Hefin David AM: When you first appeared before the committee at the beginning of Stage 1, I wasn't hugely reassured by the evidence you gave on the resource implications of the Bill. It seems to be relying, to a great extent, on the limited number of reporting of cases that's likely to happen, as we've seen in the evidence we've received. That's largely been recognised by the stakeholders who've given evidence, but isn't there still the potential for a degree of unknown costs to come into this, and what planning have you done for those unknown costs—those unforeseen costs—that might occur?
Julie Morgan AM: I feel that—. You're right that there always could be unknown costs, but we are doing our very best to prepare to cover all eventualities that we can anticipate. For example, I've committed to fund the high-intensity awareness-raising campaign, and committed to carry out a mapping exercise to establish whether there are any gaps in the parenting support. We know that evidence from other countries does show that, if we bring in this legislation and raise awareness, it does change people's attitudes, so there may, in the long term, be a saving if we do that. But we are committed to working with organisations to put in place arrangements so that we're able to collect the data so that we know what the impact is. But I just have to repeat that all our evidence, looking at other countries, is that there isn't a huge increase in the workload.
Hefin David AM: No. I think you can make the argument for precedent elsewhere, but you can also say that every country has a different culture and approach to how it raises children, and therefore there'll be a number of differences as well. The explanatory memorandum raises some specific cases. It talks about unknown costs in relation to social services as a result of a potential increasing referrals; family courts and CAFCASS Cymru as a result of a potential increase in allegations, which we talked about; the CPS and a higher volume of requests for charging advice from the police; and the review of training and guidance offered by organisations involved in the safeguarding of children. All those things we've talked around, but what would be reassuring for the committee is, perhaps, if you could give us a broad figure, which the Government would say, 'We'll need to set this number aside in order to be prepared for the implementation of this Bill.' Would you be willing to present that at some point during the passage of the Bill?
Julie Morgan AM: I think we have to rely on what the people who run those organisations are telling us. Certainly, the CPS say that they can cope. CAFCASS say that they can cope. And it is very difficult to anticipate what impact there would be on social services. The people who are managing social services say they don't anticipate a big impact. I think the other important thing to recognise is that this area of work is already dealt with by all these people. So, the CPS is already involved in changing its guidance all the time, so it's not going to be much of an impact for them to actually have to do that over this issue. Social services are already dealing with calls and referrals about the physical punishment of children already, including reasonable punishment. And so it's not a new category of work. I accept that we're working in a situation where there's a general pressure on public services, but I think this area that we're legislating on here is part of what everybody's doing already. And so I don't see it as such a big thing in terms of impact.
Hefin David AM: That's a perfectly reasonable answer, but then what about providing a ballpark figure for a kind unforeseen fund that you might set aside?
Julie Morgan AM: I don't think it's possible to do that. We have to measure it as we go along. We've got to get the data. The data will show—. We've got to have baseline data to begin with, and that's what's so difficult to get, because we can't get that from other countries. Only New Zealand recorded any incidents before they actually brought in the legislation, and they did that for three months beforehand. That's why we've been looking at New Zealand a lot of the time, just to make predictions. But we've got to rely on the data. One of these sub-groups is looking at data, so that sub-group should be very productive, I think. And then we will be actually able to see what happens. But I don't think we can respond to that.
Hefin David AM: Okay, that's fine. And the last question, with regard to resourcing, just to understand the process of how this ties into the wider budgeting—did you and your officials sit down with the Finance Minister and the First Minister's officials to discuss the costing of this? I imagine so. What was the nature of that kind of discussion?
Julie Morgan AM: Some of the costings are decided. For example, the advertising, the awareness-raising campaign—that's £2.2 million over six years. So the decision has been made about that. I don't know if there were further discussions right at the beginning of this process.
Karen Cornish: There have been discussions. The discussions tend to be positive. We can't really say any more beyond that at this moment in time.
Hefin David AM: Okay. And who were the discussions with?
Karen Cornish: There has been an in-the-round discussion before the Bill was introduced, at which the First Minister and the finance Minister and others were present.
