Families Need Fathers
The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-04456, in the name of John Mason, on Families Need Fathers. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the publication of the Scottish Government’s national parenting strategy, National Parenting Strategy: Making a positive difference to children and young people through parenting; considers that parenting is one of the most important jobs that anyone could have in their life; welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to developing a national parenting strategy that includes an investment of £18 million to improve access to information, advice and support for parents; notes the comments from Families Need Fathers, which, following the publication of the strategy, said that it “welcomes the emphasis on fathers in this new strategy, including fathers who live apart from their children”, and considers that Glasgow and Scotland as a whole would benefit from a debate on the role of fathers and their rights and responsibilities.
17:03
I thank members who signed the motion, which has allowed the debate to happen.
Perhaps I should start off by declaring a non-interest in the subject, in that I am happily single and do not have any children.
The issue was highlighted for me in October 2011 when a young father in my constituency contacted me about the difficulties that he was having in seeing his son, who was 18 months old. I was impressed by the man. He held a responsible job and was obviously distraught at being pushed out of his son’s life. He told me that he had spent over £2,000 thus far on legal costs and expenses. He had been granted legal access to his son by the court, but the mother was still refusing access and the court seemed unwilling to enforce its decision. He also told me about an organisation called Families Need Fathers which, as I have got to know it, strikes me as a fairly balanced type of organisation, although we know that there are others in the same field whose members climb roofs and suchlike. I thank Families Need Fathers for its briefing for me and, I believe, other members.
In March 2012, I attended one of the Families Need Fathers support meetings in Glasgow, which started at 7 pm with a collection of fathers telling their stories and expressing frustration or explaining problems, and getting support from others in a similar position. They were quite a mixed bunch of people from a variety of backgrounds, many of whom admitted making serious mistakes in their lives. However, I must say that I was totally captivated by the stories that they told, and I managed to get away only at about 11 pm.
The motion for the debate was prompted by the publication last October of the Scottish Government’s “National Parenting Strategy: Making a positive difference to children and young people through parenting”. Alongside a lot of points on how good parenting can be supported, the strategy specifically mentions the importance of supporting and encouraging all fathers to play an active role in their children’s upbringing. The strategy mentions that fathers are sometimes forgotten when discussing parenting or are treated as if they are of secondary importance.
It might be useful to mention a few statistics. The Scottish household survey indicates that about 21 per cent of households with children in Scotland are single-parent households and that 88 per cent of those one-parent families are headed up by the mother. That means that a substantial number of Scottish fathers live apart from their children; the figure is in the region of 150,000, although estimates are complicated. The results from the growing up in Scotland survey that was published recently indicate what is happening with the non-resident fathers: more than two thirds of them see their children at least once a week, but 9 per cent see their children once a month or less and 24 per cent do not see their children at all. That pattern tends to have developed by the time the children are 10 months old.
Most of the non-resident fathers make some contribution towards their children through maintenance payments, but 13 per cent give no support of any kind. Of course, being involved as a father is not just about the amount of time or money that they spend; it also means being involved in important decisions about health, education and other matters regarding their children. The growing up in Scotland study indicates that many non-resident fathers are not given that opportunity. In a quarter of families where the non-resident father’s name was on the birth certificate, the father was not allowed any involvement in the key decisions for his child relating to inoculations or diet. It seems that a significant number of children are missing out on the involvement of their father.
I can give members some examples of what such lack of involvement really means, which come from people who have taken their case to Families Need Fathers in Scotland. For example, a father who now has regular overnight care of his two young children after a long court battle is very concerned about one of his sons’ eating problems. The child’s mother refuses to discuss that with him and he has been told by the children’s health visitor that he cannot have information about what is being done to resolve the problem. Another father had a court order setting out times of contact with his son. Both the father and son were keen on football, and the father helped at the school’s football training. The boy’s mother took the court order to the school, showed it to the headteacher and indicated that the times listed on it were the only times when the father was permitted to see his son. The headteacher then told the father that he could help at football training only on the condition that his son was not there.
Such issues can be sorted out if the relevant health and education authorities are clear about what the role of a separated father is; it should not be necessary for such battles to take place time and again. There seems to be a feeling at times by courts and some public authorities that if a father does not live with his children, he should be treated with suspicion until it is proved that he should be treated otherwise.
Neither the Government nor the Parliament can legislate to make mothers and fathers get on with each other after separation, but perhaps we can act to remove some of the barriers that hold back fathers who want to play a part in their children’s lives. Some things should be fairly easy to do, such as reminding all schools of their obligation to treat separated parents equally and provide both mothers and fathers with school information.
We must put the best interests of the children at the top of the agenda when parents are separating. The national parenting agreement provides a blueprint for parents to make such arrangements. Family lawyers in Scotland perhaps need to make more use of that as part of their service and make contact arrangements a priority from the outset, rather than a bargaining ploy to be spun out as long as possible.
Sadly, an increasing number of cases are being heard in court. The annual number of legal aid supported applications for contact in Scottish courts has almost doubled over the past five years from 2,005 to 3,848. Perhaps more training and guidance for all sheriffs, and swifter action to identify and deal promptly with the very high-conflict cases would benefit affected children and their families. It would save money for all concerned, too.
Some courts will make contact orders but not grant the accompanying parental rights and responsibilities, meaning that fathers have care of their children without the right to do things, such as authorise medical treatment.
I welcome the progress that has been made in the Scottish parenting strategy but, clearly, changing long-held attitudes on the roles and responsibilities of mothers and fathers will not be easy.
Article 9(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states:
“Children whose parents do not live together have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might hurt the child.”
I ask the minister to respond on whether the forthcoming rights of children and young people bill will include a provision to ensure that right.
Clearly, the situations that we are discussing are often difficult—I am sure that we will hear personal examples—but it is the best interests of the children that must be made the heart of the matter.
17:11
As a parent of three lovely young children and a former chair of the Blairdardie primary school parent board in Glasgow, I am delighted to take part in the discussions on the importance of parenting. I welcome the Scottish Government’s £18 million investment in a national parenting strategy that develops information, advice and support for those with guardianship and caring responsibilities for Scotland’s youngest citizens.
I thank John Mason for securing the debate. I agree fully with his views that fathers play an important role in the upbringing of their children, and that the rights and responsibilities of fathers should not be underestimated. I acknowledge that the national parenting strategy seeks to pursue more father-friendly services and policies, so that dads play an active role in the lives of their children and benefit from the same support services traditionally available only to mothers.
I caution against any implication that families without fathers are deficient or lack the necessary support structures to raise children in a safe and loving environment. Many children and young people have been brought up in single-parent families, and the absence of a father does not necessarily lead to less well-adjusted, healthy or successful young people as a result. Good parenting is about the commitment of the parent, or parents, to securing the welfare of their children, and it is enhanced by access to well-funded support structures that enable mothers and fathers to provide financially for their families.
An increasing number of young people are raised by same-sex parents. Those families are no less successful in providing the same stable and loving environment for their children than households with married heterosexual parents. Families come in all shapes and sizes. Every parent—and not just fathers—deserves the full support of the Government and local authorities in raising healthy and happy children.
I often talk about Parent Network Scotland when I speak in a debate on parenting. That voluntary organisation, which is based in Glasgow, provides training courses and support to parents in a non-judgmental and safe environment. All its programmes, which are evidence based, home grown and bottom-up led, have been evaluated by the University of Strathclyde.
I have seen at first hand the positive effect that Parent Network Scotland’s service can have on families and the increased confidence that parents enjoy as a result of the support that its staff offer. I believe that the Scottish Government’s parenting strategy should seek to recognise and build on the invaluable work that Parent Network Scotland and other organisations undertake in supporting parents and building the capacity of mothers and fathers to raise successful, healthy and talented young people.
Parent Network Scotland achieves all that. I believe that it is an outstanding network, because it is about parent power—it is about parents empowering and supporting other parents in their community. As you can tell, as someone with a community development background and community development training, I am a huge fan of programmes and organisations that involve a bottom-up approach.
17:15
I thank John Mason for securing the debate, which is very timely, given the publication of the Scottish Government’s national parenting strategy, in which—as has been mentioned—the Scottish Government has announced that it is investing £18 million, and the emphasis that it places on fathers, including fathers who live apart from their children.
I know exactly where Anne McTaggart was coming from but, like John Mason and other MSPs, I have had numerous constituents come to me on the issue. It is not the case that the fathers concerned think that they are better than anyone else or that they should have extra rights; what they want is equality of rights. I think that that is the gist of tonight’s debate.
