The next item is a statement by the Minister for Children and Social Care on the consultation on legislation to remove the defence of reasonable punishment. I call on the Minister, Huw Irranca-Davies, to make a statement.

Thank you, Llywydd, and a happy new year too.

I am very pleased today to be launching a consultation to inform the development of our legislative proposals to remove the defence of reasonable punishment. The national strategy 'Prosperity for All' recognises that confident, positive and resilient parenting is fundamental to preparing children for life, and the importance of providing help and support to parents. The Welsh Government is rightly proud of our record in Wales of working to ensure all children in Wales have the very best start in life, and of promoting children’s rights. This is why, as a Government, we intend to bring forward legislation to remove the defence of reasonable punishment. We want to make it clear that physically punishing a child is no longer acceptable in Wales.  

The proposed legislation is part of a wider package of measures aimed at bringing about changes in attitudes towards the way children and young people are raised and disciplined, by making physical punishment unacceptable and by promoting positive alternatives. As a Government, we have invested significantly in parenting programmes right across Wales, and in information campaigns such as ‘Parenting: Give it Time’ to support parents to be the best they can. We want the legislation to accelerate behavioural change in the way parents discipline their children, and we also want to provide parents with the support to feel confident in choosing positive and more effective methods of discipline.

Our knowledge of what children need to grow and thrive has developed considerably over the last 20 years. The interactions that parents now have with their children have also changed in response to that knowledge, and public attitudes to parenting practices have changed as well. We now know that physical punishment can have negative long-term impacts on a child’s life chances and we also know it is an ineffective punishment. Whilst physically punishing children was accepted as normal practice in previous generations, we know that it is increasingly being seen as less acceptable and parents feel less comfortable using physical punishment. We also have a longstanding commitment to children’s rights based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and we must continue to deliver on this commitment.

Legislation was introduced many years ago to stop physical punishment in schools and in childcare settings, and now is the time to ensure it is no longer acceptable anywhere. We are committed to removing the defence of reasonable punishment and we want to ensure we develop legislative proposals that are fit for purpose, as well as ensuring that we have a wider package of measures in place to support parents.

Now, I'm aware that there are differing views on this legislation. In order to inform our understanding of its potential impact, we have already engaged with a wide range of public service bodies, including the police, social services and the Crown Prosecution Service. This consultation provides an opportunity to further develop our proposals and provide everyone with an opportunity to have their say to help us to try to address any concerns as the legislation develops. And I'm keen to ensure that this legislation can proceed with as much agreement as possible in this Assembly and in Welsh society as a whole. I'm particularly concerned that parents should feel confident that this law and our wider efforts to promote positive parenting are designed to help them give their children the very best possible start in life. That is our intention and I welcome ideas, through the consultation process, on how best we can achieve it, and I look forward to hearing from Members today. Thank you.

Minister, I'd like to thank you very much for your statement today, and for the courtesy you have extended to both myself and my colleague, Darren Millar, who is unfortunately unable to be with us today, in going through your plans and your rationale behind the consultation. You will be aware that the Welsh Conservatives are a broad church that actually reflects the opinions, concerns and questions posed by a large section of the Welsh population, and there is a diversity of opinion within us, and therefore we will be proceeding along this legislative pathway with a free vote to each and every Member within our party. 

I'm very grateful for that earlier conversation. There are a couple of questions that I feel it would be beneficial for me to ask and to put on the record, and to give you a chance to expand back to me and to other Members of this Chamber, and indeed to the wider public. I think, first of all, I would like to really understand what the Welsh Government will be doing to ensure that this consultation gets out to ordinary people—not the third sector, not the politicians, not the lobby groups, not those of us who have views or may have already made up our minds, but to ordinary parents and ordinary children who aren't part of any sort of grouping or gang, so that we can get their opinions, their thoughts on what they think because, of course, we all know that whatever your view may be, we tend to be very protective about the herd that is our family. And I would like you, in doing that, to make it crystal clear that we all accept that the majority of parents in Wales are good, loving, reasonable individuals, and I really want that message to go out loud and clear. This is not about punishment, coercion or trammelling those individuals. 

I would be very keen if you could give us a little bit more knowledge on how you see this consultation proceeding and explaining to people not just the proposals you've put forward, but what other solutions you looked at and what you discarded. You and I had a conversation about the fact that, by removing the reasonable chastisement, we effectively, in theory, allow everyone to be immediately culpable of a criminal offence. Did you look at other methods where we might be able to go out and help and support those parents who use chastisement inappropriately, wherever you are on that scale. What did your Government take a look at? What have you discarded? Where else did you look, around the world, as to how this might be implemented in a tolerant and proportionate way?

I would be extremely grateful if you would perhaps explain a little bit—finally, Presiding Officer, this is—about the proportionate test, if this legislation were to go ahead. I want to give you one brief example, and I believe you might give me another. I have a teacher, for example, in Pembrokeshire, who took, along with a number of other teachers, a group of kids up to a rugby match. I cannot remember if it was Cardiff or London, but it was one of those cities. And one of the children was a young lad, a bit full of the joys of spring or whatever, and he ran out onto the road. The teacher grabbed him forcibly, dragged him back in. The parents sued that teacher for assault. That teacher has a black mark against his name. To an onlooker, that might have seemed like unfair chastisement. 

Personally, as a parent, I would be ripping my child a verbal shred and being very grateful to the teacher for saving their life, but that's not that teacher's experience. And you know, we've done it, and I'll hold up my hands: I remember my small one, when she was three years old, ran out in front of a concrete lorry coming from Carew quarry. She was grabbed by my friend, because I had a pushchair with my baby in front of me. Katie just let go of my hand and went for it, and she was grabbed by my friend. And I can tell you, I grabbed my child, I burst into tears, I hugged her, and I smacked her bottom, because you just have that enormous conflagration of emotions that sweep through you. So, I'd be interested to know that, in any legislation that is looked at, we are divining the differences between an impulsive moment and a parent who just absolutely loses it on a consistent basis and beats their kid, and I would have to say that I think that the criminal justice system at the moment does have very effective assault and grievous bodily harm capacity to deal with that.

But I think that this is such a delicate area, and I will come back to my original statement: I believe that most parents act from a good base of love, responsibility and a deep, caring perspective on their family, and most parents are very protective of their family, and I do want to make sure that parents do not feel that the Welsh Government, or the Welsh Assembly, is punishing them all for actions they may not have even taken.

Thank you, Angela, and I might begin actually by reinforcing that message. I think probably all of us in this Chamber, and the Welsh Government itself, would fully accept and endorse those sentiments that say that the vast majority of parents in Wales are those who want to bring their children up in a loving environment, and do it with great care, with great attention, with great encouragement, with great support, and showing all those aspects of positive parenting that I'm in danger of turning into the greatest slogan ever here. It means being brought up in an environment where they feel safe and treasured and nurtured, and the vast majority of parents do exactly that. But, I am a parent of three children. They don't come with rule books, unfortunately, because each one is different. It's like some of these devices you buy on the internet; they've all got different cables and different things that wire them up and so on. And we know that sometimes we need support. So, actually, part of this consultation and part of us taking forward this is to do with providing the right support for parents and families. And, by the way, we're not just talking about families where there are great complexities of issues and challenges, but families generally. So, that includes, from the health visitors that first of all arrive with families, through the schools, through the Families First, through the Children First, all of those things, to help parents like myself as much as anybody else. But, absolutely right: the vast majority of parents do a great job, and do it with the best intentions in the world.

The question here is very much to with: we have what we would regard as a Government—and it was certainly in our manifesto and it's been debated for a couple of decades, including by some Members here when they were actually Members of Parliament as well, arguing the case—a taking away of a defence that, at the moment, is only available to parents when they use physical punishment or corporal punishment against their children. You could not advance the same reasonable chastisement defence if you were, for example, to hit somebody who was elderly and had dementia, or somebody who was 25 years of age and had learning difficulties. You cannot advance the same defence, but you can advance the defence, successful or not in its application, against children. So, it's a question of saying, very much supporting the parents, providing the support that is needed, not in a nanny-state way, but in, actually, a good partnership with parents, because we know the direction we want to go, and it's going in this direction, and, secondly, to provide clarity, taking away this defence of reasonable chastisement.

Angela, you asked had we considered any other options. We have, and we've been back and forth in terms of legal counsel, and we've learned from the over 50 examples of other countries of different types of legal jurisdiction where they have done a version of taking this defence away and have clear delineation that an assault is an assault is an assault. We've been able to learn from that. But, we do have our own legal setting within this country and the parameters that we work in, and the very strong, clear advice that we are receiving is that the clearest way to do this is remove the defence of reasonable chastisement and what you are left with is, actually, what is currently there within law, which is an offence of assault.

In the offence of assault, there are certain hurdles you need to pass by. It is not simply, 'I've spotted somebody who was doing something with their children and I think that was assault, that was out of order.' There are evidential tests that, actually, in a court of law, the Crown Prosecution Service would say, 'We think there is evidence here that an assault took place.' Secondly, it needs to be in the public interest. Part of the public interest reasoning behind taking a charge forward—as it currently is, by the way, right across the piste, except in terms of children—would be that not only is it in the public interest, but there is a reasonable chance of success of a prosecution.

I would refer her and other Members to section 9 of the consultation, because, within that, it looks at international evidence, but also the evidence of where this has been used in other countries, including New Zealand, with a slightly different model. Yes, it has led, in the early years, to a rise in reporting; it has led to occasional prosecutions; it's also led to several being cautioned or warned and dismissed, and, of course, then it tails off, because what happens is there is a cultural shift—the same with seat belt laws, the same with many other things—where people accept it is simply not reasonable any more to physically or corporally punish a child, no different from any other member of society.

Thank you for the briefing that you afforded me yesterday, it was useful. I've been pleased to support these efforts in the past, as has Plaid Cymru, when we were campaigning for this—former Assembly Members such as Lindsay Whittle and many Assembly Members from across the political divide. I think it's crucial to state, from the outset, that I'm not in favour of punishing a parent for disciplining their child, and that's not what this change should be about, as has already been outlined. This is, and should be, first and foremost, the removal of a defence in court and under the law that allows someone who beats or abuses a child potentially to be acquitted under the guise of it being a reasonable use of force for a parent or guardian, and I don't think that's acceptable.

I understand this is a debate that can cause passions to rise—in fact, when I asked people on social media, I had more comments than I've ever had, in relation to this issue—as is any question that goes to the heart of the relationship between the people, the family and the state, and how far is too far for the state to go. But I think it's important to set out that, from my perspective, any law change should not and will not be to bring about persecution of anyone who disciplines their child in a moment of frustration or panic. I know that when a child moves towards a plug socket or tests patience and boundaries to the limit how difficult it is. There should be no desire to punish good parents or guardians, and I believe that the vast majority of parents and guardians have no wish to use physical punishment.

I do, however, believe that the Welsh Government must get this right, or the well-meaning law change does run the risk of being swept up by some reactionary elements that would like to paint what is, at heart, a well-meaning policy, and a long-overdue one, I should say, into something ugly and nefarious on behalf of authorities.

My first question, although I'm pleased with the Welsh Government, that you've come around on this issue, finally, is: what has changed between the last time we debated this issue in the previous Assembly term and now? It was the Welsh Government's prior position that a change to the law on reasonable punishment would not be viable, as it would be challenged as not only beyond our responsibilities as an Assembly, but also open to court challenge. Could you clarify what the legal position is now, for the record, and if there has been any substantial development that would mean that the Welsh Government now no longer considers this as a stumbling block?

It's important to know what this will mean in practice, also. We don't want the removal of reasonable punishment to be used for anything more than the removal of that defence in a case of child abuse or assault, and we must make sure that no court or element of law enforces uses of law change to channel an overzealous prosecution of something innocent. So, you mentioned earlier the public interest test. The de minimis rule, as well, is also pertinent. How will we be talking to the courts, the CPS and the police about how they would potentially use this, ongoing?

