Plenary, 24 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, February 24, 2000

Official Report 696KB pdf

---

Children (Physical Punishment)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-586, in the name of Mr Jim Wallace, on the physical punishment of children, and amendments to that motion.

The Executive has sought this debate today so that members of the Scottish Parliament may have an opportunity to express their views about the Executive's proposals for modernising the law on the physical punishment of children. Our proposals are set out in the consultation paper "The Physical Punishment of Children in Scotland", copies of which were made available to the Scottish Parliament information centre when it was issued on 8 February.

Since I announced the consultation, there has been extensive commentary in the media on the Executive's proposals. We now want to give Parliament an opportunity to comment. I welcome that, since our aim in consulting widely on the issue is to determine how we can provide better protection for the children of Scotland. I hope that that is an aim that members present will support today.

I want to provide some historical background on how we arrived at the consultation paper. The consultation that we are now undertaking is the latest step in a process of providing better protection for our children. Attitudes and the law change and develop over time.

An early step to provide protection was the enactment of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937. One of the relevant provisions, section 12, is set out at the end of the consultation paper. In its time, the 1937 act was a considerable advance in protecting children from ill-treatment, neglect or abandonment. It resulted from a change in attitude of people at that time. Society could no longer countenance the harsh treatment that was sometimes meted out to children and sought to remedy the position through legislation.

However, the 1937 act also recognised, in section 12(7), a parent's right to administer punishment to his or her child. Times and attitudes move on, and we need to consider whether the law should be changed to reflect that.

The most recent examination of the issue was carried out by the Scottish Law Commission. In its "Report on Family Law" of 1992, the commission recommended that in any proceedings, whether criminal or civil, there should be no defence in cases of corporal punishment where the parents used a stick, belt or other object. That recommendation was debated, but rejected, during the passage of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995—Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and I wear the battle scars of that debate—and remains unimplemented.

More recently, there has been strong public support in Scotland for the abolition of corporal punishment by childminders, day care providers and providers of non-publicly funded pre-school education. There has also been the English case of A v the United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights. That case concerned a child who had been severely beaten by his stepfather. The stepfather was acquitted by an English court, but the European Court of Human Rights found that the UK was responsible for failing to take measures to protect the child against punishment whose severity breached article 3 of the European convention on human rights. The court said that although the defence only extended to "reasonable chastisement", the law had failed to protect the child from treatment of sufficient severity to fall within article 3 of the ECHR. The case highlighted the need to examine the law in England and Wales, and the United Kingdom Government agreed to do so. That gave us the opportunity to re-examine the law in Scotland.

From my brief outline of the more recent history, members will see that the views of society change over time. That was certainly the experience in those Scandinavian countries that have moved to abolishing fully the physical punishment of children. The driving force there—which, I would argue, applies to our situation—was the attitude of society. When abolition came about in those countries, it did so in time and in tune with public opinion. It came with little fuss and with a ready acceptance.

Part 3 of our consultation paper provides a summary of the law in Scotland. I will not repeat that here, except to emphasise that the law recognises a parent's right to administer moderate physical punishment to his or her child and that, in cases that reach court, it must be proved that the punishment went beyond "reasonable chastisement" before a conviction can be obtained or damages awarded.

In determining whether any punishment is excessive, a court would look at all the circumstances of the case, including the age, sex and any known disabilities or weakness of the child. The flexibility that is offered to the court is wide. That flexibility has prompted the Executive to examine the need for change in the law. Although the breadth of the law allows the courts to determine each case against its particular circumstances, it is argued that the law does not indicate clearly enough what would be considered to be "reasonable chastisement". That is one reason why we are consulting.

As part 5 of the consultation paper sets out, we propose to define in statute what is meant by "reasonable chastisement". I will make the Executive's position clear on whether all physical punishment of children should be banned. The Scottish Executive feels that it would be unacceptable to outlaw all physical punishment of a child by a parent. However, we are specifically asking that question so that the issue is exposed for debate.

Surveys have shown that the vast majority of people in Scotland support the right of parents to smack their children. We want to amend the law to protect children from punishment that is deemed to be harsh, degrading and inappropriate in a decent society. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of people in Scotland will also support that wish.

We want to encourage good parenting, which is vital, although I know only too well that it can be a demanding job. We must recognise the rights of parents to exercise their parental responsibilities and to bring up children safely, as they think best, without undue interference from the state, but we must also protect the rights of children and encourage non-physical methods of discipline.

It is not the role of the state, and certainly not the wish of the Scottish Executive, to interfere unnecessarily in family life, but it is the Executive's wish to ensure that the law provides adequate protection from physical harm for our children and that the law is clear for the judiciary, legal practitioners and, above all, parents.

In practice, at present, where it is held that punishment was inhuman or degrading, a trial judge is invited by the prosecutor to reject any argument that the punishment had been "reasonable chastisement". However, to ensure that Scottish law conforms to article 3 of the European convention on human rights, we propose as a minimum that the law should make it clear that physical punishment of children which constitutes "inhuman or degrading treatment" can never be considered "reasonable chastisement".

We further propose that the law should explicitly set out that, in considering whether the physical punishment of a child constitutes "reasonable chastisement", a court should always have regard to the nature and context of the treatment; its duration and frequency; its physical and mental effects; and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim.

It would be possible to make other changes to the law in pursuit of that objective of ensuring that Scottish law conforms to article 3 of the European convention on human rights. Therefore, we are also consulting on whether it would be possible to add to or elaborate on the factors that I have just given. For example, the court might also consider the reasons for the punishment, when it was administered, the persons involved and the vulnerability of the child.

If it were thought useful, it could be possible to specify forms of punishment that could never be deemed to be reasonable, such as blows to the head or shaking. Another possibility, which was suggested by the Scottish Law Commission, is to prohibit using implements. Those and other options are outlined in the consultation paper.

We are taking this opportunity to obtain views on who may administer reasonable chastisement. Currently, reasonable chastisement may be administered by those who have parental responsibilities and rights, but also by others who have lawful charge of children, such as relatives, baby-sitters or neighbours who have been given the responsibility of looking after children temporarily.

Following the consultation preceding the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, we are also asking whether there should be a statutory ban on physical punishment in all early years settings such as in child care centres, by childminders and in non-publicly funded pre-school centres. The physical punishment of children has already been banned in a number of situations, such as in state schools. It has not been possible to deal with most early years settings in the schools bill as they fall outside the scope of education law.

Finally, we are also asking whether parents should continue to be allowed to use reasonable physical punishment towards their children. In asking that, we recognise that there are many who would want to answer the question in the affirmative and many who would want to answer in the negative. The Executive feels that it is important not to leave the question unasked or unanswered.

The amendment lodged by Lyndsay McIntosh appears reasonable on the surface. In our consultation paper, the Executive asks whether parents should continue to be allowed to use reasonable physical punishment towards their children. In asking that, we admit that the Executive is inclined to the view that it would be unacceptable to outlaw all physical punishment of a child by a parent, as I have indicated.

We believe that that view conforms to what the majority of people in Scotland would support and that clarification is needed to provide better protection for children. The Conservative amendment could be seen as compatible with that. But we also recognise—

But.

We also recognise the value of asking the question in order to expose the issue to debate. It is not our intention to stifle debate, which would be a danger in accepting the amendment. I ask members to reject it on the ground that it could pre-empt the consultation process.

Nicola Sturgeon's amendment seems even more reasonable.

But.

But.

The amendment calls on the Executive to take full account of all views expressed in the consultation. That is a matter of normal practice so we can support that element of it.

Not always, Jim.

I remember that it was in a previous Administration that Lord James described a consultation as a genuine consultation—that was perhaps more a feature of that Administration. We are genuinely concerned to take all views in a consultation.

The amendment also asks the Executive to ensure that Scots law complies with the European convention on human rights and, again, we support that; it is one of the objectives set out in the consultation paper.

The amendment then asks the Executive to ensure that the rights of parents and children are mutually respected. The intention is laudable, but I ask Nicola Sturgeon to reflect on the potential conflicts between the rights of parents and children that could make mutual respect of such rights difficult. Obviously, we want to minimise such conflict. That is an issue on which we expect to learn more from contributions to the consultation. I assure both Nicola and the Parliament that we will pay close attention to the responses.

Please wind up, minister.

Change in legislation usually happens because the attitudes of society change. The Executive believes that the prevailing attitude in Scotland is that parents should be able to continue to administer reasonable physical punishment, but that clarification in the law is required as to what would be considered "reasonable".

Above all, we want to create an atmosphere and a legal position that protects children, reduces the risks of violence and abuse and reflects the views of society on how we best bring up children. That is reflected in our proposals.

We want to hear what individual parents and children think about our proposals. We want to hear what members of this Parliament think. The two questions to which we are seeking an answer are:

"First, within the context of a modern family policy, in a responsible society, where should we draw the line as to what physical punishment of children is acceptable within the family setting?"

and

"Second, how do we achieve that position in law?"

I look forward to the debate. I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the publication by the Scottish Executive of the consultation paper The Physical Punishment of Children in Scotland and commends this opportunity to seek the views of the Scottish people on this important matter.

The SNP welcomes the Scottish Executive's consultation on physical punishment of children. As the Deputy First Minister said, it is eight years since the Scottish Law Commission dealt with the matter in its "Report on Family Law", and most people in Scotland accept that legislative change is long overdue. There is no doubt that the law needs to be changed. As it stands, Scots law does not afford children the protection that the European convention on human rights demands and which children at the beginning of the 21st century deserve. That is why no change is not an option. The questions that must be addressed, and which are addressed to some extent in the consultation, are how and to what degree the law in Scotland should be changed.

I have two preliminary points. First, although the consultation is essentially about proposed changes to the law, the debate should not be couched in legalistic terminology. The debate is fundamentally about children, and their interests should be at the heart of the debate. The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice commented on the SNP amendment. In the vast majority of cases, if parents are responsible and loving, the interests of parents and the interests of children should be compatible and should be given mutual respect in the framing of our law. In the application of that law there will be recognition that, in a minority of cases, there may be conflict. However, the law must be able to ensure, on the basis of mutual respect, that those cases can be dealt with. I did not hear any real reason in Jim Wallace's speech why the Executive cannot accept the Scottish National party's amendment, which is offered in a constructive spirit. I hope that the Executive will accept that amendment.

My second preliminary point is that it is important that the Executive does not prejudge the outcome of the consultation. I welcome Mr Wallace's comment that he does not want to stifle debate. The views of the Scottish people must be listened to, including the views of children themselves. One of the weaknesses of the consultation paper is that it says nothing at all about the views of children. Although the Tory amendment talks about children being sure of their rights, it says nothing about taking children's views into account. Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, we are duty-bound to listen to children and to take their views into account on all decisions that affect them.

That issue provides another strong reminder of the overwhelming case for bringing Scotland into line with a host of other European countries by appointing a children's commissioner, someone at the heart of Government who can ensure that children's views are positively promoted. I urge the Executive to work constructively with the Education, Culture and Sport Committee towards that objective.

I welcome Nicola Sturgeon's comments about consulting children. Unlike Jim Wallace, I see no difficulty in supporting her amendment. Were we in government, we would accept it.

I am glad that the Tories have learned from their mistakes and are now in favour of consulting people; that is not something that they were good at when they were in office. I welcome Mr Monteith's support.

We must not prejudge the outcome of the consultation. We must be clear about the principles that inform the debate. The first of those is basic common sense. Children's interests are paramount. They have a right to be protected from physical assault in the same way as any other member of society. Common sense tells us that it is also in children's interests to be well brought up, to learn the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, to know the differences between right and wrong and to be protected sometimes from the consequences of their own behaviour.

Loving and responsible parents—and the vast majority of parents are loving and responsible—will use many methods to discipline their children. Most will use a mild physical rebuke only as a last resort. A last resort is exactly what it should be. There are many other ways of disciplining children, including sending them to their room or turning off the television until they have learned the lesson that the parent is trying to teach.

Will Nicola Sturgeon give way?

I may accept interventions later in my speech.

I am sure that most parents would consider those methods of discipline far more effective than smacking a child. Those alternatives should be positively promoted by the Executive.

Many organisations and individuals in Scotland advocate a complete and explicit ban on physical punishment by parents. That view should not be dismissed. Such a ban would bring Scotland into line with many other European countries, and I am glad that the Executive has chosen to consult on that point. However, all the available evidence suggests that the majority of Scottish parents would be reluctant to support such an outright and explicit ban. Without prejudging the outcome of the consultation, I am inclined at this stage, like the Executive, to agree with that view. The Parliament must not be overly prescriptive about how parents should bring up their children.

The purpose of the law is twofold: to set the boundaries of acceptability and to deal with those people—who, thankfully, are a small minority—who go beyond what is considered acceptable. The problem with the law as it is currently framed is that it is not drawn tightly enough to afford children the protection that they deserve. The English case that Jim Wallace referred to, and which was taken to the European Court of Human Rights, illustrates how widely courts in this country may interpret the defence of reasonable chastisement.

There must be clear boundaries and, as a society, we must make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt where those boundaries lie. There are particular forms of punishment—punishment that causes or intends to cause injury; blows to the head or face; shaking children; or the use of any form of implement—that should never be acceptable in any circumstances, and parents administering such forms of punishment should not be allowed to shelter behind the defence of reasonable chastisement. All those forms of punishment are beyond the pale, and cross the boundary between chastisement and abuse.

