Chamber
Plenary, 24 Feb 2000
24 Feb 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Children (Physical Punishment)
I may accept interventions later in my speech.
I am sure that most parents would consider those methods of discipline far more effective than smacking a child. Those alternatives should be positively promoted by the Executive.
Many organisations and individuals in Scotland advocate a complete and explicit ban on physical punishment by parents. That view should not be dismissed. Such a ban would bring Scotland into line with many other European countries, and I am glad that the Executive has chosen to consult on that point. However, all the available evidence suggests that the majority of Scottish parents would be reluctant to support such an outright and explicit ban. Without prejudging the outcome of the consultation, I am inclined at this stage, like the Executive, to agree with that view. The Parliament must not be overly prescriptive about how parents should bring up their children.
The purpose of the law is twofold: to set the boundaries of acceptability and to deal with those people—who, thankfully, are a small minority—who go beyond what is considered acceptable. The problem with the law as it is currently framed is that it is not drawn tightly enough to afford children the protection that they deserve. The English case that Jim Wallace referred to, and which was taken to the European Court of Human Rights, illustrates how widely courts in this country may interpret the defence of reasonable chastisement.
There must be clear boundaries and, as a society, we must make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt where those boundaries lie. There are particular forms of punishment—punishment that causes or intends to cause injury; blows to the head or face; shaking children; or the use of any form of implement—that should never be acceptable in any circumstances, and parents administering such forms of punishment should not be allowed to shelter behind the defence of reasonable chastisement. All those forms of punishment are beyond the pale, and cross the boundary between chastisement and abuse.
As a society, we should make it clear that if there is to be a continuing right to use mild physical chastisement, that right should apply solely to parents. The law should make it unlawful for anyone else who has the care of children—childminders, care workers or babysitters—to use physical punishment. That is essential to ensure the protection of children, and I would argue that it is also essential to ensure the protection of those who have temporary care of children.
Such a change to the law would not represent a huge move away from current practice. Although at the moment childminders are not prevented by law from using corporal punishment if they have the agreement of parents, it is the practice of many local authorities in Scotland to make it a condition of registration as a childminder that physical punishment will not be used. That position should be enshrined in law.
I will make one final plea to the Executive. Mr Wallace has already referred to the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, which is before this Parliament. The bill extends the ban on corporal punishment to private schools and publicly funded nurseries, but not to private nurseries. That is an indefensible loophole, and it must be closed. I am not persuaded by the Executive's argument, which is only a technical argument, that the loophole cannot be closed in this bill. I urge the Executive to think again and to look at amending the bill to outlaw corporal punishment in private nurseries.
In conclusion, we have a welcome opportunity to bring our law into the 21st century. The rights of children, in the broadest sense, must be the driving force in this debate. It is not for us as a Parliament to dictate to parents how to bring up their children, but it is our job to ensure that children, like any other group in society, are protected from abuse, can live in an atmosphere of love and respect and are able to grow into happy and fulfilled adults.
I move amendment S1M-586.2, to insert at end:
"and further calls upon the Executive to take full account of all views expressed in the consultation, to ensure that the rights of parents and children are mutually respected and that Scots law complies with the European Convention on Human Rights."
I am sure that most parents would consider those methods of discipline far more effective than smacking a child. Those alternatives should be positively promoted by the Executive.
Many organisations and individuals in Scotland advocate a complete and explicit ban on physical punishment by parents. That view should not be dismissed. Such a ban would bring Scotland into line with many other European countries, and I am glad that the Executive has chosen to consult on that point. However, all the available evidence suggests that the majority of Scottish parents would be reluctant to support such an outright and explicit ban. Without prejudging the outcome of the consultation, I am inclined at this stage, like the Executive, to agree with that view. The Parliament must not be overly prescriptive about how parents should bring up their children.
The purpose of the law is twofold: to set the boundaries of acceptability and to deal with those people—who, thankfully, are a small minority—who go beyond what is considered acceptable. The problem with the law as it is currently framed is that it is not drawn tightly enough to afford children the protection that they deserve. The English case that Jim Wallace referred to, and which was taken to the European Court of Human Rights, illustrates how widely courts in this country may interpret the defence of reasonable chastisement.
There must be clear boundaries and, as a society, we must make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt where those boundaries lie. There are particular forms of punishment—punishment that causes or intends to cause injury; blows to the head or face; shaking children; or the use of any form of implement—that should never be acceptable in any circumstances, and parents administering such forms of punishment should not be allowed to shelter behind the defence of reasonable chastisement. All those forms of punishment are beyond the pale, and cross the boundary between chastisement and abuse.
As a society, we should make it clear that if there is to be a continuing right to use mild physical chastisement, that right should apply solely to parents. The law should make it unlawful for anyone else who has the care of children—childminders, care workers or babysitters—to use physical punishment. That is essential to ensure the protection of children, and I would argue that it is also essential to ensure the protection of those who have temporary care of children.
