If there is no objection to that grouping, I will call on the Minister for Social Justice to move the motions—9 and 10. Jane Hutt.

Motion NDM7882 Jane Hutt

To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 29.6 agrees that provisions in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, namely ‘Police covenant report’, ‘Increase in penalty for assault on emergency worker’, Part 2, Chapter 1 ‘Functions relating to serious violence’ (including ‘Functions relating to serious violence’, ‘Exercise of functions’, ‘Amendments to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 etc’, and ‘General’), Part 2, Chapter 2 ‘Offensive weapons homicide reviews’, ‘Extraction of information from electronic devices: investigations of crime etc’, ‘Application of section 36 to children and adults without capacity’, ‘Requirements for voluntary provision and agreement’, ‘Code of practice about the extraction of information’, ‘Regulations about the extraction of confidential information’, ‘Authorised persons’, ‘Increase in penalty for offences related to game etc’, and ‘Intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance’, in so far as they fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Motion NDM7883 Jane Hutt

To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 29.6 agrees that provisions in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, namely ‘Criminal damage to memorials: mode of trial’, ‘Imposing conditions on public processions’, ‘Imposing conditions on public assemblies’, ‘Imposing conditions on one-person protests’, ‘Offence relating to residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle’, ‘Amendments to existing powers’, and ‘Guidance on exercise of police powers in respect of trespassers on land etc’, in so far as they fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Motions moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I am bringing forward today two legislative consent motions for the UK's Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill for your consideration. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is a complex and controversial piece of legislation. The UK Government's decision to amalgamate what were three separate Bills has resulted in a document containing over 179 clauses, 20 Schedules and running over 304 pages, all of which required close analysis. I've looked at the Bill holistically and there are some provisions that fall within the competence of the Senedd, which make changes that will benefit Wales. However, there are also provisions in the Bill within competence that we should not accept, some of which are egregious breaches of people's rights.

I've laid four separate memoranda during the sixth Senedd in relation to the Bill, and these related to UK Government amendments laid during various amending stages in the UK Parliament. The clauses I refer to today are the clause numbers as they appear in the Bill, published on 24 November 2021. I'd like to thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for its scrutiny of the memoranda, and I note that the committee published a further report yesterday. The LJC committee concluded that I should seek consent of the Senedd to clauses 1 and 2, clauses 7 to 22, clauses 23 to 35, clauses 36 to 38 and 40 to 42, and clause 46, as well as the amendment laid by the UK Government on 4 January to increase penalties for hare coursing within the Bill where those provisions are deemed to be within the legislative competence of the Senedd. The LJC committee did not agree with the Welsh Government's view that the Senedd's consent was required for clauses 56 and 57 and clauses 61 to 65. However, for the reasons set out in supplementary legislative consent motion No. 4, I believe these clauses do require the consent of the Senedd. The LJC committee's report at paragraph 9 refers to clauses 54 to 55 and 59 to 63, and this is based on an earlier published version of the Bill and are incorrect. The correct clause numbers are the ones I've referred to and are also referenced in paragraphs 34, 35, 39 and 41 of the report.

So, Llywydd, I turn to motion No. 1, which relates to clauses that I am recommending that the Senedd gives consent to. Clause 1 confers a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the police covenant and present this to Parliament. Clause 2 increases the penalty from 12 months to two years for assaults on emergency workers, which are abhorrent. Clauses 7 to 22 are on the serious violence duty requiring authorities to collaborate to prevent and reduce serious violence, which now includes domestic abuse and sexual violence added as the result of an amendment to the Bill, which I fully supported. And I do support all the provisions relating to the serious violence duty, as they will facilitate a local response to help prevent and reduce the most serious crimes and contribute to our violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence provisions.

And I would like to say that I was pleased that the UK Government took on board the Welsh Government's concerns regarding clause 17. Following successful inter-government discussions, an agreed amendment came forward to the drafting of clause 17, requiring the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers before issuing a direction to a devolved Welsh authority. Previously, it was only consultation with Welsh Ministers being required before a direction-making power was used. So, obtaining their consent was a welcome amendment.