In the statement earlier, you outlined other reasons for this law change, such as promoting—and I quote what you said—'behavioural change' in parents. Could you clarify what behavioural change is necessary, and are you seeing that that behavioural change is something that is higher in Welsh society than it is elsewhere, or that it's a behavioural change that we all should acknowledge in ourselves? Because what I want to understand is that we're not only targeting certain families in certain areas of Wales, but we are saying that this is a general way of treating others in our society. I think I would be much more comfortable with that type of policy initiative than I would be to say that some families would be more culpable of this than others. You mentioned other countries, and I've also done some research with people I know in Sweden. Sweden's law, as far as I understand, doesn't come with a penalty. I asked one person who works in government in a municipality in Sweden, and they have 94,000 residents, but 200 youth workers, so that they can go into the homes via social workers, via youth workers, to try and talk about cultural and behavioural change. If this is your intention also, well, we may have to look into financial resource for this. So, how far have you got with this, or do you think that that is necessary at all?

One of my final questions is: are you satisfied, in order to effectively convey to the public that the existing law isn't enough, that there is a valid and warranted reason for the law change? I've also spoken to some people to say that this particular ruling is used so little in court that you haven't got enough statistics to compare it with, and it's very difficult to find trends from it. So, it would be useful to know, if we are going to change the law, that it is going to be meaningful.

My last point in this, because I listened to the debate in the last Assembly, although not taking part in it, is we always reference, in these debates, 'as a parent', and you somehow feel that parents are potentially more attuned to making laws in this area. But, having read a lot about this, it's not just parents that are responsible. It's parents and guardians, and foster carers, and other people in society. When my sister was born, I was 17 years old, turning into an adult. I looked after her quite a lot, and I was given that parental responsibility. So, I want to have this debate, not as something that nobody who isn't a parent can have a view on, but so that everybody in society can have a view on this and make a constructive contribution. Because, at the end of the day, we may be in situations where we're thrust into caring responsibilities beyond our control, and we need to know how to deal with children in those types of situations, but we need to know that the state and other people in society believe that we have the respect and the capability, I should say, of looking after children, just as parents do too.

Bethan, thank you very, very much for that indeed. I think many of the detailed issues that we're starting to touch on now we can get into as the consultation goes forward, but I'll try and answer some of them now as well, if it's of help. It's worth saying as well that, genuinely, I would like to engage with all Assembly Members of all parties on this, so that we do get this right in going forward, and that is a genuine offer. If I can do anything to help with those discussions, myself or my officials, I'm happy to make that offer.

You made the point about not punishing well-meaning parents. It's a similar point that Angela made as well. Absolutely right; entirely right. The balance of this, as we go through the consultation, has got to get to that point where we take away this defence of reasonable chastisement, which, to the best of my knowledge, has only had the possibility of being cited, actually, in the defence of cases over the last few years, probably a dozen times. Actually, it came down to four of them where it could actually have been used, and in those four cases, by and large, they ended up in acquittal or dismissal of the case. So, it is an anomalous situation that doesn't actually normally come to anything within a court of law, but it is an anomaly that sits there. When you speak to front-line professionals working in things like Flying Start, Families First, doing those interventions—good, clever, early interventions with parents—I've literally had this conversation with them and said, 'Is this clarity that we would give with this a problem for you, or would it help?' And, to a person, to a woman—because it's all women that I've spoken to who are doing these front-line interventions with families—they've said, 'This gives us the clarity that we would need.' So, in addition to the positive parenting, the help and advice and support that we give to parents, we can now say, 'Look, by the way, it is not physical punishment; there are other ways, and you know we can do that', and on we go. It is not to punish well-meaning parents, but it is to make absolutely clear that there will be no defence of reasonable chastisement.

Nothing changes, by the way, in terms of what penalties are out there. You mentioned the issue of penalties. The penalties remain as they are for assault, and the same evidential tests and public interest tests apply to assault. The Sentencing Council set the guidelines for assault. The Sentencing Council actually set separate guidelines that relate to assault on children. They also set separate guidelines that relate to assault on children by parents who are under 18. Those are all there. Nothing changes with that at all, but it takes away reasonable chastisement being used as a defence for assault against a child.

