Jim Hume MSP launches consultation on measure to ban smoking in vehicles with children present

Liberal Democrat MSP for the South of Scotland Jim Hume this week launched a consultation on his Members' Bill which would see smoking banned in vehicles where children are present. When I initially flagged this up on Liberal Democrat Voice a few weeks ago, there was a mixed reaction to the proposals.

Jim says in the foreword to his consultation document:

Recent research has shown that 17% of 11-16 year olds in the UK are exposed to second-hand smoke more than once a week while in a car with a further 30% indicating exposure once a week or less. These are shocking figures. I believe we can improve on the ban on smoking in public places and places of work, further protecting our children.

Research has found that second-hand tobacco smoke in cars has serious negative health impacts for children, including Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, coughing, wheezing, asthma and respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. Not to mention the known risk of lung cancer from second hand smoke and the fact those exposed to second hand smoke as children are more likely to take up smoking themselves in later life.

Some children have no option but to go into a smoke filled car en route to the school, shops or their sport. I believe we have a moral duty to protect those children from second hand smoke, which will allow children to have the freedom to get the best start in life and go on to lead healthy lives themselves. I believe we need to remove the danger of smoke filled cars and ban smoking in cars when children are present. That is why I am consulting on the intention to bring in a Member’s Bill which will prohibit tobacco smoking in cars when children are present.

Penalty

The penalty Jim is proposing is similar to that for using a mobile phone while driving - an on the spot fine of £60. There would be no penalty points on a driving licence, though, as you wouldn't have to be driving to be in breach of this offence.

This might ease the concerns of some that a social services investigation would ensue on conviction.

Medical evidence

The document contains 9 pages of hard hitting, credible medical evidence outlining the case for change. In some ways, I think that some of that should be used to create a public awareness campaign on the dangers children face if you smoke in a car near them. If Jim's measure leads to that, surely it will be a big step forward.

Scots have until 30th August to respond to the consultation, which asks 11 questions. One issue that immediately comes to mind is how to raise awareness in other parts of the UK so that visitors to Scotland are aware. You can read the whole document and find out how to respond here.

Six years of child-related musings

Today is this blog's 6th birthday. This, astonishingly, is the 2739th post. I was looking through old posts around this time of year to remind you of by way of celebration and I found that writing about children was a bit of a theme.

In 2006, my 6th ever post, on Labour's answer to anti-social behaviour saw my first mention to a theme I've returned to many times since - that of the need for responsive parenting in the early days particularly.

2007 saw me asking To smack or not to smack. I'm sure you can guess that I'm firmly in the anti camp - and in fact it was David Laws' opposition to smacking that made me look at him without fear for the first time.

My daughter and her friends have all had their first HPV vaccination this week - and were not given any of the life saving information that girls in other schools will be getting. This is all thanks to the SNP Government exempting Catholic schools from the requirement to disseminate the literature. I am as appalled today by that decision today as I was when I wrote Teenagers, jabs and the Catholic Church in 2008.

A year later, it was Labour's ridiculous proposals to vet anyone who ever went anywhere near a child that got me furious. Keeping my child safe - an overanxious mum writes was eventually shortlisted for a BOTY,

I had a proud moment in 2010. As part of an exercise at school, Anna had to write to a CEO of a company on the destruction of the rainforest, challenging them to appreciate the beauty of an ocelot.

Last year, I turned my attention to an SNP Government consultation on children's services which didn't include asking for the opinion of one single child.

And last month, I was annoyed when I saw the way packs of magnetic words were marketed at girls and boys and told you all about it in post called "Treasure for boys, fluff for girls...in the 21st century."

I've enjoyed the last six years. I'm conscious that I've not had the time to write on as wide a range of subjects as I used to. That's my challenge for year 7 of this blogging lark.

Treasure is for boys, fluff for girls - in the 21st century?

Just in case you thought gender stereotyping was a thing of the past, have a look at this picture which is doing the rounds on Facebook at the moment.

So, if you're a boy, you are told that you should be interested in all sorts of fun things like helicopters, treasure, conkers, bikes, climbing and swimming.

If you're a girl, you're confined to fluff, bunnies, lipstick, butterflies and ladylike activities like skipping and dancing.

I can't believe that we're doing this to our kids when we are supposed to have a modern, equal society. The only person who will take any sort of comfort from this is Mark Pack because chocolate appears on both lists.

We've been through  My Little Pony, the (blessedly brief) Barbie phase and various cute little animal-in-my-pocket stuff. You have to go with where your kids are. But we started from a level playing field where we just put lots of things in front of her and let her play with what grabbed her.

Enforced gender stereotyping harms kids by limiting their expectations. You might remember me getting just a tad furious a couple of years ago when the Early Learning Centre marketed doctors' outfits for boys, nurses' outfits for girls. It's not only bad for girls, though.  I've seen a fair number of dads not just wince but actively express disapproval when their sons play with cloppy shoes and Disney Princess dressing up clothes. Conditioning either way is wrong. Seriously, I actually saw a dad wrest a bright  pink feather boa from his three year old son for fear it would make him gay. That must have been a really fun house to grow up in.

What on earth would be wrong with one packet of magnetic words with all those fun things that just said "Kids' Talk"? Then they could choose for themselves what they were interested in!

Actually, leaving a child behind is a big deal

Twitter is full of people saying that we shouldn't be talking about David and Samantha Cameron leaving their 8 year old child behind in a pub.  Not a big deal. There are much bigger issues like Syria and the economy that we should be talking about and this is a mere distraction. In fact, some suggest that it's a deliberate distraction to take our minds of various top Tories' forthcoming appearances at Leveson.

Do you know what? Our brains can take it. We can think of more one thing at a time. And it is a big deal that an 8 year old was left on her own in a pub or anywhere else when they were expecting to be going home with their family. The adults in the party outnumbered the children - there would have been David, Samantha and their protection officers and surely it wasn't beyond the wit of them to check that all 3 children were accounted for.

Now, nothing went wrong. They were lucky. But they mucked up big time. I am absolutely disgusted with them. I would be saying exactly the same if it were Nick Clegg who had left one of his kids behind. It's not funny. What if she'd gone outside on her own to look for her parents and been knocked down by a car? The possibilities are endless.

If I had done something so monumentally stupid, I would be absolutely mortified. It wouldn't be all over the papers, but it would be a serious thing.

But just imagine if some unemployed single mother had left her child in a pub after lunch with her boyfriend. I am certain that the tabloid press would be ripping her to bits. It doesn't matter who does it, what their background is, it's utterly wrong and they should be ashamed of themselves. There are no excuses.

I'm not saying that any sort of action should be taken, but I think we are well within our rights to criticise the Camerons. To be fair, they are probably criticising themselves. The whole incident and reaction does show how as  society we are so adult orientated, how we don't see things from children's point of view and how we justify extremely poor parenting practice. Look at "sleep training", a euphemism for cruelty if ever there was one, as an example. There is no justification on any level for ever leaving a vulnerable human being in distress in my opinion, yet if your baby doesn't sleep through the night at a very early age, your health visitor will tell you to leave him or her to cry it out on a like it or lump it basis. There are no alternatives offered. This latest study from Texas is the latest in a long line which indicate that this is harmful.

Now, Nancy Cameron came to no harm, her mortified parents will no doubt be waking up in a cold sweat for weeks thinking about what could have happened, and they'll learn from the experience. That child will never be left anywhere again. However, we do our kids a disservice if we fail to recognise that this was a huge error. There's nobody more prolific than David Cameron at preaching to others about taking responsibility for their actions, after all.

Lib Dems tackle childcare in parliamentary debate

Since last May, the Liberal Democrats have not had a lot of speaking time at Holyrood. We usually get at most one or two slots in a 3 hour debate.

Today is the first time we've actually had the chance to set the agenda in the place. And what issue have we chosen? One which affects lots of ordinary families - affordable childcare. Scots parents pay proportionately more than other parts of the country.

 It would be wrong to view that only in the context of cuts the UK Government are making to tax credits or child benefit. I suspect the temptation on the SNP benches will be to concentrate on that, without giving attention to what they can do to help reduce the disparity in cost. You have to wonder what the profit margin is if it costs over £5000 a year to keep one two year old in childcare. You can see that for some parents, with more than one, it'll be hardly worth going to work.

Our mothers' generation had their mothers to look after their children. This is not the case for parents today. Nick Clegg intends to change the parental leave system and understands that both parents should have the flexibility to decide these things between them.

That's a positive thing from the UK Government and it's good that he's trying to shift the responsibility away from just mothers so as not to give employers the excuse to discriminate against women.

The focus of today's debate from the Scottish Liberal Democrats will be on providing high quality affordable childcare in every community, calling on the Scottish Government to set out a strategy to achieve this and to look at increasing the entitlement to nursery education as has been done in England by the Liberal Democrats in Government.

Our Children's spokesperson Liam McArthur said:

“Access to affordable, high quality childcare not only supports children’s learning and development but also enables parents to return to work, which is so important in these tough financial times. 

 

“Scotland is lagging behind England on entitlement to free pre-school education. This is not good enough. 

 

“Also across Scotland, there are huge variations in cost and availability of childcare services putting many families at a disadvantage purely because of their postcode. 

 

“The Scottish Government needs to follow the lead taken by the UK coalition Government when it comes to the provision of childcare north of the border. 

 

“Giving our children the best start in life is so important to their future life chances. We need to make sure that Scotland’s children are getting this chance.” 

I'm hoping that there will be a thoughtful and serious debate on this - Scotland's children and their parents deserve it.

