Item 2 this afternoon is our eleventh evidence session on the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill. I'm very pleased to welcome Barry Hughes, who is Chief Crown Prosecutor for Wales; Kwame Biney, who is senior policy advisor, CPS; and Iwan Jenkins, who is head of the complex casework unit, Crown Prosecution Service Cymru Wales. If you're happy, we'll go straight into questions from Members, and the first ones are from Siân Gwenllian. I would like to start just by looking in general at how the law currently stands, and how do you think the law as it currently stands today, and specifically in terms of reasonable punishment—how does that protect children. barry hughes: Sorry, can I just be clear? How does the law as it presently stands protect children? sian gwenllian am: Yes. barry hughes: We have a range of offences created by the criminal law, going back to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 in the middle of the century before last, which provide for offences of assault against a variety of people, including, in particular, Acts such as the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which provides for offences that are specific to children. But the more general criminal legislation, such as the Offences Against the Person Act, does provide specifically for adults and children alike not to be subject to physical assault. In respect of children in particular, you'll be aware that we have section 58 of the Children Act 2004, which does make it a defence for a person accused of assaulting a child to argue that it was a case where they were acting only so as to impose reasonable punishment upon the child. sian gwenllian am: Well, a review was undertaken by the Government back in 2007 that stated that retaining the law in its current form—that that would be the best thing to do because there's no evidence that it's not working satisfactorily. You are suggesting perhaps towards the end of your answer that there could be some change that's happened since 2007. barry hughes: I think the law should reflect contemporary society and the law is evolutionary in nature, and should be evolutionary in nature. And just as if we go back 50 years there are types of behaviour that we might all have contemplated back then as being socially acceptable, many of those types of behaviour are not now, and the law has changed to reflect that. We don't need to go back a very long way to find, for example, that there was no such offence as raping one's married wife, and the law has changed to reflect the fact that that is simply not acceptable. And from what I've seen of the research, and I think back to the 2007 review, to which you've just referred, there is evidence within that review already that opinions are changing. And I've seen research more current than that that suggests that young people find it less acceptable to use reasonable punishment in chastising a child than do people of an older generation. Of course, as we move forward in time, the people who are young now are going to be the older adults of the future. We have heard evidence as a committee that this proposed law would provide a much clearer legal framework—that is, to take out this reasonable punishment defence, that then would make things much clearer for parents and professionals. Does the CPS have a view on that? barry hughes: I think it will make things clearer. I'm not sure it will make them much clearer, because if we get into some of the—. And when it comes to prosecuting, it's often the case that things aren't just black and white; there are multiple shades of grey in between. We know that the Children Act did introduce a degree of clarity, in that it removed the defence of reasonable chastisement for offences of causing actual bodily harm, causing grievous bodily harm, causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and various incidents of child cruelty under the Children and Young Persons Act. There were a series of Court of Appeal cases that sought to clarify the law, but that was at a time, at the end of the 1990s, the start of the 2000s, when we had the European convention on human rights and we had a quickly developing body of case law. A decision was clearly made back then in the early 2000s not to include common assault in the same category as actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm et cetera. As we wind forward some 15 years, I have seen the research that suggests that some people see that the present legislation, and the way in which section 58 applies to reasonable chastisement for common assault of children—some people have interpreted that as saying that smacking is acceptable. I don't think that it is what it says, but there is a degree of confusion around that. And the reason why I say it's not as simple as that is, going back to my words a couple of minutes ago, it's rarely a case of being black and white; there are these degrees of grey. sian gwenllian am: What are the areas of grey that you refer to? Can you give a few examples? barry hughes: If you take an example—so, one of the examples that I've heard discussed has been a child—a young child; let's say a five-year-old child by the side of a road—who darts to go out in the path of moving traffic. Now, technically, taking hold of the child at that point is an assault, because it's an unwanted imposition of physical force. But no-one's going to say that's anything like an assault that should come to the criminal courts. At that point, the parent then seeks to admonish the child, tells them off and smacks the child on the legs. But so much depends upon the circumstances, whether this is something that happens frequently with the child, the size of the child, the parent, the force of the slap, the way in which it's imposed. As we move towards the other end of the spectrum, we might have repeated smacking, shouting, maybe hitting the child over the head as well. There'll be a point at which it crosses the threshold from something that needs to be reported to the police, and the police would take some form of action, and then, as we move through the tiers, it'll reach a stage where the police think this is a case that should be prosecuted and they would bring it to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision. And the absolute other end of the spectrum here is one where we decide it's an offence that we think is so serious that it should be charged and brought before a criminal court. That would be very much towards the serious end of the spectrum of the type of behaviour that I've just described to you. Does that help to illustrate that, at one end, it's relatively white and the other end it's relatively black, but in the middle we have the shades of grey? sian gwenllian am: But that would mean that there could be more prosecutions at the softer end. So, you are probably aware, but forgive me if I just explain quickly anyway, when we approach a file of material evidence submitted by the police we apply the code for Crown prosecutors, which has a two-stage test. The first stage is whether there's sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and the second stage is—. If there isn't enough evidence, we don't go on to consider whether it's in the public interest, because we wouldn't put an offence before the courts if we didn't think there was a realistic prospect of conviction. So, to return to the point, if we have an offence where, let's say, there is a light smack at the time, the police apply the same code before they bring a case to us. We don't always agree with the police; generally we do, but we don't always agree. So, if a police officer takes witness statements in relation to that case—the light smacking on the leg—at present it's unlikely that would come to the CPS, because they would look at it and say, 'Reasonable chastisement provides for a defence.' If that defence is removed, then obviously there is a greater possibility that it would be referred to the CPS. I would like to think—and I think this is what will probably happen in practice—that the police would take a view that the evidential test may have been satisfied because the defence had been removed, but it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute. It may be that the police decide that it is—it may have been two smacks, three smacks, so it moves towards the end of the spectrum that would suggest that matters are becoming rather more serious. We would then apply independently the same test, and we would probably conclude that the evidential stage was met in that instance because the defence no longer exists, which takes us on to considering the public interest. In the circumstances that I've described, every case is going to be unique on its own facts, but in the circumstances that I've described, if it is just a light smack and it's a one-off and there's no history of this, it would probably be the sort of offence we'd decide it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute. sian gwenllian am: But isn't it creating a new grey area in terms of the police now having to decide whether repeated smacking is in the public interest to at least refer it to you to decide about that? Do you know what I'm saying? barry hughes: If this Bill goes through, then it will remove a defence, which will make it likely that the police will give this more consideration for referral to the CPS than beforehand, but it doesn't necessarily mean they will refer it, because it will depend on the facts of each individual case. lynne neagle am: We've got some questions now on the divergence between the law in England and Wales from Dawn Bowden. The Assembly doesn't have any legislative competence to impose duties on the CPS, as you know, in the absence of the Secretary of State's consent. What are the implications for implementing the Bill in Wales for that? barry hughes: Can I give you two examples? One of the implications is this—and it's fairly obvious but it's still worth stressing—that the removal of the defence would mean that there would be more cases that would pass the evidential stage in Wales than there would be in England, because the defence would still apply there. That, therefore, raises issues in particular in terms of awareness of criminal offending for people from England who travel to Wales, because it's fairly evident that there would be a defence available in England that is not available in Wales. One of the examples that we talked about was if you consider a family on its way from England into Wales, travelling to Barry Island for a holiday, and troublesome children in the back of the car, harsh words and a small smack on the leg delivered while they're on the M4 going past Bristol would be subject to a defence. By the time we come over to this side of the water, there would be no such defence for the same journey, for the same act. The second example that I'll give you is that we already have within the United Kingdom a certain degree of divergence of laws, and the example I'll give to you is this: drink driving. In England and Wales, the limit for having micrograms of alcohol in your breath is 35 µg in 100 ml of breath. As you drive into Scotland, you're probably okay to drive if you've got 34 µg; by the time you get into Scotland, you won't be. And the consequences for you are significant, because of course it's an offence in Scotland, and not an offence in England, but the punishment, namely disqualification, applies everywhere in the United Kingdom. So, we already have a degree of divergence of law, and the CPS recognises this. In our code, we have a specific provision that takes account of the potential divergence of Welsh law. So, would you see the necessity for a memorandum of understanding, for instance, or it being useful in these circumstances, or are you quite satisfied that the current guidance code would cover that? barry hughes: Well, it's yet to move from a Bill into an Act, so we'd need to make sure that happened. We know there would be a period of time, perhaps as much as two years, or maybe a little more, while that takes place. In