Sir Michael Caine Urges Starmer to End Smacking in England

Published: 14 October 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Sir Michael Caine has joined a growing chorus of public figures urging Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to take decisive action and ban the physical punishment of children in England. The award-winning actor, famous for his roles in Zulu, The Italian Job, and Interstellar, lent his support to a high-profile letter coordinated by the NSPCC, calling for the abolition of smacking and other forms of corporal punishment, which remain partially legal under current legislation.

At 92, Sir Michael draws on personal experience in speaking out on the issue. He has recounted being locked in a cupboard for two days during his evacuation from London in the Second World War, an incident he describes as “a mild form of child abuse” that left a lasting “mark on his psyche.” His advocacy reflects a broader concern that children in England remain less protected than adults when it comes to safeguarding them from physical harm.

The letter, delivered to Downing Street on Monday, was signed by a host of prominent figures, including former England footballer Alan Shearer, actors Natalie Dormer and Samantha Morton, as well as Sir Michael himself. It stresses that the current defence in English law, allowing “reasonable punishment,” is outdated and harmful. The letter states unequivocally: “We believe that it is never ‘reasonable’ to hit a child. It is harm, plain and simple. And the current law sends a dangerous message that striking a child can be excused.”

Under the Children Act 2004, which applies in England, hitting a child is prohibited except where it is deemed “reasonable punishment,” judged on a case-by-case basis. A similar defence exists in Northern Ireland. In contrast, Wales and Scotland have already legislated against all forms of corporal punishment, with Wales introducing a ban in March 2022 and Scotland in November 2020. Campaigners argue that England’s continued reliance on the “reasonable punishment” defence leaves children vulnerable and creates ambiguity around what constitutes acceptable discipline.

Addressing Sir Keir directly, the letter appeals to his sense of moral leadership: “Prime Minister, this is your opportunity to be brave and lead with courage and compassion. We ask you to stand up, alongside us, for every child’s right to safety, dignity and respect. It’s time to end the physical punishment of children in England, for good.”

Sir Michael Caine, speaking on the campaign, emphasised the urgency of legislative change. “I am proud to sign this letter and support this NSPCC campaign calling for the end of physical punishment on children in England. Many other countries around the world, including Wales and Scotland, have already changed the law to ensure children have the same protection from being hit as adults. Now is the moment for England to join them and draw a line under this damaging and harmful practice once and for all.”

Bafta-winning actress Samantha Morton, who is an NSPCC ambassador, stressed the need for clarity in the law to protect children. “Physical punishment of children is never reasonable, and the law in England needs to be changed to address this. It’s vague, it’s harmful, and it leaves children less protected than adults. I’m proud to stand with the NSPCC at Downing Street today and call on the Government to act to protect children and ensure that the law is clear, equal and, most of all, keeps every child safe from harm,” she said.

Chris Sherwood, CEO of the NSPCC, also highlighted the global context, pointing out that more than 65 countries have already legislated against physical punishment. “How much longer can England justify waiting?” he asked. “The evidence is crystal clear. Physical punishment is harmful, ineffective, and damages the trust and well-being at the heart of family relationships. Children deserve protection equivalent to that afforded to adults. The time to act is now.”

The campaign reflects mounting public and professional concern over the developmental, psychological, and emotional impact of physical punishment. Research consistently shows that smacking and similar forms of corporal discipline can contribute to behavioural problems, lower self-esteem, and strained family relationships. By contrast, countries that have fully outlawed physical punishment report improved child wellbeing, clearer boundaries for caregivers, and reduced rates of abusive behaviour.

Legal experts have noted that the “reasonable punishment” defence in England creates ambiguity for parents and law enforcement alike. While it is meant to draw a line between acceptable discipline and abuse, in practice, it has led to inconsistencies in how cases are interpreted and enforced. The NSPCC and other child welfare organisations argue that a complete ban would provide clarity, ensuring children are equally protected under the law and eliminating the potential for harmful misinterpretations.

The campaigners hope to advance the legislative change through an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament. If successful, the amendment would formally remove the defence of reasonable punishment, aligning England with the rest of the United Kingdom and much of the developed world. Advocates believe this step is crucial in creating a safer, more compassionate environment for children and in sending a strong message about the importance of protecting young people from harm.

The debate has drawn mixed responses from political circles. A Department for Education spokesperson stated: “While we are looking closely at the legal changes made in Wales and Scotland in relation to reasonable punishment, we have no plans to legislate at this stage.” This cautious stance has prompted campaigners to intensify public awareness efforts, emphasising the moral, ethical, and practical imperatives for change.

For Sir Michael Caine, this is not just a matter of policy but of principle and lived experience. He has repeatedly spoken about the formative impact of childhood trauma, noting that early experiences of neglect or abuse can have long-lasting psychological consequences. By urging the Prime Minister to act, he frames the issue as both a moral duty and a societal responsibility: ensuring that children are afforded the same dignity and protection as adults, free from fear of corporal punishment.

The campaign also underscores the role of public figures in shaping policy debates. By lending their voices and personal experiences, celebrities like Caine, Morton, and Dormer bring attention to issues that might otherwise remain abstract or overlooked. Their involvement highlights the intersection between cultural influence and advocacy, demonstrating how high-profile endorsements can mobilise public opinion and pressure policymakers to act.

As momentum builds around the issue, the campaign represents a crucial juncture in England’s approach to child protection. Advocates emphasise that a ban would not only safeguard children but also help cultivate a culture of respect, empathy, and non-violent parenting. By adopting legal reforms consistent with Wales, Scotland, and numerous other countries, England could close a longstanding gap in child welfare and set a precedent for prioritising the wellbeing of young people at a national level.

Sir Michael Caine’s involvement has also brought a historical perspective to the debate, reminding the public that issues of child protection are not abstract, but deeply personal. His own reflections on wartime evacuation and childhood hardship reinforce the message that early interventions and robust legal protections are critical in shaping healthy, resilient adults.

Ultimately, the letter delivered to Downing Street on Monday represents more than a call for legal reform — it is a statement of values, a plea for moral courage, and a demand that children be treated with the dignity, care, and protection they deserve. Campaigners hope that the Prime Minister will respond not only to the evidence and international precedent but also to the voices of those who have lived through the consequences of physical punishment, from childhood victims to public figures advocating for change today.