Hansard

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