The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Neil Hamilton.

Okay. So, item 6 on the agenda this afternoon, then, is the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21 on housing asylum seekers at the Penally military base, and I call on Joyce Watson to move the motion—Joyce.  

Motion NDM7455 Helen Mary Jones, Joyce Watson, Leanne Wood

Supported by John Griffiths, Llyr Gruffydd, Mick Antoniw

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Believes that the UK Government should have held discussions with the Welsh Government and local representatives before housing asylum seekers at the Penally military base, near Tenby.

2. Believes that the decision should be reconsidered because it is an unsuitable place for asylum seekers, as it is isolated from appropriate support networks.

3. Condemns the violent protests organised by far-right groups from outside Pembrokeshire.

4. Praises local residents and volunteers from across Wales who have welcomed and supported the asylum seekers.

Motion moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion on behalf of myself, Leanne Wood and Helen Mary, who will be closing the debate. It's also supported by John Griffiths, Mick Antoniw and Llyr Gruffydd, and I thank them for that. I'm sure most of our colleagues would support our motion, as would the vast majority of people that we serve. Not all Members of this Chamber do share our view, and Neil Hamilton's shameful amendment attests to that. He describes voluntary groups opposed to racism, hate and fascism as the extreme left. But then we're talking about a man who once was the guest of honour at a private club that called for the return of civilised rule to South Africa, by which, of course, he meant white supremacy. So, I'd expect nothing less from him, and I'll move on. 

As you know, Llywydd, in September, the UK Government, without consulting the Welsh Government, local authorities, health boards or residents, and without providing additional funds for either Pembrokeshire council or Hywel Dda University Health Board, announced that around 200 asylum seekers would be housed at the Penally former military camp near Tenby. It now houses around 250 men.

It should go without saying that a military camp is never a suitable place to house people who have fled oppression and war, who've experienced unimaginable hardship and trauma and been separated from their families, and especially not an old and run-down one like Penally. I know it's old, because my father used to train recruits there when he was a staff sergeant. It was pretty grim then, and, by all accounts, the conditions there are now appalling. It jeopardises the men's physical and mental health and their dignity as human beings. And yet the Home Office has repeatedly failed to address the poor living conditions at Penally. I'm afraid it's a case of out of sight, out of mind, and it's part of the Home Secretary's wider hostile environment policy that's being used to persecute vulnerable new arrivals to Britain. According to leaked reports last weekend, even Home Office officials are concerned that children's welfare is being endangered by the intention to prosecute refugees for immigration offences.

Meanwhile, it is the good people of Pembrokeshire who are looking after these men, without any money and without any expertise. It's unprecedented in Wales, let alone Pembrokeshire, let alone a small village, to process and care for such a large number of people seeking asylum in this way. We're talking about a place with one shop, for goodness' sake. We simply do not have the capacity and the capability to accommodate this sort of facility in west Wales.

There are four dispersal centres in Wales—Cardiff, Swansea, Newport and Wrexham. And I know from my work with the human trafficking cross-party group that they have well-established pathways and infrastructures to care for asylum seekers, to attend to their needs in accommodation, healthcare, pastoral and cultural support, as well as legal advice, and all those other needs. There's nothing like that, nor funding for it, in Pembrokeshire. That said, for all the difficulties, local people and public service providers are doing their very best to look after these men. Hywel Dda health board has worked tirelessly to organise and deliver core and enhanced healthcare services. At the same time, they're dealing with the unprecedented challenge of a global pandemic. Pembrokeshire council has set up a website to keep local people up to date with what's happening at the camp, and the police presence in Penally and Tenby has been stepped up to reassure residents. And that in itself is, of course, putting huge strain on their local budgets, which they're not getting any recompense from the UK Government for. 

The Welsh Government continues to work closely with local partners to minimise risks and maximise the welfare of everyone affected. And voluntary organisations have lived up to our promise as a nation of sanctuary. As anyone who has ever visited Pembrokeshire knows—and, after this summer, I believe that must be at least half the population of Britain—we are warm and welcoming people. The large majority of locals have responded to the Home Office imposition with compassion and with care. A few local groups are now co-ordinating on-site support for the men, and there's a scheme to purchase mobile phones. The Home Office confiscates refugees' phones on arrival, but they are vital; they enable those refugees to contact their loved ones, to talk to lawyers if they need to, and many other things besides. But with the best will in the world, it is not a sustainable situation. Penally is not a suitable location and west Wales cannot, at this time, deliver the complex support and care that these men need, and what they actually deserve. It's not fair to anyone. The Home Office must intervene now. Thank you.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendment 1, tabled in his name. Neil.

