Jon Bellamy spoke with Andy Flannagan

Andy Flannagan

Following his Green Paper on the family, Secretary of State Ed Balls discussed family issues with an organisation that Gordon Brown believes is engrossed in the forefront of the debate. He took part in the Christian Socialism Movement's annual Tawney Dialogue. Jonathan Bellamy spoke with Andy Flannagan, the director of the Christian Socialists Movement, based at Labour Party HQ to find out more about the Tawney Dialogue and the Green Paper.

Jonathan: First of all, what's the Tawney Dialogue?

Andy: Well the Christian Socialist Movement is basically - you could easily say we're the Christian wing of the Labour Party really. Those who are getting engaged in politics and the left and the Tawny Dialogue is our annual set piece event in memory of R.H. Tawney who was a very famous Christian Socialist; a really key man for what the Labour Party actually stood for and still does stand for. Every year we have a theologian meeting a politician; this year we actually had two theologians meeting a politician to discuss an issue of real importance. And we were really pleased to have Ed Balls who's obviously Secretary for the Department State for Education Schools and Families. Then we had Anne Holt from the Bible Society, and also Elaine Storkey, who's the president of Tearfund and also many people know her obviously from Radio 4's Thought For The Day, and many other speaking engagements around the country. It's an incredible line-up for mature conversations around these issues, which obviously are often used as a political football.

Jonathan: Now, these family issues are very important, particularly to Christians, but really to everybody in the nation. A few weeks ago we talked to the Centre for Social Justice, and according to them over 40% of children are now born outside marriage. Intentional harm has risen 34% in the last four years. The UK has the 4th highest teenage pregnancy rate in the world. Alcohol consumption by UK children has doubled in the last fifteen years. One in four children now takes drugs compared to one in twenty, twenty years ago. Figures also show that a child living with a non-biological father is eight times more likely to be on the at-risk register, and fifty times more likely to die from injuries inflicted by an adult living in the home. If the UK spends more public money on children than most other advanced countries, what's gone wrong, in your opinion, with all the money that we've spent in the UK in recent years?

Andy: Sure. I think it's interesting that we're talking about the money and where all that money's gone, and where it's gone wrong; because I think we sometimes expect money to do what money can't do. I think all this talk is about broken relationships; the breakdown of relationships, the breakdown of marriages. These things are crucial, they're the bedrock of our families and societies, to stability. A lot of the time that's relationships breaking down; that's not putting enough work into relationships. Often we think we can just solve a problem by throwing money at it, as you well know. I'm not sure that often is the case. I'm really pleased to see that in the Green Paper there's much more in supporting fathers and supporting and encouraging and teaching and training, and providing parent classes to try and help with that situation. But all of us know that there are some things for which we are responsible ourselves and which people are responsible. Yes leaders can lead, but there's only so much you can do sometimes I think.

Jonathan: What about the issue of children being brought up in two parent families; because that's one of the criticisms that's has been put towards Labour, with the couple penalty in the tax credit system, where low income families could be actually financially materially worse off living together than they are living apart?

Andy: Well yes; the first couple penalty is a phrase that has been actually created by the Conservatives, who've been looking into this, and the folks who've been crunching the numbers for the Labour Party would disagree with a lot of the presumptions that have spawned that phrase - the couple penalty, that actually would say that actually what's been created is a level playing field that actually it's not - there are circumstances obviously that are anomalies in any system - you can't create the perfect system so there are at times anomalies. If you crunch certain numbers and you put certain number of people in certain finance bands, you can create the scenario where people are less well off, but on the whole we'd like to think that actually folks become better off and there is a level playing field for folks from whatever sort of partnership they're in. I would say with regard to actually the tax incentive issue, a lot of people know what we're actually crying out for in this very complex area is leadership and folks being able to say - look it's very easy for this issue to be brought down to money, however we had a survey done by Conrad and 95% of people said that they got married because they were desperately committed to and loved the other person, as opposed to 46% who said that there was any economic concerns involved in it. I think that shows a really interesting thing, that actually talking about economic centralisation is not the most important thing we need to talk about. I think it also shows that we need as Christians to be making the argument that marriage is not just a private thing. Some of the stuff that's been written on all sides of the political divide has talked about how marriage is a private decision between two people. It's not. It's a very public affirmation and creates an incredible level of accountability that actually make people more likely stay together for their own good and for the good of their children. So I think those are two key things I'd like to stress.

Jonathan: From a Christian Socialist Movement point of view, when you look at the Labour Green Paper, do you think it describes family as the best for children, to have two parents? Do you think the language used and the proposals given are strong enough relating to the institution of marriage?

