9. Memorandum submitted by the "Children
are Unbeatable!" Alliance
The "Children are Unbeatable!" Alliance
includes over 300 organisations, and as many prominent individuals
(see attached list of aims and membership [membership list not
printed]). The Alliance believes that the Government should outlaw
all forms of corporal punishment by removing the existing defence
of "reasonable chastisement", giving children the same
legal protection against assault as have adults. We hope that
the Home Affairs Commmittee will join the Health Committee and
the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights in urging this
important—and ultimately inevitable—law reform.
The Committee is doubtless already aware that
how children and young people are parented is one of the causes
of anti-social and criminal behaviour by them, is how they are
parented. Harsh and erratic discipline are identified as key components
of the sort of poor parenting which leads to juvenile delinquency[5]
and we submit that, until the Government grasps the nettle and
outlaws all forms of physical punishment, little progress will
be made in this area.
Prohibition of all corporal punishment in the
family is a long overdue reform which is required to give children
equal respect for their human dignity and physical integrity.
Human rights requires the criminalisation of any assault on a
child which would be a criminal offence if directed at an adult
(the relevant standards are set out below). The existing defence
which enables parents and some other carers to justify assaults
as reasonable punishment must be removed completely. Parents'
rights to restrain and protect their children and others must
of course be preserved.
The primary aim of criminal law is prevention
of crime and criminalisation of minor assaults does not in any
sense imply automatic prosecution. There are very few prosecutions
for minor assaults on adults, and there would be few prosecutions
for minor assaults on children: the de minimis principle
(that the law does not concern itself with trivial matters) would
apply. In addition, it should be emphasised that the prosecution
of parents is very seldom in children's best interests. There
should be invariable and careful consideration of the child's
best interests before any prosecution of a parent goes ahead .
The purpose of law reform on physical punishment
is to send a clear signal throughout society that hitting children
is no more acceptable or lawful than hitting adults; to change
attitudes and practice and provide a supportive context for the
promotion of positive, non-violent forms of discipline.
Proposals which give children less than equal
protection (such as the current clause 49 of the Children Bill,
which allows parents to continue to justify common assault as
lawful punishment) do not satisfy children's human rights and
if implemented would lead, we believe, to legal ambiguity and
parental confusion. Change which falls short of equal protection
sends the inevitable message "carry on smacking" and
prevents those working with families being able to deliver a clear
message, thus inhibiting promotion of positive discipline and
effective child protection.
The Committee will naturally give its attention
to measures which support parents in their challenging and difficult
job. There are hundreds of excellent voluntary parent-support
organisations that help parents who are in difficulties and who
have no qualms about saying straight away that parents must not
smack. But they are only able to help a few. We urgently need
a widespread well-funded education campaign and public debate
on what is positive discipline, but while smacking remains legal
the Government will be unable to send clear messages on this vital
issue. We note that the Government-sponsored National Families
and Parenting Institute produced a 13-page booklet on parenting
toddlers "From breakfast to bedtime" which, absurdly,
decided to avoid using the word smacking at all, presumably because
it felt unable to advise parents not to smack.
Outlawing all forms of physical punishment will
provide an ideal opportunity for the Government and everyone else
to engage with what is positive and effective parenting, rather
than having to waste time and energy on defending, or avoiding
mentioning, the indefensible.
14 September 2004
Attachment
ALLIANCE AIMS
AND STATEMENT
The organisations and individuals listed below
[not printed] welcome the Government's intention to clarify the
law on parental discipline. The traditional defence of "reasonable
chastisement" works against the aims which we and the Government
of a modern Britain share: the encouragement of positive parental
discipline in all families, and assurance of effective child protection
in the few cases where it is needed.
We believe it is both wrong and impracticable
to seek to define acceptable forms of corporal punishment of children.
Such an exercise is unjust. Hitting children is a lesson in bad
behaviour.
Removing the defence of "reasonable chastisement"
and thus giving children in their homes and in all other settings
equal protection under the law on assault is the only just, moral
and safe way to clarify the law. While technically this would
criminalise any assault of a child, trivial assaults, like trivial
assaults between adults, would not be prosecuted. There already
exist adequate means to prevent unwarranted or unhelpful prosecutions.
It would on the other hand ease prosecution in serious cases.
It would eliminate the current dangerous confusion over what is
acceptable and provide a clear basis for child protection.
There is ample evidence from other countries
to show that full legal reform, coupled with the promotion of
effective means of positive discipline, works rapidly to reduce
reliance on corporal punishment and reduces the need for prosecutions
and other formal interventions in families. Using positive forms
of discipline reduces stress and improves relationships between
children, their parents and other carers.
5 For a useful compilation of the existing research,
see Elizabeth Thomson Gershoff, Corporal Punishment by Parents
and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic
and Theoretical Review Columbia University, 2002 on: http://www.apa.org/journals/bul/press_releases/july_2002/bul1284539.pdf Back
| 