Amendment 1—Neil Hamilton

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Condemns the disorder that has occurred from within the Penally military base, near Tenby, during its housing of asylum seekers in recent weeks, which has resulted in regular police attendance.

2. Notes reports of five arrests of asylum seekers resident in the Penally military base on 10 November 2020 and reports of two arrests from within the base in October 2020.

3. Further notes reports of asylum seekers resident in the Penally military base breaking coronavirus regulations and guidance and engaging in disorderly behaviour when travelling outside of it; and the consequent distress caused to Penally residents.

4. Believes that a partial cause of the situation at Penally is the failure of the UK Government to implement humane, firm and fair immigration and border controls which ensure that foreign non-UK-residents, and particularly those who have been refused asylum claims or refused the right to reside in other safe countries, do not illegally enter or remain in the UK.

5. Further believes that another partial cause of the situation at Penally is the Welsh Government's nation of sanctuary plan, which encourages foreign non-UK residents to enter the UK illegally and then make claims for asylum whilst located in Wales.

6. Strongly condemns the sometimes violent, intimidating, subversive and covert behaviour of extreme-left political parties and organisations, including Stand Up To Racism, Hope Not Hate and Far Right Watch Wales, that is directed towards people who express legitimate and reasonable political views in relation to the situation in Penally.

7. Believes that the views of Penally residents are at least as important as those people who are referred to as volunteers, stakeholder groups, and representatives; and praises the majority of Penally residents who are in favour of humane, firm and fair immigration and border controls in the UK, and applied to Penally specifically.

8. Believes that the housing of asylum seekers at the Penally military base should be discontinued.

Amendment 1 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I agree with most of what the proposer of the motion has just said, but it's what she didn't say that I want to focus on in this debate.

First of all, I want to focus upon our constituents in Penally, who don't share the enthusiasm in both the Labour Party and Plaid Cymru for unrestricted immigration to this country. And I think their views certainly are worthy of expression in this Chamber. The idea that my amendment should in any way be regarded as shameful is actually an insult to the huge number of people, both in Pembrokeshire and more widely in Wales, who take the same view of this problem as I do.

The second point I want to make is that there are two Governments responsible for this debacle in Penally. First of all, of course, and principally, the Conservative Government at Westminster that's responsible for dumping these people in a wholly unsuitable location. I fully agree with Joyce on that. But, of course, this is just one reflection of the total collapse of the Government's immigration policy and the fiasco of our border control system.

But the second Government—the one in Cardiff: the Welsh Government—is also partly responsible because they've been virtue-signalling about Wales as a nation of sanctuary—that we're open to all-comers—while there are hundreds of millions of people around the world who'd like to come to Britain, no doubt, in order to better their lives and who can blame them? But we just cannot responsibly have an immigration system that allows everybody and anybody to come into this country.

Now, it is important that the United Kingdom should be able to provide refuge for those in genuine need whilst deterring false claimants and removing those whose claims have been rejected. Britain has an honourable history of fulfilling its obligations under the various refugee and asylum conventions that have been in existence for 100 years. The UN convention of 1951, which is currently in force, says that we are obliged to protect anybody arriving in this country, who, if he were returned to country of origin, had some well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political belief or membership of a particular social group. There is absolutely no disagreement between us on this point—it's basic humanitarian obligation.

But, of course, we're not dealing here with asylum seekers in the normal sense. They haven't arrived immediately from some war-torn country. Most of them, as I understand it, if not all of them, have actually arrived from France, across the channel in small boats. France is not a country where they were persecuted. France is a safe country. So, they're not seeking asylum in Britain for the reasons that are permitted under the UN 1951 convention. 

Now, the asylum system in this country is now under vast strain, because of these armies of people who are trying to enter this country illegally. Just over half of all asylum cases are eventually successful and 38 per cent have their applications granted at the initial stage, and 17 per cent are granted after appeal. But well over 40 per cent are refused asylum, or have been in the years between 2004 and 2018. And of those, 40 per cent, even after their appeals have been refused, still remain in this country; they're not deported and sent back to the country from which they have come. That's about 120,000 people, over that 14-year period, who've arrived in this country illegally and are still here illegally. Asylum-related accommodation is now costing us £400 million a year, and the total costs of our asylum system are now approaching £1 billion a year. That is money that could be much more profitably applied to things like the health service than the purposes to which it is applied. What we're dealing with in the case of the residents of this camp in Penally is economic migrants. You know, they are abusing the immigration system in order to try to better their lives. I've no objection to them trying to better their lives, but they should do it within the law.

The Dublin regulation of the EU says that asylum seekers should be dealt with in the first member state where their fingerprints are stored or their asylum claim is lodged, so that country would be responsible for their asylum claim. Because of the Schengen agreement, of course, those who are arriving on the shores of Greece can immediately set off on a journey to the coast of the English channel on the French side, and I'm afraid that is the EU's problem, because they have utterly failed to deal with the asylum difficulties in recent years.

Indeed, this is recognised: Frans Timmermans, who was the first Vice-President of the European Commission in 2015, said that of 120,000 migrants who had arrived in the EU by December 2015, 60 per cent were from countries where you can assume they have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status. We see in the figures of those crossing the channel in small boats the same problem, but to a much lesser degree, on our doorstep. In 2018, there were 299 illegal migrants who had crossed the channel in small boats. In 2019, a year later, the figure was up by eight times, to 1,835, and in 2020, there are 8,220 who've arrived by those means so far.

Can I ask you to wind up, please? Just bring your conclusions to a close, please.

I am in fact doing that. So, I believe that what is happening in Penally and in Folkestone and in other places is unfair to law-abiding citizens of this country and to those who are legally trying to enter it through the normal immigration channels. I believe that it has brought the asylum system into disrepute and I believe it is unfair to the British people, both in Pembrokeshire and more widely.

I'd like to ask Members to imagine this: a bomb goes off and in a split second your life is turned upside down. A conflict has broken out and there's fighting in your street. The communities that you once called home are no longer safe, and your life, and your families lives, are at risk. You've got two options: to remain in your country, risk your life and the lives of your family members, or flee—get out, go abroad to live if you can. What would you do? I know what I would do if I was given that option.

And that is the choice faced by many of the people who now find themselves far away from home in Pembrokeshire. While they wait for the Home Office to make decisions, they are housed in cramped and damp conditions in a former military camp, while some people claim to know that they are bogus or illegal, despite the fact that they are yet to have their cases heard. It is a particular cruelty to force people who have fled conflict to live in an army base. It's particularly problematic for those who've witnessed unspeakable barbarity at the hands of soldiers in their home countries.

The far-right politicians who love an opportunity to attack immigrants, and who have milked this episode for all that it's worth, often cite the fact that asylum seekers and immigrants are offered accommodation while thousands of people are living on the streets. Two years ago, Plaid Cymru's Westminster team found that up to 66,000 ex-services veterans in the UK were either homeless, suffering with mental health problems, or were in prison. That's a damning indictment of the treatment of military personnel in the UK, and the homeless figures in Wales are also appalling and should be tackled with much greater urgency than we have seen, not just because this gives the far right ammunition to attack asylum seekers with, but because it's the right thing to do. It's also the right thing to give armed service personnel access to the support they need, not just when they're in active service, but upon leaving the military so that they can better adjust to civilian life.

As long as there are people on the streets and as long as there are people who are having to go without basics like food as well as shelter, people will feel aggrieved and they will feel that the system is unfair. And I would agree, the system is unfair. As a Government, the Welsh Government is partly responsible for that system, too. The Welsh Government can also do much more to influence Westminster to get more suitable accommodation for asylum seekers in more suitable locations.

As I've already said, this sorry episode has been whipped up by people with clear political agendas. One of them has tabled a set of crass amendments to the motion that we are debating today. Now I don't deny that some of these politicians were vile racists before they came to the Senedd, but some are also chancers and grifters, scrambling for a means to remain relevant and carry on with their career. People are sharing their poisonous propaganda online about asylum seekers, people who are struggling and falling for these easy explanations that people from abroad are coming here to take advantage of this fantastic benefits system that we all know about. Many of these people have every right to be angry with a society that has failed them and their families. What is not right is how they are, with encouragement, lashing out, but they're lashing out at the wrong target.

We must tackle the conditions that allow the politics of hate to grow, and that responsibility lies with this Government as well as Westminster. I have been heartened by the counter-protests and the outpouring of support from local people, who have shown that Wales can be an understanding and compassionate country. That's the Wales that I want to see more of, and that's the Wales that I will continue to work for.