If I move on to clauses 23 to 35, offensive weapons homicide reviews will bring together safeguarding partners to conduct formal reviews and then lessons to prevent future deaths involving offensive weapons, and I'm pleased that Wales will be acting as a pilot area. Clauses 36, 37, 38, 41, 42 and 43 are related to the extraction of information from electronic devices, which aligns with the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014.

A new amendment to increase penalties for offences relating to game, et cetera, in order to protect hares by deterring poaching, made on 4 January 2022, which does not have an assigned clause, is also a clause that I'm suggesting we do give consent to.

And finally, clause 61 relates to public nuisance and protects individuals from public nuisance when nuisance creates a risk of, or causes serious harm to a person, including death or personal injury. I therefore bring motion No. 1 to the Chamber and ask Members to give consent to these clauses.

Before I turn to the second motion, I just want to highlight that there are provisions in the Bill that we are supportive of, but sit outside the Senedd's legislative competence. For example, the changes in law to introduce the offence of breastfeeding voyeurism. Voyeurism offences and other offences are harassment, removing a person's dignity, rights and freedom, and it's right that the law prohibits such behaviour.

And, Llywydd, last night, an amendment was agreed at the House of Lords to add a new clause to the Bill relating to misogyny as a hate crime. It was late last night, and I will be laying a further supplementary LCM in respect of this amendment in due course. But the Bill also makes changes to youth rehabilitation orders, which have the potential for ensuring the justice process is best suited to the individual needs of the child, preventing them from entering the criminal justice system and giving positive outcomes, which is very much an approach aligning with our youth justice blueprint.

So, I'll now turn to motion No. 2, which relates to clauses for which I'm recommending the Senedd withholds consent and recommending that Senedd Members vote against this motion No. 2.

Clause 47: while sentencing in courts is a reserved matter, monuments, memorials and culture are devolved. The changes the Bill introduces will make it possible for a person to be tried in the Crown Court and be imprisoned for up to 10 years and, in some cases, life, simply for causing criminal damage to a memorial with a value of less than £5,000. In my opinion, this approach is unfair and disproportionate.

Clauses 56, 57 and 62 allow the police in certain circumstances to impose conditions on public processions, public assemblies and one-person protests. Taken as a package, the draconian restrictions the Bill places on the right to protest are repugnant, and, let me be clear: the approach the Bill takes in relation to protest is tantamount to state control and rips away the fundamental right to protest. We continue to make the point to the UK Government that the measures they are proposing in relation to protest cannot and should not be tolerated. And I was heartened to see the opposition in the House of Lords yesterday and welcome the defeat of the clauses that give new powers to limit protest and those that are aimed at groups, such as, for example, Insulate Britain. I call on the UK Government to take these concerns seriously and think again.

We move on to clauses 63 to 65. The Welsh Government's approach to managing unauthorised encampments is unchanged. We focus on engagement with communities and investment for adequate provision of authorised sites for our Gypsy and Traveller communities, enabling local authorities to meet the accommodation needs, both residential and transit, of Gypsy and Traveller communities. This area of work is prioritised again in the race equality action plan, which contains a specific goal on better addressing the accommodation needs of these communities. The proposed clauses put forward by the UK Government focus on enforcement and criminalisation, which undermines and jeopardises the semi-nomadic way of life of Gypsies and Travellers. I've raised these strong concerns with the UK Government and have asked them to reconsider the approach in the Bill to unauthorised encampments, as I'm describing this as a sledgehammer approach that will impact disproportionately on members of our Gypsy and Traveller communities.

So, in conclusion, Llywydd, I therefore bring motion No. 2 to the Chamber, asking Members to withhold consent for these clauses.

I now call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee to contribute. Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you once again, Llywydd. We have published three reports on the four memoranda laid by the Welsh Government with regard to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill of the UK Government.

I'd like to open my remarks by making some very general observations about our experiences with the reporting on these memoranda in respect of our committee's remit. The Minister reflected in her opening remarks on the complexity of the process of this UK Bill being brought forward. We agree with that. We also note from the Minister's remarks that more amendments might be forthcoming in some areas, adding further to the complexity of scrutiny in this Senedd. Yet this Bill also touches on the boundaries of devolution, which adds further complexity to the consent process. We therefore expected the Welsh Government's first memorandum to address this complexity in the context of the consent being sought and, accordingly, to explain clearly why and the circumstances for which consent was being requested. But, unfortunately, the memorandum did not include that information; it didn't provide enough clarity. So, we had, therefore, to request the information we needed to undertake our scrutiny through correspondence.

Our first report in October 2021 drew attention to these issues, and our second report in December 2021 highlighted some further issues with the accuracy of information contained in memorandum No. 2, and there were also clearly difficulties in precision with memorandum No. 3, which were addressed in memorandum No. 4. So, it was for that reason that in our report on memorandum No. 4, laid yesterday evening, we drew a conclusion that I hope will be seen as a respectful and gentle reminder to the Government. We've said before that the provision of timely and accurate information within legislative consent memoranda is quite simply fundamental to enable the Senedd and its committees to scrutinise the Welsh Government and to hold it to account for its use of UK Bills to make legislative provision in a devolved area in particular.

So, before turning to the substance of the provisions that are the subject of consent, can I just say, Minister, we really welcome the inclusion, in the Minister's letter to us of 7 January, of a table, a table that sets out the numbering of the clauses in the Bill as introduced and then as amended? We found this to be really helpful indeed, as it is often, because of the complexity, difficult to track clause numbers as they change, as a Bill passes between the two Houses of the UK Parliament. Now, knowing that other Ministers are listening avidly to these remarks, and indeed the Counsel General, who is here in attendance today, also takes a keen interest in this too, we just hope that this can become a regular part of supplementary memoranda laid before the Senedd as a result of amendments to UK Bills. It would really help, so thank you for that.

Now, turning to the two motions before us, we do agree that the consent of the Senedd is required for the provisions referred to in motion 1, with the exception of clause 61 concerning the common-law offence of public nuisance. Our view as a committee, based on our legal advice, is that the consent of the Senedd is not required, as we consider that the provision falls outside of the devolved purpose test in Standing Order 29.1. This is because the main purpose of the provision is to maintain public order and minimise disruption to members of the public in the vicinity, and public order is a reserved matter under Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006.

Turning to motion No. 2, in respect of clause 47 regarding criminal damage to memorials and the mode of trial, we agree that the Senedd's consent is required. Clauses 56 and 57 of the Bill amend sections of the Public Order Act 1986 by broadening the circumstances in which police officers have the power to impose conditions on public processions and assemblies. Clause 62 also amends the 1986 Act and relates to the imposition of conditions regarding one-person protests. These are areas that, in a policy context, are highly controversial, but our remit as a committee is to turn to the technical legal propriety of them. Our view is that the consent of the Senedd is not required for these clauses, as we again consider that the provisions fall outside the devolved purpose test in Standing Order 29.1. Although the provisions do concern the control of excess noise levels, the main purpose of the provisions is to maintain public order and to minimise disruption to members of the public in the vicinity, and as I have noted, public order is a reserved matter under Schedule 7A to the 2006 Act. Clauses 63 to 65 relate to unauthorised encampments. We do not consider that the consent of the Senedd is required for these clauses either, because again the purpose of these provisions, regardless of the policy issues, is the maintenance of public order. In our humble role as constitutional and legal scrutineers, we differ politely but steadfastly on this issue.

Now finally, our report on memorandum No. 4 made two recommendations. The first sought clarification on information contained in memorandum No. 3 relating to the number of amendments that require consent. We are grateful for the Minister's response on this point. Thank you. And I note that an error had occurred when drafting memorandum No. 3, which should have referenced 18 clauses requiring the consent of the Senedd rather than the stated 15.

