Now you could end up with a criminal record for yelling at your kids

Tory MSP’s warning over smacking ban loophole

PARENTS could be criminalised for shouting at children because of a legal loophole in the SNP’s new smacking ban.

Concerns have been raise that the wording of the new law would leave parents open to being charged for merely shouting or threatening to smack their children.

Yesterday, the Bill was branded ‘unfit for purpose’ by an MSP whose bid to close a legal loophole in the smacking ban was thrown out.

Tory MSP Adam Tomkins had submitted amendments to the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) Bill to ensure only physical punishment would be criminalised.

The Bill, proposed by Green MSP John Finnie, removes the defence of ‘justifiable assault’ in Scots law, which allows parents to use physical punishment.

Mr Tomkins says he was told his amendments were ‘inadmissible’, meaning they will not be pursued. Mr Finnie’s daughter Ruth Maguire, convenor of Holyrood’s equalities committee, had the final say on ruling them out.

After questioning the decision with senior officials, Mr Tomkins said Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh told him that some Bills are simply ‘unamendable’.

Mr Tomkins said the smacking Bill was ‘not fit for purpose’ and the amendment rebuff had made him ‘question the point of being an MSP.’ He believes that the smacking ban is ‘dangerous’ because the legislation is badly drafted and ‘criminalises all manner of things which, in a civilised society, should remain well away from the reach of prosecutors’.

He claims that by failing to include specific details on physical punishment, the use of the word ‘assault’ could leave parents facing criminal charges for shouting or threatening to smack their children.

Mr Tomkins described the reaction to his attempted amendment as a ‘sinister move to block democratic consideration of the nation’s legislation’.

He added: ‘This means that I cannot even bring them to parliament to have them debated and voted on. Hence my question – if we cannot even discuss modest and sensible changes to our law such as these, what is the point of being an MSP?’

Mr Tomkins also said it was wrong that Miss Maguire should be allowed to lead the scrutiny of her father’s Bill and ‘close down debate’ on it. After Miss Maguire’s ruling, Mr Tomkins said he went to see Mr Macintosh, who prompted further fury by telling the Tory that some bills are ‘deliberately designed to be unamendable’.

According to Scottish parliament processes, there are two main reasons why an amendment would be ruled inadmissible – either it would undo a previous decision made by MSPs or it would not be relevant to the Bill.

However, parliament bosses yesterday refused to say why Mr Tomkin’s amendment had been rejected.

An SNP source said: ‘This is the most arrogant, pathetic, juvenile outburst from Adam Tomkins.

‘He proclaims to be a hotshot constitutional lawyer. But, embarrassingly, he can’t get his head round simple parliamentary processes.

‘Perhaps most staggering of all are the misogynistic, antediluvian comments about Ruth Maguire.’

The Scottish Government is backing the Bill, along with Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens.

At Holyrood, 80 MSPs supported it and only 29 Conservatives voted against it.