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-575 |
CADRP-575 |
About you
Individual
— No
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
It is counterproductive, rather than pick up increased numbers of unidentified abusers,( who are already dealt with under current legislation) it will largely pick up loving parents who use smacking as one of many strategies for disciplining their children.
Looking at your own research, overnight, 85% of parents would arbitrarily be guilty of historical crimes of child abuse, (including the former first minister). What do we do about that?
Given we already have legislation for child abuse, the proposed legislation doesn't deal with the central issue, when I worked as a GP for over 31 years in a valley town, my overwhelming impression was that in children who had behavioural issues, the overwhelming issue was the absence of boundaries - not necessarily the presence of smacking.
There is another danger, that abusers will still abuse but just find different ways of abusing. There is much more to child abuse than a ban on smacking would prevent. Using scant resources to persue parents who lovingly disciple their children, and who on occasions feel it necessary to use reasonable chastisement seems much less appropriate than investing precious resources in the families who are really in trouble. No- one wants to see children abused, but re- defining abuse to into the net parents who should not be there is not the answer.
Life as a GP was tough enough, and picking out cases of abuse was always desperately important; flooding overworked GP's with instances of parents ( who we know to be good) who have smacked their young children, and then have to be referred on to social services with the usual repercussions, may well prove the last straw, and important diagnoses get missed because of pressure of time. Also, will do untold damage to the trust between GP and patient. Th doctor -patient relationship ids fundamental to effective General Practice. This bill could replace trust with suspicion. - Disastrous!
Long term longitudinal studies have failed to show the effectiveness of a smacking ban - Sweden is a good example of this.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
Yes, tightening up the definition of reasonable chastisement would help to separate parents who use smacking to disciple their children form those who abuse. e.g. hand to hand contact only, anything else is abuse.
This would protect loving parents form inappropriate prosecution, with possible lifelong consequences to the whole family. It would also help to avoid already hard pressed and over- stretched health and social workers from being swamped with inappropriate referrals. This means they could focus their limited resources where they are really most needed and therefore more likely to be effective.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
Yes, the possibility of high profile cases where loving parents who have used reasonable chastisement against their children being prosecuted and then facing life changing consequences would be very detrimental to the reputation of authorities in Wales.
This would make the act very unpopular and lead to costly protests and legal challenges.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
No. Criminalising smacking seems an over- reaction. Also I think that your use of evidence has been highly selective in favour of your planned legislation rather than balanced.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
Yes, loving parents would be criminalised overnight.This could lead to major adverse consequences for not only the parents, but also the family whom the bill is intended to protect. Evidence of this is seen form New Zealand.
Stigmatising loving parents who smack their children, seems inappropriate.
Police, health and social workers will inevitable become side-tracked into investigating inappropriate complaints, when they are already overworked, and struggling to mach their resources with their current workload. Why add to their pressure? The consequence could well be that people are paradoxically less safe rather than more, and the very people this legislation misguidedly sets out to protect are in fact less safe.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
Yes, adding new legislation will inevitably incur costs. The costs we are unable to predict with certainty.
No one wants to see child abuse, especially those who would oppose this bill, using resources effectively to combat what we know is more effective than using resources we do not have to combat what we don't know.
What would be much more effective for the long term well being of children would be supporting stable home environments, where long term committed parents work together for the well- being of their children. Parental separation is devastating on the long term welfare of children, and money that would have to be invested in policing this new bill, would be much better spent supporting parents in difficulty.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
-