Our second recommendation concerned the Bill's financial implications. The first memorandum and memorandum No. 2 state that there are no financial implications for Wales in relation to the Bill. However, memorandum No. 3 and memorandum No. 4 state that there

'may be financial implications but this will not be clear until the measures in the Bill are implemented'.

We therefore asked as a committee for the Minister to explain why the position regarding financial implications has changed and, for the Senedd again, I put on record that we are grateful for the Minister's response on this point. I note that the information regarding the fact that there 'may be financial implications' should have been included in all of the memoranda laid in relation to the Bill.

And that is the complete nature of our comments in respect of this, Llywydd. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Though we'll be voting in favour of both these legislative consent motions on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we're aware of the sensitivities involved. In so doing, we acknowledge the statement in the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee's memorandum No. 2 report on this Bill that the Welsh Government has said that it is now satisfied that the Bill provides appropriate protection and safeguards in terms of the interaction with devolved Welsh authorities and other devolved issues. We also acknowledge the statement in the committee's memorandum No. 3 and 4 report on this Bill that the committee did not agree with the Welsh Government that the Senedd's consent was required for a number of identified clauses because, in their view, they fall outside the devolved purpose test set out in Standing Orders. 

In their briefing for this Bill, the Equality and Human Rights Commission supports the UK Government's commitment to tackle serious crime and promote a fair justice system, and are pleased to see measures in the Bill aimed at reducing the increased use of custodial remand for children as well as measures to promote open justice and provide for the presence of a sign language interpreter during jury deliberations. However, they identified four areas of concern regarding equality and human rights: live links in criminal proceedings; protest and public order; unauthorised encampments; and extraction of digital information from mobile devices.

The North Wales Regional Equality Network has raised concern that this legislation will discriminate against Gypsies, Roma and Travellers, protected by the Equality Act 2010, whilst also urging the Welsh Government to ensure that local authorities meet their statutory duty to provide sufficient residential sites, quality transit sites and stopping places, or to impose penalties on local authorities where statutory duties are not met. Similarly, constituents have written stating that this proposed legislation will lead to our Gypsy and Traveller communities being criminalised on the one hand whilst being doubly penalised because Welsh local authorities have not yet met the requirements of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 and built enough sites and provided a network of transit sites and stopping places. The onus is therefore on the Welsh Government to address this. 

Unlike this Welsh Parliament, our Senedd, the UK Houses of Parliament have robust multilayered bicameral scrutiny processes, as evidenced by last night's series of votes in the House of Lords against measures in the Bill, which included measures that won't be sent back to the Commons and a vote in favour of an amendment led by Conservative peer Baroness Newlove, referred to by the Minister—the Baroness being the former Victims Commissioner for England and Wales—to make misogyny a hate crime in England and Wales. We must therefore trust our colleagues in the UK Parliament to do their job, just as we expect to be trusted to do ours.

The dangerous extremism of the present Tory Westminster Government is evident when it prompts the House of Lords to act with the determination it showed last night, sitting into the early hours defeating clause after clause of what were dubbed oppressive and outrageous Government proposals, which threaten to undermine basic civil liberties and fundamental rights. Llywydd, we must send an equally powerful message from this place that we will have no part in the passage of a Bill containing draconian measures that are, in many cases, racist, authoritarian and disproportionate, undermining as they do the very cohesion of our society and the values that we hold dear, upon which our democracy rests. 

In terms of the first motion, Plaid Cymru once again wants to put on record our stance that it's the Welsh Parliament that should legislate in devolved policy areas, particularly in the face of the unprecedented desire of the Westminster Government to undermine our devolved authority, our identity as a nation, and our democratic right to decide what benefits our own communities. We should not consent to that on any occasion. And, in terms of this appalling Bill, we must do everything possible to prevent it going forward as it returns to the House of Commons. 

