That brings us to the final debate, the debate on general principles of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services to move the motion—Julie Morgan.

Motion NDM7130 Julie Morgan

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales in accordance with Standing Order 26.11:

Agrees to the general principles of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to open this debate on the general principles of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill. This Bill, if passed, will ensure children in Wales have the same level of protection from physical punishment as adults.

I want to start by thanking the three committees who have worked so hard to scrutinise this Bill. Your input will be invaluable in shaping this important legislation. I also want to put on record my thanks to the many people and organisations who have given evidence to the Children, Young People and Education Committee. This Government believes that children and young people's voices matter. The Assembly has supported the establishment of the Welsh Youth Parliament, which has in its turn given its own majority support to this Bill—70 per cent of its Members voted to support this legislation. So that is the voice of the young people.

Many of us in this Chamber have campaigned for many years for this legislation. I've actually campaigned for 20 years, and I am very proud that it is a key commitment for this Government. I want to thank Huw Irranca-Davies for his enthusiastic introduction of the Bill, and to pay tribute to Carl Sargeant, and for the role they both played in the Bill's development. Llywydd, I want Members to know that I've carefully considered and intend to accept the majority of the recommendations made by each of the three scrutiny committees.

This Bill is about helping to protect children's rights. We can take pride in this country that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is central to our approach to give children the best start in life, and to help them achieve their potential. The overarching aim of the Bill is to help protect children's rights, in accordance with article 19 of the UNCRC—the right to protection from all forms of violence.

We need to recognise that terms such as 'a light smack', or 'a loving smack' make light of physical punishment. There are different interpretations about what a light or loving smack involves, and how often they are used, often by parents who believe they are doing the right thing for their child. And as the committee heard during Stage 1 scrutiny of the Bill, the term 'reasonable punishment' itself can blur boundaries too, making it difficult for professionals to give clear and unequivocal advice to parents. And that is why there is so much support from virtually all the professional bodies, and all the professionals who work with children. And, whatever it's called, physical punishment is a human rights issue, which the majority of researchers say has the potential to cause harm to children.

However mild it may seem, the UNCRC recognises that any physical punishment of children is incompatible with their human rights. There are many alternative and more positive ways to discipline a child that don't involve physical punishment. I can never accept that it is acceptable for a big person to hit a little person. This Bill brings Wales fully in line with the UNCRC; it also accords with the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and with UN sustainable development goal 16.

I was very pleased that, with the exception of two of its members, the Children, Young People and Education Committee recommended support for the general principles of the Bill. Both that committee and the Finance Committee were clear that, to be really effective, this Bill must be accompanied by a well-planned information campaign. We must make sure that parents are aware and know what we're doing. And I wholeheartedly agree with Members on this point, and I've given an undertaking that we will raise awareness about the removal of the defence of reasonable punishment, and I've approved a high-level awareness campaign. I will bring forward Government amendments to add a duty to raise awareness on the face of the Bill.

Another area of focus has been on the importance of supporting parents to adopt positive parenting styles. We already provide information, advice and support for parents through a range of programmes and campaigns, but we plan to carry out a mapping exercise to identify the gaps or opportunities to do more. And I have agreed to provide information about the outcome of this review following analysis and discussions with the parenting expert group.

Will you take an intervention?

Certainly.

Thank you. I know many people are concerned about being criminalised as a result of this legislation, and the point that you've just made there about family support is a really important one. Do you envisage that if a family is caught out under this legislation that they wouldn't go to prison, that there would be a provision for sentencing to include options to provide supportive parenting, family group conferencing—that kind of approach to this—rather than criminalisation, prison and splitting up families? I think that's where a lot of the fear for this legislation comes from. So, can you assure people, please?

Yes, I think the Member’s making a very important point. It’s essential that we introduce this legislation with support for parents. What we want to do is to try to make the job of parenting easier, and I think we all know that parenting is difficult, and parents welcome all the advice and help they can get. So, it’s absolutely essential that when we introduce this legislation, we also make sure that there is support and help, and we are working with the different agencies—we're working with the police to discuss diversion schemes and we're working with other organisations to see what help and support can be given. So, I think she makes an absolutely important point.

So, in light of recommendations from the Children, Young People and Education Committee, I've also looked with my colleagues—the Minister for Health and Social Services and the Minister for Education—at the role of the Healthy Child Wales programme and the new curriculum in supporting current parents, and in equipping children and young people to become the parents of the future. And I think that’s very essential that what happens in school helps prepare them for the future.

We want positive parenting to be the way we do things in Wales, and if this Bill is passed, if the Assembly passes this Bill, how the Bill is going to be implemented will be absolutely crucial. We've been working very closely with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, CAFCASS Cymru and social services to consider its impact and implementation, including considering guidance and training needs. We've established a strategic implementation group and four task and finish groups to take this work forward. I also agree with the Children, Young People and Education Committee that sufficient time will be needed between Royal Assent and commencement for the important awareness-raising and implementation work to take place.

I welcome the recognition of the importance of data collection in enabling assessment and evaluation of the Bill’s impact. Obtaining and analysing data was and remains a priority. So, we will continue to work closely with stakeholders to find ways to collect relevant data for a period prior to implementation to establish baselines, and following commencement to monitor the Bill. I will bring forward a Government amendment to place a commitment to undertake post-implementation evaluation of the Bill. We will also carry out regular surveys to track the success of our awareness-raising activity and the impact on public opinion towards the physical punishment of children.

I want to emphasis however that there is no international evidence to suggest that either the police or social services will be overwhelmed by a decision to remove the defence of reasonable punishment, and the police, CPS and social services have also confirmed this in their evidence to the committee. Furthermore, last week I met the Children’s Commissioner for Scotland. As you know, Scotland are going through a similar process. They are introducing a Bill at the same time as we are. The Children’s Commissioner for Scotland is a New Zealander, and in August he met with the police, social workers and the parenting organisations in New Zealand—and of course, New Zealand has got a similar legal jurisdiction to ourselves, and they implemented this 10 years ago—and he said that they were unanimous in being absolutely positive about the change of their law there. Social workers welcomed the clarity the law has provided, and the police said it hadn't led to increased prosecution. Rather, it had provided clarity for officers and allowed for supportive interventions. These front-line workers in New Zealand cited the progressive change there’s been in public attitudes over the last decade, and that is backed up by Government surveys of the population. So, I thought it was very good to have first-hand information about what’s happening in New Zealand.

And I want to close by saying that devolution has given Wales a unique opportunity to lead the way on a number of issues in the UK. Just two of them: we introduced the 5p carrier bag charge, which has dramatically cut the number of single-use carrier bags used, followed by other parts of the UK; we changed the law on organ donation and we now have the highest consent rate of all the UK nations. We now have an opportunity to change the law on the physical punishment of children and remove this defence, which has meant children are treated differently in the eyes of the law. I can't think of anything more important myself that we can do than to protect our most vulnerable children. So, in the past, where Wales has led, others have followed. Let's be bold in this case and let's support this legislation today. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, Lynne Neagle. 

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm pleased to contribute to this Stage 1 debate to outline the Children, Young People and Education Committee's main recommendations and conclusions in relation to the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill.