The debate is timely not only because of the announcement of the strategy, but because of the announcement of the consultation on the proposals to transform Scotland’s courts, which include changes to sheriff courts and civil cases, and the recommendation that specialist family sheriffs be introduced. I note that that is mentioned in the briefing that we received from Families Need Fathers, which says:
“We suggest that more courts should have specialist family sheriffs who have adequate support and training, to avoid cases dragging on for months and years.”
John Mason mentioned that issue. I am sure that I do not need to, but I suggest to Families Need Fathers and other groups that they take part in that consultation. I am sure that their participation would be more than welcome.
Families Need Fathers also makes a point about the courts that is similar to the point that John Mason made. In its briefing, it mentions contact orders, which are raised with me. John Mason explained the issue well. Contact orders should fulfil not just the needs of the mother and the father, but those of the child. That is an extremely important issue, which should be raised in the consultation on the proposed changes to court proceedings.
I hope that the recommendations that the strategy makes will go a long way to alleviating some of the difficulties that exist. One of the recommendations includes a
“Focus on fathers and male carers, including those who live away from their children”,
which is one of the issues that we are debating. In the strategy, the Government also says:
“we will update the Parenting Agreement for Scotland—a pack with a parenting agreement for separating parents”.
That is extremely important, too.
Another interesting aspect of the strategy is that it says that
“A fathers’ roundtable meeting will be held twice a year”.
Will the minister give us some more information on that twice-yearly meeting, such as who will attend it and how people will be approached to attend it?
A proposal that is particularly important in the context of what John Mason said about court orders and fathers not always having the ability to get medicine for their children is that
“NHS Health Scotland will set up a Fathers’ Forum”.
It would be interesting to find out more from the minister about how that forum will be set up and whether groups or individuals will be involved in it.
It has been a great pleasure to speak in this debate on a very important subject—as I said, many constituents have come to see me on this issue—and I am grateful to John Mason for securing the debate. The fact is that families need fathers and fathers need contact with their children.
I should have reminded members at the beginning of the debate to speak through the chair and to refer to each other by their full names, not as “you”.
17:20
I very much welcome the debate and am grateful to John Mason for bringing it to the chamber this evening.
Mr Mason’s motion rightly refers to the “important” role played by fathers and “their rights and responsibilities”, and I think that we will all agree that the ideal environment for bringing up a child is within a loving and stable relationship between a man and a woman. However, I would be the first to acknowledge that we clearly do not live in an ideal world and that we need to consider other models that, as Anne McTaggart has suggested, can be successful.
A sad but simple fact is that marriages and relationships, often involving children, break up every day in every country across the world, and the priority following what are frequently traumatic events for all involved must be the wellbeing of children. The irreversible collapse of a relationship can sometimes lead to great bitterness in one or both of the partners. Children can become pawns in custody battles; access rights can be denied; and children suffer because they do not get to see one or other of their parents. Sadly, it is the father who all too often loses out.
Few of us in the chamber could have failed to be moved by the briefing paper from Families Need Fathers Scotland, which was set up to help, support and provide advice to parents of either sex. Examples include the father who received a legal letter from his ex-partner, complaining that he had taken his child to the library during a contact visit, and the father who had been the main carer for his son before his partner left and who then did not see the boy for six months—and was then allowed only two hours of supervised contact just once a month. That sort of situation is hard to explain to a young child, for whom such separation is a bereavement experience that will stay with them forever, no matter how hard the other parent tries to fill the gap.
I read with interest the story of Jonathan Agnew, the cricket commentator, who described what he called the “tough time” he went through as he tried to maintain relations with his two daughters after he divorced the girls’ mother and how it was in stark contrast to the conscious effort that he and his second wife made to ensure that her ex-husband had a relationship with his children. Those are just a few examples, but I am sure that many in the chamber will have similar stories, some from personal experience.
The motion refers to the national parenting strategy, the aim of which is to champion the importance of parenting
“by strengthening the support on offer to parents and by making it easier to access that support”.
The emphasis on the father’s role in nurturing children is significant because too often it is perceived as being less than that of the mother. I pay tribute to the Scottish Government for its pledged financial support to improve access to information.
