MSPs have rejected calls for politicians to be background checked in a bid to further safeguard children and vulnerable people – but rules could be tightened to eliminate any unsupervised contact.

Liberal Democrat MSP Alex Cole-Hamilton had appealed to Holyrood’s education committee for Protecting Vulnerable Groups (PVG) checks to be extended to MSPs, Scottish MPs and councillors to close of loophole where “politicians get an exemption”.

The move comes after Derek Mackay quit as Finance Secretary after it was revealed he had sent a flurry of online messages to a 16-year-old boy, including calling him “cute”.

Currently, the PVG scheme only applies to those who specifically work with children and vulnerable adults, including medical or teaching roles.

Mr Cole-Hamilton said his amendment was “an opportunity to right that wrong” and that there was “no question that they have both power and influence” over vulnerable groups.

But the committee rejected his bid amid fears it could become a “political football” and instead called for the MSPs’ code of conduct to be tightened up.

Mr Cole-Hamilton warned that rejecting his plea would “send an awful message” to the public.

READ MORE: Child protection expert backs Lib Dem plan for MSP background checks

He added: “This is a gaping loophole and one we must close. I don’t believe this is as complex as suggested.”

He said it would be “utterly indefensible” if an incident took place involving a politician when “this parliament says we don’t need to do that check”.

He added: “It’s hard to imagine the fury that would reign down on this place”.

Maree Todd, Scottish Minister for Children and Young People, said Mr Cole-Hamilton’s proposed amendments to the Disclosure (Scotland) Bill were “well intentioned in their aim” but that there were “a number of challenges that would have very significant constitutional implications”.

She advised the Lib Dem MSP to “raise this with the standards committee or the presiding officer” instead of attaching it to the new legislation.

She added: “What’s very clear is safeguarding children is more than a criminal record check. It’s everyone’s responsibility to protect children.

“I would advocate a much more holistic response to this problem than just a criminal record check.

Liberal Democrat MSP Alex Cole-Hamilton

“I would question whether there’s any real need for children to be unsupervised with an elected member.”

Ms Todd warned criminal record checks would not necessarily have flagged concerns about the late MP Cyril Smith.

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse last month said Westminster institutions had "repeatedly failed to deal with allegations of child sexual abuse" against politicians.

Ms Todd said there were "very painful lessons" for politicians to learn from that inquiry.

She said: "Cyril Smith was never convicted in his lifetime but allegations of child abuse, including reports to the police, were made over four decades.

"It is not at all clear that a criminal record check would have protected children in this case."

Earlier, SNP MSP Gail Ross suggested that the proposal was “far too big an issue for our committee to be dealing with”.

She added: “I absolutely sympathise with the intention behind this – but the fact is we really need to go into this a lot deeper. It’s something for the whole parliament to discuss.”

READ MORE: Plan for MSP background checks to be voted on next week

Labour MSP Daniel Johnson said that it was “categorically wrong” for politicians to assume they were entitled to spend any time alone with vulnerable people.

He added: “I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to expect or carry out unsupervised contact. I think this is a matter for standards.

“It should be put in the code of conduct for MSPs that we should not have unsupervised contact with vulnerable people.”

Alex Neil warned that forcing politicians to undergo background checks before they stand for office could lead to “a real danger that it becomes a political football for people to kick”.

He added: “That would do no service to children or other vulnerable people.

“It’s fair for us to ask the standards committee to review the code of conduct for MSPs and establish whether there’s any need to add to the code of conduct.”

Speaking after his amnedment was rejected, Mr Cole-Hamilton, said: "It is not good enough for MSPs to rely on self-policing or say that they have voluntarily adopted the good practice of not spending time unaccompanied with children or vulnerable adults.

"We need to legislate for people as we occasionally find them not as we would wish them to be. History and inquiries have proven that approach puts people at risk so I can’t help but feel that in rejecting my amendments this parliament is making that same mistake again."

He added: "Elected office brings with it status, influence and access to vulnerable groups. We can’t just assume that because someone wins an election their conduct will be guaranteed or their intentions beyond reproach.

“People will be stunned that in the wake of high profile incidents of grooming and exploitation, the response of the other parties has been to conclude that this legislation should apply to everyone bar elected representatives.

“To claim it is too complicated or that this shouldn’t be done through this once-in-a-decade child protection legislation is short-sighted and will be rightly questioned by the million people who we already insist must have a PVG. Everyone else can see the protection that a PVG affords, so why can’t MSPs?"