To smack or not to smack?

Published on Wednesday 10 January 2007 01:17

THE right - or not - of a parent to chastise their child is possibly one of the most sensitive subjects when it comes to the issue of how far it is proper for the state and law courts to impinge on personal liberties. In 2003, after much public debate, the Executive stopped short of introducing a complete ban on parents physically chastising their children. This was despite a call for an outright prohibition from the United Nations and from many child-centred organisations in the UK.

At that time, the Executive bowed to the wishes of Scottish parents, a clear majority of whom were in favour of retaining the right to smack young children (according to valid opinion polls taken at the time). This is a position which The Scotsman also supported.

However, the Executive did modify certain aspects of the law. Using any implement to strike a child was outlawed, though a total ban on chastising children under three was abandoned. In the end, the new Scottish legislation did not go as far as that in England, where parents who smack children so hard that it leaves a mark can face up to five years in prison.

This issue has returned to prominence with news that the Executive will have to justify its stance before a UN committee in Geneva later this year. This is part of a regular monitoring procedure since Britain became a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991. As we report today, the Executive will stand by its existing position. However, the complicating factor is that the independent Scottish Commissioner for Children and Young People, Kathleen Marshall, has written to the UN criticising the Executive and supporting a total ban on smacking. As a result, Scotland could be singled out for public criticism by the United Nations.

Scotland's standing in world opinion is important, but the issue of a smacking ban is something that should be decided on its merits here at Holyrood and not by a world agency currently incapable of protecting thousands of children in Darfur, murdered by the Sudanese government.

Four years ago, The Scotsman noted that existing law on common assault clearly protected children from undue violence, even during parental chastisement. This safeguard remains. However, having introduced special legislation in a half-hearted manner, the Executive may have inadvertently muddied the legal waters, especially given the different situation south of the Border.

Clarity might be achieved - and Scotland's reputation protected - by making it certain in law that any chastisement that causes marks is no longer acceptable. Ms Marshall should use her talents to do what she can to bring this reform into law in Scotland.