Fy enw i'r cymdeithasol yma, a gweithio i'r 7 o'r ysgolwyddiadau ym Mhwng Rhaid i'r Cymru for 2019. Da i'r ddweudio'r cymdeithasol o'r ddweudio'r cymdeithasol. Fy enw i'r Gordyn Lindhurst, MSP a John Finnie MSP, gweithio'r cymdeithio ym mhwy. Mae gennym ni'n ddweud o'r olifryd yma, MSP a'r Annie Wells MSP. Felly mae gennym ni'n ddim yn ei ddweud i'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithgol yn Euroydol Llywodraeth a'r Gweithgol a'r Gweithgol yn Euroyd Llywodraeth yn dweud. Mae cymwynt yn gweithio'r gweithoedd i'r gweith ac yn ddweud o grwyffau. Felly wnaeth eu cymdeithasol i'n gwybodaeth gweithio, gweithio'r gweithio'r gweith, ac mae'n gweithio'r gweithio, llwydd, a llwyddau i'r llifio i ddweud. Agenda item one is the Children's Equal Protection from Assault Scotland Bill. This is the third evidence session on Children's Equal Protection from Assault. Can I welcome James Gillis, Public Policy Assistant at the Christian Institute, Reverend Gordon Matheson, Minister for Evangelical Alliance and Reverend Richard Ross, Minister for the Free Church of Scotland continuing. Can I open things by asking each of you whether you support the aims of the bill, which is to end the physical punishment of children? If you wish to start, James. The Christian Institute is opposed to the bill. The Free Church of Scotland continuing is opposed to the bill. The Evangelical Alliance Scotland is also opposed to the bill. I could add as well just a note of thanks to the committee. I'm stepping in a very short notice. Kieran Turner, our Public Policy Officer, was supposed to be sitting in this chair today and was unable to attend. So I've come a fairly short notice, but I'll endeavour to answer as I come. Well, thank you for joining us. You're very welcome. I'm going to open out to committee members now. Alec Cole-Hamilton, do you want to kick hands off? Well, good afternoon to the panel. Thank you very much for coming to see us today. I hope very much to hear your testimony and it will really inform our consideration of the bill, so I'm grateful to you for that. I'd like to start by looking at something we've covered in the previous committee sessions. It's okay if you've not managed to see those, but it's about the perception of attention that exists between children's rights and parents' rights. We know through a lot of evidence we've received, not just for this bill, but through other bills that we've taken through Parliament, about the international imperative of organisations like the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child that say that we are not meeting our obligations to the UNCRC in as much as we still allow physical punishment of children in the home. And there are specific articles to which we are signatories which are incompatible with the continuation of physical punishment in the home. It's not just limited to the UNCRC, there are other conventions for your signatories which are also incompatible to physical punishment in the home. Is that tension real? And where in other international laws or treaties to which we are signatory does that jar and what are those rights that are given to parents which should allow them to continue to physically punish their children? Who wishes to start? Of course you. I think what was touched on before is the fact that children and parents and adults have different legal standing in law. In the existing sense parents have authority over their own children and the rights in law are slightly different because of that. It's often said that the obligation under the UN Children's Rights Declaration is to ban smacking. But in the declaration itself it states that children should be protected from violence. And we agree absolutely with this, but we'd say that the Christians would say that the current law already does protect children from violence. Smacking, as used by many thousands of loving parents across Scotland, Christians and others is not violence against a child, it's not abusive. And so the obligation has already been met under existing Scots law and this legislation is not necessary to add further protection to children. And in fact we'd say it wouldn't enhance protections of children, it would actually distract the police and social workers and others from doing the very important work of already identifying abuse under the law. Before I bring in Chair the other panel members, can I just state for the record, I think it's important to be absolutely clear that this bill doesn't create a new offence in terms of banning smacking. Smacking was always an assault, but there was a legal defence which parents could lean into to justify their actions. We're only talking about removing that and equalising the protections in the eyes of the law that children and adults have. Can I extend my original question chair to Reverend Ross and Reverend Matheson? Maybe I could bring in the scriptural support.  And there are many scriptures that speak of a child's responsibility, honour thy father and mother, that is a responsibility there, lead upon children and there is the parental responsibility not to provoke their children to wrath. So, if you take the scriptural authority, you have their protection for both the child and the parents, because God's standard is laid down. If you turn away from God's standard and replace it with a standard that is limited to mortal man, then you're going to have nothing but trouble. Before I bring in Reverend Matheson, can I just ask Reverend Ross, do you believe that we should use scripture to define all sort of human law? That human law should follow the word of God as it applies throughout the Bible. Every aspect of Bible should actually be the law that we govern our country with. Scottish law, as I understand it, is based upon the moral law as we have it in the word of God. And this is going to move away from that and it's going to open up the Scots law to be defined by man himself. So the authority is only going to be man rather than a God-given authority. And where you have that God-given authority, you have real authority. But particularly when it comes to scripture, Reverend Ross, you do accept that there are aspects of scripture which we have laid aside and recognised that they don't fit our modern world. Certain, particularly within the Old Testament, that they are not necessarily the way that we would recognise a good way to live and conduct our lives. Perhaps the political elite have, but I'm talking about the ordinary day-to-day law-abiding citizens. Many in Scotland, many thousands of Scots, perhaps millions of Scots, believe that the scriptures give a good solid foundation for life. Not only for children, but for parents. And as we understand it, this is an open attack on the authority of God to tell us how to live. And because this is an open attack, then it is smashing the very foundation of Scottish society. Can I just ask? I mean, we will come on more on to scripture, but when you say this is an open attack on the authority of God, where in the Bible does God tell us to physically punish our children? It says in Hebrews chapter 12, whom the Lord loveth, he chaseneth. It's there to say that God lovingly chasens his people. I would chasen, if I may chair, my children every day. I don't do it physically. I do it with screenbans and timeouts. Surely God can find other ways to chasen his people. Well, I'm not here to defend God. God has given us his word, and we either accept it or we don't. And you could say there are other ways. But what has the other ways produced so far? Look around the world. Look at the questions that were asked from the floor that didn't receive proper answers from the panel regarding the state of the world. Man doesn't have the answers for these things. Men don't have the answers for the state of the world. Look at our nation at the moment. It's an acwagmae. It's because we've turned our back on the Lord. We've turned our back on his word. And this legislation, although you're saying you're not creating a new offence, you are. You are creating a new offence. You're going to find loving Christian parents who use smacking or other forms of parental discipline are going to have that taken away. Now, the scriptures teach that parents have that right. They have that right, and it's something that people don't accept. But that is what the scriptures teach. So if we're going to take away the foundation of God's law from the nation, we are in serious trouble. I was raised in a non-physical punishing home and I think I turned out okay. Can I ask Reverend Matheson your position on this conflict between the rights? I've spent the last 48 hours trying to catch up with some of the committee's previous evidence sessions as well and reading around the subject. I genuinely feel probably unqualified to answer the very specific question about compliance with international treaties. However, what I would say is looking at some of the evidence sessions, I understand, and it was mentioned earlier in the session this morning, around about 50 countries around the world have already adopted using various instruments, the provisions that are requested in these treaties. I think what's really interesting is that for us in Scotland, the chosen method that we've ended up going for is to amend criminal law rather than to take a civil law approach to it. I think one of my concerns is that I'm not sure how thoroughly we have scrutinised it. The talk about the New Zealand example, I hadn't actually noticed that until we were again this afternoon, but even the fact that there have been eight prosecutions arising since New Zealand changed their criminal law in this regard. Just to interrupt you briefly, this is the scrutiny. We're in the process of scrutinising it, so we are taking it very seriously. I suppose to make my point, then, would be that perhaps if Evangelical Alliance, as we have in our written submission, we would respectfully suggest perhaps that the committee should provide a heightened scrutiny of the proportionality of this particular method of achieving the stated goals that you have. Rather than using a criminal instrument, that perhaps it might be worth looking at if there may be civil instruments that could be used instead. If I may convener, then I'll hand over to other members, of course. The reason we're adopting this approach is because it is a roadwell travelled. This legal defence used to apply to the punishment of a wife by her husband, and thankfully that was repealed and doesn't exist anymore. Now, there are aspects of scripture which you could interpret to suggest that men should have the right to physically punish their wives. Happily we live in a society which utterly rejects that notion. I believe that progress dictates that this is a necessary part in the human journey in this country. Camino. Ask Mr Alec