 Saloedda, i Salwyrddol sy'n gynnwysau credu llidenfeyddiaeth Cymru ac beth yw dōrfaenegol Cymru gydaieddiantllu iaith, yn ei hamryd daeth ei disfyniad meyrdd firms Rep Andrea digging pan Commander Gansisproed y hamrydd cymтуed, ar Range siguiente ridw s swiftor ar ad miner Gyntdo nodi fynd i'r peth i ddechrau yn bobicach o ranumiddio. R invented, olw spiteig mwynhag hi aτι記rodd a hwnnw, er Nomyn, ar fill hypnogiad Iap yma wrth gesture, oedd myfyrnodd. Am ei ddweud, oedd hwn yn ei bod i'i ddweud, Diolch yn meddwl am awr iawn ddaeth ac i ddaeth wedi gweinidol, doedd oedd oedd eich cyfaneu gyflogau. Er mwyn fyddwyd, mae'r ddechrau i ddweud i chi i ei ddweud. Os wnaeth eich cyfaneu, yn ddwylo ar y cyflogau, felly mae'r ddweud wedi ddweud iawn i ar gweithwmy. Dwi'n drwsfydliad maen nhw i ddeni mewn gweld i chi i gael cyntaf o'r gwneud o'r bell. The Scottish Government supports the removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement in Mr Finney's bill. We support the removal of this defence for a number of reasons. We believe that children should have the same legal protection from assault as adults, and the bill will achieve this. Scotland will lead the way in the UK in providing this protection for children. As I am sure you are aware, the Welsh Government has just introduced their bill. "...energeticially removing the defence would be consistent with the international treaties, best practice and with human rights. Removing the defence reflects the growing body of evidence which indicates that physical punishment of children is both ineffective and harmful. The bill will bring helpful clarity to the law relating to the use of physical punishment Felly yn gwneud yn glir cyffredinol rhoi ei fod yn neud yn cael cyfnodol i fyfynol yn cychwynol. Y Llywodraeth Cymru yn yr oeddfodol yn llwyst ac yn rhoi'r byw yn dychydigol ar gael. Mae unig o'n gweithio i dda diwyd. Mae y Llywodraeth Cymru yn enwau iddi, yn gwneud i bobl efoch, i ddim yn gwneud i'r byw ac i ddim yn fel ymgyrchu gyda'r cyfnodol i dynnu i gydigol. That could build an existing work underpinned by our national parenting strategy. It's not about telling parents how to parent. We'll continue to support parents and to provide information about positive parenting. Resources are tight at the moment, however, we formed an implementation group, which is considering what steps would need to be taken if the bill should be enacted by Parliament. That includes what would need to be done on public awareness. We'll take on board points raised by members of the implementation group and by this committee on steps to raise awareness. I welcome questions from the committee. Thank you. You've already stated the Scottish Government's support for the principles of the bill. Can I ask you why you think public opinion is so mixed on this topic? We support the removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement because we believe that children should have the same legal protection as adults. In fact, support for that principle in public is extremely strong. About 92 per cent of people ask that question. I agree that children should have the same protection from assault as adults. Only 2 per cent of the population would oppose that. The committee received quite a body of evidence from individuals that were opposed to it. Why do you think that is? I think that you also heard evidence from people who said that this goes to the very heart of how we were parented ourselves, how we are as parents. I think that it's a difficult issue. Since the last time we discussed this in this Parliament, there's been reasonable evidence of a trend towards understanding that physical punishment is ineffective, understanding that it's not a useful parenting strategy and understanding that there are alternatives that are much more effective. Do you think that this bill can help to change how parents discipline their children? Certainly. Thank you. Oliver Mundell. Thank you, convener. Minister, I wondered how you felt about the vehicle that's been used to introduce this measure. I'm not sure how closely you've looked at the law in New Zealand, but whether or not, in that context, this is the correct way of making this legal change. I do think that this is an appropriate way of making this legal change. I've followed the evidence sessions at the committee and I know that you and Conservative colleagues have asked questions on this a number of times. In Ireland and New Zealand, they've made themselves assault an offence in statute and in Scotland assaults a common law offence. I don't think that it makes much difference in practice. The aim of Mr Finney's bill is to remove a defence and the relevant offence in Scotland is a common law offence. I guess my point, I'm just putting it sort of openly today as I can, is that I think that violence against children is wrong. I don't think that it's to be encouraged. I don't think that it's a good thing. But what worries me about just removing the defence and I think that's where we see the difference between the 92 per cent you're pointing to and the 75 per cent figure that comes out of surveys is that there seems to be this grey area between what people would see as being assault and what they would see as parents acting probably in the best interests of the child or some confusion around what the tests and thresholds would be. In New Zealand, there are law sets out of a number of situations in which it would be okay to use force. For example, where it was prevented or minimised the immediate harm to the child or a person or where it would prevent a criminal act from taking place. Do you think that things like that should be considered by the committee or as the bill develops? I think that this approach brings a very helpful clarity to the legislation and I think that rather than increasing confusion, parents will be clearer on what they can and can't do. There will be a very clear message in this legislation that physical punishment of children in Scotland is not an acceptable strategy. I'm very pleased to hear from Conservative support for that principle that physical punishment is not true. If I ask your position, it really is just one final question. In that case then, will parents legally be allowed to physically punish their children in certain circumstances if this bill passes? Will the defence of reasonable chastise... Will there still be circumstances in Scots law where parents will be permitted to physically punish their children if this bill is passed? Perhaps I could try to assist with that. It's not the role of the Scottish Government to determine in advance what the outcome of a particular criminal case should be. That will be for the courts. The decisions asked to whether or not to prosecute will be for the prosecution authorities to take independently off ministers. What this bill is doing is removing a defence, which has been for and part of the common law of Scotland for a very long time and has been modified by the statute. It is a defence to a common law crime of assault. There are other defences that Scots law recognises in relation to crimes including assaults, so self-defence, for example, is another common law defence. Other jurisdictions may have traditions of legislating specifically, and in having a codified criminal law that is generally not the approach that Scots criminal law has. In terms of what the particular outcome might be in a particular case, that will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. It's not something that the Scottish Government can say in advance what the outcome would be. If the aim is to provide increased clarity for parents or clarity for parents, then surely setting out some thresholds or tests or in statute providing some guidance as to where those tests would be met. Surely that would be helpful. Secondly, you talk about the defence, but my understanding that I'm happy to accept that it could be wrong is that the presence of a defence often influences a decision whether to prosecute or not. Therefore, removing a defence opens up the possibility of prosecution for behaviour that might previously not have been prosecuted. Is that right or wrong? I don't know that I could go much beyond saying that in circumstances where, under the law at the moment, parents or other people who be exercising a similar role who currently be able to rely on the defence of reasonable chastisement simply won't be able to do that. Yes, the prosecution authorities would no doubt take that into account as to whether or not taking forward a prosecution would result in the necessary likelihood of a successful conviction on whether or not the prosecution would be in the public interest. On the thresholds question, do you not think that it would be reasonable to set out thresholds to provide clarity for parents as to what type of behaviour would be captured by assault and what would be any guidance to call some prosecutorial matters for the Lord Advocate and for the Crown and not for the Scottish Government? For the Scottish Parliament, when it passes legislation, do you not think that it would help to provide clarity for parents as we do another criminal legislation to set out clearly in black and white in the statute the tests that you would expect to be met on the threshold for where the use of force by parents would constitute assault? Do you think that that would provide a lot more clarity? To be honest, I think that you'd probably end up with something quite close to what you've got at the moment. That's obviously exactly what Mr Finlay's bill is trying to remove. It's trying to take away the defence of reasonable chastisement and make it clear to parents, as the minister was saying, that physical punishment was wrong. If you added material back into the bill, it would end up with something quite close to what you've got just now, which would obviously be directly contrary to what the bill is trying to achieve. Thank you. Good morning, minister, and good morning to your officials as well. Thank you for coming to see us today. I just want to explore through a couple of questions about rights, but then I'd like to test some of the arguments against the bill that we've had with you. The First Minister made a commitment in her programme for government speech to incorporate the principles of the UNCRC, and you have my support in that. Could we incorporate the principles of the UNCRC without this bill? I mean, I guess that's a little bit of a theoretical question because we're supporting this bill and we're incorporating the principles of the UNCRC. But I wasn't a trap, I promise you. I think that the UNCRC have obviously referenced the fact that we still allow physical punishment in their concluding observations every time they visit us. So I guess it was a loaded question to say, is it compatible to still allow physical punishment in the home and incorporate the UNCRC to an internationally recognised standard? So I think that removing this defence is absolutely in line with international treaties and our obligations and with international best practices. As I said in my opening statement, many countries in the world have already done this. We in Scotland like to lead the way in human rights. As you know, in fact, we're following on this issue. Thank you. Do you recognise any conflict between children's rights as they are prescribed in the UNCRC and so-called parents' rights, the right to family life or anything like that? We've heard some evidence about it from people who don't support the bill. I listened carefully to that evidence and I can understand their concern. But no, I don't see a conflict between the rights of children. I think that this bill, as I said, brings a very helpful clarity that physical punishment of children is not acceptable in Scotland. I think that there isn't a conflict between the rights of the child and the rights of family in this issue particularly. Thank you. Moving on to test some of the arguments that we've heard against the bill with you, one of the things that has come out in a number of sessions is the suggestion that by removing the right to physical punishment or rather the legal defence which allows physical punishment, we could actually be endangering some children that sometimes physical punishment is required to prevent harm, whether that's pulling down a boiling pan of water off the stove or running out into traffic. By removing that sort of tool from parenting that we actually do put children at risk of hurting themselves. No, and I watched carefully the evidence that was given on this and I would agree with some of the answers that you've had already that actually physical punishment isn't necessary to prevent harm in those circumstances. The usual strategy would be to put yourself as a parent between the child and the harm and to hold the child close. You don't need to punish them in those circumstances and in fact some of the evidence would suggest that punishing a child in that circumstance adds to their confusion and does not help them to learn a lesson. By extension an argument that came out of that discussion was around adults with learning disabilities. Some adults with learning disabilities never have a mental age beyond childhood. Is it incongruous that we should allow currently allow one form of discipline for people who have a mental age of three who are three and a different form of discipline for people who are 24 but still have a mental age of three? I mean I think again that's an interesting argument. I don't think that there are and I think again in your earlier evidence that came out somebody put forward the proposal that would you use physical punishment to prevent an elderly person with dementia from crossing into the road and putting themselves in harm's way. That would be inconceivable for most of us. So why would that be a strategy that you would use with a small child? I think the evidence is that physical punishment harms children and that body of evidence is growing. The evidence is that it's an ineffective strategy for discipline and that body of evidence is growing. I think that the time is absolutely right to take this step and I think that the argument that you can prevent harm using physical punishment is weak. Thank you. Moving on to the idea of the impact it has on violence, the use of violence as a tool of sanction or vengeance or punishment rather. We've had conflicting evidence on this from panels. On the one hand we've had the police and people like Scottish Women's Aid saying that for as long as we allow violence in the home it won't be able to eradicate domestic violence and it will spill over into our streets as learn behaviour in our children. On the other hand we heard last week from Professor Lars Aliyah from America that he cites the case of Sweden that suggests that since the removal of smacking in Sweden in 1979 we've seen