And I call on the Minister for Social Justice to move the motions. Jane Hutt. 

Motion NNDM7935 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 regarding ‘Repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824 etc’ in so far as they fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Motion NNDM7936 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, ‘Imposing conditions on public processions’, ‘Imposing conditions on public assemblies’, ‘Imposing conditions on one-person protests’, and ‘Expedited Public Spaces Protection Orders’, in so far as they fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Motions moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I am here today to bring forward two legislative consent motions for the UK Government's Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. This is the second debate that we've held in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and I'd like to thank Members for their contributions in the first debate. The need for two debates reflects the complex and chaotic nature of the Bill, but it is important that the Senedd has a final say on what is included. And, regrettably, it has not been possible to follow normal procedures and allow proper scrutiny of supplementary legislative consent memorandum No. 5, which I laid on 28 February. This is not the way we would choose to make legislation in Wales, but the timetable set by the UK Parliament for what is a complex and wide-ranging piece of legislation has left me with no other option. 

The significant losses the UK Government experienced at the House of Lords Report Stage has meant the Bill's final stages have become subject to the so-called 'ping-pong process'. We're today debating the amendments agreed by the House of Lords on 17 January and the UK Government's amendments tabled in response to those on 22 February. In line with my approach to the previous debate, I have looked at the Bill holistically. The amendments made at Lords Report Stage and those tabled by the UK Government in response include provisions that fall within the competence of the Senedd, some of which will make important changes that will benefit Wales. However, the UK Government amendments also insert, or reinsert, provisions in the Bill within competence that we would not accept. These amendments are quite simply an assault on the right to peacefully protest, and we must stand against these. 

I've laid five memoranda during the sixth Senedd in relation to this Bill, and these relate to the UK Government amendments laid during various amending stages in the UK Parliament and the amendments made at Lords Report Stage. I refer to the Bill as published on 18 January 2022. As an annex to the supplementary legislative consent motion No. 5, I published a comparison table, which sets out the clauses for each of the stages of the Bill. For the relevant amendments in the competence of the Senedd, this table also sets out the impact of the amendments tabled at the House of Commons on 22 February on the amendments agreed in the Lords. 

Llywydd, turning to motion No. 1, which relates to the clause I'm recommending the Senedd gives consent to, I recommend that Senedd Members should agree this motion. The House of Lords voted on 17 January to include an amendment that would repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824. The UK Government tabled an amendment on 22 January that is different in wording to the amendment agreed by the Lords but would still bring an end to this outdated and regressive piece of legislation. We've made our view clear in discussion with the UK Government, long before the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill was laid, that the Act is no longer fit for purpose in the twenty-first century and should be repealed. Indeed, it has never been fit for purpose. We should move on now from a law that criminalises someone based on their housing situation. This can only make a difficult situation worse and is more likely to lead someone into a negative spiral. We've worked with the police forces in Wales to encourage a move away from the use of the Vagrancy Act. Our focus is on taking a partnership and collaborative approach to tackle rough-sleeping, by helping people off the streets and into accommodation. The Welsh Government has worked closely with people who use services, local authorities and the voluntary sector through the homelessness action group to develop a strategic approach to end homelessness in Wales. And our vision is that homelessness should always be rare, brief and unrepeated, which in practice means public services focusing on preventative action and rapid rehousing for those experiencing homelessness. Using the powers under the Vagrancy Act to move someone on only alienates that person, and reinforces mistrust of public services. This approach delays the point at which support for someone sleeping rough can be given, and this is more likely to push them away from that support and into danger. 

I wanted also to take the opportunity to mention that at Lords Report Stage, Baroness Newlove, a previous victims' commissioner, tabled an important amendment that would have seen misogyny classified as a hate crime, which was supported by the Lords at that Stage. I was pleased that this had happened, as it's something that I've long called for. And you will recall that on 2 February this year, we held an important debate about stalking, and as part of that, the Welsh Conservatives laid an amendment welcoming the Lords' decision to accept Baroness Newlove's amendment, and we all supported that in the Chamber. I wrote to Members on 19 February highlighting that amendments made in the Lords were likely to be overturned. In my letter, I called for the Senedd to send a united message to support making misogyny a hate crime, and I welcome that colleagues from across this Chamber have voiced the same sentiments.

So, I was disappointed, then, that the House of Commons has chosen to overturn the so-called Newlove amendment. This is a missed opportunity to add to what we're already doing to eradicate violence against women and girls, and to tackle the deep-rooted anti-female culture. I therefore bring motion No. 1 to the Chamber and ask Members to give consent to the clause. 

Turning now to motion No. 2, which relates to clauses for which I'm recommending the Senedd withholds consent, I recommend that Senedd Members reject this motion. I was disappointed that, as part of Third Reading, the UK Government put on record that they believed that parts of the Bill rejected by the Senedd on 18 January were not within competence. I fundamentally disagree with this assessment, and it's important that we continue, where there is real impact on devolved areas, to make our position very clear. My assessment is that, where the protest clauses included in the Bill relate to noise abatement measures, they fall within the competence of the Senedd.  

I was pleased to see that the Lords also rejected clauses related to the assault on the right to protest peacefully. Indeed, they were in line with the position taken by the Senedd on 18 January, where we too rejected the clauses that imposed conditions on public processions, on public assemblies and on one-person protests. In response, the UK Government has chosen to take a steamroller approach by reintroducing these clauses to the Bill. There is an opportunity for us once again to send a united message to the UK Government that this eradication of the fundamental right to have our voices heard cannot and will not be tolerated.

Indeed, the amendments tabled by the UK Government in relation to protests now go even further, with the introduction of fast-track public spaces protection orders. This provision would mean local authorities would be able to expedite public spaces protection orders in relation to schools or sites within their area used as vaccination and testing centres if they've been subject to protests or demonstrations. But, Llywydd, let me be clear, some of the incidents that have been reported outside our vaccination centres have been abhorrent, particularly where there's been harassment of staff and people attending for vaccinations. Thankfully, for the most part, the protests have been peaceful. However, when they are not, the current legal framework provides sufficient scope to secure vaccine sites without limiting the right to protest.

There are already existing mechanisms to achieve the desired outcome, so this provision is likely to just create more confusion. And this means there is no requirement or need to include a new, far more draconian measure, and whilst we might disagree with the position anti-vaxxers take and believe that redressing these views should be through education, not force, the change proposed by the UK Government would replace what are fair and proportionate checks and balances with these orders, without meaningfully improving the level of safety they provide for schools and vaccine sites. I call again on the UK Government to think again on how they choose to deal with protests. I therefore bring motion No. 2 to the Chamber, and ask Members to withhold consent for these clauses. Diolch. 

Despite the unstinting efforts of some politicians of all parties in the UK Parliament and the arguments and debates once again yesterday, which went on until the early hours, it's clear that we can't rely on the failing mechanisms of Westminster to protect us in Wales from the dangerous extremism of the Tory Government, which threatens to undermine civil and fundamental rights.

I have mentioned in the past, in a previous debate on this issue, that we as a party share the Welsh Government's concerns about the uncompromising racist and disproportionate elements that threaten our society and communities—the values that are central to the vision of Plaid Cymru, in terms of freedom of expression, fairness and tolerance.

I've also mentioned time and time again—on a weekly basis, it feels on occasion—that Plaid Cymru believes that it's the Welsh Parliament that should legislate in devolved policy areas. We cannot pick and choose clauses, if we truly believe and want to safeguard that principle. Doing that in the face of the unprecedented desire of the Westminster Government to undermine our devolved authority is crucial.

We are, therefore, opposing both motions before us today. This week, more than ever, we have understood the importance of raising one's voice to unite in a rally or protest—the importance of the right to do that without fear, and without the power of the state actually suppressing your voice and the right to insist on change or to express opposition.

We, this afternoon, have united in our praise of the bravery of those in Russia who are protesting against the mad, cruel violence of Putin and his illegal and inhuman acts in attacking Ukraine. The way the Bill attacks the right to protest is entirely contrary to our history, our values and our beliefs as a nation, and supports autocracy.

How many times have we spoken here also about the need to tackle violence against women and girls, yet the amendment to make misogyny a hate crime, introduced by the Lords, was voted down by the Tory Members of Parliament? This at a time when trust in the police, particularly the trust of women, has been so damaged, and crimes motivated by gender hatred are rising and prosecutions falling.

There are so many other clauses contained within this lengthy and chaotic Bill, and it is chaotic, that will have a disproportionate impact on minorities, on women, on children, on marginalised groups and on our civil rights, and will certainly worsen the inequalities in our justice system—a justice system that, if it is truly to serve the best interests of the people of Wales, to truly serve our communities and support our vision of a fair, accountable system of governance, and that will protect us from the creeping and deliberate authoritarianism of the Tory Westminster Government, must be devolved to Wales. Diolch. 

Limiting the right to public protest is somewhat ironic in the context of the UK Government's apparently Damascene conversion to the importance of democratic government when it comes to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I think, given the way in which the UK Government since 2019 has behaved, endeavouring to prorogue Parliament when they didn't want to be scrutinised by them, and some of the really serious incidents and issues that are now swirling around our country in the light of the missing millions and, indeed, billions in relation to both the Russian mafia and contracts that were awarded to friends and relations of the UK Government without open contest during the COVID emergencies.

In 2020 the Electoral Commission recorded that six members of the Cabinet and eight junior Ministers had taken money from businesses and/or individuals linked to Russia. According to the radio this morning, we are now talking about up to £25 billion having been brought into this country by the Russian mafia, sloshing around the UK and buying up property without declaring who actually owns it, and all in an effort to launder the ill-gotten gains stolen from the people of Russia. So, in that context, I think it is really deplorable that we are facing a Bill that is trying to limit public protest, because there is clearly a need to demand that the UK Government maintains the democratic process, respects the Electoral Commission—when they are trying to actually undermine its independence—and enables us to find out what impact all this funny money is having on our democracy and the amount of money that has been given to the Conservative Party across the UK. These are really, really serious issues and ones that we simply cannot prevent people protesting about and asking all the right questions. We need to have answers to these questions, and I think, in that context, we most definitely need to oppose these clauses, which the House of Lords have done their best efforts to restore, because that is what a democratic Government looks like.

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

Llywydd, I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. As I said in my opening remarks, we can only consider the clauses that have been assessed as touching upon devolved matters and within the competence of the Senedd. While there are clauses that do align with our priorities and bring important positive change for Wales, I am recommending the Senedd gives consent, and that does include, of course, the repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which is an important step in the decriminalisation of homelessness. We've campaigned for that for a number of years. So, it is important that we do support this provision; otherwise we will be putting Wales at a disadvantage.

But I am disappointed that the UK Government has rejected those important changes made at Lords Report Stage, not just in terms of the protests—and those contributions are important today from Members—but in particular I want to just draw attention again to the amendment that would make misogyny a hate crime, because we all agreed that here in this Chamber. We all agreed that in this Chamber, and we did welcome the House of Lords decision to support the amendment, tabled by Baroness Newlove. And just to say again, that amendment would require courts to treat hostility based on sex as an aggravating factor when considering sentences for crimes, excluding sexual offences and specific domestic abuse offences. And it would require the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring chief officers of the police to keep data about the number of reports relating to such crimes. As we've said, and we've agreed in this Chamber, misogyny must be and should be treated as a hate crime. We must all continue to make this case, and it sits so well with our approach to violence against women and girls, and we have got strong cross-party support, I believe, for that. 

But in terms of the parts of the Bill that are in competence that are insidious, which impact negatively on the rights of people, which have been expressed today, we do have again an opportunity to present a united front and make our objections, once again, heard. So, I do urge you, just to conclude—

Will you take an intervention, Minister?

I'll take—. Mark Isherwood.

Thank you. I had hoped to make a two or three-minute contribution. Obviously, I haven't got time for that, but do you acknowledge—? You refer to the defeat in the House of Lords, and some of the measures that the Lords rejected cannot now be featured in the final legislation. Do you recognise that these include one of the most high-profile proposals, which would have made it illegal for protestors to cause serious disruption by locking themselves to things? And do you recognise, more broadly, that the measures and new powers originally proposed to stop protests in England and Wales if they are deemed to be too noisy and disruptive are now also not being included in this legislation? In fact, many of the things that we're hearing objections to are no longer in this legislation and cannot be included within it, and would require a Government to bring forward a different Bill to introduce them.

I'd just like to say again, Mark Isherwood, that we've raised our concerns about clauses that impact on the right to lawful and peaceful protest, and whilst public order is a reserved matter, the noise elements do relate to the environment, which falls within our legislative competence. But the thing about this Bill, and throughout the passage, is there's been this attempt to deal with protest, particularly targeting specific types of protest, which I think we find as well so objectionable. And those amendments that were passed by the Lords—we welcomed those amendments—they went through, rejected by the House of Commons; the UK Government  again steamrolling this through. Again, I think this just displays the lack of respect not just for this Senedd, but also for the democratic process.

So, Llywydd, I do urge colleagues now to support motion No. 1, repealing the Vagrancy Act. To those clauses, we recommend consent is given, but reject motion No. 2 and the attack on the right to protest, containing the clauses to which I recommend consent is withheld.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 11. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Objection. Therefore we will defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.

The next item is item 12, and the proposal is to agree the motion under item 12. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, we have an objection again, so the voting will be deferred until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

And we will now move to voting time, but we will need to take a short break to prepare for the vote, which is virtual for some. A short break, then.

Plenary was suspended at 18:06.

The Senedd reconvened at 18:10, with the Llywydd in the Chair.