The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Darren Millar.

The next item is the debate on human rights, and I call on the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution to move the motion. Mick Antoniw.

Motion NDM7991 Lesley Griffiths, Siân Gwenllian

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Notes the Welsh Government’s commitment to strengthen and advance human rights, equality and the protection of minority communities in Wales.

2. Notes with grave concern the repeated moves by the UK Government to erode human rights.

3. Believes that UK Government proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act risks undermining key protections for citizens and raises significant constitutional issues.

4. Believes the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill undermines the rights of minority communities and jeopardises the right of lawful and peaceful protests.

5. Agrees with the United Nations Special Rapporteur that the Nationality and Borders Bill would seriously undermine the protection of human rights and lead to serious human rights violations.

6. Calls on the UK Government to reverse its regressive approach on Human Rights and the resulting constitutional violations.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. It's a great pleasure to open this debate at a crucial time for human rights in Wales, the UK and the world. I'd like to thank Plaid Cymru for co-sponsoring the debate and for showing their joint commitment to this issue. I'd also like to thank the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Wales, Jane Dodds, for her support.

Clearly, we meet regularly to discuss the issues with regard to Ukraine. Thousands have already died because of the contempt shown by the leader of Russia to international law. Millions more have fled from their homes and their nation. Some of them are now reaching the United Kingdom and Wales, shedding new light on how we treat people in the most appalling and trying circumstances and how we fulfil our own international obligations with regard to human rights. 

The Llywydd took the Chair.

The Welsh Government has a clear and long-standing commitment to promoting and protecting human rights. This is embedded into the founding legislation of the Welsh Government, and we are taking fresh action to strengthen and advance human rights in Wales, which is also reflected across our co-operation agreement. Of course, we would hope to be standing four-square with the UK Government at this time, affirming and demonstrating a shared unqualified commitment to human rights around the world. Instead, what we are seeing is a whole series of measures by the UK Government that are deliberately calculated to undermine the most basic principles of human rights. Taken together, they can only give a signal to the world that the UK is regressing on human rights.

I can do no better in this debate than to refer to the findings of the UK Government's own independent review of the Human Rights Act 1998: the Act has had a positive impact on the enforcement and accessibility of rights in the UK; cases are heard sooner and are less expensive; UK judges are better able to take account of our national context when reaching decisions than judges in Strasbourg; the courts cannot overturn primary legislation, the Act successfully maintains parliamentary sovereignty; the Act is a central part of the devolution settlement of the UK and to amend the Human Rights Act would be a huge risk to our constitutional settlement and to the enforcement of our rights. This is what the Tories' own independent review, the one they set up, concluded, but, of course, it didn't come to the conclusions they wanted, so they ignore it and press on regardless.

They now develop their own proposals to deconstruct human rights by means of a so-called bill of rights, legislation that, along with other legislation, is ideologically and politically driven and has but one objective: the undermining of some of the basic principles that underpin democratic rights and the rule of law in the UK and enabling—

I wonder if the Counsel General will give way on that very point. One of the basic principles that even an A-level student will learn about human rights is that they are universal—they're non-negotiable, they are universal, apply to everyone. How then does he interpret the UK Government's signal, rejecting, as he rightly says, what they heard in the consultation, that there should be some differentiation between the deserving and the undeserving? It seems to me, unless I'm missing something, it goes against the fundamental A-level understanding of what human rights are. If they're universal, you cannot distinguish between deserving and undeserving. Everybody deserves a right to put their case in terms of human rights.

The Member is absolutely right, there should be absolutely no distinction whatsoever between undeserving and so-called deserving, because that strikes at the principle that human rights actually belong to everyone. Of course, Dominic Raab, the Lord Chancellor, in 2009, before he was Lord Chancellor, said this:

'I don’t support the Human Rights Act and I don’t believe in economic and social rights.'

That is exactly what ideologically underpins the Government's direction. As the latest report of the House of Commons and the House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights says, in the light of our support for Ukraine and their struggle for democracy, human rights and the rule of law, it would be a terrible irony at this time for us to be weakening our own protections as we do so.

Of course, there are other critical constitutional issues at stake, the Human Rights Act is fundamental to Welsh democracy. Legislation passed in this Senedd must be compatible with the Act, so any action or change must have the agreement of all of the UK's national legislatures. The UK Government's proposals almost entirely overlook the potential impact on our devolved constitutional, legal and policy framework.

Let's turn now to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, an Act that is an assault on freedoms that have existed for centuries. It places major restrictions on the democratic right to protest. It has some elements akin to restrictions on liberty that have been introduced in Putin's Russia and it gnaws away at the foundations of the rights of our people to free speech and the right to protest, the right to challenge the exercise of power by Government and the abuse of power.

The proposed changes will impact on the lives of people across Wales, and we have fought throughout to ensure that the voice of the Senedd has been heard throughout the legislative process. However, there are aspects of the Bill that spark a deeply moral objection. The Senedd rejected clauses relating to protest and unauthorised encampments. Our Senedd underlined the commitment to the right to gather peacefully and protest, and we expressed horror at the attempted criminalisation of people from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller backgrounds. It cannot be, given international events, and given who we say we are as a nation, that anyone can justify these deeply regressive moves.

The same goes for the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which exposes, I believe, the racist underbelly of the UK Government's thinking, and which the United Nations says will also breach international law. It will continue their erosion of our basic human rights. The Act is diametrically opposed to our nation of sanctuary philosophy and the overall Welsh Government aim to have a more equal Wales. It will create a two-tier system simply due to a person's method of arriving in the UK and not on the merit of their case. The Act will adversely impact the delivery of integration support in Wales, exacerbate destitution and increase the exploitation of migrants and illegal working in our communities—people who are already vulnerable and whose vulnerability will increase further. It will increase homelessness and potentially endanger public health, as those without recourse to public funds are likely to be fearful of coming forward for healthcare.

This, of course, is without even mentioning the Government's Rwanda plan—an abhorrent plan that will undoubtedly come with grave and very real threats to safety, particularly safety from trafficking, which was raised by former Prime Minister Theresa May, a plan described by the head of the Church of England as

'The opposite of the nature of God.'

Let me be absolutely clear: what we are seeing here is a fundamental ideological assault on human rights, basic decency and human morality. These proposals cumulatively and individually are in direct hostility to the founding principles of our democracy and the essence of Welsh compassion. The Welsh Government's commitment to strengthening and advancing human rights for everyone in Wales remains as strong as ever, and I know this determination is echoed amongst a majority of our Members.

Our report 'Strengthening and advancing equality and human rights in Wales' was published last August, the research led by Swansea University in collaboration with Bangor University, Diverse Cymru and Young Wales. Our response to the report was discussed at a meeting of the strengthening and advancing equality and human rights steering group last week, which the Minister for Social Justice chaired and which I also attended. Our final response will be published shortly and we will also be providing an update to the cross-party human rights group and Welsh commissioners. It sets out the main areas of work that we will be taking forward: developing a suite of guidance on human rights, reviewing the public sector equality duty, adding human rights to our integrated impact assessments, and stepping up the way in which we promote these issues in Wales.

We will now develop a detailed plan of action and timeline to cover all of these streams of work, and we will also be undertaking preparatory work that will enable us to consider options for the incorporation of the United Nations conventions into Welsh law in line with the first recommendation of the report and our own programme for government commitment in this area. The purpose of such a Bill would be to strengthen the rights of all Welsh citizens, and mitigate as far as possible the negative impacts of actions by the UK Government. I hope that Members will join us today in reaffirming the commitment of the Senedd to human rights—

Will you take an intervention?

Well, I am right at the end, but I will take an intervention.

I know. I just wanted to say how pleased I am to hear that you're going to do just that. Obviously, I've been disappointed that there's been resistance to taking on board the UN principles for older persons in recent years, and I do hope that your piece of legislation will encompass the rights-of-older-people legislation within it. Can you confirm that that will be the case? It's something I've been championing for many years, and I'd be glad to see some light at the end of the tunnel.

I do welcome that contribution, because, yes, the objective is to look at how we can incorporate all the UN conventions within our legal framework in order to protect them, but also put them at the core of our legislative thinking. So, I can confirm that. Certainly, it is not an easy process, it's a complex one, but, certainly, we'll take that very much on board.  

