Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance - News
News
Click on the headline for the full story
Cross-party parliamentary bid to end the legal approval of hitting children
Labour MPs demand a free vote on equal protection for children
Prohibit all corporal punishment as a matter of priority, UN tells UK
Big push to make Europe a smack free zone
Commissioners report UK to United Nations for failing to act
Thinktank recommends total ban on physical punishment
Top human rights official says children have a right not to be hit
Major appeal for action in 2008
Spain and Portugal legislate to ban smacking
Parents and professionals blast unsafe law, but Government fails to act
Parenting practitioners undermined by current law
Positive response from Labour deputy leadership candidates
Government reviews unjust "reasonable punishment" law
New Zealand's children get equal protection
Reform accelerates across Europe
UN says "No more excuses": equal protection by 2009
Human rights pressure mounts as Westminster support grows
Equal protection is an "immediate and unqualified obligation"
Major step forward as Commissioners back reform
Independent commission backs equal protection
Labour politicians urge equal protection
UK in breach of human rights treaty
Landmark human rights ruling on equal protection
Council of Europe calls for “concerted campaign”
Parliament votes for children to be hit and hurt
Why Clause 56 is not the way forward
Open letter to Rt Hon Peter Hain MP, Leader of the House of Commons
Green light to abolish "reasonable chastisement"
MPs speak up for equal protection
Call for Europe-wide ban on all corporal punishment
Two more European countries give children equal protection
Equal protection is the way forward
Government position on physical punishment of children "lacks credibility", Europe’s top human rights official says
News item posted October 2008
Following his visit to the UK (see news item below), the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg has issued a Memorandum on corporal punishment in the UK (9 October 2008).
The Memorandum states: "During his missions the Commissioner noted that there is acceptance among Government ministers that legislation to completely remove the "reasonable punishment" defence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, has become inevitable. In this regard the Commissioner welcomes the change in language when talking about corporal punishment and notes that the government now 'does not condone smacking'. Without a change in the law, however, this position of not condoning smacking lacks credibility."
Thomas Hammarberg goes on to emphasise "that laws allowing the definition of ‘justifiable assaults’ and ‘reasonable punishments’ on children are not compliant with international human rights standards."
Children are still approved for common assault - House of Commons fails to vote on equal protection for children
News item posted October 2008
There was insufficient time at Report Stage of the Children and Young Persons Bill (8 October) for a cross-party amendment on equal protection for children to be debated and voted on.
Should there have been a vote, large numbers of MPs - from all parties - were expected to vote for change.
Though the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were prepared to allow their MPs to vote according to conscience, the Government continued to deny a free vote to Labour MPs.
The campaign continues... CLICK HERE to sign up to the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance
Cross-party parliamentary bid to end the legal approval of hitting children
News item posted October 2008
On Wednesday 8 October, at Report Stage of the Children and Young Persons Bill in the House of Commons, there will be a vote on ending the legal approval of hitting children.
The current law in England and Wales allows parents and some other carers to justify common assault of children as "reasonable punishment". This legal defence is contained in section 58 of the Children Act 2004.
The amendment to the Bill tabled by a cross-party group of MPs aims to abolish the legal defence of "reasonable punishment" and give children exactly the same protection under the law on assault as adults currently enjoy.
The cross-party sponsors of the amendment are Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour), Julie Morgan MP (Labour), John Bercow MP (Conservative), Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat), Elfyn Llwyd MP (Plaid Cymru) and Dr Richard Taylor MP (Independent).
Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP said: "We must act now to end the legal approval of hitting children. It is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that the physical integrity and human dignity of every person is respected. The current law allowing so-called ‘reasonable punishment’ of children is unjust, unsafe and unclear, and must be abolished once and for all."
Sir William Utting, spokesperson for the Alliance, said: "This is one of those principled reforms on which politicians must make a stand whatever the pollsters might say. It is about being serious about equality and about the human rights of the child. The law must send the clear message that hitting children is as unacceptable as hitting anyone else."
CLICK HERE to read the text of the amendment and explanatory notes.
Labour MPs demand a free vote on equal protection for children
News item posted October 2008
Labour MPs are increasingly concerned that the Government will “whip” them to vote against equal protection from assault for children when an amendment to the Children and Young Persons Bill is debated on Wednesday 8 October - see news item above.
More than one hundred (111 to date) Labour backbench MPs have signed a private statement urging Ministers to allow them to vote according to their conscience on this reform.
The abolition of school corporal punishment was decided on a free conscience vote. More recently, free votes have been given on abortion and embryology research.
Labour MPs also point out that free votes have been granted on other issues in recent years, including banning fox hunting (2003/4) and banning tail-docking of dogs (2006).
Many Labour Peers, including Rt Hon Lord Kinnock, are also calling for a free vote.
During the contest for the Labour Party deputy leadership in 2007, Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP, now Leader of the House of Commons, declared support for a free vote on this issue. She said at the time: "I want children to have the same protection from assault as adults have. I support there being a free vote on the issue in parliament."
Labour MPs are being supported by a host of Labour-supporting public figures outside Parliament who have written an "Open letter" to Prime Minister Gordon Brown on the issue. Signatories to the statement include Patrick Stewart, Fiona Millar, Richard Wilson, Glenys Kinnock MEP, Neal Lawson, David Aaronovitch, John Edmonds, Melissa Benn, Professor Ruth Lister, Rodney Bickerstaffe and many others.
In the "Open letter" to Gordon Brown they say: "This is clearly a conscience issue, equal to any others that have been granted such status. It should be debated and voted on freely, fairly and openly, in the parliamentary tradition.
"Allowing a free vote is such a simple solution and we believe it would be a popular move, not only with Labour MPs, but also with the public.”
Child protection professionals confirm that equal protection can be implemented in the best interests of the child
News item posted October 2008
Child protection organisations have issued a new joint statement: “Our organisations represent key elements in the child protection system. We are among the 400-plus organisations in the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance which believe that legislation to give equal protection for children under the law on assault is vital to fulfil children’s human rights and to set a clear standard for non-violent parenting. We believe full legal reform is the only safe, just and workable way forward.”
Signatories to the statement include the NSPCC, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and the British Association of Social Workers.
CLICK HERE to read the statement in full.
Prohibit all corporal punishment as a matter of priority, UN tells UK
News item posted October 2008
On 3 October, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child stated in its concluding observations on the UK: “The Committee is concerned at the failure of State party to explicitly prohibit all corporal punishment in the home and emphasises its view that the existence of any defence in cases of corporal punishment of children does not comply with the principles and provisions of the Convention, since it would suggest that some forms of corporal punishment are acceptable.”
The Committee, responsible for monitoring implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, called on the UK to “prohibit as a matter of priority all corporal punishment in the family, including through the repeal of all legal defences, in England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland...”
This is the third time that this authoritative UN body has urged the UK to give children equal protection from assault (previous recommendations 1995 and 2002).
Speaking for the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance, Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP said: "We must act now to satisfy our human rights obligations under United Nations and European agreements. The time is right for Parliament to end the legal approval of hitting children once and for all."
CLICK HERE for a briefing on human rights pressure for equal protection for children.
Big push to make Europe a smack free zone
News posted August 2008
In June 2008, the Council of Europe kicked off a new initiative - "Raise your hand against smacking" - with a powerful television commercial with the message "Your hands should nurture not punish".
Speaking at a launch in June, Council of Europe Deputy Secretary General Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, said: "Abolishing corporal punishment against children is not a matter of opinion polls; it is a matter of vision and political leadership."
Commissioners report UK to United Nations for failing to act
News posted August 2008
In their joint submission (June 2008) to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child - currently examining the UK - the Children’s Commissioners for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland highlighted the continued legality of physical punishment of children as a "serious violation" of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In 1995 and 2002, the UN Committee strongly urged a total ban on smacking across the UK in order to meet obligations under this human rights treaty.
The UN Committee will issue its latest recommendations on improving the situation in the UK later this year.
Thinktank recommends total ban on physical punishment
News posted April 2008
The February 2008 report from the Institute for Public Policy Research - Make Me a Criminal: Preventing Youth Crime - shows the clear links between physical punishment of children and aggressive or criminal behaviour.
The report recommends that "the Government... should reconsider its position in light of the evidence presented in the report, as well as for moral reasons. More than 40 years of research shows that hitting children increases the chances of aggression, anti-social behaviour and criminal behaviour...
"Parents should be banned from any form of physical punishment of children. This would not only reduce criminality in the long term, but would also send out a message about the kind of society we want to be..."
Read the report summary (PDF).
Top human rights official says children have a right not to be hit
News posted April 2008
In January 2008, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, confirmed that "Europe is moving towards a total ban on domestic violence against children". He called on the minority of European countries which have not legislated to prohibit all physical punishment of children or made a commitment to do so, including the UK, to "recognise this as a priority".
Read Thomas Hammarberg viewpoint
Read Thomas Hammarberg "issues paper"
At a February meeting in London, Thomas Hammarberg told Westminster MPs: "Smacking children is not just a lesson in bad behaviour; it is a potent demonstration of contempt for the human rights of smaller, weaker people."
Click here for new publications from the Council of Europe on abolishing corporal punishment
Major appeal for action in 2008
News posted January 2008
Politicians, policy people, parents and professionals working with children and families have united to make a big statement for equal protection for children in newspapers and magazines. Their message is: "Equal protection from assault is every child’s human right. Hitting children is wrong and the law should say so - now! Campaign with us to achieve equal protection for children in 2008."
Read the press advertisement...
Spain and Portugal legislate to ban smacking
News posted December 2007
Two more European countries - Spain and Portugal - have prohibited all physical punishment of children. At least another seven governments in Europe are committed to taking action.
European countries giving children equal protection from assault are:
1979 Sweden
1983 Finland
1987 Norway
1989 Austria
1994 Cyprus
1996 Italy (by Supreme Court ruling)
1997 Denmark
1998 Latvia
1999 Croatia
2000 Bulgaria
2000 Germany
2003 Iceland
2004 Romania
2004 Ukraine
2005 Hungary
2006 Greece
2007 Netherlands
2007 Portugal
2007 Spain
Parents and professionals blast unsafe law, but Government fails to act
News posted December 2007
The overwhelming majority of respondents to the Government’s consultation on “reasonable punishment” (section 58 of the Children Act 2004), conducted in July and August 2007, criticised the current law for being unjust, unclear and unsafe, and for not satisfying human rights obligations under United Nations and European agreements.
Despite wide-ranging evidence submitted by more than 1,000 concerned parents, professionals and organisations, the Minister responsible, Kevin Brennan MP, announced in October 2007 that “the Government will retain the law in its current form, in the absence of evidence it is not working satisfactorily”.
Dame Mary Marsh, NSPCC Director and Chief Executive, said: "We do not agree with the government's view that the law is working effectively. Section 58 has not improved protection for children.”
Sir William Utting, Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance spokesperson, said: “Ministers have simply put off the inevitable again. A clear majority of responses to the Government’s public consultation favour changing the law, showing that things have moved on and this issue is now firmly mainstream. We will now step up the pressure on the Government to show leadership and champion this long overdue, progressive reform."
EXTRACT FROM THE GOVERNMENT’S CONSULTATION REPORT...
Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 Review (consultation)
Analysis of responses to the consultation document
Overview
Respondents generally felt that section 58 of the Children Act 2004 had made little positive impact on children, families and those working with them. It was considered that section 58 has not improved legal protection for children in cases of alleged assault by their parents. Many respondents felt that the only way to protect children is to ban physical discipline outright.
Respondents considered that there has been no change in practice as a result of section 58 by those working with children and families in considering incidents involving an alleged assault by a parent upon a child. Most commented that the legal position on the physical punishment of children is confusing for both parents and professionals and makes it difficult to make sound judgements of potential child abuse incidents.
The general opinion of respondents was that changes to the law have not deterred parents from using unacceptable levels of physical punishment in bringing up their children. A number of respondents were concerned by the use of the phrase “unacceptable levels of physical punishment”; they believed that there is no acceptable level of physical punishment.
The majority of respondents were of the opinion that local agencies struggle to help parents to establish effective boundaries for their children. Many said that agencies’ anti-smacking beliefs often conflict with the Government’s message (as they perceived it) that parents are allowed to smack their children. It was felt that, as a result, agencies find it difficult to send clear messages about discipline to parents.
Most respondents considered the legal position relating to the physical punishment of children to be widely misunderstood by those working with children and families. It was felt that there is too much ambiguity surrounding the ‘reasonable punishment’ defence and that professionals might struggle to judge the severity of a smack by the mark it left on a child’s skin.
Some respondents were concerned that changes to the law may have had a discriminatory effect on children that had different skin tones. It was feared that black children would be more at risk of not receiving the protection they need because a mark might not show up as easily as on a white child.
Respondents suggested various evidence sources that should be considered as part of the review. An overwhelming majority called for children to enjoy the same rights to protection as adults. Many stated that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should be considered.
Further reading
Read the analysis of consultation respones in full (PDF).
Read the consultation statistics here (PDF).
Read extracts from responses here (PDF).
Go to the DCSF website for all documents relating to the Government’s review of section 58, including polling with parents and a children’s survey.
Parenting practitioners undermined by current law
News posted December 2007
A new survey shows that more than three quarters (77 per cent) of parenting practitioners working in the Government’s flagship sure start projects and children’s centres believe that "banning smacking" would help them achieve their professional aims. Only 10 per cent say that it would not help.
In July 2007, 143 professionals from more than 100 sure start projects and children’s centres across England completed a seven-point questionnaire supplied by the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance.
The vast majority (92 per cent) of parenting practitioners responding to the survey think that the current law allowing common assault of children to be justified as "reasonable punishment" (section 58 of the Children Act 2004) is inconsistent with the promotion of positive parenting, one of their priority professional tasks.
Furthermore, 82 per cent of parenting practitioners believe that section 58 hinders their work with children and families (20 per cent of this number say it hinders a lot). Only 1 per cent say that it helps them.
Asked whether "reasonable punishment" contributes to the overall culture of violence against children, 37 per cent of parenting practitioners say "definitely" and 51 per cent say "possibly". Nearly half (49 per cent) believe that "reasonable punishment" encourages parents to use physical punishment.
More than nine in ten (92 per cent) of parenting practitioners think that most parents are confused (70 per cent) or very confused (22 per cent) by the current law allowing "reasonable punishment".
Most (92 per cent) respondents agree that physical punishment of children is wrong.
Positive response from Labour deputy leadership candidates
News posted July 2007
Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance supporters asked the Labour Party deputy leadership candidates this question:
From these options, please would you indicate how you would like Westminster Labour parliamentarians to be instructed to vote when a proposal to give children the same protection as adults under the law on assault is put before Parliament:
- Labour whip in favour of equal protection from assault for children.
- Labour whip against equal protection from assault for children.
- Free conscience vote for Labour parliamentarians.
This is how the candidates responded...
Hilary Benn: "Free conscience vote."
Hazel Blears: no response.
Jon Cruddas: "I believe that the law on assault should be equalised, so that children are protected. Labour should take the lead on this issue, with the leadership making this clear, even if it does choose to travel down the path of a free vote."
Peter Hain: no response.
Harriet Harman: "I want children to have the same protection from assault as adults have. I support there being a free vote on the issue in parliament."
Alan Johnson: "Last time the issue was debated (during the passage of the Children Bill in 2004, now enacted), Labour parliamentarians were given a free vote and a sensible compromise was reached. I would be happy to see that happen again."
Government reviews unjust "reasonable punishment" law
News posted July 2007
On 15 June 2007, the Government launched a narrowly-focused consultation to review the "practical consequences" of the current law allowing parents and others to justify common assault of children as "reasonable punishment" (section 58 of the Children Act 2004).
The practical consequences of section 58 are clear: parental confusion, professional uncertainty, legal ambiguity and policy inconsistency.
However, most importantly, section 58 is unjust and fails to satisfy human rights obligations under United Nations and European agreements.
The Alliance is disappointed that these human rights and equality considerations are not centre-stage in the Government’s review, but will continue to press this principled case in the review process and all other arenas.
Sir William Utting, spokesperson for the Alliance, said: "We do not need a review of the current law to know that it is unjust and unequal. However, we welcome any opportunity to show that the UK should satisfy human rights obligations by modernising the law on assault to give children the same protection as adults."
Colette Marshall, UK Director of Save the Children, said: "Hitting children, like hitting anyone else, is unacceptable. Save the Children welcomes the opportunity for the UK government to meet its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child by modernising this law."
CLICK HERE for Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance briefing (PDF).
New Zealand's children get equal protection
News posted July 2007
The New Zealand Parliament has legislated to give children equal protection from assault (May 2007). On a free conscience vote, an overwhelming majority of the country’s parliamentarians supported the cross-party proposal led by Green MP Sue Bradford.
The new Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act removes the "reasonable force" defence so that the criminal assault laws apply equally to adults and children.
At least 20 other countries are discussing similar moves following last year’s report by the UN Secretary-General’s Study on Violence against Children, which concluded that all physical punishment should be prohibited by 2009.
Reform accelerates across Europe
News posted April 2007
Two more countries - the Netherlands (2007) and Greece (2006) - now give children equal protection from assault in the family. Both countries legislated to satisfy human rights obligations under United Nations and Council of Europe agreements. In Europe, 16 countries have now passed legislation to give children equal protection (plus Italy by Supreme Court ruling). A further six countries are committed to taking action.
Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance spokesperson Sir William Utting said: "More than a third of European countries have modernised their assault laws to give children equal protection and these reforms have been implemented without great controversy. Many more plan reform soon. The UK should help accelerate this positive change across Europe, rather than being one of the last to act as we were over prohibiting corporal punishment in all schools."
UN says "No more excuses": equal protection by 2009
News posted 2006
The report of the United Nations Secretary-General's Study on Violence against Children has called on all countries to prohibit all corporal punishment in the family, at school and everywhere else by 2009.
Submitted to the UN General Assembly on Wednesday 11 October 2006, the report prepared by Professor Paulo Pinheiro who headed up the four-year study notes: "In every region, in contradiction to human rights obligations and children's developmental needs, violence against children is socially approved, and is frequently legal and State-authorized."
The report continues: "The Study should mark a turning point - an end to adult justification of violence against children, whether accepted as 'tradition' or disguised as 'discipline'. There can be no compromise in challenging violence against children. Children's uniqueness - their potential and vulnerability, their dependence on adults - makes it imperative that they have more, not less, protection from violence...
"...The core message of the Study is that no violence against children is justifiable; all violence against children is preventable. There should be no more excuses. Member States must act now with urgency to fulfil their human rights obligations and other commitments to ensure protection from all forms of violence."
Click here to read the full report.
Click here for more information about the UN Study.
Click here for further information about global progress.
Human rights pressure mounts as Westminster support grows
News posted 2006
Human rights obligations to modernise the law on assault to give children equal protection are inescapable and urgent, according to a new report from the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance (July 2006). This coincides with growing concern in Westminster that the UK must move quickly to end the legal acceptance of hitting children.
By failing to give children equal protection, the report shows that UK law breaches obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Social Charter, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and other human rights treaties. "Humanity and logic suggest that children should be the first, not the last, members of human societies to be effectively protected from assault," the report says.
Entitled "Equal protection from assault is every child’s human right", the report finds the UK under mounting pressure to act from the bodies responsible for monitoring compliance with binding United Nations and Council of Europe human rights agreements. It argues that it is now a question of how soon, rather than whether, the UK will respond and legislate to meet these human rights standards.
Sir William Utting, spokesperson for the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance, said: "This report shows that equal protection for children is a clear human rights obligation that the UK cannot wriggle out of. Political leaders should stop bowing to sensationalism about this long-overdue social reform and start defending what is a fundamental principle of equality and human rights.”
Westminster MPs and Peers are growing increasingly concerned that there should be an opportunity for a vote on equal protection for children in the early years of this Parliament. Labour backbenchers continue to plead with Ministers to allow them to vote freely according to conscience when the time comes (in the 2004 vote, Labour whipped against the equal protection proposal).
To date, more than 170 MPs from all parties have signed a current House of Commons motion on children’s human right to equal protection from assault. This is more than double the parliamentary support shown for similar motions in the past (previous best: 83 signatories in 2004).
Significantly, 113 Labour MPs have backed the motion so far, stepping up the pressure on the Government to allow its parliamentarians a free vote on any future legislative bid.
Greg Pope MP (Labour), who sponsored the motion, said: "Support for this mainstream social reform is growing in Westminster, as the current Commons motion suggests. It is now time for everyone with a stake in modern progressive politics to stand up and be counted. We cannot escape our human rights obligations to give children equal protection from assault; nor should we want to."
Politicians from both Houses of Parliament welcomed the latest report from the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance:
Rt Hon Lord Kinnock (Labour) said: "Our human rights obligations to respect the physical integrity and human dignity of children are clear. To fulfil those obligations properly, children must be given the protection of the law against assault which adults take for granted in a civilised society. And we should do it quickly, before the 21st century gets much older."
Lord St John of Fawsley (Conservative) said: "The case for ending the legal and social acceptance of hitting children is unanswerable. In the 21st century it is time for all of us to move on. Affording children equal protection under the law on assault seems to me a very modest, yet essential, step in the right direction."
Annette Brooke MP, Liberal Democrat spokesperson on children and the family, said: "As modern liberals, we often have to balance rights for different individuals and groups. On this issue, the current law has the balance all wrong. There can be no justification for the smallest and most fragile of our citizens having less protection from assault than the rest of us take for granted."
CLICK HERE to read the report in full (pdf).
Equal protection is an "immediate and unqualified obligation"
News posted 2006
On 2 June 2006, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child issued a “General Comment” on “The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment”. The authoritative Committee “emphasizes that eliminating violent and humiliating punishment of children, through law reform and other necessary measures, is an immediate and unqualified obligation” for states which have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Committee explained that hitting children “directly conflicts with the equal and inalienable rights of children to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity. The distinct nature of children, their initial dependent and developmental state, their unique human potential as well as their vulnerability, all demand the need for more, rather than less, legal and other protection from all forms of violence”.
Sir William Utting, spokesperson for the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance, said: "The recent United Nations move makes it crystal clear that all countries, including the UK, must act to meet human rights standards under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Ifs, buts and maybes are not good enough; equal protection is an obligation not an option."
The UK ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991 and since has twice been rebuked by the Committee on the Rights of the Child for failing to afford children equal protection (1995, 2002).
CLICK HERE to read the full text of the General Comment.
Major step forward as Commissioners back reform
News posted 2006
The Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance, bringing together more than 400 organisations working with children and families, has welcomed the joint statement (22 January 2006) by the UK’s four Children’s Commissioners as a major step forward in the campaign to give children equal protection from assault.
Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance spokesperson Sir William Utting said:
"Law reform to give children equal protection from assault is an urgent concern for all mainstream agencies concerned with children’s human rights and child protection. This professional consensus for modernising the law is now so strong that politicians would be irresponsible to ignore it.
