Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Good afternoon and welcome to this Plenary meeting. Before we begin our work this afternoon, I want to make a few comments and a statement. First, as a Senedd, I'm sure we'd all wish to extend our best wishes for a full recovery to King Charles as he begins his cancer treatment. 

And, secondly, we as a Senedd were all saddened by the news of Barry John's death over the weekend. A star in the Welsh and global rugby firmament in the 1970s—25 caps for Wales, and five for the Lions. But it's not the stats that convey Barry John's greatness, but the story and those images of his lithe majesty on the rugby field, never mind that incredibly successful partnership with Gareth Edwards. There is no greater recognition of the greatness of one's rugby talent than to be called 'king' by New Zealand. Let's thank king Barry John, and we extend our condolences to his family, friends and team mates as a Senedd. 

Finally, I want to inform the Senedd that, in accordance with Standing Order 26.75, the Health Service Procurement (Wales) Bill has received Royal Assent today. 

So, the next item on this afternoon's agenda will be questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Joyce Watson. 

Llywydd, since 2019, we have provided £18.85 million, including £2 million in this financial year, to support community food organisations. That funding assists them to access, store and distribute additional supplies of good-quality food and other essential goods which support well-being, healthy diets and personal dignity. 

Diolch, First Minister. Last month, I visited Ammanford foodbank and was in awe of the hard work and dedication by the staff and the volunteers. And I'd like to take the opportunity to thank them for all their commitment to helping others—it's truly inspiring. Demand for help from foodbanks has grown considerably in recent years. Before the Tories came to power, foodbanks were a marginal service, with 41,000 three-day packages handed out by the country's largest foodbank charity, the Trussell Trust, in 2009-10. Forward to 2020-21 and it's reached 2.6 million packages. The current cost-of-living crisis, delays to welfare payments like universal credit, with a five-week wait for any money whatsoever, and the reduction in local housing allowance benefits were cited as the biggest reasons for using foodbanks during my visit. First Minister, what discussions are you having with the UK Government regarding delays to welfare payments and their impact on households having to rely on foodbanks? And can I ask you to join me in thanking the staff and the volunteers at foodbanks across the country for their hard work and their dedication?

Well, Llywydd, I thank Joyce Watson. Her experience is exactly mine and, I'm sure, that of all Members around the Chamber, that when you visit a foodbank, you are immediately in awe of the commitment that people who run them show every single week. But I'm always struck by the fact that one of the very first things that people tell you when you get there is how much they wished they didn't need to be doing what they are doing. And I agree with what Joyce Watson said, Llywydd, that, in years to come, the things that people will remember most from the last 14 years will be foodbanks and street homelessness. Those will be the two visible signs of the impact of 14 years of Conservative Government on the lives of those people who have the least. And the figures are exactly as Joyce Watson set out, Llywydd, in the growth in foodbanks, with the number of parcels for children in Wales increasing by 83 per cent in the last five years. 

And, Llywydd, when the Conservative Government want to do something quickly, they find that they can. In all our correspondence over many years with the Department for Work and Pensions urging them to abandon the five-week wait, we're told that it's just practically impossible to do so. When the Chancellor wanted to bring forward his reduction in national insurance contributions, he found he could do it just by a stroke of the pen. And that's the difference, isn't it? The single biggest call on the discretionary assistance fund in recent years has been from people waiting those five weeks without a single payment. And these aren't people who've chosen to be in that position very often. They are people being moved by the Government from one benefit to the other. And when they move, they are forced to wait five weeks without a single penny. Now, we've adjusted the way in which the discretionary assistance fund works to help people in that position. It would be far, far better if the system worked properly for them in the first place.

First Minister, the illegal invasion of Ukraine and subsequent inflationary costs have severely impacted our Welsh farmers, particularly through rising costs of the three Fs—feed, fuel and fertiliser. This has undoubtedly led to increased food costs, affecting families across Wales. So, does the First Minister agree with me that tackling food poverty in Wales depends on a robust and supported Welsh agricultural sector? If so, can he confirm that the entire £337 million allocated to support Welsh farmers under the comprehensive spending review for this fiscal year will be fully spent supporting farmers and land managers in producing environmentally sustainable, safe and traceable food? This would be a sure-fire way of continuing to supply food and produce to our supermarket shelves and the vital support for foodbanks that serve the most vulnerable in our communities.

Llywydd, the sustainable farming scheme has sustainable food production at its core. It's the first thing that the SFS is designed to achieve. We have kept the current level of basic payment scheme payments for farmers in Wales, quite unlike what has happened across our border. That was very hard won, in a very difficult budget round, and it is a very strong signal of the determination of this Government to go on investing in rural communities.

I thank Joyce Watson for the question. I recently visited the same foodbank in Ammanford, and I heard stories from many people who were reliant on the service, and these were people in work, which is a very concerning development indeed. But that particular foodbank runs a support service that provides advice to people who are on benefits about how they can claim more of the benefits that they're eligible for—hundreds of thousands of pounds, which shows that we need to do far more to help these people to access those payments that they're eligible for. But one particular thing that was a cause of concern in Ammanford was the growth in the number of people over 65 years of age who were becoming reliant on foodbanks. So, can I ask what we're doing to support people in general who see the need to use foodbanks, but particularly those who are 65 and over who are increasingly becoming reliant on them?

I thank Cefin Campbell very much for that supplementary question, Llywydd. I've heard from Joyce Watson about the fact that, when people do go to the foodbank in Ammanford, they don't only receive food—they get advice and other things to help them to improve the situation they're facing. We have collaborated closely with the Older People's Commissioner for Wales to help people to claim pension credit. A great number of people in Wales are missing out on things .They're entitled to those benefits, but older people, we know, are concerned, are anxious and they're not sure how the system works. There is a lot more that we can do, and there's a lot more we will do, with the commissioner to help people to draw down those things that they're entitled to. And not just the money they receive through pension credit, but that then opens the door to other things that people can claim as well. That's why the efforts made by the commissioner are important for older people in Wales, and we're eager to do more with her to provide support to people in the situation that Cefin Campbell has described for us this afternoon.

Good afternoon, First Minister. Just to go from one age group—older people—to our children here in Wales, let's be honest, our benefits system from the Conservative Government is evil, odious and punitive. The sanctions that are given to families mean that we end up with poor children here in Wales. But the Welsh Government does have levers at its disposal and I'm looking forward to the roll-out of the Welsh benefits charter. But one thing that really concerns a few us of here in the Siambr is around our poverty strategy and how that can be strengthened. So, may I ask you, First Minister, how, in your view, can we strengthen our poverty strategy? Diolch yn fawr iawn.  

Well, Llywydd, there are a number of ways in which the poverty strategy aims to do more to help young people and families who are in that position. Part of it is, as Cefin Campbell said, by making sure that we draw down into Wales the help that is available for people and which doesn't always get claimed in the way that we would want it to be. Now, I recall a discussion here on the floor of the Senedd about the large number of families in Wales who were not claiming Healthy Start vouchers, and, as a result of the discussion we had here and the work done by my colleague Lynne Neagle, we have succeeded in driving up the percentage of families getting that help. Now 78 per cent of families in Wales obtain that help. That's higher than in England and it's higher than in Northern Ireland. And that does show that, where we make a concerted effort together, we are able to do more to make sure that help that is available for families is, actually, drawn down by them. That's just one example.

I'm grateful to the Member for highlighting the Welsh benefits charter. That will have a big impact in the lives of families with children, because one of the benefits that will now be automatically linked up is the help that my colleague the education Minister makes available to young people attending school who need help with the cost of the school day. So, there are a series of very practical ways in which the strategy will do more and will help young people and their families in the way that Jane Dodds has suggested.

Well, Llywydd, we will bring forward a bus Bill to reform the failed system of deregulation. That will enable all levels of government to work with our communities to design and deliver bus services they need.

Thank you, First Minister, and we're looking forward to having that bus Bill in front of us, because one of the greatest frustrations for us as representatives, but also for local people, is that they have no real say over where the routes run and at what times of the day to get them to their jobs, to get them to hospitals, to get them to visit friends, particularly in the northern parts of the valleys in my constituency, but we'll all feel it throughout the whole of Wales. But one of the other big frustrations is that there is one part of the UK that has retained the powers to do that. When we had that disastrous—utterly disastrous—deregulation back in the 1980s, where the powers were stripped away from any democratic input into control over buses and routes and services and so on, one place kept it and it was London. And, in London, the passenger numbers have gone up, the routes have been sustained, investment has been massive. Everywhere else, it is has fallen away. So, can we have the assurance that that Bill will come forward? And can he clarify for us what that will mean for people to have an input into where the routes that serve their communities go and that keeps their lives and their livelihoods—give some chance to sustain them?

Well, Llywydd, I'm very pleased to give the Member an assurance that that Bill is in the final stages of its preparation. It's a complex Bill, but it will come in front of the Senedd. One of the fundamental ways in which it will change the bus landscape in Wales is this: the system we have inherited and the system that we have run up until now is one that pays in a subsidy per journey, per passenger. That is a very difficult system for Government because it is inherently uncertain and you will never know how much the system will cost, and it is difficult for companies as well, because they don't have predictability about it. The future will be about subsidising routes, not individuals, so that we will have a planned, agreed, stable and subsidised system of bus transport here in Wales, so that for those routes that are socially necessary—and that's how we will be consulting the public, of course, in that we will be looking to see their views of those routes that are socially necessary—but not commercially viable, we will continue to invest the tens of millions of pounds that are put into the system today but in a way that does not give the public an adequate return on that investment. That is what the Bill will allow us to do.

Of course, the UK Bus Services Act 2017 introduced reforms in England seven years ago. Although it is now more than two decades since I first raised the need to embed the lived experience of disabled people in plans and designs for local environments and services, rather than creating barriers for them afterwards, I still regularly hear from disabled people that this is still not happening. Questioning you at the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister meeting in Wrexham University last July, I referred to my meeting with RNIB Cymru, Vision Support and the VI Voices campaigning group Wrexham, people living with a vision impairment who want to raise awareness about the barriers they face, where issues raised included navigating Wrexham bus station, inaccessible transport touch screens and concerns that the Wrexham Gateway project, supported by the Welsh Government and, in principle, by me too, could create further barriers because they had no input into this. Arriva Bus have also raised concerns that they have not been consulted about this project, despite promotional materials showing one of their buses. Why, therefore, after all these years, are disabled people being denied greater influence over bus and other service plans and design?

Well, Llywydd, I'm afraid I can't answer in detail for how Wrexham council discharges its responsibilities in this area, but I do remember the question that the Member put to me when I was in Wrexham and I remember agreeing with him, and I agree with him again this afternoon that, when services are being redesigned, when there are new facilities like a new bus station, of course the voice of the user, and particularly those users who have particular needs, those voices ought to be heard and they ought to be taken into account in the way in which those services are designed and developed.

When we have greater control over bus services through the franchising model, it will be easier for us to make sure that those points are felt powerfully in the system. In the meantime, those who are responsible on the ground for changes to services and new developments, of course they should make sure that they consult with those local groups who have expertise to contribute, who have passengers who want to use that service and would be more likely to do so if those needs are properly taken into account. 

Cuts to bus services in the Valleys are having a hugely detrimental effect on people's lives. I'm particularly concerned about the ongoing inaccessibility of the Grange University Hospital by bus from too many communities. Lots of people in the Valleys don't drive and, to get from valley to valley, they're dependent on buses. A constituent has written to me to complain that there is no direct bus from Caerphilly town to the hospital. Their neighbour, who doesn't drive, has been having to visit his wife in the Grange for three weeks by getting buses, and they're having to catch two buses. The journey, apparently, can take more than an hour and a half, which is the last thing anyone would want when they're visiting a sick loved one. It can't be right that the biggest town in the county has no direct access by bus to the main hospital. There are towns across the south-east that similarly have no bus route to the Grange. So, what urgent work can be done, please, to open up more bus routes across the region to this central hospital?

Well, Llywydd, a great deal of work has gone on already to create new bus services to the Grange hospital. No commercial provider will provide such a service. So, while I absolutely recognise the point that Delyth Jewell has made about there being people who rely on the bus service, there clearly are not enough of them to persuade a commercial provider to put on a service directly from Caerphilly, or in the other instances that she has identified. So, any new service has to be subsidised by the public purse. 

Now, we already have gone through an emergency bus scheme, a bus transition fund, and are now investing in a bus network support grant, all of which is designed to try to meet the many needs that we know exist in all parts of Wales. The Minister will have heard the points you've made this afternoon, and I'm sure that there'll be further consideration of them, but I have worked closely with the Member for Caerphilly on this issue. That has led to some improvements already, and no doubt those conversations will continue to see if more can be done. 

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

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Could I first of all begin by identifying with the comments that you made earlier and send our best wishes to His Majesty the King from the Conservative benches for his speedy recovery and praise him for coming forward with the condition that he's fighting, in the hope that it'll bring other people forward to have a speedy diagnosis, as we know the time is of the essence?

In relation to Barry John, it takes some doing to be called 'the King' in New Zealand, and that is the stature of the man, that he was such a genius on the field of rugby. In the amateur era, where so few games were actually played by players—I think fewer than 30 caps and 150 points—to be called 'the King' really is a true reward for the way he played the game of rugby on the field, both in New Zealand and here in Wales.

First Minister, today, we are hearing the story of Theresa Jones, who had to wait 24 hours for an ambulance to respond to the call from the care home that she was a resident in in Port Talbot. We also see Jeremy Bowen's mother in the A&E department at the Heath hospital, who's been sitting on a plastic chair since 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon. In both cases, how long should both these individuals have to wait to be seen?

Well, Llywydd, as the leader of the opposition will know, I'm never in a position to comment on individual cases, no matter how much attention has been drawn to them. The Welsh ambulance trust has expressed its disappointment at the service that was able to be provided, and there will, no doubt, be questions that will need to be asked about the service and the advice that was given and so on, and they will do that. Our aim, as he knows, is to make sure that people who are presented at an A&E department are seen, treated and moved, either beyond the service itself or into a hospital, within four hours. The standard waiting time—the standard waiting time—from the moment somebody arrives to the time that their treatment in an A&E department is concluded is just over two and a half hours in Wales. Some people wait longer than that, and the system works hard to try to deal with that, but that is the current state of A&E services where people have to wait.

First Minister, these are two cases that are in the public domain, put by the families in both instances to highlight the pressures on the system. They make no criticism of the staff whatsoever, and, in fact, praised the experience that they had when the system kicks in and supports the families to see their loved ones having the treatment that they require. But it cannot be acceptable when we come here week after week and we hear from the health Minister that money has been put in to improve the experience in the A&E departments across Wales and that the ambulance service is having more resource to meet the demand—all very welcome, but, as Healthcare Inspectorate Wales highlighted in their annual report, they cannot find evidence of improvements in the service. Those are their words, not mine. I've listed two experiences of two elderly individuals here. I'm not asking you to comment about the individual experience, I'm asking you to reflect on the delivery of the service and how the Government, of which you are head, is making sure that these improvements are being fed through, because, in the experience of Jennifer Bowen, she is sitting under a noticeboard that says, 'How are we doing?' The last time that noticeboard was updated in that A&E department was May 2023, and, on each of the six categories, it is blank. That's the experience people are having. So, how can we actually see a reasonable response from the Government to support the health service, in the words of the patient in Port Talbot, pulling their finger out and getting on top of this?

Well, Llywydd, I'm not responsible for an individual noticeboard in an individual department somewhere in Wales. If he wants a proper answer to his question, then I think he would recognise that the fundamental issue with both the ambulance service and A&E departments doesn't lie either in that service or in that department, it lies in the fact that so many people are in our hospitals in Wales who do not need to be in a hospital, but could be cared for successfully elsewhere, but where those services struggle to meet the demand for move-on. So, we have many, many hundreds of people, clinically fit to be looked after elsewhere, who are in a hospital bed. That means that, when an ambulance arrives at an A&E department, it finds that that flow through the hospital, as it's called, isn't working, and ambulances get delayed and are not available to go and meet another call. So, it's not an issue that you can tackle by focusing on the emergency and ambulance end of the system, by thinking that if you could put that right the problem would be solved. It is a more complicated problem than that and its fundamental challenge is in the ability of the system—the social care system and the health system—to move people through acute hospitals, freeing up beds, therefore making it easier at that emergency end of the system to give people the timely treatment they need.

And time and time again, we have this same conversation in this Chamber, First Minister. The problem is understood. The solutions that you are putting in place, as Healthcare Inspectorate Wales identified—not the Conservative benches, Healthcare Inspectorate Wales identified—are not showing any evidence, in their annual report, of those measures making a difference. The ambulance service have apologised to Mrs Jones. Will you, as head of the Welsh Government, which funds the health service and the ambulance service in Wales and gives it its operational direction through the ministerial instructions that are issued, apologise to both those individuals' families for the experience that they've experienced and give a commitment that we will see those improvements so that I don't have to come here again and highlight these type of tragic incidents that are sadly blighting so many people's experience within the Welsh NHS?

Well, Llywydd, I apologise to anybody whose experience of the Welsh NHS is not the experience that we would wish them to have, of course I do. It is not the case that the new services the Minister has funded and developed are not making an impact in the system. That is clearly not the case, and I don't believe that that's what the HIW report says. It is simply that the demand that the service is under means that, even when we have same-day emergency services, we have primary care urgent and emergency services—these are seeing hundreds and thousands of people every week in Wales—when we have new 111 services, where people get the advice that they need without ever needing to go to a hospital, when we have new services in pharmacy that allow the system to have an extra impact there, with all of those things there, the demand that is coming into the system means that the stresses and strains in A&E and in ambulance services remain very real. So, it is not—. Imagine if those things were not there, if they were not displacing demand to those new services, the additional stresses and strains that would be being felt. Of course, we look to see whether there are any examples anywhere else in the United Kingdom that we could draw on that would assist us in meeting the challenges of the Welsh NHS. The truth is that these are pressures everywhere. Nobody has a simple off-the-shelf solution that they can implement in the way I sometimes think that the leader of the opposition implies.

Leader of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. And having attended an event to mark World Cancer Day here in the Senedd, may I wish the King well after his diagnosis and wish everyone facing or touched by cancer a speedy recovery too?

And may I say a few words in tribute to Barry John? I and the family had quite a special rugby ball when I was growing up. It was a rugby ball that had been signed by Carwyn James's 15 and the Barry John 15 from that game held for the Urdd, which happened some four months before I was born. The fact that we are still here today paying tribute to such a rugby genius and thinking of him as one we'd never seen the likes of before does demonstrate what we thought of him, both as a man and as a player. Our sympathies go to his family.

We'll turn our attention to the steel industry once again this afternoon. Plaid Cymru, once again, as we've always done, will make the case for safeguarding Port Talbot and the jobs there and for ensuring the investment required to deliver a fair transition to a greener future. The steel industry feels, quite rightly, that they've been left down, but they're not the only ones who feel that they aren't being supported at the moment.

I hope we will stand firmly on the side of steelworkers this afternoon. Our determination to lift the threat of devastation to jobs and the community in Port Talbot has brought into focus what we really mean when we say we seek 'a just transition to a greener future'. But does the First Minister agree with me that supporting a just transition is a principle that should be equally important to the agriculture sector too?

Well, Llywydd, I hadn't intended to get drawn into the opening remarks that you made at the start of today's session, but given that others have, I'll just tell you this one thing. My brother recently found, amongst effects that he'd taken from my mother's home, an old autograph book that I had had as a child. Here are the first four entries in the autograph book. The first was my Member of Parliament at the time, Gwynfor Evans. The second was Barry John. The third was Gerald Davies. And the fourth was Leslie Crowther and Peter Glaze. [Laughter.] Now, if you wanted to sum up a Carmarthenshire childhood in the 1960s, I think those first four pages probably do that, and there was Barry John, up there alongside those other boyhood heroes.

To turn to the point that the Member made about steel, well, of course this Government, with our allies in the trade union movement, will do everything we can to secure a just transition and a successful future for the steel industry here in Wales. It is why the economy Minister and I were in Port Talbot last week, meeting the chair of Tata's global board, making exactly these points to him, that there is a credible alternative plan to the one that the company itself has so far put on the table. We expect, over the weeks ahead, that that credible plan will receive the attention that it needs and deserves, and that an alternative future, an alternative path to that future that Port Talbot has of green steel making, should be agreed between the trade unions, the community, and the company itself, and the Welsh Government will certainly play our part in that, just as we play our part in a just transition to the future of farming. But as the steel industry faces a transition, so does farming, and that's the journey we are on. We are there to support farming communities in it. But the future will be different to the past.

I thank the First Minister for his response. I'm not sensing a refusal to transition from the agriculture sector. It's that there is a feeling that it's not just, what they are being asked to do currently. The reality is that there is a feeling that this Welsh Government doesn't appreciate what impact is being felt from the laying of challenge on top of challenge on top of challenge for the sector. It's what we, and our spokesman Llyr Gruffydd, have long argued. It's not one thing necessarily. They're all chipping away, yes, but collectively they feel like a hammer blow to the industry.

The frustrations have become clear in public meetings in recent days. 'Welsh Government don't understand', they say, 'they don't see the deep impact of the ongoing failure to deal with TB, don't really understand how the shift to the Habitat Wales scheme risks undoing so many years of work, don't see that a mandated 10 per cent of tree cover just isn't workable for so many.' Welsh Government has to be a champion for farming. Agriculture has to be a partner in both tackling climate change and providing a secure and sustainable food future. So, let me appeal to the First Minister: take stock, work with the sector in a spirit that feels to the sector like co-operation.

A specific question on this: I'll turn to the trees issue, the 10 per cent tree cover. Look again at the impact that that has on land devaluation, on the loss of productive farmland, the effects on livestock levels and employment in the industry. We can meet the environmental goals. We can meet the environmental goals, but more flexibly—a just transition. Now, if the First Minister isn't willing to seek compromise here, won't the sector conclude that his Government isn't particularly interested in co-operation?

Well, Llywydd, first of all, I want to recognise the pressures that change brings with it. Whenever people are faced with change, there is uncertainty and there is a feeling that the future is going to be a challenge. I absolutely recognise that feeling in rural communities here in Wales. But if you turn to the specific point that the Member has raised, it would be nonsensical to suggest that the Government has not already listened and already changed the policy we have in relation to tree cover. The proposals that the Minister developed over the summer were informed by the dialogue that she had. I was with her at three different county shows, when we heard from farmers about how would we deal with those parts of land where tree cover can't be created, how would we deal with those pieces of land where there were already other things that farmers had planned to do with them, and the proposals that we have put forward answer all those questions.

Now, at the last election, this Government went in front of the Welsh people with a target for tree planting here in Wales. Plaid Cymru went into the same election with a target twice as high as the Government's target. Where does the leader of Plaid Cymru think the trees that he promised were going to be planted if they weren't going to be planted on agricultural land? So, there is a compromise to be made, I agree with him there; the Welsh Government has already shown that we have listened carefully to what farmers have said, but we will not compromise on the actions we will take to make sure that this country makes our contribution to climate change, and farming and the rural parts of Wales will make a contribution to that.

This isn't about rejecting the growing of trees, and we're fundamentally in the same place as we were on that. What we're saying is, and what farmers are saying is the right tree in the right place. Farmers want to plant trees, but count the carbon, not the trees; have sight of what we're trying to achieve here. It's an environmental goal that we're after, not the number of trees, and we need to be able to adapt, and that is what farmers want to do.

Now, a week ago I was stressing how important it was for Welsh Government to ensure that all corners of Wales were being served equally in healthcare, as it happened, then: north, south, east and west. It's the same with urban and rural Wales: a child in poverty is a child in poverty whether they're in a rural village or in an inner city, and the need to stand up for an industry under threat is the same whether that's in a rural or an urban setting. And we're back to steel again: let's fight for Port Talbot, but let's fight for our farming sector too. Now, I enjoyed happy years living in Cardiff, but I invite the First Minister to come to the rural community I live in now, and where I was brought up. Talk to the young farmers, those in the supply chain. Young women and men like my own son, who's studying for an agriculture degree—

You are going to have to come to a question. I've been very generous with you this afternoon. Please come to your question.

People want a future. Now, we know what the fears are: 5,000 jobs or more gone; £200 million taken out of the agriculture sector. I know the rural affairs Minister says that the modelling is out of date. Well, bring us the up-to-date modelling so that we can plan for a real future for our farming sector.

Well, Llywydd, the right tree in the right place is exactly what our sustainable farming scheme seeks to achieve. That's why we are continuing to consult with the sector; that's why we will have a long transition into the sustainable farming scheme of the future. When we know how much money the Welsh Government has beyond this comprehensive spending review period, we will be able not just to model what we are proposing, but to use actual figures, because then we will know the figures we have, and at that point that's what we have promised and that is exactly what we will do.

I thank the Member for that question, Llywydd. Planning policy requires local planning authorities to allocate in their local development plans sufficient housing land to meet the needs of their communities. LDPs are informed by a range of evidence including local housing market assessments and Welsh Government household projections.

Thank you, First Minister. With the population of the UK set to increase to nearly 75 million by the end of the decade, mainly due to an increase in inward migration, the pressure for affordable housing is set to rise drastically. Sadly, local authorities and registered social landlords are failing to meet current demand, let alone future needs. We currently have 90,000 people across Wales on a waiting list for social housing, and homelessness, which you earlier touched upon, is rapidly increasing in our towns and cities. Across my region, not a single new social housing unit has been built in the past year or so—[Interruption.]—yet local authorities are forced to house homeless families in hotels as far away as Bristol.

First Minister, your Government welcomes the fact that affordable housing has been at a 26 per cent rise in the past year, but that rise is from a historical low, and still less than a quarter of what is needed to meet current demands. First Minister, will you now accept that your Government is failing to meet its housing obligations, and adopt the Welsh Conservatives' housing plan, so we can ensure sufficient housing to cope with an increasing population?

Well, Llywydd, I can't accept a whole series of the inaccurate assertions that the Member made in that follow-up question. Of course, I do accept that the housing system is under huge pressure. It's why we are investing record amounts of money to create 20,000 new homes for social rent here in Wales. It's why we have retained the Help to Buy scheme in Wales, when it's been abandoned in England. It's why we have put record amounts of money in the Wales property development fund and the Wales stalled sites fund, to make sure that house building can happen here in Wales.

Last month, the Home Builders Federation said that, in England, the Government would not meet even half of its housing targets. Here in Wales, we continue to invest with the industry, with our partners in the social housing movement and in local authorities, to do everything we can to create those decent homes, market homes and social rented homes that will be needed in Wales in the future.