Would the Counsel General give way on that point?

I'll give way one final time.

It's simply to say I equally welcome the intervention there. Indeed, Darren has long championed that. If the Welsh Government does proceed in that way, and in the tone of the intervention from Darren, that makes it quite interesting, because we could end up with cross-party support for embedding the human rights principles in our own legislation here in Wales, and that is a good moment for this Senedd, Darren.

I very much welcome that support, and this is a debate, no doubt, that we will continue with.

[Inaudible.]—withdraw the amendment. [Laughter.]

I will acknowledge that and confirm that we will incorporate the overwhelming support of the Member for the direction we wish to go in.

I thank Members for those comments and confirm our overwhelming commitment to human rights in this Senedd. Thank you.

I have selected the amendment to the motion. I call on Altaf Hussain now to move the amendment tabled in the name of Darren Millar. 

Amendment 1—Darren Millar

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Welcomes the UK Government’s commitment to protecting and upholding human rights.

2. Notes the UK Government’s proposals to modernise and make human rights legislation fit for purpose.

3. Believes that there needs to be an appropriate balance between individual rights and responsibilities.

4. Regrets the Welsh Government’s record of voting against human rights including voting against the introduction of an older people’s rights Bill during the Fifth Senedd.

Amendment 1 moved.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. You've done a good job. I'm delighted to contribute to this debate today. I pay tribute to the Minister for bringing the debate to the Senedd.

I wish to speak to the amendment tabled in the name of Darren Millar, and I want to tackle, head on, the accusations that the UK Government is seeking to erode human rights. The rights of individuals and groups of people are supported in several ways, through different areas of statutes and through the development of those matters considered by the court. The UK has a proud tradition of ensuring that the rights that people have enjoyed are upheld and defended in the way that we would expect to see in a country founded on liberal, democratic values. Those principles are freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, freedom of assembly and freedom of worship. Values and rights that we see woven into the fabric of this county's history are as important now as they have ever been.

Our amendments remind the people of Wales that, in legislating to protect human rights, any Government doing its job properly would review the effectiveness of the current legislative framework to ensure that it works and is fit for purpose. As the UK Government's consultation makes clear:

'We will remain faithful to the basic principle of human rights, which we signed up to in the original European Convention on Human Rights'.

The UK Government has also made it clear that the proposed bill of rights

'will strengthen the role of the UK Supreme Court in the exercise of the judicial function, preserve Parliament’s democratic prerogatives in the exercise of the legislative function, and support the integrity of the UK, while respecting the devolution settlements.'

I fail to see what is wrong with this. In fact, this step ought to be welcomed.

Furthermore, the proposed bill of rights would ensure we respect our international obligations as a party to the European convention on human rights, and that we will also continue to support further reforms to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Will you take an intervention?

Please.

Thank you. Is there any recognition that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 inhibits the right to protest?

Anyway, let me carry on. The Bill will retain all the substantive rights in the Human Rights Act 1998 and the convention. Again, I fail to see what is wrong with this.

We can all agree the NHS is something we can all be proud of. However, under the NHS flag, the Human Rights Act Labour wants to retain does not always protect the rights of patients. The NHS is an attractive organisation for the best medical practitioners all over the world, but there are some who come to work in the UK who do not have the correct understanding of the rights of British patients. In some countries from where we readily accept medically trained staff, medical ethics are few and far between. In 2019 a senior nurse was struck off for falsifying 16 medical certificates. Whilst these cases are very rare, and whilst we can be proud of our NHS, a human rights Bill fit for purpose, which only allows foreign medical practitioners who meet our proud medical standards, is needed to protect patients and NHS staff. [Interruption.] I'll carry on.

In regard to maternity, treatment needs to be medically considered, but also compassionate. It is not enough for a practitioner to only give advice and treatment based on medical evidence. How a mother looks back on the birthing experience can have a massive impact on her mental health postnatally. During the pandemic, parents were often isolated from their babies, or from each other, during a very emotional time. This has obviously been very traumatic for so many people, and can often bring up past traumas. A miscarriage is the most heartbreaking event any mother can endure, but mothers who have faced this over the last two years have done so alone.

When medical procedures take place without consent, this violates the privacy of family life, and puts decision making over physical integrity and self-determination. And the use of DNAR—that is, do not attempt resuscitation—orders for certain patients without discussing it with the relatives is a breach of the NHS constitution. All this can have a huge impact on overall well-being.

But most important of all, the human rights of children must be tightened. The tragic death of Logan is a tragic case where the rights of children had not been protected by the state despite the warning signs. These include the rights of life, survival, development, health and welfare. The Welsh Government must work with local authorities to make sure this does not happen again.

In a recent ruling, the Government's policy on discharging untested patients from hospitals to care homes in England at the start of the COVID pandemic has been ruled unlawful by the High Court, which is a devastating policy failure in the modern era, and most vulnerable victims were from our elderly population. This ruling has implications for the Welsh Government, who, in the words of the First Minister, saw 'no value' in mass testing. But whilst the Welsh Government is feebly attacking the UK Government, it has failed to hold up a mirror to itself—as we point out in our amendment, Labour politicians have had the chance since the fifth Senedd to agree on an older people's rights Bill, but refuse. They say one thing but do another thing, but thanks to yourself, now it is only one thing. [Interruption.]

I've been very generous with time.

I'm sorry. I'll just finish it. Give me a second, please.

Yes, I'll give you a second.

This is important to say about Ukraine, really. We're witnessing ongoing armed conflict and the violation of international human rights, which continue to devastate the health and well-being of humanity, and the human suffering as we see live in Ukraine. We must redefine the understanding of health and the scope of their professional interest and responsibility to a right to health. Let me do one thing, at the end—let me ask you. I am interested in getting the Minister's response to the fact that article 8 of the convention allows rights for those who have been convicted of child sexual abuse; what about the rights and safety of children to live without the fear of exploitation? Thank you very much.

Plaid Cymru is proud to co-submit this motion, and agrees with the Welsh Government that this Parliament needs to send a clear message today that we oppose these efforts to limit the rights of the people of Wales and to undermine our efforts to ensure fairness, equality and justice for the people of our nation. We further agree that serious constitutional issues arise as a result of the UK Government's proposal to reform the Human Rights Act.

This motion today refers to a number of pieces of legislation that have been passed or are in the pipeline that need to be considered together, because in considering them together and the way in which they come together, that's how we see the bigger picture, the wider agenda, the very concerning direction of travel, which is very dangerous and characterises the reactionary Government of Boris Johnson. There is no doubt at all that, together, they represent a deliberate attempt to weaken the rights of the people of Wales and the people of the wider United Kingdom.

The current UK Government threatens and limits rights and undermines equality and justice, and the legislative proposals that are mentioned in the motion before us today are clear proof of that. How can one justify, how can any Member of Parliament not oppose plans that have been called a very real threat to the way in which citizens can challenge those in power? How on earth, as we watch the heroism of the people of Ukraine, those opposing the illegal war of autocrat Putin and his authoritarian regime, literally fighting on the streets, literally sacrificing their lives and their freedoms for the principle that people should have the right to protest, the right to stand up to power and the right to justice?

We have already discussed in this place how the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 will undermine the rights of asylum seekers and refugees, how it will weaken defences for people who are defenceless. The Government's own consultation document on the reform of the Human Rights Act notes quite clearly that reforming the Act should lead to an increase in expulsions. This is an ideology that is entirely contrary to the will of the majority of the people of Wales, in light of what they see and the horrors suffered by the people of Ukraine and others across the world suffering persecution. How, as we remember our own history, the protests, the fight for rights that led ultimately to ensuring that the people of Wales had a stronger voice and more powers over our own lives, which ensured the establishment of our own Parliament?

I chair the Senedd's cross-party group on human rights, and we held a meeting this morning to discuss the motion and the implications of the reforms to the Human Rights Act. Altaf Hussain, you were there, but I don't think you were listening. The consensus among the group's members, who are among Wales's foremost experts on human rights legislation, on the rights of groups such as women, disabled people, and in the field of housing and local services, their consensus was that this reform—so-called reform—is unnecessary and the proposals are likely to lead to regression in the protection and fulfillment of human rights in Wales, and with a potential to hamper progress on equality and social justice in Wales. 

Earlier this year, the human rights stakeholder group, the equality and human rights coalition, the Wales Council for Voluntary Action and Wales Governance Centre held a stakeholder engagement round-table to discuss the UK Government's consultation. Thirty-eight civic society and academic stakeholders were present, many of whom are members of the Senedd's cross-party group on human rights. They were also in agreement that there is no mandate for repeal and that reform will reduce access to justice and the accountability of the UK Government and public authorities. And the firm conclusion was that this should not apply in Wales. We must not let the ideologically driven and flawed reasoning of the UK Government for passing these Bills and for reforming the Human Rights Act to weaken our determination or lessen our ambition to strengthen human rights in Wales. It is imperative that Wales maintains its current progressive course as regards advancing human rights practice and incorporation, and increasing connections between international and domestic human rights law. Given the context set out in the motion, the Welsh Government should accelerate its work on establishing a Welsh bill of rights, and I'm glad to hear the plans announced by the Minister for legislation. The repression of human rights goes against everything we believe here in Wales, and our collective aim to be a nation of sanctuary.

We often talk about the need to learn the hard lessons of the pandemic. The pandemic has undoubtedly shown that the rights of minority groups are particularly at risk at times of crisis. The 'Locked out' report on the experiences of disabled people during lockdown shows clearly why rights must be strengthened, Altaf Hussain, not weakened. It made it clear to us how we can use the Human Rights Act to challenge and create change. 

This isn't a dry legal constitutional issue. It'll affect the lives of the people of Wales, those we want to welcome to Wales, and our ability as those who legislate on behalf of the people of Wales to ensure a fairer, more equal Wales for everyone who lives here.

It's a great pleasure to follow Sioned. 

Sioned chaired that group this morning, the cross-party group on human rights. It was fascinating, actually, listening to the discussion. And the points that I want to make—normally I'm restrained a little bit, Llywydd, in making these points, because normally I stand as the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, and I'm very dry, and so on. I'm going to try and be equally dispassionate today, but I didn't struggle, I have to say, to find material that was universally in opposition to some of the cumulative changes that we are now seeing being put in front of us, some of which have gone through already. And I go back to that principle that I think we all believe in somewhere, deep down, that human rights are universal. In which case, none of us can argue that they should differentiate between different groups or different individuals. We just can't do that; it's basic stuff there.

But also, human rights put power in the hands of the otherwise powerless. That's what it's all about, and that's why Government are rightly fearful of them, and so they damn well should be as well, because what human rights do is they put Mick Antoniw, Jane Hutt and others, and those in the UK Government and in the European Parliament—it puts them on notice that the citizen, the individual, the dispossessed, the disadvantaged, the powerless individuals and groups and organisations, the minority groups, can equally come with the weight of the law on their side and challenge Governments nationally and internationally as well.

Will you take an intervention?

I will indeed, Darren.

Thank you for that. I've read the UK Government's consultation document on its reform of human rights and its need to modernise the human rights legislation here in the UK. I can't see anything that is going to strip rights away from people. We're going to remain a signatory of the UN convention on human rights, and it seems to me perfectly sensible to have a conversation with people to try and get people's views, and then to come up with a piece of legislation. It hasn't published a draft Bill yet. How is it that you seem to be able to look into a crystal ball and determine exactly what it's going to say? You don't, do you? So, how are you saying these things with such confidence?

Well, because it's not only me saying them, Darren. In fact, it's not me—if it was me, I'd dismiss it entirely out of hand; I'm just the Member of Senedd for Ogmore. But, actually, the Equality and Human Rights Commission itself have looked at it, and they haven't said complete opposition, but what they have said is—and this is a quote from them; you've had this as well—there is no compelling case for reform of the Act. It's working well. Its provisions maintain a high degree of parliamentary sovereignty. Instead, the UK Government's focus, they say, should be on improving public understanding of human rights and the HRA, strengthening access to justice and for human rights breaches, and improving human rights practice. They go on to say that any substantial change to the HRA should be the product—including the devolved administrations—of an inclusive and in-depth consultation. They go on further to say that it should reflect the views and needs of all interested groups, including disabled people and so on. And it flags up—the Equality and Human Rights Commission flags up, not me, Darren, not me—that changes to the Act risk having significant implications for devolution settlements across the UK, as it forms a core pillar of each.