It is regrettable that the motion before us, whilst saying 'not here' does not propose where the asylum seekers should go, given the sheer scale of the humanitarian crisis at present. This lack of recognition within the motion of the reach of the problem and the wholly expected intolerant tone of the amendment by Neil Hamilton has simply turned the difficult situation at Penally into a political football. 

Before I address three key areas, I would like to remind Members that the UK has a statutory obligation to provide support and accommodation to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. The real issues that need to be addressed are the geopolitical realities that drive most people to our shores—fear and poverty—and the wealthier countries must address these realities in a meaningful way, or this migration of the oppressed and the dispossessed will continue. 

As to the situation in Penally, we all accept that the Home Office should have discussed their intention to use the barracks at Penally with the Welsh Government and should also have undertaken their normal consultation processes with the community and local services. However, we must also recognise that the Home Office is under immense pressure, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. They continue to support asylum seekers where normally their support would have stopped. They were unable to repatriate those whose applications had failed, and we must remember that the numbers of people being supported or assessed have risen from 45,000 to almost 60,000 individuals in a matter of months. And of course, all settings need to be COVID compliant.

The Ministry of Defence offered both Penally and, indeed, Napier barracks in Kent as temporary solutions and, given the pressures the asylum system is under, normal consultation processes were set aside, and the Home Office moved at speed because they literally had nowhere to put people. I have made my concerns known to the Home Office at length, and I am pleased that the Home Office are now liaising with the Welsh Government and, via a strategic engagement forum, are working with Public Health Wales, Hywel Dda University Local Health Board and Dyfed-Powys Police. I'm also pleased that officials from the Home Office took part in a local event to answer questions from the community. I recognise, and so should others, that there are very few other places available for asylum seekers in this current crisis. But whilst they're at Penally, I have asked the Home Office to fund any costs incurred by Hywel Dda and by Dyfed-Powys in the course of their support for the asylum seekers.

I turn to the camp itself. Whilst acknowledging that a military camp is not an appropriate setting for asylum seekers who've suffered internment or been in a conflict, we should also recognise that these are not individuals just landed, but have been in the UK for some time, are undergoing assessment of their cases, and have already received some medical intervention. That is why they're not in a dispersal centre—because they're still going through the process. I have sought assurances from the Home Office about the contractor and their obligations to provide warm and safe accommodation, decent food, support for their mental and physical needs, activities for the men, translation services, and help with paperwork, and I have been assured that the accommodation, which until recently was used by our soldiers, is suitable and meets existing asylum accommodation standards and complies with relevant housing legislation. I'm also assured that the contractor is acting, where appropriate, to augment what was in place, taking account of feedback from service users, and that all asylum seekers have access to a 24/7 advice, issue reporting and eligibility service provided for the Home Office by Migrant Help, where they can raise any concerns regarding accommodation.

Finally, I would like to recognise and thank the wider Pembrokeshire community. I'm very grateful to the many individuals and organisations who have offered help, from the adjoining communities of Penally and Tenby to local faith leaders and many charities. I did have e-mails raising concerns from constituents, and no wonder, because stories abound of asylum seekers behaving badly. And yet, the reality is that, like any community, the behaviour of a handful of stroppy or aggressive people tarnish the many, who recognise due process, are grateful to be in the system, and who hope for a positive future. I had many more emails from people asking how they could help or raising concerns about the stroppy and aggressive agitators clogging the lanes, weeing in their gardens and intimidating passers-by—all genuine concerns. And again, I reiterate my previous comments in the Senedd that the people of Pembrokeshire are good samaritans, they are welcoming and tolerant, and I pay tribute to them. I would also like to thank the Deputy Minister and the Secretary of State for the various discussions. I appreciate their measured stance on the difficulties of finding safe accommodation for asylum seekers in these current times, the inappropriateness of the camp and the need to meet our international obligations. I remain grateful for their willingness to engage. Finally, I'd like to thank the stakeholders who are working so hard to support all the communities involved, and I will continue to press for resources and for an end to the camp being used for asylum seekers.

I think I've already said enough, Deputy Presiding Officer, on the amendment. Overall, I feel it is regrettable that some seek to make political capital out of a desperately difficult situation, and I and my colleagues will have no part of it.

I think your mike's open, Mr Antoniw.

Okay. Thank you, Deputy Llywydd; I was waiting to hear from you.

My focus is going to be on the refugees themselves as human beings who are now the subject of attack, intimidation and persecution by the far right, sadly encouraged by a Member of this Senedd, Neil Hamilton, who I believe brings shame on this Senedd. It comes as no surprise to us that the Member has become a cheerleader for the far right, as he has throughout his entire unpleasant political career as an apologist in the past for racist South Africa, for the fascist regime in Chile, and for various far-right and corrupt movements throughout the world. As one resident said in Penally, the protest has now been taken over by far-right, out-of-town racists, and we know who their cheerleader is.

I agree very much with the statements of Angela Burns and of Leanne Wood. Leanne asked us to imagine the choices faced by these refugees, and I can imagine it, because this is the background I was brought up in. My father was a refugee from Ukraine after the war. He said he ended up here because of Hitler, but couldn't go back because of Stalin. I was brought up in a community of people who had been through oppression, torture and imprisonment. I remember the one man who, as a 15-year-old boy, was taken as slave labour by the Germans. He couldn't talk about his experience without crying. Another had been in Stalin's gulag. My father himself when he came to this country was put into a resettlement camp in Dundee. Two of my close friends as I grew up, their parents had come from Sachsenhausen concentration camp. And all I really ask is this: how are those people I was brought up with any different whatsoever to the people who are now in Penally? They are no different.

My dad and the community I was brought up in, they all spoke so warmly of the welcome they received from the people of Great Britain when they came here, and it taught me really one lesson, one lesson that carries through from my experience through to what is happening now, which is that these refugees are our brothers and they're our sisters, they're exactly the same as us, they have the same rights and the same entitlements. I totally refute the comments made by Neil Hamilton. I just have this one message: we're all brothers and sisters together and you are all welcome here in Wales, just as many refugees have been through the history of Wales. We welcome you here and we will do everything we can to support you and to look after you and to express solidarity with you. Thank you, Deputy Llywydd.

Thank you. Can I call on the Deputy Minister and the Chief Whip, Jane Hutt?

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd. I'd like to thank Helen Mary Jones, Joyce Watson and Leanne Wood, supported by Mick Antoniw, John Griffiths and Llyr Gruffydd, for bringing forward this important debate. Can I also thank those Members—bar one—who have contributed constructively to the debate? The Welsh Government's position is clearly in line with the Members' motion. The First Minister wrote to the Minister for immigration, Chris Philp, on 9 October, urging the closure of the Penally training camp. I raised this matter with the immigration Minister on 3 November, and I will discuss it again with him on 25 November, when we're meeting specifically to talk about the Penally camp. Last week, I had a meeting with key stakeholders working to address issues raised by Penally, and there was unanimous agreement that this facility is not fit for purpose. Fundamentally, placement of asylum seekers in the Penally military base is unsuitable, unsustainable and unsafe. This decision made by the Home Office, without consultation or a clear strategy to ensure that the needs of those housed at the base had been met, was wrong. The decision not to engage meaningfully with the community or public bodies was wrong, and the failure to implement adequate safeguards to ensure the site was safe and suitable was also wrong.

Decisions relating to the asylum and immigration system, of course, are reserved to the UK Government. However, the impact of that system on Welsh communities and public services makes it entirely appropriate for us to be consulted and engaged fully on this issue, and to seek an arrangement that builds community cohesion and integration. The Welsh Government was only notified of these proposals on 11 September, and even then, we were told that a decision had not been made about whether to use the camp. But, 10 days later, the camp was already open. The UK Government should have held meaningful discussions with local residents, the local authority, the local health board and the Welsh Government before deciding to accommodate asylum seekers at the Penally military base.

Our concerns about the appropriateness of the accommodation and location being used for this purpose have deepened over the past eight weeks since the camp opened. There is a clear risk of retraumatising those who have fled conflict and war by accommodating them in a military base. The specialist services required to support asylum seekers are also limited in this location, as has been said in this debate. The site itself poses inherent safeguarding and COVID-19 infection risks, and we fundamentally disagree with the Home Office; we say that this site is not COVID compliant.

We're working with all the relevant partners to ensure that these concerns and crucial public health matters are recognised and addressed. We've made repeated, reasoned approaches to the Home Office to make changes to protect the health and well-being of asylum seekers relocated to Penally. The changes are disgracefully slow to be implemented, if they're agreed at all. Public bodies are yet to receive any financial help from the Home Office to deliver services during a time when they are under unprecedented pressure from other issues such as COVID-19, as Joyce Watson said. The Welsh Government itself is committed to the vision of Wales becoming a nation of sanctuary, and I want to remind Mr Hamilton that it was this Assembly, as a result of a report undertaken by John Griffiths chairing the committee—that cross-party committee, the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee—that we actually endorsed Wales being a nation of sanctuary. I was proud to meet with refugees during Refugee Week earlier this year in June to take stock of our progress with the plan, to hear their views as how we can move forward to ensure that refugees and asylum seekers are fully supported when they come to Wales.

Can I take the opportunity to thank our Welsh local authorities, who do embrace their responsibilities in the dispersal areas, and those cities, towns, universities and villages who are committing to the nation of sanctuary principles in Wales? And I thank those authorities who are also responding to the needs of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children with the backing of the Welsh Government. Our vision is about supporting people to rebuild their lives and make a full contribution to Welsh society. It's key that people are able to access services, are protected from harm and are able to begin their integration journey from day one of arrival in Wales, but the Penally camp does not allow this to happen. Those accommodated are forced to share facilities with individuals they don't know, who are from very different backgrounds. They are experiencing stressful circumstances, and the camp management is not resourced sufficiently to support them in this way.

I've been very impressed, as has been expressed this afternoon, by the level of support that has been offered to those within the camp—the warm and welcoming people of Pembrokeshire. Angela Burns made that point a few weeks ago in the Senedd, as well as Eluned Morgan meeting with local people, and Leanne making the point as well. This support has included basic necessities and tokens of Wales, as well as informal conversations, clubs, mentoring, and the Wales TUC has been involved. We fully support the right of the local community to raise concerns about the way in which this site was implemented. And I'd actually like to thank those local residents who have submitted correspondence to ourselves, to local representatives, and also questions to the Home Office and other organisations. Expressing views about the site must be peaceful in a way that doesn't retraumatise anyone seeking due process within the UK. Everyone has the right to apply for asylum, and we should protect and respect those individuals whilst their application is being heard. The Home Office has claimed that opening Penally was necessary due to pressure on the asylum system, but the real answer to this problem is clear: asylum application processing needs to be quicker, and this is particularly the case for those living in unsuitable accommodation such as this.

But finally, Llywydd, in support of the Members' motion today, as we call for the closure of the Penally camp—and this does respond to the point that Angela Burns made—we need to call on the UK Government to come forward with a plan to halt all further transfers to the camp and accommodate the service users in appropriate settings to meet their needs, respect their dignity and commit to progressing their asylum applications as a matter of urgency. We thank the police, the local authorities, the NHS, the third sector, the faith communities—all our partners—for their flexibility and resourcefulness over the last few months. The restraint and support shown by Dyfed-Powys Police, Hywel Dda University Health Board, Pembrokeshire council—all rising up to try and address this need. But we will work with the UK Government and all those responsible for refugees and asylum seekers to progress this—this plan that we need now—within our powers, to close this camp, and accommodate all those service users in appropriate settings. I believe this will reflect the will of this Government and this Senedd today. 

Thank you. No Member has indicated to make an intervention, therefore I call Helen Mary Jones to reply to the debate.

I'm very grateful to you, Deputy Llywydd. Like others, I'm grateful to all except one of those who've contributed to this debate. I must explain why we chose to bring it forward, I think. The reason for that is that this is a political debate; these are political decisions that have been made for political reasons, and worse, there are those on the far right who are trying to make political capital, as Leanne Wood and others have said, out of this. Sometimes, Dirprwy Lywydd, you can deal with these matters by remaining silent and ignoring them. Sometimes you have to speak out, and that was why the Members who are proposing this motion chose to propose it today. 

I can't possibly respond to all the points that Members have made, but before I do begin to try to do so, I want to add my thanks to all those that others have mentioned, and to the local community most of all. I certainly know, as a local representative—as Joyce Watson does, and Angela Burns—that the vast majority of people in those communities, while they don't think it's right for the asylum seekers to be there, are treating them with kindness and respect, and doing what they can to help.

I can tell you this because I'm in very regular contact with the local councillor there, Jon Preston, who has done everything he can to build bridges in communities and to calm people's fears. So, I want to thank all of those local representatives who have done the same. I particularly want to thank the police service. The police and crime commissioner has been to the site himself twice, and he's very proud of the excellent work that the police have done to try and keep things calm to protect the local community.

The motion makes reference to issues in the camp, in terms of behaviour. Well, the Minister has addressed that. When you have a large number of young men far from home, who don't understand each other, who don't speak their own language, there will be issues, and there will be conflict. The police and crime commissioner—I've communicated with him about this today—says that that conduct is no different to what he would expect with any large group of young men who were not being properly supported in their own language and culture. So, let's put that to bed once and for all.

I think that Joyce Watson made a very powerful case about the unsuitability of the site. I don't quite understand how Angela Burns can assert that it is suitable. It isn't properly heated. The Deputy Minister made reference to the fact it's very difficult to socially distance. This isn't the right place for people to be. The excellent work that the local health service and the local council are trying to do to respond to their needs doesn't mitigate the fact that it's not the right place for them to be.

Now, normally, Deputy Presiding Officer, in these situations, I ignore the Member from Wiltshire. But, on this occasion, I'm afraid I have to respond to some of the points that he made and failed to make. Do the people take the same view as Neil Hamilton? Well, it's not what their county councillor, who I speak to on a regular basis, tells me. They're appalled by the way that he and his kind are playing with vulnerable people, and playing—as Leanne Wood mentioned—with people's legitimate concerns.

Is our being a nation of sanctuary a problem? Does he really think that people in Syria—. I'd be rather glad if I thought that people in Syria knew that Wales was a nation of sanctuary and would welcome them. They come—and Angela Burns touched on this, and I thought that was a very powerful point—because of a whole range of geopolitical situations that mean that people are not safe.

It is not the case that anyone and everyone can come and stay in the UK, and nobody's proposing that it should be the case. How does he think that he knows how the people who are in the camp got there? He doesn't know. He hasn't got the faintest clue. Many of them, as Angela Burns has said, have actually been in the UK for a long time. These are not people pouring over our borders, as he would have us think. He has no way of knowing whether their claims are likely to be upheld. But, certainly, local voluntary organisations who are working with them tell me that many of these people have come from places like Syria, where it's actually very likely that their applications will be upheld.

I think that Leanne Wood was right to draw our attention to the humanity of our asylum seekers, and I was very touched by Mick Antoniw doing exactly the same thing. And, she was right to point out how the far right try to feed on people's legitimate sense of unfairness and distress.

Angela Burns's contribution: much to agree with there. This is a political issue, though. I would say to Angela Burns that this is a political issue, and it is right for it to be debated by politicians. So, this is not about point-scoring. This is about trying to open up an honest and clear debate based on the facts. She's very right, as I've already said, about the geopolitical situations that lead people to flee, but she is wrong to say that the accommodation is suitable. And when she asked the question about where they should go, well, what they should do, what the Home Office needs to do, is to expand the accommodation that's available in the existing dispersal centres in Wales and across the UK—I don’t like the term 'dispersal' but it's what we use—so that these young men can be properly and appropriately supported and, as the Deputy Minister rightly said, their claims quickly processed, so that decisions can be made one way or another.

Mick Antoniw asks: what's the difference between these refugees and his family? He's right to say that there is none. I'm afraid, though, Deputy Presiding Officer, that for some people, the difference may be the colour of their skin. If that is the case, people need to be profoundly, profoundly ashamed.

I'm grateful for the Deputy Minister's support for our motion, and we've worded it in a way that was as consensual as we could possibly make it. She is right to recommit to the notion of our nation as a nation of sanctuary, to draw again attention to the community response. This is not a situation in which we should find ourselves, and I will end—Deputy Presiding Officer, I know you've been very generous with my time—by saying this, and I speak, here, for myself and for some of the proposers of the motion but not for all of them. It is a matter of profound unhappiness to me that our Government actually lacks the right to control these matters, that a UK Government that the people of Wales did not vote for—we did not elect a majority of Conservative MPs—can impose this both on the communities, on the public services and on, most importantly, the asylum seekers. I look to the day, one day, Dirprwy Llywydd, when perhaps we can make these decisions here, where it won't be the Home Office making a request for planning permission to the Ministry of Defence.

Be that as it may, until we can make those decisions for ourselves, it is right that the Welsh Government and others continue to negotiate with the Home Office to get these young men dispersed to communities that can properly support them and where their applications can be properly dealt with. That, Deputy Presiding Officer, is clearly the consensus in this place and we know the communities that we represent. I submit that it is the consensus of the people of Wales.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Right. There has been an objection and we defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.