Oh, so it is going to continue beyond section 1 coming into force—
Yes. Oh yes, it's going to continue.
That's very helpful.
Definitely, yes. So, I don't think that's needed, amendment 1A. Amendment 1B, about support available to parents and how to access it—again, this level of detail is not required on the face of the Bill. I just want to emphasise we have got this expert implementation group, who are working on all aspects of this Bill, many of whom represent organisations who gave evidence to this committee. The Bill is a simple one, with a clear purpose. It aims to remove the defence of reasonable punishment. I think lots of these amendments are very helpful and interesting, but would be discussed and would be acted on in the normal pathway of planning and development, and they're not required on the face of the Bill. So, I'm not putting them down, I'm just saying that we don't need them to be there on the face of the Bill. And then amendment 1C—the information about how to raise concerns—I do repeat that safeguarding is everybody's business, and the same issues apply now as will after this defence has been removed. Amendment 1D—Ministers to have regard to the need to promote awareness among children—now, children's rights are absolutely enshrined in our policy making, and the entire Bill is about protecting the rights of children. So, it is unnecessary duplication. So, we hope that the Bill will remain focused. Again, in terms of visitors, the level of detail is simply not required on the face of the Bill. Our awareness-raising campaign will be comprehensive. And then to pick up a few of the other points that were raised, revisions to the impact assessments are being considered as part of my commitment to update the explanatory memorandum ahead of Stage 3. So, there will be more details on the regulatory impact assessment. The issue that was raised about the Scottish Bill, that it refers to 'understanding'—now, the Scottish Bill was not a Government Bill, it was a private Member's Bill, and our view is that nothing is added by adding the 'understanding'; 'awareness' is sufficient. So, basically, I think that the points made have been very useful, but I urge committee members to accept my amendments, but to reject those proposed by Janet Finch-Saunders, as they are unnecessary provisions in terms of what the awareness-raising duty needs to achieve.