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.