Help The Burd buy books for vulnerable kids this Christmas

The charity Children 1st  aims to improve the lives of Scotland's children by providing services to help them and speaking out for them to law and policy makers.

The Scottish blogosphere's Kate Higgins, who writes for Better Nation and her own blog A Burdz Eye View works for Children 1st. She's come up with a cracking idea for Christmas - raising money to buy books for vulnerable kids. As she says herself:

Books were a constant companion in my childhood - they still are.  They've opened up worlds, ideas, knowledge and adventures.  They've made me laugh, cry, tremble and learn - sometimes all at the same time.

But some children in Scotland aren't so lucky and miss out on this vital part of childhood.  Some families can't afford to buy books or lack the skills and confidence to share and enjoy reading with their child.  Yet, reading - and reading well - can make a real difference to vulnerable children's lives.

It's something CHILDREN 1ST - the charity I work for - understands.  We know how important reading is and work with parents to help them help their children read.  Often, it's simple pleasures like this that provide real joy.  Reading together can forge strong bonds and give vulnerable children a better start in life, and better life chances.Today (25 November) is Kilts for Kids Day, our national fundraising day where people celebrate all things Scottish and raise money for CHILDREN 1ST.  Well, I'm not much of a runner.  Even less of a baker.  And I definitely can't sing.

But I do read.  And I know you do too.  And together I reckon we can raise enough to buy vulnerable children supported by CHILDREN 1ST services a book this Christmas.  All you have to do is give £10.

Gift aid it and it becomes £12.50.  £7.50 will be used to buy a child a book and the rest will go to help CHILDREN 1ST pay for things like the cost of a support worker who will encourage a parent to read regularly with their child, or for materials that can help an abused child recover from their trauma by expressing themselves through art, writing or play.

We've got less than a month but I'm sure we'll manage it.  Because I know that you know how important books are and what a difference they can make to a child's life.  And I know you'll give, and then encourage your friends and family to do so too.

Oh, and why not share your favourite book from your childhood when you make your donation?

Thanks for your support.

Books were an essential part of my childhood. I was rarely to be found without my head in one. From the St Clare's and Mallory Towers books, to the Chalet School, to the Secret Seven, when I got a bit older Agatha Christie and Jane Austen, Little Women, The Narnia books. And when I hit my teens, it was, sadly, political biographies. Roy Jenkins certainly improved my vocabulary - you couldn't read anything of his without a dictionary by your side.

 For Anna, it's been Jez Alborough and the "Duck in the Truck" books (if you've never read Fix it Duck, you quite literally haven't lived), to the Chronicles of Ancient Darkness to the Warrior cat series via Harry Potter and Lemony Snicket.

Books have enriched my life every day - and I know how important they are which is why I'm so passionately behind Kate's efforts.

You can donate here and follow her progress on Twitter here.

Please give generously - and if you're another blogger please write about this yourself and encourage all your readers to take part in this worthwhile project.

I was on Call Kaye talking about the Braehead photo scandal

As I wrote earlier, I was on Call Kaye this morning talking about the incident in Braehead where poor shopper Chris White ended up being tackled by Police and security for taking a perfectly innocent photo of his 4 year old daughter eating ice cream. I wrote more about that incident earlier today. You can hear my contribution to the programme from around 48:30 here.

Anyway, you can hear me talking about the time a local sports centre stopped parents taking photos of their own child's birthday party because they didn't have the written permission of the parents of all the guests.

I have to say Anne Houston, the Chief Executive of charity Children 1st, played a total blinder on that programme as the voice of common sense and reason. She has a professional background as a social worker and knows exactly what she's talking about.

Boycott Braehead after they call Police on Dad taking photos of his daughter

Many people in Scotland have been appalled by an incident which took place in Braehead Shopping Centre near Glasgow on Friday where a man had shopping centre security staff and the police on his back because he took a photo of his 4 year old very cutely eating ice cream.

The Police said that they would be within their rights to take his camera and delete the photos under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I thought that we in Scotland had largely avoided this sort of nonsense, which was prevalent in England for a while.

Even worse, when he tried to comfort his distressed daughter, the Police officer had a go at him for not listening to him.

Braehead tried to defend themselves with a statement which, to be honest, just digs them into a deeper hole:

Following various postings on social media websites and stories in the traditional media, Braehead would like to set the record straight on an incident involving a man taking photographs of a child in the centre, on Friday October 7.

Retail staff at an ice cream stall in Braehead became suspicious after they saw a male shopper taking photographs of a child sitting at their counter. The staff thought the man had also been taking photographs of them and they alerted one of the centre’s security staff.

The member of security staff approached the man and politely asked if he had been taking photographs. At no time in the initial conversation was the member of our security staff informed by the man that the child in question was his daughter.

Because of the nature of the incident, police became involved and also spoke to the man.Our priority is always to maintain a safe and enjoyable environment for all our shoppers and retailers. The member of our security staff acted in good faith.

Like most shopping centres, we have a ‘no photography’ policy in the mall for two reasons. First, to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers. as we are sure shoppers would not want strangers taking photographs of them or their children while they were in the mall.

Secondly and sadly, we live in a world of potential threats from terrorists and everyone is being urged by the police to be vigilant at all times. It is not uncommon for those intending to make some kind of attack to take photographs of their intended target as part of their planning before the event.

However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures. Discretion is used at all times.

Although Friday’s incident had nothing to do with a potential terrorist attack, the two retail assistants and the member of our security staff were faced with a situation they genuinely thought was suspicious. They witnessed a man taking photographs of a child, unaware that the man and the child were related.

I’m sure people will agree it is better safe than sorry.

Precious moments in life often happen without warning. Something will happen that you want to record for posterity. Why shouldn't you?

If you took Braehead's attitude to its logical conclusion, well, cars run people down. Best not cross any roads then. Let's all just stay inside and never go anywhere. Let's buy all our shopping over the internet. Not the sort of argument you would expect a shopping centre to advance at a really tough time for retail when shops face fierce competition from online.

I have just been on Radio Scotland's Call Kaye programme talking about my experience, which I wrote about in the context of the vetting and barring regulations (thankfully made more sensible by Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone), of how the parents of a child were prevented from taking photos at their birthday party because they didn't have the consent in writing of the parents of every single child attending.  These policies are completely outrageous and don't protect one single child from abuse.

I think the behaviour of Braehead and the Police has been shocking - and we as liberals should be standing out against this nonsense. There's now the obligatory Facebook page inviting people to boycott the shopping centre until it learns its lesson. Please "like" it.

Update: Scott Douglas has written an excellent post from a PR practitioner's point of view on the abject failings of Braehead on this.

A chance to improve children's lives - but let's give children a say too!

When Willie Rennie tweeted this morning asking for question suggestions, the subject I suggested was children's rights and services.

The Scottish Government has today launched a consultation on a new Children's Rights Bill. This will form the basis of a new Children's Services Bill in 2013. This is a real opportunity for Scotland and its politicians to work together to really make life better for children.

The range of subjects this could and should cover is enormous. Let's look at some examples.

if we're serious about adhering to the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, we have a long way to go on Article 27:

States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

Thousands of children are growing up in poverty and in horrendous housing. Tackling that will take some effort.

Then we have to look at those kids who are growing up in households where alcohol or drugs are abused. It's stressful enough for adults to live with addicts - but so much more confusing and frightening for children.

The education we provide has to suit all children. Curriculum for Excellence is helping with this, but often parents struggle to get the right help if their children have difficulties at school.

There is a huge emphasis on early intervention - tackling problems before they get out of hand. However we do have to be careful that resources are targetted effectively and take account of different ideas and lifestyles. Even if we don't agree with it, we have to respect parents' rights not to have their children vaccinated, or to educate them at home. These decisions should not automatically trigger social services knocking at the door.

Promoting healthy body image is also essential - and, I think we also need to look at the dangers of the easy availability of internet pornography. It scares me half to death to think that the boys my daughter is mixing with are probably already watching stuff which portrays women in a subjugative role. This is bound to shape their expectations about how relationships work - and not for the better.

I also think supporting parents, particularly in the early years, is so important. I'd like to see better breastfeeding support, for a start. So many people who give up in the first few weeks really would rather not - and often if they had better quality information and support, it would help them through the difficulties they faced. I also want to see health visitors giving out advice which reflects current research on the long term impact of such things as sleep training. There are more options available than the "controlled crying" technique, but these are rarely even discussed. We need to look at how and when we educate about the needs of babies and young children - I think school, not the ante natal support group a few weeks before you give birth is the best place to start.

I wish it wasn't just groups and civic bodies which were being invited to give their responses. As a parent, a former member of a parent council and someone who has been involved in supporting parents I'd have loved the opportunity to share my views and experience.  I would have liked the consultation to be open to everyone who wants to to contribute. And do you know what, looking at the list of invited respondents again, there doesn't seem to be one single child..... That has to change, I think. We need to be listening to kids of all ages too.

I have barely scratched the surface here, but these are the issues which first came to my mind. I am encouraged that the Children's Minister is my local MSP Angela Constance. Her heart is absolutely in the right place and I know that she will work with organisations and representatives of political parties to do the very best she can.

In her covering letter she said:

As a society we have a moral obligation to do the right thing by our children: to ensure they have a happy and healthy childhood; and that they have every chance to realise their potential as they grow. By recognising and respecting their rights in law, we can ensure that everything government does systematically places the interests of children at heart and that their voices and needs shape the support they should receive.

This consultation and subsequent legislation must translate into tangible action which helps our children. I remember going to a SAMH hustings during the election where it was clear that all the politicians thought that mental health services and treatments were better than they actually were because of laws that they had passed. We'd better not muck this up!

Outdoor nursery's future threatened by hand washing rules

Lucy White enjoys climbing a tree at the Secret Garden (reproduced with permission of Alex White)

I've written angrily before about common sense being flung out the window when it comes to "child safety". Despite my own over-anxiety as a mum, I realise that swaddling children in red tape is neither sensible nor effective.

I've recently been made aware of another example of over zealousness on this issue and this time it's personal because it affects some of my favourite people in the World.

My friend Alex sends her four year old daughter Evie to an outdoor nursery in Fife called the Secret Garden. Every Thursday, Evie and her classmates walk a mile and a half into the nearby woods and spend the whole day there. Her older sister, Lucy, who's six, went for 6 months before she started school last year. Alex says that she can see the benefits in both girls:

 I've found that they get a whole heap of confidence in themselves from challenging themselves and pushing their boundaries physically in the forest. There's a certain glow and a glint in their eyes that they've both had after a day in the woods, and it's not just a healthy glow from being outdoors - they shine from the inside! Secret Garden is a completly different experience to regular nursery - not only is it permanently outdoors, but it's truly child led, with the staff really just overseeing their activities - it's nomadic too with the children's input into which part of the woods they visit being highly respected.

Sounds great, doesn't it? Unfortunately, the Secret Garden's existence is under threat because  Health Protection Scotland  has produced a report which states that children in an outdoor play environment should wash their hands under running water with soap several times a day.  These times include:

 after toiletting and nappy changing; before and after eating anything; before drinking; after sneezing, coughing, or blowing their noses; whenever the hands are visibly dirty; before going home. These seem to me to be guidelines which would be completely impractical in a classroom setting. Can you imagine a teacher with a class of 20 kids having to make sure that they all went off to the toilet to wash their hands with soap every time they coughed or sneezed or blew their nose? How disruptive would that be? The kids would never learn anything.

The thing about the forest is that there aren't many sinks around the place so the staff currently use things like hand gel and wipes to clean the children's hands. Given that they reach their woodland destination on foot, it just would not be either reasonable or practicable to expect them to carry water as well as all the things they need for the day.

For some years now, scientists have been concerned that our obsession with cleanliness, and shielding ourselves from every possible sort of bacteria, can do more harm than good. In order for children's immune systems to develop, they need to be exposed to germs.  

I came across this excellent article from the Guardian from a few weeks ago which makes the case for projects like the Secret Garden,, arguing that our obsession with cleanliness and our anxiety that there's a paedophile behind every tree harms our children because they're not getting the chance to learn about nature or about their ow boundaries. The article quotes naturalist Stephen Moss:

"Nature is a tool,to get children to experience not just the wider world, but themselves." So climbing a tree, he says, is about "learning how to take responsibility for yourself, and how – crucially – to measure risk for yourself. Falling out of a tree is a very good lesson in risk and reward."

When my husband was a little boy, he spent loads of time playing unsupervised in the forest. He'd disappear after breakfast and return home when he was hungry. He actually went, shock horror, collecting mushrooms because he'd been taught by his mum which were edible and which were poisonous. She was always delighted when he came back with a bag of edible fungi for their breakfast. I strongly suspect that he went from morning till night without washing his hands on more than one occasion.

One of my best friends and her brother were brought up on a farm and they used to disappear off with a picnic in the morning and re-appear at tea-time. They played unsupervised in streams, climbed trees and did all sorts of "dangerous" things that would make many modern parents' hair curl in fright. In contrast, my knowledge of the natural world is shockingly bad partly because I never had those opportunities as a child.

It's in response to concerns such as those expressed by Stephen Moss that the Scottish Government has been supporting the initiatives which encourage outdoor education.  I was amazed to find that there are learning resources which support outdoor learning even at secondary level. Have a look at the depth of information in  this Scottish workshop on biodiversity, suitable for teaching at all ages.

It would be grim if projects such as the Secret Garden, recognised as valuable by one arm of Government, was shut down by another. I think they need to look at the risks in the context of the benefits to the whole child. Otherwise they risk throwing the child out with the hand washing water.

And then there's the issue of parental choice. Alex feels her views, and her ability to assess for herself the risks and benefits involved are not being considered. She's made the decision to send her daughters to this nursery for a reason:

For me, this issue is highly frustrating as I am Evie's parent, I am aware fully of the risks and benefits of the Secret Garden, and I am making the informed choice to send her there. But that appears to count for absolutely nothing!!

I hope that common sense prevails and Health Protection Scotland and the Care Commission do not consign the Secret Garden, and other pioneering facilities like it, to history. I understand that they have a number of experts on their side willing to argue their case, which is encouraging.

If, like me, you want to support the Secret Garden, follow them on Twitter to keep up to date with what's happening and contact them to express support or offer help.

Is it wise to warn against alcohol consumption for under 15s

I have a confession to make.

I've been regularly consuming alcohol since I was probably 9 years old.

And I don't think it's done me any harm at all.

I'm not sure exactly when this started, but I'm guessing around 1976. Every Sunday we had a proper Sunday dinner and my dad opened a bottle of decent red wine. Every Sunday I had a small glass of this decent red wine. I still think that this was a factor in me never really having a great desire to get drunk in my teens. The only really costly effect is that it's given me a taste for a decent bottle of red. However in those days and for much longer, really, at least until the 90s, my father refused to accept that anyone other than the French could make decent wine, while I was branching out and experimenting much earlier.

I think that this model of responsible drinking did me some good so I'm slightly alarmed to see that Welsh parents are being warned not to give alcohol to under 15s, listing the binge drinking culture and physiological damage.

I'd like to know exactly how much booze you'd have to give a 15 year old to cause damage to their brains, but I'm betting a glass of wine with Sunday dinner is not going to be significant and will pay off greater dividends in giving an example of a healthy more sociable attitude to alcohol.

I've never been a great fan of banning certain foods. Don't get me wrong, I fed Anna water in an opaque cup and called it juice for as long as I could get away with and did lots of mushing up of organic vegetables and avoiding processed foods in the early days. It's funny, but to this day, water is her first drink of choice. I never encouraged frequenting fast food restuarants, but nor did I stop it, although we go to them less these days because I also make sure I leave stuff lying around showing the environmental impact of these places.

The only thing I've stuck rigidly to is absolutely no Nestle products because I really disapprove of that company for more reasons than I have time to tell you about at the moment, but this will give you a rough idea. I will not buy anything from Nestle under any circumstances, although I'm not so evil as to ban Anna from having them anywhere else. Funny, though, she will voluntarily turn them down even if I'm not there most of the time.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm all in favour of parents (and everyone else) being given accurate scientific evidence based information, but I'm not sure that advising prescriptive blanket bans on things suitably equips a young person to make healthy choices in the future. Does that make sense?

More Child Safety nonsense - a tale of two wonderful women

Let me tell you about two wonderful women in my life. They've recently got to know each other and become good friends. They will know who they are.

Both are in their mid 30s (and one of them is, I bet, thanking me for my generous definition of "mid"), both are trained nurses and both are fantastic mothers who share a lot of my parenting values. I know them both extremely well and would trust them not just with my life, but, more importantly, with my child's.

My daughter is happy in the company of both of these women. I could feel completely confident about leaving her with them, and if anything ever happened to me, either one of them would in my judgement be competent to fulfil a "mothering" role for her. They love my daughter, they would look after her as well as they do their own children and I feel very grateful that they are in our lives.

Now, according to the Government, in England at least, one of these women is deemed automatically suitable for me to leave my child with on a regular basis, by virtue of being related to me and the other is not because she's my friend. The other would have to jump through all sorts of hoops before I could legally leave my child with her. She would have to probably buy a fire blanket for her kitchen and put special sheeting on her glass doors. The fact that her own children live in the house is irrelevant - if another is being looked after for really very short periods of time, then the State deems that she would have to be registered as a child minder.

The Government is desperate to get all the adults in a household out to work - because if we work, we pay tax and the enormous deficit we've managed to accrue is paid off quicker, maybe in a squillion years rather than a gazillion. So says the theory anyway.

When women with children go for an interview, it's illegal to ask them what their childcare arrangements are. The interviewer, rightly, is supposed to realise that if someone with children has applied for a job, then they might just have thought about how their offspring will be cared for. Of course, it would never cross anyone's mimd to ask a father about childcare arrangments so these laws are important to prevent discrimination against women.

We have a situation where, still, childcare is seen as primarily the role of the mother. That's not something I actually have a particular problem with, and nor do most mothers I know,to be honest. In most homes, whether we like it or not, it will be the woman who arranges and makes decisions about childcare arrangements, even if both parents work full time. Unless Ed Balls gets off his backside and does something quickly about this ridiculous piece of legislation, women will bear the brunt of having to make alternative arrangments. I can't imagine very many friends participating in an informal childcare arrangement will want to go through the expense and hassle of satisfying an OFSTED person that they are as fit to look after other children as they are to look after their own. Nor would I imagine that they would want to disrupt their lives and move into the child they are looking after's home, where registration is not required. If OFSTED going to break up voluntary child caring arrangements, it's bound to lead to women having to pay much more for childcare, to alter their working arrangements, or maybe even giving up work? So, this piece of excess nanny statism in fact indirectly discriminates against women. I just have this feeling that if childcare were seen as men's responsibility, the State wouldn't interfere so much.

