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.
Thank you. Suzy to reply to the debate.
Thank you very much, and thank you very much, Deputy Minister, as well. I'm disappointed that you haven't seen what's behind Janet Finch-Saunders's final amendment there, actually. Maybe it's something we'll raise again with you at Stage 3, or maybe in the conversations that we have between now and then. But I want to go back to amendments 10 and 15 that I've raised and your assertion that we're giving, or attempting to give, power to the CPS here. We are not. This amendment is drafted very specifically and in full knowledge that we have no legislative competence in this area. And this is why I go back to where my contribution to this started, and it's your choice to try and resolve the problem of—or, sorry, to try and protect children's rights through the medium of a change to the criminal law rather than the many opportunities that were available to you through the civil law and over which you would have had complete competence. This Bill—and, actually, you've said a couple of times in your response today that it's important that it's commenced on a certain date. My argument is: it shouldn't be commenced at all unless you are absolutely certain about how it is likely to affect the parents who will now be captured by the removal of the defence. And, while I claim no mischief on the part of the CPS or the police—obviously I don't—there is nothing you can do that would prevent the CPS, should they wish to do it, or indeed the police with their own guidelines, putting in place something that is wholly disproportionate to the offence that is now being released by the removal of a defence. And, because of that, I ask you to consider, or balance, actually, two important things here: one is the rights of the child, obviously at the forefront of your argument on this, which I would argue could be completely and safely protected through the use of civil law on this occasion; and, actually, the rights of the child again to have a good relationship with parents over whose future they will have no say—or at least you cannot allow them to have any say in how those parents might be treated in terms of sentencing. The relationship between parents and children obviously is different in every family, but that's something you ought to protect in what you're trying to do here, and by leaving it open, as you say, to completely different—sorry, undevolved, two undevolved authorities to make decisions about how that relationship could be affected deeply worries me. I know this isn't going to stop your Bill going forward, but I really want you to consider my arguments and how you might try and address them at Stage 3, because leaving, effectively, the delivery of your policy objectives to somebody over whom you have no control, despite your great relationship with them, should worry us all as a legislature. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you, Suzy. Do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 9?