Not only are children prevented from doing a number of things, but they are also, by virtue of their age, protected by the law as it stands, in a way that adults are not.

I thank the Member for that valid point. Moreover, there is incoherence in the consultation document. On page 16 it seems to favour non-physical methods of correcting children, such as time out, grounding and withdrawal of treats. If it is to correct a child physically, then - with regard to section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 - in due course it will be argued that it is just as unequal and unlawful to correct them by non-physical means. The logic must apply if we start from the premise.

Most parents in Northern Ireland would be appalled at the prospect of legal change that could criminalise the use of moderate and reasonable chastisement. In moving this motion, I oppose the amendment in Ms Lewsley's name. In that respect, the Governments of Scotland and the Republic of Ireland have proposed bans on smacking, but they are not yet law. We will have to wait and see whether they move in that direction.

The document relied heavily on arguments drawn from human rights and equality, but what about the human rights of many parents who believe in a family ethos where moderate physical chastisement can be used in a loving manner? Of course, no one is defending violent abuse or bodily harm, but I want to defend the human rights of those families who wish to practise moderate physical chastisement. If the law is changed to ban smacking, some of us may have to make the difficult choice between following the law and following our consciences.

The Minister should pay heed to the decision taken by his counterparts in Westminster. As the Minister of State, Department of Health, Jacqui Smith, said on 8 November 2001:

Those points, which are made in the case of England and Wales, apply with equal strength to Northern Ireland.

I have received one amendment to the motion, which is published on the Marshalled List.

I beg to move the following amendment: In line 3, delete all after "Department of Health" and insert

I ask the House to support the amendment. It is essential that we identify and analyse models of best practice, current thinking and research in many other jurisdictions, not just England and Wales. We have to consider the development of best practice in line with international standards. The protection of children is of paramount importance in our society, and the issues around the physical punishment of a child have provoked an interesting and wide-ranging debate.

Children should be entitled to the same protection in law as adults. Domestic violence is still a common occurrence here, and witnessing this type of behaviour in the home has a devastating and detrimental effect on children as it can increase violent, aggressive and anti-social behaviour in young people and adults.

In order to best meet the needs of children, we should all approach this issue with a genuine, open mind. That is the duty of the Minister and the Executive. In its consultation paper on physical punishment, the Northern Ireland Office of Law Reform maintains that children require effective discipline and agrees that care and effective discipline will equip them to take their place as mature members of the community.

It is in that context that the issue must be addressed. As Dr Birnie said, the Office of Law Reform is engaged in an open consultation exercise, and the outcome is not predetermined. It is vital that experiences in other countries are taken into account.

TOP

With regard to discipline, parents' discretion is exercised in a framework of legal rules. Any parent who fails to meet a child's basic needs or mistreats a child can be tried in a criminal court. Although the law already regulates the issue of physical punishment, the established legal standard is problematic. Currently parents are allowed to use chastisement only in a reasonable and moderate manner. Changing the legislation is not enough to change society's attitudes to parenting and the physical punishment of children.

Increasing knowledge of child development and psychology suggests that effective discipline should aim to stop unacceptable behaviour in the long term and short term by showing children an acceptable alternative way to behave. Effective discipline should help children to take responsibility for their behaviour and to internalise moral values.

In a recent report on physical punishment, the British Medical Association concluded:

Court action will not bring Northern Ireland law into compliance with the Government's full range of human rights obligations, nor with the equality obligations of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. A decision must be made on whether the current law should be abolished or incorporated into a more general statement about families' rights and responsibilities.

A statement of rights and responsibilities could be constructed to include the responsibilities of both children and parents, similar to that formulated in Austrian law, which was used to declare an end to physical punishment. That statement could be aspirational. Instead of banning physical punishment, the statement could say that parents should aim at not using physical punishment. It could be part of civil law rather than criminal law and be designed to help parents and children know where they stand under the law. A primary duty of the Northern Ireland Government is to promote equality of opportunity between people on the issue of physical punishment. Accordingly, due regard must be given to how to mitigate any equality impact and to how to promote equality of opportunity when dealing with a physical punishment policy.

Save the Children, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and over 100 other organisations in the UK have campaigned actively for a ban on physical punishment. Both the NSPCC and Save the Children are founding members of the Children Are Unbeatable! programme, a UK-wide campaign to end physical punishment of children. The NSPCC contends that

If the defence of reasonable chastisement were removed, children would be in the same legal position as adults with regard to the law on assault. Advice and information for all parents, not only those who experience problems, is important. Any help and support for parents, whether they are having a difficult time or not, can only be good. The aim should be to establish a system that will not only provide adequate protection for the most vulnerable in society from those who seek to cause them harm but also to respect parental rights.

A fundamental aspect of all relationships is to keep lines of communication open. We can all relate to parents' statements such as "I do not know what to do with him/her. He/she will not listen to me." There are very few parents who have not said those words in some form or another. We cannot afford to give up and to stop communicating with young people. They may appear not to be listening, but often they have taken in our words and simply do not want to admit it. Respect and empathy should be shown to children, and corporal punishment is a contradiction of those values.

Funding is essential to support parents and, in addition to creating programmes to deal with problems after they develop, to introduce preventative measures. After all, prevention is better than cure. I therefore put the amendment before the House.

The Business Committee has allocated one and a half hours for the debate. For that reason, and to ensure that the smaller parties have an opportunity to speak, I must limit Members' speeches to five minutes.

Parents from all over Northern Ireland have spoken to me about the issue. I point out to the Minister that loving, caring parents want their normality to continue. I speak on behalf of those who have enjoyed parenthood, who have love and affection for their children, and who have a sincere wish to bring up their family according to the precepts, norms and principles of their beliefs, philosophical or otherwise.

I warn parents in Northern Ireland that if they allow the legislation to be passed without challenge, they will be assuming that there is a nanny state - in other words, the state knows best; the state takes control, and the state controls parenting and its methodology. I ask parents to write to the Minister to convey their concerns. I want all those who are concerned about the matter to ensure that the Minister is aware that raising a family involves love and affection and the wish for one's children to grow up to be good citizens. That is the norm.

We are being told to control a tiny minority, the abnormal few who do not respect the rights of parenthood. We have a right to protect the family unit. It has always been the basic unit of society. We must give parents that right and privilege. I remind the Minister and those who support the current legislation that, according to the penultimate sentence in article 2 of protocol No 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the state shall not act contrary to the philosophic beliefs and wishes of parents. Therefore the concept of respect for parents and the family unit is embodied in European law.

I ask that that right be respected in our legislation. It would be wrong of any legislature to assume that, because some parents are irresponsible, it can impose a general prohibition on the norm. I appeal to the Minister to take note of a heartfelt lobby. Perhaps it is not the most vociferous lobby, but it is composed of people who want their human rights and beliefs to be respected. Let us do more than just take note. It is important to support Dr Birnie's contentions, which he so eloquently outlined together with the various academic arguments on the issue.

I appeal from the point of view of common sense. Ulster parents have always had great respect and support for the family, so to support the normal, good parents, who do their best for their children and who want to continue doing so - without having to look over their shoulders to see what the nanny state dictates - it is important that Members show clearly that we support the rights of the family.

I want to record my disappointment that the Business Committee has allowed each Member just five minutes. There is clearly a great deal of interest in the debate - both in the Chamber and outside it.

I support the motion and the amendment. The motion is only calling for the Minister to take note of the outcome of the consultation process in England and Wales even though it was decided not to change the legislation there. I support Ms Lewsley's amendment, because I think that she is right: the House should call upon the Minister to take note of the consultation that is taking place throughout the world and not just that which was carried out in England. We should not try to reinvent the wheel. There is plenty to take note of.

The Assembly must be careful not to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, put a barrier against the outcome, or restrict the work of the Committee for Finance and Personnel or the Minister on that outcome. If there is to be consultation, the Assembly has a duty to allow the people who are being consulted the right to give their views. Local issues require local consultation, and the consultation exercise on this has raised several points from both the pro and anti sides in recent weeks. The Assembly must support parents, but it must also protect children.

'Children Are Unbeatable!' is a group that has undertaken much research on this. It has produced a briefing paper, which says that

I do not believe that any Member would object to that. I am concerned that Dr Birnie does not support the amendment. I am unsure of his reasons. The model that has been proposed in Scotland, which Members were briefed on, shows that

I am, therefore, concerned about the basis on which Dr Birnie is rejecting the amendment.

