That brings us, therefore, to group 8, and the amendments relate to religion, values and ethics. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 13, and I call on Suzy Davies to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Suzy Davies. 

Amendment 13 (Suzy Davies) moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and I move amendment 13 and ask that Members bear with me on this. I appreciate it's getting late. 

Again, this group contains amendments that arise from issues of conscience, and Welsh Conservatives will have a free vote on those. However, we agree with the assertion that, should the Government view prevail, and that voluntary aided schools still find themselves in the position of having to provide two syllabuses if requested, then the cost of that extra work must be met by the state. Otherwise, you are discriminating against certain maintained schools as compared to others, but I'll let Darren Millar speak more fully to those amendments. 

Moving on to amendments 13, 14 and 15, could I begin by thanking the Minister once again for her close consideration of arguments made before Stage 2, and her introduction then of amendments that meant that all maintained schools, whether of a religious character or not, have the same relationship with the agreed RVE syllabus, namely that they all have to have regard to that syllabus? Originally, the cutting and pasting of existing words from other legislation had imposed a greater degree of observance of the agreed syllabus on voluntary aided schools than others, and that was discriminatory. 

My next concern, which hasn't been allayed, however, was that discrimination against those schools continued by imposing upon them a duty to provide two syllabuses if requested. Now that voluntary aided schools have to have regard to the agreed syllabus when deciding on their inevitably more denominational syllabus, that's been a step towards avoiding a situation where a request for a separate syllabus might be made, and I have accepted the oft-made argument by Catholic schools in particular that they've never had a problem providing a broad and balanced RE syllabus despite the religious character of their school, and have every confidence that they'll still be able to do that, because the agreed syllabus to which they must have regard, under the Minister's previous amendments, will have been agreed locally by a group of people still dominated by those of theocratic belief and principle. And the fact that there are other people in the world with strong non-theocratic beliefs should come as no surprise to pupils these days, and they should know about them. Can I just say at this point that I was assured in the Stage 2 debate that we were talking about people actively holding to a creed, if you like, rather than the passively disinterested areligious population at large?

But my personal confidence in voluntary aided schools being able to make sensible decisions I don't think is enough. What 'having regard' doesn't do is give voluntary aided schools any steer on how to balance that duty to have regard with their relationship with their own deeds and tenets. And we need to bear in mind that it is hard to argue that you've given regard to the agreed syllabus if you can still hide behind your deeds and tenets to effectively ignore it, and I don't think that's what schools of a religious character want to do. The reason they won't want to do it is that they're not going to want a child coming forward and claiming that regard has not been shown to the agreed syllabus and, therefore, requesting a separate syllabus. So, it's in the interest of voluntary aided schools to find a way of avoiding that. 

My proposal is to ensure that voluntary aided schools apply the same principle of 'have regard' to both the agreed syllabus and their deeds and tenets, and that removes both the temptation and the scope for a complaint that school leaders are treating these two pressures on their decision making in a less than equal way. It's not an extra burden on these schools, as they look to their deeds and tenets anyway in deciding on the school's religious education curriculum. So, along with amendment 16, these amendments help voluntary aided schools navigate the changes in this part of the new national curriculum in a less risky way.

Now, I understand that the deeds and tenets are critical to the ethos of a school of a religious character, otherwise we wouldn't have them. This is not about diminishing this; it is about removing the opportunity to leave out parts of a child's education that they would be getting elsewhere, about not depriving a child of knowledge of the world, and not closing down questions, or, if a school does try to do that, to put them in a position where, bluntly, they have to show their workings on how they have come to their decision on what they will be teaching. And I can't see this way forward would limit denominational teaching. Children in a religious school will naturally expect that, but these amendments mean that denominational teaching cannot go so far as to shut down children's knowledge or enquiry, because that couldn't be a logical consequence of a correctly exercised 'have regard' duty in respect of the agreed syllabus. I did ask you to try and stick with this—it is complicated. 

To help schools know how to use this 'have regard' duty, we have amendment 16, and this requires Government to introduce regulations that set out the minimal evidential requirements necessary to show that the duty to have regard has been properly exercised. And this could just as easily be statutory guidance, but I'd just like to stick with regulations for the purpose of the argument. This is necessary because amendment 18 gives parents, and children themselves, of course, the right to challenge their school of a religious character or not on the grounds that they've not been provided with an appropriate RVE syllabus because that school, whichever sort of school it is, hasn't exercised their 'have regard' duty properly. So, as well as ensuring that pupils in non-religious schools don't get drawn into crazy nonsense because their school hasn't had regard to the agreed syllabus, it's a better way forward for schools of a religious character too. It's much better to have a mechanism that tweaks their syllabus than providing for a situation where a child is entitled to demand a whole new separate one. 

