Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 27 February 2013

27 Feb 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Families Need Fathers

Doris, Bob SNP Glasgow Watch on SPTV

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