Okay. Hefin, on human rights.
I just wanted to ask a very specific question on human rights, because, you know, when it comes to appeals, there are a variety of articles under the European Convention on Human Rights that might be used with regard to a challenge to the law as enacted. So, I'll ask you the question very directly. For the purpose of the record, can you outline to us the assessment you've made in preparation for this Bill in relation to the balancing of relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, including but not limited to article 8 on the respect for private life; article 9, freedom of conscience and religion; article 3, the right to protection from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment; and article 14, protection from discrimination?
Thank you very much. We have given a great deal of thought, as you can imagine, to the human rights considerations as set out in our impact assessments, and it's ultimately a question how we find a balance between the rights of children as well as parents, who both enjoy rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. So, article 3 is the prohibition of torture: 'No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.' In ensuring that children are protected from physical punishment in the same way as adults, the Bill is following that requirement of article 3, and the positive obligations on states to protect individuals from ill treatment or punishment that is contrary to article 3. And then, in terms of article 8, right to respect for private and family life, 'Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.' Some of those who are opposed to the prohibition of physical punishment have cited article 8, private and family life, and also cited article 9, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as potentially protecting the right for parents to decide how best to punish their children, including the use of physical punishment. That is used as an argument by those who are opposed to stopping physical punishment. But these rights are not absolute, and action can therefore be taken that interferes with them, provided the interference is justified. It's the Government's view that the Bill's provisions are necessary in order to protect the rights and freedom of children. We are looking here from the point of view of children. The Bill's provisions are regarded as proportionate measures, and given the fundamental importance of protecting children from inhumane or degrading punishment or other ill treatment, we do consider that we have balanced the rights in a proportionate way. And then, article 10, freedom of expression, and article 14, prohibition of discrimination—these rights are not absolute and action can be taken, therefore, that interferes with them, providing the interference is justified. We don't think it's clear that article 10 and 14 rights are being interfered with, but even if they are, we consider we can justify the interference in order to protect the rights and freedoms of children. I don't know, Emma, whether you wanted to add anything to any of that.
Only that we set out—. I think it's the equality impact assessment that sets out the positive and negative impacts of the proposal and the balancing of the rights enjoyed by both parents and children.