I am the Parent of 6, all now responsible and caring adults, a God Parent, Grandparent, Uncle and Great Uncle.
As I said when speaking in the 2011 Member’s Debate here on the “End of Lawful Chastisement”.
“During the passage of the Children’s Act 2004 through the House of Lords, the clause 56 amendment, proposed by Lord Lester, was agreed by 226 to 91 on a free vote.
“This became section 58 of the Children’s Act 2004, limiting the use of the defence of reasonable punishment so that it could no longer be used when people are charged with offences against a child, such as causing actual bodily harm or cruelty”.
As Tim Loughton MP, said during the Commons debate,
'Smacking is a last resort if a child has failed to respond to anything else, especially if the child is causing harm to siblings or putting himself or others in danger’.”
I also quoted the Crown Prosecution Service, which states that 'for minor assaults committed by an adult upon a child that result in injuries such as grazes, scratches, abrasions, minor bruising, swelling, superficial cuts or a black eye, the appropriate charge will normally be Actual Bodily Harm for which the defence of "reasonable chastisement” is no longer available. However, if the injury amounts to no more than reddening of the skin, and the injury is transient and trifling…the reasonable chastisement defence remains available’.
As I then concluded “instead of criminalising millions of decent, loving parents who use a smack from time to time, we must recognise the clear difference between smacking and child abuse, which the vast majority of parents are well able to recognise. This debate is a distraction, when our full focus should be on the growing reports of the sexual abuse, exploitation and forced labour of children”.
Institutional Lobbyists have referred to New Zealand in their support for this proposed Bill.
However, Family First New Zealand state “Banning smacking will not stop child abuse, as has been evidenced in New Zealand”, adding:
- That Kiwi parents were told by politicians that good parents and smacking will not actually be targeted if the law is changed. But smacking a child will be assault. The police have to enforce the law, regardless of what politicians say.
- That statements made by politicians to the effect that the anti-smacking law does not criminalise "good parents" for lightly smacking their children are inconsistent with the legal effect of the law and the application of the law in practice.
- And that Children will never be safe until we are honest enough to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse, rather than pass ‘feel-good’ but ineffectual and, ultimately, harmful laws.
I have received extensive correspondence from constituents regarding this, all of which asked me to oppose this Bill.
The rest of my speech is therefore taken entirely from their words.
“Seven in ten people oppose the Welsh Government’s smacking Bill”.
“I do not see it to be in the interests of parents, children or anyone else in society to criminalise smacking”.
“There is no indication of how such a measure would be implemented or funded, and it will send entirely the wrong message to parents struggling to bring up their children”.
“I guess that most of us were smacked as children, not by criminal parents, but by loving, caring parents/grandparents who desired only our wellbeing, safety and a desire to teach right and wrong. We would not accuse our parents of abuse or reckon they were criminals”.
“It is a great pity, in my opinion, that a vocal minority would be allowed to sway the day on this”.
“In fact it is those who would call this a criminal offence who are in danger of abusing children and of damaging both their future interests and those of society at large. The law as it stands gives adequate safeguards against unreasonable physical abuse”.
“I’m an experienced, senior officer with a Welsh police force. I’m constrained from speaking out publicly, but I have to do something to try to discourage the Assembly from backing plans to outlaw smacking - The reasonable chastisement defence only covers the lightest sort of smacking. It stops parents being treated like criminals for no good reason. Removing the defence will remove any discretion we have. It will lead to decent families being traumatised”.
“AND Children suffering real abuse would be more at risk due to the police and social services being overwhelmed with inconsequential reports”.