Many parents feel uneasy at present about what they see on television and in the media, and the Assembly must take that on board. There are concerns that many good parents will be victimised by this. The 'Children Are Unbeatable!' briefing paper states that

The people who are working on that consultation exercise are also aware of the issues.

Regarding the substance of the motion, I do not think the Assembly should allow anything to pre-empt the outcome of any consultation exercise or restrict Committees. All Members sit on Committees and are, therefore, aware that they get lobbied - rightly or wrongly - about many matters. The Committees have time to take that on board and to analyse, scrutinise, and ask for advice.

One of the Committees that I sit on sent the Office of Law Reform correspondence back and forth until it was satisfied with a number of Bills. While I hope that Dr Birnie is not trying to pre-empt or stop any consultation exercise, he is unwilling to take on board the model or consultation exercise that has happened. That is why I support Ms Lewsley's amendment.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that, when the timetable was made, it was not expected that we would be as far ahead of schedule as we currently are. This debate has been scheduled to last only for an hour and a half. With the leave of the House, perhaps we could extend the time for approximately 45 minutes. That would give all those who wish to speak on this important issue an opportunity do so.

Mr Poots, you are well aware that your party sends a Whip to the Business Committee, which sets the time limits for debates. It is then my duty to allocate time fairly to all parties. Your Whips should inform the Business Committee of your dissatisfaction about the limited amount of time being given to such a debate.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The extension to the debate is proposed with the leave of the House. Surely, if it is with the leave of the House, that would mean that all Members are happy with the time being extended. Why should any time restriction be imposed? Mr Poots suggested that we seek the leave of the House to extend the debate by 45 minutes to allow a wide range of Members to speak. Surely that should be put to the vote?

The simplest method is for the Whips of each party to make it clear that adequate time should be allocated to debates.

TOP

But surely - [Interruption].

I am on my feet, Mr Weir.

Extending the debate by leave of the House would mean that only one Member would have to say "No" for the proposed extension to fall. It is something that continually arises and must be dealt with, but it is for the Business Committee to deal with.

You make the point that the feelings of the House should be referred back to the Business Committee, Mr Deputy Speaker. Most Members will agree that this must be the fifth or sixth time that this feeling of the House - that the time allowed for important debates of public interest is being severely restricted - has been aired. Apparently, there has been no improvement whatever. Mr Poots made the point that the time is currently available, as other business was more expeditiously dealt with than was anticipated. Why not, with the leave of the House, use that time? If one Member objects, then we do not have the leave of the House. If every Member agrees, then we do.

Mr McCartney, you are reflecting what I have said on several occasions in the Chair. Time and time again, the Business Committee has limited the amount of time for a debate. I am then forced into finding time for smaller parties, such as your own, to speak. The difficulty with these points of order is that we are eating into the time for the debate. However, I will put it to the House.

We are ahead of schedule by an hour and a half. This is an important motion, to which an amendment has been tabled. As such, it is reasonable to extend the time in order to have a thorough discussion. Can I persuade you, as Deputy Speaker, to put it to the House?

Members do I have leave of the House to extend the time for this debate to allow all those who wish to contribute to do so?

The time will be extended.

The two Members who spoke after me had their time limited. In fairness, those who are left to speak should have equal time, otherwise one person is getting more time than another.

You raise a valid point, which I will take on board.

I will attempt to be brief in the time I may be allowed.

Like other Members, I was a little surprised that this motion was put before the House today. The motion simply calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to take note of one aspect of consultation on the matter of children's discipline that is being conducted in England. I have no doubt that, whatever criticisms I might make of him in other areas, the Minister of Finance and Personnel is aware of the English consultation and is capable of reading the outcome of that report. In the terms in which the motion is phrased, it does not particularly add much to the process that we are currently undergoing.

In that respect at least, Patricia Lewsley's amendment adds something to it, since it creates a greater degree of balance by referring to the consultations in Scotland and the Republic, rather than merely to those in England and Wales. The amendment, therefore, has considerable merit. In any case, while the motion as originally put down was not particularly meaningful, I would not have wanted to vote against it.

There is no doubt that Scotland and the Republic of Ireland have taken significantly different directions to those taken in England and Wales, though their decisions have not been finalised. Given that the Unionists in this Chamber always tell us of their affinity with the Scots, they seem less willing to listen to the Scots than to the English. No doubt Nationalists will consider that they are being consistent by listening to what happens at this stage south of the border.

The Scots have taken a rather more balanced approach in their considerations than the English have, particularly in the matters of protection for children under three and the use of instruments for administering corporal punishment. If we are not moving towards a total ban, those areas should be considered. Perhaps we should move further in the direction of an outright ban. There is an issue of proportion in how we address the matter and in how we deal with the genuine concerns of loving parents who consider that their past methods might make them criminals.

In Northern Ireland we must refer particularly to the issue of obligations under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I was a little surprised at the suggestion made by Dr Esmond Birnie as proposer of the motion that adults are not exactly equal to children and therefore do not really matter under section 75. That is not my interpretation of section 75, and I do not accept that there is a case for adults' doing anything they like with children just because they are not exactly equal. Clearly the rights under article 3 of the European Convention are at issue, and I was surprised when Mr McCartney intervened and referred to children being protected by virtue of their age. That also suggested that children might be damaged by virtue of their age in a way that would not apply to adults.

Dr Birnie talked about defending the rights of families who wished to use moderate physical chastisement. Would anyone in this Chamber use that phrase in relation to any kind of adult? How can it possibly be suggested that such language is appropriate in respect of children if it cannot be used about adults? We must examine appropriate mechanisms to encourage discipline.

Will the Member give way?

Briefly, given my time limit.

I thank the Member for giving way, and I will be brief. Does he not accept that there are cases in which it is legitimate to treat children differently from parents?

Clearly there are, and I thank Dr Birnie for bringing me to my next point. As part of the balanced Scottish approach, for example, I notice that the Standards in Scotland's Schools Act 2000 specifically bans corporal punishment but states that

Clearly there are cases where the proverbial tap on the back of the hand is appropriate, but we must be very careful that we do not appear to give the impression of a carte blanche for serious physical abuse. We have seen plenty of that in this society, and we must be careful not to approve anything which extends to any parent an understanding that such behaviour is acceptable. In this debate there is a danger of talking as if discipline is solely physical punishment. Other methods of discipline might not at times appeal to harassed, tired parents but might be more creative and beneficial to children in the long term.

It is certainly no part of my case to make criminals of loving parents who react in a particular way at a particular time. It is clear that we must look to a balance in those matters. Rather than suggest that we should automatically espouse the English system, we should seek to encourage more appropriate discipline, and thereby more appropriate behaviour by children.

I did not intend to speak on this issue, but there are issues on which my constituents will require clarification. Are we saying that we want to retain the capacity to beat our children? Dr Birnie used either the word "slap" or the word "smack".

I used the word "smack".

What is the definition of a smack? I would like to know the weight of a smack and the velocity of the movement of the arm. What is the difference between a proper smack and an improper smack?

Members' comments seem to involve an element of "Don't do as I do, do as I say". In other words, our children should be taught not to use violence in the hope that they will not use violence as adults. Of course, the people who teach them not to use violence use violence themselves. That is a fact.

Parents will do what they want to do in the confines of their home. There may be precious little that we can do about that. However, we, as legislators, should create an ethos and send out the message that the use of violence is unacceptable. It is as simple as that. I would like Members to share that opinion with me. Certain Members have wanted me to share those views with them for a long time. I want Members to share those views with every citizen of our society, including those who cannot speak for themselves and those who, when they do speak for themselves, are not listened to.

We cannot assess the parental skills and talents of Members, but their skills and talents as legislators are pretty evident. We have choices to make. We may not cure the ills of our society in one day, one week or one month, but we can lay down markers and an ethos. We can do that with our children before they get the opportunity to become, perhaps, polluted by the society that we live in.

It seems that there are circumstances in which, if a slap on the wrist were required, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be more than welcome to tell an adult that he or she is about to get one, rather than have the adult tell the child that. I think that you get my message, Mr Deputy Speaker. It would seem that there are as many unruly adults as there are unruly children. There are those who are the grand democrats, who want to be listened to and fawned over but who will not listen to others. That is known as "Do as I say, not as I do".

Regardless of the history of our society and the ages that we may be, we can all cast our minds back and decide whether physical punishment in the home was a good idea. In relation to our capacity to withstand physical punishment, the red welts will go away. However, I am talking about a person's state of mind, and the belief that it is OK to smack. Regardless of the scale of the punishment, and how it is dressed up, if it is OK to smack to engender authority, it follows that violence is OK. Even if minimal violence is involved, that is exactly what you are saying. Nothing will redress that - violence is violence is violence is violence. It is as simple as that.

Given the logic of the Member's argument, perhaps he will tell the House whether he is an absolute pacifist. Does he not accept that there can be cases of the legitimate use of force, such as by the police, the armed forces or the state?

TOP

As an adult, I must react to the world that I live in. For a child, I wish that there were someone who would try to make it a better world. They used to put kids up chimneys. Children - [Interruption].

That is not relevant.

It is relevant. Our society is changing - all societies, even if they are badly managed, are changing. Irrespective of how bad our society is because of the way the adults function in it, we should try to make it better for our children. The issues on the agenda should be: do not teach a child how to hit; do not teach a child how to be a bully; and do not show a child that violence of any form, no matter how minimal, is OK.

Mr Ervine's last point related to changing societies. Lest there be laughter in the House about the fact that certain things were once acceptable, but became unacceptable, I will tell Members about what was once acceptable - and what was said in the courts about what was acceptable - when it came to hitting a person. Hitting then, of course, became known as abuse. It was once acceptable to hit a woman with a stick that was no thicker than a person's thumb, hence the phrase, "rule of thumb". That was where the ecclesiastical courts started their rulings. They declared that it was perfectly acceptable to hit a woman in the house, providing that it was not too damaging. Women, rightly, started to ask what was considered damaging and what could be construed as emotional or physical abuse. Therefore the law began to change. The victims rose up and said that people would no longer decide by those laws what they could tolerate. A great deal of law was made on the basis of victims responding to what was considered to be acceptable.

The Office of Law Reform's consultation has not chosen a position. The matter has been left open for consultation and I have no doubt that the Minister will respond. The Office of Law Reform deliberately kept the consultation process open to facilitate a healthy debate.

Patricia Lewsley's amendment is welcome. Some Members may agree with what the Scottish Parliament has done, but I disagree. When we start to split children up into age groups of 0-3 years, 3 years and above, et cetera, we are getting into difficult territory. Let us in this devolved Assembly form our own views and advise the Minister on the civil law. We are not discussing criminal law, because the Office of Law Reform has responsibility only for civil law. As we debate this matter, let us remember that Northern Ireland is still the only place in Europe that tolerates corporal punishment in independent schools. That is a piece of legislation that we should move to change immediately. In tabling the motion, Esmond Birnie is getting ahead of himself. It might have been best to wait until the Committee had reported to the Assembly on the current consultation process.

I agree with other Members who question what constitutes moderate physical force. Let me tell Esmond Birnie and Oliver Gibson that it is not a matter of a nanny state making decisions. The debate on seat belts was the same. The car was considered to be a private place and it was thought that, once inside a car, people should be allowed to do what they wished for the sake of their own safety. It was up to the individual to decide whether he or she would wear a seat belt. However, the law and the state took a different view, saying that such decisions had consequences for young children and that it was not the right of a parent to decide whether the child would wear a seat belt. The law and the state took that decision.

If people do not wear seat belts and accidents occur, there are consequences for the Health Service and social services. The same situation will arise as regards hitting children. The decision has consequences for psychiatric services, counselling services and social services. The state does make decisions on what happens in private places. Having undertaken much research over the years, I assure the House that private places are the most unsafe. People who are known to their victims carry out most of the violence in our society.

Will the Member give way?

I have approximately 80 seconds remaining. I would give way, had I more time.

I remind the House that this is a positive step forward and that the consultation is useful. To allow people to make their own decisions on the matter is unacceptable, ineffective and costs the state resources.

I support the amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker -

Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb.

Order.

One of the Members has difficulty with his digestion. We have heard some rumblings already in his address to the Assembly.

I oppose the amendment and support Dr Birnie's motion. In an erudite, logical and objective speech, he indicated all the relevant parameters of the debate. I can speak with a degree of authority, because I am the father of four children and the grandfather of six, two of whom I take on holiday for three weeks every year. Therefore, I am in close contact not only with my own children but also with my grandchildren. The difficulty lies in distinguishing between child abuse - in whatever form - and correction or reasonable chastisement of a child in a loving and caring environment, when that chastisement or correction is offered not to endanger the child, but to protect him or her.

If a child clambers up on the parapet of a high-rise flat, introduces a piece of paper into an electric fire, or runs out into traffic, it may be necessary to correct that child's behaviour instantly, not because anyone wants to abuse or to inflict cruelty on that child, but rather to teach, protect and make him or her alert to the dangers of this world. The world is a dangerous place, and a criticism of the nanny state and the excessively caring parent is that by not exposing children to risk and danger, or to an apprehension of danger, or to the correction of danger, in a natural environment, they may place the child in greater danger. That has been the subject of all sorts of psychological investigations.

The law as it presently stands protects children from abuse or cruelty, although much of the abuse and cruelty that goes on is undetected by organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and social workers, who apparently are engaged to protect them. There is the example of the NSPCC in the case of the Climbie child, and countless other examples of children who have been systematically abused, and who have been systematically supervised by social workers and the NSPCC, which fails them entirely.

In many cases, therefore, the real, secret abuse will continue to escape detection. When it is detected, the abuser will be subject to prosecution under the existing laws that protect children as they protect everyone from cruelty, harm or assault. That blanket imposition on parental control would mean that a mother who is alarmed when her child dashes onto the road and who pulls the child back, giving it an instant smack on the leg, may well be reported to the local authority by a neighbour or a happy voyeur, and may be prosecuted. There is a suggestion that an individual may be given six months' imprisonment or a period of counselling by some parenting group. That is absolute nonsense. As Esmond Birnie pointed out, the European Court of Human Rights did not -

Will the Member give way?

No, I will not give way. You have had your time, and you did not give way. The European Court of Human Rights has clearly pointed out that a specific case, where a boy was beaten on the legs with a garden cane, involved a breach of human rights. However, the court did not make any judgement on the principle of law that operates in the United Kingdom which states that a parent may not abuse or be cruel to his or her child, but may exercise reasonable chastisement for the purpose of protecting that child, because they love and cherish the child and wish to protect him or her from future dangers that might cause pain or suffering. It would be a great wrong to remove that right from a parent.

I support the motion and oppose the amendment. Henry Ford once said that you could have any colour of car you wanted, as long as it was black. Having read the consultation paper from the Office of Law Reform, it seems that you can do anything about the law as long as it is changed. That is the option that is open to us, as the proposer of the motion noted. The status quo is the one thing that is not acceptable, because a range of five different options has been put forward.

I appreciate that consultation continues. For unusual reasons, there was not a great deal of publicity when the consultation was launched. Its launch was scheduled for 11 September, but other events overtook it. As the mover of the amendment probably said, there have been many lobby groups and forms of consultation. However, many people who have contacted me to express their concern do not feel that they have been empowered and consulted.

The voices of ordinary parents have not been listened to in this debate. The proposals bear symptoms of a wider malaise in society. The liberal elite appears to be introducing a raft of supposed rights and other proposals that are either ludicrous or repugnant to many right-thinking people. That liberal elite seems to sneer at anything that purports to relate to family values or the family unit, and that is the background against which the motion is examined.

There are several reasons why we should argue that the current law is adequate. Any proposed change discriminates, in particular, against parents of a certain moral disposition based on strong Christian values. A large lobby of people believe that they have a right to apply a certain level of discipline to their children as part of their Christian faith. Any changes to the current law would discriminate against them.

It has been indicated that any change would hit the wrong target. For example, unfortunately, at one end of the scale, many parents seem to neglect their children, let them run wild and do not seem to exercise any discipline. I am sure that all of us have received complaints from constituents whose lives have been made a misery by petty vandals and young children who create nuisance. However, any change in the law relating to reasonable chastisement would not affect those parents.

At the other end of the scale, the current law does not permit the physical abuse of children. Parents who physically abuse children, beat them up or attack them, are dealt with by the law. The review does not intend to deal more severely or adequately with those people. It will target parents who take a loving and disciplined attitude to their children. Those people will suffer as a result of any change in the law. Therefore, it is wrongly directed.

As regards state interference, the state has a right and a duty to protect the vulnerable in society against extreme behaviour. However, there is a fundamental difference between that and the enforcement of a particular theory of parenting, which is clearly intended in this instance. It is a facile argument to compare the reasonable chastisement of a child to the use of car seat belts based on the fact that if seat belts are not used, the child might be killed. We are not comparing like with like. If that theory were accepted, where would it reach its logical conclusion? For example, do we impose dietary conditions with which to bring up children? That would create a police state or nanny state, and it would take the role of the state too far. It would diminish people's respect for the law, because it would create a law that people would find ludicrous, and which might not be enforceable. That would distract people's attention from the important issues of child protection - the use of resources to protect children who are physically abused.

It is worthy to support the motion, because proposals to change the law as outlined by the Office of Law Reform would result in political correctness gone mad. Let us ensure that parents have a choice as to how they bring up their children, within certain restrictions. I call on everyone to support the motion.

TOP

I support the motion. It gives parents, myself included, insight into other aspects of life. We all bring our children up in a world full of hope and promise, and we all believe that we act as our parents have done. However, we sometimes have to chastise our children, and a slap across the back of the legs is one way of doing that.

That does not mean that we love our children any less. Chastisement is sometimes needed.

Babies grow up, and we must educate them about right and wrong. That means that we praise the good behaviour, but we also acknowledge the bad behaviour and punish it. I found that out more so with my three boys. I sometimes wondered why I was smacked as a child, and I realised with my children that there was a reason for it. It was not out of anger, but to protect the children. It was out of love and a fear that they would continue to do wrong in the future. That was the guiding light for many of us. Smacking as a reprimand was not always carried out, but the knowledge that my parents would smack as a last resort was enough to enforce upon me that there were social rules that had to be obeyed.

It is disappointing that some Members here today cannot acknowledge the need for some control within a household on smacking children. Some Members seem to believe that there should be no smacking at all. They believe it to be cruel and unnecessary. That is hard to understand when we have representatives of a party here who tell teenagers to appear at Connolly House for reprimand and retribution. It does not look good: they are against smacking but are crying out for much more severe punishment.

Eighty per cent of parents in the United Kingdom said that they would use some form of physical punishment. The Government and the Assembly would be penalising the vast majority who take parenting responsibly. Many children are now fully aware of their rights and use those to their advantage. How many times have we heard of teachers being assaulted in schools and then being prosecuted because they tried to restrain the individual who was trying to cause them injury? We should acknowledge that.

In London, a teacher was kicked in the stomach by a student when she was four months pregnant, and she lost her baby. The student was never prosecuted for the offence, but the teacher was victimised even more by the students on her return to work. She was again assaulted when she became pregnant for a second time. This was in the press at the time. Teachers cannot even ask a student to go to the headmaster's office - a place where I found myself perhaps more than I should have - because that would be picking on him and violating his human rights.

Minimal and appropriate physical punishment is necessary when bringing up children, and a lack of any form of punishment in society directly corresponds with the rocketing rise in crime and vandalism that we are seeing today. That has already been mentioned by other Members. It is necessary to inform children that bad, and sometimes dangerous, behaviour is never appropriate and will be punished.

One of the arguments against smacking is that it does not work. It does. I will give the example of one of my children. He was told not to do something, but he kept on doing it. He was approaching a fire, and there was a danger that he could be burnt. I told him to draw back, and he did not. I reached out, not in anger, but to protect him, to bring him back, and I smacked him. My son learnt that the fire was dangerous, but I also saved him from serious injury. That is a small thing, but it is a way in which a parent interacts with his children and ensures that they are protected. That is important. It is a small but effective measure.

Physical punishment is appropriate, because children do not know what is best for them. That is a parent's responsibility. That is what we are always trying to do. To those who say that smacking is wrong, I ask how they can reason with a five-year-old who is hell-bent on scribbling on a wall with felt-tip pens or beating the brains out of his younger brother? There has been no leeway -

TOP