As the Health and Sport Committee’s inquiry into teenage pregnancy has progressed, I have become aware of how easy it is to focus on a young mum and her baby and to forget the important contribution that a young father can make to his child’s early wellbeing, whether or not his relationship with the mother continues. I am therefore encouraged by the evidence that we have received on projects for teenage mums that also seek to involve the fathers and by the commitment of those dads who wish to actively participate in their child’s development and progress.
Grandparents can make an enormous contribution to a child’s healthy development but, sadly, when partnerships split up they are often sidelined and kept away from their grandchildren. I have a lot of sympathy for groups such as Grandparent Rights that campaign for greater access and which remind us of the devastating impact that family breakdowns can have on children.
A very serious issue has been given the much-needed oxygen of publicity in this debate and I once again pay tribute to John Mason and Families Need Fathers Scotland for all their work in this field.
17:24
I congratulate my colleague John Mason on securing this debate.
In its national parenting strategy, the Scottish Government has set out its ambition to make Scotland
“the best place in the world to grow up”
and I think that we should all be striving to achieve that, not just for Scotland’s children but for Scotland’s families. We can make Scotland the best place in the world to grow up in partly by ensuring that children themselves grow up in a loving and nurturing environment.
Part of that environment will be developed through stable relationships between parents, but we must accept that there will be situations in which relationships will break down, for whatever reason. The most important thing is that the children’s rights are considered, and that includes considering the rights of both the mother and the father. The father’s rights are all too often forgotten in the process. We absolutely have to put the child at the centre, but we must not forget that there are two other players as well, and the father often gets left out.
Anne McTaggart helpfully summed up the range of family models that now exists in Scotland, none of which should be considered to be any less worthy than another, as children can be given a loving and nurturing environment in a range of ways. However, I want to focus on two specific groups. There are fathers who live with their partner and child. I am a father of two young children. I live with my wife and, obviously, we have our children with us. Those of us who are in such a position still need to be given support in the role of father. No father is ever handed an instruction manual on how to do the job, and support networks sometimes quite rightly in many ways focus heavily on the mother’s role and on directing support towards them. However, there can be times when the father needs to be given a bit of support in performing his role. How our public sector organisations include and seek to include fathers needs to be looked at. I will perhaps discuss that a little bit more a little later.
There are also fathers who live apart from their partner for whatever reason. The most important issues in that context are around access rights and custody. I sometimes wonder whether, in looking at access rights, for example, there is still a harking back to the Victorian attitude of the distant father and the nurturing mother, as if fathers somehow do not really need to have access to their children because they do not take as active and interested a role. How we view fathers and the role that they play also needs to be looked at.
On the wider support networks, obviously there is the support that can be provided through the public sector organisations. Voluntary groups have also been established, and groups of dads come together. Dads rock, which was in the Parliament recently, has established itself very well in Edinburgh and is now looking to branch out into other local authority areas. I told it to give me a shout when it comes to the north-east, although, given that it is based around a musical environment and I cannot carry a tune in a bucket, I do not suppose that I will be much help to it.
Fathers of children with complex support needs and disabilities also need to be seriously considered, particularly fathers who live apart from and have only very limited access to those children. How we support those fathers in their role as a father and in providing the support that they can provide to their children in those circumstances needs to be looked at.
17:28
I congratulate John Mason on bringing forward this important but complex debate. It is complex in practice, but not in respect of the principles that should underline what happens in the area.
It is worth quoting again from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says:
“Children whose parents do not live together have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might hurt the child.”
That is consistent with what is stated in our 2006 legislation. There are automatic parental rights and responsibilities for fathers whose name is included on the birth certificate, although again that is subject to the welfare of the child.
As a father and now a besotted grandparent, I absolutely empathise with men who are separated from children whom they love. However, we must recognise, as the UN convention and our laws recognise, that there are circumstances in which it is not in the interests of the child to be in contact with the father. Obviously, domestic abuse is the most clear-cut example in that respect, but there may be other circumstances. That must be borne in mind.
The other slight problem that I have in the debate is the name Families Need Fathers. I have met Ian Maxwell, who heads up the organisation in Scotland. I used to know him when he worked for One Parent Families Scotland, and I have a very high regard for him. I told him that I think that the organisation’s name is a problem, quite apart from the fact that some people confuse it with Fathers 4 Justice, which is certainly not a very desirable organisation.
