Hansard

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