Cole-Hamilton if he could show me. He just said scripture supports husbands beating wives. No, I said you could interpret scripture. Can you show me? Can you show me? There's an open Bible here. Well, he's claiming to know what scripture teaches. But he can't prove what he's just said, convener. I would also like to ask who is actually the convener of this committee. Because it looks like Mr Cole-Hamilton's taking a chair. Well. Okay. There's an open Bible here after the session. You show me then, Mr Cole-Hamilton. I think it will be good for all of us if we conduct this meeting in a proper and mannerly and respectful way. I am not being aggressive. I'm not saying you're being aggressive and I'm not saying you're being disrespectful. I'm just reminding you that this is a meeting of the Scottish Parliament. We've invited you here to hear your views. I want you to have the chance to give them a full airing and for us to be able to question you on that. So we'll just conduct ourselves properly. James Gillis, you wish to come in on that. I think the Reverend is probably trying to communicate that most vast majority of Christians would not state that scripture condones violence in the home. But just to come back to the actual defence and law of the section 51 of the Criminal Justice Scotland Act. So our understanding is that it expressly outlaws the use of an implement, blows to the head and shaking, which you stated already. But there's also explanatory notes to the defence, which state that justizement should be moderate and not inspired by vindictiveness. So really what it's talking about is that only the most mild tap on the hand or smack in the bottom. It's a defence in law which really clarifies the law and which is understood by prosecutors and by the police. And it makes a distinction between violence and smacking, which is used by loving parents and is very light and moderate. And some of the submissions to the recent consultation which you held from police officers themselves, child protection specialists said that this section of law is actually useful to them. It gives them the ability to make a distinction between these things and make a judgement call and say actually in one case this is just loving chastizement and in other cases this is abuse and this should be pursued and brought into, made into a criminal case. So police officers on the ground, including one submission which we read from an anonymous officer set with 29 years experience in child protection work, he said that this is a very useful defence in the law. And the effect of removing this would be to make all physical discipline, no matter how mild, effectively and technically an assault under law. And that would lead to parents being arrested and prosecuted and perhaps even convicted under the law because police would be compelled to investigate a report of smacking in the same way that they're currently compelled to investigate abuse. So one final point is that in New Zealand before the law changed there, politicians did seek to say that this law will not result in parents being criminalised. But that's exactly what's happened and a legal report released last year said effectively that parents have been criminalised. So with respect you're searching that good parents won't be criminalised and this won't happen. That's not the case abroad. And so looking to examples abroad we'd argue that the same thing will happen here. And many of the parents out in the audience today are concerned about exactly that. Thank you Mr Gillis. Fulton, I think your question's long gone. Thanks, convener, and welcome panel. Mr Gillis, just the point you were making there, do you know from any of the research that your organisation has of how often the justifiable assault is used in a court or as a defence? We and I don't think this committee have come across any instances where this defence has been used to actually allow unreasonable physical violence to take place. In effect the law is the defences invoked very rarely and we'd say that shows that it's well understood, it's a long existing defence and law and it's very clear. And so it's not cited very often because the courts and the police know the difference between violence and between loving parental discipline. And that's why it's not cited in court. So why do you think that that would change? I think you're right. I declared for the interest of child protection and social worker for eight years and was involved in a lot of joint investigative interviews. For example, how do you think that would change if this bill is passed? Because, as I said in previous committee sessions, if an allegation is made it's not for a teacher or a health visitor or MD else to judge whether it's a minor allegation or a SMAC or whatever. It goes through a process, a child protection process. How do you think if this bill is passed that will change? There is a submission to the consultation which I'm trying to track down here from an anonymous officer number 349. I'm not sure exactly why it's anonymised but he has 29 years experience mainly as a detective. He's spent ten years working in the child protection department as a detective sergeant and also in the National Child Abuse Investigation Unit. He explains the process as it is and makes an example about a young boy who tells his teacher that his mother SMACed him and what exactly would happen in practice. He says that he's against the proposal because the point I explained earlier about SMACing being treated as abuse, he says in fact that every allegation of SMACing would have to launch a criminal investigation and they would be compelled to investigate it in that way. He says, my experience of working in child protection shows that despite a massive injection of staff over the years, the current workload of investigators is virtually unmanagable. Should this law be passed the workload of both the police and social work would be massively impacted, meaning those already thinly spread groups would have to do much more and in his opinion it's disproportionate and irresponsible to introduce legislation that is not deemed necessary or helpful by practitioners on the ground such as himself. I appreciate that. That was an individual's view but the vast majority of evidence that we've taken up to now on behalf of agencies such as Police Scotland and others have suggested that that wouldn't be the case and that the current procedures are already in place. They don't already think about as a parent going to use justifiable assault as a defence before they decide whether to prosecute and actually the whole system around child protection particularly is to find balance and a measured approach to protecting children and also safeguarding families. So we haven't heard a lot of evidence to suggest that it would change and I wonder whether you agree or not that actually rather than worrying about an increase in the criminalisation of parents that actually one of the major problems we have in Scotland and probably across the world right now is actually trying to get convictions for people who are committing really serious offences against children and that and do you not then agree that this law could help bring that more into the forefront of people's minds? Of course we'd agree that that is of fundamental importance that people are abuse as identified and the perpetrators are brought to justice but we can only go by the evidence we've seen and which we included in our own submission from people like this officer. Police Scotland did talk about a cost and resource implications of this law. We think the best way to strengthen the arm of the police and others would be to strengthen the existing structures that are in place. If people are complaining that they're overworked, that their workloads are unmanageable, we know social workers and others are already under huge stress. The way to help them is to give them more resources and help them to do their job under the existing law and asking them to go after parents who have said they've smacked their children in the vast majority of cases are loving ordinary reasonable parents. That will distract them and that will have an implication and make them with their workload worse. So it is our fear that this legislation aside from actually helping children will distract the police and distract social work and could ultimately spread that net so thinly that some of these extreme cases of abuse are missed and that's a very sad prospect. But do you accept the earlier point I made and perhaps widen it out to the rest of the panel as well? I appreciate it, I've been focusing on yourself, I apologize for that. But do you accept that for the instances you've described, the hypothetical examples, which are real life examples, everyday examples should I say, there's already child protection procedures in place and they are already currently being used and that this bill does not alter that. At the moment I suspect that that's true at an investigative stage but my concern would be at the next stage when it comes to mounting prosecutions. I don't know if there has been enough investigation and accumulation of data to support the notion that a change to removing the reasonable chastisement defence would actually result in a very low net increase in prosecutions. I'm just not convinced that in the evidence you've received that that has been fully articulated and I would genuinely love to see that perhaps further investigated and for the committee's resources to be devoted to looking into that in some detail. We are of the view that the Scottish Parliament ought to devote its efforts to tackling real harm and abuse to children but this will be a net that will catch loving parents because it's going to be spread so wide and it's an intrusion into family life that doesn't belong to the state. Children are given to the parents to bring them up, it doesn't belong to the state to tell parents at what level they are. To deal with their children, the parents are best suited to bring up their children. I am a father myself, we know Mr Hamilton as a father. I presume he wouldn't let me to come and tell him how to bring his children up so why should others have to be told by a parliamentary committee or by the Scottish Parliament or by anyone else? How to bring up their children? This is our God-given right. Parents are best placed to decide. Not somebody on the outside who's looking in but parents themselves, I'm sure Mr Hamilton would agree with me, he is best placed to bring up his children in the way that he feels suitable. The only thing I would say on that is that I hear what you're saying about parents knowing best but it goes back to the earlier point. Do you not agree that it's already so smacking, I think as Alex Goharmill is already an offence? What this bill is looking at is