According to UK Finance, as of June 2023, there were just under 380,000 outstanding mortgages in Wales, with a total value of £40 billion. Of that £40 billion, less than 1 per cent is with companies based in Wales. This tells us, roughly, that some £39 billion-plus of our wealth is flowing out of Wales to large multinational companies and their shareholders. So, can the First Minister provide an update on any plans to develop a locally backed mortgage provider here in Wales?

We have a locally based mortgage provider here in Wales: we have the Principality Building Society, we have the Monmouth Building Society, we have the Swansea Building Society. It's nonsense to suggest that we don't have organisations here in Wales. But, of course, I don't share his prejudice against people who choose to have their mortgages with companies that operate elsewhere in the United Kingdom. People in Wales have a choice as to where they go; I don't regard it as somehow unpatriotic to have your mortgage with a company where money ends up outside Wales.

Thank you to Altaf Hussain for tabling this important question. Of course, in order to deliver more social housing, we need to have effective planning systems in place across local authorities. Tory Members would do well to learn lessons from what's happened at Wrexham County Borough Council, where many of their politicians, their councillors, decided to vote against an LDP that they presided over. Now, First Minister, wouldn't you agree that it's time to put this sorry saga behind us, to move on for the sake of the county borough, and in order to deliver more social homes for people who desperately need them?

Well, I thank Ken Skates for that question, Llywydd. The Member asked me a question about the Wrexham LDP only a couple of weeks ago, and I remember saying, at that time, that I hoped, now, that sorry story had been put to bed and that, finally, the local authority was complying with its legal obligations under the direction of the High Court. It's a great shame to me to learn that there is yet further uncertainty now being introduced into that picture. That is particularly unfortunate against the background of the Audit Wales report into planning services at the council that was published only a week or so ago. It has a very sad story to tell of the fractured relationship between members and officers at that local authority, and the significant risks that have been created to the council and, therefore, to people who live in that county borough, as a result of a breakdown in those relationships. The members of that council would be well advised to attend to the recommendations of this report and the responsibilities that lie with them not to try to encourage illegal ways of behaving, but to repair the damage that has been done by their failure to do so in recent weeks.

The Welsh Government remains committed to our ambition to end homelessness. We are investing over £210 million this year alone in homelessness prevention and support services. That has been protected, despite the extremely challenging budgetary position. And we are also investing over £300 million this year, the highest amount ever, in social housing.

Thank you. Homelessness is a key measure, of course, of a society's prosperity, so let's have a look at the figures during your tenure, First Minister, of five years. Last year, 5,481 households, over 10,000 individuals and 3,000 children were placed in temporary accommodation, up from 2,052 households in 2018, an increase of 167 per cent. Last year, 5,094 households were identified as unintentionally homeless and in priority need, up from 2,229 households when you first came in, an increase of 129 per cent. At the same time, more than 100,000 homes in Wales sit completely vacant, an increase of 303 per cent since 2018. The numbers of rough-sleepers are increasing weekly and Inside Housing magazine has stated that, in Bridgend, temporary accommodation has increased by more than 7,000 per cent. Is it not a sad indictment of your time as our First Minister that homelessness has increased massively, and are you proud of that record? Diolch.  

I thank the Member for setting out so vividly the impact on Wales of the policies pursued by her Government. This is the outcome of over a decade of austerity in the lives of people here in Wales. This is the impact of the disastrous Liz Truss premiership and the impact on the cost of people's mortgages. How does she think people become homeless in the first place? It is because people have been left, as a result of those policies, in that dreadful position. 

Can I take the opportunity, Llywydd, as well to correct the Member and other Conservative Members when they claim that there are 100,000 empty houses here in Wales? They're relying on a snapshot published by the Office for National Statistics. That is any sort of house that is empty on that day. The real figures are to be found in the annual figures produced of houses that are empty for over six months. That shows a quarter of the figure that the Member has identified. And, of course, this Government has allowed local authorities to charge 300 per cent of council tax on houses that are empty over that period.

I am proud, Llywydd—I am proud of the fact that here in Wales this Senedd passed a change in regulations that means here in Wales, people who are homeless are now regarded as being in priority need. Yes, far too many people are in temporary accommodation as a result, but where her party is concerned, those people aren't in temporary accommodation—they're out on the street. 

First Minister, I'm sure that all of us in this Chamber can remember the disgraceful comments by former Home Secretary Suella Braverman that rough-sleeping was a so-called 'lifestyle choice', while defending her decision to restrict the use of tents by homeless people on the streets of Britain. Her shameful decisions have been translated into proposals to criminalise nuisance rough-sleeping in the UK Government's Criminal Justice Bill, which is, of course, in stark contrast to the people-centred progressive approach a Welsh Labour Government takes to people living on the streets here. So, would you agree with me, First Minister, that criminalising rough-sleepers restricts access to opportunities for the most vulnerable to engage with vital services, often their only safe route out of circumstances that forced them to sleep rough in the first place? 

I entirely agree with what Vikki Howells has just said. Her quotation from the former Home Secretary exposed the views of that Government. This was the person who was in charge of that Bill, and it was just disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful, to describe people who are in the unfortunate position that Janet Finch-Saunders set out as having made a ‘lifestyle choice’. And now, those people forced into that position are to be criminalised for what has happened to them. Suella Braverman wanted to criminalise third sector and charitable organisations that provided help to people in those circumstances. But the real point is the point that Vikki Howells makes, Llywydd—that, where people are to be helped, if you treat them as criminals, you just drive them away from the help that is available to them. There could not be a more counterproductive way of providing services for people who need them the most than to turn those people into criminals. I hope that when a legislative consent motion comes before this Senedd, we will make our views on that point clear.

We continue to work with local authorities across the Cardiff capital region to increase economic prosperity. South-east Wales has significant economic strengths, for example in semiconductors, cyber and fintech. Our plans support these strengths as the bedrock of the region’s economic future.

Thanks for that reply, and I'm glad you mentioned semiconductors there.

I'd like to focus on Newport Wafer Fab and the ongoing acquisition by the American company Vishay. I won’t detail the turbulent history of this site over the last couple of years, but it’s safe to say that the hundreds of staff working there richly deserve some good news of this takeover. Despite the interested company being headquartered in a country that is supposedly our closest ally, Westminster seems to have been dragging their heels when it comes to approving the acquisition. These delays are delaying investment, they’re delaying job security and they’re delaying expansion. Do you share the concerns and frustrations that I have, as well as the hundreds that work on the site at Newport Wafer Fab, about the wait for Westminster to approve such a key site for the Welsh economy? What’s your Government doing to ensure that this process is completed by the 22 February deadline in order to protect the semiconductor industry?

I thank the Member for those important questions. They echo points put to me recently by the Member for Newport West on behalf of her constituents. Here is an example of a very important factory, important to south Wales but important way beyond that, where the UK Government decided that Nexperia, the company who had bought the facility, were not to be allowed to continue in that ownership. They then walked away. They simply walked away. Having made that decision they offered no help, they offered no guidance, they offered no way of making a difference to that decision.

Fortunately, there is a company that wishes to invest on that site. The UK Government says that it must carry out an investment security unit clearance of that bid, and it promised that it will have completed that by 5 January. Well, here we are, well into February, and no clearance at all has been forthcoming. The Minister wrote to the Minister at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on 30 January, last week, asking that they expedite the decision, and pointing out the consequences of not doing so—that any further delay in the completion of the acquisition will now mean the acquisition cannot happen until March at the earliest. That means new uncertainty: new uncertainty for employees, new uncertainty for suppliers, new uncertainty for the company that is seeking to invest here in Wales.

So, I agree with the points the Member has made. He can be assured that the economy Minister here is doing everything we can to persuade the UK Government to deliver on the timetables they themselves have set and to end the uncertainty that is rooted in the decision they themselves made in the first place.

I thank the Member for that question. The quality of mental health services in Conwy and Denbighshire is assessed in a range of different ways, including through the local health board and Healthcare Inspectorate Wales. HIW's mental health monitoring annual report was published in January. It assesses progress made and identifies areas for further improvement across Wales. 

I'm grateful for that response, First Minister. Mental health services in north Wales are currently in special measures due to failings, and we know that they've been in special measures and the subject of intervention since 2015. But I regret to inform you that I still get reports of persistent problems in these services, particularly in terms of community mental health services, I'm afraid, at the moment.

I'm frequently being contacted by constituents and other organisations working to support people with mental health problems who tell me that they're having difficulties in accessing support from the community mental health service at Colwyn Bay's Nant y Glyn mental health centre. Patients who contact the centre are fobbed off, they're promised callbacks that they don't receive, and even court orders to provide support to patients are being ignored.

I know that HIW has raised concerns about access to community mental health support at that centre; I've also raised concerns with the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. But I'm afraid there's no evidence whatsoever of any improvement. If anything, things appear to be getting worse, and little appears to be done at the moment in terms of shining a light on these things by the health board itself, or, indeed, the Welsh Government. 

So, can I ask you, First Minister, what action is the Welsh Government taking to ensure that patients in my constituency can get access to those vital community mental health services that they need, so that their health is not getting worse, and that they don't come to harm?

I thank Darren Millar for those important points, which I do take very seriously. I'm aware of the complaints that have been made about the Nant y Glyn community mental health team service in his constituency. I know that one of the reasons why HIW recently carried out an inspection of the service was because of the number of concerns that had been raised with them. The health board itself would say that action has been taken and that the number of complaints last year was below the number of complaints received in 2022. I myself spoke with the vice-chair of the board at the weekend—the newly appointed vice chair, Gareth Williams, who will lead for the board on mental health services. He was immediately aware of the nature of the concerns that have been raised, and he echoed many of the things that the local Member has raised this afternoon, Llywydd.

We will await the report of that HIW inspection. There were no immediate concerns raised. He will know that the first thing that HIW do is to identify any things that need to be put right there and then. So, I think it is some comfort at least that there were no issues of that sort. The report is due for publication in April, and then we will have an independent assessment of the current state of services. I'm sure it will make recommendations for improvement, and I know that the Minister will work with the health board to make sure that those recommendations are taken seriously and that the necessary improvements are made. 

Thank you very much, Llywydd. The Wales Air Ambulance Charity is independent. It is funded by the people of Wales and is not accountable to the Welsh Government. The Emergency Medical Retrieval and Transfer Service, which works with the charity to provide critical care services, is commissioned by the health boards.

I thank the First Minister for that response. Last week, the First Minister said, in response to a question from Rhun ap Iorwerth on plans to realign the services of the air ambulance, that

'Two to three people every single day who currently don't receive this service could receive the service under the new arrangements'.

That's the quote. The modelling demonstrates that what the First Minister said is correct on more than one of the options being considered. It's true as far as centralising services in somewhere like Rhuddlan is concerned, but it's also true that more people would be seen if the current centres were retained at Dinas Dinlle and Welshpool, and by introducing an emergency vehicle in the north-east. But the difference between the two options is that the modelling shows that centralising services would mean that communities in north Anglesey, the Llŷn peninsula, Meirionnydd, Montgomeryshire and north Ceredigion would all lose out significantly. Does the First Minister, therefore, agree with me that this is concerning and, furthermore, does he agree that no reorganisation should be introduced that puts people at risk in those communities?

Well, I can't agree with the Member, because what I have seen is that there were two principles from the experts in the field who carried out the work to see whether we can bring more out of the services that we currently have. And the first principle was that if people are receiving the service now, then they should continue to receive that service. That's the first principle. It's not a reduced service, but it's maintaining current service levels. And the second principle was to see whether it was possible, through making changes, to have more people access these services. That was the purpose of all of this work.

Now, that work is ongoing. There are discussions ongoing with local people. But at the end of the day, if the work demonstrates that we can continue to provide the service that exists now to people in north and west Wales, and also ensure that more people are seen by the service in the future, then I can't say that I would oppose that conclusion. 

The Welsh diaspora, alumni, and friends of Wales who live and work overseas are important advocates for our nation. They showcase the best of Welsh culture, and encourage business and other links. We continue to nurture these relationships with the Welsh diaspora as part of our international strategy.

Thank you, First Minister. Given the lifting of restrictions on Welsh voters living abroad from participating in the next general election, it's more important than ever that we create links with the Welsh disapora. And last week, it was a privilege to meet a number of the diaspora in Philadelphia and Washington. Although many weren't born in Wales, and some don't have any Welsh background at all, they are passionate, as you said, about our nation. They promote and retain a number of historic sites. They speak, prey and sing in Welsh, and make the best Welsh cakes that I've tasted for many a year. 

I'm not going to repeat the concerns the Chair of the culture committee expressed last week on the impact of the budget on international relations, but, certainly, there is huge potential here among the Welsh diaspora to contribute towards our economy, our society and our culture. In these challenging and unstable times, First Minister, how will the Welsh Government promote Wales effectively at a global level?

Well, Llywydd, I agree with the Member that we should do work all over the world. Whenever you meet people from Wales across the world, they're so enthusiastic to represent Wales and to contribute to Wales's success in the future.

I heard that the Member had been in America, and, of course, we have a team of people in America already who work very hard to do everything the Member talked about, to do more to raise awareness about Wales, to do more to co-operate with people who are willing to help us in those efforts. We have supported, over the years, the festival in North America, which draws Welsh people together, and a number of Ministers have visited America in order to do that same work.

Llywydd, I think one of the most striking things of the last six months was the visit made by the Minister for Economy to Birmingham, Alabama, to help mark the sixtieth anniversary of the dreadful events when the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church was bombed, and where people from Wales made those contributions to that window that has been such a symbol of our friendship with the people of Birmingham in Alabama. And I think that stands as a real symbol of exactly the points that the Member has made this afternoon, and the determination of this Government to go on supporting those efforts.

I thank the First Minister.

The business statement and announcement is next, and Lesley Griffiths, the Trefnydd, to make this statement.

Diolch, Llywydd. There are three changes to today's agenda. Firstly, the Deputy Minister for Social Partnership will make a statement on the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service review of culture and values—next steps. Secondly, I have postponed the debate on the Special School Residential Services (Service Providers and Responsible Individuals) (Wales) 2024, which will be rescheduled in due course. Finally, the Minister for Economy will seek a suspension of Standing Orders after consideration of the draft budget, to enable us to debate the steel industry in Wales. Draft business for the next three sitting weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Minister, yesterday evening I joined farmers in Narberth, in my constituency, for the NFU Cymru roadshow, with regard to the sustainable farming scheme. Last week you will have been aware of over 1,000 farmers who met in Welshpool, with concerns as to this Government's approach to agriculture and the rural economy in Wales at the moment. At yesterday's event, it was clear from NFU Cymru—. And I commend them for the way that they presented their roadshow, and their detailed analysis of the sustainable farming scheme, going through all 17 points of the universal actions. That's contrary to the Welsh Government-run roadshow events, which have only cherry-picked some of the universal actions—that has been fed back to me. Now, the irony wasn't lost on me when it was highlighted that the largest picture on the consultation is one of a tree. Farmers in Wales are feeling despondent, frustrated and angry. Last week I wrote to you, asking you to pause the consultation on the sustainable farming scheme, to allow the temperature to lower, and so that Welsh Government, farmers, and the farming unions could look again at the sustainable farming scheme, ensuring that it doesn't continue in the way that it is, which is a policy of economic self-harm, with the loss of potentially 5,500 jobs. I'd be grateful if you could update us on whether you have taken consideration into pausing the scheme, to ensure that the temperature is lowered, and that farmers aren't forced into a scheme that does not work for the sector here in Wales. Because, remember: no farmers, no food—heb amaeth, heb faeth.

I am aware you have written to me, and I will of course be responding to you this week. My next meeting, as soon as I leave the Chamber after this business statement, is with NFU Cymru. We are out to consultation. I think everybody needs to remember that we are out to consultation. There is another month to go. As you heard the First Minister saying, the consultation has changed and evolved over the years. We have listened to the farmers for seven years—way before you came here. We have been listening to farmers for seven years, since the referendum vote to leave the European Union. It is a time of change, and you will have heard the First Minister say that we absolutely recognise that and understand it. I too pay tribute to the NFU for having these roadshows. I think it's important that as many farmers as possible engage with, not just the Welsh Government roadshows—. And I had a meeting with my officials just before I came into the Chamber, to get the latest data back and the discussions that are being held. And it's really very interesting to see the number of farmers who want to go along to the roadshows, to get the answers to the questions that they have around the consultation. But it is a consultation. We need to wait for that consultation to finish, in a month. There will then be further discussions, there will then be further economic analysis. No decision will be rushed. I have said that there won't be that transition to SFS until that scheme is ready. And I will be responding to you this week.

Trefnydd, I'd like to ask for a statement, please, from the Deputy Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism relating to how organisations within her portfolio are responding to the cuts in the draft budget. Obviously, we'll be discussing the draft budget later on, but there is a specific point. Many organisations have already opened voluntary redundancy schemes, in anticipation of the cuts, and are warning that compulsory redundancies are likely. Of concern is the fact that some of the organisations, such as the National Library of Wales, and, I believe, the Arts Council of Wales, have actually opened the schemes having just recently changed, with very little consultation, the terms and conditions relating to voluntary redundancies and compulsory redundancies. The less favourable conditions will disproportionately impact young people, but also those who have taken career breaks—most of them women who have had families. So, the statement I'd like is on what assessment the Deputy Minister has made of how organisations are preparing to implement the cuts, and how we are going to ensure that Welsh Government sponsored bodies are aligned, in terms of those policies, to make sure that there's not that inconsistency, if the worst comes and that people have to be made compulsory redundant. 

Thank you. Well, clearly, every budget has had to face cuts right across the Welsh Government, and the Minister for Economy, and, of course, that's the Deputy Minister's portfolio as well, had significant cuts that they've had to, then, pass on, unfortunately, to the sort of organisations that you have spoken about. I think it was a really important piece of work, ahead of the draft budget being published, that we all, as Ministers, had discussions with our stakeholders about the types of reductions that we were, unfortunately, having to pass on. And I know the Deputy Minister will continue to have those discussions, as we go forward. 

I just want to follow up on the remarks of Sam Kurtz, because they have to be seen in terms of both the impact of Brexit on our ability to ensure we have food security, as well as climate change, where we've seen Barcelona declaring a drought this month, and the very serious issues that face us all. So, I wondered if it is possible to have a debate in Government time on our food security and what we're doing to address it, including how we manage our land management programme. 

You will have heard the First Minister, earlier on, saying it's very important that we try and ensure that people are not admitted to hospital who don't need to be there. So, looking at the Academy of Medical Sciences, which yesterday called on action to reduce infant deaths, where the UK is thirtieth out of 49 rich countries, on obesity, where one in five children under the age of five is obese or overweight, and tooth decay, which is well rehearsed by my colleague Jane Dodds. And in light of the Food Foundation's report on breastfeeding today, which indicates that, in a survey of mothers with children under 18 months, most of them said that they would have liked to have continued to breastfeed longer, and we know that this is one of the most important interventions—. I know that health Ministers have done a great deal to drive up breastfeeding rates, but there's always more to be done, and this is one of the ways to prevent children being admitted to hospital with either respiratory or gastric infections, because once they take off they can become extremely serious very quickly. 

Thank you. I think you raise two very important points, but the latter one, I think, is really important. Certainly, with my north Wales hat on, I was at the Eisteddfod last summer, where I met with health visitors from Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, who are doing fantastic work to continue to promote the very topic you referred to and make sure that people are aware of the benefits of breastfeeding as long as possible. 

In relation to food security, which, of course, is incredibly important, and one of the things in the sustainable farming scheme—. We know the biggest threat to our sustainable food production is the climate change emergency. And I absolutely agree with your comments around EU exit. I was at a farm on Thursday, where there were seven people around the table discussing how they felt—well, I don't think 'lied to' is too strong a word—when they voted to leave the European Union, because they strongly believed in what they were told. Unfortunately, the proper information and the correct information didn't get out, and the impact of that is now being seen right across the country. 

Trefnydd, I'd like to call for a statement from the local government and finance Minister, providing an update on the Non-Domestic Rating (Amendment of Definition of Domestic Property) (Wales) Order 2022, and particularly the impact of that Order, a substantive part of which defines a self-catering business as one that must be let for 182 nights a year, which is an increase, as you're aware, from the previous definition of 70 nights. And you'll recall that I raised significant concerns with this Order, when it made its way through the Senedd. And I'm troubled now to hear of specific issues, which show restrictions on businesses—those self-catering businesses—during the COVID lockdown periods, and are now effectively classed as 'cancellations' with regard to those businesses, even though those businesses had no choice at the time. So, this is pushing out a number of genuine businesses to be classified as second homes and liable to significant additional costs, even though they had no choice over those restrictions that were placed upon them during that COVID lockdown period. So, I'd be grateful to see a statement from the Minister that provides this much-needed update on the impact of this Order since its coming into force nearly two years ago. Thank you.

Well, the Minister is in her place and heard your question. I think it would be better if you wrote to her directly.

Can I ask for a statement from the health Minister, if I may, on the electronic patient record software deployment in ophthalmology across Betsi Cadwaladr? The department across Betsi was granted the OpenEyes electronic patient record software pre COVID. Its installation was initially delayed due to COVID-related closures, and was further delayed then due to changes in management at Digital Health and Care Wales. Now, the software is tried and tested, it's ready for deployment across Betsi, and it would be of great help to practitioners because of its uses in electronic referrals and its work between primary and secondary care. It would enable records to be accessed across all of Wales as well, which of course is essential for the Welsh eye care measures to work. Now, unfortunately, Digital Health and Care Wales is no longer considering the deployment of OpenEyes across Betsi. In fact, Betsi are actively now working to develop other software that would potentially cause many years' delay before electronic patient record software can be deployed across north Wales, and that would put patients at a major disadvantage. So, we need to understand, really, whether the Minister believes that the OpenEye software, which has a minimal running cost and is proven to work, should be deployed across north Wales in order to ensure that ophthalmology patients aren't put at greater disadvantage.

Thank you. Well, I am aware of that; I wasn't aware that that decision had been taken. I'm not sure it is for the Minister to make that decision, but I will certainly ask her about the point that you've raised and ask her to write to you.

Good afternoon, Minister. I'd like to request two statements, if I may, one from the Minister for health again, regarding increasing support for our rural GPs. I've visited quite a few rural GPs in Powys across the last week or so to talk with them about the challenges that they face, and a common theme that comes out of the discussions is that the current contractual set-up and funding models do not sufficiently account for the extra services that they provide, such as phlebotomy, same-day appointments, et cetera, which rural surgeries have to provide because, in urban areas, you might have them at hand. So, I'm backing a rural GP payment in order to ensure that we're able to support our rural GPs. So, I'd welcome a statement from the Minister regarding the support for our rural GPs.

Also, secondly, could I request a statement from the Minister for Climate Change on progress with remediating unsafe residential buildings in Wales? I'd be very grateful for a statement on what assessment she has made of the recent tribunal case and, in particular, whether Welsh legislation is now falling behind that of England. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you. Well, it is obvious that GPs in rural areas probably have to provide different services to their patients than perhaps those in urban areas. I visited a GP surgery myself in Wrexham, in my constituency, on Friday, where it was incredible to see the range of services that they do provide. So, I think it probably is done on a surgery-by-surgery basis. But, I absolutely accept the point that you make around rural GPs. I know the Minister has been working very hard around a marketing campaign to make sure that rural surgeries are able to make it, for new GPs coming there, attractive, going forward, because we've seen a significant increase in the take-up of GP training places, but perhaps in the urban areas more than the rural areas. I'm not sure if a rural surgery payment is being looked at, but you will be aware, obviously, that there were financial incentives offered for GPs back from, I think, about 2017.

In relation to building safety, I know the Minister did update Senedd Members back in November, I think it was, about three months ago, on fire-safety issues. She has further information around tribunal that you mentioned, and I will ask her to update Members.

Finally, Gareth Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. Now that we have embarked on the six nations rugby period, I'd like to call for a statement from the Deputy Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism on the Welsh Rugby Union's decision to move two of the Welsh under-20s' fixtures back to Cardiff from north Wales. Now, to provide some context, the Welsh six nations under-20s' matches have historically been played in north Wales and enjoyed by many people in the local area for well over a decade. And, for some people, it's the only opportunity for them to see live international rugby in their local area, with the majority of Welsh rugby matches and sports in general being played in either Cardiff or south Wales. For local people, it's another case of major Welsh events being focused in the south, with little regard for people in north Wales. So, can the Deputy Minister provide a statement on what discussions she has had with the WRU surrounding this matter, what the reasons are for north Wales losing live international rugby matches, and what plans, if any, the Welsh Rugby Union has to diversify its sporting offer to people across the whole of Wales, and not just in the south, because, yet again, it's north Wales missing out on significant events for those in Cardiff? Thank you.

Thank you. I absolutely agree with the sentiments you've just expressed. This was a decision taken by the WRU. I think it was the wrong decision. I think you're absolutely right—for a lot of young people, they would never have the opportunity to come down to Cardiff to see international rugby. So, the fact that we've had the under-20s matches at Eirias Park is really important. I will certainly ask the Deputy Minister if she or her officials had any discussions prior to the WRU making that decision. If not, as north Wales Minister, I will write to the WRU and see how they came to make that decision.

Thank you, Trefnydd. 

The next item will be a statement by the Deputy Minister for Social Partnership on the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service review of culture and values, and the next steps. I call on the Deputy Minister to make the statement—Hannah Blythyn. 

On 3 January, Fenella Morris KC published a damning report on the culture and values of the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service. It exposed discriminatory and abusive behaviour at all levels, and a serious failure of leadership and management.

In my oral statement the following week, I explained the seriousness of these findings. It's not just that some members of South Wales Fire and Rescue Service staff behaved appallingly, it is that the organisation failed to deter, detect or deal with that. Basic standards of good governance and management had failed, creating a toxic workplace culture in which discrimination, abuse and other misconduct went unchecked. I therefore indicated that it was not a question of if the Welsh Government would intervene, but how. I have reflected fully but urgently on the options available. I have also considered the fire and rescue authority’s formal response to the report, which it agreed unanimously on 15 January, and have had further exchanges with the chair. I am pleased the FRA’s response formally accepts the report’s recommendations in full. It could hardly do otherwise given the weight of evidence in the report, but I have seen little that adequately addresses the wider concerns I set out previously.

Sadly, I do not have confidence that the service has the internal capacity or capability to oversee its own recovery. Management at all levels, up to and including the highest, have been implicated in the identified failings. They cannot be both the problem and the solution. And the chief fire officer’s stated intention to retire is clearly insufficient to stimulate the wholesale change in processes, values and culture that will be necessary.

The authority’s plan calls for support from the Welsh Government, the Welsh Local Government Association and others. That is reasonable. But such support needs strong foundations and clear and committed leadership to drive through change, and I see no evidence of that. When I discussed this with the chair at a recent meeting, he said only that he was obliged to trust the personnel and processes that were in place. This gives me no assurances at all.

