Chamber
Plenary, 24 Feb 2000
24 Feb 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Children (Physical Punishment)
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, because it gave them some sort of status in our schools. It was very little deterrent to unruly classroom behaviour.
Most of my social work practice was spent in the west central Fife area. The reason that I am labouring that point is that, as we all know, the belt originated from a Lochgelly cobbler. The test case that led to its prohibition in the state school system was from Beath High School in Cowdenbeath. It is relevant that someone from Fife should be talking about it.
My point is that we were regularly belting children in our state schools less than two decades ago. Lyndsay McIntosh might disagree, but I believe that that would be totally unacceptable now. Times have moved on, including on the subject of parental chastisement.
The previous Tory Government missed a golden opportunity, when the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 was being discussed, to clarify this issue along the lines that Lyndsay McIntosh suggests that her motion is doing. However, having read the motion, I cannot see how it clarifies anything, except that we can physically rebuke our children, presumably by visiting assault on them.
When the act was being discussed, the Law Commission, as we have heard from the Deputy First Minister, suggested that, although hitting children would not be outlawed completely, there would be a definition of what was meant by reasonable chastisement. Some six years on, the Executive is attempting to provide that definition.
We should perhaps move further. The conclusion that we reach may not be the accepted wisdom of everyone in the chamber—or perhaps of people outside—but we should be considering this matter seriously. At least the Executive, in the consultation paper, has asked people for their comments. We should seriously consider whether to outlaw hitting our children. I suggest that children should be afforded the same protection as we afford every other member of society.
The issue is emotive; people do not want to be categorised as bad parents. Outlawing the hitting of children is not about criminalising parents. It is about offering children rights with responsibilities. The trivial examples would not result in prosecution. The hypothetical example that has often been raised in my presence is that of a young child who puts his or hands in an electric fire. The child receives a tap across the wrist, which—because we are not allowed to hit our children—results in prosecution.
That is a trivial example; clearly, it would not happen. It does not happen in those countries that have already enacted similar legislation. Jim Wallace is right that the legislation has not come about in isolation. It is perhaps a bit late in the day to discuss this issue, but at least we are doing so now. I hope that we take this consultation paper as a beginning and that, in a relatively short time, our young children will have the same rights and protection in law as adults do.
Most of my social work practice was spent in the west central Fife area. The reason that I am labouring that point is that, as we all know, the belt originated from a Lochgelly cobbler. The test case that led to its prohibition in the state school system was from Beath High School in Cowdenbeath. It is relevant that someone from Fife should be talking about it.
My point is that we were regularly belting children in our state schools less than two decades ago. Lyndsay McIntosh might disagree, but I believe that that would be totally unacceptable now. Times have moved on, including on the subject of parental chastisement.
The previous Tory Government missed a golden opportunity, when the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 was being discussed, to clarify this issue along the lines that Lyndsay McIntosh suggests that her motion is doing. However, having read the motion, I cannot see how it clarifies anything, except that we can physically rebuke our children, presumably by visiting assault on them.
When the act was being discussed, the Law Commission, as we have heard from the Deputy First Minister, suggested that, although hitting children would not be outlawed completely, there would be a definition of what was meant by reasonable chastisement. Some six years on, the Executive is attempting to provide that definition.
We should perhaps move further. The conclusion that we reach may not be the accepted wisdom of everyone in the chamber—or perhaps of people outside—but we should be considering this matter seriously. At least the Executive, in the consultation paper, has asked people for their comments. We should seriously consider whether to outlaw hitting our children. I suggest that children should be afforded the same protection as we afford every other member of society.
The issue is emotive; people do not want to be categorised as bad parents. Outlawing the hitting of children is not about criminalising parents. It is about offering children rights with responsibilities. The trivial examples would not result in prosecution. The hypothetical example that has often been raised in my presence is that of a young child who puts his or hands in an electric fire. The child receives a tap across the wrist, which—because we are not allowed to hit our children—results in prosecution.
That is a trivial example; clearly, it would not happen. It does not happen in those countries that have already enacted similar legislation. Jim Wallace is right that the legislation has not come about in isolation. It is perhaps a bit late in the day to discuss this issue, but at least we are doing so now. I hope that we take this consultation paper as a beginning and that, in a relatively short time, our young children will have the same rights and protection in law as adults do.
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—