"We must do the right thing right now and end the legal acceptability of hitting our most vulnerable citizens. Hitting children is as unacceptable as hitting anyone else and the law should send the clear message that it is equally unlawful."
STATEMENT BY THE FOUR UK COMMISSIONERS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE ON THE PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN
Children are the only people in the UK who can still be hit without consequence. The current and previous governments have made welcome progress by prohibiting all corporal punishment of children in schools, other institutions and forms of alternative care. In relation to parental corporal punishment, in England, Wales and Scotland the ancient common law defence of “reasonable chastisement” has been limited, but not removed completely; and in Northern Ireland the government has indicated that it plans to bring the law into line with that in England and Wales.
Children have the same right as adults to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity and to equal protection under the law, in the home and everywhere else. There is no room for compromise, for attempting to define “acceptable” smacking. This has been confirmed by United Nations and Council of Europe human rights monitoring mechanisms, and by the Westminster Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. The UK has been told repeatedly since 1995 that to comply with its human rights obligations, the reasonable punishment defence must be removed completely in all four countries of the UK.
This long overdue reform for children is becoming inevitable, and we urge the government and the Scottish Executive to promote consistent legislation throughout the UK to give all children full protection under the law on assault. It can count on our vocal support and also that of the strongest and broadest alliance of professional and other organisations ever formed around an issue for children.
Central to our task as Children’s Commissioners is promoting respect for children as people. We are very concerned that parents should get help and advice to promote positive approaches to discipline, and how to set and enforce appropriate boundaries for childrens’ behaviour without using physical punishment.
We believe that condoning smacking gets in the way of progress. It confuses parents, inhibits child protection and undermines the promotion of positive forms of discipline. It conflicts with our governments’ aspirations for children and our society. Research with young children across the four countries has shown how upsetting they find smacking and adult approval of it.
The European Network of Ombudspersons for Children adopted a position statement in 1999, urging all governments in Europe without delay to introduce legislation prohibiting all corporal punishment, and initiate or support education programmes on positive, non-violent forms of discipline. More than one third of Council of Europe member states have explicitly prohibited all corporal punishment, and others are committed to doing so in the near future. We know from colleagues across Europe that once governments grasp the nettle, reform their law and link reform with public education, attitudes quickly begin to change.
We call upon Government and the Scottish Executive to allow further debate and votes in the relevant parliaments to introduce legislation that will ban the defense of reasonable chastisement/punishment throughout the UK. This should be supported with policy and resources to promote positive parenting.
Independent commission backs equal protection
News posted 2005
A new report has called for children’s human right to equal protection from assault to be recognised (November 2005). The independent Commission on Families and the Wellbeing of Children, chaired by Sir Michael Rutter, concluded that the defence of “reasonable punishment” should be abolished.
Welcoming the report, Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance spokesperson Claire Rayner said: “"This boosts the already overwhelming pressure for the UK to satisfy its obligations under UN and European human rights treaties by ending legalised violence against children. Modernising the law on assault to give children the same protection that adults take for granted is a long overdue social reform.”
The Commission’s report “Families and the State: two way support and responsibilities, an inquiry into the relationship between the state and the family into the upbringing of children by the Commission on Families and the Wellbeing of Children” is available as a PDF by clicking here.
Labour politicians urge equal protection
News posted 2005
At the Labour Party conference 2005, leading Labour MPs, Peers, MEPs and Welsh Assembly members called for law reform to recognise children’s human right to equal protection from assault. Melvyn Bragg, Helena Kennedy and Neil Kinnock were among the signatories to the statement:
“We urge the Labour Government to modernise the law to give children the full protection from assault that the rest of society takes for granted. In this third term, Labour should be a champion of such a fundamental issue of equality and human rights. Hitting children, who are smaller and more fragile, is at least as wrong as hitting anyone else. Equal protection for children is the progressive and just way forward.”
The statement was signed by:
John Austin MP, Kevin Barron MP, Roger Berry MP, Lord Bragg, Christine Chapman AM, Martin Caton MP, David Chaytor MP, Harry Cohen MP, Frank Cook MP, Baroness David, Baroness Dean, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, Baroness Gale, Helen Goodman MP, John Griffiths AM, Jane Hutt AM, Lynne Jones MP, Lord Judd, Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, Glenys Kinnock MEP, Lord Kinnock, David Martin MEP, Julie Morgan MP, Prof Lord Morgan, Lord Pendry, Greg Pope MP, Ken Purchase MP, Lord Rogers of Riverside, Desmond Turner MP, Rudi Vis MP, Baroness Whitaker, Baroness Wilkins, Betty Williams MP.
Labour MP Greg Pope said: "For Labour's ‘respect’ agenda to work, we must set a clear standard for non-violent parenting, because we know that hitting children is a lesson in bad behaviour that can be recycled. Recognising children's human right to the same legal protection from assault that the rest of us take for granted would be a big step towards a more respectful and less violent society.”
UK in breach of human rights treaty
News posted 2005
In July 2005, the Council of Europe body responsible for monitoring conformity with the European Social Charter issued its conclusion on the latest UK report (submitted in June 2004) and found UK law in breach of human rights obligations.
The European Committee of Social Rights “recalls that Article 17 of the Charter requires a prohibition in legislation against any form of violence against children, whether at school, in other institutions, in their home or elsewhere”.
Furthermore, the Committee “considers that this prohibition must be combined with adequate sanctions in penal or civil law...” and “...since there is no prohibition in legislation of all corporal punishment in the home, the situation [in the UK] is not in conformity with Article 17 of the Charter”.
More than a third of European countries now afford children equal protection from assault, many as a result of Council of Europe rulings. Several other countries plan to respond to human rights obligations soon.
The full Committee conclusion can be viewed by clicking here.
Landmark human rights ruling on equal protection
News posted 2005
Responding to human rights complaints brought against five countries, the European Committee of Social Rights has confirmed that supreme court judgments in Italy and Portugal do prohibit all corporal punishment of children (June 2005). This means that more than a third (16 of 46) member states of the Council of Europe now give children equal protection from assault.
In addition to Italy and Portugal, the other countries where children have equal protection are: Sweden (1979), Finland (1983), Norway (1987), Austria (1989), Cyprus (1994), Denmark (1997), Latvia (1998), Croatia (1999), Bulgaria (2000), Germany (2000), Iceland (2003), Hungary (2004), Romania (2004) and Ukraine (2004).
But Ireland, Belgium and Greece are in breach of their human rights obligations under the European Social Charter because they have not prohibited all corporal punishment, the Committee found. Article 17 of the Charter requires a prohibition in legislation against any form of violence against children, whether at school, in other institutions, in their home or elsewhere.
This landmark ruling is the result of complaints registered by the World Organisation Against Torture in 2003. A similar human rights complaint cannot be brought against the UK because it is not signed up to the complaints procedure. However, the UK is a party to the European Social Charter and is being pursued by the Committee of Social Rights to satisfy its human rights obligations.
Sir William Utting, spokesperson for the UK Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance, said: "Affording children the protection from the law on assault that we take for granted ourselves is a fundamental international human rights standard that we cannot ignore any longer. If the UK were signed up to this complaints procedure, there is no doubt that we too would be judged in breach of our human rights obligations by failing to give children equal protection.”
Greece has already signalled that it will legislate quickly to comply with the latest Council of Europe ruling, and Belgium and Ireland are expected to act on the Committee's decision soon. Other European countries - including the Netherlands, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic - have already announced they will take this step this year following other domestic and international human rights pressure.
- Click here for Children Are Unbeatable Alliance briefing on human rights pressure for equal protection
- Click here for more detailed information on global progress
- Click here to go to European Social Charter
Council of Europe calls for “concerted campaign”
News posted 2005
In April 2005, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe responded to the Parliamentary Assembly recommendation (see headline below - “Call for Europe-wide ban on all corporal punishment”), stating that it agrees with the Assembly on the need to begin “in all member states, a coordinated and concerted campaign for the abolition of all violence against children”. The Committee notes that it has made recommendations promoting law reform to give children equal protection from assault dating back to 1985, and goes on to “underline the importance of appropriate legislation in this field...”.
The Committee announced a new three-year programme of action on “Children and violence”. One priority field of the programme will be effective legal protection of children against all forms of violence. “The programme will, as requested in the Assembly’s recommendation, heighten the awareness of children, those who live and work with them and the general public on the need to protect children from all forms of violence. It will also ensure general awareness of children’s fundamental rights, in particular their right to human dignity and physical integrity”.
Unjust new law fails children
News posted 2005
Section 58 of the Children Act 2004, which allows the common assault of children to continue to be justified as "reasonable punishment", came into force on 15 January 2005.
Sir William Utting, spokesperson for the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance, said:
"Section 58 of the Children Act perpetuates the archaic defence that allows children to be legally hit and hurt. It is unjust and does not satisfy our human rights obligations to children under UN and European agreements.
"Children are the smallest and most fragile, but section 58 denies them the full protection of the law on assault that the rest of us take for granted. Hitting children is wrong and the law should say so, just as it does for bigger and stronger adults.
"Section 58 will create further parental confusion, legal ambiguity, professional uncertainty and policy inconsistency. The only safe and just way forward is to give children the same protection under the law on assault that adults enjoy.
"Giving children equal protection from assault is a fundamental human rights principle. Our law-makers should work to achieve it at the earliest opportunity and dump this unjust and unsafe new law."
Parliament votes for children to be hit and hurt
News posted 2004
The cross-party new clause to the Children Bill to abolish the legal defence of "reasonable chastisement" and thus give children equal protection from assault was defeated in the House of Commons on Tuesday 2 November as a result of a Government three line whip. However, 47 Labour backbenchers still rebelled in favour of equal protection for children.
Opening the Commons debate, David Hinchliffe MP said: "The new clause [on equal protection] seeks to right a long-standing wrong for children. It has the modest aim of giving children equal protection from assault, but has substantial potential to reduce all forms of violence. Equal protection means what it says; hitting a child will be unlawful to exactly the same extent as hitting an adult. Some adults and, sadly, even some Government Ministers are fond of using the term ‘smacking’ to make them feel more comfortable with what they are condoning or defending. Children, however, tell it as it is; smacking is hitting, and smacking hurts. It does not just cause physical pain, but hurts inside too."
Egged on by Children’s Minister Margaret Hodge, MPs voted to keep the unworkable and unjust clause 56, which was originally added to the Bill in the House of Lords in July. This flawed proposal will allow "common assault" of children to continue to be justified as "reasonable punishment", thus sending out the dangerous and confusing message: "carry on smacking, but don’t leave a physical mark".
Commenting on the vote, NSPCC Director & Chief Executive Mary Marsh said: "Bad legal reform is worse than no legal reform and that is what these proposals amount to. Violence towards children is still legally acceptable – as long as you are careful not to leave a mark. The law needs to send out a clear message that it is just as wrong to hit a child as it is to hit an adult."
CLICK HERE to read the debate in full
CLICK HERE to read how MPs voted on the equal protection clause
CLICK HERE to read how MPs voted on clause 56
Sir William Utting, spokesperson for the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance, said: "Giving children equal protection under the law on assault is a fundamental human rights principle. There can be no justification whatsoever for the smallest and most fragile of our citizens having less protection than we take for granted ourselves."
Click here to read the Alliance’s briefing for MPs.
Why Clause 56 is not the way forward
News posted 2004
Statement from:
Association of Directors of Social Services
British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect
British Association of Social Workers
Community Practitioners’ and Health Visitors’ Association
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
Parenting Education and Support Forum
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
"WE DO NOT believe that clause 56 of the Children Bill represents a safe or workable way forward for children and child protection. To us, the only alternative to the status quo is to give children the same protection as adults have from assault.
Our concerns are that:
CLAUSE 56 SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE
By retaining the defence of "reasonable punishment" in relation to common assault, clause 56 maintains the legality of hitting children and sends the message "carry on smacking". Clause 56 would prevent those working with parents and in child protection from delivering the only clear and safe message – that hitting children has no place in positive discipline.
CLAUSE 56 DOES NOT DETER DANGEROUS FORMS OF PUNISHMENT
By removing the defence in relation to assaults which cause visible or provable injury, clause 56 would effectively encourage parents who are committed to using corporal punishment to favour assaults which are unlikely to cause visible bruising or marks but which may risk causing serious injury – for example blows to the head, shaking, and so on. The clause could not be amended to ban ‘risk of injury’ because experts agree that all physical punishment of children carries some risk of injury.
CLAUSE 56 IS LIKELY TO RESULT IN UNFAIR AND UNNECESSARY PROSECUTIONS
The proposed change in the Charging Standard, suggesting that minor injuries – minor bruising – should in future be charged as "Actual Bodily Harm" (ABH) could lead to a substantial increase in prosecutions which is most unlikely to be in children’s interests. While the vulnerability of the victim is plainly a factor to be considered in prosecution and sentencing decisions, this proposal seems inappropriately punitive (the maximum sentence for ABH is five years imprisonment) and discriminatory. Some children bruise easily while others – for example black children – do not show marks from hard blows.
If the Standard is to be that minor bruising justifies an ABH charge, there will be no possibility of the police and others being able to avoid formal investigation and intervention in such cases. Evidence will have to be collected on the precise degree of injury, even though this may be inappropriate treatment of a family in difficulties.
CLAUSE 56 HAS NO CLARITY OR LEGAL CERTAINTY
As the Joint Committee on Human Rights notes in its nineteenth report published on 21 September 2004: "There is general agreement that the present law is unsatisfactory because it leads to too much uncertainty about what exactly constitutes ‘reasonable chastisement’. In our view the new clause [clause 56] perpetuates this uncertainty, because it requires proof of harm and there is a great deal of uncertainty about what degree of harm is required. For example, will hitting resulting in a reddening of the skin be charged as common assault or actual bodily harm, and for how long need it subsist in order for it to cross the necessary threshold?"
CLAUSE 56 WOULD NOT SATISFY HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS
The UK’s human rights obligations under international and European human rights instruments would not be met, as has been confirmed by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in its recent report.
CLAUSE 56 WOULD NOT WORK TO CHANGE THE CULTURE
The primary purpose of the law reform we seek is to change the culture and to provide a clear basis for public education and for child protection. Clause 56 will not achieve this.
CLAUSE 56 WOULD PLACE AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON THE MEDICAL PROFESSION
Paediatricians and GPs would have to make extremely subjective judgments on what constituted minor bruising. They would be required to make fine distinctions in an area where there is a sparse evidence base. It is difficult to accurately determine the cause of a bruise or its severity. A recent review of bruising in children has also shown it to be impossible to age a bruise. There is a danger, if doctors are seen as part of a legal process, that the bond of trust with the family could be damaged.
Removing the defence completely to give children equal protection will mean that the law protecting children is just as clear as it is in relation to assaults between adults. The de minimis principle will apply to trivial assaults and as the DPP and Joint Committee on Human Rights have confirmed, there are very few if any prosecutions for minor assaults on adults and the same will be true for children. We are confident that given appropriate guidance, drawn up with the involvement of those practically involved in child protection, the law can be implemented in the best interests of children and families. There is no reason for any change in the significant harm threshold for formal investigation.
We call upon the Government to reject Clause 56 as it stands, and to give children precisely the same protection in law as adults."
Open letter to Rt Hon Peter Hain MP,
Leader of the House of Commons
News posted 2004
Dear Peter Hain
FREE CONSCIENCE VOTE ON EQUAL PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN
We are extremely concerned that, in the Children Bill currently before the House of Commons, Labour MPs may not be allowed to vote freely according to their conscience on whether children should have the same protection as adults under the law on assault.
Giving children such equal protection is a fundamental human rights principle - there is no excuse for the smallest and most fragile of people having less protection. We should not be put in the intolerable position of choosing between political principle and party loyalty.
There are many precedents for allowing a free vote on important matters of principle and conscience, including the votes that abolished corporal punishment in schools.
All professional associations working with children and families agree that giving children equal protection is workable and would provide necessary clarity in the law. They also agree that anything less than equal protection would create legal ambiguity, parental confusion and professional uncertainty.
In this context, the Government’s offer of a free vote on clause 56 of the Children Bill is an insult. This flawed proposal, which would continue to give children less protection, is both unprincipled and, in the view of child protection agencies, unworkable.
We have been allowed to vote according to our conscience on protecting foxes. Protecting children properly is at least as worthy of a free vote.
The fair and traditional way forward is a free conscience vote on giving children equal protection from assault. It would be welcomed, not just by ourselves, but by everyone involved in this debate.
Yours sincerely
David Hinchliffe MP
Hilton Dawson MP
Julie Morgan MP
Win Griffiths MP
Kevin McNamara MP
Roger Berry MP
John Austin MP
Martin Caton MP
Tony Colman MP
Greg Pope MP
Lynne Jones MP
Paul Stinchcombe MP
Alice Mahon MP
Rudi Vis MP
Bill Etherington MP
Betty Williams MP
Harry Cohen MP
Albert Owen MP
John McDonnell MP
David Chaytor MP
Harold Best MP
Jim Dobbin MP
Valerie Davey MP
Mike Wood MP
Helen Jackson MP
Paul Flynn MP
Green light to abolish "reasonable chastisement"
News posted 2004
A new report on the Children Bill by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) published on Tuesday 21 September 2004 urges complete abolition of the nineteenth century legal defence of "reasonable chastisement" to satisfy human rights obligations under UN and European agreements.
The JCHR report concludes that clause 49 added to the Children Bill in the House of Lords in July, which would allow parents to continue to justify common assault as "reasonable punishment", would not meet human rights obligations under three international treaties (the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the European Social Charter). It recommends replacing this clause with equal protection for children under the law on assault.
Concerning the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommendation in 2002, the all-party JCHR states: "We do not think that the very clearly expressed views of the Committee on the Rights of the Child can be ignored. As the only body charged with monitoring compliance with the obligations undertaken by States in the CRC, its interpretations of the nature and extent of those obligations are authoritative. In our view, the Committee has consistently made clear that corporal punishment of children is a serious violation of the child's right to dignity and physical integrity, and that states must both introduce a legislative prohibition of such punishment at the same time as measures for educating the public about the negative consequences of corporal punishment. In the light of this, we do not consider that there is any room for discretion as to the means of implementing Article 19 CRC as interpreted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child: it requires the reasonable chastisement defence to be abolished altogether."
Click here to read the JCHR report in full:
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200304/jtselect/jtrights/161/16102.htm
The Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance welcomed the report. Co-ordinator Peter Newell said: "The human rights pressure for full abolition of so-called reasonable chastisement is now overwhelming and our politicians must act. This report gives Parliament the green light to amend the Children Bill to recognise children's equal right to protection from assault. Children are people, albeit smaller and more fragile, with human rights. They are entitled to physical integrity and human dignity, just like the rest of us."
Kevin McNamara MP, a member of the JCHR, said: "Only full abolition of the archaic 'reasonable chastisement' defence will satisfy our human rights obligations to children under UN and other treaties. Parliament should grasp the opportunity provided by the Children Bill to give children equal legal protection from assault. This is a fundamental human rights principle which we cannot ignore."
MPs speak up for equal protection
News posted 2004
The Second Reading of the Children Bill took place in the House of Commons on Monday 13 September 2004. Many MPs spoke in favour of giving children equal protection from assault and against the "inequality" clause 49 added to the Bill in the House of Lords in July. Ministers were also roundly criticised for their reluctance to allow a free conscience vote on the issue.
In the debate, Win Griffiths MP said: "We must remember that there are specific human rights obligations to which we must adhere; for example, we have signed up to the UN convention on the rights of the child. On several occasions, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has put it to our Government that we need to amend our law, as we are not treating children properly. Not only international bodies, but almost everybody involved in child protection and the care and promotion of children's rights, whether professionals, voluntary bodies or others with an interest in children-more than 350 organisations-backs equal protection for children. We need a legal framework to change our culture of hitting children."
David Hinchliffe MP described the "inequality" clause 49 as being "full of holes". He said: "I am not a lawyer, but I spent a long time in child protection, and in my view the clause is naive, totally impractical and frankly dangerous. We have to do something about it."
Click here to read the debate in full.
Call for Europe-wide ban on all corporal punishment
News posted 2004
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a detailed recommendation on 24 June 2004, with overwhelming support, calling for a "coordinated and concerted campaign in all the member states for the total abolition of corporal punishment of children" (Recommendation 1666/2004). The recommendation "notes the success of the Council of Europe in abolishing the death penalty and the Assembly now calls on it to make Europe, as soon as possible, a corporal punishment-free zone for children".
Two more European countries give children equal protection
News posted 2004
In Romania, a new Law on Protection and Promotion of the Rights of the Child prohibits all corporal punishment. The law passed both Chambers of the Romanian Parliament on June 15 2004. It will come into force on January 1 2005.
In Ukraine, a new Family Code came into force in January 2004, banning all corporal punishment.
This brings to at least 12 the number of European Countries which have banned all corporal punishment, including in the family. For details of other countries which have prohibited all corporal punishment, click here.
Equal protection is the way forward
News posted 2004
On Monday 5 July 2004, the House of Lords voted against the cross-party New Clause to the Children Bill that would give children equal protection under the law on assault. The Government did not allow a free conscience vote and "whipped" Labour Peers to oppose equal protection reform.
Instead, the Government allowed a "free vote" on a proposal put forward by Lord Lester of Herne Hill that would allow the common assault of children to be justified as lawful punishment. This was passed.
- To read the debate in full, click here.
- To read the New Clause on equal protection, click here.
- To read the Lord Lester proposal, click here.
- To read the intervention of the Attorney-General, click here.
- To check how Peers voted, click here.
The Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance does not support proposals that try to define acceptable ways of hitting children. They are unworkable and unjust, and can increase the risk to children. So-called compromises would lead to greater legal ambiguity, professional uncertainty and parental confusion.
The Alliance believes that equal protection from assault for children is the only credible way forward. Hitting children is as unacceptable as hitting anyone else, and the law should say so. The aim of such reform is to drive forward cultural change, not to prosecute parents for "minor" assaults.
Claire Rayner, spokesperson for the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance, said: "Let's change the law properly, based on the principles of equality and human rights, rather than dreaming up ways that children can continue to be hit. Equal protection is the only just and workable way to clarify and modernise the law."
The sponsors of the New Clause on equal protection commented:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: "Children are smaller and more vulnerable than the rest of us, yet the current law affords them less protection from assault. Is it really too much to ask to give children the protection that we take for granted?"
Baroness Whitaker: "Children are people and have human rights like the rest of us. In the 21st Century, it is high time that children's right to equal protection from assault is recognised."
Baroness Walmsley: "At least 12 European countries already give children equal protection from assault. It works there, changing attitudes and behaviour for the better, and it can work here too."
Later in this parliamentary session, supporters of the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance in the House of Commons will press for Lord Lester’s inequality clause - which has already been shown to be flawed - to be dropped in favour of equal protection reform. This is clearly a matter of principle and conscience, and MPs must be allowed a "free vote".