Now, Llywydd, I don't expect the Government to go with this, because they've spent an endless amount of time trying to come up with an answer to the same problem that I have—a balanced RVE curriculum in all schools whilst fully respecting the core ethos of a school of a religious character. But what I would like, Minister, is to understand whether you've considered the route that I've proposed and, if so, why you've dismissed it in favour of a more, frankly, punitive and onerous option.

I think it might be worth pointing out as well that my amendments here have come to the notice of Professor Sandberg of Cardiff University's school of politics and law. I've never met him, so I'm extremely grateful to him for noticing them, and the reason for that is because he is a lawyer, and so he is alert to the practical effects of legislation and its value to practitioners who have to apply it in giving advice or resolving disputes. In his piece for Law & Religion UK, he says that my amendments are worth considering, as they ensure that all pupils get

'access to a syllabus informed by nondenominational RVE' but not to the exclusion of denominational RVE in schools of a religious character, where the RVE corresponds to both. Effectively, he's saying they square the circle, and he recommends you support these amendments, and so do I, obviously. Thank you very much.

We as a group agree with the Government that religion, values and ethics should be on the face of the Bill as a mandatory element in order to help to create an inclusive society that respects all views, cultures and religions. We will therefore not be supporting Darren Millar's amendments, which would undermine that, and neither will we be supporting Suzy Davies's group 8 amendments. This is a complex debate, as we've already heard, but we are highly aware that there has been a great deal of discussion on this issue, and I am aware that the Government has sought consensus on this already and we therefore support their view today.

Suzy's amendments did engender great debate within our group, and we did consider some deep spiritual issues on the role of faith in the lives of people in Wales today. Wales is an inclusive nation that celebrates diversity. Equipping our young people through education to understand diversity and to fully understand the nature of the different religions and cultures that provide huge wealth to our nation is crucial. That's how we can entrench values that respect cultural and religious diversity in modern Wales. Thank you, Llywydd.

I move amendments 23 to 29, and amendment 19, all of which have been tabled in my name. The Bill in its current form is discriminatory, unfortunately, in that it places burdens on schools with a religious character across Wales that do not apply to those schools without a religious character. At present, schools across Wales either provide a religious education curriculum that has been agreed by the local standing advisory committee on religious education, or SACREs, as they're also called—it's also termed a 'locally agreed curriculum'—or they provide an RE curriculum that has been provided by the denomination to which the faith school belongs. These arrangements have served schools well across Wales for a long, long time, and there has been no clamour for change, but the Bill proposes that, in future, faith schools must, if requested to do so by a single parent, provide the locally agreed curriculum for the new subject of religion, values and ethics alongside the curriculum provided by their denomination. Delivering a dual curriculum is not going to be straightforward. In fact, it will be a significant challenge for faith schools, so I would rather there wasn't such a requirement at all, especially given the fact that parents know the religious character of a school when they actually choose to send their child to that school.

Now, if agreed, my amendments 23, 24 and 25 will ensure that if faith schools are to be required to deliver a dual curriculum, then the costs of providing that second RVE curriculum will not fall on either the individual school or the local education authority in which it's based. Llywydd, if parents in faith schools will be able to request the locally agreed RVE curriculum for their children—that is, the curriculum set by the standing advisory committee—then it's only fair that parents in non-faith schools, those schools that don't have a religious character, should be able to request that a denominational RVE curriculum should be available to their children. My amendments 26, 27, 28 and 29 would deliver just this. They would address the discrimination between faith schools and other schools in Wales by levelling the playing field to give parents with children in both types of school the same rights to request a curriculum of their choice. Also, they would ensure that the cost of making an extra curriculum available to learners will not fall on the schools or the local education authority, whether they be faith schools or no-faith schools, as a result of parents exercising that choice.

