Group 5 is our final group of amendments, and the amendments relate to commencement. Amendment 10 is the lead amendment, and the only amendment. Janet Finch-Saunders to speak to amendment 10. 

Amendment 10 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. Turning to amendment 10, this is split into three parts: to delay the commencement of section 1, including the revision of Crown Prosecution Service guidance; an alternative pathway away from the criminal justice system to be established; and the establishment of parenting support.

The Deputy Minister will no doubt be familiar with the arguments that Welsh Conservatives placed when we tabled these as separate amendments at Stage 2, but I think that the National Assembly for Wales should be aware of our reasoning behind the delays. I must repeat that this Bill will have far-reaching impacts, not only on the rights of the child, but also the lives of their parents. The Deputy Minister has consistently said throughout the Bill's legislative progress that she wants this to engender a behavioural change. However, she could have done this through awareness raising or civil enforcement, rather than to expose parents to criminal liability. 

The potential effects of this exposure are so utterly serious and could have severely negative impacts on parents, children and families, which I have outlined previously in my amendments in group 1. We are not satisfied that parenting support will be properly established by the time the Bill fully comes into force. We are well aware in this Chamber of the patchy application of Flying Start, and the Deputy Minister really needs to keep us updated on the progress of Healthy Child Wales's capacity and reach, given that we were told just over half of children had been contacted under the scheme. That is why establishing an alternative way and parenting support before the smacking ban is introduced is essential.

Additionally, including the CPS and police, through the revised charging guidance, makes us stray slightly into reserved matters. Suzy picked this up and noted it at Stage 2. The duties of both bodies sit outside of our competence. Therefore, by passing this Bill without prior sight of this guidance, we as a devolved legislature would be placing serious considerations, such as family relationships, in the hands of two non-devolved bodies. Putting it quite simply, we wouldn't have control over the guidance, which could end up being completely disproportionate to what the Deputy Minister intends.

And, ultimately, it will be the parents and families who will suffer for a policy that has not been thought through. The Deputy Minister admitted to the committee that the strategic implementation group was only in the early stages of discussing what these guidelines may look like, meaning that it's us who are left passing a piece of legislation that gives us no control or input on how parents may be punished for smacking their children. That is actually truly shocking. 

I disagree entirely with the Deputy Minister's claims that we would give a non-devolved body power on the way we legislate in Wales. These are very carefully worded amendments that don't seek to confer that power. On the flip side, I remind Members that Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 places restrictions on our ability to impose, modify or remove the functions of reserved authorities without the consent of the UK Government. So, we have to be careful about Crown consent. Instead, we are seeking reassurance that the Assembly will have some sight of the charging guidelines before the Bill comes into force. 

Now, of course, the potential consequences of these actions could be avoided had you decided to protect the rights of the child through civil enforcement. None of us want to criminalise parents unnecessarily, and so it is very important that we must get the alternatives in place before the Bill's provisions commence. It is our duty as an Assembly to ensure that we get it right before the Bill begins, and so I really do urge Members to support this particular amendment. Diolch yn fawr.

I read the amendment and was somewhat confused by its intent. I'd rather hoped that Janet Finch-Saunders's contribution to the debate might enlighten me. In fact, it has confused me further, because there were some points in her contribution when it sounded as if she was calling for the devolution of the criminal justice system to enable this place to have control over the Crown Prosecution Service and the police—and I would welcome that, of course, with open arms. And if Janet has reached that position, I am absolutely delighted.

The amendment itself is muddled, and in Janet's contribution she shows remarkably little faith in the police service in Wales and in the Crown Prosecution Service here to work in a co-operative manner with the Welsh Government, with the devolved administration. The experience of this in other fields is quite the reverse; both the Crown Prosecution Service and the police are very open to being co-operative and supportive.

I will happily give way.

Thank you for giving way. As you noted, in the work that's been done on ACEs and prevention, but also on domestic abuse, the police indeed do work very much within policy frameworks set by Welsh Government. I've got no reason to anticipate they'd work in any different way with this.

I would absolutely agree with Huw Irranca-Davies on this.

Let me just briefly take the three sections one by one. The Crown Prosecution Service must have revised its guidance: well, I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurance that she's given me today on behalf of my party that she fully anticipates that, by the time this legislation is implemented, that guidance will have been revised, and that she's had assurances from the Crown Prosecution Service to that effect, and I for one am prepared to believe the Crown Prosecution Service.

Section (b) calls for the UK Government, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to establish an alternative-to-prosecution pathway. Well, it's never been the UK Government's job to directly establish that, even in pre-devolution days. The police will take a lead, with others, in providing alternatives to prosecution. But I really don't believe that we are likely to see dozens and dozens of families facing prosecution who would not otherwise have done so. The Irish experience has showed that their legislation has only led to one family, across the whole nation, in the whole period of its implementation, going into the process who would not otherwise have done so. And that was because a member of the public spotted some behaviour that she was concerned about in a public place, reported that to the police, and when they investigated they discovered that, beneath that public smack, was a really serious pattern of abuse, which of course would not normally be the case. So, section (b) doesn't make sense as it stands.

Section (c) asks the Welsh Ministers to establish parenting support services. Well, the Welsh Government has been working on establishing parenting support services in many ways for many years. Are we on these benches entirely sanguine that they're doing everything they can do, should do, and will do? Well, of course not; it's our job to scrutinise and it's our job to raise concerns. But it seems, to us, foolish to put on the face of the Bill a requirement for the Welsh Government to do something that they've been doing for about 18 years anyway.

Happy always to take an intervention from Darren Millar.

I'm very grateful. I'm just a little bit confused by what appears to be a very different approach on the Plaid Cymru benches—and indeed on the Labour backbenches—towards this piece of legislation versus the EU withdrawal Bill that we were discussing earlier on this afternoon, where there have been some very clear statements about policy intention of the UK Government, and yet you all want amendments on the Bill in order to demonstrate that there's a clear commitment to those things, because you're afraid that people will roll back. And yet, on this particular Bill, there are some clear indications of policy intent from the Government, and it's quite clear that the Government has made its position—

Sorry, Darren, I need to continue my remarks. I take your point.

I appreciate that, but I'm just not sure why there is such a different approach.

Well, allow me to explain.

Please do.

There is a difference—and it depends entirely upon who one believes, of course. But what these two things do—[Interruption.]

Allow Helen Mary to respond.

I have allowed Darren Millar to make an intervention; I would like him, if he will, to listen to my reply. And my reply is this: the things that the Bill we debated earlier—the Westminster Bill—and this have in common is that, read the wrong way, they both amount to a Westminster power grab. If we pass this amendment, non-devolved bodies, which Janet Finch-Saunders has rightly highlighted, would be able, if they refused to co-operate, to prevent the commencement of a piece of legislation here. I have no reason—no reason at all—to think that either the police or the Crown Prosecution Service in Wales would want to do such a thing, but this amendment makes specific reference to the UK Government needing to do something before legislation that we've passed in this place can be put into place. That's not acceptable. The thing that the two things have in common is an attempt to reduce the power and authority of this place and I for one am not prepared to tolerate either of them.

Whilst my group would rather this Bill was rejected in its entirety, we will be supporting this amendment by Janet Finch-Saunders. The fact of the matter is: this is a bad piece of legislation. It removes the defence of reasonable punishment. Reasonable. What any of us in this Chamber would have thought was reasonable punishment is now not a defence. So, what it does is take it down to the minutiae of smacking a child, tapping a child on the hand. This is where this is a bad piece of legislation by any standards whatsoever.

We have the protection of the law and I am absolutely certain that everybody in this Chamber does care about the protection of children, but there is huge verbal abuse of our children. This doesn't in any way affect the verbal abuse of children, which is far more psychologically damaging than a small tap on the hand.

David, would you give way?

Yes, I will, of course.

Would you agree also that parental alienation is a massive form of child abuse, which is completely ignored by many Assembly Members here? Many Members ignore it. It's the only kind of child abuse that is accepted. We should have a Bill on that.

Let me just explore a scenario where a couple are in a restaurant or a cafe with a young child. They have hot cups of coffee or a container of hot coffee on the table and the child goes to grab the coffee, and the mother instinctively taps the child's hand to warn it against that. [Interruption.] And then, you have zealots in that cafe, which could be Plaid Cymru AMs or Labour AMs, who choose to inform the police of what's happened. You could have the scenario where a parent is dragged out of the cafe—

Can we allow the Member to carry on in a degree of silence, please?

—by the police. That's the sort of law you're seeking to bring in to this Chamber. I support Janet's amendment, which has overwhelming support from all those who've contacted me about this Bill. I've had probably more contact over this particular Bill than on anything else that's been brought through this Chamber. And from academics, and from people who actually work in this area. And all of them condemning this Bill. It's a bad piece of legislation. 

David, will you take an intervention?

I will. Yes, of course, I will.

You said that you had had lots of communication from professionals working in this field. Are you aware that every single professional who gave evidence to the Children, Young People and Education Committee from health, education, across the board, were in support of this legislation?

All I can say is what's coming through my e-mails and through my letterbox, which is absolutely contrary to what you've just said.

Darren Millar rose—

Of course I will.

A point has been made about the support or otherwise for this particular piece of legislation. Do you accept that there's very little parental support because poll after poll has demonstrated that parents do not want this legislation passed, and indeed members of the public, when polled, have consistently polled at least two thirds to three quarters in favour of maintaining the current arrangements?

Absolutely. We've heard in this Chamber the transposition of what's happened in Ireland. One prosecution. That's all it's resulted in. And how many investigations? How much time and effort by the social services have been involved in the many cases that must have been coming forward to them—the cost of all that when they should be investigating much more serious areas of abuse of children?

We know that in this country, whether we like it or not, there is a risk-averse culture within our social services. That's why we see children taken into care where they should never have been taken into care, because of the over zealousness, often, of social services, and that's exactly what we will get with this Bill at a huge cost to this country.

Well, as I said when we debated this Bill in September, I'm the parent of six, all now responsible and caring adults, a godparent, grandparent, uncle and great-uncle. Three of my daughters are also currently pregnant. Two of these now live a few miles away in England. They told me they're grateful that this Bill will not apply to them. However, our other pregnant daughter, who still lives in Wales, is worried about the snoopers' charter this Bill threatens to introduce, so are her friends, colleagues and peer groups.

An independently conducted nationwide poll in New Zealand—independently conducted—where smacking is already criminalised found that 70 per cent said they would not report a parent they saw smacking their child, but 20 per cent would become snoopers.

The people behind this Bill appear to live in an unrepresentative Cardiff bay bubble where sitting in judgment on others and deciding what is good for them takes priority over listening to the people they're supposed to represent. They claim to be protecting children and state that those who disagree with them need positive parenting courses. However, the overwhelming majority of parents already know and apply the positive parenting interventions they advocate, whilst also retaining the option of light smacking in their positive parenting toolkit for rare use in times of danger or as a last resort.

As the crown prosecution states, the defence of reasonable chastisement cannot be used 

'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'.

The reasonable chastisement defence only remains available, they state, in cases where 

'the injury is transient and trifling'.

A recent survey of Welsh local councillors found that seven in 10 are opposed to a smacking ban, including a majority from each of the main parties, and that nine in 10 say that councils do not have the resources to cope with one, and concern has been raised that the Welsh Government has not given—

Will the Member take an intervention?

One minute, Helen Mary.

—an assessment of the cost to social services of this Bill in terms of an uplift in referrals and an increased burden on social workers.

I'm not sure if the Member is aware that, in terms of response rates to that survey, it was fewer than 13 per cent of local authority members who were surveyed who responded at all. One would expect, under those circumstances, that they would be members who were opposed. I think we just have to be a bit careful about how we use those figures, and I've already made the point about the New Zealand survey, which was just that—it was an opinion poll commissioned by the organisation that had opposed the ban in the first place.

Thirteen per cent would normally be considered a high response for most Welsh Government consultations and many of the other polls and surveys that we as Members frequently quote from.

Speaking here on this Bill in September, I quoted an experienced senior officer with a Welsh police force, who stated

'I'm constrained from speaking out publicly'— like many other professionals in Wales on the Welsh Government's payroll—

'but I have to do something'— although I clearly appreciate that a police officer is not on the Welsh Government payroll—

'but I have to do something to try to discourage the Assembly from backing plans to outlaw smacking.'

They said, 'The reasonable chastisement defence only covers the lightest sort of smacking. It stops parents being treated like criminals for no good reason. Removing the defence'—this police officer said—'will remove any discretion we have. It will lead to decent families being traumatised.'