I am also seriously concerned that these failings jeopardise the service’s ability to function safely and effectively. There are, of course, many firefighters in south Wales who are absolutely dedicated to their work. But staff who are demotivated, mismanaged, badly led and exposed to discrimination and abuse will always struggle. The lack of proper management control and tolerance of bad practice that the report identified has wider ramifications beyond issues of misconduct and discrimination. That is unacceptable in any public service, especially one charged with protecting people from serious harm. The authority’s plan does not mention this risk at all. The chair has given me general reassurance that there is and will be no effect on core services, but no more than that. That is not good enough. These risks are real and immediate, and I have two recent examples of how the identified management failures directly and seriously affect core services.

Firstly, our chief fire and rescue adviser is a highly regarded and experienced former chief fire officer. He is also the statutory inspector of the FRAs in Wales, charged with making recommendations to them and me. In recent years, he has produced reports on the lessons of the Grenfell Tower fire, on improving service capacity and on firefighter training. Each of them contains fully evidenced recommendations to improve service standards and firefighter safety. It is therefore disappointing that South Wales Fire and Rescue Service has rejected many of these recommendations out of hand. Such a response would suggest the organisation is uninterested in better ways of fighting house fires or minimising the risk of fatigue, or ensuring that firefighters have the skills they need.

Secondly, false alarms have long outnumbered actual fires. Attendance at them commits firefighters to activity that wastes time and resources for prolonged periods. There are proven, simple and safe ways of reducing attendance, and our 2016 national framework for fire and rescue services called for action to do so. North Wales Fire and Rescue Service complied straight away and its attendance at false alarms fell markedly. Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service has belatedly done the same. South Wales Fire and Rescue Service has done nothing meaningful. The number of false alarms it attends has risen consistently in recent years, and it is clearly the worst performer in Wales and among a group of broadly comparable fire and rescue services in Wales and England. This reflects the same management insularity and tolerance of bad practice identified in the review. It has not just led to staff misconduct and discrimination, it is also affecting service quality and efficiency, and the safety of firefighters, and we must act to address that.

Finally, we have the fire and rescue authority itself. It must show strategic leadership and hold senior management to account. It has clearly done neither. The failings date back to 2015, yet the authority took no action during that period. Instead, it unanimously rejected some of the chief adviser’s recommendations last March, and a few months later gave senior officers a significant pay rise. That action now looks very ill-judged.

The authority’s response establishes a committee to oversee the report’s implementation. It also proposes to co-opt external expertise onto that committee, which is positive. But, I see no sign of the underlying weaknesses of governance changing. As with management, authority members cannot be both the problem and the solution. 

All of this gives me little confidence that the review’s recommendations will be fully and sustainably implemented, and that the wider failings in management will be rectified, or that the risks to service delivery and firefighter safety will be averted. In fact, there are already further worrying signs. I and, no doubt, other Members of the Senedd will have received correspondence from many current and former members of South Wales Fire and Rescue Service staff raising serious grievances that they feel were never properly investigated. As I have said before, doing so shows great courage. I therefore asked the chair to ensure that these cases would be reopened and reconsidered as part of the recovery, and he agreed, yet there is no mention of it in the authority’s agreed response. In addition, in its 15 January meeting, several FRA members argued strongly against the appointment of someone from a non-firefighting background as chief officer, despite Fenella Morris KC recommending that the organisation should actively encourage such appointments.

Dirprwy Lywydd, one of the most saddening themes in the staff testimony collated in the report is a widespread belief that nothing would ever change. If we do not act, those who said and feel this will probably be proved right. I cannot and will not allow that to happen. I am, therefore, issuing a direction to South Wales Fire and Rescue Authority today, requiring all of its functions to be exercised by four commissioners. Those commissioners will be charged with ensuring the full and sustainable implementation of the review’s recommendations, as well as acting on the recommendations of our chief adviser. They will have full powers to restructure and reform service management and instil a positive, non-discriminatory culture, and they will remain until the work is finished and until South Wales Fire and Rescue Service is clearly an inclusive and welcoming workplace for all.  

The commissioners I am appointing are Baroness Wilcox, formerly leader of Newport City Council and leader of the Welsh Local Government Association; Kirsty Williams, formerly Member of the Senedd for Brecon and Radnorshire; Vijith Randeniya, formerly chief fire officer for the west midlands; and Carl Foulkes, formerly chief constable of North Wales Police. The commissioners have a demanding task ahead but will receive our full support and, I am sure, that of other partners and the workforce of the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service. I will, of course, provide the Senedd with regular updates on their work.

In closing, I want to once again place on record recognition of all those who have come forward to share their experiences. What happened should not have happened and we are absolutely committed to righting those wrongs and achieving meaningful change. Diolch.

Thank you for your statement today, Deputy Minister. I agree that it is overwhelmingly clear that the management team at South Wales Fire and Rescue Service are the ones who have been instrumental in allowing this unsavoury and harmful culture to fester within the fire service. I further agree that action needs to be taken and I share your concerns that the service is unlikely to be able to reform itself. In terms of appointing commissioners, I believe that there needs to be transparency shown and evidence provided on how the individuals you have mentioned are qualified for this role. It is not enough to say that they have previously held senior positions; if you, like we all do, want to see South Wales Fire and Rescue Service transform, we need to take staff along with the process, and enforcing commissioners with no identifiable qualifications to do so has the potential to create significant resistance within the organisation. With this in mind, Deputy Minister, when will you publish the criteria you have used to select these commissioners and the evidence that they are suitably qualified for the posts?

We read in the independent review of South Wales Fire and Rescue Service how members of the service were limited to one of two routes when faced with inappropriate jokes and derogatory or offensive comments and behaviour. Staff could either make a formal complaint that was, in their words, treated very heavy-handedly, with little to no long-term action taken, or simply say nothing and just try to ignore these comments and behaviours that were routinely made and then live with the consequences. In my mind, Deputy Minister, there was an outright failure of the disciplinary processes that were, and I suppose still are, in place, and I think it is clear for all to see that it's one of several root causes of how the poor culture has developed and been allowed to infect South Wales Fire and Rescue Service. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the senior team who failed to recognise and take appropriate action in many of the cases that have come to light. Ultimately, it was their responsibility to have made sure that this culture had not developed and I think it sets a poor example if they end up remaining in post, knowing that their failure has been exposed. What actions are you now going to take to address this?

I'd also, Deputy Minister, like to address one of the findings in the report that I believe is an important element of what needs to be done next. The report showed that there's clearly no recourse or procedure for reconciliation for staff to resolve issues when they first appear without disciplinary action being taken. Staff should be able to call out poor behaviour and resolve the issues without risk of damaging working relationships, without the risk of damaging career prospects and without the risk of feeling that they will be ostracised for speaking up. The truth is that the fire service is now likely to have imposed upon it extensive behavioural training courses that will be designed to change the poor culture. But unless you, Deputy Minister, specifically take action to redesign the disciplinary procedures and introduce new methods of reconciling poor behaviour early on, then you risk that very poor culture identified not being changed at all, because those individuals who are responsible will find a way to circumnavigate people they identify as likely to be offended.

There's a real big risk here that, without a well-thought-through approach from Welsh Government that is sensitive to the good and positive aspects of working in South Wales Fire and Rescue Service—and there are many—we will see more fire service men and women leaving. Ultimately, I believe that the Government has the opportunity here to completely redesign the disciplinary process that not only holds the senior management accountable if disciplinary actions do not change negative behaviours, but also allows all staff members to feel that they can resolve issues without feeling apprehensive and worried about possible repercussions. With this in mind, Deputy Minister, what actions are you now going to take to re-evaluate disciplinary procedures? You mentioned previously that no action is off the table, and I think organisations across the whole of the public sector could benefit from a revitalisation of disciplinary procedures. 

Finally, I'd like to address another issue that I've previously mentioned and that is a review of older cases to make sure that staff have been treated fairly. From a personal point of view, I think it would be an appropriate way of helping the healing process and being able to view objectively the extent of the impact that this atrocious culture has had on its employees. We know that there are a number of staff who have worked for South Wales Fire and Rescue Service who were unhappy with how their complaints were dealt with. Several have contacted me, like yourself, highlighting their individual cases. They are rightfully angry at the way their complaints were handled, not only by individuals but by the organisation as a whole, and it is right that, in light of the independent review, their cases are reviewed. With this in mind, Deputy Minister, what are the timescales that people can expect their cases to be reopened and reviewed? Are you prepared to commission an independent body to undertake these reviews? And, in cases where there has been failure from South Wales Fire and Rescue Service, do you expect compensation to be paid? Thank you.

Joel James, towards the end of your contribution there, you said that, in my previous statement in January, I said that nothing was off the table in terms of the action that Welsh Government may take, and, to be clear, today I'm taking decisive action to the fullest extent of the powers that I have to do so, and all the functions of South Wales Fire and Rescue Authority are being conferred on the commissioners. Those commissioners have been chosen based on a range and balance of their experience, skills, background and independence. We have Vijith Randeniya, who is a very experienced and highly regarded former chief fire officer from the west midlands, but also we actually want to make sure there's a mixture of fire and rescue operational knowledge, but also an understanding of the key elements and requirements of intervention and the strong leadership that's going to be required to make that sustainable change to culture and service provision that the Member touched on in his contribution. This isn't about just individual instances of misconduct and unacceptable behaviour, it's about a culture, a system and a process that allowed them to go unchecked and unchallenged, and, actually, for the right and fair process to take place.

So, in terms of the remit for the commissioners, their terms of reference, they will be considering all of the recommendations of Fenella Morris KC's report and review on the culture and values. We expect the full and sustainable implementation of those recommendations no later than the deadlines stipulated in it. As you also said—. You touched on many things that I'd raised in the statement itself, particularly around those people who feel that their grievances or the things that they raised weren't treated in the way they should have been, or the outcome wasn't as it should have been previously, and the review, probably, and the past comments have really brought that home again and brought it back and forced people to relive really unacceptable experiences as well. That's why it is really important, as part of the work of the commissioners who take on the full role of the fire and rescue authority, that that process is established to identify those grievance cases that arise from the period covered by the report that may have been improperly and unfairly dealt with for reasons identified in the report, and to make sure that they are reopened and re-examined, leading to a fair and just outcome.

In terms of the time frame for this work, then, clearly, there is a time frame set out in Fenella Morris KC's review, which looks at an 18-month period. We will continually review that. The direction on the commissioners' posts takes effect from 5 p.m. today, and they will be in post straight away to start this really important work. I'm sure all Members in this Siambr will support us in that work. Also, as I said in my statement, I am committed to regularly updating this place on the progress of the commissioners' work, because, as we say, we are absolutely committed to ensuring meaningful change. I've said before in this Siambr to Sioned and others that I'm tired of talking about this sort of culture and behaviour, and that's why we're taking decisive action to rectify those wrongs.

Thank you for the update, Deputy Minister, and for taking action in such a robust way in the wake of the entirely unacceptable situation that has been allowed to develop within the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service in terms of the culture and, as we've heard, in terms of the service as well. There are certainly major questions to be asked and resolved in terms of accountability, scrutiny and the nature and the effectiveness of governance, and I greatly welcome the actions that you've set out this afternoon.

The need to act to ensure better and more effective governance by separating the executive role from the scrutiny role of the authorities is something that has been apparent for decades now, and progress, it must be said, has been inadequate and slow. The Government said that exact thing when presenting the last progress report on the national framework exactly four years ago, in January 2020. Although the North Wales Fire and Rescue Authority had been adhering to this pattern of working for some time, the other two authorities were not doing so. You were the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government at that time, and you told the Senedd that you were

'satisfied that FRAs are doing as much as they can to value and develop the workforce'

although you did recognise that there were bigger challenges to be solved. You also said that the statutory arrangements that applied to the fire and rescue authorities did not create the kind of assurance that you'd like to see to improve the efficiency and accountability of the authorities, and also that you would visit the authorities to consider other reforms. However, it was decided that, although the Welsh Government would continue to commit to reform measures in principle, the two proposals that the authorities harboured the most doubts about would not go any further. And that meant, then, that members of the fire and rescue authorities were not removed from council cabinets and authorities were not asked to agree their budgets with local authorities.

Do you, therefore, believe that the lack of progress in this area over the years has led in part to a lack of action regarding the unacceptable situation seen in the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service? Are you content with how the Welsh Government responded to the concerns identified in its own consultation in 2018 regarding the reform of the fire and rescue authorities and its progress report then?

And finally, do you agree that an independent review of all of the fire and rescue services in Wales would be a way of ensuring that it would be impossible for such unacceptable behaviour and culture to arise again without being tackled? This would then ensure that these deficiencies revealed by the independent review of the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service would be widespread throughout the other services in Wales. Thank you very much.

Diolch, Sioned, for your contribution and the work that you are doing in this area as well. I think, to touch on the challenges and issues of governance and accountability, which I think this review and the consequence of the actions that have been taken have really shone a light on, clearly, those structures aren't and haven't been fit for purpose in south Wales. And like you said, we have had wider concerns about the lack of accountability and governance in fire and rescue authorities, and you touched on, when we last proposed reform in 2018, it was strongly opposed—not just by fire and rescue authorities, but also local authorities themselves as well. However, those issues have re-emerged now, certainly, in the most distressing of circumstances, and I'm clear that we will actively consider options for reform, especially if there is evidence that comes forward that shows challenges elsewhere.

In terms of the other two fire and rescue authorities, I think, when I last gave a statement here to the Senedd Siambr, I made it clear that we would expect, even though the review applied to the South Wales Fire and Rescue Authority, for the other two fire and rescue authorities to not just take account of the review, but to take action themselves accordingly. So, we know there are very specific and serious problems of mismanagement and misconduct in south Wales, and that's why we're intervening, but I have, since the statement in January, written to both the chairs of North Wales Fire and Rescue Authority and Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Authority to seek an urgent and detailed assurance on the six themes that arise from the review. The challenge now is to look at those, to reflect on the responses as we receive them, and to decide what further action may be needed as a consequence.

Well, I applaud you, Deputy Minister, for biting the bullet on this one, because we have known about this problem since 2014, when the Commission on Public Service Governance and Delivery reported and said that the fire and rescue authorities do not and cannot supervise the services they are responsible for, partly because they are themselves not able to scrutinise the operational aspects. But they clearly haven't been, unfortunately, in this case, doing the job of supervising the management and accountability of the senior management of this service. I think it begs a lot of questions around the governance of fire and rescue authorities in the future, because what does it tell us about the fundamentals of this? I note that one of the recommendations of the 2014 report was to combine ambulance services with fire and rescue authorities, given that their roles often complement each other in the work they do, and I just wondered what the Government plans to do about the future governance of fire and rescue in light of the absolute failure of the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service.

Thank you, Jenny Rathbone, for the points that you highlighted there, and I think it links to the previous point by Sioned Williams in terms of where we are in terms of what the lessons may be for the future governance more broadly of fire and rescue authorities. So, I won't repeat the points I made there, other than to point to the fact that, also, you'll be aware that there is Audit Wales work on the governance of fire and rescue authorities ongoing at the moment, which might lend itself to a wider conversation about where we go from here. I think it's important to point out too that amongst the terms of reference for the work of the commissioners of the South Wales Fire and Rescue Authority is to develop proposals for the future governance of South Wales Fire and Rescue Authority that are most likely to minimise the risk of any further such failings. We've intervened here, now, and it's an unprecedented intervention in a fire and rescue authority, because we know not just about misconduct, but broader mismanagement, and like I said, there are broader lessons to be learnt as we move forward.

Thank you, Minister, for your statement here today. I note the decisive action that Welsh Government is taking to ensure confidence in south Wales fire and rescue and that transformation takes place, so that unacceptable workplace practices are eliminated. I have two questions for you today. Firstly, south Wales fire and rescue is currently recruiting for a chief executive officer or chief fire officer. With your commissioners, what involvement do you expect to have in this process to ensure a leader is appointed who can tackle these cultural issues?

Secondly, your statement says that commissioners will remain until the work is finished. What sort of timescale do you imagine that they will be in place for, and how will you monitor and assess their work to ensure that they are delivering the change the service needs? What are the short, medium and long-term markers that you will put in place to assess if culture has changed?

I thank Vikki Howells for those important questions. I'll touch on one firstly, in terms of the time frame. We've said that the commissioners will be in place until we can see and measure that sustainable change, and the review and the report itself sets out a time frame for that, which covers an 18-month period, but also targets to be met for change during that period as well. So, we anticipate, perhaps over time, that the commissioners' work will change, depending on progress, but that is something, like you say, that will need to be monitored and evaluated very closely.

Just to touch on the point around the recruitment of the next chief fire officer of South Wales Fire and Rescue Authority, the commissioners appointed have a full remit in terms of recruiting and restructuring when it comes to senior management at South Wales Fire and Rescue Authority. That was one of the things we set out in the remit and the terms of reference, in terms of establishing and overseeing a senior management team and related processes that are untainted by the failings identified in the report, and as a first step to appoint a chief fire officer and, as necessary, other senior staff who appear most likely to contribute fully and effectively to the FRA's recovery.

It's quite depressing, really, isn't it? I can imagine the morale must be really low amongst the workforce, especially for the hundreds of employees who didn't engage in any of this appalling behaviour that's been cited. I'm interested to know how you will ensure that those who actively engage in misogyny, racism and homophobia will be dealt with, and whether some reports to that end will be coming forward.

But there's a much wider question here, and that's about the structural change, in my opinion, that's needed across public services boards in Wales—not just the fire and rescue, but the police and others as well. So, whilst we're focusing on one authority—in this case, the South Wales Fire and Rescue Authority—I think that we need to do a much bigger scoping exercise and look at the make-up of those in charge of holding people to account, and how they're chosen, and how they're accountable, because I think there's another issue about their accountability. Where does their accountability go? To whom is it that they're accountable? I think, if this has shown anything whatsoever, it's that we have to seriously address the composition of those boards and how they're chosen and where they answer to.

Thank you, Joyce Watson. You touch on—. I think you reflected, as others have reflected in the Siambr not just today, but in January and prior to that, that what we've seen as—. There have been a number of instances over the past couple of years alone where we've heard about unacceptable behaviours in a number of workplaces, and I think there is a responsibility and I hope, by acting today so decisively, that it's the first step to rectify that within South Wales Fire and Rescue Service. But I think there's a responsibility on all of us in public life, in every workplace, including this workplace as well, to make sure that we have the right procedures in place and that our own staff are supported in terms of feeling that they can raise concerns in a way that is—that the process is there to support them as well. But on the broader points you raise around leadership, things around leadership, culture, accountability, the processes that are in place, the diversity of people in those leadership roles and within a workplace are really, really important, because this isn't just about tackling individual instances of what we would term 'unacceptable behaviour'.

I think one of the things I would like to say is we often hear the term 'woke' bandied about, and this isn't about somebody not being able to take a joke in the workplace, it's actually about being decent human beings and treating each other with dignity and respect. I used to say, back in a previous life when I worked in the trade union movement, I remember writing something, that you spend so much of your lifetime in your workplace. Unless you're either born to riches or win the lottery, you are going to spend a high proportion of your life at work and you should have an expectation that you are supported and safe within your workplace. So, you're right to highlight the need to actually look right across workplaces, and particularly across the public sector, where we have those levers in Wales to do that, and that work has started within Welsh Government.

But just to finish, really, on—. I'm very conscious that in hearing this announcement today the workforce in South Wales Fire and Rescue Service may feel anxiety and uncertainty and want to know what happens next. So, I am, of course, engaging and issuing letters to all the trade unions that represent and work with, and staff representation bodies who are active in South Wales Fire and Rescue Service, and we will meet collectively at the next meeting of the fire and rescue service social partnership forum, and I'm more than happy to engage and meet with them individually in the meantime. There's also some communication going out directly from me to the workforce of South Wales Fire and Rescue Service, just setting out what's happening, while really seeking to reassure them that we are there to support them, and act to support them through this period of change.

Finally, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Minister, thank you for your statement this afternoon. I've heard the word 'decisive' used several times by you today. The powers to regulate and control the fire service in Wales have resided with the Welsh Government for many years, and the Member for Cardiff Central highlighted a report in 2014. The action that the Welsh Government has taken is appropriate and is needed, and the staff members who have been on the receiving end of some of the actions that have been highlighted in the report should receive all the support that they require to, obviously, have the confidence either to stay in the service or have their concerns addressed.

But I've seen the fire service work at the high end of their game. At the recent fire in Bridgend, for example, on the industrial estate, there was that dedicated fire service working to the highest level of professionalism. I visited a fire station in Barry, and saw the dedicated crew in Barry and the commitment that they make to public service. But, what has the Welsh Government learnt from this exercise? I hear what you say about putting commissioners in, but given that you've had the authority to intervene at any juncture where you saw fit and where this evidence was brought to your attention, what measures will the Welsh Government be looking at, the measures it could have taken previously, to step in and get this done as early as possible, so that staff don't feel alienated and marginalised, and we don't see this repeating itself in other public services?

So, normally, obviously, we would expect fire service management to manage their staff fairly and well, as it should be, and we would expect fire authority members to show leadership and hold management to account, and where that doesn't happen there is a case for Government to intervene, which we have seen in this case, because there are serious and specific failings in South Wales Fire and Rescue Service.

You point to the number of powers of support, which I outlined in my previous statement, of support, direction, intervention. So, we're making this intervention under section 29 of the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2009, and this is only available when the authority has failed to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of its functions. And we've got to this point now because we believe those failings consist of, firstly—as we've talked about today, and the focus of the review—a failure to secure the fair and proper management of staff, including a failure to deal effectively with bullying, harassment and discrimination, and also, a failure to respond to clear and obvious opportunities to improve service standards. We have taken decisive action today and, of course, we will reflect on that action and we'll reflect on the lessons learned as we move forward, and how we can learn not just across the fire and rescue services, but right across the public sector in Wales. Because, as I said, Andrew R.T. Davies, I am tired of talking about this misbehaviour and misconduct in all walks of life, in all public services, and we're taking action today, and we will continue to take action as we move forward.

Thank you, Deputy Minister.

Item 4 is a statement by the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language on vocational qualifications. I call on the Minister, Jeremy Miles.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. This Government has made a commitment to increase parity of esteem between vocational and academic education routes. We believe in the inherent value of vocational education, with its crucial links to skills, the economy and to Welsh society. We've also committed, through our co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru, to reform vocational qualifications and to consider the expansion of made-for-Wales qualifications.

These commitments underpinned my commissioning of the independent vocational qualifications review, chaired by Sharron Lusher. I would like to put on record my thanks to Sharron and steering group members for the work that went into their report, which I published in September. I welcome the report and its assessment of vocational qualifications in Wales. It sets out 33 recommendations for Government, the new Commission for Tertiary Education and Research, and Qualifications Wales. It’s clear that collaborative working is key to many, if not all, of these recommendations. So, we will work closely with both organisations, and with other stakeholders, including providers of vocational education and training, to progress the ambitions of the review.

As the review made clear, Dirprwy Lywydd, there are strengths that we can build on with regard to how vocational qualifications operate in Wales, such as the increasing numbers that are available bilingually or in Welsh, and overall learner satisfaction with their courses. The report explores the pros and cons of establishing a national awarding body for vocational qualifications. While I can see the appeal of such a body, at this moment in time when budgets across the board are under such immense pressure, I accept it cannot be the priority.

The review recognises the need for pragmatism in exploring opportunities to further develop made-for-Wales vocational qualifications. I welcome the made-for-Wales approach proposed by the review. It will mean reviewing new and existing qualifications to ensure they are fit for purpose, meet the needs of learners, employers and providers, and are available bilingually. It will also mean maintaining, as far as possible, learner choice, whilst recognising the need to ensure that we have the right skills to support our economic priorities. That will mean working strategically with our partners, including regional skills partnerships and learning providers, to make best use of labour market intelligence. It also means ensuring that learners have the information they need to make informed choices about qualifications that will provide them with the best opportunities to progress in their future careers. I'll return to that in a moment.

The report calls for a national strategy for vocational education and training, and sets out the purpose and principles that should underpin that. These include responding to economic and social needs, and preparing learners to join a bilingual workforce. I accept the need for the Welsh Government to provide a clear strategic lead. We'll therefore develop a short, action-focused policy statement that provides a strategic focus on post-16 education and training and which also aligns with related strategic commitments, including net zero and, of course, our refreshed economic mission.

We can’t talk about vocational qualifications without considering the ecosystem in which they operate. We've been discussing with Qualifications Wales how we can better co-ordinate sector reviews and the development of apprenticeship frameworks, as advised by the review. This will ensure better alignment of programmes of vocational learning with employers’ skills needs.

I support the report’s recommendation that Wales does not adopt the same approach as England in the implementation of T-levels. My officials will continue to work with Qualifications Wales to monitor developments, and work to ensure stability and continued access to relevant vocational qualifications for learners in Wales. We'll also ensure that, as England develops its proposals for an advanced British standard qualification framework, our approach to 16-19 learning will continue to focus on the needs of learners in Wales.

I want to encourage more collaboration between schools and post-16 providers, to ensure that learners have the information and support that they need to progress along vocational routes where that is appropriate for them. As I have said previously in relation to Hefin David’s report on transitions to employment, everyone has a part to play in ensuring that our children and young people leave education equipped to participate fully in society. My officials have been looking at ways to better highlight existing pockets of good practice and expand this throughout the sector.

The review recommended extending work opportunity options to all level 3 learners who didn’t have a work placement as a mandatory part of their qualification. I will accept this recommendation, as all level 3 learners now have opportunities to access work experience as part of their study, either through the community, learner or industry focus component of their full-time course, or through the placement enhancement programme, which offers level 3 learners the opportunity to access up to 100 hours of industry-relevant work experience. The placement enhancement programme is one of four pilot programmes funded through the £5.8 million innovation fund and mainstreamed this academic year. 

I intend to publish statutory guidance for schools on 14-16 learning in the Curriculum for Wales as part of the development of our policy on 14-19 pathways. Both general and vocational qualifications will always be an important part of this. I am committed to ensuring that young people in compulsory education also have a coherent offer around skills, planning for next steps—including through high-quality careers and work-related learning experiences—as well as personal learning opportunities. This is equally important for our young people entering post-16 education and training, to ensure we support participation across a range of quality learning opportunities and experiences to support learners’ career progression and well-being. This approach reflects the new curriculum and confirms my commitment that all learners are supported in their chosen pathway, be it education, employment or training.  

The review recommended that the Welsh Government and learning providers work together to offer a wider curriculum offer for learners where choice is more limited, or where the learner numbers are low. We are developing updated statutory guidance to support the 16-19 curriculum. The Commission for Tertiary Education and Research will be well placed to work effectively and consistently across the tertiary education system, and with our education partners, when it becomes fully operational. That will include supporting a co-ordinated approach to how post-16 provision at all levels is delivered across Wales, in support of the statutory guidance. I would expect to see a key aspect of that planning role to involve consideration of how best the tertiary system can ensure that Welsh current and future skills needs are met. I am determined to see the commission facilitating more collaboration and cohesion, and provide further opportunities to build clear pathways for learners into different areas of provision or into employment. Everyone has a responsibility for vocational education and training. 

