutral; in my +ie>; is in social security; in
means5tested benefits >here if you li+e >ith
someone as if you are married; to use the
famous phrase; then you are treated e?actly the
same as if you >ere married. $o in other
>ords; they don8t get t>o single benefitsH they
get a Doint benefit; >hich is less than t>o single
benefits. And that is blind as to >hether you@re
married or not.
CA7!DI$'* "hese are only a fe>
e?amples of the confusion in the system. #or historical
reasons; the incenti+es in the ta? and benefits system
are not coherent* some benefit married couples or ci+il
partners; and some the unmarried. And politicians are
becoming increasingly sensiti+e to the potential
unfairness of assessing people as indi+iduals for ta?; but
as households for benefit purposes.
#or #ran: #ield; the real issue is not >hether people are
married or not but ho> the income of a couple compares
to that of a single parent*
#I%D* "he (o+ernment claims
it8s neutral and thin:s it8s neutral; but I had one
con+ersation >ith the Prime )inister after one
of the ne>spapers carried the data that I got
from the library sho>ing ho> many e?tra hours
a couple >ith t>o parents had to >or: as
compared >ith a single parent to get the same
income; let alone the same standard of li+ing.
&ou say to the Prime )inister; ABut Prime
)inister; if there8s t>o children; they need more
money; don@t they; for the same standard of
li+ing than >ith one childC Doesn8t the same
apply to t>o parentsC9 I don8t thin: he@d
grasped it li:e that. I do e?pect long; long
before the ne?t election; the Prime )inister >ill
mo+e his position on this. I thin: the
eGualising of the position bet>een couples and
single parents >ill ha+e such an effect. &ou8d
be surprised >hat people >ill do if they ha+en8t
got penalties of beha+ing in a >ay >hich is in
the interests of children.
CA7!DI$'* Is #ran: #ield rightC Can
tin:ering >ith financial incenti+es really influence
people8s relationship choicesC I put this Guestion to a
group of parents >ho are so fed up >ith the $tate8s
intrusion into their li+es that they8+e founded the
@Parents8 #orum8; >hich meets on a monthly basis.
Alicia first.
A%ICIA* $ociety has
fundamentally changed. &ou can8t really e?pect
people to go yeah; hey; you :no> marriage is a
great thing because >e8re going to sa+e -. Guid
a >ee:.
CA7!DI$'* Al:aC
A%<A* ,hat that8s really doing
is undermining the +ery thing they8re claiming
they >ant to bolster because it8s reducing
marriage to the le+el of an I$A. &ou :no>
should >e in+est in a 2 year I$A or a /. year
I$AC ,hich is going to be best for usC
CA7!DI$'* $eanC
$A!* I thin: the (o+ernment
should be neutral on marriage and personal
relationships in general in the :ind of >ay that
I8m neutral about sheep shearing in Australia.
CA7!DI$'* Al:aC
A%<A* I thin: the $tate; the
(o+ernment should Dust bac: off out of personal
relationships and build more houses; more
roads and better schools and nurseries.
CA7!DI$'* AliciaC
A%ICIA* I8m not married myself;
but I8+e li+ed >ith my partner for four years.
"here seems; I don8t :no>; particularly no>
>e8+e got a child; to be little real point in
ma:ing that step to getting married. &ou :no>
in a society >here there is no stigma against
any particular group; >here >e all embrace
homose?ual relationships; single parenthood; I
don8t see ho> you can then ele+ate marriage as
some :ind of benign status.
CA7!DI$'* &ou could say that it8s all
+ery >ell for middle class people to be sGueamish about
promoting one lifestyle choice o+er another. "hey8re not
the ones >ho are suffering most from the effects of
social brea:do>n.
But >ould -. Guid a >ee: more ma:e a difference to
someone on the breadlineC &ou8d thin: there >ould be
clear e+idence one >ay or the other; but it is hard to
pro+e conclusi+ely. "hat is partly because most studies
no longer distinguish bet>een married and cohabiting
couples. "he term Amarital status9 >as abolished for
go+ernment5sponsored research in -..4; superseded by
the term Acouple parent families9.
