Consultation on the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill

Tystiolaeth i’r Pwyllgor Plant, Pobl Ifanc ac Addysg ar gyfer craffu Cyfnod 1 Bil Plant (Diddymu Amddiffyniad Cosb Resymol) (Cymru)

Evidence submitted to the Children, Young People and Education Committee for Stage 1 scrutiny of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill

CADRP-332

CADRP-332

 

About you

Individual

1      The Bill’s general principles

1.1     Do you support the principles of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill?

— No

1.2     Please outline your reasons for your answer to question 1.1

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

Banning smacking will not protect children from child abuse.

Banning smacking will criminalise parents.

You are intruding into family life which I believe goes against the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which protects the family from arbitrary interference.

This legislation introduces confusion between child abuse and parental discipline.  Your proposed legislation fails to make this important distinction.  And if you do not understand that distinction then that alone is proof that you are not fit to make or pass your proposed legislation.

There is ample existing protections for children against child abuse.

1.3     Do you think there is a need for legislation to deliver what this Bill is trying to achieve?

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

No.

2      The Bill’s implementation

2.1     Do you have any comments about any potential barriers to  implementing the Bill? If no, go to question 3.1

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

Approximately 76% of Welsh adults disagree with criminalising smacking.  76%!!!  Your proposed legislation will deliberately ignore 76% of adults.  That doesn't make you very attentive to the Welsh people nor to the rule of democracy.

2.2     Do you think the Bill takes account of these potential barriers?

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

-

3      Unintended consequences

3.1     Do you think there are there any unintended consequences arising from the Bill? If no, go to question 4.1

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

You will criminalise parents.

You will undermine parental authority.

You will create intimidation amongst parents not to discipline their children at all.

You will not protect children from child abuse.

You will load additional burden on social services and the police when they have other matters to attend to.

The Swedish model has proven that banning smacking is likely to increase the incidence of child on child violence.

4      Financial implications

4.1     Do you have any comments on the financial implications of the Bill (as set out in Part 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum)? If no, go to question 5.1

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

You will vastly increase the burden on social services and the police such that they will require vastly increased resourcing to cope with incidents of smacking.  That will cost enormous amounts of additional money.

5      Other considerations

5.1     Do you have any other points you wish to raise about this Bill?

(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)

Your proposed legislation fails to differentiate between child abuse and smacking as part of loving parental discipline.  Child abuse can be defined as violence on the part of adults with a view to exerting power and not for the child's benefit.  Smacking as part of loving parental discipline can be defined as discipline for the good of the child.  Failure to understand this important distinction is what is driving your proposed legislation.