Interview: Anne Houston, chief executive of Children 1st

ANNE Houston laughs a lot, but one thing makes her really angry – the growing demand what Children 1st offers, and the simultaneous cut in funding. “It is horrendous to close a service when the need for it is increasing,” she says.

Houston, chief executive of Children 1st, sees this as a symptom of not only the economic times, but also a bigger issue: “As a society, I don’t think we value our children very highly. One of our campaigns is ‘We’ve Had Enough’ and children have had enough of violence of all kinds – but too many are still living with violence. That really makes me angry – and it’s where the Royal Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children started off more than 125 years ago.”

The royal charter still exists, but Children 1st came into being more than 15 years ago as connotations with ‘cruelty’ were acting as a barrier – to parents who needed help, but didn’t want to be viewed as cruel by asking for it, and to children. “It was a word that didn’t offer any suggestion that children could make things better,” Houston explains.

So in 2011, what is Children 1st? Houston’s elevator pitch is well versed: “It has children at the heart of everything it does. We are committed to a healthy, happy, safe and secure future for children and young people in Scotland. We do that by working to support children to live within their families – immediate or extended – wherever appropriate.”

The charity does not provide residential services or fostering, but works with those who do in cases where living in a family setting is not appropriate. It also helps young people who come into contact with the law in various ways. Helping children who are to appear in court as witnesses is a key part, including abuse and trauma recovery work.

Houston, who also chairs Justice for Children, which campaigns for reform of the legal system, says: “The adversarial court system is often difficult for children. There is very little to help them prepare for that experience. It is often very basic things that bother children – what happens if I need the toilet, what if I don’t know the answer – and what if I see the accused?

“Also, they find court language confusing and still often face argumentative questioning. Children know adults expect certain answers from them, and if they are asked a question for a third time, might wonder if they have given the right answer.

“We had a very interesting preparatory programme to build resilience in preparing for and dealing with questions in court – but we no longer have funding for that.”

Children 1st’s policy work is also important, but only in as much as it reflects the experience of children and their families. It was involved heavily with the Vulnerable Witnesses Bill, a significant piece of legislation in the early years of the Scottish Parliament. The bill brought changes, but not the big prize of intermediaries.

Houston explains: “A child should not be in the body of the court, unless they want to be. We wanted to follow a South African model where the child is in a different room with an intermediary. Everyone in the court can see and hear what goes on – and questions from court come into the intermediary’s headphones and they ask the question in an appropriate way for the child – a simple acknowledgment that children’s communication needs are different. It would reduce anxiety and allow children to give the best evidence – best for the court process as a whole. They would have the chance to answer properly and appropriately.”

Despite a fair amount of support, and renewed hope that intermediaries might come back to the table, nothing happened. Houston was – and is – disappointed.

She is also concerned that many children, especially those involved in abuse cases, do not receive appropriate counselling. “There are concerns about contamination of evidence, but the Vulnerable Witnesses Act says children should receive support and counselling – but it doesn’t always happen.”

As far as children’s hearings go, Houston is a great advocate of the Scottish system – “wonderful compared to juvenile justice in England” – but she still has her concerns, while hoping the new Children’s Hearings Bill will improve things: “We have worked very hard on non-legal advocacy and its important role in helping children through the process.” In general, Houston believes that inquisitorial legal systems are better for children than adversarial ones – especially in cases of abuse. “Children benefit from the exploration of issues rather than the one vs one of the adversarial system,” she explains.

Houston sees a broader problem: society’s persistence in seeing children in black and white terms: “They are either poor, passive victims who need to be rescued and protected, or neds out to create havoc who don’t care about anyone else. It’s impossible to find one child or young person who is just one or the other. Everyone has a responsibility for child protection and child welfare – but we have got to a point where any concerns are passed straight to professionals and we regulate adults’ contact with children heavily, with the best of intentions. That has increased anxiety about dealing with children.

“A combination of these issues has resulted in a bigger divide between communities and young people. Children and young people need boundaries, but if communities are wary of them and don’t give them boundaries, they push to find where the boundaries are. We are keen to work with communities to help them learn again how to deal with ‘their’ children. We have moved away from the neighbour who overhears a problem and tells a mum to go and get a coffee and take a break while they look after the kids for a while – that’s real-life early intervention.”

This is a big issue for Children 21st: “For a long time, much of the focus was on how we sort something out when it has gone wrong. It’s much better to get in earlier – that’s a long-term strategy that doesn’t necessarily fit political cycles, but we are making progress.”

Houston also thinks that there are still big issues getting the public in general to understand what children’s rights are about. “Somehow, children’s rights are seen as taking away adults’ rights – but if you look at the UN Convention, it says children have a right to protection. Who would disagree with that? And adults do not have a right to hurt children or to ignore them.

“We do have to give children more of a say, depending on their age and maturity. We sometimes risk underestimating how much they understand what is going on in their lives – and their ideas about what might make a difference. We don’t automatically do what they say, but we do take it into account and that helps adults to make more informed decisions. Children’s rights are about valuing our children.”