As a society, we should make it clear that if there is to be a continuing right to use mild physical chastisement, that right should apply solely to parents. The law should make it unlawful for anyone else who has the care of children—childminders, care workers or babysitters—to use physical punishment. That is essential to ensure the protection of children, and I would argue that it is also essential to ensure the protection of those who have temporary care of children.

Such a change to the law would not represent a huge move away from current practice. Although at the moment childminders are not prevented by law from using corporal punishment if they have the agreement of parents, it is the practice of many local authorities in Scotland to make it a condition of registration as a childminder that physical punishment will not be used. That position should be enshrined in law.

I will make one final plea to the Executive. Mr Wallace has already referred to the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, which is before this Parliament. The bill extends the ban on corporal punishment to private schools and publicly funded nurseries, but not to private nurseries. That is an indefensible loophole, and it must be closed. I am not persuaded by the Executive's argument, which is only a technical argument, that the loophole cannot be closed in this bill. I urge the Executive to think again and to look at amending the bill to outlaw corporal punishment in private nurseries.

In conclusion, we have a welcome opportunity to bring our law into the 21st century. The rights of children, in the broadest sense, must be the driving force in this debate. It is not for us as a Parliament to dictate to parents how to bring up their children, but it is our job to ensure that children, like any other group in society, are protected from abuse, can live in an atmosphere of love and respect and are able to grow into happy and fulfilled adults.

I move amendment S1M-586.2, to insert at end:

"and further calls upon the Executive to take full account of all views expressed in the consultation, to ensure that the rights of parents and children are mutually respected and that Scots law complies with the European Convention on Human Rights."

Deputy Presiding Officer, I am sure that there have been occasions on which you have witnessed behaviour here and wished that you could administer a smack. However, I am sure that the behaviour this morning will be exemplary.

Let us agree that, at its most basic, this debate is not about the abuse of children. Child abuse is rightly condemned by us all, and excess physical punishment would come into that category. This debate is about providing options for parents on how they feel best able to instil a sense of discipline in their children.

Physical punishment is not the be-all and end-all of discipline. Instilling discipline takes a number of guises that can be tailored to individual circumstances. Some things work better than others. From my own experience as a parent, I found that the withdrawal of privileges and the confiscation of that confounded disco gear with the sub-woofers, the volume of which cracked the kitchen ceiling, led to a marked improvement in behaviour and in application to homework in my household. The disco gear was in my child's room, so I have to disagree with Nicola when she says that it might be appropriate to send a child to their room. Unfortunately, the marked improvement in behaviour and in report cards had to be acknowledged, and the equipment returned. My hearing has been affected ever since.

Positive encouragement can be effective. We welcome the Executive's consultation paper, and applaud the resistance to the temptation to nanny and interfere. An outright ban on smacking is not the answer. Public opinion polls north and south of the border support the position that loving parents should not be criminalised for administering a safe smack. I am not a strict adherent to the "Spare the rod and spoil the child" school of thought, but I doubt if there is a member in this chamber, or a person in the public gallery, who has not seen a child whose behaviour could not have been favourably influenced by a well-aimed and appropriately weighted palm on the posterior.

I am pleased that the sex, age and state of health of a child are among the factors that the Executive has set out for consideration. Little girls are not all sugar and spice and all things nice; some of them are proper little madams, whose behaviour should be improved. The age of the child is of crucial importance. One cannot have a reasoned discussion on the merits of eating Farley's rusks, as opposed to wearing them, with an ankle-biter. I have been there and washed the tee-shirts.

This debate is of particular interest to the parents of today, but also to grandparents, childminders and parents of the future. The Executive might like to consider their input, and not only on this issue.

All too often, I have heard people say that the problem with unruly youths hanging about the streets is their parents' inability to discipline their children; but it is part of the maturing process. The child who has been brought up in a disciplined home environment, with respect for others, should be able to rise to the challenge of growing up and acting their age—not their shoe size.

In direct contrast, parents say that they are limited in what they can do by the prospect of legal repercussions. My amendment seeks to clarify and define the position, as definition has presented problems for the Executive of late.

For heaven's sake, children around the world are suing their parents for damages, or have filed for divorce. In contrast, children who love their mother or father have been devastated when a well-intentioned busybody has stuck their nose in where it was not wanted and legal action has been taken. The recent Hamilton case was an example of that. Irrespective of whether we think that a smack on the bottom for a girl of eight is excessive, the events that followed were a catastrophe for that family.

In such cases, words of caution seem far more rational and practical, yet there is no provision for such action in the established procedures. Having established that parents must have the right to decide, within reasonable, decent boundaries, the nature of punishment that is appropriate for their child, they must also be allowed to decide whether that responsibility may be passed on to another person, approved by them to look after their child during their absence.

Listening to one of these Sunday morning radio phone-in programmes, some people might take the view that, rather than extending the ban on corporal punishment to child care centres, childminders and non-publicly funded pre-school centres, we should be reintroducing it across the board, as a deterrent against unreasonable behaviour. The common consensus is that discipline in our schools has declined.

Is Mrs McIntosh seriously suggesting that we turn the clock back to pre-1986 and reintroduce the belt into our schools?

I am saying that there is an opinion abroad that that might be appropriate. That is all that I am saying.

The Executive may wish to consider why parents all over the country choose to place their children in establishments where corporal punishment is an integral part of discipline. The key is choice, and the Conservatives have always made it clear that we would deliver that.

As MSPs, we have disciplined imposed on us, be it from our respective parliamentary whips or through the report of the Standards Committee. As parliamentarians, we are all familiar with the concept of discipline. As for punishment, Lord James is a gentleman of infinite patience, whose limit I have yet to reach.

Let us not interfere unnecessarily in the everyday disciplining of children. Nothing annoys people more than unnecessary intervention and regulation. This Parliament is having a hard enough time winning over public opinion, without legislating for the unpopular and the unnecessary.

I move amendment S1M-586.1, to insert after "Scotland":

"agrees with its view that parents should continue to have the right to physically rebuke their children by reasonable means, if they so choose, in order to maintain discipline both in the present day and for future generations, calls upon the Scottish Executive to clarify the definition of reasonable chastisement so that both parents and children are sure of their rights within the law."

I welcome this debate on the Executive's consultation paper, although it seems a bit late in the day that, in 2000, we are discussing how we hit our children, with what we hit our children and where we can hit our children.

Members are all aware that the current law urgently requires to be revisited; the current position is clearly not acceptable. The concept of reasonable parental chastisement is open to wide interpretation, as both the Deputy First Minister and Nicola Sturgeon have indicated.

My problems with the current definition mostly emanate from my experience as a social work practitioner and a social work manager. I remember vividly an example in the Cowdenbeath area of a father who assaulted his child with the buckle end of a belt, leaving two severe indentations in the child's buttocks. The case went to criminal proceedings, but the man was only admonished in the sheriff court because the sheriff agreed that what he had done was legitimate parental chastisement. I defy anyone, including Lyndsay McIntosh, to define what was done as parental chastisement and not child abuse. That is a graphic example of the difficulties that we face in terms of legislation.

It is sometimes difficult to remember that it was only in 1986 that we finally outlawed corporal punishment in our state schools. Although I was never tawsed at school, I remember that it was often a useless deterrent—if that was what it was supposed to be—to unruly classroom behaviour. Many of my peers used to queue up to taunt teachers to see how often they could get the belt, especially from those who were unable to draw it properly.

I find it hard to believe that Mr Barrie had friends who competed to get the belt. I had it once in my life, and it cured me.

As someone who never had the belt, I am not sure what that means. The point that I was making was that a number of people went out of their way to be belted, because it gave them some sort of status in our schools. It was very little deterrent to unruly classroom behaviour.

Most of my social work practice was spent in the west central Fife area. The reason that I am labouring that point is that, as we all know, the belt originated from a Lochgelly cobbler. The test case that led to its prohibition in the state school system was from Beath High School in Cowdenbeath. It is relevant that someone from Fife should be talking about it.

My point is that we were regularly belting children in our state schools less than two decades ago. Lyndsay McIntosh might disagree, but I believe that that would be totally unacceptable now. Times have moved on, including on the subject of parental chastisement.

The previous Tory Government missed a golden opportunity, when the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 was being discussed, to clarify this issue along the lines that Lyndsay McIntosh suggests that her motion is doing. However, having read the motion, I cannot see how it clarifies anything, except that we can physically rebuke our children, presumably by visiting assault on them.

When the act was being discussed, the Law Commission, as we have heard from the Deputy First Minister, suggested that, although hitting children would not be outlawed completely, there would be a definition of what was meant by reasonable chastisement. Some six years on, the Executive is attempting to provide that definition.

We should perhaps move further. The conclusion that we reach may not be the accepted wisdom of everyone in the chamber—or perhaps of people outside—but we should be considering this matter seriously. At least the Executive, in the consultation paper, has asked people for their comments. We should seriously consider whether to outlaw hitting our children. I suggest that children should be afforded the same protection as we afford every other member of society.

The issue is emotive; people do not want to be categorised as bad parents. Outlawing the hitting of children is not about criminalising parents. It is about offering children rights with responsibilities. The trivial examples would not result in prosecution. The hypothetical example that has often been raised in my presence is that of a young child who puts his or hands in an electric fire. The child receives a tap across the wrist, which—because we are not allowed to hit our children—results in prosecution.

That is a trivial example; clearly, it would not happen. It does not happen in those countries that have already enacted similar legislation. Jim Wallace is right that the legislation has not come about in isolation. It is perhaps a bit late in the day to discuss this issue, but at least we are doing so now. I hope that we take this consultation paper as a beginning and that, in a relatively short time, our young children will have the same rights and protection in law as adults do.

Like others, I welcome the fact that we are to have consultation on this issue, followed by legislation. The crucial point is how much or how little Scotland wants to achieve. Where do we draw the line between inhuman, degrading treatment and reasonable chastisement? I sincerely believe that we should not be seeking to define where, how and with what a child can be hit. That is a recipe for confusion and an approach that fails children in the new millennium. As a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UK should honour article 19, which obliges us

"to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence".

The Children are Unbeatable! alliance is seeking legal reform to give children the same legal protection from assault as adults have. The alliance wants to move society beyond smacking towards positive, non-violent forms of discipline. It is significant that all the major child care organisations in the country, including Children 1st, Save the Children, Children in Scotland and Barnado's, are members of the alliance.

A few weeks ago, the cross-party group on children held a discussion on physical chastisement. Following the discussion, Scott Barrie lodged a motion stating that

"in a modern Scotland concerned with social justice for all there is no place for the concept of ‘reasonable chastisement' of children; that children should have the same protection under the law as adults from being hit; that a new, modern legislative framework would be the best basis from which to promote positive discipline".

Several weeks later, only a further five members have signed the motion, which—I accept—reflects the widely held reluctance in society to legislate on the matter. However, there is evidence to suggest that parents' views are changing. A recent poll conducted by MORI on behalf of the National Family and Parenting Institute found that only one in five parents thought that smacking was an effective way of teaching children the difference between right and wrong. The poll concluded that the weight of public opinion was behind positive parenting.

Any proposed change in the law on disciplining children must be accompanied by a well-resourced campaign to inform parents about positive alternatives to smacking. Such alternatives must be age and stage appropriate, beginning with the concept of encouraging and rewarding good behaviour, rather than punishing bad. It is a matter of regret that children's views are not being sought in the consultation exercise because the evidence tells us that children do not talk about being smacked—they describe it as being hit.

It is also significant that eight countries in Europe, including Finland, Denmark and Sweden, have banned all corporal punishment. Sweden is a particularly good example; I was very influenced by the time that I spent there a few years ago researching child care practice. The Swedish laws are educational, not punitive. They work to change attitudes and to move parents on to positive discipline.

In 1979, Sweden was the first country to ban smacking. I take issue with the Minister for Justice on this point, because my understanding is that when the legislation was introduced, it did not have the support of the majority of the Swedish population. It is a good example of the need for Governments occasionally to be proactive and to allow accepted wisdom to follow the legal precedent. Now, only 6 per cent of Swedes would like those laws to be repealed.

Although the Scottish Parliament must take full account of all the views expressed in the consultation process, it could choose to lead public opinion towards more effective forms of discipline and away from smacking. The simplest and fairest way of doing that is to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement, creating a basis on which to develop the debate in Scotland. That will make a statement about the kind of society to which we want to aspire for our children.

I am pleased that the debate is taking place, as it sends a message to the people of Scotland that the Scottish Parliament is committed to children. We have already demonstrated that by the number of times we have raised child-related issues: the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill is in progress; we have had a debate on looked-after children; there have been members' business debates on children's rights; and several motions on child-related issues have been lodged. I recognise that that means that we must take on board many issues that might be difficult and controversial.

Many children's organisations feel that we have waited a long time for the consultation document on the physical punishment of children. Many actions that would have constituted physical assault if meted out to an adult have been defended in court as reasonable chastisement. Scott Barrie mentioned some examples, and I could quote chapter and verse—and others could probably do the same—of situations in which children have been shaken, beaten about the head and hit with a variety of implements, only to discover later that that was deemed to be reasonable in the circumstances.

It is important to remember the history of children's rights. During debates at the time of the Children Act 1989, attempts were made to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement, although an amendment to that effect that was tabled in the House of Commons was withdrawn. In 1992, the Scottish Law Commission recommended the banning of corporal punishment using implements such as canes or belts. Again, attempts were made to include such a measure in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, but they did not succeed.

I will not go into the legalese of section 12(1) and section 12(7) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, but I will give members a summary. One subsection lists a number of horrible things that people are not to do to their children; the other subsection says that that does not apply to parents, teachers or people who have care of a child. That anomaly ought to be removed.

Nicola Sturgeon was absolutely right—the status quo is not an option. We have to do something to bring our proceedings into line with the requirements of the European convention on human rights. We have to change our laws. We need a calm, reasoned and considered debate on how we can clarify the law in a way that gives children protection from physical assault but that also—as Irene McGugan said—supports carers and others who have the day-to-day responsibility of ensuring that children are brought up as reasonable citizens.

The law contains a number of anomalies, which we must tackle. Children in public care cannot be subjected to actions that children in the family home can lawfully be subjected to. Children in state schools cannot be subjected to some of the actions that it is apparently okay for children to be subjected to if their parents pay for the privilege. Children in some forms of provision for under-fives cannot be subjected to some actions that children in other forms of that provision can be subjected to.

I was disappointed by Lyndsay McIntosh's speech because of the language that she used to describe children. I do not think that it is helpful to describe children as proper little madams or as ankle-biters. Children are people who have rights and who ought to be respected. Her contribution contained exactly the sort of attack and language that will take this debate in a direction that we do not want it to take. We need to come up with something constructive, and I do not think that that use of language is helpful.

For some people, those are terms of affection.

I am sorry, but I simply do not see it that way.

We have moved a considerable way towards zero tolerance of domestic violence; we should move towards zero tolerance of violence against children.

I join my colleagues in welcoming the consultation document; it is clear that this area of policy must be updated. The document demonstrates that much of the existing law centres on the rights of parents or those caring for children rather than on the rights of the child. The Executive and the Parliament will be criticised by some parents for interfering with their rights. Parental rights are important, but in a civilised society a child's right to protection must take precedence over a parent's right to chastise. I look forward with interest to the outcome of the consultation; I hope to hear the views of parents and young people, rather than those of the professional reactionaries.

Before dealing with my principal concern, I want to state my doubts about having a complete ban on the physical chastisement of children, even by parents. Although I welcome the intention to make progress in this area, I am not yet convinced that an outright ban is either justified or practical. I draw members' attention to the findings of the MORI poll that was conducted on behalf of the Children are Unbeatable! campaign. The poll found that 78 per cent of parents and young people believed that children should have the same protection under the law on assault, provided that

"they can be sure that parents will not be prosecuted for trivial smacks."

I take on board Scott Barrie's point that the threat of such prosecution might be an erroneous perception; however, the perception exists and must be tackled.

Although, after much consideration, I endorse the views expressed by that 78 per cent of people, the law must be more comprehensive and must take account of the situation where other adults find themselves in a parental role. The issue is how we proceed in a way that achieves cohesion, a greater understanding of the issues and a better future for our young people.

Although much in the consultation document is commendable, the Executive has not yet properly focused on the rights and interests of the child. That is most clearly illustrated by the debate about protection for children who are in child care centres and private pre-school centres, and who are looked after by child minders. I commend to the Executive the application of the non-discriminatory approach to children's rights contained in the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

During the consultation, we must consider whether it is acceptable to ban corporal punishment of children in publicly funded pre-school centres while permitting the same punishment of children in privately funded pre-school centres. From the perspective of children, I can see no justification for such an approach. I question the equity of some children losing their right to protection from assault simply because their parents belong to a certain social or economic group. Human rights, including those of children, should not be removable through the application of a cheque book.

The Executive's position that we should move forward with legislation at a different pace in the public sector from that in the private sector is deeply worrying. If it is impossible to address the issue under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, I urge the Executive to initiate discussions with a view to introducing parallel legislation for both the public and private sectors. The commitment to a child's most fundamental right must be more specific than a statement of future intent.

All members will agree that this Parliament should not turn into some sort of Mary Poppins for adults, acting as a national nanny to parents by wagging its finger at them and telling them how to bring up their children.

As a parent, I am not qualified to do that just because I have a wee plastic badge that says that I am an MSP. I used to be a marvellous parent, but that was before I had children. I knew it all in those salad days; before having three children, I would never have dreamed of using any form of physical chastisement on a child and was a tut-tutter if I saw it in public. Then I had my own children, woke up and smelt the coffee.

As an average parent, I was confronted with a three-year-old who specialised in uncoupling plumbing for the sheer pleasure children get at that age of watching water thundering through floorboards—do not try this at home—while the other two ran around, hitting each other on the head with heavy plastic toy telephones and experimenting with turning on gas taps. Believe it or not, that is quite a normal household.

What can parents do in such circumstances? They cannot quote Dr Benjamin Spock at their children; even he changed his mind a few years before he died, when he saw that we were raising a Spockmarked generation. I chastised physically, but only very lightly and only when I saw that my children were placing themselves in danger. They were too young to understand anything other than a little slap on the wrist or on the bottom. A slap on the wrist must not make us all criminals.

Will Dorothy-Grace Elder give way?

I am sorry. I am a back bencher and we do not get much of a chance to speak in this Parliament, and when we do it is only for four minutes. Other members get 10 to 15 minutes.

Although I have never had an impulse to spank a child in anger, no matter what he or she was doing, there are some parents who would beat a child mercilessly for wetting the bed or for some other natural happening. That is totally unacceptable; any normal parent would laugh off such events.

We cannot be so unrealistic as to deny to all parents all means of physical chastisement. If we do that, we might put small children in more danger, because in an emergency a small child who does not understand the word no, or regards it as a challenge, could be in considerable danger. There is a touching phrase in the baptismal service that refers to guiding a child through the perils of infancy. Those perils nowadays include appalling traffic, risks of drowning and falling, or even of swiftly snatching a bleach bottle. A parent must act fast.

We must legislate on the parts of the body that should not be hit in any way. That legislation would really be quite simple.

As one back bencher to another—

Sorry, I do not have much time. I will carry on.

The legislation could confine physical punishment to those body parts that would suffer little harm—a slap on the wrist or the bottom—but outlaw absolutely the shaking of a child, or hitting the head, ribs, stomach, or whatever, or hitting a child with any instrument.