Andy: Yes. I mean if you look at the language, just even in the introduction, it's pretty explicit about that. It's explicit about the fact that marriage is an absolutely phenomenal way and still the most common way by some distance - actually the statistics in the survey show that's still the case for 68% of the people. That's where kids are being brought up. This actually contradicts some of the recent statistics which tried to point out that most kids are being brought up in homes where parents were just co-habiting. I think it points out strongly that those folks have a much better outcome. We all know that and understand the reasons why. I think personally I probably would like the language to be even stronger; but that's why I'm involved, rather than shouting from the outside. That's why we had the Tawney Dialogue; to try and encourage folks to be honest; because there's a real kind of philosophical problem, I think we come up not just in this issue but in loads of issues whereby we feel we can't promote something because we don't want to make somebody else feel bad about whatever situation they're in. That's often a valid reason, but we have to realise we live in a world now where day by day we are being advertised to. Advertisements are being thrown at us day in and day out: all these things that we'll never attain; all these things that we will never get to. We look at celebrity culture and how that makes people feel absolutely you know on the slag heap. We don't have this car - we don't have this house. Yet continually these things are being promoted to us. So there seems to be a slight double standard in saying you can't promote something that not everybody will be able to aspire to, but actually you can advertise everything you want, houses, cars, everything, especially to young people.

Jonathan: I've got a quote here from the foreword to the Labour Green Paper. Ed Balls says, 'literally thousands of conversations I've had over the last two and a half years have left me in no doubt about two things. First that it is families who do the crucial job of bringing up children, not governments or teachers or GPs'. And I guess most people would agree with that. It begs a question though - if this is what Labour believe, why would there be legislation that would look at Government over-riding a parents authority, perhaps most notably in the compulsory sex education that's coming through? Or proposals to interview home schooled children without their parents present?

Andy: That's a very good question. I think in any situation where you've got legislation, you want to create some standard norms. You know there are some things that you want every young person to be learning, things you want every young person exposed to. Therefore at times there's need for legislation. We all have to pay tax, there are certain speed limits we all have to keep to, even though we could say that's offending and that's infringing on our personal private right to drive at whatever speed we want to. But there are things that are for the good of society that means often there are moments when our own rights as individuals, our own rights as parents are superseded by what is seen as the common good. I think it's our job as Christians to discuss what that common good should be. So I think we need to be engaged in it and if we're not happy about the tenor and the tone of that relationship with education and sex education, then we need to be involved in that debate, and that's right. But I don't think we should be coming at it from the angle of saying - well you know this shouldn't happen, you're infringing on my rights; because actually to be honest that's something that happens every day. We need to be discussing and involved and it's brilliant to see the number of Christian projects around the country who have led the way in relationships education. That's something that's exciting to see in the Green Paper; that we're not talking about sex education anymore, we're talking about sex and relationships education. It's very specifically changed, the title, to make sure that we are talking about relationships. Because as we all know that's the key thing - that's why young people are getting into such a mess, because relationships are dysfunctional. We are not teaching people the social skills or the relationship skills. Actually sex is the easy option. Everybody's searching for intimacy. Young people are crying out for intimacy especially if they've come from families where they haven't known the love and the affirmation and acceptance of an absent parent. People are crying out for intimacy and sadly so many people are taking the soft option, the easy option, of grabbing that intimacy from sex. So it's great to see that there will be more relationships education which actually talks about the whole person and the whole of your life as opposed to just the sexual side of your life.

Jonathan: Just quickly though on the topic of the Government choosing to trumpet if you like a parents rights. Are you saying there would be times when it's right for a Government to decide that it takes a stance over the parents for their children?

Andy: I think that happens in loads of areas of life all the time. You can't on one side say - well it's ridiculous that local councils and Governments haven't stepped in to prevent this horrendous child abuse cases we've seen with Baby P and the Venables case and these various situations that we know take place; therefore Government do need powers to establish some societal norms. Sadly not all parents can be trusted. So therefore there are many situations when even though we would like the freedom because we're part of society and we want to be giving to the common good, we have to at times lay down our individual rights for the good of society. Now we need to be involved in the discussion that says what that common good is and what those values should be and what people are being taught. We need to be involved in the discussion. But I don't think we should be coming from the point of view which is kind of - the home schooling way of looking at it - actually we need to stay separate so as we can be in total control. I think if we're part of society we know that there are many things that we know straightaway - the Government will tell us that we have to strap our kids in a seat belt in the back seat of our car. That's infringing on our rights but there's a good reason for it. However there are some people that would like not to have to do that; and that's infringing on their rights. There's a whole realm of things where inevitably in the job of Government in leading and legislating one has to do that. It's easy to talk about specific situations and anecdotal situations but some people have to take the responsibility of taking a step back to look at the bigger picture to say what's good for everyone.

Jonathan: Fascinating. If people want to read the Labour Green Paper where can they find it?

Andy: They can find it on the Department for Schools Education and Families on the website and they can just go and download it from there. It's very easy to do. The easiest way to do it is to Google Green Paper; then families, and it comes straight up at the top. I would encourage people really as well Jonathan to come visit our website to see our take on it and to see some of the articles we've written on this. You can download our magazine, which is all about the family, and our efforts to really promote the family, and our efforts to get folks in politics talking about marriage and talking about the family. The website is www.thecsm.org.uk and I'd encourage people to come and hit on the website and come and read what we're up to. Come and get involved. Come and be part of making the argument. Come and be a part of having the discussion rather than just shouting from the outside, and we'd love to have you with us.

Jonathan: Wonderful. Andy Flannagan it's been great to talk to you.

Andy: Lovely to speak to you Jonathan. Bless you man. Cheers.