"he traditional marriage is on the >ay out; and not Dust
as a statistical category*

Ci+il partnerships ha+e created eGui+alent rights for gay
couples. A Guarter of couples no> cohabit; a doubling in
-. years. A Guarter of British children no> li+e >ith Dust
one parent I usually their mother. Indeed; on current
trends cohabiting couples and single mothers >ill push
married parents into the minority by -.4/. But there8s
one sure5fire >ay to re+erse the trend*
%,I$* If a politician came
along and said >e are going to ma:e di+orce
harder; >hich actually >ould be a >ay of
increasing length of marriage; probably the
Guic:est >ay 5 no politician has suggested that
yet 5 it >ould be e?tremely unpopular. !o
Guestion; it >ould be incredibly unpopular.
People li:e the choices they8+e got in the pri+ate
sphere and it8s +ery difficult to ta:e those a>ay.
CA7!DI$'* =ane %e>is; Professor of
$ocial Policy at the %ondon $chool of conomics. $he
thin:s that politicians >ould be >asting their time to try
to turn bac: the cloc:.
%,I$* In my cohort; being an
older person; about FJ of people cohabited
before marriage and no> o+er 3.J of people
cohabit before marriage. $o a huge change in a
relati+ely short period of time. $o people8s
beha+iour has been changing >ithout any
incenti+es from go+ernment or anything. "his is
change from belo>; if you li:e. !o>
cohabitation; our cohabitants in this country are
much more economically depri+ed; let@s say;
lo>er educated than they are in most other
uropean countries.
CA7!DI$'* Does that e?plain >hy
cohabitation is less stable than marriageC
%,I$* Probably it has a lot to
do >ith it in so far as married people >ho are
also in economic hard straits are Guite li:ely to
di+orce.
CA7!DI$'* Are >e uniGuely
obsessed >ith marriage in this countryC
%,I$* !o; I >ould say the
obsession is probably stronger in the United
$tates. $tates are re>arded if they encourage
marriage as >ell as implementing >elfare
reform; so the t>o things ha+e been tied
together. It8s an nglish5spea:ing
phenomenon; abo+e all. If you go to
continental urope; ,estern urope; you go to
$candina+ia; you don8t really find the same
discussion about marriage; cohabitation; lone
motherhood. "he promotion of marriage; not
Dust marriage but the :inds of contributions that
>ent along >ith marriage in days gone by 5 so
traditional marriage; male bread>inning; female
caring 5 does tend to be stronger in the
nglish5spea:ing countries >here actually the
$tate has been most cautious about entering
the pri+ate sphere of the family.
CA7!DI$'* Professor %e>is8
comparison >ith ,estern urope suggests that in
Britain; marriage is sometimes a pro?y for class. By and
large the middle class is still married; the >or:ing class
is not. And if class is the unspo:en subte?t in the debate
about marriage; it emerges into the open >hen it comes
to the discussions about children.
"he state has al>ays had a legitimate role in protecting
children. And it is the >elfare of children >hich is the
Dustification for many go+ernment schemes.
Bet>een -..F and -..1; for e?ample; the Department
for Children; $chools and #amilies is spending K1.
million to de+elop family support ser+ices; KF1. million
on e?tending schools; and K/.1 billion on $ure $tart
Childrens Centres. "here is a debate about >hether
those ser+ices should be open to all; or >hether the
money should be targeted on those >ho need it most.
Iain Duncan $mith*
DU!CA! $)I"'* I8m not against $ure
$tart 5 I thin: that you :no> it8s generally
probably a good idea 5 but it8s +ery unfocused.
"he +ery parents you8re after; the parents >ho
are in real difficulty; >hose :ids are the sort of
:ids that sit in front of the "7 si? hours a day
aged t>o or one; one and a half; t>o; for >hom
>ords are not tools of communication but
+iolent tools; that they only e+er hear >ords
shouted at people; they >itness +iolence in the
household and no reading e+er ta:es place; no
boo:s e?ist 5 that group is not being reached at
the moment. It8s clear from all the figures that
>e can see that. And so >hat >e8re saying is
>e need to ha+e a real rethin: about this and
>e loo:ed at things li:e !urse5#amily
partnership and others. Is that a nanny stateC
,ell the nanny state pic:s up the pieces >hen
these :ids collapse; >hen they are +iolent in
school; >hen they8re incapable of learning;
>hen they disrupt the learning for others; >hen
a small percentage of them go into criminality.
I mean I8ll Dust gi+e you one simple figure;
>hich is I thin: breathta:ing. $omething li:e
42J of all the people in prison >ere in care;
only ..FJ of the >hole of society >as in care;
and something li:e F. to 0.J of all the people
in prison are from bro:en homes. $o >e do
ha+e a +ested interest because it costs us the
earth to maintain this dysfunctionality. !ice to
deal >ith a bit of it.

CA7!DI$'* ,hat you thin: of the term
Ananny state9 partly depends on >hether you thin: of
nannies as hectoring or lo+ing; @=o #rost $upernanny8
+ersus @)ary Poppins8.
But Iain Duncan $mith thin:s that some state
inter+ention is legitimate; because it8s the ta?payers >ho
pic: up the bill for social brea:do>n; and the pieces. "he
!urse5#amily partnerships he refers to are an intensi+e
programme of home +isits by nurses to lo> income;
unmarried mothers. Pilot studies suggest these can
radically reduce the ris: of child abuse and teenage
crime.
#ran: #ield agrees that it8s best to catch them young. 'e
argues that there are more effecti+e >ays to reach
so5called problem families than one5siLe5fits all schemes
li:e $ure $tart.
#I%D* )y plea >as >e8d
already got a net>or: operating o+er the >hole
of the country and these >ere called Dunior
schools and >e should ha+e built on that.
"here is no stigma >al:ing through the school
gate; as far as I ha+e been able to find out.
'a+ing these special proDects sends +ibes out
and in the areas that I :no> most of >as
unsuccessful in engaging the poorest mums.
"hese are s>an:y things run by middle class
>omen >ho if you8re +ery poor; you don8t
immediately identify. $o I do Guestion ho>
serious the intent >as to engage the poorest
mums >ho8d be of course the most challenging.
But that8s >hat the programme >as about. It
made life more difficult if they all turned up.
CA7!DI$'* It >ould be scandalous if
some of these schemes had deliberately discouraged
attendance; Dust to ma:e life easier. ,e >ould ha+e
li:ed to put this 5 and many other points 5 to the
Department for Children; $chools and #amilies. But no
minister >as a+ailable for inter+ie>.
'o>e+er; there8s no getting around the fact that there
does seem to be a policy failure here.
"he trouble >ith uni+ersal policies is precisely that 5 they
are for e+erybody. I :no> se+eral perfectly >ell5off
fathers >ho are the only people at their $ure $tart
father and toddler groups on $aturday mornings. ,hat8s
the point of e?pensi+e schemes if they mainly benefit
the middle classC
On the one hand; there8s agreement that policies need
to be more targeted. On the other hand; there is the
need to do things in a non5stigmatising >ay. "here is
also a strong feeling that if people don8t come for>ard
+oluntarily for help; the state must go to them. "he
IPPR8s <ate $tanley argues that there are many Agolden
moments9 >here the state has the opportunity to get its
messages across.
$"A!%&* At the moment mothers
are identified on birth certificates but there8s no
further in+estigation if mothers decide not to
name the father. "here8s an opportunity there
to do t>o things* one is to engage more fathers
in their children8s li+es by probing mothers a
little bit more to try to increase the number of
fathers >ho are namedH and; secondly; to
identify families >here there may be a problem.
It8s +ery difficult to get into those intimate
family relationships and that point of birth
registration is one of those moments >here the
state has an opportunity to as: Guestions it +ery
rarely gets the chance to as:. $o; for e?ample;
through mid>i+es or through health +isitors
there8s opportunities to identify relationships
that are in trouble; identify problematic conflict
bet>een parents and step in at that moment to
offer the :ind of support that people might
>ant; referral to support ser+ices. Registrars
at the point of birth registration ha+e a role
again in identifying potential problems. $o
there8s lots of uni+ersal points at >hich in a
non5stigmatising >ay the $tate can play a role
in supporting parents through particularly
difficult moments.
CA7!DI$'* $o from the minute you8re
pregnant; you8re under the >atchful eye of the state.
Ouch.
But let8s pause for a moment and loo: at the points our
pre+ious three spea:ers ha+e made*
Iain Duncan $mith gi+es the e?ample of nurses going
into the home to form an intense bond >ith ne>
mothers. #ran: #ield >ants to ma:e better use of Dunior
schools to deli+er messages. And <ate $tanley thin:s
fathers should be named on birth certificates5 an idea
>hich has already been ta:en up by the go+ernment.
All these proposals ha+e one thing in common* +en
more state inter+ention into the family. #urthermore;
they mar: a fundamental shift * >hereas the state used
to build infrastructure; it no> increasingly concerns itself
>ith trying to change people8s beha+iour. But in trying to
help; it can also alienate. 'ere is our group of parents
again* =ane first.
=A!* I started the Parents
#orum and it >as a response to feeling that
parents can8t do things independently.
+erything they do is loo:ed at from their
school lunches to >hat they should eat; >hat
they should drin:; ho> they should beha+e.
CA7!DI$'* Al:aC
A%<A* &es; I became in+ol+ed
>ith the #orum through the issue of crisps;
ha+ing been told by my daughter8s head teacher
not to pro+ide crisps; or if I >as to pro+ide
crisps to ma:e sure they >ere only plain
fla+oured. I thought I >as the best person to
decide >hat she should ha+e.
CA7!DI$'* Be+erleyC
B7R%&* "he thing that ma:es me
angry is that I Dust feel li:e the (o+ernment are
interfering in my life; in my family life; and I
don8t >ant them there. "here8s Dust a sense
that get out; I8m not a problem family. If I
needed your help; then I8d as: for it; but I get
gi+en it and it Dust really irritates me.
CA7!DI$'* $eanC
$A!* I thin: there8s a lot of
>ays in >hich parents no>adays are +ery paranoid
about not doing things properly or right; not
follo>ing all the different bits of ad+ice. It may
not necessarily come from Dust the go+ernment.
It might also come from other parents. "here8s an
incredible social lens being focused on e+ery
parent.
CA7!DI$'* Al:aC
A%<A* ,hat it does is reinforce
that drip; drip effect that your most pri+ate;
personal relationship >ith your child is +ery
fragile; so fragile that you need constant
facilitating; constant ad+ice; and that is Dust
so M so destructi+e and morale destroying.
CA7!DI$'* =aneC
=A!* "here is a fear about the
intimacy of the family. !othing can be hidden;
they don8t trust us enough. And; again; they8re
>orried about that intimacy of the family and do
>ant to get in there. It is too pri+ate; it doesn8t
ha+e the outcomes; it isn8t measurable. "here8s
something >orrying about that.
CA7!DI$'* $ince most children gro>
up in families; the state must concern itself >ith parents
if it >ants to impro+e life for children. But this creates a
feeling that go+ernment is irritated by not being able to
see through the closed door of the family home. "he
more defensi+e parents get; the more the state seems
to become suspicious that they ha+e something to hide.
Is that legitimateC =ohn 'aldane is Professor of
Philosophy at the Uni+ersity of $t Andre>s.
'A%DA!* "he idea that the family
has priority o+er the state is a +ery old idea. It
can be found in ancient authors; it can be found
in the )iddle Ages and so on. Clearly >e
e?pect the state to protect us from murder and
serious +iolence and so on; and to that e?tent I
thin: it8s not improper for the state to be
morally concerned about any social institution.
,hile the state has some moral responsibilities;
I >ould be +ery >ary about it see:ing for itself
the role of moral arbiter; particularly >hen it
comes to forms of relationship that ha+e long
pre5e?isted the emergence of the state.
CA7!DI$'* "he harder the state
pushes; the more parents seem to +ote >ith their feet.
$ingle mothers shun $ure $tart. 'ome schooling is on
the rise. $ome (Ps are >orried that people are failing to
bring in their babies for health chec:s and +accinations.
)others stuff burgers through the school gates in
defiance of healthy eating policies.

But children do need to eat better. "hey do need health
chec:s. $o there is a +icious circle here. And =ill <irby of
the Centre for Policy $tudies thin:s that current
go+ernment policy is not helping*
<IRB&* "he state should put
conditions in place >hich means that parents
can be confident of enabling their children to
fulfil their potential; but I don@t thin: >e should
see it as the state8s Dob to decide ho> that
should be done. "he go+ernment@s decision to
put e+ery child into a national database and
information about e+ery child; so that e+ery
child in this country can be trac:ed by all those
ser+ices >hich ha+e any in+ol+ement in the care
of children. And I thin: that that is again a
sinister and Guite unnecessary de+elopment
>hich not only nationalises the upbringing of
children but more >orryingly puts at ris: those
children >ho genuinely should be of concern to
the go+ernment; >hose circumstances do
indicate that they may >ell be at ris: of harm
because they8re going to be lost in this
enormous database >hich carries details of
e+ery child. As the Information Commissioner
put it; creating a much bigger haystac: in >hich
to find a needle >hen you8re loo:ing for a child
at ris:.
CA7!DI$'* "his >ee:8s fiasco o+er the
loss of child benefit records >hich contained highly
confidential personal information has gi+en national
databases a bad name. -2 million people; including /2
million children; are affected.
But the state carries on collecting data; monitoring our
parental beha+iour and our relationship choices. "he
IPPR8s <ate $tanley.
$"A!%&* I don8t thin: it8s
appropriate for the state to be stepping in on a
:ind of couple le+el; but it is appropriate for the
state to support for e?ample +oluntary sector
organisations to pro+ide that :ind of
relationship support that can help relationships
to sur+i+e.
CA7!DI$'* But is it prescribing
those at the moment; do you thin:; or is it
completely neutralC
$"A!%&* I thin: there probably
are Guir:s and problems in the e?isting system
and all that means that essentially the state Dust
isn8t terribly effecti+e and sends out all :inds of
mi?ed messages about ho> it can help. Policy
is confused. I thin: >e8re in a bit of a muddle
essentially.
CA7!DI$'* "he danger is that all this
doesn8t come across as a muddle; but more as a series
of policy decisions >hich adds up to a charter against
parents. "he +ie> of our Parents #orum is clear* Al:a
first.
A%<A* As a teacher; I >ent on
training courses. !one of them >ere on the
subDect. +ery single one of them >as on
things to do >ith beha+iour; ho> to spot abuse;
ho> to tac:le parents; ho> to ensure other
aspects of >ell5being; all of >hich I thin: ha+e
actually +ery little to do >ith my Dob as a
teacher.
CA7!DI$'* AliciaC
A%ICIA* It seems to me that one
of the biggest reasons for the brea:do>n in
society is that there8s no longer any respect for
authority of adults 5 teachers; parents 5 and I
thin: >hile the go+ernment@s trying to rectify
this; all these measures that they8re introducing
are actually infantilising parents and gi+ing out
the message that actually adults don8t :no>
>hat8s best for their children. And it seems to
me that that Dust undermines any authority that
adults ha+e; >hich seems to be adding to the
problem.
CA7!DI$'* If it8s true that the
go+ernment8s family policies are beginning to undermine
parental authority5 albeit unintentionally5 then the state
has managed to score a massi+e o>n goal.
And there is a parado? here* "he family is still the best
>elfare system >e ha+e; and a bastion against social
brea:do>n.
But the >ay the state goes about trying to help children
in problem families could pro+e counterproducti+e
because the state is a bad partner and an e+en >orse
parent.
"he last >ord goes to $t Andre>s philosopher =ohn
'aldane*
'A%DA!* I thin: that if one goes
do>n this trac: of seeing the state as ha+ing
some central role and right >ith regard to the
Guestion of parenting; I thin: this has a number
of effects. One is it can create a :ind of
dependency on the part of people 5 that8s to say
they don8t ta:e responsibility themsel+es for
these matters because they Dust defer to the
state because it has claimed the responsibility 5
but another one ob+iously is that Guite
dangerous or certainly +ery significant conflicts
can arise >here you might for e?ample ha+e
parents >ho >ould choose to raise their
children in one >ay and the state saying >ell
that8s all +ery >ell; but >e8+e decided other>ise
and you don8t ha+e the right in these matters.
And I see there potential for +ery; +ery
significant conflicts and conflicts of a sort that
as >ell as undermining the family could actually
undermine the state because I thin: you8ll start
to get people saying loo:; if the state is going to
inter+ene to this e?tent; then >e might >ant to
start to see oursel+es as >ithdra>ing from the
state or at least not gi+ing it the respect and the
ac:no>ledgement of its authority in other areas
>here it seems to me it8s Guite proper that the
state should claim that authority.