Okay, thank you, Suzy. Just before we move on, could I ask, then—? Maybe the committee would be grateful for a note providing an update on the latest work that the Government has done on out-of-court disposals, including estimated costs. We'd also appreciate a note on the Welsh Government's discussions with the DBS and the figures that Karen just referred to, if that's okay, please. Thank you. The next questions are from Hefin on resources.

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?

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.

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?


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?

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.

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?

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.


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.

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?

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.

That's a perfectly reasonable answer, but then what about providing a ballpark figure for a kind unforeseen fund that you might set aside?


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?

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.

That's a perfectly reasonable answer, but then what about providing a ballpark figure for a kind unforeseen fund that you might set aside?

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.


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.

That's a perfectly reasonable answer, but then what about providing a ballpark figure for a kind unforeseen fund that you might set aside?

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.

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?


That's a perfectly reasonable answer, but then what about providing a ballpark figure for a kind unforeseen fund that you might set aside?

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.

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?

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.


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.

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?

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.

There have been discussions. The discussions tend to be positive. We can't really say any more beyond that at this moment in time.


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?

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.

There have been discussions. The discussions tend to be positive. We can't really say any more beyond that at this moment in time.

Okay. And who were the discussions with?


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.

There have been discussions. The discussions tend to be positive. We can't really say any more beyond that at this moment in time.

Okay. And who were the discussions with?

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.


There have been discussions. The discussions tend to be positive. We can't really say any more beyond that at this moment in time.

Okay. And who were the discussions with?

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.

Okay. And I imagine it's gone to Cabinet for discussion.


Okay. And who were the discussions with?

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.

Okay. And I imagine it's gone to Cabinet for discussion.

The consultation and then the Bill going forward has been discussed by Cabinet, and gone through Cabinet processes, as you would expect.


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.

Okay. And I imagine it's gone to Cabinet for discussion.

The consultation and then the Bill going forward has been discussed by Cabinet, and gone through Cabinet processes, as you would expect.

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?


Okay. And I imagine it's gone to Cabinet for discussion.

The consultation and then the Bill going forward has been discussed by Cabinet, and gone through Cabinet processes, as you would expect.

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?

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.


The consultation and then the Bill going forward has been discussed by Cabinet, and gone through Cabinet processes, as you would expect.

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?

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.


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?

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.

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—


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.

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—


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—


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?


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?

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.


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?

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.

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?


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.

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?

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.


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?

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.

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.


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?

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.

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.

Thank you. There are some questions from Vikki on awareness raising. Can I ask for concise questions please?


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.

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.

Thank you. There are some questions from Vikki on awareness raising. Can I ask for concise questions please?

Thank you, Chair. So, last week, the Welsh Government published its baseline survey of public attitudes to physical punishment of children, and that showed us that 58 per cent of the public already thought the law did not allow parents to smack their children. You could look at this two ways. You could think glass half full, which suggests that we don't have many people to try and convince of that. But on the flipside of that, would you suggest, perhaps, that that data shows there is a challenge faced by the Welsh Government to make sure the public understand the proposed legislation, given that more than half of the population, according to those statistics, have a complete misunderstanding of the current law?


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.

Thank you. There are some questions from Vikki on awareness raising. Can I ask for concise questions please?

Thank you, Chair. So, last week, the Welsh Government published its baseline survey of public attitudes to physical punishment of children, and that showed us that 58 per cent of the public already thought the law did not allow parents to smack their children. You could look at this two ways. You could think glass half full, which suggests that we don't have many people to try and convince of that. But on the flipside of that, would you suggest, perhaps, that that data shows there is a challenge faced by the Welsh Government to make sure the public understand the proposed legislation, given that more than half of the population, according to those statistics, have a complete misunderstanding of the current law?

Certainly, I think that finding is reflected in people I speak to who do think that the law does not allow parents to hit their children. I mean, I'm personally very reassured that 58 per cent of the public think the law doesn't allow that to happen because I think, well, they're not hitting their children, so we're over 50 per cent of where we want to get. So, I think that is a good thing, but it does highlight the fact that the legislation, as it is, is confused. I think it makes a very good case for saying that we do need to simplify this legislation. We need much greater clarity in the law for professionals who are working and trying to help parents, and for parents themselves. So, I think that this is a case for saying that it's very important that we carry out this legislation to make it all much clearer. But I am pleased that 58 per cent of the public think the law has already changed.


Thank you. There are some questions from Vikki on awareness raising. Can I ask for concise questions please?

Thank you, Chair. So, last week, the Welsh Government published its baseline survey of public attitudes to physical punishment of children, and that showed us that 58 per cent of the public already thought the law did not allow parents to smack their children. You could look at this two ways. You could think glass half full, which suggests that we don't have many people to try and convince of that. But on the flipside of that, would you suggest, perhaps, that that data shows there is a challenge faced by the Welsh Government to make sure the public understand the proposed legislation, given that more than half of the population, according to those statistics, have a complete misunderstanding of the current law?

Certainly, I think that finding is reflected in people I speak to who do think that the law does not allow parents to hit their children. I mean, I'm personally very reassured that 58 per cent of the public think the law doesn't allow that to happen because I think, well, they're not hitting their children, so we're over 50 per cent of where we want to get. So, I think that is a good thing, but it does highlight the fact that the legislation, as it is, is confused. I think it makes a very good case for saying that we do need to simplify this legislation. We need much greater clarity in the law for professionals who are working and trying to help parents, and for parents themselves. So, I think that this is a case for saying that it's very important that we carry out this legislation to make it all much clearer. But I am pleased that 58 per cent of the public think the law has already changed.

One of the most consistent messages that this committee has heard is that the proposed law won't work unless there's a significant campaign to raise awareness with members of the public. We know that Sweden went to considerable lengths to publicise the change in the law there, and I can remember attending a cross-party group, chaired by yourself, Deputy Minister, where we heard evidence from Ireland to the same effect, as well—the necessity of the public awareness campaign. You already said that a duty on the face of the Bill to raise awareness is not necessary, but then, in your answer to Suzy Davies, you said you would consider putting some things on the face of the Bill. So, can you explain to us your key arguments surrounding this issue?


Thank you, Chair. So, last week, the Welsh Government published its baseline survey of public attitudes to physical punishment of children, and that showed us that 58 per cent of the public already thought the law did not allow parents to smack their children. You could look at this two ways. You could think glass half full, which suggests that we don't have many people to try and convince of that. But on the flipside of that, would you suggest, perhaps, that that data shows there is a challenge faced by the Welsh Government to make sure the public understand the proposed legislation, given that more than half of the population, according to those statistics, have a complete misunderstanding of the current law?

Certainly, I think that finding is reflected in people I speak to who do think that the law does not allow parents to hit their children. I mean, I'm personally very reassured that 58 per cent of the public think the law doesn't allow that to happen because I think, well, they're not hitting their children, so we're over 50 per cent of where we want to get. So, I think that is a good thing, but it does highlight the fact that the legislation, as it is, is confused. I think it makes a very good case for saying that we do need to simplify this legislation. We need much greater clarity in the law for professionals who are working and trying to help parents, and for parents themselves. So, I think that this is a case for saying that it's very important that we carry out this legislation to make it all much clearer. But I am pleased that 58 per cent of the public think the law has already changed.

One of the most consistent messages that this committee has heard is that the proposed law won't work unless there's a significant campaign to raise awareness with members of the public. We know that Sweden went to considerable lengths to publicise the change in the law there, and I can remember attending a cross-party group, chaired by yourself, Deputy Minister, where we heard evidence from Ireland to the same effect, as well—the necessity of the public awareness campaign. You already said that a duty on the face of the Bill to raise awareness is not necessary, but then, in your answer to Suzy Davies, you said you would consider putting some things on the face of the Bill. So, can you explain to us your key arguments surrounding this issue?

I absolutely agree that it's essential that we do have a big awareness campaign, because all the research we've had shows, in fact, that if you don't have the awareness campaign, the legislation won't be as effective. So, we need a joint effort; I'm totally committed to doing that. I've said it publicly here, and I'm saying it again. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to have it on the face of the Bill, but as I said to Suzy, I'm prepared to consider anything the committee is bringing forward because I'm very keen for this Bill to progress through this process and to learn from it. So, I'm saying that I'm prepared to consider it.


Certainly, I think that finding is reflected in people I speak to who do think that the law does not allow parents to hit their children. I mean, I'm personally very reassured that 58 per cent of the public think the law doesn't allow that to happen because I think, well, they're not hitting their children, so we're over 50 per cent of where we want to get. So, I think that is a good thing, but it does highlight the fact that the legislation, as it is, is confused. I think it makes a very good case for saying that we do need to simplify this legislation. We need much greater clarity in the law for professionals who are working and trying to help parents, and for parents themselves. So, I think that this is a case for saying that it's very important that we carry out this legislation to make it all much clearer. But I am pleased that 58 per cent of the public think the law has already changed.

One of the most consistent messages that this committee has heard is that the proposed law won't work unless there's a significant campaign to raise awareness with members of the public. We know that Sweden went to considerable lengths to publicise the change in the law there, and I can remember attending a cross-party group, chaired by yourself, Deputy Minister, where we heard evidence from Ireland to the same effect, as well—the necessity of the public awareness campaign. You already said that a duty on the face of the Bill to raise awareness is not necessary, but then, in your answer to Suzy Davies, you said you would consider putting some things on the face of the Bill. So, can you explain to us your key arguments surrounding this issue?

I absolutely agree that it's essential that we do have a big awareness campaign, because all the research we've had shows, in fact, that if you don't have the awareness campaign, the legislation won't be as effective. So, we need a joint effort; I'm totally committed to doing that. I've said it publicly here, and I'm saying it again. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to have it on the face of the Bill, but as I said to Suzy, I'm prepared to consider anything the committee is bringing forward because I'm very keen for this Bill to progress through this process and to learn from it. So, I'm saying that I'm prepared to consider it.

Thank you, that's very useful. And finally, New Zealand is an oft-cited example, mentioned in the explanatory memorandum as well. So, we know New Zealand prohibited physical punishment in 2007, but yet in a non-binding referendum two years later, 87.5 per cent of voters voted 'no' in response to the question, 'Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?' On what basis, then, are you confident that this sort of polarisation won't happen in Wales, especially considering the current political climate there is out there?


One of the most consistent messages that this committee has heard is that the proposed law won't work unless there's a significant campaign to raise awareness with members of the public. We know that Sweden went to considerable lengths to publicise the change in the law there, and I can remember attending a cross-party group, chaired by yourself, Deputy Minister, where we heard evidence from Ireland to the same effect, as well—the necessity of the public awareness campaign. You already said that a duty on the face of the Bill to raise awareness is not necessary, but then, in your answer to Suzy Davies, you said you would consider putting some things on the face of the Bill. So, can you explain to us your key arguments surrounding this issue?

I absolutely agree that it's essential that we do have a big awareness campaign, because all the research we've had shows, in fact, that if you don't have the awareness campaign, the legislation won't be as effective. So, we need a joint effort; I'm totally committed to doing that. I've said it publicly here, and I'm saying it again. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to have it on the face of the Bill, but as I said to Suzy, I'm prepared to consider anything the committee is bringing forward because I'm very keen for this Bill to progress through this process and to learn from it. So, I'm saying that I'm prepared to consider it.

