Lynne Neagle AM: Thank you. Okay. I move amendment 1 in the name of the Deputy Minister. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we have an objection, so we'll take a vote by show of hands. All those in favour of amendment 1. All those against. So, there voted four in favour, two against, and amendment 1 is agreed. We'll move on now then to group 2, which relates to the duty to report on the effect of the legislation. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 2, in the name of the Deputy Minister. I move amendment 2 in the Deputy Minister's name, and call on the Deputy Minister to speak to her amendments, and the other amendments in this group.
Julie Morgan AM: Thank you, Chair. The amendments in this group are to do with the post-implementation review of the Bill, and I believe there was also a committee recommendation to this end from your committee, so you strongly influenced this amendment. It's clear from Members' contributions to this group and recommendations by the committee at Stage 1 that they share my commitment to the importance of post-implementation review of the effect of the abolition of the defence of reasonable punishment. I've already provided assurance that I agree with the importance placed on such a review, both in the explanatory memorandum and during Stage 1 scrutiny. I also made a commitment to bring forward a Government amendment to put a duty to undertake a post-implementation review on the face of the Bill. I have done this with amendment 2. Amendment 5 sets out that this provision will come into force the day after Royal Assent. As I said in my responses to the Stage 1 committee report, and as set out in the explanatory memorandum, the post-implementation review of this Bill will not be a single piece of work, but a continuous programme of work during the years following the commencement of section 1. Firstly, we will continue to conduct attitudinal surveys, which will be used to track changes in attitude towards the physical punishment of children and prevalence of parents reporting that they use physical punishment. The surveys will also be used to monitor the effectiveness of our awareness-raising campaign. Secondly, through a dedicated task and finish group, we are working with organisations to put in place arrangements to establish robust methods for capturing meaningful data relating to the Bill and to consider the possible impact on services. Turning to amendment 2C, this amendment would require Welsh Ministers to prepare and lay before the Assembly a report on the effect of their promotion of public awareness before section 1 is commenced. This amendment is unnecessary and is in conflict with what I think is a priority for the implementation of this Bill: that is, given certainty on the commencement date and in enabling us to work towards this with our partners and stakeholders. I also think this amendment is not required because, as I've already stated, we are preparing to assess the effectiveness of our awareness raising. In June, I shared the findings of a representative survey, which establishes a baseline on public awareness and opinion towards physical punishment of children and the proposed legislation. I shared this with the committee.
Lynne Neagle AM: Thank you, Deputy Minister. I open it up for discussion now, then. Janet Finch-Saunders.
Janet Finch-Saunders AM: Thank you, Chair. I speak to amendments 2C, excluding 2D, to 2K, which relate to the Deputy Minister's amendment 2 on preparing a published report on the effect of abolishing the defence of reasonable punishment. Again, I must stress the importance of getting this right due to the controversial and long-lasting effects of removing the defence of reasonable punishment. Amendments 2E to 2K outline what we would expect to be within this report, and we would wish to see a commitment from the Deputy Minister to ensure the National Assembly for Wales is fully apprised and able to scrutinise the result of this report. Amendment 2C requests that the Welsh Government prepare a report on the awareness-raising campaign and lays it before the Assembly before section 1 commences. As I have outlined under my amendments in group 1, the understanding of the public about the implications of the Bill cannot be sidelined. Although the Deputy Minister has repeated her commitment to a public awareness campaign, we, as the National Assembly for Wales, must be able to scrutinise its effectiveness before section 1 begins. As I noted under amendments 1B to 1E, there are specific groups of people who need to be evaluated on their understanding of the Bill's effect. I'm sure that the Deputy Minister will agree that the harder-to-reach groups are undoubtedly the most vulnerable to any negative impacts that the Bill will have because of the greater potential of a lack of awareness. It is, therefore, important for the Assembly to be able to determine whether the awareness-raising campaign has had a positive effect on these groups of people. As will also be elaborated under amendment 2D, it is extremely important that we, as the Parliament of Wales, are fully apprised of the awareness-raising campaign's impact. Before we implement what will be a criminal offence, it is vital that we ensure that those affected are not adversely impacted because of a poorly targeted awareness campaign. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Deputy Minister would commit to an independent evaluation of the awareness campaign's effects before section 1 commences.
Lynne Neagle AM: Thank you, Janet. Suzy Davies.
Suzy Davies AM: Thank you, Chair. Deputy Minister, first of all, can I just say thank you for your opening remarks about the possibility of perhaps doing some work around amendment 2B? I'll come to that a little bit later, if I may. I just want to begin by commenting briefly on what you said about why you'll be rejecting amendment 2C here. I actually don't think that this amendment should affect or jeopardise the commencement date in any way at all. It's an operational requirement to get this work done before the commencement date that's in the draft Bill at the moment. So, failing to meet that would be as a result of operations not going well, rather than anything intrinsic in the Bill, so I'm not sure I can accept your argument on that. And, on 2D—very pleased to hear that you'd be willing to introduce something about 'laying' rather than 'publishing' at Stage 3, but, in the spirit of recognising that this is the legislature, perhaps I could encourage you just to accept the amendment at this stage, because it doesn't make any difference. Your amendment is going to pass, and this amendment to it would be—I think the gesture there would be very much appreciated. I'll be speaking mainly to amendments 2A and 2B, but I want to begin, again, by thanking you for moving some way on this and considering amendments to the Bill on the issue of reporting, because I know you were keen to avoid amendments in the name of simplicity; you mentioned it earlier. But this is not a newid bychan, I'm afraid, Siân; the terms and the effect of this Bill are quite extensive, and it does need the reassurances, if you like, necessary to mitigate potentially disproportionate effects of this Bill on families where parents' actions had been lawful up until this point in statute. It does need statutory underpinning. So, I am grateful to you for accepting this duty. I know that you're sincere that you want this duty to report to show that the Bill is effective in stopping smacking as a punishment, and also that it is not as harmful to parents as perhaps some of us fear. But, if this were me bringing forward this Bill, I think I'd want to show the world that I was doing the right thing a lot sooner than you appear to wish to do. Amendment 2 means that the efficacy of the Bill will not formally be assessed until seven years after it has passed. There are Acts on the statute book that have lasted a lot less time than that. If you're relying on the two-year period before section 1 comes into operation to do much of the heavy lifting on the culture change, and I think that is what you're expecting—you know, showing a reduction in the incidence of physical punishment, reducing the number of, and indeed the likelihood of, parents putting themselves in the path of criminal liability once those two years are up—I really would have thought you'd want people to know sooner, or as soon as the first possible opportunity on that. Waiting five years, I think, will diminish the ability of you to prove the efficacy of those initial two years, and this is why I'm grateful to you for your offer, because there may be a way where we can overcome that. If the trend of culture change is continuing after year 3—so, basically, in the first year after section 1 comes into effect—that's great, but there's a possibility it's going to reverse. Again, I don't think I'd want to wait five years to find that out. For myself, I think one year would probably be enough, but I think three years is a reasonable compromise, as opposed to five years, for a reporting period. I think seven years is just way too long for a formal evaluation of a Bill's effectiveness. I can't see the reason for quite that length of time—I know you've talked about New Zealand—but neither can the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. I think that's worth pointing out. When they took the step of recommending this duty to evaluate and report, they also took the step of suggesting a three-year reporting period being more in keeping with other post-legislative scrutiny. That's something I think we perhaps need to bear in mind now, as we enter this period of the consolidation of law. Five/seven years is really something of an outlier, and while that might have been appropriate, perhaps, in New Zealand, I don't think that fits in with our timetables generally here in Wales, and, of course, there are other countries that have introduced this over a period of years, and I note that you haven't drawn on them in order to support your argument. So, can I urge Members and the Minister to consider the arguments behind these amendments? I don't think it's going to reassure anyone—you may want to intervene at this point, Hefin—that we not only won't hear in this Assembly, we won't hear in the next Assembly, about the formal evaluation of this, unless I follow—
Hefin David AM: I won't intervene; I'll speak.
Suzy Davies AM: Is that okay?
Hefin David AM: Yes, I'll make the point.
Lynne Neagle AM: Okay, I've got—
Suzy Davies AM: Yes, I'll take the intervention.
Lynne Neagle AM: No, he doesn't want to make an intervention—
Hefin David AM: I won't do an intervention; I'll speak.
Lynne Neagle AM: —he'll make a contribution.
Suzy Davies AM: Oh, apologies—
Hefin David AM: Just to say—
Suzy Davies AM: I'll wait.
Hefin David AM: Well, let me put the intervention—. I'll do it as an intervention, then. I just feel that—I take your point, and I was expecting it. The point I was making about 1D and 1E is they close down choices to Ministers in future Assemblies. An evaluative practice would actually open up those choices and give future Parliaments more options with regard to this Bill, so I think it's entirely consistent. I don't think the Minister, in putting in amendment 2, was trying to undermine my argument. Actually, I think she's being constructive by doing that, and I think amendment 2 is a practical amendment that's quite helpful, and its consequence will be to open up choices to future Parliaments, whereas my objection to 1D and 1E is they close those down.
Suzy Davies AM: Okay, well, as I say, I think, actually, the Deputy Minister's offer of a three-year interim period might be part of a resolution to this. Because I'm not 100 per cent sure I accept your argument, either, because it closes it down for the interim period if we don't move on with the Deputy Minister's suggestion—which I'll talk about now, actually. Because I am tempted to accept your offer. It absolutely makes sense and it's clearly made with the best good faith here. But I need some clarity on what you would allow this Assembly to do in helping define the terms of that interim report. Because you've been very clear that you don't want to accept the things that Janet Finch-Saunders has been talking about in a final report, and yet I can tell you we want to hear about these things. So, if you're in a position where you can give a commitment at Stage 3 not only to introduce an interim report, but that you will consult with, perhaps, this committee—I'll leave it to you—on the contents of that interim report, what we would want to see tested, then I'll be minded not to move amendment 2B. If you can't give me that reassurance, then I'm going to move it anyway and we'll return to it at Stage 3, if you don't mind. Just a final point on this issue of reporting within three months rather than as soon as practicable, and I do take your point that there may be a misalignment with reporting periods from the organisations you hope to talk to. Again, at Stage 3, I'm happy if you want to make three months six months, or something like that, but 'as soon as practicable' is open ended, and what you think is practicable may be very different from what I or my constituents think is practicable. So, I don't want to stick with what is practicable; I would like you to put a date on this. If it's a case that you think six months is long enough for data gathering and reporting from third parties, I think that's fairly reasonable as well, but I'm not minded to allow you to just keep this open ended. Thank you.
Lynne Neagle AM: Thank you, Suzy. Siân.
Sian Gwenllian AM: Yes, I welcome adding to the Bill through amendment 2, and what you've said today also, that you're willing to provide an interim report and bring an amendment forward to allow that through the Bill, and to lay a report before the Assembly. I am interested in what Suzy is saying, and have a lot of sympathy with trying to tie it down to specific time periods, and not say 'when it will be practicable'. Therefore, I would encourage you not to move your amendments if you have the confirmation that you want to hear this morning from the Minister regarding these issues.
Suzy Davies AM: I would like to. Thanks.
Lynne Neagle AM: Thank you. Any other Members? No. Deputy Minister.
Julie Morgan AM: Well, just to start off on that point, I think your suggestion about how we consult and discuss, I think I'm very happy to accept that. So, I'm happy to discuss that with you, and with the committee, before the third Stage. So, I hope you will consider removing—.
Suzy Davies AM: No, genuinely I am.
Julie Morgan AM: Right, thank you. Well, just to go on to cover some of the points that have been raised, on the issue of training now, I think Janet raised a number of points about training, and we do have an operations, procedures, processes and training task and finish group as part of our implementation work, and they are considering guidance and training requirements. There are many professional bodies represented on that group, many of whom I think have given evidence here today, and they've really got a chance to have their say. The officials are also looking at training as part of the revision of the explanatory memorandum at Stage 3, so there will be more information about training there. But we have this group looking at it, and it is very key. Generally, I think that all the contributions are very helpful, and I know they're meant in the spirit of trying to improve the legislation. I can't support amendments 2A, 2C, and amendments 2E to 2K, because these amendments make little difference in terms of practical effect to what we have in the Bill already, or they're covered by the Government amendments that I've moved. But I do hope the committee is reassured that we are committed to undertaking a very thorough, multifaceted review of the impact of the legislation that includes tracking public attitudes and considering impacts on public services. Now, tracking the public attitudes will be going along at regular points, so there's no question there of having to wait; we'll be having regular reporting of public attitudes.
Suzy Davies AM: Would you take an intervention there, Deputy Minister? Thank you very much. Of course, I appreciate that you will not be supporting these amendments, but can you give us some indication of how many of the areas of interest to us you will be reporting on? So, even if this is not a statutory commitment, what exactly from our list, our wish list here, would you be prepared to include in your evaluation?
Julie Morgan AM: Well, I would actually have thought all of them. All the areas you've raised are very relevant, I think. Obviously, this is not a statutory thing I'm saying, but—
Suzy Davies AM: No, no, and this is not a—
Julie Morgan AM: Yes, but considering those points you've put forward, I think all of them have got a great deal of relevance. We will certainly be reporting to the group to consider any of the ideas that you've suggested and, in particular with the data collection and the monitoring task and finish group, which is about developing methods to collect data, we will be putting forward some of the suggestions that you've made on those issues. So, I don't see any problem with that at all.
Suzy Davies AM: Thank you.
Julie Morgan AM: So, as I say, I can't support the amendments. I'm hopeful you may withdraw the two amendments—I think one of yours and it was one of Janet's, wasn't it—so that we could work together on those before the next stage. Because I am sympathetic to your views on these matters, and I think they do reflect some of the discussions in the committee as well. So, I'd be happy to work with you to bring forward the amendments at Stage 3. In line with the recommendations of the Finance Committee, further details of the costs associated with the post-implementation review will be provided in a revised regulatory impact assessment at Stage 3. So, I think at this point I would ask that Members reject the non-Government amendments and agree to my amendments 2 and 5, which will ultimately achieve the same policy aim without the need for unnecessary detail on the Bill, with the exception, obviously, of those two amendments, which I'm prepared to look at a way of moving forward on.
Lynne Neagle AM: Okay. Thank you, Deputy Minister. Before disposing of amendment 2, we will deal with the amendments to that amendment. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 2C?
Janet Finch-Saunders AM: I move.
Lynne Neagle AM: The question is that amendment 2C be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote by show of hands. All those in favour of amendment 2C, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 2C is lost. Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 2A?
Suzy Davies AM: I move amendment 2A, yes.
Lynne Neagle AM: The question is that amendment 2A be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 2A, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 2A is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 2D?
Janet Finch-Saunders AM: I move.
Lynne Neagle AM: Janet, do you wish to move amendment 2E?
Janet Finch-Saunders AM: I move.
Lynne Neagle AM: The question is that amendment 2E be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 2E, please show. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 2E is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 2F?
Janet Finch-Saunders AM: I move.
Lynne Neagle AM: The question is that amendment 2F be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so can I see all those in favour of amendment 2F? All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against, and amendment 2F is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 2G?
Janet Finch-Saunders AM: I move.
Lynne Neagle AM: The question is that amendment 2G be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, can I see all those in favour of amendment 2G? All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against, and amendment 2G is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 2H?
Janet Finch-Saunders AM: I move.
Lynne Neagle AM: The question is that amendment 2H be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so can I see all those in favour of amendment 2H? All those against? So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 2H is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 2I?
Janet Finch-Saunders AM: I move.
Lynne Neagle AM: The question is that amendment 2I be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. Can I see all those in favour of amendment 2I? All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 2I is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 2J?
Janet Finch-Saunders AM: I move.
Lynne Neagle AM: The question is that amendment 2J be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote. Can I see all those in favour of 2J? All those against? So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 2J is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 2K?
Janet Finch-Saunders AM: I move.
Lynne Neagle AM: The question is that amendment 2K be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I'll therefore take a vote by show of hands. All those in favour of amendment 2K? All those against? So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 2K is not agreed. Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 2B?
Suzy Davies AM: In view of the Deputy Minister's reassurances, I won't move this amendment today, but obviously I reserve the right to bring something back if we can't reach consensus. Thank you.
Lynne Neagle AM: Does any other Member wish to move amendment 2B? Okay, no. Thank you. We'll move on, then. If amendment 2 is not agreed, amendment 5 will fall. Deputy Minister, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 2?
Julie Morgan AM: I do.
Lynne Neagle AM: Thank you. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 2—
Suzy Davies AM: Objection.
Lynne Neagle AM: You're objecting?
Suzy Davies AM: Yes.

Summary: The Deputy Minister firstly expressed her opinions. She thought amendment 2C would require Welsh Ministers to prepare and lay before the Assembly a report on the effect of their promotion of public awareness before section 1 was commenced, and she thought this was unnecessary and was in conflict with what she thought was a priority for the implementation of this Bill. She also thought this amendment was not required because they were preparing to assess the effectiveness of the awareness raising. Then Janet Finch-Saunder expressed her opinion, and spoke to amendments 2C excluding 2D to 2K. After this, Suzy Davies proposed several opinions against the Deputy Minister. In specific, Suzy Davies did not think the amendment should affect the commencement date at all, to respond to the comments the Deputy Minister made for amendment 2C. At last, they took a vote and ended up with losing 2C - 2K, and accepting amendment 2.