MPs may allow child smacking in new Bill
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Ministers are to pursue a "middle road" strategy by allowing parents to smack their children so long as they do not cause physical harm.
The Health Secretary, John Reid, said he believed most people would back the approach, which will take shape during a House of Lords debate on the Children Bill today.
But campaigners for a ban on smacking criticised the Government, arguing that its strategy effectively defined ways in which children could continue to be abused. They predicted that many Labour peers would continue to press for a ban.
Wary of being accused of encouraging a "nanny state", Tony Blair is against legislation banning smacking. But faced with the prospect of a rebellion by Labour peers and MPs, the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary, Charles Clarke, have decided to allow a free vote on a proposal to limit the use of the traditional defence of "reasonable chastisement".
The proposal is contained in an amendment to the Bill tabled by the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
Under the amendment, any parent who inflicted actual bodily harm on a child could be prosecuted and would no longer have the protection of the reasonable chastisement defence, which dates back to 1860.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments