Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Jess Asato Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education for bringing forward this landmark piece of genuinely transformational legislation. As someone who spent three years in the voluntary sector fighting for vulnerable children, I know that the Bill prioritises children and their needs, righting many of the wrongs of the last 14 years of failure under the Conservatives. The Bill signifies a much-needed movement towards preventive services, which were shamefully slashed by the Conservative party. Sure Start, with its huge impact on child development, disappeared. Youth services were decimated. Due to the huge cuts by the Conservative party, in England we spend 11 times more on late intervention, and spending on early intervention has fallen by 44% since 2010.

The reforms laid out today, coupled with the funding needed to realise them properly, have the potential to ensure that, with the right support, more children can remain safely living with their birth families. The Bill should also ensure that when children need to live with foster parents or in a residential home, we are able to provide them with the best possible care. These children, after all, are the responsibility of the state. We are their parents, and we need to have the same high ambitions for them as we do for our own children. The recognition in the Bill that young people need more support when they first leave care must also be celebrated. The Bill will help to improve the situation by finally extending Staying Close to all areas of the country. That was a key recommendation of the independent review of children’s social care.

That review also recommended extending corporate parenting principles, so that they apply not just to children’s services but to a greater range of public organisations. In November, the Government outlined that that important reform would be implemented. Will the Secretary of State confirm that extending corporate parenting responsibilities remains part of the Government’s plan to improve support for care leavers? We have also heard about the postcode lottery in the help available for care leavers. The support that a young person receives too often depends on where they live, not what they need. That is why we need a national offer of support, which could include things suggested by the children’s charity Barnardo’s, such as the right to a free bus pass, free prescriptions, and help with rental deposits.

Like the Children’s Commissioner for England, I believe that the Bill presents an opportunity for this House to ensure finally that children in England, like their counterparts in Scotland and Wales, receive equal protection from assault and battery. We cannot adequately ensure children’s welfare if we fail to protect their physical safety and wellbeing. A 2021 review in The Lancet of 70 studies found that physical punishment had no positive outcomes for children, and was instead linked to greater child behaviour problems over time. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health also found that children who experience physical punishment are 2.6 times more likely to experience mental health problems, and potentially 2.3 times more likely to experience more serious forms of physical abuse. These children are also more likely to believe that violence is an acceptable and normal way of expressing frustration, contributing to a cycle of violence in society that we need to break.

Though physical punishment may, for many of us, seem a relic of the past, data from 2020-21 found that more than one in five 10-year-olds have experienced physical punishment, and the NSPCC has seen a threefold increase in the number of child welfare calls mentioning physical punishment in the past couple of years. Given that 71% of adults believe that physical punishment is unacceptable, the time to end this injustice is now. In the context of one child dying every four days from deliberately inflicted injuries, and the horrific murder of Sara Sharif, whose father sought to justify her treatment under the dark cloak of discipline, it is clear that the threat of violence that children face should no longer be given legal cover.

The Bill does so much for children and young people, and it is my view that by extending corporate parenting, ensuring equal protection and establishing a national care leavers offer, we can do even more to ensure that everyone growing up is given the opportunity to flourish.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I will vote for the reasoned amendment and against the Bill, not only because of the catastrophic damage that the Bill will do to the academy movement, as so amply explained by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), but because it fails to take the opportunity for a national public inquiry dedicated to the child rape and grooming scandal. Yes, victims and survivors want action now, but they also want answers. I fear that there is a great misunderstanding and misinformation about the previous national inquiry led by Professor Jay. That was an all-encompassing umbrella inquiry on child sex exploitation.

[Jess Asato]

Does the hon. Member agree that there was a two-year inquiry on organised networks and sexual exploitation, which is grooming gangs, in the language of inquiry? The chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood said:

“we urge the Government to focus on delivering improvements… rather than proposing new inquiries that may potentially delay action even further”.

[Richard Tice]

I shall come to the hon. Lady’s point, but the reality is that Professor Jay’s inquiry was an overarching one, and its references to grooming gangs were minuscule. It mentioned only Rotherham, but we know that there are dozens of towns—primarily Labour-led towns—where horrific things have taken place. Victims and survivors want not only action but answers. This is an opportunity for both. The hon. Lady referred to the need for action, but surely, in this great nation of ours, we can ensure both, in parallel. We can say, “Yes, these actions are required, following the recommendations of the Jay inquiry, but alongside that, for continuing public confidence and to get the answers that victims and survivors want, we need to keep exploring in specific towns.”

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Jess Asato Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Very powerful indeed.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 8 in my name, which has the support of many colleagues across the House and organisations including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and the Children’s Commissioner for England. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Woking (Mr Forster) for their comments in today’s debate.

New clause 8 would amend section 58 of the Children Act 2004 to remove the “reasonable punishment” defence that permits assault and battery on children by parents and carers. Children in Scotland and Wales already have the same protections as adults when it comes to being hit, but we find ourselves in the peculiar situation where a child growing up just over the border in England has fewer rights. Why should they? What is the difference between a child growing up in Berwick-upon-Tweed and a child in Bonnyrigg? Scotland and Wales are not alone: 67 countries around the world have already banned physical punishment—Tajikistan last year became the latest—and 27 others have also committed to a ban. There is a global recognition that children deserve better. Indeed, as part of the UK’s commitment to the 16th Sustainable Development Goal, we have already pledged to end all violence against children, and that includes physical punishment in the home. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has stated unequivocally that protection from physical punishment is a basic human right of a child.

Physical punishment is not punishment; it is abuse. We have a wealth of research to draw on from the last 30 years, and not a single reputable study has found that physical punishment positively impacts children’s development. There is no evidence to show that it improves behaviour in children. The reality is that physical punishment does not establish in a child’s mind a difference between right and wrong; it simply evokes fear—a fear of violence and pain. We know that children who are physically punished are at a far higher risk of experiencing maltreatment and abuse by parents, because over time parents may feel the need to escalate and inflict more and more pain to elicit the same response. A 16-year-old girl told Childline:

“When I was younger and misbehaved, my mum gave me a warning and put me on the naughty step. Then when I got to five to 12 years old, it was a tap or a little smack. But now it can be a proper smack, or there was one occasion where she pulled my hair and I fell to the floor and she continuously hit me. I don’t want to get mum in trouble, but I can’t carry on being afraid of her.”

Studies have also found that physical punishment leads to higher levels of aggression directed against parents by their children. Violence begets violence, and teaching children from a young age that violence is an acceptable way of channelling stress and frustration has consequences for all of us in society. It also has a pronounced impact on the children themselves. We know from research conducted by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health that children who are physically punished are almost three times more likely to experience mental health problems than those who are not. We know that physical punishment of children is linked to substance misuse, antisocial behaviour and slower cognitive development. While the majority of parents do not use physical punishment and its use is declining, more than one in five 10-year-olds have still experienced it.

New clause 8 is not about criminalising parents. No one wants to stop a parent from protecting their child who is about to reach for a hot kettle or cross a busy road. Of the many countries that have introduced a ban, there has been no evidence that it has led to an increase in prosecutions. Instead, changing the law is about giving parents, children and professionals clarity, while improving the toolbox parents have to positively raise their child. New clause 8 removes the ambiguity created by the “reasonable punishment” defence and will allow children and adults to come forward more readily to report abuse. A clearer legal framework also makes it easier for professionals like social workers to do their jobs in the best interests of children.

New clause 8 will not, on its own, be able to stop cases like Sara Sharif’s, but it will certainly ensure that the threat of violence many children face will no longer be given the pretence of legal cover. We cannot afford to delay action. The NSPCC has seen a threefold increase in the number of child welfare calls mentioning physical punishment in the past couple of years. We need to act now to ban physical punishment, so we can ensure that children can grow up free from abuse and harm, something I know is a priority for this Government and is the purpose of the Bill in front of us.

Evidence from other countries shows us that bans work. In Germany, for example, the percentage of young people subjected to physical punishment fell from 30% to 3% after it introduced a ban in 2002. Given that 71% of adults believe that physical punishment is unacceptable, it seems to me that sooner or later we will have to change the law. My challenge with new clause 8 is: why not sooner? Why do we not commit to ending this abuse today? Children will not thank us for waiting. Future generations will not look kindly on our inaction, nor should they. We have the evidence, the power and the time. We have the ability to act and we should to protect all our children.

[Damian Hinds]

It is a pleasure to join in this important debate, as it has been to serve on the Bill Committee. I am very pleased that we have two days to debate the Bill on Report, because really it is two Bills, which are very different in character. In part 1, which we are debating today, there is a great deal on which I think all of us in the House agree. In fact, quite large parts of it were in the previous Government’s published Bill. It contains some important provisions covering children in care, special educational needs, child protection and so on.