The proposals were outlined by Jim Wallace

Deputy justice minister Iain Gray told the Scottish Parliament that the Scottish Executive had attempted to clarify the law on the physical punishment of children.

He also indicated that the age of children for which the ban would apply was "something that could be further debated."

But he added: "We do not think that parents should have a right to hit their young children, to hit children with implements, shake them or strike them on the head.

"Children need to learn from their role models that violence is not the right way to get other people to do what you want."

He said: "It is quite wrong to punish someone who can't understand what they have done wrong.

Immediate danger

"The reason for banning the physical punishment of children under three is to signal that a line has to be drawn, that no-one surely would want to hit a small baby."

Mr Gray recognised that physical action may be taken to protect children from immediate danger, such as a child running across the road, but that such action would not be punishment.

A motion inviting parliament to welcome the executive's proposal "to clarify" the law on the physical punishment of children was later passed by 68 votes to 20 with 17 abstentions.

The reason for banning the physical punishment of children under three is to signal that a line has to be drawn, that no-one surely would want to hit a small baby.

Deputy Justice Minister Iain Gray

The law already protects children from "unreasonable chastisement" but the proposals will spell out to courts how to decide what is reasonable punishment.

Details of the proposals, which could be included in the Criminal Justice Bill, will be set out in a white paper to be published in October.

Legislation could be introduced to parliament early next year and receive Royal Assent by the end of 2002.

Children's charities have already attacked moves to ban parents in Scotland from smacking children below the age of three.

They said the Scottish Executive proposals were unworkable and did not go far enough to ending physical violence against children.

Open to misinterpretation

However the Scottish National Party called on the executive to publish full details of its proposed legislation and explain in detail why it was necessary.

The party's shadow education spokesman, Mike Russell, who tabled an amendment to the executive's motion, was concerned the proposals would otherwise be open to misinterpretation.

Mr Russell also called on the executive to ensure that the emphasis in the legislation was on educating parents rather than applying penalties.

"No one is in favour of abuse or cruelty to children and indeed the use of implements to punish children has no place in a modern society," said Mr Russell.

"The example that exists in other places appears to encourage education of parents rather than punishment."

This legislation will not introduce any protection which does not already exist. Instead, it reeks of the nanny state by notifying all of Scotland's parents that they are potential criminals.

Tory MSP Lord James Douglas Hamilton

Tory justice and home affairs spokesman Lord James Douglas Hamilton warned Mr Wallace that the proposals would turn him into "the nation's nanny".

"This legislation will not introduce any protection which does not already exist. Instead, it reeks of the nanny state by notifying all of Scotland's parents that they are potential criminals.

"We will be opposing this measure as unnecessary, unworkable, unenforceable, misconceived and a somewhat tiresome and pernickety interference with Scotland's parents. Frankly Scotland deserves better than that."