Should smacking be banned?

Yes ...says Sue Woolmore, mother of two and public policy adviser for the NSPCC in the North.

AS A child, I was smacked. As an adult, I used to believe that smacking was acceptable, even though as a social worker I was only too aware of those tragic cases where a parent crosses the line from smacking to abuse.

It was only as a mother that I started to see things differently and began to question that old wives' tale about sparing the rod and spoiling the child. The reason was my daughter, Katie.

Like new mums everywhere, I was enthralled by my first born - it was love at first sight. But when Katie was a toddler she had a phase of hitting out.

Despite my professional training, I had always thought that I would smack my children if they needed punishing. Like most loving parents, my mum and dad had smacked us when we misbehaved. I understand why so many caring parents do. It's the norm. It's socially acceptable. It's what good parents have always done.

But when little Katie hit out, I explained to her that hitting was wrong. It was then obvious that I could never hit her without confusing her with a very mixed message. From this experience I started questioning what so many of us accept without question - that smacking is a good way to discipline children.

It is important to distinguish between discipline and punishment. Many people think the two are the same. They are not. We are all in favour of good discipline for children. Children need to know where the boundaries are and what happens if they cross them. Parents must feel able to set boundaries and stick to them. Being consistent is important.

How you impose discipline depends on the age of the child. In general, the younger the child, the more immediate the consequences need to be. It's no good telling a three-year-old, for instance, that you're not taking them swimming on Saturday, although you could say they can't watch a TV programme they want to watch. But hitting, or smacking, or slapping, or tapping - whatever you want to call it - only gives the message that might is right.

My experience as a social worker reinforced my feelings about smacking. Like so many social workers involved with children at risk, I remember the times when I had to say to colleagues: "We can't do anything until the child is injured."

Many parents make the point that how they punish their children is their business. They feel confident they know where to draw the line. But many would be shocked where some people do draw the line.

At the NSPCC, we think smacking needs to be rethought for the sake of the small number of children whose parents or carers beat and thrash them within an inch of their life. Legislation is important for two reasons. It should change people's behaviour; and, also, it gives out a clear message about what is acceptable behaviour and what is not.

It is no good just saying what parents cannot do, however. They have to be told what they can do. So there is a need for more advice and guidelines.

Finally, the NSPCC is against the compromise reached yesterday in the Lords, under which mild smacking would remain acceptable. That would just be a reworking of the Dickensian law of "reasonable chastisement" and would perpetuate confusion.

No ...says York father-of-three Colin Henson

Fifty or 100 years ago, almost all children were smacked at school and in the home. Yet the first 60 years of the last century had the lowest rates of public violence of any period in our history.

Even 30 years ago, it was a comparatively rare and shocking event to encounter acts of violence in public. Now you only have to stand on any main street of a largish town on a Saturday night and you will probably witness several.

I work as a security officer at a supermarket, and many children these days just seem to have no respect for anything.

We had an incident on Saturday where a group of youngsters, probably about 13 or 14, were just hanging about, not buying anything, and the amount of abuse we got you would not believe.

Some parents just seem to let their children do what they want.

Perhaps if a firmer hand were taken with some of today's 'little darlings' we wouldn't have the chaos that reigns on our streets and estates, and perhaps kids of today would have more respect, and not vandalise and bully the more frail of our society.

I have three sons, all grown up. I was smacked as a child; and they were too when they were young. On one occasion, I remember I even used a slipper. I didn't enjoy it - I can honestly say it hurt me more than them - but they have all three grown up into wonderful lads.

In fact, I was speaking about this to my youngest son, who is 25, only recently, and he said he learned that if he was told not to do something and did it anyway, he would get a tap - and then he would not do it again. It wasn't that he feared being beaten; he simply learned to respect what he was being told.

Parents have to be able to take some responsibility for their children's behaviour. Children are not born knowing the difference between right and wrong.

They have to learn this. It is up to individual parents to find the most appropriate way of dealing with bad behaviour; it is not, in my view, something the state should intervene in. There is a difference between smacking and child abuse. The anti-smacking lobby seem not to recognise this. But it should be possible to differentiate between smacking and hitting. I never hit my children across the face, for example, and you should not have to smack so hard that it causes a bruise or a mark. But mild smacking sends a message out.

I think the parent should always give a warning first, so the child knows what will happen if they continue to misbehave, and then, if necessary, smack them on the hand, bottom or across the back of the legs.

Not hard; but just enough so they know they have stepped out of line. Then, hopefully by about the age of eight or nine, they will have learned. Yes, there are many nasty people out there who do abuse children, that's a fact. Banning smacking is not going to stop them. These are two entirely separate issues.

Updated: 09:48 Tuesday, July 06, 2004