Plenary

Thank you, First Minister. The next item is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the Trefnydd to make that statement. Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. There are a few changes to this week's business. Firstly, the Minister for Economy will make a statement on border controls as the next item of business. Secondly, the Business Committee has agreed to reduce the time allocated to questions to the Senedd Commission and cancel the short debate, as no topic was tabled tomorrow.

Draft business for the next three weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Minister, I would like you to secure a statement from the Deputy Minister for Social Services, for her to respond to Professor Donald Forrester, who has called for a review of children's social work in Wales following the death of Logan Mwangi. The professor told BBC Wales that, across the UK, there has been quite a number of child deaths requiring reviews with the involvement of social services. According to the professor, there should be an independent review in Wales, similar to those that are being undertaken in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These matters are incredibly important, and I would urge the Minister to set out a response. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, the Member referred to the Logan Mwangi case, which is obviously a tragic case, and our thoughts are absolutely with everyone affected by Logan's death. I think what is really important now is that the child practice review and the planned inspection by Care Inspectorate Wales are completed before the Minister makes any statement.

Trefnydd, I'd like to ask for a statement by the Minister for Climate Change giving us an update on the work on the south Wales metro. With the work going ahead in a number of areas across the region I represent, I have to admit that citizens have had a shock about the impact that the work is having on them. A number have spoken to me and written to me complaining that the noise is keeping them awake at night, which then impacts on their working day and the education of their children, and they ask why this work doesn't happen mainly during the day. It would be good to know how the work is going, and how the complaints of residents are being dealt with to ensure that any impact on their sleep in particular is being minimised as much as possible whilst this vital work is going ahead.

Thank you. There's a great deal of work being undertaken at the current time, as you've referred to, in relation to the south Wales metro and indeed the north Wales metro. You raise some concerns—specific concerns, sorry—from constituents. I think it would be more appropriate to write to the Deputy Minister for Climate Change and get him to look into those.

I would like to ask for two Government statements. Firstly, many of my constituents were seriously concerned regarding a remark made by Jacob Rees-Mogg about the future of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea. I want to stress the importance of the DVLA to Swansea and the wider community. This was how the 1960s Labour levelling-up worked, by moving a Government department out of London. Can the Welsh Government make a statement on the importance of Westminster Government-funded bodies in Wales?

Secondly, I would like to ask a question on supply teachers. As someone who has continually asked about the public sector provision of supply teachers, I have long believed that supply teachers are being badly treated. I was very pleased to see the proposed action in the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru agreement. I would like a Government statement on when and how the option for a more sustainable model of supply teaching, with fair work at its heart, which would include local authority-led and school-led initiatives, is going to be implemented.

I thank Mike Hedges. I think you make a really important point around UK Government departments, and indeed Welsh Government departments, being outside of the capital. And I think what you're really right to point to is the important stimulus role that Government and its partners in the wider public sector can play in supporting that regeneration and economic renewal through strategic deployment of staff and offices as part of a place-based strategy. It's something the Welsh Government has tried really hard to support over the last few years, and you'll be aware, recently, that the new Transport for Wales office, for instance, is in Pontypridd, which really helped kick start regeneration in that area, and, indeed, of the location of the Development Bank for Wales headquarters in my own constituency of Wrexham, which we hope will grow further in the next few years. I think, as we move out of the pandemic, the opportunities for more of this practice to take place—. And we do absolutely recognise the importance of the DVLA in Swansea. It's been a vital economic support for Morriston and the wider area through the economic footprint it's had there.

In relation to your question around supply teachers, the Minister for Education and Welsh Language is sitting next to me, and is very happy to come forward with a statement.

Minister, may I ask for a statement from the education Minister about accountability and the rights of parents in schools in Wales? The reason I ask for this is because I'm dealing with a case on behalf of a constituent whose daughter suffers from anxiety and is currently waiting to be assessed by the child and adolescent mental health service. The pupil has been excluded from school as a result of an incident that took place, although there's no proof that she was involved or even, indeed, responsible for this. My constituent has been told his daughter must attend the Bridge Achievement Centre in Newport, but there is no place for her at present, and she has to continue her education online. This is totally against the wishes of the parent, who does not believe that this is in her best interest and wishes her to continue to attend school, pending the assessment of CAMHS. The school has refused to consider its decision to exclude this child and, when I contacted Newport City Council's education department, I was told this is a school-based issue and not a matter for the local authority to comment on. So, Minister, can I ask for a statement from the Minister on accountability of local education departments for the decisions made by their schools and what rights parents have if their judgment of what is best for their child differs from the school's? Thank you.

Again, I think it would be more appropriate if you wrote to the Minister for Education and Welsh Language. It's a very specific concern that you raise.

I'd like a statement, please, outlining what work is happening cross-Governmentally to address the hormone replacement therapy shortage in the UK. I've been contacted by constituents who are deeply concerned about this and filled with dread at the prospect of how they'll cope if they are not able to manage their menopause symptoms. Trefnydd, we don't talk enough about the menopause. There's still a stigma that means that too many women's concerns are ignored or they're not taken seriously, and they can go through debilitating symptoms, not just hot flushes or problems sleeping, but pain and anxiety that affects how they live their lives.

A recent survey found that one in 10 women who've worked through the menopause left their job because of their symptoms, and the current HRT shortage will be making countless women's lives more acutely stressful. Now, I realise that the UK Government has responsibility for maintaining the supply of medicines, but I understand that the Welsh Government is working cross-Governmentally to help ensure women continue to receive prescriptions. I'm sure women across Wales would welcome a statement from the Government updating us all on the progress that's being made across the UK to combat the HRT shortage.

Thank you, and I think Delyth Jewell raises a very important point, which affects, obviously, many of our constituents. I know, certainly, with my MS hat on, I've received representations. I think you're quite right, people don't recognise the menopause in the way it should be recognised. I'm very pleased Welsh Government has just appointed one of our officials to be the menopause champion, and I know I and other colleagues in Cabinet will be engaging with her to see what more we can do to raise awareness around this issue.

I will ask the Minister for Health and Social Services—she's not in the Chamber, but I will certainly ask her—if she can provide an update on discussions across all UK Government administrations. As you say, it is the UK Government's responsibility, but, if there is anything that she feels that is worthy of updating Members, I will ask her to do so.

I thank the Trefnydd.

The next item, therefore, is the statement by the Minister for Economy on border controls, and I call on the Minister to make his statement. Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'd like to update Members on the future of border controls in Great Britain.

Following my written statement recently on 28 April, last week, Members will recall that I made a previous statement to the Senedd in January of this year on the UK Government’s plans for documentary, identity and physical checks on goods at border control posts from 1 July this year and how we planned to implement them here in Wales.

A very short meeting, called at short notice by the UK Government to meet with other devolved Governments, took place on 27 April. The meeting lasted no more than half an hour. At this meeting, I was informed that the further introduction of border controls would be suspended until the end of 2023 and that the UK Government would be accelerating its programme to digitise Britain’s borders. I’m disappointed to say that this is something that was not discussed beforehand at ministerial level with devolved Governments.

The UK Government Minister for Brexit Opportunities, Jacob Rees-Mogg, stated in his written statement to the UK Parliament on 28 April that the introduction of border controls threatened to increase pressure on already hard-pressed businesses and consumers, who are dealing with the rising cost of living and increased energy prices. It also risked causing disruption at our ports and to supply chains, increasing food and commodity prices for consumers and businesses even further, at the very worst possible time.

Whilst I agree these changes will go some way to easing those pressures, I am sure the majority of Members will agree with me that the UK Government should be doing far more to deal with the cost-of-living crisis. I repeat our calls from the Welsh Government for the UK Government to bring forward practical measures without delay to support people, businesses and communities.

Deputy Llywydd, I've made it clear to UK Ministers that the Welsh Government would need time to consider the full implications of the UK Government’s very recent decision and its impact upon Wales. Specifically, we need to understand the UK Government's detailed proposals on how to treat goods from the island of Ireland. Just as importantly, we need to work together on how to ensure biosecurity. We know, of course, of the dreadful consequences of an outbreak of animal or plant disease.

In addition, the Welsh Government needs urgent sight of draft legislation that the UK Government plan to bring forward, which must come into force before 30 June. This is key to determining whether we will need to introduce our own legislation for Wales, and there is now very little time left in order to do so. I call again on the UK Government to work with us urgently to end this uncertainty. This is essential for the Welsh Government and this Senedd to discharge our responsibilities in line with our established democratic procedures.

Until we understand more detailed proposals, I am unable to comment on the impact of the announcement on our work programme, expenditure or other commitments for the future. I have already set out to Members that this Government believes that any expenditure on border controls, following our exit from the European Union, should be funded by the UK Treasury. If anything, this new announcement adds to the strength of our position. UK Government decisions have determined the form of our departure from the European Union. UK Government decisions continue to directly affect devolved responsibilities with cost consequences. I am afraid that we do not yet know whether this latest policy shift will affect the UK Government's existing commitment to fund the necessary costs of building border control posts.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the last few months has been incredibly frustrating for the Welsh Government, for our ports and for Welsh businesses. I'm afraid to say that whilst we have been planning for the introduction of border controls, we've been hampered throughout due to a vacuum of information. There have been repeated postponements of joint meetings with the UK Government and the other devolved Governments in this area, whilst UK Ministers have still failed to respond to my most recent letter, from March this year.

On behalf of the Conservatives, Paul Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank the Minister for his statement this afternoon? I appreciate that the decision to introduce import control checks has been scrapped quickly and without meaningful dialogue with Governments across the UK, and so, as a result, the Welsh Government has not had a huge amount of time to really consider the implications for Wales. Nevertheless, I'm grateful to the Minister for bringing this statement forward so that Members can attempt to better understand the situation and what it means, going forward. And for the record, Dirprwy Lywydd, I believe that there should be appropriate checks at our borders, and I hope that this matter can be progressed as soon as possible by the UK Government. But as I understand it, the UK Government has decided that now is not the right time to make further changes to import control checks at the border, following a consultation with industry, in order to alleviate the increased pressure on already hard-pressed businesses and consumers. I'd be very interested to know what representations, though, were made by the Welsh Government over the last few months regarding this matter. Today's statement, of course, refers to the rising cost of living and increased energy prices, so perhaps the Minister could tell us what specific representations he has made to the UK Government ahead of its decision to scrap import control checks.

Now, as today's statement notes, the UK Government is intending to publish a target operating model in the autumn, and that model will be subject to consultation with industry and devolved administrations. This means that there is time to make representations to the UK Government about what the future system should look like and how it should operate. Therefore, perhaps the Minister could tell us what the Welsh Government believes the model should look like, and could he confirm what discussions he is holding with stakeholders in Wales about what they want to see from the new model?

The Minister will be aware that the UK Government's decision has been welcomed by some. For example, SEF Langdon's has said that the change in policy towards a smarter digital border by the UK Government will allow the free flow of safe food products into Great Britain and that the decision may lead to a return of more EU companies exporting to the GB market, increasing competition and ultimately lowering prices for the consumer. And so, I suppose that there is an opportunity right now to shape longer term policy and get this model right in a way that works with businesses and ensures a good deal for consumers too. Naturally, there have been costs incurred as a result of the work done to date to establish border control posts in Wales, most notably in Holyhead, and today's statement estimates that, to date, £6 million has already been spent. However, if import control checks are introduced at a later date and prices have increased, it may be that more costs could be incurred in the future. Therefore, can the Minister tell us the Welsh Government's approach to budgeting for this in the future, given that a decision to reintroduce them later down the line could be made just as quickly as the decision was made to scrap them?

I thank the Member for the series of questions, which I'll try to answer as rapidly as possible. In terms of the representation the Welsh Government has made to the UK Government on the cost of living, and border policy on the cost of living, we've run through this several times in the Chamber. In direct conversation that has taken place within this Government, but also representations made to the UK Government, you'll have heard the regular calls for a windfall levy on the excess profits in privatised utilities, and much of the First Minister's questions today were taken up with the points around the cost-of-living crisis.

On borders, my frustration is that we have tried to engage with UK Ministers on the rapidly evolving situation, and we have not made progress because there has not been a willingness to engage with us, as the Member recognised in his opening, and recognised that meaningful dialogue has not taken place with devolved Governments. I've indicated that my recent letter was to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 24 March, and I still haven't had the courtesy of a response.

In terms of what the future model should look like, well, we're really, in many ways, interested, with, of course, devolved responsibilities, around sanitary and phytosanitary checks—essentially, plant and animal health, and products based on them. Now, the difficulty, in terms of what the future model will look like, is that that's all been put off. We were going to have a model, we were looking to spend money on creating border control posts, and in many ways it was worse than in England, with more money having been spent on both recruiting staff and also creating physical facilities. We were due to be letting a contract to Kier construction, which I've announced publicly before, to create permanent facilities in Holyhead in spring 2023. We're now not sure if we're going to go ahead with those, because we don't have the certainty on what we're going to need to create to maintain what should be an effective and coherent system across Britain for imports. So, I can't honestly tell you what the new model will look like because we haven't had those discussions and the UK Government haven't given us a clear idea what they think a new model should look like, other than it will be technology based. That's why we can't engage in detail with stakeholders following the announcement. It's also why I can't tell you about your further question about the new technology to ease the flow of goods, and an update on it. We've only been told it will be technology, not what the technology is, not how far advanced it is, nor even how it could be procured, nor even what the cost would be for nations within the UK for a new form of system. Because, actually, we have devolved responsibilities, but there's a great deal of sense in having a common approach in each part of the UK. And it goes on to the point you made about African swine fever that I'll come to. So, we want to be collaborative, but it does require people to talk with us, to share information and for there to be genuine engagement on what a technology answer will be and how much it can do. It could speed up the flow of some goods, but, actually, there may well be limits.

And it comes to some of the points that you have made on swine fever, for example. We currently have destination checks on 5 per cent of livestock coming in. That means 19 out of 20 aren't checked at destination. There have, though, in conversation—you asked me about conversation with the chief vet and with Lesley Griffiths, in her role as Minister for rural affairs—. I had a conversation last week with Lesley Griffiths and I spoke with the chief vet this morning, and, indeed, we are aware that some of those destination checks are revealing challenges. Now, the challenge is that, actually, currently in continental Europe, there are more risks. The destination checks pick up some of those but not all of them. So, actually, from a biosecurity point of view, having checks at borders is more important because we have left the European Union. And, as the British Veterinary Association have pointed out, we now no longer have access to the early surveillance and warning system that EU member states have; they have an integrated and highly responsive surveillance system that we're not part of. And we don't then have the border control checks to try to add to our own protections now we're not part of that system—we don't have a line of sight in it. So, we actually have a worsened position in not being part of that without, then, creating the import infrastructure to provide greater protection for farming communities. I know the Member will be aware of that from his own constituency.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. I couldn't quite believe that I was being given that briefing by the Minister and his officials last week, and I'm very grateful for that briefing. But to be fair, I don't think the Minister could believe that he was giving the briefing on such a sudden change of heart when it came to border facilities. I happen to represent the second busiest roll-on, roll-off ferry port in the UK, a major, major Welsh exporting hub, so I've followed pretty closely the development of border infrastructure.

Even where we have seen infrastructure being set up already, with the HMRC post, it comes with new problems in its wake. Of course, new jobs are always welcome, and supporters of Brexit will hail the jobs that have been created in Holyhead at the HMRC border post, ignoring the loss of jobs, including in Holyhead, due to our departure from the European Union. I get visions of that Brexit bus when here we see again the truth about Brexit savings really becoming so clear.

The Minister mentions the £6 million spent by Government, maybe he can tell us how much has been spent by local government, which has even less resource and is having to develop port health authorities as a result of our departure from the European Union. As a result of this last-minute change of heart by UK Government, without warning, without discussion, it too has its plans up in the air and is unsure what happens next. As I was saying, even with the HMRC post, we've lost a truck stop that was such an important part of the port's infrastructure. So, we are seeing problem after problem.

We have a specific issue now, though, regarding animal health, biosecurity, and it's no wonder that farming unions and the British Veterinary Association are so strong in their condemnation of the actions of UK Government in recent days. As the Minister has made clear, our farmers are having to go through checks on exports. This is not a level playing field. I wonder if the Minister can tell us what discussions are already taking place on supporting our farmers now that the uneven playing field has become even more uneven.

We have now lost the protection that came from being part of those very, very tight European surveillance systems on biosecurity. Gaps were going to be filled by the new checks that were going to be introduced. I wonder if the Minister can tell us now what precautionary measures will need to be put in place immediately now that we are falling between two stools, neither the European surveillance systems that we were a part of before or the new checks that were going to be put in place due to these new border posts. I realise the Minister is unable to give precise answers, perhaps, at this point, but I urge him to seek answers as quickly as possible.

Thank you for the comments and the questions. I'll again try to deal with all of them.

On council spend, I've given an undertaking, following discussions with ministerial colleagues, to both councils, Pembrokeshire and the Isle of Anglesey County Council, that the cost for recruitment that they were undertaking would be covered. A handful of job offers have been made on Ynys Môn, and so we'll make sure that those costs aren't passed on to council tax payers. Recruitment will be paused given the new choice that's been made. If the import controls aren't coming in, it's difficult to justify then going ahead and recruiting. So, again, that's a bigger problem for DEFRA in England, where they have recruited substantially more people. It's also a challenge for HMRC, given the people they had previously recruited and have been redeployed as well.

When it comes to the challenges around exporting businesses, not just farming but a range of others where you do know that it is not a level playing field, it's one thing to tolerate that for a period of time, and to now have it extended for nearly two years it's very easy to understand why people are upset. And, indeed, port organisations in England in particular that have spent lots of their own money, not just public money, on getting ready for checks are now unhappy that they've spent that money and that may well be passed on to people using those port facilities as well.

When we think about the way that trade flows across the island of Ireland, from Wales and across the land bridge and into continental Europe, you can see that this is a consequence that goes beyond Wales as well. That also, though, highlights the points that you make about biosecurity, about the fact that once plants and livestock are in the UK, regardless of where they have come from, they will likely travel to other parts too. Goats that may come in from continental Europe won't necessarily stay in the south-east of England. So, that's why the destination checks are a real issue.

And there's a cost point here as well. There's the point about biosecurity and about whether it is more sensible to undertake those checks at the point of import rather than at destination. I've already indicated to Paul Davies that my understanding is that about 5 per cent of those are checked at destination, so it's a sample, not every single one. It's also much more expensive to run that system as well because you need more vets going around, and greater inconvenience to go around and check at point of destination rather than being able to do that in a way that would be easier to manage for port authorities at one particular place. There's also, of course, the very practical reason that we don't have a surplus of vets. So, having enough vets to actually staff the system properly—. And I do know a thing or two about veterinary medicine, given that my father was a vet for a long period of time as well. So, I understand there's a very practical issue here about running a system effectively to deal with biosecurity and then having the people to do it effectively as well.

Minister, I too am concerned about the cost of the delay for Ynys Môn council, who may have built up employment costs and income revenue in their business plans going forward for the year, and for the construction company who, under procurement rules, will have factored in much needed local employment and apprenticeships to build the site.

If one of the reasons for delay is that the UK Government is looking at a streamlined digital border, why have they not returned the e-mails from FibreSpeed, which I and other politicians have been copied into, including the local MP? They have been informing UK Government officials that at Holyhead there is an existing Welsh Government-owned European-funded high-fibre network connection that could be utilised by any telecoms carrier or internet service provider to provide high broadband bandwidth. It will avoid any expensive installation and will allow immediate access to any data, mobile and telecom requirements. I've also raised this several times. Please, could your officials follow this up with UK Government officials because we seem to be getting nowhere with it?

And, Minister, what you've informed us today is that Jacob Rees-Mogg has made the decision to keep frictionless imports, helping foreign businesses while Welsh and British farmers and businesses that need to export are now faced with continued bureaucracy of paperwork and cost. And do you agree that this is not a level playing field, and should have been handled much better by the UK Government? And what compensation will they receive? Thank you.

Yes, I think the Member makes a number of important points, both about council staff that have already been recruited and about making sure that those contracts are honoured and those people have work to do. It's also about there having been a good bit of wasted time, energy and effort in both local authorities as well, and I doubt that the staff at Pembrokeshire authority or, indeed, in Ynys Môn are going to welcome the fact that the time that they have expended appears to have been wasted and without any certainty about when it's going to come to an end or when there's going to be a definite answer.

And also the potential for some jobs that would have been created in the construction of both temporary and permanent facilities, there's no way of giving anyone any certainty about that. But we do need to know, within a relatively brief period of time, what we are going to need to do, because if we're not going to have permanent posts in place by spring next year in Holyhead as we were planning to do, we'll need to know what the plan is for the future, what the alternative facilities are going to look like, whether we need to relet our procurement itself, which would cost more public money that the Treasury would normally be undertaking and supporting, and the inevitable point that Paul Davies has made as well about the fact that the costs would likely rise in that time.

It's my understanding that inflation tends not to stand still and, at this point in time, inflation is definitely going to increase the costs in a range of construction projects, but also the availability of the labour and the skills to undertake the build project in time, and having that time to be able to not just get facilities ready or systems ready, but crucially for businesses to be ready themselves as well. They'll need to plan for any new system too, and that takes on board your point about FibreSpeed and the infrastructure that is there already, and I'll certainly make sure that my officials do follow up with the UK Government. It comes to your point about needing to understand, in following that up, what the new system is going to be, making sure we don't duplicate and create an additional set of infrastructure that is not necessary, but actually we need to understand what the plan is going to be for the future in any event.

Without a hint of irony, Jacob Rees-Mogg talked about introducing border controls as being akin to an act of self-harm. Well, there are alternatives to the position we find ourselves in, but it was the choice that was made in the treaty that was negotiated with the European Union for how trade would work, and if there is to be an alternative choice, we all need to understand what that's going to be, when it's going to take place, and there's got to be a proper and respectful conversation with the Welsh Government so that we can properly account to this Welsh Parliament for the choices that we need to make on behalf of the people of Wales.

I thank the Minister.

Item 4 this afternoon is a statement by the Minister for Social Justice on an update on Ukraine. I call on the Minister to make her statement. Jane Hutt.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you for the opportunity, once again, to provide an update to Members on our ongoing work to support people from Ukraine who continue to flee this most cruel war in the hope of finding sanctuary. With each day that passes, we hear more and more harrowing stories including, at the weekend, when a small number of civilians were evacuated from the besieged steelworks in Mariupol through joint efforts of the United Nations and Red Cross. Putin is gradually increasing the intensity of his offensive in eastern Ukraine, bringing more innocent people into the line of fire, but they are being met by the fiercest resistance of Ukrainian forces.

We know that over 5.5 million people have fled this conflict, and I am encouraged to note that we have seen some progress in the visa approvals from the Home Office. Across the United Kingdom we have seen almost 120,000 visa applications submitted, with 86,100 issued and 27,100 arrivals. Of these arrivals, 16,000 have come as part of the Ukraine family scheme, and 11,100 as part of the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Data published on 27 April shows that 2,300 visas have been issued to people via the Homes for Ukraine scheme who have a sponsor in Wales. A total of 670 of these are via the Welsh Government supersponsor route. We are seeing a steady increase in the amount of people arriving in Wales, including to our own welcome centres, and we expect that these numbers will increase as more visas are approved and more people make plans to travel.

And while we've seen progress on the approval of visas, there are ongoing concerns that the way these visas are processed is leading to confusion and delays for those fleeing. This is particularly true for families who are unable to travel until everyone in their party has been individually granted a visa, instead of visas being considered together. For those who've been able to seek sanctuary here, it is of course crucial that we ensure the highest levels of safeguarding protections are in place. This is a concern I have raised on multiple occasions with the UK Government. It's crucial that the Homes for Ukraine scheme, though commendable in many ways—. We recognise that it includes design flaws that expose those needing sanctuary to harm. We are working tirelessly across Welsh public bodies to reduce and mitigate these risks, but we can't eliminate them entirely. We continue to raise concerns with the UK Government and intervene where possible to prevent harm, but we will not be successful in every instance.

Previous schemes, such as those to support people fleeing Afghanistan, were administered and monitored by Government, much like our supersponsor scheme in Wales. This allowed for people to be supported from the moment of arrival and for proper safeguarding procedures to be put in place. On 5 April we published guidance on how public bodies can help protect people living in households from Ukraine. We are also providing local authorities with details of people arriving from Ukraine via the Homes for Ukraine scheme, so that property and safeguarding checks can be undertaken and support services can be offered.

Our online advice is encouraging potential hosts or sanctuary seekers to use the Reset matching system, rather than more informal systems. Reset have years of experience working with refugees and sponsors in Wales and understand how to ensure some level of consistency, and to ensure safeguarding considerations are addressed. I am particularly concerned about the vulnerability of Ukrainian refugees, the majority of whom are women and children, to acts of unscrupulous people seeking to exploit and abuse.

We have also published separate guidance on safeguarding and modern slavery for local authorities and sponsors, and provided advice to welcome centre and contact centre staff. A third version of the safeguarding and modern slavery guidance is due to be published next week. I have urged the UK Government to continually review the procedures that are in place, and they have offered assurances that their helpdesk has been expanded to respond to safeguarding concerns. We are working with local authorities to explain how referrals can be made, and I continue to press the UK Government to ensure the best procedures are in place. You will also be aware that a Welsh Government helpline was launched on 28 March for people arriving in Wales from Ukraine, as well as for people who are acting as sponsors. The helpline seeks to provide advice and guidance, and it has now been expanded to a 24/7 operation to ensure there is always support available when it is needed.

I met with Lord Harrington, Minister for Refugees, and Neil Gray MSP, the Scottish Government Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development, last week, where we raised issues regarding delays, safeguarding and funding. Financial support is still not being provided for the operation of our supersponsor welcome centres, despite this offering the safest route and most comprehensive wraparound support. There will be significant unmet costs arising from the Ukraine visa schemes. In other resettlement programmes, there have been essential separate funds for healthcare and English language tuition, as well as integration funding for year 2 and year 3, none of which has yet been announced by UK Government Ministers. Unfortunately, the UK Government is not currently providing Welsh Government or Welsh local authorities with the funding necessary to be able to properly support people arriving under the family scheme. We are urging the UK Government to provide Ukrainian families with the same level of support as sponsors and Ukrainians under the Homes for Ukraine scheme.

Finally, I would once again like to thank the businesses, organisations, individuals and families across Wales who, through their generosity and efforts, continue to reflect the spirit of our country. I will close, as before, by repeating that help, advice and support is available via our free helpline for sponsors and people coming from Ukraine. Sponsors in Wales can call the 24/7 free helpline for advice. There is a warm welcome waiting in this our nation of sanctuary. Diolch.

Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch. Thank you for your statement, which is obviously becoming a weekly occurrence at the moment. Questioning you last Tuesday, I referred to your written statement update about the Homes for Ukraine scheme on 21 April. In your subsequent update on support for Ukraine last Thursday 28 April, you referred to the latest UK Government figures and stated that, as of 27 April, 2,300 visas have been issued to people from Ukraine to come to Wales via the Homes for Ukraine scheme, of which the Welsh Government is a supersponsor for 670. Overall, a total of 117,600 UK Ukraine scheme visa applications have been received, with, as you state in your statement, 86,100 visas issued and 27,100 total arrivals of visa holders in the UK.

What, therefore, is your understanding of how many have arrived in Wales so far, either in total or under the supersponsor scheme, or more broadly under the Homes for Ukraine scheme? You state that you met with Lord Harrington, UK Minister for Refugees, and with Neil Gray MSP, Scottish Government Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development, last week, where you

'raised issues regarding delays, safeguarding and funding.'

Following on from my questions relating to this last week, what further specific discussions did you therefore have with Lord Richard Harrington about reasons for the gap between growing numbers of visas issued and the increase in total arrivals and about what is being done to identify and address this?

In your update last Thursday, you also stated that a breakdown of local authorities is also available. However, this shows a huge variation in the number of visas issued, ranging from 162 in Cardiff and 153 in Monmouthshire, to an average of 63 across the six north Wales counties, to 18 in Merthyr Tydfil and just five in Blaenau Gwent. Notwithstanding the obvious difference in population size, what is your understanding of the reasons for this range, and how are you targeting support at a local level accordingly?

Questioning you last week, I noted that an anti-human trafficking organisation in Romania had told the previous day's north Wales Ukrainian response Zoom meeting that the most vulnerable people are displaced people, and that therefore the focus now is on safeguarding. In your response, you stated that you were very closely linked to those organisations doing the anti-human trafficking work. You also restated that you are developing your own safeguarding guidance, but very much working on a four-nation basis. What specific work are you therefore doing with anti-human trafficking organisations working on the ground with Ukrainian refugees in the countries they have crossed into, and what position have the four UK Governments, working together, now reached on safeguarding?

Thank you very much, Mark. I think it's important that the weekly figures that are given on a Thursday—in fact, I quoted 27 April—are figures that are shared on a four-nation basis. So, as I said in my statement, I can again confirm that 2,300 visas have been issued to people via the Homes for Ukraine scheme, those people who have got matched arrangements, family sponsorship, and have a sponsor in Wales. But, 670 of those, of the 2,300, are actually coming via the Welsh Government supersponsor route, and will come to our welcome centres. So, those are the key facts for 27 April, and obviously we'll be publishing the facts, the statistics, on Thursday for an update.

When we meet—and we've met, actually, every week, the Minister for Refugees, Lord Harrington, Neil Gray and myself—there are three issues we've talked about, and we've talked about them for two weeks running: delays—it's crucial, your point about the delay, because if these visas have been issued, why haven't we seen more arrivals—and we also looked at safeguarding, and funding as well. So, as far as the delays are concerned, there has been widespread frustration that the Minister for Refugees himself recognised, waiting for not just the—. I did mention the fact that there have been frustrations particularly where the whole family hasn't received a visa, and I think this is still the case. I think we've seen and heard in the media, and the Welsh media, examples of this happening at the moment, where there are pending applications relating to Ukrainians and not to all of the family.

As things stand, as I've said, we press the UK Government to improve processes and have less bureaucracy. The Minister for Refugees, Richard Harrington, went to Poland a couple of weeks ago, and he said there were some who have now got their visas, and they're now considering their arrangements in terms of coming to Britain, to Wales, to the UK. I have to say that there are also some who are considering whether they do want to come because of the delays and the bureaucracy. I think you've seen those reports in the press as well, which is very concerning because we should have been able to respond as quickly as those countries in the EU have been able to respond. So, we know that there are delays because of bureaucracy, because of the processes, but we were assured last Thursday by the lead official in the Home Office that they were getting more caseworkers and speeding up the process.

Safeguarding is crucial; it's a four-nation issue. We've been working together, we've been sharing examples, again, of where this has failed in terms of people going through more informal matching—perhaps arrangements breaking down in terms of the Homes for Ukraine scheme, and then going on to informal matching processes that are not safe and secure. We've had examples of what that has meant in terms of putting particularly women at risk, and that is all taken on board. So, we have got the Disclosure and Barring Service checks, working with the local authorities. We have a letter, actually; we've written to local and regional partners about DBS checks, and I can share that with you, for the chief executives and statutory partners in terms of DBS, and that relates to the health service as well.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Sioned Williams.

Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you for your statement, Minister. The attitude of the Westminster Government in relation to the appalling situation in Ukraine is entirely paradoxical. On the one hand, the people of Wales and the UK are united in solidarity with the people of Ukraine, and are united in their anger towards Putin and his illegal war and his war crimes. And the Westminster Government claims to share those strong feelings. Indeed, we heard Boris Johnson today addressing the Ukrainian Parliament.

But, despite the importance of warm words and supportive speeches, actions are more important, and Boris Johnson's Government is failing the people of Ukraine and is undermining Welsh efforts to be a nation of sanctuary. The most effective act that the Westminster Government could take to assist the people of Ukraine is not to give a speech, but to ensure that there is safe and swift passage for people to come to Wales and to the UK. Many of these people have lost loved ones, are suffering trauma as a result of the barbarism of war. What they need is love, a home and an opportunity, and our support and assistance so that they can access those things.

In listening to Boris Johnson and his Government's rhetoric, one would think that this is exactly what we are providing to Ukrainian refugees, but time and time again in politics, we see that there is a gulf between the rhetoric of those in power and their actions. And the response of the Westminster Government to the situation in Ukraine, unfortunately, is a perfect example of this. The Westminster Government, despite warm words, is letting the people of Ukraine down. The Ukrainian ambassador to the UK has called on the Home Secretary to take urgent action to improve the visa process, which, in his words, is unnecessarily long-winded and bureaucratic, leaving thousands of people powerless across mainland Europe.

And the Welsh Refugee Council has heard of the frustration of the families who do come here on the families plan rather than the Homes for Ukraine programme, and that the Welsh people offering sanctuary to them aren't qualified for the payment of £350. This is a fundamental injustice, and an example of the Home Office transferring its moral responsibility to the public, with many refugees facing challenges, as we heard, in terms of lack of support and information, language learning, and the fact that registering for schools and GPs is absurdly complex.

How is the Welsh Government going to overcome these inconsistencies in light of the tardiness of the UK Government? Two thousand three hundred visas have been allowed in Wales under the Homes for Ukraine programme. And as you mentioned, of these, 670 have been supersponsored by the Welsh Government. Scotland has seen 5,200 visas, with 3,000 of them supersponsored by the Scottish Government. This gap between the two nations is substantial. So, can the Minister explain the reason for this inconsistency between Wales and Scotland? Is the Minister confident that there is no factor beyond chance that is responsible for this?

Diolch yn fawr, Sioned. This is one of the points about meeting together, which we have done regularly over the last few weeks, myself and the Minister for Refugees, Lord Harrington, and Neil Gray, MSP, the Minister in the Scottish Government, because both myself and the Scottish Government Minister are in common cause here in saying, which we actually said right from the word go, that, actually the supersponsor route, which means that, with our commitment in Wales to support 1,000 people, skipping the need to identify individual sponsors, being sponsored directly by the Welsh Government, or the Scottish Government—.

In Scotland they're experiencing the same delays, even though they've got even more who are actually applying; they've got more numbers applying to go through their supersponsor route in terms of population proportion. That's right, but they're still having the delays that we're having. But also saying that, actually, this can really address the issue around safeguarding, because, for example, in terms of the family scheme, last week I said to the Home Office and to the Minister, 'Can you tell us how many and where the families are who've come through the family route?' They can't tell us. They do not have that information. They cannot tell us how many Ukrainian refugees have come through the family route, and there is no funding available whatsoever for families, and, actually, of course, as I said in my statistics, more have come through the family route than any other route. They got their visas first, they came through. No funding, no information, no data given to us. They can't give it, even if—. I've asked them for it. So, there are huge inadequacies in the way in which the UK Government has approached the refugee crisis.

And as I said earlier on, in the response to Mark Isherwood, if you look at the—. And here there have been some programmes, there's been press, there have been families commenting. The wonderful relationships and solidarity and support that, actually, I think we've heard about from those who've come and met Welsh families, they've met their sponsor—. So, we must recognise that there are great strengths where that works with the Homes for Ukraine arrangements. But I noticed a refugee who'd declined to come to the UK. Everything happened so quickly in Germany. It makes it very easy for Ukrainians to get benefits, get work, get support. Why aren't we in that position?

So, I have mentioned in my statement today, for the first time, a comparison with the arrangements we had, which the UK Government supported, with the Afghanistan evacuation last August, where we knew who was coming and we were able to support them. So, we continue to press on that point, because I think safeguarding is crucial. And if I can say today, if we can get that message out that it is dangerous to even contemplate or share on social media, through Facebook, any opportunities for new arrangements to take place—because it has actually led to sexual exploitation. This is what we're raising. So, I've said it's not just delays; it's delays, safeguarding and funding, which is what we press every week with the UK Government, because there are people who, in Wales, are desperate to welcome their families. We saw one last night on the BBC Wales programme. And they're desperate to come here, they're stuck, they're running out of money and we will do everything that we can to get them here and to support them.

Minister, everything you've said today in your statement reflects the experiences now of host families in my constituency. Some of these are—. They're just incredible families. They are living in terraced houses in my constituency, have not a great deal of means themselves, but have opened their homes to families from Ukraine, that they want to actually bring here right now. They are having to not only go through what they regard as an opaque system that has no transparency, that has no feedback loop at all for them or for the families whatsoever, that has delays, that is granting visas to some members of the family but not to others, but these families here in Ogmore—and it's typical across Wales and the UK—are then trying to help financially these families who are living elsewhere in other European nations who have taken them in very quickly, and are deeply frustrated.

I worry, Minister, that, actually, the footnotes on this episode have already been written, which are that we have countries within the United Kingdom, like Scotland, like Wales, that have rightly held out their arms and said, 'Come to us, come to us now. We will put in place those procedures to make sure that you are safe to do this officially through official channels', and what we're being frustrated with, and this is not a political point, it is a deeply moral point—. When people argued about taking control back of our borders, I did not think that they meant taking back control to stop refugees fleeing here to the UK, when they were in desperate need of timely intervention. That is now what's happening.

So, Minister, can I thank you for taking up representations that I've made to you on behalf of my constituents who want to open their homes right now to those families? But I urge you, Minister, to keep that argument going, because I think this is going to be an episode in which we take pride in the generosity of the people of these nations, pride in the roles of some of our devolved Governments, and, I have to say, at this moment as we stand here, feel a real deep shame in the role of the UK Government, which seems—my constituents will tell me—to have put every obstacle in place of families coming here when they really need it. That's what taking control back was.

Thank you very much, Huw Irranca-Davies. And I think that's another important reason why I need to come with my statements here, as regularly as the Llywydd and the Senedd allow me to, because we need to have that feedback. I need to have that feedback, as I've had today. All the words that have been used, 'shambolic', 'disgraceful'—it's not just a deeply moral and ethical point, it's actually hugely important about safeguarding. Because there is no control. This is about, 'You get on with it', and great if it works out, like the wonderful families who've come forward, but it's also an operational point. It's actually how you manage things so that they work. We did manage, with the UK Government, very flexibly, the Syrian refugee displacement scheme, and many of us know of all the Syrian families who've settled in our communities, and also with the Afghanistan refugee scheme in the summer. So, it's important that—and I am with my colleague from the Scottish Government—we're in common course on this as we meet with the Minister for Refugees, Richard Harrington.

But it's also very important—I'll just say, finally—that we are working with the Ukrainian community in Wales, the third sector. We're building links on the ground to reach out to people to make sure that the welcome centres—. The local authorities are not getting the funding, they're not getting even the funding we got for the Afghan refugee crisis. Local authorities are again under huge pressure in terms of meeting these needs. We need to get that right. Even though we won't get the funding, we need to get this right in every local authority area, with all our health boards, and recognise that we've got Urdd Gobaith Cymru, we've got many organisations helping us with our welcome centres, and many volunteers working to make this a nation of sanctuary, which is what Wales is.

And finally, Heledd Fychan.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. As we all unfortunately know, sexual violence and exploitation are often witnessed in wars. There are a number of reports of women being raped by Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Indeed, on 11 April the BBC broadcast devastating evidence from Ukraine on this issue. It's difficult to comprehend how appallingly these women have been treated, with soldiers from Russia telling many of them that their intention was to abuse them so badly that they wouldn't want sexual contact with any man in future, to prevent them from having children with Ukrainian parents.

A number of charities have been sending medical abortion pills and emergency contraception, the morning-after pill, to parts of Ukraine most affected. Clearly, some of the women who come to Wales for sanctuary will have faced such violence. As part of our humanitarian aid, what support has been given to women who have been raped and who remain in Ukraine, and to those who are in Wales or will come here in future?

Diolch yn fawr, Heledd Fychan, and I thank you for raising that important issue as well. The horrors—it's night after night we've seen it, the horrors of the crimes, the war crimes and the rape of women. This is something that is crucially important, that we're able to support, but also get the evidence. This is something that the Counsel General is taking up as well in terms of ensuring that we get that indictment, as it will come, in terms of the horrors of the war crimes from Russian soldiers in Ukraine.

But also you make such a key point, not only are they coming—. It's mainly women and children who are coming here as our refugees, so that means that they're coming with all that they've experienced and their loss—their menfolk are on the front line—their experiences, and with their children. But also, when they come here, they need to have access to that counselling, that support, our violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence services. Also, that makes it so important that we then can provide them with the assurance that we will safeguard them when they come to Wales.

I thank the Minister.

The next item is the statement by the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language on school attendance. I call on the Minister to make his statement—Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. We are all familiar with the challenges the pandemic has presented to our education community. One of which has been the increase in learner absence, across all year groups and across all characteristics of learners. We know there are a range of reasons or underlying causes for learner absence, and this has been further exacerbated over the last two years. This is a key finding to emerge from the review of attendance patterns, which I commissioned at the end of 2021.

To respond to this growing challenge, we will need a whole-system approach. Today, I will be outlining a number of actions that we as a Government will be taking to support the education community in supporting their learners.

There is a well-established link between attendance, attainment and well-being. My priority, above all else, is to ensure that every young person has the opportunity to reach their potential, regardless of their background. Tackling learner absence is key to this. Even before the pandemic, 10.5 per cent of secondary pupils eligible for free school meals were absent, compared to 4.7 per cent of those who aren't eligible. These figures are stark and require a national response.

The high levels of pupil absence have been a UK-wide trend, but we must be cautious about making comparisons. England's figures are based on a survey of schools with a daily response rate of only 50 to 60 per cent, whereas Wales regularly achieves close to 100 per cent of returns from its schools.

Additionally, for most of the pandemic, our data have measured 'not present'. So, every pupil is counted as absent, even if they were learning from home. This is for safeguarding reasons. So, being absent from school is not the same as being absent from learning.

First, I would like to outline a step up in our national communication to families on the importance of their child attending school. The last two years have been incredibly difficult for many families, and it's understandable why this has caused so many of them a degree of anxiety. We have remained mindful of these anxieties, but the balance of harms is now clear.

Young people need to be attending school. They need to be seeing their friends and they need to be learning in the classroom. This is vital for their well-being and for their education. We will therefore be increasing communication with parents and carers to address any concerns that they still have, and emphasise the importance of going to school.

Our emphasis on community focused schools will play a key role in responding to this challenge. Family engagement officers are vital in ensuring that positive partnerships are created and that bespoke support is offered. Schools that know their families well can ensure that measures are put in place that will help children maintain good engagement and attendance. We've recently provided £3.84 million for family engagement officers, who will establish positive relationships with parents and provide clear guidance and information on good attendance.

While fixed-penalty notices for non-attendance have been available to local authorities during the pandemic, we have generally recommended against their use. We are now at a stage where we can revert back to the previous policy, where they can be used as a last resort. We remain clear that fines are to be used in only the most extreme cases, as part of a range of options and when all efforts to engage with the family have been tried and failed, and where it is evident that there are no underlying reasons that are impacting upon attendance at school. Effective immediately, therefore, all local authorities should revert to guidance on the use of fixed-penalty notices contained within the 2013 guidance on penalty notices for regular non-attendance at school.

In recognition of the changing context, we will be updating the all-Wales attendance framework. As part of this work, I am keen that we review the definition of 'persistent' absence, which is currently considered as being more than 20 per cent absent. This is an important measure, as it is often set as the trigger for certain kinds of intervention, such as the involvement of the education welfare service. So, I believe there is merit in considering having a lower threshold for intervention, which would be accompanied with an increase in support for these services.

During the pandemic, absence has been poorest amongst year 11. To support these learners to prepare for exams, we funded the provision of targeted person-centred transition support of £1.28 million for year 11 learners to support them to progress with confidence and make informed decisions about transitions to the next steps, including further education and higher education.

I am also concerned that we should take all the steps we can to minimise the risk that a high level of absence in this group of learners could lead to a higher number shortly not being in education or training. This is why we've provided £8.5 million of dedicated transition funding to colleges and school sixth forms to support young people with their transition to the next stage of their education or career, enabling activities such as mentoring, taster sessions and additional tutoring.

Conservative spokesperson, Laura Anne Jones.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you very much for your statement, Minister. We welcome, of course, what you've outlined and what is being done so far on what is a very worrying rise in school attendance at the moment in Wales. Of course, it all comes down to, in my opinion, behaviour, choice and lack of support, and of course the mental health impact of, particularly, COVID.

As you've mentioned, the COVID impact has had a hugely significant effect on all our lives and all aspects of education in Wales. As we know, prior to the pandemic, maintained school attendance data was published annually in a form that was summarised for a whole academic year. The most recent published data for the period before the pandemic is the 2018-19 academic year. However, the data since the start of the pandemic has shown some very worrying trends. There are higher rates of absences in secondary schools, there are higher rates with primary schools, and far more absences for disadvantaged learners, those eligible for free school meals and pupils with additional learning needs, those with an special educational needs statement or on school action plus.

During the pandemic, we have seen that schools have reported to the attendance review that their attendance has been down, typically by 5 per cent and usually within a range of 2 per cent to 10 per cent. As the report highlights, some learners have established a pattern of not attending school during lockdown that they and their families are finding difficult or unnecessary to change. The review even suggests that, even after disaggregating COVID-related reasons, attendance generally has not returned to pre-COVID levels yet. This is clearly an issue. Minister, how are you going to address the issue and encourage the full return to class at at least pre-pandemic levels? Not only do we need to see a firm encouragement back to the classroom, but we need to have better safeguarding and support—mainly support—in place for those who have unexplained long-term absences.

Also, Minister, how are you going to better closely monitor long-term absences, and will you change the related trigger points for interventions to ensure absences aren't missed? It's also known from the attendance review that deteriorating absence can be a precursor to and predictor of a range of behavioural and emotional problems for learners that, if not addressed, may lead to the exclusion of these learners from school. So, really stepping in at the right time—.

And finally, Minister, it is clear that this is now a good chance to tackle truancy and our chance to make sure that students are in the classroom. So, will you undertake further research into the use of fixed-penalty notices and their impact on learner attendance patterns, improving learner experiences, now that fines are returning, to see if they are actually working or not? However, what is clear, though, is that, prior to the pandemic, one of the best ways for improving attendance was based on an acknowledgement that attendance will improve if learners want to come to school and if they find what is offered engaging, interesting and relevant to them, and, of course, obviously, since the pandemic, whether the support's been there or not. I know as I've been going around south-east Wales recently, I've met a lot of pupils that have found it difficult to get back into school, purely because of the mental health impact of the pandemic and the struggles that they had.

I thank Laura Anne Jones for her questions and I think she makes some very, very important points in her contribution, if I may say. I think it is right, as she says, that this is a set of challenges where moving from a pandemic to an endemic state in terms of the school system's response to COVID is absolutely not going to guarantee that we revert to the levels of attendance that happened before COVID. That is absolutely clear, and I absolutely endorse the point that she made that the Government must have a range of levers available to support the system, but that we will make most progress in continuing the approach that we've adopted throughout, which is to support families, support learners to come back into school, so I wholeheartedly agree with those points that she makes.

There is a challenge, obviously, in asking schools, effectively, to grapple with a new set of challenges here, and that is what this entails. So, I hope that the additional investment in relation to the family engagement officer workforce will, as I expect, be valuable and be welcomed. It's through the work of that workforce, that part of our professional workforce, which is around establishing positive relationships with parents, with carers, with learners themselves, providing clear guidance, a clear set of expectations, but also the kind of reassurance that goes with that, and also understanding that, as we have said many times in this Chamber, the experience of individual learners over the last two years is individual to them, isn't it, and I think insofar as we can, to reflect that and to have a kind of bespoke approach tailored to the needs of individual families as far as that's possible.

She asked about the trigger points—I think that was the term that she used—and we will be looking at some of those, including, as I mentioned in my statement, the definition of persistent absence. I worry that is possibly set at too high a level at this point, and so the sorts of interventions that we will need ought to be available— ought to be triggered, if you like—at a lower level of absence, I think, than perhaps they might be otherwise, so I've asked for work to be done to look at that. As you will have seen, that's a recommendation in the report itself.

I do think the link between absence and mental health and well-being is both cause and effect, if you like; I think it has a complex relationship with well-being. And so the work that we are already doing, but building on, in terms of the whole-system approach to emotional and mental well-being, needs to be very mindful of that link and of that connection.

She raised the point in particular around the experience of learners with additional learning needs. We are looking at—. We're going to revise or revisit our guidance on exclusions. We've already commissioned some research from universities to help us understand the connection between exclusion and various characteristics, including additional learning needs, and we'll be working during the course of this year on amending that guidance to provide a more useful tool, reflecting the last two years.

On behalf of Plaid Cymru, Heledd Fychan.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's wonderful to see so many young people watching us today in the Chamber—a warm welcome to you.

We all know how important school attendance is in terms of children and young people's attainment and well-being, as you noted in your statement. And as one who was in the past a school governor with responsibility for school attendance, I know how challenging it can be for schools, and that teachers across the country are trying all sorts of diverse approaches to ensure that school attendance levels are as high as possible.

It's important to bear in mind that there are very valid reasons why some children don't attend school. I met a parent who wanted her children's school to scrap a system that rewarded attendance because one of her children had a medical condition that meant that he missed a number of school days because of medical appointments and treatment. Her child felt a failure because of the ongoing messaging within the school on the importance of school attendance and cried if they had to miss a day's school—something that had to happen on a weekly basis.

I'm pleased to hear the Minister, in terms of the fixed-penalty notices, emphasising that a valid reason would need to be taken into account. Can I ask, therefore, what assessment has been made of the efficacy of the fixed-penalty notice system, and whether any changes have been made to the guidance published in 2013? Because, after all, we have heard stories about parents being given a fixed-penalty notice despite the fact that they have valid reasons.

The Prosecuting Parents report said that prosecuting parents can be pointless and damaging. The majority that responded to a survey from Prosecuting Parents noted, because of their children's attendance, most refused to go to school because of behavioural, neurological or, as has been referred to, mental health problems, and that they had had problems in getting CAMHS appointments and so forth, and relevant support for their children. Every parent that responded to that survey wanted to see their children attend school, but they said that it was often impossible, because the response was so extreme in terms of fear and anxiety, failure to sleep, self-harm and so on, that it was very traumatic for those parents and carers in trying to get those children to school. And also the children were bullied, sometimes because of their inability to go to school, because of a medical condition and so on. I do think that it's extremely important that we do get this right as you encourage local authorities to give fixed-penalty notices once again. We can't be punishing parents and carers in this situation when there is grave need for more services to support these children and young people.

I thank Heledd Fychan for those questions. There is nothing in the statement that I made that suggests that the important issues that she raised in her comments should be ignored. It is, of course, important that we tailor the way that we respond to these challenges according to the circumstances of individual pupils and the situations of the different families, and she gave many examples and there are several other valid examples that describe the complex relationship, perhaps, in various contexts between presence and absence and the different factors that she talked about.

One of the main changes from the guidance in 2013—there hasn't been any change to the guidance itself—is to support schools to be able to provide that more supportive approach, to collaborate with families to do what reflects the circumstances of that specific family. So, the additional investment has been made with the intention of creating more capacity and expertise and ability within our schools to be able to make that response. I just want to be clear: she said in her statement about the fact that we encourage local authorities to do this. That's not what I'm doing today, I'm just saying that there's an opportunity to go back to the guidance that we had pre COVID. It's very important that this happens as part of a range of steps that local authorities and schools can take. And as I said in my response to Laura Anne Jones, we have to support and collaborate, and that is the most constructive way for the majority of people to ensure that their children are present in school.

She makes an important point in terms of the costs of the school day. The Member will know, of course, that we have taken several steps to support those families who have greatest difficulty in affording some of those main cost elements with regard to the school day, and we have also provided further guidance in collaboration with the third sector to ensure that schools do have specific guidance in terms of how to decrease the important risk that she talked about, and that that happens. The experience of knowing that you can't afford, as she said, a costume or to attend school on specific days, that is, of course, a concern to many families. So, it is important that schools do respond to those guidelines.

Just to conclude, every part of the education system, I believe, has a role to play in this, and as she said in her questions, Estyn has an important role to play in ensuring that the relationship with schools is there to understand what the patterns are, to understand what the data are, but also to understand why this happens—that is part of the analysis and the response.

And finally, Jayne Bryant, Chair of the Children, Young People, and Education Committee.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd, and thank you, Minister, for your very welcome statement this afternoon and the details that you've provided within that. As you've said, tackling learner absence is key, and I think we've all agreed today that it really is a crucial issue. I do recognise the difficulties in tackling it with the additional challenges brought about by the pandemic. The Children, Young People, and Education Committee will be starting a short, focused piece of work, looking at the issues around pupil attendance, and will take account of your statement today and the report.

I'd just like to focus on one aspect, and other Members have touched on it as well. When the committee wrote to local authorities about how they were dealing with persistent absence, some indicated that local authorities would like to see the reintroduction of the fixed-penalty notices. And you've announced today that the advice from Welsh Government on the use of fixed-penalty notices has changed, from it not being advised to use them to saying it may be appropriate for a small number of cases relating to persistent absence that are unrelated to the COVID pandemic. And you've said yourself today that you see it as being a last resort. So, what role do you think that those fixed-penalty notices can play in relation to dealing with persistent absences in schools? And how will you continue to monitor this as a tool, and the impact on the mental well-being of our children and young people?

I thank Jayne Bryant for those remarks and those questions. When I made my statement, I want to be clear about what we are doing: we have never at any point, in fact, changed the law in relation to fixed-penalty notices. She may remember that we decided not to do that, but that we would express a view, if you like, about the extent to which they should be used in the context of the last two years. And what we are doing today is simply saying that the guidance that existed previously should be reinstated. But her question provides me with the opportunity of emphasising once again that I think it's important to see—in the way that Laura Anne Jones was saying in her question—this as part of a range of steps and that, actually, the focus will very much be on supporting learners and families to make sure, through the work of family engagement officers, through the guidance, the reassurance, through the work in relation to the blended learning review, through that fresh look at the point at which the various supportive interventions that are available to school start to be made available, by looking again at the persistent absence threshold in particular, but other trigger points as well, all of those interventions come together. And I know that she will have seen this in the report: there is a sense of the range of tools that schools have available to them and I'm very clear that it'll be in a very small number of cases that notices will be unfortunately needed. For the overwhelming majority, I'm confident that the work that schools will do, which they're very skilled at doing, and with the additional resources that we are providing, I'm confident that, for most learners, for most families, that will be the best way for making sure that learners come back to school, learn with their peers face to face with their teachers, which is very beneficial in terms of their education, but also, as a number of contributions reflected today, absolutely essential to their well-being as well.

I thank the Minister.

Before we move on, I'm sure Members will join me in saying that it was a pleasure to see so many young people in the gallery today, and also commending them on their exceptional behaviour when they were there, and it was great to see more coming in. I believe they were from Y Wern school.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

We move now to voting time. The votes today are on item 6, the debate on human rights. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote on amendment 1. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 39 against, and therefore the amendment is not agreed.

The next vote is on the unamended motion, tabled in the names of Lesley Griffiths and Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 39, no abstentions, 15 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

That concludes our business for today.