Oral question asked in the House of Lords, by Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat). It was answered on Thursday, 16 October 2008.

Children: Physical Punishment

Question: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but does she realise that all the Government’s warm words are not credible without legislation? Is she aware of the recent judgment in the Court of Appeal in the case of R v the Secretary of State for Justice, in which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, is quoted as saying that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is the ““authoritative international view”” of what the UN convention requires? That committee has recently for the third time demanded that the UK Government remove reasonable chastisement. So, for how long will the Government go on believing that their view of their human rights obligations is more authoritative than that of four UN committees, the European Committee of Social Rights and their own JCHR?

Answer: My Lords, with respect, the Government are absolutely clear about the fundamentals here. We believe that this boils down to an interpretation of what is seen as violence. We do not accept that, for example, mild smacking—smacking for which the defence of reasonable punishment is available—constitutes violence. We firmly believe that our law is compliant with both the UN CRC and the ECHR. In our view, the UN CRC does not require the criminalisation of mild smacking. Conduct that could meet the threshold of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under the ECHR is already illegal in this country.

Secondary information

Type: Oral question
Reference: 704 c822
Session: 2007-08
Oral question type: 1st Supplementary
Chamber / Committee: House of Lords chamber
Subjects: Children Corporal punishment Human rights UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Link: View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk