Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Good afternoon and welcome to this afternoon's Plenary meeting. The first item on our agenda will be questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Samuel Kurtz. 

Llywydd, investment in physical infrastructure, and a workforce skilled for the future, are amongst the actions taken by the Welsh Government to support energy technologies in the Celtic sea.

Diolch, Prif Weinidog. And can I begin by welcoming the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society's rural leadership programme group, who are in the public gallery this afternoon?

Prif Weinidog, this evening, I have the immense honour of hosting a cross-party reception in the Neuadd on the Haven Waterway future energy cluster. It brings together the Haven Waterway's major traditional energy companies with new and exciting renewable developers, and the supply chain, to lead in decarbonisation. You'll be aware, Prif Weinidog, that I'm a big advocate for the opportunities presented to Wales from both the Haven Waterway and the Celtic sea, from floating offshore wind to tidal, wave and hydrogen initiatives, and even the progressive Celtic free-port bid. So, it does feel as if we're on the cusp of a green energy revolution in west Wales. So, given the strategic importance of the Haven Waterway and the Celtic sea, what assurances can you give to developers and groups, such as the future energy cluster, that Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales will operate in a timely manner to ensure these opportunities aren't lost? Diolch.

Well, Llywydd, I thank Sam Kurtz for that question, and congratulate him on hosting the future energy cluster event today; I think it's a great event to have here in the Senedd. And I agree with everything that the Member said about the immense possibilities that renewable energy, including floating offshore wind and other projects in the Celtic sea, hold out for his part of Wales, but for Wales as a whole. And, in that, the Welsh Government is absolutely aware of the need to have a consenting regime that is robust, of course, as it must be, but is also streamlined, effective and enabling. I have been in discussions with NRW myself. I know the Minister has a meeting with NRW today to talk about the end-to-end marine licensing review, which the Welsh Government commissioned, carried out independently. The consultants said that there was nothing, fundamentally, that needed to be repaired in the current regime, but that there were ways in which it could be made to work more effectively. 

Developers have their part to play as well in all that. They have responsibilities to submit applications based on early engagement, best available evidence, and where the quality of the application itself doesn't hold up the process. Then, it is for NRW to ensure that they have the necessary resources in place to be able to deal with those applications in a way that respects the very important responsibilities they have as an environmental regulator, but also recognises the huge opportunities that renewable energy provides for Wales, and our contribution that we can make to tackling that great crisis of our time in global warming. 

I do think there's real benefit in thinking in a joined-up way about offshore wind off the west coast of Wales—the Celtic and Irish seas. I think the free-port bidding process offers an opportunity to do that. Now, as you can imagine, I'm confident in the quality of the Holyhead/Ynys Môn north Wales free-port bid for what it can offer in terms of growing that sector, as well as mitigation for post-Brexit losses that affected the port of Holyhead. But would the First Minister agree with me that the best way, perhaps, to ensure the growth of that sector, in a way that benefits the whole of Wales, would be to not only support our bid, but also to ensure a second free port, which could enable Celtic sea and Irish sea developments to work in parallel greater than the sum of their parts? 

Well, Llywydd, I must be careful in what I say, because there is a process and bids are being assessed objectively, as they must be, by civil servants both here in Wales and at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I will just remind Members that the agreement we struck with the UK Government does not rule out there being two free ports here in Wales. One is the expectation, but two is not impossible, and the quality of the bids, and the assessment made of them, will, of course, be pivotal to deciding whether or not we're able to persuade the UK Government to go down that second route. 

I thank Sam for bringing this question forward, because the potential here in the Celtic sea is, of course, for west Wales, and for the whole of the south Wales seaboard as well, in terms of manufacturing, supply chain, and so on. And we have to have that rigorous consenting regime as well, to make sure this works. But, can I ask you, First Minister—? Learning from the past is important within this. We need the right port infrastructure, and, indeed, it would be great to see two bids going through from Wales as well. We need those local grid connections to actually bring this onshore, but what we've learned from previous iterations is that we need the National Grid to be strengthened as well. So, could I ask you what discussions you're going to have with the UK Government and the regulator about strengthening the market signals that say we must have this investment—Wales deserves its fair share of investment in the grid as well. We can do so much on our own, but we need the UK to step up as well.

Well, Llywydd, I think they're two very important points made there by Huw Irranca-Davies. We do need to learn the lessons of previous renewables. There is still no offshore wind industrial strategy out of the UK Government, despite the fact that we have been calling for one, and others in the industry have been calling for one. We do have concerns that, in the reliance on competitive processes to drive down the cost of projects, that will result in the cheapest supply chain solutions, rather than investing in the long-term value, which is to be had there for Wales by making sure not only that energy is produced in the Celtic sea, but that everything that goes into that has a local supply chain, creating jobs in the process.

As to the grid, I sometimes think, Llywydd, because it is called the National Grid, that people don't realise that this is a private company, listed on the stock market, distributing £1 billion every year in dividends to shareholders. Indeed, it distributed £4.5 billion in 2017 alone, directly into the hands of shareholders, when we know that there is not enough investment going into the vital connections that the grid provides. When I was in Ireland in the autumn, Llywydd, I took part in a round-table discussion with the foreign Minister of the Irish Government and developers interested in the Celtic sea from the Irish perspective as well. I was struck by what a major developer said there—that their greatest fear was that they would bring the energy all the way to the beach and then there would be nothing that you could do with it, because there would be no connection into the grid.

I saw an article just this week by Molly Scott Cato, the Green economist, saying that there are almost 700 renewable energy projects on hold across the United Kingdom, waiting for the National Grid to find them capacity. Well, my own preference would be to bring the National Grid under public control so that it was run in the public interest and where there was no leakage into private profit of the resources of that company. In the meantime, we work with the company and with others here in Wales. We were glad to see, last year, a move towards anticipatory demand in the grid system, glad to see that the latest energy Minister at the UK Government says that improving the grid is his top priority, in all his responsibilities. There is undoubtedly a need for a step change in making sure that the grid is fit not just for today, but for the future, so that when we put the Celtic sea to work, in the way that Sam Kurtz said in his original question, there will be the infrastructure there to take up the energy that will be produced.

Llywydd, the UK subsidy regime is not the regime the Welsh Government would have designed, nor was it one supported by this Senedd. We will work, however, with public authorities to equip staff to understand and utilise the new regime, mitigating its many imperfections.

Thank you, First Minister. I recently met with a business within my region who are developing technologies that will have a profound impact on helping to reverse the effects of climate change and are in the process of applying for Welsh Government funding, but it seems like the whole process is taking considerable time and much longer than previous applications, which is having a detrimental impact on their forward planning. I'm conscious that you cannot discuss individual applications, but I'm wondering if the delay in the application process is due to a cut in funding, and, in which case, what levels of funding are now available and what will be the ratio of grant to loan in those settlements? Or, if the delay is due to the transition to the new UK subsidy control regime and single-year settlements, what is the Welsh Government doing to smooth the transition to the new system? Thank you.

Llywydd, the new subsidy regime is already in force; it came into force on 5 January. I'm obviously not aware of the details of the individual case that Joel James mentions, but I would not be surprised to find that the new complexities of the subsidy regime are playing their part in any delays because, for the very first time, the system, by introducing intra-UK subsidies within the focus of the law, introduced new legal risks into the subsidy process. Two rival companies on the same high street can, for the first time, ask for a judicial review of every single subsidy that their neighbours may have negotiated. Inevitably, that makes those organisations responsible for providing subsidies more cautious in making those decisions, because the legal risks involved in making any award have been increased by the new subsidy control regime. So, if that does lie near the heart of the delay that Joel James mentioned, it doesn't surprise me, and it is inevitable that those members of staff in public authorities responsible for making those decisions will be having to become familiar with the new regime and, in the early days, are likely to take longer in making those decisions. But, in the longer run, there are new risks in the subsidy control arrangements, and they will be risks that will particularly fall hard on us here in Wales.

That's no surprise, is it, First Minister, that something created by this UK Government will adversely affect Wales? The Scots have learnt this week about the UK Government's disregard for democracy. What we have understood is that we have a chaotic subsidy control regime introduced post Brexit, when the reality of taking back control was not to give control to the people of Wales, to the communities of Wales, to enable the businesses of Wales to flourish, but to take back control to a few Ministers in London, their cronies in the House of Lords and all their party donors. That's the reality of 'take back control', and the people of Wales and Joel's constituents are suffering as a consequence of it.

Alun Davies makes a number of very powerful points there. I should remind Members of the Senedd that, of course, this Senedd denied legislative consent to the UK Bill on 1 March last year, and then the Sewel convention was disregarded and the lack of consent from this Parliament was simply ignored by the UK Government that went ahead and imposed this solution on us anyway. Here are just two ways, Llywydd, in which the new system acts against the interest of Wales. First of all, it removes any sense of assisted areas from the subsidy regime. Indeed, the first draft of the Bill referred to the levelling-up principles of the UK Government. That was abandoned by the time the Bill reached the statute book. So, as my colleague Rebecca Evans said in her letter to the UK Government before our consent motion was debated, the Bill puts Mayfair and Merthyr on exactly the same basis when it comes to providing subsidies. That simply means that those with the deepest pockets will use that advantage to make themselves even more advantaged, while those with the least will end up with the greatest struggle.

And here is just a second example, Llywydd. The UK Government insisted that agriculture and fisheries should be brought within the scope of this Bill. They never were, while we were members of the European Union; they were dealt with separately. We asked the UK Government what the evidence was for bringing agriculture and fisheries within scope. They said to us that it was to be found in the responses to consultation. We asked them where the responses to consultation were to be found. We were told that they hadn't been published. We asked if we could see the responses that justified this inclusion, and we were told that, no, we couldn't. So, here we are. We have a major change, which has, I think, real implications for Welsh agriculture, because the system is based on seven principles, the third of those is that any subsidy must be designed to bring about a change of economic behaviour of the beneficiary. Where single farm payments fit into that, I really do not know. But we can't know, because the whole basis on which the UK Government decided to make this major change was unexplained by them, and the evidence that they pointed to was never made available to us.

Questions now from party leaders. Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, last week, regrettably, Wizz Air chose to leave Cardiff Airport. To date, the Welsh Government have invested or made available to the airport £225 million—nearly £0.25 billion. You are the owners of the airport, albeit you have set up an arm's-length company to operate the airport. Do you believe that £225 million is money well spent?

Llywydd, I have always believed that a regional airport is an essential part of the economic infrastructure of any part of the United Kingdom that seeks to support the modern conditions under which the economy must operate. The private sector was unable to do that. It was right that the public purse stepped in. It's an investment in the future of the Welsh economy, and one that this Government was pleased to make.

First Minister, after £0.25 billion, the airport sadly has fewer passengers now than it has had for a very long time. Yes, COVID intervened to obviously affect all airports, but if you take Bristol Airport, it has seen a 22 per cent decline in its passenger numbers but still handles close to 7 million passengers. If you take Birmingham Airport, another competitor, they have seen a 33 per cent decline, and still handle 8.5 million passengers. It is a fact that no airport that I can find has had such a generosity of Government money made available to it—£0.25 billion—and had such poor outcomes achieved. What are the new plans available to make sure that that £225 million is protected, and that, ultimately, you can resurrect the airport, because I think the taxpayer, in fairness, deserves to know is this a bad investment that is going to continue to go wrong, or do you have a long-term plan that can resurrect Cardiff Airport, which, obviously, you acquired back in 2013?

Well, Llywydd, the Welsh Conservative Party has never supported the airport. It has always done its best to talk down its chances of success. They never like to face up to their own responsibilities, Llywydd. Time after time after time on the floor of the Senedd, I have heard Conservative spokespeople here complain about the airport, suggest that it shouldn't have been taken into public ownership, and generally undermine the airport's prospects of success. The Member will know that figures from the Civil Aviation Authority showed that passenger growth at Cardiff Airport had increased by more than 50 per cent in March 2020, the month in which COVID hit us all, and that growth had happened since the Welsh Government purchased Cardiff Airport—strong growth, and a path that the airport was on, clearly, towards future profitability. Indeed, it had made a profit in that year. 

Now, since the pandemic, of course the airport faces a much more difficult future. Demand for air travel has fallen across the world. It has not recovered, and the downturn in the UK economy means that industry experts are now predicting that this coming year will be a year in which air travel recovers more slowly in the United Kingdom than it will elsewhere. But, the rescue and recovery package that we have put in place with the airport, with those who are responsible for its future, is absolutely designed to make Cardiff Airport self-sustainable and profitable for the future. And when I hear Members shout, 'never' to that, that's exactly the sort of remark I meant when I said that, whenever we talk about a successful future for the airport here, Conservative Members intervene to cast doubt on its ability to be a successful part of the Welsh economy. 

First Minister, it is our job, when £0.25 billion has been spent on a project by the Welsh Government, to ask the questions that deserve the answers. We have brought two blueprints forward for a successful airport: once when it was purchased back in 2013 and in 2019. Most people would say that £225 million deserves some sort of dividend back and some sort of profitable enterprise. To date, the airport, under your ownership, has not turned in a profit. I can hear the Deputy Minister chuntering away there, but instead of chuntering away in this Chamber, he might be better off putting his efforts into trying to turn Cardiff Airport around so that we do have a successful airport. I gave you the figures about Bristol and Birmingham, which are the two closest airports that are rival airports. Cardiff's passenger numbers have dropped by in excess of 50 per cent because of COVID.

What people generally want to know is: do you have a plan to make it profitable and successful, which is what we on this side of the Chamber want to see, or will it require more money, which will be diverted from health, education and the other priorities that the Welsh electorate reasonably expect the Government to spend the money on? So, do you have a plan and can you outline it today to this Chamber—how you're going to turn Cardiff Airport around to get passengers going through the terminal and flights taking off? Because if I look at the accounts on Companies House, I cannot even find the up-to-date accounts because they haven't been filed yet. You're the owners; when are we going to be able to see the accounts, First Minister?

Well, you'll see the accounts in March, when they are always published. They will be published in March 2023. They are published every—. The fact that the Member isn't able to find them is not my problem. [Laughter.] He needs to employ people to do his research for him in that case. I just tell the Chamber this, Llywydd: the airport publishes accounts every year. They will be published in March of this year, and the Member, if he's able to, will be able to locate them as a result. I said in my second answer, Llywydd, that there is a rescue and recovery plan in place. It's published, it's available for Members to see. 

I'll just end with this point to the Member, that, when this Senedd sought the devolution of air passenger duty, something that is available—[Interruption.] You supported it, but your Government didn't support it, did it? Your Government refused that request because of its wish to protect Bristol Airport. If there was a level playing field at the UK Government, then we would see different results.

The leader of Plaid Cymru next to ask questions. Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. With the news of the teachers' strike on 1 February and the failure of the talks with the health unions last week, public sector strikes in Wales are widening and deepening. What's the strategy of the Government, First Minister, to prevent this winter of discontent continuing on into spring and into summer? Is it your policy that you're going to offer the one-off payment that you referred to in the case of the NHS workforce to the teaching workforce, for example? But, even if you are, then would you not accept that that doesn't get to grips with the central point about this public pay dispute, that as far as the public service unions are concerned, it comes after a decade of erosion of real-terms pay? And are you prepared to acknowledge, in the case of both the health and the teaching unions, that the recommendations of the pay review body relate to evidence taken in late 2021, early 2022, before the Russian-Ukraine war when inflation was about 4 per cent? By the time you accepted the recommendations, the cost of living was already nearing 10 per cent, so is there not a case, First Minister, for asking the pay bodies to revisit their work, and for you as a Government to agree to abide by any higher award if they were to do so on that basis?

Llywydd, first of all, on this, we absolutely recognise the impact that a decade of austerity has had on the pay packets of public sector workers. They are paid less in real terms today than they were 10 years ago, and the impact of inflation has amplified that impact in the lives of families in many parts of Wales. So, of course we understand why people who have never been on strike before feel compelled to take that action.

In the discussions that we had with our trade union colleagues in the health field—and by the way, I don’t accept the leader of Plaid Cymru’s characterisation of those talks as having failed—but in those talks, we put three different aspects on the table for discussion. One of those was how we could act together to re-inject confidence in the pay review process. Now, amongst the ideas that we would be prepared to put on the table would be to see how, in future, trigger points could be built in to the pay review process, so that, if events happened beyond the determination that need to reopen the determination, there would be an agreed path that everybody would understand to make that happen. Whether it is possible to do that retrospectively to the pay review body’s operation for the last financial year, I’m not so sure, but putting new life and new confidence into the process I think is a very important point, and I think the leader of Plaid Cymru’s right to make it.

I would urge him to look at that possibility for this financial year as well. One of the other issues that you did bring to the table, which was welcome, was the role of agency staff. Now, we saw the figures from the Royal College of Physicians that show that the total bill in the last financial year was £260 million. Do you accept the logic of the unions that, offering a significantly higher pay rise would reduce that agency bill? It’s an investment that would pay dividends, whereas at the moment, it’s a perniciously false economy. At the very least, should we not be creating a publicly owned staff agency for the NHS so that we can strip out profit and the exorbitant costs of private sector agencies? The last Labour Government in Westminster did this through the creation of NHS Professionals, a publicly owned national staff bank owned by the Department of Health, which reinvests surpluses back in the NHS. Couldn’t we combine that with the judicious use of milestones for capping and reducing the use of private agencies over time as part of a national workforce plan, which gets to grip with the longer term crisis of retention and recruitment that I referred to?

Llywydd, the first thing I want to do is to pay tribute to the work of agency staff. I’m worried about the tone of some of this debate that suggests that, somehow, agency staff are the problem in the NHS. The NHS absolutely depends upon agency staff. So, I’m not saying that the leader of Plaid Cymru did it, but I do hear in the wider debate some sort of sense that agency staff are somehow to blame, and actually, we depend on agency staff all the time. We wish to depend on fewer agency staff in the future—that is common ground. We put that on the table in the discussions with our health union colleagues last week.

It is not as simple as saying that there is £260 million to be saved; a great deal of that would be paid for people who would be in work on a non-agency basis. There is some increment that you can squeeze out of that sum, and that is an important thing for us to try to do. The bank system is a publicly provided way in which people can work on shifts where they would not normally be employed, and there may be, in the discussions we’ll have with our trade unions colleagues, more that we can do in that area. There will always be a role for agency workers to cover short-term absences, when we know that, sometimes, people will be away for training and other things, and if we didn't have them—if we didn't have them—the system would be under an even greater pressure than it is today.

But the point is, First Minister, that that agency doesn't have to be within the private sector, does it, it could be within the public sector.

Now, could I turn to another matter that has already been referred to, the UK Government's veto over the gender recognition reform Bill in Scotland? Do you agree with me that this sets a very dangerous precedent, not only in terms of your own Government's aspirations, which we share, to bring forward similar legislation here, but also in terms of devolution more generally and the use of, in our case, section 114, I believe, in the Government of Wales Act 2006? If you do share that view, will you be urging Welsh Labour MPs to vote against the Secretary for State for Scotland's Order when it's debated on the floor of the House of Commons? If that parliamentary procedure is unsuccessful, are you prepared to consider, at least, the Welsh Government intervening in the legal action that the Scottish Government has indicated that they intend bringing at the Supreme Court, because of this wider principle, not just in terms of the rights of the trans community, but also in terms of our democracy here? And, as a matter of principle, given that Sir Keir Starmer has said he disagrees with the application of the new rules to 16 and 17-year-olds—against the views, it has to be said, of the Labour Party in Scotland—can you set out what is the position of the Labour Party here in Wales in relation to that matter?

There are a series of questions there, Llywydd, and I'll try and attend to as many as I can. On the biggest question of all, I do agree with the leader of Plaid Cymru; I think the UK Government's decision to use powers that have never been used in the whole history of devolution is a very dangerous moment, and I agree with the First Minister of Scotland that this could be a very slippery slope indeed. The reason why I say that is because, I'm afraid, we have the precedent of what has happened to the Sewel convention in front of us. The Sewel convention was never breached, not once, by Conservative Governments, as well as Labour Governments, for nearly 20 years. Since the first breach of it, we now see, as the Williams and McAllister commission, in their interim report, said, the breach of Sewel becoming almost normalised. I think, by the end of this year, it will have been breached more than 10 times. Now, that just tells you that, once you've done this once, using it again becomes easier, and the second time leads to the third time very rapidly.

That is why I really regret the UK Government's decision to act in this way, but it's part of a wider pattern, Llywydd, of this UK Government. If you find yourself in a different position to somebody else, instead of sitting down, instead of trying to negotiate, instead of trying to find an agreed way forward, you simply use the force you have to overcome them. If you don't like strikers, then you pass a law to stop people striking. If you don't like protesters, you pass a law that criminalises protesters before they've even done anything at all. And if you don't like an Act passed in another Parliament, you use the force you have in your Parliament to overcome what the other Parliament has done. It's a repeated pattern that you see with this Government, and in this instance it quite certainly throws up enormous constitutional ramifications.

Will we associate ourselves with any Supreme Court case? Well, we've shown a willingness to do that in the past. It's premature for me to say how we might be able to do that, given that there isn't a case yet there, but, as the Member will know, we have previously made sure that Welsh interests were represented in the Supreme Court when there were matters of constitutional significance to Wales at stake, and we would certainly be prepared to do that again.

I thank the Member for that question, Llywydd. Successive Welsh Governments have supported the local health board's ambition to take forward plans for a north Denbighshire community hospital. Escalating costs and falling capital budgets mean that the plan has to be considered in the context of health and social care investments across the whole of north Wales. 

Thank you for that response, First Minister. I want to be the first to acknowledge the fact that the Welsh Government has indeed supported this project historically, and I would like to see this project delivered.

I met just last week with the leader of Denbighshire County Council and, as you will know, one of their key priorities is the delivery of this project, not just because of the impact that it will have on nearby Glan Clwyd Hospital, and the communities that it will serve between Abergele and Prestatyn, but also because of the enormous regeneration impact that this project can have in the town of Rhyl, which, again, has been a focus of the Welsh Government in the past. I appreciate that money is tight. I acknowledge fully that the costs of the project have risen. But, given the importance of this project, given the pressure that's currently out there that the NHS is facing, particularly in north Wales and at Glan Clwyd, can I implore the Welsh Government and for you personally to intervene, to take another look at this project, because I think it is important, for the people of north Denbighshire and beyond, that it is delivered? 

Well, Llywydd, I thank Darren Millar for the way in which he put that question and for his recognition of the context within which decisions about the scheme have to be taken. I'm keen to assure him that the Welsh Government continues to be directly engaged in all of this. The health Minister herself met with the health board and the local authority in the run-up to Christmas. That meeting agreed that two pieces of work needed to be carried out. The health board does need to undertake a prioritisation exercise. There are schemes right across the whole of north Wales, and just as the Member has this afternoon, absolutely in line with his responsibilities, spoken up for his community and his constituency, so we receive similar letters and representations on the part of many other schemes across the whole of north Wales. So, the board must decide where its own priorities lie. And secondly, in that meeting, it was also agreed that the whole scheme should be put in front of the regional partnership board, for them to discuss it as well. 

Now, the Minister's senior officials wrote yesterday to the health board again, and to the local authority, asking them for an update on those two pieces of work. Because, for the Minister to be able to consider the business case again, that can only happen when we have those two very important pieces of contextual information. But I want to provide an assurance to Darren Millar, Llywydd, that the Minister has been directly involved, remains directly involved, and, as soon as we have those replies, she will be able to consider the whole position once again.

I've also been meeting with the leader of Denbighshire and officers and I was shocked now at the cost—due to inflationary pressures, it could be an £82 million capital build. I understand that capital funding has been cut by 11 per cent over the next few years, and that the borrowing limit for Wales has been restricted as well by the UK Government. We do need to do something, as Darren Millar has said, and I know the leader of Denbighshire is also really concerned. I understand it's a complex issue. So, First Minister, do you agree with me that it is also a social care issue, as well as an NHS issue, and that we should look at the borrowing cap from UK Government being lifted, so that we can do more work like this, as it's really needed in Wales for capital projects such as this one? Thank you. 

Well, Llywydd, the Member makes some important points, and it is exactly because of those points, that this is a community hospital where social care will be a very important part of the context within which it works, that the regional partnership board has been asked to consider the project. So, I agree with the point she made there. 

On the borrowing limit points, I would have hoped that this would be something where we might have common cause across the Chamber here. In 2016, we reached an agreement with the UK Government as to how we would take on our fiscal responsibilities. It set out the borrowing limit of the Welsh Government, the operation of the Welsh reserve. Those figures have never been updated. Our budget is 40 per cent larger in cash terms than it was in 2016, but we're managing it with the same limits that were right for 2016. If they were simply uprated in line with inflation, if their real value didn’t change, but their real value was sustained, then that would give us some additional flexibility around borrowing limits and how we manage the Welsh Government’s money in a sensible way. I think that’s all we’re suggesting. It’s what the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggested in their report on the operation of the fiscal framework. I’m quite sure that, in the very long list of things that UK Government has to think about, this is probably not near the top of it, but it’s just a sensible thing that they could do that would make a difference in sensible use of public money.

Flying Start is the Welsh Government’s flagship early years programme. It continues to make a real difference to the lives of children in some of our most disadvantaged communities, and we have reaffirmed our commitment to support the programme throughout the term of this Government.

Thank you, First Minister. I’m convinced of the benefits of Flying Start. It stops children starting formal schooling with a developmental age substantially below their actual age. We have seen in England the PM scrapping changes to the childcare system drawn up by his predecessor. In non-homogenous areas, lower super-output areas result in missed pockets of poverty. Does the Government plan a reappraisal, based upon the 2021 census results, with a view to identifying the child poverty being missed?

I completely agree with Mike Hedges, Llywydd, about the fantastic work that has been done by the Flying Start programme, and it's one of the benefits of devolution that we've been able to sustain that programme now for what will soon be 20 years. And of course its expansion forms part of the co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru, and we have already seen the fruits of that—2,000 more children already benefitting from Flying Start—and we’ve agreed on the next phase as well, which will come into being from 1 April. Over time, that will see the childcare aspect of Flying Start universally available to all children from the age of two onwards, so there are plans in hand to do much of what Mike Hedges has asked. In the meantime we have Flying Start outreach, which is an ability for local authorities to offer Flying Start help to those families who don’t fall within its geographical boundaries, and it’s always a dilemma of geographically based programmes that there will be people outside those geographies who would equally have benefitted from the service that Flying Start provides. The agreement that we have with Plaid Cymru, the £46 million additional that we will invest as a result, will go a long way to answering the points the Member has made.

First Minister, the Flying Start scheme was introduced back in 2007 as one of the Government’s top priorities for tackling poverty in Wales, but currently Wales has the highest rate of children living in poverty compared to the rest of the nations in the UK. First Minister, this is quite frankly unacceptable and a damning record of 25 years of Labour Government here in Wales. So, what actions are you going to take to make sure that Flying Start is supported properly going forward, and when will we finally see real results and an end to the postcode lottery, particularly for my constituents in Denbighshire?

Well, Llywydd, I still manage to be amazed that a Conservative Member is willing to stand up here and criticise the growth in child poverty when his own Government—his own Government—publishes documents alongside their budget saying that the actions they have taken will lead directly—directly—to thousands and thousands more children across the United Kingdom living in poverty. Does he not feel any sense of shame that he represents a party that takes decisions deliberately, knowingly, that lead to children being in poverty? Here in Wales we do everything we can to mitigate that impact, and it’s right—the hill to reduce child poverty gets steeper with every year of austerity and cuts to public services that his Government introduces. But Flying Start is a flagship programme that has done fantastic work and continues to do fantastic work in many, many families right across Wales. Twenty-seven per cent of children in Wales benefit from it, and as a result of an agreement between my party and Plaid Cymru, even more families will benefit from it in future.

Llywydd, this year we are providing support worth £1.6 billion in programmes that protect disadvantaged households. In particular, we are providing support to rural households that use off-grid energy, investing in community food initiatives and providing warm hubs. This supports people who are struggling with food costs and keeping warm.

Thank you very much. According to the Wales Centre for Public Policy, rural poverty is often hidden under the surface by the comparative wealth of our rural areas, and a culture of self-reliance. As I said in the Plaid Cymru debate on child poverty before the Christmas recess, households across mid and west Wales are more vulnerable to poverty because of a number of factors such as lower than average incomes, lack of access to services and public transport, disproportionate levels of fuel poverty and food poverty, higher rents and a lack of affordable housing.

Now, we know that those who live in rural areas usually spend around 10 to 20 per cent more on everyday services and products, as compared to those who live in urban areas. As a result, deprivation is increasing in our communities, with five out of the six local authorities that have the highest levels of child poverty being located in those rural areas in Wales. Does the First Minister agree with me therefore that rural communities face unique challenges, and is he willing to commit to undertaking further research into this issue to develop a strategy to tackle increasing levels of rural poverty?

Of course, Llywydd, I recognise that there are certain factors that are unique to people living in rural areas, and I can agree with what the Member said: it is sometimes difficult to identify poverty in some of our rural communities. Of course, every part of Wales is facing a challenge at the moment—whether you live in the Valleys, in the centre of Cardiff, there are unique challenges in all parts of Wales. I can tell the Member that a plan will be drawn up. The Minister for Social Justice is currently working on practical steps that we can take to help, particularly in the area of child poverty. 

In the meantime, of course, there are a number of important things that are already in place. Free meals in our schools—that will be of great assistance to children wherever they live in Wales. And certainly within the Member's region, following the launch of the policy back in September of last year, there are 10,000 new pupils that have been captured under that programme, and by the end of April that number will increase to 13,000 children in the region too.

I thank the Member for that question, Llywydd. In the first part of this Senedd term, we are in the process of agreeing new, reformed contracts with all four branches of primary care across Wales. Our priority is to secure maximum value from those contracts for patients, in terms of access, service sustainability and quality of care.

Thank you very much for the response. 

One aspect of primary care that I think most people know that I'm really concerned about is teeth, and particularly the teeth of our children across Wales. I understand that we don't have data about how many children are actually waiting for an NHS dentist. The only health boards that we've been able to get data from, having asked them specifically, were from Powys and from Cardiff. And, in Powys, a staggering 800 children are recorded as needing, and waiting for, NHS dental care. I met with a mother the other day who had had a phone call from her dentist to tell her that her children could no longer access that particular dentist, because they were switching to private care.63

First Minister, we understand many of the pressures that our dentists are under, but surely in this Siambr, we must be worried about the teeth of our children. So, could I ask you: when will we be getting data on the number of children across Wales who are waiting for an NHS dentist? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Llywydd, I can't offer the Member an answer to that question, because I think it's actually quite a difficult question to answer, because you are trying to find children who don't do something rather than children who do. In terms of children who do something, then in Powys, since the new contract came to be used by dentists, there have been 1,100 new appointments for children in the last eight months. In the whole of the Member's region, 5,500 new children's appointments have been available in that period, and there is more to come.

So, while we absolutely want to do more, we want to diversify the profession so that there are different ways in which care for our children in the dental field can be provided. When the Minister made her statement on the new contract back in June of last year, we anticipated around 120,000 new appointments in NHS dentistry in Wales; we will exceed that with a quarter of the year still to go. So, while the position remains challenging in many parts of Wales, in the Member's own region, taking Hywel Dda and Powys together, there will be over 13,000 new appointments that weren't available last year that will already have been undertaken this year, with more to come.

Llywydd, despite the enormous pressures facing the sector, access to GP surgeries has improved in every year since standards were first agreed in 2019. Eighty-nine per cent of practices across Wales now achieve all the standards, and those standards will become mandatory in April of this year.

Diolch, Prif Weinidog. Constituents have contacted me with concern about news that two different surgeries in my region are set to close. The Aber Medical Centre was proposing to close its Bedwas surgery, which would leave patients in Bedwas, Trethomas and Machen going to Abertridwr or Llanbradach, and those wouldn't be straightforward journeys, if you don't have a car, particularly if you're unwell and not feeling up to a lengthy journey. I've also heard that Crickhowell Group Practice have applied to close their branch surgery in Gilwern.

I'm concerned about a worrying pattern here—in Caerphilly, certainly. Penyrheol, Lansbury Park and Gilfach surgeries have closed in recent years; the story seems to be the same over the region. Can you appreciate, Prif Weinidog, why so many people are worried these closures will inevitably lead to upheaval for patients, longer waiting times, and more pressure on GPs? And what is your Government doing, please, to advise health boards about the need to improve and not worsen the patient experience? Because, surely, it's in nobody's interest for so many surgeries to potentially be closing.

Well, Llywydd, change is inevitable in the health service. Some surgeries close, new surgeries open. It's been like that since 1948. There are more directly managed services in Wales now than there were before, and that's a reflection of the changing nature of the profession, as the old model, the principle of a practice-owned model, becomes less attractive to new doctors entering general practice. I would expect Aneurin Bevan health board to deal with any changes sensitively, to make sure that they are in contact with their local patient populations, and to do what needs to be done if there are access issues that emerge as a result. Patterns of access are changing as well, Llywydd. In future, a far higher proportion of consultations will take place remotely, by telephone, or by video call. We can't expect the NHS to be set in aspic—it never has. Change has to be handled sensitively, but change is inevitable, and change actually can make things better, as well as sometimes making things more difficult.

Finally, question 8—Sarah Murphy.

Llywydd, tackling digital exclusion is a social justice and inequality priority for Government. Our digital inclusion and health programme, Digital Communities Wales, supports organisations across all communities and sectors to help people maximise the opportunities digital can offer. Over 125,200 people have received support for basic digital skills, motivation and confidence.

Thank you, First Minister. Digital poverty is an issue that I deeply care about. I think the true implications were very much brought into the mainstream during the pandemic, when we relied on all things digital to connect with one another during lockdowns, or used digital appliances to work from home or school. That said, we continue to see its impact now during the cost-of-living crisis, because so much of the support and resources that people need to access are online, and people are being excluded due to the costs because we know that as budgets become tight, broadband is likely to be the thing that gets turned off in homes. At one point, there was this assumption that broadband and digital tech was a luxury, but the reality is that it's a necessity, and for some people they are missing out due to a lack of means.

I know that tackling digital exclusion is a priority for this Government, and I'm pleased to see within the digital strategy for Wales that the Welsh Government is working collaboratively with the Digital Poverty Alliance to end digital poverty by 2030, and in partnership with the Good Things Foundation on the national databank initiative that provides free mobile data, texts and calls to people in need.

I've also been liaising with the Bridgend Association of Voluntary Organisations, and a Welsh broadband company, Ogi, who are delivering high-speed broadband across Porthcawl—[Interruption.]—and Caerphilly to see if there is any scope to provide Wi-Fi at warm banks across Bridgend. So, will the First Minister provide an update on the roll-out of the warm hubs across Bridgend? What assessment has been done to see if we can incorporate having high-speed broadband access into those hubs to create that legacy of access for our communities?

Well, Llywydd, the Cabinet committee on the cost of living heard direct evidence from organisations in the field about the way in which families faced with so many pressures on their budgets often feel that it is the digital spend they make that has to go first, and yet, in an increasingly digital world, that causes them all sorts of other difficulties, so the points the Member makes are very well made and important.

In terms of warm hubs, there are over 300 warm hubs now across Wales, and those are just the ones we know about. I think it has been the most amazing, spontaneous effort that we have seen from so many community groups, sports clubs, faith groups, as well as public bodies, to respond to the needs that people see during this winter.

I do know that in Bridgend all the local authority-sponsored warm spaces do have digital access, and together with the Welsh Local Government Association, we are currently surveying digital connectivity at warm hubs across Wales, so that we are in a better position in the future to make sure that the important points that the Member has made this afternoon can be attended to.

Thank you very much to the First Minister.

A point of order emanating from the questions by Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to raise a point of order, if I may, in relation to comments made by the First Minister during his exchange with the leader of the opposition during First Minister's questions.

The First Minister indicated that the annual accounts for Cardiff International Airport Limited were in the public domain, and published every March. He indicated also that the accounts for the last financial year were already in the public domain. However, as any Member can see by simply clicking onto the Companies House website and looking at the airport's page, this is not the case. The accounts for the year ending 31 March 2022 have not yet been published and, in fact, are overdue. I'm sure the First Minister did not wish to mislead the Senedd during his exchange, and had he been aware of these facts, I'm sure that his comments would have been rather different. 

Llywydd, of course, I'm absolutely happy to investigate the points the Member has made. I don't make up answers in front of the Senedd; I rely on the information that I'm provided with. The information I had in front of me quite definitely said that the accounts would be lodged with Companies House in March of this year. I'm absolutely happy to look at the point the Member makes, and if the record needs to be corrected, then of course it will be. 

Thank you for that exchange. 

The business statement and announcement is next, and I call on the Trefnydd, Lesley Griffiths. 

Diolch, Llywydd. There are four changes to this week's business. The Minister for Climate Change will make a statement on flooding after the business statement and announcement, and that will be followed by a statement from the Minister for Health and Social Services to update Members on her meeting with the NHS trade unions. To accommodate this, the oral statement on Ukraine has been postponed until next week. Finally, the debate on the legislative consent memorandum on the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill has been postponed until 14 February. 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, could I ask for a statement, please, from the health Minister about the detrimental effect the Welsh Government's failure to recruit a sufficient number of GPs is having on my constituents in Monmouthshire? I know my colleague Delyth Jewell raised this earlier in one of her questions about the GPs that are retiring and leaving their practice, and I completely accept the First Minister's response when he mentioned that healthcare is changing in Wales. But, I would like a statement from the Minister for health about what action she is taking to address the serious shortage of GPs in Wales, which is causing concern, and will potentially cause considerable inconvenience and distress to a lot of elderly and vulnerable people across my region, particularly in the area of Gilwern, who may not be able to access the healthcare they need and deserve. 

And if I can be so bold as to ask for a second statement as well, please. May I ask for a statement from the Minister for health about plans to reduce financial help for some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in Wales—towards the cost of their NHS glasses, to be specific? I understand the proposal is to actually lower the current amount of a £39.10 contribution for children and adults on some benefits to be now £22 going forward. The Welsh Government claims the amount was agreed with a group that represents optometrists in Wales. However, Optometry Wales say that, as a negotiating team, they were not in favour of supporting the changes to the voucher system proposed by the Welsh Government. Indeed, in a statement, they say the plans have caused significant concerns, with practitioners worried about the level of support patients on means-tested benefits will have, and be able to access, under the new contract. They go on to say patient choice is likely to be reduced as a result of these changes, and that practices might struggle to offer what they do now within the voucher range. So, could we have a statement from the Minister for health about this reduction in an important patient benefit, and the impact of this policy decision on patients, given the current economic circumstances, and for those also in domiciliary care? Thanks, Minister. 

In relation to your first point around the number of GPs, the Minister for Health and Social Services continues to do a great deal of work in bringing forward more trainee GPs every year. I think you will see that year on year over the past few years that has absolutely been the case. The Minister obviously also works very hard and very closely with our health boards, because it is a matter for the health boards to ensure there are enough GPs for the local population. 

In response to your second request around the voucher system in relation to NHS glasses et cetera, again, the Minister is looking at optometry as a whole; we're looking at new contracts for optometrists. You quoted one person that wasn't in favour; I would imagine the Minister will have looked at all the responses she had and decided on the most appropriate way forward. 

May I ask, Trefnydd, for an oral statement from the Minister for arts and sport on the future of services that are not statutory in the areas of culture and sport? Specifically, we are seeing a number of local authorities consulting on proposed changes as a result of the financial settlement, and I am deeply concerned seeing many museums and sports facilities being proposed among those cuts as they're not statutory services. It would be very beneficial, in the context of the co-operation agreement between the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru, and the cultural strategy within that, to have an update in terms of what the Welsh Government is doing to support local authorities who are facing these exceptionally difficult decisions that raise concerns about the future of culture and sport across the country. 

Thank you. Whilst local authorities, I think in general, would say they had a better settlement than they had anticipated, clearly there are some very difficult choices to be made by our local authorities, and of course, it's always the services that they don't have a statutory responsibility for that are the first to be looked at when it comes to cuts. The Deputy Minister for culture works very closely with the local authorities to see what can be done, but we do appreciate there are very difficult options to be explored. I'm sure the designated Member, which I think is probably Siân Gwenllian, will have a further conversation with the Minister.

I'm asking for a Government statement on basic farm payments. I'm asking for a statement providing an update on the provision of basic farm payments and explaining why the Welsh Government is opposed to the Farmers Union of Wales proposal to cap basic farm payments.

I'm also asking for a statement to provide an update on proposals regarding the remediation of cladding on buildings. I have a constituent who believes the solution is simple, and that it just needs the Welsh Government to implement sections 116 to 125 of the Building Safety Act 2022. He further believes that the problem is being solved in England. I'm requesting an update in the statement on how developers like Bellway are working with residents on developments such as Altamar and the progress being made.

Thank you. The Member will be aware that we are currently looking at bringing forward the sustainable farming scheme, and that there will be a transition from the basic payment scheme to the sustainable farming scheme. One thing we are looking at within the SFS is whether capping payments should be brought in as part of SFS, to ensure that funding is distributed in a fair way. I would not say I was opposed to it at all, but obviously we are now going from the basic payment scheme to SFS. Potential payment options of SFS will be looked at and presented in the final scheme proposals, which won't be until much later this year.

In relation to the cladding on buildings request, you'll be aware that the Minister for Climate Change, who's got responsibility for this, is continuing to work very closely with developers and with leaseholders. My understanding is that formal documentation with the Home Builders Federation has now been shared and further comments are being awaited from developers.

I would like to request a statement from the Minister for Climate Change on actions the Welsh Government are taking to accelerate energy efficiency improvements to Wales's social housing stock. Recently, Friends of the Earth Cymru unveiled their list of the coldest neighbourhoods in Wales. They calculated the energy crisis hotspots using statistics on consumption and fuel price. These results were combined with neighbourhood-level data from the Welsh index of multiple deprivation to identify those areas with above-average energy costs and below-average incomes. This revealed the coldest neighbourhoods where homes were hardest to heat. In my region of South Wales West, we saw three neighbourhoods ranking in the top-10 coldest. Trefnydd, local authorities are spending millions on improvements to social housing, yet homes in these communities remain amongst the hardest to heat in Europe. As Russia's illegal war in Ukraine continues to fuel the energy crisis, and as Wales is plunged into an Arctic freeze, it is therefore an opportune time for the Welsh Government to outline what actions it is taking to improve the energy efficiency of social housing stock in the coldest neighbourhoods in Wales. I therefore request a statement from the Minister for Climate Change as soon as possible. Thank you.

Thank you. I think the Welsh Government has a very good story to tell about the improvements that we've made to a great number of houses within our housing stock. You'll be aware that, here in Wales, we have some very old housing stock, which has certainly required a great deal of refurbishment. What the Minister has is a rolling programme of schemes that she works closely with local authorities on in relation to energy efficiency.

I'd like to request a statement, please, on women's safety in urban areas after dark. I've raised the point before about the need for adequate lighting near railway stations and bus stops. I'm concerned that a second local authority in my region has decided to switch off street lights overnight. Newport is set to follow Caerphilly in doing this. I've raised before a number of times the worry that's felt by women, by older people, and those less steady on their feet as well, about how walking about in the dark and not being able to do this would impinge on their freedom in the evenings. This decision could, in effect, imprison many groups of people in their homes after a certain time, and there are worries about crime rates as well. Can a statement please reiterate the importance of safeguarding women's safety in our towns and cities, and could it outline what advice is given to local authorities on this issue, please? Diolch.

Thank you. I think you raise a very important point. When you started to ask me that question, you automatically think, as you say, about women and safety, but I think the point you raise about people who may not be as secure on their feet as many of us are also can impose some real concerns. I will certainly ask the Minister for Social Justice to bring forward a written statement, particularly around the guidance that's given to local authorities.

Minister, you'll be aware that, on Friday, the south Wales coroner made a ruling that two nurses who died as a consequence of contracting COVID at work died of an industrial disease. This will clearly have some significant repercussions for the approach of the Welsh Government in dealing with these matters. I've raised issues around public service workers in my own constituency who have had long COVID and have suffered as a consequence of that, and I'd like to ask for a statement from the health Minister on how the Welsh Government will respond to this coroner's ruling.

Also, last week, Minister, I visited Llys yr Efail in Blaina. It's a sheltered housing scheme, and I met several residents there who've been asked to contribute towards the heating costs of communal areas. We know that people are already suffering as a consequence of the Tory cost-of-living crisis, and we are also aware that some of the people who live in sheltered hosing are the more vulnerable parts of our community. Would the Welsh Government be able to look at how any support might be provided from here to ensure that some of our most vulnerable people don't have this issue facing them as a consequence of Conservative Party failure?

Thank you. My initial answer to your first request is that I know the Minister for Health and Social Services is looking with the health board at the detail of the ruling that came forward to understand what broader lessons may need to be learned. It was deeply concerning to hear that report last week in relation to the two nurses.

On your second point around costs facing people who live in sheltered accommodation and being requested to put funding forward towards the cost of heating communal areas, I know the Minister for Climate Change is very aware of these concerns. Obviously, housing associations themselves are under pressures around increasing costs, and extra-care accommodation and older person's housing are also under the same pressures as everybody else. I know the Minister is working closely with them and has made some recent announcements. Obviously, the Welsh Government is absolutely committed to doing all we can to support the people of Wales in these very challenging times.

Good afternoon, Minister. You may recall that, on 15 November, during the business statement, I called for a Welsh Government statement outlining the full economic costings of the introduction of the default 20 mph speed limit in Wales. I requested this on the back of a letter that all councillors in Wales received from the Government outlining that the 20 mph speed limit change would save the public purse around £100 million in the first year. But, what it failed to do was outline the economic cost to Wales of around £4.5 billion, which is from the Welsh Government's own explanatory memorandum. On 15 November, you did state, and I quote:

'I will ask the Deputy Minister for Climate Change to come forward with a written statement on that issue.'

Since then, we have seen numerous news articles, including from the BBC and WalesOnline, outlining the £4.5 billion hit to the economy. So, I wonder, Minister, when we should anticipate seeing this statement that you committed to on 15 November.

I will certainly go back to what I said to you on 15 November and speak to the Deputy Minister to see when he can bring forward that statement.

May I ask for an urgent statement by the Minister for Health and Social Services about the consultation currently underway by the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee, even though it's very difficult to find information about the consultation regarding changes proposed to fertility treatment in Wales? I'm concerned, although the consultation is still ongoing, and has been extended, that a very poor decision is about to be made in this regard, that could be damaging and could be a retrograde step in terms of the system we currently have. At the moment, women under 40 can have two full cycles, and the proposal is to reduce that to one, even though NICE recommends three cycles. There would be no support at all for women between 40 and 42 years of age in Wales. There is one cycle currently available. And I'm also aware that there are dangers in terms of additional barriers to single people and same-sex couples too. We are in danger here of closing the door on a number of women at a time when they most need this provision. There's disappointment, there's surprise. The Wales fertility network says that we are in a good place at the moment and that this is very disappointing. We should be seeking ways of helping people on their journey to pregnancy, but these plans certainly are a retrograde step. 

I absolutely agree with you that we should be providing that support to anyone who wants to have a family, and people who particularly have got fertility issues. You mentioned there was a consultation, and I am aware that the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee are currently reviewing the policy and considering how to strengthen the support provided for a range of women's health conditions more broadly, but that obviously does include the role of wider professionals looking at fertility issues. So, I don't think a statement at the moment—. I think we should await the responses, but I would urge everybody to put forward their views. 

I call for a statement from the Minister for Health and Social Services on Welsh Government support for GP practices to implement the new GP contract in Wales, starting this year. For example, the single consulting room, cramped and crowded workspace and restricted waiting room at Hanmer surgery, near the Shropshire border in north-east Wales, means that their GP is unable to comply with the new regulations. He's been seeking to develop a purpose-built premises, fit for the demands of the twenty-first century and the increasing GP contractual obligations required by Welsh Government since 2012. A nearby site was identified over a decade ago. We know that an investigation into governance and leadership at Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board is currently taking place, and Hanmer surgery patients action group states that the constant changes in personnel within the health board's east area team and primary care senior management has resulted in obfuscation, misinformation and a lack of continuity and information flow on a situation that should have received urgent attention, and that the real issue is the total lack of communication from the health board and the apparent lack of any appreciation of the situation. Promises have been made but never fulfilled, they say—no information from a meeting on 11 November, no monthly updates, as promised in November. There is just no engagement and absolutely no accountability. This is an example, and I call for an urgent statement accordingly, not just on this case but on the wider implications for primary care services in that area.  

Thank you. Well, as you referred in your question, there is a new GP contract coming forward this year, and that's just part of that rolling programme, really, of reform that we have here in Wales of our primary care services. You may be aware that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board have a new director of primary care, and I would urge you to write to her—Rachel Page—to see, on that specific case, if she can bring that to a favourable conclusion.    

Trefnydd, I'd like to ask for a Government statement this afternoon on the news that senior Denbighshire county councillors have been meeting in private to discuss reductions in care home fees that will take the county's offering to below some other north Wales authorities and affect some of the most vulnerable people in my constituency. The chair of Care Forum Wales, Mario Kreft said, and I quote:

'Instead of hiding behind closed doors, the discussion should take place in an open and transparent way. There is no credible commercial reason why the report about this matter should be considered in private, but it's clear that senior figures on the council, including the leader...want to avoid proper scrutiny by the public of Denbighshire and the press. It's shameful. What have they got to hide?

'All this will be utterly meaningless unless Denbighshire's cabinet reverses this contemptible betrayal of vulnerable people and finally decides to pay fair fees that enable care homes to provide sustainable care and to reward hard-working, dedicated front-line staff with better wages.'

He added,

'If Denbighshire fails to do the right thing this time, the cabinet should resign en bloc and hang their heads in shame because this is discrimination against people with dementia who don't have a voice.'

He went on to say,

'I understand certain individuals have personal political ambitions, but hiding behind a veil of secrecy is totally unacceptable when the likely result is going to put further financial pressure with a stealth tax on loving families.'

Does the Welsh Government agree with Mr Kreft's comment?

You asked for an urgent statement, and I don't think that would be appropriate. This is a matter for Denbighshire County Council. What I would agree with is that as much transparency as possible, I think, is the way forward for every local authority in Wales when they make decisions.

I thank the Trefnydd.

The next item is the statement by the Minister for Climate Change on flooding, and I call on the Minister to make her statement—Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. Over the past week, Wales has been impacted by continuous heavy rain. In some locations, we have seen over six weeks' rain in the first two weeks of the year. This fell on already saturated ground, increasing surface water run-off and resulting in very high river levels across Wales. Since Wednesday, Natural Resources Wales have issued 50 flood warnings and 95 flood alerts. This is yet more evidence that our weather is becoming increasingly volatile and it is due to climate change. Rainfall events are becoming more severe and intense, and they are occurring more regularly.

Sadly, we have received reports of 84 properties being impacted by flooding, as well as impacts on both rail and road. Flooding is a distressing experience for residents, business owners and communities as a whole, but especially so for householders who have seen their homes flooded. My thoughts, and those of my colleagues, are with all those who have been affected. Under such circumstances, I implore householders to double-check their insurance cover and look into the flood risk to their property. We know that levels of understanding and preparedness vary greatly amongst our communities. It is important that all residents know where to access flood information, such as Natural Resources Wales's 'check your flood risk' web pages, and we continue to work our risk management authorities to increase flood awareness.

But whilst there have been impacts, we should keep in mind that the flooding could have been much worse without the efforts of the emergency services, local authorities, NRW staff, transport agencies, and volunteers. It is sometimes easy to forget, but all of our infrastructure requires people to maintain it and keep it functioning, especially during severe weather. Without their efforts, the impacts to our communities could have been much worse. On behalf of the Government, I want to express my gratitude to all those who helped in the response to the recent event.

But it is important to remember also that risk management authorities don't just respond to floods. They are constantly working to improve our flood risk management infrastructure, investing in new schemes supported by Welsh Government funding, while continuously working to improve our historic assets. They must also deal with the legacy of our mining heritage, such as disused coal tips, in the face of increasing risk from climate change.

During the previous Senedd term, the Welsh Government invested £390 million in flood and coastal erosion risk management. This has helped to reduce the risk of flooding for over 47,000 properties, by creating and managing infrastructure that would have been tested in recent weeks. We will always strive to do more. Our programme for government has a clear and ambitious target: we will provide additional flood protection to over 45,000 homes in Wales. This will not be an easy task, and requires significant investment. As we look to meet this target, I am pleased to confirm that our coastal risk management programme continues to deliver at pace. We have five coastal schemes currently in construction, at Porthcawl, Colwyn Bay, Penrhyn Bay, Aberdyfi and Mumbles. Two further schemes at Rhyl and Prestatyn, totalling £92 million, were awarded their construction funding in December, and we will see a further six schemes approaching construction over the next year, including Cardiff, Aberaeron and Hirael bay.

We don't just invest in large schemes. This year, our small-scale works grant received 90 different applications, totalling £3.8 million. The scheme provides local authorities with funding to address smaller, more discrete flooding problems. We estimate that 3,100 properties will benefit from this grant funding. We are also increasing our investment in natural flood risk management. One of our programme for government commitments was to deliver nature-based solutions in all major river catchments. We are investing more than £3 million through our natural flood management programme, as we look to utilise natural processes to store, slow and infiltrate flood waters to reduce flood risk. We estimate this will benefit around 800 properties, whilst also providing much wider benefits such as improved water quality, wildlife habitats and better land management.

For coal tip safety, we continue to deliver a programme of work in collaboration with our partners. We are committed to introducing new legislation during this Senedd to establish a consistent approach to the management, monitoring and oversight of disused tips throughout Wales. This will help protect communities and ensure people can feel safe and secure in their own homes. We continue to commission the Coal Authority to inspect higher rated disused coal tips. The fifth round of inspections is currently in progress. We have a funding programme in place to support local authorities to carry out any maintenance and capital works that have been identified from the inspection programme. For example, our funding is supporting RCT's tip remediation works on the Tylorstown tip. And last week, Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council also announced it has commenced work to improve the management of surface water drainage at Wattstown national tip.

And we are not complacent. While we constantly invest in new flood schemes, we know we must learn from every flood event. This is because we are constantly seeking to improve our ways of working. The Wales independent flood and coastal erosion committee, chaired by Mr Martin Buckle, has taken forward two separate reviews prescribed by our national strategy for flood and coastal risk management. The first review considered the resource challenges faced by our risk management authorities. The review found that, despite sustained, ongoing investment, the flood risk management sector was experiencing a skills gap. This skills gap was evident in both the public and private sectors. The report includes recommendations on how this issue can be addressed, and I look forward to working with the committee to develop options to address this challenge.

The committee's second review was into the current legislation that underpins our flood risk management policy. The extreme nature of the 2020-21 storms has stepped up the debate around delivery, particularly with regard to roles and responsibilities. I recognise that the legislation around flood risk management is robust, but not perfect. I will continue to work with the committee on any potential improvements that can be made as we seek to address the challenges posed by climate change.

Llywydd, this has been a challenging week for all of the people and organisations who work to keep us safe from flooding, but especially for those householders and businesses who have been impacted. My thoughts are with them at this time. Diolch.

Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Llywydd, and a happy new year.

Wales, of course, is not alone in being hit very hard as climate change continues to worsen, and that, in effect, causes a lot of the problems that you've mentioned in terms of flooding. Last week alone, on just one evening, a total of 27 flood warnings and 43 flood alerts were issued as downpours flooded fields and closed many of our roads. As Dr Paul Jennings said on Sunday,

'Our roads, railways and settlements are hopelessly inadequate to face the challenges ahead'.

There's no denying there has been considerable investment. Between 2016 and 2021, the Welsh Government invested £390 million in helping to manage flood risk, and this financial year it is true that revenue funding for the flood risk management and water revenue BEL increased by around £12 million, whilst capital funding increased by £21 million. Nonetheless, Andrew Morgan, leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf council, has made it very clear that more sustainable investment is now needed, as responding to flooding incidents is now actually having a direct negative impact on councils' resources. He has made the cost of not having that investment very clear. Over 20 properties were flooded, unfortunately, through culverts being overwhelmed because of the volume of water, because of debris washed off the mountains. So, it goes to show they do still need that investment. Rhondda is a prime example of the situation that we have in Wales that needs turning on its head. Whilst more than £14 million has been spent on infrastructure upgrades in Rhondda Cynon Taf since storm Dennis in 2020, £20 million has been spent just on storm repairs over the same time period. Now, as a climate change committee, we've made this very clear in several reports. The Welsh Government should change its approach to revenue allocation for local authorities and take account of current and projected future flood risk. So, Minister, can you clarify that revenue allocation for local authorities in 2023-24 will be based on both current and a new projected flood risk?

We are now eight months on from the announcement of an independent review of flooding events across Wales during the winter of 2021. Professor Elwen Evans KC has been tasked with establishing key findings, shared concerns, lessons learned, successes and good practice, as well as identifying areas for improvement. So, has Professor Evans indicated by when the review will conclude, and has she given any preliminary recommendations for the Welsh Parliament to consider now? Undoubtedly, there are lessons we can all learn and measures that we must all take some responsibility for. However, we do need to see that review. 

We have hundreds of ordinary watercourses across Wales where riparian owners have absolutely no idea what their own responsibilities are. In fact, in my own constituency, there are sections of riverside land with no identified owners. So, riparian responsibilities are going ignored. There is a risk to overlooking tributaries and streams. But, as we know in Aberconwy, they can actually be the real cause of some devastating flooding. So, what action are you going to take to ensure that all riparian owners are identified and that they know their duties and their duties are upheld?

Finally, as you will be aware, the Welsh Government has spent £4.25 million on Gilestone Farm. My colleague James Evans MS courageously captured first-hand evidence of the site during a storm, which now shows it almost completely under water. So, Minister, can you explain how on earth can it be safe for your Welsh Government to host events there and whether, in your procuring of this—[Interruption.] Sorry, I'm speaking to the Minister, not the Deputy. And whether flood risk was considered at any point before you made such an investment. Diolch, Llywydd.

Thank you, Janet. So, on the budget issues, I can tell you that the impact of the investments that we have made has been very considerable. So, for example, over the course of the most recent heavy rainfall, the flood defences in Rhondda Cynon Taf, which you referenced, prevented flooding to over 800 properties. The recently completed defence schemes in Park Lane, Aberdare, and Nant y Pentre alone reduced the risk to over 320 properties, and the defences in Rhydyfelin, Abercynon and Mountain Ash provided protection to 133, 123 and 144 properties respectively. The flood gates also helped reduce the risk for properties in Edward Street in Ystrad Mynach and a number of others. We will invest over £71 million in flood and coastal risk management this year, which is the highest annually ever, and the three-year capital budget totals £102 million to allow us to better plan our investment.  

But, the bottom line, Janet, is that if we didn't have to pay for the coal tip safety programme, which is the responsibility of the UK Government, we would have many hundreds of millions of pounds more. So, the best thing you could do for your constituents and the people of Wales is to get the Government at UK level, which is run by your party, to step up to its really serious—really serious—obligations to protect all of the people of the UK from the difficulties of coal tip safety. Those coal tips are a legacy of all our shared industrial past, not of the Welsh devolved Government. It is an outrage that the UK Government does not do that, and I absolutely defy you to tell me that we should move budget from somewhere else when we've got to cover off a programme that the UK Government should quite clearly be paying for. So, I'll take no lessons from you on how to do budgeting, for that or anything else. 

In terms of the inquiries, that's part of our co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru. That is a conversation that is ongoing. Elwen Evans has to be allowed to complete her inquiry as it goes ahead. No doubt, the spokesperson from Plaid Cymru will want to go into that further, Llywydd, so I won't go into that in any greater detail.

Well, good timing. Heledd Fychan.

Diolch Llywydd. I welcome the statement today from the Minister, and in particular, my thoughts are also with those who were devastated by flooding. For any of us who have seen it first-hand, it is absolutely devastating. And, there are people to whom it has happened time and time again. Last week, there were two properties in my region that were affected twice—on Thursday and Saturday—and it’s just soul destroying. So, I think all of my statements today are made thinking of those people who can’t sleep every time it rains heavily now—that concern. And also for those businesses that can’t have insurance, or residents who simply have been costed out of insurance, despite a flood Re and such schemes.

I would like to ask a number of questions, please, Minister, because as we’ve said, this is an issue that is going to continue to affect communities across Wales because of the climate emergency. This isn’t something that is concerning for the future, but is evidence of climate change and its impact now. And we must do more, I believe, to support those living in at-risk communities.

You referenced the independent review rather than the inquiry. There is a distinction; I fought very hard for an inquiry, but was pleased that we were able to at least secure a review. But I would like clarity, Minister, in terms of how elected representatives will be able to submit evidence in terms of that review. I think it is crucial that work moves forward, and I know communities that have been affected yet again. Some of these that were devastated in 2020 and 2021 will, of course, want to submit more recent evidence, especially when there has been work, but that hasn’t perhaps proved successful.

Secondly, I would like to ask—. Following the devastating flooding of 2020, your predecessor emphasised the need for a national conversation and for greater support to be available for communities to become more resilient. I would like to ask: where is that direct support? Because the experience of communities across Wales that I’ve been speaking to is that it’s very ad hoc, it’s up to them, where you have people who are very proactive or may have expertise in this area, who are able to lead that as volunteers. There are some very effective schemes in place with flood action groups, but perhaps for communities that are more vulnerable and perhaps don’t have that expertise, they feel that they’re being left without that support. And something that was questioned at the time was, yes, we agree that a national conversation is needed, we won’t be able to protect every home and business, unfortunately, but how do we have that national conversation, and who is going to lead that conversation? Because two years on, it hasn’t happened, and I think we urgently need that.

We’ve referenced before as a party the need for a Welsh flood forum as we see a national flood forum in England, a Scottish flood forum in Scotland, and what they do is go into communities to help with setting up things like flood action groups and providing that emergency response on the ground. That includes counselling, support and advice around housing and all sorts of things, because what we are also seeing now in many of the communities affected in 2020 and 2021 are perhaps the impact, because homes weren’t dried out properly; people couldn’t afford it because they didn’t have insurance, and that’s now creating huge health problems in terms of respiratory diseases. So, therefore, there is that need, I think, on the ground for a direct response. So, I would like to know where that national conversation is, who’s going to be leading on that, and how that is going to facilitate, then, that resilience. Because I think just repeating ‘communities need to become more resilient’ doesn’t actually help them in terms of becoming resilient, and I don’t think it will take a lot of funding in terms of that support.

Another point I would like to raise is what you referenced in terms of the skills gap, and this was also emphasised by Audit Wales in their report published before Christmas. Worryingly, it stated in that report that some local authorities aren’t even able to put in bids for the funding that is available, because they don’t have the staff and the expertise to develop those bids. Therefore, Audit Wales emphasised—quite a rare thing to say in the Senedd—that this isn’t a matter that the funding isn’t available; the funding is there, but local authorities aren’t able to apply for the funding because of the skills gap. And worryingly as well, not all local authorities across Wales are able to implement the schemes either, which means that they’re not able to avail of the funding through the co-operation agreement. Therefore, how are we addressing the skills gap you reference here? But, when we will receive an update as a Senedd, and are we assured that Natural Resources Wales have the number of staff to deal with flooding? They mentioned that, after the 2020 floods, at least 70 more staff members were needed. Are we assured that they have those staff in place, and how are we going to ensure that we are doing everything possible to ensure that no-one goes through flooding unnecessarily? Diolch.

Diolch, Heledd. Just in terms of the review, as was part of the discussion between us, there are a number of different types of review going on. I just referenced the two by the flood and coastal erosion committee, for example. So, Professor Elwen Evans KC's review fits into a pattern of other pieces of work that are going on, so just to reassure that it's not intended to be a catch-all, and I know you know that.

She will be writing out to relevant elected representatives asking them for input at an appropriate time in her review. She's got to be allowed to get on with it, it's independent, obviously, although it's been commissioned jointly between us under the co-operation agreement. I anticipate that that will not be very much longer now, and it's up to her how she does that, though the terms of reference are pretty clear that she has to do that. I would be very surprised indeed if the Rhondda area wasn't a part of that, because that's obviously where much of the flooding has just occurred, and this is a review that we want to learn lessons from, not just from the past, but ongoing. I'm sure that there will be other many-times impacted areas of Wales that she'll want to discuss with elected representatives there. So, I anticipate that happening shortly. I don't have the actual date on me—well, I don't know the actual date, it's up to her, but that was something that she certainly discussed with myself and the designated Member for this purpose, so I'm sure that that's on its way.

What we want to do is learn lessons from those sets of reviews about how things are working on the ground and what improvements there will need to be. We know that there will need to be improvements, we wouldn't be asking for the reviews if we thought everything was tremendous. So, we will be wanting to look at those, digest them and then come forward with a set of improvements. One of the things that we are looking at is this whole flood awareness issue, so, again, I want to pay tribute to the people who've been out in all weathers across Wales from every single responder service, including NRW. I think we forget a little bit that the hard resource that we see in the river, the intervention, requires those people to be out making sure that it works. So, I do want to just make sure that we acknowledge the difficulty of their working conditions.

But also, it's just heartbreaking to have your house flooded, never mind if it's happening twice in three days. We absolutely know that, and that's why we've got this big investment programme, and, again, we've got an agreement in the co-operation agreement to put the coastal risk programme up—sorry, I've suddenly got a frog in my throat, excuse me—and that's very welcome. What is very good to see is that, in the response coming back from the local authorities this time, the properties the had been protected were protected. So, it's not like it didn't work, it's just that it's getting worse, so more properties keep getting into the flooding area. But the ones that were at risk last time and had the flood defences put in were protected, so that's something to be grateful for, although, as we see, climate change is accelerating, so we need to expand the programme.

I don't have any problem at all with the suggestion about looking at flood action groups, only to say that we are just waiting on the review outcomes so that we can go through them, and I'm sure that that will be one of the things that we consider. The skills gap is also something we've been considering, as is the insurance. Vaughan Gething and I met to discuss the issues around insurance, particularly commercial insurance, very recently. I think it might have been yesterday, but my time sense is terrible, it might have been the day before—well, it wouldn't have been the day before, would it, so it was probably Monday or Friday, anyway. We will be approaching the UK Government about putting in place a similar scheme for businesses, although it's more complicated for commercial properties. I don't know why I'm suddenly coughing. [Interruption.] So, I share your concern and want to reassure you that we are doing what you've asked. Sorry.

Thank you for that statement, Minister. In December, the Red Cross launched its new report, 'Every time it rains', which highlighted that more needs to be done to support communities to better prepare for and recover from flooding. The report raises several points, but most concerning for me were the findings that awareness of flood risk among those living in areas that are at risk of flooding is low, as you've mentioned, Minister. Lack of awareness impacts on many households having inadequate flood insurance and leads people to being unaware of the actions that they can take to prepare for a worst-case scenario.

Some communities, like Afon Village in my constituency, have flood volunteer groups, who help alert residents to flood risk, liaise with authorities on blockages in rivers and give out information on what to do with valuables, amongst many other things. We've seen, over the last few years, that flooding and extreme weather events are increasingly becoming the norm, and the emotional and financial cost after a devastating event can be huge, so resources can be better placed in building resilience in the first place. So, what actions are the Welsh Government taking to ensure that those living in areas at risk of flooding in Wales know what to do to prepare for a flood? You've mentioned the review, but what more can be done to promote flood volunteer groups to expand to include more communities that are now at risk?

Thank you, Jayne. I will be meeting the British Red Cross very shortly to discuss their report with them; we're very interested in the findings. And indeed, we're interested in working with all groups right across Wales who've got something to add to this plan of action, really, because there's no argument with any of us that we need to do this as fast as possible, and we need to employ every single lever we have to make sure that people are as flood aware as they possibly can be, and that, if they are flooded out, they absolutely understand what to do to recover as fast as possible and who to reach out to for support. But that needs to also be happening—. As soon as you know you're in a flood-risk property, you need to be able to understand what needs to happen to get the protection that you require. So, I absolutely agree with you. I'm meeting them shortly to discuss it. I'd be more than happy to discuss that meeting with you once it's happened.

Minister, the floods that have, yet again, devastated people's lives don't just take a toll on carpets and wallpaper. When dirty water is cleaned away, the stains aren't just physical. People are left traumatised, frightened and unsure of what the next heavy rainfall will bring. We've already heard from Jayne Bryant that the red cross's report, 'Every time it rains', talks about the need to increase awareness of flood risks. I do commend the report to you.

I'd like to press you, please, on what psychological support will be offered to people who've been flooded again. I know of at least one street in my region where flooding has been caused by the same reason as in early 2020: a blocked culvert. If the same thing keeps happening, how can these residents trust that their properties will be safe in the future? And finally, what counselling services will be made available in schools in affected areas, please, because particularly very little children can find these incidents really deeply damaging? Thank you. 

Thank you, Delyth. That is absolutely right. I've met myself with many of the families that have been affected, and it's absolutely right that they are very severely impacted. One family told me that their three-year-old was very scared every time it rained even normally because they'd been flooded and she was worried about it. So, it's a real problem.

The first thing to do is to make sure that we manage to get a programme in place that extends the flood protection to properties, so that we can minimise that risk as much as is humanly possible. I will certainly speak to my colleague Jeremy Miles about doing something in the schools in particularly affected areas—I think that's a very good idea, to just discuss exactly how the children feel about it and what can be done. So, I'm certainly very happy to do that. 

We have got the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales—I should have mentioned earlier—also looking at this from the point of view of resilience for infrastructure. But infrastructure includes social infrastructure as well, so I'd be very interested to see what they come up with. We are very aware of the society and community impacts of this. This isn't just, as you say, about carpets and so on, although that can be pretty devastating. It is absolutely about the psychological effect of having your home no longer feel like your home, so we certainly do get that.

I've visited a number of homes that have been flooded and people have kept a small mark on the wall to show where it got to, because it's traumatising for them. So, I completely accept that, Delyth, and I think we really do want to work with our communities to make sure (a) that they're as resilient as possible, and (b) that the recovery process is as fast as is humanly possible. And I've already mentioned that we'll be working with the UK Government to do something about the insurance situation. The Flood Re insurance is available for domestic properties, but, actually, it's got a time limit on it, so we need to make sure that there's another programme in place. And as I said, commercial property currently isn't covered by it, and there's a range of issues around the difficulty of that. But that shouldn't be impossible to overcome, so we've asked for meetings with the insurance sector about how to do that, in conjunction with the UK Government, because, frankly, the market isn't big enough in Wales for us to be able to make any impact, so we'll work with them to make sure that we can get a suitable scheme in place. In the meantime, we've asked our local authorities to assess the damage for local businesses and to work with them to make sure they can recover.

Minister, over the weekend areas in Newport East saw flooding, such as Llanwern, Langstone and St Julians, which unfortunately is not an uncommon occurrence, and it has become more frequent over the last few years, with many residents and businesses contacting myself and my office. One of the issues, which I’m sure you’re familiar with, Minister, is finding out who is responsible and who is accountable for flooding when it comes to land use and land management, and very often it’s difficult for householders and businesses to achieve that. On the one hand it’s Natural Resources Wales, it’s possibly Welsh Water, possibly Network Rail, local authorities, private development, and I just wonder, Minister, whether there’s anything you’re considering in terms of bringing potential organisations with responsibilities together in those sorts of circumstances to bottom out who is responsible, because it's an ongoing situation, it’s not a one-off, and it needs to be resolved for the future.

One other matter, Minister—you mentioned the use of the natural environment, which I think is excellent and needs to be done to a greater extent. We’ve seen some attempts to manage hard surfaces in urban areas—householders' and others'—is there any more that you’re considering, so that we have fewer of those hard surfaces that allow water to immediately run off, rather than to absorb, hold and slowly release?

Thank you, John. I agree it’s a complex picture, if you like, of who’s responsible for what. But, actually, if you’re a householder who’s experienced flooding, you should contact your local authority, and they should be perfectly capable of putting you through to anyone else, but it will be them for 98 per cent of people. It will only be people who have very specific circumstances who will not be being helped by the local authority in the first instance. So, it definitely is the local authority.

The local authority also needs to contact us—I notice that Newport isn’t on my list, I’m afraid. So, they need to make sure that they’re contacting us as the flood management authority to make sure that they’re taking advantage of Welsh Government assistance as well, and I’ll certainly make sure that we do that the other way round in this instance.

The other thing is to say that we are very keen to make sure that people are as resilient as possible in the run-up, in that they understand where to look for the flood alerts and how to make sure that they know what’s coming. So, obviously, most people access social media for news and TV news and so on. The weather reports were pretty straightforward; unless you were just not looking at anything at all, you would have seen them. But you wouldn’t necessarily have known where to look to see if your particular street was impacted, so I agree with you that we need to do a lot more to make sure that people understand how to get those alerts. We will be working with the local authorities to make sure that we can get an alert system in place for properties that are impacted. It’s a difficulty, because there’s no getting away from the fact that this effect is spreading out.

So, I’m very pleased that the work that we’ve already done in communities that were experiencing flooding has worked, they’re protected, but you can see that climate change is accelerating. These have been extreme weather events, and we all remember that we've had the driest summer we’ve ever had just gone, so this water is impacting on land that has become suddenly saturated. That is a real problem in terms of how the land reacts to that impact of water. We’re really only just understanding ourselves what some of the impacts of that are for some of our land. So, we’ll need to work with our populations to make sure that we’re on top of that, and I’ve already referenced a number of the reviews that are taking place—because we’ve seen it coming, we’ve got the reviews in place, so we need to get those now, the results of those, so that we can work through them.

If you have very specific instances, John, of constituents, do please write in and let me know. There may be specific circumstances that we can address more particularly.

Finally, Carolyn Thomas.

Diolch. I welcome this statement, and also the investment in coastal defence in north Wales, which is significant. Flooding, like rainfall, impacts on our highway infrastructure, roads, bridges and pavements, and we’ve seen what’s happened in north Wales, with landslides in Flintshire, Newbridge and Llanerch Bridge that have cost millions to put right. Heavy rainfall also power washes away highway services, causes potholes and blocked gullies, which are a nightmare for local authorities, as you’ve mentioned, and residents alike. I was disappointed to see that the resilient roads fund, which was £20 million, has now been cut to zero in the draft budget. I saw that £20 million has now gone to local government for decarbonisation, and I'm just wondering if it's the same funding, but being shifted. And also would you consider a slice of the local transport fund being used possibly for local authorities towards resilience? Thank you. 

I'm not too sure which budget you're referring to there, Carolyn, I'm afraid. So, there's a very specific flood management budget, and it's ring-fenced for flood management for NRW. Local authorities have it as part of the revenue support grant, but they are expected to put a programme in place. So, I'm happy to discuss the specifics with you there. But it's not a mix and match of budgets—it's a very specific budget. 

I just wanted to say—actually, in response to John Griffiths as well as to yourself—there is already in place in Wales the need to actually obtain planning consent to pave over your front garden. This is widely ignored, I have to say, and I'm planning to remind local authorities that that's the case. And I do think we need to have a programme of awareness and alertness for people to understand what happens if they make their front gardens impermeable. Joyce Watson has been talking about this for many years now, but I think it's becoming more and more obvious that people need to understand their own contribution to some of the things that are happening locally to them. If you stop your garden being able to absorb water, that water just pours straight into the gullies, taking with it anything that it's picked up along the way, and it causes the kind of blockages that you're talking about. So, I do think people need to be aware of that. If you want to park a car on your front garden and that's what it's for, there are many permeable surfaces that are perfectly appropriate for that, and allow some kind of biodiversity to thrive as well. It's not necessary to put a hard paving on it. 

But we are working very closely with our local authorities, Carolyn, to understand what the wider impact of the flooding and the extreme weather events that we've had will be. This, unfortunately, is not going to be an isolated incident. We know that last year was the warmest year on record. It's also rapidly becoming the wettest winter on record. So, I'm afraid this is a real measure of the times we live in, and we will have to find ways of becoming much more resilient, both in our relationships and in our response. 

Thank you, Minister. 

The next item is a statement by the Minister for Health and Social Services, an update on meeting with the NHS trade unions, and I call on the Minister to make the statement—Eluned Morgan. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I'd like to take this opportunity to update Members following my meeting on 12 January with the NHS trade unions. I wrote to the unions on 6 January in advance of the meeting, inviting them to discuss a package of measures aiming to find a way to offer some additional reward to the workforce so they felt able to call off their industrial action. I suggested that the discussion could include a potential package including: on pay, a non-consolidated award funded through this year’s Welsh Government budget; ways in which we can move forward on the issues highlighted in the staff welfare project and reducing agency spend; and ways in which we can work together to restore confidence in the pay review body process.

Hard choices have been required to find the money for the proposed one-off cash payment. We will have to draw on our reserves and reorder spend from across Government if trade unions want to take up this opportunity. If we use this money now to increase pay, it means we can’t use it for other purposes, but we are confident that this is the right thing to do and would put more money into the pockets of NHS workers this winter, many of whom are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.

The autumn statement was a missed opportunity for the UK Government to give hard-working public sector workers a pay rise in 2022-23, and to prevent widespread disruptive industrial action across the United Kingdom. The 2022-23 'Agenda for Change' pay award, which has been implemented, provided a 7.5 per cent pay rise on average for the lowest-paid staff—those on bands 1 to 4—which make up nearly half of the 'Agenda for Change' workforce. For staff at the top of bands 6 and 7, the award was equivalent to a 4 per cent pay rise. Unfortunately, our financial settlement falls far short of what is needed to provide the consolidated pay awards that the unions have been campaigning for on behalf of their members. So, we're not in a position to increase the consolidated pay award already given.

Last week’s meeting was attended by representatives of the Royal College of Nursing, GMB, Unite, Unison, the British Association of Occupational Therapists, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists, the Society of Radiographers, the Royal College of Midwives and the British Medical Association. I'd like to give thanks to those who attended the meeting. There was a great deal of recognition in that meeting of the position that we find ourselves in in Wales, and an acknowledgement that we are making efforts to end this dispute, unlike the approach being taken in England.

I was realistic in terms of my expectations for that meeting, and whilst the trade unions felt that a one off non-consolidated payment was not enough to stop industrial action, the trade unions agreed to go away, and, as a collective, consider next steps. Whilst I have heard back from the chair of the health trade unions this morning, we agreed, as a collective, to not give a running commentary on the discussions, and I will respect that agreement. I will continue to engage with trade unions.

Unlike the UK Government, we are not responding to the strikes by bringing forward new, draconian laws that would trample over the devolution settlement and restrict workers' rights further.

There are currently strikes planned in the Welsh NHS. The RCN and GMB—the Welsh ambulance service—have already taken industrial action, and the Royal College of Midwives and the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy have a mandate for strike action, but have not yet announced dates. Unite—the Welsh ambulance service—will be striking this week and next, on 19 and 23 January. The RCN have now also announced two additional days of strike action on 6 and 7 February. We are committed to working with our trade unions, with a view to ending this industrial action within the means available to us.

We recognise and respect the strength of feeling demonstrated by NHS staff members in these ballots, and through the industrial action taken, but we are committed to working in social partnership with unions to explore a way to resolve the current dispute over pay. I reminded the unions in the meeting that the clock is ticking on this matter. In order to get the money into NHS pay packets this financial year, we must come to an agreement by around the mid to the end of February. Diolch.

Can I thank you, Minister, for your statement this afternoon? You are in a very difficult position; that's something I would accept. And I appreciate how tough these negotiations are for you, Minister; it's not easy at all. And it is regrettable, as you will agree as well—and as the RCN will agree—it is regrettable that we've got a further announcement of strike action in February. 

You mention in your statement, Minister, ways in which we can work together to restore confidence in the pay review body process. So, can I ask you for your assessment of that? What is your assessment of the pay review body process, please?

You also mentioned payments—the one-off payments—and I appreciate that you said you worked across Government to look where you could find that additional funding. But that won't do anything, I would suggest, to stabilise the workforce, or attract people into the profession, which is a large part of the issues that we're talking about. Or do you think I'm wrong in making that assessment?

You said in your statement, Minister, this afternoon, that,

'Unlike the UK Government, we are not responding to the strikes by bringing forward new, draconian laws that would trample over the devolution settlement and restrict workers' rights further.'

Now, in your oral statement last week, you stated that the impact on capacity as a result of recent industrial action has placed additional pressures on our system. So, you must therefore agree with the International Labour Organization, which the TUC subscribes to, that minimum service levels are a proportionate way of balancing the right to strike with the need to maintain vital services, such as health services.

Minister, the other issue, of course, is taking the pressure off our Welsh NHS, and we've seen how successful surgical hubs are in England. Where they've been introduced, we've seen the two-year wait virtually being eliminated in England, yet, in Wales, we've still got tens of thousands of people waiting for over two years for treatment. Now, I think that, last week, you almost lost your temper with me, Minister, saying, 'Look, you keep banging on about surgical hubs; well, we've got them, they exist.' But the reason I'm asking is because that's your response yourself—you've been saying that for some months to me—'They exist, they exist.' But in freedom of information requests, in a written response to Andrew R.T. Davies at the end of November, just less than eight weeks ago, you responded to him,

'At present, there are no dedicated surgical hubs across Wales.'

So, this is why I keep raising this with you, Minister, because we do get different answers on that point.

And my final question to you, Minister, is, quite simply: do you think you will resolve the pay dispute any time soon?

Thanks very much, Russell, and thanks for your understanding that this is a very tough negotiation and a very difficult time for all of those working in the NHS.

You asked about the confidence in the pay review body process. I think there are things that can change. I'm obviously very keen to hear what the NHS unions think in terms of what could be improved, but one thing that is very clear to me is that, when the pay review body took the temperature of inflation, they took it at the beginning of the year. And that was at a time when inflation was at about 6 per cent or so, and it was just after the war started in Ukraine, so we hadn't seen the impact that early in the year. So, I think there is a really good case to be made for making sure that you can somehow perhaps have some kind of mechanism whereby if it goes above a certain thing, you can revisit. So, I think there is room for us to think around some very practical issues like that.

In terms of stabilising the workforce, you'll be aware that more people work in the NHS today than have ever worked before. We are still recruiting and, tomorrow, I will be issuing a statement in terms of how Health Education and Improvement Wales will be training the future workforce, in terms of what they have planned in the next years.

In terms of the minimum service levels, I think we've got to be absolutely clear what we're talking about here. The people who go into the NHS are not irresponsible people; they are people who are committed to public service, and they are the ones who help to determine what the derogations are. So, you won't see people, irrespective of what's going on in the strikes, walking out of the ITU service, or those areas that are absolutely critical for care. So, effectively, those derogations are the minimum levels of service. But I think it's absolutely right to make sure that people understand that the right to strike is something that has been hard fought for, and something that we as a Labour Party certainly sign up to.

In terms of surgical hubs, I think there is a bit of confusion around this, because the definitions are slightly different. So, you could argue, for example, that Abergele, which is a ring-fenced place, where it's not knocked out by what happens in relation to A&E, is a surgical hub. We haven't labelled it as such, but that, effectively, is what it is. We now have the Vanguard centre in Cardiff, which is a new centre, and is definitely ring-fenced and won't be knocked out by A&E. So, that's my definition of what a surgical hub is. I'm not quite sure what yours is, but that's mine—is it going to be knocked out by things just flowing through the doors, and will it knock out the planned care? And obviously, there's a new facility in Llanelli, which is really up and running, and only just opened. So, we are doing things, and we've got, again, a ring-fenced facility that won't be knocked out by the urgent care that comes through the door.

I think you've got to be really careful here as well, though, Russell, just to understand that it is so much easier if you live in a big city to have two hospitals, where one is A&E and the other one you can have as separate, then it doesn't get knocked out by what comes through the front door. We're already doing that. In Cardiff, we can do it. You've got the Heath, but then you've got Llandough, where they can just get on with things. In Swansea, they've effectively got three hospitals and now they're starting to say, 'Look, I'll tell you what, most of the orthopaedic we'll put into Neath, so we'll keep it away.' There are always going to be complex cases where you're going to need—. For example, if you've got somebody who needs a hip operation, but they've also got a heart problem, you can't do that in a ring-fenced hub because you need somebody who's an expert in hearts quite near. So, the complex cases are always going to have to be in the big hospitals. The problem we have in Wales is that we've got lots—it's not a problem, it's a good thing—we've got lots and lots of hospitals, but because of the geography of the area you can't have more than one. So, if you want more planned care centres, we would have to switch off some of the A&E. That's very difficult when you live in such a spread-out area. In England, because populations tend to live in big cities and big urban centres, it's much easier for them to whip through things with those separations. That is much more difficult in Wales.

I'll begin in a constructive way with those areas where I agree with the Minister. On non-pay issues, I'm pleased that there's serious focus on staff welfare and that reducing agency costs is a part of what Government sees as the way forward, although I couldn't quite get the First Minister's attitude today, when he seemed to be defending the structures through which agency working currently happens. What we're saying is take the private profit out of it, so that that money can be fed back into the health service. I also very much agree with the Minister in condemning the actions of the UK Government regarding the legislation that's been brought in to limit the right to strike.

But, as much as I agree also with Welsh Government's opinions about the level of public spending from UK Government—we need to see that level increase—Welsh Government cannot hide away from its own responsibilities to resolve the problem that we face currently, which is that we have thousands upon thousands of public workers in the health sector, and elsewhere too now, that are taking industrial action because they feel that they have no other option. They gave opportunities to resolve this sooner.

In terms of the offer of a one-off, non-consolidated payment, it's clear that's not going to be accepted by the unions. The GMB are making it clear that their members would not accept a one-off payment, the RCN are also saying that it's not good enough. In real terms, cuts have been consolidated, real-term cuts in pay have been consolidated and reinforced for a decade and more, and we've got to break that cycle. You know what? This isn't happening at a very good time. Government finances are tight. But the truth is that the finances of our health workers are tight too, and they've been getting tighter and tighter. There was an opportunity in recent years to break that cycle when there was a little bit more flexibility in the system.

A few weeks ago, before Christmas, we were told there was no flexibility at all, no reserves, no unallocated money. We know that's not true, and now we have an admission that there is an offer that can be made. But that offer has to be increased. That is the bottom line. We, as a party, have spelt out how we believe it can be increased, and increased to a point where we believe a deal, hopefully, can be struck. There's a feeling that I'm getting very clearly from the unions that Government isn't negotiating seriously enough. The Minister said today:

'we are making efforts to end this dispute, unlike the approach being taken in England.'

We were here for weeks and weeks, asking Welsh Government to negotiate and they were refusing to negotiate with the unions. Whilst in Scotland, again, strike action has been paused—it was paused initially, put back on the agenda, and now it's been paused again. And here, the Welsh Government was refusing to even negotiate, whilst we were seeing health workers out on the picket lines. We've spelt out how we believe it can be done, but the bottom line is it simply has to be done, and there is a way.

Thanks very much. First of all, on the issue of agency workers, I think it's really important we put this into a context. So, 65 per cent of what we spend in the NHS is spent directly on staffing, and, of that, about 6 per cent is spent on agency workers. That's too much, and we need to bring it down. But what was clear to me—. I spent a bit of time in Withybush hospital on the weekend. Friday night, I was in Withybush with nurses, looking at what they're doing, and it was really interesting, because 50 per cent of the nurses on duty there—50 per cent—were agency nurses. So, we can take that away, but you'd have to shut the hospital; let's be absolutely clear. The interesting thing for me was that actually most of those agency workers had come from outside of Wales. So we're not talking generally about people who are NHS workers in Wales who go to an expensive agency; these were people who were coming in. I think it's really important that people understand that this is not something that is easy, because I'm not in the business of shutting hospitals, and if we try and go too quickly on this, that's going to be the consequence. I can't be doing that. 

This is a time when we've got 7 per cent of NHS workers off sick, so we have to backfill that. These are not things that you can plan in advance. We didn't know we were going to have flu and COVID and everything else. We can plan to an extent, but actually there's just not enough people who are on bank to fill those spaces. [Interruption.] We have got an agency; it's called the bank. That's what it's called. You need to go and look at how the actual system works. We have banks. So we do use people from banks, but there's not enough of them. And don't talk to me about hiding from our responsibilities. We know that we have choices, and we have made choices.

I'm going to ask you to write these figures down, because it's really important that you understand how difficult it is to get to the amounts of money that you would want to put on the table to get to a consolidated—. Don't forget, this is not a one-off payment. This is not money that you can find this year—. But if you want to increase the pay of NHS workers by 1 per cent, you have to find £55 million, okay? So, in Wales, the number of people who pay the additional rate is 9,000. It's 9,000 people. If you put that up by 1p, you'd make £3 million. That's how much you'd get. So, you're miles away from the £55 million that you would need to get to a 1 per cent increase. So, you look then at the people who earn between £50,000—[Interruption.] Stop moaning; listen to me. If you look at the people who earn between £50,000 and £150,000, and you put their income tax up by 1p, you'd get to £33 million. Again, miles away from the £55 million for 1 per cent. So the only place you've got to go to get anywhere near—anywhere near—the 1 per cent, let alone the 17 per cent that the RCN are asking for, is the basic rate taxpayers. If you raised it by 1p, you'd get to £237 million, so that would be an increase of about 4.5 per cent. Asking the poorest members in Wales, who are up against it at the moment—. That's your approach; that's what you want to do. And, yes, we are making some political decisions, because we think people are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis at the moment. So, I think it's really important that people understand quite how difficult this is, because we have made a political decision, and we are not going to raise income tax for the poorest people in Wales at the moment. 

It's really important also that people understand—. I'm not going to give a running commentary on the discussions, but you will understand that what we get in Wales in terms of increases in health is directly proportionate to what happens in England. What was really interesting is that, in 2008, we'd got to a point where we had met the EU average of the 14—. So, we compared ourselves to the 14 richest parts of the EU, and we'd met the EU average. But, between 2010 and 2019, in Britain, we saw an increase of 15 per cent. In the EU, it rose by 21 per cent. In Germany, it was by 39 per cent. The UK spent £40 billion less on healthcare than the European average. That meant that money didn't come to us, which means we couldn't put up the payments. And the answer is that, actually, austerity is a deliberate policy of the Tory Government over 10 years, and that is why nurses are so frustrated. And we understand that. We understand that. Because it's not today; it's an accumulation of 10 years of austerity, and that is your responsibility.

I talked to nurses on the picket line, because I wanted to hear their views as well, and they did say to me that it's not just about money, but it's also about work-life pressures as well. Many are doing 12-hour shifts. And there's a lack of flexibility as well, with childcare et cetera. They did also mention agency costs, and it upsets them if they know they're working with somebody who's paid more. They haven't got the experience on that ward as well, because you don't have the same people on the ward that they have, so they have to fill in for them as well.

I was really interested to hear about having a nationally owned bank, not just for nurses—I know you've mentioned it as well, actually, Eluned, before—but for social care workers and for teachers. You know, with austerity, all these strikes that are happening now, it would be really interesting. I'd love to hear more about your going on the night shift at Withybush hospital, because I think it's really interesting hearing the views of the nurses and to hear about what did you learn while you with there.

And this one-off payment—I know it's not what's needed, but, because we've got this current cost-of-living crisis and a lot of newly qualified nurses, that one-off payment would be really welcome. Talking to nurses, they would really welcome that, until we can get something sorted with the UK Government, to ensure that everybody, all these people working in public services, are properly paid and there's an end to austerity. So, I'd like to just hear your views on that, please. Thank you.

Thanks very much, Carolyn. Certainly, we're very aware that it's not just about pay; there are lots of other issues around this, which is why I was really pleased to have been presented with the staff welfare project on Monday, by representatives of the trade union movement, just setting out the kinds of things where they'd really like to see us make some movement. And so, obviously, I'll be looking at that in detail, just to see how much further we can go with that.

On agency costs, we are determined to try and bear down on certainly the most expensive agencies. And, as you say, all of the health boards have their own banks. To what extent we could have a Welsh bank—. I mean, I don't think that's rocket science; it's something we could probably try and move towards.

In terms of the night shift in Withybush, I can't tell you how fascinating it was. It's really important not just to get a sense of it through reading about what the situation is and listening to people. When you actually see the pressure on the ground, when you actually see the number of in particular older people who shouldn't really be in hospital, because they've had their treatment and there are real issues with delayed transfers of care, it really makes a difference and hits home. Some of that information in relation to agency workers I found really very useful. I had no idea we had quite so many people coming in en masse from England, but of course it's a real issue of how we staff, especially hospitals that are perhaps further away from the big centres. So, it's a real challenge and it's not going to be easy to fix.

The other thing is, on the one-off payment, I think it's really important for people to understand, first of all, that this is money where we've asked all around Cabinet for people to slow down their spending this year. If we ask them to, if we get an agreement on this, we'll ask them to slow down spending and maybe push it into next year. So, this is not money that is easy to come by, this is not underspends; this is money that has already been allocated and we're asking a big favour of the rest of the Cabinet. And it's about reserves as well. There's a big risk with going into reserves. We don't know if we're going to get a new COVID variant that is going to bypass our vaccines next year. We would be taking a risk with this. So, this is really high-risk politics, but it's something we're prepared to do because we actually want to stand by our NHS workers. So, this would be a one-off payment, and it's not going to be on the table for very long, because the end of the financial year is coming very, very quickly, and if they want it in their pay packets, we've got to get it in at the start of March, which means that an agreement has to be made before that. So, the clock is ticking here. And, of course, we haven't taken the money away from anybody yet. Obviously, people would be more than happy to hold on to that. We're asking a really, really big favour of people, and taking a risk on reserves. So, we'd have to have a very good reason to be doing that, and obviously this is a negotiation.

I thank the Minister.

Item 5 this afternoon is a statement by the Minister for Economy on economic priorities and UK Government relations. I call on the Minister for Economy to make the statement—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I come to Plenary this afternoon having earlier on today had the first inter-ministerial group for business and industry meeting of this year. It was the first such meeting since spring last year. The Welsh Government is firmly committed to proper partnership working arrangements with the UK Government and other devolved nations, and we do so in the joint interests of Wales and the wider UK economy. I am cautiously optimistic that, having had discussions about the regularity and the importance of the IMG today, the new UK Government is showing signs of more meaningful engagement on our joint economic priorities. That is what the new Prime Minister indicated that he wanted when he met with the heads of devolved Governments in November last year. The proof, of course, will be in the action that is taken.

It is vital that we work collaboratively, in proper constructive partnership arrangements, to navigate the severe economic challenges we are facing. The UK begins 2023 on the brink of recession. People and businesses across the UK are under intense pressure from the cost-of-living crisis, with inflation expected to remain in double digits over the first half of this year. A toxic combination of Brexit, a lack of public and private investment, and the UK Government's disastrous early autumn mini budget has severely damaged the UK economy. This had led directly to a widespread expectation that living standards will fall, and fall by record amounts, across all parts of the UK. Productivity has been stagnant for more than a decade and the UK Government’s commitment to

'end the geographical inequality which is such a striking feature of the UK'

remains unfulfilled. The continuing but reduced support for high energy costs announced last week will provide some certainty for business after March. However, the new scheme does not protect against energy price volatility or match the higher level of comparative support offered in other European countries.

In Wales, collaboration and partnership are the cornerstone of our approach in Government. Wales has a stable, mature Government and a network of social partners that help us to make the right decisions. That doesn't mean that all decisions, of course, are easy. Together, we have developed a long-standing framework for future-focused inclusive economic growth, underpinned by our groundbreaking Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015; an economic strategy that has been revisited, refreshed and refocused, as we recover and reconstruct our economy in the aftermath of the pandemic; and a mission that has a clear commitment to social value, firmly rooted in a greener economy, with well-being, dignity, and fairness at its centre. 

Our long-term plan remains delivering a prosperous, green economic future for Wales and investing in the skills of the future. Our vision for the Welsh economy is clearly aligned with independent thought leaders, such as the Resolution Foundation, and their proposals for rebooting Britain with a return to inclusive growth. But, all of the UK has needed the UK Government to develop a responsible, coherent economic direction for recovery and growth for some time—a clear plan created in partnership and founded in the economic strengths of each nation. Without it, and with the economic outlook deteriorating, the UK Government must work with us to ensure that there is purposeful public investment to address the current crises and deliver a more productive economy.

Our Government in Wales is clear that, together, the UK is a proud, interwoven union of nations capable of being greater than the sum of our parts. Without proper structured engagement between all UK nations over the last year, there has been a clear void that has brought about incoherent and inconsistent economic approaches in different sectors, led by different UK departments. Some approaches have been more constructive. Together, we have made good progress on free ports, we co-designed the prospectus, including commitments to fair work, and we're co-assessing the applications. Ministers from the Welsh Government and UK Government will together select the successful bid. The approach to investment zones has now moved to a more constructive path. The current UK Government has chosen not to proceed with the previous policy announced in the autumn, as the evidence of the potential benefits from that previous approach from months ago was far from clear, and we agree that a rethink and a more focused approach is required, working with us not around us. The current UK Government now appears to be taking seriously the need to engage on borders policy. That must continue if we are to get the right answer for Wales and Britain.

Some approaches, though, need urgent attention. The UK Government cannot delay action any longer to secure the long-term future of steel. They must deliver on investment that aligns with our commitment in Wales to a green economic future. They hold many of the powers that relate to decarbonising UK steel, and the resources that are needed to help transform our energy-intensive industries. The UK Government must provide clarity on measures that it will use to fund energy efficiency, and the technologies that deliver a low-carbon future. We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to bring industrial energy prices in line with competitors in Europe and to ensure a level playing field for UK steel production.

The semiconductor cluster in Wales is another vitally important contributor to our economy today and in the future. The time taken by the UK Government to reach its decision to revoke the acquisition of Newport Wafer Fab by Nexperia, on national security grounds, has caused great uncertainty to the business and its workforce. The UK Government must set out a clear position for the sector and publish its very long-awaited semiconductor strategy.

The UK Government's choice in designing the shared prosperity fund has disregarded devolution and 20 years' experience delivering EU funds. Wales remains set to lose over £1 billion as manifesto promises are broken on EU replacement funds. Meanwhile, local authorities are still awaiting decisions on bids for round 2 of the levelling-up fund, despite submitting bids at the start of August last year. The UK Government's approach has placed local government in an appalling position. Other sectors, like higher education, further education and the third sector, have been excluded, whilst funds are being re-directed away from the poorest areas of our country at the worst possible time. All of this would have been avoided if the UK Government had not broken its manifesto pledge and respected 20 years of devolution. We could then have managed full replacement funding through our framework for regional investment. Across these developments, and others, such as floating offshore wind or carbon capture utilisation and storage, a continuing and constructive commitment to dialogue by the UK Government is critical. Some of our key strategic infrastructure projects planned right across Wales are dependent on UK Government support. The advanced technology research centre, the National Nuclear Laboratory; project ARTHUR; and the Global Centre of Rail Excellence all demonstrate the strengths of high-value manufacturing in Wales. 

After the deterioration in inter-governmental relations earlier in the year, we have seen some improvements recently. But firm evidence is yet to emerge of a regular, reliable rhythm of engagement and respect for devolution across all policy areas. There will always be clear differences between the priorities and objectives of our respective Governments, because they're rooted in different values, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the anti-strike legislation introduced by the UK Government last week, having previously made a clear commitment to protect and enhance retained employment rights as the UK leaves the European Union.

We do not believe that the right response is for the UK Government to introduce new laws that will have a direct impact on the workforce in devolved public services. We believe that the right response is to work with employers and trade unions in social partnership to resolve disputes collaboratively. But if we can engage constructively on free ports, possibly investment zones, and borders, there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to deliver projects of joint strategic significance. Despite our differences, we should have a shared interest in making choices to improve the economic prospects for Wales in what will be a very challenging year ahead.

Can I thank the Minister for his statement this afternoon? Now, I agree with the Minister that the UK is beginning 2023 on a very difficult footing, and there is a need for a real focus from him on the Welsh Government's economic policies. I had hoped that we'd hear more from the Government about some of the specific initiatives that the Welsh Government has for tackling some of the challenges facing businesses in Wales, but detail on that front is lacking in today's statement. Nevertheless, I'm pleased to see that today's statement refers to delivering a prosperous, green economic future for Wales, investing in the skills of the future. The Minister knows that I've been calling for a new net-zero skills action plan for a long time now, to make sure that we have the right people and skills available to benefit from green jobs in the future. So, perhaps the Minister could tell us more about how the Government is building a better understanding and evidence base of the future skills needs to support the transition to net zero, and also tell us how he's driving awareness amongst employers to support reskilling and upskilling their workforce.

Today's statement refers to the continuing support for high energy costs that the UK Government announced last week, and I believe that there is room here for the Welsh Government to act to support businesses too. For example, we know that the Development Bank of Wales is developing a scheme that will allow businesses to take on borrowing to fund capital investment that delivers on decarbonisation. Therefore, perhaps there is flexibility here for this scheme to cover businesses needing acute support with energy costs, so that funding can get to businesses as quickly as possible. So, perhaps he could update us on his discussions with the development bank on the support that they can offer Welsh businesses, and tell us when the new green business loan scheme is likely to become operational.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the Minister's statement focuses heavily on inter-governmental relations, and I want to reiterate that, where Governments work together, Wales benefits. Indeed, I want to remind the Minister that the people of Wales are served by both Governments, and it's in the interests of both to work together. Of course, he is right to say that the UK is a proud interwoven union of nations capable of being greater than the sum of its parts, and the partnership with the UK Government on areas like free ports, like city deals, and the future of borders policy, has shown that, when Governments work together, Wales benefits.

There are, of course, genuine concerns over post-EU replacement funds, and I share some of those concerns, as the Minister well knows. But I really don't see how the Minister's statement today goes any way to tell us how he is going to build a more constructive relationship with Westminster, which is essential for the Welsh economy. Now, it's also essential that the Welsh Government prioritises investment in fields like research and innovation, which has huge potential to transform the Welsh economy and put us at the forefront of technological developments. But we are still waiting for an innovation strategy from the Welsh Government, despite repeated calls from the sector. Therefore, perhaps the Minister could take the opportunity to tell us when we will see an innovation strategy from this Government. 

Now, the Minister makes a fair point regarding the long-term future of steel. It is a foundational industry that is the backbone of our manufacturing sector and we need clarity on how a sustainable future will be secured. Therefore, perhaps the Minister could update us on the latest discussions he has had with UK Government Ministers regarding the future of the industry so that we can better understand the level of engagement on this matter. 

