David Willetts MP: Train a child in the way he should go…

David is Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills.

The recent UNICEF report about the well-being of children in the world’s richest countries was a wake-up call for Britain: we come last among the 21 industrialised nations.  Perhaps it shouldn’t have been a surprise.  Behavioural problems in children have doubled over the last 30 years and emotional problems have increased by 70 per cent.  Maybe it hit home because the blow was so blunt; the report said that our kids are just plain unhappy.

The news comes against the backdrop of other sobering social trends:  soaring crime and antisocial behaviour, diminishing educational achievement, and failing public services.  As David Cameron indicated when he announced that the Conservatives would be leading a Childhood Inquiry, “The great challenge in this decade and the next is social revival”. 

Today I can announce that the Childhood Inquiry will be investigating six broad areas of childhood in Britain, and each sub-group will be lead by a colleague with expertise in the area.  Alistair Burt MP will be leading the subgroup of Play and Space.  He will investigate how outdoor play and space are being increasingly lost to a screen-based world.  Advertising to Children will be considered by Tim Loughton MP, and will look at how children can be better protected from commercialisation and sexualisation.  Ann McIntosh MP will explore ways in which the wider family, especially grandparents, can play a positive role in children’s lives by leading the Extended Family sub-group. 

The effects of the Health and Safety culture will be examined by Julian Brazier MP.  He will look at the damaging social effects of the compensation culture and the role insurance plays in depriving children of opportunities to play.  Baroness Morris will lead the sub-group on Emotion and Attachment, investigating the early development of children, and specifically how emotional attachment of children to family and friends can be improved.  Finally, Nick Gibb MP will head the sub-group on Bullying and Unhappiness to look at how loneliness can be prevented and how bullying can be combated.

The blend of influences is complex.  The challenge for the Childhood Inquiry is to isolate the main factors that are adversely impacting our children and find ways to tackle them.  Making friends, building relationships, experimenting, imagining, taking risks, and making mistakes are important for the mental health and well-being of children.  We have long warned about the costs of red tape on business, we now need to worry about the red tape on childhood.  We need to allow children to have vivid lives and everyday adventures in the bosom of secure families and robust communities. 

Throughout the Inquiry, my colleagues and I will consult closely with independent experts and draw our conclusions from the empirical evidence.  A number of high profile experts that are independent of the Conservative Party have already agreed to contribute, including Lord Richard Best, former Director of the Rowntree Trust; Sir Richard Bowlby, President of the Centre for Child Mental Health; Tim Gill, Director of the Children’s Play Council (now Play England) from 1997 to 2004; Baroness Susan Greenfield, Professor of Pharmacology and Director of Institute for the Future of the Mind, University of Oxford; Sue Palmer, author of ‘Toxic Childhood’; and Bob Reitmeier, CEO of The Children’s Society.  Other experts have already come forward to contribute and we will draw on their work too.

The decline in the quality of life for our children has been a long time coming.  Putting aside Labour’s ten-year assault on marriage and the family, our culture has been transformed dramatically in the last 50 years through technological and social change.  Televisions, computers, DVDs, ipods, mobiles and constant advertising now permeate our lives.  There are numerous benefits of living in a high-tech and highly connected world, but for children the pace and quality of this life can come at a price.

Our family lives have also shifted, often to the detriment of children.  There are fewer married couples, higher levels of children living in lone-parent households, high rates of divorce, and more complex family arrangements.  Many families have tough work commitments that make it difficult to manage childcare and family life.  Meanwhile we are increasingly separated from extended families which once formed a critical support network and resource for both practical care and moral guidance. 

Some could argue that this is not a matter for the government—that just as politicians should stay out of the bedroom, they better well keep out of the nursery too.  But government can play a role in influencing debate and offering parents and families more choices. 

As David Cameron said, “The first test of any policy must be this:  does it help families?”.  At the heart of any healthy society are healthy families; families that are empowered to raise emotionally, socially, physically and spiritually healthy citizens.  We must tackle the declining well-being of our children, not just because we love our kids but because the social costs will reverberate for generations to come.

Comments

[Richard]

" But government can play a role in influencing debate and offering parents and families more choices."

How exactly can a government offer someone more choice without somehow contravening the rights of others either via regulation or taxation?

[Yet Another Anon]

Allowing more choice for people is expensive for the state, the hospital or school they may choose for them or their child or the appointment time and place and consultant they choose may well not be the one that is most cost effective from the point of view of public spending, not only this but with choice and money following patients\pupils etc... there is increased risk that a lot of public money will end up being spent on advertising and people will be making decisions based not on actual need but rather on which one has the slickest sales pitch.

In the event that people are offered a particular service at a particular place they do have the choice to either decide they don't need whatever service it is or to make their own arrangements seperately from the state.

A choice revolution could easily end up hugely expanding public spending further to no good purpose.

[Richard]

One thing we must be wary of is falling into the trap of trying to restore the childhood of forty or so years ago. I remember the Telegraph's Save Childhood (or words to that effect) campaign which seemed to be based on some nostalgic desire to turn back the clock to a time before video games, DVD players etc. Most children are perfectly capable of balancing modern entertainment with more traditional forms of activities. I would quite happily climb trees and play Nintendo in one afternoon without feeling that my childhood was stolen.

[Martin Smith]

Must be difficult to play Nintendo while climbing a tree.

[Oberon Houston]

Yes this is a complex issue, however I agree that there is a compelling need to give this subject more attention. I also agree with the comments above, that there is a risk of tackling these things in an authoritarian manner, but indeed there are areas that merit being looked at closely.

As to causes, I think the Health & Safety culture does need examined. The decline in accidents in recent decades has been a great achievement, however I believe we are now reached a tipping point where the cost to children in lost experience may be too high if we are not careful. Additionally, in the age of mass media, we have a situation where many parents believe the risks ‘on the street’ to their children are much higher than I suspect may be the case, and again children pay the price.

Local authorities currently pay little attention to the needs of children and teenagers when agreeing planning schemes for residential development. The sell-off of playing fields, transport problems and the costs of recreational facilities all deter children from leaving home to do activities. In this regard the voluntary sector has a large potential role to play. Organisations improving the lives and experiences of children, should be given more support and encouragement from Government.

David points out, million’s of years of experience has shown that a strong family is usually the most effective method of rearing happy enfranchised and capable children, who then go on to recreate their experiences with their own kids. * we must not confuse endorsing this with an attack of others with different circumstances * one of my best friends was brought up by his single mum on welfare in an east-end tower block and despite all the appalling difficulties they endured, he turned out brilliantly, studied at Cambridge on merit alone, and has fantastic outlook on life. But we must make sure that those who wish to stay together in a traditional family setting are not penalised or discouraged from doing so.

Finally, I think that it is important that children have ample opportunity to interact with those in their own age group in a different setting to school and thought should be given to what this could constitute and whether there are simple steps that can be taken to facilitate this.

Well done David for sharing your piece with us, hopefully the debate will rumble on - it’s certainly worth having.

[Mark Wadsworth]

I can save you a lot of bother by summarising as follows:

1. Don't buy them computer games at very early ages. You have to give in sooner or later of course. Once you do, try and restrict screen time and encourage other activities.

2. Give them limited pocket money and don't dress up little girls with sexy outfits.

3. Up to the grandsparents isn't it? Why on earth would a serious political party need a policy on "grandparents"?

4. Allow them to take sensible risks (climbing trees = good, playing on railway tracks = bad).

5. Even up tax/welfare playing field to ensure more two-parent families e.g. pay income support to ful-time married mothers. Simplify various overlapping schemes for nursery funding - kids learn to socialise at nursery.

6. "Combatting bullying" is one thing where the government can do a lot, teachers should be able to expel violent children without further ado, and more bobbies on beat never did any harm. As to "loneliness" see item 5.

That's that settled.

[TomTom]

Create Cadet Forces in every secondary school to instill a modicum of discipline in at least some of the pupils.....and provide uniform grants for anyone doing scouting or guides in areas of deprivation

[Adam]

Thankyou for someone at last talking about the importance of the extended family.

[Matthew Dear]

Train a child in the way he should go - good quote, from Proverbs(?) It adorns the base of an Epstein statue at the former Westminster College, Oxford.

[Jennifer Wells]

Excellent initiative. Good luck, Mr Willetts. I second Adam's point about the importance of the extended family.

[sjm]

Mark W makes sensible points as usual - may I add:

modern housing doesn't help families - small, open-plan rooms built out of cardboard, with tiny gardens or none at all, resulting in a lack of privacy and quiet space for playing or doing homework;

lack of control by parents who don't/won't impose manners and discipline;

society has over the last 40 years infantilised children in many ways by over-protecting them, but has also removed adult controls over them.

It seems to me that, as ever, the State simply makes matters worse every time it interferes.

[Mark Wadsworth]

sjm, thanks, your point on housing is an excellent one. Labour's policy of open-door immigration and restricting supply has pushed the average age of a first time buyer up to a staggering 35 years old! This is ultimately the most family-unfriendly government of all time. You can't really have kids until you buy a house (not in my world view, anyway).

But as soon as I mention how to fix this (apart from ending open-door immigration - people on this site seem to be all in favour of this) ...
a) by having Land Value Tax to encourage more efficient use of existing housing (the proceeds being used to replace Council Tax, SDLT and Inheritance tax, of course)
and/or
b) a modest increase in supply (if 0.5% of agricultural land were used for housing, that's be enough for an additional three million homes at average density - more than enough, I'd say), I get shouted down (on this site at least).

[Adam Bell]

Wouldn't Land Value Tax hit pensioners (especially in London, the South East and East Anglia) incredibly hard - forcing them to sell their homes in order to allocate land more efficiently?

[Philipa]

"We need to allow children to have vivid lives and everyday adventures in the bosom of secure families and robust communities."

With respect this seems like the same dangerous navel gazing that New Labour has devastated our lives with, especially with reliance on so many 'experts' who I'm sure didn't all get where they are today by changing nappies and clearing up sick. I'm not saying the experts have nothing to say, just that the people you seem to be ignoring are the people you are gazing at - ask the parents! And 'vivid lives'? What does that mean exactly? Nothing could be more vivid than being abused or fed LSD but I'm sure you didn't mean that - what I mean by drawing attention to your choice of words is that it seems the same meaningless claptrap we've heard from NuLab for over a decade. Claptrap that robs people of their liberty (and money) Nice touchy-feely meaningless excuses.

The emphasis on divorce is misplaced as you cannot legislate for a happy marriage. If you reward those who have a happy marriage you persecute those whose partners left them, often for no fault of their own. This will not help children. It would be better to reform the process of divorce such that the money and property is sorted before divorce granted, rather than the other way round as it currently is now - encouraging bitterness and children to be used as bargaining chips.

Let me, as a parent, point a few things out:

40 yrs ago when little johnny fell off a swing and broke his arm, mummy would take him to the hospital and he'd be seen and fixed. Nowadays mummy get's the third degree and accused of hurting her own child, social services get involved if she's not sophisticated or bright or has money or infulential friends and johnny is discussed in a closed court and taken away forever, along with any other children. Sometimes mummy is put in jail for the most contrived reasons, one famous case by a so-called expert. Sadly she is now dead and I'm sure the stress killed her.

40 years ago I used to walk to school but little johnny can't do that nowadays because of the amount of peadophiles who have had their fantasies validated and normalised by internet porn but will you force internet service providers to police their customers thus easily preventing such sites? And will you use international relations to put pressure on America to do the same? I doubt it. So what use are you going to be? Are you going to reform the probation service which is fighting a losing battle? Will you prevent a probation house for peadophiles being formed in Birmingham NEAR A SCHOOL??

Will you control immigration so you can trust the plumber in your home next to your child/wallet while you use the loo? Racist? When we read of great swathes of people commiting this or that crime and being let out by the home office and are now untraceable because actually they're illegal immigrants.

And finally, will you allow a man defending his wife to give a bloody good hiding to some youth attacking her for her wallet? Instead of carting him off to the police station to be prosecuted, if he lives and hasn't been stabbed to death by a youth culture that laughs at what passes for the law these days. The so called law that only seems to exist to extract taxes/fines or persecute the public for political correctness crimes.

Will you get our troops out of Iraq so that no more of our children die there?

You are navel gazing. You can't fix childhood in this society until you fix the society.

[Philipa]

PS: sjm; excellent points, am with you completely.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Adam Bell 17.50, fair point, but for two-thirds of households, a fiscally neutral LVT will be less than or equal to Council Tax anyway. (BTW, a fiscally neutral rate would be one per cent per annum of site-only unimproved land values, or broadly speaking two-thirds of a per cent of total property value, just so that we know what we are talking about).

As you point out, LVT would be more than council tax on some houses in the areas mentioned (including mine!).

This is easily fixed - for pensioners, LVT can be left outstanding until next sale or death of surviving spouse. That'd still be less than potential IHT bill for most estates (unless aged parent has lived to 120) and a heck of a lot simpler and less intrusive than IHT forms (of which I have filled in a few).

And there'd be no SDLT hit on top of IHT if & when the heirs sell the property.

I personally would be happy to pay an extra £500 a year (LVT instead of Council Tax) in exchange for scrapping IHT and avoiding a 3% SDLT bill if we decide to move home.

[sjm]

Philipa - let me be really provocative:

40 years ago, when little Johnny broke his arm, mummy took him to hospital - nowadays, mummy would be in a business meeting, or working at the checkout in Tesco, because society (and more recently the Chancellor) has said that all women should work. As though looking after a family properly isn't work!

So little Johnny has a TV in his bedroom, playstation 3 on his thingamajig, shelves full of toys, designer jeans and a foreign holiday each year.

Unfortunately, he is given no idea that all this costs real money and effort because 'he's only a kiddie', he's brought up to believe that if he wants, he gets, but he doesn't know the real, quiet, longlasting pleasures of a relaxed family environment.

He doesn't get to learn how to interact socially with adults, so he has no respect for them - Granny and Grandad, if they are around, are either still working to supplement their withering pensions, or else they are looking after their own parents, now in their 80/90s and kept alive by doctors who don't care to consider the consequences of their actions.

And Mark dear - LVT doesn't address the fact that this Government and Livingstone are encouraging the building of the slums of the future by the official degrading of building standards.

[Richard]

"40 years ago I used to walk to school but little johnny can't do that nowadays because of the amount of peadophiles who have had their fantasies validated and normalised by internet porn"

Or rather the amount of imagined paedophiles. Most sexual abuse of children happens within the family yet paedophile scare stories lead people to believe that there's one lurking round every corner.

[Philipa]

sjm - have to say, am still with you completely; good point. I've noticed the pressure put on women to work and not be in the home. Actually that was one of the arguments I had myself but it wasn't with the government.

Richard - I agree with you completely. My comments were made in a bit of a rush (but that's no excuse). However, given that "Most sexual abuse of children happens within the family" that does not take away the effect of internet porn (see IoS) And I was trying to highlight the fact that politicians don't listen to parents. In focusing on the appalling state of the probation service it is a fact that when opposing a 'probation house' in Birmingham a group of parents made the journey to London to put their case to a Labour minister. It seems they were all "too busy" to listen to the concerns of the electorate and the people who are affected by their policies. "too busy" to listen.

And in my haste I omitted the devastating effect that the drug culture, that children seem unable to avoid in this society, can have on them. For a reference I again cite the IoS leading article and campaign, with a special mention of the mental health laws that are going through parliament (still?) and how they utterly fail children. Childhood is not an isolated state and tinkering with taxes won't wave a magic wand or make much difference. To make childhood better, you have to make society better.

And under this present government it's sick. Will the Tories make any REAL difference? Is Cameron just a blue-rinsed Blair? We can't know. We can only try to communicate and hope they listen.

[Janet]

In general I support David's initiatives and welcome the re-focusing on the importance of well-being in childhood (in all its forms). As a parent member of the pre-school learning alliance, I endorse the value of nurseries as a means of helping children to develop social skills BUT deplore the Labour government's obsession with 'wrap-around-care' that often prevents children from building the valuable relationships that they really need - with their parents, siblings and extended families. Ultimately we need to respect the rights of parents (fathers as well as mothers), to remain at home with their children if that is what they wish.
So too, we need to be sure that our children can enjoy their childhood years within the remit of 'acceptable risk' - After all they can learn little of themselves or others if they remain over-protected in the confines of their homes or school.
Whilst I accept that my views may seen as somewhat naive (although I am a mum of three sons aged 5 to 19), this is not a plea for returning to the perceived childhoods of 40 years ago, but a contemporary understanding of what helps to form well-rounded, socially empathetic individuals in preparation for a 21st century world.
I suspect that this aim is less to do with government or legislative intervention, but more to do with sound parental or adult mentors or role models - not always a resource that is either valued or in sufficient supply!

[tammy beard]

YOU CAN TAKE YOUR KIDS TO CHURCH YOU CAN RAISE THEM IN A CHRISTIAN HOME BUT YOU CANT CORRECT YOUR CHILD THE GOVERMENT TELLS US HOW TO RAISE ARE KIDS KIDS ARENT TO BE ADULTS UNTIL THEY ARE 18 BUT THEY CAN QUIT SCHOOL AT 17 KIDS GET IN TROUBLE WITH THE LAW BEFORE THEY TURN 18 THE PARENTS HAVE TO PAY THE FINES THE COST OF LIVING IS SO HIGH THAT BOTH PARENTS HAVE TO WORK SO THE CHILD IS RAISING THERE SELVES WHEN THE GOVERNMENT BRINGS DOWN THE COST OF LIVING WHERE ONE PARENT CAN STAY AT HOME AND THE CHILD SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE WHEN THEY GET IN TROUBLE THE GOVERNMENT STOPS TELLING YOU HOW TO RAISE YOUR CHILD GOD IS PUT BACK INTO SCHOOLS CHILDREN WILL ONLY GET WOSRE SO NOW YOU TELL US PARENTS WHAT WE ARE TO DO