removing a justifiable, but it is a process that would be prosecutors, police and other partners in the criminal justice system would determine whether something's taken forward or not and it would be then for the justifiable defence to be used and what we're not hearing from anybody involved in this that's came to speak to us so far is how often this has been used. Doesn't that apply looking at the question from both angles? I mean there's no clamour from Police Scotland or from the prosecution services to remove this and if that was the case then there would perhaps be more sympathy but the fact is the clamour for change for this is coming from within a political class rather than from those who are actually at the front end in dealing with prosecutions in this and they're not finding that this is a barrier or an obstacle to taking prosecutions forward so if it's not providing a barrier at the moment then surely that maybe argues against removing... I'm just going to let Alex Goharmill come in briefly. Thank you very much, convener. I just wanted to address for the record or put back to the panel. We've heard from James Gillis the testimony of an unnamed police officer about his concerns around the bill and he's absolutely entitled to those views. What do the panel believe or think about the interventions of Police Scotland and more notably Strathclyde Violence Reduction Unit who are broadly supportive of the aims of the bill not least because Strathclyde Violence Reduction Unit believed that far from taking up more police time in prosecuting parents it will actually help their efforts to reduce violence on our streets by delegitimising the use of violence as a tool of sanction or anger. So I've just challenged your use of the word violence there. Again it goes back to the distinction between violence between smacking which is loving discipline to thousands of parents and I suppose the central question behind this legislation is smacking harmful to children and we would state that the research evidence does not show that. The policy memorandum for this bill cites reports which seem to imply that smacking is harmful has effects on children but the Welsh Government which is also consulting on a similar change to the law just now stated in its consultation document that there is unlikely to be any research evidence which specifically shows the effect of a light and infrequent smack as being harmful to children and there's also submissions to the recent consultation again by Professor Lars Lears, Ferguson and Gunno, US psychology professors who have studied the major research on smacking and they've looked at the methodology behind that and they fear that it's sort of confirmation bias there. So the indication we've seen from the Welsh Government in its honest assessment ahead of its legislative change and these other academics is that the research evidence does not anywhere near conclusively show that a light smack which many parents use in loving homes actually harms a child. But my point is that Strathclyde violence reduction unit equates the fact that children who receive a physical intervention believe then that a physical intervention can be appropriate outside of the home amongst their peers. That is their point. Irrespective of whether you believe it harmful or violent they believe the connection of a hand to a body part is a legitimate tool of anger or sanction. Do you accept that? Well I'd ask to see the research evidence behind that. I don't think there's any research evidence to show that a logical connection between a light smack used by parents and violence. I don't think there's a link between smacking and violence in children. If you look at Sweden, the example there, what we've seen since the change in the law there in the 1970s is a huge rise, over a thousand percent rise in child on child violence after smacking has been banned. So it's the sort of opposite from what's being stated there. So rather than smacking causing or begetting violence it's actually reducing it. So some researchers would say that. So we would question that assertion that there's a logical connection between smacking and violence. I agree with Mr Gillis here. Smacking is not violence. Smacking is discipline. That is a difference between discipline and violence. You yourself said in the public question and answer session that you yourself was smart. Has it made you more violent? I was smart once and then I turned around and bit my father in the face. So yes it did. But you were two years old. Absolutely. He never hit me again. But how many other members of the committee have been smart? So the committee are here to ask the questions. Can I just make the point convener? I would presume that most of the committee have been smart and maybe as parents they have smart their children. It hasn't held anybody in the committee back. You're all members of parliament. It hasn't psychologically damaged you. It hasn't made you violent. You've made your point. I think in the context of the violence reduction in Strathclyde it is interesting to see these assessments on the police's part against the public perception of where this is going. Around about three quarters of Scots requested and pulled on this have found that there's some opposition I suppose to removing this defence of law. Given that there's 74% of people against this I do wonder what the actual goal of using a legislative change of this nature which is a very blunt instrument is going to have when you set that against the behavioural changes that we already see. I think it's quite welcome in fact to acknowledge that smacking on a whole scale behavioural pattern in society has reduced. I think that's probably a good thing. I think it's great that today we have access to a whole range of parenting tools. I think about my mum when I was growing up. She I think didn't have much of a notion of putting me on the naughty step. She didn't have much of a notion of the sort of steps that I take with my daughter and my son at home as well. I sometimes wonder that we're already seeing behavioural changes that are making aggressive and abusive smacking a thing of the past. If that is the case then what we're going to be left with is proportionate, I think is reasonable and the question I'm still coming back to is is it reasonable for us therefore to as a society to prosecute a reasonable level of smacking in homes where it is perhaps one-off, perhaps not done in anger but done as a loving and careful and considered response to a very pressing situation which needs reinforcement. That's the experience I think of probably the 74% of Scots who've been pulled and find this change unnecessary. Gail Ross, you're going to come in. Thank you convener and thank you panel. I just wanted to get your opinion. When a parent smacks a child taken into account that it's proportionate and reasonable what is the end result that the parent is expecting from the smack? It entirely depends on the situation. I mean if a child is going to run out on the road the end result would be to stop them running out on the road. Or if they're going to pull a pan of water down on themselves you're going to keep them from danger. So it's like asking how long is a piece of string? You need to know the context before you can say well what's the end result going to be? So every instance of smacking is different for different circumstances and it can take a different level. Yet I think James Gill, as you said that smacking is light and infrequent. Therefore what is the point? Why do it at all? Well I'd say that it's one technique which parents use as part of that discipline in viewing a sense of right and wrong in children. And from the anecdotal evidence we've heard it is light and it's infrequent. So there is the example of the reverence used of a child being in immediate danger so just use of smacking as a form of discipline a light smack or a tap on the hands. And anecdotally people would say some children don't respond to verbal warnings if they keep reaching out for a socket or something and they get a light tap on the hands that sort of communicates the message to them at an age where verbal communication isn't so effective. Communicates in what way? Sorry to understand. To inflect fear or to inflect pain? What way does that communicate that to that child? Well I suppose it's a very light, slightly painful thing that communicates a danger or that they're doing something wrong. But it's something that's very light and mild and reasonable and parents would never be seeking to harm their children as they smack them. I think it's just part of loving parenting and they want what's best for their children. Thank you. Maybe I could come in as well. We've got to bear in mind the nature of a child. There are different opinions about the nature of a child. Some people think that children are innocent. Some people see that children need correction. Like the scriptures teach that we're all sinners. So we all need correction and a gentle smack is part of the correction as well as a verbal rebuke. It is part of the correction. It's part of the teaching process.  If you're never told that you're wrong, then you're never going to learn anything. But if you get a question wrong in school you're told that you're wrong and explained why and told the right answer. You're not given a tap to go to church. Perhaps when you were in school. I don't know how old you think I am. The point is how are you going to know the difference between right and wrong? If you don't have that opportunity to give the child a smack. If they're running out on the road, if they're running off on you, you need that instant. You can't grab them back and start explaining to them because they're off. You have to have that ability to communicate to the child of what they have done is wrong. OK, thank you. I think it's interesting to note that in these circumstances very often it's an instinctive response. Parents in these circumstances, having been there myself, you find an element of alarm when your child runs off out onto the road or where we stay, there's tractors up and down all the time and if the gates aren't locked we're kind of thinking, same with a hot pan of stove or tampering with an oven while it's open or whatever else. The parental alarm says this is a really dangerous situation which no amount of explanation in this context at this moment is going to reinforce in my child that this is a danger they must be aware of. I'll just pause you for a second there. One of our other people that we were taking evidence from said something that resonated with me. It's often the hot pan or the danger or the running onto the road that's used as an explanation for loving smacks. It seems peculiar that if a child was running to a car your instinct would be to hit them, surely that would