The family and wellbeing

Ali Gordon discusses Labour’s record on the family with Labour MP Andy Reed.

It didn’t take long for Andy Reed to tell me how the government can improve its record on the family and marriage: “Money and time.  Policies that affect the amount of money that people have in their pocket and the amount of time they can spend with their family is key.”

Reed speaks from experience.  He has been the MP for Loughborough since 1997.  It is not in an easy commute to and from the Palace of Westminster so he, like many of his colleagues from either side of the House, must spend over half the week away from his family; in Reed’s case, his young family.  Coincidentally, on the day I spoke to him, he had earlier blogged about the balance between spending time at home in the constituency compared to the time he spends in Parliament, describing how “it is frustrating to miss large parts of family life and to miss so many mid week Loughborough events”.
 
I met Reed on the day that issues of family and marriage hit the headlines.  Just that morning Conservative leader David Cameron had accused Labour of having a “pathological” opposition to supporting marriage, promising in a Daily Mail interview that a future Conservative administration would reward every wedded couple.  Cameron’s comments directly followed Ed Balls’ announcement that the Department for Children, Schools and Families was drawing up new plans to tackle family breakdown that would promote any stable relationship, not just marriage.

As a Christian and a Labour MP, Reed openly admits to being a “social conservative” on traditional matters such as marriage.  How does he respond to Tory accusations that Labour has neglected the family?  More pressingly, is it correct to suggest that the family is the preserve of those on the right?  Reed is bullish on this point.  He highlights the many policies and initiatives introduced since 1997 that have not only helped families financially but also allowed them to spend more time together, especially in the crucial, formative years of a child’s life.  Reed describes the national minimum wage, which came into effect on 1 April 1999, as “undoubtedly one of the most important achievements of the Labour government”.

“By giving the lowest paid workers a floor beneath which their payment cannot fall, we are giving them the security and confidence to provide for their families. They may be able to work less hours and still provide for their families, whereas in the past it seemed as if it was always the poorest who worked the longest at the expense of their families.”

He adds: “Even today the government is still investing in the family. Over the last year, the Child Poverty Bill has been taken through Parliament.  The bill enshrines in law duties to eradicate child poverty by 2020. It is based on a belief that children in low-income families should not get left behind but instead have the best start in life.”

So is he disappointed that it looks as if the government is going to miss its target of halving child poverty by 2010?

“We have made real progress.  The recession has made things harder but it goes to prove that that, in a tough economic climate, it’s even more important that we do not lose sight of the importance of ending child poverty.  Since 1997, we have seen 500,000 children lifted out of poverty.  It’s a start, but only that.”

Reed makes no apologies for how Labour has, in his own words, “pumped money in” over the last 12 years.  His sentiments certainly echo those of the Prime Minister who asserts that Labour fixed the roof while the sun was shining.  “Our efforts have yielded results, but there is still a lot to do,” he adds.

Commentators have claimed that the government has focused excessively on direct transfers, giving families money but not time.  I ask Andy what Labour has done to increase the amount of time parents can spend with their children.

He cites the flexible working patterns that are now far more common in the UK since 1997 - more working women now choose to work flexibly than ever before. Many parents of young children have switched to working during the school term or now take one day off a week to care for their children.  He also notes that the government has doubled maternity leave and pay so a new mother now gets nine months of paid time off work.

Furthermore, since 2003, new fathers now have the right to take two weeks of paternity leave around the birth of their baby and are now encouraged to ask their employers to allow them to fit their family life around their work, rather than the other way round.

“Whether through financial help via tax credits, through new facilities like Sure Start, or through updating legislation to introduce paternity leave, extend maternity leave or lift children out of poverty, this Labour government has made a genuine effort to support families and give them a central role in society.”

Iain Duncan Smith’s think tank, The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), has described Britain as “broken.”  Does Reed agree?  “No.  It is always easier to criticise when you are opposition; all you need is a good headline and, in many cases, you’ve won the argument.  In government you have to tackle to consequences of broken social relationships.  This can’t be done in a headline.”

Is this an admission that Labour has lost the battle of the headlines?  “Yes.”  Is that a problem?  “No.  We need to rise to the challenge.  Think tanks, such as the CSJ, have picked up the analysis in some key topic areas.  We must now do the same.”

Reed agrees that the government has in the past been rightly accused of ‘initiativitis’ in response to the Tories' ability to capture a good headline. “Our challenge is to take a wider view – to make judgements that are fair, responsible and for the good of society.  In short, where there are problems we need to provide real solutions, not just headlines.”

One headline that the Conservatives have certainly had some mileage out of is the proposal to grant a married tax allowance.  The party points out the discrepancy between couples who find it beneficial to live together but remain unmarried for financial reasons.  “It is not a simple problem to remedy.  By creating a married tax allowance you will be taking money away from single parent families who will arguably need the money more.  I would rather people got married because they were in love rather than being bribed by the government.”

Andy is keen to use the so called “marriage penalty” to prove his point that government policy isn’t always perfect.  “When the government creates legislation, it makes a test.  If you meet the criteria, then that’s fine.  If you don’t then we will help you.  It is important that we take a more holistic approach.”

To prove this point, he shows me a booklet entitled ‘Faith in the Future’.  Reed produced this alongside other Christian MPs – Alistair Burt, Caroline Spelman, Gary Streeter, and Steve Webb – in a cross-party Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry.

The report acknowledges that the UK faces a number of challenges concerning wellbeing and happiness which politicians alone cannot solve.  It notes that that the absence of key values such as relationships, responsibility, trust, self-esteem, and potential are the primary cause of so much discontent.  It concludes: “if these values were to have greater emphasis in the decisions made by a whole range of stakeholders, the wellbeing of every member of our society would increase.”

This, in essence, is the challenge. The politics of the family has changed, in some ways almost irrevocably.  Through the efforts of a Labour government, families have more money and more time in a way that might have been inconceivable 12 years ago.  Some of the focus must now shift to addressing these key values and encouraging personal responsibility.  This is not a headline-grabbing course of action, but it is the right one.

The battle for headlines would seem to suggest that the left has lost the debate on the family and marriage.  The truth is that it hasn’t.  And with MPs like Andy Reed at the fore, this misconception is unlikely to stand for long.