A ban on smacking would place children at risk

2 Nov 2004

As MPs prepare to vote on proposals to make it a criminal offence for parents to smack their children as a form of discipline, family advocacy group, Families First, has issued a warning that such a law would give children less protection rather than more.

In a briefing sent to MPs in preparation for a House of Commons debate due to be held on Tuesday 2 November, Families First warns that a legal ban on smacking would place children at increased risk of harm in at least three ways:

• It would give rise to an unprecedented level of unnecessary and potentially damaging state intrusion in families where children are looked after well and are at no risk of abuse;
• It would result in a serious misappropriation of already overstretched child protection resources, which would place genuinely abused children at risk of greater harm; and
• It would lead to a more widespread use of psychologically damaging responses to children's misbehaviour with a greater likelihood of parents lashing out when they have lost control.

The briefing explains that, contrary to frequent claims made by the anti-smacking lobby, the current law in England and Wales which permits moderate and reasonable physical chastisement is perfectly compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It also exposes the myth that legislation against smacking in 1979 has reduced the levels of child abuse and violence in Sweden. In reality, Sweden saw an almost fivefold increase in the number of reported cases of child abuse between 1981-1994, and criminal assaults against 7-14 year-olds are increasing most rapidly among those brought up since the law against smacking was passed.

There is a clear difference between smacking and child abuse which the vast majority of parents are well able to recognise. There is a difference in purpose, motivation, context and effect. This is borne out by academic studies which show positive and beneficial effects for smacking when used consistently and appropriately in the context of a warm, caring and loving parent-child relationship. Other little-publicised conclusions of academic research include the finding that parents who use moderate physical correction in the discipline of their children, use ridicule, fear and withdrawal of love less than other parents, and parents who are least likely to smack are the most likely to report 'explosive attacks of rage' when they are unable to control their children's behaviour.

A compelling case for limiting or removing the defence of reasonable chastisement has not been made. The existing law has the merit of striking a balance between protecting children from unreasonable punishment on the one hand and protecting families from unnecessary and potentially damaging state intrusion on the other.

Background

When the Children Bill was originally drafted, it contained no clause relating to the reasonable chastisement of children.

At Report Stage in the House of Lords, peers resoundingly defeated an amendment to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement by 250 votes to 75.

While it rejected a total ban on parental smacking, the House of Lords voted in favour of an amendment moved by Lord Lester to limit the defence of reasonable chastisement to charges of common assault. This currently appears on the face of the Bill as Clause 56 of the Bill.

Considerable legal uncertainty surrounds this clause, and concerns have been registered by legal and police authorities that it could lead to parents being charged with actual bodily harm, thus depriving them of the defence of reasonable chastisement, in order to secure a conviction. In a letter to the Police Review (16 July 2004), the Chairman of the Kent Police Federation, expressed fears that Clause 56 could result in the criminalisation of good and loving parents. He considered that adequate legislation is already in place and saw no evidence that the defence of reasonable chastisement had become an abusers' charter. He concluded:

'The sad reality is that a change in the law will have the potential to divert valuable resources away from the Victoria Climbies of this world, the very cases that we should be investigating.'

The defence of reasonable chastisement has been used in only eleven cases since the government commenced its review at the end of 2001. The Crown Prosecution Service has stated, 'Whether the defence will succeed will be dependent on the circumstances, including the injuries inflicted'. The use of the defence by no means guarantees it will be employed successfully, and the government's review has found that the defence is being used in a proper manner by the courts.

There is therefore no need either to limit the defence in the manner that Clause 56 seeks to do, nor to remove it entirely, which it is anticipated will be the aim of another amendment to be moved in the House of Commons debate at Report Stage and Second Reading on 2 November.

About Families First

Families First was formed in 1993, following the successful appeal of childminder, Mrs Anne Davis, who had been removed from her local authority's childminding register after she refused to give an undertaking not to smack a child in her care with parental consent. Mrs Davis's case attracted widespread media attention and served to highlight the way in which children's rights groups were attempting to undermine parents and to impose an unproven philosophy of raising children by force of law.

Over the past eleven years, Families First has served as a national family advocacy group, committed to supporting parents and children in the family unit. It upholds the freedom and responsibility of parents to protect and guide their children and to bring them up in a reasonable manner, according to their religious and philosophical convictions.

Copyright © 2001-2007 Families First. All rights reserved.