Smack in the middle

As a coalition of children’s charities calls for a ban on smacking youngsters, Jack Mckeown asks: do you spoil the child if you spare the birch?

“Sweden was the first to outlaw the practice ...”

Smacking your child could be made illegal in Scotland if a coalition of children’s charities, politicians and legal figures has its way. The Children Are Unbeatable coalition wants young people to have the same protection from assault as adults.

It is pushing for an outright ban on smacking to be included in the Children and Young Person’s Bill, which is under consultation and will go through parliament next year.

The Scottish Parliament last looked at the issue in 2002, when it decided against an outright ban but forbade hitting with implements such as belts and slippers, shaking children, or hitting them on the head.

Wales has approved a full smacking ban, although it won’t come into effect until the next parliamentary term.

A total of 32 countries has totally prohib- ited corporal punishment of children by law. These include such bastions of human rights as South Sudan and the Republic of Congo. However, the Scandinavian countries – traditionally seen as being 10-15 years ahead of the rest of Europe when it comes to social progress – banned smacking a long time ago.

Sweden was the first to outlaw the practice, in 1979, followed by Finland in 1983 and Norway in 1987.

The UK-based social networking site for parents, Mumsnet, carried out a survey of its members, finding that 54% would not support a total ban on smacking but 35% would.

When asked if they had ever smacked their own children, the responses were much more equal, however, with 52% saying they had used corporate punishment and 48% saying they had never smacked their children.

Alex Cole-hamilton is head of policy for Aberlour, the largest solely-scottish children’s charity, based in Stirling, and one of the organisations behind the Children are Unbeatable alliance.

WE ALREADY have a pretty comprehensive ban on smacking in Britain, it’s just that it doesn’t extend to children. Currently, the law allows parents to justify what is basically common law assault against children as a legitimate punishment.

The law has been largely unchanged since the 19th century. Ten years ago we pressed the Labour/lib Dem coalition in Scotland to implement a band and that resulted in a number of small but important concessions: banning hitting the face and the use of implements.

We bend over backwards to make sure our children are safe in so many other areas of life. Safe on school trips. Safe in the workplace. People who oversee them have to be vetted. It seems strange we don’t extend this protection to include safe from being hit at home.

Smacking is banned by 19 countries in the Council of Europe. It’s not the case that if we change the law hordes of parents will be prosecuted for smacking their children. We haven’t seen this in other countries where they have a ban. It’s like the rule on children wearing seatbelts. If a child is seen not wearing a seatbelt, the police don’t automatically lock up their parents. There would be a common sense approach.

I wouldn’t for a second suggest that anyone who smacks their child is a bad parent. But it’s a spectrum – how hard do you have to hit and how painful does it have to be before it becomes unacceptable? In any case, there is strong evidence that smacking doesn’t work. It’s a learned behaviour that normalises violence and makes a child more likely to lash out in the playground if they feel angry. In later life they’re more likely to use violence as a tool. Some very senior police officers are against smacking for this very reason.

There are many ways to raise your child that don’t involve the use of violence.

Murdo Fraser is a Conservative MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife.

THIS ISSUE was thoroughly debated by the Scottish Parliament in 2002. At the time it was looked at in great detail and arguments for and against were heard. What emerged was a very clear view that a total ban on smacking would be disproportionate and unenforceable. Personally, I struggle to see where the demand to look at the issue again has come from in such a comparatively short space of time.

There is no evidence that this is a major social problem in Scotland. In fact, there are surveys showing that the number of parents who smack their children is declining.

Cur rent law seems to strike an appropriate balance between the rights of parents and the rights of children without going d ow n the road of the nanny state.

Most people, if they were asked, would say smacking is something that should be used sparingly, if at all, but it should be a matter of choice. The last thing we need is a Big Brother state where everyone is being watched. In any case, how could a ban be enforced without encouraging four- and five-year-olds to call the police and inform on their parents? Where is the evidence that smacking – in a restrained and mild fashion – causes any harm at all? The law as it stands protects children. There have been incidents where parents have been successfully prosecuted for assaulting their children. These cases have clearly defined what reasonable chastisement amounts to and what its limits are.