Some of the spook recruitment pitches in the media of the last two years have gone out of their way to impress upon prospective candidates the family-friendly credentials of the major state spook employers.(1) But such measures, no matter how sincere and/or necessary, are for the most part aimed at a parent’s convenience – and therefore the employers’ – rather than the needs of a child. A ‘parent friendly’ environment is not the same as a ‘family friendly’ one. Espionage can certainly be the latter. It can also offer many advantages to the family as a whole, and a child in particular, although the latter can depend on other issues such as where the child comes in a sibling-group. However, as with many other occupations, a spook-parent’s career can also be detrimental to the family unit, or individual children within it, or both.
Since a layperson has no way of judging whether there have been any studies on this issue, although I assume there have been many, it was interesting to see a rare mainstream press reference to the impact the Official Secrets Act can have on children whose parents have signed it. An extreme example of its possible influence was provided by molecular biologist and mental health consultant Janey Antoniou.(2) Her family was raised under OSA injunction as a result of her father’s work at Aldermaston. Antoniou, a schizophrenic, believes that if there was a feature of her upbringing ‘which contributed to the development – though not the cause – of my illness, it was the way discussion of private, personal matters wasn’t countenanced.’ She describes the voices in her head as fixed, ‘belonging to some deeper mental structure, like an unacknowledged government department’ and thinks she may have filtered her experience through the secret realm of her father’s work.
Other pressures on spook children and young people could come from their peer group at school or university whether or not their parent’s employment is declared. Given the age we live in, the older child may have a global social network with a knowledge of the human consequences government decisions can have on others. As a result, the spook child may have to confront moral arguments, including a parent’s career, at a confused and tender age, may have to do so on his/her own, and may face intolerable distress as a result.
Espionage is for adults. Since some participants are themselves young when recruited and not necessarily able to judge the impact their work can have on their children in the medium to longer term, some responsibility for their children’s welfare may rest with the employer. I would go so far as to say that third party representation could to be considered. Espionage is not the only career where the best interests of the child can conflict with the adults involved, but it is certainly one where the adults can be the least trustworthy.
Notes
- This article is about civil servants i.e. ‘the staff’. The families of those who are not staff – e.g. agents such as Colonel Oleg Gordiefsky – may carry additional and different burdens, as can those employed in private sector espionage. Note: one of the justifications Dame Stella Rimington gave for writing her autobiography when she stood down from MI5 was because ‘she wished to explain things’ to her daughters.
- See The Guardian (Weekend) 8 September 2007.