Finally, if I can just speak briefly to amendment 19, as is the case for relationships and sexuality education, the Welsh Government's Bill will remove the rights that are currently enjoyed by parents to be able to withdraw their children from RE lessons. Now, these parental rights are very important. As I indicated in the debate on the relationships and sexuality education amendments earlier, they recognise that parents, and not the state, are the primary educators of their children, and they also ensure that education legislation in Wales will be compatible and compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Education Act 1996, both of which I referred to earlier and both of which recognise the rights of parents to ensure that teaching conforms with parents' political and philosophical convictions and that children should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. Now, the Minister said earlier this afternoon that the legislation, in her opinion and in the opinion of her Government lawyers, was compliant with the human rights Act, and I guess it will take a court case to determine whether that is the case in the future, but she didn't refer earlier on this afternoon to the obvious conflict that the Bill currently has with the Education Act 1996 in relation to children being educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. So, I would hope that she will be able to respond to that particular point in this debate.

Now, as I said earlier, parents have long enjoyed the right to withdraw their children from both sex education and religious education lessons, and it's therefore no wonder that a significant majority of respondents to the Welsh Government's two consultations that were undertaken in advance of this Bill—. In both of those consultations, there was overwhelming opposition to the removal of the parental right to withdraw from either RSE or RVE: 88.7 per cent of respondents to the 'Our National Mission: A Transformational Curriculum' consultation wanted to retain the right to withdraw. And 60 per cent of those responding to the consultation document on ensuring access to the full curriculum also wanted to maintain the parental right to withdraw, and that's in spite of the fact that, in the second consultation, there wasn't a question asking about his particular subject. I think that shows the strength of feeling. If we set up consultations, as a Government or an institution, then we should listen to the views that are expressed.

Now, this legislation, if it proceeds unamended, will fundamentally shift the balance between the rights of parents and the rights of the state—something that none of us in this Welsh Parliament has a mandate to do. It wasn't mentioned in anybody's manifesto at the last Senedd elections, and when people have been asked, as I indicated earlier, they said they wanted to retain these rights. That's why my amendment 19, along with amendments 20, 21 and 22 that we debated earlier, seek to ensure that these parental rights are not eroded when it comes to either religious education or sex education in the future, and I therefore urge Members to support my amendments in both groups.

Like RSE, the teaching of religion, values and ethics generated a large amount of correspondence from concerned parents, particularly from those whose children attend faith schools. Once again, the Welsh Government has ignored the wishes of parents who wanted to be able to remove their children from lessons that went against their religion, values and ethics. And it's not the job of the state—it's not the state's job to dictate what those religions should be.

As a Christian, I'm proud of our nation's Christian heritage. On Monday, we celebrated St David's Day, Wales's national day, which marks the feast day of a sixth century bishop. Christianity is engrained in our culture and heritage, but that does not mean that everyone in Wales should be a Christian. Another proud tradition of our nation is the freedom to choose any religion or, indeed, none, and that is why faith schools exist. Those faith schools should not be forced to teach secular RVE and I will not, therefore, be supporting amendment 13. Unfortunately, not every parent can send their child to a faith school, which was why the parental opt-out to RVE was so important. Parents are the primary educators, and they should have the right to withdraw their children from lessons that contradict their cultural and religious beliefs, and I will therefore be supporting Darren Millar's amendments. However, I know that the way this new curriculum is designed will make it difficult to maintain the opt-out, which is why, sadly, I will have no choice but to vote against the Bill, even if, by some miracle, these amendments pass. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr.

The Minister, Kirsty Williams.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and can I, first of all, thank Siân Gwenllian for her recognition of the immense amount of work that has gone into this part of the curriculum, and for her and Plaid Cymru's understanding about why these lessons are so necessary if we're to fulfil the purposes of our curriculum? It is absolutely right that children learn about and are ready to enter into a world where people will have a diversity of religious and non-religious views and will, potentially, live their lives through adherence to a set of values or ethics. So, I think it's really, really important that all of our children have access to education of this kind.

Can I start with amendments 13 to 17? These would amend the Bill so that religion, values and ethics in a school of a religious character would have to be designed having regard to the school's trust deeds, rather than in accordance with them, and would potentially enable schools of a religious character to provide one course of study for RVE that has regard to both an agreed syllabus and the school's trust deeds. In removing the requirement on these schools to design denominational RVE that accords with their trust deeds, however, the amendment does create the possibility of such schools breaching their trust deeds. In other words, there may be a tension between what a trust deed requires and what the agreed syllabus may require. That tension can be resolved if two RVE syllabuses are designed separately and in accordance with the Bill’s current requirements, but the tensions can't necessarily be resolved within a single RVE syllabus. The Welsh Government does not see those school trust deeds and so we cannot be certain what they require. As such, we cannot legislate to require schools with a religious character to prepare a single syllabus of RVE that has regard to both an agreed syllabus and the school's trust deeds, as we cannot be certain that it would be possible for the schools to comply with this kind of requirement. This amendment would introduce a discretion that such schools do not have under current legislation, or under the Bill as drafted, to depart from their trust deeds in their teaching of RVE. That could result in such schools providing RVE in breach of their trust deeds, and this is not something that I would wish to facilitate. Government amendments to Schedule 1 of the Bill were tabled at Stage 2 after very lengthy discussions with our partners in the Church in Wales and the Catholic Education Service to address their concerns in this area, and these partners have advised the Welsh Government that these amendments address their key concerns. Therefore, I would ask Members to vote against those particular amendments.