knock them over. Won't your instinct be to hold them if it was about keeping them safe? I can see that at the point you're making. I think in that instance to reinforce the fact that the child has run off under these circumstances. I think it's reinforcement. Not necessarily punitive but to reinforce a sense of alarm in the child. A sense of alarm that you understand is apparent because of their limited sense. So about communicating your alarm at the situation to the child through pain or light pain. I think through light pain. I think through a light slap on the risk in that circumstance is to say this is a very dangerous situation you find yourself in. I think the purpose of that would be to remind in the future that these are dangerous situations to find yourself in that they have consequences and children will remember that. Thank you. Mary Fee. Thank you convener and can I too welcome the panel. One of the things that we've heard is the lack of definition on the bill of what reasonable is because the bill removes the defence of reasonable chastisement and one of the things we've heard would be helpful if there was a definition if the bill explained in plain terms exactly what we meant and what classified reasonable chastisement is that something you would agree with? Sorry just to clarify are you referring to Mr Finney's legislation or the criminal justice act? So there should be something in the legislation to determine something that is reasonable chastisement. We would say that the definitions under the current act are good so they've been mentioned already and the guidance, the explanatory notes to section 51 particularly which talk about moderate, mild not inspired by vindictiveness. These are all helpful terms which can be used. But do you think it needs more of an explanation on mild? I think parents and prosecutors understand that already. I think the evidence shows that so I'd say that's probably fine as it is. I would just say previous generations have obviously understood what it meant. I just find it strange now that members of the Scottish Parliament think that modern generations are unfit to know what reasonable chastisement means and they must have a blanket ban. I think that in 2003 changes were very welcome and should have been well received. I remember my own experience growing up was to get a thick ear for doing things and that possibly could not happen now. So I'm really glad of that but it's good. I think at the same time I'm what I've been trying to work out is balancing the harm in this as well. So many of the submissions that the committee have received so far have balanced or have sought to assess simply the harm to the child and their experience of pain. But my experience as a minister and working in pastoral environments and speaking to a number of my colleagues both within my own denomination more widely within Evangelical Alliance is seen that the lasting harm that criminal conviction has on parents and on families in different situations. I'm still I come back to this. I've heard the committee repeatedly in previous evidence sessions articulate the point that there is no there's no envisaged dramatic increase in the number of convictions but at the end of the day we're still talking about changing a defence of criminal law and so inevitably there will be some there will be some changes and in my experience these situations devastate family life. They have a remarkable impact on the experience of families and I do wonder about where the where the balance of harm is going to be where mild chastisment which has been exercised in a loving context results unfortunately perhaps without any deliberate desire on our on our legislators part but nonetheless does result in criminal convictions. How much is the harm in these situations and the impact of that on families being assessed and taken into consideration? I think as a society these are big questions for us to look at and assess. I wonder if I could ask you then do you think there is any way that this bill could positively positively change the way that parents discipline their children or do you think it will be it will have a negative impact on the way parents discipline their children? I don't know Mr Gillis, would you like to start or Reverend Ross? On you go. I think it will have a negative impact on parents like my colleague Mr McInnes in the public questions and wasn't answered of course it is going to raise greater tension within the family especially when this smacking is out if it is, if it does come in it's outlawed we know family life nowadays is quite stressful anyway and it's going to increase and I think it's also like we said in our submission it is going to disrupt and potentially harm families and as my colleague Gordon Matheson has mentioned it will have a long term effect long term effect to grow up with that knowledge that your mother or your father has a criminal record would not only bring damage to the family but to the children themselves so I think it's only going to have a negative effect and I think the committee really have to think about this it's going to have a huge negative effect if this becomes law it's going to have a huge negative effect on families in Scotland families are under a lot of pressure as it is and I would say it's going to have a very negative Mr Gillis-Reveron Matheson, I don't know if there's anything you want to add to that I think I just reiterate the bread of public opposition to this and the fact that 75% of people polled regularly state that they don't want to see this change in the law and recent polling said 68% of parents sometimes think it's necessary to use a light smack with a naughty child so smacking is something that's very common which majority of parents find to be acceptable and reasonable and will continue to use and these people are the people that are going to be prosecuted and arrested and convicted potentially under this law change so we think it's not really the place of parliament to get into the minutia of family life in this way and if parliament feels that smacking is something that's not desirable then you could have an educational campaign or something or encourage parents not to smack but that's very different to changing the criminal law and it will result in real loving parents being criminalised so we just urge you not to carry out the change to the criminal law in this way Mr Matheson is there anything to briefly add? Perhaps just briefly one of the concerns we have where this change in law may well be most identified in the long run the likelihood is that these if there were to be any increase in convictions in this the bill would have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable families in areas of deprivation convictions are going to arise in areas where the police are already present where social services are already present and where not middle class areas where families have it together and the kids are off to school every day and everything seems fine but in parts of our communities where because of other factors of deprivation there's already intervention happening on a frequent basis and that I think increases the scope of criminality in that environment and I do wonder if that's something that we want to lump on areas of deprivation in our society today I think a more nuanced approach I always come back to thinking about this, come back to thinking about how the Bible articulates this in the first place the Bible of anything is a story of a family in the beginning of the first page have you ever opened a Bible and you read the first chapter it's a story of God creating a family and throughout that story of the whole of Scripture there's really the unfolding of God's purposes in families being worked out and I think as far as possible as a society these are the things that we want to reinforce I think these are positive good things that churches and many others besides us recognise as good and healthy and helpful and I fear the unintended consequences of this approach will be to be disruptive to these things rather than beneficial to them going forward I wanted to ask you about faith because I would be keen to hear your views on where this bill sits within the teachings of your church or your belief and Reverend Ross you spoke about the authority of God and the moral law and God's standards but where would this bill sit within the teachings of each of your faiths I think it would totally oppose what the Scriptures teach I mean there are many Scriptures I could give you many Scriptures that support parents and the parental right to discipline their children and also of course there are many Scriptures too that support the child's responsibility to give honour to their parents so I think this bill it's going to remove that it's going to remove that and it is really in our submission we made it clear that it potentially is going to set those who hold to the Scriptures to be in a position whether they obey man or whether they obey God so it's not only going to criminalise parents it might have greater ramifications for those who hold to the Scriptures Christian faith I think for us within Evangelical Alliance we have a very very clearly articulated platform of Christian teaching built around notions of love, freedom justice and truth and I think that's reflected generally across the teaching and preaching articulated in our member organisations and their pulpits and I think how that impacts on family life will be in a range of ways have I ever from the pulpits myself ever ever gone near this subject yet no I haven't it's not been an area that I've yet been able to come up and into contact with in working through preaching and Scripture myself but in terms of the specifics of what this bill would address but I do think we want to articulate reasonable responsible parenting we want to articulate and teach people in our churches to take seriously and proportionately their responsibilities as parents and and I think that includes each parent for themselves working out what an appropriate level in their own experience of smacking might be I mean my own feeling is that I think a lot of the problems perhaps identified in the Strathclyde Police's violence reduction unit is where violent smacking is actually being done where the use of smacking in a home environment goes beyond the very early years of a child's experience where they've passed the level of being able to cognitively process things for themselves at that point I think you're into a very dangerous territory of intervention where smacking can have and probably does have very negative influence as an impact but with early years interventions with children I think for parents that's been I'm only speaking from personal experience there and I feel that's where I have to limit it Mr Gillis just before I come to you I mean if we accept that the Scriptures say that parents have the right to discipline children do the Scriptures say that parents have the right to hit their children they explicitly say they have the right to hit their child if by hit you mean violence no we didn't say smacking is not violence so the institute represents many different Christian denominations and we like Reverend Matheson say that Christian parents use a range of techniques for their children to discipline their child and smacking is one of them so it's a concern to many of our supporters not all our supporters would choose to smack but many would and that's just one of the techniques they use so this bill would affect those people but if we want to stick to the letter of what the Scriptures say, the Scriptures say parents have the ability to discipline their child the Scriptures does not say parents have the right to hit their child no Scripture would never condone violence against children we look to our heavenly Father God as the example of parenting as Christians we should discipline our children that's clear from Scripture but not by violence no okay thank you okay Gail Ross it's just a point of clarification from the Evangelical Alliance if I may James Gillis talked about more resources going into an education campaign and I take that absolutely on board the point made just instead of this legislation no absolutely take that on board thank you and as the Evangelical Alliance has stated as well although you do sorry that's not the quote although you do believe from your evidence so far that reasonable and proportionate use of smack and light should be used in a loving parental home but the evidence that you wrote says we believe investment in education would be a more proportionate way to tackle this issue as compared to potential criminalisation could you just clarify for the record what you mean by this issue what is the issue that parents need educated on? I have to confess I wasn't involved in actually drafting the written submission this is part of my apology for Ciaran not being here today I think Ciaran would be able to give you more clarity on that and if you want I can ask Ciaran to pass that on to the committee that might be helpful if he could write in with an answer to that and I just have one more question I probably shouldn't use the term devil's advocate but just to play it for a moment should this bill pass if it passes we will have to have as a parliament and a government a big awareness raising campaign how would your organisations raise awareness amongst your supporters and your congregation of new legislation or the removal of the justification of assault from legislation? I think carefully I don't think there would be a knee jerk reaction certainly from the organisations I'm involved with that's not just Evangelical Alliance but also the free church of Scotland I think we would have a careful and nuanced response and that would be the case thank you I would just say that we would remind parents of their responsibility to God first okay thank you the Christian industry would obviously communicate the effect of the law which would be that smacking is now a criminal offence okay well that draws our first panel session to a close thank you very much for your time and your evidence we will suspend briefly while we swap the panels over okay welcome back everyone to our second panel session can I welcome Peter Nimel Minister of Old High St Stephen's Church of Scotland in Vernes and representative of the church and society council church of Scotland you're very welcome Mary Campbell Jack Scottish Parliamentary Engagement Officer for Quakers in Britain and Fraser Sutherland and Communication Manager for the Humanist Society of Scotland you're all very welcome this afternoon can I begin by asking if you support the aims of the bill which are to end the physical punishment of children Fraser yes the Humanist Society of Scotland support this bill we believe very strongly in human rights and we believe that the United Nations universal declaration on human rights which states all human beings are born free and equal applies equally to children as it does adults and the protections under that declaration should apply equally to children as it does adults thank you Peter thank you yes the church of Scotland does support the aims of this bill Quakers in Scotland support this bill okay thank you I look cool Hamilton I suppose I should declare for the record that I am a Quaker myself thank you very much for coming to see us today looking forward to your evidence can we start where we started with the last panel about this perceived conflict between parents rights and children's rights and we know where children's rights exist in international law to be free from any form of physical punishment is there a real tension there and where would we find a commensurate right in international law for parents to physically punish their children I think Quakers would say that seeing it as a children versus parents issue isn't actually helpful it's very much a lose-lose situation and we do a lot of conflict resolution we've been working in a lot of areas internationally as well as domestically in communities where we try to help people resolve conflicts and generally we try to look for a win-win situation I think rather than looking at it as parents rights and children's rights it might be better to include them all in one group called human rights and children's right to be free from violence I do get that there is a tension and I can see why people are worried about that and I think it's very reasonable for people to have questions about that so we would hope that as this bill progresses and the scrutiny of it goes forward some of those questions would be answered by people but also if the bill does pass that the Scottish Government would be able to do some education some awareness raising to understand those issues a bit better I think yes I'd agree that in a sense it looks like there's a tension here and yet we as a society have long accepted that parents rights over their children does not exclude the involvement of the rest of the community and indeed maybe in some ways I'm listening to this I'm wondering if we're framing this Western way of thinking about the nuclear family because we all of us have a responsibility to bring up children in a loving and caring environment and therefore it's absolutely accepted that where things are going badly wrong in a family that the state and other actors have a place to protect the most vulnerable in society and children are among the most vulnerable in society I don't see any evidence that you're saying Alex of differences in international law and that this being some kind of battle between parents and children of parents are guardians of their children's rights they're not arbitrators on what rights those children should actually enjoy children can actually be some of the most vulnerable people in society and it's right that the state has a role in protecting those children they have a role in protecting people with disabilities and dementia for example should we hit those people as well to help them learn licence I don't think that's an acceptable approach I don't think it's acceptable in public life so I don't think it's acceptable that children should be hit in that way either there's a wee bit of confusion I think with some of the evidence that's been written to the committee about the interference with article 8 on family life the EHRC has no clear right to use violence in relation to family life that's not something that's set out within the framework it's a bit of a red herring that's being deployed and the UNCRC actually states that parents have quite a clear role to protect children from violence and not actually inflict it upon them that's very helpful thank you obviously I think you were present for the previous panel we had a very interesting discussion about where this fits in the discussion of faith and I'd like to ask the panel in reflecting on the comments of the previous witnesses where do we from where do we base our sort of human moral laws or human domestic laws and where is that link with faith and scripture and how closely should they mirror each other well quakers are slightly unusual compared to some of the other churches we don't actually believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God that can never be wrong we would consider ourselves to be anorthopraxy rather than anorthodoxy and that means that we don't have a central document from which we take our rules to live our life that's not to say the Bible isn't helpful it's more that we would see that as say the writings of ancient people who are trying their best to interpret the world interpret God interpret what they understand of God given the knowledge that they have as quakers have anorthopraxy that does give us some flexibility because it means as we learn more about the world through science through understanding we can kind of absorb that into the way we choose to live our lives and we would absorb what we have learnt through child psychology through science through the studies that have been done and we would use that and think about it and think about what that means to live our lives rather than say have one document which told us how to behave forever which isn't to mean that we don't respect other churches beliefs in the Bible and that we don't respect their faith we very much do it's just we choose to see things slightly differently Reverend Nimmo before I bring you in can I ask obviously you're representing the church of Scotland have there been times in the past where you think that the Bible has led to a basket of laws that we adopt as a society which we have subsequently set aside because they no longer suit our time and life Kev depends what you mean by does the Bible define a set of laws my understanding would be that very much at the background of our own cultural experience has been 2,000 years of interpreting the scriptures of the Old and New Testament and so to that extent there is a sort of Judeo-Christian undergirding of our society but as a church we would I think always have said that it's very difficult to say that you have an infallible understanding of these ancient texts and that therefore while living within a spirit of what we believe to be that the Word of God is revealed in scripture nevertheless there would be instances where throughout history people have made mistakes in those interpretations does that make sense? Yes that's very helpful and finally Frades obviously as a humanist you have your own views about the scriptures but can you speak to those? Yes I think for us one thing that humanists share a view on is that no one faith or belief group should have ultimate authority over laws of a land in fact in countries around the world where laws are dictated solely on the basis of religious interpretation can be really really strict so in countries where humanists stand up for minority faith groups against blasphemy laws for example using a religious text as a chord to shape all your human laws I don't think to be a good idea indeed actually a secular approach which divorces religion and belief from the law making process allows for society where everyone no matter what religion and belief can approach life fair and equal and I think it's important just at this stage to set out what I mean by secularism because sometimes there's a deliberate myth making about what secularism is people talk about secularism as if it's removing the right for people to practice their religion there's three main factors to secularism it's about separating out religious institutions from the state and that there's no domination in the political sphere sort of one particular religious institution it's about defending people's freedom of thought religious and conscience and I'm a great defender of that I'm really passionate about defending people's rights to believe in whatever religion or faith they want to follow and that they should be able to change their decisions about that as their life goes on maybe myself I would say that I changed my point of view on this in the past and other people come to us and leave us and go and join churches I think that's really important and an open and free society and the third point when it comes to secularism is there's no discrimination so there should be no discrimination on individuals based on their faith or beliefs so they shouldn't be then I'd access for a service because they're Muslim or Jewish or they shouldn't be dismissed from a job because their religion somehow doesn't fit with what the employer thinks about them so it has to be those three things together in order to have an open and free society in a secular view and religious groups should have a voice they should have a voice in Parliament they should bring towards their views but that shouldn't be a dominant way in which we inform our laws thank you okay Mary Fee thank you convener and welcome to our second panel can I ask the panel if they think that this bill has the ability to change the way that parents will discipline their children well it's really hard to predict the future obviously but when we look at other countries that have enacted similar bills there have been changes in how people have parented their children I think in France there was a drop in the amount of smacking and also a drop in the amount of abuse as well so it seems like it is quite a strong signal to people okay thank you I think would we have looked at this we've been looking at the evidence that there appears to be evidence to suggest that this has that this kind of legal change has had positive consequences for children and for society in general and if we are interested in ensuring the well-being of children then we have to take that kind of evidence very seriously okay forever I think it helps in terms of challenging things that can lead to violence breeding more violence for example and I know that evidence has already spoke about about the violence reduction units evidence that has been given to the committee and challenging views of violence in society and we all know the success that they've had in challenging knife crime in Glasgow for example over the past decade or so and you've heard in previous sessions I think quite overwhelming academic published research that shows quite a clear association between harsh physical punishment in the home and negative and behaviour outcomes and I would just really encourage the committee to look seriously at academic research we've been published in this area I think the claim quite often has made that we heard at the last panel I got smacked and I'm not violent it's a bit of a straw man because some people smoke their entire lives but they don't get lung cancer and we dismiss the evidence that shows there is quite an increased risk between people who smoke and lung cancer so just dismissing something because one person has done it and it doesn't give them the negative outcomes doesn't mean that that doesn't apply to everyone or anyone that that applies to Okay, thanks for that The other question that I wanted to answer was whether or not we need a further explanation if the bill needs a bit more clarity around the removal of the defence of reasonable justizement and we have heard that the key aim of this is to remove a defence and we have to be very clear that what we're not doing is criminalising people who perhaps give a light smack in the hand to protect a child it's the intent to cause harem and if a smack is given with the intent to cause harem that's when we have to look at it in the scope of this bill so does the bill need more clarity and more of an explanation around what is reasonable and what we are actually removing? I think it does, I think reasonable is actually a really tricky word everybody thinks they're reasonable but not everybody is reasonable to everybody else we can no longer say that the opinion of the man on the clap of mom the bus is everybody's opinion and if we also look at families so many different types of family out there we might have families who are from different cultures where they have a completely different idea of what reasonable is when it comes to child justizement we might have families who are dealing with children who have a lot of problem behaviours for different reasons and might need to take a slightly different tack from say the quite well off middle class family down the road who only have a couple of kids who are very well behaved I think a one size fits all doesn't fit modern family life because we no longer have one type of family anymore and I know when speaking with Quakers they were very concerned that parents who are really struggling sometimes with very difficult circumstances might end up being overstigmatised over this Do you think there is a risk that the circumstance that you described if an investigation is carried out into a child who has been smacked that the circumstances you speak out that very difficult child very difficult family very difficult circumstances do you think there is a danger that will be taken into account? Well I have to admit I am not an expert in how people investigate these kinds of cases so I wouldn't want to make too much of a blanket statement about it I would hope that if this law came into place then our police officers and our social workers would have full training and I would hope that we would be employing people in these roles who had good judgment and who were able to take in considering all these different things and would make good judgments to a certain extent no law is perfect and we have to trust the people in our society who are the gatekeepers of our law to do a good job I think we need to make sure when we are talking about this law that we are also giving them the resources the training, the education and these decisions as well Thank you I think I would agree with much of what Mary has just said all of it really but I think I would also say that part of putting this proposed law into action would require resourcing parents and families and helping the rest of us in a wider community understand what this means there are alternative types of discipline and punishment which can be given to children so that is not quite answering what you said but it seems to be that that is part of the broader context of us all coming to a deeper understanding of what is required of us all here I think we have said in our submission that that is absolutely key so that parents understand how their responsibilities in some ways have changed but also how we can strengthen family life and enable parents to ensure that children are still being brought up in a structured way a disciplined way if you want to call it that because that is important that helps children to flourish but that they do so without now recourse to physical punishments Fraser, is there anything you want to add? I don't have much to add on what's already been said to be honest I think actually this helps to potentially remove some confusion about what is reasonable by removing the defence the 2003 changes clearly were very welcome and so far as they went but this has actually opened up a bit of confusion about well what is reasonable, what's not reasonable and if you want to know well you're going to have to become a legal expert and look at all the case law to decide for yourself what's a reasonable change so actually by removing that as a defence then you're sending quite a clear message and I would say then you don't have to define that so much as explain it and bring awareness to the public as a whole OK, thank you OK, thank you Welcome to the panel in the last evidence session we heard from the Christian Institute who also wrote into this and they've raised concerns that the removal of the Justifiable Assault could actually lead to an increase in anxiety in other issues for children is that something that you've came across in your own thoughts and research? Well before I did the submission that Cracers and Scotland put in on this bill, I actually asked young Cracers and Scotland if they wanted me to work on it and the answer was a very resounding yes they made it absolutely clear they wanted this to happen I can't speak for all young people that's not what I'm here to do but I can speak for the young Cracers and Scotland to very strongly feel that this is a law they want to see passed that they think it will make children less anxious and also it might help them know how strong and what isn't and when they can go for help as well which can sometimes also be confusing for children too And taken into account from the last evidence session the example that was given about Sweden because I think that most of the other examples that we've had there's been some evidence although the evidence is hard to work out there's been some evidence that it's led to it's had a positive impact on people like in France that you mentioned there but I think Sweden was mentioned in the last thing So I'm not again an expert on any of this research but it seems to me that in this kind of discussion what we should keep in front of us is that we want children to flourish we want children to develop into responsible adults and therefore it's incumbent on all of us to find the best ways to do that Now if there's a body of evidence that says that not assaulting children as part of our disciplining and bringing children up is something that leads to positive results for children and for society in general then clearly we should be taking that into account but I'm tempted to say that it's for legislators to be looking at evidence like that and weighing it and deciding what to do with it On the issue of Sweden I think I would probably want to see a bit more about that research before I came to any conclusion because correlation isn't necessarily causality Violence from our experience is often due to a number of different factors which can be personal into personal life at all and even worldwide so it's very difficult sometimes to pick apart what has led to one act of violence and I think it would need some good and deep research to work out what exactly is going on in Sweden So the other area I was going to ask about as well which probably takes us on nicely from that is the possible, the concern that we've heard on committee about the possible over criminalisation of parents who are loving parents and just trying to do the best for their children and this concern that there could be a whole load of prosecutions The vast majority of the evidence we've heard from agencies has been that that's unlikely to be the case and that there's already systems in place through the child protection process and prosecution have you got any thoughts on that and perhaps I could start with yourself Fraser Don't have anything more than I think what you've said that you've had experts give you evidence on this of where it's been trialled elsewhere and the results of what actual lived experiences I would just say you can't really rely on pontification that somehow just because someone thinks something's going to lead to someone when actually the evidence shows you completely the opposite that you should just listen to the pontification It's a straw man argument that this is going to criminalise parents the bill is quite clear a new criminal offence you're removing it in the defence and thanks for that that answer I suppose just for the other two panels to even answer as well simply are you concerned that this will criminalise parents unnecessarily again I'm not an expert in the evidence but I don't think the evidence is pointing in that way it looks as if the more basic issue is that what we have done in terms of rights in a sense or where we are is that children appear to have fewer rights than adults do if we're allowing this defence of reasonable chastisement it means that children in our society or the only group in our society who we can defend using violence against certainly in the home we don't do it with criminals I'm old enough to remember when it was done to school children we don't do it to school children any longer so it seems quite wrong and very strange that we still allow that defence within a family where a child is having an act of violence against them I think it's understandable that parents would be concerned about this would be something at the forefront of their minds when they're considering this bill and I think that's one of the reasons why it would be good to have awareness raising and education and as Peter said as well work with communities and with parents to help them understand what's happening we don't particularly believe we will see a huge rise in the criminalisation of parents and I think again it comes back to the fact that we have to have a certain amount of trust between workers and our police officers that they are doing a good job and staying on that the last panel there we did I can't remember which panel I took a note of the time but one of the issues that was raised was that perhaps this law would impact mainly or mostly on more disadvantaged families and that is clearly something that the committee would not want to be the case have you got any thoughts on or have you got any fears or concerns that that would be the case if there is to be any increase in criminalisation or prosecutions that it's most likely going to be weighted on families who are already struggling how could perhaps that come about I have to admit I hadn't actually considered that before the panellist mentioned it but as soon as he did I thought that's a really good point because sometimes quite often laws and things that change in society hit the poorest the hardest and the worst and that isn't to mean they are the only people who are smacking your children there are plenty of middle class families and upper class families who are doing it too but we have unequal society and so these things do impact on people unequally I think I believe part of the scrutiny of bills is to look at this to look at how it affects people and I would suggest that this should be something that would be worth the committee looking into we'd also suggest looking at families who come to Scotland from different cultures who might also find that they're being brought to attention more for these reasons and also possibly families who are indigenous but are maybe dealing with difficult circumstances such as children with very difficult behaviours might also need extra help as well thank you very much Fraser Sutherland you made a very interesting point at the start of your remarks about the fact that we don't allow the physical punishment of adults with learning disabilities or dementia who might have a mental age of childhood in that context we've heard a lot about restraint or the use of physical punishment to warn people to warn children about the dangers of hot pans running out into traffic do you think that we should liberalise laws around assault so that we can physically punish adults with dementia or adults with learning disabilities who might put themselves in the same danger? Absolutely not I think again we have to follow the evidence when it comes to children in these 54 other countries where this law has been changed has there all of a sudden been a massive increase in scalds or children running out and being run over by cars and there's no evidence that that's the case so you need to lead policy on evidence not on what aboutry this bill doesn't class stopping danger as assault I mean if I saw an adult walking along the street and they were playing a game on their phone or texting someone and walking out my initial reaction wouldn't be to hit them it would be to pull them back from the road and I'm not assaulting them doing that so why is that not the same for a child and once you've saved that child from danger can you not have a restorative conversation with that child making them aware of what the danger is without using physical violence I would argue very much that you can have that conversation teachers across Scotland every single day have very good restorative conversations with pupils they do not hit them anymore we do not let parent teachers hit parents children anymore and that was a fantastic change in law and I have to say that was a change in law that had to come about because a parent had to go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights there's this argument we heard it in the first panel it's a political elite that don't listen to the public in 1983 when Grace Campbell took that legal case the political elite weren't listening to her they weren't listening to actually the thoughts of children and the thoughts of parents she actually had to take the legal case herself all the way to Strasbourg to actually enforce human rights and maybe one of the reasons why they didn't the politicians at the time didn't change the law around physical punishment in schools was because opinion polls told them not to and that's another argument that's often used but the public don't want this change so we shouldn't do it and again in 1983 the public didn't support removing the bell from schools but actually the courts forced them to do so because it was a fundamental breach of the human rights and just on that if I may I think that's a really interesting point we touched on in the last panel should Parliament always follow public opinion or should it seek to try and lead it and change it I don't think, I mean if you want to just follow public opinion then we may as well just dissolve Parliament and have referendums every day would either of you like to come in? Absolutely Parliament is a deliberative assembly we asked we elect you to go and do exactly what you're doing just now examine the evidence hear from various points of view and at times Parliament will lead sometimes Parliament though is behind and we want to be in a democracy to hear the voices of those who are maybe saying what is radical one day might eventually become something that the rest of us can't shop with so I'd agree with my fellow panellists I think a really good example is the smoking ban I was actually working on social research of the smoking ban at the time and people were saying all kind of things like we're going to have Nazis coming into the country next and this is against my human rights and the day that law came into effect nothing happened everybody just debate that law and we adapt very quickly I would say with that law there was a lot of education about it and people did really know about it so there is a job I think if you're leading to lead in a way that is kind and to lead in a way that is compassionate but I don't think we can always go with public opinion but I think it is really important to make sure everyone is listening to thank you Gilruth Hello panel, thank you for your evidence so far I wanted to first of all we've had some evidence and we also heard from the first panel that legislation is not necessary and that we should just go with an education and awareness raising campaign what's your thoughts on that? Personally we'd probably go for both and say that we do think legislation sends an incredibly strong message there was some research done in Glasgow and I think about 66% of parents said that the slow was brought in they would smack less and I think that shows it does send a message to people that Scotland is now considering that this isn't acceptable anymore but I think it does have to go hand in hand with education and awareness I think I would agree with that and maybe even strengthen it by just saying that I think it would be a signal that we find violence unacceptible we are struggling with violence and have done in our communities and yet we've begun to see ways we've mentioned the violence reduction in Glasgow which is something which is very exciting and interesting and so we should if we can a change in the law like this I think we just reinforce the thought that on the whole violence is not a solution to anything and as Christian people we would certainly want to I agree with that yes I mean I don't have a huge amount more to add than what I said before in answer to Mary's question about the change in the law actually if anything makes it much clearer about what the boundaries are at the moment with the 2003 act perhaps there's a bit of confusion about what's reasonable I think it sends a very strong message although I can't disagree at all with the other members of the panel who have spoken that it does need education if you bring in any new legislation I mean the smoking ban has been talked about and clear at the time there was a lot of awareness raising about when that was coming in the date that was coming in and what that meant in terms of pubs and clubs around the country so clearly any legal change would need to be backed up by some kind of education and just to dig into that a little bit further what would you say the education and awareness raising campaign what do you think that should look like I think it would probably need to speak to several different audiences so I would like to see an awareness raising campaign with children and aimed at children but I think it's also absolutely essential that we aim one at parents and grandparents as well and aim one at people who are caring who might not be relatives to I think it would be really important to get other organisations who work with children involved in that people like Children First the Scottish Children's Commissioner they could probably Young Scots as well it would probably be vital to be including all these people and could I add to that that from a faith communities perspective I think they have a role to play and certainly in our report to our General Assembly in 2016 where we suggested that this change in the law is something we should support we were clear that our church would seek to promote resources that support the development of a non-violent approach to the upbringing of children now whether we produce those resources ourselves or whether we use resources from other denominations or other sources too I think we would probably that's the way we would go we don't necessarily have the resources to produce our own the resources to produce our own resources but we would be but one of the things we would want to say is to those parents who are worried that this is in some way not in parallel with their own faith commitments certainly our thought in our denomination and I think other faith communities could feel this way too that it would be possible to explain why this change and why the promotion of a non-violent approach to parenting is something that resonates with your values as a faith community we certainly felt that this change in the law did and our General Assembly agreed with us so just that it's a kind of fine-grained approach in a way that you're able to say to people with different faith outlooks and different philosophies look this is something which is in line with your own kind of deepest most deeply held values I think I'd agree with Mary I'd definitely want to see some kind of education resources or methods aimed towards children and young people in particular but I would like to see particular looking at what's already provided for parents particularly young parents there's a lot of support mechanisms around soon to be parents or people who have just had children there's already quite a lot of connections with health services and other people and perhaps if you're trying to get the message out it's already through those networks that those families are already touching base with and faith communities for example are an important part of that but certainly I think within the NHS and others is already going to be a really good connection with health workers that we could use to get the messages out Gordon, I believe you had a couple of questions Thank you very much, convener just a question to all of the panellists I think all of you will be aware that the European Court of Human Rights indeed the UK Supreme Court has confirmed that there is a right to live out one's faith or religion or beliefs in a real way not just hold those beliefs and quietly think them but live them out and of course that includes in the family in the home which is particularly protected under the convention and unlike the smoking ban of course which didn't apply to the private home I think the understanding is that this would now there are different views of within religion so there might be a Christian like Reverend Nimmo who sincerely believes that smacking is not the right thing to do there might be another Christian like Reverend Ross who takes a different view and of course one of the convention the court has also indicated it's the right of the individual to live out their religion as they believe it so not as the majority of that religion or otherwise so I think all three panellists agree with from the point of view they're coming from the belief point of view with what they understand the bill is trying to do my question is where is the protection in the bill for someone like the Reverend Ross who holds an equally sincere but different viewpoint which I think I'm sure Reverend Nimmo will agree that Christians may differ on different issues so maybe conscientious objectors like Quakers some may not so where is the protection and if it's not there should it be put in the bill it's not unusual for the state or for wider society to put limits on the way in which people express their religious beliefs and if we think as a society that certain practices which may seem to have a deep religious basis are nevertheless issues which do not promote the well-being of society as a whole then of course the state has a right in those circumstances and in a democracy we do that in a democratic way yes we have all we have rights but if I was to say to you that perhaps I had a conscientious issue about the way government was spending my taxes and that I would therefore not pay my taxes I think the state correctly would have something to say about that there are limits on what we do and that is because as we kind of try to live out whatever rights we think we have we may well be impinging on the rights of others now from my point of view we are talking here about children children are vulnerable children need to be protected so if we have come to a view that violence of any kind against children for whatever reason is just not good for children then certainly we should legislate in that way and yes that may impinge on what someone else's rights think they are but you know who are we about here we are talking about the right of a child not to suffer something which might be quite traumatic even if we didn't mean it to be traumatic we may think of a slap near is not very important but you know if the research is showing and the experiences that it's not good for the child and it's not good for society in general then yes there is that conflict or a tension but you know again we as a society have to work our way around those tensions and we've been doing that for centuries I'd say I agree with what Reverend Nemo's saying there as we're developing our understanding of rights there are going to be these tricky questions and situations that we're going to have to tease out as a society and work out how we deal with them I think the important point as Reverend Nemo said was we're talking about children and I think their vulnerability has to be put at the centre of this and I think you can also just to completely conflate and exaggerate it say somebody might sincerely believe their God tells them to kill other people that doesn't mean we're going to sit there and write to your religious sincere belief trumps those people's right to life I think when we're talking about actual harm that's being done and there is quite a lot of evidence that this not only harms children but it also harms parents and it harms their relationship with their children then that harm has to be the first consideration Just on that point there is you're quite right to point out a freedom of thought and religion and belief under European human rights law but it is actually limited within the acts of public order and the rights of others so there's actually case law which shows that you are allowed to restrict that right where there is a need to protect other people's rights and where there's a limit to protect public order and that's coming from case law at the European Court of Human Rights so if the obviously the Parliament can decide that they see that the physical punishment of children is acting on the rights of children and so the defence that my religion tells me that it's okay to do that doesn't stand up to scrutiny Well just a quick follow up on that because part of the right is the right of the child to be raised in accordance with its own parents religion so it's not quite as simple as saying it's you know that the child has rights because of course one of the rights the child has is to be raised in accordance with one of its family and the rights and responsibilities on both sides of course parents or children I don't think anyone would well I would hope no one would disagree with that so if it is a a question of belief and the real question is are you saying there should be no protection for those who don't believe or this approach is correct is that what you're ultimately saying includes the child should have no right to be raised in accordance with its own religious faith or that of its family perhaps better said I think I would just reiterate that the general principle that's of course everyone including children has a right to live out a particular religion or philosophy and that's a hard one right something which is very important to religious communities but where you have a tension between that happening and even if a child thinks it's good for them you know and a body of evidence that suggests that you know this is more harmful that the harm really outweighs the rights of a person I'm not entirely sure that it would be a very significant erosion of a person's religious rights to take away from them the possibility of using corporal punishment against their children but that's maybe a subjective view Analysts wish to add anything to that just agree with whatever it is I mean all I would say is that quality human rights legislation protects people from unfair treatment based on their age and so if we're going down the road that young people should be allowed to be hit because they're young people and therefore because their parents decide that that's within their faith protection therefore their other rights are eroded there's not this kind of hierarchy of rights where I'm afraid that freedom of religion and belief protects people over their right to be free from violence for example okay thank you okay well I'd like to thank all the members of our panel for your time and your evidence very helpful in our considerations our next meeting will be on the 21st of March where we'll continue to take evidence on the bill and can I just thank the people on Skype for their hospitality and their help today we've had a very informative and interesting day and I close this meeting