The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the name of Paul Davies, and amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

The next item, therefore, is the debate on tackling hate crime, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to move the motion. Carl Sargeant.

Motion NDM6530 Jane Hutt

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Notes the progress made in relation to the Welsh Government’s Tackling Hate Crime Framework as a result of work involving a wide range of partners across Wales.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the work we and our partners are doing to tackle hate crime and intolerance across Wales. I’m sure that, as in previous years, this debate will demonstrate the fundamental unity of purpose in this Assembly in confronting these evils.

This is, of course, National Hate Crime Awareness Week, which is a key time for our third sector partners and the four police forces in Wales. I have, again, made funding available to the police and crime commissioners to support activities during this week. This year, I have allowed greater flexibility so that the funding also supports some action that lasts longer than the hate crime week itself, and we need to sustain our focus on these issues all year round.

All hate crimes are abhorrent. We have seen a number of awful incidents across the UK this year, and I would like again to extend my sympathies to the victims, their families, and everyone affected. We know that the impact of such atrocities reaches far beyond those who are directly involved, with lifelong effects. Llywydd, the same is true of many other hate crimes. Even though they may be on a smaller scale and often go unnoticed by the wider world, hate crime has devastating and long-lasting effects on people and communities. In 2014, we launched ‘Tackling Hate Crimes and Incidents: A Framework for Action’, which sets out our commitment to challenge hostility and prejudice across all protected characteristics. The framework includes objectives such as prevention, support and improving the multi-agency response.

One of the short-term goals of the framework was to increase the number of victims coming forward to report. We’ve had a lot of success in this area, and victims must have the confidence to report what has happened to them, and know how to do so. They need to be able to secure justice, and they also need to access support and advocacy in the aftermath of sometimes devastating crimes. This morning, the Home Office released its 2016-17 hate crime figures. They show that 2,941 hate crimes were reported in Wales during 2016-17, which is a 22.3 per cent increase on 2015-16. Much of the increase is likely to be due to an increase in the rate of reporting, and this is welcome. Information from the Crime Survey of England and Wales shows that, between 2012 and 2015, only 48 per cent of hate crime victims were reporting them to the police or to a third-party reporting centre. Since then, a lot of work has been done through the hate crime framework to increase the awareness and confidence of victims in coming forward.

The number of hate crimes reported in Wales has increased year on year, demonstrating the value of the work the Welsh Government, the police, the third sector and other partners have put in. We have seen similar increases in the number of cases being dealt with by our national hate crime report and support centre. Last year, 2,655 cases were handled by the centre—a 21 per cent increase, compared to the previous year. In 2017-18, 1,238 victims have already received advice, advocacy and support from the centre.

The centre plays a vital role in supporting all victims of hate crime in Wales, and I’ve confirmed funding for the centre until 2020 to ensure the services can continue.

Our partners on the hate crime criminal justice board Cymru also play a vital role. They include the four police forces, police and crime commissioners and the Crown Prosecution Service. They examine processes and make sure that the reporting system is working from the point of the first reporting to the stage where the case is taken to court. Earlier, I said that a part of the increase in hate crime announced by the Home Office was probably due to an increase in reporting by victims. Nevertheless, Llywydd, we must always recognise that it is, in part, likely due to a real spike in hate crimes in 2016 and 2017 also.

We’ve heard from police forces, the national hate crime report and support centre, third sector agencies and local support groups of the real concern at the rising number of hate crimes committed last year, and we must not ignore this evidence from experienced, professional and dedicated people who are dealing with this on a daily basis. They tell us, for example, of people recently enduring racial abuse from neighbours that they’ve lived alongside for many years who have never expressed such views before, of people being shouted at simply for speaking a language other than English—in some cases where the language being used was Welsh—and even of disabled people suffering abuse on buses and trains. So, we must continue to work with our partners to counter hate and build cohesion in Wales, and we’ve been working closely with them to maximise the impact of our work and build communities where hate crime is not tolerated, and victims are supported to the utmost.

For example, we’ve strong links with our faith communities across Wales. The First Minister and I meet with the faith communities forum twice a year—indeed, yesterday we met—to discuss matters affecting the economic, social and cultural life here in Wales. This reflects the Welsh Government’s commitment to working with faith groups at all levels to promote understanding and foster community cohesion. It is important we’re able to express our views, to listen with respect to others and to improve working together, helping to keep Wales a tolerant society. We’re working closely with the police in collaboration on monitoring and responding to community tensions, and we need to have an effective short-term response to emergencies and long-term work to build resilience and community cohesion.

Community tensions raise levels of fear and anxiety, threaten the peace and stability of communities and can also lead to crime, Llywydd. Some tensions manifest themselves in disorder, damage or physical violence. Other effects are less visible, making people feel vulnerable, excluded and fearful when they go about their daily lives. With effective monitoring of tensions, we can intervene to prevent hate crime and distress. It is about being early and upstream of this. We need a step change in understanding, respect and acceptance. We need more and more people to celebrate diversity rather than fearing, recognising that Wales has always been enriched by people of many backgrounds, cultures and of faith.

So, we will continue to work closely with a large number of partners to strengthen our shared message. Llywydd, together we will put forward consistent, positive messages in communities throughout Wales to challenge prejudice, discrimination and counter hate. We have a number of initiatives to prevent young people from being drawn into far-right activity. No society is immune from the threat of extremism or terrorism, but we are working to ensure Wales remains a safe place to live and work. There are well-established structures across Wales to tackle all forms of extremism. These structures come together under CONTEST and the extremism board Wales. Our approach to countering extreme terrorism includes, for example, a challenging extremism module as part of the global citizenship challenge in the Welsh baccalaureate, and education plays a vital role in addressing hate. Schools need to be clear about their arrangements to challenge unacceptable words and behaviours, including racism, and support child victims. We are updating our anti-bullying guidance, ‘Respecting others’, which was published in 2011, and we’ve already engaged with stakeholders and will be working with children and young people this autumn.

Social media plays a big part and role in the lives of most of us, and this is especially true of young people. The availability of and use of social media brings new problems with cyber bullying and cyber hate, and we continue to work with police services across Wales and the hate crime report and support centre to raise awareness of the need to report cyber bullying and abuse and to monitor this.

Llywydd, I’m grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, and look forward to the contributions of many Members during this afternoon’s debate.

I have selected the eight amendments to the motion. I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Amendment 1—Paul Davies

Add as a new point at end of motion:

Notes that, although there has been a steady increase in the overall recording of hate crime, the charity Victim Support has said that more needs to be done to encourage victims to come forward.

Amendment 2—Paul Davies

Add as a new point at end of motion:

Welcomes the UK Government's new social media code of practice that will ensure a joined-up approach to remove or address bullying, intimidating or humiliating online content.

Amendment 3—Paul Davies

Add as a new point at end of motion:

Supports calls for crimes committed against older people because of their age to be recognised as hate crimes.

Amendment 4—Paul Davies

Add as a new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to add hate crime to the refreshed Autism Strategy.

Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. In this National Hate Crime Awareness Week 2017, let us acknowledge that hate crime is defined as an offence perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic. This Welsh Government debate calls on us to note the progress made in relation to the Welsh Government’s 2014 tackling hate crime framework. The all-Wales hate crime research project, on which this is based, said that more needs to be done to increase the confidence of victims and witnesses to report hate incidents and to promote the view that reporting hate is the right thing to do.

It recommended that the Welsh Government should take the lead on ensuring accessible third-party reporting mechanisms being in place for victims who don’t want to report directly to the police. Police recorded 2,528 hate crimes in 2014-15, up 18 per cent annually, with more than 80 per cent racially motivated, although the annual crime survey for England and Wales suggested hate crime had fallen 28 per cent over the previous seven years. Overall, police-recorded hate crimes in England and Wales in 2015-16 increased a further 19 per cent, with 79 per cent being race hate crimes. In July to September 2016, police-recorded hate crime increased 52 per cent in Dyfed Powys to 35 incidents, 22 per cent in north Wales to 56 incidents, 22 per cent in Gwent to 77 incidents and 10 per cent in south Wales to 276 incidents. Police-recorded hate crime figures in England and Wales published today show a further 29 per cent rise in 2016-17, with Home Office statisticians saying that this is thought to reflect both a genuine rise in hate crime and ongoing improvements in crime recording by the police. Last month, new research showed that the number of lesbian, gay and bi people in Wales experiencing hate crime had jumped from 11 per cent in 2013 to 20 per cent this year.

Any incident or crime perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated because of a person’s impairment or perceived impairment should be recorded as disability hate crime. Reported disability hate crimes across the UK are up 101 per cent to 3,079 over two years, with reported crimes against disabled children up 150 per cent to 450. The Home Office has expressed concern that disability hate crime is still significantly underreported by victims, although there’s been a steady increase in the overall recording of hate crime, with more victims having the confidence to come forward and the police improving the way they identify and record hate crimes.

I therefore move amendment 1, noting that the charity Victim Support has said that more needs to be done to encourage victims to come forward.

I move amendment 2, welcoming the UK Government’s consultation on the new social media code of practice provided for by the UK Digital Economy Act 2017, which will ensure a joined-up approach to remove or address bullying, intimidating or humiliating online content, including trolling and abuse that is often disproportionately targeted at women.

Although the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales has warned that there is an increasing problem of older people being specifically targeted by criminals because of their age, there remains a gap in law that does not recognise this as hate crime. Action on Elder Abuse highlights research showing that over 99 per cent of abusers who target older people are going unpunished, and their February 2017 poll shows that nearly 95 per cent agree that the abuse of older people should be an aggravated offence like hate crimes on race, religion or disability. I therefore move amendment 3, supporting calls for crimes committed against older people because of their age to be recognised as hate crimes.

The Welsh Government’s 2016-17 progress report refers to the autistic spectrum disorder strategic action plan, but it doesn’t address hate crime against autistic adults, and the Learning with Autism programme for primary schools is not necessarily about tackling hate crime. Yes, it’s rightly about raising awareness, but hate crime is not within it. I therefore move amendment 4, calling on the Welsh Government to add hate crime to the refreshed autism strategy. We’ll be supporting Plaid Cymru’s amendments, although it is essential that provision of more victim support officers must be delivered in partnership with Victim Support and local third sector services.

Overall, and in conclusion, as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for hate crime states:

‘We know that terrorist attacks and other national and global events have the potential to trigger short-term spikes in hate crime’, but

‘As terrorists seek to divide us’, he said,

‘it is more important than ever that we continue to stand united in the face of hostility and hatred.’

Thank you.

I call on Bethan Jenkins to move amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Amendment 5—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to tackle the radicalisation of white men into far-right groups and noting recent terrorist activity committed by the far right.

Amendment 6—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to provide more victim support officers.

Amendment 7—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to introduce teacher training on how to deal with hate-related incidents in schools, and to take action to prevent schools keeping this hidden.

Amendment 8—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point to end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to improve community cohesion following terrorist incidents as this is when hate crime against Muslims tends to rise.

Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 moved.

Diolch, and thank you for holding this debate on what’s a really important topic and one that I don’t think has enough attention in this National Assembly for Wales on a regular basis.

I took some inspiration for some of the amendments from Race Equality First and from the Ethnic Youth Support Team in Swansea. Those particular ideas were focusing on teacher training to deal with hate-related incidents and interventions in school. I think what’s important to recognise is that people’s social views are framed from a very young age, and what I found from the Ethnic Youth Support Team in Swansea, when I visited there a few weeks ago, was that they’re having specifically tailored workshops towards some people they’re identifying in the school who’re coming out with potentially racist comments, or derogatory comments at an early, early stage in their youth careers in school to try and understand why they’re coming out with such views and what manifests itself in those views. I think it’s very complex, but I think, if we invest money in that preventative agenda, we will be able to effect change.

In that light, I have had evidence from the Ethnic Youth Support Team where they’ve said that they’ve read from the hate crime framework that the all-Wales anti-bullying framework will look at this preventative work, but they’ve told me that it disbanded in 2016. So, if the all-Wales anti-bullying framework is not in existence, or the group that’s putting that in place is not currently in existence, who is doing that work on the front line?

In relation to the Victim Support amendment, it was in recognition of the fact that there may be diverse groups across society that may inform Victim Support better as to the nuances and the complexities of the advice and the support needed to give to some victims. There may be charities that work specifically with the trauma induced by race-related hate crime; there may be organisations like Stonewall that may be able to give Victim Support more support in relation to that type of hate crime. I think that is the thrust of what I’ve tried to say there—that Victim Support, in and of itself, is working well, but needs more cross-cutting endorsement and support by the charity sector.

I think what’s important also to note is our attempts, as a party and as a nation, to increase community cohesion—this should be at the heart of everything that we do in relation to hate crime, especially given that it’s been reported that hate crime against Muslims often is higher when the media reports on a terrorist incident. We have to address those very real concerns, because we have communities in Wales where people are suffering as a result of actions taken by other people, and it’s not in their name.

I realise that amendment 5 has caused some conflict before this debate happened. It’s not to say that only men suffer from being victims of radicalisation from the far right, but it is a recognition that we could start somewhere and to start with men in this particular group. I don’t apologise for trying to have the debate, but I can understand if perhaps it could be more nuanced, and we will consider that in future. But I think sometimes, as I’ve said to people before I came here today—. We know that young men commit suicide more often, we know that they need to have targeted support, and we know that young men are becoming radicalised by the far right online, social media—we only need to look at Breitbart, who don’t openly advocate violence, but the culture of grievance they play repeatedly with certain white men needs discussion, as many of the talking points have become mainstream. This could be a whole debate on its own about potential problems with mental health, potentially how men feel that their role in society has changed: they’ve been told that they should be the main bread earner, but it winds up that they’re not, and how they feel when where they fit in society doesn’t work anymore. There’s been numerous studies into why ethnic or Asian men have been radicalised towards the Islamic State, and so why not have the conversation openly here in our National Assembly about why certain sectors of our society are going online, abusing women, and finding it easy to justify that because they don’t believe in the ‘PC’ agenda anymore? Why is that acceptable? Why should we accept that as a form of open debate? That has to be questioned, surely. So, I would like to potentially bring more debates of this nature, and have them in a constructive manner, so that we can help our citizens understand one another. Maybe we come from a position of privilege here in the National Assembly, so we don’t understand all of the nuances of why things happen, but we have to try and work together more positively as a society.

Figures today show that hate crime has risen by 29 per cent, and I believe that is a record rise in England and Wales. I’m sure that the vast majority of fair-minded people in this Chamber, in our communities and our country will agree that this is unacceptable. All of us here have a duty to speak up, stand up and take action to challenge and combat prejudice and hate wherever and to whom it rears its ugly head. I’ve spoken previously in this place on this same issue, and I’ve made clear that there can be no hierarchy of hate.

However, today I’d like to focus my contribution on bullying, and particularly the rise of online abuse. Results from a Stonewall survey in August 2017 showed that one in 10 LGBT people have experienced homophobic, biphobic or transphobic abuse or behaviour online directed towards them personally. This number increases to one in four trans people who have experienced transphobic abuse or behaviour, and half of all LGBT people who have witnessed homophobic, biphobic and transphobic abuse or behaviour online that was not directed towards them in the last month. I’m sure Members in here will be aware that there’s something about social media that seems to make people think that they can say and do whatever they want without fear or thought for the implications.

I just want to bring it home a little bit to illustrate a bit closer to home for Members here. I’m recalling that in February last year, we had an individual Member debate to mark LGBT history month, and as part of that I did some media work around it. In one of the headlines on BBC Politics online, they ran with ‘Hannah Blythyn: I'm proud to be one of the first openly gay AMs’. And whilst the people responding couldn’t quite manage to find me to tweet at me, just to give you some of the things I can repeat in the Chamber of what they tweeted back:

‘Why do people think that the vast majority care what their sexual preferences are?’

‘How does that make you a better AM’

‘I am utterly disinterested. Identity politics is soooo borrrrrrrring. Who cares who she sleeps with.’

My absolute favourite, and I say this with a hint of sarcasm, was somebody saying, ‘this is England’. The reason why I highlight these cases is because I think it’s—. You know, I put myself up there in public life, and I’ve made a decision to be open about who I am, because I think visibility’s important. But I think we also have a responsibility to call out these things, because what is banter and humour to one person can hurt and have consequences to another. So, we need Government and public bodies to act swiftly and seriously to deal with incidents of online abuse, keeping individuals informed on the progress and any actions that have been taken. I also think the global social media players need to take both online hate and abuse more seriously, and have more stringent standards and effective measures in place to hold those perpetrators to account.

Government and other stakeholders need to work together with the police to develop more effective responses to hate online, in consultation with the people that are impacted and the organisations that are there to support them. I think we all need to get tougher on allowing this space for hate to fester and flourish online. We cannot allow the continuation of an area that is allowed to incubate and to also amplify hate, because that online vacuum can then become a platform for people to go offline and perpetrate acts of hate. On that, I’m sure I’m not alone in being troubled that we are becoming less tolerant of others, with a definite shift downwards in the tone and terms of debate. I have to say, this is not about political correctness; it’s about basic respect and consideration for one another as fellow human beings.

I think we must acknowledge and act on why people perhaps feel alienated and distant from the political system, and I think a lot of that is economic factors underneath it, but I don’t think we shouldn’t be clear that that does not mean we should sink to the lowest common denominator and allow that as an excuse to scapegoat and hit out at the most vulnerable in our society, pitching communities and groups against one another.

I get the feeling sometimes when we’re having some of these debates that there are people who somehow think that progress on legislative equality has tipped the balance the other way, and I think we need to be very clear on this. Equality for me does not mean fewer rights for someone else. Equality, by its very dictionary definition, is the state of being equal, especially in status, rights or opportunities. We need to remember that, and we need to speak out in support of that. So, this Thursday, I will be speaking at an event at St Asaph cathedral to mark 50 years since the decriminalisation of homosexuality. The event will provide an opportunity to look at history and hope for the future. My contribution will be looking at the future and the Wales and the world we hope to one day live in, a future Wales and world where I hope each and every one of us can live our lives as we are for who we are, free from fear of prejudice and hate. The onus is on each and every one of us to make this a reality, so let us lead in speaking out, stepping up and stamping out hate and discrimination. Diolch yn fawr.

I think we should start this debate by saying what is true: that we live in a much less prejudiced society today than 50 years ago, when I was young, and that’s a very good thing. I approve of the Government’s strategy on hate crime and I appreciate the tone in which the Cabinet Secretary started off this debate. But one thing that does concern me about debates on hate crime is that we tend to get it out of perspective.

Hate crime is, of course, abominable, and I speak as a victim, because I once had my nose broken when I went to the aid of a gay friend of mine who was being attacked by homophobic thugs, and the perpetrator of that crime subsequently went to prison on account of it. I’ve also been on an IRA list for quite a number of years, and therefore I was under threat of being murdered. So, I do understand what hatred is all about when you encounter it in a real sense. But we have no far-right party today that is active in British politics of any size. The British National Party has disappeared, the English Defence League is insignificant, and I think we should celebrate that. We don’t have the problems that some European countries have, and therefore we shouldn’t get this out of perspective.

I think we have to accept, also, that the figures that are reported as hate crimes really tend to exaggerate the extent of the problem. Mark Isherwood referred, in the course of his speech, to the fact that it’s the perception of the victim that matters, not the actual reality, necessarily. The definition in the Home Office operational guidance, which is accepted by police forces in Wales, is that, for recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate incident. So, even a third party can report a hate crime as such, and it will instantly be logged by the police as a hate crime, even in cases where the victim himself or herself may not have wished it to be so. There’s an actual example in the police operational guidance, actually, which is, I think, quite instructive:

‘A heterosexual man walking through an area near a gay club is verbally abused in a way which is offensive but does not constitute a public order offence. He reports the incident but does not believe it to be homophobic, or want it recorded as such,’ but the officer taking the report down can himself record that as a hate crime even though the victim doesn’t want to, and the perception of the victim is not to be challenged in any way. Now, I accept that if there is a challenge to be made, then it should be done in a sensitive manner. But, surely, we must base public policy upon actual facts and not just upon perceptions.

The other point that I want to raise in this debate is the attempt to use this issue of hate crime in order to grind political axes. We often hear it related to Brexit, and we often hear it raised in connection with people who believe that it’s very important for the purposes of community cohesion that we should have sensible controls on immigration. I think that this demeans us, actually, and reduces the value of our political debate. Surely we can accept that, if you are concerned about immigration, you are not necessarily a racist, and you certainly don’t believe that hate crime is a good thing. Of course, there are racists who want to control immigration for their base reasons, and there are people in all political parts of the spectrum, just about, who are engaged in political abuse. I have, from time to time, been the recipient of it myself. Anybody who wants to know what online abuse is about should go and see what’s written about me, which often invites me to perform various physical acts that are not within my physical capabilities, or indeed anybody’s, for that matter.

So, I’m well aware that, if you take these things seriously, it can be very hurtful. In politics and public life, we tend to be pachyderms, so we can brush this sort of thing off. In what you might call normal society, we may not find that quite so easy to accept. So, I agree very much with what Hannah Blythyn said in her contribution—that this is all about basic respect for individuals and their differences. I don’t believe that people should be abused or subject to physical violence simply on account of personal characteristics that they can’t alter—or, indeed, for their political beliefs.

In winding up, I will say that, of course, we are happy to note the motion and, indeed, as I’ve already said, to support the Government’s strategy overall. We will not support the Plaid Cymru amendments. We are going to abstain on those, because I think they are drafted in rather a tendentious way, and that goes back to what I said at the opening of my speech. I haven’t time, I’m afraid, to dilate further upon that today. But I think that there is widespread acceptance—universal acceptance—of the general principles that underlie the Government’s policy, and we will support them in that endeavour.

Seeing as everybody else is also talking about their online experiences, I’ll just say a little bit about mine. I have certainly been trolled by far-right extremist organisations for doing little more than supporting an event that I attended in the Senedd on Wales as a nation of sanctuary. I think Leanne Wood was trolled by the same organisations for attending the same event, and we were accused of trying to create a Muslim caliphate in Wales, when really what we were trying to do was offer sanctuary for Syrian refugees trying to escape the horrors of that civil war.

In debating this important issue of tackling hate crime, I would like to take the opportunity to highlight the work of organisations like Show Racism the Red Card, and ask that this Friday 20 October we all support Wear Red Day 2017. That will certainly give me an excuse to get into my favourite colour, both in terms of my politics and my football team, so I shall be wearing red on Friday. But, on a serious note, Wear Red Day is a practical and visible way that we can all show our support for the work of Show Racism the Red Card and to support their valuable work in helping to promote equality and in tackling hate crime in our communities. Those of us who follow football will recall the unhealthy culture on the terraces in the 1970s and 1980s—the blatant racism, the outrageous chanting aimed at black footballers, and the football grounds being used as a recruiting agent for the far right. Since those dark days, it’s clear that a lot of work has been done to move things on and tackle that side of football, but there’s still a huge amount of work still to do.

In my previous role in Unison, I was certainly very proud to be part of the arrangements for establishing Show Racism the Red Card in Wales. I’d like to place on record my thanks to Unison for their vital funding of that organisation in those early, important days. As a result, we now have the benefit of an organisation that’s built a great reputation for promoting positive messages through the production of educational resources, developing activities to encourage people, particularly young people, to challenge racism, and in challenging racism in football and other sports. I would encourage all Assembly colleagues to get in touch with Show Racism the Red Card and take the opportunity to see their work in action across Wales, in schools, in sports clubs, and in the community. Because such grass-roots activity is absolutely vital in changing attitudes, providing positive role models, and in building those early interventions that will help to develop more tolerance and equality in our communities.

And it’s this type of work—changing attitudes and providing positive role models—that will also be central to tackling homophobia in sport, but most particularly in football. Removing hatred towards the LGBT community is the next big challenge. And, once again, as a football supporter, I will know that we’ve made progress in tackling homophobia when football players are comfortable with their own sexuality in sport and are out and proud and not afraid. So, I’m sure that the Assembly will wish to encourage Show Racism the Red Card as one part of the tackling hate crime agenda in Wales, but we should also continue to support Stonewall Cymru and others as we help to rid our communities of hatred, racism and homophobia.

All the work that we support to prevent the hate crimes in our communities is important, and we should focus efforts on those organisations and initiatives that help to prevent the risks. That is why the work that the Welsh Government is doing in this area is to be so warmly welcomed. Thank you.

Llywydd, I represent Newport East, which is ethnically diverse. I was born and brought up in Pill in Newport, which is ethnically diverse, much more so now than in my youth. The EU enlargement, for example, has added considerable pace to that. There have always been tensions, I think, in such areas, along racial lines, but it certainly has got worse, in my experience, in recent times, partly because of the perceived terrorism threat and partly, perhaps, because of the pressures around EU enlargement. So, I do think it’s timely that we have this debate today, and what I wanted to concentrate on, really, was how we go about setting messages and making it as clear as possible that we don’t want xenophobia, we don’t want hostility, we don’t want mistrust, and we don’t want misunderstandings. In that respect, I think it’s very important that all of us as front-line politicians say the right things and so do organisations with key roles to play, but civic society more generally, and, really, that people at large, communities at large, understand the importance of countering the sort of sentiments, the sort of prejudice and discrimination that none of us wants to see Wales.

Because I think all of us, even personally, would be able to remember examples of where somebody in our company has said something that was wrong, was factually wrong, was discriminatory, was prejudicial, and, you know, there possibly have been times when we’ve spoken out against it and made them aware of our contrary views, as it were. But there have also probably been times where we haven’t, for all sorts of reasons, and I would include myself amongst those with that experience. Increasingly, I think that all of us, people at large, need to understand the importance of countering the sorts of views, the sorts of prejudice and discrimination that do lead to problems. It doesn’t stop there always. When people say those things, it creates an atmosphere. It can lead to incidents. So, if you want more integrated and cohesive societies, I believe everyone has a responsibility, and we need to say that. We need to make it as clear as possible, and we need to support organisations that get that message across.

So, as well as having the Welsh Government’s framework for action, you know, the delivery plan, the reporting call centre, various groupings and infrastructure, I think it’s also important that it goes beyond that and that it percolates down to all levels of our communities. I think that there has to be a strong effort to get this bottom-up approach to making clear what’s considered acceptable and what isn’t.

As part of that effort, Llywydd, I would like to highlight an event that I attended last Saturday, which was reaching out to younger people particularly. It took place in Newport city centre. It was the Crush Hate Crime festival. It ran through the afternoon and into the evening at a couple of venues. It continues its effort through the week, and it was about using music, live theatre performance and indeed speeches. I spoke there, I know that Steffan Lewis did, I know that other politicians did, and academics. It ran through the day, it had a good audience and it sought to bring these various media together—music, speech, theatre performance—to get the right messages across, to get, I hope, a lot of media coverage, and to start helping to build this effort to show what we consider to be acceptable and unacceptable.

I well remember—others here might, Llywydd—Rock Against Racism and how powerful it was, quite some time ago now, and how it had a lasting legacy that continues to this day. So, you can use music, you can use art and culture as part of the general effort to bring about what I think we all want to see. So, I hope the Cabinet Secretary will be able to pay tribute to these efforts, because it’s not easy to organise a programme of events. It takes a lot of time, a lot of effort from a lot of people and a lot of organisations. I believe it was very effective. I believe we need more of it, and in years to come, Newport will build on what took place last Saturday and what will take place through this week to increase that effort and, I hope, increase its efficacy.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. A really useful discussion we’ve had, a debate within this Chamber, with many Members contributing today.

Can I pick up on some of the amendments and then some of the comments that have been made first? Turning to the amendments, we’ll be supporting all amendments other than 4, 6 and 7. Amendment 4: the Government opposes the amendment on the basis we consider the tackling hate crime framework to be the appropriate place for the policy on all forms of hate crime, but we’ll ensure that close links are maintained between action on autism and on hate crime, and I listened very carefully to the contribution Mark Isherwood made. I just think it’s where it lands rather than what the principle of this is.

Amendment 6: the Government opposes this amendment in regard to new funding for victim support. Now, we began new funding in April and there’s been no additional budget available at present to increase the number of victim support officers, but I pay tribute to the work that they do, and we will keep this situation under close review and, budget allowing, we’ll consider that carefully.

Amendment 7: the Government opposes this amendment also in Wales, only because—it’s not, again, that we don’t agree with the principle, but what we are already doing in Wales, with the qualified teacher status, already requires teachers to challenge stereotype views, bullying and harassment, following relevant policies and procedures. So, therefore, we already believe there is a duty in place.

Llywydd, many Members made reference to their own personal experiences. Hannah Blythyn brought a very real experience to the Chamber of her online trolling and exposure to individuals who think it’s okay to say it online, it’s not as harmful, but it certainly is, and I’m grateful for the Member standing up and calling out, as she says. Dawn Bowden and the campaign around Show Racism the Red Card, which is on Friday, as the Member says—so please wear red, whatever political persuasion you may be. You’ll be allowed to wear red on Friday, supporting this great campaign that has certainly put Wales on the map and tackles the issues head-on.

John Griffiths mentioned his vision and views around where he grew up, in Pill. I’ve visited Pill on several occasions, visiting that community, and what a fantastic young school they have there. I think the local primary school has around 20 languages, or 20 languages and cultures within the school setting, so it’s an amazing opportunity for children to integrate with each other, and shows a shining light in Pill about what can be done when people come together. I also congratulate the Crush Hate Crime and Rock Against Racism programme that the Member talked about. Sorry, I wasn’t able to make it, but I’m sure it will flourish in the future. Actually, the community of Newport, and many others as well, should be congratulated on the way that they go about creating community cohesion within their very diverse communities, which the Member represents as well.

Neil Hamilton raised some issues. He started his debate with when he was young he said there was less prejudice. What I hope he didn’t mean by saying that there was less prejudice then was that there’s acceptable prejudice now. Because what I do see—the Member alluded to and said that there are no far-right extreme parties of any number in the UK now. I’d probably disagree with him because, actually, we see on a regular basis, on a daily basis, where individuals, groups of individuals, have far-right extreme views, and we must stop that now. In fact, his party paraded refugees on a poster on the side of a bus, and if they were white British people, they wouldn’t have had the same impact there, Neil. So, I think we have to learn by our mistakes and accept the fact that sometimes we get things wrong and sometimes we should apologise to the people of Wales and the people of the UK. [Interruption.] I will give way to the Member, yes.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for giving way. We could all trade stories of this time. We know all about some of the anti-Jewish things that have been said by members of the Labour Party. There is prejudice in all parties. Don’t ask me to defend that poster—I had nothing to do with it. It certainly does not represent the kind of approach that UKIP wants to bring to the immigration debate.

Well, that may be the case now, but I must say that that wasn’t the debate that was created during the Brexit programme that we all followed. Particularly, judging people by the colour of their skin or their language is certainly not appropriate in terms of moving forward.

Llywydd, it is important to emphasise that there are differences of views in this Chamber, but this will not undermine the cross-party consensus on the need to tackle hate crime. Can I finish the debate by pointing out that this year marks the eightieth anniversary of Pastor Niemöller’s imprisonment by the Nazis? I’d like to remind Members of his historic call for people to stand together against bigotry, intolerance, oppression and hatred. His words are as powerful today as they were then:

‘First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist. / Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist. / Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew. / Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.’

Llywydd, failure to confront hate crime will threaten all of us in the end. Abuse or discrimination against people because of their race, faith, nationality, age, disability, sexuality, gender or gender identity is wrong. Nobody should think that they have the licence to abuse people. We continue to tackle behaviour head-on. Nobody should suffer hostility, bullying or prejudice. By our votes today, Llywydd, we can take a clear stand on the defining issues of our time. I hope all Members, having voted on the amendments, will feel able to support this motion today. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? Amendment 1 is therefore agreed.

Amendment 1 agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The proposal is to agree amendment 2. Does any Member object? Amendment 2 is therefore agreed.

Amendment 2 agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The proposal is to agree amendment 3. Does any Member object? Amendment 3 is therefore agreed.

Amendment 3 agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The proposal is to agree amendment 4. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer all further voting on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.