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-394 |
CADRP-394 |
About you
Organisation: Hafal
— Yes
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
Hafal believes that any violence directed towards children is unacceptable and may produce lasting, harmful effects upon the child’s emotional wellbeing and mental health.
Hafal believes that parents should be effectively supported and educated to find alternative ways to sanction children whom have misbehaved.
Hafal understands that many incidents of ‘smacking’ takes place whilst the parent is experiencing anger, frustration or other extreme emotion, and that this emotional state is not always conducive for making rational and healthy decisions about parenting techniques.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
Yes. There requires a firm message from the Government that violence directed towards children is unacceptable and will be punishable within the law.
We see from examples of ‘smacking bans’ elsewhere in the world, such as in Scandinavia, that it requires a proactive approach including legislation and education to adjust people’s attitudes towards harm against children and other vulnerable people. In Sweden, research has demonstrated that it takes a generational shift from the concept of ‘reasonable punishment’ to change from being acceptable and a choice, to becoming abhorrent. It is the government which needs to drive this change as an organic change would take considerably longer, if it happened at all.
So far over 50 countries have banned smacking, including many of our counterparts in Europe. Wales is a forward-thinking nation, driven by a forward-thinking parliament, and we should present a good example to the world as well as to the rest of the UK.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
No. However, there may be unsupportive and unhelpful professional, public and media responses which may complicate or elongate the process.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
No. There requires a marketing strategy to run alongside it.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
There requires further support to educate and enable parents to find alternative methods to sanctioning children. Particularly disadvantaged communities where community based violence is prominent, may find additional struggles in understanding and implementing the principles of the Bill.
There is no provision for such support, other than what already exists. Social services across Wales are already experiencing huge strains on their resources managing those cases where risk to life are present and there appears to be little indication that social services will receive additional resources to cope with demand.
Those parents with mental ill health may be particularly disadvantaged as a result of the Bill. While initiatives such as Team Around the Family offer much to those they are working with, the only way that they can ensure that they are not criminalising those who have major coping issues themselves is to invest in support for parents with emotional or mental health problems and that failure to do so will likely be far more damaging to the children as it is likely to result in family separation.
Hafal finds that peer support approaches to behaviour change is the most effective means, as well as being highly cost effective. Hafal would welcome investment into the third sector and into peer support and educational opportunities for parents to enable them to develop different strategies for sanctioning children.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
Having unquantified costs attached to the impact upon social services, the CPS and others, seems somewhat misguided during such a lengthy period of austerity. Such services are already struggling to cope with cases that have resulted in loss of life, serious injury or the risk of both of those. There needs to be more detailed consideration towards the impact this Bill will have on those departments and an effective costing matrix established so that they can be effectively resourced in order to deliver the Bill.
Merely having the Bill will not prevent those parents entrenched in the belief that physical punishment is acceptable, from stopping physical punishment. There requires some ‘teeth’ to the delivery of the principles of the Bill.
There is absolutely no mention of the third sector and the role that we play in the social support and education of those we serve. Often those who experience some kind of disadvantage prefer to access a third sector organisation for support. There will be a bigger burden on the sector, firstly in those parents looking to establish alternative parenting strategies, secondly managing those cases where the parents have physically punished their child and thirdly supporting those families where police/ social services/ court action has taken place as a result of the physical punishment.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
Those parents who experience serious or enduring mental ill health have additional barriers to accessing existing services which may prevent them receiving assistance in finding alternative ways to sanction their children.
There needs to be further consideration towards those whom are particularly disadvantaged in this way and how they will access effective support to understand the implication of the Bill upon their lives.
Our concern is that those who are unable to access existing means of support for positive parenting will be unequally effected by the Bill. The equalities impact assessment accompanying the Bill makes no acknowledgement that supporting parents with mental ill health is more challenging and more resource intensive than supporting parents without. Without an effective support structure in place, we predict that those parents whom have mental ill health will likely be unequally disadvantaged by the Bill. Our proposed solution is to not prevent the Bill, but rather to encourage additional resources towards support for those parents. There is a risk that those parents with mental ill health may incur more police and social services’ intervention as a result of their health status.