More fundamentally, the word “need” is wrong. Today’s debate comes very conveniently after yesterday’s debate, in which we all spoke about lone parents and the superb way in which many of them bring up their children. Indeed, we could talk about two women carrying out the same duties—as Anne McTaggart said, families come in all shapes and sizes. It is therefore regrettable that the organisation is called Families Need Fathers, because that has unacceptable connotations around the nature of the family.
That said, a lot of what Families Need Fathers is campaigning for is progressive and, it could be argued, even potentially feminist. Men having more to do with the upbringing of their children is an important part of the equalities revolution and the ending of traditional stereotyping. It is absolutely right for us to encourage men to have more to do with the upbringing of their children and, consistent with the welfare of the child, it is right that they should have the opportunity to do that, even when they are separated from the mother of their children.
I apologise to Aileen Campbell because I mentioned dads rock yesterday and here I go mentioning it today, but it is an excellent example of an organisation that works with fathers in my constituency as well as elsewhere. I thank Aileen Campbell for visiting the organisation in West Granton. It is making a serious effort to make sure that fathers are encouraged and supported to be more involved in their children’s care.
I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government’s parenting strategy has the same objective. There has not been much discussion of the wider objectives of that strategy, which some have criticised. We have even heard from the usual suspects about the strategy being a feature of the nanny state, but I welcome it because parents need support. Parenting is possibly the most important thing that anyone does for the future of society, so it is important for us to have a strategy.
I also welcome the money that is being put into family support. I do not know whether Aileen Campbell is able yet to say more about the details of how that is being spent, but it has been widely discussed and I welcome the Government’s financial commitment to that agenda as well as its wider commitments to the parenting and early years strategies.
17:32
I congratulate John Mason and declare an interest as a former court lawyer specialising in family law. Although I am wary of drawing from that experience, which was 12 years ago, I shall do so in part, with the caveat that there has been some progress in balancing and protecting the rights of fathers with regard to their children when relationships end—particularly when they end acrimoniously.
I acted for women and men and found faults on both sides, although sometimes they were just on one side. A good family lawyer does not indulge in inflaming dispute, nor does he or she allow clients to use their children as ammunition or bribes. I never did.
However, at that time, there were some presumptions that sometimes still prevail, although that might be patchy. There is a presumption that women should have residency rights, and the father should have contact. There is also a presumption that in what I would call—in inverted commas—a “domestic”, the man is at fault and has to be decanted out of the home, leaving the woman with the children. I understand that there is still a protocol between the Crown Office and the police on that. I do not know the details, but I will follow it up.
There is no doubt that some men made it hard for themselves. Refusing to pay maintenance for their children unless contact orders were obtempered was always a bad move. The two do not go together. Some women made things hard for their ex-partners because they had the child’s ear and could and did bend it. Neither of those actions are supportable and they are certainly not in the interests of the children.
I will focus on education, to which John Mason referred, and access to information, particularly under the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006.
Guidance that was published along with the 2006 act says specifically that both parents have equal status in their relationships with the school unless there is
“a court order limiting an individual’s exercise of parental rights and responsibilities.”
The guidance also urges schools to engage actively with non-resident parents and requires schools to produce a parental involvement strategy and report annually on its progress. I bet that not many schools do either of those things. I do not want to malign headteachers—I was a teacher, too—but I think that many might well be unaware of that duty on them, given that so few have complied with it.
Fathers are further impeded by the Pupils’ Educational Records (Scotland) Regulations 2003—members can tell that I was a lawyer. Paragraph (d) of regulation 6, “Circumstances where information should not be disclosed”, provides that information should not be disclosed
“to the extent that its disclosure would in the opinion of the responsible body, be likely to cause significant distress or harm to the pupil or any other person”.
I stress that the regulation refers to “significant distress or harm”, not “serious” harm. What could that be? It certainly should not be annoyance, displeasure or inconvenience. Who might “any other person” be? We should bear it in mind that if someone wants to prevent information from being disclosed to the father there must be a court order against the father.
There are huge difficulties. Fathers are not even entitled to see school photographs. They get access to information about what is happening to their children only if they have access to the school bag. That is not the way to impart information.
I very much object to the term “absent parent”, which I understand that my council, Scottish Borders Council, uses in its forms. The people whom we are talking about are not absent parents. The term is cruel, hurtful and incorrect and should not be used.
