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.