Hefin David AM: Okay. And I imagine it's gone to Cabinet for discussion.
Karen Cornish: The consultation and then the Bill going forward has been discussed by Cabinet, and gone through Cabinet processes, as you would expect.
Hefin David AM: So, are we able to say that the Government as a whole is satisfied that there isn't going to be a huge impact on resource as a result of the introduction of this Bill?
Karen Cornish: I think what you can say is that the Government are satisfied that they are supportive of the Bill and have put the Bill forward. I think you can say that.
Hefin David AM: Okay. Did you want to come in?
Lynne Neagle AM: Yes. Are you satisfied that that amount of money—£2.5 million over five years [correction: £2.2 million over six years]—is going to be enough? From memory, with the organ donation Bill, the amount was something in the region of around £7 million that was set aside, I think. Or maybe I'm misremembering that, but—
Karen Cornish: I think it was about £4 million—
Lynne Neagle AM: £4 million—
Karen Cornish: Something like that.
Lynne Neagle AM: So, there's a disparity, then. That was a few years ago. You've got to reach a lot of people, haven't you, with this, including some pretty hard-to-reach groups as well. Are you confident that amount of money is going to be enough?
Karen Cornish: We are as confident as we can be at this moment in time. We are obviously going to be working with focus groups and others to look at what sorts of messaging there will need to be. But in terms of the initial stages of the awareness campaign, we are, as I say, as confident as we can be, based on what we know.
Lynne Neagle AM: Okay. Hefin, on human rights.
Hefin David AM: I just wanted to ask a very specific question on human rights, because, you know, when it comes to appeals, there are a variety of articles under the European Convention on Human Rights that might be used with regard to a challenge to the law as enacted. So, I'll ask you the question very directly. For the purpose of the record, can you outline to us the assessment you've made in preparation for this Bill in relation to the balancing of relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, including but not limited to article 8 on the respect for private life; article 9, freedom of conscience and religion; article 3, the right to protection from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment; and article 14, protection from discrimination?
Julie Morgan AM: Thank you very much. We have given a great deal of thought, as you can imagine, to the human rights considerations as set out in our impact assessments, and it's ultimately a question how we find a balance between the rights of children as well as parents, who both enjoy rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. So, article 3 is the prohibition of torture: 'No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.' In ensuring that children are protected from physical punishment in the same way as adults, the Bill is following that requirement of article 3, and the positive obligations on states to protect individuals from ill treatment or punishment that is contrary to article 3. And then, in terms of article 8, right to respect for private and family life, 'Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.' Some of those who are opposed to the prohibition of physical punishment have cited article 8, private and family life, and also cited article 9, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as potentially protecting the right for parents to decide how best to punish their children, including the use of physical punishment. That is used as an argument by those who are opposed to stopping physical punishment. But these rights are not absolute, and action can therefore be taken that interferes with them, provided the interference is justified. It's the Government's view that the Bill's provisions are necessary in order to protect the rights and freedom of children. We are looking here from the point of view of children. The Bill's provisions are regarded as proportionate measures, and given the fundamental importance of protecting children from inhumane or degrading punishment or other ill treatment, we do consider that we have balanced the rights in a proportionate way. And then, article 10, freedom of expression, and article 14, prohibition of discrimination—these rights are not absolute and action can be taken, therefore, that interferes with them, providing the interference is justified. We don't think it's clear that article 10 and 14 rights are being interfered with, but even if they are, we consider we can justify the interference in order to protect the rights and freedoms of children. I don't know, Emma, whether you wanted to add anything to any of that.
Emma Gammon: Only that we set out—. I think it's the equality impact assessment that sets out the positive and negative impacts of the proposal and the balancing of the rights enjoyed by both parents and children.

Summary: Julie Morgan said the team had done their best preparation to cover all eventualities, such as the awareness-raising campaign, a mapping exercise, and the arrangements of organizations. Later on, Morgan told something about an in-the-round discussion with the Cabinet, where some costings had been decided.