Committee
Justice 2 Committee, 27 Nov 2002
27 Nov 2002 · S1 · Justice 2 Committee
Item of business
Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Mr Wallace:
Watch on SPTV
It is important that I set out the policy objectives of section 43 at the beginning, because there has been much discussion on the issue. Some people support Scott Barrie's view; however, as Bill Aitken will probably point out when he speaks to amendment 45, others feel that the existing law does not need to be revised or amended. In the midst of all that, the policy objectives behind the section have probably been overlooked. They are: to provide protection to children; to clarify the law for parents on what constitutes reasonable chastisement; and, ultimately, to help steps towards reducing violence in society. The Scottish Executive remains committed to those objectives, which I hope will find support across the committee.Obviously, some believe that the Executive's proposals in the bill as introduced do not go far enough, which is why amendments 121 and 122 have been lodged. However, for others, they go too far. It would be unfortunate if the push and pull of those irreconcilable arguments overshadowed the policy objectives of section 43 and led to the committee deciding that we should not take positive steps to achieve sound policy goals. After all, our research shows that our proposals have considerable support from parents throughout Scotland.Amendment 121 would go further than any of our proposals, and would replace section 43 with a total ban on physical punishment. However, even allowing for the amendments that I will come to shortly, we believe that the provisions in section 43 would go a considerable way to protecting children and, as Scott Barrie pointed out, would represent some kind of consensus. Seeking such a consensus on the punishment of children could prove effective in changing attitudes and behaviour.The research that was undertaken at our behest shows that 79 per cent of Scottish parents agree that there should not be a total ban on physical punishment at present. In fact, only 14 per cent of today's parents want a total ban. Such a ban would redouble the problems of compliance and enforcement that the committee foresaw with a ban on smacking children under a specific age. Because there is such wide disagreement to a total ban, the measure would probably have a less persuasive effect in changing parents' behaviour than if we were to move forward in a consensual way. That said, I fully recognise and respect the intention behind amendment 121.An important strand of our policy will be to provide information on the effects of physical punishment, and to give parents access to positive parenting approaches to better discipline. Over time, parental attitudes to discipline have shifted; indeed, they might shift further. We hope that, with better information, attitudes will continue to change. Perhaps one day—which will probably be years rather than months away—physical punishment will be unacceptable to the majority of parents. However, that day is not yet here. As a result, I urge the committee to reject amendment 121.Amendment 122 would ban punishment that was in a manner likely to cause a child"unnecessary suffering or injury to health".Although that is also a laudable aim, the amendment is unnecessary. It is inconceivable that, having considered the ECHR factors, any court would regard"unnecessary suffering or injury to health"as justifiable. As the amendment would add little clarity to the law, I ask the committee to reject it.As I indicated during the committee's stage 1 consideration of the bill, our original proposals included a specific protection for the very youngest children, whom we judged to be at special risk of suffering inadvertent harm from physical punishment. However, it became clear that that particular restriction could not command support in the committee. Indeed, there was an even balance among parents about whether there should be a blanket ban on hitting children under three.In its stage 1 report, the committee said that it was not convinced that the proposal would reduce harm to children to such an extent as to justify a blanket ban. During the stage 1 debate, I said that the Executive reluctantly accepted that it should not press ahead with legislation on that issue. However, we feel that the smallest children are particularly vulnerable, and we seek to raise parents' awareness both of the potential effects of physical punishment on the smallest children, and of alternative positive parenting approaches to better discipline.Courts should always consider the age of the child when deciding whether a physical punishment was justified. Amendments 8 and 9 would give greater prominence to the child's age among the list of factors that a court must consider, thereby emphasising the importance of protecting the youngest children. Moreover, amendment 10 would remove from the bill the provision of a blanket ban on assaulting children under three, which I indicated we would do.On amendment 45, Bill Aitken has not followed what parents are thinking. Our research showed that parents are not in favour of a blanket ban on physical punishment, but an overwhelming majority of them agree that hitting children on the head, shaking them or using implements should be illegal. I remind the committee that 84 per cent of parents support a ban on blows to the head, 79 per cent support a ban on shaking and 79 per cent support a ban on the use of implements. All those punishments can be easily misjudged, particularly in highly charged situations, and can cause serious injury to a child. Clear rules can help, rather than harass, parents. A court must consider ECHR factors anyway, but it is clearer for everybody if the factors are listed in the legislation. The research also revealed uncertainty among parents about what the law says about physical punishment. That reinforces the need for a clear statement of the law.Section 43 is essential, not only to improve the protection of children, but to clarify the law and send out a message about physical punishment in the 21st century. Legislation is needed and the bill, with the amendments to which I have referred, would provide clarity. I urge the committee to accept section 43, with the amendments that I will move on behalf of the Executive, and to reject Scott Barrie's proposals and those that I assume Bill Aitken is about to make.
In the same item of business
Section 43—Physical punishment of children
The Convener:
Lab
I welcome Jim Wallace and the Executive officials.Amendment 121 is grouped with amendments 8, 9, 10, 122 and 45. If amendment 121 is agreed to, I cannot call...
Scott Barrie (Dunfermline West) (Lab):
Lab
Amendments 121 and 122 seek to remove the defence of "reasonable parental chastisement" that is set out in section 10 of the Children and Young Persons (Scot...
The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice (Mr Jim Wallace):
LD
I welcome the opportunity to come before the committee to discuss this topic, which I seem to have discussed with it on a number of occasions. Fate has some ...
The Convener:
Lab
We were saying the same thing only this morning.
Mr Wallace:
It is important that I set out the policy objectives of section 43 at the beginning, because there has been much discussion on the issue. Some people support...
Bill Aitken:
Con
We are going over old ground to some extent, as the committee has debated this matter at considerable length and in great depth. Scott Barrie has been entire...
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
I commend Scott Barrie for lodging amendment 121. I have not the slightest difficulty in supporting his objectives. In previous discussions, committee member...
Mr Morrison:
Lab
I support the position that has been outlined by the Minister for Justice. I cannot support the amendments that have been lodged by my colleague Scott Barrie...
The Convener:
Lab
Are you sure?
Mr Morrison:
Lab
The Child Support Agency has not contacted me. One of my children is three years of age, which is what I intended to say, and the other is 18 months. I see t...
George Lyon:
LD
I, too, support the minister and welcome his response to the committee's report. He took on board the concerns and addressed them. I respect where Scott Barr...
Mr Duncan Hamilton (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
I would love to be a fly on the wall when Alasdair Morrison gets home. Most of the arguments have been rehearsed. I cannot support Scott Barrie's amendments ...
The Convener:
Lab
The minister is not bound to answer that question.
Mr Wallace:
Thank you. I will respond to one or two of the points that have been made. We have had a good debate on what we all recognise is a difficult subject. We have...
The Convener:
Lab
Thank you, minister. I am glad that you acknowledged that some thought had gone into the committee's stage 1 report. We spent a considerable amount of time c...
Scott Barrie:
Lab
I echo the first point that the convener made. I do not think that members of the committee are 100 miles apart on the issue, which the popular press has som...
The Convener:
Lab
The question is, that amendment 121 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members:
No.
The Convener:
Lab
There will be a division.
ForBarrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)AgainstAitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (...
The Convener:
Lab
Now Scott Barrie knows how Bill Aitken usually feels. The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 121 disagreed to.
Amendments 8 to 10 moved—Mr Jim Wallace—and agreed to.
Amendment 122 not moved.
Amendment 45 moved—Bill Aitken.
The Convener:
Lab
The question is, that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members:
No.
The Convener:
Lab
There will be a division.
ForAitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)AgainstBarrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (...