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-286

CADRP-286

 

About you

Individual

1      The Bill’s general principles

1.1     Do you support the principles of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill?

— No

1.2     Please outline your reasons for your answer to question 1.1

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

It is tragic irony that the choice to inflict 'reasonable' chastisement is being threatened by unreasonable state intervention. Parents should be trusted to make this decision, not meddling social workers, health visitors, prying neighbours, and most of all, ideologically driven politicians. The parental relationship is unique and within this context, a well-placed smack is the best thing, even to be congratulated, not criminalised. That parent has helped towards a well-ordered society and should not be punished or even threatened.

People like Julie Morgan have been following an ideological crusade for many years without evidence. They are now abusing their power over those who do not share their ideology. The law does not need to be changed. Julie Morgan claims that 'we do not want a Wales where it is acceptable to physically chastise a child'. She is entitled to an opinion. But she is wrong on that - surveys regularly show that the real 'we', the very people of Wales do not want this change in the law. And I am one of them. Her view is so stridently held among social workers that someone with my opinions risks losing their children and certainly would not be able to foster, even though I have 3 excellent, successful, mature, decent, loving, adult kids who never resort to violence to settle disputes as is claimed by the anti-smacking brigade.

Actually Mrs Morgan, I _do_ want to be able to resort to the use of pain in training a child. Nature all around us uses brief sharp pain, such as thorns and nettles, the warning nip of a dog, the lick of a flame, the scald of steam, to warn us of further harm.

Physical punishment is a necessary last resort for parents to use in the proper nurture and admonition of young children. There is nothing essentially wrong in the use of short sharp pain to shock the willful foolish child out of the tendency to naive heedless reckless feckless indolent dangerous behaviour. Nothing is as effective or efficient to rouse them from this state of foolishness. The bible's ancient wisdom puts it thus, 'Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.' Proverbs 22:15. This wisdom has stood for the ages, but Mrs Morgan thinks she is wiser than Solomon.

1.3     Do you think there is a need for legislation to deliver what this Bill is trying to achieve?

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

No there is not. If the government wants to 'send a message' then they should do so through the appropriate means, e.g. health promotion, not this heavy-handed measure which. Politicians should get on with sorting out the real mess in society, such as low educational standards, child poverty, health & social inequalities, homelessness, substance abuse, instead of this 'busy work'. Picking on parents like this is an abuse of their limited powers. It is almost as if they have so little power that they flail around to see what little bit of law they can enact. This Bill is a monstrous example of bad politics and blackens yet further the whole concept of politics in my day. Trump, Brexit, now this?!

The law does not need to change, the current law needs to be enforced.

2      The Bill’s implementation

2.1     Do you have any comments about any potential barriers to  implementing the Bill? If no, go to question 3.1

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

I have serious doubts that resources for child protection, already at breaking point, will be stretched further by spurious accusations. Serious child abuse is much more hard to detect and punish than if you enlist a cadre of over-zealous 'watchers' ready to report those who are willing to take their role of a parent seriously to the point that they administer physical punishment and risk flouting your ridiculous Bill.

This bill will confuse the investigation of child abuse rather than help it since anything physical which a parent does that a child dislikes could be interpreted as abuse, including obvious acts of kindness such as strapping a child into a car-seat, changing a nappy, etc.

2.2     Do you think the Bill takes account of these potential barriers?

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

No. But the Bill and its authors are not interested in or worried about any 'unintended consequences' - they are ideologically driven and will not listen to any amount of evidence or logic which contradicts them. They have seen this Bill coming for a long time and think that some nirvana is within their grasp but it is a false dawn and the effects will only degrade our society further.

3      Unintended consequences

3.1     Do you think there are there any unintended consequences arising from the Bill? If no, go to question 4.1

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

Clearly, loving, upstanding parents are going to be caught up in this bill, the sort of people who have given their lives to the proper care of children, teachers, nurses, volunteers for youth clubs, present and future foster parents will be ruled as unfit to look after children when actually they are the most and best qualified and are furthest away from abusing children that could be.

I read that the NHS has already issued a statement that smackers will be treated the same as child abusers if the bill passes. This is a horrific consequence.

The Bill will encourage a 'police state' mentality with snitches reporting 'abuse', not because it is genuine abuse, but because it is against their ideology. Even the accusation and reporting may be enough to have dramatically damaging effects on the family, their lives and their network.

4      Financial implications

4.1     Do you have any comments on the financial implications of the Bill (as set out in Part 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum)? If no, go to question 5.1

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

The government's own impact assessment says this bill will cost over £3million with unquantifiable costs for child protection services. PLEASE CAN YOU SPEND THIS MONEY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT so that our streets are safe or on schools that are having to close on Fridays for lack of funds. It is an absolute disgrace and scandal that a blank cheque is being written to pander to the crazy ideology behind the bill.

5      Other considerations

5.1     Do you have any other points you wish to raise about this Bill?

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

The Bill is wrong in general. And there is something seriously wrong with (our) democracy if this kind of bill can be passed against the public will. Politicians who support it should take a good look at themselves and consider if ideology is an adequate basis for turning good citizens into criminals. I would absolutely flout this law in the privacy of my own home because a measured smack is entirely right and proper in the right circumstances. In public I could resort to a hard flick (with my finger on the boney back of the child's hand) but even that risks the ire of those who support this bill. This bill will not stop me doing what is right for the child and society at large.