Stronger Families, Brighter Futures

Speech by Annette Brooke MP delivered to Liberal Democrat Party Conference on Mon 18th Sep 2006

The wellbeing of children cannot be separated from the wellbeing of their family - Brooke

Fellow Liberal Democrats, we have long argued for investment in quality early years provision. We have welcomed those aspects of Government policy which mirror our ideas. Broadly we support the Government's 10 year childcare strategy - so why do we need new policy in this area?

Our paper 'Stronger Families, Brighter Futures' - as the name suggests - has the theme of supporting families -an issue, I believe, that in the past we have shied away from, but it is so important to recognise that the wellbeing of children cannot be separated from the wellbeing of their family. Of course the modern day family will come in many different shapes and sizes and may change its composition over time.

Within this context, we firmly believe the child's interests must be paramount. Furthermore, we believe that the UK Government should be fully committed to, and act in accordance with, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Such action would go a long way to make sure that Every Child really Matters.

There is an enormous gulf between our approach and that of labelling a child whilst still in its mother's womb - should we really be pointing a finger - 'potentially a bad lot, that one!'?

Let us be clear - our policies are not about creating a nanny state. Parenting is a difficult and demanding job - preparation and support is important - but such support should not be stigmatising and not just be aimed at New Labour's 'problem families'. Our policies are not about creating a nanny state. They are consistent with the Liberal view of the role of the state as an enabler through education and through access to information and support. They are based on the principle that preventative action is cost effective: financially, socially, emotionally and in terms of achievement. There comes a point when the state has to intervene e.g. when a child is being severely abused. Conference, it makes sense to offer support before problems arise - but the way in which that support is offered is all important.

We believe that locally run services are best placed to meet the needs of communities, that they should have the full involvement of the community, and that we must value partnerships including those with the voluntary sector.

We do recognise that specialised support will be needed in some families e.g. a family where a parent or child has a disability. For example, I have done a great deal of work in Parliament with young carers.

The pressures for families facing poverty and living in poor housing conditions are even greater. Policies in this paper will be complemented in other policy development areas e.g. a new policy paper 'Tackling Inequality, Poverty and Lack of Opportunity' is currently being consulted upon.

Last week the Daily Telegraph published a letter from 110 academics and others calling for the initiation of a public debate on child-rearing. Today The Good Childhood Inquiry has been launched by The Children's Society into what makes a good childhood for children and young people. Many of you will have heard the Archbishop of Canterbury on the radio this morning. Already the views of more than 11 000 children have been sought; safety and security within the family has been the topic most frequently raised.

We cannot ignore the fact that 1/5 of children and adolescents experience mental health problems at some time in their lives and that difficulties in family life and relationships are the main contributors. We welcome the public debate. Our proposals indicate how information and ideas - perhaps stemming from this debate - about parenting and relationships within the family can be communicated within school:

We propose compulsory Personal, Social, and Health Education in the school curriculum. Courses would include parenting, relationships between parents, between mother/father and child. This subject must be delivered by appropriately trained teachers and other professionals.

Within the community: we propose local family support networks, which would also build upon important contact points -we value and wish to enhance the role that school nurses and midwives and health visitors can play.

We have developed further our polices relating to work-life balance: parental leave and childcare are vital for supporting families and our proposals today build upon existing Liberal Democrat policies. Flexible working patterns are important. We have to engage positively and consensually with business and employers if we are going to transform the culture of working life.

Whilst I have every sympathy with the sentiments behind amendment one, the FPC and I cannot accept it as it as it stands - it is incompatible with the approach we are advocating here, through for example time accounts. It is inflexible, prescriptive, and there has been no consultation with business. I look forward to the debate on this issue.

Quality childcare/early years provision can make an enormous contribution: reducing inequalities; improving life chances; raising achievement for children from all backgrounds. At the same time making it possible for parents to return to work; undertake training; undertake activities to build up confidence and self-esteem ready to undertake more formal education and training.

The challenges are great. Quality childcare which is affordable and sustainable is all important. This will require investment in the professionalisation of the workforce. We support qualified early years teachers.

We believe in real choice for parents - and we have developed further our policy on a maternity income guarantee, enabling parents to have a choice as to whether they stay at home during that precious first year for their child or return to work. Indeed, ideally that choice should be extended to the first two years. The full implementation of this policy will require significant funding and I will return to this issue later.

Sadly, it will be necessary to support families in crisis: perhaps after parental separation, or where it is no longer possible for a child to stay within its family and where fostering and adoption may have to be considered.

Children in care deserve a better deal. For example, in 2004 only 9% of looked-after children gained 5 GCSEs A-C. A high proportion of prisoners have been in the care system. We have to do better than in the past. Our Paper can only cover these important areas briefly but nevertheless it is important to set down the direction of our thinking. For example, I would draw your attention to our proposed policy on kinship care.

We have some clear policy relating to the difficult area of how much time children should spend with each parent after parental separation. We think that mediation between parents is all important but if that fails we propose a default contract in situations where there are no issues about safety. If parents cannot agree on arrangements for their children we propose an 'off the shelf' contract appropriate for different age groups to operate whilst waiting to go to court. This would ensure that the child wouldn't lose all important contact with one parent in the early stages of separation. Either parent can still pursue the court process to aim to get contact arrangements which they believe are right for their individual child, but currently this can take a long time. We also call for a legislative statement that makes it clear that in most circumstances a child will benefit from having reasonable contact with both parents. We would not wish to risk the child's safety or undermine the presumption that the child's interest must always be paramount.

Fellow Liberal Democrats, in order to break the vicious cycle of poverty, we need to raise aspirations within families.

I believe we as policy makers must have aspirations to deliver the levels of childcare and parental leave typically on offer in Scandinavian countries: where levels of child poverty are reduced; where gender inequality is lower; where women are empowered.

However, we have to be realistic - currently our Government Expenditure on childcare is running at about 0.5% GDP and will rise to about 0.8%. In Scandinavian countries the proportions are 2 ¼ - 2 ½ % GDP (excluding parental leave). That involves a massive expenditure switch, which could only be achieved over a long period.

Delegates, I urge you to accept this motion today, endorsing the principles within it. Equally, I ask you to speak up when the spending priorities and benefits and taxation policies are being determined for our next General Election Manifesto. To implement our policies meaningfully requires financial commitment.