I stated here in September that I had received extensive correspondence from constituents regarding this Bill, which I had, all of which had asked me to oppose it. Not one asked me to support it. Four months later, I've still not received a single request from any constituent to support this Bill—not one—but I've received numerous e-mails from constituents asking me to support amendment 10, moved today by Janet Finch-Saunders, which would delay the smacking ban coming into force until the UK Government, police and Crown Prosecution Service have established a pathway as an alternative to prosecution for those affected by the changes to the law. This follows a recommendation to this effect in the Children, Young People and Education Committee's Stage 1 report on the Bill, which recognises that policing and justice in Wales is a non-devolved responsibility, hence the wording.

In order to represent my constituents, I will share some of their recent comments, as follows: 'We were both among the 76 per cent of adults living in Wales who voted in the 2017 ComRes poll to oppose the criminalising of smacking. The law already protects children from violence, and this Bill will overwhelm the police and social workers with a plethora of records whilst real cases of serious child abuse will be overlooked.'

Another: 'We trust that you will support Janet Finch-Saunders's amendment, which calls for an alternative to prosecution. Whilst we do not approve of thrashing a child when it misbehaves, a light smack is not harmful and should not be criminalised. We understand that children need to be protected from abuse, but smacking is not abusive.' 

Another: 'No-one supports abuse of children, but this law will be counterproductive. It is completely undemocratic as every opinion poll I've seen shows parents have rejected it. I urge you to consider what effect this will have on police, social services and court services. It could also lead to the unnecessary break-up of loving families.'

Another: 'If passed in its current form, the proposed Bill would have the effect of leaving loving parents open to being criminalised for a mild smack of their child, introducing unnecessary police investigations and child protection investigations by overstretched services for very trivial cases and leave real cases of child abuse unaddressed.'

Another: 'Please, Mr Isherwood, would you support amendment 10, tabled by Janet Finch-Saunders, to ensure that the smacking ban does not come into force, as this ban would turn good parents into criminals. Please protect family freedoms.'

Another: 'This Bill constitutes an affront to every normal parent, as well as being an unwarranted intrusion into family life.'

Two more: 'We, as recently retired GPs, are aware of the heavy workload that professionals in both the social care and healthcare sectors carry with regard to detecting risk and protecting children from real and significant abuse. We fear that the Bill in its current form might result in the overwhelming of child protection services as resources are diverted away from the protection of children at real risk to the investigation and persecution of responsible loving parents.'

And a final quote: 'I beg you to please support amendment 10. I'm deeply concerned that this could lead to the criminalising of loving parents and cause the breakdown of families.'

That's just a small sample of those received in recent days.

It is not having boundaries that contributes to damaged and disordered lives, disturbance and delinquency, but a lack of boundaries. Instead of criminalising normal, decent, loving parents who use a smack from time to time, we must recognise the clear difference between smacking and child abuse, which the vast majority of parents are well able to recognise. This debate is a distraction, when our full focus should instead be on the growing reports of the sexual abuse, exploitation and forced labour of children. Let's show the people of Wales that we're listening, let's show the parents of Wales that this is not the virtual reality establishment that too often this Parliament is presenting it as, and let's support amendment 10 and give this piece of legislation a chance to do some good. 

Neil McEvoy.

[Inaudible.]

I call on the Deputy Minister to reply. 

Diolch. 

I listened carefully to what stakeholders and the three committees said during Stage 1 about the importance of ensuring sufficient time is available prior to the change in the law to abolish the defence of reasonable punishment. As a result, I brought forth amendments at Stage 2 to provide certainty around the date for the change in the law and for a period of two years between Royal Assent and commencement. I believe that this remains the most appropriate way to bring in this change. 

This certainty, in terms of the timeline, will allow all our key partners, including the police, social services and the Crown Prosecution Service to plan for changes to guidance, training and data collection and to be able to do it more effectively because they know the exact period of time that they've got. It will also provide a focus for our awareness-raising campaign.

I've listened to the arguments put forward by Janet Finch-Saunders and other Members, and I think it is very important to acknowledge, as has already been said—and Helen Mary Jones has made this point very strongly—if this amendment is accepted, it will make commencement of the Bill conditional on something else happening first, whether that's waiting for the revision of Crown Prosecution Service guidance, or establishment of a pathway for diversion from the criminal justice system, or the provision of parenting support services. By making commencement of this legislation contingent on the revision of guidance by the CPS we would allow non-devolved bodies to be the final arbiters of our legislation, and I do think that that is a very important point.