Moving to amendments 23, 25, 27 and 29, these are aimed at ensuring that a school or local authority does not have to meet the costs for providing denominational RVE in voluntary controlled faith schools when requested by parents, or agreed syllabus RVE in voluntary aided faith schools where requested by the parents. They do not explain, however, how these costs are to be met. I do not agree that the costs of this kind of RVE provision should be treated differently from the costs of other kinds of RVE provision.

The Bill respects the role of schools with a religious character in state-mandated education, and ensures that they're able to continue to provide RVE in accordance with their trust deeds or the tenets of their faith. There is no obligation for the state to provide faith-based RVE in accordance with parents' wishes in UK law or in the European convention on human rights. This is a matter for schools of a religious character.

However, the Bill ensures that all learners will have access to pluralistic RVE where that is wanted, and there is an obligation on the state to do that, and that is what current law requires. As I have said, we've been working really closely with the Catholic Education Service and the Church in Wales about the two syllabi during the development of the Bill, and I agreed at Stage 2 that the non-denominational RVE syllabus that schools of religious character will now need to provide will be one that has been designed having regard to the agreed syllabus, rather than in accordance with it. This allows schools of a religious character to have more flexibility in developing their syllabi. It is also an option for schools of a religious character to work with neighbouring schools to deliver non-denominational RVE if they wish to do so. 

However, I would draw Members attention to data provided to me by the Catholic Education Service, where we have been advised that the number of pupils previously withdrawn from denominational RE in 2020 was just one. So, the anticipated extra costs of this proposed change should be minimal. My officials will, however, continue to monitor the position over the coming years, working closely with our partners in the Catholic Education Service and the Church in Wales. As I have said, both of them have been clear that they are content with the changes made at Stage 2 by the Government, and they consider these to be their key priorities. Therefore, I would ask the Senedd to vote against these amendments.

Moving, now, to amendments 19, 24, 26 and 28, RVE, I agree, raises complex issues, which a school can play a vital role in helping learners understand, and the Bill ensures that all learners will have access to pluralistic RVE, which will include a range of religious and non-religious views. There is no absolute right to have a child educated in accordance with the parents' religious or philosophical beliefs, either in UK law or under the European convention on human rights. Similarly, there is no right to have education provided by the state according to one's own religious beliefs. So, whilst the state recognises a place for religious schools, its obligation under the rights protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 is to provide the opportunity for pluralistic provision alone.

The Bill does not prevent parents immersing or teaching their children in any faith that they choose, either at home or in a place of worship, but that is a matter for the parents to arrange and not for the school. In ensuring that all learners in all schools have the right of access to a RVE syllabus that has been designed having regard to an agreed syllabus, we are supporting learners to garner an appreciation of other religions and to develop tolerance and community cohesion. The issue of the removal of the right to withdraw from RVE has been carefully considered and consulted on, but I accept that there are strong views. As the Bill will no longer allow parents to withdraw their children from RVE, it does require schools of a religious character to give effect to parents' requests for alternative RVE provision, whether that is RVE designed having regard to the agreed syllabus or RVE that accords with the school's trust deeds.

In the new curriculum, schools of a religious character will continue to be able to deliver denominational RVE in accordance with those trust deeds, and I've been very clear that nothing proposed in this Bill is intended to prevent schools of a religious character from teaching their own denominational RVE syllabus. Throughout the development of the new curriculum, we've worked with stakeholders and partners like the Catholic Education Service and consulted widely. Their schools make a valuable contribution to the education system, and, as I have mentioned previously, both they and the Church in Wales have confirmed that the Stage 2 amendments have addressed their key concerns.

Finally, turning to amendment 18, this amendment I do not believe is required, because a complaints process is already in place for all elements of a school's management, including the curriculum. There is already provision in section 409 of the Education Act 1996 that requires a local authority to establish a complaints process in respect of a complaint around the provision of a curriculum, or where a governing body of a maintained school has acted or is proposing to act unreasonably in relation to a power that they have or the duties to which they are subject.

Governing bodies of maintained schools must also adopt a complaints policy under section 29 of the Education Act 2002, but complaints relating to the curriculum should be made to the local authority first. Ultimately, if a person remains unhappy and feels that the school has exercised its powers unreasonably, they can ask the local authority in the first place, and potentially, then, Welsh Ministers, to exercise their powers of direction under the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013. Adding another complaints process I believe would be an unnecessary duplication, and would simply be an additional burden for schools to cope with, when the requirement for a complaints procedure is already set out in legislation. And I don't believe that RVE should be singled out for its own complaints process; I don't believe that there is a rationale for doing so. Therefore, I would urge Members to reject this amendment and not add an additional burden on schools. Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Suzy Davies to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd, and thank you to everyone who's participated in this debate. It's a full debate and quite a complicated one, as we discussed earlier. Can I just begin by agreeing with Siân Gwenllian, and, in fact, the Minister, that we need our children growing up to not only respect but to understand all kinds of faiths. Part of the purpose of this Bill in the first place is to raise children to be less judgmental and less discriminatory, less prejudiced. That's why I've been pleased that RVE is itself a compulsory part of the curriculum.

For Caroline Jones, I just want to say that we're not talking about a situation here where about all schools just have to learn only secular RVE. That's not the case at all. The Minister has already indicated that denominational RVE is a core part of what is taught in religious schools, and I have to point out that the SACREs that Darren Millar referred to in his contribution are made up primarily of religious representatives. So, it's not secular RVE, however much you want to think of it in those terms.

The tension between the deeds and the agreed syllabus, Minister—I hear what you say on this, but that's actually the whole purpose of amendment 16, in defining what 'have regard' actually means and relating it specifically to RVE, because 'having regard' doesn't mean that you have to adopt exactly the same amount of each type of curriculum, it doesn't mean that you have to adopt the whole of either of the two types of curriculum that we're talking about here. But what it does mean is that, if you decide that part of a curriculum is not to be taught, you have to explain why—you have to show your workings of what thought you've applied to the decision that you're making.

Actually, if you want me to not move amendment 18, for example, and I understand your perfectly sound reasons for doing that, that would make far more sense if you supported amendment 16, which gives the tools to both schools to defend a position, and children, not just parents, of course, to bring a complaint through the complaint procedures that you've described in other pieces of legislation, because at the moment it's not clear what they would need to show in order for a complaint to stick, or in fact to be defended.

The comments, I'm afraid, Darren, that you made about the rights of parents and the rights of the state, that relationship changing—even though that might well be true, what we're considering here are the rights of children, and of course they've got the right to be educated in line with family beliefs under protocol 1 article 2, but that's a qualified right, as we've already heard, and it's not a right that's exercised in isolation. It cannot ever be a right that limits what a child learns, and that's what I can see this curriculum trying to do, and, albeit that I've tried to support schools of a religious character in the way I've approached it, and certainly with the amendments that I've been bringing forward, it's children first, and they're in a world that doesn't look like the world we've ever had. From that point of view, this opportunity for mutual understanding has got to be what trumps everything. Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd.

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is. We'll move to a vote on amendment 13, in the name of Suzy Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour nine, three abstentions, 42 against, therefore amendment 13 is not agreed.

Amendment 13: For: 9, Against: 42, Abstain: 3

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 23. Darren Millar, is it moved?

Amendment 23 (Darren Millar) moved.

I move.

The question is that amendment 23 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, we'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 23. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, two abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 23 is not agreed.

Amendment 23: For: 15, Against: 37, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 14. If amendment 14 is agreed, amendment 24 falls. Suzy Davies, do you wish to move amendment 14?

Amendment 14 (Suzy Davies) moved.

I move.

The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We will therefore open the vote on amendment 14 in the name of Suzy Davies. Close the vote. In favour eight, four abstentions, 42 against. Therefore, amendment 14 is not agreed.

Amendment 14: For: 8, Against: 42, Abstain: 4

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 24, Darren Millar. 

Amendment 24 (Darren Millar) moved.

I move. 

The question is that amendment 24 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We'll move to a vote on amendment 24 in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, one abstention, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 24 is not agreed.

Amendment 24: For: 14, Against: 39, Abstain: 1

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 25, Darren Millar. 

Amendment 25 (Darren Millar) moved.

I move. 

The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 25 in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, two abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 25 is not agreed.

Amendment 25: For: 15, Against: 37, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 26, Darren Millar. 

Amendment 26 (Darren Millar) moved.

I move.

The question is that amendment 26 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, we'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 26 in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, one abstention, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 26 is not agreed.

Amendment 26: For: 14, Against: 39, Abstain: 1

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 15, Suzy Davies. 

Amendment 15 (Suzy Davies) moved.

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 15 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 15 in the name of Suzy Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, two abstentions, 44 against. Therefore, amendment 15 is not agreed.

Amendment 15: For: 8, Against: 44, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 27, Darren Millar. Amendment 27.

Is it being moved, Darren Millar?

Amendment 27 (Darren Millar) moved.

Yes, move.

Okay. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 27 in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, two abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 27 is not agreed.

Amendment 27: For: 15, Against: 37, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 16, Suzy Davies.

Amendment 16 (Suzy Davies) moved.

Yes, please.

If amendment 16 is agreed, amendment 28 falls. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 16 in the name of Suzy Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour seven, three abstentions, 44 against. Therefore, amendment 16 is not agreed.

Amendment 16: For: 7, Against: 44, Abstain: 3

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 28, Darren Millar.

Amendment 28 (Darren Millar) moved.

I move.

The question is that amendment 28 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 28 in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, amendment 28 is not agreed.

Amendment 28: For: 14, Against: 40, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 29, Darren Millar.

Amendment 29 (Darren Millar) moved.

I move.

The question is that amendment 29 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on amendment 29. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, two abstentions, 37 against, and therefore amendment 29 is not agreed.

Amendment 29: For: 15, Against: 37, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 17, Suzy Davies. Is it moved?

Amendment 17 (Suzy Davies) moved.

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 17 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, so we move to a vote on amendment 17 in the name of Suzy Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, two abstentions, 41 against, and therefore amendment 17 is not agreed. 

Amendment 17: For: 11, Against: 41, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 18, Suzy Davies. 

Amendment 18 (Suzy Davies) moved.

Yes, please, to finish this off.

The question is that amendment 18 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, so we move to a vote on amendment 18 in the name of Suzy Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, two abstentions, 37 against, and therefore amendment 18 is not agreed. 

Amendment 18: For: 15, Against: 37, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 19, Darren Millar. 

Amendment 19 (Darren Millar) moved.

I move. 

The question is that amendment 19 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, so we move to a vote on amendment 19. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 40 against, and therefore amendment 19 is not agreed. 

Amendment 19: For: 14, Against: 40, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 20, Darren Millar. 

Is it being moved?

Amendment 20 (Darren Millar) moved.

Yes, I move.

The question is that amendment 20 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, so we move to a vote on amendment 20. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 40 against, and therefore amendment 20 is not agreed. 

Amendment 20: For: 14, Against: 40, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 47 is the next amendment, in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Is it moved?

Amendment 47 (Siân Gwenllian) moved.

Yes, please. 

The question is that amendment 47 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, so we move to a vote on amendment 47 in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 20, two abstentions, 32 against, and therefore amendment 47 is not agreed. 

Amendment 47: For: 20, Against: 32, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 55, Llyr Gruffydd. 

Amendment 55 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Move.

The question is that amendment 55 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Open the vote. Yes, there was objection, by the way. So, open the vote on amendment 55. Close the vote. In favour 20, two abstentions, 32 against. Therefore, amendment 55 is not agreed.

Amendment 55: For: 20, Against: 32, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 21, Darren Millar. 

Amendment 21 (Darren Millar) moved.

Yes, I move. 

The question is that amendment 21 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We will move to a vote on amendment 21. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions and 40 against. Therefore, amendment 21 is not agreed. 

Amendment 21: For: 14, Against: 40, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 48, Siân Gwenllian. Is it moved?

Amendment 48 (Siân Gwenllian) moved.

Move. 

The question is that amendment 48 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We will move to a vote on amendment 48 in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 20, two abstentions, 32 against. Therefore, amendment 48 is not agreed.

Amendment 48: For: 20, Against: 32, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 56, Llyr Gruffydd, is it moved?

Amendment 56 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Move.

Is there any objection to amendment 56? [Objection.] There is. We will move to a vote on amendment 56. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 20, two abstentions, 32 against. Therefore, amendment 56 is not agreed. 

Amendment 56: For: 20, Against: 32, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected