| |
|
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 Governments 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)
|
|
|