Such a change to the law would not represent a huge move away from current practice. Although at the moment childminders are not prevented by law from using corporal punishment if they have the agreement of parents, it is the practice of many local authorities in Scotland to make it a condition of registration as a childminder that physical punishment will not be used. That position should be enshrined in law.
I will make one final plea to the Executive. Mr Wallace has already referred to the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, which is before this Parliament. The bill extends the ban on corporal punishment to private schools and publicly funded nurseries, but not to private nurseries. That is an indefensible loophole, and it must be closed. I am not persuaded by the Executive's argument, which is only a technical argument, that the loophole cannot be closed in this bill. I urge the Executive to think again and to look at amending the bill to outlaw corporal punishment in private nurseries.
In conclusion, we have a welcome opportunity to bring our law into the 21st century. The rights of children, in the broadest sense, must be the driving force in this debate. It is not for us as a Parliament to dictate to parents how to bring up their children, but it is our job to ensure that children, like any other group in society, are protected from abuse, can live in an atmosphere of love and respect and are able to grow into happy and fulfilled adults.
I move amendment S1M-586.2, to insert at end:
"and further calls upon the Executive to take full account of all views expressed in the consultation, to ensure that the rights of parents and children are mutually respected and that Scots law complies with the European Convention on Human Rights."
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Patricia Ferguson):
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-586, in the name of Mr Jim Wallace, on the physical punishment of children, and amendments to that motion.
The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice (Mr Jim Wallace):
LD
The Executive has sought this debate today so that members of the Scottish Parliament may have an opportunity to express their views about the Executive's pr...
Mrs Lyndsay McIntosh (Central Scotland) (Con):
Con
But.
Mr Wallace:
LD
We also recognise the value of asking the question in order to expose the issue to debate. It is not our intention to stifle debate, which would be a danger ...
Mrs McIntosh:
Con
But.
Mr Wallace:
LD
But.The amendment calls on the Executive to take full account of all views expressed in the consultation. That is a matter of normal practice so we can suppo...
Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
Not always, Jim.
Mr Wallace:
LD
I remember that it was in a previous Administration that Lord James described a consultation as a genuine consultation—that was perhaps more a feature of tha...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
Please wind up, minister.
Mr Wallace:
LD
Change in legislation usually happens because the attitudes of society change. The Executive believes that the prevailing attitude in Scotland is that parent...
Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
The SNP welcomes the Scottish Executive's consultation on physical punishment of children. As the Deputy First Minister said, it is eight years since the Sco...
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
I welcome Nicola Sturgeon's comments about consulting children. Unlike Jim Wallace, I see no difficulty in supporting her amendment. Were we in government, w...
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
I am glad that the Tories have learned from their mistakes and are now in favour of consulting people; that is not something that they were good at when they...
Mrs McIntosh:
Con
Will Nicola Sturgeon give way?
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
I may accept interventions later in my speech.I am sure that most parents would consider those methods of discipline far more effective than smacking a child...
Mrs Lyndsay McIntosh (Central Scotland) (Con):
Con
Deputy Presiding Officer, I am sure that there have been occasions on which you have witnessed behaviour here and wished that you could administer a smack. H...
Scott Barrie (Dunfermline West) (Lab):
Lab
Is Mrs McIntosh seriously suggesting that we turn the clock back to pre-1986 and reintroduce the belt into our schools?
Mrs McIntosh:
Con
I am saying that there is an opinion abroad that that might be appropriate. That is all that I am saying.The Executive may wish to consider why parents all o...
Scott Barrie (Dunfermline West) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome this debate on the Executive's consultation paper, although it seems a bit late in the day that, in 2000, we are discussing how we hit our children...
Mrs McIntosh:
Con
I find it hard to believe that Mr Barrie had friends who competed to get the belt. I had it once in my life, and it cured me.
Scott Barrie:
Lab
As someone who never had the belt, I am not sure what that means. The point that I was making was that a number of people went out of their way to be belted,...
Irene McGugan (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Like others, I welcome the fact that we are to have consultation on this issue, followed by legislation. The crucial point is how much or how little Scotland...
Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab):
Lab
I am pleased that the debate is taking place, as it sends a message to the people of Scotland that the Scottish Parliament is committed to children. We have ...
Mrs McIntosh:
Con
For some people, those are terms of affection.
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
I am sorry, but I simply do not see it that way.We have moved a considerable way towards zero tolerance of domestic violence; we should move towards zero tol...
Linda Fabiani (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I join my colleagues in welcoming the consultation document; it is clear that this area of policy must be updated. The document demonstrates that much of the...
Dorothy-Grace Elder (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
All members will agree that this Parliament should not turn into some sort of Mary Poppins for adults, acting as a national nanny to parents by wagging its f...
Scott Barrie:
Lab
Will Dorothy-Grace Elder give way?
Dorothy-Grace Elder:
SNP
I am sorry. I am a back bencher and we do not get much of a chance to speak in this Parliament, and when we do it is only for four minutes. Other members get...
Scott Barrie:
Lab
As one back bencher to another—