---

The Lord Bishop of Chester: I am a novice with the amendment, but would not subsection (2)(c) on the prevention of a criminal act cover the supermarket incident?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I do not think that the child would be intending to steal the sweets but rather to have the mother purchase them. I am talking about a three year-old. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate used that example, because it takes us away from the point that we were seeking to reach.

There are circumstances that make the situation difficult. It would be very difficult, not to say irresponsible, to agree the amendment as it stands, because it would create the situation that I have outlined. Essentially, it does not do what I set out at Second Reading. We remain committed to that response and to protecting children who are being abused. If the noble Lords whose names are attached to the amendment believe, as I am sure they do, that by changing this law we can do something more to stop children being abused, we should try. It is important to do everything possible to support children in the context of family life.

I do not stand here to say, "Go away. We are not prepared to listen". If there are ways in which we could make the situation even better and even stronger for children, we should try. My commitment is to ask the noble Lords who tabled the amendment to talk to me about what might be done in that context, but within the context of what I said at Second Reading, and with the understanding of the position that the Government now hold.

Baroness David: Before the Minister sits down, does she agree that it is a tradition of this House and of the other place to have a free vote on this sort of issue, whether or not the Government support it?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I did not say that it was about whether the Government supported it. I said that it was the duty of any government, when looking at a free vote in either House, to ensure that the proposition that is before the House is completely understood and workable. That is our problem with this amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: Before the Minister sits down, the purpose of this amendment is to create clarity and certainty. She said that one of her problems with it is that it would create confusion among parents. Does she feel that the general public do not understand the law of assault when the offence is adult on adult or that they do not know what they can and cannot do? This amendment is merely trying to remove excuses for
 
20 May 2004 : Column 913
 
unreasonable physical abuse of children and to return the law of assault when the offence is adult on child to exactly the same situation as that for adult on adult. That is all that we are trying to do.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Baroness has said that adults understand what the law is. I am not sure that if you asked 100 parents in the street tomorrow what they know about the law of reasonable chastisement, they would even have heard of it. I have read all the polling evidence. I live in a household where polling evidence is literally bread and butter. It often depends on the question that one asks. If one asks anyone with a good, reasonable mind face to face, "would you remove the defence that makes children unequal before the law", it would be interesting to see who would say "no".

The question is not where the noble Baroness is trying to go. I understand absolutely what she is saying, but that is not the effect that the amendment would have. We must work in a world where there is certainty. It is not good enough to say that it will not happen. When we take legal advice, and when I read what the Director of Public Prosecutions and others have said, I see before me a situation that is at best ambiguous, and it needs to be thought through carefully.

This is not about the Government saying that there is not more that we can do or that if we can find a way through that gives us clarity, we would not seek to do that. We are saying that unless we are able to do that, we could not move forward.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I thank the Minister personally for having gone to so much trouble to explore the background to this amendment, and I thank noble Lords who have spoken to support the amendment. While I do not agree with the criticisms that have come from other noble Lords, I wish to listen to them carefully and read carefully what they have said. I am concerned that using the term, "ban on smacking", is an emotive sound bite behind which people can hide, do hide, and will continue to hide. When we look at the evidence, we know how the slippery slope starts, and hitting escalates into serious harm. We know from evidence that the outcomes of corporal punishment do not show positive benefits for society. Some have grown up well despite, not because of, their experience of corporal punishment.

I pay tribute to the Government for the enormous amount of work that they are doing to try to provide positive education in parenting. I am well aware of the expenditure undertaken by the National Assembly for Wales and the excellent booklets that have been produced in Wales. I have been reassured that such booklets are also being produced in England, but not living in England my experience is of the Welsh leaflets. They are excellent, but there is a sense among those working with children that the current law undermines the vast efforts that are being made to encourage people to parent positively in a society where there is increased family break up; there is increased infidelity among parents; and there is increased mobility and social isolation.
 
20 May 2004 : Column 914
 

This amendment was seeking to establish equal protection—simply that—and safe equality for children. I will quickly address the criticism about the nanny state. I had understood that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a private family life, can be justifiably infringed only in the legitimate public interest. That would include the necessary protection of the young and the vulnerable. Currently, our law says that small children and babies can be hit lawfully by a parent if that parent believes that it is chastisement. That is before language and other reasoning skills are developed.

I do not believe that prosecutions would have been increased, nor was this the purpose. I welcome the invitation of the Minister, as I am sure other noble Lords do, to meet with her afterwards and talk with her. I am sure that we all have the aim that children should be protected under the law from being victims of escalating violence. We want to give society a clear message that violence is not an appropriate response to the normal feelings of frustration that every parent experiences. In the light of the very generous offer made by the Minster, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Andrews: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee begin again not before fifteen minutes before three.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2004

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20 April be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee and 5th Report from the Merits Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House consider the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2004. I shall speak also to the direction given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under Section 51B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They were laid before this House on 20 and 28 April 2004 respectively.

The order empowers the Secretary of State to act on the Independent Monitoring Commission's recommendations in respect of MLAs' salaries and financial assistance to parties. The direction stops the payment of financial assistance to two parties, Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist Party, for a period of 12 months. The order and direction are made in the light of the first report of the IMC on the incidence of paramilitary activity laid before Parliament on 20 April.
 
20 May 2004 : Column 915
 

The commission found that paramilitary activity was still at a disturbingly high level and that, in its view, two parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Sinn Fein and the PUP, have links with paramilitary groups. It recommended that the Secretary of State should,

"consider taking action in respect of the salary of Assembly members and/or the funding of Assembly parties, so as to impose an appropriate financial measure in respect of Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist Party".

The modification order was designed to facilitate such a step. It modifies the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which was amended by the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Act 2003 to broaden the range of measures that the Assembly could take against parties on the grounds that they were not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means; or on the grounds that they were not committed to such of their Members as are or might become Ministers or junior Ministers observing other terms of the pledge of office. The Assembly may take these measures by means of a cross-community vote. They include exclusion from ministerial office, and reduction of pay and financial assistance to parties.

This legislation also inserted a provision in the 1998 Act allowing the Secretary of State to take such steps by direction in circumstances where the IMC had recommended such a step; and where the Assembly had itself tried to take such a step and failed to do so due to lack of cross-community support. However, in the absence of a sitting Assembly, it has been necessary to make a modification order to remove the prior requirement for a resolution of the Assembly having failed, in order that the Secretary of State might exercise the power in relation to the recommendation of the IMC. The Secretary of State concluded, following an interval allowed for the parties to make representations, that he should take steps in respect of the financial assistance payable to Sinn Fein and the PUP, in line with the IMC's recommendations. The direction made on 28 April therefore provides that assistance payable in accordance with the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Scheme 2002, under the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Act (Northern Ireland) 2000, shall not be payable to Sinn Fein or the Progressive Unionist Party from 29 April 2004 to 28 April 2005. The Secretary of State has stated that he will reconsider the matter in the context of the next IMC report, which is expected in about 6 months' time.

We are firmly committed to political progress in Northern Ireland and the restoration of the devolved institutions. But that requires a genuine commitment from all parties to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. We strongly condemn the continuing paramilitary activity described in the IMC report. We believe that the fact of our imposing the measures, as well as the substance of them, demonstrates clearly the unacceptability of the conduct revealed in the report. I commend the order to the House.
 
20 May 2004 : Column 916
 

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20 April be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee and 5th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

---