a huge increase in assaults and indeed rapes by juveniles and that he suggested that because they've never been taught to accept the answer, no. Why do you sit in that sort of divide? I think that the evidence that she had from the American professor last week wasn't at all convincing. I mean there was no causal association with the two findings. She could equally say that since 1979 when the defence was removed there's been a massive increase in road traffic accidents which there also has been. There is no link between those two things. I think that the most convincing evidence that you've seen and the body of evidence is from the health professionals so from the pediatrician who gave evidence here the American Academy of Pediatrics and our own body of pediatricians in the UK and also from public health that in fact it is harmful to use physical punishment with children. I think that Lucy Reynolds who gave evidence to the committee was very clear that children learn by mimicry and she gave very clear evidence around children witnessing violence and then using violence themselves in play. I think that there are always in science voices who challenge evidence but I'm very clear that the body of evidence is supportive that using physical violence using physical punishment in children leads to more likelihood of violence in older age and there's quite a strong link between having been physically punished and behavioural problems later on. We heard on Sky and indeed from some lines of questioning from Gordon Lindhurst in the various evidence sessions we had that smacking is regarded or physical punishment is regarded almost as an article of faith in some aspects of Christianity that there are passages in scripture which suggest that that is a normal parenting and is part of the lived faith of Christians. Is this an assault on their right to parent their children in the way that their faith suggests they should? I don't think so. I listened with some interest to the evidence that was given by the various faith groups and there isn't consensus there. Even within the Christian faith there doesn't seem to be consensus. The Church of Scotland and the Quakers very strongly support this bill. I don't think that you can put forward the argument that it prevents people from partaking in their religious practice. The evidence is growing that smacking is harmful to children and that it's an ineffective form of discipline and I think it's right that we bring clarity to this situation in this way. I think that this is an effective tool for bringing clarity to this situation. Thank you now for the question. Thank you. I've just got one question for you. We've heard from quite a lot of other witnesses and they believe that this bill shouldn't criminalise parents. Do you feel the same? I think that the evidence in other countries who have introduced this type of measure is that it doesn't lead to a large number of prosecutions. In Scotland, as you know, we take a girffec approach, getting it right for every child, so we are very keen to provide support to families at an early stage from the right person at the right time. I suspect that if anything, this will lead to increased support for families, not increased criminalisation. Thank you, convener. Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister and your officials. I just want to follow up on the lines of questioning that have been followed throughout the evidence session. The first was around the current child protection processes. I think that there was some concern when we first started taking evidence that perhaps, as Annie Wells asked, there would be a criminalisation of parents and there would be some sort of increase in child protection processes and more interference, if you like, from the state and families' lives. We heard very good evidence from both the police and social work that they didn't feel that would be the case. Has the Government thought about the implications in terms of the child protection process? Yes, and like the police and social work in Scotland, we don't think that there is going to be a huge impact on current practice at the moment. As I said, we already take a getting it right for every child approach in Scotland. We are keen to offer support to families and to get support in from the right people at the right time at an early stage to support families to parent well. In that context, you don't envisage that there would be an increase in child protection measures being taken, child protection registrations, as a direct result of this bill alone? I don't think so, but we do have the implementation group who will look at these issues, which does involve social work in Scotland and Police Scotland, if there are issues that arise during the course of this bill and that we need to pay attention to, we will, but I don't think so, no. On the counterside of that, if there is to be some sort of rise in child protection registrations and being used as it is safe to say that it could be an argument, that is because there is a little identification of children at risk? As I said, this is the approach that we take anyway in Scotland. We are very keen to identify children who might be at risk and who might offer support at an early stage so that things do not deteriorate for them. Our approach in Scotland is very much predicated along those lines. Getting it right for every child is about getting the right help from the right person at the right time, ideally at an early stage to have a crisis. Thanks very much. The other question was something that first was raised in Sky and it was something that I have to say that I hadn't particularly thought about beforehand and it was evidence that was given to us that this bill, if implemented, could have a disproportionate effect on families who are vulnerable and maybe already have agencies involved. Is that something that you followed through the evidence sessions? Is the Government got any thoughts on that? I did see that evidence given. I don't think that there's any particularly strong evidence that that would be the case. As I said, the approach in Scotland very much is around getting it right for every child. So where there is already state involvement with families, the aim is to support those families and to improve the situation for the children. I hope that that can be done. OK, Mary Fee. Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister, and good morning to your officials. My first question follows on quite nicely from the question that has just been put by Fulton MacGregor, and it's something that's been raised throughout the evidence sessions. Are you aware of any evidence that would suggest that children from specific equality groups are more likely to experience physical punishment? I have looked for evidence of that and I would say that there's not particularly solid evidence in which we could draw conclusions on that issue. There is some international evidence, but I'm not sure how applicable it is in Scotland and in the Scottish situation. OK, that's helpful. I mean, when you say there's not solid evidence, obviously if this bill is passed, the Government will be doing some awareness raising, and I know other members want to look at the kind of broader terms of what awareness raising the Government will be doing. Will you be tailoring the awareness raising and support that you offer, so that it would include families that either have social work involvement or may have specific equality groups of children within them? Absolutely, we would be keen to ensure that all families are aware, and we already have really good lines and channels of getting information to these families. We have Parent Club, a really useful website, which is well used and appreciated with a great deal of information about positive parenting, but we also have support packages in place. There's an increased level of health visiting, there's family nurse partnerships, there's a good level of support around these families already, and those families who have these supports in place should be well informed of the change that's coming. I don't know if you want to say anything more about the ways that we get information to parents in Scotland in terms of supporting positive parenting. As minister said, the Parent Club website is a resource that we'd like to develop as a one-stop shop for families, which will provide range of information and advice to parents, including healthy eating, sleep, and also behaviour and managing behaviour using positive parenting techniques, and it's very much done in partnership with parents. The website is to develop information that parents need and behaviour management is definitely one of the key tasks for parents. We do also publish resources like Ready Study Baby and Ready Study Toddler, and there is a baby publication that's just recently been refreshed and launched, and that provides a wealth of information from health professionals about positive parenting techniques. OK, that's very helpful. The other question that I wanted to ask is an issue that I've raised, not every evidence session, but I've raised it throughout the evidence sessions that we've had is around the issue of restraint. I wonder, minister, is restraint something that you would consider that this bill could deal with and, if not, is restraint something that is on the Government's horizon to pick up at a later stage? Certainly, I've noted the points that you've made around restraint in residential care settings, and I recognise that you're raising very serious points. I don't think that this Equal Protection Bill is an appropriate place to consider this issue. Restraint is very different from punishment. Restraint is about prevention. It's used in very defined circumstances. It's about keeping an individual safe, either from themselves or individuals around that person safe. I don't think that this is the appropriate place to consider it. I'm very happy to consider separately any points that you wish to raise around restraint with me. That's very helpful, because restraint is not only used in looked-after settings. It can also be used with young adults who have additional support needs. While I accept that restraint is used for protection, there is a very fine line and degrees of restraint between protection and harem, and it's something that I would be keen to explore with yourself at a later stage. Thank you. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister panel. One of the concerns that has been put to us is that there may be an increase in the burden on public services, but we've heard in many evidence sessions that, in countries that have already implemented this, there's been very little increase, if any, in prosecutions. Do you see any increased burden on public services coming as a result of this bill? No, I would agree. I think that the evidence from around the world has been quite convincing that there isn't an increase in prosecutions and there isn't an increase in burden. In fact, I thought that the evidence from Ireland that they found that the change in legislation wasn't anywhere near as dramatic as they had foreseen it to be, and it really just fit with where parents were at that time. One of the aims of this bill is to try and encourage a cultural change. Do you think that the legislation is the right way to do it, because we've also heard evidence that if we did an education and public awareness raising campaign, that might be enough on its own? What's your opinion on that? I don't think that it's a choice of one or the other. Education and awareness raising is a necessary part of the cultural change that we wish to achieve. It's very difficult to educate and awareness raise if the legislation is allowing you to do something else. That's where you see a very unhelpful ambiguity. I think that going down the route of education and awareness raising, plus changing the legislation, so that it's absolutely clear that physical punishment is not allowed in Scotland, then we'll see the most successful cultural change. If for whatever reason this bill was not to pass, do the Scottish Government have any plans to go ahead with an awareness or education campaign anyway? As I said, we have a lot of information. When we talked about parent club, we have a whole range of supports and information and awareness raising that are there from parent club to ready steady baby to the types of support that are available to parents in terms of professionals that they can access, visitors, family nurse, partnership, the new information around perinatal mental health, that new strategy, all of the supports in place around families already. I think that it would be difficult to achieve the cultural change without making the law absolutely clear. I don't think that you can have an educational strategy and a law that sees another. We heard in one of our evidence sessions of an organisation that works with families and often single mothers that don't have English as a first language. It was put to us that the bill, if it wasn't backed up with the right amount of awareness raising in that sector, might have an adverse effect on those women who are already under quite an amount of stress already. How would we reach them? The last time we brought out written guidance around 2003, that was published in a number of different languages. More than happy to look at that. I would like to think that the implementation group will pick up on those issues. We are keen to ensure that every parent in Scotland recognises that the law is changing and that physical punishment is not acceptable in Scotland. I think that it was also around the lack of interpreters in various languages and things like that. You mentioned the implementation group. Can you tell us a little bit more about that, what its remit is and maybe the membership, et cetera? It's met two times. It's remit is to look at what needs to be done to implement the bill if it's enacted by Parliament. It's looking at what guidance might be required for professionals such as social work. It's considering what awareness raising and marketing campaigns might be needed if a bill should be enacted. It's got a variety of members on it. It's got Police Scotland on it. It's got Social Work Scotland on it. It's got The Crown on it. Apparenting across Scotland, some other members as well. The committee approved it. It's had the first couple of meetings. I think that the main points it looked at was very much what guidance might be needed for professionals about possibly mainstreaming that into other guidance, particularly for social workers. And also, beginning to think about what might be needed by a way of awareness raising and marketing campaigns, issues like that. Okay, thank you. That leads me nicely into my last question. John Finnie in his financial memorandum that the cost of a campaign would be around £300,000. The Scottish Government's estimated cost is £20,000. That's quite a big discrepancy. Can you explain how you got to that figure? I think that there will always be differences in costs. I think that we are reasonably confident that we already have strong lines of communication there and that it would be reasonable to consider using those channels of communication initially I was interested to note that there are a range of views on this and we will certainly take on board what is discovered by the implementation group during the passage of the bill. I was also very interested to note that your Gillian Van Turnout said that there was actually no budget in Ireland to raise awareness around this issue. Okay, thank you. Minister, can I ask the planned implementation is 12 months from royal assent? Are you confident that that's achievable? Yes. Yes, yes. Good, quick answer. Finally, can you foresee any circumstances where the Scottish Government might have to use their delegated powers in relation to this bill? Okay, thank you. Did you have a quick start right, Kate? Just following on from the discussion, Minister, we had about public opinion. You're right to say in your opening remarks that 92 per cent of people in this country do agree that children should enjoy the same protection from assault as adults, but when you spell out to them that that means parents won't be able to physically punish their children, things change quite dramatically in the polling. It all comes down to the wording. Like other countries who've gone before, say Belgium, had a very similar public resistance to legislation like this. I think that it was 75 per cent were roughly similar against a ban on smacking as it's seen, even though that's not necessarily what this bill does. Do you think that we as politicians should be worried by that? Should we always follow public opinion in the policy we devise or should we seek to lead it? That's an interesting question. I think that I wouldn't agree with you that the public opinion is so out of step with what we're aiming to achieve here. I was very interested when I read the papers last night accompanying the bill that 80 per cent of parents of small children do not believe that smacking is an effective disciplinary tool. I don't think that this bill is wildly out of step with public opinion. I think that the important thing for us to do is to bring clarity to the situation to say that absolutely physical punishment is not acceptable in Scotland. The body of evidence around physical punishment of children is that it is harmful to their emotional and mental health. It is not an effective discipline strategy and to put forward strong, alternative, positive discipline strategies that are effective and empower parents to use them. Minister, you used two different forms of word through the session, but you said that physical punishment is not acceptable. That's what the bill shows, but I can't come back to the point. Is there a difference between being acceptable and being legal? Does the bill ban smacking? The bill does not introduce a new criminal offence. What it does is remove a defence. That does not sound very clear to me. I think that you are turning on the head of a pin here. If I am turning on the head of a pin, I am sorry. Through the chair, I will listen to the answers. Sorry, convener. I know that it is on the head of a pin, but for people who go to court and go through those kinds of processes, decisions are often made on the head of a pin, if that is the measure of it. I just want to know the honest answer. Does the bill, as it is currently drafted, ban smacking or ban behaviour commonly known as smacking, or does it point people in a direction that that is not acceptable? The bill removes the defence, which says that it was reasonable chastisement. I am not going to pass a comment on individual cases. There may well be circumstances that have to be taken into account whether to prosecute on the circumstances that were in place at the time, whether there is a number of other defences that can be used. The defence of reasonable chastisement will be removed. I think that that will clearly state that physical punishment of children in Scotland is not accepted. Does that mean in your view that physical punishment will, to all intents and purposes, amount to assault? Is that what you would hope the courts would interpret? As I have said, we are not creating a new offence, so physical punishment already amounts to assault, and there is a defence in place that can be used. We are removing that defence. I think that it is clear. Minister, thanks to you and your officials this morning for your evidence, we will suspend briefly to allow the panel to change over. Welcome back everybody, and I welcome panel 2, John Finnie MSP, member in charge, supported by Stephen Den researcher, Nick Hawthorne, senior assistant clerk, non-government bills unit, and Katrina McCallum, office of the solicitor at Scottish Parliament. John Finnie can invite you to make a statement of up to five minutes please. Thank you very much indeed, convener. I will be brief. I thank the committee for the invitation to give evidence on the member's bill, and I would also like to thank the committee for the diligent way that they have gone about examining the issue and for the support that they have had from the team. I am also grateful to the Scottish Government for their support for my bill and to the minister personally for her support since the initial consultation in 2017. I would also like to thank the people with me, Nick Hawthorne, of the Parliament's NGB unit, and his colleague Kate Blackman, Katrina McCallum, from the office of solicitor to the Scottish Parliament, and indeed my colleague Stephen Dane, office manager for all for their timeless work. I was initially approached after the election by a coalition of children's charities, Bernados, Scotland, NSPCC, Children First and the Children's Commissioner to consider taking forward a member's bill in a simple proposal. That proposal was that children should have the same legal protection and assault as adults. I am immensely grateful for their support and encouragement since then. The growing body of international evidence shows that the physical punishment of children is harmful to their development and not an effective means of discipline. My intention is to bring clarity to the law by removing the defence of reasonable justizment—sometimes referred to as justifiable assault—and to send a clear message that the physical punishment of children is not acceptable. I believe that the bill is a vital step in ensuring that we see the necessary change in our culture of society, much in the way that the smoking ban was a necessary legislative step in making Scotland a healthier place to live. My bill aims to bring Scotland into line with what is becoming the international standard in 54 countries, from Sweden in 1979 to Ireland in 2015 to Nepal last year and this year to Jersey. I am sure that all parties will agree that we should work together to ensure that Scotland becomes the best country in the world for children to go up in. I strongly believe that, if passed, my bill would play a vital part in making that aim come to pass. I am pleased to note the comments from the minister that the Scottish Government is working closely with organisations to ensure that, if the bill is passed, it would run smoothly. Can I ask you about public opinion? We have had on our visits as a committee to various grandparents groups and parents groups. The work that we have done with children and young people has been mixed. There are also those who campaign passionately against the change in the law. Can you ask for your reflections on why you think that that is the case? It is certainly an issue that draws strong opinions for various reasons. I think that a number of people have touched on the notion that there is some sort of historic judgment in them, their parents. It also often depends on how the question is framed. In respect of the particular proposal, 75 per cent of respondents supported that. For instance, there was a significant survey, 70,000 plus members, young people in Scotland, were consulted by the youth parliament, way up in the high 80 per cent that supported that. It is how the question is asked. Sometimes, if you ask, do you think that children should receive the same protection of mysol as adults? Overwhelmingly, the majority of people say that that is the case. It is about the framing. Thank you. I am interested in the method that you chose to bring in the bill. Fundamentally, why, if you think that physical punishment is wrong, why you did not choose to make physical punishment unlawful and make that clearer on the face of the bill? I was present in the previous session and heard your comments, Mr Modell, and I think that we do require clarity. I think that this delivers clarity. There is widespread public awareness already of this proposal. Indeed, as I think that you have heard previously, many people think that already it is illegal to smack children. It is building in this. I think that you are entirely right to say that people need to understand the parameters. The parameters should be that it is very clear that the physical punishment of children is not acceptable. The issues that have raised concern to many people about children running onto the road, about boiling water and all those issues, I think that those are things that can be provided clarity elsewhere. As you will know as a parliamentarian, there is often a clamour to have different things on the face of a bill. I do not think that that is something that requires to be in the face of a bill. This is dealing with a very specific issue. A defence to a common law crime that is in statute and that defence is removed by the deletion of that element in statute. I think that that is a very clear proposal. I guess that my question would be why, in New Zealand, when they chose to do this, did they make it clear that there was nothing in law that justified the use of corrective force if that is your belief in intention and you want to make it clear for parents? Why would you not want to make that clear with this bill and leave what albeit the law society described as a small great area or in the previous panel we saw two legal representatives of the Scottish Government and I think the minister herself said that there could be difficult cases or a suggestion that it would be for courts to decide. Do you not think that it would be better for a Parliament to just make that clear? I do not wish to appear pedantic. I do not know what you mean by the term correct force. Corrective force. I think that that is the equivalent to physical punishment, I guess, where the force would be used to correct behaviour. I think that it is interesting and, of course, I command with lots of information including references to different legal systems. The reality is that I can only deal with the system that is here. My obligation as a Parliamentarian is to deal with here. I think that there is clarity and I think that it would be unhelpful, particularly given your very helpful comments earlier on about you not seeing a role for physical punishment of children to suggest other than that there would be clarity coming out of this. Of course, pivotal to that is the public awareness. There is a lot of support. You heard some of the brief comments about the support that is available already and there is a lengthy document that I have here covering the very targeted support that is appropriate and would continue and would pick up on this proposal if it were adopted by Parliament. What concerns me as a legislator and a member of Parliament is not knowing what the threshold would be. I have a bit of discomfort, so you think that the threshold is zero. All physical punishment would be assault in your understanding. That is helpful. I think that when I hear the Scottish Government's legal team say that it would be up for the court to decide where the threshold was, I find that concerning or for court in case law to determine because at the moment we do not have any... With respect, Mr Mundell, we might be talking about slightly different things here. There are judgments being made on a daily basis by professionals, be that a teacher at a school, social work department, Police Scotland. I think that you heard compelling evidence of how these organisations work together. There are judgments made on interests, and the interests of the child is at the foremost. I think that there is clarity, but of course that needs to be made. There needs to be reinforcement of that. Before I get into the similar line of questioning that I gave to the minister, I would like to first of all thank John Finnie for being here today and indeed for this bill. He knows that I am a fellow traveller in this area, and I would like to thank him also for the inclusive way that he has conducted his approach to this bill. Before I go into that line of questioning, I would like to touch on a brief supplement on Oliver Mundell's last line of questioning, and you mentioned the word interests about weighing up interests. I agree with you that the threshold should be zero, that physical punishment should always be viewed as assault, but is it fair to say that a second judgment is then taken by the police or the procurator fiscal as to whether it is in the public interest to raise a criminal proceeding against a parent who has been accused of assault in that way? Again, there is a list of proportionality that relates to the duration of the issue, the status of the time and the impact that it has. There are a whole load of factors that are considered all the time on a daily basis by the authorities. You would also agree that, in other jurisdictions that have already brought this restriction in on physical punishment, the application of that seems to be quite light touch and that there have not been huge amounts of prosecution in, say, New Zealand or Belgium or other countries? No, not at all. Quite the reverse dispute. There has generally been a slight increase in reporting and you would understand that. I do not think that that is problematic, but not in prosecutions, no. It is back to what the purpose of this is. This is not the purpose of this, it is not to prosecute people. The purpose is to send a clear direction of travel. It has happened previously. Future generations will wonder that this establishment discussed whether it was or was not appropriate to strike a blow to the head of a toddler with an implement, for instance. That would seem strange. It is a progression of that. It is to send a clear direction of travel but to appropriate support with that. Can I ask about rights? Obviously, we know that the Government has a commitment to incorporate the UNCRC or the principles