It makes me furious that a Government doesn't credit me with the ability to make appropriate decisions about who should look after my child when I'm out earning taxes for them. Either of the wonderful women I wrote about above are more than qualified to look after her. I personally would much rather that she was in their family environment where she would get a hug if she fell over and nobody would think twice about putting suncream on her in the Summer than anywhere else. It strikes me as very strange that every moment that my child is away from me is regulated to within an inch of its life, yet nobody would challenge me if I smacked her in either public or private. For the record, I never, ever would and I think that it's appalling that the law allows children to be treated in ways that would result in an assault charge if done to an adult.

Of course nurseries and after school clubs should have to meet certain standards, but when it comes to regulating informal arrangments between friends, the Government has gone too far. I need a nursery or an after school club to be registered because I haven't spent a long time getting to know them and sharing experiences with them like I have with my friends. I am far more qualified than an OFSTED inspector to judge whether my daughter will be safe and happy and whether her needs will be met when I'm not there.

Blogging will be light for a while because I'm having a particularly bad spell healthwise, but I couldn't keep quiet about this one.

Preparation for Parenthood

I was sent this in an e-mail by my friend Louise. I don't often pass on these viral things but occasionally there's one that totally hits the spot and this is it. I have no idea where it originally came from, but if the writer wants to be credited, just get in touch:-). I will happily buy you a very large drink of your choice.

Anyone who has ever had any long term interaction with young children will recognise how spookily accurate this is. I particularly liked the sections on dressing and supermarket shopping. I was lucky enough to have one that slept - or at least if she did wake in the night she would just cuddle up to me and go back to sleep again, so there was no "wet bag" experience.

And to anyone who is thinking of having children, don't be put off - there are many, many rewards.

FOLLOW THESE 14 SIMPLE TESTS BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO HAVE CHILDREN.

Test 1 - Preparation

Women: To prepare for pregnancy:-
1. Put on a drressing gown and stick a beanbag down the front.
2. Leave it there.
3. After 9 months remove 5% of the beans.

Men: To prepare for children:-

1. Go to a local chemist, tip the contents of your wallet onto the counter and tell the pharmacist to help himself
2. Go to the supermarket. Arrange to have your salary paid directly to their head office.
3. Go home. Pick up the newspaper and read it for the last time.

Test 2 - Knowledge

Find a couple who are already parents and berate them about their methods of discipline, lack of patience, appallingly low tolerance levels and how they have allowed their children to run wild. Suggest ways in which
they might improve their child's sleeping habits, toilet training, table manners and overall behavior.

Enjoy it. It will be the last time in your life that you will have all the answers.


Test 3 - Nights

To discover how the nights will feel:

1. Walk around the living room from 5pm to 10pm carrying a wet bag weighing approximately 4 - 6kg, with a radio turned to static (or some other obnoxious sound) playing loudly.
2. At 10pm, put the bag down, set the alarm for midnight and go to sleep.
3. Get up at 11pm and walk the bag around the living room until 1am.
4. Set the alarm for 3am.
5. As you can't get back to sleep, get up at 2am and make a cup of tea.
6. Go to bed at 2.45am.
7. Get up again at 3am when the alarm goes off.
8. Sing songs in the dark until 4am.
9. Put the alarm on for 5am. Get up when it goes off.
10. Make breakfast.


Keep this up for 5 years. LOOK CHEERFUL.

Test 4 - Dressing Small Children

1. Buy a live octopus and a string bag.
2. Attempt to put the octopus into the string bag so that no arms hang out.

Time Allowed: 5 minutes.

Test 5 - Cars

1. Forget the BMW. Buy a practical 5-door wagon.
2. Buy a chocolate ice cream cone and put it in the glove compartment. Leave it there.
3. Get a coin. Insert it into the CD player.
4. Take a box of chocolate biscuits; mash them into the back seat.
5. Run a garden rake along both sides of the car.

Test 6 - Going For a Walk

Wait
Go out the front door
Come back in again
Go out
Come back in again
Go out again
Walk down the front path
Walk back up it
Walk down it again
Walk very slowly down the road for five minutes.
Stop, inspect minutely and ask at least 6 questions about every piece of used chewing gum, dirty tissue and dead insect along the way.
Retrace your steps
Scream that you have had as much as you can stand until the neighbours come out and stare at you.
Give up and go back into the house.

You are now just about ready to try taking a small child for a walk.


Test 7

Repeat everything you say at least 5 times.

Test 8 - Grocery Shopping

1. Go to the local supermarket. Take with you the nearest thing you can find to a pre-school child - a fully grown goat is excellent. If you intend to have more than one child, take more than one goat.
2. Buy your weekly groceries without letting the goat(s) out of your sight.
3. Pay for everything the goat eats or destroys.

Until you can easily accomplish this, do not even contemplate having children..

Test 9 - Feeding a 1 year-old

1. Hollow out a melon
2. Make a small hole in the side
3. Suspend the melon from the ceiling and swing it side to side
4. Now get a bowl of soggy cornflakes and attempt to spoon them into the swaying melon while pretending to be an aeroplane.
5. Continue until half the cornflakes are gone.
6. Tip the rest into your lap, making sure that a lot of it falls on the floor.

Test 10 - TV

1. Learn the names of every character from the Wiggles, Barney, Teletubbies and Disney.
2. Watch nothing else on television for at least 5 years.

Test 11 - Mess

Can you stand the mess children make? To find out:

1. Smear peanut butter onto the sofa and jam onto the curtains
2. Hide a fish behind the stereo and leave it there all summer.
3. Stick your fingers in the flowerbeds and then rub them on clean walls. Cover the stains with crayon. How does that look?
4. Empty every drawer/cupboard/storage box in your house onto the floor & leave it there.

Test 12 - Long Trips with Toddlers

1. Make a recording of someone shouting 'Mummy' repeatedly. Important Notes: No more than a 4 second delay between each Mummy. Include occasional crescendo to the level of a supersonic jet.
2. Play this tape in your car, everywhere you go for the next 4 years.

You are now ready to take a long trip with a toddler.

Test 13 - Conversations

1. Start talking to an adult of your choice.
2. Have someone else continually tug on your shirt hem or shirt sleeve while playing the Mummy tape listed above.

You are now ready to have a conversation with an adult while there is a child in the room.

Test 14 - Getting ready for work

1. Pick a day on which you have an important meeting.
2. Put on your finest work attire.
3. Take a cup of cream and put 1 cup of lemon juice in it
4. Stir
5. Dump half of it on your nice silk shirt
6. Saturate a towel with the other half of the mixture
7. Attempt to clean your shirt with the same saturated towel
8. Do not change (you have no time).
9. Go directly to work

You are now ready to have children. ENJOY



LibDig This!

Children First?

I was quite impressed to read Steve Webb's take on yesterday's report which stated that British kids, despite living in one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, did not fare so well in wellbeing - coming bottom of a study of children in 21 industrialised nations. It was good to see a politician recognise the value of raising confident citizens who can fulfil their potential.

It is an abomination that so many children are still living in poverty. You would think a Labour government would have done something about it, but yet again they are found wanting.

In terms of mental health, it's hardly surprising that we have such a poor record. The Netherlands and Scandinavian countries who have the top four places are renowned for healthy lifestyles, healthy breastfeeding rates and, in the case of the Scandinavian countries, much more severe restrictions on the sale of artificial baby milk. Their maternity leave provision is also much more generous than our's. Anyone who has ever been to Spain, who came fifth, will know how highly children are valued. When we go there, we tend to eat late along with all the Spanish families and it's very telling to see how involved the children are in the conversation and how, without exception, the entire family tucks into the biggest mound of fruit and vegetables, showing that it's not impossible to wean them off the chicken nuggets. Jamie Oliver would be in Heaven.

Here, the prevailing culture seems to be that children are some sort of inconvenience to socialise with when necessary. The rise in the number of "family pubs" with vast soft play areas keeps children out of proper restaurants, where they would be welcome in Spain. I am appalled to hear parents complain about the advent of the school holidays because they will have the kids around all day. I cherish every moment I have with my daughter and dread the Easter holidays only because I will hardly see her due to the election campaign - it will really hurt not to have that time with her. She will be fine, as she'll be home with her Dad, but I will suffer.

The way in which we handle relationship breakdown in this country also leaves a lot to be desired. The whole system is designed to create an adversarial environment, and often the needs of the kids are not treated as a priority. People talk about their rights and not about what is best for the children. My aunt and uncle provide a fantastic example of how to break up properly - they split up completely amicably, found a routine for the kids that worked for everyone and even now, 20+ years on, the whole family has lunch together every Sunday.

I wasn't surprised to see another study show a benefit to breastfeeding. There are so many obvious benefits to establishing a successful breastfeeding relationship. The authors of this study can't suggest whether the benefit is emotional or physiological but my guess is that it's a bit of both.

There is enough evidence now to warrant significant investment in ensuring that mothers are not let down by bad information and inadequate support. Department of Health figures in England show that of all mothers who give up breastfeeding within the first 6 weeks, 90% don't want to. I have been shocked to find, over the years, that health professionals don't know things about breastfeeding management that I would consider basic. Even worse, we actually have to pass legislation to give women the right to feed their babies in public.

Our cultural attitudes to breastfeeding are bizarre. Russell Brand, that great childrearing guru, made a really obnoxious comment about breastfeeding babies being little perverts, not helpful in a programme being watched by so many young people.

Anyway, this campaign gives hope that something is being done to ensure that women are given the information and support they need. Without the support I got, the initial hell would never have been able to turn into the eventual bliss and both my daughter and I would have suffered.