Chamber
Plenary, 24 Feb 2000
24 Feb 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Children (Physical Punishment)
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 already demonstrated that by the number of times we have raised child-related issues: the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill is in progress; we have had a debate on looked-after children; there have been members' business debates on children's rights; and several motions on child-related issues have been lodged. I recognise that that means that we must take on board many issues that might be difficult and controversial.
Many children's organisations feel that we have waited a long time for the consultation document on the physical punishment of children. Many actions that would have constituted physical assault if meted out to an adult have been defended in court as reasonable chastisement. Scott Barrie mentioned some examples, and I could quote chapter and verse—and others could probably do the same—of situations in which children have been shaken, beaten about the head and hit with a variety of implements, only to discover later that that was deemed to be reasonable in the circumstances.
It is important to remember the history of children's rights. During debates at the time of the Children Act 1989, attempts were made to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement, although an amendment to that effect that was tabled in the House of Commons was withdrawn. In 1992, the Scottish Law Commission recommended the banning of corporal punishment using implements such as canes or belts. Again, attempts were made to include such a measure in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, but they did not succeed.
I will not go into the legalese of section 12(1) and section 12(7) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, but I will give members a summary. One subsection lists a number of horrible things that people are not to do to their children; the other subsection says that that does not apply to parents, teachers or people who have care of a child. That anomaly ought to be removed.
Nicola Sturgeon was absolutely right—the status quo is not an option. We have to do something to bring our proceedings into line with the requirements of the European convention on human rights. We have to change our laws. We need a calm, reasoned and considered debate on how we can clarify the law in a way that gives children protection from physical assault but that also—as Irene McGugan said—supports carers and others who have the day-to-day responsibility of ensuring that children are brought up as reasonable citizens.
The law contains a number of anomalies, which we must tackle. Children in public care cannot be subjected to actions that children in the family home can lawfully be subjected to. Children in state schools cannot be subjected to some of the actions that it is apparently okay for children to be subjected to if their parents pay for the privilege. Children in some forms of provision for under-fives cannot be subjected to some actions that children in other forms of that provision can be subjected to.
I was disappointed by Lyndsay McIntosh's speech because of the language that she used to describe children. I do not think that it is helpful to describe children as proper little madams or as ankle-biters. Children are people who have rights and who ought to be respected. Her contribution contained exactly the sort of attack and language that will take this debate in a direction that we do not want it to take. We need to come up with something constructive, and I do not think that that use of language is helpful.
Many children's organisations feel that we have waited a long time for the consultation document on the physical punishment of children. Many actions that would have constituted physical assault if meted out to an adult have been defended in court as reasonable chastisement. Scott Barrie mentioned some examples, and I could quote chapter and verse—and others could probably do the same—of situations in which children have been shaken, beaten about the head and hit with a variety of implements, only to discover later that that was deemed to be reasonable in the circumstances.
It is important to remember the history of children's rights. During debates at the time of the Children Act 1989, attempts were made to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement, although an amendment to that effect that was tabled in the House of Commons was withdrawn. In 1992, the Scottish Law Commission recommended the banning of corporal punishment using implements such as canes or belts. Again, attempts were made to include such a measure in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, but they did not succeed.
I will not go into the legalese of section 12(1) and section 12(7) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, but I will give members a summary. One subsection lists a number of horrible things that people are not to do to their children; the other subsection says that that does not apply to parents, teachers or people who have care of a child. That anomaly ought to be removed.
Nicola Sturgeon was absolutely right—the status quo is not an option. We have to do something to bring our proceedings into line with the requirements of the European convention on human rights. We have to change our laws. We need a calm, reasoned and considered debate on how we can clarify the law in a way that gives children protection from physical assault but that also—as Irene McGugan said—supports carers and others who have the day-to-day responsibility of ensuring that children are brought up as reasonable citizens.
The law contains a number of anomalies, which we must tackle. Children in public care cannot be subjected to actions that children in the family home can lawfully be subjected to. Children in state schools cannot be subjected to some of the actions that it is apparently okay for children to be subjected to if their parents pay for the privilege. Children in some forms of provision for under-fives cannot be subjected to some actions that children in other forms of that provision can be subjected to.
I was disappointed by Lyndsay McIntosh's speech because of the language that she used to describe children. I do not think that it is helpful to describe children as proper little madams or as ankle-biters. Children are people who have rights and who ought to be respected. Her contribution contained exactly the sort of attack and language that will take this debate in a direction that we do not want it to take. We need to come up with something constructive, and I do not think that that use of language is helpful.
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—