You asked, quite understandably, what has changed. I think there has been a period of pulling together evidence to show, one, that we can actually proceed and we can do it on a legally sound basis; but, secondly, gathering that world-wide evidence that now shows what works in terms of positive parenting, the negative impacts in aggregate across children who do receive physical punishment, and, also, legal advice as well—getting to that point where legal counsel can suggest—. By the way, I have to be quite honest: this is not that this would not be legally challenged, because it could well be. But, what we have to get right in terms of proportionality is that the rights of the child, which are universal and are unqualified rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are also balanced against those articles of European rights that defend the rights of the family and the rights of religion. But, there is a way to do that because those two sets of rights—the latter two—are qualified rights. If you can show that the measures here are both necessary and proportionate, as we have done before in other policy areas, you can actually impact upon those qualified rights, if the rights of the child in protecting those children are there in the primary purpose.

Do we have evidence of behavioural change and attitudinal change? Yes. Again, I won't recite what's within the document, but I hope that all parents, and guardians and carers, as well as organisations, go and look at this document. We have tried to put in there quite a substantial amount of the best available knowledge that we have. But, yes, attitudes in Wales are changing and attitudes in the UK are changing. What’s significant is, where this approach has been taken in other countries, of actually making clear that you cannot physically or corporally assault a child, it has itself effected a change by the sheer significance of saying, 'No doubt, no ifs and buts.' It has effected a change itself, so that the attitudes towards corporal and physical punishment have changed as a result of introducing this law. It's a bit like the seat belts law or other laws like it.

Finally, you mentioned the point there of effective use of current resources. It's vital, to make this work, that we see what we are doing currently on the ground. Again, I won't recite it chapter and verse, but they are laid out in here: everything between health interventions, education interventions, Flying Start, Families First, Children First areas and so on. Are we making sure that, across the piste, we are giving the right support to the right parents and the right families in the right circumstances very early on, so that we actually avoid getting to the situation where children are being physically punished?

Thank you for the questions. I know we will return to more of these in detail as this goes through, but I would also invite Members to engage with me as this consultation goes forward, so I can hear more views like that.

May I first of all say how much I welcome this consultation and congratulate the Minister for bringing it out as one of, almost, his first actions on taking up the post? The Minister mentioned that I had been involved in this for a long time as an MP. We also have Simon Thomas, who was also involved in it as an MP, and I was remembering when we went to Stockholm as a group, where Jane Hutt came as well, as well as Christine Chapman, and maybe others—I can't remember now. I think, in politics, you learn that you have to have a long game. I suppose that is my conclusion over most issues I've ever been involved with. But, still, I really welcome this.

I wanted to just ask a few brief questions, because I'm aware we'll have all the detailed discussion when we're in committee. But, obviously, the Scottish Government is going through the same process almost at the same time as us, so I wondered whether you’d had any communication with the Scottish Government and whether you’ve learned from what they’ve been able to do so far. The other question was: in terms of a timetable, I know this is a 12-week consultation—what is the timetable for the legislation after that?

I think you have said that we will look further at the change of attitude that has happened amongst parents, which I think is there in the consultation document. Have you had any opportunity to look at how children view this issue? Because I think that is quite an important thing to look at. I think there have been some studies done that show children’s views, but I think that is something that we should certainly do as part of this consultation, especially in view of the fact that children do have less protection than adults under the law as it stands at the present time.

The final question, then, is to ask you, as—you know, you clearly see this as part of a package of children’s rights, and I know the UNCRC has urged the Welsh Government and the UK Government to do this on many occasions, so I’m sure you would see this as the opportunity for being fully compliant with the UNCRC, which, of course, we are fully signed up to.

Julie, can I thank you very much for those questions, but also quite genuinely thank you and others over the years who've campaigned on this long and hard? I know it has been like Sisyphus pushing the rock continually uphill and then seeing it roll back for the following morning. But I think we are now getting there, and that is good to see. And that brings me to—. If I can deal with first your question over the legislation, if it is the will of this Assembly to pass this legislative change and to make sure that we have the right package in place and the resource is being used well then we could move ahead on this in short order, in possibly the third term of the Assembly. Now, this is subject to the business managers granting that and so on, and it being a priority, but I have no doubt that if the Assembly were to strongly support this—and the Cabinet, I know, are keen to see this moved forward—then we could see it as early as the third term.

