Smacking of Children

[David]

Please answer the Poll.

Parents 'to face smacking limits'

Parents in England and Wales who smack their children could lose the defence of "reasonable chastisement" if they are found to have hurt them.
Campaigners want a complete ban on the practice but ministers feel that would intrude too much on family life.
Instead there is to be a free vote in the House of Lords on Monday on an amendment allowing moderate smacking.
Parents could be restricted to giving their children mild smacks which do not amount to causing actual bodily harm.
Under the amendment, tabled by Liberal Democrat Lord Lester of Herne Hill, any parent smacking a child and causing harm, such as bruising, scratching or reddening of the skin, could be prosecuted.
The government favours this amendment over a rival one from a cross-party group of peers that would effectively ban smacking.
Prosecution
Under Lord Lester's amendment, parents would still be able to smack their children if they don't harm them physically or mentally.
They would no longer have the protection of "reasonable chastisement", which was introduced in 1860.
Caning in the home would also be forbidden, as would causing psychological distress to a child.
Lord Lester told the BBC: "I think that smacking is undesirable, just as I think verbal violence is undesirable. I plead guilty as a parent who has occasionally smacked my children.
"I think I probably was wrong to do so but I don't think that everything I disapprove of should be a criminal offence."
Terrible violence
Health Secretary Dr John Reid was asked about the issue on BBC1's Breakfast with Frost programme.
He said: "I think people want this middle road between not constraining parents too much from bringing their own children up, but on the other hand making sure that the law can't be used for some of the terrible violence we have seen against kids recently.
"That's why this compromise solution, I think, most people would think is sensible."
Peers will vote on the amendment during the bill's report stage on Monday afternoon.
A Department for Education and Skills spokesman said the government would not be allowing a free vote on the rival banning amendment, which he said would be "an unwarranted intrusion into family life".
'Right to protection'
Peers campaigning for a ban say that existing law offers children less protection from assault than adults.
Crossbencher Baroness Finlay of Llandaff said: "Other amendments falling short of equal protection would lead to greater legal ambiguity, professional uncertainty and parental confusion.
"They are about defining ways that children can continue to be hit, which we would not tolerate for any other human being."
Agony aunt Claire Rayner, spokesman for the Children Are Unbeatable alliance of more than 350 organisations campaigning for a ban, said: "We urge peers to take a principled stand and take an historic step towards realising children's right to the same protection from assault that adults take for granted."


David

[glow=red,2,300]FAMILIESFORJUSTICE[/glow]

[David]

MONDAY 5 JULY 22:30 BST - BBC TWO
FROM JON SOPEL

Hello,


For once the parent's disingenuous, self-justificatory lament - "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you", as a hand is raised to deliver a swift thwack to an errant child - may soon be true. Because from now on, little Jonny may be able to turn round to his mum or dad, and say: "You have just broken the law, and anything you say may be taken down and used in evidence against you." Ridiculous? Well, not really.

The government seems to want to shy away from backing an outright ban on smacking - favouring instead a compromise solution: you can smack your child, just not very hard. We'll be looking at how Number 10 is caught between its desire to amend our social ills and its fear of excessive intervention. Is the half-way house an unmanageable mess?

Jon Sopel

David

[glow=red,2,300]FAMILIESFORJUSTICE[/glow]

[David]

Proposals to limit the right of parents to smack their children are being debated in the House of Lords.
An amendment to the Children Bill seeks to ban smacking in England and Wales if it causes harm such as bruises, reddening of the skin or mental harm.

The government has given Labour peers a free vote on the change - but has told them they must vote against another amendment backing a total ban.

Novelist Salman Rushdie, who wants a complete ban, called it a "fudge".

SMACKING 'COMPROMISE'
Mild smacking allowed
Smacking banned if:

it causes bruises

scratches

reddening of the skin

mental harm

or if implement used


Head-to-head: Nanny state
Smacking laws around the world
But a spokesman for Tony Blair said the government wanted to achieve a balance between parents' right to discipline, and protecting children.

"We do not want to criminalise parents so we are opposed to an outright ban," he added.

Peers will vote first on Monday afternoon on the complete ban - and only vote on Lord Lester's compromise amendment if it is rejected.

Flood of prosecutions

Ministers have been accused of reneging on a pledge to outlaw smacking by telling peers to oppose a complete ban, and by giving them a free vote on Lib Dem Lord Lester's amendment.

His amendment allows "moderate smacking" but removes the defence of "reasonable chastisement".


People tell BBC News Online their views on smacking


In pictures


Ministers fear an outright ban would lead to a flood of prosecutions over minor offences.

Health Secretary Dr John Reid said he believed most people would back the government's approach, which will take shape during the Lords debate on the Children Bill starting at about 1515 BST on Monday.

But Mr Rushdie, who supports Children are Unbeatable, an umbrella group for more than 350 organisations campaigning for a complete ban, said the government had pledged a ban six years ago.

"Our view is quite simple - there is a human rights issue and this is not a question of nannying it's a question of increasing personal freedom ... that's to say to give children the personal freedom not to be hit," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Conservative spokesman Theresa May said her party did not have an official "position" on smacking, preferring to leave it up to individuals' conscience. She said she personally did not support a total ban.

Law 'outdated'

The official Lib Dem policy is to give children equal legal protection from assault as adults.

The party's children's spokeswoman in the Lords, Baroness Walmsley, is backing a complete ban on smacking.

She said: "Assaulting a child is as unacceptable as assaulting an adult, and the law should clearly say so."

Under a definition of "reasonable chastisement", dating back to 1860, parents can currently use a degree of force to discipline their children.

The arguments for smacking children are as backwards and outmoded as those that used to allow the smacking of one's wife

Matt, Amsterdam


Your views on smacking
Analysis: Blair's nanny worry

Under Lord Lester's amendment, any parent who inflicted actual bodily harm on a child could be prosecuted and would no longer have the protection of the defence.

Supporters of removing the "reasonable chastisement" defence say it is often used by parents as their defence in cases involving abuse.

More than 200 peers and MPs, including many from the Labour side, signed up to a campaign to amend the current Children's Bill passing through Parliament.

The Bill puts into effect recommendations from the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie, who died after repeated abuse.

Labour MP David Hinchliffe, who chairs the Commons select committee on health and used to work in child protection, has said the child protection agencies "are working with one arm tied behind their back" with the "outdated" current law.

He told BBC Radio 4's World at One that a number of members of Tony Blair's Cabinet privately supported an outright ban.

David

[glow=red,2,300]FAMILIESFORJUSTICE[/glow]

LATE NEWS
The House of Lords votes in favour of a compromise to limit parents smacking their children, but rejects an outright ban.