17:36
I thank John Mason for bringing to the Parliament what has been so far an excellent debate. I signed his motion, and I had been thinking of putting my name down to speak in the debate, without quite getting around to it until I was contacted by constituents who reminded me how important the issue is to them. That was a reality check and reminded me that some of what we say in the Parliament does not go unheard to the extent that we sometimes think that it does. People sometimes listen to every word of a debate that chimes with them, and the debate about fathers certainly chimed with the constituents who contacted me.
Constituents wanted me to raise the idea of shared parenting, on which Families Need Fathers has produced a briefing. Let me be clear: I am talking not about fathers and mums each getting 50 per cent of the time, but about dad—or whoever is the so-called absent parent—being more than a weekend visitor and being a core part of the family, with a proactive role in the child’s life that is about more than just taking them out for a day here or an hour there. Many fathers feel that they are denied that role.
We must consider the whole idea of access to children, which seems to be interpreted restrictively in some cases. People think that if someone is guaranteed access to their child for a couple of hours once a week, that is the maximum time that they are allowed to spend with their child. That is not the case, and I think that Christine Grahame also said that it is not the case in law. I find that attitude worrying.
We also need to consider the whole idea of custody of children, which comes back to children’s rights. Children are not assets to be divided up on the breakdown of a marriage. We can miss that point.
Christine Grahame talked about how the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006 seems to have gone unnoticed by many people in the education sector. Why should a dad not attend their kid’s parents night, whether with mum or not, to find out how the child is doing? Why should they not be an active member of the parent teacher association, if they choose to do that? Why should they not take part in school life? After all, school is a major part of their child’s life, from which they should not be excluded. We will have to return to the 2006 act and ensure that it can be properly and appropriately implemented. I will be interested to hear the minister’s views on that.
As we heard, the issue is not just about guidance for schools and the laws and rights that exist. There is also an issue to do with access to healthcare information and how the national health service treats fathers—or absent parents, whoever they are. I point out that, in a minority of cases, fathers are sometimes the main custodians, and it is the mums who are seeking access. That does happen. These matters concern absent parents, not specifically fathers.
We must consider whether or not sheriffs are skilled enough in how they deal with access and custody arrangements and with the rights of fathers and mothers. We must consider why the amount of people applying for legal aid has doubled within five years. Are lawyers driving people towards that solution, instead of pushing them to use the avenue of the national parenting agreement to facilitate a consensual move forward?
Families do need fathers. The United Kingdom Government’s bedroom tax will make it incredibly difficult for fathers who have positive access arrangements with their children even to have a bed for their kids to stay the night. Where things are working well, they have been put at risk by the UK welfare reforms.
17:41
I thank John Mason for bringing this important debate to the chamber and for raising a number of important issues. I also thank other members for their thoughtful, considered and emotive speeches—I hope that I have enough time to cover everything.
Through the national parenting strategy, which we published in October, we are determined to ensure that all parents get the support that they need when they need it so that they can do their very best for their children. I hope that that gives Anne McTaggart some comfort that the strategy is truly for all parents and those in a parenting role, including the corporate parent.
It is right for us to focus on what that means for fathers. Sometimes when we talk about parents, we tend to mean mums and, perhaps unintentionally, we cut dads out of the picture. That needs to change, as I think everyone would agree. In a modern and successful Scotland, we want to encourage and support fathers in playing a much more active role in their children’s upbringing and, as Mark McDonald says, to view fathers in a much more modern way.
During our work to develop the parenting strategy, we engaged with more than 1,500 parents and carers. About 500 of them were dads, many of whom were living apart from their children. We are acutely aware of the issues that fathers face, and I thank them for giving us their time to help us develop the strategy.
In response, we have set up a fathers national advisory panel to help us consider how our policies, services and communities can become more dad friendly. That is a proactive move to provide a platform for fathers to input directly into policy. In answer to Sandra White, that group will help to dad-proof policies, and its members will include practitioners, academics and policy makers. Referring to what Mark McDonald said, we will also invite a representative with knowledge of disability and additional needs. I am delighted that Ian Maxwell from Families Need Fathers has agreed to sit on our fathers national advisory panel to ensure that we do not lose sight of the needs of fathers who do not live with their children.
