The mothers who face poverty and prejudice

of maternal anxiety.

THE name changes say it all really. In the 1940s it was the Scottish

Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child, with the unfortunate

acronym SCUM. It was renamed the Council for Single Parents in 1973, and

has now, following its recent fiftieth anniversary, become One-Parent

Families, Scotland.

From a group defined by its exception from the married norm, the

inclusiveness of ''families'' is now emphasised. It reflects a change

from the charitable approach of the professional helping the needy, to

one in which single parents are seen as the experts on their needs and

how to meet them.

Conferences run by the organisation also show this shift: in 1954 one

was held on ''The Unmarried Mother of Low Mentality'', a phrase not even

John Redwood could use in public now; in 1968, ''Fatherless Families: Do

we meet their needs?''; but by 1980, ''Single-Parent Priorities -- a

Better Life for Our Children''.

The issues they've campaigned on have not changed as much. ''Although

the position of lone parents has improved greatly in 50 years, some

attitudes remain all too familiar,'' director Sue Robertson comments.

This was reflected in the theme for the fiftieth annual conference,

''From Moral Welfare to Moral Panic'' held last week.

Housing, which has been the front-running policy concern for most of

the past 50 years, is more of a problem now because of the diminished

stock of social housing and rising rent costs.

In the 1940s and 1950s the council had close links with mother and

baby homes and adoption agencies. Now adoption of babies is unusual:

fewer than 100 babies a year are adopted in Scotland, whereas in 1945

and 1965 there were almost 2000 adoptions, most of them likely to have

been babies.

The figures do not reveal the marital status of the mothers. Even in

1970, when premarital sex was no longer so shameful that the evidence

had to be concealed, around one-quarter of babies born to single mothers

were placed for adoption. In a paper given to a conference that year,

there is chilling discussion of whether it's advisable for a mother who

plans adoption to see her baby after birth.

The number of babies available for adoption went into steep decline at

the same time as the social stigma against unmarried mothers eased,

which tells us something about how genuine a choice that was -- as do

women's own accounts. This has not stopped the renewed proposal of

adoption as an alternative to state benefits for young, unmarried

mothers.

Now there are only a handful of mother and baby homes, mainly church

connected. Supported, but more independent, accommodation is provided

through the Walpole Housing Association, one of several now separate

organisations set up by the Scottish Council for Single Parents, and by

some social work departments, but the focus is now on helping vulnerable

single mothers keep their children.

A crucial campaigning issue in the 1970s was the right to retain a

tenancy or stay in the marital home after separation, leading to changes

in council practice and legal change in 1981.

A campaign over the legal rights of ''illegitimate'' children began as

far back as 1918, succeeding in 1986 when legal discrimination against

them was removed and the term itself abolished. In the 1970s and

eighties the moral distinction drawn between unmarried mothers and those

who were on their own because of separation and divorce faded, although

widows are still treated differently.

In the early years of this century there was intense political debate

over how far the state should intervene in child welfare, prompted by

very high levels of infant mortality -- a rate which was twice as high

for the babies of unmarried women. Interestingly, feminist campaigners

for Family Allowances -- first called Maternal Endowments -- excluded

unmarried mothers.

Recent research by Professor Jane Lewis at the London School of

Economics documents ''pendulum swings'' in attitudes and policy. Whereas

since the Child Support Act the main direction of contemporary policy is

to make separated fathers financially support children, she comments

that the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act opposed any claim by an unmarried

mother for financial support from the father as this would only

encourage female immorality.

Shifts in the state's treatment of lone-mother families, she argues,

mirror ''changes in patterns of sexual morality and views of marriage''.

So, for example, the Finer Report's liberal recommendations in 1974

followed change (in England and Wales) to the divorce law, abandoning

the idea of fault, after which no distinction could be made between

''guilty'' and ''innocent'' ex-wives.

In contrast, she quotes 1920s arguments that support for unmarried

mothers would only ''stimulate illegitimacy'' -- an idea recently

revived by American sociologist Charles Murray. At the time the eugenic

movement was concerned that children of unmarried mothers were more

likely to become criminals. Again there are recent echoes, though not as

yet a repetition of the theme that getting pregnant outside marriage was

evidence that they were ''mentally unfit''. She also quotes the case of

a ''home alone'' widow in 1914, fined for leaving her three children

alone while she went to work to support them.

In the early 1970s, Margaret Bramall, then director of the National

Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child, told a conference in

Scotland that unmarried mothers were seen as ''a challenge to society,

to our accepted ethical and religious concepts, and to the institution

of marriage itself''.

In 1970, one in 12 births was to a lone mother, as opposed to one in

three now (though a high proportion are living with a partner). A 1970

study for the Scottish Home and Health Department concluded that single

mothers are not different from married mothers. They range from

''impulsive and carefree'' to ''self-critical and guilt-ridden'', their

relationships to the baby's father ranges from casual to the long-term,

and they were as likely to come from happy homes as unhappy.

The problems listed were stereotyping, accommodation, and the chance

to live apart from her own family; and conversely social isolation, lack

of daycare and after-school care, low wages, and dependence on

Supplementary Benefit. Practical problems were exacerbated by ''hostile

social attitudes''. Talk to single mothers today and they'll tell you

much the same thing.

Sue Robertson says ruefully that she's been saying much the same

things for 10 years, since she took the job. ''You see these

long-running myths like girls getting pregnant to jump the housing

queue, and living on benefit with no intention of working. The main

difference I've seen is how cutbacks have affected single parents,

mainly cutbacks in childcare and social security.''

The loss, in 1988, of most grants for household equipment and of the

childcare allowance in Supplementary Benefit, plus the replacement of a

tapered earnings disregard in favour of the formula sum of #15, has made

life harder for single parents, as have changes to how housing benefit

is calculated.

The key issues have stayed similar: the poverty trap, affordable

childcare, how to finance going to college, and housing. Sue Robertson

flips through the record of inquiries that month -- most are looking to

be put in touch with single-parent groups, or ask questions about

maintenance, the CSA, a violent partner, childcare, or money.

However, she also notices a real change in attitudes among single

parents themselves. Probably very few actively choose their situation,

despite current mythology. But ''there are a lot of people who say they

like being single parents and they're getting on fine'', and her

organisation was taken to task last year by members for failing

sufficiently to emphasise the positive dimension.

''It's a viable way to live and bring up children, and they want it to

be recognised as such.''

The focus is now on helping single mothers keep their children