Affinities comment on “' massive policy failure in tackling the root cause of the breakdown of the family unit'

Affinities logo for press releases

Wednesday, 01, Aug 2007 12:00

Hot on the heels of the Law Commission’s proposals advocating an automatically assumed and improved status - with rights - for cohabiting couples, comes news which should make UK legislators think hard and fast.

Independent [New Zealand] MP Gordon Copeland believes that their Government’s Band-Aid approach to child abuse represents a massive policy failure that needs to be changed.

“When it comes to child abuse the evidence clearly points to the root cause as being the break down of the family unit,” said Mr Copeland.

“It is actually hard to think of a recent child abuse case in New Zealand where the offender was the biological father of the child. Typically the abuse is carried out by a male who is the boyfriend of the child’s mother.”

“We need a fence at the top of the cliff approach. Ideally this would involve government subsidies for courses addressing fatherhood, marriage preparation, marriage enrichment and parenting courses across the spectrum from prenatal to teenage years.”

“Courses need to be delivered at the grass roots level and specifically targeted to reach those who most need them ……

“The overarching policy goal should be a total transformation of family …… so that all children are raised in a safe, loving and caring environment – ideally by a married couple.”

“All of this is really just commonsense. It was clear to practically everyone except the ideological zealots ………. it is time to look at evidence based policies which get down to the underlying realities …………….”

The British Government’s overt encouragement through the tax and benefit system

of couples who cohabit, and its covert discouragement of marriage are contributory factors in the much increased likelihood of domestic violence and child abuse occurring in the former households than the latter.

The British Government continues to discourage teenage motherhood, knowing the outcomes for children are more likely to be poor, but fails to follow the logic by promoting marriage and discouraging cohabitation.

Phil Woolas MP said on Thursday 20 October 2005 in a debate about the Social Exclusion Unit, "The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire [Alistair Burt] concluded his thoughtful speech by making some suggestions for the future… he said something important. It is clear to us all, and from the evidence and analysis provided by the social exclusion unit, that stability in a child's life is a key driver.......... Government policy is, of course, not intended to discriminate against marriage or family. Sometimes, I have to acknowledge that, unintentionally, it may seem to do so and, on occasion, probably does. The policy is for a stable and normal environment for children and young people with difficult lives."

["Government policy is, of course, not intended to discriminate against marriage or family." He must be joking!]

Alistair Burt MP had said, "....... let me deal with the toughest nut of all. The Minister talked about digging deeper and thinking more radically, so let me ask him this question. What role does the unit believe family and relationship breakdown in the UK play in long-term deprivation and social exclusion? The Minister and the unit must now realise, after so many of its projects and researches, that such breakdown has had a catastrophic effect, that it is getting worse, and that there are no substantial policy initiatives to address it. There are initiatives to ameliorate the symptoms and to compensate for the losses incurred, but that is not enough. Years of study have now made it clear just how damaging relationship and family breakdown is. The Government, the Opposition and Parliament cannot tiptoe around this matter for much longer."

But they are all still on tiptoe. Iain Duncan Smith’s Social Policy Justice Group has produced an excellent report, Breakthrough Britain. The media have latched onto the taxation proposals and ignored the recommendations for relationship education, like those being advocated in New Zealand by Gordon Copeland – “for courses addressing fatherhood, marriage preparation, marriage enrichment and parenting courses across the spectrum from prenatal to teenage years.”

The Law Commission’s proposals will – doubtless – mean more money for lawyers [no surprise there!], but they are another example of “initiatives to ameliorate the symptoms and to compensate for the losses incurred” which do nothing to tackle the underlying problem.