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.