terms of how we'd approach it within the Crown Prosecution Service in Cymru-Wales, my approach would be along the lines of working with Kwame and his colleagues to make sure that the guidance that we issue nationally suits both England and Wales. And when it comes to the practical application of the legislation in Wales, we would almost certainly work on the basis that the number of offences—and we might want to get into the number of potential offences, but my take on it is the number of offences is likely to be very small and we would probably have two or three specialists trained in this so that any case that comes through goes to people who've got a close network and can talk with each other— dawn bowden am: And that would be primarily around the public interest issue. So you're obviously a key stakeholder in terms of this legislation and you're clearly very au fait with it and all its implications. What's actually been your involvement with the Government as they've been developing this legislation? barry hughes: My own personal involvement? dawn bowden am: Or the service's. I met with a Minister and a Deputy Minister—I met with Huw Irranca-Davies a little while ago, and I met with Julie Morgan a few months ago—to discuss the overall implications, and then officials on both sides have been engaging with each other. It hasn't been a very close-knit involvement, but we have had enough involvement so that we've felt we've been able to offer views on how we would deal with the legislation. I don't feel that it's been too much, nor do I feel we've been left on the side at all. Now, we've just talked about the divergence of criminal law, and this is probably the first time that there's been an obvious divergence between English and Welsh law, and so we were then talking about the guidance, weren't we, and whether that needs amending to reflect it. But I think you were saying that you felt, within the existing guidance, it could be dealt with, so you don't see a need to update or amend the guidance. barry hughes: I think we would need to update the guidance, and it goes back to the application of the evidential stage, before the public interest stage. On the evidential stage, I doubt that we'll need to do much, other than to make people aware that the defence is not available in Wales in the same way that it is in England, and we might have some light-touch guidance around that. When it comes to the public interest stage, that's a little more specialist and I think we would need to develop more with respect to that. dawn bowden am: And are you satisfied that your staff in Wales—well, and in England, actually, across the border—will be sufficiently aware of the divergence in this area of law? barry hughes: Not as of the present day. [Laughter.] dawn bowden am: But you would expect that to be something you would— barry hughes: Yes, I have no doubt. To an extent, actually, I think I would say that staff in Wales are aware of this already, because in my role as chief Crown prosecutor, I publish a monthly blog and we talk about the things we're doing, so staff are aware. I've discussed with staff and they've seen my blog and we've put it on our website: there have been engagements with the Welsh Government that this is a piece of work in which we're interested and that is under way. I think most staff would probably be aware that we are involved in this and that it is something that, at present, may well happen. And does that mean that there would also be a similar need for the CPS in England to be aware of the changes? barry hughes: They would need to be aware, but not to the same extent. So, in my office in Cardiff, for example, because we work digitally, I have about 30 to 35 prosecutors who work for the CPS in London, and they work exclusively on London cases. But there are times when some of those prosecutors will prosecute at courts in Wales, and then there may be an interchange; they'll come to work for us on secondment, or they'll come to work for us permanently. We'd need to make sure that those people were brought up to speed on the fact that there are some aspects of Welsh law that diverge from English law. My final question, Chair, is just whether you think there are any other significant cross-border issues that arise from this potential legislation. It boils down to the fact that there's a defence in England for assaults upon children that isn't available in Wales if this Bill goes through, and then it's dealing with the consequences of that. Oh no, that's right—obviously, this Act is on a particular trajectory at the moment, and it's due to be introduced before the end of this Assembly. Do you think it would be better for us as scrutinisers of this Act if we could see the draft changes to CPS guidance on the public interest test before we make our final decision? barry hughes: I honestly don't think that would necessarily be helpful. What we would envisage is that we would simply want to take the present public interest factors, which are set out, in my view, very clearly in the code for Crown prosecutors, and we would provide a degree of detail around those that relates more specifically to the issues that we're discussing here. And we'd need to work that up as we go along, and I think you'd run a risk of putting the cart before the horse, if I may put it like that. suzy davies am: It's just that, personally, I think the public interest test is critical in all this, and it would really help us to understand what it could look like before we commit to a particular course of action in supporting or not supporting the Bill, that was all. sian gwenllian am: My point is about the criminal law in Wales and England diverging in this particular instance, and we've been told that this is probably the first time it's happened. Can you think of any other examples where that divergence has happened and does it actually set some kind of precedent in motion? barry hughes: There are other offences in Wales that don't exist in England, but they don't crop up very often. So, to give you examples, there is an offence of putting an electronic collar on your pet—let's not stretch that into children. But putting an electronic collar on your pet that administers a shock is an offence in Wales; it's not an offence in England. There are also offences around the picking of cockles in west Wales, which is not an offence—. So, you can see there are some, but I would argue that the fact that you drive across the border into Scotland and commit an offence that you won't commit in England is possibly more significant for the general public. Of course, the topic we're discussing here is of real relevance for the general public, and you have heard evidence, I know, already, that comes from people who are quite strongly in favour and people quite strongly against it. One of the ways in which I've approached this is looking at it from the perspective of what the law is there for, which is to set out, in essence, what is acceptable, what is not acceptable. It doesn't necessarily mean we need to use the law for that, but it signifies how society views a certain behaviour. I like to look at it from the perspective of the person who is being affected by this, namely the child, and the change in the law here would afford children a degree of protection that they don't presently have, but which they do have when they attain the age of 16.FootnoteLink So, I looked at this—. I've had considerable dealings over the years with offences against residents in care homes, and you'll have seen Winterbourne View, you'll have seen recently up in Durham, where we have adults who need to be looked after because of issues with their mental capacity, and sometimes, the carers become frustrated with them and they admonish them. In much the same way as children are vulnerable and are looked after and can be sometimes quite annoying—but there is a level of protection for an adult striking a child lightly under the present law that is not available to the same adult for striking that child when they turn 16. sian gwenllian am: Do you think that what we're doing in Wales will be emulated in England at some point? barry hughes: Well, it's certainly going through in parallel in Scotland, and there are a great many other countries around the world that already have this, including a large number of European countries. Who knows? Trying to get any legislation through Westminster at the moment—who knows? Not tomorrow, I'd say. Can I just begin by asking you to help the committee out here in understanding how the burden of proof is going to work if this defence is removed? Because the issue of whether something is punishment or not is going to disappear, providing that it's clear that contact with a child has happened. Is that going to work on the presumption that that's an unlawful contact? Is that something the prosecution will still have to prove, or will it be for an accused parent to say, to use your example, 'I was just dragging them out of the traffic or stopping them putting their hands in the fire'? barry hughes: I understand your point. So, if we remove the defence of reasonable chastisement, in a sense that alters some things but it doesn't alter the basic responsibility of the prosecution, which is to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the defence raise an argument and say, 'Well, look, that was a lawful act; I was only doing what I thought was reasonable in the circumstances', it's for the Crown to disprove that. barry hughes: And we've got to disprove that to the criminal standard, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. I can see the potential for individuals who feel strongly about this to look to contest the matter, to not admit any wrongdoing at all and to take the matter to trial, and it would be our responsibility to disprove that. Obviously, when we're talking about CPS guidelines and all the rest, we've already come some distance down the process, haven't we? Have you got any views on what might be done to prevent cases even coming as far as arrest? Because one of the things that we have to consider is that once you're arrested, that is recorded somewhere and will appear in things like DBS checks in the future, even if it goes no further. Do you have any views on how intervention might work better earlier on, even at the point of the knock at the door? barry hughes: From the perspective of the CPS, I'm not sure I can help you there. Unlike in many other jurisdictions, we have no power whatsoever to direct the police, so if the police decide not to investigate—. I routinely get letters from members of the public outraged that the police have decided not to investigate their particular neighbour dispute or something, and they want us to do something about it and we can't. suzy davies am: Thank you for that, because I thought that was important to get on the record as well. We're looking at a period of a couple of years after this Act passes—if it does—for implementation. Is there anything at the moment that you think perhaps you still need to do as an organisation towards being in a position to practically implement this law? barry hughes: I think we need to maintain the type of dialogue that we've built up with the Welsh Government and colleagues there. We have other members of my staff who are involved in the other work streams that feed through to that, and I believe that that involvement will ensure that we are sufficiently interconnected; that we can liaise, in turn, with Kwame and his colleagues in the headquarters to respond to things as they develop. So, I think we've got a network of contacts built up here that is adequate for the purpose—at least, 'adequate' might sound a little— suzy davies am: Sufficient. suzy davies am: So, you're confident, by 2022, then, that you'll have changes to the CPS guidelines that are good to go, if you like. Bear with me a second—thank you very much—in your written evidence, you did welcome the indication from the Welsh Government that this reasonable period after Royal Assent would be necessary. Apart from the CPS