Hitting children is wrong. The Labour first minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, called Monday a “historic day” for Welsh children. He is deservedly proud of his government’s achievement in introducing a ban on smacking, which follows a similar decision in Scotland. The spotlight should now turn to England and Northern Ireland, where the “reasonable chastisement” defence to the charge of assaulting a child remains in place.
That it exists at all is due to long legal precedent, including a notorious case in 1860 when a teenage boy was flogged to death at school in London. His teacher was convicted of manslaughter but the judge decreed that “reasonable” beatings should be allowed. Ever since, efforts to change the law have foundered on objections to the state’s interference in family life, and the lingering notion that parents should have the right to administer corporal punishments, even after they were banned in schools in 1987.
A growing international consensus, guided by the UN convention on the rights of the child, makes it clear that they should not. Article 19 states that governments must protect children from all forms of violence. Sweden was the first state to do so in 1979. Many others have done so since. Doctors say violence makes children more aggressive and raises the risk of mental health issues. But in the UK, the Children Act of 2004 reaffirmed a parent’s right to smack or allow others to smack on their behalf.
Scottish politicians overthrew this in 2019, followed by the Welsh. In Wales it was decided to take longer over introducing the new law, in order that a £2m public information campaign could happen first. Research suggests that this approach was sensible, with public opinion divided over whether the ban is a good idea. While a survey last year found that 47% believe smacking children isn’t necessary, 34% think it sometimes is.
As with any new law, much will depend on enforcement. Police and social workers must be alert to the possibility of malicious reports, for example where family members are in dispute. Parents who were smacked themselves are more likely to smack their children. So care must be taken not to stigmatise families whose parenting style may be viewed by some as rough or unenlightened. The claim by the Welsh Conservatives that the law amounts to “new-age dogma” is ridiculous. Non-violent family life is a rational, humane objective; children should not be inducted by adults into a way of relating to others that involves physical threats, slaps or punches. But the state must support people as they adjust to a law which aims to change their behaviour.
Research has shown that, mostly, when parents strike children it is because they have lost control. Wales’s new law, and similar laws elsewhere, will not stop people from losing their tempers. What it does is to give children the same protection, in the event that they are assaulted, as other people. This should not be regarded as a utopian scheme. To grant adults a licence to physically hurt children is to take a risk with their safety and wellbeing. The NSPCC supports the withdrawal of the “reasonable punishment” defence in England and Northern Ireland, as does Sir Keir Starmer. The Northern Ireland children’s commissioner, Koulla Yiasouma, believes that Stormont should change the law. Her English counterpart, Dame Rachel de Souza, should join the campaign. The UK doesn’t need this archaic cop-out clause any more.
