Duty of care for children amendment ‘all about blame’
Thursday 16th July 2009, 2:29PM BST.
THE first phase of the successor to the now-defunct Government Business Plan was approved yesterday.
States members agreed to the first set of initiatives included within the States Strategic Plan ahead of its to return to the Assembly in September for further approval.
They also agreed that it should be given ‘amber light’ status, which means the case for each priority will then have to be made to secure funds as part of the annual budget process.
The SSP is made up of three core areas – fiscal and economic, social policy and environmental policy plans.
However, the placing of a successful amendment by Deputy Peter Gillson (pictured) to part of the social policy aspect caused quite a stir in the Assembly and succeeded narrowly – by 22 votes to 20.
The amendment aimed to ensure that the core values listed in the plan included a duty for individuals to take responsibility to the fullest extent possible for the welfare and actions of themselves and their children.
But critics of its wording, who included deputies Matt Fallaize, Barry Brehaut and Andrew Le Lievre, said it was a dangerous and unnecessary amendment.
Deputy Fallaize was the strongest in his criticism and said the amendment was about blame and directed at so-called ‘benefit scroungers’. He said the welfare state was not the problem, but the solution.
‘Have the children of addicts chosen their outcome any more than the children of loving and caring parents have chosen theirs?’
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Such a statement has good intentions but it’s only rhetoric – I doubt it will have any affect in reality.
Nevertheless I think Deputy Fallaize et al have missed the point. It is precisely because of the “blame / compensation culture” that a call to responsibility is neccesary – people are all too quick to blame something/someone else before accepting personal responsibility.
That’s not to say external factors (such as addict parents) don’t warp an individuals perception of responsibility. However in fairness, the amendment calls for responsiblity to the “fullest extent possible” which means that, at least in theory, it does takes into consideration that some people may not be capable of demonstrating the same level of responsibility as others – which if I’m not mistaken answers the criticism Deputy Fallaize seemeed to have.
That’s why we should adopt a strategy where rights and responsibility go hand in hand; alongside justice and mercy.
Report abuse
Such a statement has good intentions but it’s only rhetoric – I doubt it will have any effect in reality.
Nevertheless I think Deputy Fallaize et al have missed the point somwehat. It is precisely because of the “blame / compensation culture” that a call to personal responsibility is neccesary – people are all too quick to blame something/someone else rather than accept responsibility for their actions.
That’s not to say external factors (such as addict parents) don’t warp an individuals perception of responsibility. However in fairness, the amendment calls for responsiblity to the “fullest extent possible” which means that, at least in theory, it does takes into consideration that some people may not be capable of demonstrating the same level of responsibility as others – which if I’m not mistaken answers the criticism Deputy Fallaize seemed to have.
That’s why we should adopt a strategy where rights and responsibility go hand in hand; alongside justice and mercy.
Report abuse