PRODUCING TOMORROWS YOB

All forms of physical punishment of children beyond a 'minor smack' are to be made illegal under plans being drawn up by Downing Street and the Department for Education. For the first time the Government is now willing to look at reforming the defence of 'reasonable chastisement' for people who hit children. The reform of the Victorian law will be the first step towards an almost total ban on smacking, although the Government will make clear it has no desire to criminalise parents who give their child a quick smack at moments of frustration or to keep them out of danger.

"We are sympathetic to looking at reforming the reasonable chastisement defence in a way that catches those who assault their children and then use this defence," a source close to Charles Clarke, the Education Secretary, said. "But we do not want to make criminals of the mother in Sainsbury's whose child is about to run into the street and they give them a smack across the back of the legs. We do not want to be seen as the nanny state, so we will not be supporting any move to ban all smacking. But we do see that the law could be reformed. It is a very complex area and we will be seeing if there is a legal form of words that allows us to draw the distinction between the two types of child punishment."

The Government is very nervous of the debate on smacking and has in the past said it has no plans to change the law for fear of being accused of meddling in family life. It was not mentioned during the launch of the Child Protection Bill despite the Bill being described as a comprehensive document dealing with all child abuse matters. But moves by backbench Labour MPs to amend the Bill, at present going through Parliament, so that smacking faces a complete ban have caused a rethink. Officials signalled that, if an amendment was laid which fell short of a complete ban but did call for the abolition of the reasonable chastisement defence, then the Government would allow a free vote on the issue.

This would then almost certainly be passed before becoming law in 2005. Officials from Number 10 and the Department for Education are discussing how the law could be changed. Bringing children under the adult law could make it an offence to hit children except in self-defence. Legal advisers to the Government will be told that they must ensure that millions of parents are not criminalised at the stroke of a pen. David Hinchcliffe, the Labour MP for Wakefield and chairman of the House of Commons health committee, is now planning to table such an amendment. Although he supports a complete ban, he could understand the position of the Government.

"The end of the reasonable chastisement defence would mark a fundamental shift in the way we think about what is permissible when it comes to children, and that has to be welcomed," he said. "Abolishing the defence of reasonable chastisement would send the message that we have to change our attitudes when it comes to matters of child discipline away from the physical approach." Hinchliffe said courts often allowed the defence of reasonable chastisement in cases which child support groups said amounted to assault.

He said that the 'turn a blind eye' to the issue attitude led to the death of at least one child a month. Parents or carers who had appeared in court or had defended their actions against their children by the present defence often went on to do more harm. "What I am worried about is what the parent who gives their child a wallop in Tescos is doing when they get home," Hinchliffe said.

Parents must be banned from inflicting even the mildest of smacks on their children because it breaches human rights legislation. Under current law, mild smacking is allowed but parents who hit children hard enough to leave a mark can be jailed for up to five years. A "reasonable chastisement" defence is still available to parents but they can be charged with common assault if a smack causes bruises, grazes, scratches, minor swellings or cuts.

A report by the anti-smacking Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance, a group of 350 organisations working with children, says the parental defence of "reasonable chastisement" should be abolished. By failing to give children the same protection as adults, British law breached obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Social Charter and other human rights treaties, it says.

Sir William Utting, a spokesman for the alliance, said, "The UK cannot wriggle out of this. Political leaders should stop bowing to sensationalism about this long-overdue social reform and start defending what is a fundamental principle of equality and human rights." Downing Street's position has been that a full ban on smacking would represent an unacceptable intrusion into family life which would lead to parents ending up before a judge for minor slaps.

It suffered a rebellion by 47 Labour MPs who wanted a total ban on smacking when the measures were passed in the Children Act in November 2004. Since then more than 170 MPs from all parties have signed a House of Commons motion on children's human right to "equal protection from assault". Lord Kinnock, the former Labour leader, said, "Our human rights obligations to respect the physical integrity and human dignity of children are clear. To fulfil those obligations properly, children must be given the protection of the law against assault which adults take for granted in a civilised society.''

Lord St John of Fawsley, the Conservative peer, added, "Affording children equal protection under the law on assault seems to me a very modest, yet essential, step in the right direction." But Norman Wells, director of Family Youth Concern, said, "Many parents use occasional physical correction as a positive disciplinary tool in the context of a warm, caring relationship in which the child is valued and cherished.'' Look what has happened since the cane was banned in schools. (Source: Daily Telegraph, Jun/06)

Susan Pope, the nurse sacked from a leading public school after smacking her son in her own home, has lost her claim for unfair dismissal. Mrs Pope said that she lost her job as the senior nurse at Malvern St James in Worcestershire, one of the country's leading girls' boarding schools, last year after her teenage son called the police when she smacked his younger brother for swearing. Although she was investigated by police who found no evidence of wrongdoing, two of her children were placed on the local social services child protection register after the incident. The school said that the fact that her own children were on the register gave them grounds to question whether she was suitable to be in a position of such responsibility with vulnerable young people.

It also said that it could not risk the damage to its reputation if parents learnt about her situation. She appealed against the decision, suing for unfair dismissal at Birmingham Employment Tribunals but lost her case. According to Mrs Pope, the saga began in May 2007 when she smacked her then 10-year-old son on the bottom for speaking to her abusively. She claimed that boy's 15-year-old brother, who she says was going through a "rebellious stage", decided to call the police and Mrs Pope and her husband Folke, a chartered surveyor, were arrested and questioned before being released without charge.

However the tribunal judgment dosclosed that that the authorities were alerted by another parent who reported that one of Mrs Pope's children had run away from home claiming to have been mistreated by his parents, including being beaten and locked in his room for long periods. Police contacted them to say that the matter was not being taken any further but social services remained involved with the case by the time she was dismissed in January 2008. Adrian Davies, the school's bursar, welcomed the tribunal decision.

He said, "The principal priority for the school has always been the welfare of its pupils and at no time has this been compromised. The tribunal has accepted that at all times the school sought, and heeded, advice from experts in the field of child protection and acted in accordance with the policies and procedures set out in the Government’s Safeguarding Children directives. The unanimous decision of the Employment Tribunal to dismiss the case against Malvern St James is welcomed and Malvern St James will continue to follow best-practice in matters of child welfare." (Source: Daily Telegraph, Aug/09)