Members will see from our report that the majority of our committee supports the general principles of this Bill. Suzy Davies and Janet Finch-Saunders do not support the Bill progressing beyond Stage 1, and I'm sure they'll outline the reasons underpinning their position later this afternoon.

Before I get to the detail of why the majority of our committee supports the Bill, I want to thank all those who submitted evidence setting out their views. I would also like to thank those parents and representatives of organisations who spoke directly with us. It takes time and effort for people to do this. In the case of those not familiar with this place, it can also take courage. As a committee, we would like to place on record our thanks to everyone who contributed. I would also like to place on record the committee's thanks to our committee team, who as always have provided exceptional support to the committee as we undertake our scrutiny.

From the outset, I want to emphasise that we fully recognise the strongly held views on both sides of the debate about whether this Bill should become law. I hope the length of our report and the detail contained within it demonstrate the importance we attached to considering views from across the spectrum of opinion. We know that a proportion of the population will not agree with our conclusions. However, we hope that the approach we have taken demonstrates to both the Bill's supporters and opponents the committee's commitment to fair and robust scrutiny and consideration of the evidence and views we heard.

To this end, we invited the data science campus at the Office of National Statistics to undertake an impartial analysis of the views expressed in our public consultation on the Bill. I would like to put on record our thanks to them for their work. We received a wide range of information, heard a wide range of opinions, and gave detailed consideration to the breadth of evidence available to us.

An important part of our work was to hear from those working on the front line, delivering services and having a statutory responsibility to protect children and act in their best interest. This included the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, social services, teacher representatives and a wide range of health professionals, including GPs, nurses, health visitors, paediatricians and psychiatrists. Without exception, they told us that this Bill will improve their ability to protect children living in Wales because it will make the law clear.

We were told that having a clearer law will help those on the front line to better protect children, including those who are most vulnerable. Professionals told us this Bill will make a significant difference because it provides a clear line for them, and importantly a clear boundary that parents, children and the wider public can clearly understand.

We acknowledge that the majority of individuals who responded to our consultation in a personal capacity did not support the general principles of this Bill. We heard a wide range of reasons for their opposition and we have reflected on these views in detail in our report. The majority of responses from individuals focused on how removing the defence will impact on parents. We were very clear that our primary concern as a committee must be to weigh up what the evidence tells us about the impact this Bill could or will have on children, and whether it will improve the protection the law provides for them.

We also considered the wealth of academic evidence that exists in this area. This covers a range of issues, including consideration of the evidence about the short and long-term impacts of physical punishment on children, and the impact on child outcomes in countries that have already prohibited it.

On balance, the majority of our committee believes there is a strong argument that this Bill will reduce the risk of potential harm to children and young people. We are not convinced that there is a potential for high numbers of prosecutions as a result of its passing. There is simply no evidence for that, and that is not the view of the police or the Crown Prosecution Service either.

Wales was seen to lead the way for children and young people and received international recognition when it introduced the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure in 2011. This was the first legislation of its kind in the UK, embedding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into domestic law. We, and our predecessor committees, have consistently told the Welsh Government that this legislative commitment to rights must be made a reality in children’s lives.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has been very explicit that it wants the law on physical punishment changed in the UK. Most recently, in 2016, it said we should

'Prohibit as a matter of priority all corporal punishment in the family, including through the repeal of all legal defences, such as "reasonable chastisement" '.

The majority of our committee believes that, as a country, we cannot pick and choose the articles of the convention with which we comply. For us, passing this legislation will be a clear example of how these existing legislative duties can be translated into a meaningful reality for children in Wales.

In the time remaining, I'd like to turn to the things the majority of our committee thinks are needed to ensure that this Bill delivers its stated aims. In recommending that the Bill should progress, we are very clear that it is crucial that two things are in place to ensure that this legislation works for the benefit of children and their families. Firstly, we believe a wide-ranging awareness-raising campaign is essential. This is fundamental to the success of this legislation. We do not doubt the current Government’s intention to deliver this public awareness campaign. However, while future administrations will inherit the laws we pass, they may not share the same level of commitment to the mechanisms that are key to their effective implementation. As such, we welcome the Deputy Minister’s acceptance of our recommendation that the Bill be amended to place a duty on the Welsh Government to provide information and increase awareness about the effect of the legislation.

Secondly, we recommend that universal support be made available to parents across Wales. There is much more that must be done to help families with the inevitable challenges that parenting brings. We believe that providing support to parents to learn about and use alternatives to physical punishment when disciplining their children is essential to ensuring the Bill achieves the Government’s stated aims. This will require a step change and a strategic investment.

Given the importance the committee attached to the provision of adequate universal support for parents, I would like to probe the Deputy Minister a little further on her response to recommendations 7 and 18. We welcomed the Deputy Minister’s assurances during the scrutiny that an exercise was under way to map the support available to parents in Wales. We are therefore disappointed that the outcomes of the mapping exercise will not be available to us in time to inform the amending stages of this Bill. This is of particular concern to us given that the Deputy Minister’s desire not to pre-empt the mapping exercise is the reason cited for being unable to fully accept our recommendation 18, which calls for that step change in universal positive parenting support. I would be grateful if the Deputy Minister could indicate why this mapping exercise was not started earlier to ensure the Assembly had the maximum amount of information available to it. To assure both supporters and opponents of this Bill that sufficient support will be available to parents alongside this change in the law, I would urge the Deputy Minister to reconsider the current timetable for the mapping exercise.

I would like to close by thanking the Deputy Minister and her officials for the detailed response provided in advance of the debate, and to repeat my thanks to all those who contributed to our Stage 1 scrutiny. Diolch yn fawr.

Dai Lloyd to speak on behalf of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee.

Thank you, Llywydd. We reported on this Bill, the Children (Abolition of Defence and Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill on 2 August this year, making just two recommendations. I'd like to highlight a couple of broader points before moving on to our recommendations.

In accordance with our work on scrutiny of all Bills, the CLA Committee considered matters relating to the competence of the Assembly, the proposed use of subordinate legislation, and other matters that we consider to be relevant to the quality of the legislation.

For a Bill to be within legislative competence of the National Assembly, the Government of Wales Act requires all of its provisions to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. We raised this issue with the Deputy Minister during our evidence session, in particular with regard to balancing the rights of the child to be protected and the rights of parents to discipline a child.

We welcome the Deputy Minister’s responses to the questions that we posed, and we note the information contained within the equality impact assessment that covers the relevant articles of the ECHR. 

However, we have consistently maintained that the Welsh Government should ensure that information relating to legislative competence set out in the explanatory memoranda contain sufficient detail to ensure transparency and to enable effective scrutiny of Bills. 

We believe that a fuller explanation of the assessments undertaken in relation to human rights should be included within the explanatory memoranda. We note the Deputy Minister’s commitment to review the balance between what is in the EM and the impact assessments that were undertaken and published on the Welsh Government’s website.

I’d like to be clear that this is not an attempt to undermine the assessments of legislative competence made by the Welsh Government. Our approach is to ensure that these matters are laid out in a coherent, transparent and accessible way to facilitate the scrutiny process and to enhance understanding among citizens.

We noted that the Bill contains one delegated power which takes the form of an Order. The Order will appoint the date on which the provisions of the Bill come into force, and will not be subject to a scrutiny procedure. While we are therefore content with the balance between what is on the face of the Bill and what is left to subordinate legislation, we do note that the Order may make transitional, transitory or saving provisions. In light of that, our report suggests that our successor committee in the sixth Assembly should carefully consider the use made of this commencement power.

I will now move on to our two recommendations. The Crown Prosecution Service, as the principal public prosecuting service for England and Wales, provides charging advice in more serious or complex cases than that is based on the code for Crown prosecutors and prosecution guidance. We agree with the Deputy Minister that revised Crown Prosecution Service charging standard guidance will be extremely important in delivering the Bill’s objectives.

On that basis, our first recommendation suggests that the Deputy Minister should work with the CPS and ensure that the standard charging guidance, as well as any associated guidance, should be available to Assembly Members in draft format ahead of Stage 3 proceedings on the Bill. We note that the Deputy Minister, while accepting the principle of this recommendation, has stated that she is unable to influence the CPS on the development or timing of their guidance.

Finally, we took note of the Deputy Minister’s intention to hold a post-implementation review. In our view, the Bill should require Welsh Ministers to evaluate its effectiveness in delivering the policy objectives. We draw attention to other Welsh Acts that include provisions requiring post-implementation evaluation, for example the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Act 2014 and the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Act 2018.

Our second recommendation, therefore, is that the Bill should be amended to require Welsh Ministers to undertake a post-implementation evaluation of the Bill. We suggest that such an evaluation should take place within three years of the legislation coming into force, and that Welsh Ministers should report their findings to the National Assembly.

We welcome the Deputy Minister’s statement that she is willing to bring forward an amendment to bring effect to this recommendation. We note, however, that this evaluation will take place within a period of five years rather than three years, as set out in our recommendation. Thank you.

I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I’m very pleased to contribute to this debate to outline the Finance Committee’s recommendations in relation to the financial implications of this Bill this afternoon. We have made, as a committee, nine recommendations and I'm pleased that the Deputy Minister has agreed to accept seven of these recommendations in full and has accepted two others in principle. And I will focus, in my contribution, on our key findings.

The majority of costs associated with the Bill, of course, relate to awareness-raising activity to be undertaken by the Welsh Government. During evidence sessions, we heard that similar legislation was being considered by the Scottish Parliament, and in contrast to the Welsh Government’s approach, the Scottish Bill places a duty on the face of the Bill requiring Scottish Ministers to promote public awareness and understanding of the impact of the Bill. Now, given that the campaign will be integral to the Bill’s implementation, we feel the same approach should be taken in Wales. And I'm very pleased now, of course, that the Deputy Minister has accepted our recommendation 1 and a similar recommendation by the Children, Young People and Education Committee, and will be tabling an amendment to that effect.

We are also pleased to hear that the Deputy Minister has given her approval for a high-intensity campaign, allocating around £2.2 million over approximately six years, and will be publishing further details about the awareness-raising campaign, in particular how it intends to reach relevant individuals. We look forward to seeing this information included in a revised explanatory memorandum at the end of Stage 2.

During the evidence session, we heard that the costs to social services were currently unknown at present due to a lack of baseline data. Now, as the defence of reasonable punishment currently exists, social services in Wales do not specifically collect information on physical punishment. Given the lead-in time for the development of this Bill, we believe that more progress should have been made in establishing a baseline cost for referrals to social services. However, we're pleased that the Deputy Minister has agreed to prioritise this work and that Welsh Government officials are now working with local authorities to try to obtain an estimate of numbers of current referrals to social services.

Now, it's estimated that there are likely to be 274 referrals per annum to the police relating to the removal of the defence at a unit cost of £650, which gives us a total cost of £178,000. The Deputy Minister has said that the number of cases proceeding to prosecution would reduce over time as a result of the awareness campaign. The Deputy Minister also told us that prosecutions would only take place if it’s in the public interest and in the child’s interest, and that she would like to explore community solutions such as diversion schemes and some of the issues that Leanne Wood raised earlier. We're pleased that she has accepted recommendation 5 from the Finance Committee and that work is being undertaken on the cost implications of diversion schemes.

We're also pleased the Deputy Minister has agreed recommendation 6 and that further work will be undertaken to provide data that show a clear link between the numbers of cases referred to the police and the number of resulting prosecutions.

I just want to close by talking about the implementation group. This appears to have a key role to play in assessing the activities that will be required to successfully deliver the Bill. However, the regulatory impact assessment does not include costings for the resourcing of the group. The committee believes that the time professionals spend as members of the group is an opportunity cost and therefore the group must provide value for money. We are therefore pleased that the Deputy Minister has agreed recommendation 8 and will be publishing a high-level work plan for the implementation group. And therefore, with that, I thank you for listening. Thank you.

I have many speakers who've indicated a desire to speak in this debate. If Members can be as succinct as possible, that would be useful in order to enable us to call as many speakers as possible. I expect that there will be a variety of views expressed this afternoon on this matter, so we will seek to call as many speakers as possible but expect this session to be extended from its 60 minutes of allocated time. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Llywydd. I rise to speak against the fundamental principles of this Bill, a Bill that sees this Government intervening inappropriately and excessively in family life. What we have here is a nanny-state approach, which disagrees that it is parents who are best placed to decide on the appropriate punishment or discipline for a child. We know from a UK Government review that the defence appears to be little used. Similarly, between 2009 and 2017, the defence was only raised three times in cases where a decision to charge had been made. So, the defence has not been hindering many parents who have actually caused anything more than a temporary reddening of the skin from being held accountable. Therefore, it seems that the allegation that this whole exercise is a demonstration of virtue signalling is absolutely right. It is indefensible in this instance to be infringing further on parents' rights in respect of private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

The Welsh Government argue that the interference is justified by the need to protect the rights of children, but is it? I think not. It is acknowledged in the explanatory memorandum that there is unlikely to be any research evidence that specifically shows the effects of a light and infrequent smack as being harmful to children. This is actually supported by the 'Parental Physical Punishment: Child Outcomes and Attitudes' review.

There is evidence that the processing of emotional pain in the brain is actually in the same area as physical pain. The independent Psychology Associates tell us that physical punishment is less harmful than some other non-physical, such as mind games, and that sending a child to a room and isolating them for several hours would be a very, very harmful thing to do. It was no surprise, therefore, that only half of the consultation respondents agreed that the legislative proposal will achieve the aim of protecting children's rights. Therefore, the advice of Professor Larzelere cannot be ignored—that a better alternative is to identify the most appropriate chastisement. As it stands, we are now on track to be unreasonably criminalising good parents, of which there are many in Wales. 

It is admitted in the explanatory memorandum that parents, if reported, will be charged, prosecuted and convicted, or offered a statutory out-of-court disposal, which would be disclosed as conviction information on an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check. Even worse is that the chief constable for south Wales admitted that reports of alleged criminal behaviour will still show up, even if that person has not been prosecuted. 

I ask this Chamber: do we really want such parents to see their career chances challenged and travel to certain countries curbed as a result of a minor incident and removal of the defence? Have we even thought of the fact that punishing the parent may actually cause harm to the child too? It was noted in committee that senior officers in Wales have warned that children may be removed from their family home whilst cases are prosecuted. It has also been explained that the ban could delay some of the 6,500 court cases where parents can't agree arrangements for their children, and weaponise smacking in divorce cases.  

If you don't believe me, listen to the Deputy Minister. She herself has admitted that malicious reporting via ex-partners is likely to occur. It is true that the police already have to identify genuine cases, and that multi-agency safeguarding hubs are used to understand the context of families. Despite the Welsh Government response to recommendation 17 portraying them as being unfazed by the fact that there is not a hub in every area, in evidence, a police and crime commissioner noted the necessity of greater funding levels, and essentially agreed that it is a concern that the Welsh Government is proposing a law that it is not funding with regard to the greater impact on our police force. Funding is an even greater problem when questioning the impact of the Bill on social services. Astoundingly, the Deputy Minister comes across as being clueless as to the pressure this legislation will cause to the cash crisis in social services. 

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

Will you wind up, please?

Yes. She has not actually calculated the potential additional costs, meaning that she's asking us to support a Bill with serious unknown financial implications for struggling local authorities. This is fiscally irresponsible. If you don't believe me, look at the conclusions of the Finance Committee report, and recommendation 20 of the Children, Young People and Education Committee report, to which the Deputy Minister has replied that:

'it may not be possible to provide more detailed estimates' of the unknown costs.

Wind up, please.

Okay. The Deputy Minister has tripped up on awareness too. I know that the Bill was a Welsh Labour manifesto commitment, but I think that it would be responsible—

Sorry. Sorry. No, I'm sorry. Dawn Bowden. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. And, as a member of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, which is one of the committees that scrutinised this Bill, I'm very pleased to commend its recommendations to you. I believe that our scrutiny has been thorough, and can I also add my thanks to those of Lynne Neagle to those individuals and organisations that gave their time to come in and discuss with us the issues that arise from, what, on the face of the Bill, is a very narrow matter? But, while the Bill may be narrow in scope to remove the defence of reasonable punishment of children, the evidence that we heard was very wide-ranging, and is hugely significant in the debate around the rights of the child. As a committee, we deliberated on the evidence, I thought, in a constructive way, though, on this occasion, it was unfortunate that not all of the committee was able to agree all of the recommendations—a reflection, I have no doubt, of the strongly held views on both sides of the debate. 

But, Llywydd, for my contribution, I just want to cover four areas of evidence that we heard. First, and I think at the heart of this change in the law, is the recognition of the rights of the child, and, flowing from that, a need for parents to engage in more effective forms of corrective actions. And that's why I support the need for a period of time to prepare for the implementation of the change in the law, should it be passed by this Assembly. Because it's not just about the law; it's also an important change in the culture of parenting. And so I'm very pleased to hear the Deputy Minister say that the Government will be bringing forward the amendment to raise awareness on the face of the Bill, which two of the committees had asked for. 

So, the work to be undertaken through public information and advertising campaigns, with midwives and others who help parents, does need a period of preparation before the change in the law is introduced. Secondly, my interest in this Bill was to understand, as best possible, the practical implications of removing this legal defence. Prior to the introduction of the Bill, I'd heard many campaigners claim that it was important, perhaps symbolic, in order to secure full rights for children in Wales. But, up until this point, I'd not had the opportunity to probe in detail, with social work practitioners, with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, et cetera, exactly what the practical application—implication, sorry—of the change in the law would be. So, I was, and I am, keen to be assured that, in removing this defence, we do not create a situation where hard-pressed social services, police forces and prosecutors face a much greater burden of activity. And, on this point, the evidence that we heard has reassured me sufficiently to continue supporting the Bill in that particular area. 

Thirdly, I want to stress the importance of recommendation 4—the importance of diversionary pathways that we've heard others talk about as well, when cases arise after the changes that would becomes law if this Bill becomes law. Welsh Government must ensure sufficient preparation is made so that diversionary schemes can focus on encouraging and supporting parents rather than penalising them. And I know that the Deputy Minister agrees that this is an important consideration, and she has confirmed that again today. 

And that leads me to my fourth and final point, which is summarised in recommendation 8 of this report. I believe that there will be extra costs that arise from this Bill in relation to the additional support that will be required for parents, and for statutory and third sector organisations looking to deliver that support. And while we can't, at this point, be explicit on those costs, it is important that Welsh Government commit to monitoring those costs and financing services that are identified as being crucial to the successful changes required.

The assurances given by the Deputy Minister on behalf of the Welsh Government are correct that some of the uncertainties on the costs will be overcome. But that will depend on us having a robust evaluation process, which I believe is covered in our committee's recommendations 13 and 16. Llywydd, this Stage 1 evaluation of this legislation has been extensive and informative, and it's right, in my view, that we progress with it.

In concluding, I'm of the view that we shouldn't be sidetracked by the use of sanitised terminology like 'smacking' or 'light tap', which kind of sounds okay, but really it's not okay. It's still hitting a child, and whatever reservations people may have—and I say this as a mother who struggled with disciplining my children when they were little at times—we must recognise that hitting a child cannot be right. Not only can it be damaging to the child, but it sends absolutely the wrong message to them in their formative years, that the use of physical punishment is an acceptable way to instill good behaviour. The legislation will introduce clarity that doesn't currently exist, and the law around children's rights will be better for that clarity. So, I hope this Assembly will accept the recommendations as set out in the committee's report.

Plaid Cymru supports the general principles of the children (Wales) Bill before us today, and, as a member of the children and young people committee, I have had numerous opportunities to listen carefully to the arguments for and against the introduction of a Bill of this kind, and I have been convinced entirely that children in Wales can only benefit as a result of this minor legislative change. Therefore, the Bill should certainly be allowed to proceed to the next legislative stage in this Assembly.

There's a strong argument to be made that this Bill could reduce the risk of possible harm to children and young people. Along with the introduction of the Bill, we must do much more to help families with the inevitable challenges of parenting that face us all, and the Chair of the children and young people committee has already mentioned the importance of enhancing and expanding that support, and we look forward to seeing what the outcomes of the mapping exercises will be, and what steps will be taken as a result of that.

Very briefly, why should the law change? Well, there are a number of very good reasons for this change. Children should have the same defence against violence as adults, and that should be enshrined in law. Reasonable punishment is not accepted as a defence in cases of common assault when the victim is over 16 years old, so why on earth should we have one rule for children under 16 and another for everyone else?

According to article 19 of the UNCRC we must take all appropriate steps to safeguard children while they're in the care of their parents or other individuals, and Wales has adopted that convention as a baseline for policy development in relation to children and young people in Wales, and that was done back in 2004. Therefore, I would argue that we are duty bound under human rights legislation to change the law.

The abolition of the defence of reasonable punishment is a minor change to the law and it will affect only a small number of people. The Crown prosecution sentencing guidance will not need to change because, as we heard in committee, a decision will need to be made in all cases as to whether prosecution is in the public interest and in the child's interest.

A UK Government review of the efficiency of the 2004 Children Act found that there was a lack of understanding of current legislation and that many believed that section 58 allowed physical punishment. Some practitioners, such as social workers, who want to advise parents not to strike their children see it difficult to do that because of the legal position. Therefore, the abolition of this defence would make their work so much easier and the situation would be far clearer for everyone.

For all those reasons, therefore, I am pleased to support the general principles of this Bill, and I thank Julie Morgan for her detailed work and her determination with this issue.

My position on this Bill has not changed since the last time it was discussed in this Chamber, when I shared my own experience of abuse as a child and as a young adult. To start with, I think it would be worth you showing this Chamber and, more to the point, the public what you really mean by a 'smack'. There is a massive spectrum between a tap on the hand and a punch in the face, and I should know that. So, can you please demonstrate what you actually deem to be a 'smack' as prohibited by this so-called smacking ban? 

That said, in this wider debate, I think it's natural, when thinking about removing a defence, and about courts and criminality, to immediately picture the more extreme types of violence that produce injuries like bruises and black eyes. But that is not what we are talking about here, is it, as that is abuse. To my mind, this Bill represents a disproportionate interference in family life by the state, and I cannot support that level of interference. It could lead to loving parents being prosecuted for using a mild smack. This would not be in the interests of the children, this would not be in the interests of the parents, and not in the interests of the professionals having to police this. I recall a recent exchange about outcomes for looked-after children, where your Government is quite rightly encouraging preventative measures to ensure fewer children becoming looked after. I mentioned then the call on social services staff, the same staff who will be dealing with their legacy reactive cases, their new preventative cases and these new smacking cases. Parents who use light physical discipline with their children are not seeking to hurt them, and the evidence does not show that a light tap does anything to harm a child whatsoever. In fact, in some situations it can communicate danger to a child in a way that verbal reasoning cannot.

It is wrong for this Welsh Government to criminalise parents who choose to discipline their children in this way. This is a classic example of out-of-reach politicians imposing their own views on parenting on the general public. If this Bill becomes law, professionals will have to go after hundreds of parents who smack, instead of dedicating their time to tackling actual child abuse. You have estimated that 548 parents a year would be caught under a smacking ban. That's a huge additional workload for front-line professionals. Distracting police officers and social workers with these cases will mean that children who are in the same awful situation that I was years ago might actually slip through the net. I don't want to take that risk.

Investigating families over smacking will also be traumatic for children. The children's committee heard evidence that children could be removed from their families during a smacking investigation. Really? Can you confirm, where there is more than one child in a family in these circumstances, whether all the children would be removed? Police groups go on to say that the emotional impact of the removal of a parent from a family setting on a child should not be underestimated, and I fully agree with that. Lynne Neagle, as Chair, you stated yourself that most adults surveyed do not want this law, but, as usual, the Welsh Government will go ahead and do it anyway.

Presiding Officer, it is child abusers who need to feel the full weight of the law, not loving parents who use a light smack. While we do not advocate physical chastisement in any form, the Brexit Party group does advocate the right of parents to bring up their children as they see fit, within the confines of the law and protections already in place. So, we will not be supporting this Bill.

Can I thank the Minister for outlining some of the rationale behind this Bill? As the Minister will know, we've crossed swords on many occasions in this Chamber on this particular issue, and I think everybody is informed by their own experiences as both a mum or dad and in terms of their own upbringing when it comes to this particular issue. But I have to say I will not be voting to allow this particular piece of legislation to proceed through the Assembly today, because, as others have already said, we're being asked to give permission for a Bill to proceed to its next stage, to become law, which will result in the criminalisation, potentially, of tens of thousands of loving parents across Wales who use the occasional smack to discipline their children.

Now, as has already been said, parenting is hard enough as it is, and we do need to extend our support to parents and encourage them and equip them to be able to use alternative forms of discipline. I've got no problem with that. You've said that you will want to encourage that through parenting programmes, but I want to see, as the committee does, a universal offer of those programmes, in the same way that there's a universal offer of things like antenatal classes before babies are going to be born. So, instead of punishing parents, I think that we need to be offering these alternatives to them and making sure that there is access to those courses universally.

There isn't public support for this particular piece of legislation. I know that you'll say, 'It was included in our manifesto, and that's why we've got a mandate to do it', but the reality is, as we all know, that most of our manifestos, whether we like it or not, are not read in detail. This was not something that was highlighted in every single leaflet that went through people's doors. Whenever public opinion has been tested on this, the response has been very, very clear, and that is: the overwhelming majority, between two thirds and three quarters of people, do not believe that a smacking ban should be introduced. They recognise, you see, as many of us opposing this Bill today do, that we've already got comprehensive legislation in place that the police, social services and others do use to prosecute cases against people who abuse their children, and quite rightly they should do that because, of course, those people should feel the full weight of the law and face the consequences if they are abusing their children. But most parents who use the occasional smack do so within the confines of a loving relationship with the child who they want to raise to be a responsible adult and someone who can contribute to society usefully in the future. So, I don't think it's appropriate that we are penalising parents who have that heart and motive behind their discipline in a way that, perhaps, other parents who abuse their children will not.

We've talked about some of the potential consequences—other Members have—in terms of the time that social services and the police will be using in order to investigate these sorts of cases when the real abuse cases might be going and slipping through the net. But, in terms of the consequences in other nations—and the Minister referred to New Zealand earlier on—we know that, in New Zealand, there are hundreds of cases a year that are taken through the courts. There have been 55 prosecutions, for example, just in the first five years. Parents lost their jobs as a result of smacking their children. We saw parents separated from their children, causing the sort of damage that we've heard can happen in those sorts of situations. I think when we look at those examples and the fact that people are still smacking their children in New Zealand—around a third of parents, according to surveys, in spite of the ban are still smacking their children—we can see that this doesn't really work. So, instead of changing the law unnecessarily, I would urge the Government instead to use its resources, to use the talent that is within the Government department, to provide some positive incentives to assist parents with raising their children in a way where they don't have to smack or smack less frequently.

The costs of this, of course, could be runaway costs. We've no idea what they are; there's not been an estimate in the financial parts of the explanatory memorandum. It would be irresponsible, frankly, for us to sit here at a time when budgets are tight to allow this piece of legislation to proceed when there's no price tag attached to it. And I think we need to reflect on that and reflect on the views of our constituents, the overwhelming majority of whom will oppose this Bill, before we vote on it today. 

Well, I fully and enthusiastically support this Bill, Dirprwy Lywydd. I believe it is overdue to end the defence of reasonable punishment and provide greater clarity by putting children on an equal footing with adults. And overdue as well to be consistent with our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and overdue to give greater protection to our children and ensure their dignity, indeed, is properly respected and valued. 

I guess I wouldn't be alone, Dirprwy Lywydd, in seeing echoes of previous debates in the debate that we've heard today. I well remember when I went to school—and I guess there are other Members present in this Chamber today who had similar experiences—there was the cane, there was the ruler, there was the dapper, there were other implements to strike children with, and when it was proposed to abolish corporal punishment in schools, there was an outcry and many politicians made the points that I think we've heard today, that this would undermine discipline, would be counterproductive, wasn't necessary, it should be up to the schools and, indeed, public opinion to decide what happened in our schools. Now, thankfully I would say, our schools are very different places to the way that they were in those days, and I would say that change has been much for the better. Discipline is now achieved in much more positive ways.

And schools, indeed, today try to instil in their pupils a respect for other children and people in general. They're told to have kind hands, not to use physical force to try to get other children to do what they want them to do. They are taught very clearly and consistently that using physical force is wrong, bullying is wrong. As the Deputy Minister said earlier, the idea that a big person can hit a little person and that's legitimate and right is a very worrying message, I think, to give to our children when we're trying to tackle bullying in school and, indeed, bullying in general.

I must say, to me, if you allow hitting at home in the way that it is currently allowed with the defence of reasonable punishment in existence, it does undermine those messages that schools are trying to inculcate in our pupils. And I believe those messages that they send through education today are very important indeed as to the way our society in general is and the protection that not just children in schools today will have as a result, but, when they grow into adults, the protection that those adults will enjoy as well, because children will look at physical force in a very different way. 

So, to me, it is a very progressive measure. It would achieve greater consistency with our human rights obligations, the way that our schools take forward their education and teaching. 

Will you take an invtervention?

I will give way to Darren Millar. 

I'm very grateful for your giving way. I just wanted to touch on this issue of consistency with human rights obligations. Of course, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child talks about physical and mental violence, not just physical violence. Given that we've heard, and everyone seems to accept, the evidence that also confining a child to a room or shouting and screaming in their face or ignoring the child can also cause harm to a child, why isn't the Government legislating on this, do you think? There's no consistency, is there?

I think Government has said that there would be a package of measures in support of this legislation, and it is about positive parenting and making sure that the advice and the support and guidance will be available to have that positive parenting, and I think that would very much address those issues that you raise also. 

Over 50 countries, we know, have already made this change and are experiencing the benefits. By and large it's a positive experience, and I want to see children in Wales, families in Wales and parents in Wales having that positive experience as well. I do believe we need to send the right messages and this change will send those right messages. We need to change expectations of parents. The family unit is the essential building block in society. It should be a loving, warm and supportive unit, as loving, warm and supportive as possible. It should allow children's personalities to develop and flourish. Positive parenting will allow that. It's a better way to set boundaries than hitting, and it's an important part of fostering, I believe, the sort of loving families that we want to see here in Wales. So, I very much welcome this progressive Bill and the Welsh Government's commitment in bringing it forward. 

David Melding.

Thank you for calling me to speak in this really important debate. We've been debating this since the first Assembly, and a few of us, I think, took part in the several debates, I think, we had in the first Assembly, and I remain consistent in my position that a ban is appropriate. We've got to be careful about how it's implemented. I fear that, unlike in the first Assembly, I won't have two of my colleagues who will support me, but I do recall that three out of the nine of the first Assembly Conservative group did back change in the law.

Back then, in the early 2000s, only a handful of countries had actually banned smacking, and, as John just told us, 56 countries now have, starting with Sweden in 1979, and today including most countries in Europe—Britain is one of the few to retain a defence—and they include Germany, Ireland, France, Malta and the Baltic states. I think that range, just there, as a sample, shows you how normalised it's now become to move to a clearer position on legal chastisement being removed as a defence. And further afield, countries like Israel, which is a different culture again, have moved strongly and seen significant behavioural change following their change in the law to ban smacking.

There's a very common approach in these countries, and that is not to criminalise parents. And I do accept that, in our common law system, with our emphasis on the legal system—we don't have a civil code, as they do in countries like France—we have more of a challenge here, and we need to be aware of that, and those points are well made. But the change in the legal position in these countries has been successful because it's focused on supporting parents, and that needs to be our focus this afternoon.

Our own legal position dates back to 1860, and the changes in public attitudes to physical punishment—I mean, you could be flogged in the armed forces, let alone in prisons, and beaten in schools, severely, then. And there has been a massive and consistent change to outlaw these practices. Now, obviously, smacking in no way is a severe punishment, but it is, I think, part of this continuum, about how we view others, and respect others, and recognise their rights, and encourage people to adopt better behaviour. And proper discipline, of course, is always required—and I must say, I don't speak as a parent, so I think it's Dr Melding's guide to good parenting here. But you don't give any favours to children if you don't discipline them—it is a very, very important function.

So I do want to commend, in particular, the work of the Children, Young People and Education Committee. I really think it's one of the best reports that has ever been produced at Stage 1, in its range, its balance, and quoting evidence that's not entirely consistent—it's fair to those who have a different view. And that's absolutely the right way to approach this, because generous hearts can take a very different view on this issue—and I must say Mandy expressed that with incredible eloquence. But I am convinced that both the weight of evidence and parental practice, which is a very significant thing, point strongly to the need to reform.

I would like to say a lot more, but I particularly just want to finish on the recommendations, which I thought were very powerful in the committee's report. Recommendation 3—an information campaign and proportionate implementation. My understanding is that smacking will be seen as de minimis. It would not be appropriate for a heavy-handed criminal investigation or sanction. It's only if it were repeated and repeated and repeated would a de minimis offence attract that level of attention from the courts, in my view. That's what we're looking at. 

Recommendation 4—focusing on supporting parents not penalising them. Recommendation 5—clear guidance for law enforcement authorities. I think that really is essential. Recommendation 7—support services for parents. I know that that's been discussed already. And finally, I do think it's very wise—recommendation 13—for some form of post-legislative scrutiny to be conducted by the executive. Perhaps we should do it as well. Because it will be important to see how this change in the law works in practice.

But I'm proud to see this Bill finally before the Assembly. I do wish it could have happened 20 years ago. There were reasons it couldn't, not least because we didn't have law-making powers. But I will be supporting with enthusiasm the general principles of this Bill.

Thank you very much. We have gone past the allocated time for this debate, but conscious of what the Llywydd said when she started the debate, I now intend—. I have a number of speakers and I now intend to ask them to limit their contributions to three minutes in order that I don't then have to say to somebody, 'You can't speak'. So, it's three minutes from now on, and then the Minister will respond and we'll see how we go from there. Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. We will be voting against this Bill today. I've been inundated with calls and e-mails from concerned parents who fear they will be turned into criminals as a result of the Welsh Government's proposals.

I am not advocating for wholesale assault on children. Indeed, as a teacher and as a person who looked after two children for many years, I can confirm they were never physically reprimanded. The defence of reasonable chastisement allows a loving parent to deliver a very mild smack to their child. The defence does not allow a parent to beat their child black and blue. Reasonable chastisement is not abuse. It is the discipline given by a loving parent. It should be up to the loving parent whether or not reasonable chastisement is used, and not for the state to outlaw it.

There is overwhelming support amongst parents for this position. Three quarters of parents surveyed believe that smacking should not be criminalised. Criminalising loving parents will also place our public services under greater strain. The Welsh Government proposes encouraging the public to report to authorities if they believe they have seen or learned of a child being physically punished.

Instead of investigating genuine cases of abuse, resources will be diverted to investigating and prosecuting parents who have tapped or lightly smacked their child. Those parents will have a criminal record and the consequences will be dire. They'll be prevented from working with children. The Welsh Government accepts there could be hundreds of such cases every year, yet are unsure of what impact this will have upon social services, the family courts, police and the CPS.

There is absolutely no need for this legislation. Under existing law, if a parent smacks their child so hard it leaves a significant mark, the parent faces a fine, a community order, or up to five years in jail. Let's leave the law as it is, but perhaps offering parents knowledge on other ways of reprimanding their children, by us working together as politicians and not alienating loving parents. We must allow parents to decide upon the best way of disciplining their child, whilst educating them at the same time on alternatives, and concentrate wholly on prosecuting those who physically abuse their children. 

I don't support smacking, but I also do not support telling other parents how to bring their children up. This is not a child welfare Bill. I know because I tried to amend it but it wasn't possible. My main concern with this Bill is that I think that, if it becomes law, it could make it more easy to abuse children.

I campaign to get children's voices heard in cases where they allege abuse but they're not being listened to, and I'm not confident, stood here today, that all cases of alleged abuse are investigated properly. I have a meeting coming up with the head of public protection in south Wales, because there are cases where children have alleged abuse, but they’ve not been interviewed in places of safety, and they’ve not been interviewed away from the alleged abuser. These are big concerns.

The system is more than creaking. It’s more than creaking. And it’s a reality that the police are hugely under-resourced. Any case of abuse is hugely time consuming. Hugely. If this Bill becomes law, then the police may well be forced to investigate a large amount of cases. The Government cannot even say how many. So, we could see a possible deluge of decent parents dropped into the criminal justice system, and that could mean that those who do abuse have the cover of the fact that the police would be so under-resourced and overworked. So, you could have people out there getting away with it because of stretched resources.

I want to quote the senior serving police officer who wrote to us all, and he said there is no need for—. Well, he or she, actually; I don’t know. It’s verified. He or she is anonymous, but verified.

'There is no need for a smacking ban. Existing laws are working well. Children are already protected from abuse and physical harm. As officers we know where the line is drawn and so do the public at large. The reasonable chastisement defence only covers the lightest sort of smacking. It stops parents being treated like criminals for no good reason.'

The officer continues:

'Add this to the risk of false allegations from disgruntled children or mud-slinging spouses going through a divorce and you have a recipe for disaster.'

Because anyone that does anything in the family law arena knows where there is conflict there also are a lot of false allegations—it’s part of the family law game, except this will mean that parents will be criminalised, and the children will pay the price for that, emotionally, in my view, as well. This is a bad law. It’s a bad law and I’ll be voting against it.

I’m the parent of six, all now responsible and caring adults. I’m a godparent, a grandparent, uncle and great uncle. I haven’t spoken to a single person outside the Cardiff Bay bubble who supports this Bill. As I said when speaking in the 2011 Member debate here on the end of lawful chastisement, section 58 of the Children Act 2004 limited the use of the defence of reasonable punishment so that it could no longer be used when people are charged with offences against a child, such as causing actual bodily harm or cruelty. Quoting the Crown Prosecution Service, I said that

'for minor assaults committed by an adult upon a child that result in injuries such as grazes, scratches, abrasions, minor bruising, swelling, superficial cuts or a black eye, the appropriate charge will normally be ABH for which the defence of "reasonable chastisement” is no longer available. However, if the injury amounts to no more than reddening of the skin, and the injury is transient and trifling…the reasonable chastisement defence remains available’.

As I then concluded, instead of criminalising 

'loving parents who use a smack from time to time, we must recognise the clear difference between smacking and child abuse'.

We heard about, a moment ago, an experienced senior officer with a Welsh police force who said:

‘I’m constrained from speaking out publicly, but I have to do something to try to discourage the Assembly from backing plans to outlaw smacking.’

He said:

'The reasonable chastisement defence only covers the lightest sort of smacking...Removing the defence will remove any discretion we have. It will lead to decent families being traumatised.’

Extensive correspondence received from constituents regarding this has all asked me to oppose this Bill. The rest of my speech is therefore taken entirely from their words, and I quote from them.

'Seven in 10 people oppose the Welsh Government’s smacking Bill. I do not see it to be in the interest of parents, children or anyone else in society to criminalise smacking. Such a measure would send entirely the wrong message to parents struggling to bring up their children. I guess that most of us were smacked as children, not by criminal parents, but by loving, caring parents, who desired only our well-being, safety and a desire to teach us right from wrong. We would not accuse our parents of abuse or reckon they were criminals. In fact, it is those who would call this a criminal offence who are in danger of abusing children and of damaging both their future interests and those of society at large.'

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

Do you think domestic abuse should be legal if it's meted out by a loving partner?

Absolutely not— 

What's the difference, then?

—and I've already made the point that we should distinguish absolutely between what we're talking about today and the horror of domestic abuse, whether it's physical or otherwise.

The power's the same. The power imbalance is the same.

There is a vast difference, and, as a parent, I know that very, very well. 

Now, in fact, it is those who call it a criminal offence who are in danger of abusing children. The law, as it stands, is an adequate safeguard against unreasonable physical abuse. Children suffering real abuse would be more at risk due to the police and social services being overwhelmed with inconsequential reports and it is a great pity that a vocal minority will be allowed to sway the day on this.

Thanks to the Minister for bringing today's debate. Now, I appreciate that there is a need to protect children from being physically abused, and I am sure that everyone here agrees on that. But we do have laws that have been in place for a long time that already provide this protection, so I do wonder at the need to create new legislation to tackle a crime that can already be dealt with perfectly well under the existing laws.

When the Minister raised the issue of the smacking ban in a statement here in March, she stated that

'our intention is not to draw more people into the criminal justice system.' 

If that were the case, then perhaps this proposed Bill could be seen as a fairly harmless piece of virtue signalling. However, I worry that this will not actually be the case. I worry that what may happen is that we will see people who really aren't abusing their children being investigated and their lives perhaps being blown apart as a result of some spurious complaint being made against them, perhaps even a malicious compliant.

Dirprwy Lywydd, what the police do have at the moment is some level of discretion. If a complaint is received, which they do not feel is well warranted, then they have the discretion not to carry out a full-scale investigation. There is the defence of reasonable chastisement. Now, there has been no evidence brought forward by the Minister that genuinely abusive adults are escaping their rightful punishment because of this defence. Indeed, the new Bill will do nothing meaningful to add to the police's power in this area. But what it will do is remove the police's discretion so that they will be obliged in future to investigate fully each complaint that is made, even if it is one that they themselves believe to be ill-founded, malicious or even vexatious. This will lead inevitably to a heavier workload for the police and the CPS, who are already being rendered unable to properly investigate serious crimes as it is because of the workload that they already have. 

I have no doubt that it will also result in entirely innocent people being prosecuted. And although many of them may ultimately not be convicted, the whole rigmarole of being interviewed by police, and in many cases, of appearing in court, will not be a pleasant experience. 

If I can turn to annex 7 of the explanatory memorandum, we can see that this cites the example of New Zealand, and it is explained that, in New Zealand, the evidence was that once the legislation was passed, the number of cases that the police would have to investigate would actually double. In Wales, if we take that projection, it means we go from around 274 cases a year to around 548 cases. So, this idea that we're not going to be criminalising people by passing this legislation, and that we're just helping people to be directed towards positive parenting, is completely bogus. If we want to direct people towards positive parenting, we can simply have a spending programme that commits to that end. We don't need to create a new wave of prosecutions.

I think this is extremely ill-advised legislation that will have a detrimental effect on family life in Wales, and will ultimately lead to more innocent people being dragged into criminal investigations. It will not protect a single extra child from physical abuse, because they're already protected under existing laws. So, I will be voting against this legislation.

I am very pleased to speak in support of the general principles of this Bill, concurring with the views of the majority of members of the CYPE committee, who brought forward a thorough and balanced report. The committee have examined the evidence, written and oral, the international, and other lessons as appropriate, and have concluded by a clear majority that it is time for the defence of reasonable punishment to be removed from the statute book, and they're supported by many people in that conclusion.

This is a debate, of course, today on the general principles, and there will be much to discuss in detail as the report goes forward into committee. The detail will no doubt include the need to draw on and, where necessary, build on the huge experience of, and the expertise in, positive parenting programmes that have already been established in Wales; the need for awareness-raising campaigns by all partners on those positive parenting approaches, which we continue to expand in Wales, drawing on the best international practice and evidence; the need to adequately resource the various positive parenting initiatives right across Wales, making them accessible, as required, in all communities and to all families; the need to continue the deep work already under way between the Minister and the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and in liaising with UK Government departments as necessary to put in place effective guidance for front-line officers and other front-line professionals, building, I have to say, on their already extensive experience and expertise in making expert and informed judgments in domestic situations and on a multi-agency basis, not least with the current work on the ACEs programme as well; the need to further explore the potential for diversionary schemes to help parents who need the additional support, where prosecution is judged neither appropriate nor the most effective way forward for the family or child; and the need to avoid rushing the commencement of this Bill after Royal Assent to allow sufficient time to ensure the provision of information and support to parents, to raise awareness of the changes and to update, as needed, the training and guidance. Now, I'm sure that the Minister is cognisant of all of these issues, as she suggested within her opening remarks.

When I announced, weeks into my tenure as Minister, that the Welsh Government, with Cabinet support, would indeed progress with removing the defence of reasonable punishment, it seemed to catch many people by surprise. Yet, actually, this is wholly unsurprising in many ways. It follows the best available evidence on the lifelong benefits of positive parenting approaches for children as they progress through to adulthood. It follows the work we've been championing in Wales around positive parenting for many, many years. It follows changes in parenting approaches over many years, which is no criticism of our parents or our grandparents, but it's a simple acknowledgment that we've evolved over years our approach to setting those boundaries and discipline, putting aside physical punishment and promoting positive parenting. And it follows the example set in many other countries, with very different legal and social systems, admittedly, who have already changed to follow the evidence.

So, let us make sure that all the support, the guidance and the resource needed for parents and front-line professionals is there. But, on the general principle of removing the defence of reasonable punishment, I appeal to all colleagues here today, 'Support this Bill, which creates no new offence but removes an historic anomaly from the statute book, and let us redouble our efforts on what really matters: positive parenting and the beneficial influence this can have on this and future generations of children in Wales.'

Thank you very much. Can I now call on the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate? Julie Morgan.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thanks to everybody who contributed to this debate. I'm very grateful to the committee Chairs and the members of the committees who've spoken in the debate today, and I thank them again for their very detailed reports. I look forward to working with them as the Bill continues. Obviously, due to the time restrictions, I'm not going to be able to respond to the vast number of points that have been made today, but I do thank you for all your reasoned and thoughtful contributions. There is a division of opinion across the Chamber, but I do feel that we have been able to put forward our points, on the whole, in a civilised, considered way, and we've been able to discuss these issues in a constructive way, looking at where we move forward from this. 

As I say, I'm not going to be able to respond to individual points but I would be very happy to discuss those with individual Members. I'd like to finish by making some general points. A lot of points have been made about the criminalisation of parents, and I think it's very important for us to remember that we have support for this legislation from the police, from the police chief constables, from the police and crime commissioners, and we are working very closely with them to ensure that this legislation is satisfactory. I'd also like to reiterate, as it's been raised again in the debate today, that the police will only act in the interests of the public and in the interests of the child involved, and on evidence. And I think that all the evidence that we have from this legislation being brought in in other countries is that there is no great increase in prosecutions and parents are not drawn into the criminal justice system and, in fact, evidence that was given to the children and young persons' committee by the police said:

'we do a lot more of our work through voluntary attendance and interviews, and many of the cases we might imagine under this legislative change would probably fall into that.'

And that was one of the chief constables.

Would you take an intervention? Thank you very much. I hear what you say and I have no doubt that you genuinely don't want people to be caught by the heavy hand of the law unnecessarily, but what you've just said is not true, of course, because if you look to some of the other examples, including New Zealand, which I cited earlier on, you have seen the heavy hand of the law separating families, you've seen it prosecuting loving parents, and you've seen, as a result, many parents ending up with criminal records that have then led to them being chucked out of their jobs and, in fact, not being able to travel overseas to certain countries. That's not the sort of situation we want to see developing in Wales, so I would implore you to abandon this legislation and instead to look at these alternative things that the Government can do without legislation in order to promote decent parenting across Wales.

Well, the evidence that Darren Millar puts forward from New Zealand is very different from the evidence that I have read, and the first-hand reports that I've received about what's happened in New Zealand is that it has been a very positive experience, that 10 years have resulted in a very successful bit of legislation of which they are proud. So, I think you're looking at something very different than what I'm seeing.

So, with regard to the police, as I say, we've got their total support and we're working very closely with them. Another theme that has come up is the pressure that is on, particularly, social services and on the front-line staff. And, again, we've had a lot of discussion and debate with social services members and I know that they gave evidence, again, to the children and young persons committee, and, again, I've got to repeat that social services are totally in support of this legislation. All the professionals who are working on the front line, who are working with children, who are helping parents, want this legislation to go through, because it makes their job so much easier because they are clear in what they can do, how they can help, and how they can advise parents. So, we've got all those people that you're worrying about, about the social services and the burden of it—they're completely behind us. So, I think it's really important that we do take that on board, that all the professionals who are involved in a professional way on working on the front line are supporting this legislation.

And then the third point I'd like to make, really, is the issue about support for the Bill. The feedback to the children and young persons committee was: professional support organisations, total. But individual responses from parents were, on the whole, negative. We have done representative surveys of parents and of the public from the Government and certainly there does appear to be a trend of much greater acceptance of this legislation and a much greater feeling that this is the right way to go. Amongst younger people, it's very, very strong, because 60 per cent of those aged 16 to 35 do not think it is necessary to smack a child, and that is of younger people, and particularly of parents with children under seven. And so I do think that this is—. We are going along with the times; things are moving.

We heard in contributions to the debate that there was a time when we thought it was completely wrong for—we thought it was right for children to be hit in schools; there was an uproar about removing corporal punishment. Now, we're moving on to the next stage. I know the Deputy Presiding Officer is telling me I have to finish, but I just want to finish, really, by saying thank you, all, for all your contributions, whatever side you came in on, because I think—. I do hope that we will get the vote here today to take this through, because I think this is a landmark bit of legislation and I'll be very proud if this Welsh Parliament passes it. 

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.