| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion) (PC): The hon. Gentleman will know that since the law was changed in Germany in 2000, not one parent has been criminalised. Does he agree that the issue at the heart of the Bill is summed up in the film of Roald Dahl's "Matilda", in which Danny DeVito says to his daughter, "I'm big and you're small. I'm right and you're wrong"? It is not only about quality, but about defending the most vulnerable in society. It is plainly wrong that a 13-stone, 40-year-old man can hit a four-stone seven-year-old child. We just have to change the law.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I did not see the film, but I agree with its message. The only way to clarify the law and send a clear message that hitting children is at least as wrong and unlawful as hitting anyone else is to give children equal protection by removing the existing defence of reasonable chastisement altogether.
Peter Bradley (The Wrekin) (Lab): Through an honest sleight of hand, my hon. Friend has elided smacking and hitting. Most responsible parents are well able to distinguish between smacking that does not cause lasting harm and hitting, which certainly would. When he listed the ways in which those 80 children met their tragic deaths, he identified shaking and other forms of assault, but did not refer to smacking. It is clear to most reasonable people that assault is a different kettle of fish from disciplining a child in a loving family environment.
Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend gets us into the heart of the debate. I have been in court when the same point has been raised in individual cases. Is a smack in the mouth a hit? What is the difference between a smack and a hit? What is a gentle smack and what is a more serious, heavier smack? There are different smacks from different people. I weigh 16 stone. If I smacked my hon. Friend, it would be different from someone who was 10 stone smacking him. We need to consider how difficult it is for the courts to come to terms with the doubts that he raises.
To pursue the point further, I have argued that we need to get rid of the reasonable chastisement defence. Those who cannot accept what I believe to be a common-sense approach have been scaremongering that it is unworkable or that the child protection police and prosecution services will pursue prosecutions for so-called gentle smacks.
2 Nov 2004 : Column 242
The evidence of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been grossly misrepresented. In his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, he said, reasonably enough, that he could not guarantee that parents would never be prosecuted for minor assaults on their children. He stated:
"The reality is that we would have to have some sort of policy about this but I think it would be inconceivable for us to draft a policy that would be so wide as to say that minor assaults on children would never be prosecuted because there clearly could be circumstances where they would be. One might posit an example of a child who was mentally handicapped or a child who was subjected to sexual abuse or other forms of assault. So we would not and could not draft guidance which would absolve all minor acts of battery against children from criminal prosecution. That said, the reality is that, just as most minor assaults against adults are not prosecuted, I suspect most minor assaults against children would not be either, although it is not an entirely accurate analogy because children are much more vulnerable than adults."
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): How does the hon. Gentleman square the DPP's view with the Crown Prosecution Service allegedly telling the Government that the new clause would criminalise a huge number of people?
Mr. Hinchliffe: The view of the CPS appears to be contradicted by what the DPP told the Joint Committee and also what the Association of Chief Police Officers said to me last week.
The DPP did not say that equal protection was unworkable. He said that Parliament should decide. Two tests have to be satisfied before any prosecution goes ahead: the evidential test and the public interest test. The public interest test invariably includes consideration of the best interests of the affected child. It is hard to understand how charging and prosecuting a parent for a minor assault that causes no injury is going to pass the tests and go ahead except in extreme circumstances. That does not render the law meaningless. On the contrary, it shows it to be sensitive.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): My hon. Friend's arguments are very persuasive; we pursued many of them in both my Select Committee and his. However, the proposals would bring a big change in our law. Does not he think that trying the new system for two years, monitoring it and then making a judgment would give us a means of transition for people we represent who are unpersuaded? Would not that be a more positive way forward?
Mr. Hinchliffe: If by "the new system" my hon. Friend means the one included in the Bill by the House of Lords, I shall be going through exactly what all the agencies concerned with child protection are saying about clause 56.
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hinchliffe: No, I am sorry, but I have to make some progress. Other Members want to speak in this brief debate.
All the associations representing those who will need to work on equal protection are agreed that it is workable and safe; all of them. I have met and talked
2 Nov 2004 : Column 243
with representatives of the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Association of Chief Police Officers, social workers, the NSPCC, health visitors and paediatricians. They all believe emphatically—to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—that clause 56 is unworkable and unsafe.
The position of the police is especially worthy of note. The House will recall that in the Lords debate on equal protection Lord Condon—who, as Paul Condon, was a distinguished Metropolitan Police Commissioner—said that he was absolutely certain that the status quo should not prevail and that parliamentarians
"have an historic opportunity to establish a pragmatic, symbolic and new legal approach to protecting children".
"should not be deterred by a fear of unleashing hundreds of thousands of police inquiries into trivial allegations and pitting child against parent in frivolous circumstances".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 July 2004; Vol. 663, c. 549.]
Only last week, I met Chief Constable Terence Grange, who speaks for ACPO on child protection matters. Subsequently, he wrote to me, setting out the association's views on the serious problems that would arise for the police should clause 56 become law. I have a copy of his letter if anybody wants to look at it. He stated:
"The proposed Clause would introduce randomness in terms of the child's physiology and the background of the parent, working class families tend to have much rougher hands than lawyers, bankers, etc. Some children redden or bruise much more easily than others. Such randomness and the use of age to differentiate between common assault and actual bodily harm is, in my view, likely to lead to much more complexity."
In addressing specifically the removal of the reasonable chastisement defence, Chief Constable Grange stated that
"since 2002, the police service in England and Wales has adopted an approach of recording crime whereby if a child or a witness or a member of the public had called to allege that a parent had smacked a child, that matter would be recorded as a crime. That does not mean that prosecution would follow, there is a well established procedure under 'Working Together' that enables the police and social services to decide on the best course of action and that would be followed. Therefore, if Parliament removes the defence I would anticipate no lasting issues which would make the situation unmanageable for the Police. The matter would be recorded as a crime and investigated by police or social services, dependent on the evidence, injury and a view on what is best for the family, as happens now . . . There may be an increase in allegations, however, given the increase in police resources over the last four years I am confident that we could cope with that. It is my view that were the change to be made over a reasonable period of time the number of allegations would fall, as given a good education programme by Government, rather like drink driving, smacking a child would become socially unacceptable".
Chief Constable Grange concludes his letter on behalf of ACPO by saying that
"removing the defence of reasonable chastisement would not create an unmanageable situation for the police force. The proposed clause 56 would introduce far more complexity than it would solve, as one example, the police would be seeking statements from Doctors and Paediatricians at such a level that I think they would find that unmanageable. We take no view on whether or not the defence should be removed. If Parliament removes the defence the police service in England and Wales will be able to manage the consequences".
As Chief Constable Grange indicates, the police must work closely with members of the medical profession on such matters. It is important to note that the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which represents paediatricians involved in child protection, is a signatory to a multi-agency statement that claims that clause 56 is unsafe and unworkable and that supports equal protection. Other signatories to the statement include the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association, the NSPCC, the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Social Services.
4.45 pm
Mr. Steve Love of the children and families committee of the ADSS wrote to me on behalf of the association to state its clear views. He said:
"We would welcome the greater clarity that will result that children be given the same protection as adults. I believe this would assist frontline practitioners in reinforcing the message that physical punishment is not an appropriate method of providing care and control for children."
"I think the proposed introduction of Cl. 56 would create an additional complication to what are already complex matters. The current threshold of 'significant harm' for formal child protection investigations would now have another standard if Cl. 56 was introduced. It's difficult to see how the standard could be applied consistently, as what may bruise one child may not bruise another. Social Services Departments are working hard to ensure a careful, measured and consistent approach for those involved in protecting children. I do not believe the introduction of Cl. 56 will do anything to assist".
In the light of such clear statements from all those in the front line of child protection, the scaremongering about the reform is frankly unacceptable. If there are still people in 2004 who want to defend hitting children, they should do so honestly, rather than hiding behind the misrepresented effects of reform that have been peddled over the past few weeks.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |