Council Meeting (4) Sterilisation or contraception of parents with children in care

We (Labour) had put down a question that required Cllr Alan Robinson to explain what was the "awkward and difficult question" (to use his own words) that he had asked at the Councillors Forum on the 17^th July and which resulted in the public row about the sterilisation of parents with children in care. This would have happened at the previous Council Meeting at the beginning of September – but our questions were excluded because the submission deadline had been moved!

We had already tried to get an explanation at the Council meeting at the end of July – but Cllrs Robinson and Fitzgerald had run away. No let me be accurate, they didn't run, they left the Council Chamber at a brisk walk – allegedly as a result of legal advice. Who this advice was from or what it said, only they know.

Anyway we know what Cllr Fitzgerald believed as she had helpfully written to Cllr Paxton Hood-Williams stating that what she was talking about was long term enforced contraception.

Cllr Robinson had held his tongue. It had never been suggested that he had used the words "compulsory" & "sterilisation" together (no-one did) – but that forced sterilisation was the clear meaning of what he was proposing. However, as this was a matter of great public interest (not least given the responsibilities of the Cabinet Portfolio he holds), we considered that we should give him another opportunity to put the record straight.

We had asked him "for the avoidance of doubt",

"Would (you) now...unequivocally advise Council what (your) views are on compulsory sterilisation (whether permanent or temporary) of parents with children in care?"

He replied,

"To the best of my recollection, the discussion was in relation to the very sensitive issue of the situation with Looked after Children whose mothers were drug addicts. During this discussion I said that "I thought mothers, who were drug addicts, and who had had children taken into care, should be offered some form of contraception or reversible sterilisation.

I can unequivocally advise Council that, at no time during the meeting did I mention "compulsory sterilisation" and I am totally opposed to compulsory sterilisation".

The question and Cllr Robinson's answer (which is reproduced here in full) can be seen in the Agenda for the Council Meeting of the 22^nd October 2009.

So we do now know at least, that he considers drug addict mothers should be offered contraception or reversible sterilisation. However, he won't now go as far as Cllr Fitzgerald. Curious that! She at least was prepared, to some extent, to be up front.

Readers should note the weasel words of "to the best of recollection", which unfortunately (no doubt due to the passage of time) does not match either my notes of what he said (which I made at the time) or the recollection of other members present at the Forum.

For the record what my notes record Cllr Robinson (and myself) as saying is the following,

AR (He began by committing a breach of confidence which could aid identification of a child of his acquaintance who was in foster care. I won't repeat it here to avoid the danger of identifying the child, whose parents were well known to Social Services. I do have a record of what he actually said.)

AR "These parents aren't fit to have children, we end up looking after them..."
AR "Something should be done to stop unfit parents from having children".
DP "So what are you proposing...?
AR "If they can't look after them, they shouldn't be allowed to have them"
DP "So you're proposing forced sterilisation....
AR "If they can't look after their children, we should stop them having anymore, we should..."
DP "So sterilise unfit parents?
AR "We end up having to look after them. I'm entitled to my views......"
DP "Forced sterilisation – this is simply outrageous, it's disgusting, you should be ashamed of yourself. I can't believe I'm hearing this"

Readers will note that he did not deny my accusation, which would have been the simplest course, he could have said that I'd misunderstood. He didn't.

I put the above conversation to him as a supplementary question at Council. He didn't specifically dispute my record, he wouldn't engage with the question at all. He did allege that I had arrived at the Forum late. True – I'd been at a school governors meeting. But I arrived in time to hear what he said – indeed it was difficult for me not to as he was sitting next to me!