Six years on, what has been the impact of Scotland’s smacking ban?

The Christian Institute – which spearheads the Be Reasonable campaign – has written to the Scottish Government calling for a review of the Children (Equal Protection From Assault) (Scotland) Act’s impact on Scotland’s families and public services. The 2020 Act removed the defence of reasonable punishment and exposed ordinary, loving parents to the risk of criminal prosecution under common assault law.

In the letter, CI Deputy Director Simon Calvert points out that new laws are normally scrutinised three to five years after implementation. Yet almost six years on, no such review has been published.

While a requirement to review the Act was regrettably not written into the legislation, the Act’s implementation group made “monitoring the impact of the legislation” one of its four overarching goals – indicating that this would be achieved through a research project. It also established “public attitudes” and “the effect of the legislation on bodies such as Social Work and the Police” as key areas for scrutiny. Work toward this end appears to have taken the form of multi-organisational focus groups, with the intention of publishing a report “outlining the findings”. But as the letter notes, neither the research project nor the focus group report has been published.

The letter further points out that last November a report was published analysing similar legislation in Wales which came into force 16 months after the Scottish Act. Commenting on the Welsh report, Mr Calvert says:
“The report reveals a concerning impact on parents and local authorities in Wales, and exposes the social and financial strain created by the legislation, far exceeding what was originally forecast.
“This further demonstrates the need for a report examining the impact of the Scottish Act, as well as the importance of transparency in maintaining public trust.”

The letter goes on to cite Scottish Government evidence from stakeholder focus groups involving Police Scotland and local authorities, obtained through FOI responses, which suggests similar concerns about the Scottish ban. These include:
• inadequate Government support;
• the instigation of criminal inquiries into parents taking “precedence over welfare and protection”; and
• the stretching of resources to meet the demands of the Act.

Limited evidence so far suggests that concerns raised about the ban before it was passed have proved accurate. Almost six years on, the Scottish public deserves to know the full extent of its impact.