In addition, you suggest we allow the UK Government to have a say in when Welsh legislation is commenced in an area that was specifically devolved to the Senedd under the Wales Act 2017, and why on earth would we want to do that? The CPS is entirely independent of Government and will make its own decisions about how and when it will revise its guidance. Let's not forget that, during Stage 1, the CPS assured the Children, Young People and Education Committee that revisions will be made to their guidance.

The test applied by the proposed amendment as to when commencement could lawfully occur is uncertain. If this amendment is passed, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to judge when section 1 could be commenced. This contravenes what stakeholders and committees have asked for, and raises huge uncertainty which potentially jeopardises the Bill. We have been asked to give certainty, and that's what we have given.

I want to assure you we have really good working relationships with the CPS and the police. Huw Irranca-Davies referred to how they've worked closely with us in other areas, and we've certainly got that good working relationship now. We have worked with them in providing the estimates of costs in the regulatory impact assessment, and they are active members of the strategic implementation group and its task and finish groups. They are fully participating in all our preparations.

The work we do in these groups should not affect the timing of the Bill’s commencement. In fact, it's the other way round: a two-year period between Royal Assent and commencement means these groups can plan their work to a known timescale and deliver in good time before the law comes into force.

When it comes to parenting support, parents and carers across Wales already have access to a wide range of services to support positive parenting, including face-to-face advice through health visiting, the universal health visiting service, and through our family support programmes, Flying Start and Families First. In addition, our 'Parenting. Give it Time' campaign provides parents with positive parenting tips through a website, Facebook and a range of other resources, and is very well used.

I have allocated £325,000 to the 'Parenting. Give it Time' campaign this year, and intend to provide a similar level of investment next year. But I'm certainly not complacent. Members know that I made a commitment to review the existing provision of parenting support, and work is already under way through the parenting expert action group on this very issue. This group of parenting experts and professionals will consider what, if any, additional parenting support, advice and information is required to support behavioural change alongside this legislation, as well as identifying any gaps in current provision. Early indications from the exercise we carried out to map parenting support are that there is generally a good range of support provided by local authorities across different age ranges, but, as I stated earlier, the group will consider how this could be enhanced to best effect.

Just to comment on some of the contributions that have been made here this evening, I want to re-emphasise that all the professionals want clarity of the law. They're asking for the law to be clear. Health visitors, people at the front line, want that clarity. But I also want to make it quite clear that there is nothing in this legislation that stops the parent protecting a child that is in danger. If a child is running towards a road, of course a parent can grab the child. If a child is likely to be scalded by hot coffee, of course the parent can pull the child away. This is absolutely acceptable. [Interruption.] If a child is in danger, the parent must act in order to stop the child. In the example that the Member used, you would pull the child away and that would be perfectly acceptable.

And the other point I want to make is that whole—. [Interruption.] 

Allow the Deputy Minister to carry on, please, and be heard. 

If I can continue, Members have referred to public opinion, and I think it's very important to say that 58 per cent already think it's not lawful to hit a child. So, a majority actually think that this law is in place already and, on the whole, public opinion is changing. More and more people in Wales are thinking that physical punishment is not acceptable and we are tracking that, and we will continue to track it after this legislation is passed. And what is particularly significant, I think, is that it is the parents who are actually bringing up children—parents with young children—who are more and more in a majority believing that it's not physically acceptable to harm their child. 

And so, I really feel that this legislation is in the mood of the times. It is going with public opinion. And I know that in the past there were different standards and people operated in a different way, but now we've moved on and we have much more information; we've got much more research that shows us the potential harm. And so, I feel that we are doing exactly the right thing in bringing forward this legislation today, and I therefore urge you not to support amendment 10, which would cause great difficulties for bringing this legislation into force. 

Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate. 

Let's move to the vote. 

Okay. Thank you, Janet. 

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will therefore move to the vote, and open the vote on amendment 10. Close the vote. In favour 16, no abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 10 is not agreed. 

Amendment 10: For: 16, Against: 37, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

We have therefore reached the end of our Stage 3 consideration of the Children (Abolition of the Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill. I declare that all sections and Schedules of the Bill are deemed agreed, and that brings our proceedings of this Stage 3 to an end. 

All sections of the Bill deemed agreed.

The meeting ended at 19:12.