Thank you, that's very useful. And finally, New Zealand is an oft-cited example, mentioned in the explanatory memorandum as well. So, we know New Zealand prohibited physical punishment in 2007, but yet in a non-binding referendum two years later, 87.5 per cent of voters voted 'no' in response to the question, 'Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?' On what basis, then, are you confident that this sort of polarisation won't happen in Wales, especially considering the current political climate there is out there?

Well, what we trying to do is we're trying to take this forward in as consensual a way as we possibly can. We're very keen that we listen to the views of everybody. All those people who don't agree with us, who are a minority, it seems, we want to hear what they've got to say, taking very seriously all the points that are raised here by the committee. I haven't seen any sign of any polarisation in any way that I would be concerned about, because, certainly, the people who do oppose the Bill, I've met with them, I know they've given evidence to your committee and the views of parents have been taken into account. We completely accept that we want to listen to the views of people who don't agree. I hope that they then, if the Bill does become law, will then accept and respect the democratic process. So, I don't feel concerned, really, about that.


I absolutely agree that it's essential that we do have a big awareness campaign, because all the research we've had shows, in fact, that if you don't have the awareness campaign, the legislation won't be as effective. So, we need a joint effort; I'm totally committed to doing that. I've said it publicly here, and I'm saying it again. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to have it on the face of the Bill, but as I said to Suzy, I'm prepared to consider anything the committee is bringing forward because I'm very keen for this Bill to progress through this process and to learn from it. So, I'm saying that I'm prepared to consider it.

Thank you, that's very useful. And finally, New Zealand is an oft-cited example, mentioned in the explanatory memorandum as well. So, we know New Zealand prohibited physical punishment in 2007, but yet in a non-binding referendum two years later, 87.5 per cent of voters voted 'no' in response to the question, 'Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?' On what basis, then, are you confident that this sort of polarisation won't happen in Wales, especially considering the current political climate there is out there?

Well, what we trying to do is we're trying to take this forward in as consensual a way as we possibly can. We're very keen that we listen to the views of everybody. All those people who don't agree with us, who are a minority, it seems, we want to hear what they've got to say, taking very seriously all the points that are raised here by the committee. I haven't seen any sign of any polarisation in any way that I would be concerned about, because, certainly, the people who do oppose the Bill, I've met with them, I know they've given evidence to your committee and the views of parents have been taken into account. We completely accept that we want to listen to the views of people who don't agree. I hope that they then, if the Bill does become law, will then accept and respect the democratic process. So, I don't feel concerned, really, about that.


Thank you, that's very useful. And finally, New Zealand is an oft-cited example, mentioned in the explanatory memorandum as well. So, we know New Zealand prohibited physical punishment in 2007, but yet in a non-binding referendum two years later, 87.5 per cent of voters voted 'no' in response to the question, 'Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?' On what basis, then, are you confident that this sort of polarisation won't happen in Wales, especially considering the current political climate there is out there?

Well, what we trying to do is we're trying to take this forward in as consensual a way as we possibly can. We're very keen that we listen to the views of everybody. All those people who don't agree with us, who are a minority, it seems, we want to hear what they've got to say, taking very seriously all the points that are raised here by the committee. I haven't seen any sign of any polarisation in any way that I would be concerned about, because, certainly, the people who do oppose the Bill, I've met with them, I know they've given evidence to your committee and the views of parents have been taken into account. We completely accept that we want to listen to the views of people who don't agree. I hope that they then, if the Bill does become law, will then accept and respect the democratic process. So, I don't feel concerned, really, about that.

I started at the very beginning, Deputy Minister, with the fact that there's an overwhelming majority of parents—those who are naturally charged with raising their children—against this Bill. So, there is a polarisation. We've gone out to survey on it and the overwhelming response from parents is that they do not support this Bill. And I think that needs to be put on the record.


Well, what we trying to do is we're trying to take this forward in as consensual a way as we possibly can. We're very keen that we listen to the views of everybody. All those people who don't agree with us, who are a minority, it seems, we want to hear what they've got to say, taking very seriously all the points that are raised here by the committee. I haven't seen any sign of any polarisation in any way that I would be concerned about, because, certainly, the people who do oppose the Bill, I've met with them, I know they've given evidence to your committee and the views of parents have been taken into account. We completely accept that we want to listen to the views of people who don't agree. I hope that they then, if the Bill does become law, will then accept and respect the democratic process. So, I don't feel concerned, really, about that.

I started at the very beginning, Deputy Minister, with the fact that there's an overwhelming majority of parents—those who are naturally charged with raising their children—against this Bill. So, there is a polarisation. We've gone out to survey on it and the overwhelming response from parents is that they do not support this Bill. And I think that needs to be put on the record.

I think that our representative surveys that we've carried out do show considerable support for the Bill—


I started at the very beginning, Deputy Minister, with the fact that there's an overwhelming majority of parents—those who are naturally charged with raising their children—against this Bill. So, there is a polarisation. We've gone out to survey on it and the overwhelming response from parents is that they do not support this Bill. And I think that needs to be put on the record.

I think that our representative surveys that we've carried out do show considerable support for the Bill—


I started at the very beginning, Deputy Minister, with the fact that there's an overwhelming majority of parents—those who are naturally charged with raising their children—against this Bill. So, there is a polarisation. We've gone out to survey on it and the overwhelming response from parents is that they do not support this Bill. And I think that needs to be put on the record.

I think that our representative surveys that we've carried out do show considerable support for the Bill—

—particularly from parents with young children under seven. That's where the support does lie. And it's older people who are much less likely to support the legislation, and I think it's all linked to what many of us were used to, what happened in our childhoods, when it was accepted and it was part of the time that this was what you did. But we have moved on now and we're in a different era. So, I think many older people, because they smacked their children or were smacked themselves, have felt a degree of resistance, perhaps, to the Bill. But as I say, I think times have changed. We want to respect children's rights and what happened in the past is in the past now, and we want to have a new era for respecting children's human rights and dignity. And I think I'll go back to what I said: I don't see that children's rights to dignity is going to happen if a big person is able to hit a small person.


I think that our representative surveys that we've carried out do show considerable support for the Bill—

—particularly from parents with young children under seven. That's where the support does lie. And it's older people who are much less likely to support the legislation, and I think it's all linked to what many of us were used to, what happened in our childhoods, when it was accepted and it was part of the time that this was what you did. But we have moved on now and we're in a different era. So, I think many older people, because they smacked their children or were smacked themselves, have felt a degree of resistance, perhaps, to the Bill. But as I say, I think times have changed. We want to respect children's rights and what happened in the past is in the past now, and we want to have a new era for respecting children's human rights and dignity. And I think I'll go back to what I said: I don't see that children's rights to dignity is going to happen if a big person is able to hit a small person.

Just to clarify, Janet's referring to the committee's consultation and the percentage of responses that we've had.


—particularly from parents with young children under seven. That's where the support does lie. And it's older people who are much less likely to support the legislation, and I think it's all linked to what many of us were used to, what happened in our childhoods, when it was accepted and it was part of the time that this was what you did. But we have moved on now and we're in a different era. So, I think many older people, because they smacked their children or were smacked themselves, have felt a degree of resistance, perhaps, to the Bill. But as I say, I think times have changed. We want to respect children's rights and what happened in the past is in the past now, and we want to have a new era for respecting children's human rights and dignity. And I think I'll go back to what I said: I don't see that children's rights to dignity is going to happen if a big person is able to hit a small person.

Just to clarify, Janet's referring to the committee's consultation and the percentage of responses that we've had.


Just to clarify, Janet's referring to the committee's consultation and the percentage of responses that we've had.

Yes, we had a specific section, but because time is moving quite fast, perhaps you could give us a note in response. Some witnesses saw a risk that the Bill could have a disproportionate impact on specific groups—women, because they are the main carers, minority ethnic groups and very young children. So, if it would be possible for us to receive a note as to whether you agree that this will have a disproportionate impact upon them, and if so, what would be the mitigating measures you would take. But, specifically, we have heard from several witnesses and the equality impact assessment of the Bill does acknowledge that a low income is a risk factor in the use of physical punishment and that this could have a negative impact specifically on this group of parents. Now, we know that Flying Start is available to try to mitigate that to some degree, but of course not all low-income families live within a Flying Start area, so what mitigating work will you be undertaking in that regard?


Yes, we had a specific section, but because time is moving quite fast, perhaps you could give us a note in response. Some witnesses saw a risk that the Bill could have a disproportionate impact on specific groups—women, because they are the main carers, minority ethnic groups and very young children. So, if it would be possible for us to receive a note as to whether you agree that this will have a disproportionate impact upon them, and if so, what would be the mitigating measures you would take. But, specifically, we have heard from several witnesses and the equality impact assessment of the Bill does acknowledge that a low income is a risk factor in the use of physical punishment and that this could have a negative impact specifically on this group of parents. Now, we know that Flying Start is available to try to mitigate that to some degree, but of course not all low-income families live within a Flying Start area, so what mitigating work will you be undertaking in that regard?

Yes. We are aware of the issue of reaching out to certain groups. We are running focus groups where we will be taking the different groups into account, and we will work with different groups, communities and organisations to make sure that they are aware of the change in the law, and we will—I know you want to move on—but we will write to you about anything more specific.


Yes, we had a specific section, but because time is moving quite fast, perhaps you could give us a note in response. Some witnesses saw a risk that the Bill could have a disproportionate impact on specific groups—women, because they are the main carers, minority ethnic groups and very young children. So, if it would be possible for us to receive a note as to whether you agree that this will have a disproportionate impact upon them, and if so, what would be the mitigating measures you would take. But, specifically, we have heard from several witnesses and the equality impact assessment of the Bill does acknowledge that a low income is a risk factor in the use of physical punishment and that this could have a negative impact specifically on this group of parents. Now, we know that Flying Start is available to try to mitigate that to some degree, but of course not all low-income families live within a Flying Start area, so what mitigating work will you be undertaking in that regard?

Yes. We are aware of the issue of reaching out to certain groups. We are running focus groups where we will be taking the different groups into account, and we will work with different groups, communities and organisations to make sure that they are aware of the change in the law, and we will—I know you want to move on—but we will write to you about anything more specific.

Just finally from me, then, you referred to the mapping exercise, which is very welcomed by the committee. Should that mapping exercise identify gaps? Will the Welsh Government be making a commitment to provide funding to plug those gaps so that there is a universal offer of parenting support for families in Wales?


Yes, we had a specific section, but because time is moving quite fast, perhaps you could give us a note in response. Some witnesses saw a risk that the Bill could have a disproportionate impact on specific groups—women, because they are the main carers, minority ethnic groups and very young children. So, if it would be possible for us to receive a note as to whether you agree that this will have a disproportionate impact upon them, and if so, what would be the mitigating measures you would take. But, specifically, we have heard from several witnesses and the equality impact assessment of the Bill does acknowledge that a low income is a risk factor in the use of physical punishment and that this could have a negative impact specifically on this group of parents. Now, we know that Flying Start is available to try to mitigate that to some degree, but of course not all low-income families live within a Flying Start area, so what mitigating work will you be undertaking in that regard?

Yes. We are aware of the issue of reaching out to certain groups. We are running focus groups where we will be taking the different groups into account, and we will work with different groups, communities and organisations to make sure that they are aware of the change in the law, and we will—I know you want to move on—but we will write to you about anything more specific.

Just finally from me, then, you referred to the mapping exercise, which is very welcomed by the committee. Should that mapping exercise identify gaps? Will the Welsh Government be making a commitment to provide funding to plug those gaps so that there is a universal offer of parenting support for families in Wales?

We will certainly consider it at that point.


Yes. We are aware of the issue of reaching out to certain groups. We are running focus groups where we will be taking the different groups into account, and we will work with different groups, communities and organisations to make sure that they are aware of the change in the law, and we will—I know you want to move on—but we will write to you about anything more specific.

Just finally from me, then, you referred to the mapping exercise, which is very welcomed by the committee. Should that mapping exercise identify gaps? Will the Welsh Government be making a commitment to provide funding to plug those gaps so that there is a universal offer of parenting support for families in Wales?

We will certainly consider it at that point.

Okay, thank you. We've come to the end of our time. We've covered a great deal of ground. Thank you, all, for attending and for answering such a diverse range of questions. As usual, you will be sent a transcript to check for accuracy following the meeting, but thank you very much to the three of you for your time this morning.


Just finally from me, then, you referred to the mapping exercise, which is very welcomed by the committee. Should that mapping exercise identify gaps? Will the Welsh Government be making a commitment to provide funding to plug those gaps so that there is a universal offer of parenting support for families in Wales?

We will certainly consider it at that point.

Okay, thank you. We've come to the end of our time. We've covered a great deal of ground. Thank you, all, for attending and for answering such a diverse range of questions. As usual, you will be sent a transcript to check for accuracy following the meeting, but thank you very much to the three of you for your time this morning.

Thank you very much, and thank you for all the questions and the wide range that we covered. Thank you very much.


We will certainly consider it at that point.

Okay, thank you. We've come to the end of our time. We've covered a great deal of ground. Thank you, all, for attending and for answering such a diverse range of questions. As usual, you will be sent a transcript to check for accuracy following the meeting, but thank you very much to the three of you for your time this morning.

Thank you very much, and thank you for all the questions and the wide range that we covered. Thank you very much.

Item 3, then, is papers to note. Paper to note 1 is a letter from the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, providing additional information following the evidence session on 2 May for this Bill. Paper to note 2 is a letter from the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services in response to the committee's letter, which requested information on CAFCASS Cymru's response on specific points of interest in relation to the Bill. And paper to note 3 is a letter from the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services making the committee aware of research undertaken in relation to public attitudes to physical punishment. Can I ask if Members are happy to note those?


Okay, thank you. We've come to the end of our time. We've covered a great deal of ground. Thank you, all, for attending and for answering such a diverse range of questions. As usual, you will be sent a transcript to check for accuracy following the meeting, but thank you very much to the three of you for your time this morning.

Thank you very much, and thank you for all the questions and the wide range that we covered. Thank you very much.

Item 3, then, is papers to note. Paper to note 1 is a letter from the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, providing additional information following the evidence session on 2 May for this Bill. Paper to note 2 is a letter from the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services in response to the committee's letter, which requested information on CAFCASS Cymru's response on specific points of interest in relation to the Bill. And paper to note 3 is a letter from the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services making the committee aware of research undertaken in relation to public attitudes to physical punishment. Can I ask if Members are happy to note those?

Can I just make one observation? I think it's on the first of the letters, which is the difficulty that there's been in trying to disaggregate the evidence of smacking as isolated incidents as compared to smacking as part of a bigger pattern of behaviour. I think that's worth noting on the record.


Thank you very much, and thank you for all the questions and the wide range that we covered. Thank you very much.

Item 3, then, is papers to note. Paper to note 1 is a letter from the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, providing additional information following the evidence session on 2 May for this Bill. Paper to note 2 is a letter from the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services in response to the committee's letter, which requested information on CAFCASS Cymru's response on specific points of interest in relation to the Bill. And paper to note 3 is a letter from the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services making the committee aware of research undertaken in relation to public attitudes to physical punishment. Can I ask if Members are happy to note those?

Can I just make one observation? I think it's on the first of the letters, which is the difficulty that there's been in trying to disaggregate the evidence of smacking as isolated incidents as compared to smacking as part of a bigger pattern of behaviour. I think that's worth noting on the record.

Okay. Thank you, Suzy. Item 4, then, is a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Are Members content? Okay, thank you.


Item 3, then, is papers to note. Paper to note 1 is a letter from the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, providing additional information following the evidence session on 2 May for this Bill. Paper to note 2 is a letter from the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services in response to the committee's letter, which requested information on CAFCASS Cymru's response on specific points of interest in relation to the Bill. And paper to note 3 is a letter from the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services making the committee aware of research undertaken in relation to public attitudes to physical punishment. Can I ask if Members are happy to note those?

Can I just make one observation? I think it's on the first of the letters, which is the difficulty that there's been in trying to disaggregate the evidence of smacking as isolated incidents as compared to smacking as part of a bigger pattern of behaviour. I think that's worth noting on the record.

Okay. Thank you, Suzy. Item 4, then, is a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Are Members content? Okay, thank you.


We'll call this meeting to order. Welcome to the fifth meeting of the House of Commons Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic.  Pursuant to the order passed on Monday, April20, the committee is meeting today to consider ministerial announcements, to allow members of the committee to present petitions, and to question ministers, including the Prime Minister, about the COVID-19 pandemic. Tomorrow, May8, Dr.AndreaMcCrady, Dominion Carillonneur, will give a special recital to mark the 75th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. Victory in Europe Day, VE Day, commemorates the formal acceptance of Germany's surrender by allied forces at the end of the Second World War. While the pandemic prevents us from gathering to celebrate in person, tomorrow at noon the voice of our nation will ring out in remembrance of this milestone in our history. Today's meeting is taking place by video conference. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entire committee. I would like to remind members that, as in the House of Commons or committee, they should not take photos of their colleagues or film the proceedings. In order to facilitate the work of the interpreters and to allow the meeting to proceed smoothly, I would ask you to follow some instructions. The video conference will be interpreted as in normal meetings of committees and in the House. In the lower part of your screen, you can choose the language: floor, English or French. Please wait until I call on you by name before you begin to speak. When you are ready to speak, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, or hold the space bar down while you are speaking. If you release the bar, your microphone will revert to mute, just like a walkie-talkie. Honourable members, I would like to remind you that if you want to speak English, you should be on the English channel. If you want to speak French, you should be on the French channel. Should you wish to alternate between the two languages, you should change the channel to the language that you are speaking each time you switch languages. Please direct your remarks through the chair. Should you need to request the floor outside of your designated speaking time, you should activate your mike and state that you have a point of order. If a member of the committee wishes to intervene on a point of order raised by another person, you should use the raised hand function to indicate to the chair that you wish to speak. To do this, click on the participant button at the bottom of your screen. When the list appears, you will see the raised hand option beside your name. Speak slowly and clearly at all times. When you are not speaking, leave your microphone on mute. It is highly recommended that you use a headset with a microphone. You have to remember to switch languages. Should any technical challenges arise, for example, in relation to interpretation, please advise the chair immediately by raising a point of order, and the technical team will work on resolving them. Please note that we may need to suspend during these times in order to correct a problem. I want to remind the honourable members to mute their microphones when they are not speaking. If you get accidentally disconnected, please try to rejoin the meeting with the information you used to join initially. If you are unable to rejoin, please contact our technical support team. Before we get started, please note that in the top right-hand corner of your screen is a button that you can use to change views. Speaker view allows you to focus on the person currently speaking; gallery view allows you to see a larger number of participants. You can click through the multiple pages in the gallery view to see who is on and how many more participants there are. I understand there are no ministerial announcements today. We will now proceed to presenting petitions for a period not exceeding 15 minutes. I would like to remind members that any petition presented during the meeting of the special committee must have already been certified by the clerk of petitions. In addition, to ensure a petition is considered properly presented, the certificate of the petition and each page of the petition for a petition certified in a previous Parliament should be mailed to the committee no later than 6 p.m. the day before. Now we'll go to presenting petitions. Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Chair, five years ago when Parliament passed Bill C-14, then justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said that it represented a finely tuned balance between access and safeguards. It also included a five-year review. Petitioners on the first petition I'm presenting are very concerned to see Bill C-7 before Parliament, which removes safeguards ahead of that five-year review. Petitioners specifically mention their concerns about the removal of the mandatory 10-day reflection period, which can already be waived in certain circumstances. They are concerned about reducing the number of witnesses required to oversee it and ensure that a request has been properly made. I commend that petition to the consideration of the House. The second and final petition that I will be presenting today is with respect to Senate Bill S-204. This would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ from a person who did not consent. This responds specifically to concerns about organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China involving Falun Gong practitioners and increasing concerns that this is being or about to be applied to Uighurs as well. Canada can and should take action on this. Petitioners are noting that in the previous Parliament there were bills on this, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. Now, in this Parliament there is a bill, Bill S-204, and the petitioners hope that this 43rd Parliament will be the one that gets it passed.


Mr. Chair, five years ago when Parliament passed Bill C-14, then justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said that it represented a finely tuned balance between access and safeguards. It also included a five-year review. Petitioners on the first petition I'm presenting are very concerned to see Bill C-7 before Parliament, which removes safeguards ahead of that five-year review. Petitioners specifically mention their concerns about the removal of the mandatory 10-day reflection period, which can already be waived in certain circumstances. They are concerned about reducing the number of witnesses required to oversee it and ensure that a request has been properly made. I commend that petition to the consideration of the House. The second and final petition that I will be presenting today is with respect to Senate Bill S-204. This would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ from a person who did not consent. This responds specifically to concerns about organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China involving Falun Gong practitioners and increasing concerns that this is being or about to be applied to Uighurs as well. Canada can and should take action on this. Petitioners are noting that in the previous Parliament there were bills on this, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. Now, in this Parliament there is a bill, Bill S-204, and the petitioners hope that this 43rd Parliament will be the one that gets it passed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honour. This is my first occasion to present a petition in our virtual format of the COVID-19 committee. Thank you to you and your staff, Mr. Chair, for developing a system that allows us to present petitions electronically. The petition I am presenting today, which was previously approved, is from a number of constituents who are concerned that we pursue the Paris Agreement to hold the global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5C. The Paris Agreement itself embeds in it the concept of Just Transition with a capital J and a capital T, the concept of just transition ensuring fairness and support for all workers in the fossil fuel sector. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to move forward with an act to ensure just transition and to ensure adequate funding so that workers and communities dependent on the fossil fuel sector receive meaningful support to ensure security in their lives in the transition to more sustainable energy use. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Chair, five years ago when Parliament passed Bill C-14, then justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said that it represented a finely tuned balance between access and safeguards. It also included a five-year review. Petitioners on the first petition I'm presenting are very concerned to see Bill C-7 before Parliament, which removes safeguards ahead of that five-year review. Petitioners specifically mention their concerns about the removal of the mandatory 10-day reflection period, which can already be waived in certain circumstances. They are concerned about reducing the number of witnesses required to oversee it and ensure that a request has been properly made. I commend that petition to the consideration of the House. The second and final petition that I will be presenting today is with respect to Senate Bill S-204. This would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ from a person who did not consent. This responds specifically to concerns about organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China involving Falun Gong practitioners and increasing concerns that this is being or about to be applied to Uighurs as well. Canada can and should take action on this. Petitioners are noting that in the previous Parliament there were bills on this, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. Now, in this Parliament there is a bill, Bill S-204, and the petitioners hope that this 43rd Parliament will be the one that gets it passed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honour. This is my first occasion to present a petition in our virtual format of the COVID-19 committee. Thank you to you and your staff, Mr. Chair, for developing a system that allows us to present petitions electronically. The petition I am presenting today, which was previously approved, is from a number of constituents who are concerned that we pursue the Paris Agreement to hold the global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5C. The Paris Agreement itself embeds in it the concept of Just Transition with a capital J and a capital T, the concept of just transition ensuring fairness and support for all workers in the fossil fuel sector. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to move forward with an act to ensure just transition and to ensure adequate funding so that workers and communities dependent on the fossil fuel sector receive meaningful support to ensure security in their lives in the transition to more sustainable energy use. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Those are all the petitions for today. I want to thank the honourable members for their usual collaboration and now we'll go on to


Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honour. This is my first occasion to present a petition in our virtual format of the COVID-19 committee. Thank you to you and your staff, Mr. Chair, for developing a system that allows us to present petitions electronically. The petition I am presenting today, which was previously approved, is from a number of constituents who are concerned that we pursue the Paris Agreement to hold the global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5C. The Paris Agreement itself embeds in it the concept of Just Transition with a capital J and a capital T, the concept of just transition ensuring fairness and support for all workers in the fossil fuel sector. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to move forward with an act to ensure just transition and to ensure adequate funding so that workers and communities dependent on the fossil fuel sector receive meaningful support to ensure security in their lives in the transition to more sustainable energy use. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Those are all the petitions for today. I want to thank the honourable members for their usual collaboration and now we'll go on to

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, on Tuesday, at our COVID-19 committee of the whole meeting, I was asking a question which started at 12:56:06 and was cut off at 1:00:32, so I still have 34 seconds of time remaining in my question time of five minutes. You said it could be no more than five minutes but that I had up to five minutes. Thirty-four seconds leaves a lot of time to have a quick question and a quick response. If you believe that my time was unjustly cut off and that it was unfair treatment of the official opposition when we were raising our points of order, I would ask that the 34 seconds be tacked on to the opening round for the opposition and credited to Rosemarie Falk, who will be leading off for the Conservatives.


Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honour. This is my first occasion to present a petition in our virtual format of the COVID-19 committee. Thank you to you and your staff, Mr. Chair, for developing a system that allows us to present petitions electronically. The petition I am presenting today, which was previously approved, is from a number of constituents who are concerned that we pursue the Paris Agreement to hold the global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5C. The Paris Agreement itself embeds in it the concept of Just Transition with a capital J and a capital T, the concept of just transition ensuring fairness and support for all workers in the fossil fuel sector. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to move forward with an act to ensure just transition and to ensure adequate funding so that workers and communities dependent on the fossil fuel sector receive meaningful support to ensure security in their lives in the transition to more sustainable energy use. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Those are all the petitions for today. I want to thank the honourable members for their usual collaboration and now we'll go on to

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, on Tuesday, at our COVID-19 committee of the whole meeting, I was asking a question which started at 12:56:06 and was cut off at 1:00:32, so I still have 34 seconds of time remaining in my question time of five minutes. You said it could be no more than five minutes but that I had up to five minutes. Thirty-four seconds leaves a lot of time to have a quick question and a quick response. If you believe that my time was unjustly cut off and that it was unfair treatment of the official opposition when we were raising our points of order, I would ask that the 34 seconds be tacked on to the opening round for the opposition and credited to Rosemarie Falk, who will be leading off for the Conservatives.

Normally what happens is the chair uses judgment, and with 35 seconds, there isn't enough time obviously for a full question or answer, most of the time. I'll take it under advisement. I can't allot it. I want everyone to know that I do have a timer next to me and I am timing the questions, and I will be treating the answers the same way. If it's a 25-second question, it will be a 25-second answer. Thank you for bringing that up. I believe that issue has been remedied. We've taken a little bit of the chair's ability to give judgment on it, but it will be from now on. Thank you.


Those are all the petitions for today. I want to thank the honourable members for their usual collaboration and now we'll go on to

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, on Tuesday, at our COVID-19 committee of the whole meeting, I was asking a question which started at 12:56:06 and was cut off at 1:00:32, so I still have 34 seconds of time remaining in my question time of five minutes. You said it could be no more than five minutes but that I had up to five minutes. Thirty-four seconds leaves a lot of time to have a quick question and a quick response. If you believe that my time was unjustly cut off and that it was unfair treatment of the official opposition when we were raising our points of order, I would ask that the 34 seconds be tacked on to the opening round for the opposition and credited to Rosemarie Falk, who will be leading off for the Conservatives.

Normally what happens is the chair uses judgment, and with 35 seconds, there isn't enough time obviously for a full question or answer, most of the time. I'll take it under advisement. I can't allot it. I want everyone to know that I do have a timer next to me and I am timing the questions, and I will be treating the answers the same way. If it's a 25-second question, it will be a 25-second answer. Thank you for bringing that up. I believe that issue has been remedied. We've taken a little bit of the chair's ability to give judgment on it, but it will be from now on. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, 34 seconds is a considerable amount of time to do a short question and a short answer.


On a point of order, Mr. Chair, on Tuesday, at our COVID-19 committee of the whole meeting, I was asking a question which started at 12:56:06 and was cut off at 1:00:32, so I still have 34 seconds of time remaining in my question time of five minutes. You said it could be no more than five minutes but that I had up to five minutes. Thirty-four seconds leaves a lot of time to have a quick question and a quick response. If you believe that my time was unjustly cut off and that it was unfair treatment of the official opposition when we were raising our points of order, I would ask that the 34 seconds be tacked on to the opening round for the opposition and credited to Rosemarie Falk, who will be leading off for the Conservatives.

Normally what happens is the chair uses judgment, and with 35 seconds, there isn't enough time obviously for a full question or answer, most of the time. I'll take it under advisement. I can't allot it. I want everyone to know that I do have a timer next to me and I am timing the questions, and I will be treating the answers the same way. If it's a 25-second question, it will be a 25-second answer. Thank you for bringing that up. I believe that issue has been remedied. We've taken a little bit of the chair's ability to give judgment on it, but it will be from now on. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, 34 seconds is a considerable amount of time to do a short question and a short answer.

I appreciate the advice. Thank you, Mr. Bezan. We'll now proceed to the questioning of ministers. I would like to remind the honourable members that no member will be recognized for more than five minutes at a time and that members may split their time with one or more members by so indicating to the chair. Ministers responding to the questions should do so by simply turning on their microphone and speaking. Our first questioner is Ms. Falk.


Normally what happens is the chair uses judgment, and with 35 seconds, there isn't enough time obviously for a full question or answer, most of the time. I'll take it under advisement. I can't allot it. I want everyone to know that I do have a timer next to me and I am timing the questions, and I will be treating the answers the same way. If it's a 25-second question, it will be a 25-second answer. Thank you for bringing that up. I believe that issue has been remedied. We've taken a little bit of the chair's ability to give judgment on it, but it will be from now on. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, 34 seconds is a considerable amount of time to do a short question and a short answer.

I appreciate the advice. Thank you, Mr. Bezan. We'll now proceed to the questioning of ministers. I would like to remind the honourable members that no member will be recognized for more than five minutes at a time and that members may split their time with one or more members by so indicating to the chair. Ministers responding to the questions should do so by simply turning on their microphone and speaking. Our first questioner is Ms. Falk.

Mr. Chair, yesterday, Elizabeth May and the leader of the separatists declared oil to be dead. It's certainly not dead, but it's dying under the Trudeau government. Will the Prime Minister stand up for Canada's energy workers, or does he agree with the fringe left and those who want to destroy our country?


Mr. Chair, 34 seconds is a considerable amount of time to do a short question and a short answer.

I appreciate the advice. Thank you, Mr. Bezan. We'll now proceed to the questioning of ministers. I would like to remind the honourable members that no member will be recognized for more than five minutes at a time and that members may split their time with one or more members by so indicating to the chair. Ministers responding to the questions should do so by simply turning on their microphone and speaking. Our first questioner is Ms. Falk.

Mr. Chair, yesterday, Elizabeth May and the leader of the separatists declared oil to be dead. It's certainly not dead, but it's dying under the Trudeau government. Will the Prime Minister stand up for Canada's energy workers, or does he agree with the fringe left and those who want to destroy our country?


I appreciate the advice. Thank you, Mr. Bezan. We'll now proceed to the questioning of ministers. I would like to remind the honourable members that no member will be recognized for more than five minutes at a time and that members may split their time with one or more members by so indicating to the chair. Ministers responding to the questions should do so by simply turning on their microphone and speaking. Our first questioner is Ms. Falk.

Mr. Chair, yesterday, Elizabeth May and the leader of the separatists declared oil to be dead. It's certainly not dead, but it's dying under the Trudeau government. Will the Prime Minister stand up for Canada's energy workers, or does he agree with the fringe left and those who want to destroy our country?


Mr. Chair, yesterday, Elizabeth May and the leader of the separatists declared oil to be dead. It's certainly not dead, but it's dying under the Trudeau government. Will the Prime Minister stand up for Canada's energy workers, or does he agree with the fringe left and those who want to destroy our country?

Mr. Chair, I believe that the language that the honourable member just used is unparliamentary


Mr. Chair, I believe that the language that the honourable member just used is unparliamentary


Mr. Chair, I believe that the language that the honourable member just used is unparliamentary

We can have differences of opinion, but it is absolutely  Some hon. members: Debate.  Ms. Elizabeth May: unacceptable and violates my privileges to  An hon member: Debate.  Ms. Elizabeth May: No, it's not debate. I would ask the chair to rule on that, not the member from the Conservative Party. It is unacceptable to assert that anyone who wants to make a point about our economy is trying to destroy the country. This allegation is a violation of my privilege.   An hon. member: She was also named by the


Mr. Chair, I believe that the language that the honourable member just used is unparliamentary

We can have differences of opinion, but it is absolutely  Some hon. members: Debate.  Ms. Elizabeth May: unacceptable and violates my privileges to  An hon member: Debate.  Ms. Elizabeth May: No, it's not debate. I would ask the chair to rule on that, not the member from the Conservative Party. It is unacceptable to assert that anyone who wants to make a point about our economy is trying to destroy the country. This allegation is a violation of my privilege.   An hon. member: She was also named by the

Order. I didn't recognize anyone. I don't know who is speaking, so I'll just start talking myself. I want to remind honourable members to have respect in their questions and in their answers. When you refer to someone, please refer to them respectfully. This is a committee of the House, and I would expect no less of the honourable members. We'll go to the right honourable Prime Minister. You have 16 seconds.


We can have differences of opinion, but it is absolutely  Some hon. members: Debate.  Ms. Elizabeth May: unacceptable and violates my privileges to  An hon member: Debate.  Ms. Elizabeth May: No, it's not debate. I would ask the chair to rule on that, not the member from the Conservative Party. It is unacceptable to assert that anyone who wants to make a point about our economy is trying to destroy the country. This allegation is a violation of my privilege.   An hon. member: She was also named by the

Order. I didn't recognize anyone. I don't know who is speaking, so I'll just start talking myself. I want to remind honourable members to have respect in their questions and in their answers. When you refer to someone, please refer to them respectfully. This is a committee of the House, and I would expect no less of the honourable members. We'll go to the right honourable Prime Minister. You have 16 seconds.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As I pointed out this morning in my press conference, we cannot move forward on a transformation of our energy sector without supporting the workers in that energy sector. We need their innovation and we need their hard work if we are going to lower our emissions, if we are going to reach our