Diolch, Llywydd. I rise to speak against the fundamental principles of this Bill, a Bill that sees this Government intervening inappropriately and excessively in family life. What we have here is a nanny-state approach, which disagrees that it is parents who are best placed to decide on the appropriate punishment or discipline for a child. We know from a UK Government review that the defence appears to be little used. Similarly, between 2009 and 2017, the defence was only raised three times in cases where a decision to charge had been made. So, the defence has not been hindering many parents who have actually caused anything more than a temporary reddening of the skin from being held accountable. Therefore, it seems that the allegation that this whole exercise is a demonstration of virtue signalling is absolutely right. It is indefensible in this instance to be infringing further on parents' rights in respect of private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
The Welsh Government argue that the interference is justified by the need to protect the rights of children, but is it? I think not. It is acknowledged in the explanatory memorandum that there is unlikely to be any research evidence that specifically shows the effects of a light and infrequent smack as being harmful to children. This is actually supported by the 'Parental Physical Punishment: Child Outcomes and Attitudes' review.
There is evidence that the processing of emotional pain in the brain is actually in the same area as physical pain. The independent Psychology Associates tell us that physical punishment is less harmful than some other non-physical, such as mind games, and that sending a child to a room and isolating them for several hours would be a very, very harmful thing to do. It was no surprise, therefore, that only half of the consultation respondents agreed that the legislative proposal will achieve the aim of protecting children's rights. Therefore, the advice of Professor Larzelere cannot be ignored—that a better alternative is to identify the most appropriate chastisement. As it stands, we are now on track to be unreasonably criminalising good parents, of which there are many in Wales.
It is admitted in the explanatory memorandum that parents, if reported, will be charged, prosecuted and convicted, or offered a statutory out-of-court disposal, which would be disclosed as conviction information on an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check. Even worse is that the chief constable for south Wales admitted that reports of alleged criminal behaviour will still show up, even if that person has not been prosecuted.
I ask this Chamber: do we really want such parents to see their career chances challenged and travel to certain countries curbed as a result of a minor incident and removal of the defence? Have we even thought of the fact that punishing the parent may actually cause harm to the child too? It was noted in committee that senior officers in Wales have warned that children may be removed from their family home whilst cases are prosecuted. It has also been explained that the ban could delay some of the 6,500 court cases where parents can't agree arrangements for their children, and weaponise smacking in divorce cases.
If you don't believe me, listen to the Deputy Minister. She herself has admitted that malicious reporting via ex-partners is likely to occur. It is true that the police already have to identify genuine cases, and that multi-agency safeguarding hubs are used to understand the context of families. Despite the Welsh Government response to recommendation 17 portraying them as being unfazed by the fact that there is not a hub in every area, in evidence, a police and crime commissioner noted the necessity of greater funding levels, and essentially agreed that it is a concern that the Welsh Government is proposing a law that it is not funding with regard to the greater impact on our police force. Funding is an even greater problem when questioning the impact of the Bill on social services. Astoundingly, the Deputy Minister comes across as being clueless as to the pressure this legislation will cause to the cash crisis in social services.
She has not actually calculated the potential additional costs, meaning that she's asking us to support a Bill with serious unknown financial implications for struggling local authorities. This is fiscally irresponsible. If you don't believe me, look at the conclusions of the Finance Committee report, and recommendation 20 of the Children, Young People and Education Committee report, to which the Deputy Minister has replied that:
'it may not be possible to provide more detailed estimates'
of the unknown costs.
The Deputy Minister has tripped up on awareness too.