Consultation on the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill

Tystiolaeth i’r Pwyllgor Plant, Pobl Ifanc ac Addysg ar gyfer craffu Cyfnod 1 Bil Plant (Diddymu Amddiffyniad Cosb Resymol) (Cymru)

Evidence submitted to the Children, Young People and Education Committee for Stage 1 scrutiny of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill

CADRP-231

CADRP-231

 

About you

Individual

1      The Bill’s general principles

1.1     Do you support the principles of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill?

— No

1.2     Please outline your reasons for your answer to question 1.1

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

It is appropriate to use physical restraint and sometimes gentle smacking to warn children of dangers before they are old enough to understand a spoken warning. If parents aren’t allowed to do this, there is a real risk of jeopardising children’s safety.

Polls indicate that most adults believe gentle smacking isn’t wrong, and believe that a clear distinction should be made between gentle smacking and abuse. They recall being smacked when they were children but do not think their parents were abusing them. It should be parents, not the state, that decides on this as well as other issues in the home.

Those who support the bill argue that children should have the same protection by law as adults. But children are not adults. Parents provide for their children in many ways that would be inappropriate for adults. This issue is in principle no different.

 

1.3     Do you think there is a need for legislation to deliver what this Bill is trying to achieve?

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

No. The law already protects children from real violence. There is a clear distinction between a gentle smack given in love and violent injuries.

2      The Bill’s implementation

2.1     Do you have any comments about any potential barriers to  implementing the Bill? If no, go to question 3.1

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

No comments.

2.2     Do you think the Bill takes account of these potential barriers?

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

-

3      Unintended consequences

3.1     Do you think there are there any unintended consequences arising from the Bill? If no, go to question 4.1

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

Yes. All kids are naughty sometimes, in all sorts of ways. Without in any way wanting to return to the brutal discipline used by parents and schoolteachers several generations ago - we are seeing rampant consequences of lack of discipline in many youngsters. I am informed that in Sweden cases of violence by children against other children increased after smacking was banned there in 1979.

Loving parents who seek to gently discipline kids when they are naughty should not be criminalised. The policing and criminal justice systems are overwhelmed by real offending behaviour – partly due to lack of discipline in childhood – that really does need to be restrained. If our inadequate staffing levels of police and social workers are required to pursue parents who gently discipline their kids, they won’t cope and there will be a greater risk of missing detecting real, serious abuse.

 

4      Financial implications

4.1     Do you have any comments on the financial implications of the Bill (as set out in Part 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum)? If no, go to question 5.1

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

No comments.

5      Other considerations

5.1     Do you have any other points you wish to raise about this Bill?

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

No comments.