It ignores devolved powers, it will significantly impact on policies and services in Wales, and may lead to additional costs in devolved areas, such as education for prisoners, mental health services, measures to tackle drug misuse, and the Welsh Government's framework to reduce the number of those who become involved with the criminal justice system. We therefore oppose both LCMs before us today, but I want to go into some specifics on our objection to some of the clauses in the second motion. 

Like many of you, I've attended marches calling for equal rights, or for changes to the system, and like many of you, I remember being part of the protests that called for democracy for Wales and the establishment of a parliament for Wales. It is a tradition that echoes throughout our history, and many prosecuted in the past for their parts in campaigns are now lauded as the architects of our rights and our institutions. And like many of you, I know my history, and I understand the symbolic power and the influence of protests in the process of providing social justice and democratic change in Wales, Britain and the world. 

It was Dr Martin Luther King day yesterday. Consider for a moment history without Selma, without the march on Washington. We can't praise Nelson Mandela, Dr King or the suffragettes and allow measures that would actually destroy the rights of our own people to demand change. The attempt of the Bill to literally silence the voice of opposition is not only contrary to our fundamental human rights, but is also a step towards autocracy. 

I want to turn now to the way Part 4 of the Bill deliberately targets Roma, Gypsy and Traveller people. There is a provision in the Bill that turns trespass from a civil into a criminal offence, allowing the police to arrest Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people and confiscate their homes, their vehicles, if they stop in places that have not been designated for them. Given that authorised sites and stopping places cannot accommodate the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people who need them, this is a despicable act and a despicable attack on a vulnerable minority. With their homes seized and their parents arrested, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children are likely to be taken into care. A coalition of representatives and advocates from and allied with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities in Wales have stated that the Bill represents one of the most serious threats to civil liberties in recent history, granting sweeping new powers to undermine the Gypsy and Traveller nomadic way of life.

I ask that we listen to these voices. It is our duty as representatives of the people of Wales to do so. This will not only undermine existing Welsh legislation and policy; it is also not supported by the majority of the police. The National Police Chiefs' Council and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners have said that the lack of sufficient and appropriate accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers remains the main cause of incidents of unauthorised encampment and unauthorised development by these groups. The measures in this Bill fail to deal with that primary issue, namely the lack of appropriate residential transit and residential sites. As we heard from Mark Isherwood, more can and should be done to ensure Welsh local authorities meet their statutory duty to provide sufficient sites and stopping places, rather than criminalise nomadic families in Wales, who are being placed in an impossible position. 

I could go on to detail our objection to many other clauses contained within this lengthy Bill, which will have a detrimental and disproportionate impact on minorities, women, children, our civil rights, and which will certainly worsen the inequalities in our justice system. But I will conclude by stating that the Bill is another example of why we need to devolve justice to Wales. Devolving powers for justice is crucial if we are to provide a justice system that is fairer and more accountable, which will have the needs, values and the interests of the people of Wales at its very core. Thank you.

I very much agree with the final point that Sioned Williams just made there. Mark Isherwood is wrong when he talks about the bicameral nature of the UK Parliament. It is, of course, bicameral in its nature, but it isn't in terms of legislating, when a vast array of amendments are made after the House of Commons has already considered the Bill. That is an abuse of process, and the only reason that MPs will have a vote on some of these clauses now is because the Lords rejected them last night. That is not bicameralism at its best, it's Executive abuse at its worst, and I think we should be absolutely clear about that.

This is a bad Bill. I recognise the points the Minister has made, and I will vote for the first motion on this matter this evening, because there are good things in any piece of legislation. But it's bad law—it's bad in principle, it's bad in practice, it's bad in process, it's bad in politics, and it's bad in philosophical terms. This is not what we should be about. And from a Conservative Government, let me say, this is the most unconservative piece of legislation that I can remember.

We have heard, Presiding Officer—and you've been exceptionally patient over the last few months in listening to them—Conservative Member after Conservative Member screaming about the imposition of restrictions, sometimes quite minor in nature, other times more intrusive, put in place on a temporary basis to protect public health. We've heard Conservative Member after Conservative Member come hear and speak about the imposition of these restrictions. And at a stroke, at midnight, without any debate in the elected Chamber, they want to remove fundamental human rights from everybody in this country, and they want to do that on a permanent basis, without any appeal, without any jurisdiction, and without any attempt to review that form of law making. It's wrong in process, it's wrong in principle, and it's wrong fundamentally. That's not how this country should be governed. This is an attack on our democratic right to protest against a Government policy with which we disagree.

I mentioned the Presiding Officer before; she and I have spent some time sitting on streets and roads together in the past. We created enormous inconvenience, and, I suggest, we were noisy. Protest is inconvenient, protest is noisy, and protest is democracy in action. And let me tell you, I've suffered the inconvenience of a night in the cells on a number of occasions as a consequence of me standing up against an autocratic Government, in my view. I have a right to do so, and I accept the consequences of that. You can't have a Parliament without protest, and you can't have politics without protest. Protest is as much a part of our political system as when we vote in a few minutes' time.

This law is wrong. It's wrong in practice and it's wrong in principle. It's an attack on our fundamental rights. It is not a British piece of legislation, it is not a Conservative piece of legislation. It is an attack on fundamental freedoms. I will vote for motion 1, before our whips get on the phone to me. But let me say this: I find myself with a very, very heavy heart on this matter. We should be united as politicians, united across political parties, saying that people's right to make our lives uncomfortable is more important than our right to keep people quiet, and to do so in the peace of midnight. That's no way to legislate. It's no way to make law and it's not the law that we should be making. 

Breaking the law is an important part of protest, if the matter deserves it. And many of the people who break the law in the cause of social justice end up becoming prime ministers or presidents, so we need to think about that very carefully. I thank the Welsh Government for allowing the LCM to be split into two separate votes. I'm content to provide consent to some perfectly unremarkable proposals that safeguard communities.

Part 4, on the other hand, which affects the Gypsy and Traveller community is an abomination, because it sets out to make trespass with intent to reside a criminal offence, with the deliberate intent to discriminate against Gypsies, Roma and Travellers, ethnic groups who are or should be protected by the Equality Act 2010. Instead, the intention of Part 4 of the Bill is to persecute them for their way of life. As currently drafted, it would result in families with no legal place available to park their vehicles having their homes seized, depriving them of their bedding, their cooking facilities and the means to keep them warm, as well as their transport and their tools, which would prevent them from earning their living. I hope that Members of the Senedd will withhold consent for this disgraceful section of this police Bill, but I hold little hope that the current UK Government will pay any notice to these concerns. It is extremely likely that they will railroad these proposals through the House of Commons as part of their 'save big dog' campaign to deflect from their lying, rule-breaking practices.

It's also a wake-up call for the Welsh Government. Part 3 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 places a legal obligation and a statutory duty on local authorities in Wales to both assess need and provide residential and transit provision for Gypsy and Traveller communities in their area. I was involved in the scrutiny of this legislation, so I vividly recall the assurances from the then Minister, Carl Sargeant, that Part 3 of the Act would be made to stick. So, Minister, which local authorities provide sufficient residential sites, with access to schools, health and other public services, never mind sufficient stopping places, for the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities to be able to go about their way legally?

I believe that eight years after the 2014 housing Act, there are still three local authorities that are yet to provide any residential sites at all, and that has to change. The pathetic excuses we heard last year from the Member for the Vale of Clwyd, still a Denbighshire councillor, that there is nowhere in the whole of Denbighshire suitable either for stopping or for permanent Gypsy and Traveller sites—that's simply not credible. It's a disgraceful failure of leadership. And even if they have no sense of public duty, they perhaps might be inspired by the realisation that if Gypsies and Travellers become destitute, it will fall on local authorities to take their children into care with all the distress and costs that that will involve.

