Okay. Right, we'll therefore take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 2, please show. All those against. So, there voted four in favour, two against, and amendment 2 is agreed. That takes us on to group 3, which relates to the regulation-making powers in the Bill. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 3 in the name of the Deputy Minister. I move amendment 3 in the Deputy Minister's name and call on the Deputy Minister to speak to her amendments and the other amendments in this group.

Thank you very much, Chair. Members will note that I've brought forward an amendment to provide certainty on the date of commencement of the core provision in the Bill, which is obviously to abolish the defence of reasonable punishment. And that is going to be debated under group 5. So, we're obviously debating that after we deal with these particular technical issues—these are technical issues here, basically. As a consequence of proposing to remove the power for a Welsh Minister to make an Order for commencement, the power to make transitory, transitional or saving provisions in connection with section 1 of the Bill coming into force would also be removed. So, I'm not seeking here to add any new powers to the Bill; amendment 3 will simply add this existing power back onto the face of the Bill where amendments 7 and 8 remove it, and amendment 6 will bring the power into force the day after Royal Assent. In fact, removing the power for the Welsh Ministers to commence the provision in section 1 by Order means the statutory instrument will actually do less than originally intended. These amendments are technical in nature and while I acknowledge that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee raised the issue of what procedure should be applied, their report did not call for any change to no procedure being applied. The absence of an Assembly procedure does not mean that Ministers' decisions in relation to transitional powers cannot be scrutinised by the Assembly. Any concerns about the Welsh Ministers' proposals could be put to me in the Senedd. This was a point made to CLAC and, as I say, their final conclusion was that no procedure is the appropriate procedure for such a power. For those reasons, I encourage Members to reject amendment 3A from Suzy.


Okay. Right, we'll therefore take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 2, please show. All those against. So, there voted four in favour, two against, and amendment 2 is agreed. That takes us on to group 3, which relates to the regulation-making powers in the Bill. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 3 in the name of the Deputy Minister. I move amendment 3 in the Deputy Minister's name and call on the Deputy Minister to speak to her amendments and the other amendments in this group.

Thank you very much, Chair. Members will note that I've brought forward an amendment to provide certainty on the date of commencement of the core provision in the Bill, which is obviously to abolish the defence of reasonable punishment. And that is going to be debated under group 5. So, we're obviously debating that after we deal with these particular technical issues—these are technical issues here, basically. As a consequence of proposing to remove the power for a Welsh Minister to make an Order for commencement, the power to make transitory, transitional or saving provisions in connection with section 1 of the Bill coming into force would also be removed. So, I'm not seeking here to add any new powers to the Bill; amendment 3 will simply add this existing power back onto the face of the Bill where amendments 7 and 8 remove it, and amendment 6 will bring the power into force the day after Royal Assent. In fact, removing the power for the Welsh Ministers to commence the provision in section 1 by Order means the statutory instrument will actually do less than originally intended. These amendments are technical in nature and while I acknowledge that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee raised the issue of what procedure should be applied, their report did not call for any change to no procedure being applied. The absence of an Assembly procedure does not mean that Ministers' decisions in relation to transitional powers cannot be scrutinised by the Assembly. Any concerns about the Welsh Ministers' proposals could be put to me in the Senedd. This was a point made to CLAC and, as I say, their final conclusion was that no procedure is the appropriate procedure for such a power. For those reasons, I encourage Members to reject amendment 3A from Suzy.

Thank you very much. Well perhaps, Deputy Minister, I can begin by saying that one person's technical issue is another person's essential part of the legislative procedure and a keen element in scrutiny. But I thank you for noting the Assembly's observations on the ministerial powers granted in this Bill—this time by CLAC, as you say. Moving this—and I'm glad actually that amendment 8, I think it was, has removed an Order provision and we're moving into an area where at least statutory instruments do feature here. I have to say that amendment 3A is something of a probing amendment, and I'll explain why now. Your amendment 3 seeks to give a familiar range of powers in connection with the coming into force of section 1, but it's actually in a substantive part of section 1 itself now—it's not a separate commencement power. And, actually, I've been listening to the rest of this debate, and thinking that, if you're going to be introducing an awareness campaign and a report, the chances are you're going to need some regulatory powers to introduce some of the aspects of both those policy areas, I think. And I'm wondering whether the—what is it—transitory, transitional and saving provisions are actually enough powers for you under the course of this Bill. I'm wondering whether you want to consider actually amending this to give yourself the more usual unrestricted power to make regulations in order for you to get section 1 implemented, bearing in mind that it has now been amended from that original, very short and simple—or at least simple in terms of drafting—initial draft. As I say, in anticipation of you rejecting amendments in group 1 I tabled this, in order to make sure that an opportunity remains for the Assembly to bring anything you may wish to introduce under section 1, when it comes into effect, onto the floor of the Assembly. Because while I completely accept that you've acknowledged that statutory instrument is the process for introducing things from now on, it's still possible to do that without procedure, and so I have no idea whether you think what you introduce would be better suited to be introduced by a negative or affirmative procedure. Amendment 3A is a holding position, which we will return to you in Stage 3, because I think, again, this is an area where it might be valuable for us to discuss quite what kind of powers you're looking for, because I think you probably need something that's beyond transitional, transitory and saving.


Thank you very much, Chair. Members will note that I've brought forward an amendment to provide certainty on the date of commencement of the core provision in the Bill, which is obviously to abolish the defence of reasonable punishment. And that is going to be debated under group 5. So, we're obviously debating that after we deal with these particular technical issues—these are technical issues here, basically. As a consequence of proposing to remove the power for a Welsh Minister to make an Order for commencement, the power to make transitory, transitional or saving provisions in connection with section 1 of the Bill coming into force would also be removed. So, I'm not seeking here to add any new powers to the Bill; amendment 3 will simply add this existing power back onto the face of the Bill where amendments 7 and 8 remove it, and amendment 6 will bring the power into force the day after Royal Assent. In fact, removing the power for the Welsh Ministers to commence the provision in section 1 by Order means the statutory instrument will actually do less than originally intended. These amendments are technical in nature and while I acknowledge that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee raised the issue of what procedure should be applied, their report did not call for any change to no procedure being applied. The absence of an Assembly procedure does not mean that Ministers' decisions in relation to transitional powers cannot be scrutinised by the Assembly. Any concerns about the Welsh Ministers' proposals could be put to me in the Senedd. This was a point made to CLAC and, as I say, their final conclusion was that no procedure is the appropriate procedure for such a power. For those reasons, I encourage Members to reject amendment 3A from Suzy.

Thank you very much. Well perhaps, Deputy Minister, I can begin by saying that one person's technical issue is another person's essential part of the legislative procedure and a keen element in scrutiny. But I thank you for noting the Assembly's observations on the ministerial powers granted in this Bill—this time by CLAC, as you say. Moving this—and I'm glad actually that amendment 8, I think it was, has removed an Order provision and we're moving into an area where at least statutory instruments do feature here. I have to say that amendment 3A is something of a probing amendment, and I'll explain why now. Your amendment 3 seeks to give a familiar range of powers in connection with the coming into force of section 1, but it's actually in a substantive part of section 1 itself now—it's not a separate commencement power. And, actually, I've been listening to the rest of this debate, and thinking that, if you're going to be introducing an awareness campaign and a report, the chances are you're going to need some regulatory powers to introduce some of the aspects of both those policy areas, I think. And I'm wondering whether the—what is it—transitory, transitional and saving provisions are actually enough powers for you under the course of this Bill. I'm wondering whether you want to consider actually amending this to give yourself the more usual unrestricted power to make regulations in order for you to get section 1 implemented, bearing in mind that it has now been amended from that original, very short and simple—or at least simple in terms of drafting—initial draft. As I say, in anticipation of you rejecting amendments in group 1 I tabled this, in order to make sure that an opportunity remains for the Assembly to bring anything you may wish to introduce under section 1, when it comes into effect, onto the floor of the Assembly. Because while I completely accept that you've acknowledged that statutory instrument is the process for introducing things from now on, it's still possible to do that without procedure, and so I have no idea whether you think what you introduce would be better suited to be introduced by a negative or affirmative procedure. Amendment 3A is a holding position, which we will return to you in Stage 3, because I think, again, this is an area where it might be valuable for us to discuss quite what kind of powers you're looking for, because I think you probably need something that's beyond transitional, transitory and saving.


