THE turmoil caused the last time the Scottish government tried to ban the smacking of children has been laid bare by newly unsealed cabinet papers.
They show ministers scrambled in vain to come up with a series of last-minute compromises to appease their own divided MSPs, many of whom feared it would criminalise parents.
The Labour-LibDem coalition proposed a ban on smacking under-3s in 2001, as part of an effort to address Scotland’s problem as a “violent nation”.
Loading article content
However they were forced to abandon the idea a year later, a move hailed by the SNP as a “victory for common sense” and by the Tories as a “welcome U-turn”.
The release of papers from the National Records of Scotland comes as the SNP government plans to make Scotland first part of UK to ban the smacking of children.
Although public attitudes have changed, and there is more political will behind the move this time, the proposal has yet to undergo detailed parliamentary scrutiny or be put to a vote.
The Scottish Tories said the archives showed it would also be difficult to create a ban now.
The former Scottish Executive proposed a ban on smacking under-3s in its Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, but the plan swiftly became bogged down in controversy.
A cabinet paper by deputy First Minister Jim Wallace said the key Holyrood committee was concerned “whether it is oppressive to parents or even a good way to protect children” and there was a “risk that good parents will be liable to investigation and prosecution”.
Reassurances that fiscals would not prosecute “trivial” smacks “seemed to cut little ice”
He suggested three options - lowering the age limit from three to two; ditching the ban altogether; pressing ahead regardless.
Mr Wallace said any change of course would be seen as a “significant climb down”, but he was minded to limit the ban to children under two as a compromise.
In a second cabinet paper, he said: “We should try to remember the objectives here: Scotland is by international standards a violent country, and if want to break that cycle we can make a start with the young. But there is no point passing a law that will be widely disobeyed or ridiculed.”
In the ensuing discussion, it emerged both sides of the Coalition were deeply split.
A cabinet minute reported “there was no consensus” among LibDem MSPs, with some wanting an age-related ban dropped, some wanting it to stay, some wanting it reduced from three to two, and some wanting to delay a decision.
Labour “was also divided on the issue”.
Some MSPs wanted a ban, some wanted an educational campaign on smacking instead, and some thought a ban “unworkable, regardless of the age specified”.
Ministers said that if the government “was seen to back away in the face of opposition, that would send out the wrong messages”.
There was a suggestion of giving MSPs a free vote, but “offering a free vote on a matter which represented Executive policy would set an undesirable precedent”.
Replacing an age-related ban by banning specific unacceptable behaviour also “ran the risk that people might regard themselves as having licence to do anything that was not specifically prohibited”.
Unable to agree a different course, the cabinet agreed to stick with a ban on under-3s.
However, within days Holyrood’s Justice 2 committee came strongly out against any ban, and ministers agreed to delete the proposal from their own Bill..
However the law did ban blows to the head, shaking and using “an implement”.
In October, Nicola Sturgeon backed Green MSP John Finnie’s bill to end the defence of “justifiable assault” of minors, to ensure a ban on smacking.
Tory education spokesperson Liz Smith said: “Attempts to introduce a complete ban on smacking are fraught with legal difficulties, not least of which is the fact that any ban would be unenforceable.
“A complete ban would criminalise thousands of parents which is exactly why the current law of reasonable chastisement had majority parliamentary support the last time and why most parents also support the existing law.”