But even now, we turn to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which has now Royal Assent; it is now law. Now, they also raise, Darren, their significant concerns about that, which they've raised all the way through the process, the amendments that were ignored by the UK Government, with every voice turned against them, but they went ahead with it. It's now on the statute book. I honestly wonder, Darren, would the Greenham Common protesters have been able to continue in the way that they did? Would other protest groups be able to do it? So, that's why it's not me but it's other informed observers. And of course, within this Senedd as well, we have had multiple rehearsals of the argument about the impact of this on minority groups, including Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities—their right to assemble and so on. So, all of these things, Darren, mean that it's not me actually raising this; it is others, who are very well informed.

Let me just turn to one other, then, to try and answer your question. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in terms of the third piece that I want to turn to of this particular jigsaw, the Nationality and Borders Act, the UNHCR itself, has said that this Act undermines the refugee convention that the UK helped to draft itself in the wake of the second world war. So, it's not me, Darren, raising these concerns.

So, I am very interested, Counsel General, in the fact that you've laid out not just an ambition now to go further here in Wales, but to really embed deeply within the way that we do this in Wales and protect human rights, in what may well be a diminishing—. And I say this, Darren, quite honestly: Governments should be rightly fearful of the human rights legislation and the principles that underpin it. It should make them tremble because of its ability to put power in the hands of others who would otherwise be powerless.

We should not in any way seek to weaken in this in any way, and I welcome the approach of the Welsh Government in saying that we will strengthen it. We will make sure that it bites in Wales, regardless of what is happening across other parts of the UK.  

I wholeheartedly agree with Huw Irranca-Davies that human rights are universal. We can't pick and choose who we believe have rights and who don't. I think that's what's fearful in a lot of this dialogue: this idea that some people are deserving of rights and some aren't, and that we can pick and choose what constitutes human rights.

As was mentioned, there is no compelling rationale or reasoning for these reforms, the three Bills that we are seeing: the Human Rights Act reform, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the Nationality and Borders Bill. I fundamentally and wholeheartedly disagree with the tone in which many Conservatives in the UK Government are conducting this review. 

Though we know that the Human Rights Act hasn't been without fault, and that not all rights are being implemented as they should, we should be listening to those who are working front-line, through the third sector and so on, who have an understanding of what is achieved through having these key protections in place for citizens that advance human rights, equality and the protection of minority groups.

There is also no issue occurring in the UK that would appropriately match the scale and the weighting of the proposals contained within the Bills. We should heed the warnings of those third sector and charity organisations, and I welcome any move if we are to strengthen here in Wales embedding human rights. We have seen warnings that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act may actually increase violence, crime and arrests as a consequence, and also may increase costs to the taxpayer, due to its harsher sentencing. It fails to focus on the causes of crime and the chronically underfunded, overly punitive and unequal nature of the justice system, and instead will exacerbate an already broken cycle.

It doesn't properly address inequalities that appear within the system, or our acutely overcrowded prisons. As we've seen, while the Human Rights Act reform is being marketed by the Conservatives as a modernisation of human rights legislation, it is little more than regression in human rights legislation, which will actually fail to provide key protections and access to justice, which a human rights Bill should do.

The Nationality and Borders Act is unlikely to break the model of people-smuggling and trafficking, or save lives or strengthen safe routes to asylum, or increase protections for refugees or survivors of modern slavery, or clear backlogs— 

Will you take an intervention?

I will, of course.

Just to talk about the record on human rights, and let's link it to the borders Act, I'm sure that you will agree with me that you were appalled with what happened to some of the people from the Windrush scandal. I was in the same room when May had to explain that to other people in the room from Jamaica, and she had quite a problem doing that. So, just in terms of their record already on human rights, before we even get to the borders Act, do you agree with me that they don't have a good story to tell?

Absolutely, and I think that's why we are concerned. I know Darren Millar was saying, 'Wait and see', but we are rightly—. We have seen the track record of the UK Government on this, and we should rightly be concerned. All these Bills go against everything we stand for here in Wales, particularly the treatment of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. It is incompatible with our desire here to be a true nation of sanctuary. They are problematic and discriminatory. They are counter to an equitable and fair society and do not help to produce a high-functioning, inclusive democracy for all.

We have said, time and time again, that we want to be an inclusive nation—a nation where everybody feels safe and feels equal. We are not there yet. But these reforms will take us further away from ensuring that everyone's human rights are enacted, and I am pleased that we are supporting this motion today.

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. 

Will you take an intervention?

I also—. No, I'm beyond time; I can't. I also want to take issue with him in using individual cases that we all know about, where children have been let down, as an excuse to remove human rights from people. I think that is sinking to the lowest determinant, and I really want to express my feelings against it.

The human rights reform by the UK Tory Government has raised profound concerns regarding our civil rights, and in particular the liberties of those from minority communities. What is very telling with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act was that it was set to be fast-tracked through Parliament in Westminster, but, obviously, to publish a 300-page Bill on a Tuesday and then hold a Second Reading the following Monday does not give Parliament enough time to scrutinise and fully assess the implications of the legislation. So, protests delayed that fast tracking—the very action the Act is now looking to restrict. Frustratingly the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act will radically restrict our freedom as citizens to stand up to the state and make our voices heard. In this very room, we don't always agree on what decisions are best for our communities, but our democracy relies on being able to have the right to express those views, for them to be scrutinised, and then come to an understanding.

The Act also enhances police powers to enforce facial recognition, fingerprint collection and other biometric surveillance without any consideration for the implications on our right to privacy, as stated in article 8 under the Human Rights Act, article 16 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and, Darren, I looked it up, it is principle 14 for the older people principles.

We must have a data collection system based around transparency and consent, but this Act would give police powers to obtain information on any one of us without the need to say why. The use and collection of data is already vulnerable to abuses. I believe this Act exacerbates that vulnerability.

We must also listen to Cardiff University's Data Justice Lab's concerns about what could lead to citizen scoring, when citizens are given scores that combine data from online and offline activity to categorise citizens, allocate services and predict future behaviour. Because let's make no mistake: the UK Government does plan to use algorithms for automated risk profiling. Algorithms are not created in a vacuum; they can be imbued and they are imbued with prejudice and bias, as with any other kind of categorisation and profiling. How do we know that people from ethnic minority communities won't be profiled and categorised to further expose them to intrusive practices, that those from lower income households won't be put in a category 'likely to commit crime'? Will people be profiled according to their protected characteristics without their knowledge? Because data may theoretically be neutral, but the how and why it is collected and used never is.

Open Rights Group, in their response to this Tory human rights reform, pointed out that fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany were both a result of Governments using their majorities in Parliament to subvert democratic order. Our human rights depend on the protection of democracy, freedom of speech and transparency about the information that Governments collect from us. And I will take every opportunity in this Senedd and fight until my dying breath to fight the dangerous ideology that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. It comes from a place of privilege; it is an ideology that is always used by the oppressor. Any impact on the human rights of anybody is an attack on us all. The provisions of these reforms will affect everyone.

Opposition to these reforms by the public has been massive. We must listen to experts, to campaigners and to those who will be most impacted. I agree with what Open Rights Group wrote in their response that this reform needs to go back to drawing board, and I agree with Welsh Government today that UK Government must reverse its aggressive approach to human rights.

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

Llywydd, if adopted, the Nationality and Borders Act

'would seriously undermine the protection of the human rights of trafficked persons, including children, increase risks of exploitation faced by all migrants and asylum seekers, and lead to serious human rights violations.'

'The bill fails to acknowledge the Government's obligation to ensure protection for migrant and asylum seeking children, and greatly increases risks of statelessness, in violation of international law'.

And it

'dismantles a core protection of democratic societies and pushes vulnerable people into dangerous situations.' 

And people

'who have experienced gender-based violence can be turned away from the UK rather than be allowed to seek and find safety.'

Well, Llywydd, this is the assessment of five independent United Nations human rights experts—five UN experts who have issued the most grave and heart-wrenching warning. And we've heard the strength of support evidenced today in this Chamber as to what this would mean for the people that we represent. A warning that, as we've heard, the Conservatives don't acknowledge and would prefer to simply dismiss, but, of course, we can't dismiss those.

Before we even get to the proposals to repeal human rights legislation, what we've heard today, from powerful speeches, is that this attack on human rights is already happening and already in place. It's been driven through by the UK Government with the legislation that we've debated this afternoon, not just the Nationality and Borders Act, which was passed last Thursday despite widespread opposition to it, but also the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. And we've heard again of the fact that that, as the motion says, undermines the rights of minority communities and jeopardises the right of lawful and peaceful protests. The Counsel General made this quite clear in terms of what this means for our democracy and what we are seeing in terms of Putin's Russia as well. [Interruption.] These are warnings on ideological moves that we have today, stripping away our human rights.

Thank you, Minister, for giving way to a brief intervention. There was a time, and I alluded to this previously, in the aftermath of the second world war, when there was a strong cross-party consensus on not just the importance of human rights, but particularly in terms of refugees. And you now have the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees saying that transferring

'refugees and asylum seekers to third countries in the absence of sufficient safeguards and standards'— is—

'contrary to the letter and spirit of the Refugee Convention', which we jointly put together in the United Kingdom. We supported it, we helped craft it, and now it is splitting asunder because the lack of universal support for it. Would she join me in appealing to all Members here, but also in the UK Parliament who might be listening to this, to say, 'We need to get that consensus back and stand behind the refugee convention in letter and spirit'?

We need to make that absolutely clear, as you say, Huw Irranca-Davies. And we have made this clear in this Chamber. I have to say that we had a moment of consensus earlier on, in response to the opening speech, when Darren Millar said that he did welcome the fact that we were looking at how we could incorporate UN conventions into Welsh law. And I recall responding to your debate—we've had them across this Chamber, where we want to incorporate UN conventions. And in fact, as I said, not just the ones we've announced in our programme for government, particularly the rights of persons with disabilities, crucially, and I think, Jenny Rathbone, I recall last week, the convention on the elimination of all discrimination against women. We'd want support for all of these incorporations, and as you say today, you want to see that in terms of older people's rights, but also the convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, as well as all the rights of children, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is actually reflected in so much of our legislation. But the fact is that this is very contradictory, that view, I have to say, Darren, to what the UK Government is doing at present.

Can I just say thank you for the fact that Sioned Williams is chairing the cross-party group on human rights and how important it was that you met today and had that discussion? And from civic society, the Counsel General and I have met with the civic society on a number of occasions, including meeting with the Human Rights Consortium. And I know that, across this Chamber, including our Welsh Conservatives, you do listen to the civic society. So, do you listen to Rhian Davies of Disability Wales and Charles Whitmore of the Wales Council for Voluntary Action and the Wales Governance Centre who said, when we met with them to discuss the horrors of this human rights consultation, that more than ever, stakeholders in Wales want to see rights and protections enhanced? This should be a debate about enhancing equality and advancing human rights, which is what we want to do as a Welsh Government.

And also, I would say, in response to Altaf Hussain as well, a strong response from all the children's commissioners for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, that the proposals set out in the UK Government's consultation paper will significantly weaken the protection of children's rights in the UK. And thank you, Joyce, for again showing what we have done in terms of protecting and enhancing the rights of children, which we are proud of in terms of banning the physical punishment of children.

So, Llywydd, this is an important debate and I would like to thank Plaid Cymru and all Members for their contributions. It does allow us to state clearly our commitment to human rights, our determination to guard against their erosion. And we can hope, only, that the Conservatives here and in Westminster will take heed of the concerns we've raised today, and on the countless occasions in the past that we've raised this, that they will do the right thing to protect people in times of peril, who turn to us for safety, to protect our democracy and to protect, in Wales particularly, our reputation as a compassionate and caring nation of sanctuary. Diolch yn fawr.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we will defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.

Which brings us to voting time. So, I am going to call a short break whilst we make technical preparations for that vote.

Plenary was suspended at 17:08.

The Senedd reconvened at 17:13, with the Llywydd in the Chair.