Thank you very much. Well perhaps, Deputy Minister, I can begin by saying that one person's technical issue is another person's essential part of the legislative procedure and a keen element in scrutiny. But I thank you for noting the Assembly's observations on the ministerial powers granted in this Bill—this time by CLAC, as you say. Moving this—and I'm glad actually that amendment 8, I think it was, has removed an Order provision and we're moving into an area where at least statutory instruments do feature here. I have to say that amendment 3A is something of a probing amendment, and I'll explain why now. Your amendment 3 seeks to give a familiar range of powers in connection with the coming into force of section 1, but it's actually in a substantive part of section 1 itself now—it's not a separate commencement power. And, actually, I've been listening to the rest of this debate, and thinking that, if you're going to be introducing an awareness campaign and a report, the chances are you're going to need some regulatory powers to introduce some of the aspects of both those policy areas, I think. And I'm wondering whether the—what is it—transitory, transitional and saving provisions are actually enough powers for you under the course of this Bill. I'm wondering whether you want to consider actually amending this to give yourself the more usual unrestricted power to make regulations in order for you to get section 1 implemented, bearing in mind that it has now been amended from that original, very short and simple—or at least simple in terms of drafting—initial draft. As I say, in anticipation of you rejecting amendments in group 1 I tabled this, in order to make sure that an opportunity remains for the Assembly to bring anything you may wish to introduce under section 1, when it comes into effect, onto the floor of the Assembly. Because while I completely accept that you've acknowledged that statutory instrument is the process for introducing things from now on, it's still possible to do that without procedure, and so I have no idea whether you think what you introduce would be better suited to be introduced by a negative or affirmative procedure. Amendment 3A is a holding position, which we will return to you in Stage 3, because I think, again, this is an area where it might be valuable for us to discuss quite what kind of powers you're looking for, because I think you probably need something that's beyond transitional, transitory and saving.


Thank you very much. Well perhaps, Deputy Minister, I can begin by saying that one person's technical issue is another person's essential part of the legislative procedure and a keen element in scrutiny. But I thank you for noting the Assembly's observations on the ministerial powers granted in this Bill—this time by CLAC, as you say. Moving this—and I'm glad actually that amendment 8, I think it was, has removed an Order provision and we're moving into an area where at least statutory instruments do feature here. I have to say that amendment 3A is something of a probing amendment, and I'll explain why now. Your amendment 3 seeks to give a familiar range of powers in connection with the coming into force of section 1, but it's actually in a substantive part of section 1 itself now—it's not a separate commencement power. And, actually, I've been listening to the rest of this debate, and thinking that, if you're going to be introducing an awareness campaign and a report, the chances are you're going to need some regulatory powers to introduce some of the aspects of both those policy areas, I think. And I'm wondering whether the—what is it—transitory, transitional and saving provisions are actually enough powers for you under the course of this Bill. I'm wondering whether you want to consider actually amending this to give yourself the more usual unrestricted power to make regulations in order for you to get section 1 implemented, bearing in mind that it has now been amended from that original, very short and simple—or at least simple in terms of drafting—initial draft. As I say, in anticipation of you rejecting amendments in group 1 I tabled this, in order to make sure that an opportunity remains for the Assembly to bring anything you may wish to introduce under section 1, when it comes into effect, onto the floor of the Assembly. Because while I completely accept that you've acknowledged that statutory instrument is the process for introducing things from now on, it's still possible to do that without procedure, and so I have no idea whether you think what you introduce would be better suited to be introduced by a negative or affirmative procedure. Amendment 3A is a holding position, which we will return to you in Stage 3, because I think, again, this is an area where it might be valuable for us to discuss quite what kind of powers you're looking for, because I think you probably need something that's beyond transitional, transitory and saving.

Are there any other Members who wish to speak on this group? No. Deputy Minister.


Are there any other Members who wish to speak on this group? No. Deputy Minister.

I thank Suzy for that input. We don't actually think it's necessary to have wider powers, but we will keep this under review and at Stage 3, I think that—. When I was looking at this, I was concerned to know what the transitory powers—what we would actually need to do at that stage, but I can understand that there may be links to other Bills in ways that we are not anticipating at the moment that would make it necessary to have those powers. So, basically, I don't think it is necessary to have wider powers, but I can assure you that we'll keep that in review coming up to Stage 3.


Are there any other Members who wish to speak on this group? No. Deputy Minister.

I thank Suzy for that input. We don't actually think it's necessary to have wider powers, but we will keep this under review and at Stage 3, I think that—. When I was looking at this, I was concerned to know what the transitory powers—what we would actually need to do at that stage, but I can understand that there may be links to other Bills in ways that we are not anticipating at the moment that would make it necessary to have those powers. So, basically, I don't think it is necessary to have wider powers, but I can assure you that we'll keep that in review coming up to Stage 3.

Can I just ask a question on the back of that?


Are there any other Members who wish to speak on this group? No. Deputy Minister.

I thank Suzy for that input. We don't actually think it's necessary to have wider powers, but we will keep this under review and at Stage 3, I think that—. When I was looking at this, I was concerned to know what the transitory powers—what we would actually need to do at that stage, but I can understand that there may be links to other Bills in ways that we are not anticipating at the moment that would make it necessary to have those powers. So, basically, I don't think it is necessary to have wider powers, but I can assure you that we'll keep that in review coming up to Stage 3.

Can I just ask a question on the back of that?

Will you take a brief intervention at the end, Minister?


I thank Suzy for that input. We don't actually think it's necessary to have wider powers, but we will keep this under review and at Stage 3, I think that—. When I was looking at this, I was concerned to know what the transitory powers—what we would actually need to do at that stage, but I can understand that there may be links to other Bills in ways that we are not anticipating at the moment that would make it necessary to have those powers. So, basically, I don't think it is necessary to have wider powers, but I can assure you that we'll keep that in review coming up to Stage 3.

Can I just ask a question on the back of that?

Will you take a brief intervention at the end, Minister?

Will you take the briefest intervention before your full stop?


Can I just ask a question on the back of that?

Will you take a brief intervention at the end, Minister?

Will you take the briefest intervention before your full stop?


Will you take a brief intervention at the end, Minister?

Will you take the briefest intervention before your full stop?

Right, okay, well, just before your full stop, would you just confirm that you're happy for us to discuss this before Stage 3?


Will you take the briefest intervention before your full stop?

Right, okay, well, just before your full stop, would you just confirm that you're happy for us to discuss this before Stage 3?


Right, okay, well, just before your full stop, would you just confirm that you're happy for us to discuss this before Stage 3?


Right, okay, well, just before your full stop, would you just confirm that you're happy for us to discuss this before Stage 3?

Okay, thank you. Before disposing of amendment 3, we will deal with the amendment to that amendment. Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 3A?


Okay, thank you. Before disposing of amendment 3, we will deal with the amendment to that amendment. Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 3A?


Okay, thank you. Before disposing of amendment 3, we will deal with the amendment to that amendment. Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 3A?

The question is that amendment 3A be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, I'll take a vote by show of hands. All those in favour of amendment 3A. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 3A is not agreed. If amendment 3 is not agreed, amendment 6 will fall. Deputy Minister, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 3?


The question is that amendment 3A be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, I'll take a vote by show of hands. All those in favour of amendment 3A. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 3A is not agreed. If amendment 3 is not agreed, amendment 6 will fall. Deputy Minister, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 3?

The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 3 is therefore agreed. The committee will now break for 10 minutes and reconvene at 11.05 a.m. Can I welcome Members back? We will move on to group 4, which relates to the duty to ensure sufficient funding. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 11 in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move amendment 11 and to speak to her amendments. Janet.


The question is that amendment 3A be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, I'll take a vote by show of hands. All those in favour of amendment 3A. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 3A is not agreed. If amendment 3 is not agreed, amendment 6 will fall. Deputy Minister, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 3?

The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 3 is therefore agreed. The committee will now break for 10 minutes and reconvene at 11.05 a.m. Can I welcome Members back? We will move on to group 4, which relates to the duty to ensure sufficient funding. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 11 in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move amendment 11 and to speak to her amendments. Janet.

Thank you. I speak to both amendments in this group. As I outlined under amendments 2I and 2J, there are ongoing concerns about the potential costs for Welsh devolved authorities and the lack of quantifiable costs within the regulatory impact assessment. Now, it was absolutely clear from evidence that we received in this committee that unknown costs would be challenging and potentially problematic. As I have mentioned previously, these concerns would doubtless be most keenly felt in our hard-pressed social services. Furthermore, the Welsh Local Government Association stated that there must be a commitment that whatever the costs are, those costs are met, because it is legislation that is being led by the National Assembly for Wales. Now, during evidence, the Deputy Minister, when asked about the reliance on a limited number of reporting of cases likely to happen and the potential for a degree of unknown costs stated: 'we are doing our very best to prepare to cover all eventualities that we can anticipate.' But you couldn't commit to a broad figure, instead telling us that: 'we have to rely on what the people who run those organisations are telling us.' And: 'We have to measure it as we go along.' Given that devolved authorities need to plan their budgets for these changes, we only think it is fair for the Welsh Government to provide sufficient funding to alleviate the cost implications of this Bill. Now, while amendment 11 makes reference to costs borne by local authorities and health boards, I note that amendment 12 takes this further by including other devolved authorities that are not funded by Welsh Government. Anticipating the Deputy Minister's response that few under this category, if any at all, would be affected by the Bill, we are pursuing a principle here, and it is agreement to the principle of providing sufficient funding that we are seeking from you as the Deputy Minister. Now, these are just two examples of Welsh Government legislation to date that have been underfunded. The Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013: last year, the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee found that the Wales annual spend on walking and cycling is half that of England's and one sixth of Holland's. Furthermore, the committee highlighted that the passing of the Act put a requirement on local authorities to continuously improve active travel routes, but were constrained by the funding made available to them. The Minister at the time announced a three-year funding settlement of £60 million. Now, my local authority and other authorities that have done some monitoring on the active travel Act—they simply were not awarded sufficient funding to actually allow the active travel Act to become a meaningful piece of legislation, and the same goes with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. This month, the auditor general has raised concerns that the public services boards created under the Act were limited in their work and impact due to the lack of dedicated funding. Outside of the Welsh Government's regional grant that cannot be spent on projects, councils often contribute through officer time or facilities, but resources and capacity to support those PSBs remain a key risk, as partners don't have the capacity to take on more. The reason that I wanted these amendments placed in here is I genuinely do not believe that you've even envisioned what, or even estimated the likely cost to be borne by the organisations, and certainly our local authorities and health boards, the impact this Bill is going to have.


The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 3 is therefore agreed. The committee will now break for 10 minutes and reconvene at 11.05 a.m. Can I welcome Members back? We will move on to group 4, which relates to the duty to ensure sufficient funding. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 11 in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move amendment 11 and to speak to her amendments. Janet.

Thank you. I speak to both amendments in this group. As I outlined under amendments 2I and 2J, there are ongoing concerns about the potential costs for Welsh devolved authorities and the lack of quantifiable costs within the regulatory impact assessment. Now, it was absolutely clear from evidence that we received in this committee that unknown costs would be challenging and potentially problematic. As I have mentioned previously, these concerns would doubtless be most keenly felt in our hard-pressed social services. Furthermore, the Welsh Local Government Association stated that there must be a commitment that whatever the costs are, those costs are met, because it is legislation that is being led by the National Assembly for Wales. Now, during evidence, the Deputy Minister, when asked about the reliance on a limited number of reporting of cases likely to happen and the potential for a degree of unknown costs stated: 'we are doing our very best to prepare to cover all eventualities that we can anticipate.' But you couldn't commit to a broad figure, instead telling us that: 'we have to rely on what the people who run those organisations are telling us.' And: 'We have to measure it as we go along.' Given that devolved authorities need to plan their budgets for these changes, we only think it is fair for the Welsh Government to provide sufficient funding to alleviate the cost implications of this Bill. Now, while amendment 11 makes reference to costs borne by local authorities and health boards, I note that amendment 12 takes this further by including other devolved authorities that are not funded by Welsh Government. Anticipating the Deputy Minister's response that few under this category, if any at all, would be affected by the Bill, we are pursuing a principle here, and it is agreement to the principle of providing sufficient funding that we are seeking from you as the Deputy Minister. Now, these are just two examples of Welsh Government legislation to date that have been underfunded. The Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013: last year, the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee found that the Wales annual spend on walking and cycling is half that of England's and one sixth of Holland's. Furthermore, the committee highlighted that the passing of the Act put a requirement on local authorities to continuously improve active travel routes, but were constrained by the funding made available to them. The Minister at the time announced a three-year funding settlement of £60 million. Now, my local authority and other authorities that have done some monitoring on the active travel Act—they simply were not awarded sufficient funding to actually allow the active travel Act to become a meaningful piece of legislation, and the same goes with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. This month, the auditor general has raised concerns that the public services boards created under the Act were limited in their work and impact due to the lack of dedicated funding. Outside of the Welsh Government's regional grant that cannot be spent on projects, councils often contribute through officer time or facilities, but resources and capacity to support those PSBs remain a key risk, as partners don't have the capacity to take on more. The reason that I wanted these amendments placed in here is I genuinely do not believe that you've even envisioned what, or even estimated the likely cost to be borne by the organisations, and certainly our local authorities and health boards, the impact this Bill is going to have.

Thank you, Janet. Are there other Members who would like to speak in this group, please? No. Okay. I call the Deputy Minister, then.


The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 3 is therefore agreed. The committee will now break for 10 minutes and reconvene at 11.05 a.m. Can I welcome Members back? We will move on to group 4, which relates to the duty to ensure sufficient funding. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 11 in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move amendment 11 and to speak to her amendments. Janet.

Thank you. I speak to both amendments in this group. As I outlined under amendments 2I and 2J, there are ongoing concerns about the potential costs for Welsh devolved authorities and the lack of quantifiable costs within the regulatory impact assessment. Now, it was absolutely clear from evidence that we received in this committee that unknown costs would be challenging and potentially problematic. As I have mentioned previously, these concerns would doubtless be most keenly felt in our hard-pressed social services. Furthermore, the Welsh Local Government Association stated that there must be a commitment that whatever the costs are, those costs are met, because it is legislation that is being led by the National Assembly for Wales. Now, during evidence, the Deputy Minister, when asked about the reliance on a limited number of reporting of cases likely to happen and the potential for a degree of unknown costs stated: 'we are doing our very best to prepare to cover all eventualities that we can anticipate.' But you couldn't commit to a broad figure, instead telling us that: 'we have to rely on what the people who run those organisations are telling us.' And: 'We have to measure it as we go along.' Given that devolved authorities need to plan their budgets for these changes, we only think it is fair for the Welsh Government to provide sufficient funding to alleviate the cost implications of this Bill. Now, while amendment 11 makes reference to costs borne by local authorities and health boards, I note that amendment 12 takes this further by including other devolved authorities that are not funded by Welsh Government. Anticipating the Deputy Minister's response that few under this category, if any at all, would be affected by the Bill, we are pursuing a principle here, and it is agreement to the principle of providing sufficient funding that we are seeking from you as the Deputy Minister. Now, these are just two examples of Welsh Government legislation to date that have been underfunded. The Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013: last year, the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee found that the Wales annual spend on walking and cycling is half that of England's and one sixth of Holland's. Furthermore, the committee highlighted that the passing of the Act put a requirement on local authorities to continuously improve active travel routes, but were constrained by the funding made available to them. The Minister at the time announced a three-year funding settlement of £60 million. Now, my local authority and other authorities that have done some monitoring on the active travel Act—they simply were not awarded sufficient funding to actually allow the active travel Act to become a meaningful piece of legislation, and the same goes with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. This month, the auditor general has raised concerns that the public services boards created under the Act were limited in their work and impact due to the lack of dedicated funding. Outside of the Welsh Government's regional grant that cannot be spent on projects, councils often contribute through officer time or facilities, but resources and capacity to support those PSBs remain a key risk, as partners don't have the capacity to take on more. The reason that I wanted these amendments placed in here is I genuinely do not believe that you've even envisioned what, or even estimated the likely cost to be borne by the organisations, and certainly our local authorities and health boards, the impact this Bill is going to have.

Thank you, Janet. Are there other Members who would like to speak in this group, please? No. Okay. I call the Deputy Minister, then.

