Speech to Scottish Lib Dem Conference in Dundee, Saturday 16 March 2013 Alex, Mike, I love you guys.

Youre fabulous assets to this party. I know your strong beliefs on this and Im sure Alex will make a passionate plea later on. But on this one, I cant go along with you. Giving children the same protection as adults: well, that sounds appealing, doesnt it? But are adults and children the same? We dont let children drive, drink, smoke, have sex or join the army, and we dont hold them responsible for criminal actions. And, thank goodness, taking a child somewhere they dont want to go isnt considered abduction. So the comparison is a bit false. Children have rights, but theyre not absolute. Parents also have obligations to raise, protect and provide for their children and, yes, to teach them right from wrong. All child psychologists agree that good development requires parents to set and enforce boundaries of good behaviour. And some of them, like Renee Mill and Diana Baumrind, say that, on rare occasions and used alongside other punishments, a light smack can produce positive results for some children it can emphasise parents are serious, or get kids attention and provide a clarity of focus leading to better behaviour in adolescence and better results at school. They also say other methods are often more effective such as timeouts and withdrawing privileges. Parents are becoming more aware of these alternatives, which is why fewer parents smack and those who do, do it less frequently. But if you look closely enough, no method is perfect. Research suggests that lengthy timeouts can lead to separation anxiety; and if you gave a child a time-out in a locked cupboard, that would be criminal neglect. Because there are limits. There are always limits. And just because the limits may be hard to explain or confusing for some doesnt mean you shouldnt try to make distinctions. Police, courts and prosecutors recognise and apply degrees of difference every day. For example, theres good driving, careless driving and dangerous driving. There are plenty of deaths on our roads, but it would just seem a tad excessive to ban all driving. The current law tries to strike a balance. It wasnt perfect, but it was clarified and improved ten years ago. But the criminal law is not symbolic. It doesnt exist to send messages. It exists to prosecute and punish offenders. And removing a defence will automatically increase the scope of the crime, and include more behaviour and more people within its reach. Since between half and two-thirds of parents say they might, on occasion, smack their kids, thats an awfully big expansion of the criminal law; and it risks bringing the law into disrepute. I can say to parents, you dont have to smack your child, or you shouldnt. There is, though, a world of difference between that and saying you cant ever do it, and if you do youre a criminal. Of all people, Liberals should really understand the difference between disapproving of something and making it a crime. We can do a lot better than this motion. But Conference, Im not angry; Im just disappointed. Disappointed that this motion takes a complex issue and proposed a simple, absolute solution. Disappointed that it says that parental judgement isnt important, its impossible. I am really disappointed that it doesnt acknowledge the difference between smacking and abuse or violence, even if its to stop your child from hitting another child, or to restrain them from running into traffic, playing with fire or electrical sockets. But like all children, this motion should have a chance to learn and do better next time. There are international examples which draw a distinction between force used for restraint and for correction, and where prosecutions cant be brought where theres no lasting injury or its not in the public interest. Lets bring back a better motion which protects children and their rights, but which also acknowledges the reality of parent/child relationships and which doesnt offend liberal principles quite so much. Please reject the motion.