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.