The Minister's statement highlights floating offshore wind as an area where dialogue needs to be strengthened, and I'm interested to know more about his views given that, in the discussions that I continue to have with developers, they make it clear that it's the Welsh Government and the resourcing of Natural Resources Wales that are holding up developments here in Wales, especially regarding planning consents. Therefore, perhaps he could take the opportunity to explain exactly what he means in his statement in relation to floating offshore wind, as stakeholders will be at the Senedd later today and next week and will be keen to better understand his views.

In closing, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'd hoped that we'd hear more from the Minister today about the economic priorities of this Government, particularly in light of the report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which argued that, since devolution, Welsh economic policies have lacked coherence and consistency, and ambitions have not been matched by effective implementation. That report was, in fact, co-authored by a former Welsh Government Minister, and so, today's statement could, and in my opinion should, have been an opportunity to tell Members more about how it will support entrepreneurship and innovation, develop a robust skills pipeline and bring together industry and academia for the benefit of the Welsh economy. Members already know that stronger inter-governmental relations benefit the Welsh economy, and whilst the Minister is right to say that we need clarity from the UK Government in some areas, we also need to see greater clarity from the Welsh Government in many areas too.

Thank you for the questions. As the Member knows, we're developing our net zero skills plan. There are some statements due to be made by the Office for National Statistics and others later in the spring, but I'm interested in how we are able to close the circle. I have actually had further conversations in the last week about the response from a variety of stakeholders, both providers of skills acquisition, further education and others, but also businesses—and business awareness—themselves, and it varies in different sectors. There's a challenge here about raising awareness of the journey to net zero, and the fact that businesses in all sectors will need to change some of the ways they look to work. It's why there's going to need to be not just an approach on what the policy is, but raising awareness, and how we equip people who will come into the world of work for the first time, or who are near the start of their career, as well as those of us who have been at work for a longer of period of time, and how you equip and re-equip the current generation of people already in work. And you'll see that as we take forward the net zero skills plan, but also the work we'll then do in more detail in different sectors. So, I'll have more to say in the coming months, when we actually launch the plan, and you'll see some of that engagement. And I'm sure that, with your other hat on, not of being the Conservative spokesperson but of being the committee Chair, you'll be interested in some of the engagement. And I look forward to the evidence and the examination that I'm sure the committee will give. 

On the Development Bank of Wales's green business loans, you won't have to wait much longer; I think Luke Fletcher has asked this as well. In the coming weeks, that launch will take place to set out how the development bank will be able to support businesses to both reduce costs to save the bottom line, and to do so on a sustained basis, to decarbonise their production, and the advice function will be part of that scheme as well. So, not much longer to wait. But, that does show that we're using the powers and the ability that we have to make a practical difference. 

And when it comes to inter-governmental relations, it requires the UK Government to be a willing partner in a conversation. The meeting that I had today with a Minister within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in the UK Government, a Scottish Government Minister and a civil servant from Northern Ireland was the first one in nine or 10 months. That isn't because we decided not to have the meetings; it was a choice by the UK Government for a variety of reasons for those not to happen. We have always been prepared to engage constructively. It was the same in the meeting that I had earlier this week with Michael Gove on a range of other issues as well. We know that we won't always agree, but we'd much rather have a conversation and to do that at an early enough stage to make a difference. What we have found at various points in the last couple of years is that we have been engaged at a point where we are being told what the decision is, or there is a demand that we agree to a policy and a perspective that we know we will not find agreement on. It's why I pointed out in my statement areas where agreement has been possible, like the fact that we compromised and had agreed a position on free ports, to contrast that with the approach taken on shared prosperity and the shared prosperity fund, for example.

On an innovation strategy, I think I've been as clear as I can be: it's a commitment in the co-operation agreement. We expect to launch that before the end of February, so, again, not much longer to go. When it comes to steel, I welcome what the Members had to say about needing clarity on our future for the sector. That can only come if there is a proper road map from the UK Government on what shared investment looks like and the sort of priorities it wants to set. And that's really important right across the whole sector, not just for the steel sector itself, but then what's going to happen in procurement in a range of other areas where we could and should be having a positive impact from seeing more British-manufactured steel used in a range of products. That would also, I think, require a different approach on infrastructure investment as well.

And when it comes to floating offshore wind, again, an area where steel could and should be used, we have been really clear in our conversations with the Crown Estate. Myself and Julie James, the climate change Minister, have met with the Crown Estate several times, and we've been clear about what we want to see with the future pipeline of leasing rounds, so not just something where there's an opportunity for a period of months and a shorter period of years, but a longer term round of leasing, so you can get longer term investment. And that, I think, would underpin significant investment in port infrastructure in north and south Wales, to allow opportunities to be taken up properly.

And also we've been very clear with the Crown Estate that we want to see a positive advantage and a requirement made in the next leasing round on localised supply chain, and that, actually, the bids would then have to be seen through in practice. There would need to be a contract mechanism to make sure that a bid can't read fantastically well on paper and that something entirely different takes place in reality over the coming years. And I would have thought that the Member and others would be supportive of that, because making sure we generate greater economic value in those supply chains should be a common objective right across the Chamber.

And finally, on your point, you mentioned skills at the end; it's one of the areas we have invested in consistently. We have a good record on investing in skills and apprenticeships through the lifetime of devolution. It's one of the levers we do have and make a difference with. It's also one of the levers where it's harder to do more because of the lack of a proper settlement on post-EU funds. That £1 billion we're going to lose makes a real difference in how we support the economy, how we equip people with skills for today, and for tomorrow, and I really would welcome Welsh Conservatives joining with voices from across the Chamber and wider society and other sectors in calling on the UK Government to revisit what it's done, revisit its broken manifesto promises, and give Wales what it promised it would have, full replacement for former EU structural funds, and that would make a difference to our economic future.

I thank the Minister for his statement today.

I'll start by agreeing with the Government: it is disgraceful that UK Government would rather attack workers' rights than deal effectively with the economic hardships that are facing those workers.

If I could start with one of those hardships, which is energy, the Minister mentioned that the current UK scheme, whilst providing some support, does nothing to safeguard against energy price volatility. I don't think we'll be able to safeguard against price volatility fully, and in a way that doesn't subsidise shareholders in the private sector, unless we nationalise the energy sector. I hope he would agree on that principle.

Now, the UK Government has decided to significantly reduce support for small businesses through the energy bill relief scheme, which leaves small businesses in Wales facing sky-high energy costs. We have heard already that one in four businesses are considering closing or selling if there is not a replacement energy bill relief scheme. The announcement from the Government on the green business loan scheme is more than welcome and is something that myself, Plaid Cymru, and significant stakeholder groups such as the Federation of Small Businesses and UKHospitality have been calling for, but, additionally, the FSB has been calling for a 'help to green' voucher scheme to be implemented by UK Government, modelled on the 'Help to Grow: Digital' scheme, to help businesses decarbonise. Given the Minister's recent interministerial meetings, would he raise this issue with UK Government and urge them to implement such a scheme to run parallel to a loan scheme here in Wales?

And of course I know the Minister is already raising the issues surrounding steel. Plaid Cymru stands with him in calling on the UK Government to step in and provide the support needed for decarbonisation of the sector. We know steel is vital to decarbonising the economy; we need steel to build renewable forms of producing energy, like the offshore wind the Minister mentioned. That is why it's vital that funding to support steel decarbonisation is forthcoming. Pursuit of decarbonisation, of course, is made harder by the fact that UK steel makers pay 30 per cent more for their electricity than their counterparts in Germany, and up to 70 per cent more than their counterparts in France. I hope the Minister will be able to provide the Chamber with a more detailed statement in relation to his discussions with the UK Government in regard to the steel sector.

Now, we've heard free ports mentioned in the Minister's statement today, as well as in First Minister's questions. I've been clear on my position when it comes to free ports; I don't believe they're the solution to our issues. The Trades Union Congress back in 2020 were saying there's no evidence that free ports create jobs or stimulate growth. I could go on, but the Office for Budget Responsibility has predicted that tax breaks in English free ports will cost £50 million a year. Has the Government made an assessment of the implications here in Wales?

I was also wondering if the Minister could also provide clarity on his role in deciding on which free port goes forward in Wales, as well as what role the Senedd will have in scrutinising the decision. I know it's a joint decision between himself and a UK Government counterpart, but, in the event of disagreement, will he have the final say? But also will Members in this Chamber get a vote on the decision, or even a vote on whether we want free ports at all?

On the first substantive point that he asked about, I'd be grateful if he'd write to me about the detail of the scheme he's suggesting, rather than looking to give a three-word answer in the Chamber today.

On the challenges of reduced support around energy pricing, it's worth people being reminded that, when the UK Government talk about non-domestic customers, they're not talking about public services. So, public services are not domestic customers, but they're excluded from the support, and that will be a real challenge in budgetary terms for those services and a budgetary challenge that the Welsh Government has to meet as well.

When it comes to the responses from business groups, it's been interesting that they have been mixed. Understandably, small businesses are most concerned about the withdrawal of support. There's a range of energy-intensive businesses of small, medium and larger sizes, and I think we will see real challenges with the reduced level of support available. It's still the case that, in my conversations with businesses and trade union partners, energy costs and inflation are still at the very top of people's concerns in running businesses, then labour and skills, and that goes into some of the points about investing in the future, about actually having people to go into jobs where there are opportunities to grow those businesses, and then we still have the challenge of our trading terms with our European partners. On that, there was some modestly positive progress in conversations around the Northern Ireland protocol on data sharing. I hope there's continued common sense in our arrangements, and not a return to previous methods of communication that appeared to be more designed to worsen conditions than the likelihood of successful trade with partners.

I respect the Member for continuing to talk about free ports and making clear his position. I would, though, gently remind him that the position we have reached is not one that is entirely alien to Plaid Cymru. In the previous leadership contest, the person who currently occupies the position of Plaid Cymru leader, at that point, was talking about having more than one free port and about having a free port as a policy position in that.

Now, what a free port is and isn't can be different, because we previously had free ports in the UK when we were part of the European Union, then the Conservatives got rid of them after a different period of time. What's now being proposed isn't the same as what was originally proposed when Rishi Sunak co-authored or sponsored a policy paper. The prospectus that we've got is clear about including fair work, and that's got to be made clear as part of the—[Inaudible.]—and sustainability, things you might not have expected to have appeared if it had been done by the Conservatives on their own in the UK Government, looking to write that bid prospectus. So, it has been a sharing and a compromise between the two Governments. So, we've come to a position where there's something that we can not just live with, but then want to see the opportunities, because, as I said in response to questions from Paul Davies, there are opportunities to invest in ports in different parts of Wales. I look forward to having the professional advice from not just my officials, but input from UK Government officials as well about the nature of each of the bids that have been submitted, and I will then make a decision jointly with the UK Minister. So, it isn't that someone has a veto over the other, it's that we'll need to find a place to agree, otherwise we can't make a decision. 

The scrutiny for that, I expect that we will—. As you've seen last week, there'll be a statement, there'll be an announcement, and I expect that Members will want to question me both in this Chamber, and potentially in the committee that you're a member of, on what's gone into each of those choices and how we've reached a particular position. So, I fully expect that there will be open and public scrutiny on any choice that is made. I hope that's helpful about setting out the choices that we are making and the fact that we're doing something to try to carry forward opportunities to grow the Welsh economy and not to displace activity, which I know was one of the Member's concerns. 

We have almost used the time allocated and I have five Members still wishing to speak. So, can all Members please be brief and can the Minister be succinct in his responses?

I'll try.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Minister, in welcoming the statement today and its very clear focus on social value and social partnership in the economy, can I ask whether Government Ministers will continue to work with those of us—and I draw the attention of the Chamber to my membership of the Co-operative Party and the chairing of the Senedd Co-operative group—those Members who want to see Welsh Government build on its already impressive work on growing the employee-ownership sector of the economy? We thank the Deputy Minister for engaging with us on the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill, and we do ask how this landmark legislation could more clearly reference employee ownership, but we also ask the Minister whether he will continue to work with us on further ways in which we can grow employee ownership in Wales with non-legislative measures, of course, but also the prospect of groundbreaking legislation here in Wales if a backbencher, perhaps one of the many Co-operative Party backbenchers here in this Chamber, could bring forward a strong and serious proposal during this Senedd term. Would he agree to work with us on that?

I should perhaps note in response that I am also a member of the Co-operative Party. However, in answering the points by the Member, I think it's fair to say this: employee ownership enjoys an important status in the Welsh Government, with a clear programme for government commitment linking our progress to its growth. We believe that the growth of employee-owned businesses will contribute to a stronger, fairer Welsh economy, because they have sustainable development built into their DNA. Despite the rapid growth in the number of employee-owned businesses in recent years, I recognise the ongoing need to celebrate the role that they play. The social partnership and public procurement Bill will contribute to well-being by improving public services through social partnership working, socially responsible public procurement and promoting fair work. We'll now explore ways in which the guidance around the Bill might usefully reference employee-owned businesses. 

Whilst the social partnership and public procurement Bill is not the right vehicle to legislate on employee ownership, I will, of course, work positively with a strong future MS legislative proposal regarding employee ownership. Whilst I can't guarantee that legislation would follow, our commitment to the policy agenda means that we would certainly work with such a proposal. As with our foundational economy approach, and many other ambitious agendas in our programme for government, we believe that progress will be made without legislation, and that is why I do not see a proposal as necessary for action. I'm grateful for the discussions that I and the Deputy Minister for Social Partnership have had with Huw Irranca-Davies to date. We'll now take the opportunity to engage upon how the statutory and non-statutory guidance on procurement and fair work may help to promote the principles of employee ownership within the framework provided by the Bill and in our wider policy.

Can I thank the Minister for his statement, in particular the references to the advanced technology research centre and to the steel industry? But a key component of future economies, both in Wales and across the globe, will be digital infrastructure and digital connectivity. Presiding Officer, I will declare an interest as an unpaid member of the project consortium, 5G project consortium, led by Bangor University. The Minister knows that I don't just want to see north Wales connected, but I want to see north Wales creating and generating the next generation of these technologies. With that in mind, can I ask the Minister what conversations he's had with UK Government counterparts regarding investment in digital infrastructure and the research and development of these types of technologies? 

Yes. Firstly, I have had a number of conversations with counterparts in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in the UK Government. I am expecting to have a ministerial meeting within the next few weeks exactly on the potential to invest further in doing so. I'm pleased that, from a north Wales point of view, but I think in every one of our regional economic frameworks, digital connectivity is recognised as not just a key part of the economy today, but an even bigger part of the way the economy will work in the future. This is definitely part of the agenda I have, and I now have, of course, ministerial leadership for the digital strategy for the Welsh Government.

Minister, I think the war in Ukraine has clearly illustrated just how unstable and unpredictable the world is that we live within, and many countries now are working very hard to shore up and support their key industries, their strategic industries. I was very pleased that you referred to the steel industry and indeed the semiconductor industry in your statement, because I believe they are strategic industries that very much need support. Locally to me, Minister, as you know, there are examples of the consequences of the lack of a UK Government strategy that’s everything it needs to be to support and foster development. So, with Liberty Steel, we see the recent announcement as an illustration of the difficulties in the steel industry, and with Nexperia, we see the result of UK Government taking a decision and then walking away from that decision, rather than setting out a viable alternative that would deliver the same sort of development and support for jobs that the acquisition by Nexperia would have delivered. So, with regard to both of those examples, Minister, I wonder if you could say something about what Welsh Government is doing in terms of those current situations.

Thank you. I will try and address the issues as promptly as I can, bearing in mind what the Deputy Presiding Officer said. On Liberty Steel, I've had a conversation with Community about the current situation. We will of course support workers who are facing an uncertain time, but also try to understand what the pause announced by the company actually means. It’s still not entirely clear what that is. What is clear, though, is that there is a future for the steel sector. There’s a future for decarbonisation of the way that steel is produced. That requires investment by the industry itself, but also the Government needs to decide how it’s going to do that. We need to decide whether we’re comfortable with hydrogen production for steel as something that’s going to be developed in the Netherlands in Europe, not here in the UK, and I do think the UK Government needs to be really clear: does it see the steel sector as a sovereign capability for a modern economy, as I think we do here in Wales? And if it does, it needs to act in that way to ensure that investment choices are actually made, including things around the production of scrap and retaining more of that scrap metal here in the UK.

On Nexperia, I’ve had a number of direct conversations around this, both with the workforce and indeed with the UK Government, and actually what we’re looking for is an understanding of the longer term strategy needed for Nexperia and the wider sector itself. So, at some point, as I mentioned in my statement, publication of that strategy would be very welcome for everyone, and the investment choices that should be made, but this is definitely a growth area for Wales.

One of the key strategic infrastructure projects that depends on UK Government support is making progress on the recommendations of the Burns commission to strengthen the east-west rail lines between Newport and Cardiff and beyond, which are the backbone of the south-east Wales metro. I appreciate that transport is not in your portfolio, but I’ve yet to see any progress whatsoever on such a strategically important issue, which is essential for attracting new businesses to south-east Wales. Are you able to report any change of tack by the latest UK Government, any glimmer of hope of Government investment in what is their responsibility, for the east-west rail line infrastructure, which is entirely down to the UK Government’s responsibility? Because without it, I can’t see how we’re going to be able to progress economic development as well as integrated transport.

The Member’s right to point out that this is a reserved responsibility and we look for real progress, not just warm words, being made in this area. The Member’s also right that the Deputy Minister for Climate Change leads in this area. I’m sure he’d be happy to talk to the Member directly, but investing in this area shouldn’t just be good for the economy and for transport; actually, if we did it properly, it would also be part of giving the steel sector a future, and how that procurement could and should be run. It’s part of the challenge about rail infrastructure improvements everywhere in the UK, and I want to see that infrastructure improved, and improved with British-manufactured steel supporting more British jobs.

Finally, Alun Davies.

I'm grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to the Minister for his statement this afternoon, although I must say that I find his trust in the United Kingdom Government somewhat touching, and potentially misplaced. We've had a debate earlier today in questions around the way in which the subsidy regime is being managed, and he's quoted himself the betrayal over EU funding. So, I can't see the reasons for that optimism, but we all admire an optimist, and as a Cardiff City FC fan, I'm quite used to it myself.

But let me say this to the Minister: I think sometimes we're in danger of drowning ourselves in process and losing sight of our objectives, and losing sight of our purpose. There are two tests that I will set for the Minister for this statement and the work that comes from it. The first is productivity. Productivity is mentioned almost in passing in this statement, but it's the greatest crisis facing the Welsh economy, and I will want to see investment in improving productivity.

The second test is how it impacts the people I represent in Blaenau Gwent. Too often, Blaenau Gwent is treated as a periphery by the Welsh Government, and we don't see the investment that we require to drive economic growth in the Heads of the Valleys. But, of course, the UK Government doesn't even know where Blaenau Gwent is, and what we're seeing potentially is Blaenau Gwent becoming a periphery of a periphery. So, I want to be reassured that the Government and the Minister will set clear objectives so that the people of Blaenau Gwent can see the consequences of this work, because it is a test of the impact on the people we represent that is the greatest test of all.

I think the Member makes an entirely fair point, as the representative of Blaenau Gwent, as to what will be the impact for his constituency, for the community that he has grown up in and now represents. To be fair, outside the Chamber, Dirprwy Lywydd, the Member makes broadly similar points sometimes a touch more colourfully, but it's part of his role. So, it is part of the test, which is, 'Will it make a difference?', not just for individual projects—we can point to the work we're doing with Thales, for example, but that isn't just founded in Blaenau—but what difference will it make more broadly. So, the work that my colleague the education Minister has seen there about 5G classrooms, and the ability it has to have a much wider, broader and deeper impact. 

On your point about productivity, you're right, of course. Some of the challenges around skills investment, one of the key points, are the adoption of different process improvements, and the difference that that can make in a whole range of sectors; the improvement in leadership and management skills—a key challenge in the Welsh economy; but also the adoption of not just new and leading edge technology solutions, where, actually, a lot of the adoption is about things that are already mature. The pandemic, for example, forced lots of businesses to go into the online world where they hadn't been. Well, actually, there's an opportunity there in operating in a different way. There's also the need to then make sure that you're secure online as well. It's also about understanding simple ways that are adopted and mature in other sectors to make sure you are driving more business and more traffic your way.

I do think, though, that as well as all of those challenges where we understand them—I wouldn't quite put my constructive approach to relations with the UK Government quite the way that the Member would—but there are areas where we see different parts of the UK Government behaving differently. Some are more difficult to deal with than others, and as I mentioned in the statement, the advanced technology centre, for example, that should be based in Jack Sargeant's constituency. Actually, that's a good example of where we can work together, and we want more of that and less of the betrayal that absolutely has happened on the shared prosperity fund, which is something that we'll continue to discuss until the position is resolved. Maybe that will require a change in the UK Government.

I thank the Minister.

Item 6 is postponed until 24 January. 

We move therefore to item 7: statement by the Minister for Education and Welsh Language on sustainable communities for learning. I call on the Minister, Jeremy Miles. 

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Last year saw the introduction of a new name for our flagship education infrastructure investment programme, namely the sustainable communities for learning programme. In doing so, we are making a clear statement about our commitments for the environment and future generations. To date, the programme has provided over £1.5 billion-worth of capital investment to support the delivery of 255 school and college projects.

Building on this, our programme for government commits a further £1.5 billion-worth of additional investment for the next phase, to deliver new schools and colleges across Wales. The programme's success reflects the strong collaborative partnership we have with local authorities, the Welsh Local Government Association, CollegesWales and diocesan authorities. It's allowed us to make strategic local decisions on education investment priorities across Wales, whilst providing a platform for the delivery of national priorities at the same time, including the new Curriculum for Wales.

In response to our delivery partners' needs for a more agile programme, I have decided to introduce a rolling programme for delivery. The lessons learned from band A, and the transition into band B, highlighted both the complexity and protracted nature of delivering projects through the previous fixed programme timelines. And, to that end, a rolling programme is being implemented to improve efficiency for both partners and Welsh Government, strengthening one of the programme's key attributes, namely that of projects progressing at pace and based on the priorities of our delivery partners.

School transformation remains a vital outcome of our investment in the programme. As a Government, we are clear that it isn't just about bricks and mortar. Well-designed buildings and pleasant surroundings play a key role in supporting both staff and learners, delivering high standards and aspirations for all.

Delivery partners are expected to submit their new strategic outline programmes at a time to suit their progress through their existing programme—typically above 60 percent of programme value—thereby initiating commencement of their rolling programme. The current five-year strategic outline programmes will therefore be replaced by nine-year strategic outline programmes that will enhance the planning of future investment. Rolling programmes will be submitted to the Welsh Government for review and consideration towards providing a staged commitment and support, with three-year reviews of their programmes to adjust and add further pipeline projects.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the programme is truly cross-cutting and has provided a platform to embed the Welsh language as well as other policies, such as active travel, biodiversity, ICT, community and curriculum, delivering and maximising the value from investments across our education estate and, in doing so, has provided a sustainability model for others to follow.

As one of the first nations to declare a climate emergency and intention to be a low-carbon nation, I have mandated that all new projects supported through the programme would be required to deliver net-zero carbon in operation, plus a 20 per cent reduction of embodied carbon. Twelve months on from this mandate, I am pleased to confirm that 16 projects have been approved and are progressing as net-zero carbon projects. I'd like to commend our delivery partners on taking up the challenge and developing net-zero projects in such a positive way, with all regions across Wales taking up the mantle, from Ysgol y Graig on Ynys Môn in the north, Ysgol Cedewain in Powys, to Ysgol y Deri in the Vale of Glamorgan in the south. 

As well as supporting all regions of Wales, the programme is having a positive impact across all sectors of education. With South Point Primary School being our first net-zero carbon school in Wales, we are now seeing projects for secondary schools, all-through schools, and special schools as well as colleges. Special schools present an additional challenge in achieving net-zero carbon due to specialist equipment, thereby increasing the demand for electricity. However, I can confirm there are currently three special school projects approved to progress towards meeting our net-zero carbon ambition, and lessons learned from these projects will feed into other pipeline projects on our journey to net zero.

Another challenging area, Dirprwy Lywydd, is that of achieving net-zero carbon on refurbishment projects, and I can confirm that our first net-zero refurbishment project will be Pen y Dre High School in Merthyr Tydfil. Pen y Dre will undergo a deep refurbishment of the existing school, stripping the fabric back to the structural frame. The embedded carbon saved by retaining the foundations, the floor slabs and the structural framework can save as much as 48 per cent of carbon alone. We expect a lot to be learnt from this project that will contribute to the programme’s buildings reuse target of 60 per cent.

We need to ensure that sustainability and decarbonisation commitments become embedded in our everyday life. This is especially true for the younger members of our nation. We need to provide effective ways for them to understand the environment that surrounds them, including the buildings that they learn in. I have previously spoken in the Siambr, Dirprwy Lywydd, about my expectation for local authorities and further education institutions and their design teams to work closely with our children, young people and staff so that they have the opportunity to help design their own learning environment. In response, last September I formally announced the launch of the sustainable schools challenge. Building on the programme’s net-zero carbon mandate, applications were invited from local authorities that are able to demonstrate innovative and collaborative design, development, delivery and management of two new schools that could make a positive contribution to the environment, community and surrounding landscape. I am pleased to say today that this challenge has been extremely well received by local authorities, with 17 project bids having been received. Officials are now being supported by external sector representatives in assessing the submissions, and I look forward to announcing the successful projects during the coming weeks.

I'd like to thank you, Minister, for your statement today. A major, long-term strategic capital investment programme with the aim of creating a generation of sustainable schools is something that is important for schoolchildren across Wales, and very important for my party. Having sustainable learning environments is one of the most important things that can help children learn and achieve their goals, and we welcome the moneys that have been provided by Welsh Government to date and the moneys going forward. We welcome the provision of the support to local government to get more schools built, including Welsh-medium schools to help reverse the decline of the numbers of Welsh speakers across the country. Minister, what I'd like to know, though, is how will you measure success in this funding and with the scheme to ensure that we are building those Welsh-medium schools, and making sure that we are getting more Welsh learners, especially after the recent census results, which were concerning, especially within three to 15 year-olds—those people going backwards with the numbers speaking Welsh.

There was a mention in your statement around active travel. School transportation does play a huge role in tackling climate change and carbon emissions across Wales. Many parents across the country, especially in rural areas, do face transport issues, and it isn't just as easy as telling people to walk or to cycle to school. So, how do you see sustainable communities working to provide effective and efficient safer school transport for schoolchildren in Wales as part of a sustainable community for learning? 

There are also concerns, Minister, as you're well aware, about the rising costs facing these schools because of inflationary pressures and everything else. One example is Ysgol y Deri in the Vale of Glamorgan, which has gone millions of pounds over budget. Councils are facing spiralling costs. So, I'd just like to know how you're going to support these schools in making sure that they are built in the most efficient way, and also how you're holding local councils' feet to the fire on this to make sure that projects are managed in an appropriate way. Minister, I'd like to thank you for your statement today, and if you could answer those questions I've posed to you, I'd be eternally grateful. Thank you.

I thank the Member for those questions. He's right to point out that the census results were disappointing, but he also will remember that there is a range of data in this area that shows a slightly more complex picture than, perhaps, that one source of data, very important though it is. So, the task for us is to look at the data in its entirety, but there are more children in Welsh-medium schools than seem to have been declared as speaking Welsh in the census in a particular year group—to the point that he was making about the expansion of Welsh-medium schools. I think that's an indication that we need to dig a little bit further about the context for that data as well.

He will also know that increasing availability to Welsh-medium schools is a fundamental part of being able to meet our 'Cymraeg 2050' strategy targets. The 10-year Welsh in education strategic plans, which all 22 authorities have submitted and which I have approved, have ambitious plans, not solely to move schools along the linguistic continuum towards greater use and delivery through the medium of Welsh, but also the construction of 23 new primary schools over the course of the plan, which is a significant investment. He will also probably be aware that, in addition to the intervention rate that applies broadly under the band B programme, which is, roughly speaking, between 65 and 85 per cent of the cost, depending on the nature of the school, for a limited number of projects, we have been able to provide a higher intervention rate for Welsh-medium provision, in order to be able to ensure that happens at pace. But I've made clear to local authority partners, and they have welcomed this, that future investment under the sustainable communities for learning investment programme will take cognisance of progress in delivering the WESPs as well, which I'm sure he’ll be keen to hear.

He's right to point out how important active travel is as part of any site design for projects that we fund. Bike and scooter storage is encouraged as part of the active travel to school design where possible, and the programme team expects stakeholders and contractors to work with schools to develop a travel plan that will support measures to increase active travel and environmentally sustainable travel more broadly to school.

He raised a very important point about the impact on particular projects. I'm bound say at this point that there’s a large number of projects that are looking at a very different cost profile to those that perhaps they were embarking on when they submitted their business cases to us. That's a common problem across the construction sector, as I know that he appreciates, and we touched on this in the recent committee discussion when my budget was being scrutinised. We are working with authorities on a bespoke basis in relation to each individual programme to understand the inflation impact on the cost for that project, and what can be done to look at the specification, perhaps, in some circumstances. In other circumstances—and there are many examples of this—where there has been increased cost, we've been able to agree terms on which we can share some of those costs with schools. We'll want to continue to make good use of the significant funding that we have made available, and I think, as he can see from the statement, we need to flexible in how we support our local authorities to deliver on that with us.

Thank you, Minister, for this afternoon's statement. Clearly, there are many things to be welcomed here. We certainly agree on the need to upgrade a number of schools. We know, travelling the length and breadth of Wales and visiting schools, that there are schools that truly do need investment. This is an important part of ensuring the learning environment, which is so important, as you've outlined, in influencing school attendance, and so on, if the resources are in place. We've also previously discussed the benefits for communities when there are facilities that can be used by the community outside of the school day.

Very similar to James Evans, I would like to focus specifically on Welsh-medium education, if I could return to that issue. I was pleased to hear what you said in your response to James in terms of WESPs, because, certainly, you've heard from many of us on this side of the Chamber some examples in our own regions where we have felt at times that the investment has been overly focused on English-medium schools, and when there are Welsh-medium schools, they are often placed in different communities to those where there previously was a Welsh-medium school, and that English-medium schools are placed there, and there's a risk. We have heard from parents that they make that choice in terms of sending their children to English-medium schools and leaving Welsh-medium education as a result. So, I would like to know more in terms of how this further investment will ensure that the Welsh language is a priority for our authorities and that we do look, particularly where there's been a tradition of Welsh-medium education, at how we ensure that that isn't lost if a new English-medium school is placed in an area.

We've also discussed transportation and the resources so that everyone can benefit from that. I know that that is an issue for the Deputy Minister for Climate Change, but clearly this will be an important element. And with transport costs increasing too, I do think that there's a broader issue to deliver that.

One of the things we know in terms of projects such as this is that very often they can take a very long time. I was pleased to hear that you hoped that this will provide more flexibility in terms of timetables and so on, and that's to be welcomed. But, for those schools that perhaps aren't successful in this round, and it may take years for them to achieve the investment that they need, are you also looking as a Government in terms of how we use community resources already in existence, such as local libraries or museums, that perhaps have received investment? There have been projects in the past, such as one in Swansea, where there was a very successful project in having a school in a museum, the National Waterfront Museum, and advantages from using community assets. Clearly, some of these are under threat now, but when you talk about the number of schools still using portakabins that have seen better days, is there any way we can look at how we can use community assets that schools could walk to, so that we can provide a sustainable future for facilities such as libraries and museums, and also enhancing the curricular advantages? I just wanted to ask if that is something you are considering, particularly given that it's going to be very tight for local authorities. We know that the costs of projects such as this will increase because of inflation, so are there alternative steps that we can take? I'll leave it there for now. Thank you, Minister.

Thank you for those questions. Just in terms of the investment in the Welsh-medium sector, the Member will have heard what I said to James Evans. But one point to add to that, following on from what she said, is that one of the challenges or weaknesses that we have in the WESPs is that the emphasis is on numbers, which of course is at the heart of the success in terms of what we want to see with regard to the number of Welsh speakers, but the geographical element is important too, as I've mentioned in several contributions in this Siambr. And the geographical element is vital in terms of the vibrancy of the Welsh language in specific communities, so that's an important element in the wider strategy too.

In terms of the prioritisation and the wait for investment, we are in the hands of local authorities in this regard, because they are the ones that propose what they want us to co-fund with them in terms of the timelines and prioritisation, and in terms of the quality of the current buildings. That's done on a basis that is objective, so that everybody understands what the criteria are, but at the end of the day they are the ones that propose the schemes for us and we collaborate with them on the funding of those. But the priority always in this scheme is prioritising those schools that do need most refurbishment or might be, perhaps, in the least attractive condition. So, that's the background to all of this.

This has all been done to create a more flexible system that allows authorities to make swifter decisions in that regard. Rather than setting out a scheme for five years, and that that is static, there's an opportunity now to look at this more often, so there's an opportunity to change priority as appropriate when conditions change. So, there's a period of three years when we agree on the funding profile, a period of six years when we'll be agreeing on investment or support in principle, and then a period of nine years where we have that longer term picture of what the authority is likely to ask for. So, it allows that greater flexibility in terms of the prioritisation that the Member mentioned.

Just to say on the final point, I do think that there's a connection—. One of the things that is at the heart of the sustainable schools challenge is to combine the teaching environment and the building with the curriculum. I want to see staff and pupils involved in the work of designing and building the school. I saw this on a visit to a school in Bridgend a year or so ago, and that partly motivated me for the broader scheme. So, the suggestion that the Member makes in terms of using community assets for curriculum opportunities is one that I would support too. 

Thank you very much for your leadership on this in ensuring that all new projects are going to have to be zero carbon. I'm particularly interested to find out how South Point Primary School in the Vale of Glamorgan is sharing the learning from this project, or rather the Vale of Glamorgan Council or your officers, to ensure that we understand the strengths and weaknesses of this pathfinder project, as well as an analysis of how much local labour was involved, or whether the expertise had to be imported from England or elsewhere, because it's a really crucial way of understanding how our net zero skills plan is going to be informed. I also think that it's really interesting that there's a school in Merthyr, Pen y Dre High School, that's going to be completely refurbished using the original foundations. So, both of these are really, really interesting.

Secondly, I just want to pick up on what James Evans was saying about active travel and what consideration you've given to some sort of bicycle loan scheme, similar to employers offering loan schemes for active travel to employees, so that poor families can also afford to have a bike, rather than putting all their money into £400 a term on a bus. Without that pump-priming, I don't think that's going to happen.

I thank Jenny Rathbone for those questions. I did highlight South Point Primary School because it's the first net-zero school in Wales, in the constituency of my Government colleague, Jane Hutt. I think it's probably fair to say—and I hope that they wouldn't mind me putting it in this way—it must be amongst the most visited schools, to look at what they've done there, and I thank them for their generosity and the welcome that you get. I fear that many of us have tested that welcome very frequently. So, they have been very, very proactive about being open to sharing that, and I know that the council very much supports and extends that as well. 

More broadly, I think the point the Member makes is very important, though, about how we rapidly universalise best practice and learning in what is a developing area in some ways, isn't it? So, there is a sectoral buildings decarbonisation task and finish group, which the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Wales has developed and that is aligned to our decarbonisation commitments. They've created a toolkit that can support the development of these projects, both in terms of being carbon neutral in operational terms but also in terms of the embodied carbon. So, there's a body of expertise now being built up that we can make sure is understood and shared.

The point that she makes on identifying the skill set and local labour is really important. One of the principles in the sustainable schools challenge fund was to prioritise the use of local skills and the foundational economy local to the location of the school, for reasons that I know she shares my commitment and passion about. But, we are working at the moment to identify what is clearly some level of skills gap in this area, and we heard Vaughan Gething speak a little bit about this earlier. So, officials are working very closely with the sector to identify what needs to happen in that space.

In relation to active travel, about a year or so ago, we asked the chair of the active travel board to look at the stipulations that we make in the sustainable communities for learning funding conditions to make sure that they were stretching. And so, there have been some developments since then. But, we're also looking at the work of the committee that Huw Irranca-Davies was involved in, looking at active travel more broadly, and they've had some challenging things to say to us about the extent to which we can and should go further in relation to investment in new schools around active travel. And the point that she makes I'm sure is one of those that we shall be taking into account, so thank you for raising that today.  

If I could touch on Welsh-medium education—and I'm sure that the Minister isn't going to be surprised by that—investment in it to achieve Welsh Government targets is going to be vital. Bridgend is a prime example. Yes, we heard last week that, on the face of it, Welsh language provision is increasing, with a new school in Porthcawl and the expansion of Ysgol Gymraeg Bro Ogwr, but if you look again, you'll see that there's still significant investment in expanding English-medium education. Bro Ogwr, my old primary, yes it's expanding, it's moving to a new site, it's increasing numbers, but on its current site, there's still uncertainty as to whether or not it will remain a Welsh-medium school.

So, is the Minister confident that Bridgend is moving swiftly enough to meet its target in the WESP? I know that the Minister is aware of the situation in Bridgend. I know that he has had a whole host of conversations with the council. But, like a number of others in the Siambr, I want to see the council moving at a greater pace on this. 

I thank the Member for that question. We need to provide Welsh-medium schools as well as English-medium schools. There is demand in both areas. And the challenge for us and our aspiration as a Government is to ensure that one doesn't happen at the expense of the other. And that's the point I was making earlier, in linking investments in the broader infrastructure with appropriate and swift developments in the delivery of the strategic plan. That's an important element of this way of working. I have had discussions with the authority, the leader and the cabinet member for education and the director of education to discuss the WESP, as part of the discussion that we have with all councils on their plans. I think the council's plans are ambitious, and we've discussed with them how important it is to make swift progress, and the council certainly accepts that. I think the council also accepts that, in the past, there hadn't been sufficient progress, and that places people's expectations in a different place, and I think having that conversation has been positive. I've told all authorities in Wales that I'm very pleased to see ambitious plans, but what we need to see on the ground is the delivery of those plans and to see developments happening, on the ground.

Minister, it was a pleasure to join you fairly recently at the brand new Hirwaun primary school in my constituency, built under the twenty-first century schools programme, with £10.2 million of funding from Welsh Government and RCT council. I think it was probably one of the last schools to be built under that iteration of the plan that we're discussing now. The benefits of that project's social value action plan included 90 per cent of spend being placed with businesses in Wales, 21 new entrant construction jobs, and 10 new entrant apprenticeships. So, I'd like to ask how similar value benefits remain a priority, moving forward.

I was also interested to hear your comments around the advantages of moving towards a rolling programme for delivery. These are powerful push factors to make the change, and I understand them completely. However, I would point out that, when a project has been agreed, such as at Glyncoch in my constituency, there is naturally considerable enthusiasm from pupils, parents and teachers to see it move forward at speed. So, I wonder whether you've identified any problems that the new rolling programme for the delivery could cause, or if there are any warnings that it might lead to slippage, and if these are identified, then what mechanisms would be put in place to ensure that this is not the case?

I thank the Member for those questions—really important questions. I think it's too soon to know if the new mechanism will demonstrate that there are challenges. I think, in principle, it ought to be much more nimble and ought to be actually less onerous, both for authorities and for the Government, which obviously then offers opportunities to deal with things in a slightly more flexible way and to give the right mix, I think, of focus on immediate delivery in the way that the Member was saying, the need to maintain the pace of the programme, which is obviously really important, but also to give that crucial longer term horizon so that we can plan jointly across the system for future projects as well, and obviously having a rolling programme enables that to be adjusted more nimbly and more responsively. So, that's the thinking behind the programme.

What I'm keen to look at is how some of the higher expectations, if I can put it like that, that we have made through the sustainable schools challenge programme—. That will lead to the building of two new schools as part of that, but actually, as the Member heard, there were 17 bids, and I know that, amongst those bids, there is a lot of innovation, and lots of creative thinking, so that exercise in itself has, I think, thrown up a number of different lessons that we can learn for projects, both in terms of local supply chains, but also the broader use of the foundational economy, as well as, I think, one of the real opportunities here, which I know the Member and others are interested in, how we can make sure that biodiversity, sustainable food production and those sorts of critical developments are embedded in both the life of the school, but also the premises and how they're constructed. So, there's a range of, I think, new areas of focus, perhaps, in that smaller programme, and I hope for us to be able to learn from success in that across the broader investment programme.

Finally, Sioned Williams.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. You mentioned in your statement how the programme provides a means of acting on national priorities such as promoting the Welsh language. You know that an outline business case from Neath Port Talbot Council to open a huge new English-medium school in Pontardawe under the twenty-first century schools programme, as it was at that time, was approved by the Welsh Government, and that the consultation that followed led to a successful judicial review, which came to a decision that it was unlawful because the council hadn't taken account of the impact of this on the Welsh language. And the report that the Government itself commissioned on the impact of this on the Welsh language is clear that the damaging impact on the language cannot be mitigated. But the same proposal is out for consultation again, but without initial approval from the Government, this couldn't happen. I know that you can't comment on this particular case, but I would like to know if it's possible to have an assurance that all business cases approved under capital programmes by the Government take full account of impact on the Welsh language. If so, will the Government refuse to proceed with joint funding any plans that have already been approved in outline form, but are damaging to the Welsh language, where the construction work is not already commenced, of course?

I can't make any comments in terms of specific decisions with regard to the case that the Member spoke about. I know that she campaigned, and Plaid Cymru local election candidates campaigned on the basis that the school shouldn't go ahead. Now, Plaid is in co-control of the council, and that was not the decision that the council made, and I understand that.

In terms of the case in the High Court, as the Member says, there was a very important conversation had with regard to the impact on the Welsh language. As the Member knows, a specific assessment was made by the Government with regard to what should be done to mitigate the impacts, and there's an opportunity for the council under the co-leadership of Plaid Cymru to take those steps if it is possible for them to do that.

We need to ensure that, at every stage, when any council seeks investment from the Welsh Government, the needs of their strategic plans have been met, and also that the impact on the Welsh language has been fully considered. So, that is already part of the arrangements that we have in place.

I thank the Minister.

Item 8 is the Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Prescribed Requirements and Default Scheme) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, and I call on the Minister for Finance and Local Government to move the motion. Rebecca Evans.

Would you mind, Dirprwy Lywydd, if we do the infrastructure bank Bill first, because I had on my list for today's meeting the Landfill Disposals Tax (Tax Rates) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2022? So, we'll try and resolve that. My apologies.

Okay. We'll suspend that one at the moment, I'll check what the regulations and Standing Orders are, but we'll move on to item 9 in that case.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

The Legislative Consent Motion on the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill, and I call on the Minister for Finance and Local Government to move the motion. Rebecca Evans.

I move the motion. The UK Infrastructure Bank is a new UK Government-owned bank launched in June 2021 that will provide £22 billion of infrastructure finance through partnering arrangements with the private and the public sectors. The bank's stated objectives are to use these funds to help tackle climate change and to drive economic growth across the UK. The bank has been established as a replacement for the European Investment Bank. While the Welsh Government lobbied hard for continued access to the EIB, it unfortunately no longer operates in the UK, following our exit from the European Union. It is also worth noting that the bank's total resources of £22 billion, although welcome, constitutes a relatively small sum to address both climate change and regional economic growth across the whole of the UK.

The bank's sole objectives are to help tackle climate change and to support regional and local economic growth. It will seek to achieve these objectives, working in five key sectors, namely clean energy, transport, digital, waste and water. The Welsh Government supports the principle of establishing the new bank. As the bank has tackling climate change as one of its central objectives, it will provide an additional source of funding to help public and private borrowers tackle the climate and nature emergencies. As ever, the Welsh Government would seek to use the cheapest form of finance to fund investment in public infrastructure, but, as a new public lender, the bank should not be overlooked where it has the potential to offer value for money.

The Bill primarily seeks to put the bank on a statutory footing. Although the bank will operate at arm's length from the UK Government, the Bill prescribes a small number of functions to the UK Government, such as the power to appoint directors to the board and, where necessary, to change the bank's aims and objectives.

When initially tabled in the UK Parliament last May, the Bill, which requires the consent of the Senedd, provided no role for the Welsh Government or the Senedd. This caused me and the Counsel General a great deal of concern. There were three specific clauses that troubled us where powers were reserved to the UK Government and which therefore failed to respect the devolution settlement. 

At this point, I would like to thank the diligent work of the Finance Committee, the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. The three committee reports produced highlighted many of the same concerns that I had with the Bill, but also in additional areas, which helped shape our negotiations with the UK Government.

I and my officials have had constructive discussions with the UK Government throughout the course of the Bill's journey through Parliament, and I'm pleased to say that we have achieved concessions in all three areas that we were concerned with. Within two of the clauses, namely the objectives and activities at clause 2, and also strategic priorities and plans at clause 3, we have obtained a statutory obligation on the UK Government to consult with Welsh Ministers before they exercise powers, such as modifying the objectives of the bank or setting new strategic priorities for the bank. I would like to assure Senedd Members that, whenever the Welsh Government receives a consultation from HM Treasury, I will ensure that we liaise with the Senedd to ensure that I receive the views of Members before responding to any such consultation.

As a further concession, at clause 7, concerning the appointment of directors, we have ensured that at least one director will be appointed with responsibility for liaison and to ensure the interests of the Welsh Government are represented at board level in the bank. It's worth noting that this is far more influence than we ever had with the European Investment Bank.

Overall, I believe that the current draft of the Bill, which has been agreed thanks to the constructive efforts of all parties, including Members of the Senedd, and particularly our committees, does represent a practicable compromise. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee, Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. The committee, as you know, has considered all three memoranda for the Bill and has published two reports. The most recent was laid yesterday, and I'm sure that Members have had an opportunity, at short notice, to have a look at that. 

Before turning to the provisions that are of particular relevance to the committee's remit, and to the matter of consent, I'd like to say a few words about the scrutiny process. This will be familiar to a number of you, because the points I raise won't be new to Members, but it doesn't make them any less important in any way.

Memorandum No. 1 and memorandum No. 2, laid last summer, outline the Welsh Government's concerns regarding the Bill, and these are concerns shared by the committee, of course. At the time, the Minister provided assurances that she was discussing amendments to address those concerns, so we deferred a decision on the matter of consent.

Memorandum No. 3, referred to us shortly before the Christmas recess, provides details of the amendments negotiated between the Governments and subsequently agreed to. According to the Welsh Government, these amendments, as we have just heard, represent a reasonable comprise, so it's now asking the Senedd to give consent to the Bill. The fact that the amendments were made at such a late stage in the Bill's passage, of course, means two things: first of all, that the time available for us to report on the memorandum was limited, and, secondly, that the time available for Members then to consider our findings was also limited before being asked to form a view on consent. 

In addition to this, it's fair to say there is no hope of further amendments being made to the Bill to address our outstanding concerns as a committee—those concerns remain, of course. I'll come to these in just a moment, but, once again, this demonstrates, does it not, the inadequacy of the LCM process.

So, I’ll move on to the provisions of particular interest to us as a committee. One of the bank’s two statutory objectives is to help to tackle climate change. Now, we, of course, know that, if Wales is to become a net-zero nation by 2050, significant infrastructure investment from both the public and private sectors will be needed. The bank could potentially play an important role in scaling up and accelerating that investment. Given this, we support the creation of the bank in principle.

The bank’s objectives are laudable, but there is a glaring omission, namely tackling the nature emergency. Given the dangerous decline in nature, and with the ink barely dry on the UN biodiversity agreement arising from COP15, it’s therefore deeply disappointing the UK Government ruled out the inclusion of a nature objective specifically. The Minister has provided assurance that the Bill, as drafted, will enable investment in nature-based solutions and biodiversity. Encouraging though this may be, of course, it doesn’t equate to a statutory nature objective.  

In terms of our other outstanding concerns regarding the Bill, in earlier memoranda, the Minister said she was calling for the Bill to be amended

‘to enable the Senedd and the Welsh Ministers to take their appropriate role within [the bank’s] Governance structures to ensure proper democratic accountability.’

She said that the amendments would

‘provide the Welsh Government and the Senedd with roles equivalent to those of their UK counterparts.'

Now, we’ve had a taste from the Minister of some of the amendments that she was calling for in opening the debate, but, before that, of course, the Minister was previously unwilling to share details of the amendments she was calling for with Senedd committees. This was on the basis that inter-governmental negotiations were ongoing. Now, there we go; that again raises a question about our role as a Senedd in the context of this process.

Now, of course, there has to be consultation, as I understand it, with the Welsh Ministers before UK Ministers can exercise powers in relation to the bank’s objectives and activities, and strategic priorities and plans. Well, this, certainly, isn’t an equivalent role, such as we were seeking. And what of the Senedd’s role? Quite simply, the Bill doesn’t provide a role for the Senedd. Let’s be clear about what that then means—it means the UK Parliament, rather than Senedd Cymru, will scrutinise how powers in areas of devolved competence are being used, and they will be the ones who will oversee the bank’s effectiveness as far as it relates to Wales.

So, having considered the Bill, as amended, we still have concerns about the limited role of the Welsh Ministers in terms of the bank’s governance structures, and the lack, of course, of a role provided for the Senedd. So, Dirprwy Lywydd, with this in mind, the committee is not in a position to recommend that the Senedd gives consent to the Bill.

May I change hat now? Because I understand that I’ll only have one opportunity to contribute, may I speak as spokesperson for Plaid Cymru in one sentence? Yes. Just to say, of course, that, as usual, Plaid Cymru will be voting against consent, but a number of the concerns relating to what I’ve said in my other role in this debate are valid in that regard too. Thank you.

I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. We have produced two reports covering the three consent memoranda that have been laid by the Minister on this Bill—the first was completed last October, and the second was laid yesterday afternoon. Neither of our reports contain many conclusions or recommendations, so my comments in this debate will be very brief.

Llywydd, for those keeping count, our report on memorandum No. 3 was our fortieth report on legislative consent memoranda in this sixth Senedd.

We’re very busy.

So, with your invitation, Dirprwy Lywydd, I will speak in the two other debates on legislative consent motions for two other Bills this afternoon, at risk of boring everybody here within the Siambr, but such is the extent to which the UK Government is proposing and indeed the UK Parliament is passing legislation now on devolved matters.

Now, I make this point because conclusions 2 and 3 in our first report highlighted our concerns that, despite pre-introduction inter-governmental working on the Bill, which lasted several months, the Bill was indeed introduced to the UK Parliament in a state that meant the Welsh Government, when it laid its legislative consent memorandum before the Senedd, could not recommend that the Senedd give its consent to the Bill. And we noted our disappointment at that time that this demonstrated clear failures in inter-governmental working, and we're not laying that at the foot of the Minister here, but it's a clear breakdown there. 

In our second report, on memorandum No. 3, we acknowledge that progress does appear to have been made in the machinery of inter-governmental relations, to the effect that the Minister has secured some concessions and is now recommending that the Senedd gives its consent to the Bill, so that's welcome. Recommendation 1 in our first report asked for clarity on why instances of failures in inter-governmental working, as originally shown in relation to this Bill, had not been escalated to higher levels in the inter-governmental structures, including by using the reformed formal dispute resolution procedures.

Now, we've noted the Minister’s response that, in her view,

'there has been constructive dialogue with HM Treasury'

and, in quotes,

'it has not been necessary to escalate matters.'

