Section:
Headings:
Facts
- The Children Act 2004 restricted the defence of “reasonable chastisement” for parental smacking of children. The Act applies to England and Wales.
- Under the new law, any smack that leaves more than a temporary mark may be illegal. Any smack that causes reddening of the skin that is more than transitory could potentially result in a prison sentence.
- The Bill was introduced to improve child protection services following the Victoria Climbié tragedy. However, some backbench MPs took the opportunity to try and ban all parental smacking in England and Wales. The Government rejected an outright ban, but supported a change in law that weakens the parental right to smack.
- In 2003 the Scottish Executive withdrew its proposed ban on smacking following evidence that many loving parents would be turned into criminals.
Biblical arguments
In the Bible it is parents who have the responsibility for raising children. Parents have a God-given authority over their children.
The fifth commandment requires a child to honour its father and mother (Exodus 20:12). This was quoted by Jesus and by the Apostle Paul.
Parents are expected to exercise loving discipline over their children. As part of this most parents use physical chastisement such as smacking. Discipline must not be harsh. Fathers are told to instruct children according to what is good and not to exasperate their children (Ephesians 6:4). That discipline can be painful is clearly accepted in Scripture (e.g. Hebrews 12:7-11). However, attempts to make the administration of reasonable chastisement a criminal offence should be strongly resisted as should other moves which usurp the authority of parents.
Key points
- Smacking is not child abuse. Most reasonable people see there is a world of difference between abuse and a loving smack.
- The public is overwhelmingly opposed to banning smacking. 88% of people in the UK say it is ‘sometimes necessary to smack a child’.1
- The change in law is unnecessary and will eventually prove to be unworkable. The previous law worked, was clear and widely understood. Both the Government and the European Court of Human Rights accepted the previous law adequately protected children.2
- The Government gave assurances the change in law would not criminalise ordinary smacking. However, as anything other than ordinary smacking was already illegal, the change in law can only criminalise some ordinary smacking, creating fear and uncertainty among parents.
- A legal opinion by a criminal QC concluded the new law could lead to discrepancies in its application. Some parents could be prosecuted while others who did exactly the same thing were not.3
- Evidence from Sweden, which banned smacking in 1979, shows that the ban not only failed to reduce child abuse, but made the situation dramatically worse. Between 1981 and 1994 records of assaults by relatives against children under seven increased by 489%.4
Government quotes
“Our position on smacking has not changed. We continue to believe that it was a matter of individual choice for parents. In the Government’s view, most parents accepted and understood that there was a clear and fundamental difference between discipline and abuse and knew where to draw the line…the Government did not believe that criminalising parents was the right way to deal with the issue.”
(Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman, Press Briefing, 24 June 2003)
“The Government has asked the Attorney General to keep the use of the reasonable chastisement defence under review in order to assess the impact of A v UK. His findings to date suggest that this defence is being used properly. The Government’s position is that these measures fulfil our obligations arising from the A v UK ruling and we will be responding to the Council of Europe accordingly.”
(Margaret Hodge MP, Minister for Children, House of Commons Hansard, 6 October 2003, col. 1132-1133 wa)
- 1Reproduced in Annex A of Protecting Children, Supporting Parents - A Consultation document on the Physical Punishment of Children, Department of Health, January 2000
- 2Baroness Ashton of Upholland, Under-Secretary of State, DfES, House of Lords, Hansard, 1 March 2004, col 438; Joint Opinion of Counsel for The Christian Institute, Herbert A Kerrigan QC, Paul Diamond, December 2002, para 82
- 3Opinion for The Christian Institute, Roy Amlot QC, Louis Mably, October 2004
- 4Larzelere, R E, Sweden’s smacking ban: more harm than good, Families First and The Christian Institute, 2004, page 8