Thank you, Chair. I can understand that the Member is concerned about the impact of this Bill on public services, but you will see from the explanatory memorandum and from the raft of impact statements published with the Bill that we've done a thorough and extremely diligent job of considering the potential impacts of this Bill before introduction. And as far as we're aware, no other country has done more than us to consider the impacts of similar legislation, and also comprehensively prepared for implementation. We've explored the published data, which is available from other countries, on the impact of measures they've taken to prohibit the physical punishment of children. We've also spoken to a range of stakeholders in Ireland, New Zealand and Malta, who have legal systems similar to our own. And in these countries, there is no evidence that public services have been overwhelmed following law reform. And stakeholders have been clear when giving evidence to this committee that they do not consider there will be runaway costs, and I think we should trust their judgment on this. In fact, as this committee notes in its Stage 1 report, those delivering services on the front line have said, without exception, that 'this Bill will improve their ability to protect children living in Wales because it will make the law clear.' Sally Jenkins of the Association of Directors of Social Services said to this committee: 'In terms of thresholds for children’s services, we would not be anticipating a huge number of referrals to us. There may be a small number of referrals that come through. What we know from other nations is that it will peak and then settle. We recognise that’s likely to happen.' That's from the front line. Jane Randall, chair of the National Independent Safeguarding Board Wales, said: 'there's no expectation that there's going to be a huge increase in the number of referrals coming through to local authority social services, I think it would be dealt with within their existing resources.' And Dr Rowena Christmas, Royal College of General Practitioners, said: 'I can't see it's going to lengthen consultations. I can't see that it's going to increase the number of consultations, and I don't think it's going to increase the number of referrals I make to the health visitor or to social services, because if I was worried, I'd make those referrals now regardless of the Bill.' I just want to say again that the Bill is removing a defence to an offence of common assault, which has formed part of the common law of England and Wales for a very long time. And social services already receive and investigate reports of children being assaulted, including from health and education, so it's not a whole new area of costly activity for any of them. I do think that the evidence that you had at your committee did highlight those points. As I've already pointed out when discussing group 2 amendments, we're working with organisations to put in place arrangements to collect data about the possible impact on their services, and this will be analysed as part of the post-implementation review of the legislation. Welsh Government can consider with relevant organisations how best to manage any impact on workloads or resources and any cost implications. I can assure you that work to update the regulatory impact assessment has continued, and I've asked officials to prepare a revised RIA, as recommended at Stage 2, and I expect to share an updated RIA with you in advance of Stage 3. Serious consideration is being given on how to provide more detailed estimates of the unknown costs to public services arising from the Bill, but I think you should be reassured by the evidence that was given, particularly to this committee, from the professionals at the front line. What the amendments are proposing is outside the normal funding arrangements that operate within Government, and it's not clear why, in the context of the evidence heard at Stage I, such provisions are necessary. I'm sure that Members will agree that future Governments need to be able to consider, within the context of the budget-setting process, what the priorities are, and these considerations would need to be made within the context at that time, for example taking into account any issues that there are—UK Government actions, what happens in relation to Brexit, or any other unforeseen impacts on the economy or Welsh society. All those issues would have to be taken into account. Furthermore, as is the case now, the National Assembly for Wales scrutinises the Welsh Government budget annually, so it would be able to make an argument for additional funding for public bodies, should it consider that this is required. I do think all the evidence has shown that we do not anticipate that there will be a huge increase of a demand for funding, so I urge Members to reject these amendments, which I believe are unnecessary.


Thank you. I speak to both amendments in this group. As I outlined under amendments 2I and 2J, there are ongoing concerns about the potential costs for Welsh devolved authorities and the lack of quantifiable costs within the regulatory impact assessment. Now, it was absolutely clear from evidence that we received in this committee that unknown costs would be challenging and potentially problematic. As I have mentioned previously, these concerns would doubtless be most keenly felt in our hard-pressed social services. Furthermore, the Welsh Local Government Association stated that there must be a commitment that whatever the costs are, those costs are met, because it is legislation that is being led by the National Assembly for Wales. Now, during evidence, the Deputy Minister, when asked about the reliance on a limited number of reporting of cases likely to happen and the potential for a degree of unknown costs stated: 'we are doing our very best to prepare to cover all eventualities that we can anticipate.' But you couldn't commit to a broad figure, instead telling us that: 'we have to rely on what the people who run those organisations are telling us.' And: 'We have to measure it as we go along.' Given that devolved authorities need to plan their budgets for these changes, we only think it is fair for the Welsh Government to provide sufficient funding to alleviate the cost implications of this Bill. Now, while amendment 11 makes reference to costs borne by local authorities and health boards, I note that amendment 12 takes this further by including other devolved authorities that are not funded by Welsh Government. Anticipating the Deputy Minister's response that few under this category, if any at all, would be affected by the Bill, we are pursuing a principle here, and it is agreement to the principle of providing sufficient funding that we are seeking from you as the Deputy Minister. Now, these are just two examples of Welsh Government legislation to date that have been underfunded. The Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013: last year, the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee found that the Wales annual spend on walking and cycling is half that of England's and one sixth of Holland's. Furthermore, the committee highlighted that the passing of the Act put a requirement on local authorities to continuously improve active travel routes, but were constrained by the funding made available to them. The Minister at the time announced a three-year funding settlement of £60 million. Now, my local authority and other authorities that have done some monitoring on the active travel Act—they simply were not awarded sufficient funding to actually allow the active travel Act to become a meaningful piece of legislation, and the same goes with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. This month, the auditor general has raised concerns that the public services boards created under the Act were limited in their work and impact due to the lack of dedicated funding. Outside of the Welsh Government's regional grant that cannot be spent on projects, councils often contribute through officer time or facilities, but resources and capacity to support those PSBs remain a key risk, as partners don't have the capacity to take on more. The reason that I wanted these amendments placed in here is I genuinely do not believe that you've even envisioned what, or even estimated the likely cost to be borne by the organisations, and certainly our local authorities and health boards, the impact this Bill is going to have.

Thank you, Janet. Are there other Members who would like to speak in this group, please? No. Okay. I call the Deputy Minister, then.

Thank you, Chair. I can understand that the Member is concerned about the impact of this Bill on public services, but you will see from the explanatory memorandum and from the raft of impact statements published with the Bill that we've done a thorough and extremely diligent job of considering the potential impacts of this Bill before introduction. And as far as we're aware, no other country has done more than us to consider the impacts of similar legislation, and also comprehensively prepared for implementation. We've explored the published data, which is available from other countries, on the impact of measures they've taken to prohibit the physical punishment of children. We've also spoken to a range of stakeholders in Ireland, New Zealand and Malta, who have legal systems similar to our own. And in these countries, there is no evidence that public services have been overwhelmed following law reform. And stakeholders have been clear when giving evidence to this committee that they do not consider there will be runaway costs, and I think we should trust their judgment on this. In fact, as this committee notes in its Stage 1 report, those delivering services on the front line have said, without exception, that 'this Bill will improve their ability to protect children living in Wales because it will make the law clear.' Sally Jenkins of the Association of Directors of Social Services said to this committee: 'In terms of thresholds for children’s services, we would not be anticipating a huge number of referrals to us. There may be a small number of referrals that come through. What we know from other nations is that it will peak and then settle. We recognise that’s likely to happen.' That's from the front line. Jane Randall, chair of the National Independent Safeguarding Board Wales, said: 'there's no expectation that there's going to be a huge increase in the number of referrals coming through to local authority social services, I think it would be dealt with within their existing resources.' And Dr Rowena Christmas, Royal College of General Practitioners, said: 'I can't see it's going to lengthen consultations. I can't see that it's going to increase the number of consultations, and I don't think it's going to increase the number of referrals I make to the health visitor or to social services, because if I was worried, I'd make those referrals now regardless of the Bill.' I just want to say again that the Bill is removing a defence to an offence of common assault, which has formed part of the common law of England and Wales for a very long time. And social services already receive and investigate reports of children being assaulted, including from health and education, so it's not a whole new area of costly activity for any of them. I do think that the evidence that you had at your committee did highlight those points. As I've already pointed out when discussing group 2 amendments, we're working with organisations to put in place arrangements to collect data about the possible impact on their services, and this will be analysed as part of the post-implementation review of the legislation. Welsh Government can consider with relevant organisations how best to manage any impact on workloads or resources and any cost implications. I can assure you that work to update the regulatory impact assessment has continued, and I've asked officials to prepare a revised RIA, as recommended at Stage 2, and I expect to share an updated RIA with you in advance of Stage 3. Serious consideration is being given on how to provide more detailed estimates of the unknown costs to public services arising from the Bill, but I think you should be reassured by the evidence that was given, particularly to this committee, from the professionals at the front line. What the amendments are proposing is outside the normal funding arrangements that operate within Government, and it's not clear why, in the context of the evidence heard at Stage I, such provisions are necessary. I'm sure that Members will agree that future Governments need to be able to consider, within the context of the budget-setting process, what the priorities are, and these considerations would need to be made within the context at that time, for example taking into account any issues that there are—UK Government actions, what happens in relation to Brexit, or any other unforeseen impacts on the economy or Welsh society. All those issues would have to be taken into account. Furthermore, as is the case now, the National Assembly for Wales scrutinises the Welsh Government budget annually, so it would be able to make an argument for additional funding for public bodies, should it consider that this is required. I do think all the evidence has shown that we do not anticipate that there will be a huge increase of a demand for funding, so I urge Members to reject these amendments, which I believe are unnecessary.


Thank you, Janet. Are there other Members who would like to speak in this group, please? No. Okay. I call the Deputy Minister, then.

Thank you, Chair. I can understand that the Member is concerned about the impact of this Bill on public services, but you will see from the explanatory memorandum and from the raft of impact statements published with the Bill that we've done a thorough and extremely diligent job of considering the potential impacts of this Bill before introduction. And as far as we're aware, no other country has done more than us to consider the impacts of similar legislation, and also comprehensively prepared for implementation. We've explored the published data, which is available from other countries, on the impact of measures they've taken to prohibit the physical punishment of children. We've also spoken to a range of stakeholders in Ireland, New Zealand and Malta, who have legal systems similar to our own. And in these countries, there is no evidence that public services have been overwhelmed following law reform. And stakeholders have been clear when giving evidence to this committee that they do not consider there will be runaway costs, and I think we should trust their judgment on this. In fact, as this committee notes in its Stage 1 report, those delivering services on the front line have said, without exception, that 'this Bill will improve their ability to protect children living in Wales because it will make the law clear.' Sally Jenkins of the Association of Directors of Social Services said to this committee: 'In terms of thresholds for children’s services, we would not be anticipating a huge number of referrals to us. There may be a small number of referrals that come through. What we know from other nations is that it will peak and then settle. We recognise that’s likely to happen.' That's from the front line. Jane Randall, chair of the National Independent Safeguarding Board Wales, said: 'there's no expectation that there's going to be a huge increase in the number of referrals coming through to local authority social services, I think it would be dealt with within their existing resources.' And Dr Rowena Christmas, Royal College of General Practitioners, said: 'I can't see it's going to lengthen consultations. I can't see that it's going to increase the number of consultations, and I don't think it's going to increase the number of referrals I make to the health visitor or to social services, because if I was worried, I'd make those referrals now regardless of the Bill.' I just want to say again that the Bill is removing a defence to an offence of common assault, which has formed part of the common law of England and Wales for a very long time. And social services already receive and investigate reports of children being assaulted, including from health and education, so it's not a whole new area of costly activity for any of them. I do think that the evidence that you had at your committee did highlight those points. As I've already pointed out when discussing group 2 amendments, we're working with organisations to put in place arrangements to collect data about the possible impact on their services, and this will be analysed as part of the post-implementation review of the legislation. Welsh Government can consider with relevant organisations how best to manage any impact on workloads or resources and any cost implications. I can assure you that work to update the regulatory impact assessment has continued, and I've asked officials to prepare a revised RIA, as recommended at Stage 2, and I expect to share an updated RIA with you in advance of Stage 3. Serious consideration is being given on how to provide more detailed estimates of the unknown costs to public services arising from the Bill, but I think you should be reassured by the evidence that was given, particularly to this committee, from the professionals at the front line. What the amendments are proposing is outside the normal funding arrangements that operate within Government, and it's not clear why, in the context of the evidence heard at Stage I, such provisions are necessary. I'm sure that Members will agree that future Governments need to be able to consider, within the context of the budget-setting process, what the priorities are, and these considerations would need to be made within the context at that time, for example taking into account any issues that there are—UK Government actions, what happens in relation to Brexit, or any other unforeseen impacts on the economy or Welsh society. All those issues would have to be taken into account. Furthermore, as is the case now, the National Assembly for Wales scrutinises the Welsh Government budget annually, so it would be able to make an argument for additional funding for public bodies, should it consider that this is required. I do think all the evidence has shown that we do not anticipate that there will be a huge increase of a demand for funding, so I urge Members to reject these amendments, which I believe are unnecessary.

You can reply to the debate now, Janet, yes.


Thank you, Chair. I can understand that the Member is concerned about the impact of this Bill on public services, but you will see from the explanatory memorandum and from the raft of impact statements published with the Bill that we've done a thorough and extremely diligent job of considering the potential impacts of this Bill before introduction. And as far as we're aware, no other country has done more than us to consider the impacts of similar legislation, and also comprehensively prepared for implementation. We've explored the published data, which is available from other countries, on the impact of measures they've taken to prohibit the physical punishment of children. We've also spoken to a range of stakeholders in Ireland, New Zealand and Malta, who have legal systems similar to our own. And in these countries, there is no evidence that public services have been overwhelmed following law reform. And stakeholders have been clear when giving evidence to this committee that they do not consider there will be runaway costs, and I think we should trust their judgment on this. In fact, as this committee notes in its Stage 1 report, those delivering services on the front line have said, without exception, that 'this Bill will improve their ability to protect children living in Wales because it will make the law clear.' Sally Jenkins of the Association of Directors of Social Services said to this committee: 'In terms of thresholds for children’s services, we would not be anticipating a huge number of referrals to us. There may be a small number of referrals that come through. What we know from other nations is that it will peak and then settle. We recognise that’s likely to happen.' That's from the front line. Jane Randall, chair of the National Independent Safeguarding Board Wales, said: 'there's no expectation that there's going to be a huge increase in the number of referrals coming through to local authority social services, I think it would be dealt with within their existing resources.' And Dr Rowena Christmas, Royal College of General Practitioners, said: 'I can't see it's going to lengthen consultations. I can't see that it's going to increase the number of consultations, and I don't think it's going to increase the number of referrals I make to the health visitor or to social services, because if I was worried, I'd make those referrals now regardless of the Bill.' I just want to say again that the Bill is removing a defence to an offence of common assault, which has formed part of the common law of England and Wales for a very long time. And social services already receive and investigate reports of children being assaulted, including from health and education, so it's not a whole new area of costly activity for any of them. I do think that the evidence that you had at your committee did highlight those points. As I've already pointed out when discussing group 2 amendments, we're working with organisations to put in place arrangements to collect data about the possible impact on their services, and this will be analysed as part of the post-implementation review of the legislation. Welsh Government can consider with relevant organisations how best to manage any impact on workloads or resources and any cost implications. I can assure you that work to update the regulatory impact assessment has continued, and I've asked officials to prepare a revised RIA, as recommended at Stage 2, and I expect to share an updated RIA with you in advance of Stage 3. Serious consideration is being given on how to provide more detailed estimates of the unknown costs to public services arising from the Bill, but I think you should be reassured by the evidence that was given, particularly to this committee, from the professionals at the front line. What the amendments are proposing is outside the normal funding arrangements that operate within Government, and it's not clear why, in the context of the evidence heard at Stage I, such provisions are necessary. I'm sure that Members will agree that future Governments need to be able to consider, within the context of the budget-setting process, what the priorities are, and these considerations would need to be made within the context at that time, for example taking into account any issues that there are—UK Government actions, what happens in relation to Brexit, or any other unforeseen impacts on the economy or Welsh society. All those issues would have to be taken into account. Furthermore, as is the case now, the National Assembly for Wales scrutinises the Welsh Government budget annually, so it would be able to make an argument for additional funding for public bodies, should it consider that this is required. I do think all the evidence has shown that we do not anticipate that there will be a huge increase of a demand for funding, so I urge Members to reject these amendments, which I believe are unnecessary.

You can reply to the debate now, Janet, yes.

I'd like to ask a question of the Deputy Minister. When we were taking evidence, at an earlier stage, I noticed that part of the stakeholder group—there was some liaison going on with social services departments across Wales. Now, we have 22 local authorities. At that time, the numbers mentioned were quite small—I think only a handful. What discussions have taken place with our local authorities in terms of their social services departments in terms of the lead, the cabinet members, or, indeed, the head of service? I can speak from my own experiences, when going around my constituency, but when I've spoken to some of the family support groups, and, indeed, the departments themselves, they are very concerned about the financial impact that this is going to have on the provision. They're already overstretched, and they see this as another burden—primarily another financial burden. So, how much have you engaged with them?


You can reply to the debate now, Janet, yes.

I'd like to ask a question of the Deputy Minister. When we were taking evidence, at an earlier stage, I noticed that part of the stakeholder group—there was some liaison going on with social services departments across Wales. Now, we have 22 local authorities. At that time, the numbers mentioned were quite small—I think only a handful. What discussions have taken place with our local authorities in terms of their social services departments in terms of the lead, the cabinet members, or, indeed, the head of service? I can speak from my own experiences, when going around my constituency, but when I've spoken to some of the family support groups, and, indeed, the departments themselves, they are very concerned about the financial impact that this is going to have on the provision. They're already overstretched, and they see this as another burden—primarily another financial burden. So, how much have you engaged with them?

There's been extensive engagement. We've had meetings with the Association of Directors of Social Services, and they're represented on all our groups, and we're working very closely with them, because, of course, they represent all the local authorities. But I have to say, when I've been going round and meeting lots of different groups, the first thing they say is, 'I'm so glad that you're doing this', and they haven't mentioned any financial implications. But, obviously, we will be very aware of—we are looking at any more evidence that comes up.


You can reply to the debate now, Janet, yes.

I'd like to ask a question of the Deputy Minister. When we were taking evidence, at an earlier stage, I noticed that part of the stakeholder group—there was some liaison going on with social services departments across Wales. Now, we have 22 local authorities. At that time, the numbers mentioned were quite small—I think only a handful. What discussions have taken place with our local authorities in terms of their social services departments in terms of the lead, the cabinet members, or, indeed, the head of service? I can speak from my own experiences, when going around my constituency, but when I've spoken to some of the family support groups, and, indeed, the departments themselves, they are very concerned about the financial impact that this is going to have on the provision. They're already overstretched, and they see this as another burden—primarily another financial burden. So, how much have you engaged with them?

There's been extensive engagement. We've had meetings with the Association of Directors of Social Services, and they're represented on all our groups, and we're working very closely with them, because, of course, they represent all the local authorities. But I have to say, when I've been going round and meeting lots of different groups, the first thing they say is, 'I'm so glad that you're doing this', and they haven't mentioned any financial implications. But, obviously, we will be very aware of—we are looking at any more evidence that comes up.

Okay. So, I'll still move my amendments. I'm disappointed, really. I was hoping to see some commitment to—this Bill was going to go through, and it's one that could be implemented fully, because sufficient resources were there. I'm not convinced about that, and I know that other organisations are not also. So, I move my amendments.


I'd like to ask a question of the Deputy Minister. When we were taking evidence, at an earlier stage, I noticed that part of the stakeholder group—there was some liaison going on with social services departments across Wales. Now, we have 22 local authorities. At that time, the numbers mentioned were quite small—I think only a handful. What discussions have taken place with our local authorities in terms of their social services departments in terms of the lead, the cabinet members, or, indeed, the head of service? I can speak from my own experiences, when going around my constituency, but when I've spoken to some of the family support groups, and, indeed, the departments themselves, they are very concerned about the financial impact that this is going to have on the provision. They're already overstretched, and they see this as another burden—primarily another financial burden. So, how much have you engaged with them?

There's been extensive engagement. We've had meetings with the Association of Directors of Social Services, and they're represented on all our groups, and we're working very closely with them, because, of course, they represent all the local authorities. But I have to say, when I've been going round and meeting lots of different groups, the first thing they say is, 'I'm so glad that you're doing this', and they haven't mentioned any financial implications. But, obviously, we will be very aware of—we are looking at any more evidence that comes up.

Okay. So, I'll still move my amendments. I'm disappointed, really. I was hoping to see some commitment to—this Bill was going to go through, and it's one that could be implemented fully, because sufficient resources were there. I'm not convinced about that, and I know that other organisations are not also. So, I move my amendments.

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I therefore take a vote by show of hands. All those in favour. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 11 is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 12?


There's been extensive engagement. We've had meetings with the Association of Directors of Social Services, and they're represented on all our groups, and we're working very closely with them, because, of course, they represent all the local authorities. But I have to say, when I've been going round and meeting lots of different groups, the first thing they say is, 'I'm so glad that you're doing this', and they haven't mentioned any financial implications. But, obviously, we will be very aware of—we are looking at any more evidence that comes up.

Okay. So, I'll still move my amendments. I'm disappointed, really. I was hoping to see some commitment to—this Bill was going to go through, and it's one that could be implemented fully, because sufficient resources were there. I'm not convinced about that, and I know that other organisations are not also. So, I move my amendments.

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I therefore take a vote by show of hands. All those in favour. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 11 is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 12?


Okay. So, I'll still move my amendments. I'm disappointed, really. I was hoping to see some commitment to—this Bill was going to go through, and it's one that could be implemented fully, because sufficient resources were there. I'm not convinced about that, and I know that other organisations are not also. So, I move my amendments.

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I therefore take a vote by show of hands. All those in favour. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 11 is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 12?

The question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 12. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 12 is not agreed. Deputy Minister, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 4?


The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I therefore take a vote by show of hands. All those in favour. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 11 is not agreed. Janet, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 12?

The question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 12. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 12 is not agreed. Deputy Minister, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 4?


The question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 12. All those against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Amendment 12 is not agreed. Deputy Minister, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 4?

Okay. I move amendment 4 in the name of the Deputy Minister. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 4, please show. All those against. So, there voted four in favour, two against, and amendment 4 is agreed. Deputy Minister, do you want to proceed to a vote on amendment 5?


Okay. I move amendment 4 in the name of the Deputy Minister. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 4, please show. All those against. So, there voted four in favour, two against, and amendment 4 is agreed. Deputy Minister, do you want to proceed to a vote on amendment 5?

I move amendment 5 in the name of the Deputy Minister. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 5, please show. All those against. So, there voted four in favour, two against, and amendment 5 is agreed. Deputy Minister, do you want to move to a vote on amendment 6?


I move amendment 5 in the name of the Deputy Minister. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 5, please show. All those against. So, there voted four in favour, two against, and amendment 5 is agreed. Deputy Minister, do you want to move to a vote on amendment 6?

I move amendment 6, then, in the name of the Deputy Minister. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 6 is therefore agreed. This takes us, then, to the fifth and final group, which relates to commencement. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 9 in the name of Suzy Davies. And I call Suzy Davies to move amendment 9 and to speak to the amendment and the other amendments in the group.


I move amendment 5 in the name of the Deputy Minister. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote. All those in favour of amendment 5, please show. All those against. So, there voted four in favour, two against, and amendment 5 is agreed. Deputy Minister, do you want to move to a vote on amendment 6?

I move amendment 6, then, in the name of the Deputy Minister. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 6 is therefore agreed. This takes us, then, to the fifth and final group, which relates to commencement. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 9 in the name of Suzy Davies. And I call Suzy Davies to move amendment 9 and to speak to the amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Thank you very much, Chair. Amendment 9 is actually consequential on amendment 10 passing, but it's the lead amendment in the group, so I'll move it to begin the debate. Minister, I'm speaking here now to amendments 10 and 15 specifically. You've said repeatedly, and I believe you, that you do not wish to criminalise parents but just to stop them physically punishing their children. You could have chosen to try and achieve this through awareness raising and civil enforcement, but by choosing to remove the defence to a criminal act you have entered the arena of criminal law, where the logical consequence is opening parents up to liability—not necessarily getting prosecuted, but liability to prosecution, not just liability to civil sanctions. I'm sure you'd prefer parents not to be prosecuted, but that decision does not and cannot lie with you. You, like us, have no agency in this, because the powers and the duties of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service sit outside our competence. You cannot and we cannot, by law or otherwise, instruct either of them in the delivery of your policy intention of not criminalising parents. You've acknowledged to this committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee that revised CPS charging guidance and any other guidance on, for example, out-of-court disposals, are key to delivering your policy objectives. You'll remember how concerned this committee was when we learned that your advisory group—the strategic implementation group, is it—was only in the early stages of discussing what these guidelines might look like. So, you're actually asking us to pass law when we have no control over how parents might be punished for smacking their children—no control of the regard given to the relevance of force, the frequency of the offence, any prior conviction, any prior reporting, not even the views of the child in how they might be sentenced, or thresholds that would be appropriate for cautions and other out-of-court disposals; no guidance to the police on thresholds for arrest, let alone charging. And you argue that the rights of the child are what matter, and I agree with you here, but everybody, adult or child, has a right to natural justice and proportionate remedy or censure, and you are in no position to offer us any comfort on these matters at this stage. Now, CLAC recommended that any revised guidance be made available to AMs before Stage 3. I anticipate that that's unlikely, and I hope I'm wrong, but that's why Janet and I have tabled amendments 10 and 15, which prevent you bringing section 1 into force until that CPS guidance has been fully updated to take into account the change in the law and until pathways away from prosecution have been devised and agreed. That reflects our recommendation 4, this committee's recommendation, as well as CLAC's recommendation 1. It gives your strategic implementation board time to consider how it can get around the other fundamentally worrying issue of the effect of recording reports of apparent physical punishment, even if those reports ultimately prove unfounded. And you have not addressed these in your own amendments. I have to say, Minister, I think these points are so serious that I would have liked to have tabled amendments preventing you seeking Royal Assent for this Bill until the Assembly has seen drafts of the range of official guidance needed for the police and CPS. I'd have sought a Report Stage, if I could, so that we could consider that evidence. But I'm therefore asking you to support the amendments we have tabled, 10 and 15, so that we can bring some damage limitation to a process that you ultimately cannot control once this Bill has passed. Now, I know you've got the numbers to pass this Bill, whether you accept amendments or not, but I just hope you can see the danger in pushing forward with a Bill that changes a person's relationship with the criminal law when you have no legal control over the consequences of that, and you're inviting this Assembly to fall into the same trap. I therefore urge the Assembly to avoid this recklessness by supporting these two amendments.


I move amendment 6, then, in the name of the Deputy Minister. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 6 is therefore agreed. This takes us, then, to the fifth and final group, which relates to commencement. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 9 in the name of Suzy Davies. And I call Suzy Davies to move amendment 9 and to speak to the amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Thank you very much, Chair. Amendment 9 is actually consequential on amendment 10 passing, but it's the lead amendment in the group, so I'll move it to begin the debate. Minister, I'm speaking here now to amendments 10 and 15 specifically. You've said repeatedly, and I believe you, that you do not wish to criminalise parents but just to stop them physically punishing their children. You could have chosen to try and achieve this through awareness raising and civil enforcement, but by choosing to remove the defence to a criminal act you have entered the arena of criminal law, where the logical consequence is opening parents up to liability—not necessarily getting prosecuted, but liability to prosecution, not just liability to civil sanctions. I'm sure you'd prefer parents not to be prosecuted, but that decision does not and cannot lie with you. You, like us, have no agency in this, because the powers and the duties of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service sit outside our competence. You cannot and we cannot, by law or otherwise, instruct either of them in the delivery of your policy intention of not criminalising parents. You've acknowledged to this committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee that revised CPS charging guidance and any other guidance on, for example, out-of-court disposals, are key to delivering your policy objectives. You'll remember how concerned this committee was when we learned that your advisory group—the strategic implementation group, is it—was only in the early stages of discussing what these guidelines might look like. So, you're actually asking us to pass law when we have no control over how parents might be punished for smacking their children—no control of the regard given to the relevance of force, the frequency of the offence, any prior conviction, any prior reporting, not even the views of the child in how they might be sentenced, or thresholds that would be appropriate for cautions and other out-of-court disposals; no guidance to the police on thresholds for arrest, let alone charging. And you argue that the rights of the child are what matter, and I agree with you here, but everybody, adult or child, has a right to natural justice and proportionate remedy or censure, and you are in no position to offer us any comfort on these matters at this stage. Now, CLAC recommended that any revised guidance be made available to AMs before Stage 3. I anticipate that that's unlikely, and I hope I'm wrong, but that's why Janet and I have tabled amendments 10 and 15, which prevent you bringing section 1 into force until that CPS guidance has been fully updated to take into account the change in the law and until pathways away from prosecution have been devised and agreed. That reflects our recommendation 4, this committee's recommendation, as well as CLAC's recommendation 1. It gives your strategic implementation board time to consider how it can get around the other fundamentally worrying issue of the effect of recording reports of apparent physical punishment, even if those reports ultimately prove unfounded. And you have not addressed these in your own amendments. I have to say, Minister, I think these points are so serious that I would have liked to have tabled amendments preventing you seeking Royal Assent for this Bill until the Assembly has seen drafts of the range of official guidance needed for the police and CPS. I'd have sought a Report Stage, if I could, so that we could consider that evidence. But I'm therefore asking you to support the amendments we have tabled, 10 and 15, so that we can bring some damage limitation to a process that you ultimately cannot control once this Bill has passed. Now, I know you've got the numbers to pass this Bill, whether you accept amendments or not, but I just hope you can see the danger in pushing forward with a Bill that changes a person's relationship with the criminal law when you have no legal control over the consequences of that, and you're inviting this Assembly to fall into the same trap. I therefore urge the Assembly to avoid this recklessness by supporting these two amendments.

Thank you, Suzy. Are there other Members who wish to speak? No. Janet, do you want to speak?


I move amendment 6, then, in the name of the Deputy Minister. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 6 is therefore agreed. This takes us, then, to the fifth and final group, which relates to commencement. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 9 in the name of Suzy Davies. And I call Suzy Davies to move amendment 9 and to speak to the amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Thank you very much, Chair. Amendment 9 is actually consequential on amendment 10 passing, but it's the lead amendment in the group, so I'll move it to begin the debate. Minister, I'm speaking here now to amendments 10 and 15 specifically. You've said repeatedly, and I believe you, that you do not wish to criminalise parents but just to stop them physically punishing their children. You could have chosen to try and achieve this through awareness raising and civil enforcement, but by choosing to remove the defence to a criminal act you have entered the arena of criminal law, where the logical consequence is opening parents up to liability—not necessarily getting prosecuted, but liability to prosecution, not just liability to civil sanctions. I'm sure you'd prefer parents not to be prosecuted, but that decision does not and cannot lie with you. You, like us, have no agency in this, because the powers and the duties of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service sit outside our competence. You cannot and we cannot, by law or otherwise, instruct either of them in the delivery of your policy intention of not criminalising parents. You've acknowledged to this committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee that revised CPS charging guidance and any other guidance on, for example, out-of-court disposals, are key to delivering your policy objectives. You'll remember how concerned this committee was when we learned that your advisory group—the strategic implementation group, is it—was only in the early stages of discussing what these guidelines might look like. So, you're actually asking us to pass law when we have no control over how parents might be punished for smacking their children—no control of the regard given to the relevance of force, the frequency of the offence, any prior conviction, any prior reporting, not even the views of the child in how they might be sentenced, or thresholds that would be appropriate for cautions and other out-of-court disposals; no guidance to the police on thresholds for arrest, let alone charging. And you argue that the rights of the child are what matter, and I agree with you here, but everybody, adult or child, has a right to natural justice and proportionate remedy or censure, and you are in no position to offer us any comfort on these matters at this stage. Now, CLAC recommended that any revised guidance be made available to AMs before Stage 3. I anticipate that that's unlikely, and I hope I'm wrong, but that's why Janet and I have tabled amendments 10 and 15, which prevent you bringing section 1 into force until that CPS guidance has been fully updated to take into account the change in the law and until pathways away from prosecution have been devised and agreed. That reflects our recommendation 4, this committee's recommendation, as well as CLAC's recommendation 1. It gives your strategic implementation board time to consider how it can get around the other fundamentally worrying issue of the effect of recording reports of apparent physical punishment, even if those reports ultimately prove unfounded. And you have not addressed these in your own amendments. I have to say, Minister, I think these points are so serious that I would have liked to have tabled amendments preventing you seeking Royal Assent for this Bill until the Assembly has seen drafts of the range of official guidance needed for the police and CPS. I'd have sought a Report Stage, if I could, so that we could consider that evidence. But I'm therefore asking you to support the amendments we have tabled, 10 and 15, so that we can bring some damage limitation to a process that you ultimately cannot control once this Bill has passed. Now, I know you've got the numbers to pass this Bill, whether you accept amendments or not, but I just hope you can see the danger in pushing forward with a Bill that changes a person's relationship with the criminal law when you have no legal control over the consequences of that, and you're inviting this Assembly to fall into the same trap. I therefore urge the Assembly to avoid this recklessness by supporting these two amendments.

Thank you, Suzy. Are there other Members who wish to speak? No. Janet, do you want to speak?

Yes, I wish to speak to amendments 14 and 16. Amendment 14, however, is consequential to amendment 16 passing. Amendment 16 prevents this from commencing until parenting support services have been established by the Welsh Government. As was clear during the committee's evidence sessions, present Welsh Government support programmes for parents have insufficient coverage. For example, the capacity and reach of the Healthy Child Wales programme came under question on its role in awareness raising, with health representatives acknowledging that universality had not been achieved, with 53.2 per cent of children in Wales reported as being contacted. Furthermore, existing parenting support is often only available as part of a targeted programme in specific areas, such as Flying Start, and even the children's commissioner noted that much more is needed to support parents to find alternatives to disciplining their children. Now, the Deputy Minister mentioned the 'Parenting: Give it Time' campaign as part of proposals on a wider package of support for children and their parents. However, the Deputy Minister was challenged on this fact, that this is an online campaign only, and could only respond that the mapping exercise she will undertake. Consequently, it should be remembered that this Bill will affect all parents. Therefore, the Deputy Minister needs to assure the committee and the public that universal support will be provided before the removal of the defence occurs.