I have been involved as a volunteer and as an investigative journalist on the issue of child abuse. I have seen small children whose bodies were covered in cigarette burns. I have seen children who have been treated far worse than dogs. We must end that sort of treatment. We cannot regard all parents as nice people. The legislation cannot be aimed only at nice people, because nice people do not need it. Legislation must be in place to protect children from the minority who are brutes.

Cruelty can occur through sheer ignorance. Some people believe that shaking a child is a lesser punishment than slapping that child on the wrist, but of course it is not. It leads to catastrophic damage. Parenting skills should be taught from the earliest years. I am getting sick and tired of hearing about the need for more sex education in schools. We need more life education. Parenting is a 24-hours-a-day job; it is the only job where someone is in charge of human life, but is an amateur and has no qualifications. We amateurs need training from our earliest days in the classroom.

I ask members to apply common sense and compromise. Unfortunately, common sense is not common at all.

I welcome the minister's comments and the consultation paper. I also welcome Miss Sturgeon's earlier comment that it is difficult to imagine going into the 21st century with laws that reflect attitudes that would be more in place in the 19th century. I line up with Irene McGugan, Cathy Jamieson and Scott Barrie on this matter.

Like many members here, I am a parent, but as my baby son is less than 10 months old, I would hesitate to share with families around Scotland the massive wisdom that I have accumulated during that time. I sometimes worry that my son thinks his father was born with gritted teeth, because that tends to be my fixed expression when I am changing his nappy and he does not want his clothes to be put back on.

I am aware of the frustrations that all parents face and I am aware that those frustrations can push people's temper to beyond breaking point. However, if they have lost their temper, can they justify using force and lashing out at a child? I would say not.

I must make it clear that this is not a question of losing one's temper, but of running out of patience. It is not a question of hitting a child in anger because someone has lost their temper.

That brings us to the question, which several back benchers have raised, about when it is appropriate to hit a child. Nobody in the chamber has yet described the circumstances when it would be appropriate to hit a child.

If another adult's behaviour was annoying, in the way that a child's behaviour sometimes can be, we would not dream of lashing out and using physical violence. So why is such behaviour acceptable when it comes to small children?

Last night, Lord Winston presented a programme on television that showed how a child could be influenced from a very early stage. Music was played to a baby in the womb; the music relaxed the child and calmed its movements. The music was also played when the child was born and had the same effect. There are lots of lessons to learn from that, but the fact is that a lot of what we do as parents affects our babies' behaviour.

Babies learn from a very early age. If parents use physical force to assert their will, there is only one lesson that can be learned—using force to assert one's will is appropriate and reasonable behaviour. We should not teach that lesson to our children, as they will take it forward into adulthood.

If we are serious about tackling problems such as bullying in schools, domestic violence, which Cathy Jamieson mentioned, and violence in the streets, we must realise that the lesson starts in our homes and with our behaviour as parents.

Liberal Democrats accept that, in an ideal world, there would be no physical punishment. We also accept that, ultimately, the deliberate imposition of pain should be unacceptable.

I have personal experience of such matters. In the late 1970s, I worked as a teacher in Sicily. I remember being brought face-to-face with the regime there—physical punishment has been outlawed in Italy for longer than we realise. I had a particularly troublesome pupil called Alfonso, who was the bane of my life. I knew that I could not touch him, but eventually, in desperation, I picked him up and put him out the door. I was up before the head teacher for doing that. I had laid a finger on the child. However, the system worked. There is no reason why we should not get there in the end.

The theme is this: we must aim towards the eventual scrapping of physical punishment. As Jim Wallace said, things can move on only when there is a change in society's attitude.

We must watch out on a couple of fronts. Whatever we do, we must not do it in isolation. It is all very well to ban teachers and parents from smacking kids, but if the kids then go out into the playground and start thumping one another, there is still a form of violence among children. We must consider the issue of general violence hand-in-hand with the issue of physical punishment. If children learn to punch people in the playground, it will not be long before they clobber someone in the pub or at a football ground.

Scott Barrie referred again to the business of a child reaching out towards an electric fire. I want to share another personal story with members. When I was one and a half, I stuck a pair of scissors into a plug socket.

Is that what happened? [Laughter.]

That is what happened. That is why my hair is still growing on top.

My background was unusual because my mum used to give me a smack, in particular on the day when I put her sewing bag on the fire. I ran away from home but the postie found me at the gate and took me back again. My late father, however, never laid a finger on me.

I am sure that we all remember from school the teachers who could hold us by the eye alone. Jack Paterson—known as Jack Tar—at Tain Royal Academy was one of them. I never once saw him use the belt, but we were seriously scared of him. If we crossed him, he would hold us with that almost satanic eye and we withered in his gaze.

Members will not know this, but I served for a short time in Her Majesty's armed forces, though perhaps not with a huge amount of honour or credit—in fact, I was a pretty average disaster as a soldier. I remember that a colour sergeant or sergeant would never touch us, but when one had a colour sergeant from the Coldstream Guards one inch from one's nose saying in no uncertain terms, "You should be in the Japanese army with specs like that", one did not forget it. So, to go back to the example of the kid reaching towards the electric fire, I put it to members that shouting hard enough, "Don't do that" will change what the child does.

Reference was made to the carrot-and-stick approach, which is absolutely the right way forward. We must consider the notion of rewarding children in tandem with our consideration of violence in general.

The other day I had occasion to punish my son, who had been particularly impossible at school—the deputy rector had written to me. As someone suggested earlier, I banned him from the television, which meant that he could not work his new computer game either. It was a pretty draconian solution, but I can assure members that it worked.

The aim should be to get there in the end. I take on board Dorothy-Grace Elder's point that we live in the real world. Until we can change society's attitude—this excellent consultation exercise will trawl opinion—we must go with it, while not forgetting that we must play a leadership role. We should remember that other countries do not allow the physical punishment of children. I mentioned Italy, but that approach works in other countries, too. We should it make it our aim to get to the same point as them as soon as possible, taking society with us.

I reiterate the Conservatives' agreement not just with the motion but with the SNP's amendment. It is important that the consultation takes all things into account and I hope that, in the true sprit of openness, those who have consented to have their submissions made public may view the results of the consultation.

It is regrettable that the Deputy First Minister cannot see fit to accept either the SNP or the Conservative amendment. I thought his reasons stretched the point. I remind members that our amendment agrees with the Scottish Executive's

"view that parents should continue to have the right to physically rebuke their children by reasonable means, if they so choose".

The Executive has made its point; we are saying that we agree. We go on to call

"upon the Scottish Executive to clarify the definition of reasonable chastisement so that both parents and children are sure of their rights within the law."