guideline changes, which you'll be working through, is there anything else you think you might be needing to do apart from just keeping in touch? I'm just thinking: are there any practical and possibly financial implications for your workforce in this? barry hughes: If this legislation goes through, there will be minor financial consequences for us and I don't see any significant financial consequences in the period between now and the Bill becoming law other than the time of ourselves in discussing this today. And what about afterwards, then? Because one of the pieces of thinking behind this Act is to collect data to see whether this change in the law actually works. Do you want to talk us through a little bit about how that might affect you? I don't know who to ask on this. Well, I think that we are going to need to maintain a clear record of any cases that are referred to the CPS from the police and that will—. Normally, we do this through our case management system, which is England-and-Wales wide, and you'd put a flag on. So, for example, domestic abuse, there's a flag for that, and assault on a child, there's a flag for that. Trying to get that through on a system that covers all of England and Wales—it's quite expensive, unbelievably; it wouldn't happen. My take on it: I've seen and spoken with Matt Jukes about this, from South Wales Police; I have seen the justice impact assessment; I've seen the research that's been fed through from New Zealand; and I've seen our own response to a freedom of information request and the papers that the CPS put into the review that you mentioned earlier in 2007. I would be very surprised if we were to prosecute anything other than low single figures a year, if that much. We may have more referrals from the police, but I doubt it would be double the figure we prosecute, even. There are out-of-court disposals and there are all sorts of diversions that you will have discussed, and I know you've discussed, with the police and the police and crime commissioner. So, the numbers will be very small, which means we would be able to keep a clear track on those and, obviously, we would wish to keep the situation under review, and we'd reach a period of time after whatever—12, 18 months, maybe 24 months—where we'd look back to see how we are doing. And I'd like to think that we will be doing that in consultation with interested parties and stakeholders. So, for offences such as racially aggravated offending, whether it's criminal damage or offence against the person, we will bring together interested parties, by which  people from outside the CPS, quite often third sector agencies that represent vulnerable groups. That, in turn, helps us shape and improve the way that we prosecute these cases and I can foresee that, after this legislation came in, we might get 18 months, two years down the road, and I can see us sitting in a room with some of the cases we've prosecuted, maybe cases we've decided not to prosecute, with the police and interested parties from both sides, to have a discussion about how we're doing with it all. suzy davies am: That's really helpful to know because, of course, one of the difficulties of dealing with the culture change, which is what the Minister's effectively after here, is that we are still talking about it in the context of criminal legislation. And what I'm hearing from you is that the chances of somebody who's currently protected by the defence and is not part of a bigger case where there's serial smacking or other difficulties in a family, for example—the chances of them getting to you in the first place are pretty low, and then the chances of them passing even the current public interest tests are pretty low. In which case, my question is: why are we bothering with this law rather than concentrating on a new piece of law, possibly through the civil system, which would achieve the culture change better? Maybe that's not a question you feel that you can answer, but you can see why I'm asking the question. In other words, there is a greater degree of protection for children, and I think the value that would derive from this legislation is the message that it sends out. I go back to what I was saying to you right at the start, about the evolution of the law, and the way we've seen many other countries around the world adopt a very similar approach to that being proposed by the Welsh Government is, in my view, an evolution of the law. So, yes, there may not be many more prosecutions, but there won't be fewer than there are presently, because there's a greater degree of protection for children. lynne neagle am: Before we move on, can I just ask—? The Children Act 2004 applies to a child up to the age of 18— barry hughes: Sixteen. barry hughes: I'm reasonably confident that it's 16.FootnoteLink lynne neagle am: Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to put on record about the factors that the CPS would be taking into consideration when applying the public interest test in respect of this Bill? barry hughes: Can I give you an example, which might illustrate the way in which things could be different? This is one, which—I give credit to Iwan for this, because he thought of it. If we take an adult with a small child—say, a four-year-old—in a supermarket, and the child is pulling cans off the shelves, it's quite annoying, and they keep doing it and keep doing it. The parent remonstrates, and the parent ends up finding that verbal admonishment is inadequate, and smacks the child lightly on the legs, which does the trick and the child stops. Presently, if someone in that supermarket were to report that to the police, I think the police would probably conclude that that is covered by the defence of reasonable chastisement. In other words, the evidential stage wouldn't be passed; you don't get on to consider the public interest. But if we have that same parent in there the following week, and you have the same happen again, presently, the defence would apply. If that defence didn't apply at all, and we had a sequence of three offences, the public interest test would kick in, if I may put it like that, pretty quickly, because it would be repeated behaviour. So, that would be the distinction between how things are now and how they would be in the future, because the defence would not be available, so the public interest test would then come to the fore that much more quickly. So, when we apply the public interest test, the essence of it is about proportionality, and trying to come up with an approach that is proportionate to the offending. We look at the age of the offender, the age of the victim, we look at the circumstances, we look at the impact upon the victim, we look at the impact that's likely in relation to the suspect, and there is, within the code, a long list of matters that we take into account. If someone's got previous convictions for doing something wrong, it's more likely they're going to be prosecuted the next time. Mostly, it's reasonably obvious; the more serious an offence, the more likely you are to be prosecuted. vikki howells am: Thank you, that's really useful, and— lynne neagle am: Just before you move on, can I ask you a question? This morning the committee was meeting with groups of parents who are opposed to the Bill and groups of parents who are for the Bill, and one of the parents this morning was querying where the interests of the child would come into the public interest test. Can you just clarify for the record how the best interests of the child would be taken into account in considering whether to go forward with a prosecution? barry hughes: Normally, if there were an assault by someone else upon a child, outside the family, we would tend to take views from the parents of that child. In circumstances where both parents, arguably, are the suspects, we probably wouldn't be asking them. We would find another way, and we would talk with the police to ensure that we are informed about how the child feels about what has happened. I can foresee real difficulties in circumstances where we have parents who are separating where the children are being used, effectively, in divorce proceedings, for example, where we might have one parent saying there was a really bad impact upon the child and the other parent saying there wasn't. We'd want to find a way to cut through that to work out really from the police how does the child feel about that. So, we would tailor it to the circumstances of the particular incident to assess how the child feels about it. It's not determinative, nor is it determinative in cases where we prosecute for adult defendants inflicting some form of assault upon adult victims. In the same session this morning I thought this was an interesting question raised by a parent, on the rights of the child side of things, where if a parent offers a child two forms of punishment because that child has done something that they know they shouldn't have, and they're given the option of, 'You can have a quick smack and a cwtch, or you're going to your bedroom for quarter of an hour', and the child is allowed to choose and the child chooses the smack, what happens then? I'm not offering any views on the fact that this choice has been given, but it was put to us today about how would that fall in the law once it were changed. There is a body of law that— suzy davies am: A child can't consent to assault. barry hughes: Yes, you can't consent to a serious assault, apart from in certain—. So, for example, tattooing is a serious assault on one level, but you can consent to a tattoo. I can think of one case where a man branded his initials on a woman's buttocks, but she consented to it and the Court of Appeal held that they could consent to that. I can also think of a series of cases, which I won't get into here, that involve sadomasochistic behaviour between adults, some of which was really serious, and involved people willingly applying themselves to things that no sane person would do. And the Court of Appeal in that case, a case called Brown, said, 'No, that's going too far—you can't consent to that.' Then, you may have seen there was a case from the midlands recently where a gentleman operating a tattoo parlour was also involved in body surgery—splitting people's tongues. So, there is again—I referred before to the spectrum of offending, and there is a clear spectrum of offending that you can realistically consent to and then you get to offending you can't consent to. When it comes to much lesser assaults, the law is more unclear as to what you can consent to. I've got one further series of questions around out-of-court disposals, which you've already mentioned briefly. In your written evidence, you say there's ongoing work exploring diversion rather than prosecution in respect of this Bill. Firstly, could you tell us a bit more about the work that is being done to explore this as an option? barry hughes: We've been working with the National Police Chiefs' Council. She is responsible for developing the police approach to out-of-court disposals and simplifying the range of out-of-court disposals. There is quite a range, and life would be simpler and clearer to have fewer types of disposal with more clarity about what each one of them involved. I must say, this is primarily a matter for the police, because there are a great many offences or reports of crime that do not reach the CPS because they are dealt with by way of an out-of-court disposal. There's a document called the director's guidance on charging, which is issued by the director of public prosecutions, which sets out offences the police may charge and offences the CPS may charge. Offences that the police refer to us for a charging decision will generally be offences where they feel that there should be a prosecution rather than an out-of-court disposal. There may be cases where it's genuinely very difficult to assess what's the best approach, in which case we will have a conversation with them, a meaningful conversation, about what's the best way to approach that particular case. There will also be cases, and we see these not that rarely, where the police will bring a case to us for a prosecution on the basis that satisfies the evidential stage and satisfies the public interest stage, and we take a different view on the public interest stage. So, we might say—for example, it involves a 15-year-old youth—we  think that diversion from the criminal justice system is a better disposal and we decide not to prosecute. We aren't responsible for administering the out-of-court disposal or indeed monitoring compliance with that disposal, if, for example, it has conditions attached, such as repayment of the damage caused to a window or a front gate. That's not our responsibility—that will fall to the police—but we can decide that an out-of-court disposal is a more appropriate disposal than a prosecution. One final question on that then: creating a body of out-of-court disposals that are specific to this Bill—how would that actually work in practice do you think, given the fact that the Assembly's legislative competence to make provision on the face of the Bill is limited? barry hughes: The way I might see it is that, clearly, policing's not devolved, the CPS is not devolved—the way I might see this is that, within Wales, you could build an infrastructure that provides for a range of out-of-court disposals. You can't direct the police or the CPS to point people towards that, but, if you build a good infrastructure, it's more likely that people will be pointed in that direction. vikki howells am: And who would build that infrastructure, in your opinion? barry hughes: Somewhere within Wales—Welsh Government, local authorities, the police working in partnership. If I could just ask about awareness raising, then: you mentioned the Bill in Scotland, but that Bill includes a duty on the Government to raise awareness of the change. Do you think that's right or should this committee be saying that there should be a similar duty imposed in Wales? barry hughes: I'm not sure it's for me to say whether there should be a duty or not. I can, however, say that I think the greater the level of awareness, the more likely it is that the Act, if passed, will achieve its intentions. And, in your written evidence, you mentioned the fact that there's no indication of any plans for awareness raising in England and that if a person from England is being prosecuted in Wales as a result of this change, a question could arise about the lack of knowledge about the different provisions that apply in Wales. Can I ask what approach the CPS currently takes in Wales if a law is unintentionally broken by someone who's come from outside the UK, for example? barry hughes: It's straightforward: if someone comes to this country and commits an offence here—by this country, I'd say England or Wales; I'd treat them as one for these purposes—if someone comes from abroad and commits an offence that isn't an offence in their country, but is an offence here, then I'm afraid that ignorance of the law is no defence. So, raising awareness is important, and I saw, and I was pleased to see, that the media publicity surrounding this proposed legislation, which is now going through, reached as far afield as New York and had widespread media coverage across England and Wales, and I think the Government would be well placed here to take advantage of that willingness of the media to explore something, which is potentially divisive, and I think you've probably seen some of that. Anything like that is a good story, and a good story gets out there, which means you're more likely to make people aware of it. sian gwenllian am: Yes, we've discussed some of these already, but, for example, under the new law, or the proposed law, would one unintended consequence be that, if someone living in Wales who can't use the reasonable punishment defence—would their life prospects be different compared to those people in England, who will be able to use that defence? I think you've mentioned that in your written evidence. A simple answer: if somebody in Wales is convicted—so, if it goes towards the end of the spectrum that is serious, which results in a prosecution—. It may be—the sort of circumstance I can see happening here is somebody who takes a principled stand and declines any form of out-of-court disposal and says, 'Prosecute me'. So, let's say it comes to court and let's say they end up being convicted of assaulting their child—in circumstances that would not have happened in England—then they would have a criminal conviction they wouldn't have in England, and that, inevitably, has an impact upon their life prospects. And do you think that that would be an isolated incident? barry hughes: Yes, truly, I believe, an isolated incident. I've said before that I would be very surprised if we even had referrals that reached double figures on these cases. When the CPS was asked to conduct a survey across all of England and Wales—this was the review in 2007—it spanned just over a two-year period, and there were 12 cases that were brought up at that stage. Now, I have to say, I don't think that's entirely reliable, but it is indicative. We had a Freedom of Information Act request at one stage, which threw up something like three cases in a year. So, if you think about that as being all of England and Wales—and we make up about 5 per cent of the volume of criminal prosecutions nationally—you can see why I might say the numbers are likely to be small, for the reasons we've explored about getting past the evidential stage into the public interest. In terms of thinking about another kind of unintended consequence, in terms of managing performance and all of the targets that the police need to reach, are we perhaps going to see some people going through the criminal justice system in an inappropriate way and contrary to the interests of the child, because we need to reach some target in terms of performance measures? barry hughes: I have to say I think that extremely unlikely. Clearly, we prosecute if we think that there's a reasonable prospect, a realistic prospect, of conviction and it's in the public interest, but we have no targets. And I would also say, because the numbers here are likely to be so small, any assertion of looking to meet targets—it's a tiny, tiny fragment of a drop in the ocean. sian gwenllian am: What about—? There is a target for unsolved crimes, or unsolved offences. What if they fall into that category? Is that an unintended consequence? barry hughes: I'm talking about something I don't have great knowledge of here. There was, at one stage, a series of targets for the police that bore down upon cases that secure what was called a sanction detection, which counted for Home Office figures. Some individual constabularies may still have targets, but, as far as I'm aware, we don't have a suite of national measures. And, in my experience, the police are much more sensible these days than they may have been 20 years ago, in terms of trying to get cases charged in order to meet some notional target. We've mentioned this, namely the risk of malicious reporting against parents involved in private family law cases. Is that going to increase if we change the law? barry hughes: There is greater potential for it to increase. I think the numbers, again, will be tiny, and dwarfed by the number of cases where we have to deal with the fallout between a relationship breakdown between partners—whether they be living within the same house or living in different houses. Getting into the subtleties of the father, say, smacking the child in a way that was reasonable chastisement or was not reasonable chastisement is probably part of a much bigger piece here. It's not something that would cause me concern, simply because we already have a well-developed approach to dealing with the way in which we evaluate the evidence from parties who may well have a particular position that they want to reinforce, sometimes through exaggeration of basic facts and sometimes through fabrication. sian gwenllian am: Are there any other unintended consequences that come to your mind if we introduce this law? barry hughes: No, I think we've had a pretty helpful canter through most of the circumstances here that might happen. sian gwenllian am: Finally from me, therefore—another issue, in a way—the European convention on human rights. Would not introducing the new law mean, at some point, that Wales could get itself into difficulty because there is a breach of the human rights convention? And therefore England as well, at some point. How to approach that one? In the 2007 review to which we've referred already, the Government, the then Government, set out its position that it believes that section 58, in the way that it was drafted, is compliant with the European convention. If Wales implements this legislation and it becomes part of the law, then, arguably, Wales would be more in compliance with ECHR than not, and England would be less so. But nonetheless, at present, I haven't seen any demurral from the position that was expressed in 2007, which is that they consider that the position that's been adopted with section 58 is compliant with the legislation. It may well be tested by case law; that's the way it's likely to happen. Some of the changes in this arena were driven by case law—so, that case I referred to, Regina v H, which was heard back in 2001 in the Court of Appeal, was significant in helping shape the direction of travel towards section 58. sian gwenllian am: And that case law not necessarily would have to happen within the UK—that case law could come from other countries within the European Union. barry hughes: It could, but I would be a foolish man if I were to say what impact European jurisprudence might have upon us. [Laughter.] suzy davies am: [Inaudible.]—like common law jurisdictions would be. Suzy's touched on this mildly, but, in written evidence, you say that you do not consider that the costs of prosecuting cases made possible by the Bill will be of great significance to the Crown Prosecution Service, and you're basing that, from your evidence here today, on the low numbers of prosecutions. So, we've been asked by individuals, and we've had consultation responses from individuals, who've argued that there is no point creating legislation if people are not prosecuted for breaching it. What's your answer to that? barry hughes: There is a huge body of legislation out there that outlaws certain offences, and I think probably about—. From memory—please never hold me to this—but, from memory, there are something like 10,000 criminal offences; we probably prosecute 5 per cent of those in any given year. I've been prosecuting for 32 years now; there are some offences that I've never come near and probably never will. But, nonetheless, the fact those offences exist sets out in terms what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Well, they're not something that we do, but it sets out what's tolerant—what's tolerable, sorry, and what isn't. So, the fact that we might not have many prosecutions is, for me, not a reason not to say that we shouldn't signify that certain behaviour is or is not acceptable. Clearly, we don't wish to criminalise everything—that would be a nonsense—or to attempt to set the boundaries by almost micromanaging what individuals do and don't do. And then the explanatory memorandum says there is a shortage of registered intermediaries who assist child witnesses during police interview and when giving evidence in court. Is this a potential barrier to implementing this proposed law, and are there any other potential barriers you want to raise? barry hughes: No. There was a shortage of registered intermediaries in Wales, and I know that the Ministry of Justice have taken action to deal with that, and we have had a number of people who are now in a position to act as intermediaries. Now, of course, if they were to decide not to do that anymore, we may have a problem, but, in turn, we would be looking to recruit more people into those positions. So, yes, it has the potential to serve as a barrier, but in practice, I don't think it would be a barrier. I think, particularly given the very low numbers we're talking about, we would be able to manage it. Can I thank you for attending, the three of you, and for your answers, which have been fascinating and very clear and most helpful to the committee? You will be sent a transcript following the meeting to check for accuracy. Paper to note 1 is a letter from me to the Business Committee requesting an extension on the deadline for the Bill, which has now been agreed. Paper to note 2 is a letter from myself to the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services requesting some further information from CAFCASS Cymru on the Bill. Paper to note 3 is a letter from myself to the Minister for Education regarding Diamond reform implementation ahead of our scrutiny session on 4 July. Can I propose in accordance with Standing Order 17.42 that the committee resolves to meet in private for the remainder of the meeting? Are Members content? Thank you.


We've received apologies for absence from Suzy Davies and Jack Sargeant and I'm very pleased to welcome Jayne Bryant back, who is substituting for Jack today. Item 2, then, this morning, is our sixth scrutiny session on the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill. I'm very pleased to welcome our witnesses this morning: Sally Jenkins, who is chair of All Wales Heads of Children’s Services and is here representing the Association of Directors of Social Services; Alastair Birch, who is senior system leader for equalities and safeguarding at Pembrokeshire County Council, who is here representing the Association of Directors of Education Wales; and Councillor Huw David, who is the Welsh Local Government Association spokesperson for health and social care and leader of Bridgend County Borough Council. We've got a lot of ground to cover, so, if you're happy, we'll go straight into questions and I'll start just by asking about your general support for the Bill, which is outlined in the evidence. Can you just explain why you think the current law is ineffective or unclear? alastair birch: Bore da—bore da, bawb. The statement, really, from ADEW is that the rights of the child should be educated and achieved, really, under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The current legislation has been criticised, obviously, by the UN concerning the defence of reasonable punishment still being within our current legislation. So, we will always—ADEW will always—advocate that the rights of the child be upheld, so that is really the fundamental aspect in terms of the statement from ADEW, and the position of ADEW is that the rights of the child are fundamental in this process. I know that the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011 made sure that article 3 and article 4, article 12 and article 37 were a focus in terms of making sure that the best interests of the child were put first, that children expressing their views and opinions was a priority. And we know, for safeguarding purposes, that the express opinions of the child and the voice of the child are a fundamental aspect of any safe environment, whether it be a school or college. So, that is—the position is really following that legal position under the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure. Nothing to add at this stage, no? sally jenkins: I'll just add, on behalf of ADSS and on behalf of children's services and social services more widely, for us, this is not a change in our position, this is not new; this is a position that we, on behalf of the leaders of social services across Wales, have taken over many years, going back 20, 25 years. I think what we would say is that we really welcome this Bill and we welcome the proposed change for the clarity it would bring—the clarity that it would bring for children, for parents and for professionals. I think what we would recognise is that this is a very little-used piece of legislation, so it's rare, it's not as if this is something that is going to cast great change across the scene for children and families in Wales, but what it will do is represent a change in the reality of how we care and nurture our children. I would echo absolutely what Alastair has said in terms of the rights of the child, but equally, in terms of all of our policies in Wales in terms of promoting well-being for children, this has to be key. So, for us, this is about a natural progression of change in how we care for our children in Wales. For children's services at the very sharp end of this world, for us, it brings a true clarity. This continues with an ambiguity in how we treat our children and how we care for our children, and the shift for us brings that very much needed clarity. The committee has already heard different views about whether there's clear evidence that physical punishment is harmful to children. What evidence does the work of social services provide about whether physical punishment is actually harmful? sally jenkins: Obviously, what you'll all be aware of is that, as part of the consultation for this Bill, the Public Policy Institute did a further piece of research to look at the impact of physical punishment on children. A number of things that we know—we know from across the world that the evidence is that introducing legislation or changing legislation in this way improves children's positions within their families. What we know is that children themselves, as Alastair has already referred to, really find physical punishment demeaning and harmful, and for children it is an emotionally damaging experience. Now, there may be disagreement about that, there will be different views on that, but that's the voice of the child in this debate. I think what we would also say is that, in the world that we work in, it's part of a continuum, and, whilst this is an element of how children are cared for, what we see is a continuum where an acceptance of how we treat children in a particular way perpetuates throughout our work. By changing this, it helps that shift to that absolute recognition that our children must be cared for in a way that is physically safe in all dimensions for them. We've had evidence from the equal protection network that the reasonable punishment defence undermines child protection and fails to protect children because it permits an arbitrary level of violence, which invades children's physical integrity, making it a potential pathway to more serious physical or sexual abuse, and you did refer to that just now. 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. 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? sally jenkins: It's not essential for it to be on the face of the Bill. Absolutely agree in terms of simplicity—I think that is really important—and I've already mentioned clarity. 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. huw david: And, as a principle, obviously we would welcome full involvement, and we know there's the commitment from Welsh Government to full involvement in the implementation, because, as with every piece of legislation, implementation is the most important part, and we would want to ensure there is that commitment to a major awareness-raising campaign, and there is that from Welsh Government, because we need to take families, carers and parents with us on this. Also we need to ensure that there is that support available to parents and carers that do sometimes struggle with parenting, and that needs to be a universal offer across Wales. If we're to progress with this, that has to be an option that is offered to every parent in Wales. sally jenkins: Local authorities have already been very heavily involved in terms of looking at this Bill and exploring what the issues are and the discussions and looking at what the implications from a local authority perspective will be, as Huw describes, both in terms of the awareness raising, early support and intervention and prevention services for families against the backdrop of the current issues that we have in local government, but also awareness raising—because absolutely it is key that families come with us on this journey. [Laughter.] dawn bowden am: You've already said, obviously, that you're looking towards working with Welsh Government in terms of its implementation. What's been your role so far in terms of the implementation of the Bill—local authorities generally, now? Have you had a role? Has Welsh Government been involving you in discussions around the introduction of the Bill so far? huw david: Yes. So, obviously we were consulted—a key consultee—but also our officials have worked very closely with Welsh Government officials to make sure this is implemented successfully, if it is progressed. sally jenkins: Our involvement with this, from a social services perspective, goes back over two years, directly in working towards this point, never mind the history in terms of work towards this area. But, very directly in relation to this Bill, we were first involved at least two years ago, to recollect, and that was in a series of workshops with other agencies, for example Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service Cymru and the police, and looking in real depth at what the implications would be for us as agencies to look at what the likely trajectory would be in terms of our pathways for referral into our services and what that might mean for us. And then particularly, for example, with CAFCASS Cymru in relation to private law, what the fallout might be, and then what, if anything—and that's the discussion that we need to have—that could mean for children's services in particular, given the pressures that we're already under. So, we've been in constant, I suppose, involvement in terms of the Bill already, as part of the consultation, in terms of the focus groups and in terms of direct work with Welsh Government officials to take this forward. You touched there on the pressures that you're already under, which we fully appreciate, but you also mentioned in answers to Lynne Neagle earlier on that you welcomed the Bill in terms of its clarity. So, are you confident that the Bill can be implemented without any major impact on your capacity to deal with it? sally jenkins: We've done—. A number of local authorities—my own included, Newport City Council, has done some work to look at what the likely impact would be and then actually to look at what some of that costing would need to be. I think what we've done is we've looked internationally at what the impact has been elsewhere when similar legislation has been introduced to try and gauge, but that's difficult to do in terms of comparable nations and size and also different systems. And obviously our approach in terms of children and pedagogy is very different from some of the nations that have already done this. I wouldn't like to say one way or the other, because I think, in terms of that culture shift, it could be a double impact on us in terms of increased referrals because of increased awareness, but it could also be, I suppose, as Huw alludes to, that, if we're looking at ensuring greater awareness of preventative services and support services for parents, actually people coming to the fore and asking us for those services as well. So, at this stage, I think what we would want to say is that we continue to be fully involved in the implementation phase, to look at what the cost implications for that could be, and not just for the local authorities but also the police, CAFCASS Cymru, for third sector organisations involved in preventative services. I don't think any of that should undermine the position in terms of children and their rights within our society. So, a difficult answer, in the sense that— dawn bowden am: No, I understand. What you're saying is that this is a piece of legislation that, in your view, is a good piece of legislation. It's setting out to, hopefully, achieve what the purpose of it is and you will deliver what you need to. Can I ask you whether, then, you've also given thought to the impact on—we've talked about social services, but the impact on other services, like housing, education and so on? You're obviously coming at it from slightly different angles in other sections. alastair birch: We are part of the universal service for children, and we very much work in co-operation with the WLGA and our social care colleagues, and we've been part of that consultation. And, in terms of the Bill, there needs to be the clarity—ambiguity would be bad—in terms of making sure that safeguarding leads within all schools have the right training and support. So, really, that's the key element there, and then obviously the preventative services for the parents that schools can signpost, and sometimes possibly even host, in terms of being community schools. I have colleagues who have worked in that area for many years and see the benefits in how those positive parenting approaches make a difference to families. dawn bowden am: So, from your point of view, it's awareness raising, is it? alastair birch: It's awareness raising; it's making sure that professionals are fully briefed on necessary changes, that there's very little ambiguity, that we are aware that—. That'll still be part of the all-Wales child protection procedures. That won't change, and that duty is always going to be there for all our professionals. But that awareness raising and training will be the key, and then, obviously, working in co-operation with our colleagues. Have you been given an indication of how long you've got between Royal Assent and implementation, and whether you've thought through any of the key milestones that need to be implemented? sally jenkins: There's a group proposed that would be a strategic leadership group in the steering group that we're part of, which is now laying out what would happen after Royal Assent if that is given. My final question, Chair, is about some of the responses we've had to this committee that say that the state should not get involved in family life—I'm sure you've heard those views—unless it's in the most serious circumstances. To what extent do you think that this Bill undermines the existing local authority responsibilities, or don't you? huw david: The state's paramount role is to protect children from harm. And there is obviously a view—it's a view that is enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—that physical punishment, physical harm to a child is harm to a child, and we should be preventing that and act to prevent that. That would be the position of the Welsh Local Government Association, and we also respect the mandate that Members of the National Assembly for Wales have too. And we believe that children can be raised by parents without recourse to physical punishment, effectively, and we'd support parents in that. We do not believe that in the 50 nations across the world where such legislation exists that the state is interfering in family life unnecessarily. We believe this action reflects a cultural change, a sea change that's taken place in Wales over the last 30 to 40 years, where the vast majority of parents now say that they do not use it themselves, they do not support it, and we believe this is actually a reflection of what has happened in Welsh society. We support Assembly Members in the view that the natural progression of that is that children's rights are protected across Wales. dawn bowden am: So, I've got largely positive feedback from you in terms of the Bill and its intentions, and so on. Do you foresee any unintended consequences for this Bill? huw david: If we implement it carefully, if we implement it with the right resources, then I hope not. But as with every piece of legislation, it is about the implementation, it is about the cultural change as well, and that's why I cannot overstress the importance of making sure that resources are made available, because our social services departments—children's social services in particular—are overstretched. They are at breaking point—make no bones about it—and they are dealing with children who are facing serious harm and neglect. We are having record numbers of contacts from police, from teachers, from doctors and, of course, from children themselves who are experiencing that harm and neglect. Equally, though, we don't want to lose sight of those families and children that are experiencing significant problems, but who we want to support through our early intervention and prevention programmes, and that is why it is important that there is investment in those programmes, so that children do not end up in that terrible position where we have to, for their safety, take them from their birth families to protect them. And the reality is, in Wales, that we are doing that to more children than we've done for a long time, and the numbers are growing across Wales. And that is only because of the most appalling neglect and abuse, because there is no way that any judge would permit us to act to make a child safe if it was not for that fact, and the facts are there. So, I don't want that focus to be lost, but, of course, we welcome and understand the need to progress this piece of legislation. dawn bowden am: That rise that you talk about here, is that due to more interventions, greater awareness, more incidents? I'm trying to link this to the Bill in terms of whether the Bill is actually going to give you more work to do in those areas. sally jenkins: On the reasons for the rise in the numbers of looked-after children in Wales, which are higher than those in England, and also the numbers of contacts that we have across the local authorities, the work of the care crisis review, which was completed last year; the work of Isabelle Trowler, who's the chief social worker in England; countless research and reports that have taken place in the last 18 months; and currently the public law working group, under the auspices of the president of the family court, would all indicate that it's multifactorial. So, what you have is a range of reasons that have led to the increasing numbers of children becoming looked after across England and Wales. There have been headlines that have said, 'Is it increased austerity?' That is clearly a part of this. Is it in Wales an increased awareness of adverse childhood experiences and the emphasis of the impact on children of, for example, domestic abuse? Is it because of our understanding of what happens to children in those households? All of that research would say it's all of those things. And then, when you also add in changes in our practice with our colleagues in the judiciary, changes in our police service, but also changes in our preventative services, you've got that whole range of elements. And there is going on across the local authorities and Welsh Government a huge amount of work to try to address and understand that, and then to ameliorate that. Children who need to be in care for safety need to be in care, but what we have to do is get to a point where fewer children come into care and we're able to protect them, firstly, and secondly where those children who are in care are cared for in a way that delivers the best possible outcomes for them. I think, in terms of this Bill and unintended consequences, I agree absolutely with everything that Huw has said. It takes away even that point of discussion that this could possibly be okay, and I think that's important to hang on to. alastair birch: One unintended consequences is that I think that there will be an increased focus on the UNCRC. And, in terms of children having a discussion around this point, children need to be part of that discussion. It's changed completely in the last 10 years, and it is one of the key things in terms of us driving improvements. dawn bowden am: Would that be something that you would be looking to do in schools? alastair birch: Anything that improves the voice of the child in any educational context is good and it's very powerful for the children. And it improves their educational experiences, encouraging the opportunities for them to discuss the issues, the adverse childhood experiences that they encounter, which are significant, and it's our educational professionals that are facing this day-in, day-out. They've become a very highly trained workforce, they're ACE aware, they're trauma aware, and anything that focuses, even increases, their professionalism and understanding around a particular point, and also—. So it's a positive unintended consequence, shall we say, that it could reinvigorate some of the voice of the child discussion within various contexts. lynne neagle am: We've got some specific questions now on implementation for social services, from Janet Finch-Saunders. If this Bill becomes law, would you encourage members of the public to contact social services departments if they do see a child being smacked? sally jenkins: We already encourage members of the public to contact social services or the police, depending on the circumstances. Interestingly, I'm picking— janet finch-saunders am: What, if a child is being smacked now? sally jenkins: Yes. But if you were walking out, and you saw something happening to a child, in the same way as if you saw something to an adult. sally jenkins: So, I think that the challenge is about—we've all probably, sadly, witnessed incidents in the doctor's reception, or in a supermarket, and we've failed to do something about it. And I think we then walk away and feel pretty guilty about that, realistically, when you see something happening to a child in a particular circumstance. A campaign opposing this Bill, Be Reasonable Wales, have said that 'If the law is changed, the consequences for parents will be considerable.' It also says, 'Anyone accused or convicted of assaulting a child—under the new definition—' so, I suppose you could argue, a minor tap— 'will be subject to long-term social services involvement in their family and social stigma.' To what extent is this accurate, and, also, will thresholds for social services intervention change if the Bill is enacted? sally jenkins: There are a number of parts to that. Firstly, in terms of long-term social services intervention in a family's life, I think, for people to be fully aware of the very few numbers of families where we have long-term intervention currently, even where there is what would be perceived as very significant abuse. What we do is we go in for short periods in families' lives, to support them to work with their strengths, to work with them and their family members. So, in terms of long-term intervention, what we want is for families to find their own solutions. We want families to be able to work with each other, and together, and local community support, and preventative services, to be able to address issues. In terms of thresholds for children's services, we would not be anticipating a huge number of referrals to us. Because we also know that this is actually quite a rare occurrence currently; this is not a defence that's being used with great frequency, this is not something that is happening. And if we look at the data, we know that the incidents of children, and the number of parents who now recognise this as an acceptable form of punishment, has steadily declined over the last 15 to 20 years. janet finch-saunders am: So, on that one then, is there a need for legislation that will—obviously there'll be resources for the Welsh Government and there'll be resources out of hours and things like that—is there a need for legislation if, as you say, natural behaviour and the culture is changing? Let's be honest, as you've rightly pointed out, in social services—I know in my own authority—in your own authority, you're saying that even now you're working with the police, on systematic failings within the system. Firstly, we want legislation that reflects our society—we don't want the two to be out of kilter. It shouldn't be that we've got these rather confusing elements running in parallel, and that continues to perpetuate a lack of clarity and the ambiguity that we currently see. I think the other element is that, again, this is about potentially an accelerating of that awareness and that culture in our society, about how we care for our children. We've got there naturally; we've got there by the change that's happened in Wales over the last 15 to 20 years. What this does is to continue with that change and continue with that awareness and understanding of how we positively, from a strength-based approach, should care for our children, bearing in mind what's required of us in terms of the UNCRC. Are there any comments from anyone else? huw david: Simply to say that I think that, in terms of that clarity for the very vulnerable children out there who are currently being assaulted—seriously assaulted and abused by their parents, which goes on on a daily basis—that is already covered by existing legislation. But at the moment, they don't know, because they could be being told—and they probably are being told—by their parents that's it's okay, that they can smack their child and that that's acceptable. And if you asked most parents, and in fact lots of professionals, they would not be able to tell you, and probably most of you wouldn't be able to tell me exactly where is the threshold— janet finch-saunders am: Yes, where's that line. That vulnerable child, at home, being abused by their parents, does not know where that line is. And they should know where that line is because then they can pick up the phone to Childline or they can talk to a professional and ask them where that line is. I do recognise, though, that what we don't want to do—and the last thing any of us want to do—is criminalise parents who are bringing up their children. That is why we're saying there needs to be an emphasis on the support programmes that are available to parents. And to be clear, there is no way that we want long-term involvement in any child's life, but particularly not in the lives of children who have been smacked by their parents. That is not going to be the result of this legislation, trust me, because we don't want to be involved in—we haven't got the resources to be involved in children's lives. The social worker or the police officer—if they become involved, then there would be a proportionate response to that, and there'll also be a test about whether or not that is progressed. So, if there is an allegation—if this legislation is passed—then that will be looked into and a consideration will be made about whether any action will be taken, and as with any allegation of the law being broken, there would be a proportionate response, as there is now. Can you outline the practical ways in which social services' interaction with parents will change as a result of this proposed law and do you envisage that all referrals to the police will be automatically referred to social services for an assessment? Who's going to make those decisions? sally jenkins: That will be part of the implementation phase about that decision making. Interestingly, the number of referrals that we currently get from the police that we take absolutely no action on is extraordinary. It will be happening now; sitting in the civic centre in Newport City Council will be a whole host of social workers taking in the public protection notifications from overnight. janet finch-saunders am: So, if there's an increase as a result of greater awareness— sally jenkins: What happens is there is a paper assessment of them. There's a look at what's happened, who's involved, what the police have reported, and there's work being done with the police to improve that. Because one of the things that we want to get to is actually where we're not using huge amounts of time to look at that, but what comes to us is what we act on. So, there is work going on with a number of police authorities to look at how you improve that process. But I suppose, to pick up, each incident will be looked at, each one will be assessed in a way that is proportionate, as Huw says, to look at what's happened and then investigated. lynne neagle am: Sally, can you give us a couple of examples of what kind of things might have come in that you would then take no action on? sally jenkins: We get countless referrals, for example, where there's been a domestic abuse incident overnight where a child wasn't present in the property and we then haven't taken action. It’ll be where the level of harm that’s perceived to happen to that child is below the threshold for intervention from children's services. janet finch-saunders am: I’m pretty cynical about assessment, because, you know, I have people come in who are benefit claimants where, when they’ve been assessed, the whole process has been very flawed and I’ve had to fight and fight and fight on their behalf. So— sally jenkins: Assessment processes within social— janet finch-saunders am: But if you're struggling now with those assessments— sally jenkins: Assessment processes within social services are as laid out in the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. So, we have within what we carry out, I suppose, that kind of initial look, that look at the information, what else do we know about that family— janet finch-saunders am: And are they qualified people that are doing this? sally jenkins: Yes, absolutely. huw david: And, in fact, in lots of places in Wales now, it’s a multi-agency assessment. janet finch-saunders am: So, what proportion currently would you not be taking any action on, if a report came in of some domestic abuse where a child had perhaps been smacked? sally jenkins: If something came in to us where a child had been smacked and there was something clearly there, we would look at it. lynne neagle am: Can you ask a final question? And I'm going to have to appeal for brief answers, because we've got a lot of ground to cover. huw david: Just very quickly, there may be no action from social services, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t offer support. So, the expectation is that support is offered in those circumstances from family support services, for example— sally jenkins: Or prevention. So, we would not say, if we were aware, for example, that there was domestic abuse at a home, ‘There’s no role for children’s social services’, because there may be an assessment that that child may not be at immediate risk of harm, but we would obviously recognise that there are causes for concern there and we would offer that support. And that’s a process that happens in every social services department in the UK, and it’s happened for a very long time, and, in fact, it’s reflective of the legislation that you have laid down as Assembly Members. lynne neagle am: And are those services there, Huw? Because I’m very acutely aware of the pressure on local government. Are the services there? Is there sufficient resource in things like Families First? Because what I’m hearing on the ground is that eligibility is changing for even those preventative services. huw david: There’s not enough of those services, and, obviously—you may have heard me saying this before—I think we need to invest more in those services, and I hope you invest more in the services, because, obviously, prevention is better than cure. And those pressures that Sally talked about earlier are pressures that are not going away; they’re only increasing by the day, actually, and I would want us to be able to offer those services now. Because that example of a child that perhaps is in a home where there is domestic abuse—we’ll probably have another referral off them in a couple of months’ time, and that could escalate. And what I’d rather do is provide support to that family and try and stop that family breaking down so that, in six months, we're not going back and saying that we've got to take this child into care because the domestic abuse has worsened and that child is at risk. sally jenkins: I appreciate that time is of the essence, but, just really quickly in relation to that, it’s not just social services. So, for example, there are developments like Encompass, which is a piece of work that is being rolled out across Gwent and across other areas, which is where the police automatically notify the school overnight of an incident, not expecting the school to do anything per se, but to be aware, to be able to offer care for that child. alastair birch: Can I add to that? Operation Encompass I know in Gwent has been operational, and we started it in Pembrokeshire 18 months ago. We as a local authority—and it’ll be education that will contact the school around the domestic incident happening, and the school as part of that protocol will provide a level of universal service support for that child when they come in, before 9 o’clock, so that professionals are aware of the needs of the welfare of that child at that point. So, you know, schools play a key role in the universal service of this and we work very closely with our social care colleagues on that. janet finch-saunders am: The Bill's explanatory memorandum refers to an estimate of 274 offences annually where lawful chastisement was used as a defence or considered. It says there is also potential to create extra demand on out-of-hours social services teams due to the time that the offences were reported, and in order to support safeguarding measures. Have you assessed how this Bill will impact on emergency and out-of-hours local authority services? sally jenkins: We have considered that, and again I think that's something that we would very much want to look at as part of implementation. We have out-of-hours provision, we have emergency duty teams already across Wales that operate 24/7. janet finch-saunders am: Are they overstretched at the moment? sally jenkins: I think in the same way as all of social services is. But are they working in a way that protects children day in, day out, and vulnerable adults? Yes, they are, and they will continue to do so. Alastair, you've already mentioned about awareness raising and training, which will be key with educational professionals. How confident are you that teachers and others working in those educational settings will be clear about how to support the implementation of this Bill, if enacted? alastair birch: Training requirements for all professionals in education settings are clear. In that level of general safeguarding awareness and training, the infinite emphasis is on the duty to report. It says in 'Keeping learners safe', which is the bible in terms of education professionals, that there's a responsibility on the professional to make that referral and for that universal service. So, the more specialist safeguarding leads within the schools, who have become highly skilled professionals in terms of understanding what might be significant harm—because that's what we're talking about—they understand the legalities when a referral needs to be made. There's always the collation of safeguarding information, where there might be just general concerns about neglect and other areas, which combined would create a picture that there might be significant neglect or significant harm to the child, and then that referral would be made to the child care assessment team or the police. So, that awareness—it needs to be clear for educational professionals that that duty to report is always there. If they believe that that significant harm has happened then that report then goes to the child care assessment team. But in terms of education, it'll be that awareness, making sure that there's clarity. If there's anything that professionals need to be trained additionally on, it'll need to go into 'Keeping learners safe', which at the moment is being rewritten. But as long as there's clarity, and once that implementation phase and the discussion has happened, as long as it's clear for professionals that the duty is always there and they feel a significant harm, then that report will always be there and will always need to be made. It's making sure—and I'll echo what my colleague said, Huw—that the services are key for families. On a daily basis, professionals are working on that trust with parents, because they are the ones that can engage with those families. The family support officers that are working on the ground with highly complex families, with multiple leads and supporting the children—they are fundamental, and investment in that level of support would also help our colleagues as well. That is already happening in schools and is effective, and is shown to be effective, and has an evidence base—we'd always support that that would continue to be invested in. And you were saying about how important trust is as well, but do you think that there's a risk that those in education settings will have a key role in referring more parents to social services, which some have said could cause potential harm to relationships and cause mistrust? alastair birch: I don't think it's a matter of mistrust—it's a matter of, you know, if a professional believes, based on the evidence that they have, because they're working with that child every day, that there is significant harm to that child, they are under a duty to report that to social care. So, part of the work is with families, and most of the referrals we make are with parental consent. That consent is a key element of this, and conversation with our social care colleagues is usually, 'You need to speak to the parents again and have a conversation with them.' Some of the NFAs—the ones that don't get referred at threshold—it will come back to school for, possibly, some support from the family or a team around the family or some other aspect. The trust in the professionals—it's actually more important that we are seen to be upholding our duties under the all-Wales safeguarding procedures. We're going to move on now to some questions about the importance of awareness raising from Siân Gwenllian. In looking at your written evidence, you say that we must make it very clear to parents, guardians and the public that this legislation is not trying to criminalise parents, and that is clearly very important for you. How do you think we should do that and who should be doing that work? sally jenkins: I think that's really broad. Obviously, colleagues in education, colleagues in social care, colleagues in preventative services, but also Welsh Government and the National Assembly, in terms of those drivers in relation to that awareness raising are really, really key. If you look at some of the other campaigns that have been run, notably in relation to violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence, and echoing some of those building campaigns that have been done to raise awareness—I think those would be really good models to begin to consider in terms of how this is taken forward with awareness. We also know that there are a number of routes that we can go through in terms of raising awareness. We have existing preventative services, we have all our universal services, we have the regional safeguarding boards and the national safeguarding boards. In terms of not wishing to criminalise, I think if we look at the numbers, they are very, very small. And I think one of the things we need to hold on to in this is a sense of proportion about what is or isn't likely to happen once or if this Bill ever gets to the point of Royal Assent—they are small numbers who currently use this defence. It is about that wider issue of awareness raising, and using all of those avenues will help us to do that in the broadest sense. sian gwenllian am: Do you, therefore, believe that this needs to be on the face of the Bill? That is, you don't say this in your evidence. Scotland is going to be making it a duty for Scottish Ministers to raise awareness of the impact of the Bill. Wouldn't it make it clearer for you if it was a clear duty on the face of the Bill, for example as it was with the Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013? There was a duty in that Act for Ministers to promote transplantation. Surely, that awareness raising aspect would be clearer for everyone if it was on the face of the Bill. Do you have an opinion on that? huw david: Well, Welsh Government have given that commitment, and I know the Welsh Government honour every commitment that they make—[Laughter.] sian gwenllian am: That's why I'm asking. huw david: I don't know whether that is necessary—I'm not a legislator. I think that there's obviously an inherent interest in Welsh Government raising awareness, because we have to raise awareness effectively for this to be successful, otherwise we will have parents who feel that they're being criminalised, and that's the last thing we want. I think it's worthy of consideration, but, as I say, I'm not a legislator or a lawyer, so I don't know what implications that will have long term. But to be fair to Welsh Government, I think that commitment is one that I'm sure will be honoured, because Welsh Government will want to make a success of this Bill if it does receive Royal Assent. But is it clear who would pay for all of that? huw david: I've suddenly changed my mind—[Laughter.] I think it should be a duty on Welsh Government Ministers—absolutely. And that's the WLGA position; I don't need to ask the other 21 leaders on that either. [Laughter.] sian gwenllian am: Wouldn't it make it clearer if there was a clear duty on the face of the Bill that awareness raising had to happen? It would be clearer, then, for local authorities and people in the front-line services what needs to happen. We're moving on now, then, to the contentious issue of resources and we've got some questions from Hefin. hefin david am: Sally Jenkins, you said that the purpose of the Bill is to bring clarity and to remove what is a little-used defence. Isn't this an expensive way of doing that? sally jenkins: I don't think so, no. hefin david am: But introducing this legislation diverts finances from other areas of children's services—or doesn't? sally jenkins: Well, I would say, no, I don't think it will divert resources from children's services. Firstly, going back to the comment made, I think, proportionally, this is a very small number of cases. It's a very small number of existing cases that go through in terms of prosecution, or consideration for prosecution. We know that it's likely, from some of the work that we've already done, that it's not opening floodgates for a sudden sea of referrals to children's services—that's not the way this is going to be, because the numbers are not out there because of the changes that have already happened in Welsh family life and Welsh society. So, I think as part of the implementation phase, we need to have a really clear understanding of the trajectory of those costs and what's likely to happen over the first six months, 12 months in terms of people's awareness and understanding and what is referred and how that's worked. But in terms of a huge number, no, I don't anticipate it being that. hefin david am: But the costs wouldn't just be directed to the number of referrals and the number of cases raised, it's the cost around that, with training of staff, awareness—all those extra additional costs that always come with legislation. And I agree with that—that there clearly are—but if you think, many of those things will be aligned with work we are already doing, but it brings a clarity to that work. So, our teachers, our social workers, our health workers, our police officers already get substantial training around child protection, around safeguarding, around adverse childhood experiences and around a trauma-informed approach to children. But rather than having a part of that training, which has to deal with this as an aspect—that is no longer there; it is a clear message for all professions. hefin david am: I fully appreciate that, and in the briefing note you've given us, you've outlined the pressures on social services. So, do you think this is another way of getting money into social services? sally jenkins: If this was a way of getting money into—. I think this is a clear commitment to the rights of children in Wales; this is not about levering additional resources into children's services. And, do you think those costs are quantifiable? sally jenkins: I think we are currently looking at work and are doing work across my own local authority and across two others to look at breaking down those costs, not just for local authority, but also for health, for police and for Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service Cymru. I think there was a bit about local authorities that Siân— lynne neagle am: Okay. The explanatory memorandum that accompanies the Bill talks about the unknown costs for different agencies. You mentioned there that you're doing work around trying to identify some of those costs, but wouldn't it be useful if the explanatory memorandum did explain more about any unknown or unidentified costs, partly in order to calm some of those fears around that? Giving a title 'unidentified costs'—is that good enough? sally jenkins: I think, clearly, that is a challenge, and that is work that we are participating in and are committed to completing with Welsh Government, to look at what those costs are. huw david: I think this is where it would be helpful in the committee's deliberations and where our concern would be, because the reality is we're not going to know what the costs are until it's actually implemented, because we haven't implemented this before. And, therefore, I think there needs to be a commitment that, whatever the costs are, those costs are met because it is legislation that is being led by the National Assembly for Wales. And whilst we don't see it as levering in additional resources, we don't think it should be at the expense of current service provision to vulnerable families in Wales, and therefore it's important that it is properly and fully resourced. sian gwenllian am: What I would argue on that is that you have to try and forecast. You say it's difficult to forecast how much this is going to cost, but we have to try and forecast that, and part of the argument for trying to have projections is to show that, perhaps, it's not going to cost that much, and that would add to the argument that, 'Okay, this is going to be fine to do and it's not going to put too much pressure on us'. Or we need to know that this is going to cost a lot to do it effectively, and therefore you have to make your argument, then, 'Well, we can't afford that, the money has to come from somewhere else.' We have to get the costs, surely. huw david: Yes, and we will work very closely with Welsh Government to try and establish those costs as quickly as possible. So, for example, a campaign, an awareness-raising campaign, the marketing, if you like, but some of the other costs will be more difficult to establish in terms of the resource implications for front-line workers. I expressed a view that we need to see some additional investment in some of those programmes that are not targeted directly at families that would be impacted by this but support all families across Wales that have different needs, and some of that provision is universal. So, there's no limit to that, but I suspect Welsh Government will take a very different view to that. But I don't put an upper limit on that, because I don't think there's an authority in Wales, and I don't think there's a charity, a police service or a health board in Wales that doesn't think that we need to do more of that and could offer more of that if the resources were available. We've come to the end of our time, so can I thank you all for attending and for answering all of our questions? It's been a really useful and informative discussion. As usual, you'll be sent a transcript to check for accuracy following the meeting, but thank you again, all of you, for coming. Paper to note 1 is a letter from the Minister for Housing and Local Government—additional information for our inquiry into school funding. Paper to note 2 is a letter from the Minister for Health and Social Services on in-patient child and adolescent mental health services provision, and I would like to briefly return to that when we go into private. Item 4, then: can I propose a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public for the remainder of the meeting? Are Members content? Thank you.