Thank you very much, Chair. Amendment 9 is actually consequential on amendment 10 passing, but it's the lead amendment in the group, so I'll move it to begin the debate. Minister, I'm speaking here now to amendments 10 and 15 specifically. You've said repeatedly, and I believe you, that you do not wish to criminalise parents but just to stop them physically punishing their children. You could have chosen to try and achieve this through awareness raising and civil enforcement, but by choosing to remove the defence to a criminal act you have entered the arena of criminal law, where the logical consequence is opening parents up to liability—not necessarily getting prosecuted, but liability to prosecution, not just liability to civil sanctions. I'm sure you'd prefer parents not to be prosecuted, but that decision does not and cannot lie with you. You, like us, have no agency in this, because the powers and the duties of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service sit outside our competence. You cannot and we cannot, by law or otherwise, instruct either of them in the delivery of your policy intention of not criminalising parents. You've acknowledged to this committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee that revised CPS charging guidance and any other guidance on, for example, out-of-court disposals, are key to delivering your policy objectives. You'll remember how concerned this committee was when we learned that your advisory group—the strategic implementation group, is it—was only in the early stages of discussing what these guidelines might look like. So, you're actually asking us to pass law when we have no control over how parents might be punished for smacking their children—no control of the regard given to the relevance of force, the frequency of the offence, any prior conviction, any prior reporting, not even the views of the child in how they might be sentenced, or thresholds that would be appropriate for cautions and other out-of-court disposals; no guidance to the police on thresholds for arrest, let alone charging. And you argue that the rights of the child are what matter, and I agree with you here, but everybody, adult or child, has a right to natural justice and proportionate remedy or censure, and you are in no position to offer us any comfort on these matters at this stage. Now, CLAC recommended that any revised guidance be made available to AMs before Stage 3. I anticipate that that's unlikely, and I hope I'm wrong, but that's why Janet and I have tabled amendments 10 and 15, which prevent you bringing section 1 into force until that CPS guidance has been fully updated to take into account the change in the law and until pathways away from prosecution have been devised and agreed. That reflects our recommendation 4, this committee's recommendation, as well as CLAC's recommendation 1. It gives your strategic implementation board time to consider how it can get around the other fundamentally worrying issue of the effect of recording reports of apparent physical punishment, even if those reports ultimately prove unfounded. And you have not addressed these in your own amendments. I have to say, Minister, I think these points are so serious that I would have liked to have tabled amendments preventing you seeking Royal Assent for this Bill until the Assembly has seen drafts of the range of official guidance needed for the police and CPS. I'd have sought a Report Stage, if I could, so that we could consider that evidence. But I'm therefore asking you to support the amendments we have tabled, 10 and 15, so that we can bring some damage limitation to a process that you ultimately cannot control once this Bill has passed. Now, I know you've got the numbers to pass this Bill, whether you accept amendments or not, but I just hope you can see the danger in pushing forward with a Bill that changes a person's relationship with the criminal law when you have no legal control over the consequences of that, and you're inviting this Assembly to fall into the same trap. I therefore urge the Assembly to avoid this recklessness by supporting these two amendments.

Thank you, Suzy. Are there other Members who wish to speak? No. Janet, do you want to speak?

Yes, I wish to speak to amendments 14 and 16. Amendment 14, however, is consequential to amendment 16 passing. Amendment 16 prevents this from commencing until parenting support services have been established by the Welsh Government. As was clear during the committee's evidence sessions, present Welsh Government support programmes for parents have insufficient coverage. For example, the capacity and reach of the Healthy Child Wales programme came under question on its role in awareness raising, with health representatives acknowledging that universality had not been achieved, with 53.2 per cent of children in Wales reported as being contacted. Furthermore, existing parenting support is often only available as part of a targeted programme in specific areas, such as Flying Start, and even the children's commissioner noted that much more is needed to support parents to find alternatives to disciplining their children. Now, the Deputy Minister mentioned the 'Parenting: Give it Time' campaign as part of proposals on a wider package of support for children and their parents. However, the Deputy Minister was challenged on this fact, that this is an online campaign only, and could only respond that the mapping exercise she will undertake. Consequently, it should be remembered that this Bill will affect all parents. Therefore, the Deputy Minister needs to assure the committee and the public that universal support will be provided before the removal of the defence occurs.


Thank you, Suzy. Are there other Members who wish to speak? No. Janet, do you want to speak?

Yes, I wish to speak to amendments 14 and 16. Amendment 14, however, is consequential to amendment 16 passing. Amendment 16 prevents this from commencing until parenting support services have been established by the Welsh Government. As was clear during the committee's evidence sessions, present Welsh Government support programmes for parents have insufficient coverage. For example, the capacity and reach of the Healthy Child Wales programme came under question on its role in awareness raising, with health representatives acknowledging that universality had not been achieved, with 53.2 per cent of children in Wales reported as being contacted. Furthermore, existing parenting support is often only available as part of a targeted programme in specific areas, such as Flying Start, and even the children's commissioner noted that much more is needed to support parents to find alternatives to disciplining their children. Now, the Deputy Minister mentioned the 'Parenting: Give it Time' campaign as part of proposals on a wider package of support for children and their parents. However, the Deputy Minister was challenged on this fact, that this is an online campaign only, and could only respond that the mapping exercise she will undertake. Consequently, it should be remembered that this Bill will affect all parents. Therefore, the Deputy Minister needs to assure the committee and the public that universal support will be provided before the removal of the defence occurs.

Thank you, Chair. I've listened to what stakeholders and committees have said about the importance of ensuring sufficient time is available prior to the change in the law to abolish the defence of reasonable punishment during Stage 1. As a result, I have brought forward amendments in this group to provide certainty around the date for the change in the law. My amendment 7 will remove the power to commence this core provision of the Bill by Order of the Welsh Ministers and ensure that the defence of reasonable punishment is abolished at the end of a two-year period beginning the day after Royal Assent. That was done to give certainty on the length of time. Up to then, we'd always said 'up to two years'—well, we're giving two years. This certainty will allow key partners, including the police, social services and the Crown Prosecution Service, to plan for changes to guidance, training and data-collection systems more effectively. It'll also provide a focus for our awareness-raising campaign. My amendment 8 in this group has the consequence of removing the power to make transitional provision, which is replaced by my amendments 3 and 6, and we discussed those in the previous group. I've listened to the arguments put forward by Suzy Davies and Janet Finch-Saunders for the amendments in this group that they have tabled. These amendments are all about making the commencement of the Bill conditional on something else happening, whether it's waiting for the revision of Crown Prosecution Service guidance, or the establishment of a pathway for diversion from the criminal justice system, or for the provision of parenting support services. And, really, I don't think that we should be going down that road. As I set out in my letter of response to the Stage 1 report from the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, we've got good working relations with the CPS through the strategic implementation group, and we work very closely with them. But the CPS are an independent body, as Suzy Davies has said in her contribution, not answerable to Welsh Ministers or this legislature, and it's not appropriate for a Minister or the National Assembly to seek to influence the CPS guidelines. We're discussing the issues with the CPS in the implementation group. And, in fact, I think that these amendments—Suzy's amendments in particular—wouldn't just seek to influence the CPS, but would actually give power to a non-devolved body on the way that we legislate in Wales. So, I don't think we should make it conditional on those guidelines being decided. I think you have to rely on the fact that we have got this very good relationship, very close working relationship. And I know they did give evidence to your committee, I believe, the CPS. And I think legislating to effectively give a non-devolved body a power to commence, or not, Assembly legislation would be highly unusual and would raise great uncertainty, I think, if we did go down that track, because I think this is very important Welsh legislation, which does have broad support across the Assembly. And I don't think we should allow non-devolved bodies to be the final arbiters of commencement of our legislation. So, I don't support those amendments. I think the CPS is entirely independent of Government, and must be entirely independent of Government, and will make its own decisions about how and when it will revise its guidance. In addition, you suggest we allow the UK Government to have a say in when Welsh legislation is commenced in an area that was specifically devolved to the Assembly. The test applied by the proposed amendments as to when commencement could lawfully occur is uncertain. If these amendments passed, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to judge when section 1 could be commenced. This contravenes what stakeholders and committees have asked for, and raises huge uncertainty, which potentially jeopardises the Bill. And I want to assure you again, not only do we have good working relations with the CPS, but also very good working relationships with the police, who are, of course, the other non-devolved body who have great involvement and interest in these issues. The work we do in these groups should not affect the timing of the Bill's commencement. In fact, it's the other way round. My amendment to provide a two-year period between Royal Assent and commencement means these groups can plan their work to a known timescale and deliver in good time before the law comes into force. And then, when it comes to parenting support, the committee knows that I've committed to reviewing the existing provision of parenting support, and work is already under way through the parenting expert group on this very issue. I have already said I will expand the age range of the 'Parenting: Give it Time' campaign, and I think—. I know Janet Finch-Saunders has made the point that it is an online facility. It is very widely used. It is a very successful tool. But, of course, the universal services are also there. For example, the universal service of the health visitors is absolutely crucial, and that is a service that is for every child. And, of course, the health visitors welcome this legislation very strongly. And the expert group is considering what it'll recommend for the future, and it needs the time to be able to do that, to support the Bill as well as to support parenting more widely. So, as I said, I think these are important points that you have raised, but I don't think they are appropriate. So, I therefore urge the committee not to support amendments 9 and 10, nor 13, 14 and 15.