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-644 |
CADRP-644 |
About you
Organisation: Evangelical Alliance
— No
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
The Evangelical Alliance is a Christian organisation founded in 1846, across the United Kingdom we work with 79 denominations, 3300 Churches, 750 organisations and thousands of individual members. One of our primary objectives is to represent the voice of Churches and Christians.
The Evangelical Alliance is committed to the wellbeing of all in society and the protection of the most vulnerable. As a representative body of Christian organisations in Wales, many of whom work in the provision of family and children’s support services, we are absolutely committed to seeing all children experience a healthy childhood within the context of a loving family. We are therefore sympathetic to the intentions of this bill as it seeks to protect children in our society.
However, we do have some concerns in relation to the necessity and scope of these proposals as currently presented and in relation to potential unintended consequences. As a body with interests in both family life and specific support services for children – often in some of Wales’s most disadvantages areas – we would like to draw your attention to the issues below as you seek to consider the legislation at committee.
It is apparent that this legislation sits at the intersection of two fundamental principles of a modern liberal society – the protection of the vulnerable from harm and the autonomy of the individual and family to live in accordance with their beliefs without unwarranted interference from the state. Both principles are important and both would be supported by the vast majority of people in Wales. We wish to see children in Wales protected from the dangers of serious harm whilst maintaining the conditions for families to flourish in being able to live their lives according to their own principles and beliefs. It is a settled principle in law, that it is only the role of the state to interfere in parental decisions around the functioning of family life in the most serious of circumstances. Any legislation in this area must, in our view, therefore tread a careful course to support both principles and the proportionality of any new legislation should be assessed in such terms.
At present, it appears that the proposed Bill allows for potential criminal liability for parents who lightly smack their children. This seems to be a particularly severe, unpopular and disproportionate measure if the stated aim of the bill is to engender behavioural change. More broadly, it may also be counter-productive to the child’s wellbeing for their parent to possess a criminal record.
It is also worth noting that we do not endorse reasonable chastisement as being the only method of disciplining children, often this is the last method used by parents. By defending the right of reasonable chastisement, we are not endorsing smacking per se, but advocating that it should be the parents decision if and when they should deploy this discipline method. We also acknowledge that it is but one method used by many loving parents in conjunction with other procedures, when we discuss smacking it is needs to be understood that this is never the only technique used.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
No.
We do not consider that this proposed legislation is either necessary or an effective in delivering further protection to children. The question we would pose would be what is the primary problem that is being allowed under current law that is not being adequately dealt with by existing legislation? We would also question whether there any evidence in Wales that the current law is ineffective in prosecuting parents and caregivers who engage in abusive and violent behaviour towards their children. A recent Freedom of Information request was made to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that showed that from 2009-2019 there has been cases of anyone using reasonable chastisement as a defence in Wales. https://www.bereasonable.wales/cps-foi-response/
Simply put, if reasonable chastisement is not being utilised as a defence in court, then what is the tangible benefit from implementing this new legislation?
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
The primary political barrier to the bill appears to be public opinion, with one poll revealing that 76% of Welsh adults are against parental smacking being made a criminal offence. On the basis of this data, it appears that any proposed legislation would be unpopular with the majority of citizens in Wales.
https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Be-Reasonable-Wales-Survey-Data-Tables.pdf
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
In our view, politicians should broadly reflect the views and voices of the people they represent. In pursuing this legislation there is a considerable risk that politicians in Wales are demonstrating a clear disconnect with the views and wishes of their electorate.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
We have concerns about a number of potential unintended consequences arising from this bill. These include:
Parental prosecutions – as above. The state being potentially criminalising loving parents for how they choose to discipline their children. There is a tangible danger that implementing this Bill will give rise to the possibility that a considerable number of loving parents will be investigated by the police and even prosecuted. When asked ‘Were you ever smacked by your parents or guardians as a form of discipline?’ For example, 85% of Welsh adults informed ComRes that they had indeed been smacked as a child. https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/be-reasonable-wales-survey/
Additional pressure on public services – We consider that there may be a danger that scarce resources are unintentionally diverted away from investigating potentially more serious cases relating to child safeguarding issues. This is a very real concern that instead of resources being deployed to protect the most vulnerable children, public services will be duty bound to process and investigate cases of reasonable chastisement. If this Bill is passed, a potential increase of ‘reasonable chastisement’ cases would divert time and attention away from those children who desperately need it.
Enforceability - It appears that this law will be almost impossible to enforce in light of the current service pressures facing the police and social workers. In addition, increased level of reporting and processing would require additional funding that in our view is likely to be unsustainable within the foreseeable fiscal framework.
Criminalisation – We consider that this legislation could give rise to unintended consequences whereby parents who exercise reasonable chastisement potentially face exclusion from a range of careers working vulnerable individuals.
Moreover, it is respectfully submitted that these legislative provisions risk a significant breakdown of trust between the public and public services. In our view, this is particularly germane where public opposition to the bill remains strong (76%) (supra) As such, there is an obvious risk that proposed legislation in this area will be widely construed as a misconceived imposition that lacks public support. It is notable that Dr Ashley Frawley a Senior Lecturer at Swansea University has argued a smacking ban would be “Wedging the state and a host of self-styled ‘experts’ between parents and their children”.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
As stated above, in order to properly enforce this Bill there would be a significant increase in the time requirements of both the police and social services. This time requirement in our opinion could only reasonably be met by the additional employment of staff to services that are already struggling to meet the current demand.
The Welsh Government Explanatory Memorandum has stated that the costs for Policing and courts in Wales will surpass £3 million during the initial period of enforcing this Bill. http://www.assembly.wales/laid%20documents/pri-ld12454-em/pri-ld12454-em-e.pdf [P30].
However, this is not the total cost there would be further additional costs including to “Social services as a Result of a potential increase in referrals”. Ultimately this is labelled as “Unquantified costs” thereby making the true financial implications of this Bill difficult to accurately determine. http://www.assembly.wales/laid%20documents/pri-ld12454-em/pri-ld12454-em-e.pdf [P32]. In the round, we would argue that the financial implications outweigh any pragmatic benefits that might result from the passing of this bill.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
We believe investment in education would be a more proportionate way to tackle this issue as compared to potential criminalisation. Criminalisation creates the fear that restraining a child in public, for example, might be taken as a criminal offence by a member of the public. We are aware of cases in other areas which have arisen due to the transient perception of an onlooker . Such cases could potentially take up considerable resources and we believe education on alternative approaches would be not only a more proportionate response but potentially also a more effective one.
In other areas of public policy, there are broad moves away from a criminalisation to one of education and support. We would encourage the committee to reflect on whether that may be a more proportionate and effective approach to this issue than the legislation currently proposed.