Group 3 is our next group of amendments. The group relates to a duty to ensure sufficient funding. Amendment 7 is the lead amendment, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment—Janet Finch-Saunders.

Amendment 7 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Turning to amendments 7 and 8 on a duty to ensure sufficient funding for devolved authorities, these have been brought forward from Stage 2, where I outlined that we have ongoing concerns about the potential costs for Welsh devolved authorities as well as the lack of quantifiable costs within the Bill's regulatory impact assessment. 

Whilst amendment 7 makes reference to costs borne by local authorities and health boards, I note that amendment 8 takes this further by including other devolved authorities that are not funded by the Welsh Government. Anticipating the Deputy Minister's response that few under this category, if any at all, would be affected by the Bill, we're pursuing a principle here, and it is agreement to the principle of providing sufficient funding that we are seeking from the Deputy Minister and Members present today. 

I do accept the Deputy Minister's argument at Stage 2 that some of the witnesses didn't believe there would be much of a cost element, although I previously produced conflicting evidence on that score. We are still not at the point where we can confidently say that this won't impact our public services. I also thank the Deputy Minister for providing an updated regulatory impact assessment ahead of Stage 3 proceedings today, yet the Deputy Minister admitted to the Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee in a letter of 7 January that she is still unable to produce a complete estimate for referrals for physical punishment at an all-Wales level. Now, this is crucial to determine the cost to our public services.

I note specifically that the Deputy Minister's team was only able to produce estimates for three—yes, three—out of 22 local authorities, and even those figures were extremely caveated. I am therefore still cautious about the potential effects the Bill could have on already limited budgets for public bodies, which is why I tabled both amendments again. The Deputy Minister has previously said that the National Assembly for Wales can always make an argument for additional funding through the budget-setting process, and that future Welsh Government spending priorities will change. This response worries me deeply. Essentially, if either a budget suggestion on extra funding is voted down by Welsh Government or their spending priorities change, public bodies themselves will be left to pick up the pieces and the costs borne out of a Welsh Government pledge. [Interruption.] Yes. 

You've talked about the additional costs. What about the savings that may occur because of a lack of psychological damage to children from being hit, and what about the savings that can be made in that parents not starting off with hitting a child lightly don't move on to hitting them more violently?  

Well, in respect of that, I think, if you'd been involved in the debates all through the Stages, one of the conflicting arguments is that children can be very badly psychologically damaged by coercive control and other forms of punishment that affect their mental health and well-being. So, I don't really want to agree about the psychological impact of a child having what is considered by many parents reasonable chastisement.

Finally, I draw Members' attention to evidence from the Welsh Local Government Association, who said at Stage 1 that there must be

'a commitment that, whatever the costs are, those costs are met because it is legislation that is being led by the National Assembly for Wales.'

We are in doubt that this should be the case. Therefore, I commend this amendment to be supported. 

While we would accept that the concerns the Member is raising are genuine, we are at a loss to see where the evidence is that public bodies are likely to face really substantial extra financial pressures as a result of this legislation. I would again refer Members opposite to the example of the Republic of Ireland, where there was no additional pressure on public services. 

Now, of course, we have just agreed to amendments that, if the legislation is eventually passed, will ensure that there is a reporting process on the impact of the legislation. I am absolutely sure that, should that reporting process bring forward evidence that shows that there is a substantial pressure on our public services, our public services will not be backward in coming forward in putting pressure on whoever is the Welsh Government then to make the necessary extra resources available. We know that the Welsh Local Government Association, do we not, are very, very effective in ensuring that they raise concerns if there are additional pressures.

So, we're not prepared to support these amendments, both because we believe that the predicted additional pressures are very unlikely to come forward, and because we don't believe in any case that these kinds of budgetary decisions are best made on the face of a piece of legislation. If a Welsh Government has got its priorities wrong, it is the responsibility of this Chamber to hold them to account for that and to try to convince them to change their minds. If we place specific budgetary requirements into specific bits of legislation, then there will be other budgetary requirements that future Welsh Governments may not be able to meet.

So, while I accept that Janet Finch-Saunders' concerns may be genuine, I don't think that those concerns are well evidenced and, on that basis, we will not be supporting these amendments.  

The Deputy Minister, Julie Morgan. 

Diolch. I can understand that the Member is concerned about the impacts of this Bill on public services, and absolutely accept that that is a genuine concern. However, you will see from the updated explanatory memorandum, and from the raft of impact statements published with the Bill, that we have done a thorough and extremely diligent job of considering the potential impacts of this Bill, both before introduction and during the scrutiny process. 

And, as Helen Mary Jones has said, Ireland didn't do any of the work that we're actually doing, and, as far as I'm aware, no other country has done more than us to consider the impacts of similar legislation or to so comprehensively prepare for implementation. We have worked flat out to do all that we possibly can do to prepare for this legislation. The published data available from other countries on the impact of measures they've taken to prohibit the physical punishment of children have been explored and we've had discussions with a wide range of people in Ireland, New Zealand and Malta, who have similar legal systems to our own. And, in these countries, there is no evidence that public services have been overwhelmed following law reform. And stakeholders here in this country have been clear when giving evidence to the Children, Young People and Education Committee—I'm sure Janet Finch-Saunders will have heard this—that they do not consider that there will be runaway costs, and I think we should trust their judgment on this. 

As the Children, Young People and Education Committee noted in its Stage 1 report, those delivering services on the front line have said, without exception, that the Bill

'will improve their ability to protect children living in Wales because it will make the law clear.'

And that is why we are doing this. Sally Jenkins of the Association of Directors of Social Services said to the committee:

'In terms of thresholds for children's services, we would not be anticipating a huge number of referrals to us. There may be a small number of referrals that come through. What we know from other nations is that it will peak and then settle. We recognise that's likely to happen.'

Jane Randall, chair of the National Independent Safeguarding Board, said

'there's no expectation that there's going to be a huge increase in the number of referrals coming through to local authority social services, I think it would be dealt with within their existing resources.'

And Dr Rowena Christmas, Royal College of General Practitioners, has said:

'I can't see it's going to lengthen consultations. I can't see that it's going to increase the number of consultations, and I don't think it's going to increase the number of referrals I make to the health visitor or to social services, because if I was worried, I'd make those referrals now regardless of the Bill.'

And unanimously, from all the experts working in the childcare field, they all came forward with this: that they don't expect that this will result in a huge increase in referrals. And the Irish Senator Jillian Van Turnhout told a number of us last week, when she visited here:

'Professionals in Ireland feel the change in the law has brought clarity. It has changed the relationship between professionals and parents enabling them to talk about what they can do rather than what they can't. There is a sense that this has been preventative because advice and information can be provided earlier.'

Now, this Bill is removing a defence to an offence of common assault, which has formed part of the common law of England and Wales for a very long time. Social services already receive and investigate reports of children being assaulted, including from health and education, so this is not a whole new area of costly activity for any of them. We're working with organisations to put in place arrangements to collect data about the possible impact on their services. And this will be analysed as part of the post-implementation review. We can consider with relevant organisations how best to manage any impact on workloads or resources, and any cost implications.

So, what is being proposed is outside the normal funding arrangements that operate within Government and it's not clear why, in the context of the evidence heard at Stage 1, such provisions are necessary. I'm sure Members will agree that future Governments need to be able to consider, within the context of the budget-setting process, what their priorities are. And these considerations would need to be made within the context at the time, for example, taking into account what happens in relation to Brexit or any other unforeseen impact on the economy or fabric of Welsh society. Future Governments need to be able to make those decisions.

Furthermore, as is the case now, the Senedd scrutinises the Welsh Government budget annually, so it would be able to make an argument for additional funding for public bodies should it consider this is required. But I think we should listen to all those people who work in the services and the public services that we are talking about, and so I therefore urge Members to reject these amendments, which I consider unnecessary.

Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. I would just like to put on record that, as the elected Member for Aberconwy, my own social services department, especially when it comes to work with families, is very overstretched, and that is plainly as a result of a lack of fair settlement to it. I can tell you, it does not really echo well for this Chamber that we are going to be passing legislation without amendments on cost, when one considers that, of 22 local authorities that have been approached for estimates, only three have been able to respond. I find that a very weak position for this Welsh Labour Government. But I will move to the amendments now, please.

The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will therefore open the vote on amendment 7. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 7 is not agreed.

Amendment 7: For: 15, Against: 38, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 8, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Move?

Amendment 8 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Move.

The question is that amendment 8 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will therefore open the vote on amendment 8. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 8 is not agreed.

Amendment 8: For: 15, Against: 38, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected