Hansard

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. However, I am sure that the behaviour this morning will be exemplary.

Let us agree that, at its most basic, this debate is not about the abuse of children. Child abuse is rightly condemned by us all, and excess physical punishment would come into that category. This debate is about providing options for parents on how they feel best able to instil a sense of discipline in their children.

Physical punishment is not the be-all and end-all of discipline. Instilling discipline takes a number of guises that can be tailored to individual circumstances. Some things work better than others. From my own experience as a parent, I found that the withdrawal of privileges and the confiscation of that confounded disco gear with the sub-woofers, the volume of which cracked the kitchen ceiling, led to a marked improvement in behaviour and in application to homework in my household. The disco gear was in my child's room, so I have to disagree with Nicola when she says that it might be appropriate to send a child to their room. Unfortunately, the marked improvement in behaviour and in report cards had to be acknowledged, and the equipment returned. My hearing has been affected ever since.

Positive encouragement can be effective. We welcome the Executive's consultation paper, and applaud the resistance to the temptation to nanny and interfere. An outright ban on smacking is not the answer. Public opinion polls north and south of the border support the position that loving parents should not be criminalised for administering a safe smack. I am not a strict adherent to the "Spare the rod and spoil the child" school of thought, but I doubt if there is a member in this chamber, or a person in the public gallery, who has not seen a child whose behaviour could not have been favourably influenced by a well-aimed and appropriately weighted palm on the posterior.

I am pleased that the sex, age and state of health of a child are among the factors that the Executive has set out for consideration. Little girls are not all sugar and spice and all things nice; some of them are proper little madams, whose behaviour should be improved. The age of the child is of crucial importance. One cannot have a reasoned discussion on the merits of eating Farley's rusks, as opposed to wearing them, with an ankle-biter. I have been there and washed the tee-shirts.

This debate is of particular interest to the parents of today, but also to grandparents, childminders and parents of the future. The Executive might like to consider their input, and not only on this issue.

All too often, I have heard people say that the problem with unruly youths hanging about the streets is their parents' inability to discipline their children; but it is part of the maturing process. The child who has been brought up in a disciplined home environment, with respect for others, should be able to rise to the challenge of growing up and acting their age—not their shoe size.

In direct contrast, parents say that they are limited in what they can do by the prospect of legal repercussions. My amendment seeks to clarify and define the position, as definition has presented problems for the Executive of late.

For heaven's sake, children around the world are suing their parents for damages, or have filed for divorce. In contrast, children who love their mother or father have been devastated when a well-intentioned busybody has stuck their nose in where it was not wanted and legal action has been taken. The recent Hamilton case was an example of that. Irrespective of whether we think that a smack on the bottom for a girl of eight is excessive, the events that followed were a catastrophe for that family.

In such cases, words of caution seem far more rational and practical, yet there is no provision for such action in the established procedures. Having established that parents must have the right to decide, within reasonable, decent boundaries, the nature of punishment that is appropriate for their child, they must also be allowed to decide whether that responsibility may be passed on to another person, approved by them to look after their child during their absence.

Listening to one of these Sunday morning radio phone-in programmes, some people might take the view that, rather than extending the ban on corporal punishment to child care centres, childminders and non-publicly funded pre-school centres, we should be reintroducing it across the board, as a deterrent against unreasonable behaviour. The common consensus is that discipline in our schools has declined.