However, it does remain unclear to us what would need to happen, or indeed not happen, before Welsh Government would seek to use a formal dispute resolution process—not just within this LCM and this Bill, but in others—for which it advocated in order to resolve serious disagreements with the UK Government. Now, perhaps we'll only learn this in hindsight when the dispute resolution process has been used in anger, and when prior discussions have not resolved disagreements at earlier stages. But we would still welcome, if we could have it, further explanation of when a formal dispute resolution process may indeed be triggered. 

Recommendation 2 in our first report asked the Minister to clarify what she meant when she said to us that the Welsh Government continued to, in quotes,

'advocate that the Senedd and Welsh Government all exercise equivalent powers to those of our UK counterparts.'

So, we were a little bit disappointed with the response from the Minister when she told us that she couldn't give specific details about the exact nature of the amendments that may be introduced, and that her 

'officials have been clear that issues of constitutional concern must be addressed in a manner that is satisfactory to me'—

the Minister—

'and ultimately to the Senedd.'

However, this doesn't address adequately in detail the request made in our recommendation. So, I wonder, Minister, if you can reflect on this point in your closing remarks, expanding on what you meant by that statement,

'advocate that the Senedd and Welsh Government all exercise equivalent powers to those of our UK counterparts',

because you piqued our curiosity and then left us dangling and expecting more. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

I call on the Minister to reply. 

Diolch. I'm very grateful to colleagues for their comments in the debate this afternoon, and I should respond to some of the committee's recommendations on the floor of the Senedd, because I know it was the first recommendation of the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee that I respond to their recommendations 2 and 3 during this debate this afternoon. So, I'm pleased to do that, and I know that the committee was keen that I clarify whether the bank could act a lender to devolved public authorities other than local authorities, based on the new definition of public authorities, and also whether and how the ability of devolved public authorities to borrow from the UK Infrastructure Bank could impact on funding arrangements for those bodies. 

So, just to confirm that we do welcome the fact that the definition of public authorities has been broadened to make it clear that the bank can lend to a wider range of devolved public authorities, rather than simply local authorities. The appropriateness of borrowing to specific public authorities and any impact on their funding arrangements would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, but I'm more than happy to provide committee with more detail as we get into the use of the bank, and to liaise with public authorities to test their experience of dealing with the bank. And I will say that our Welsh Government officials are in very, very frequent contact with the bank—as, in fact, is the Development Bank of Wales—to establish those good relationships. 

And then, in terms of those concessions that we were trying to negotiate, they were around those three specific clauses that I've described this afternoon. In terms of a role for Welsh Ministers when clauses 2 and 3 might look to be amended, those relate, of course, to the strategic priorities and plans, and the objectives and activities of the bank. But then, also that point about directors: so, we would have originally, I think, wanted to have been able to appoint ourselves a director onto that board. We weren't able to get to that point with the UK Government, but I think that what we did negotiate, which was that there would be a specific member of the board responsible for liaison and whose role it is to represent the views of the Welsh Government on that board, I think, is an important concession that we were able to achieve in terms of that particular concern that we had.

In terms of the length of time that it took to get us to this point, I think that we do have to recognise that there were delays in reaching a compromise position, but they were more of a product of the numerous changes in Treasury Ministers at Westminster, specifically over the summer, rather than any particular disagreement that we had on some of these issues that we were trying to resolve. So, I think that what we have been able to negotiate will certainly be an improvement on the initial situation, and I think that we are at a point now where we are able to recommend consent, because our key concerns have been addressed in a way that we think is pragmatic and does allow us today to recommend consent.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore I'll defer voting under this item until voting time.

Minister, are you in a position to continue with item 8?

I am, with apologies for the earlier confusion.

We'll now return to item 8, and I call on the Minister to move the motion.

I welcome the opportunity to bring forward these amending regulations today. The Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Prescribed Requirements and Default Scheme) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 amend the 2013 council tax reduction scheme regulations. The scheme provides direct help to households across Wales by reducing their council tax bills, and these amendments ensure entitlements are maintained.

The UK Government abolished council tax benefit on 31 March 2013 and passed responsibility for developing new arrangements to the Welsh Government. The UK Government's decision was accompanied by a 10 per cent cut to the funding for the scheme. The Welsh Government responded by meeting the funding gap, to maintain entitlements to support to 2013. We have continued to maintain entitlements each year since. The scheme currently supports around 268,000 of the poorest households in Wales. As the cost-of-living crisis continues to place increased pressures and hardships on the people of Wales, it is even more important that we ensure that the systems in place to support them are as fair as they can be and are kept up to date.

Amending legislation is needed each year to ensure the figures used to calculate each household's entitlement to a reduction are increased to take account of rises in the cost of living. The 2023 regulations make up these uprating adjustments and maintain existing entitlements to support. The financial figures for 2023-24 relating to working age people, disabled people and carers are increased in line with the September consumer price index—10.1 per cent. Figures relating to pensioner households continue to be increased in line with the UK Government's standard minimum guarantee and mirror the uprating of housing benefit.

I've also taken the opportunity to include minor technical changes and to make additional amendments to reflect other changes to related benefits. For example, I'm amending the regulations to ensure that people arriving from Ukraine, who are fleeing war and are in need of support, will not be treated as not being habitually resident in the UK. This means that, where eligible, they will be able to access this scheme. A further amendment ensures that the council tax bills of households in Wales that host people under the Homes for Ukraine scheme are not affected by their offer to provide support to people from Ukraine. And finally, we have removed the exception for European economic area citizens, who are now subject to immigration control, to mirror the regulations in England.

These regulations maintain entitlements to reductions in council tax bills for households in Wales. As a result of this scheme, the most hard-pressed households receiving CTRS will continue to pay no council tax in 2023-24. This scheme remains a cornerstone of our targeted support for households, especially those suffering most from the effects of the cost-of-living crisis.

Finally, I'm grateful for the report of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. As outlined in the Government's response to that report, the two minor technical errors in the regulations will be corrected prior to the regulations being made, and I ask Members to approve these regulations today.

I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you, once again, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you, Minister, also. We considered these regulations on 9 January, and our report has been laid to inform Members in this afternoon’s debate.

These regulations amend, as the Minister was saying, the 2013 regulations to uprate certain figures used to calculate an applicant’s entitlement to a reduction under a council tax reduction scheme.

Our report on these regulations contained, as the Minister mentioned, two technical points, and I thank the Minister for providing a timely response. The first technical reporting point highlighted what we considered to be a small issue with the drafting of the Welsh language version of the regulations.

Our second technical reporting point identified an inconsistency between the English language and the Welsh language texts in regulation 13 of the regulations. The Minister agreed with these reporting points. The Welsh Government considered that these errors are technical in nature, and we were indeed told that these would be corrected prior to the instrument being made.

So, Minister, thank you for confirming to the Chamber that these corrections will take place as has been suggested, and for responding so positively to our report.

I call on the Minister to reply.

I'm grateful to the Chair of the committee for those comments, and, as I say, we will make those necessary changes.

Just to reiterate, really, the important fact that the regulations will ensure that the figures used to calculate a household's entitlement to a reduction in its council tax bill will take account of the rises in the cost of living. I think that's really important in the context that we're currently in. And, of course, the technical and consequential amendments will also enable council tax reduction schemes in Wales to be administered effectively and efficiently.

I'd also like to remind colleagues that amending regulations are required each year to ensure that all eligible households in Wales retain their entitlement to support. And, as outlined in my statement on the response to our consultation on a fairer council tax in December, I published a summary of responses to that, and we had over 1,000 responses, reflecting a really wide range of views and interests, and I'm very much looking forward to driving forward that agenda alongside colleagues.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 10 is next, but item 10 has been postponed until 14 February.

So, we'll move on to item 11: the legislative consent motion on the Shark Fins Bill. I call on the Minister for Climate Change to move the motion. Julie James.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion. The practice of shark finning is barbaric and hugely detrimental to shark populations across the world. It is a completely unsustainable fishing practice, where large parts of the shark carcass are discarded overboard in favour of the high-value shark fin, used predominantly within Asian communities.

Shark populations globally are in decline, and it is widely accepted that this practice contributes significantly to it. I want Wales to be a nature-positive country, and to lead by example. The shark-finning regulation already prohibits the removal of shark fins onboard UK vessels operating in maritime waters. The Shark Fins Bill will go further, and ban the import and export of detached shark fins and products containing detached shark fins. The ban sends a clear message to the rest of the world that Wales, and indeed the UK, does not accept this practice and will not contribute to a global market involved in this.

I do recognise that there are scientific and educational purposes for shark fins in Wales, and the Bill does allow Welsh Ministers to grant exemption certificates for this limited purpose. 

The second clause is also significant, as it enhances the provisions I mentioned in the shark-finning regulation. The Bill will prohibit shark finning onboard UK vessels operating outside UK waters, and non-UK vessels operating in UK waters. The provision means that all vessels operating in the UK must land all sharks with fins naturally attached to the body of the shark. UK vessels operating outside of the UK will also be operating in line with similar regulations in Europe.

The final clause, which sets out the extent and commencement of the Bill, will remain reserved to the Secretary of State. With regard to this clause, I've expressed my disappointment to the Secretary of State following a lack of engagement with the Welsh Government when the Bill was first being drafted. As I understand it, officials were given very little time to consider the Bill and the scope of devolved powers before it was introduced to the House of Commons. However, with the Secretary of State retaining these powers, it means that there will be no possibility of a regulatory gap between regulations commencing in the UK and in devolved Governments.

So, with that aside, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with you all today this Bill, which is an important step towards shark conservation in a time when our country is facing a nature emergency. I am committed to a marine environment that is clean, safe, healthy, productive and biologically diverse. We have achieved so much in Wales by way of marine conservation, from our marine protected area network, which boasts 69 per cent protection in our inshore and 50 per cent in all Welsh waters, and this continues to grow, with the announcement I made launching the marine conservation zone designation process.

Wales is also leading the way responsibly when it comes to clean seas. I introduced the ambitious Environmental Protection (Single-use Plastic Products) (Wales) Bill on 20 September 2022. The Bill goes beyond banning an initial set of single-use plastic products seen in other parts of the UK, and Wales becomes the first UK nation to introduce a recycling scheme for end-of-life fishing gear. This scheme has collected and recycled 2.4 tonnes of fishing gear that may have otherwise been sent to landfill.

And, Dirprwy Lywydd, we will be doing more. Following the biodiversity deep dive I commissioned last year, I published a set of recommendations that should be taken in order to achieve the 30x30 target. My officials are currently analysing the new global framework agreed at COP15 in late December, to identify what further actions we need to take to meet the other targets in addition to 30x30.

And in addition to the marine conservation zone process I mentioned earlier, Welsh Government will be developing a habitats restoration scheme, focusing on salt marsh and sea grass habitats along the Welsh coastline. I've also committed to a sea bed conservation strategy, which now more than ever is absolutely critical in the face of the ever-growing threat of avian influenza.

However, if we want to show the rest of the world that Wales is committed to marine conservation, we need to go beyond our domestic priorities by agreeing to the motion and banning the import and export of detached shark fins into Wales and the UK, which I think sends a clear message that we do not support this type of unsustainable practice that is so damaging to the world's shark population. So, Dirprwy Lywydd, in drawing to a conclusion, I recommend Members support the legislative consent motion in respect of the Shark Fin Bill. Diolch.

I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies. You again. [Laughter.]

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you, again. We laid our report on the Welsh Government's memorandum in respect of the Shark Fins Bill this morning and we came to two conclusions within our report. We made two recommendations to the Welsh Government.

We agreed with the Minister's assessment that clauses 1, 2 and 3(5) of the Bill require the Senedd's consent. However, we note that the Welsh Government is of the view that the rest of the sub-clauses within clause 3—relating to the territorial extent of the Bill, the scope of regulations to be made under it, and its title—do not require the Senedd's consent as they are non-operative clauses. Minister, we take the view that if such clauses relate to other clauses in the Bill that require consent, then the consent of the Senedd should also be sought for these clauses. This is the first recommendation we made in our report.

Our second recommendation calls on the Welsh Government to share with us the memorandum of understanding it will be entering into with the UK Government on the commencement powers within clause 3 of the Bill. Now, we note that the Minister is content for the Secretary of State to retain these powers, so we would find it helpful to see the detail of how and when they will be used. So, we hope that can be accommodated. We also note that the Welsh Government is content for the Secretary of State to make regulations for saving and transitional provisions in a devolved area, by virtue of the powers within clause 3 of the Bill, and the Minister has explained this.

So, finally, we did conclude that, should the Welsh Government wish to legislate in the area of animal welfare in the future, it should do so by introducing legislation within the Senedd. This is a standard argument of ours. We acknowledge that the Bill subject to this legislative consent motion today has a very discrete purpose. However, since the Welsh Government has identified animal welfare as one of its priorities, it should take responsibility for introducing future legislation it deems necessary for that purpose in Wales, in the Senedd.

And, can I just say, by way of closing, as the former UK Minister who banned the last six vessels in the UK who actually took part still in shark finning, I commend this consent?

Can I just say we're really on the same page here, Minister? I would like to say from the outset that the Shark Fins Bill has the full support of our group. Shark finning is one of the biggest threats to shark conservation. The annual number of sharks killed globally by the practice is estimated to be around 97 million. And it was with surprise, even to me, that I learned the volume of shark fins brought into ports around the UK. The regulatory triage assessment has identified 125 ports across the UK reportedly handling shark and dogfish, with Milford Haven and Swansea in the top 10 ports, with 219 landings worth £59,641 and £20,708 respectively. Since 2018, records indicate that the UK exported a maximum of 12 tonnes of shark fins, valued at £216,000, predominantly to Spain and other countries within Europe.

Clause 1 prohibits the import and export of shark fins, parts of shark fins, or things containing them into or from the United Kingdom, following their entry into or removal from Great Britain. As you have rightly stated in the LCM, the Bill as currently drafted sends a key message that shark finning is unacceptable and that, here in Wales, we all want to distance ourselves from it. Should we not support this legislation, bearing in mind that there is no comparable Senedd Bill planned in the short or medium term, Wales would be in the bizarre situation in which our ports could be targeted for imports, with onward distribution into the rest of the UK, and that is quite difficult to prevent.

Clause 2 addresses an injustice and provides a common-sense solution. And I hope even Plaid Cymru will agree that it is unacceptable that the prohibition on shark finning under the shark finning regulation does not apply to fishing vessels that are both non-UK and non-EU in UK maritime waters. The legislation is an excellent example of positive co-operation by a Welsh MP, Christina Rees, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee sees no reason to object to the Senedd agreeing to the LCM, and I think it appropriate for us all as Members here to support this today to help send a clear message that this Welsh Parliament does not and will not support shark finning. Diolch.

We, of course, agree with the final statement made by Janet Finch-Saunders there. We don't oppose in principle the content of the Bill. Indeed, in considering the good record of this Parliament in promoting the nature emergency, there was an opportunity for us to lead the way in this area, and it's a shame therefore that we haven't seen a Welsh Bill and have had to let Westminster legislate in a devolved area.

But, we do oppose this on the basis of the fact that it is another LCM, again trampling on the devolved rights of Wales. And, as we heard, there has been a lack of consultation, and this has meant that the Welsh voice has been ignored and Wales has been left mute once again. So, on that basis, we will be opposing this motion. 

I call on the Minister to reply.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I want to thank Members for their contributions today.

Just to address a couple of the very specific points—and I thank the committe, Huw, for its rapid work on this, as always—I'm afraid I do not accept the recommendation or conclusion that clause 3 of the Bill would amount to a relevant provision for the purposes of Standing Order 29. Aside from clause 3(5), clause 3 contains technical provisions that are concerned with how the Bill works, rather than substantive provisions. And, as a matter of practice, Welsh Government do not generally include non-operative clauses within the LCM, which you acknowledged in your response, I think. 

On the MOU, I absolutely do accept that recommendation and, as soon as the MOU has been agreed, it will be shared with the Senedd. And I completely agree with your rationale for that. 

In terms of why the Bill, why not a Welsh Bill, this is a private Member's Bill. If we had decided to take the path that Plaid Cymru were outlining, then we would have had a regulatory gap and what Janet Finch-Saunders mentioned would have come to pass: we would have had landings here in Wales, which we would not have been able to stop while we had a regulatory gap. So, as this was a private Member's Bill, it makes a great deal of sense to line up the regulatory process to make sure there isn't a gap. I completely agree that that's the right thing to do and I'm very much asking Members to support this today. However, I will say that it would be much better if the UK Government did consult us properly in the process of this. We would be able to reach much better conclusions together than we do when we find things out the day before. So, whilst I absolutely agree with the import of this Bill, the way that we found out about it from the UK Government is not optimal. So, if you want to send that message back, Janet, that would be very helpful indeed.

But in summation, Deputy Llywydd, the Bill sent a clear message to the rest of the world that we do not support this fishing practice, which is so damaging to the global shark populations. I therefore move the motion and ask that all Members support it. Diolch. 

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

Item 12, a legislative consent motion on the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill. I call on the Minister for rural affairs and north Wales to move the motion—Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion. I'm extremely disappointed to have to address the precision breeding Bill today. This Bill lifts certain types of gene-editing technologies out of the current definition of genetically modified organisms and the associated legal requirements. Although an England-only Bill, it will create unavoidable consequences for Wales and will undermine the devolution settlement.

When exploring this policy, the UK Government could have engaged the framework process, which was set up to facilitate four-nation collaboration and co-operation after our exit from the European Union. They chose not to. Instead, they pressed ahead with the Bill without acknowledging the implications for Wales and other devolved countries. Members will see in the memorandum we laid that we recommend withholding consent. Members will also note that the Welsh Government's view is that the entire Bill requires Senedd consent due to the effect of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. 

At this point, I would like to say that I'm grateful for the important work done by the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee to scrutinise the LCM and the Bill, despite the limited time for consideration. I note that in its report, the LJC committee questions whether this Bill is suitable for consideration under Standing Order 29. For the reasons I will outline today, it's the Welsh Government's view that this Bill does make relevant provision in relation to Wales. It is a relevant Bill for the purposes of the consent process. However, more broadly, I support their call for review of the Standing Orders to ensure they are clear and fit for purpose. The Bill and the operation of the UK Internal Market Act do mean, in some cases, that provisions of this Bill will displace Welsh law.

I want to now examine the proposed policy objectives of the Bill. According to the UK Government, the Bill will modernise the genetic modification regulatory framework. They argue it will reduce regulatory and financial burdens and it will make it easier to use new genetic technologies to develop new plants and animals in response to the dual emergencies of climate change and biodiversity loss. These are laudable aims and the Welsh Government has always supported scientific research. It is right to review our laws in response to scientific advancements and new evidence. However, a headlong rush to deregulate, without consulting the other UK nations, is not the right approach. Policy that has significant long-term consequences should be made in a measured and considered way, and we should follow the principles set out in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. The Bill sets out a new regulatory framework for gene-edited organisms—so-called precision-bred organisms. If the Bill is passed, it will be easier to release precision-bred plants and animals into the environment. It will be easier to market them and to use them in food. 

What does this mean for Wales? The UK Internal Market Act will apply to sales of precision-bred organisms across Great Britain. We've been working to understand the complex way the precision breeding Bill will interact with UKIMA. There are still many important, unanswered questions. However, it is clear that precision-bred products produced in England will be allowed on the Welsh market without needing to comply with the GM requirements set out in Welsh law. This totally undermines devolution. The Bill will establish a new regulatory framework for the authorisation of precision-bred organisms and safety assessment of precision-bred foods. In practical terms, this will create a dual enforcement approach in Wales, which both businesses and enforcement bodies will need to navigate.

I want to set out the specific arguments for not recommending consent. Firstly, Welsh law restricts the marketing of GM plants and animals. However, as I've already set out, UKIMA means Welsh law will not apply to precision-bred plants and animals when they are brought into Wales from England. So, a precision-bred tomato could be sold in your local shop or your supermarket, and precision-bred animals in your local pet shop. It is very clear to me that Welsh law will be undermined and displaced, and I note the LJC Committee agreed with our analysis of the effects of UKIMA in its report. In its report, the committee also questions whether our analysis of the effects of UKIMA on this Bill is different to that of the Environmental Protection (Single-use Plastic Products) (Wales) Bill. Although these Bills are different, our approach is consistent. Where the Senedd legislates, they do so free of UKIMA, so primary Senedd legislation in a devolved area can be made free from the requirements of UKIMA. This means the Senedd could correct the position caused by this Bill by making new primary legislation here in Wales. However, we should not need to do so, and our existing law should be respected.

Secondly, the UK is choosing not to mandate labelling of precision-bred organisms. Research by the Food Standards Agency clearly shows most consumers want to know if they are purchasing food containing precision-bred ingredients. However, this is only possible with mandated labelling. Welsh consumers should be able to choose whether to buy these products, but this view is not shared by the UK Government. Furthermore, without labelling or traceability, it would be very difficult for enforcement bodies to enforce the appropriate regulatory regime here in Wales.

Thirdly, I am concerned about the effect that Bill will have on organic producers and international trade. Welsh food and drink exports were worth £640 million in 2021. In that year, Wales had the largest year-on-year percentage increase in the value of food and drink exports when compared with England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is something to be celebrated, and I'm sure all colleagues will agree that Welsh food and drink has gone from strength to strength over the last decade. However, this Bill may bring about practical challenges and costs for businesses exporting precision-bred products. Once precision-bred organisms are in full circulation, how will businesses know and how will they be able to demonstrate their products are free of GM?

Finally, key parts of the Bill—including the regulation of precision-bred animals—are to be set out in future secondary legislation. This makes it very difficult to know how these powers will be exercised and what the further effect will be on Wales. Worryingly, this includes welfare standards for precision-bred animals. Animal welfare is devolved, and these animals could be sold in Wales. However, we will have very little influence on those welfare standards.

I'm also concerned by the lack of scrutiny to which this secondary legislation may be subject, and the extent to which we will be able to object to UK legislation that falls within Senedd competence. I therefore ask Members to withhold consent for this Bill.

I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. We laid our report on this LCM immediately after our meeting yesterday afternoon. The Minister will know we had very little time to consider the memorandum, given that it was laid on 8 December 2022, and we were asked to report by 16 January 2023. That period only included 11 days when the Senedd was sitting, but we've managed to turn it round. We do acknowledge what's been explained to us, that the UK Government's lack of engagement with the Welsh Government on this Bill has contributed to this, and we're disappointed with that, clearly. However, we remain to be convinced that the lack of inter-governmental engagement on this can fully excuse or fully explain the near seven-month delay in the Welsh Government laying the legislative consent memorandum before the Senedd. It has resulted in the time available for meaningful scrutiny to be severely restricted. So, not surprisingly, we've concluded that the delay in laying the memorandum was unacceptable, and it regrettably has prevented Members of the Senedd from undertaking fully the legitimate scrutiny functions in a reasonable period of time, including potentially taking evidence from the Minister and from stakeholders. 

Our report notes the Welsh Government’s view that the Bill makes relevant provision in relation to Wales as a result of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, or UKIMA, as I will now refer to it, and specifically that its requirements mean that the provisions in the Bill will allow the sale and marketing of PBOs—precision-bred organisms—in Wales, which is currently prohibited by Welsh legislation. The Welsh Government concludes that, by virtue of UKIMA, the provisions of the Bill are made for a purpose that is within the legislative competence of the Senedd. Now, we agree with the Welsh Government’s analysis that the effect of UKIMA will be that PBOs could be sold and marketed in Wales, despite existing Welsh law, if those PBOs are lawfully marketable in England. However, and this comes to the crux of it, Standing Order 29 applies where a Bill makes provision 'in relation to Wales'. Unless it modifies the legislative competence of the Senedd, which is not the case in relation to this Bill, it must also make provision for any purpose

'within the legislative competence of the Senedd'.

The substantive clauses of this Bill are limited in their application to England only. Its provisions do not, in our view, apply 'in relation to Wales' so as to engage Standing Order 29. In addition, the Senedd does not have the legislative competence to legislate as to the sale and marketing of PBOs in England so as to render the Bill as making provision

'within the legislative competence of the Senedd'.

In our view, the effect of UKIMA is engaged only by virtue of the Bill becoming an Act and coming into force, and is not a legislative competence issue for the purpose of Standing Order 29, and I'll come to a possible way forward subsequently. We recognise and accept that UKIMA has wider ramifications for Welsh policy. However, the effect of the mutual recognition principle provided for in UKIMA is a separate issue from that of competence and, as a consequence, separate from Standing Order 29. We also note, and this is an important point, that the Welsh Government could have used other Standing Orders as a means of debating the subject matter of the memorandum, which the Minister has explained is vital to debate here in the Senedd. So, we therefore disagree with the statement contained in paragraph 9 of the memorandum that the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

'is a relevant bill as it makes relevant provision in relation to Wales because of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020',

and I've explained why already. Accordingly, we concluded that the Senedd’s consent is not required for the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill.

Before closing, I'd like to highlight that we are surprised—and we raised this with the Counsel General yesterday in an evidence session—that the Welsh Government’s analysis of the effect of UKIMA on existing Welsh law, in the context of the introduction in the UK Parliament of this England-only Bill, appears different to its analysis of the effect of UKIMA on its own Environmental Protection (Single-use Plastic Products) (Wales) Bill, when we were told that UKIMA in that aspect 'does not bite' on the Bill and therefore the subsequent Act. So, we therefore recommended that the Counsel General should write to the committee and explain why the Welsh Government is of the view that UKIMA will affect existing Welsh law as a consequence of the introduction of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, but will not affect the Environmental Protection (Single-use Plastic Products) (Wales) Bill once it becomes law. I suspect, Counsel General, this will be something we'll be coming back to you on.

Our second recommendation—apologies, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'll pull this to a close very quickly—concerns an important issue, relating to UKIMA, that the Minister has touched on. It's vital to ensure that laws to be made in Wales, or Welsh law that's already on the statute book, are effective. It's also important to consider whether law made outside Wales impacts on the purpose and effect of Welsh law. So, we therefore do recommend—and I welcome the Minister's positive response on this—that the Business Committee should ensure that the Senedd’s Standing Orders are reviewed and amended at the earliest opportunity to ensure that they make appropriate provision to ensure the practical effect of UKIMA, which is now upon us and we'll see more of it, is taken into account when considering, for example, Bills under Standing Orders 26, 26A, 26B and 26C and when legislation passing through all legislatures in the UK has an effect on subordinate legislation. Our argument is there is a different way to have this debate and to note it, and that Standing Order 29 is not the appropriate way.

I must admit, I'm afraid I have to disagree with the Minister and the Welsh Government on why they have laid this LCM today and believe that this is a waste of the Senedd's time, and I'm not the only one who believes so. The technicalities of the Bill, as set out in annex A of the explanatory notes, clearly states that the UK Government does not consider that consent is required from this Senedd concerning any part of this Bill, a view that has been acknowledged by the Welsh Government in paragraph 19 of the LCM. In addition to this, the Senedd's own legal services also do not agree with the Welsh Government's assessments that these clauses require Senedd consent. But, if the Welsh Government truly believed that this LCM was necessary, then it should have been tabled within two weeks of the Bill being laid in the House of Commons, not the seven months in which it's taken the Welsh Government to do so. 

Speaking to the Bill itself, the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that has the ability to transform the agricultural industry, aiding us in our combined resilience against some of the most significant challenges ahead of us. Be that food security, climate change, disease or cost, precision breeding can be a weapon in our arsenal, securing the future of our agricultural industry for generations to come. 

Now, we must be clear that precision breeding is not genetically modified crops. This isn't artificially adding modified genetics. Rather, this is using pre-existing traditional methods to supercharge investment in UK crop innovation. Precision breeding takes what occurs naturally over hundreds of years and expedites it in a controlled, ethical and safe way. This science is already happening. The Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences at Aberystwyth University, known as IBERS, has led pioneering work, similar to that of precision-bred organisms—PBOs—to develop high-performance grass and clover varieties that are already being used by livestock farmers. Sadly, the Welsh Government's short-sightedness on PBOs and this Bill could potentially see Welsh universities, Welsh academia, miss out on opportunities to be at the forefront of efforts to tackle global food security. Think of the missed opportunity, removing the hope, of Welsh drought- and disease-resistant wheat seed not going to sub-Saharan Africa to help end poverty—an unintended consequence of this legislation not being adopted having a colossal detrimental effect on our Wales and Africa humanitarian programme. 

So, given its undisputable benefits, applicable right across the board from public health to climate change, I am left disappointed and frustrated that the Welsh Government declined to join the Bill last year. If English farmers can increase their yield through PBOs, then this leaves Welsh farmers in Wales at a clear competitive disadvantage. I noted with interest the Minister's concerns, in particular those related to labelling, trade and science, although, across all three fronts, I'm afraid, I must strongly disagree. Concerning the science, DEFRA has shared the technical analysis with you. You possess everything the UK Government possesses. Yet, despite this, you've decided to come to a different conclusion. 

On trade, I would urge the Minister to look at the bigger picture. PBO products will not reach our shelves for at least five years post Royal consent. What is sought is to develop a statutory framework to ensure that, once our trading partners make the same advancements, we have the necessary ability to immediately start trading with our neighbours, because we know the European Union has indicated that they too wish to take a similar route to the UK Government. 

And lastly, labelling. The Food Standards Agency will only authorise products for sale if they are judged to present no risk to health, do not mislead consumers, and do not have lower nutritional value than their traditionally bred counterparts. Based on scientific evidence, PBOs pose no greater risk than what you'll currently find on our supermarket shelves. No risk, but significantly greater reward—that's the opportunity missed by this Welsh Government.

Therefore, Dirprwy Lywydd, whilst we think this LCM is not required, it is before us today, so procedurally we will be voting in favour of the LCM. But we are left bitterly disappointed by the Welsh Government's view on this Bill and urge it to seriously reconsider its position. Diolch.

I regret the fact that we are once again having a debate on another LCM, legislation made in Westminster for England, without any real opportunity for us to consult on it or even scrutinise it thoroughly. But, on the fundamental principle, we on these benches don't oppose the Bill or what it's trying to achieve.

Many people who hear of the Bill for the first time will be concerned that the intention is to allow GM, which is genetic modification, as we heard the Minister say. But, that's not the meaning of 'gene editing' at all.

At the moment, gene editing is part of genetic modification legislation, but it shouldn't be, because they are two very different things, and the intention of the Bill is to separate these and to give the ability to scientists and food producers to do what happens naturally in nature. It’s not introducing new genes—that’s not the intention. It’s not some Splice horror film. Gene editing delivers what is already happening naturally in nature, but cuts out the long time that it takes, sometimes hundreds or thousands of years, for genes to cross-pollinate. Indeed, all the food that we eat today comes from plants that have been bred. There are 3,000 plants in use today that have come from extreme plant breeding—for example, pink grapefruit. If you look at seed catalogues, you will see different kinds of vegetables or fruit that breeders have selected and cross-pollinated in order to get a particular breed for sale.

New genes will not be introduced, but rather this will enable minor mutations or changes to DNA in a way that is specifically targeted. This happens naturally, and it can be achieved through screening millions of plants, for example, in order to find the mutation. But, for example, screening every blade of grass is not practical. This could also lead to changes in nutrition in food, making some foods more nutritious and securing resilience in food production.

The new Bill recommends changing the law in order to create a new category of PBO—the precision-bred organism. So, if one uses gene editing to make a new plant or animal, which could have happened naturally anyway, then this will be exempted from the GMO legislation. That’s the intention. This will also mean that smaller companies, such as producers in Wales, could have better opportunities to develop breeds of food, because, as things stand, the current regulation and the cost of making a bid for a right to do this under the GMO legislation is huge, which means that only large multinationals can do this, locking out indigenous Welsh businesses.

There’s also an environmental debate. We need more plant diversity in order to face the challenges of climate change. For example, this could mean that we could develop seeds that could cope in a drier climate with more drought. A recent example is the work of the Scottish agricultural institute, which has been looking at PRRS, which is the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. The Scottish institution has developed pigs that don’t suffer from this particular disease. And it’s possible to see this technology at work as scientists develop ways of tackling various diseases, such as leukaemia. So, the principle is one to support, and it’s regrettable that the Welsh Government hasn’t brought its own legislation forward in this area.

But, finally, I want to note that we are disappointed to see political games being played by the Government. There are valid concerns and complaints that have been listed by the Minister as to the democratic failings of the Bill and the process undertaken, and this is being used, in turn, to justify opposing the LCM. But these same problems that have been highlighted today have also been highlighted with other LCMs in the past, but LCMs that the Government has supported and encouraged others to vote in favour of and support. It would be good to see some consistency from the Government when it comes to LCMs. Thank you very much.

The Minister for rural affairs to reply.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I'd like to thank the three Members for their contributions to this debate. I am grateful to Huw Irranca-Davies and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their scrutiny, and I very much regret that the Senedd has not had longer to consider this Bill. I wrote to the Llywydd on 27 June last year, outlining that the UK Government chose not to work with devolved Governments when developing this Bill, and that really put us on the back foot right from the beginning in a way that I don't think any of us would want. It's a very complex Bill, and my officials have been working very hard to understand exactly what it will mean for Wales, and I think that's also the case with the other devolved administrations.

Sam Kurtz asked why we've laid this LCM. Well, from my viewpoint, I've done it to protect the devolution settlement. Sam Kurtz, as a Conservative, you might not care about that, but I passionately care about that. We’re having to do the work now that, really, we should have done last year, right at the beginning, and if we’d had that proper engagement from the UK Government on the detail of the Bill, I think we would have been allowed to undertake this work at a much earlier stage.

Huw Irranca-Davies referred to a variety of Standing Orders and asked why we laid it under the particular Standing Order that we did. A ‘relevant Bill’ is one that’s under consideration in the UK Parliament that makes relevant provision in relation to Wales, as set out in Standing Order 29. We believe that genetically modified organisms are firmly within the legislative competence of this Senedd, and the precision breeding Bill does not make any provisions directly in relation to Wales. We wanted to take a cautionary approach to genetic engineering, and I fully understand the difference between GM and GE, but we chose to take that approach.

I think what this debate really shows today is that, where the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 negatively impacts on devolution we have to act to minimise its effects, and we will continue to challenge the negative impacts of the Act and champion the rights of this Senedd to legislate without interference in areas devolved to Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies referred to the scrutiny session that you had with the Counsel General yesterday, and the effects of UKIMA on this Bill and the single-use plastics Bill. I know that the Counsel General will be writing to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee on this issue, so I won’t muddy the water here now. I’m very happy to support, if Huw Irranca-Davies and his committee want to write to the Business Committee—and I’m sure that the Llywydd would agree—if you believe in a review of Standing Orders, I’m sure that that would be looked at by the Llywydd and the Business Committee.

I think Sam Kurtz, in his contribution, was really thinking that we'd dismissed this, and I haven’t dismissed it; I don’t dispute that the technology has great promise, and could have great promise, but what I don’t understand is that you can’t see that it’s our duty as lawmakers to carefully consider the evidence for change first and the potential ramifications, and that’s what we are proposing to do. I think we’ve got the time to carefully consider what we do here. So, let's take it. Why not take it? I’ve only had one meeting with the UK Government Minister, and I’ll come to that in a moment, but certainly, my understanding from him was that this will take a couple of years, for the first PB organisms to come on the market. We’ve got the time, so let’s take that time, let’s consider it, and let’s ask for views.

You also asked about labelling, and that was my main question, or one of my main questions, to Lord Benyon, the Minister in the UK Government, and the answer was that, if we labelled this in the way that the Welsh Government has suggested, consumers could believe that there was a safety risk, because it was labelled. Now, in the years I’ve been dealing with Welsh food and drink—and I would have thought Sam Kurtz would agree—consumers want to know where their food is coming from. They want to know what’s in it, because they want to make those informed decisions. So, why not have it if it’s nothing to worry about? If you’ve got nothing to hide, why not have that labelling? So, I think it was really disappointing that the Minister didn’t recognise that.

So, to conclude, we cannot support consent for this Bill. I think it drives a coach and horses through the devolution settlement, and, as I said at the outset, I ask Members to withhold consent for this Bill. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? Are there objections? [Objection.] There are objections, and therefore we will defer voting until voting time. 

Item 13 is next, the initial consideration debate on the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Counsel General to move the motion, Mick Antoniw. 

Thank you, Llywydd. Six months or so have passed since I introduced the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill. At that time, members of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee expressed their enthusiasm to scrutinise this historic piece of legislation—the first piece of legislation where the Senedd plays a formal part in consolidating Welsh law. Certainly, the committee took up the opportunity to discuss the Bill, leading to the publication of its report on 23 December. I'm pleased to put on record today my sincere thanks to the Chair, to the committee members and to the committee staff for their work and for their time. As well as considering the Bill and the supplementary documents, which come to more than 500 pages, they've also looked at evidence that I've submitted, the drafters of the Bill and stakeholders. This is reflected in the report itself, which proposes recommendations with regard to the Bill itself, as well as considering some wider issues related to the consolidation of legislation. We have a great deal to consider and learn from the report following the initial consideration of the committee of this first consolidation Bill.  

Llywydd, I want to focus today on whether the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill should proceed as a consolidation Bill. The committee's report contains 14 recommendations and five conclusions, many of which bear directly on this question, and it is the second recommendation that commands our immediate attention, for it recommends that the Bill should proceed as a consolidation Bill. And this recommendation is supported by three of the committee's conclusions, 1, 3 and 4, which declare satisfaction with the Bill in terms of its scope, the correct consolidation of existing legislation in accordance with Standing Orders, and the clarity and consistency of the consolidation. I'm delighted that the committee reached these conclusions and are of the view that the Bill should proceed.

Now, since my time is limited, I'd just like to quickly focus on a few other recommendations that are of more direct relevance to the motion and the future progress of this Bill, and, of course, I will in due course be writing in detail in response to each of the recommendations with those points. I'm happy to confirm that we have now secured all Minister of the Crown consents, which was the subject of recommendation 1. I wrote to the committee last week to provide the clarification regarding section 2(3) of the Bill, requested in recommendation 10 of the report. I believe that the regulation-making power in that section provides for a satisfactory consolidation. 

Recommendation 12 asks for detailed information as soon as possible on the subordinate legislation that'll be needed to implement the consolidation, and my officials are developing an implementation plan with timescales, and this is being discussed with partners interested in the legislation. So, in light of the report's fifth conclusion, I'd like to note that, throughout the Bill's development, Cadw has engaged with partners, stakeholders and members of the public by circulating regular updates, holding workshops and attending briefing sessions. Now, this work will continue and intensify during the implementation of the legislation. Some secondary legislation will need to be remade, and guidance and websites will have to be updated, and all of this will take time. We accept therefore that a clear implementation timetable, incorporating the required secondary legislation, is desired as soon as possible. I hope that answers the particular aspect of that recommendation. 

I won't go through the remaining recommendations now, since either they treat matters of detail, concern the consolidation process more generally and therefore require my further consideration—and, as I've said, I will be writing in detail on some of these points—or they are, in fact, addressed to the Senedd Business Committee; I think two of them specifically are. So, I'll write to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee regarding all of the recommendations for the Welsh Government in short order, but I will perhaps pause here to allow others to contribute. And again, with my thanks once more to the committee and all the Members of the Senedd who've taken time to consider this Bill and the committee's report on what is, really, the first of our major consolidation pieces of legislation. I think this is a really important step forward for the Senedd. Diolch, Llywydd. 

I now call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee—Huw Irranca-Davies. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Hello, again. [Laughter.] Neil Diamond, I think—'Hello Again'.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate as we, the Senedd, undertake our first consideration of a Welsh consolidation Bill, proposed by the Welsh Government, on Welsh historic environment law.

As the responsible committee for considering consolidation Bills, we were tasked with determining whether the Bill should proceed through the Senedd as a consolidation Bill. Our aim was to satisfy ourselves: that the scope of the consolidation is appropriate; that the relevant enactments have been included within the consolidation exercise; that the consolidation exercise is correct and the Bill only changes relevant enactments to the extent allowed by our Standing Orders; and, finally, that the Bill consolidates the law clearly and consistently. Before I say any more, I will confirm that we have concluded indeed, as the Minister said, that the Bill should proceed as a consolidation Bill.

We thank all those, including committee members, who helped inform our consideration of the Bill, including representatives of the Law Commission. Stakeholder concerns were raised with the Counsel General, and others, as outlined in our report. We are particularly grateful to the Counsel General and the Welsh Government legislative counsel for their constructive and quality engagement, and I look forward to receiving the Counsel General’s full written response to our report in due course. Our report focuses on matters that we believed to be key to our role in recommending to the Senedd whether the Bill should proceed as a consolidation Bill. Now, as Members will know, when the Bill was introduced to the Senedd last July, the UK Government had not yet provided the necessary consent for some provisions in the Bill. So, we asked the Counsel General to provide Members with an update this afternoon, and we welcome the confirmation that all the ministerial consents have now been received.

In trying to answer the question of whether the scope of the Bill is appropriate, we considered: the changes made on the recommendation of the Law Commission; the understanding of the current law and the Welsh Government’s reasoning for making changes; the changes being made to provisions in law introduced by the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016; and the legislation that has been excluded from the consolidation exercise. As regards the changes made to existing law on the recommendation of the Law Commission, I will confirm for the record that we are satisfied with these changes. We welcome the fact that the Welsh Government and Cadw undertook a form of pre-introduction consultation. It's somewhat unfortunate that this pre-introduction work was undertaken at that time, on terms that meant that the Counsel General could not then consider it appropriate to make public the full details, but we understand that. But this is an aspect we're keen to learn from. So, our third recommendation is that the Welsh Government, and any other relevant arm's-length body, should undertake pre-introduction work with the known objective and expectation in future that full details will be made public at the same time that the relevant Bill is laid before the Senedd.

Moving on to changes that this Bill makes to provisions introduced by the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016, the 2016 Act is the only Act being consolidated through the Bill that does not pre-date devolution in Wales; the Senedd itself scrutinised and passed this Act only six years ago. Now, we do not object to what the Bill proposes in this regard. However, we believe that such changes should be highlighted to the Senedd in a more transparent way, as we state in recommendation No. 4.

As well as paying close attention to what is in the Bill, we also took a keen interest in what is not in the Bill, in particular the exclusion of marine historic environment law. We are satisfied with the explanations provided by the Counsel General and his officials for why this decision has been made. However, we have recommended in recommendation 5 that, where the Welsh Government has taken a decision to deliberately exclude relevant law from a consolidation Bill, full reasoning should be provided in the explanatory material accompanying the Bill, including any justification based on legislative competence, and where the act of consolidating would involve more than what is permitted by Standing Order 26C. Many of these now are learning processes from the exercise we've been through.

Before closing, I would like to briefly mention two matters that are always of keen interest to my committee—the Government’s regulation-making powers and the importance of the Senedd’s role in making law for Wales. Through the Bill, the Welsh Government is giving up some regulation-making powers that it currently holds. At a time when concerns have been raised across parliaments about the balance of power tipping unfavourably towards governments and away from legislatures, we welcome the fact that the Government has identified what it considers to be unnecessary Executive powers. Conversely, the Bill also creates new regulation-making powers. Sections 81 and 163 of the Bill both contain new Henry VIII powers. In section 2(3) there is a new regulation-making power that will enable historic environment law to apply to buildings that have not previously been subject to such law. We concluded that further clarity on this new power is needed and, in recommendation 10, we asked the Counsel General to clarify whether section 2(3) of the Bill would still be compliant with human rights without the new regulation-making power. So, I thank the Counsel General for responding to this recommendation in the letter that was sent to us last Thursday, and for providing a very welcome explanation and clarification. The Counsel General has told us that, whilst it is the Government’s view that section 2(3) of the Bill would still be compliant with human rights without the new regulation-making powers, the Government also believes that the power strengthens the compliance of section 2(3). So, I also welcome the Counsel General’s further explanation as to why the new drafting constitutes a minor change to the law.

As for the importance of the Senedd’s role in making Welsh law, the Counsel General believes that the Senedd should revisit its own Standing Orders, so that a proper attempt can be made to ensure that efforts to consolidate Welsh law are not subsequently and inadvertently undone. The Counsel General has acknowledged that it is not just the Welsh Government that can bring forward legislative proposals in Wales, so, for that reason, in our recommendation 13, we call on the Business Committee to consult with Members of the Senedd, with Senedd committees and the Senedd Commission when conducting any review of the Senedd’s Standing Orders that relate to new requirements or restrictions on how the Senedd considers legislative proposals within a consolidated area of law.

Llywydd, we recognise the importance of the Bill as the first of its kind for the Senedd and for Welsh law, not least because of the practical impact that it will have in making Welsh law available in both official languages, in improving accessibility to the law that applies in Wales, and in contributing to better access to justice in Wales.

The Bill marks the start of this Welsh Government’s ambitious plans for the consolidation of Welsh law, and it is indeed an endeavour that should be welcomed by this Senedd. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I'd just like to thank the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for quite eloquently removing 99.9 per cent of my speech, so thank you for that. My contribution, Llywydd, will be extremely short, because I don't think we need to go over old ground.

Now, I did take part in the scrutiny of this Bill, and I'd just like to pay tribute to the Counsel General for his attendance at committee, and the openness of Welsh Government in engaging with the LJC committee. It's very well appreciated, and your attendance at the committee is always appreciated. And I know I and colleagues enjoyed getting into the nitty-gritty of this. So, it's the first consolidation Bill of its type going through the Senedd, and I think it's gone quite smoothly to date.

As you said, Counsel General, it's about consolidating law to make it more accessible. In this instance, the Bill is doing that, and I think that we've come to a good position, I believe, here. We took very detailed evidence from the Law Commission, and, when the Law Commission provided that fantastic evidence, I think I was sold, so I don't think there's any more to add there. But I also think it's very important for us to remember that we owe it to the people of Wales to produce legislation that is understandable, that it is of high quality and relevance to the people here, and I think that this consolidation Bill does just that.

I'd also like to stress the importance of the Counsel General seeking consent from UK Government Ministers across in Westminster, and, as you've confirmed, you have done that, so that takes another part out of my speech. So, as I said, I would just like to thank you, Counsel General. So, at this time, Llywydd, the Conservative Party will be supporting this going through the Senedd as a consolidation Bill. Diolch.

Thank you very much to the committee and the Chair for the work that they've done, and thank you to the Counsel General for bringing this Bill forward.

We welcome the introduction of this Bill to create a consolidated, accessible and modernised legislative framework for the conservation of Wales's historic environment that will better reflect the dynamics of the devolution landscape. We hope this will make the people of Wales feel more engaged with our rich and diverse national history, and better able to contribute to conversations on how we seek to preserve and memorialise our past. Increasing the availability of bilingual legislation is essential to realising this ambition, and, in this respect, we are pleased that the Bill will address the shortcomings identified in the current statute book.

There are a few things I would appreciate further clarification on. Could the Minister provide assurances that the removal of the provision for the establishment of an advisory panel for the Welsh historic environment, as featured in the 2016 Act, will not compromise the availability of expert and impartial advice to Welsh Ministers on the future historical conversion measures? Would the Minister provide further details on why planning policy provides greater protection to the archeological heritage of Wales compared to the provisions contained in the 1979 Act for the creation of archeological areas? And finally, can the Minister give assurances that increasing the availability of bilingual legislation will be a central aim of the future of Welsh law programme in future consolidation measures? Diolch yn fawr.

The Counsel General to reply now—Mick Antoniw.

Thank you. Can I first of all thank all those who have participated for their contribution, and can I thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for the very, very long session we had going through the Bill and the very detailed scrutiny of all those sections? It was an important process, and, can I just say, going through it myself, and having to answer the detail on each of the points that were being scrutinised, it actually showed how important it is to have a consolidated Bill, because of how much easier it is to have one piece of legislation where everything is in it and you can go through it in a rational structure? So, I know that it will be something of considerable benefit and significance in the future. So, it was a very important session.

As I've said, I will write in detail, obviously, to the various points and the various recommendations that were made. If I perhaps just deal with a couple of the last points that were made, of course, in terms of the removal of the advisory panel, I don't think that will have any impact, and, of course, we have given consideration to changes that we need to make in the future with regard to allowing instead of just oral evidence, written evidence as well. Again, in terms of the issue of bilingualism and so on, I think you know that the position of Welsh Government is fully supportive of that. And within the educational process in terms of Welsh law, there was one point—I can't read my own handwriting that I made, so I hope if I've missed something I will cover it in the letter that I do send to you. 

In terms of the recommendations, what they actually do highlight is, of course, first, that consolidation is very much a learning process for this Senedd, for this Parliament, in terms of the consolidation process. So, the points that have been raised in terms of marine exclusion, the reasons, again, those that were scrutinised in committee, are all things that we will think about. I hope the reasoning why we couldn't go down that particular road—. We do recognise that there is a need for the consolidation of law in the maritime area; it's just it didn't fit in within, I think, what we had to do now, and there were complications that I think would have complicated the consolidation process. Again, the point you raise in terms of pre-introduction work and that being public, of course, that is recognised as well. 

So, I think one of the things that will happen, of course, as we go along, is that there will be a reflection on how the consolidation process—. It has been an extremely important learning—[Interruption.] Please, yes.

I think there has been a learning exercise, obviously, through this, and obviously it's been quite a detailed and time-consuming piece of legislation as well, largely because it's the very first of its kind. But also that's taking up capacity that the Welsh Government could be doing other legislation with, and there are a lot of commitments that have been made by the Welsh Government in recent years, things like the clean air Act, for example, that we're still waiting to come forward. How are you going to make sure that you get the balance right between these consolidation Bills and freeing up those resources to do the other important pieces of legislation that the people of Wales are expecting us to deliver?

Thank you for that. It's a very important point, because it is a balancing exercise, isn't it? We have a very active, very demanding, legislative process, our own legislative programme, and, of course, we also have the UK Government's legislative impact through their own legislation LCMs, as we've seen to quite a considerable extent today. I think it's a balance. I think the annual reports that I produce in terms of accessibility will highlight that there should be a flow of consolidation, and I think what we have to keep in mind, of course, is that consolidation is something that is not happening quickly, but we are in for it for the long haul in terms of (1) the way we legislate in the future, but also ensuring that we carry on and we prioritise and identify that legislation. So, this will carry on into the next Senedd, the Senedd after and so on.

I think what we will take from this particular process is learn from it because we will have a major consolidation piece that, hopefully, will be forthcoming, which will be the planning consolidation. And as I understand it, the English part of it alone is 400 pages, so we've got 400 pages in English, probably 400 in Welsh. It was a long process. But it will be intensely valuable. The whole planning process being consolidated into one place, I think, will be of great significance. So, thank you again for that input. I hope the explanations I've given, and, of course, they will be ongoing, in terms of the detail and perhaps even further scrutiny—. The Bill should proceed as a consolidation Bill, and I'm sure the Senedd will want to allow that to happen. We're one step closer to giving Wales accessible, bilingual legislation for the protection and management of our precious historic environment. Diolch yn fawr.

The question is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? There are no objections. And therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Which brings us to voting time, and we will move immediately to voting time unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung. We will therefore move to our first vote this afternoon, and that is on the LCM on the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill, and I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 41, no abstentions and 10 against, and therefore the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on the LCM on the Shark Fins Bill, and I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 41, no abstentions, 10 against. And therefore the motion is agreed.

And finally, the LCM on the Genetic Technologies (Precision Breeding) Bill, and I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 36 against. And therefore the motion is not agreed.

That concludes voting for today and it brings our proceedings to a close. Thank you.