Ministers are facing a major showdown over the physical punishment of children, with growing demands to outlaw smacking in England and finally align with the rest of the UK.
Campaigners and a powerful coalition of MPs and peers are pushing for a change in the law, arguing that a 160-year-old legal defence is dangerously outdated and fails to protect children from violence.
The Legal Loophole Under Fire
At the heart of the debate is the ‘reasonable punishment’ defence, a clause from the Victorian era that allows parents to claim that physical chastisement was justified. This defence is still permissible in England and Northern Ireland, but has been scrapped in Scotland and Wales.
Critics argue this creates a two-tier system for child protection, leaving English children without the same legal safeguards as their peers elsewhere.
A Coalition for Change
The movement to ban smacking is backed by a formidable alliance, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), Barnardo’s, and the Children’s Commissioner for England.
They contend that the law as it stands sends a dangerous message that it is acceptable to hit a child, and that physical punishment can have serious long-term consequences for a child's mental health and development.
What Would a Ban Mean?
A ban would not criminalise parents for a light tap. Instead, it would remove the legal defence of ‘reasonable punishment’, making the law clearer for everyone. The focus would shift to positive parenting techniques and support for families, rather than criminalisation.
Proponents stress that the change is about equality and sending a clear, unambiguous message that violence against children is never acceptable.
With Wales and Scotland having already taken this step, all eyes are now on Westminster to see if England will follow suit and grant children the same protection under the law.