I strongly believe that both parents should be involved in their child’s upbringing, as long as that is safe, practical and in the interests of the child. Generally, it is best if parents can agree on what is best for their children. Services such as family mediation can help with that, and services should appreciate the very positive role that dads can play in their child’s life.
Christine Grahame and Bob Doris raised the subject of educational barriers. My colleague Dr Allan has met representatives of Families Need Fathers to discuss those barriers against the backdrop of the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006.
I suppose that this question is for onward transmission to Dr Alasdair Allan. Regarding the number of schools that seem absolutely unaware of their duties under the 2006 act, which I referred to, will the minister convey to Dr Allan my request to find out what schools are doing in terms of obtempering their duties to obey the law, and how many of them are doing it?
I will consider that point, and Christine Grahame and I can continue a dialogue on it.
John Mason mentioned the parenting agreement for Scotland. The national parenting strategy commits us to updating it in 2014 and to publicising it more. We will certainly involve Families Need Fathers when we update it, and my officials will talk to Families Need Fathers shortly to discuss what we can do now to publicise it more. The debate is timely in relation to that dialogue.
This year we have provided funding to Families Need Fathers for a project that provides information and support to fathers and other family members facing contact problems after separation. It is also working to improve understanding of existing legal rights and to promote involvement of non-resident fathers in their children’s education.
I know how difficult some non-resident fathers can find it to be fully involved in their children’s lives. Indeed, many members mentioned that in their contributions. Contact cases can be very difficult for all concerned.
John Mason referred to article 9(3) of the UNCRC, which provides:
“States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.”
As John Mason, Malcolm Chisholm and Bob Doris mentioned, the key is the “best interests” of the child.
The relevant Scottish legislation—section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995—provides that in cases such as contact and residence, the court
“shall regard the welfare of the child concerned as its paramount consideration”.
We are not planning any amendments to section 11 that could have an adverse impact. We believe that, where it is possible and safe, both parents should be involved in the upbringing of their children, but the child must always be at the centre.
Sandra White mentioned courts and Christine Grahame gave a very factual and knowledgeable account of her experience in the legal field. I reiterate that I am happy to follow up any of the points that she wants to be covered. We are taking steps to improve the court system. Kenny MacAskill today launched a consultation on a bill to reform the civil courts, so the issue is very much live. That bill will address inefficiencies in Scotland’s civil courts and rebalance the system so that more cases will be heard in local sheriff courts. We hope that that move will find more user-friendly ways of dealing with family disputes.
At another level, we have established a working group on bar reporters, on which Families Need Fathers is represented. Bar reporters provide reports to sheriffs in contact cases. Moreover, members who were unable to participate in today’s debate have raised with me the practical problems that can arise when a child is relocated in the UK. We will continue to work with the UK Government to raise awareness of the practical issues of child relocation in the UK.
Bringing up children is a hugely rewarding job—none of us wants to forget that point, which was raised in members’ speeches—for dads as well as mums, but it can also be the hardest job that there is. If we are serious about improving outcomes for our children and young people, we need to ensure that all parents and carers get the support that they need, when they need it, and we need to ensure that dads are supported to play their full part. I am glad that Nanette Milne welcomed the work that we have done with the national parenting strategy to address some of the issues that fathers raised.
As the First Minister announced in September, the early years task force has committed £18 million over three years to improve the provision of family support across Scotland. I am glad that Anne McTaggart welcomed that, given her experience of groups in Glasgow. Indeed, I visited the Parent Network Scotland in Greenock and I very much understand its good work. Family support will be influenced by the fathers national advisory panel and we will ensure that family support meets the needs of fathers across Scotland.
It is important to recognise that we are not starting from scratch. Many members mentioned the dads rock musical playgroup that is run by dads for dads. I had the pleasure of meeting those dads a couple of times and I recognise the work that they do, which Mark McDonald and Malcolm Chisholm mentioned.
Removing the barriers that prevent dads from playing their part is one of the most effective ways that we can improve the health, wellbeing, opportunities and life chances of our children and young people. Investing in parents—by that I mean dads as well as mums—is good for not only children and young people but our communities and the cohesion and productivity of our country. That is something that we should not forget.
We have made a start and we are determined to build on that. We look forward to working with colleagues across the chamber and partners such as Families Need Fathers to achieve more.
Meeting closed at 17:48.