You mentioned the Scottish Government proposal—indeed, and it has been mentioned to me, 'Wouldn’t it be nice if Wales could get there first, just ahead of Scotland?' But, look, one of the advantages of—. It would be nice to get there before Scotland, but there is a private Member’s Bill being used as the vehicle in Scotland, but it's actually probably more important to get there in the right way and to have the right piece of legislation in front of us. There is an advantage, possibly, to coming slightly behind Scotland, in that theirs, of all the countries that we’ve looked at, is the most similar in terms of its criminal jurisdiction and its body of case law. In fact, if we looked at some of what they are learning at the moment, it might help us in devising this and minimising, I have to say as well, the chance of a legal challenge being successful against it. However, we are in close liaison with officials and I look forward to speaking to my contemporaries in the Scottish Parliament as well and the Scottish Government to discuss in detail their proposals and their timescale.

Julie, you mentioned the issue of how children view physical punishment. We refer to some of that, I hope helpfully, within the document. There is a fair degree of evidence now that children—it’s not hard to understand why—are quite savvy and quite cogent in their articulation—different ages of children as well—on the fact that they see physical punishment not simply as unnecessary and so on, but actually detrimental in the impacts that it has on them, not only physically, but emotionally, and the relationship with carers, the relationship with guardians, and with parents, whereas they're also quite articulate in saying they recognise that the best way to impose discipline and to drive good behaviour is in that more positive approach to recognising good behaviour, rewarding and encouraging, and setting clear boundaries. There are ways to discipline that don't require physical punishment.

And, finally, in respect of the UNCRC, I think it is the case that we are quite clear that, in terms of previous legislation we have brought through this place that have regard to the UNCRC, this would be a piece of legislation, together with the wider package, that would put Wales into a leading position, not only satisfying the requirements of the UNCRC, but leading once again in terms of how we deal with children's rights and protect those children's rights. So, we look forward to the consultation and the views that come forward, but we are keen to progress with this.

I would also like to thank the Minister for taking the time to contact me yesterday, discuss things with me, and provide me with a statement this morning. It is appreciated that, while we are in the consultation stages of this subject and the legislation is not yet implemented, the proposed legislation is referred to as removing the defence of reasonable chastisement. In simpler terms, the general public will know that this is called a smacking ban, simply. During consultation, it is important that we reach as wide an audience as possible, because this subject is one of a controversial nature, and, obviously, a delicate one. There are many issues here to consider prior to a ban being implemented. We've got to ask ourselves: is the state extending its claws into family life—you know, how far we are prepared to go with this? And what would the effectiveness of the ban be?

We all agree that we must encourage positive parenting. I looked after two children for many years and never once did I smack them. They weren't my children. It was a very long time I looked after them permanently for, but things worked out for us without any smacking at all. Children's rights are important, but I looked at the quotations of two mothers regarding a smacking ban—both of whom disagreed with it—and one said: 'There is a difference between disciplining a child and abusing them. Parenting these days is far too soft, which is the reason we have people running around the street without any regard for authority. I feel sorry for teachers. The pupils now control the teacher. Teachers can't do anything to discipline the children, and, in the majority of cases, incentives simply do not work and teachers cannot do things and a lot of parents don't think that this is good enough.'

So, it's open to consultation, and, you know, I'm just saying the views of other people. Everyone has a right for their views to be heard. This is what I'm saying—a quotation from someone else—and they have every right to put that quotation forward.

When we talk about the effectiveness of such a ban, I'd like to ask how it will be implemented, how it will be enforced, how will the cost be borne—you know, what will it cost? And a second parent's view also stated that she thought that people advocating the ban want us to treat children as mini adults, as people that you can reason with, but sometimes you can't reason with children. Children don't always know their own mind and are prone to pushing boundaries. And they've asked, 'If they ban smacking, can you please provide us with solutions? Grounding, taking away privileges, are mostly ineffective.' She then went on to say, 'People of my generation were smacked and I felt that we were well adjusted as opposed to some of the younger generation now.' And she said, 'My first child was smacked. A disciplinary smack is not a beating, and, by the time my second child was growing up, there was much media opposition to smacking, so the second child was not smacked. She was placed on the naughty step, and this had no effect whatsoever; grounding was exactly the same. So, in terms of how they turned out, the first was a lot more respectful towards any kind of authority than was the second. Two teachers who I know couldn't wait to move to Dubai to teach because, in their own words, "Regarding discipline, there is no comparison. In Dubai, we can do what we are paid to do, and that is to teach. There are very few discipline issues here, but, unfortunately, Wales has lost it. We have no intention of returning. We are teaching, and the children are learning. It is a win-win situation".'

So, our work as politicians is to help parents become the best parents that they can. We encourage and nurture a way of life, perhaps, as opposed to banning, and abuse must be dealt with when recognised and punished by law. It is parents who live with their children 24/7 and we must understand and respect their rights also to reprimand, within reason, the children they bring into the world. Thank you.

Caroline, thank you very much. I think this illustrates why in the 12-week consultation we do want to get all views into this, but without being under any misapprehension that the intention here is to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement. Now, again, in referring to the document, which we've put a lot of time into—in the consultation document, it does refer to what has happened in other countries and it has not led to queues of parents and guardians outside courts waiting to be prosecuted; it hasn't led to baskets of prosecutions. It has led, by the way, to things such as a spike within the first couple of years of more reporting, but that hasn't led to endless prosecutions. It's been assessed that that has as much to do with the awareness within society of the effect of legislation like this that, suddenly, it is not actually the best way to discipline a child, to use physical punishment.

But there will be a wide variety of views that are fed in on this. I would draw, Caroline, your attention to page 21 of the document, where it looks at some of the studies around attitudes towards punishing children. Back in 1998, the Department of Health did a study of 2,000 British adults—88 per cent of parents then at that point said, 'It is sometimes necessary to smack naughty children.' November 2015, Welsh Government survey: 24 per cent of parents agreed it's sometimes necessary to smack a naughty child. Things are moving: I speak to people who tell me this. If you've seen the vox pops over the last couple of days of parents, they say that, 'What my parents felt was normal is not the same as what their grandparents felt' and so on. That's not to say, by the way, that they were bad parents; they weren't, at all. But society moves, we move with it, and sometimes our legislation needs to catch up with exactly what's happening and make it clear, as well, I have to say, for somebody in a court of law, exactly what's acceptable and what isn't.

You mentioned the issue of costs. I'm sure there will be lots of submissions during the course of this consultation on that wider package of support. There won't be any additional cost here that we foresee in terms of courts or prosecutions or so on, because the evidence doesn't show that that happens, but there might be suggestions put forward in terms of where the resources are deployed in terms of parental support or social care et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and we'll look forward to receiving those.

And, finally, you made the point, as others did, about getting this to as wide an audience as possible. I forgot to mention, Angela, and others, in response, that, as we're speaking, the consultation has gone live on the website and it is a good and easy consultation to respond to, and I would encourage Members to advertise this to their constituents within their regular newsletters and so on to make sure that people do put their views in. Whether they are a parent or not, they will have a view on this. So, put their views in. Thank you.

Can I say that this consultation and the national debate it's now going to spark, I hope, is highly welcome? I'm the only Conservative Assembly Member that has served in all the Assemblies so far. This is the fifth, and, in the first one, we did actually debate this issue of physical chastisement of children on a motion I think that was proposed by Christine Chapman and there were nine Conservatives in the Assembly then, and three of us voted for that motion. So, there has been cross-party support for this and there have been, obviously, people from all across the parties who feel the defence should be retained. I think what's vital is that we have this debate in the context of promoting the most positive parenting and an environment in which our children are allowed to flourish. One of the concerns we do need to remember is that it's much less the de minimis smacking, so called, that goes on in a culture that allows that, however minor the physical assault is. There is then a certain acceptability of the use of physical force, which can get way out of control, and those sorts of abuses may well be more preventable in a culture that says, 'The law here is very, very clear'. And I think we need to be minded of those children that are vulnerable to real physical harm sometimes, although I completely accept that that's way beyond anything that the vast majority of parents would regard as being remotely reasonable. 

Can I end by saying that we unfortunately have to face this debate as a question of criminal law? And I don't think that's helpful. I think it's much better to talk about the lawfulness of something, and, if we change the law, it's much better to say that physical chastisement is no longer lawful, and where it occurs, you would expect an intervention, but in the vast majority of cases, it will be informal and way below any criminal proceedings. That's my understanding of what's happened internationally, and that's what we should be encouraging. I do commend the Welsh Government for now taking this forward, and I'm sure that we will have a very extensive conversation with the people of Wales that we serve. There'll be many opinions, and Caroline is quite right to express the opinion of those who have a different view, but I think we need a full and proper debate. In my view, 20 years ago, I felt that it was time to move on, but I certainly think it is now. 

David, can I thank you for your comments? Perhaps you and other Members here were ahead of their time, but this proposal is now catching up with you. Again, I would stress that I would very much seek to take this forward with as wide cross-party support as can be, and to those Members who've previously adopted alternative positions to the current proposal, I would genuinely say 'Engage with us, be open in terms of what we are proposing.' I'm happy to discuss this ad nauseam with people, both formally and informally, because I think what we have in front of us is proportionate, it is well balanced, and it focuses very much on the issue of a positive approach to parenting, recognising that parents want to do the right thing by their children—sometimes, parents of all types need support in order to do that. But it is also giving, critically, that clarity that you mentioned, David, both for people out there in wider society, myself included, but also for courts of law, so that there is simplicity, there is clarity and people know where they stand, and so that people who work in front-line services know where they stand as well when they give advice to parents and carers and guardians. So, I thank you for your support and look forward to engaging with you and many others on this. 

Finally, Jane Hutt. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also want to thank the Minister for his statement today, and also reflect on the fact that we've had some very positive advice and responses from people like Professor Sally Holland, who's the independent children's commissioner. Before she became a children's commissioner, she was, in fact, professor of social policy and social work at Cardiff University. I also acknowledge the evidence that's been provided over the years, going back to the debate that David Melding has just referred to in the first session, by the children's voluntary sector as well. And I think it's very important that people can look to and turn to the well-established and esteemed children's voluntary sector—Barnado's, the NSPCC, Children in Wales—who have been very clear about this from those early days in terms of discussion. 

I also thank Members like Julie Morgan for her sustained support for this change in law from the time she was an MP and her time as an AM. In fact, I would like to say that I've been in a ministerial position and I might have even responded to that debate that was inspired by Christine Chapman, and at that time saying, 'Yes, we want to move forward on this.' I think it is very important that we look at the positive parenting agenda, and that comes through not just in terms of waiting for responses, but I do recall that we funded some very good guidance on managing behaviour. There were two documents, and I think they were produced by public health professionals, health visitors, midwives, people working with the children. There was a document for the under-fives, and then it was about managing behaviour, and managing behaviour for the over-10s too.

This is where we need to make sure that we are getting that information across, so I hope you will also make sure that the positive parenting guidance and advice that we all need—. And I think Bethan Jenkins made a really important point: that this is about all adults—and, indeed, Caroline as well. It's about adults looking after children, and the advice that we can give. But I am very impressed with the way you as Minister have taken this forward, with such detailed consideration, and your own personal commitment and exploration of this issue.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

Jane, thank you very much for your long-term support of this. Quite rightly, you recognise the role of the children's commissioner in advocating this for some time. I understand she has been supportive of the proposals that we are now bringing forward, and has said so—but also the wide variety of voluntary sector organisations that have also long campaigned for this. And I'm sure they'll all be—as others who have opposing views will be also—inputting into this consultation as it goes forward. You rightly stress the importance of focusing again on the positive parenting aspect, and we know—and we refer to it within the consultation document—where we can see the benefits. There are tangible benefits, with international examples, of the beneficial effect, long term, on those children and young people as they move into adulthood, through those positive approaches of parenting, rather than physical punishment.

But we also know that this is building upon the work that we've done so much of in Wales already. Again, I won't read them into the record now, but they're there in the consultation document. The question is: are those the right interventions, going forward, do they need to be tweaked, adjusted, do we have adequate resource going in, do we need to redeploy the resource? But we know that this isn't coming out of nowhere; this is coming out of a trajectory that this Assembly, and successive Governments, have set about the way we approach parenting, families, children, within Wales. I think it has always been a positive and very progressive agenda, and this is the latest stage. But it takes us on to a defining stage, where we actually say, for children and for parents, that, in Wales, we have an approach where there is clarity in the law, and there is also clarity of purpose around positive parenting. And we know that we as a Government, and we as an Assembly, have a pivotal role in taking this forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Minister.