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-432

CADRP-432

 

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?

— Partly

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)

I can understand the desire to influence the public in the direction of positive parenting (in the sense of not allowing an undue element of physical chastisement or control) but I consider that removing the defence of reasonable chastisement is a step too far in terms of State intervention in family life and that it will provide a lever for various authorities to investigate parents for what must by definition be minor and insubstantial instances of physical correction (otherwise the defence would not apply) when parents are best placed to know their children and what methods work for a particular child.

It is noted that in your Explanatory Memorandum document parents were almost equally divided on the issue of whether there should be a complete ban on physical chastisement (48% agreeing and 39% disagreeing) and in the 2018 Consultation document 2018, 50.3% agreed the legislative proposals would help achieve the aim of protecting children's rights but 48.1% disagreed.  I would suggest that this does not indicate a resounding public agreement that this legislation is necessary.

In para 3.24 of your Explanatory Memorandum it says there were only 3 cases where this defence was raised between 2009 - 2017 : 2 in 2011 and 1 in 2014 and although you explain that this may not represent some cases that could come to attention but did not reach the criteria for prosecution, it still raises the issue of the proportionality of this expensive exercise compared with the so-called mischief it is intended to address.

When you take into account the estimated Administrative cost of £1.2 m - £2.7 million quite apart from costs incurred by affected authorities like the Police and the Court and Tribunal Service, you are left wondering whether the Assembly would not be better occupied putting these resources into issues like promoting employment, reducing homelessness ( the explosion of which is an appalling indictment of our society, providing a terrible appearance on our streets particularly our capital city to visitors from abroad) or mental health issues,

all of which would have in my view far more advantageous indirect effects on children (of those adults affected) than the resources being expended on this exercise.

I cannot therefore understand what is wrong with keeping the existing law in place as clearly it provides the necessary level of protection for children from any undue use of physical corrective force and the statistics such as you provide clearly do not justify this wholesale invasion into the rights of parents to be free of State interference in their family life.

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 - for the reasons advanced above

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 think the costs of implementation are disproportionate to the "evil" being addressed

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

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)

Yes. I think the vast majority of parents who administer a smack or minor punishment are doing so out of love and concern for their children and their moral and social development and this proposal runs the risk of turning such parents into criminals with all the potential of DBS implications on their employment prospects and the deleterious effects this may well have upon their children i.e. the State can do more harm than good when the parents are acting out of genuine concern for their children's character development.

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)

Yes - point already made in first answer.

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)

There seems to be an underlying concern to chime in with the UNCRC view wanting to recognise the" rights of the child to respect in terms of their human dignity and physical integrity and equal rights for protection under the law".

But this is very theoretical language and we are dealing with the very practical issues of bringing up a child and  ensuring its healthy and social development.

Whilst the motivation may be well intentioned in seeking to bring in these proposals,in terms of encouraging "positive" parenting, any parent will know that children need boundaries and will frequently push their parents to the limit of what they think they can get away with. This is where firm parenting comes in as an essential for the child to know he / she is not the sole arbiter of how they can behave and that limits will be enforced. It is in this context that firm discipline is required and, at an appropriate age, a mild smack can accomplish more than a multitude of verbal warnings. To treat this as a form of child abuse which seems to be the implication is clearly wrong headed.

Further, this approach to parenting runs the risk of parents, fearing State intervention in their parenting role, just "giving in " to children and allowing them too much rope for fear of measures being taken against them. This could well lead to even more chaos and indiscipline in our classrooms that will cause even more good teachers

to resign in the face of being unable to cope with the verbal and sometimes physical abuse by uncorrected youngsters from homes where a lamentable absence of parental discipline is clearly evident.

In my view it could lead to even more parents opting for private education, if they can afford it, or home schooling if they cannot. The result would be more and more parents deciding that the future of their children lies in provision outside the state system where children, unable to be disciplined properly at home, will impose even more stress and anxiety on overworked teachers ( I have parented one such) and may lead to more false allegations being made against their own parents ( overloading Police and Social Services) in addition to such allegations already being made too often against teachers.