We know that the police are not keen to implement such a measure. Four in five police forces in Britain opposed these proposals in the consultation in 2018, saying that the current law is proportionate and sufficient to deal with unauthorised encampments that are causing a nuisance. They oppose the criminalisation of this community and so should we. No legal place to park is not the fault of the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities; it's the failure of local authorities—both local and national—to act. I want to know what action the Welsh Government will take against Welsh local authorities that continue to ignore their local obligations whilst we vote against this appalling measure.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you too to Huw Irranca-Davies for his work and for his committee's work too.

This is a very short contribution, because I agree totally with the last two contributions. I particularly want to agree with the contribution from Alun Davies. This Bill is pernicious and undermines our right to protest. Vast swathes of the 300-page Bill are destructive and draconian and undermine laws designed to protect people who need safeguards, for example under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the European convention on human rights, and the Public Order Act 1986. The right to peaceful assembly and protest is a fundamental human right and has always been a crucial part of our democratic society. Threatening to weaken people's ability to challenge the Government, any Government, is the act of dictators and despots, not of democrats. This Senedd was founded on the basis of transparency, accountability, equality and participation for everyone in society. This Bill strikes at the heart of those principles, and I believe that this Senedd should refuse consent for this dangerous Bill. Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I'd first of all like to thank the Minister for Social Justice very much for her approach to these matters, the work that she's done on this Bill, in terms of how it would affect Wales and communities within Wales, and separating out our consideration today into the two motions. I'd very much like to support the withholding of consent as far as motion 2 is concerned and for many of the reasons that we've already heard, Llywydd.

And as far as Part 4 is concerned, I would like, as Jenny Rathbone did, and as others have mentioned, to concentrate on the effect on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities in Wales, because it would be a very serious effect indeed. We already know that, over many years, the way of life of these people has been made difficult and eroded by creeping urbanisation, a lack of stopping places, and the lack of provision of necessary sites as, again, Jenny Rathbone referred to earlier. It is a test of a society and of a state and a country, I think, Llywydd, that we should not just tolerate but encourage and facilitate different ways of life. People have a right to live differently, different to the majority, different to the norm. That should be respected and understood and facilitated. And that isn't the case in Wales at the moment, and we know we have some work to do to put our own house in order in terms of provision of sites, with Welsh Government working with local authorities.

But we also know that this legislation, as proposed, would make that situation far worse. It would criminalise Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people when they stop somewhere without a legal alternative to use in that locality, and it would allow local authorities to seize their homes and seize vehicles. So, that would prevent families living as they live at the moment and having a roof over their head at a particular time, and it would prevent them having the means to pursue their living at a particular time. And already these families suffer considerable disadvantage in terms of the provision of public services, in economic and social terms, and that would be made much worse by these draconian measures, which, in an instant, would allow the confiscation of homes and means to pursue a living.

It really, really is a very serious set of consequences that would follow if this legislation is allowed to take effect in Wales. And it would go against the grain of Welsh Government policy over many years and legislation that we've enacted here in Wales through the Assembly and Senedd. And even though there are shortcomings, as I've already said, in terms of provision of sites, we do know the Welsh Government is very committed to working with local authorities to remedy those shortcomings, and that, again, would be made much more difficult if these enactments were to take place in Wales. So, I very much support the stance of the Minister and those who have similarly opposed motion 2 in this debate today, Llywydd, and I hope that Members will vote accordingly.

The Minister for Social Justice to reply to the debate—Jane Hutt.

Diolch, Llywydd, and can I thank all Members for their very powerful contributions to this debate? Can I start, though, by thanking the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for your reports and your members' consideration of this complex piece of legislation, and your contribution this afternoon? I have, as the Chair has said—Huw Irranca-Davies—responded to concerns raised in Huw Irranca-Davies's opening remarks, and I'm grateful for recognition of not only the complexity of the Bill, but also the ways in which we have perhaps helpfully responded, for example with the table presented on 7 January. It's useful to learn from the encouragement and the response of the LJCC on these very complex matters.

But today we are considering those clauses that have been assessed by the Welsh Government as impacting upon devolved matters, and it is an impact on devolved matters that are, we believe, within the competence of the Senedd. We do recognise that with many of them, the majority of these clauses, I am recommending that the Senedd gives consent, as they align with our priorities, and that's the issue in terms of the impact on devolution, making a positive difference to the lives of people in Wales. But I've also been very clear today, Llywydd, that there are parts of the Bill that are within competence that are insidious, and which impact negatively on the rights of people. To hear from Members today has been important to recognise and endorse the stance that I've taken.

So, I very much welcome the defeat of the clauses relating to limiting protest in the House of Lords yesterday, and I thank Sioned Williams for your powerful contributions on this point. I'll continue to make the point to the UK Government that the measures they're proposing in relation to protest cannot and should not be tolerated. As Members have said today, we must allow people the right to voice their views in peaceful protest in a law-abiding way. As also Members have said today, we, so many of us, have seen that as the lifeblood of our politics, of our voices, and the way in which we can enable people to express that is key to the lifeblood of our democracy, as we see on our Senedd steps, as we see in the processions, the protests, the marches, which we know are about the strength of views that we then want to respond to.

But also I would say 'thank you' again to Jenny Rathbone, Jane Dodds, to Sioned Williams and to John Griffiths about the views, the points you've made, about the ways in which the Government is trying to, as I said, adopt the sledgehammer approach to unauthorised encampments. We fundamentally oppose the criminalisation of the Gypsy/Traveller/Roma communities. As Jenny Rathbone has said, it counters every facet of our 'Travelling Ahead' strategy, and I do thank you, Jenny, of course, as chair of the cross-party group on Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities. This is about how Welsh Government and local authorities must implement and deliver the Act, and it is, of course, in the Housing Act 1985 a legal duty to assess need, both residential and transient. I know that there is good practice across Wales amongst our local authorities, and it's that good practice that has to be delivered in every community for our Traveller/Gypsy/Roma communities. So, thank you again for giving me the opportunity to express that.

I would also like to thank Alun Davies for his contribution today. You have again, Alun, exposed the deep flaws of this legislation. Jane Dodds calls it 'pernicious'. That is why the Government lost 14 votes in the House of Lords on the detail of this Bill, adding to five previous defeats in earlier debates, and they were defeated last night by 261 to 166 votes.

So, it's complex legislation. We've dealt with it in a particular way this afternoon. I hope you will now support motion No. 1, containing clauses I do recommend consent is given to, and I urge you to reject motion No. 2, which contains the clauses I recommend consent is withheld from. And I do urge the Welsh Conservatives to join us in withholding consent, particularly recognising the comments that Mark Isherwood has made about the adverse impact that this particular clause 4 could have in relation to our Gypsy/Traveller/Roma communities here in Wales. Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 9. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see an objection, and I will therefore defer voting until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.

Next, the proposal is to agree the motion under item 10. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. Therefore, we will defer voting until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.

And before we move on to that vote, I am going to call on Janet Finch-Saunders to make a retrospective declaration of interest.

Diolch, Llywydd. During my question, my supplementary, to the First Minister earlier today, and on reflection, I think it would have been appropriate for me to refer Members to my declaration of interest. So, I would like to take this opportunity to do that now, and thank you very much.

Thank you, Janet Finch-Saunders. And, as this is the second week I've needed to do this and call for retrospective declarations of interest—not you last week, Janet, it was someone else then—I just need to remind all Members that, if you are a councillor or if you own a business and if your questions or statements refer in any way to those issues, then please remember your declaration of interest—remember that you're a councillor or that you own a business—and make those declarations during your contribution. I'm not going to develop a practice of allowing an item on retrospective declarations of interest at the end of every Plenary session. So, hopefully you will be the last I'll need to call on that basis, Janet. 

Okay, now we'll move on and take a short break before we hold the vote. 

Plenary was suspended at 18:57.

The Senedd reconvened at 18:59, with the Llywydd in the Chair.