Maria Miller MP: A family-friendly Britain

Maria Miller MP, Shadow Minister for the Family, outlines ways in which the Conservatives will make life easier for parents.

Like many women, I worked for a number of years before having my eldest daughter and then I went back to work when she was about 5 months old. In fact now, more than half of mums return to work by the time their baby is 6 months old; for many, it is not because they are hardened careerists but because of financial necessity. 

Throughout our children’s lives the pressure on parents grows: from carefully dodging the chocolate and sweets placed enticingly near the checkout at the supermarket, to ensuring our children don’t spend too much time in front of the TV rather than being out kicking a ball.  You want them to walk to school because it is good to develop their independence, and its green, but what about ‘stranger danger’? Having had one child you think it will be easy second time around, yet accepted practices around the care for babies change: dummies may have been frowned on in 2005 but now they are the latest way you can cut the risk of cot death. And then there are the new challenges - protecting our children from the dangers of internet chat rooms and social networking sites without cutting them off from their friends. One thing is for certain, the challenges we face as parents will continue to change and evolve. Yet the Government does not seem to have grasped that the support parents need has changed too, particularly in those early weeks and months.

The highest birth rate is now amongst 30-35 year old women and motherhood is, more than ever before, a planned event.  Unlike previous generations, many women do not have their family close by for support and advice during this period of upheaval and adjustment; little wonder that more than half of mothers feel lonely and isolated in those first few months. 

Midwives, health visitors and community groups such as the National Childbirth Trust do a tremendous job. But they are stretched too thinly. The shortfall in professional support probably explains the rapid growth of websites such as Mumsnet, where mums can come together and share their experiences of raising children. The site has about 375,000 visitors a month and is a vivid demonstration of how the Internet is breaking down geographic boundaries and bringing together groups of mutual interest.

However, the support we give families if they are to survive and thrive cannot be limited in this way. At our Spring Forum, David Cameron announced policies which underline the Conservative Party’s commitment to supporting modern family life. There is substantial evidence that support for families right from the start really matters because if children enjoy a secure and stable family life, have access to a good education and good healthcare they are more likely to succeed in adult life. This means that they will be less dependent on the state and so reduce the demands that they make on public services. 

There are many areas where changes could make a big difference to family life. The current rules on parental leave are unnecessarily rigid and inflexible. Dads can take two weeks paid paternity leave, meaning only the mother really has the choice to stay at home on a full-time basis in the first year of her child’s life. Such a difference only serves to widen the gender pay gap, now at 20%, among the highest in Europe. 7 in 10 fathers say they would like to be more involved in childcare but the current rules don’t give parents a real choice. That is why we have announced that parents will have between them 52 weeks flexible parental leave. The first 14 weeks would automatically apply to the mother and it would then be up to the parents how to use the remaining 38 weeks. Splitting the time or even taking time off together allows parenting to be more of a shared enterprise right from the start.

We have also announced our policy of a universal health visitor service for all families with children from birth to five years. Three quarters of parents want support from a professional on child development and health care matters. Despite this massive demand, the Government have failed to invest in the training and retention of health workers, leading to a 10% decline in numbers in the past three years, and an expected shortfall of 4,200 health visitors by 2010.

The Government is not listening to parents. It wants to spend £200 million on untrained Sure Start “outreach” workers when their own research shows that a universal service through trained health professionals is more effective, particularly in reaching vulnerable families. We think this money would be better used on training and paying 4,200 more trained health visitors- the professionals that parents want and trust. 

Parents are itching for practical, professional support. We are committed to helping parents with the difficult of task of child-rearing. Our policies allow parents to draw on more professional, qualified support, to help lessen that feeling of isolation. It is a Conservative Government who will support parents and a Conservative Government that has the vision to make Britain the most family-friendly country in the world

Comments

[Woodentop]

"Parents are itching for practical, professional support." Absolutely right, Maria Miller and well done for this interesting article setting out clearly how the Conservatives can help hard-pressed families in a down to earth practical way.
The essential difference of course between ourselves and Labour is that we do not wish to reach the long arm of the State into every nook and cranny of people's lives. Vulnerable people often fear the involvement of professionals when it comes to care of their children - and for good reason when we think of cases such as the couple in Essex who both suffered from learning difficulties but despite them clearly loved their children and could be taught parental skills. Too many Social Services in non-Conservative controlled areas believe the answer is to take the child away. We do not.

[Annabel Herriott]

Well done Maria Miller. Health Visiting itself needs a good Conservative party make over. The current wheeze is "Corporate caseloads" where a new mum gets whoever the nursing officer in charge of the corporate caseload doles out. I noticed an old colleague across the road, sitting on the wall, chatting to one of my neighbours who was doing a spot of gardening with her toddler. Now she used to have the same case load as I did, some years before I retired. some two and a half miles away, further into the Colne Valley. I'm afraid I opened my door and cheerily called across, Hi xxxxx, how is the corporate caseload getting on??? She made a surreptitious rude gesture, which said it all!
The conservatives must get back to a known and respected neighbourhood health visitor which pertained ever since health visiting began, and which Nulab appears to have added to its list of wrecked services.
Replacing numbers is an essential start. Replacing health visitors as the lynch pin, instead of a load of bean counters is another. I wish yourself and Andrew Landsley all strength to your elbows! You will need it. Signed Annabel SRN SCM Hv cert, HV from 1959 - 2000

[Tony Makara]

I have to say that I think when a woman has a baby she must put raising that child before a career, certainly in the early primary years. One of the major reasons for social breakdown is the breakdown in traditional family life and that includes a whole generation of children who have had to be pushed around from pillar to post, from childminder to chilminder as mother works. This entire practice leaves children feeling alienated and rejected and sows the seeds for dysfunction in later years. We need to get back to traditional family lifestyles with the father working and the mother at home raising her children. This is about the children, not the mother. Women need to understand that motherhood means a certain responsibility to the child, having a baby isn't a gap year, its at least ten years of commitment, that means being at home, being a mentor, being a mother.

[WitanSpeaker]

Improving health visitors is a good initiative if the money can be found from elsewhere in the budget but the rationale before it is a little confusing.

You say that many mothers go back to work within 6 months of having a child then argue that parental leave should be a year. What are you saying? Is it better for mothers to look after their children at home or go back to work? And who is paying for all this leave?

You also seem to regret the breakdown of extended families but fail to recognise the cause. It is not primarily changing economic habit but the continual interference of the state in family life. If the state did not think it its role to provide free childcare, families tax credit and benefits then parents would rely more on their own families and community groups for the support they might need.

You also suggest that mothers need to go back to work because they need two incomes to survive but do not acknowledge that it is the militant demands of mothers to go back to work instead of looking after their children that is making two income families more prevalent and thus more necessary. What about mothers who take their maternal responsibilities seriously and opt to look after them personally?

I always believed that Conservatives thought families were the bedrock of society so why are you conforming to received wisdom that the state must continue to interfere and enable lifestyle choices that they would otherwise not be in a position to make. This is more progressive and socially liberal than the Lib Dems or Labour themselves.

[a-tracy]

Sorry Maria I don't agree that your Parental leave proposals will help the vast majority of parents that work in the private sector. They will however put up the costs of running all of our public services and local council.

[Graham Checker]

"We have also announced our policy of a universal health visitor service for all families with children from birth to five years."

How much is that going to cost?

When will we learn: WE ARE NOT THE LABOUR PARTY

This will be incredibly expensive, completely useless and do nothing to alter outcomes.

Tax & Spend = Blue Labour

[Conservative Homer]

+ Get rid of Labours ignorant anti-family planning guidelines of allowing the constrution of thousands of shabby commieblocks with a 20 year lifespan ahead of the constuction of good family homes with gardens, parking and other amenities.

Id say one of the biggest things stopping good middle class couples who dont depend on, or arent eligible for government handouts or subsidised housing having children is the prohibitive cost of trading up to a reasonable family home in Browns Britain. The increase in cost of good family housing hugely shadows any changes to the tax regime Brown may have made with the family in mind.

I believe cameron has touched on this before, however, the wholesale scrapping of most PPGs would also be nice.

[Andrew Hemsted]

It is important that we encourage at least one parent to stay at home and look after their children, at least for the early years.

How about a plan to enable whoever works in the family to use the annual tax free personal allowance of the parent who decides to stay at home? This would soften the impact of the cost of bringing up children, while also helping to maintain the family.

[Serf]

The idea of a transferable tax allowance has to be one of the most family friendly, and fair ideas I have heard. Strange it is not mentioned here.

[Richard Calhoun]

How right you are to draw attention to the needs of the family.

The families that are at the bottom of the earnings scale should be given priority, it is important that this is spelt out by the Tories

The voters on under £15/20,000 p.a. are not going to bother to vote or change their vote from Labour unless the Tories sell them a package they can relate to.

This group of voters must be given priority, they should be largely taken out of the tax system by the introduction of a Flat Tax.

Brave and radical it may be but unless the Tories win over these voters they will not win a meaningful majority at the next election

[Annabel Herriott]

Graham Checker! A history lesson is needed by your good self, I fear.
Health Visiting started in Manchester and Salford in 1862, by the Ladies Sanitary Reform Association. "Respectable working women" were engaged to go from door to door to teach and help the poorer women. At this time,infant mortality was in the order of 282 or so per thousand births. These folk were the first health visitors.
No less a lady than Florence Nightingale organised the first training for health visitors. North Buckinghamshire - 1891 -2
The syllabus covered by BCC covered the same ground as health visitors of today.
Buckingham Co Council appointed the first three whole time visitors, so they were on the rates as it were.
In 1874, the births and deaths registration came in, then the Medical Officers of health were sent lists of births.
Preventative work then started, on feeding and care of the infants.
The Midwives Act of 1902 arranged for notification of births by midwives.
In 1901, Dr Moore, the MOH for Huddersfield made a study of infant mortality, and in 1905, appointed two"assistant medical officers " to work under Dr Moore as health visitors. Huddersfield also had 80 voluntary health visitors, plus lady superintendents to organise the 9 wards of the town.
And so the history goes on, Mr Checker. 1918 Brought the maternity and Child Welfare Act, and by 1919, the Ministry of Health was formed, A shortened course of one year for trained nurses then came in.
I trained in 1959. At that time,the Health visitors certificate was conducted by The Royal Sanitary Institute.
Health Visiting remained "on the rates" until 1974, when the big reorganisation brought HVs into the NHS proper.
We have always been there Mr Checker. We are not new. We are NHS nurses, the same as all our colleagues, with an intensive university year on top. In my day, we had to have at least Part 1 of our "Midders". I am a full Midwife, as well as HV.
It is NuLab that has decimated the service, to the detriment of all new mums. What Davis Cameron and his team will do, is restore it.
If you want to know more, try and get hold of " Health Visiting" By Margaret McEwan. 3rd edition 1959, which is my copy. It may be out of print. I have been retired 8 years now, will we have to gird up our loins and return????

[Mike Ainsley]

"The idea of a transferable tax allowance has to be one of the most family friendly, and fair ideas I have heard. Strange it is not mentioned here."

It doesn't help the poor - the very people whose families are most in crisis.

[Hardcore Conservative]

Oh goody. Another army of “nannies” with a diploma in intensive left-wing, socialist dogma, straight from the Penelope Leach School of child rearing, let loose on unsuspecting parents.

Even if they don’t subscribe to it, Health Visitors have to follow this new dogma, for not to do would be career suicide.

I work alongside heath visitors and know how fanatically dogmatic some of them are. Advice to parents is no longer that. Do as I say or I will report you is now the received wisdom!

[Annabel Herriott]

And that is the tragedy for Health visiting, Hardcore Conservative. This has crept up over the last 10 years or so. There has to be a way of unpicking it, and restoring the open minded knowledgable visitors of old. We used to tell a mum, " I dont know the answer to X actually, but I will go and find out for you." Its not what you dont know that gets you into trouble, it what you know that aint so that does it.
The "We have always done it like this" mentality causes a mental block among the dogma ridden. There are still some real health visitors around, but they are retiring over the next few years, so Davis Cameron will just have to look for some answers for himself, as to how to restore the best in health visiting, and make the dogma ridden unacceptable. Dogma has always caused more problems than it solved, and always will.

[Hardcore Conservative]

“And that is the tragedy for Health visiting”. Well said.

And I suppose on reflection a great tragedy not just for health visiting but for many other professions as well – nursing in general, medicine to a degree, there still remains a cadre of stubbornly minded non politically correct doctors at least for now, and of course the greatest tragedy of them all, social workers.

God help us all!