Page 2668 - Week 12 - Thursday, 16 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
convention on the rights of the child. I submit that that really is a red herring.
One of the main objections to the UN convention put forward by Mr Stevenson was that the legislation prevents parental control. I quote from the Hansard. He said, "The legislation prevents parental control". Nothing could be further from the truth, and if that is the basis for his objection to this convention he is totally misguided. In fact, if I read from a section of the convention it will be absolutely clear to members that nothing could be further from the truth than Mr Stevenson's assertions.
Even in the preamble to the convention it says in paragraph 5:
Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community.
Further, paragraph 6 states:
Recognising that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.
Article 5 of the convention states:
States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom ...
Mr Stevenson's assertion that we are somehow subverting the role of the family in relation to children is quite misguided and, in fact, is absolute nonsense. The convention goes somewhat further than dealing with the family, of course, in that it explicitly puts forward some ways for governments to be obliged to care for children who have no-one else to turn to. Where children do not have a family or a guardian, the convention imposes upon governments obligations in respect of the care of those children. I think that that is also very worth while.
Mr Stevenson has also asserted that the draft convention in some way puts the rights of the child ahead of the rights or duties of parents, and that again is absolute nonsense. Anybody who reads the convention will see that the rights of parents are totally recognised. The convention itself says that the states are to respect the rights of parents or other persons responsible for the child to give the child direction and guidance. It contains many such statements. I quote one example where it says that a child
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .