I would echo that. I think there is something in this that is about our culture, about how we see our children. It is about how we see our smallest and most vulnerable people, and if it is acceptable it opens the door to those other, more extreme versions of violence, which then complicates the issue for us. This is about clarity, and, whilst there is an argument that this is a small episode for a child, it's not a small episode for a child, it is a major episode for a child, and I think absolutely, as you said, the potential for it then to lead on, and over gradation and time to increase the risk for children, is clearly there.
Okay, thank you. The final question from me: your written evidence emphasises the need for greater clarity around the definition of what constitutes corporal punishment, but that contrasts with what we've been told by the children's commissioner and the equal protection network, who've emphasised the importance of simplicity in the Bill. How do you respond to that view, and is what you're calling for essential to be on the face of the Bill?
It's not essential for it to be on the face of the Bill. What we would like to see is discussion within the implementation phase for that nuancing. Absolutely agree in terms of simplicity—I think that is really important—and I've already mentioned clarity. What we don't want to do is further confuse the position. We know that the legislation in different countries has done that, and there are ways that you can do it, but what we would welcome is an opportunity during the implementation phase for discussion.
Okay. Thank you.