of the UNCRC into Scots law, as stated by the First Minister in the programme for government speech. Is it compatible to not make this change and to incorporate the UNCRC? Would the UNCRC say that, yes, Scotland, you have incorporated the UNCRC while we are still punishing children physically in the home? It would be completely incompatible. We have heard of the international concern about the position in Scotland and, indeed, elsewhere in the UK and some other countries. It would be incompatible and, for that reason, I hope that the Parliament will pass it. Do you recognise the tension that exists between children's rights and parents' rights, or parents' right to family life and to bring their children up in the way that they see fit? I understand that people perceive there to be a tension. I think that we all have rights. I do not think that there is a hierarchy. Very simply, and back to the issue of how the whole issue here is framed, if you say to people, do you think that the most vulnerable people in our communities deserve equal protection? Many would say, no, I think that they deserve better protection. I do not see the conflict that some people do with that, as you know. If I can test some of the arguments against your bill with you directly, we have heard a lot about protective punishment, physical intervention and chastisement to prevent a child from coming to harm, whether that is the pan of boiling water from the stove or running into traffic. Are you concerned that, by removing that tool of parenting, we are exposing children to harm who would otherwise have been protected via a slap on the wrist or on the bum to prevent them from harming themselves? One of your earlier witnesses gave the example and expressed some incredulity that the response to their child running on the road would be to strike them and said, no, I would put a protective arm around them, I would speak to them, I would reassure them. I think that people need to be aware in the home that there are hazards everywhere. It is the duty of all of us to make homes as child-proof and child-friendly as possible. I do not think that there are issues around that at all. If we agree that behaviour is a product of mental process, that a three-year-old might be physically punished as a tool of sanction for their behaviour to protect them, but an adult with incapacity who had a mental age of three would not recognise that as incongruous that we shouldn't apply something just because somebody is smaller and less developed than the adult? Absolutely. It also causes confusion and it sends a very peculiar message. You have heard previously from professionals that if the answer to a difficulty, whatever that difficulty might be, is to apply some violence—and that is what smacking people would call it—then it sends a very peculiar message to children who are at the most formative part, because it is about child development, it is about brain development and it is about the signals and messages that are sent by parents, carers and indeed by the community. Thank you. You mentioned violence there and there is a debate in the evidence that we have heard between the causal link between smacking in the home, physical punishment in the home and violence, either domestic violence, the Scottish Women's Aid site, the link as do the police, and indeed violence on our streets, where children exhibit learned behaviour to one another in terms of the use of sanction as a tool of coercion or sanction or revenge. The corollary to that was what we heard from Professor Lars earlier from America last week that he cites a potential causal link between the smacking ban in Sweden and an increase in assaults by young people. Where do you sit on that debate? Well, I think the least said about last week's evidence from that professor the better. I understand the committees in receipt of a very direct letter from a fellow academic in North America confining her comments to, as I understand, the foremost outrageous assertions made. There's no credibility associated with that. I think it does touch, and I could leave it there, but I want to say that it does touch on something that is a concern about the bill, and that is people's perceptions and the historic application of smacking. The assertion made that people would accept that smoking causes harm now, but it doesn't mean that, if you are being exposed to smoking as a child, you're going to get lung cancer in later life. However, it's very much the case that, if you are going to get lung cancer in later life, it's very unlikely that you have had that left or the exposure. There is a connection there, and it's appropriate to say that the people who have said that that aren't just the academics, it is important when you have people like Scottish Women's Aid, when you have people like the Violence Reduction Unit, who are at the front line of dealing with issues of violence in our communities. I think that we should listen. I have a final question for me, Mr Finnie. You joined us on our road trip to Sky, and you heard the evidence, particularly from the faith communities in the west of Scotland, that, for them, they regard the parents' right to physically chastise their child as an article of faith, and they cite scripture to defend that right. If we were to remove that right, is that an assault on their religious freedoms? Most certainly it's not. I respect people's rights to hold views. I thought the evidence that you heard from the Reverend Nino of the Church of Scotland and from the Quaker representative was very compelling, and it said that it is about interpretation. I wouldn't wish to be offensive to anyone, but I think that there is a point where no-one's individual views trump the collective view of the community. Thank you, and good morning to John Finnie. I started my question well done for bringing this bill through and taking the bold move to do so. I wanted to ask just similar questions to the minister earlier, and I know that you were in that session, Mr Finnie. It's just to ask what impact do you think, if your bill is passed by Parliament, what impact do you think it will have on current child protection arrangements and processes? Well, I think that you heard compelling evidence last week from a front-line practitioner, indeed, the gentleman responsible for looking at the daily reports in the city of Edinburgh, our capital city, who said that it will have no impact. You also heard that from the chief superintendent of Police Scotland, who had a previous involvement in that role. The front-line services deal with issues on a daily basis. That is another aspect that they will have to address, but it is going to be about the support that is put in place, and there is a lot of support out there. I know that you touched on this earlier, Mr Finnie, but is it fair to say then that your bill does not have the intention to increase state intervention in family life, if you like, or that prosecutions have been asked earlier and that it is to change the culture? It is. It is to show that the Parliament has listened to the overwhelming evidence, the evidence that we heard from Dr Anja Helman, the compilation of a vast amount of research equally protected that says that, in the formative years of a child, any exposure to violence or any will have a negative effect. A lot of parliamentarians talk about adverse childhood experiences, and that has now become very day parlance. That would have to be regarded in a similar way, so I think that it would be very strange if Parliament did not respond to that overwhelming research. Thank you very much, Mr Finnie. My other question is, and you will have heard it in the last session and in the various others, because I know that you have attended every single evidence session, but it is about something that we heard first heard in the sky about if this bill is introduced or is passed, sorry, that it might have a more disproportionate effect on families who are already vulnerable. We heard that first in the sky with some evidence towards that batch of the evidence that we have heard since, and that has not backed up. Have you got any views on that? The concern that many academics have expressed is that physical punishment is sometimes used by people under pressure, and there is no doubt that we have families under considerable pressure for a number of reasons. Those are the families who are targeted for specific additional support by social work services and health boards. It would also be wrong to suggest it as a particular geographic area social strata that punish their children physically across the board. I have no concerns that the targeted support that is there cannot be racked up if that is required. There is a broad range of support from something as simple as someone being able to go online or pick up a phone and seek advice, peer online, to very targeted support for young mothers. I have just got the one question to ask yourself, Mr Finnie. Will fair from other witnesses and like other witnesses, do you think that this bill shouldn't criminalise parents? The intention of the bill is to send a direction of travel about child welfare and child upbringing, and it is not to criminalise parents. At the moment, parents could be criminalised for using excessive force on a child. That is to send guidance and put support in place to say that there are better ways, because all the evidence tells us that there are better ways, so it is not about criminalising anyone, it is about supporting children. Good morning, Mr Finnie. I want to ask you about equality groups. You have heard that it is a question that I have asked a number of evidence sessions, but rather than ask the specific question that I asked the minister, can I perhaps ask you, Mr Finnie, to give us some information about the equality groups that support people that you spoke to while you were taking evidence? I know that you said that you spoke to a number of children's organisations, but did you speak to the organisations that specifically provide support to families who have children that require additional support? We have had engagement with a considerable number of people and I understand the particular pressures that associate themselves with some communities. We heard earlier about the challenges. There might be cultural challenges about people who have been moved to Scotland from a place where certain levels of punishment are appropriate. I have listened to the evidence about groups' appearance for children with additional needs. I think that it is clear that we need to be sensitive to the different ways that might be required to put forward the support, but I do not think that there is any group that is going to be disadvantaged, which is what a quality legislation is about. It is about ensuring that everyone is treated equally. To do that, you do not necessarily treat people the same way. You might have to put additional mechanisms in place to support, for instance, the phrase hard to reach communities. I just want to be quite specific. Did you then speak to organisations, for example, the Artistic Society, that support families of children who can be quite challenging and difficult? Were there any issues raised that there may be a higher prevalence of perhaps physical punishment in particular groups? I personally have not spoken to that particular group, but I am aware, as I am sure of, of the many issues that are associated with autism. We are liaising closely with the children's charities, which have regard to a whole range of issues, including autism. Was there any discussion around the use of restraint? I accept that this is not the legislation to include anything in relation to restraint, but in the discussions that you had with children's organisations, was there any discussion about concerns around the use of restraint? It is something that comes up, and you are right. I do not think that this is the vehicle for it, because we are talking invariably about institutions for where different roles and regulations apply. There is no doubt that, however well-meaning, restraint can sometimes move over into a situation in which it could be considered as assault. Those are things that have come up in our engagement. Good morning, Mr Finnie and your panel. What steps do you think that the Scottish Government should take to promote awareness and education should the bill pass? There has been some discussion about the wide disparity between the figure that we came up with in the financial memorandum, which was an average of a range of campaigns that had taken place. It came out at £303,000, so we called it £300,000, to be fair. There is also an extent—I think that it is entirely fair to say what the minister says—that there is an extensive network there already around which information is relayed to parents, and there is no reason why that could not be used. What steps do you think that the Scottish Government should take to promote the bill if it passes and to educate parents that there are other methods of discipline that they do not need to resort to smacking? The Scottish Government's position at the moment is that it does not support a physical punishment of children as an effective means of discipling children. We have heard from a number of witnesses that a campaign alone is not sufficient. It has to be backed up with a legislative framework. It is important that there will be awareness. The implementation group that the minister touched on is key to this. It is about social work services, and it is about the police as well—the minimal role that the Crown would play in that. There is also the public campaign, because there needs to be public awareness. Some of the concerns that will be shared with us sometimes are about how a member of the public would react if there were to see someone perhaps discipling their child in public. Thank you. I see that you have been listening intently because you just answered about four of my full-up questions. Have you had any interaction with the implementation group at all, or is that separate from what you are doing? Well, no. I do not want to be presumptive in any way of the parliamentary process, and I think that it is important that there is that separation. We are aware, and we are aware of who is involved. We are very happy to engage with them, but it is for Parliament to decide whether it wishes to progress this legislation. I hope that it will, and if it does, I would be happy to engage with them formally thereafter. Nobody else is catching my eye, so that brings us to the end of this session. Thank you for your evidence. Our next meeting will be on 4 April, and we will consider the evidence that we have already heard at stage 1 in private. The committee has already agreed to consider evidence in private, so now I will move into private session and ask the public gallery to clear.