§ Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow parents to use reasonable force or chastisement when exercising authority over their children.The world has changed a great deal since you and I were young, Madam Speaker. Much of that change has been for the good and much has been for the bad. Rising violent crime, as illustrated in a report last week, and graffiti and loutish behaviour on our streets are certainly among the bad. There has been an astonishing change in attitudes to bringing up children. In 1993—only seven years ago—a judge had before him a mother of two on appeal against a conviction for assault. She had spanked her nine-year-old with a slipper after catching the child stealing. The judge quashed the conviction and said,If a parent cannot slipper a child, the world is going potty".That was, of course, in the last century. We heard last week of Government proposals that could possibly send parents to prison for trying to discipline their children in that way. Many might think that common sense is being stood on its head, and that the world is indeed going potty.The Government consultation document was entitled "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents". If anyone does not believe that political correctness runs wild in this Government, they should read the document. It is one of the most trite and condescending documents that they will ever see. Here is one short passage:
Being a parent can be hard work as well as tremendously rewarding".I am sure that we are all grateful for that perceptive insight into the joys of parenthood. The document gives various options for change, including a ban on the use of a slipper or a cane. It is likely that that may be enshrined in law, which means that, should a parent use a slipper against a child, that child will presumably be removed from the parent's custody and the parent will certainly be taken to court, with all that that entails, and may even be sent to prison.I am quite sure that most parents would rather never strike their children, and preferably not with a slipper or a cane, but I would suggest that it must be for the parent to decide, in the circumstances, how best to direct and teach a child.
Let me give an illustration. Suppose that a 12-year-old boy beats up another child, smaller and younger than himself. The parents of the two children confer, and the father agrees to punish the boy. Because he is nearly a teenager, the father uses a slipper on his backside. The police and social workers are alerted, and the child is taken into care. The father, if not sent to prison, is put under a restraining court order. Is that really sensible? Is that really what the British public believe should happen?
In a recent case, a father in Suffolk tried to restrain his 15-year-old daughter from going out with a 25-year-old man. I understand that he was concerned that she had been spending most of the night out with him—a legitimate concern to him and to the law. However, when the daughter complained to the police, the father was arrested and she was put in care for the night—where, incidentally, she had her nose pierced in an act of childish rebellion. As far as I am aware, neither the police nor the social 154 workers involved were interested in talking to the 25-year-old man, which suggests a strange sense of priorities.
The nannying new Labour Government now wishes to interfere even more in the relationship between a parent and a child. The Government believe that the state knows best, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. In Leicestershire, the case of Frank Beck remains notorious—a man given responsibility for running a children's home who raped, sexually abused and physically abused his charges, male and female, and some of his staff.
If that had been a unique case, perhaps one might trust the state to look after children in care. However, last year there were more than 200 allegations of sexual abuse of children in care against 138 individuals, and over 50 charges have arisen as a result so far.
Care workers are struggling with great difficulties in children's homes. I recall visiting one a few years ago in Leicestershire, and being told that staff had no power to prevent children from smoking. They could not, of course, restrain a child if he or she wished to go out in the evening. The house stank of cigarettes, 13-year-olds were becoming chain smokers and 14-year-old girls were encouraged to be on the pill.
I do not blame those social workers—indeed I blame the Children Act 1989 as much as anything—but who can doubt that a loving mother or father would not look after their children rather better than that? Sadly, it is true that a large proportion of children who are put into care go on to become homeless, and many go on to be criminals. My point is that the state is not necessarily the best body to determine how to bring up children. A parent almost certainly has more interest, cares more and loves a child more than the most dedicated social worker or police officer ever could. Surely we should support and trust parents in the challenging task of bringing up children, and we should support families as far as possible.
The break up of family bonds is intimately linked to the breakdown of law and order. It is in the family that we first learn to negotiate the boundaries of acceptable conduct and to recognise that we owe responsibilities to others as well as ourselves.That is the profound wisdom of no less an august personage than the Prime Minister, who has admitted having to smack his children in the past.If we believe in supporting families and parents, we should make their task easier, not more difficult. Not all parents are successful. Some are hopeless, some can be brutal and some can be downright evil, but generally parents are the best people to bring up their children.
An argument that is frequently used against corporal punishment is that violence begets violence. Leaving aside the report of a massive increase in violent crime last week—neatly published at the same time as the Government's consultation document—I suggest to those who search for the source of the violence and aggression in society that they switch on the television at any time of the day or night, go to a film in the west end, attend a professional football match or question the decision to allow Mike Tyson into the country. It is not parents reasonably chastising their children who have caused the massive rise in violent crime in our lifetimes.
There are already laws in place to cover physical harm to a child. The vast majority of parents would not wish to cause any harm to their children, and the existing law can 155 deal with the very small minority who might. However, this nannying new Labour Government wish to interfere and disrupt the relationship of parent and child yet further. I can already imagine the court cases and the nonsense that will be spouted in court in future.
Of course, the Government will say that the proposal is nothing to do with them and that they are being forced to obey a directive from the European Court of Human Rights. Whether that court, which was set up with the good intention of preventing a repeat of the horrors of the second world war, should have any jurisdiction over such matters is a moot point. However, for the Government to slope their shoulders and blame others ignores the fact that they have given the European Court of Human Rights authority over our courts through the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. Furthermore, the Government's proposals on page 14 of their consultation document show that they are determined to go beyond the court's ruling. They set out
ways in which the use of the defence of reasonable chastisement might be further limited.Yes, they say, "further limited."The Prime Minister is not someone whom I normally pray in aid. I am happier with this quote:
He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him".That has been passed down to us from the Book of Proverbs as, "spare the rod and spoil the child". Many parents bring up their children admirably without ever having to smack them and I congratulate those who do. For the others who feel that they may have to resort to smacking, the Bill gives some support.I know that my sentiments in introducing the Bill will not find favour with the politically correct or with new Labour. Many in the House would like to explain why they know better how to bring up a child than a child's parents do. I hope that my contribution may have twisted a few politically correct tails and will goad somebody into explaining why the nanny state knows best. Indeed, Madam Speaker, I can see that somebody is trying to catch your eye.
§ Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre)I was truly sorry to hear that diatribe against the efforts of thousands of hard-working and caring residential social workers and foster carers. If the hon. Gentleman has to make his points by denigrating the efforts of people in the care system, that is extremely unfortunate. Let me also point out to him that, in proposing the use of implements to chastise children, he flies in the face of public opinion as expressed in the Government's consultation paper "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents".
The best that can be said about this ten-minute Bill is that it is premature given last week's publication of the consultation document on the physical punishment of children. We have heard a great deal in the past week about the alleged common sense of physical punishment. Perhaps we should listen to today's children rather than harking back to our own childhoods or placing too much reliance on opinion surveys of adults.
156 Research published last year by Carolyne Willow and Tina Hyder on behalf of the National Children's Bureau and Save the Children records the views of 76 children aged between five and eight. When they were asked about smacking, they said:
it's what parents do when they hit you … only they call it a smack";it feels like someone has banged you with a hammer, it makes you feel sore, angry and you cry";you feel as though you want to run away";it hurts and it's painful inside, it's like breaking your bones";andit hurts a lot and it make you unhappy".It is a shame that Conservative Members do not seem prepared to hear the words of children carefully elicited by skilled people. I shall repeat what the children said:it's what parents do when they hit you … only they call it a smack".That challenges us all. I bet that is the most radical statement that has been quoted in the House so far this century.Such statements should make the House and the Government think about the absolute nonsense of trying to define when and in which circumstances it is reasonable to hurt children, and about the absurd inconsistency of those who, rightly, rail against child abuse, bullying, domestic violence and violence crime—a subject mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—but who think it appropriate to demonstrate to children that some issues can be resolved by hitting them. There is a striking peculiarity about giving children—whom we generally regard as being vulnerable and requiring special consideration and protection—less protection under the law on assault than is given to adults.
Twenty-five days into the 21st century, it is truly pathetic that we are debating a measure called the Parental Authority Bill. The hon. Gentleman should have turned up in full Victorian fancy dress for his attempt to introduce legislation that is based on a 1960 judgment, that reinforces an Act of Parliament that is 67 years old, and that undermines the central concept of parental responsibility, which was introduced by the Conservative party with cross-party support in the Children Act 1989.
To many—certainly to me and perhaps to the hon. Gentleman—parenting is the best job that we shall ever have; it is also one of the hardest. However, it does not go on in isolation from the rest of the world, and it does no one—child or parent—any favours to pretend that it should. My children are now grown up, but I know that I—especially when I was a young parent—would have benefited from the sort of assistance set out in "Supporting Families", from the excellent booklets now supplied to all new parents by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and from the sort of leadership that thousands of foster carers and residential workers routinely receive—the instruction that, even in extremely difficult circumstances, physical punishment is wholly unacceptable.
There are far more productive and satisfactory ways of managing children's behaviour. There are so many occasions on which it is important that the House should 157 reflect public opinion that it is easy to forget that it is sometimes important to lead. Physical punishment is a counsel of despair—something that is done when we cannot think of anything else to do or when we want to relieve our frustration, not when we want to help a child to learn or develop. It is a blind alley: if the child will not back down from the confrontation, the parent either has to back off or has to hit harder and harder, because he or she has put him or herself in the position of having to win.
There are hundreds of other methods that work. Those are founded on good relationships, listening to children, communicating effectively with them, being consistent and clear about what is wanted from them, explaining why and setting clear limits for behaviour. Sanctions should be used sparingly, but, when they are used, they must be made meaningful, taking the form of time out or the withholding of a treat—a form that relates to the child, its needs and interests. Disagreements are a great opportunity to develop problem-solving or negotiating skills. Modelling good behaviour works if parents are consistent. The list of alternatives to physical punishment goes on. Finally, it always helps to be able to laugh, put disagreements behind one and look forward to another day.
There are few experts—not on the Government Benches, nor on the Opposition Benches—and no paragons. However, "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents" has missed a great opportunity to offer parents real leadership in addition to effective support. We are only at the beginning of the consultation process and, presumably, there will be a free vote at some point, so there is still time for the Government to think again. The Parental Authority Bill is completely and hopelessly misguided. The House must remember the words of the seven-year-old quoted by Save the Children:
it's what parents do when they hit you … only they call it a smack".The hon. Member for Blaby wants to use implements to make the impact even worse. The Bill is unworthy of him and of the House. I hope that a Division will consign the Bill to the past, where it belongs.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
§ The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 118.
158| Division No. 37] | [4 pm |
| AYES | |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Fox, Dr Liam |
| Beggs, Roy | Gale, Roger |
| Beith, Rt Hon A J | Gray, James |
| Bell, Martin (Tatton) | Grieve, Dominic |
| Bercow, John | Hawkins, Nick |
| Blunt, Crispin | Hunter, Andrew |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia | Luff, Peter |
| Brady, Graham | MacGregor, Rt Hon John |
| Brazier, Julian | McIntosh, Miss Anne |
| Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) | MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew |
| Chope, Christopher | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Cormack, Sir Patrick | Malins, Humfrey |
| Donaldson, Jeffrey | Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian |
| Duncan, Alan | Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) |
| Fabricant, Michael | Oaten, Mark |
| Flight, Howard | Ottaway, Richard |
| Forsythe, Clifford | Randall, John |
| Forth, Rt Hon Eric | Redwood, Rt Hon John |
| Robathan, Andrew | Tyrie, Andrew |
| Ross, William (E Lond'y) | Willis, Phil |
| Steen, Anthony | Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) |
| Stunell, Andrew | Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield) |
| Syms, Robert | |
| Taylor, John M (Solihull) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Thompson, William | Mr. Desmond Swayne and |
| Trend, Michael | Mr. Nick St. Aubyn. |
| NOES | |
| Alexander, Douglas | Kidney, David |
| Allan, Richard | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Ashton, Joe | Ladyman, Dr Stephen |
| Barnes, Harry | Lepper, David |
| Bell, Martin (Tatton) | Levitt, Tom |
| Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) | Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) | McDonnell, John |
| Berry, Roger | McFall, John |
| Best, Harold | McKenna, Mrs Rosemary |
| Brake, Tom | Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert |
| Burstow, Paul | Mactaggart, Fiona |
| Butler, Mrs Christine | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) | Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) |
| Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) | |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Mudie, George |
| Casale, Roger | Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) |
| Chaytor, David | Naysmith, Dr Doug |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Organ, Mrs Diana |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) | Palmer, Dr Nick |
| Cohen, Harry | Pickthall, Colin |
| Connarty, Michael | Pound, Stephen |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | Powell, Sir Raymond |
| Corbett, Robin | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Corston, Jean | Prosser, Gwyn |
| Crausby, David | Purchase, Ken |
| Cryer, John (Hornchurch) | Quinn, Lawrie |
| Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire | Rendel, David |
| Dalyell, Tarn | Rooney, Terry |
| Darvill, Keith | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) | Roy, Frank |
| Davidson, Ian | Ryan, Ms Joan |
| Dawson, Hilton | Sanders, Adrian |
| Dismore, Andrew | Sarwar, Mohammad |
| Dobbin, Jim | Savidge, Malcolm |
| Donohoe, Brian H | Sawford, Phil |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | Shaw, Jonathan |
| Sheerman, Barry | |
| Fearn, Ronnie | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Shipley, Ms Debra |
| Foster, Michael J (Worcester) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Gapes, Mike | Smith, Angela (Basildon) |
| Gilroy, Mrs Linda | |
| Gordon, Mrs Eileen | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Soley, Clive | |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Southworth, Ms Helen |
| Gunnell, John | Starkey, Dr Phyllis |
| Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) | Stinchcombe, Paul |
| Hepburn, Stephen | Taylor, David (NW Leics) |
| Hinchliffe, David | Todd, Mark |
| Home Robertson, John | Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) |
| Hope, Phil | Turner, Neil (Wigan) |
| Hopkins, Kelvin | Watts, David |
| Humble, Mrs Joan | White, Brian |
| Hurst, Alan | Winnick, David |
| Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) | Wise, Audrey |
| Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn) | Wood, Mike |
| Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark) | Wray, James |
| Jones, Helen (Warrington N) | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) | |
| Keeble, Ms Sally | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) | Mrs. Llin Golding and |
| Keetch, Paul | Mr. Tony McWalter. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.