The Executive is clear about inviting consultation and the Parliament's view in that consultation process. Surely it is for us as parliamentarians to say what we think. I and the other Conservatives are simply saying that we agree with the Executive. That is our response to its call for consultation, and we think that the Parliament should show that it agrees with the Executive. Somehow, however, that is seen—I believe unfairly—as prejudging the outcome of the consultation. It beats me.

The important point of this debate for many parents is to know when a smack becomes a beating. When does an open-handed smack become a hit? To me, it would certainly become a hit if the open hand closed into a clenched fist.

Smacking children to teach them the difference between right and wrong and between safety and danger is often a necessity, although often a painful one for loving parents. Common sense is required in its application by parents, not the obsessive nannying of the Scottish Executive—I do not mean that gratuitously—or of the European courts. What constitutes "reasonable chastisement" and what constitutes physical abuse is clear to most parents in Scotland. In the latter case, social workers have what I believe to be perfectly adequate powers that allow them to intervene.

I take cognisance of the examples that have been given. This debate is needed, as is change, not because of the European convention on human rights but because, in some instances, the law appears not to have been working well—irrespective of the ECHR. We need to take account of the change in attitudes that we are moving to. It is important to restrict the definition of "reasonable chastisement" so that parents and those who work with them are clear—that would be to parents' advantage.

I welcome Dorothy-Grace Elder's contribution and the fact that she got real. I know many parents who, prior to having their children, thought they would never use dummies, or let their children have chocolate. Once they had their children, however, their attitudes changed completely.

I went to a school where the belt was used badly. Some teachers used it well; others used it dreadfully. I recognise the example mentioned by Scott Barrie, of people queuing up to show their badge of honour of having received the belt, not just once but perhaps twice.

I disagree with Ken Macintosh that stopping smacking will lead to less violence in society. We have removed corporal punishment from schools but there has been an increase in violence. The dreadful problem of the belt was its misuse.

Irene McGugan mentioned article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I hope that the minister can assure us that the convention will not stand in the way of reasonable chastisement or any law that he introduces. While bringing up my children, I used what I call "the chart". I am fortunate enough to have twins. By keeping a record of their behaviour, I was able to use the Tory ethos of competition to encourage each of them to try to behave better than the other. That worked on most occasions.

However, it is undoubtedly true that the odd smack can be used to protect children from danger. I remind members that there are parents—I was one of them—who do not let their children watch a great deal of telly and do not let their children have computer games until late on in their development. I wanted my children to become literate and learn to enjoy books. Every parent must be able to raise their children in a way that they think is right.

While tightening the definition of "reasonable chastisement" might prevent courts making judgments that are clearly bad, outlawing all physical punishment might open us up to legal problems. I ask the Executive to consider what might be done with regard to adoption. Local authorities can refuse to allow people to adopt on the ground that they might use physical punishment. Will the minister clarify the situation? If biological parents are entitled to use physical punishment, parents who adopt children should be allowed to exercise the same discrimination.

In spite of the efforts of Tory members, we have had a constructive debate. It is cheering that all members—excluding the Tories—believe that the law should be changed and that, as Cathy Jamieson said, the status quo is not an option. That is a step forward and most people will welcome that consensus.

Although the ECHR has caused the Executive a few headaches recently, it has made us face up to the areas of our law that need to be reformed. We have to realise that the physical punishment of children is one such area. We have to decide the extent to which the law has to be altered.

Inevitably, much of today's debate has centred on whether there should be a total ban on physical punishment—by parents or anyone else. It is right that the Executive has included that point in the consultation paper, even though it has expressed its inclination at the same time. It is important that people express their views on the subject and that the Executive listen to those views.

The consensus in Scotland is that it is not incompatible with the interests of children to allow parents to administer mild physical chastisement. As we have heard today, there are times when physical chastisement protects children from much greater physical harm.

I accept that there is a contrary view and I have some sympathy with it. I remind the Tories that that view—articulated by many members, including Scott Barrie and Irene McGugan—is not off the wall and politically correct, as they implied, but the norm in many European countries. As Irene McGugan said, those countries probably introduced their bans when the climate of public opinion was not as it is now—and no practical difficulties have been encountered as a result of the bans.

Cathy Jamieson said it all—let us have a reasonable, calm and rational debate and let us allow members to express their views. I regret that, on today's evidence, the Tories—Lyndsay McIntosh and Brian Monteith—have failed to engage in this complex debate. There are no easy answers, but instead of trying to offer something constructive to the debate, the Tories have done what the Tories often do—fallen back on easy answers and glib arguments. They have fallen back on the answers that they think will attract popular support.

It is just common sense.

Common sense means constructive engagement in debate. Mr Monteith would do well to reflect on that.

Nobody in the chamber—or outwith it—is suggesting that politicians should interfere unduly in the ways in which responsible parents bring up their children. I have heard nobody on any side of the argument express such a view. We are discussing how our laws and our society deal with cases in which parents cross the boundaries of acceptability. There is a debate about where those boundaries should be drawn, but once society has decided and made law where the boundaries should be, there should be legal action and redress when parents cross the boundaries.

One of my problems with Lyndsay McIntosh's argument is that it seemed to be based on the view that parents are sovereign and are always right, no matter what they do. The majority of people in Scotland do not believe that.

At the start of my speech, I said that we should all condemn child abuse and excessive physical punishment. No one is suggesting that we defend the indefensible.

I am glad that Mrs McIntosh has, on behalf of the Conservatives, taken the opportunity to clarify that—it was not at all clear from the Tory speeches.

The problem is that what most of us consider to be morally unacceptable and what the law considers unacceptable are entirely different or have the potential to be entirely different. There are degrees of physical punishment that most people in Scotland would consider unacceptable. The problem is that such punishment might still fall within the legal definition of reasonable chastisement. That leaves Scotland and the Scottish legal system vulnerable to challenge under ECHR.

No change is not an option. The debate should be about what change is required and where the boundaries should be redrawn. That will ensure that we respect equally the rights of parents and of children. In most cases—when loving parents are bringing up their children—the rights of the parents and those of the children will be entirely compatible. That will not be the case in only a minority of cases. The law must be able to cope with that.

I look forward to engaging constructively in this extremely important debate, in which Parliament has done a great deal to put children's interests at the top of the political agenda. I ask again that the Executive consider accepting the SNP amendment—it is offered as a constructive contribution. Agreeing to our amendment would enable us all to move forward. It would ensure that the views of the Scottish people are considered and that we amend the law to ensure the protection of Scotland's children. That protection should be one of the primary functions of every member of Parliament.

Despite the comparatively short time we have spent on this matter, we have seen the full spectrum of opinion on it.

This is an important issue for many people. It is important for children, who sometimes need our protection, and it is important for parents who, in the light of recent court cases, need greater clarity about their behaviour. It is equally important for the courts of Scotland, so that they can see the parameters of the Parliament's intentions regarding what matters the courts should judge.

The issue is important in relation to Scotland's place in the international community. In that community we are—at least in part—judged on how our social policies compare with those of other countries in Europe and the wider world. We will also be judged on our compliance with international conventions. The international conventions that apply here are very important and are part of the reason we are having to revisit this issue to find ways to modernise Scottish law in a variety of ways while protecting Scottish children.

Good points have been made and I shall reply to as many as I can. I welcome the SNP's support for the consultation and the spirit in which it has entered into this debate. As Nicola Sturgeon rightly said, this debate is principally concerned with putting the interests of children first. It is important to use the language that parents, children and the wider community can understand. We should not tie ourselves up in legalese, although there is a temptation to do so, given the nature of this subject. We are more than happy to do anything in this debate and during the subsequent passage of legislation to promote the use of the simplest language to get these ideas across.

I welcome the spirit in which the SNP amendment was moved. On the basis of the clarification that Nicola Sturgeon provided—she recognised that there may be a technical conflict on occasion, but that the circumstances in which conflict might arise will be at the margins—we are prepared to accept the SNP amendment.

Nicola Sturgeon, Irene McGugan and Linda Fabiani said that there is a perception that we are not consulting children on this consultation paper. I want to clarify our position. We have gone out of our way to get the views of children, and we have asked the Scottish Child Law Centre, Save the Children and Children in Scotland to arrange for us a variety of ways in which to ascertain children's attitudes towards the consultation and the prospective legislation. Young people are also able to write to us, although I realise that that may be difficult for them, which is why we have arranged other means of finding out their views. We will listen very carefully to what young people have to say.

We have also written to every director of education in Scotland, asking them whether they can facilitate discussions—perhaps through focus groups—with young people, to feed back to us the views of young people throughout Scotland so that we can take them into account. I hope that members appreciate that we are doing a lot to address the opinions of young people on these issues.

Nicola Sturgeon mentioned childminders. I think that a lot of people agree with what she said. Making the situation the same for childminders as for others would be consistent. There is a question about that in the consultation document. We look forward to hearing views on the subject. On the basis of that, we will take appropriate action—but I do not want to prejudge the consultation.

I realise that the Executive's position on private nurseries may appear inconsistent, but the matter is beyond the scope of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill. This consultation, the outcome of this consultation, and any bill that follows, will provide the opportunity to address that issue. People should not fear that the issue will not be addressed; it will be—in that context.

I welcome Lyndsay McIntosh's support for the consultation and the main thrust of the proposals. She rightly pointed out—as did Jamie Stone—that parents have many, graduated sanctions. Physical punishment is always the last option. Dorothy-Grace Elder suggested how difficult it sometimes is to implement graduated sanctions in a family home.

Lyndsay McIntosh's point about corporal punishment in schools was curious, to say the least. It was almost as if the Conservatives were tentatively raising the flag of the return of corporal punishment in schools, just to see who would salute that flag, in an attempt to re-open an argument that is now over in Scotland. Scottish schools have found much more positive and constructive ways in which to deal with difficult behaviour. There are still enormous challenges for schools, but much more positive methods are used to deal with such behaviour.

I remember children who were at school with me who were relentlessly thrashed week in, week out. I assure members that it did not make them better citizens in any shape or form. Lyndsay alluded to being belted and having been cured as a consequence. I suggest that it is for others to judge whether that is true.

Scott Barrie raised his own point of view—as he has done consistently—born of his experience as a social work manager. Irene McGugan and Ken Macintosh aligned themselves with Scott's view, which goes further than the Executive's recommendations. That is at one end of the spectrum of opinion on this matter and marries the view that is taken, for the most part, in most Scandinavian countries. As Jim Wallace said, when those Scandinavian countries moved to that position, the public had, to a significant extent, already arrived at it. The change came with ease, not with great controversy, and parents did not feel that Governments were interfering in their domestic circumstances.

We believe that Scottish opinion is not yet at the position held by Scott Barrie and others. It is an issue that will evolve over time—there may well come a time when the Parliament wants to revisit this issue and to move further forward. We believe that we have the measure of Scottish opinion on this matter and that we are moving the agenda forward. None the less, we do not rule out people's responses to the consultation raising the points made by Scott Barrie. We will consider that position in the light of evidence presented as a result of the consultation process.

Will the minister concede that our ultimate aim is to try to move towards Scott Barrie's position over time?

I have no difficulty with that as a matter of principle. It seems to me that everyone agrees with the objective of living in a zero-tolerance society in which, as others have said, any physical manifestations of chastisement are unacceptable. However, we must address how quickly we can move to that position and how well public opinion adapts to it. That remains to be seen. At this stage, we do not believe that we should go further than the position set out in the consultation paper, on which we want to hear the public's views.

Cathy Jamieson said how serious Parliament is about children and their protection, as there has been a range of debates on both subjects. She also supported Jamie Stone's point about zero tolerance.

Dorothy-Grace Elder described a normal household—at least, she described the Elder household. Given the views she expressed, she appears to be part of the majority of Scots. She supported both reasonable chastisement and the consultation exercise. That chimes with what we understand to be Scottish opinion.

I am conscious of time and will move to my conclusion. As Jim Wallace made clear at the beginning of this debate, the Scottish Executive's intention, as expressed in the consultation paper, is to seek views on how to provide better protection for the children of Scotland. We believe that our proposals bring clarity to the law and that they will draw meaningful boundaries for parents, helping them in their task. We believe that the approach that we are adopting is the best in the circumstances. The Executive does not want to meddle in family life, but we want children in Scotland to feel safe and to be safe.

We believe that our approach is in tune with the policy the majority of parents in Scotland would want us to pursue at this stage. We are responding to the attitude of parents and Scottish society. As I indicated, as society's attitude changes, I am sure Parliament will wish to return to this issue.

We believe that our proposals are well measured and reasonable. As Jim Wallace said, we are willing to hear the views of Scotland, which will allow us to decide whether we can change our position on any aspect of the consultation paper.

I urge every MSP in the chamber to use all their connections to allow this debate to rage across Scotland and to encourage as many people as possible to access the information on the consultation exercise. We require a well-informed debate and we want to hear the views of Scottish parents.

In that context, I commend the motion.

Thank you. That motion will be decided during decision time.

I move, without notice,

That under Rule 11.2.4, Decision Time be taken at 5.30 pm.

I accept the need to move a motion without notice, as it affects this afternoon's business. What is the reason for the motion?

The motion would accommodate a statement from the First Minister this afternoon without curtailing the debate on the Standards Committee's report.

Motion agreed to.