Human rights are, by definition, we've heard today, universal. They have to be. So, if we are going to deny one group, then, by de facto, we deny all groups. That is the fundamental principle that underpins human rights, and I don't think it can be said too often. So, placing greater restrictions on who can bring a claim, or reducing damages based on how deserving the claimant is perceived to be, as the UK Government's so-called British bill of rights would do, diminishes the freedom of all of us. Again, I just think we need to focus on just that one aspect.

Replacing the Human Rights Act is at best unnecessary and at worst damaging, which is why the Welsh Government has set out the fundamental and detailed objections to the proposal, as has Westminster's Joint Committee on Human Rights. Meanwhile, we have the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the Nationality and Borders Act, and they're both going to threaten the enshrined rights and freedoms that currently exist. The former will curtail the right of minority communities to live freely, and again that's been mentioned here today. You cannot ever underestimate the right to protest against your Government when they are doing something that is wrong, whatever colour that Government might be. This, of course, could have been progressive. It could have extended, for example, the right not to be sexually harassed in public. It could have recognised misogyny as a crime. Instead, the Tories have chosen to deny those opportunities. But then, when we've read about what happened to Angela Rayner, it's hardly surprising. But women should feel safe in their workplace, and that is a workplace. They have the right to go down the street without risk of being attacked. They have the right to live as individuals. And I think there are some, even on these benches here, who will agree with that, but the Government that they support has failed to recognise it.

Meanwhile, the United Nations special rapporteur concluded that denying some protections would lead to serious human rights violations. So, leading charities have condemned it—we'd heard that—and all organisations that have been asked to make comments have also condemned it. We know that it does threaten, here in Wales, our nation of sanctuary, with punitive time limits for trafficking victims and others to bring forward their cases. Think about it: reducing the time of somebody who has been trafficked, traumatised, to bring forward your case to prove your case, even to find someone to fight the case for you—that's what this Government intends to do. And it comes back again, doesn't it, to who is deserving and who is not. And they have plenty of track record in this, when they decide when they're giving benefits to people or not giving benefits to people. It's the same fundamental right-wing thinking. That's what's here. Human rights have to be a central plank of the rules-based international order, and the upshot is we have a UK Government led by a Prime Minister who has a very casual attitude to the rules—that's putting it in parliamentary language, by the way, but we've all been knocking doors recently, and the people out there use much more straightforward language, which I'm prohibited from using here today.

Rights, rules and standards of public life matter. Not only does their absence lead to rotten government—a fish rots from the head—but it leads to bad policy, like the Rwanda immigration plan. A British Government that believes in human rights could never justify sending asylum seekers to a dictatorial regime rife with human rights abuses. So, we need to safeguard and extend rights, not cynically attack them. And although it's not a reserved matter, I'm proud that all Senedd legislation is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. And it was pleasing to see that we extended that by banning the physical chastisement of children.

So, I want to take issue with Altaf Hussain, who, in my opinion, did not do his party any good here today with his speech. He wouldn't take my intervention, so I have to come back to it now. I was little bit dismayed, in terms of choosing to use the NHS, which has served so many people so very well in the last two years, at the cost of some of those individuals losing their lives to do that, using them as a pawn, in my opinion, to justify the Tories' attack on individual human rights. I wanted to put it on the record by an intervention, and he could have replied to it, but he chose not to take it.