In terms of a timetable for this work, some is already in train, as I've already mentioned. That includes the statutory 16-19 guidance, work opportunities for level 3 learners, and looking at how best to progress a vocational education and training strategy, working across all related policy areas. My officials have been developing a work plan, in discussion across different areas of Government, looking at how best to prioritise other strands of work. We are talking to Qualifications Wales about the steps they will take forward in response to the review in the upcoming operational year and beyond. I will expect there to be similar considerations for the commission as it develops its strategic plan, once fully operational.

Thank you for your statement, Minister. Of course, vocational qualifications are extremely important to the future of our children, yet after years of waiting for this, why was this announcement only revealed under cloak and dagger last week? All three other nations of the UK have previously outlined strategic plans for vocational education, yet the Welsh Government, and you as the Minister, are now only laying out these plans. We in the Welsh Conservatives have repeatedly called for the Labour Government to do more to deliver the skills that Wales needs, for the good of our young people and for the health of the Welsh economy going forward. Vocational education often leads to long and successful well-paid careers. The Labour Government's lack of a strategic plan for vocational education for years has ultimately led to failure to provide the skills that we need for Wales's future.

So, Minister, why has it taken this long to announce these qualifications? Will every school be offering these qualifications? As we know from the announcement last week, as it currently stands, schools will be offered the opportunity to introduce them, but there is no guidance compelling them to. It's clear to everyone that this could lead to a smaller than expected number, due to years of chronic underfunding and cuts by this Welsh Government. We've seen, year on year, real-terms cash cuts to the education budget and teachers leaving the sector in droves, with this Government failing to replace them or train up teaching assistants. So, I have serious reservations around the workload for teachers, who will now have to familiarise themselves with new qualifications, and any additional costs on already stretched school budgets. So, Minister, will additional funding be following directly to schools to encourage take-up? How do you intend to introduce them without placing even more stress on our teachers?

And finally, Minister, as you know, Wales does not have a clear assessment of our national occupational and skills needs for the future. I thought this would have come alongside this announcement, so that we can better understand the shortages we face and ensure we prioritise those skills throughout these qualifications. This is the only way that we can ensure we have the Welsh workforce futureproofed and end any reliance on foreign labour. It is also important to chart enrolments onto qualifications and learner destinations, as, without such correlation, it is difficult to determine whether there is a relevant and effective range of vocational qualifications to meet future needs. So, Minister, will an assessment of our national occupational and skills needs be forthcoming, and will you be charting enrolments and learner destinations? Diolch.

I thank Janet Finch-Saunders for her questions, although I think the questions really relate to the statement that Qualifications Wales made last week about the introduction of VCSEs, rather than the statement I'm making today in relation to the response to the Lusher review. There's no cloak-and-dagger in relation to this—the report was published in September of last year, and I'm here in the Chamber making the statement and answering questions. So, I'm not sure what part of cloak-and-dagger that definition would satisfy.

On the points that were relevant to the statement today, there are two aspects that I think Janet Finch-Saunders highlighted that are important. The first is that need to align economic policy, skills policy and vocational qualifications, as the Lusher review sets out. The Government accepts that, and she will have heard from my statement there is work under way in relation to that. And the second point that she made was in relation to our understanding of the future skills needs of the economy. She will know, of course, of the work that regional skills partnerships already undertake, in a regional footprint, to understand the needs of that region. She will also know that we have a programme for government commitment to strengthen the work that they undertake in relation to that. But as the review itself makes clear, there is a need to have a national picture of that work as well, and that will be an important part of how we take this forward. 

On the points that she makes in relation to the VCSEs announcement of last week by Qualifications Wales, I welcome that announcement in the following sense: I think it is absolutely important that we help streamline the offer to our learners, so that in the pre-16 space it is a more coherent and a more focused offer, which the VCSE programme will ensure. I am keen to make sure that we develop partnerships between schools and colleges in relation to how those VCSEs are delivered, so that we can make sure that they are delivered effectively. I want to see—and Qualifications Wales has already committed to this—close working between Qualifications Wales and colleges in Wales to ensure that those qualifications, when they come forward, are both well designed and well delivered.

Can I thank the Minister for today's statement? I would like to echo your thanks to Sharron Lusher for her work in leading the review, and to the members of the steering committee for their contribution. As you mentioned, of course, this stems from the co-operation agreement. Plaid Cymru does strongly believe in the importance of vocational education, and also agrees with the important assertion that qualifications being made in Wales for Wales is necessary. As you mentioned, in responding to Janet Finch-Saunders, we have to ensure that that does align with those key skills that are needed for the future of our people, our communities, our language, our economy and also, of course, in terms of responding to the climate crisis.  

You mentioned in the statement that you accept the need for the Welsh Government to provide clear strategic guidance for vocational education and training. This is undoubtedly important, but we need a strategy or an action plan and comprehensive policies to cover all aspects of post-16 education, rather than considering the field of vocational education and training in a silo on its own. There is still a strong element of promoting, unfortunately, vocational education and training as a pathway for those who do not shine academically, according to conventional and old-fashioned measures. And I think that we must dispel this myth and ensure that the range of qualifications that are available, and that will be available, here in Wales are being promoted to everyone as a possible pathway. So, could you, please, outline when you expect that we will see such a strategy not only being published, but also being implemented? 

 In terms of the pathway that is recommended in the report, the idea of an open market goes against the grain in terms of our overall values, which, of course, believe strongly in collaboration here in Wales. But, in accepting this option, this also runs counter to the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have examination boards led by the state in this area, and also internationally, where either employers or the state take the lead. We have a strange situation here, where individual choice and the free market take the lead. But we accept the pragmatism that underpins the way forward, and we understand that there is no desire in the sector at the moment, and that there are financial challenges in terms of creating a new awarding body specific to Wales, as you outlined.  

Undoubtedly, we need a robust mechanism to identify the demand for skills in Wales, and that this then shapes and influences post-16 education, including qualifications. We need a way to monitor the extent to which this is happening successfully, along with clear lines of responsibility and accountability in terms of the lead roles and responsibilities of the Welsh Government, Qualifications Wales and the new CTER commission. And CTER does need to be fundamentally different and more ambitious than managing the status quo, something that I know that you agree with. 

One thing that, of course, has caused concern in this context is the decision to cut almost 25 per cent from the apprenticeships budget, and how this will affect the ability of learners to develop their skills further in these areas, once they have completed these qualifications. Do you share those concerns, and is there any guarantee that you can give today that these changes will also be considered in this wider context, so that pathways to further skills development remain open to learners after they complete their VCSE qualifications? 

I thank Heledd Fychan for those questions. There is work already in train in terms of the post-16 curriculum, as I broadly mentioned in my statement, and part of that is the establishment of statutory guidance for providers, so that that curriculum follows the principles of the pre-16 curriculum but in a way that is appropriate for the options available to learners in the post-16 sector. And it's quite right to say that it's important that what we provide and the guidance we put in place for providers does ensure that what drives every decision is a pathway that is appropriate for the individual learner taking that qualification. And we need to design and redesign the way that we provide so that that is the impetus behind the decision, not just the structures that we happen to have at the moment. So, that is a challenging principle, but it's also very creative, I believe. And I think that is certainly what we need to follow as part of that work. 

In terms of the point that the Member made, her broader point on how we deliver qualifications more generally, my view is that the report strikes a pragmatic balance between the need to ensure on the one hand that the qualifications available to young people in Wales meet the needs of our economy, the priorities of the young people themselves, on the one hand, but can also provide a range of options for young people. So, I think that the way that the review recommends that we look at whether the qualification is fit for purpose and if it's not, what can we do to ensure that it's provided in an alternative manner, does adhere to those principles in a very appropriate way. And this idea of qualifications that are made for Wales is something that I believe allows us to strike that appropriate balance. 

In terms of the budgetary questions, well, there have been cuts to the apprenticeship budget, and the Minister for Economy has had to make some very difficult decisions, as we all have. None of us would say that these are cuts that we would choose to make, and we will all be seeking ways of trying to restore that budget as soon as that is possible. But there are practical limitations on the Government in this regard, and I do think that we have to respond to the report in a way that reflects and recognises the budgetary pressures on all of our providers as well as on us as a Government.

Thank you, Minister, for your statement today. I am so pleased to see a firm commitment to move forward on ensuring parity of esteem between vocational and academic qualifications. It's what our young people deserve, what our country urgently needs if we are able to fill the skills gap of today and of tomorrow. 

I understand the practical financial considerations that have led you to conclude that it's not possible to establish a national awarding body for vocational qualifications at the present time. With this in mind, how can you ensure that vocational qualifications are assessed in an appropriate manner, taking full account of students' practical skills and do not rely overly upon written assessments?

And, secondly, moving to the crucial area of work placement opportunities for level 3 learners, I'm pleased to note that these are now mandatory. However, from conversations I have with my local further education college, their learners, parents and local employers, I know securing these work placements can be extremely challenging, with placements in very short supply and some students left at risk of having to leave their courses if placements can't be secured. Minister, it's the red tape, the form filling that I'm told consistently acts as a barrier to more employers engaging in this system, so what can you do to help tackle this issue?

I thank Vikki Howells for those two very important points. I think that, at the heart of the way in which we need to deliver the made-for-Wales qualifications is to ensure that the balance between assessed content and practical content is striking the right balance. And there have been challenges in the past, as I'm sure she's alluding to in her question, and I think it's important that we do learn the lessons of that. And I think part of that, really, is about how we make sure that providers, regulators, learners and employers are four parts of a coherent system that then meets the demands of all four elements, if she likes. 

I think it's really important to make sure that, alongside the formal availability, if I put it like that, of work experience as part of qualifications, we are delivering that in practice on the ground. I do recognise the challenge that she outlines there. So, we know that the mix of the placement-enhanced programme and the community, learner, industry focus elements between them ought to cover the ground in relation to level 3 learners generally, but there are some areas of Wales where the availability of relevant work placements, in particular, can be limited. So, part of how we are seeking to address that is through the innovation funding that we provided, over £6 million of funding, that has been used to try out new ways of delivering work placement. But she's right to say this is something that we need to keep an eye on and make sure that we make a reality of it, and I mentioned a report that Hefin David prepared for the Government a few months ago. That has a number of very practical ways in which that can be taken forward. 

Finally, Hefin David. 

I'll pick up where you left off. [Interruption.] [Laughter.] Regarding the issue of better collaborative working between post-16 institutions and secondary schools, in that report I mentioned particularly the NPTC Group of Colleges and Llanidloes High School, which has a sixth form. I highlighted that as an example of very good collaborative practice. Would it be, perhaps, a constructive suggestion that the Government could try and understand exactly what is going right there, and perhaps scale up a pilot project elsewhere in Wales to see if that can be replicated and the successes that we've seen there then happen elsewhere, and then see if you could further expand that through Wales?

Just to acknowledge the point that Hefin David makes, and it's very much consistent with the theme of his report, and I think it is about identifying good practice, isn't it? He mentioned Neath Port Talbot college; I have my own connection with that college from a constituency point of view. He mentioned the work in Llanidloes, but he could also, I know, have referred to the work with Maesteg comprehensive, where there is good close working between the college and the school to give learners that hands-on training in vocational areas like construction. There are also good examples in Blaenau Gwent through the Tech Valleys STEM facilitation project, and the work that my department is doing now, together with the economy department, really is trying to identify where those good relationships exist. 

I think one of the challenges for us, as well as providing the guidance, case studies and ways of working that schools and colleges can draw on—. The other challenge for us is to make sure that there are no obstacles in the design of the system that just make it harder for schools and colleges to work together, and I'm very mindful of that as well.  

Thank you, Minister. 

Item 5 has been postponed. 

So, we'll move on to item 6: debate on the draft budget 2024-25. And I call on the Minister for Finance and Local Government to move the motion—Rebecca Evans. 

Diolch. I'm pleased to open this afternoon's debate on the Welsh Government's draft budget for 2024-25. Since we had the first opportunity to debate the draft budget in the Senedd on 9 January, Senedd committees have been busy scrutinising our spending plans. I welcome the constructive sessions that I've had with the Finance Committee in my finance Minister role, and those that my ministerial colleagues and I have had with our respective subject committees. 

Before I provide some early reflections on the themes arising from scrutiny, it's important to put on record once again the very challenging climate in which we're setting the Welsh budget. Once again, the UK Government has sought to work against us rather than with us. We continue to see the ongoing impacts of high inflation, the impacts of which on households, businesses, public services and devolved Government have been downplayed by the UK Government. And while we have thankfully seen rates fall over the winter months, there is still a significant gap between where we are now and the Bank of England's 2 per cent target. This continues to have significant impacts on what we can deliver.

The Chancellor's very late autumn statement fell far short of the settlement needed to meet the challenges public services face, and there was no specific recognition of the issues facing Wales. The constrained funding settlement that we have means that we cannot go as far and as fast as we would like, but this draft budget seeks to prioritise the issues that people and communities across Wales hold the most important. I'll continue to call on the UK Government to properly fund public services and to recognise our particular calls for increased investment in rail and coal tip safety at the upcoming spring budget, which is due just a few days after we publish our final budget.

As the Cabinet developed this draft budget, we had to make some stark and painful choices, but we did so in the spirit of collaboration and transparency, putting people and communities first to support the services that matter most. We have radically reshaped our budgets in line with a set of guiding principles: to protect core front-line public services as far as possible, to deliver the greatest benefit to households that are hardest hit, to prioritise jobs wherever possible, and to work in partnership with other public sector bodies to face this financial storm together.

By taking this approach, we have focused funding to invest more in the NHS—£450 million in 2024-25, in addition to the £425 million that we made available in October for 2023-24. We’re protecting the core local government settlement. Alongside the 3.1 per cent increase that we promised last year, we are also providing an additional £1.3 million through the revenue support grant to provide a funding floor, ensuring that no authority has an increase in settlement of less than 2 per cent.

Following the UK Government’s announcement, which resulted in consequential funding, I’m also allocating a further £25 million to support the social care workforce and other pressures in the final budget. I’ll provide a written statement with more detail on this shortly, but I do need to stress that this is at risk, and the funding might well be offset by negative movements in the spring statement. So, I just need to bring that to colleagues’ attention.

While we’re protecting the funding that goes directly to schools, including the pupil development grant and continuing our successful COVID recovery programme to recruit, recover and raise standards, in doing so, and in protecting these areas, it has, though, meant making some really difficult decisions, such as refocusing spending away from other areas, including from non-devolved areas where we have traditionally stepped in to make up for UK Government shortcomings.

So, I’ll now turn to some of the key points that have been raised in committee scrutiny. There was a particular and welcome emphasis once again on preventative spend, and how this draft budget addresses this. Within the extremely challenging settlement that we currently have, we have had to act to protect core public services. This is a budget where it’s necessary to target our spending to those areas that are more acute areas of prevention. If we are to move towards greater primary prevention in the future, we must ensure that core public services are sustainable in the here and now, and able to weather this fresh storm of austerity imposed by the UK Government.

I don’t recognise that this budget is one that is defunding areas of primary prevention. That’s simply not the case. For example, by investing a further £450 million into the NHS, we aim to provide protection for everyone, including children, disabled people and older and vulnerable people. This, by its very nature, is preventative spend, in many ways. It is also worth recognising that local government and the NHS represent 90 per cent of employment in the public sector, and those are the areas where we've focused available funding, supporting many workers and communities across Wales. Prevention is also not solely about the amount of funding. It’s also about the way funding is spent. Defining the outcomes of spending from a prevention perspective is complex, particularly where there are multiple beneficiaries and multiple types of prevention occurring within a single investment. As such, we’re continuing to explore this area as part of the work of our budget improvement plan, alongside the actions that we will take on gender budgeting and reforming our approach to budget impact assessments.

On borrowing and reserve limits, I echo the Finance Committee’s calls for flexibility. Next year our limits will be worth almost a quarter less in real terms than when they were introduced in 2018-19. The UK Government should apply the changes that it has made to the Scottish fiscal framework in relation to reserve and borrowing limits to Wales, giving us the same additional budgetary flexibility. This would index our borrowing and reserve limits to inflation, and abolish limits on our reserve draw-down. I once again made this case during a meeting with the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury last month, emphasising that the changes made to the Scottish framework are equally applicable to us. They are pragmatic changes that could be made immediately.

The funding support package to Northern Ireland from the UK Government has recognised the costs of public sector services and pay pressures. These costs are not unique to Northern Ireland, and they should be recognised for all parts of the UK. Like Northern Ireland, we are seeking equal opportunity to address those pressures. 

I also highlighted the final report of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, which argues that the financial flexibilities that we continue to seek are reasonable and that the Treasury should either accept them or explain why it will not.

This year, we have, again, received a request by the Finance Committee for more information to aid scrutiny. I wish to reiterate the messages from last year on the multi-year concept and how the information provided this year should be considered as an update to the circumstances and in addition to what's been provided in previous years. We have provided an enormous amount of information, been transparent in the approach that we're taking and engaged with the committee early. The volume and range of material that we produce is greater than many other Governments, so it leads me to consider whether this is an issue of more information, or whether the committee wants different information. In this respect, I do feel that the budget protocol could be used to better effect, to ensure that we're delivering what the Senedd expects to aid scrutiny. I appreciate the discussions that I've had thus far with the Chair of the Finance Committee regarding the protocol, and would welcome further discussions with a view to negotiating a revised version as we end this multi-year period.

There was no meaningful change in our general capital funding from the UK Government in the autumn statement. In fact, our capital budget in 2024-25 is now worth up to 10 per cent less in real terms than expected at the time of the spending review in 2021. We are simply not in a position to make any further general capital allocations within this budget. 

I have outlined some financial transactions capital allocations as part of the draft budget, and I'll be outlining further financial transactions capital allocations within our final budget, aligned to our priorities. I recognise that the Senedd would like to see all financial transactions capital allocations provided at draft budget, and, indeed, that would be our preference. The lateness of the UK Government's autumn statement, coupled with the complexity of these mechanisms, often requires additional due diligence before we can announce funding. It remains our intention to allocate FT capital at the draft budget going forward.

In closing, I'd like to reiterate my thanks to everyone who was involved in the preparations and the scrutiny of this draft budget. I appreciate the constructive conversations that I've had with the designated Member for Plaid Cymru, Siân Gwenllian, and the Liberal Democrat Member, Jane Dodds. Scrutiny is a critical part of the process, and, whilst I agree with many of the Finance Committee's recommendations, there are some that I would need to consider further in light of the limitations that I've set out today. I and my Cabinet colleagues will respond formally to the recommendations of all of the Senedd committee reports in advance of the vote on the final budget on 6 March. 

So, to conclude, there can be no underestimation in setting our 2024-25 draft budget that we have had to take incredibly difficult decisions—the starkest and most painful since devolution. However, we have worked hard with our colleagues, with our partners and our stakeholders to identify where funding would be best placed to deliver the services that people in Wales need most. I look forward to hearing the debate.

I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I am pleased to contribute to this key debate on the Welsh Government's draft budget for 2024-25.

Before I turn to specific areas within our report, I would like to thank at the outset those who engaged with the committee since we first held our sessions on this budget back in June last year. We received the highest amount of responses to our written consultation during the sixth Senedd to date, which demonstrates the strength of feeling and concern that exists within Wales regarding the implications of the funding decisions that we are making today and over the coming weeks. We welcome this level of engagement, which is fundamental in guiding the committee's considerations and informing our conclusions and recommendations. We hope, as a result, that our report does justice to the views expressed and the efforts taken by people and organisations across Wales to engage with us.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I want to begin by acknowledging that this is not an easy budget for the Welsh Government to be making. However, we found weaknesses in several key areas of the draft budget, which casts doubt on whether it is fulfilling the Minister's main objectives.

Firstly, there are question marks over whether funding levels within the draft budget are sufficient to protect front-line services, which is one of the Welsh Government's guiding principles. The committee is particularly concerned with the funding shortfalls facing front-line services funded by local authorities, particularly education, housing and social care. When I spoke in this Chamber last July during the committee's debate on budget priorities I made it clear that local government needs sufficient funding to match the policy and service pressures that they are facing. Regrettably, things do not seem to have moved on since then. That is why we have asked the Minister to explain how this draft budget protects those core front-line services.

The committee also has concerns regarding the Welsh Government's decision to increase NHS funding without a proportional increase in allocations for social care, especially as both are inextricably linked and that greater pressures on social care services could create additional pressures on the NHS.

We also had concerns regarding workforce matters within front-line services, particularly relating to recruitment and retention within the social care and health sectors. We were therefore disappointed that cuts had been made to the Social Care Wales workforce development grant, a scheme designed to address workforce pressures, and ask the Minister to explain why this decision has been made, given the significant financial pressures facing that sector.

I understand that similar concerns were expressed by the Local Government and Housing Committee and I'm glad there is common ground between the committees on that point. But I do welcome the comments this afternoon about the £25 million consequential that might be coming on that. So, I'll be looking forward to reading that statement later on, in the next couple of days.

We also looked at the impact of the Minister's decision to allocate additional funding to certain core service areas. Whilst the approach has merits, the committee felt that the Welsh Government has failed to set out how it will ensure effective in-year monitoring of outcomes against financial expenditure. As a result we've asked the Minister to provide this information in relation to the allocations made within the draft budget to NHS Wales and Transport for Wales.

Secondly, we're highly concerned by evidence that suggests that the Welsh Government's budgetary decisions are likely to have a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable in society at a time when it is needed the most. The Minister claims that the draft budget will deliver the greatest benefit to the households that are hardest hit. But we heard evidence that called this into question. Stakeholders told us that decisions to fund front-line services have come at the expense of longer-term measures to mitigate the root causes of poverty and inequality, and that this will disproportionately impact women. We therefore want the Minister to assess the impact of her budgetary decisions on initiatives that protect people from hardship. This includes looking again at the impact of the budget on the discretionary assistance fund, the Welsh Government learning grant, the thresholds for free school meals in secondary schools, to see if it can be extended to children whose parents receive universal credit, the Warm Homes programme and affordable homes.

We are also astonished that the Welsh Government has decided to move £11 million of funding away from its childcare offer. Although we understand that this was because of a lack of demand, we are concerned that the way the scheme is designed and operated may be preventing parents from accessing support. We also asked the Minister to provide further information to explain the impact on other areas of the budget if the take-up of the offer improves.

In addition, although the committee was pleased to see the launch of the Welsh benefits charter last month, which will help deliver a coherent system of support for those most in need, more information is needed before we can assess whether it is successful or not. On a related matter, whilst we recognise with regret that the Welsh Government may need to increase charges for certain public services to plug funding shortfalls, we do not believe that this should impact on those most in need, and call on the Minister to ensure that the most vulnerable in society are protected should this policy be pursued.

A third area of concern for the committee is the absence of strategic thinking within the Welsh Government around the funding of its long-term preventative measures. And I thank the Minister for some of the context around this this afternoon. But we were not assured by the Minister's comments that prioritising core front-line public services is in itself an act of prevention, and feel there is very little evidence in the documentation published alongside the draft budget that shows how these decisions are balanced by strategic long-term objectives focused on prevention. This is why we have called on the Welsh Government to assess the impact of the decision to reprioritise funding from preventative measures, particularly on the long-term sustainability of services.

In terms of measuring impact, I'm glad to say that there are signs of progress, and we welcome the Minister’s decision to review both its budget improvement plan and strategic integrated impact assessment. However, there are still areas of the budget where more could be done to explain the impact of the Welsh Government’s decisions. This includes providing details of all the non-devolved areas where funding will be reprioritised, explaining why demand is less in certain areas and its budgetary impact, explaining how the well-being of future generations Act is considered when making budgetary decisions, publishing outcomes of the two remaining gender-budgeting pilots with a view to mainstreaming gender budgeting across Welsh Government, and explaining the impact of the erosion in value of the Welsh Government’s capital budgets on the projects that will need to be scaled back or cancelled altogether.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I would like to move to other areas of our report. The committee would like the Welsh Government to provide more information within the year that would enable the Senedd to understand its funding position and how it influences spending decisions. This includes exploring sharing data at regular intervals to provide an overview of how the Welsh Government is progressing against its spending profiles within the year, and providing greater clarity on the impact of inflation on devolved budgets.

Finally, this committee has regularly criticised the amount of time available for Senedd committees to scrutinise the Welsh Government’s draft budget. We acknowledge that the timing of fiscal events at Westminster, which is set by the Treasury, largely influences the timing of the publication of the draft budget, but we have asked the Welsh Government to look at ways in which it can work with Senedd committees ahead of budget rounds in the future to maximise opportunities for people to have their say about the changes that affect them. I am also pleased that we have been able to continue the discussions on the budget protocol.

I am also aware, from speaking to colleagues on other committees, that there were issues with the quality and accuracy of supporting evidence that individual Ministers have provided in relation to their portfolio areas. This is clearly disappointing and shows that there is work to be done to improve the process of sharing evidence relating to the budget, and our aim is to continue our dialogue with committees on this issue.

To close, Dirprwy Lywydd, I would like to echo the sentiments expressed at the beginning of my contribution. I have always maintained, as Chair of the Finance Committee, that I will be guided by the views of those who have taken the time to engage with us. Doing so takes a great deal of time, expertise and effort. This year’s report is no different, and the powerful evidence that we have received from a range of individuals and organisations has been instrumental to our conclusions and recommendations.

There is no doubt that these are difficult times and that tough choices have to be made. We believe that the Minister has some way to go before this draft budget does what it says on the tin and protects the services that matter most to the people of Wales. We call on the Minister to take this report into account in order to ensure that the draft budget works for the people we serve. Thank you very much.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on Peter Fox to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you, Minister, for the statement. Firstly, I'd like to thank everybody who has contributed to the scrutiny of this draft budget, including all of the committees and, it has to be said, the first-class clerks for their invaluable work. It's so important that stakeholders and the people tell us what they feel and how the Government's decisions will affect them. We can see from the Finance Committee report that there are many concerns. 

Every week, we hear of people struggling to be seen by a general practitioner or waiting for treatment, or about the lack of social care packages or access to affordable childcare, or access to a home. We hear how businesses are closing their doors due to a lack of Welsh Government support, or how communities are becoming more isolated as a result of poor public transport. We hear fears from our farming and rural communities that their businesses, way of life and our food security are threatened by Government policy.

Welsh Government's stock answer to many of these things is that they don't have the money—it's the UK Government's fault. The fact is that there have been cash increases—hundreds of millions of pounds, year on year. And as every family knows, when times are hard, you have to cut your cloth accordingly, but how you choose to cut it is your decision. Government at all levels make choices and have to be accountable. Welsh Government has made its choices in this budget and can't keep blaming Westminster for its failings. This blame game is just a smokescreen to hide decades of poor strategic planning and Government choices and decisions. It's well rehearsed that Wales receives £1.20 for every £1 spent per person on health and education in England, but the Government has spent the extra on other things—we know that. If money had been spent where it should have been, our waiting lists would not have been so long, our health boards not under the same financial pressure, our education results would be better and our infrastructure wouldn't be in the state that it is.

The budget narrative says that Government wants to focus on funding the services that matter most to the people of Wales, but it hasn't. Just look at the local government settlement at 3 per cent—a huge, real-terms cut that will mean that councils will struggle to deliver essential services. As the WLGA told the Finance Committee, the 3 per cent 

'only amounts to around a third of the pressure facing local services, so it will inevitably mean difficult choices, job losses and service cuts', 

and, we know, huge council tax hikes. Let's be clear: the Welsh Government have passed the buck on to our councils, well knowing that council tax increases will follow and the people of Wales will pay the price. This is nothing but a stealth tax.

I do welcome the increased funding for healthcare this year. This is much needed and it's something we have been calling for for years. But the simple truth is that this funding should have been invested years ago, to fend off the systemic failures we now see that have reduced the resilience in our health service. The lack of long-term focus saw, in 2022-23, an astonishing £325 million being spent on agency staff across the NHS.

We know also that, currently, there are around 1,500 people waiting to be discharged from hospital due to capacity challenges in the social care sector. The budget doesn't recognise this. Indeed, the Finance Committee and stakeholders, as we've heard, are concerned that the Government has proposed an increase to NHS funding with no proportionate increases for social care. They believe that this lacks strategic thinking, as more pressure in social care leads to more pressure in the NHS. The Minister's announcement today of the £25 million for social care will be welcome, but it is only a drop in the ocean when we know that the social care pressures alone that local government are facing at the moment are some £260 million.

Clearly, if we are to see these health and social care issues addressed, we need institutional reform, including meaningful policies, such as our substantial workforce plan—something that the Welsh Conservatives have repeatedly called for to address chronic understaffing in the sector. We need a robust recovery strategy, one that the public can understand and that gives them some hope that things will improve. We need to make sure that our health service is adequately funded, and, crucially, that that funding is used well. Standards have to be driven up to ensure that the people of Wales get the healthcare they deserve.

Dirprwy Lywydd, Wales is also being held back by poor policies dampening economic growth, particularly when it comes to transport infrastructure. The Institution of Civil Engineers told the climate change committee that the lack of overview of the vulnerabilities of Wales's infrastructure networks has created gaps in our approach to defending critical infrastructure. They go on to highlight the growing problem on the M4 corridor and the A55. But instead of crucial investment focused on empowering our country and its economy, what we see is multiple road projects cancelled, a damaging default 20 mph speed limit, inadequate electric vehicle charging and a diminishing public transport network. Where's the coherent strategy for transport policy within this budget?

Looking wider at the economy, businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors will have to pay double the business rates that they would do in England, because this Government refuses to pass on the same relief, despite the funding being made available. It's the same situation in the childcare sector: £180 million-worth of consequentials were made available to support parents to get back into work by providing those 30 hours of free childcare for children over the age of nine months from September 2025, but Welsh Government has taken the active decision to not implement the same package of support here in Wales.

I will be asked how we will pay for this—I already have—for our thinking, rather. It's a question I used to put to my opposition as a council leader, knowing well they wouldn't have access to the resources and detailed budget lines they needed. Allow us to have access to your workings and your resources and we will robustly challenge spend areas, realign, re-prioritise and mobilise moneys to the key, immediate priorities and pressures, and really address the things that matter most to the people. Wales needs sound, strategic forward planning that encompasses a whole-Government approach to financial strategy, rather than a knee-jerk, disjointed departmental budgeting focus on pet projects. The country must see a plan to give back hope to the Welsh people, one that rebuilds and protects public services, supports businesses, creates and trains the workforce of the future and grows our economy; one that rebuilds our NHS, grows social care provision and funds schools properly.

Sadly, this Welsh Government lacks the vision needed, as evidenced by announcements such as the cutting of apprenticeships by 10,000, slicing funding to further education, or diverting money away from the childcare offer whilst parents are crying out for more provision, and nursery settings are struggling to survive. We cannot undo Labour's failings overnight, but we can build better and more resilient public services through long-term strategic planning with appropriate priorities. Dirprwy Lywydd, we believe this budget fails to deliver on the priority of the people of Wales, and I move the Welsh Conservative amendment.

I welcome the opportunity to scrutinise the Government's draft budget, and much has happened since we agreed the previous budget, but one could argue that the context is very similar in many ways. Without doubt, this is a budget made in a difficult time for a difficult time. It reflects the restrictions of our funding settlement and we've seen

'the shocking mismanagement of public finances by the UK Government.'

Not my words, but the analysis of the Minister on 7 March last year when the last budget was agreed. And, again, today, we are in the same situation, rehearsing the same adjectives to reflect the unfairness of the financial settlement for Wales.

This is a Welsh Labour Government budget, and in that regard, they have to take ownership of and justify what we have before us today, but I fully recognise the challenges that face Welsh Ministers. The austerity agenda of the Conservative Government and their appalling mismanagement of the economy have meant that there is significantly less money available to be spent, although the pressure on maintaining services intensifies.

When it's politically convenient for the UK Government to open the public purse, the money seems to be available—we see that so very often. Now, I don't decry a penny of the additional £3 billion that's been provided to Northern Ireland, which has helped to unlock devolution in Northern Ireland, but it's entirely unacceptable that the needs of Wales aren't taken into account in the settlement from Westminster.

Now, the real-world consequences of Wales's underfunding can't be overstated. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that average household incomes in Wales will be £10,300 lower by 2027 than if pre-financial crisis trends had been sustained, and, as the chief economist's report sets out, average incomes in Wales during 2024 are projected to be more than 2 per cent below pre-pandemic levels. We need a fairer funding model for Wales.

As has been noted by the likes of the Holtham commission, the House of Lords Constitution Committee, the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, the Barnett formula for the Senedd, which is set without any input from Welsh Ministers, is simply not fit for purpose in addressing Wales's societal needs. Despite the range of policy areas over which the Senedd now has responsibility, its spending power is overwhelmingly based on a fixed grant that it cannot substantially alter due to the inherent limitations of its levers over taxation and borrowing. 

When you think of specific injustices, just let it sink in that the consequentials from the high speed 2 line, which every Member in this Chamber agrees are owed to Wales, would not only make up for the cuts to the budget, but would also provide more than £2.5 billion in additional funding. Rishi Sunak can barely hide his disdain for Wales by not passing on the money, but Keir Starmer, if he wants to be Prime Minister before the end of this year, we need to see him finding his moral compass and promising to right that Tory wrong—and I know so many on the Labour benches here agree with me on that point.

While it's right that we call out the catastrophic failings of the UK Government in eroding the spending power of the Senedd, that doesn't mean that decisions here in Wales, made in Wales, will necessarily lead to optimal outcome, shall we say. Local authority budgets will still be squeezed even further, with residents forced to pay higher council tax whilst enduring a diminished standard of service—something no council leader wants to allow. Only last week, a report by MPs warned that the financial crisis facing England's councils is out of control, as they called on the Government to plug a £4 billion gap. Now, with Wales at the mercy of so many major financial decisions taken in Westminster, what hope do Welsh councils have of weathering this storm?

The Wales Governance Centre has estimated that the funding gap facing local authorities could reach £740 million by 2027-28, based on current trajectories. Now, whilst nearly all budgets are squeezed and every portfolio area has a legitimate claim on any additional money being available from the UK Government, I press upon you the urgent need to prioritise local authorities to safeguard as many front-line services as possible.

Our preference is that an increase overall in funding towards local government would include the raising of the funding floor from 2 per cent to at least 3 per cent, which would significantly benefit many local authorities—the ones hardest hit, particularly those in rural areas. But whatever the Minister does decide to do, I must say that it's regrettable that we still don't know, that we don't have the clarity, we don't have the certainty that we would want at this point in time, that local government can be given additional support or at what level the additional support will be, because we are getting very, very close to the point of the setting of budgets and the setting of council tax in some local authorities, and that clarity is needed with real urgency.

It's clear that the Government has made a conscious choice to prioritise health and social care and transport, which has necessarily resulted in funds being diverted from other portfolios. I know that these decisions will not have been taken lightly. I also fully recognise the reality that when it comes to distributing such a limited and fixed block of money, especially at times like these, a degree of prioritisation is going to be unavoidable, but what I'm less convinced of is that the prioritisation process has been as good as it can be, and we need to be holding Government to account for the prioritisations and decisions that it has already made and encourage changes.

On health and transport, we're seeing a repetition of re-allocations made previously: £425 million and £125 million respectively to health and transport announced in October at the expense of other portfolios, and now we're looking at a further allocation of £450 million for health, £111 million for transport, which have primarily been funded by even deeper cuts to other perennially underfunded policy areas.

My colleagues Mabon ap Gwynfor and Delyth Jewell will discuss the health and transport dimensions of the budget in greater detail, but suffice to say that this doesn't reflect well on the Government's ability for long-term budget planning. Such drastic re-prioritisations would, of course, be more tolerable if they were delivering substantive improvements in our health services and public transport, but as we learnt in the aftermath of the re-budgeting exercise in October, the additional money that's been earmarked for health and transport is simply being used to plug existing budgetary holes that have grown considerably over a period of many years under this Government. This is the unsustainability that we talk of so often.

In the case of health, a recent Audit Wales report revealed that six of the seven major health boards breached their statutory duty to break even during 2022-23, resulting in a combined deficit of over £150 million. Spending on agency staffing, referred to so often, also reached a record level of £325 million in 2022-23, which has primarily been caused by ever-widening vacancy gaps within the NHS workforce.

Meanwhile, the combined £236 million that's been ploughed exclusively into Transport for Wales rail services, with nothing to spare for the bus services that most of Wales depends on, is to address the vast shortfall that has emerged between predicted passenger numbers and actual ticket sales. This should be contextualised against the underwhelming record of Transport for Wales on customer satisfaction, their record on punctuality and on cancellations in recent years.

There are elements of the budget that are to be welcomed. Despite an overall cut to rural affairs, which is regrettable and something that my party has commented on widely, protecting the basic payment scheme is something my party was very pleased of being able to influence. That's worth £238 million, and goodness me that is money that a sector under pressure needs.

I recognise, Dirprwy Lywydd, that the Welsh Government must pass its budget, but it's our duty, our role on these benches, to scrutinise as carefully as we can where money is spent, to shine a light on where we think changes can and should be made, to send Ministers back to think again—and we do so consistently, but Ministers must look again at their spending plans—and ask the searching questions that provide the certainty that the most disadvantaged won't be losing out further, that business won't fall off a cliff as business rates increase, and that the futures of our young people aren't being held back due to cuts to apprenticeships.

This, Dirprwy Lywydd, is a budget again for tough times, made tougher by decisions made by a Conservative Government that cares nothing for Wales. But the question for the Welsh Government is this: has it done everything within its ability to mitigate the unfair financial settlement, to balance the needs of all portfolios and to provide fairness and ambition at the heart of what it seeks to deliver? I have yet to be convinced, and I ask the Government to use the time it has between now and the final vote on the budget to reconsider those issues that I and my fellow Plaid Cymru Members will highlight this afternoon.

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

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Before I make my substantive remarks, I want to acknowledge that this is the most difficult budget since the start of devolution. As a committee, it was in this context that we approached our budget scrutiny. We acknowledge that the Welsh Government would be making some decisions that in a different financial climate it would not be making. Both our scrutiny sessions and our recommendations are framed within that context.

I would like to put on record my thanks and our committee's thanks to the relevant Ministers and officials for engaging with the committee's scrutiny sessions constructively. We also welcome the technical briefing from the officials on the approach to the single integrated impact assessment, and I'd also like to thank my fellow committee members for their positive engagement. We haven't got time today to talk about all the issues discussed in our report, for example the level of funding available to schools, which is a huge concern again this year. I will therefore focus by highlighting the importance of how we use the funding available to us in Wales in maximum support of our children and young people.

This year, spending on children has been affected in a number of policy areas. We have consistently advocated for more transparent spending on children, given, for example, that more than £10 billion of public funding is unhypothecated to health boards. So, today I'm highlighting our continued disappointment that there is no children's rights impact assessment to underpin the budget. A CRIA is essential for the Government, the Senedd, stakeholders and the wider public, to help us understand the impact of budgetary decisions on children and young people.

Last year, in this same debate, I highlighted that if no CRIA was published this year, it would be the tenth successive year Welsh Government has not done so, and this is despite setting out that producing and publishing such an impact assessment is how it complies with its legal duty to have due regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in all the decisions it makes. I'm very sorry again that I'm having to highlight this milestone in relation to what we spend on children, arguably the most important decision any government will make. The Welsh Government has said that the stark reality of these extraordinary financial circumstances meant that they needed a more fundamental approach. However, it's our view that when the public purse is tight, more than ever we must be rigorous in making sure children and young people's rights are not overshadowed by the situation for adults.

We do not agree with the Welsh Government's rationale that a separate CRIA is not needed. As I said at the start, we're very conscious of the challenges of the financial climate in which the Welsh Government has prepared this draft budget. As we have discussed in this Chamber a number of times in recent weeks, there are more children and young people living in poverty than any other age group, and the impacts of poverty cut across all aspects of their lives and continue to have an impact long after they've grown up. It's in this context we must be rigorous in ensuring that children and young people's rights are upheld, and it is why, in line with article 4 of the convention, there is a clear need for a fact-based assessment of what the maximum available resources that are spent on children are. We do not believe this is possible without a CRIA, and this is also the view of a range of children's charities led by Children in Wales.

Finally, I'd like to echo the views of the Finance Committee and other committees on the importance of effective monitoring of outcomes against financial expenditure. An increasing number of grants for children are being amalgamated across education and children's social care, including the children and communities grant, now worth £175 million. From next year, we can see that funding streams worth £379 million within the education and Welsh language main expenditure group have been amalgamated into a single local authority pre-16 education grant. Robust mechanisms to monitor outcomes for children must be put in place for these large grants, and for all Welsh Government expenditure, including increased NHS expenditure. This is most important, particularly in buoyant economic times, but becomes even more essential in the current financial storms. As we set out in recommendation 1 of our report, this must go beyond just monitoring, and should then result in reprioritising financial spend if the outcomes we want for our children are not being delivered by what we're spending on them. Diolch yn fawr.

Chair of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, Paul Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm pleased to be able to take part in this debate as Chair of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, and I'd like to thank all members of the committee for the work that the committee has done on this draft budget.

This draft budget includes substantial real-terms reductions to agriculture and economy funding. The Minister for rural affairs told the committee that this was the most challenging budget round she had ever taken part in, and the economy Minister expressed a similar view. Whilst the committee acknowledges these challenges and the need to prioritise spending, we also have many concerns about the reductions proposed for the rural affairs and economy budgets.

I would like to draw out a few key issues raised in our report. First of all, I want to talk about the accumulative impact of these budget reductions. I will then go on to talk about specific concerns we have around the future of agricultural support, potential support for people being made redundant, and funding for apprenticeships. I will then finish with an overview of the report's key message. 

The committee is very concerned about the accumulative impacts of reductions to farming and business support. For example, a farmer who exports meat and sells to local hospitality businesses may be impacted by the reduction in agricultural support, the reduction in business support, the reduction in export support for their international sales, and the reduction in support for hospitality for their domestic sales. Everyone in this Chamber will be all too aware of how tough it is for businesses and farms in Wales right now, with many struggling in just keeping their heads above water. It is important the Welsh Government understands the accumulative impact of the reductions it is making to ensure that they are not the final straw for our businesses and farms, who may already be on the brink of closure.

Since Tata's announcement last month, the workers whose jobs are at risk and their communities have been at the forefront of the minds of not just everyone in this Chamber, but of people across Wales. We have explored the implications of Tata's announcement in this Chamber, and the committee will be hearing from Tata and the Minister for Economy on this matter tomorrow, so I will not go into the specifics now. However, the steelworkers are not alone in facing this risk of redundancy; there have been several high-profile business closures in other sectors in recent months. Whilst we all hope that redundancies can be avoided at Tata and that we don't see any other high-profile closures, it is absolutely vital that the Welsh Government prepare for the worst. The Minister for Economy and Minister for Finance and Local Government must work together to undertake contingency planning—planning that ensures the Welsh Government can provide a strong and swift response to support people facing redundancy, if needed, by increasing the resources available for programmes like ReAct+ and Communities for Work Plus.

Moving on to farming, Members will be aware that this is the first round of agricultural support post EU funding. This is the first time ever that the level of agricultural support has been set here in Wales, and it is the first time in many decades that agriculture has had to directly compete with other Government funding priorities. We have seen the outcome of that competition in this draft budget, with funding being moved from agriculture to support front-line services such as the NHS. Next year, the Welsh Government will be introducing the sustainable farming scheme. If the sustainable farming scheme is to be a success, it must be properly funded, so the Welsh Government must start discussing the scale of funding for the scheme with the UK Government immediately.

The apprenticeship budget has been reduced by 3.65 per cent, which is a 24 per cent cut to the contract value. Members are very concerned about the impact of this reduction on young people and on the economy. As apprenticeship providers will need to prioritise supporting people already enrolled on courses, the combination of the reduced budget and increased costs will fall on new starters. Whilst the committee was pleased the Minister committed to support the range of apprenticeship levels, Members are very concerned about the impact of this reduction, not just on young people's opportunities but also on the Welsh economy, as it will restrict Welsh citizens' ability to improve their skills.

And finally, we've heard from other speakers today about the importance of the Welsh Government monitoring spend and ensuring best value. In light of reductions across the rural affairs and economy budgets, our committee made a similar recommendation, so I would like to echo the other speakers' sentiments on that point.

I would like to finish, Dirprwy Lywydd, by summing up the overall message of the committee's report. Members acknowledge this was a very tough budget round for the Welsh Government. However, the committee is concerned about the reductions, so believes it is absolutely vital that the Welsh Government monitors the impact of all of these separate budget reductions and is prepared to respond and reprioritise funding if the reductions are seen to be having a greater impact than anticipated, and be ready to respond to developing challenges. With that, Dirprwy Lywydd, I look forward to continue hearing other Members' views on this draft budget. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

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

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, for the opportunity to contribute as committee Chair. I just wans to begin by saying a few words about the committee’s experience of this year’s draft budget scrutiny process, and I will be brief.

Our ability to perform effective scrutiny is only as good as the information provided to us. The Minister and Deputy Minister’s written evidence to support our scrutiny of the draft budget fell short of the standard the committee expects. Key information that we requested in advance was missing, information said to be included was also missing, and figures were inaccurate. As well as preventing the committee from assessing the Government's spending plant, this lack of clarity reflects broader concerns about transparency in governance. While we have received apologies from the Minister and Deputy Minister since then, the committee is keen for lessons to be learned from this experience to avoid a similar situation arising in future.

As has been noted by many already, it’s only fair to acknowledge the financial challenges that the Welsh Government has faced in setting this draft budget. Having to decide where the cuts fall is not an enviable task, but that was inevitable, given the overall settlement. For the climate change portfolio, it means that the Minister has to rob Peter to pay Paul, cutting funding for key policy areas, including clean energy, waste, biodiversity and flooding, to bolster funding to maintain rail services.

What will these funding cuts mean? Well, scaling back of projects and programmes aimed at helping to deliver Wales's climate change targets and global biodiversity commitments. At a critical point in the fight against climate change and nature’s decline, these wider impacts are of obvious concern to the committee.

The decision to bolster funding to maintain rail services is understandable; rail is at the heart of the much-promised multimodal, sustainable transport system. But Transport for Wales cannot be given a blank cheque, and we need to see rapid progress towards a financially sustainable rail service. We as a committee need a clear, detailed plan for reducing that gap that exists between rail costs and the farebox revenue. We need to see an end to these huge handouts to Transport for Wales from one year to the next. 

Of course, an effective bus service is also critical to a sustainable transport system. It's reported that 10 per cent of bus routes were lost during 2023, which of course is alarming for us all. With a revenue budget that is broadly flat for 2024-25, it’s difficult to see how this situation will be reversed any time soon.

Moving on to home energy efficiency, fundamental questions remain about the level of investment needed to tackle fuel poverty and to decarbonise Wales’s existing housing stock. Current investment levels fall significantly short of recent estimates. The reworked Warm Homes programme rightly places greater emphasis on decarbonisation than its predecessor. But the cost of low carbon technologies means that the investment will not stretch as far. With funding remaining static, it's likely that fewer homes will benefit from the programme in 2024-25 than in this current financial year. Given the deepening fuel poverty crisis and the need to ramp up efforts to decarbonise existing homes, this again is concerning.

I’ve already touched upon our concerns about the impact of funding cuts for biodiversity. The fact is, even with a future increase in funding, public money alone will not be enough to ensure nature recovery. And private investment is critical, therefore, to address the nature funding gap. We've heard over recent years that work is ongoing on an innovative and sustainable finance model for biodiversity, incorporating the use of private investment. It seems, from the Minister’s evidence, that progress is being made at last. But we need to continue at pace. We expect the finance model to be finalised ahead of the next budget planning round, so that it can be used to inform future spending decisions.

Last, but by no means least, is marine policy. The budget reduction for 2024-25 is another blow for a policy area that has been under-resourced year after year. This ongoing lack of priority has led to delays in delivery, for example the project assessing Welsh fishing activities in marine protected areas, which was started in 2016 but has yet to be completed. The Minister has previously assured us that marine conservation zone designation is an ‘active priority’—in her words—and is given adequate resources. We’ve asked for an assurance that the latest budget allocations will not affect the progress on this work.

Dirprwy Lywydd, our report on the draft budget is both fair and measured. We acknowledge that the Welsh Government faces financial challenges. We acknowledge that the Minister has been pragmatic in approaching a shrinking budget. But we also acknowledge the need for the Welsh Government to remain resolved in tackling the climate and nature emergencies. These won't disappear because financial times are tough. We look forward to receiving the Minister’s response to our report ahead of the debate on the final budget. Thank you.

Chair of the Local Government and Housing Committee, John Griffiths. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'll be speaking in my capacity as Chair of the Local Government and Housing Committee, as you state, and I'd like to thank the Welsh Local Government Association, the Minister for Finance and Local Government and the Minister for Climate Change for attending the committee's evidence sessions. 

Those reading our report may note that it reads similarly to last year's, with many of the same concerns raised and reiterated. At the time, we acknowledged that setting a draft budget while facing extreme financial pressures was a difficult challenge for the Welsh Government. The same is once again true this year, and local authorities in Wales, in turn, are facing one of the most challenging budget settlements in recent times. Our report explores a range of issues, including the local government settlement, spending pressures, capital funding, homelessness, housing supply, housing standards and building safety. I will highlight just a few of the areas that raise specific concerns for the committee, particularly in light of the comments we made during last year’s budget scrutiny.

We heard that local authorities are finding themselves in the position of not only making difficult decisions, but bad choices. The WLGA warned us that if there is no change in funding our public services, there are likely to be fewer public services being offered. This is a stark warning, and one that should not be ignored. It is worrying that, by having to direct resources at dealing with immediate pressures, authorities’ ability to fund longer term preventative work is restricted. We are particularly concerned about the financial resilience of local authorities. While we know that no Welsh local authority has yet found themselves in the position of having to consider issuing a section 114 notice, in effect declaring bankruptcy, we know that some are facing stretched budgets with limited reserves. We are pleased that the Minister is in regular contact with local authorities, and it is vital that that approach continues. We have recommended that the Welsh Government should develop a clear plan to provide early support to any local authority experiencing particular difficulties, with the aim of preventing the need to issue a section 114 notice.

We welcome the Minister’s use of a funding floor this year, as it is a crucial tool to ensure that all local authorities receive a minimum increase in funding. However, we would suggest that the Minister considers allocating any future consequential funding, in full or in part, to setting the floor at a higher level, thereby benefiting more local authorities.

Dirprwy Lywydd, social care accounts for 36 per cent of local government spending pressures in 2024-25, at £261 million. We are concerned that the reduction in the social care workforce grant would support a key statutory service delivered by local authorities will add to the existing pressures in the sector. Concerns that we expressed last year relating to the recruitment and retention of staff to work in the social care sector ring true once again this year. Additional pressures such as this in such a key sector could too easily form a tipping point for those local authorities in the more challenging financial situations.

We therefore endorse the Finance Committee’s recommendation that the Minister should explain why reductions have been made to the social care workforce grant, and for the Welsh Government’s assessment of the impact of this decision. We were alarmed to learn that, for the second year in a row, there has been no spend from the Gypsy/Traveller site capital grant. As we have noted previously, our work in this area has highlighted that some local authority sites are in urgent need of maintenance or refurbishment, so the lack of spend is particularly troubling. We acknowledge the Minister’s work in this area, but the lack of progress is very disappointing. As last year, we have made a joint recommendation with the Equality and Social Justice Committee, and recommend that the Welsh Government should set out the reasons for the lack of progress on use of the Gypsy and Traveller site capital grant as a matter of urgency, in addition to setting out how it plans to work with local authorities to ensure take-up of this important fund.

We noted in our report on the draft budget for this financial year that maintaining the housing support grant at £166.7 million actually results in a real-terms reduction. We are therefore deeply concerned that the draft allocation remains unchanged once again, which effectively means further reductions.

Could you conclude now, please?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. To conclude, then, while we acknowledge the challenges faced by the Minister for Climate Change in setting this budget, we would urge the Welsh Government to explore all possible options for providing additional funding to that housing support grant, in considering all that it funds. Diolch yn fawr.

The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, Russell George.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I speak in my capacity as Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, and I thank Members who took part in our report. To give some context from a health and social care perspective, health boards and local authorities, of course, continue to feel the effects of the pandemic. I recognise, of course, there's also inflation, and pressures on energy costs also need to be taken into account. Alongside this, they must also deal with an enormous and growing demand for services, as well as long-standing workforce issues.

In this draft budget, the Welsh Government has chosen to prioritise spending on health and social services. But, of course, despite this, health boards and local authorities are still facing hard decisions about how to plan and deliver services. All seven health boards find themselves in increased levels of escalation relating to their financial position, and it is unclear to us, as health and social care committee members, how they will be able to stabilise their finances, whilst also responding to unprecedented demand and delivering savings in line with the levels set in 2023-24. 

Now to talk about some of the issues around waiting times. The scale of the challenge remains daunting, and targets to reduce out-patient waits to below 52 weeks and to eliminate the number of people waiting longer than two years to start treatment have been missed. So, I do think the Minister needs to be clear about when she expects these targets to be achieved. She also needs to be clear about how the budget will contribute towards improved cancer outcomes, given that the most recent figures show us that 54 per cent of patient pathways complied with the single cancer pathway target.

Moving on to the social care workforce, I know I, as well as other members of the committee, continue to support the Welsh Government's commitment to the real living wage for social care workers, and we note that funding has been provided for this purpose within the revenue support grant. We believe that social care workers must remain a priority for investment and improvement by the Welsh Government, so we were concerned to hear that more than a quarter of that workforce are likely to leave the sector by the end of this year, and 44 per cent in the next five years. Given the existing workforce shortages and rising demand for services, the Deputy Minister I do think needs to set out what the Welsh Government is doing to retain these staff. This is one of the recommendations within our report.

We recognise that significant financial challenges have driven the Welsh Government's decision to reprioritise its resources in support of front-line services, but it is concerning to hear from various bodies that the NHS will be unsustainable without an explicit shift of resources towards prevention and early intervention. So, we have called on the Minister to set out how the Welsh Government's decision to reprioritise resources towards the front line will impact, longer term, on population health, and when she expects to be in a position to direct more resources into long-term prevention.

And finally, digitalisation: as a committee, we have heard repeatedly that improving digital services and infrastructure is a priority for the Welsh Government. But in this draft budget, funding for the digital strategy for health and social care has been reprioritised, and there has also been a cut to the digital inclusion budget. We have called on the Minister to provide an assessment of the implications of these cuts.

Dirprwy Lywydd, these are just some of the issues that were raised in our report, which was tabled yesterday. We look forward to receiving the Minister's response to all our recommendations ahead of the final budget debate.

The final Chair to speak, the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I'm very glad, in my capacity as Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, to contribute to this debate, following the contributions by other Members and indeed by other committee Chairs as well.

I thank, as always, my committee colleagues and our clerks and the support team as well. And we do note the challenging backdrop in all the contributions this afternoon, and indeed in our scrutiny, to these budget deliberations.

So, our scrutiny of the Welsh Government’s draft budget proposals for the year ahead, 2024-25, focused on planned spending on justice-related activity. However, we also considered planned spending on improvements to the accessibility of the law, and also on activity arising from the report of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales. So, we're very grateful to the Counsel General for providing us with written evidence to inform that scrutiny.

As with our scrutiny of spending on justice-related activity in previous budget years, we examined how the proposed spend on such activity could be identified within this draft budget. Not surprisingly, once again, we found that such information is still not easily accessible. However, we do acknowledge the difficulties—as the Counsel General explained to us—in disaggregating the spending on justice-related activity within the Welsh Government’s draft budget in the absence of a Minister for justice-related matters or a dedicated portion of the budget for those specific matters. They are spread across budget headings. It is quite difficult. 

Now, as the Counsel General told the Senedd last week, the Welsh Government will shortly be publishing a progress report on its 'Delivering Justice for Wales' programme. Now, as a committee, we had hoped, ideally, to be able to consider this report ahead of the budget scrutiny, so that we could take into account the Welsh Government’s progress in the area, and to identify priority areas for future spending.

So, instead, we've therefore asked the Counsel General to tell us when the report will be laid. When it is laid we sincerely hope and, indeed, expect to see, if we can, as much detail as possible on the previous expenditure on justice-related activity and the outcomes delivered as a result. That would be helpful, because, if we find that the detail isn't sufficient, we'll have to consider then conducting in-year budget scrutiny of the spending on this activity. So, we just invite the Counsel General and colleagues to assist the committee with as much detail as possible in the progress report.

The Welsh Government, in this current economic climate, has decided—and has been quite explicit in this—to prioritise funding for areas that are fully devolved. So, in this area that we looked at, this has resulted in reduced funding for police community support officers and the withdrawal of funding for the Wales police schools programme, which many of us will know, as Senedd Members. Now whilst we accept that difficult choices need to be made, we, of course, are concerned at the potential impact of these cuts in the budget areas, and we believe that the Welsh Government could help us by providing as much detail as possible to Senedd committees on the impacts of these cuts.

In our report we also noted evidence provided to the Finance Committee highlighting the acute pressures faced by voluntary sector organisations working on criminal justice in Wales. We believe that the Welsh Government should engage fully with these organisations when considering proposed spending, as to have limited engagement with them risks the loss of opportunities for the Welsh Government to optimise the impacts of the funding available.

Our scrutiny also touched upon the Welsh Government’s proposals to reform the Welsh tribunals. We are keen to know the costs of this reform and how it will be funded. So, we recommended within our report that the Welsh Government should provide an initial assessment of the expected costs alongside a draft version of the Bill that will provide for the reform of the Welsh tribunals. So, we look forward to seeing that. 

The final recommendation in our report, Dirprwy Lywydd, relates to the allocation within the draft budget to fund future work arising from the findings of the constitutional commission. The Counsel General told us that the Welsh Government is now considering the commission’s report, and it will set out its plans for taking it forward in due course. So, we recommended that, when it is able to, the Welsh Government should provide the Senedd with detailed information on how the funding allocation will be used. 

So, my thanks again, Dirprwy Lywydd, to my committee colleagues, the members of the committee and the clerks and the support team for their work in producing our report. Diolch yn fawr. 

In discussing MEGs and capital and revenue, there is a danger that we lose focus on the important things, namely people. The people who have elected us to be here, the people whom we have the privilege of representing—they are the ones who will be affected, either directly by losing jobs or losing contracts, or else by failing to receive a service that could have saved their life or kept them safe.

This is particularly true when looking at health expenditure. Although, superficially, it appears that more is being given to health, the question is whether it is being directed to the right places. It is of grave concern that there is a shift away from funding preventive programmes seen in this year's budget—programmes such as obesity prevention or smoking prevention. This will create a vicious cycle, with more and more money being absorbed over time by front-line services, thereby limiting more effective methods of preventing disease in the first place.

The cut of £10 million in the grant to the social care workforce, together with the restriction on funding the real living wage in the social care sector, is extremely dangerous as well, and will lead to more problems in our hospitals and ambulances.

As we’ve mentioned before, the proportion of the health budget devoted to general practice has also sunk well below its historic level of 8.7 per cent, which has resulted in the erosion of GP services across Wales. The Government’s ambition for a community-focused approach to the provision of healthcare is destined to remain unfulfilled, based on the current trajectory of its spending plans.         

Health funding cannot be aligned solely to the needs of the front line; it should be allocated in a holistic manner that reflects the close interaction between social care, primary care and secondary care. Without a clear plan from the Government to place health finances on a sustainable footing, therefore, ever-increasing proportions of the Welsh budget are going to be thrown towards short-term sticking-plaster solutions, while pressures on front-line services continue to mount.  

Finally with regard to health, there needs to be far greater emphasis on retention strategies to address long-standing gaps in the workforce, and a recognition that our NHS is nothing without its legions of dedicated staff. This must include the Government following through on its pledge for wage restoration in the sector, reversing the devastating real-terms erosion of NHS pay that has happened over the past decade.     

At the start of my contribution, I referenced the impact of this budget on people. The most stark example that comes to my mind is the impact on people who face homelessness or violence at home—those who will have to live through unknown suffering because of the failure to increase the housing support grant. This week is Sexual Abuse and Sexual Violence Awareness Week, so this is my small contribution to that awareness raising. The housing support grant is more than a grant to advise people threatened with homelessness; it funds front-line services that deal with domestic abuse at a time when we are seeing a significant rise in abuse and assault. In Gwynedd and Môn alone, those organisations that work on the front line with domestic abuse victims have seen a 78 per cent increase in the number of people whom they are assisting. This money literally saves lives.

Coupled with over 11,000 people in temporary accommodation and the tens of thousands who are at threat of homelessness, then it’s clear that decisions made here have a real-life impact and can change people’s lives, for better or for worse. Diolch.

I'm sure that all of us here in the Siambr are really clear that this is a very challenging year for the Welsh Government in terms of its budget, but I just really wanted to concentrate on three key areas, if I may. Firstly, childcare—we've heard about the concern around the cuts to the childcare budget, and many of us who are on the Equality and Social Justice Committee are really concerned about childcare and the impact on child poverty. 

We know that the draft budget includes a further £11.2 million in cuts to childcare, on top of the £16 million cut announced in October. This really isn't acceptable when Welsh families are facing some of the highest childcare costs in the world and really lack straightforward and equitable access to high-quality care. The lack of uptake, as we've heard, is not an excuse, and it doesn't translate into a lack of need. It should really be plainly obvious, from the two petitions and the reports we've heard from various committees, that affordable and high-quality and accessible childcare remains critical to all Welsh families, particularly when we're looking at trying to reduce child poverty. What the lack of uptake demonstrates is a mismatch between what families need and what is available. There are significant gaps, for example, for those children who need childcare who are ages three and four, for parents who work atypical hours, and for disabled children and those in rural areas. Instead of reprioritising this funding, can I suggest that we redesign the offer's operation to ensure availability for those with the highest need?

Secondly, I want to focus, as we've heard again from people in the Siambr, on local government. I and many others welcomed the Welsh Government protecting the core settlement. We all understand, however, that this protection is nowhere near enough to properly safeguard front-line services. We know that they face a devastating wave of redundancies and cuts to all non-statutory services, which is a tragedy for local communities. According to the WLGA, the uplift in funding only amounts to around a third of the escalating cost pressures that they are facing, with local authorities arguing that they need, as we've heard, £800 million in extra funding for sustainability across our 22 local authorities. The Welsh Government may claim that it has been generous in securing the £170 million it has to date, yet the bigger picture shows that overall funding for local government has, in fact, dropped by 12 per cent since 2009. What we need is to create a better funding framework—one that provides sustainable and fair funding and that allows councils to meet their needs more flexibly.

Finally, as, again, we've heard from many contributors in the Siambr, I want to focus on rural Wales and the priorities for rural communities. At a time of major transition and uncertainty, with the agriculture industry assailed by fresh bureaucracy loaded on top of more bureaucracy, it needs to move to a sustainable future that is fair. Our villages and farming communities are the heartbeat of Wales. They face challenges, from lack of digital connectivity to worries over school closures and transport links. Last week, I was at a meeting of 500 farmers in Brecon, all of whom expressed severe concerns at the funding arrangements in the sustainable farming scheme. I realise that this is open to consultation at the moment and I look forward, hopefully, to it being changed considerably. I really do hope that we are able to look at a better, fairer, less burdensome way of supporting our vital farmers. 

Finally, Wales needs to use all its levers to address child poverty in particular. We need to increase childcare and ensure that our local authority services receive the funding that they need. And, for the rural communities that I represent, we need to ensure that our farmers and those working in agriculture get the fair funding that they deserve to produce our food. Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd.

For former MPs and former councillors, treating the budget as an ordinary debate must seem extraordinary. Two hours to discuss the draft Welsh budget for next year: I have attended council budget meetings significantly longer than this.

I'm disappointed that neither the Conservatives nor Plaid Cymru have produced an alternative budget. This doesn't need a line-by-line analysis, but a decision on relative priorities. The supplementary budget showed that. The opposition parties are exceptionally good at finding areas to spend money or to reduce income, but less good at areas to save revenue expenditure. So far, the Conservatives have only suggested a saving next year of £1 million on Senedd reform. They've also suggested that Cardiff Airport is sold, which would raise a large sum of money if sold for housing. It is unsaleable as an airport without a substantial and ongoing dowry. We either wish to have an airport in Wales, or we do not.

Looking at the economic forecast, we see very slow growth in the UK economy and public spending with real gross domestic product expected to increase by only 0.7 per cent in 2024 and 1.5 per cent on average between 2025 and 2028. Inflation is expected to continue to fall to around 3 per cent by the end of 2024, still above the Bank of England's 2 per cent, and dependent on commodity prices such as oil not going up. Our inflation has been driven by commodity prices and that's why interest rate rises haven't worked. Stubborn rates of inflation have also significantly reduced the purchasing power of the 2024-25 spending plans compared with when originally set, and interest rates are expected to fall at a slower rate than inflation. Despite real-term wage growth expected in 2024-25, real household disposable income is expected to fall, a key factor being that boosts to savings incomes are outweighed by the rise in interest payments—ask anybody paying a mortgage.

Wales is underfunded by approximately £1.3 billion. Northern Ireland is treated differently. The UK Government has set aside £600 million to settle public sector pay claims as part of a £3.3 billion financial package to support the return of devolution in Northern Ireland. This, as far as I can see, is outside the Barnett formula. What the Barnett formula sets is the minimum allocation, under the formula, to be provided, but you can provide more. This is not the first time this has been done. In 2011-12, in addition to a £200 million limit on reinvestment and reform initiative borrowing, there was permission for an additional £175 million borrowing for the Presbyterian Mutual Society. This was an additional special provision and did not impact on the usual £200 million a year limit, even though it was almost equal to that.

The problem with the Welsh Government budget is there are so many areas that cannot be questioned. I suggested previously that the basic payments should be abolished. The Farmers Union of Wales are in favour of capping the basic farm payments, and I would urge the Minister to engage with them on setting a cap. In England, they're already starting to cut direct support for farmers—you know, the Conservative Government that is so wonderful there—and elements of environment and land management schemes. Can I ask the Minister to monitor as to how these changes are impacting in England and to report the Barnett consequentials of this change in England, because if they're cutting funding for farmers in England, it's going to have an effect on Wales?

Further questions for the Welsh Government are: what discussion has the Welsh Government had with the Treasury to give them the same borrowing and use of reserves as local authorities? I've said this many times, and I'll just say it again: it is ridiculous that Swansea Council can go and borrow money, can take any money out of the reserves they've got, but the Welsh Government cannot. It doesn't make any sense.

Commenting on the pressures facing the NHS, the Institute for Fiscal Studies stated there is still at least somewhat of an underlying productivity issue in the NHS, and I think we all would agree on that. How many hip replacements or cataract operations are expected next year? Does anybody know? How many have we had this year? Does anybody know? How are we going to see if it's improving if we haven't got numbers? I support preventative measures, and I'll commend Designed to Smile and its effect on reducing tooth decay in children, but we need more preventative expenditure.

The Finance Committee was told that, on rail, given the planned subsidy levels for 2024-25 and the likely passenger numbers in that year, the subsidy per passenger journey for Transport for Wales is up to £13 or £14 per journey. What does the Welsh Government think is acceptable? How are they going to reduce it, and how much of this cost is due to using replacement taxis?

Finally, we need to examine business subsidies. If a business cannot borrow to expand, why does the Welsh Government provide support? If it was commercially viable, they could borrow. If we need to bribe companies to bring branch activity, they do not want to come and may leave at the earliest possible opportunity when they don't have to make any clawback. Palo Alto doesn't have to bribe companies to go there, they're queueing up. Cambridge doesn't have to bribe companies, they're queueing up. Why haven't we got people queueing up here rather than trying to bribe them?

During a period of climate unpredictability, energy insecurity and environmental apprehension, it is imperative to allocate investments towards sectors such as biodiversity, marine welfare, waste management, decarbonisation, renewables and flood protection. However, the draft budget the Welsh Government has put forward fails completely in this. Each sector is going to suffer vast neglect, facing millions in budget cuts. We're going to see—and this is despite this Government announcing a climate emergency five years ago, and a nature emergency two years ago—biodiversity down 11 per cent; marine environment, 13 per cent; waste management, 8 per cent; residential decarbonisation down 37 per cent; clean energy resource down 73 per cent; and flood protection down 63 per cent.

Now, specifically where housing is concerned, as I noted in my question to the First Minister, increasing homelessness is costing Wales £60 million annually. It is the embodiment of the last 30 years almost of fiscal mismanagement by Welsh Labour Government, and, in every single term, propped up by Plaid Cymru, other than the one term where you actually were in Government. So, you know—. Yes.

[Inaudible.]—budget remains static. Climate Cymru have highlighted to me that it would currently take 400 years to lift the 600,000 homes in Wales out of fuel poverty. And you can all smile, but, you know, we are innocent in all this, because we—[Laughter.]

I would like to hear the contribution from the Member, please.

We've not had the levers, we certainly haven't had the budget, and we've not been in Government. So, the last 25 to 30 years are a sad indictment of everybody here except us.

Numerous projects and programmes essential for conservation—[Interruption.]—well-being have been severely affected by these budget cuts, reaching a point of dormancy. At a time when the Welsh Government should be pushing themselves on the climate front, I'm afraid you are retreating into hibernation.

This seems to stem from two causes: fiscal negligence and lack of transparency. In this budget, TfW is being re-allocated a staggering £150 million due to a £100 million deficit. Why? Why is TfW facing a £100 million shortfall? It is because of your lack of foresight to understand that post-COVID passenger numbers would go down and TfW would face a significant drop in revenue. As the Minister explained, additional funding has been essential for the continuation of rail services. That, actually, in business speak, is fiscal negligence. Topping up TfW to combat inflated revenue projections with climate change funding is a disgrace and now means that an additional £116 million is going to be reallocated away from pressing climate change projects and programmes.

As our committee has pointed out, there is deep concern about the impact that the reallocation of funds has had across the climate change portfolio. It seems that cuts are not due to a lack of funds; it's more how you've managed the funding that you've received from the UK Government—remember, the £1.20 that you're provided with here for every £1 spent in England.

Throughout the committee's report, it notes that the written evidence we received fell short of the standard we expect, with key information missing without acknowledgment or explanation—and that's talking about the draft budget in my portfolio. For example, it is unclear how much funding has been allocated to support the delivery of the biodiversity deep-dive, and with the biannual report missing, how is delivery progressing?

This lack of transparency not only makes it impossible for anybody to assess the budget, but also hinders many politicians from doing their job. How can we be expected to work together towards a brighter future for the people in Wales, when the Government is omitting important information to us, who are elected to scrutinise and challenge this Government? The Welsh people should be able to trust, they should be able to see how their taxpayers' money is being used. This is crucial now, more than ever before. Every single penny must be allocated with careful consideration and clarity, otherwise we face the possibility of cultivating public mistrust.

Now, more than ever, we need investment in climate change, not in more expensive vanity projects, like adding another 36 Members to this Senedd.

In stark contrast to most of the contributors to the debate this afternoon, I want to talk about a part of the budget that's getting more money, namely Transport for Wales. I'm a firm believer in the principle of public ownership when it comes to public transport. The private model has obviously failed. I still strongly believe in and support that principle. But there is no escaping, regrettably, the failures that we've seen with TfW. It is not on improvements in services that the £110 million earmarked for TfW will be spent, but, as has been mentioned, on filling the huge funding holes that exist in its books. 

And those millions spent to shore up this operator mean painful cuts must be found elsewhere. We're hearing in this debate, Dirprwy Lywydd, about just how painful the bite of these cuts will be: job losses, worsening quality of life, stripped back services, and desperately limited resources. So, the combined sum of £235 million that TfW has received since last October demands scrutiny.

I appreciate fully the unprecedented effects felt from the pandemic on passenger numbers. I'm also grateful that the Minister had explained some of the other mitigating factors at our committee scrutiny session recently, particularly the high added cost of replacing tracks on a dilapidated Victorian network that has seen a woeful lack of investment by Westminster for decades. Let's just keep in mind in this debate where we get the funding from as a Government and who ultimately is keeping Wales impoverished. Yes, there are major questions to be asked about how this money is being spent, but to claim that there is any kind of innocence from the Conservative Party really does—. Well, it goes beyond satire, I'm afraid.

Would you just take a tiny intervention?

Yes, certainly.

Okay. How can we get the blame when it's you taking all the decisions, making all the policy, and voting them through every single time together, as part of your co-operation agreement? Yes, it is called a 'co-operation agreement'. I was going to say 'coalition'.

Diolch, Janet. As I was just setting out, I think that there are major questions that need to be asked about how that money is spent, but it's a smaller pie because that pie that was put into the oven was put there by the Westminster Government. We should be getting a bigger pie. We should be baking the pie ourselves, frankly, but there we are. This Government, of course, does—[Interruption.] I'm not going to continue that metaphor. I think it could get overbaked very quickly. [Members of the Senedd: 'Oh.'] Oh, I know.

This Government, though, as I was about to say, does bear responsibility for relying on the ambitious and, in hindsight, unrealistic revenue projections that were provided by the KeolisAmey bid for the TfW franchise in 2018, which has completely derailed a sustainable and consistent funding framework for TfW over the past few years. Now, as I've mentioned previously, it is in the public interest that the Welsh Government publishes that information that underpinned the bid projections in 2018. I'm sure the bid was put forward and believed in good faith, but lessons surely have to be learned for the future, so that we can have a well-functioning public rail network that represents value for money. We also surely need clear contingency plans to prevent future disruptions to passenger numbers having such a destabilising influence on Welsh public finances.

And all the while, of course, bus services, which account for three quarters of all public transport journeys undertaken in Wales, are being starved of funding. There does seem to be a double standard here, or at least a disconnect, because whereas the vast expanse of investment in rail has primarily been justified by the ongoing fallout from the pandemic, the withdrawal of the bus emergency scheme suggests that bus operators are not being granted that same leeway.

It was interesting and concerning to note the Minister's assertion that we would have seen closures of rail services without this substantial outlay for TfW, and that is of course exactly what's happening already to bus routes across Wales. Around 10 per cent of Wales's bus routes were reduced or withdrawn during the summer of last year due to a lack of funding. The Confederation of Passenger Transport estimates that a further 15 to 25 per cent will be at risk over the coming year. The communities across the length and breadth of Wales who don't have access to the rail network risk becoming even more disconnected, even more isolated, as a result of the spending plans.

All the points I've raised underline, I believe, the gravity of the injustice surrounding Westminster's continued denial to Wales of HS2 consequential funding. The billions of pounds rightfully owed to us could have paid for this shortfall in TfW's finances several times over, with plenty of money to spare to reverse the devastating cuts that have been imposed elsewhere in the budget. The continued silence—and, I'm afraid, indifference, it seems—from both the Tory Government and the Labour Government in waiting in Westminster on this matter shows how little hope we have of things changing.

I'm aware of the time, Dirprwy Lywydd. We cannot wait for Westminster to grow a conscience; they treat us with contempt. I would urge Labour and Conservative Members to demand better from their UK party leaders, because if we don't stand up for what is right for Wales, we're destined to return to the same disastrous position of combing through the ruinous consequences of Westminster's perennial neglect.

Just to remind Members, we have nine speakers still on the list, plus the Minister to respond, and half an hour left for the allocated time, so please keep yourselves to your time.

I want to emphasise the risks we're taking by reducing preventative spend. This is something that the future generations commissioner has warned us. Reducing preventative spend will have the potential to increase demand on services in future years, and nowhere is that clearer than on the health budget.

It is astonishing that primary care is seeing 1.5 million people every month, which represents half the population of Wales, which indicates that we have a great deal more to do in terms of promoting a healthier nation that is less dependent on ill-health services. That's very, very difficult to do in the context of all the challenges that communities are facing around shortages of money and the rise in the cost of living, but it's something that we have to be keeping an eye on all the time.

I just wanted to take issue with the opening remarks from the finance Minister that it wasn't possible to invest more in primary prevention until we have better resourced core services. I think that's a chicken-and-egg argument, and one I don't think we can afford to go on using. Because at the end of the day, failure to prevent problems happening turns them into much more expensive problems further down the line. For example, we face further junior doctor strikes, which will undoubtedly lead to more cancelled operations and less efficient use of expensive capital equipment, and much more administrative costs in trying to ensure that we avert disasters whilst the junior doctors are on strike. I appreciate that we can't do what Scotland is doing and spend money we don't have yet. Until the Treasury is clear on what money we're going to be getting, it's impossible to know whether we're able to meet the demands of people who are suffering from a huge reduction in their incomes.

I think we have some serious challenges here. In the Minister's response, I wondered if she could tell us how successful we are being on eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication of effort. I fully appreciate the efforts by the education Minister to consolidate 25 grants into four, which I'm sure has saved a lot of time for headteachers, but unfortunately it doesn't mean that the amount of money that is going to be in schools' budgets doesn't paint a very challenging future for how we're going to be supporting young people with additional learning needs.

Similarly, I can see why in the climate change budget we're investing a huge amount of additional money in homelessness; it's gone up from £46 million in the current year to £215 million in the forthcoming year. That's very welcome, because preventing homelessness is also a way of not causing people to become seriously unwell, both mentally and physically. But nevertheless, it has meant cutbacks in the ambition of the Warm Homes programme, slowing down the Warm Homes programme, which obviously means less money in people's pockets when they're having to shell out for expensive fossil fuels to heat their homes.

I think we need more of the sort of example shown by Lynne Neagle in driving up the uptake of Healthy Start vouchers by having mandatory training for health visitors and midwives, which has ensured, as we now know from the First Minister this afternoon, that it has gone up to 78 per cent of those who are eligible now receiving that benefit, which obviously means more money in the pockets of pregnant women and mothers with children under four years old.

That's the sort of thing that we need to ensure that all Government departments are thinking about: how can we actually increase the amount of money we've got coming into Wales through the uptake of grants that are available, not just in the inadequate core budget that the UK Government is serving up for us. It also means that we are getting more money into people's pockets by all other means as well, and we take really seriously the impending storm of problems that we may be creating for ourselves through reducing money on prevention. 

I want to speak just briefly, if I can, on the situation facing children and young people as a result of today's budget. Our children really are our future and we have a duty in this Chamber to act in the best interests of future generations. That's why an Act was passed in this Senedd a number of years ago. And yet what we see in this particular budget are cuts to education spending and cuts to apprenticeships, both of which will have an impact on young people. Those decisions have been made, as has already been said in this Chamber, without any children's rights impact assessment at all, in spite of the duty upon Welsh Ministers to ensure that the decisions that they make have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I find it, frankly, astonishing, because we do know that, if you don't have a decent education, then it affects everything in the future. It affects your earning potential, it means you're more likely to end up in poverty, and poverty affects your health outcomes. It affects the investment that comes into your nation. And it is a matter of shame, I think, that this Welsh Government has seen our international rankings in the PISA results, the independent tests that are conducted every few years, which give us the accolade of being the worst education system in the United Kingdom. We've gone backwards in maths, backwards in science, backwards in our reading scores and, worse than that, we are the only part of the United Kingdom—Wales is the only part of the United Kingdom—in the bottom half of the international league tables. So, given that record, you would expect to see a Government that wanted to prioritise spending on education in order to make sure that that situation was turned around for the future. But, as I say, that is not what we're seeing in this particular budget. 

The Welsh Government will of course bleat that there's insufficient cash coming from the UK Government in order to invest in our education system. But we know that, in England, the fact of the matter is that spending on schools has gone up. So, if spending on schools has gone up in England, it means there's an opportunity to put spending up here in Wales, because we know that, for every £1 that's spent in a devolved area, including on pupils in our schools, in England, then Wales gets £1.20 to spend. So, there's absolutely no excuse whatsoever for the reduction in school spending here in Wales.

I appreciate the other excuse that the Government might have is that it devolves, effectively, responsibility for education spending to local authorities and it's up to them to decide how to carve up the cash that they are given. But we know that the funding formula is grossly unfair and inadequate. It's grossly unfair particularly to north Wales authorities and to authorities in rural parts of Wales as well. That's why we have called consistently now, for a number of years, for an independent review—no-one's got anything to fear from an independent review—of the funding formula to make sure that every part of Wales gets its fair share of investment. That has not been the case from this Welsh Government or predecessor Welsh Governments either, and we need to address that matter.

It's because of that that, in places like Conwy and Denbighshire, council tax payers are going to have to pay a 10 per cent increase in their council tax while still seeing a reduction in the public services that those local authorities are able to provide, including the investment that they can put in to things like schools, libraries and other important public services for the future. So, I would like to see, Minister, some change of direction in your budget, a shift of resources from things that, frankly, the people of Wales do not regard as priorities—things like increasing the number of politicians, things like the investment that you put in to a nationalised airport that didn't need to be nationalised, the millions of pounds that we spend on mini embassies around the world, which no doubt do wonderful and valuable work, but, frankly, are a luxury we cannot afford to keep going, the money that you keep bunging to the unions with the Wales union learning fund on an annual basis. Let's see some fairness in the way that you carve up the cash, so that local authorities, particularly in north Wales, in places like Conwy and Denbighshire that I represent, have a fair settlement.

It is a disgrace, frankly, that Newport and Cardiff, year in, year out, get increases of more than double the rate of increase in the grant going to Conwy this year in the revenue support grant. So, let's see some fairness, let's see future generations protected from this barrage of cuts, so that we can have some generational fairness in the way that the budget is spent in the future. [Interruption.] I am out of time, but I'll happily take an intervention.

No, you will not take an intervention.

Could I start by associating myself with the comments made by Jayne Bryant as Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee? I'm obviously a member of the committee, so it's no surprise that I agree. But those points were very important—some of them were echoed by Darren Millar. But certainly, we have to think seriously. If we're serious about the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, there are things that we truly need to focus on.

I'm very pleased that Mabon ap Gwynfor also reminded us, in the same context, that the importance of these decision is the impact on people. After all, it's people that have been contacting us to express their disappointment about the various cuts. People contact us to tell us about the impact of these cuts and what they'll mean, not only for them, but their children and also future generations. So, there is a responsibility on us. It's easy to come here and have rhetoric and point the finger, but I hope that, in a year of a general election, we could agree that there is a need for whoever will be leading the UK Government following that election to look seriously at the funding that we do receive here, because it isn't adequate. We have to unify to fight for what Wales deserves, but more importantly, our communities and the people of Wales.

We all understand the severity of the current situation in terms of the Welsh Government's budget, but there are things that we have to draw attention to, of course. As was mentioned, children and young people, and the significant cuts to the education budget, are something that causes us concern. We know about the current challenges in terms of recruitment and retention in education, ensuring additional learning needs provision that meets the needs of learners in their chosen language, wherever they live in Wales, and the attainment gap and the link with inequality, as highlighted in the PISA results. I'd like to ask, therefore, as others have, what assessment has been made by the Government of the impact of these proposed cuts on children and young people specifically.

In terms of teacher pay, could you confirm whether the Government will fully fund its share of the 5 per cent pay rise for teachers that was agreed last October? The local government settlement is not sufficient to be able to pay this in full. I would therefore like to ask the Government to consider restoring the regular funding model agreed for the previous pay award to ease the extreme financial pressure on local government. Furthermore, the Welsh Government should also seek clarification from the UK Treasury, as a matter of urgency, on funding for teachers' pension contributions. 

Another area that has filled my inbox is culture and the arts, where there are significant cuts. You'll be aware that serious concerns have been raised about the security of the national collections—not in terms of being stolen, but rather their safety within the buildings themselves from water and unsuitable conditions. I'm sure that we all remember the terrifying fire that destroyed Brazil's national museum in 2018, with 92.5 per cent of the collections being lost forever. Following the fire, the deputy director of the museum said that the fire was the fault of politicians, saying that the curators, and I'm quoting here,

'fought with different governments to get adequate resources to preserve what is now completely destroyed'.

Heaven help us if the same thing happened here, and I would like to know today what discussions the Minister has had with the Deputy Minister with responsibility for culture regarding this matter, and what assurances she can give us that the cuts will not endanger our national collections. Could you also provide further assurances that the policy of free entry to our national museums, which has been so successful, is one that the Government remains committed to? 

Furthermore, I'd like to understand why the royal commission is facing a cut of 22 per cent, which will have a detrimental impact on a body that achieves so much on a very small budget. A cut of 22 per cent would mean a possible reduction of almost a third of the workforce of 28. Have there been talks to discuss reducing the cut to something that will be less harmful? And how does the Government respond to other concerns expressed by the arts council and the books council, and their supporters? These are sectors that do so much in terms of the health and well-being of people in our communities, but also in terms of the Welsh economy as employers, but also in terms of tourism. They are an integral part of our identity as a nation, and the Government must do more to invest in them as part of ensuring economic growth. So, it is vital that we are told today how the Government will ensure that.  

A decade of UK Government austerity, a botched Brexit and Liz Truss have brought the UK to its knees: people unable to pay mortgages and public sector wages stagnating while expecting them to be more productive. Taxes are the highest since the 1940s, but the public services we all rely on have been starved of cash. Any extra over the last three years has fallen into a black hole of inflationary pressures, and yet the Welsh Conservatives come forward with a shopping list and hypocrisy. On top of Welsh Government's budget being £1.3 billion worse off than when it was set in 2020-21, the settlement doesn't replace lost European funding for Wales's national projects, for agricultural payments, apprenticeships, highway infrastructure or public transport—some of the shopping list that you come with. 

In the autumn statement, Jeremy Hunt continued with austerity, saying that public—[Interruption.] Yes, I will. 

I'm really grateful for the Member taking an intervention. Could you name me another country that hasn't faced an explosion in public sector expenditure because of COVID, or not had to put up interest rates and faced inflationary pressures because of the war in Ukraine? Just one country, please. 

The UK Government is suffering more—the economy—than many other countries. In the autumn statement, Jeremy Hunt continued with austerity, saying that public services had to be yet more efficient. Yet, one in five councils in England are facing bankruptcy. I don't know what world he lives in. And the Prime Minister wants to attack benefits yet again. 

At the Local Government and Housing Committee, Councillor Jane Gebbie warned that decisions would need to be made between what constitutes statutory and non-statutory services, meaning important work such as early intervention and prevention may be at risk, as has been discussed earlier. Homelessness is on the increase: 81 per cent of service providers funded by the housing support grant have seen increased demand in their services over the last year, yet the local housing allowance is stagnating all the time, which should be coming from the UK Government. Seventy-five per cent of providers are running on a deficit, using reserves to top up, which is not sustainable, and those that work in the service themselves are struggling to pay the bills. 

Yesterday I met with End Youth Homelessness Cymru. They described the horrendous choices facing those as young as 14 or 15 as the cost-of-living crisis, benefit cuts and family breakdowns make staying in the family home increasingly difficult. Some young people are placed inappropriately in temporary accommodation with no proper support. We need more funding to go into the housing support grant, and I ask that if there's any movement of funds, it goes there. Homelessness is increasing and will continue to do so because of choices made by the Tory UK Government. 

I heard the leader of Conwy County Borough Council say, 'I don't mind making difficult choices, but we're actually being made to make bad choices—choices that will be having an impact in the long term.' North Wales MSs are receiving e-mails from parents extremely concerned regarding ongoing cuts to education and early years funding. But I need to say that Conwy, going back years, used its reserves up in the past rather than put council tax up. It outsourced services so that it has no resilience left to deal now with what’s happening.

More than 40 Conservative—[Interruption.] I need to carry on because I’m going to run out of time. More than 40 Conservative MPs threatened to vote against the budget as the realisation hit, but last-minute funding of £600 million was suddenly made available by Gove. There was talk of £25 million of consequentials for Wales, but we don’t know if that’s really coming forward. I’d like the Minister to respond with that. If it does, I ask that it is passported to councils and that the funding floor is increased to help those most at risk. At the Local Government and Housing Committee, Councillor Lis Burnett advocated the use of a floor more often. She said:

'I think the one thing that we all agree on is that we need to use the floor more regularly, because there are situations where...a local authority is adrift of everybody else in terms of funding, and so that needs to be part of the process to make sure that they are not at a level below which they can sustainably deliver services.'

But I am sceptical that it will reach Wales, because time and time again money keeps being found down the back of the sofa for England, and without consequentials for Wales. There needs to be greater transparency, such as funding for doctors’ pay.

I hear we need to grow the economy, but to be able to fund public services—you can’t fix the economy if you can’t have nature. It’s not a choice. Nature underpins the economy. Public funding is needed to make interventions and support. We should not be fighting over the crumbs of the budget for public services, which is too small to start with. We should be fighting for an end to 14 years of austerity and an end to cuts in public services.

It's a pleasure to take part in this debate, and as ever, I'll provide a voice of reason to this discussion this afternoon. I have made my objections to this draft budget known in previous debates, and as usual, the more pushback the Welsh Government receives, the more steadfast they are in their commitment to poor decisions and blaming the UK Government, like Carolyn Thomas before me. 

Everyone understands that spending in certain areas must be cut, but the Welsh Government seems insistent on cutting assistance to the productive bit of the economy in order to fund the unproductive bit. If this continues we will be in a considerably worse position in 2025 than we are in now, and I would like to lodge my objections on behalf of my constituents, who are seeing their high streets dying, vital services cut, and councils scrambling around for cash due to the £646 million social services funding gap, with their council tax raised by an unreasonable 9.34 per cent by the Labour-run Denbighshire County Council.

This budget is a real blow to the small and medium-sized businesses that are the backbone of the Welsh economy, and as I’ve referred to many times, it’s 99.3 per cent of all enterprises in Wales. And it’s funny that the only businesses on the average Welsh high street that appear to be thriving unimpeded by the Welsh Government these days are pop-up barber shops, unsightly vaping and e-cig outlets, and cash-only hand car washes, amongst a variety of other potential money laundering fronts. This, I’m afraid, is a depressing indictment—[Interruption.] It’s true. It’s true. It’s an indictment of the state of small enterprise in Wales.

One in six shops in Wales are empty, with more closures being announced this week. Cutting business rate relief to 40 per cent will be—[Interruption.] Yes.

I just want to clarify—we're all extremely concerned about things such as human trafficking and money laundering. You've just categorised, you've just specified, a series of business sectors, entrepreneurs, some of them, and classified them all as fraudulent. Could you just clarify that that is what you meant when you went through those, that these are fronts for illegal operations—all of them? [Interruption.] Money laundering—you specifically said money laundering. 

Okay, I get your point, Huw. I'll give you one example as one to go from. Take Prestatyn High Street—you've probably never been there in your life, but we had probably two barber shops 15 years ago, but there are probably about 15 now, all of a similar theme. And that's not the point I'm making. It's the point that we've seen different—[Interruption.] No, no.

Would you give the evidence—[Inaudible.]

I'm not taking an intervention. [Interruption.] I'm not taking an intervention.

The Member is not giving way, and wants to carry on.

Yes. Cutting business rate relief to 40 per cent will be a fatal blow to many small high-street businesses, but rest assured, this will help out the large online retailers and large multinational co-operations who do not have to pay this tax. Facing this dismal year ahead, perhaps people can raise their spirits—

There's a lot of discussion happening now in this Chamber. I think we need to hear the rest of the contribution by the Member.

Thank you. Facing this dismal year ahead, perhaps people can raise their spirits and remedy all of this negativity with a theatre production, or going to see the mid-Wales orchestra, but I'm afraid these have all been completely defunded too.

And what are people actually concerned about here in Wales? Let's ask that question. Opinion polling from September last year shows that the economy is the issue people are most worried about, followed closely by the NHS. These issues that people don't care about are the trendy socialist UBI schemes, bank-rolling 36 new politicians and spending £34 million on the 20 mph roll-out. This budget presents an increase of £22.5 million for funding the free-school meals programme—the Welsh Government demonstrating that they are more concerned with honouring Plaid than improving the curriculum in schools and the quality of teaching, because education, overall, has been cut in this budget. Parents in the Vale of Clwyd would prefer to be in a position where they can easily afford to pay for their own child's meals, rather than living on state subsidy. 

To close, the irresponsible allocation of funds into schemes that no-one asked for will lead to increasing resentment towards the Welsh Government, unless they are prepared to rethink their spending commitments. Thank you.

Before I call Luke Fletcher, then, I just need to make Members aware that we're well over time, and I have one speaker left from each political group, after Luke Fletcher. I'll ask those three speakers—I'll call them—if they're able to do, as Joyce Watson is shouting from the back, a two-minute contribution. Please be brief. We have a lot of other business to get through this afternoon, and we're all already over time. So, I should move on as well—Luke Fletcher.

Diolch, Llywydd. I have no doubt that this has been a difficult budget process for the Government and, let's be honest, it's only been amplified, of course, by the economic incompetence we see at Westminster.

If I could start with business rates. Last week I raised the potential for varying the multiplier based on type of business and, of course, it's welcome that there is space in the Local Government Finance (Wales) Bill for that. Of course, that is some time off, and I'm wondering if the power to vary the multiplier relies on that Bill, or if the Minister has the power to do that already. Because the reality is stark, particularly for the hospitality sector. If something isn't done now, then places in my region, like Zia Nina, like Ristorante Vecchio, like Beat, would be hit with yet another cost.

Adam Price raised on 9 January a number of ways in which we could raise additional finance. In the context of business rates, I would ask the Minister to consider one of his suggestions, that being a public health supplement on the business rates of large supermarkets who sell alcohol and tobacco. The Scottish Government has already done this, and it has the potential to raise another £23 million here in Wales, which could then be used to mitigate this cut to business rates, alongside, then, looking again at varying the multiplier. So, some reflection on that would be very welcome from the Minister. 

I'll come to the apprenticeship budget. As the Minister knows, it's National Apprenticeship Week—and, by the way, both myself and Huw Irranca-Davies are launching the cross-party group on apprenticeships at 7.00 p.m., and a number of Members have raised the apprenticeship cuts, so I hope to see a number of Members there. We've discussed this already at length in the Chamber, but this cut does stand at 24 per cent. This when, of course, the sector, pre-publication of the draft budget, was told to expect a cut of 3 per cent. Now, I can't press on the Government enough of how important the apprenticeship budget is for the future development of the Welsh economy, with Tata and the proposals there underlying the need for good-quality apprenticeships going forward. But we're not just talking about apprenticeships in high-tech sectors or the green sector. They also play a role in health and social care. If the cut remains, we would see 5,500 fewer apprenticeships in health and social care, clinical healthcare, dental nursing, and children's care and learning and development. This, of course, would then have a long-term impact not just in the economy, but across all sectors.

Now, I mentioned the sector had already modelled for cuts. I think it's fair to say that the sector, especially given the impact of the loss of EU funding, doesn't expect at this point a full reversal of proposed cuts. So, my question is whether or not there is room to reduce the size of the cuts in an attempt to meet the sector halfway. You've heard from the Minister for the Economy in his leadership pledges that he plans to increase the number of apprenticeships, when, at present, the cuts to the budget are within his own department. There's also a policy statement scheduled for 27 February on apprenticeships, so it does make me wonder if there is room for manoeuvre.

Another suggestion on funding when it comes to apprenticeships: why not look again at charitable relief for private hospitals and schools? Now, it won't raise enough to reverse the cuts in their entirety but it might provide some wiggle room. So, whilst I understand the challenges faced by the Government in this budget are stark, and I appreciate that everyone will be asking for more cash, some reflections from the Minister on the points I raised would be very welcome.

Wales, today, faces the worst financial situation since devolution began and whilst the UK fiscal and constitutional processes are being eroded. So, let's be clear, Wales as a devolved legislature within the UK is not a minor department of state to be told at the last minute that expected consequentials do not suddenly exist for Wales. And as the majority of Welsh Government funding comes directly from the UK Tory Government as a block grant, Wales is directly exposed to UK external fiscal policy and inflationary pressures, but without the agile, flexible levers and borrowing powers needed to respect Welsh need, or to align us with English consequentials or even Irish consequentials for that matter—welcome, though, that would be for them.

For 14 long years, Wales and the rest of the UK has been misgoverned by too many Prime Ministers of the UK of Tory policy, and too many Chancellors. The Tory UK Government has persuaded and prosecuted and pursued for over a decade and a half an ideological dogma subjecting Wales and the rest of the UK to something called austerity, or, simply put, underinvestment—a starvation of investment against the people and children of Wales and the United Kingdom who deserve better—[Interruption.] No, I won't.

So, can we just be honest, in the time that I have available, with the people of Wales? Let us just say it as it is: Wales is strategically underinvested in after years of infrastructural and wider underinvestment and the truly pathetic £100 million capital budget this year—still no electrification for Wales. Today, the Welsh Government budget is £1.3 billion less, some say £1.5 billion less. Therefore, incredibly difficult and incredibly hard decisions have had to be made, so I will be supporting this budget. Diolch.

At the time of the Labour UK Government's March 2010 UK budget, the then Labour Chancellor admitted that Labour's planned cuts in public spending would be, quote, 'deeper and tougher' than in the 1980s, which followed economic meltdown under Wilson, Callaghan and Healey. Austerity was therefore inherited, and failure to reduce the deficit risked imposed cuts that would have resulted in far higher public spending reductions further down the line. Those that deny that would now be managing far smaller budgets than they've had otherwise.

Given the statement by the World Economic Forum that the soaring cost of food and energy is affecting people across the globe and that inflation is currently higher in 19 European countries, and interest rates are currently higher in 11 European countries and 10 other G20 countries than in the UK, only an extremely silly billy would claim that the cost-of-living crisis was made in Westminster. All Governments, including the UK Government, are having to operate within this global inflationary environment.

The Welsh Government's draft budget cuts social justice funding by £11.6 million—more in real terms. Although the Welsh Government has announced a new child poverty strategy for Wales, Barnardo's Cymru has expressed disappointment that the Welsh Government has not listened to numerous recommendations on the need for targets and an action plan attached to the strategy so that progress can be 'transparently and regularly monitored'. The Children's Commissioner for Wales stated that the lack of detail on actions, timescales and deliverables means that there was no way of holding the Welsh Government to account—25 years of this.

This Welsh Government has launched a new Welsh benefits charter, but far from being the integrated Welsh benefits system for all the means-tested benefits that the Welsh Government is responsible for, which the sector has been calling for for almost a decade, it is still only about developing one, and, again, without targets and timescales.

Similarly, the Welsh Government has dodged all calls for interim targets and timescales for their 'Tackling fuel poverty 2021 to 2035' plan, despite statutory obligations and the sector stating that interim targets would ensure that the Welsh Government is accountable for progress—goodness me, what a funny thought.

The voluntary sector has long been emphasising that although they provide a fence at the top of the hill rather an ambulance at the bottom, delivering services that save the public sector millions, they lack sustainable statutory funding. Many poverty-fighting services delivered by the voluntary sector are also funded by the housing support grant. In its 2024-25 draft budget document, the Welsh Government claims that they have,

'protected front-line support services, including the housing support grant.'

However, in its response to the draft budget, Cymorth Cymru, the representative body for housing-related support in Wales, stated,

'The Welsh Government has not increased the Housing Support Grant in the Draft Budget',

that, in real terms, it's £24 million less than in 2012, and that

'three quarters of support providers told us they would need to reduce service capacity.'

By removing early intervention and prevention services, such false economies only increase pressure on the NHS, accident and emergency departments and blue-light services, as well as housing services, when the Welsh Government should instead be removing the tens of millions of pounds of added cost pressure on statutory services that they cause. I've only been saying this for over two decades, but they still don't get it.

The social justice budget is facing the largest cut, in proportional terms, of all of the Welsh Government's spending areas, which will inevitably compromise this Government's ability to address the deep-rooted inequalities in our society and their effects on our citizens. Of course, we must remember that 14 years of Tory austerity, which, it seems, will continue, if Labour's shadow chancellor's recent statements on tax and welfare are anything to go by, have had a disproportionate impact on the most disadvantaged—low-income households, disabled people, black, Asian and minority ethnic peoples, women, older people and children.

There are some statistics that must be highlighted as we debate the priorities of this budget, and the economic and political context in which Wales finds itself is a situation—a financial situation—where it cannot adequately support the needs of its most vulnerable citizens and forge the fairer future they deserve, because, for the first time ever last year, half of the requests for support from Citizens Advice Cymru were from those in a negative budgeting situation, where household bills outstrip income. Twenty-eight per cent of children in Wales are living in poverty. And this is the fact that we must all keep in the front of our minds, as it's the most appalling, most shameful, most heartbreaking statistic, which should underline all budget decisions: the child mortality rate in Wales is 70 per cent higher for children in the most deprived groups than for the least deprived children.

In my work with the Equality and Social Justice Committee scrutinising the cuts to the social justice budget, it was clear that although the Minister told us that substantial savings from this small portfolio had been guided by several principles, including protecting front-line services and avoiding decisions that widen inequalities, the upshot from our scrutiny is that this is not the reality of the effect of this budget. If creating fairness by prioritising anti-poverty and poverty-mitigation measures is at the heart of this Government's approach to the budget, then the fact that the social justice budget has received the deepest cuts must, therefore, be completely non-strategic.

Spending should follow strategy; delivery should follow spending. Plaid Cymru has drawn attention time and again to the need for urgency to deliver on plans such as the Welsh benefits system to ensure that support reaches the right pockets quickly and simply. The work has just started—we've had the launch of a non-statutory charter. The Warm Homes programme—meant to be operational last year, still being procured. And we've got the new child poverty strategy, midway into this Senedd term—how much of a priority can it be—roundly criticised, as we've heard, for its lack of clear targets. Measures that work not included in this budget, or, in the case of the baby bundles scheme, cut back. How can we afford to cut £11 million to childcare provision when we know that investing in childcare—UNICEF say this—is one of the single most effective ways to tackle inequality? There's a reason that a demand-led childcare offer, which is desperately needed to tackle inequality, isn't working as it should.

If the Government maintains that the draft budget has been shaped by the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, including the principle of prevention, how does it justify a 50 per cent reduction in funding for Digital Communities Wales, for example, which includes programmes to combat digital exclusion? Cwmpas has noted that marginalised groups are more likely to be digitally excluded and that recent trends, such as the rising cost of living, risk widening the digital exclusion gap even further. And by the way, tackling digital exclusion is key to objective 1 of the child poverty strategy—perhaps the finance Minister should read it. As that horrific and shameful statistic that I quoted earlier demonstrated, inequality has a proven link to adverse health outcomes, so while the Welsh Government has prioritised front-line NHS services in this budget, it must admit that neglecting initiatives to address societal inequalities will invariably blunt the efficacy of their healthcare spending.

The report of the Equality and Social Justice Committee makes clear that, and I quote:

'Despite a rhetorical commitment to prevention, previous experience suggests that preventative spending measures are being diluted in this Draft Budget',

and Plaid Cymru endorses that view in the strongest possible terms. There cannot be any greater priority than investing in the potential of the people of Wales, through reducing poverty and inequality through strategic and sustained spending. It must be better reflected in this Government's budget.

The Minister for finance to reply to the debate—Rebecca Evans.

Great. Thank you very much, Llywydd. And thank you to all of those colleagues who've made thoughtful and constructive contributions in the debate today, and also particularly to the committee Chairs. And I know that they've passed on the thanks to those stakeholders who, I know, spent an awful lot of time preparing their evidence for committees as well. So, I'm very grateful to all of those.

I think it's important just to remind ourselves of the context that we're facing. Economic growth has stagnated under the 13 years of UK Governments, and they have played fast and loose with public finances. We've got a decade of austerity behind us and a botched Brexit, which has left public services across the UK absolutely creaking and unable to further withstand any more shocks. And, of course, living standards next year will be 3.5 per cent lower in 2024-25 than they were pre pandemic, and that would be the largest reduction in living standards since records began in the 1950s. We've seen consumer prices increase by 22 per cent since the pandemic, and, if inflation had been on target, prices would be up by—I say 'just'—8 per cent. And the UK's tax burden, of course, is forecast to increase to a post-war high, with millions of people dragged into paying higher rates of income tax. So, that's the context and the difficult situation that we find ourselves in.

The UK Government had the opportunity to address this at the autumn statement, but there was absolutely no targeted support for the most vulnerable people, nothing new or meaningful for Wales, and it was an absolute disaster for public services across the UK, which are being starved of necessary funding. The Chancellor's failure to recognise the pressures on public services means that we are facing real-terms cuts here in Wales, and we're facing a really difficult set of decisions ahead of us. I think that's been really reflected in the contributions that we've heard this afternoon. People are absolutely passionate about the things that we do in all walks of life here in Wales, and we've had some exploration of the kinds of really tough trade-offs that we've had to be making here in Wales. We were invited, at the very start of the debate, to ask ourselves the searching questions. Well, my goodness, we've been asking ourselves those searching questions for months on end to make those really, really tough choices that we've had to make, and, in the end, we've put people right at the heart of the decisions that we're making, prioritising the NHS, which we know is the absolute top priority for people in Wales, alongside those public services provided by local government.

And I will be honest, we have had some contributions this afternoon that have just been a long list of things, telling the Welsh Government what it must do to make things better for people in Wales. Absolutely nothing from many of those people making contributions about where they would make the cuts from. We've also not had any real objection to the overall strategic approach of our budget, looking at protecting the NHS, protecting local services in local government. We haven't seen any objection to that either. So, what is the alternative that people want us to do?

I will say I have listened really carefully to the contributions, and we're considering carefully the responses that committees are providing as well. If there is any change in the situation, as we move towards the end of the financial year, I might be able to make some small allocations at the final budget. So, we are listening carefully to the representations that are being made. I will say, just weeks, now, from the end of the financial year, we still have no confirmation of the supplementary estimates, so we still don't know what our budget is for this year while we still haven't yet had the opportunity to have the final debate on our budget for next year. I think that that, again, speaks to the lack of clarity that we have from the UK Government.

We will respond positively, wherever we can, of course, to committees' recommendations, and we've already tried to do that today in relation to the additional £25 million of funding that came as a result of further funding for local government in the UK, which UK Government recently announced following letters from numerous current and former MPs to the UK Government, talking about the lack of investment in local services there. So, we're pleased with that additional £25 million. It is the intention now to reverse that cut to the social care workforce grant, that was just over £10 million, and to use the remainder of the funding to put through the RSG to local government. I think that does respond quite positively to at least a recommendation from the Finance Committee and the Local Government and Housing Committee, and I know Carolyn Thomas was making that representation again here this afternoon. So, I'm pleased that we've been able to do that.

I know that there was some debate as to whether that funding should go to lift the floor within the RSG, but I think, on reflection, we have to understand that the RSG does represent need, and were we to lift the floor higher, rather than recognise the need that exists in social care across Wales in all local authorities, then I think we would have been doing a disservice to the fact that the formula does recognise need within it, and I think we had to be just playing fair with all authorities in that space. And, of course, raising the floor—the floor actually is there to be a floor under which no authority will fall, rather than a floor under which no authority will have less of an increase. It will cause problems for future years if we take that approach as well. So, I think that, on balance, we have made the right choice.

I don't underestimate, though, how tough things are going to be for local government. They are in a much better position than their colleagues across the border, of course, because, at the start of the spending review period, we increased their budget by more than 9 per cent. That was baselined. This financial year, more than 7 per cent, again baselined, and we've kept our promise to increase it by 3.1 per cent for next year, which was the best that we could possibly do under the circumstances. I should say that the additional funding that we've announced today through that £25 million will, again, help ease some of those pressures, particularly around the living wage, but also teachers' pay, because we do recognise the pressures there. We have been able to support local authorities in previous years by directing some underspends across Government to help with that, but, at the end of the day, it is part of the RSG. Welsh Government plays no part in the negotiations of teachers' pay—those things are settled outside of the Welsh Government—but, if we can help, we have done in previous years, and, hopefully, this allocation will help too.

The availability of funding, of course, is really important, and I couldn't help but just think about the impact of Brexit now on our budget. We are really seeing the chickens coming home to roost now, aren't we? I was reminded of an article that I wrote back in 2015, which I Googled during Paul Davies's contribution today, and it said

'Rebecca Evans said losing EU funding worth £240m a year with no guarantee the UK government will replace it would be hugely damaging.'

And I said that leaving the EU would be catastrophic for Welsh farming. Well, was that project fear or was it just reflecting on a fact? Because we have continued now to feel the impact of decisions taken by the UK Government; we have £243 million in replacement EU funding lost to Wales now. But, even so, the Minister has been able to protect the basic payment scheme budget of £238 million for 2024. And I will say that this, beyond the NHS and beyond local government, is one of the biggest areas of spend for the Welsh Government and it would have been very easy to target that particular budget to look for some reductions to make. But the Minister was very clear that this was her absolute priority—she'd listened to farmers and this is very much what they were calling for. So, we were able to protect that budget, but it wasn't easy, by any stretch of the imagination, to do. 

And apprenticeships—I think that's been one of the really key areas that has come through in the debate this afternoon. And despite the backdrop of significant economic challenge and uncertainty, exacerbated by the loss of those EU funds, we do still remain committed to delivering a really successful and high-quality apprenticeship programme. We’ve benefited from more than two decades of funding towards the apprenticeship programmes from the European Union, helping to lower unemployment, boost skills and grow businesses, but now, of course, we have to make other provisions for that. And not a single penny of those funds now is available to us in our budget for next year. We are now at least £375 million worse off every year as a direct result of the UK Government’s levelling-up process. That is absolutely ironic, isn’t it? And that’s in addition to the fact that the overall budget is worth £1.3 billion less. So, I just want to impress upon colleagues the difficult situation there that we face as a result of some of the choices that have been made in recent years.

We’re keen, of course, to see what more we can do to present the budget in a way that colleagues find useful. So, we’ve had numerous innovations in recent years. We introduced the budget improvement plan in 2019-20, and since then I think every year we’ve been trying to innovate. We’ve had our gender budgeting pilot, we’ve had our distributional impact assessments, our carbon impact assessments, and we have a new Wales infrastructure investment strategy, and finance plans that sit below that as well. So, if there is more that we can be doing to present our budgets in a way that colleagues find useful, we’re very keen to explore that. And I do that through the work that I’ll be doing with the Chair of the Finance Committee in relation to the budget protocol, which I continue to look forward to making some progress on, as we move towards the final budget and beyond to the spending review period. The work on that will start in April of this year. So, we’ve got plenty more to look forward to.

Thank you, Minister. The proposal is to agree the amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore defer voting under this item until voting time.

The next item is a motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow the next debate on the steel industry. The Minister for Economy to formally move.

Formally.

Thank you, Minister. The motion is to suspend Standing Orders. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed.

Which allows us to move on to the debate on the steel industry in Wales. The Minister for Economy to move this motion. Vaughan Gething.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the motion before us. 

Last Friday, Tata Steel began the formal legal consultation process for potential redundancies across its UK sites. We understand that there could be up to 2,800 redundancies, of which nearly 2,500 could take place within the next 18 months. The Chamber must realise that this is just the start of the formal consultation between the company and the trade unions. The three steel trade unions are Community, the GMB and Unite. They are all united in understanding that the final whistle has not blown and it is not certain that both blast furnaces will close as per the proposals.

The suggested speed and scale of these changes is a real concern. As Members across the Chamber will know, we have suggested a longer, slower transition to green steel production at Port Talbot for a significant period of time before today. The Welsh Government does not believe that these proposals amount to a just transition, and I note that even Greenpeace do not believe that the proposals are a just transition.

On Thursday last week in Port Talbot, the First Minister and I met with the chief executive of Tata’s global operations and their UK chief exec. We made six broad points clear. The first is that we do not believe that Tata should make irreversible choices based on the current level of UK Government support. The second is that a credible alternative plan exists, and any credible plan includes more electric arc steel making.

The third is that the consultation must be meaningful and it must not be curtailed by the legal minimum of 45 days. Any meaningful alternative plan should be properly and fully considered. I'm pleased to say that the company confirmed directly to me and to the First Minister that all the time necessary would be given to any trade union counter proposals. The minimum time is exactly that, and talks about the future will take as long as they need to. 

The fourth point was that we highlighted the need to take proactive steps to promote mental health support services with and for the workforce. I've already discussed some of this work with my colleague Lynne Neagle, the Deputy Minister for Mental Health and Well-being. We want all partners to reiterate the broader societal message that Jack Sargeant vividly highlighted last week: it really is okay to say that you're not okay, seek help, and be understanding of the very real worries that people have.

The fifth point was that we reiterated a question that I was asked at the Welsh Affairs Committee last week. There is a gas pipeline to the nearby Baglan power station. That is a realistic option to explore for a future direct reduced iron facility. 

And the sixth point we made was that this Welsh Government will continue to engage in good faith with all partners. That includes the company, the UK Government, trade unions and the wider community. I will of, course, continue to engage across this Chamber too. 

The steel industry is part of our nation's story, and it stands as a marker of Welsh excellence in 2024. It represents an economic asset with global reach that is essential to meeting the demands of a greener, more secure future. Port Talbot boasts a workforce with the expertise, know-how and the dedication to deliver the longer, fairer transition for steel that the Welsh, and therefore the UK, economy needs. 

The UK Government and Tata Steel have the tools between them to secure a longer, fairer transition for a sector that is good for green growth and essential to our collective security. It is in the interests of all of us to secure the best deal for steel, not the cheapest deal. Last September, Tata announced a deal with the UK Government that would mean the closure of both blast furnaces by the end of this calendar year. That deal represents an economic loss of historic proportions for Wales within an industry that underpins our current manufacturing sector and the enormous economic opportunities in floating offshore wind, for example. Rather than providing a bridge to a future that sees us produce cleaner steel, the deal struck offers a cliff edge and preventable hardship for the very workers who are best placed to make the transition work. 

It is the firm view of the Welsh Government that, in addition to the economic shock, there is a real failure to recognise the UK's strategic security interests. If these proposals are implemented, then the UK will be the only G20 economy to shut down its virgin steel-making capabilities. All of this at a time of rising global conflict and growing trade disruption. From cans to cars to construction, virgin steel is an essential element of the steel that we need today. If implemented in full, the UK would become reliant on imports produced to lower environmental standards and shipped thousands of miles to Wales on diesel-fuelled vessels. 

Whilst the company has described its sense of ambition for the future, trade union plans do provide a credible way forward for the business that does not require the eye-watering job losses being proposed. The Welsh Government will do all that we can to support the people and communities affected by these proposals. We will use all available assets, including the transition board and its two sub-groups, to try and minimise the social and economic impact if these plans go ahead. We continue to participate in the board to support areas of shared priorities. I attended a third meeting of the board last Thursday. 

In addition, we will work closely with key partners like Jobcentre Plus, Working Wales, local authorities and trade unions to ensure that people facing redundancy as a consequence of these proposals are provided with information, advice and guidance about the support that is available to them. The Welsh Government's employability and skills programmes ReAct+, Communities for Work+, can support training and mentoring for those who wish or require this support. And I am, of course, reviewing the scale of the budget that may be required. Business Wales is also available to provide information, guidance and support to businesses in the supply chain that may be affected, both to review the impact and to potentially identify alternative markets. Business Wales can, of course, also provide information on potential self-employment options in the future.

Potential employment opportunities may be available from our industrial forums, including Industry Wales, the Welsh Automotive Forum, Aerospace Wales, and others. The challenge that we may face is the scale of employment loss, the potential difference in wages and how rapidly workers could re-skill.

I know that Tata has discussed a detailed research and innovation plan with Swansea University to support Tata's proposed transition. This support will be delivered as a consequence, though, of the wrong deal for steel. The anger and the hurt, felt by so many, is compounded by the shared and reasonable assertion that it is preventable. The Prime Minister could still realise the scale of that anger and engage with the detail of this deal. There is an opportunity to secure a better outcome that protects a sovereign asset that is part of our social and economic fabric here in Wales. Wales and the rest of the UK would be better off and more secure if the products of the future that will power us towards a greener future are made here.

I want to say something about the workforce before I close. The average age at Port Talbot is 37. It is lower still at Llanwern. There are, of course, experienced workers towards the end of their career, but there are many young apprentices and many workers with responsibilities and commitments to homes and families reliant on their income. It is the same picture in Trostre and Shotton. These are proud workers—proud of their products, proud of their skills. They're smart and they understand their sector. They've made repeated changes to adapt and keep the business and their jobs alive. They know that there is a future for steel, a future that is worth fighting for.

I will continue to work with the company, trade unions and the UK Government to try and fight for that future. I hope that our Senedd today will provide a united voice that we all believe the same and a better future is possible. I look forward to the debate and to responding in due course.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion and I call on Paul Davies to move amendments 1, 2 and 3.

Diolch, Llywydd. As the Minister said, on Friday, Tata presented a breakdown of its proposed restructure, and the consultation process that follows is an opportunity for serious engagement between the company, its workforce, representatives and Governments about the company's plans, and I agree with the Minister that this is the very start of that process. It's still a very worrying time for many workers at the Port Talbot site and our thoughts remain with them and their families as they navigate this very difficult period. And, as Members from all parties in this Chamber have said in recent weeks, it's absolutely crucial that the workers at the site are supported.

Today's motion believes that there is a viable future for blast furnace steel making in Wales as part of a just transition that supports a stronger Welsh economy while protecting a UK sovereign asset, and my colleagues and I support that. We have been clear that we too believe blast arc furnacing should play a role in producing steel as it moves to greener practices and that there should be a more sensible transition period.

As Members will know, the UK Parliament's Welsh Affairs Committee recently took evidence from Tata and the trade unions about the current situation, and it was made clear during that session that 55 per cent of EU producers will still have a blast furnace in 2030. Indeed, the committee heard that, by 2040, 40 per cent of all flat steel in Europe will still be produced by a blast furnace and 40 per cent will be produced by an electric arc furnace, supplemented by direct reduced iron. And we know that Tata themselves are building three blast furnaces in India too, and so I understand the frustrations of many about giving up our blast furnaces when it appears that that's not happening in other parts of the world.

Indeed, the Secretary of State for Wales told the Welsh Affairs Committee himself that he did not want to see those blast furnaces close and that it was a decision for Tata, and I agree with him. Like others in this Chamber, I still believe that there is a viable future for blast furnace steel making in Wales whilst we move to greener practices, and I hope that all avenues and all plans are still very much on the table. [Interruption.] Yes, I'm more than happy to take an intervention.

Thank you, Paul. I'm listening very carefully to what you're saying, and I'm very pleased that you agree with the continuation of blast furnaces until the right time. But do you think it was a mistake by the UK Government, when it did the deal, by not putting the conditions in place to ensure that blast furnaces could go on, to allow that smooth transition, because it didn't put any conditions on that deal? They simply said, 'Here's the money, we want an electric arc furnace—end of.' No conditions. Shouldn't they have put conditions on it?

Well, as a committee, of course, we very much hope that we will have UK Government Ministers in front of us as a committee in due course, and certainly those will be some of the questions we will be asking UK Government Ministers.

Now, throughout this period, it's vital that the workers at the site are supported, and that support must of course come in the form of work and training opportunities, but also in the form of mental health and emotional support too. I appreciate that the Minister touched upon this in his remarks earlier, but perhaps he could tell us a bit more about how the Welsh Government is ensuring that workers have access to that support during this period.

Tata has proposed to commit £130 million to support any redundancies, and I know that support has also been made, along with the UK Government support, in the form of the transition fund. My understanding is that the transition board, which the Minister is a deputy chair of, has two specific work streams, the first of which is the management of people and skills, and the second work stream considers the wider impact on the community and regeneration. I can stress just how important the work of the transition board is right now, and I hope that, where it is possible to do so, information is made publicly available, so that we can learn more about the work that is currently taking place.

Now, Llywydd, turning to the sector more widely, securing a long-term future for British steel must be the priority of both the UK and Welsh Governments, and as the consultation process has begun, now is the time for all plans to be considered. The unions have put together their plans, and as we've heard before it's vital that all plans are on the table. As the Minister has already said, steel is absolutely critical to our national infrastructure and our nation's defence, and it's my view that we should not be reliant on imports from other countries to access steel when there is already the capacity and skills needed to produce steel in our own country. And as was said earlier, there are opportunities for the steel sector, for example, in relation to the Celtic sea and the developments in offshore wind and floating offshore wind, and it's important that discussions are being had about taking advantage of those opportunities. Strategic inter-governmental discussions from both Governments are needed about what the sector should look like in both the short and long term, and I note that the Secretary of State for Wales and the economy Minister have said that they want to work in partnership, and I look forward to seeing that happen.

Therefore, Llywydd, in closing, we must develop a way forward that supports the sector decarbonising and embraces technology to produce greener steel, and does so in a way that does not jeopardise our steel-making capacity and skills indefinitely. Tomorrow, the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee will be scrutinising Tata executives and questioning them on their decision making so far and their plans for the future, and so I urge all Members to watch that session and hear what they have to say. We will be supporting the Welsh Government's motion today, and in the spirit of consensus I hope that Members will also support our amendments as well. Diolch.

We are also supporting the Government's motion, because it is no green future without steel. As has been said a number of times, Plaid Cymru's solidarity is with the workforce, our communities, and the unions, who have all given their lives to the industry and are working hard to protect that industry's future here in Wales. And the Minister is right: the final whistle hasn't gone. There are other credible plans that need to be explored—all options on the table—because, as a number of Members have said in previous debates and statements, and no doubt we'll hear it again today, we're not talking about a 'nice to have' here. We're talking about a strategic asset and an industry where diversification of production is important for the future of the sector and, then, our ability to produce a resource to achieve our ambitions and be self-sufficient. Relying on imports is not a credible option. Putting all of our eggs into one form of steel production is not the way forward either, and not ensuring a just transition for a skilled workforce—a workforce, by the way, who we need for the green transition—will be to our detriment. 

Over the course of my time here in the Senedd, we've had a number of statements and debates about Tata, and I've been clear that the Welsh Government, the Minister, have worked closely with the unions, and that's very welcome. I've also been clear that, ultimately, because of the significant investment that is needed in the site, its future will primarily be decided in Westminster. On that note, ownership will be the deciding factor of the Welsh steel industry's future. I was interested in the comment made by the economy Minister about nationalisation being a red herring. Perhaps he might want to elaborate further on what he means by that, and I say this from a genuine point of wanting to work through all the options on the table, because, as far as I see it, what we have here is a strategic resource vital to self-sufficiency. Other countries care about who owns what strategic resources. Other countries also recognise the need to ensure that ownership of these important assets is retained, at the very least, within said country—more important now, as the Minister highlighted, in a world that is becoming more insular and hostile. We find ourselves in the potential position of losing capability in producing a sovereign asset because of the decisions of a private company half a world away.

We all know that there will need to be a significant amount of financial investment in the industry; it's unavoidable. And it brings me to the work done by Mazzucato on the socialisation of risk and the privatisation of reward. If significant investment comes from the state, then why can't the state have a stake in that investment or own the asset? We're clear here: every option needs to be on the table if we are serous about protecting jobs at Tata and protecting the UK's ability to produce steel. For me, that means not banking on a private company to change its mind and leaving workers at its mercy, only for us, then, to have to come back and deal with the aftermath. And I would urge the UK Government, and any future UK Government, to be bold in its thinking. Nationalisation can be just the first step. It's not the silver bullet, nor the end; it could be just the first step. Take Tower Colliery as an example model, look at Mondragon, and safeguard the future of this strategically important industry. 

Llywydd, last Friday, I met with the chief executive officer at Tata Steel, Mr T.V. Narendran, to discuss the actions being taken by the company following the announcement by Tata to close down the two blast furnaces, and, effectively, close steel manufacturing in Port Talbot for the near future. At the meeting, as Members have already said, I was informed of the 45-day notice—statutory notice—being given to the trade unions. And, so, as we contribute to this debate, I'll ask everyone to be cognisant of that fact, and call on Tata, who I'm sure will listen, to not rush this process, but to give as much time as is needed to the workforce. 

Llywydd, since the nineteenth century, Port Talbot has had a proud history of steel making, culminating in the current steelworks, which were built in the mid-twentieth century and modified in the years following. And from those humble beginnings in the nineteenth century, to the position it currently holds as a modern, integrated steel-making hub today, Port Talbot's journey reflects the resilience of the local people and the industry's ability to adapt to changing times. The story of Port Talbot steel making is a testament to the town's industrial spirit, along with that of Wales's industrial spirit, and the ongoing efforts to balance economic development with environmental sustainability. 

However, in recent years, steel making in Port Talbot has been under threat, and we are now facing a future that will, this year, see the end of primary steel making in Port Talbot. With the promise of recycling through the electric arc furnaces towards the end of the decade, that leaves a period of several years in which Port Talbot will not be making its own steel, but importing it from sites located across the world. That's not necessarily a green agenda. Thousands of workers across our town, and the wider region, are now asking what the future holds for them and their families, not just the 2,800 who are directly employed by Tata, but also those employed by contractors and the supply chain that service this industry. And we know the figures are two, three, four times every steel worker, there's somebody in those extra industries. They are fearful for their survival during the gap that will exist between the closure of the blast furnaces and the commencement of an EAF, and beyond that. They are fearful for the future of our town, and for local businesses that have struggled over recent years. They are anxious for the futures of their children. They are looking to us to stand up for them and their communities. 

Members across this Chamber will know that I am a staunch supporter of steel making, and of the need to have an industry that's both viable and sustainable. And I strongly believe that the current plans to shut down both blast furnaces in Port Talbot now, and import steel, are not the way forward for the industry, or the town, or indeed our nation. It is not the just and fair transition to a decarbonised steel industry that we envisaged when the deal was being announced between Tata and the UK Government in September.

Along with steelworkers, I accept the need to change the way in which steel is made, but there is an alternative path available to reach that goal. The plan put forward by the trade unions should be grasped by the UK Government as a way of decarbonising steel making, whilst at the same time building security and maintaining the ability of the UK to be a primary steel-making nation. It provides a continuation of blast furnace production until we are in a position to transition to alternatives, which should include direct reduced iron capability. That approach is not unique to the UK—it’s one being taken forward by businesses across the world.

Many businesses, often supported by their Governments—and I’m going to name a few countries; I won’t name them all, because I haven’t got time—in France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Finland, the USA and Spain are all looking to use electric arc furnaces as a solution, but not just EAF. They are utilising the research and technological advances that will offer the use of DRI furnaces using natural gas and moving on to hydrogen when available. This combination offers a low-carbon approach that will both utilise the scrap steel that exists from the UK and retain a primary steel-making facility—that is the way forward. That’s what the unions were putting forward. The question that we should be asking both Tata and the UK Government is why not take this approach. Why aren’t they doing it? They should be asking how can we get there in a fair and just manner to everyone involved. That’s the question that should be asked.

In supporting the continued use of the blast furnaces for their predicted lifetimes, we recognise that it’s not the end point, that we do move on, but it’s part of the transitional process. It’s about acknowledging the strengths of what has served us so well, while actively seeking cleaner alternatives. Our position is not one where we resist change, but we manage it better. Let’s embrace the challenge of decarbonising steel making with a pragmatic approach by innovating, retrofitting and finding pathways to sustainable utilised blast furnaces. We can bridge the gap between transition and progress. Our goal is a steel industry that not only builds our world, but does so with a commitment to environmental standards. By doing so, we can ensure a smoother and inclusive transition that considers economic implications and keeps industries operational. Collectively, we can work towards a low-carbon future.

Llywydd, I will conclude by reminding people that I will be continuing to fight for every single job in Port Talbot, every single business and every single family affected by this decision, and I continue to urge Tata to think carefully about making any irreversible decisions now that will ruin so many lives when there is a plan for a future way. I want to put on record that I am enormously grateful to the trade unions—Community, GMB and Unite—for their enormous work in supporting our steelworkers and putting forward plans for all our futures.

I wanted to start today’s contribution by thanking the Welsh Government for tabling today’s debate on steel making in Wales, particularly given the disappointing announcement, which has been discussed already, by Tata of potential loss of jobs in Port Talbot. A job loss on the scale proposed by Tata in a town the size of Port Talbot will be one that will be impossible to absorb.

But I welcome the UK Government’s investment of £100 million into a transition board to help and support workers who require training and support to seek other employment. It will go a long way in bridging the gap between their current employment and any new skills and support that workers might need in securing other employment. It will also play a part, as Paul Davies mentioned, in regenerating the wider area, one that has so much economic potential. That’s why it was chosen as a site for the Celtic free port in Port Talbot. Paired with the port of Milford Haven it has the potential to be a game changer, as I’ve said in this Chamber before, for people in the area, and, just as importantly, the long-term economic prosperity of the town and of the region. Some 16,000 new high-skilled, well-paid jobs rooted in the cause of clean, green energy will change both the nature and the narrative around a town like Port Talbot, and it means the town has a longer term future to look forward to; but that is, as I mentioned, long term. And it will do little to reassure people today whose jobs may be on the line that a brighter longer term future is on the horizon. I accept that.

That’s why that transition board I mentioned is so important, funded almost exclusively by money provided by the UK Government. If used wisely, it will help to bridge that gap for very many. The Minister said recently that he was unconvinced that the £100 million was enough money to sufficiently undertake the scale of the work required at the site and on behalf of the workers, and he may well be right. But that is why—and I've said this before, and I'll say it again—it is particularly disappointing that the Welsh Government still hasn't found a single penny of its own money to contribute towards that fund. We've heard a succession of warm words about the steel industry from the economy Minister, even more criticisms about the deal that's on the table, but we've heard very little about the work to actually support steelworkers in Port Talbot. Indeed, not only has the Welsh Government not contributed a single penny towards the Tata Steel transition fund to support affected workers, Welsh Conservative researchers found that the real picture is even more bleak. When asked how much money the Welsh Government has provided to the steel industry and its workers in Port Talbot since 2019, the answer is, again, zero.

At the end of the day, Llywydd—[Interruption.] I'm wrapping up. At the end of the day, Llywydd, we're having another debate on the topic of Tata Steel, one of a number since this announcement was made by Tata about job losses, and that is entirely right. But these debates mean nothing unless the Welsh Government steps up to support the steel industry and puts its money where its mouth is. It's a Government that has offered plenty of criticism but not one penny piece. Talk is cheap, actions speak.

The Secretary of State for Wales has said there is no plan C for Welsh steel—it's either plan A, which is shutting everything, or plan B, which is plan A by stages and stealth. We need a plan C, and nobody else is going to come up with it for us. We have to act with urgency and decisiveness, because Tata themselves have said that it's almost a done deal as far as they're concerned. 'If only we had an Assembly now to defend us', many of us said during the miners' strike. Well, we do have this Senedd now, so what can we do with it? Let's refuse to be bystanders at a funeral; let's decide to be active agents in shaping our future.

So, what's the plan? As Dai Rees said, in steel plants across Europe—in Ghent, in Duisburg, in Dunkirk—we see the alternative: not mass redundancies, but managed restructuring; 10-year programmes of investment in new technologies like direct reduced iron and green hydrogen, cutting emissions while preserving primary steel making for the future. To help us get to that future, we need an intermediate goal, and that's preventing blast furnace closure over the next 12 months, buying us time for a change in the policy and politics at Westminster, to build a bridge to a better future. If steel can survive until January, an incoming Labour Government will not want its demise to overshadow its first 100 days. So, our first task is to try and appeal to Tata, as we've heard from the Minister, to give us that extra time.

The 45-day consultation period ends on 17 March, I think, a day after the First Minister designate will be announced. It's great to hear about the meetings with the chief executive of Tata Steel, but the first task, I think, for that new First Minister should be to fly to Mumbai to speak to Tata's Indian leadership, the parent board of the group. Carwyn Jones camped outside those board meetings in 2016. It was a heroic effort. We need that now; we need that same energy and focus. And it worked. All the better, of course, if the new FM has a bankable promise from Keir Starmer in his back pocket.

If Tata remains implacable, we should offer to buy their Welsh assets for their current book value, which is $1. They won't do that, as they don't want the competition. That leaves us with three options. Option 1 is doing nothing, or pinning our hopes on the current UK Government, which is the same as doing nothing. Option 2 is us literally buying time by guaranteeing losses for the coming financial year, up to a given maximum. We'd have to be talking about hundreds of millions—say, up to £300 million. That's a big figure. We've never made that kind of investment in the future of our economy. But when you think that what is at stake in just this next year is £1.2 billion, halving the Welsh steel industry—over 10 years, that's £12 billion—then that would be the best investment that we will ever have made.

We could fund it through a combination of using our borrowing powers over successive years, using some of our reserve, using some of our economic development budget, and, yes, using our imagination. A 30-year bond, at 4 or 5 per cent, would cost no more than the tax receipts that would be lost through closure. It's a good investment. If Tata refused, then we could pass emergency legislation to force the compulsory purchase of Tata's Welsh-based assets—their plant, their equipment and their buildings. The Senedd lawyers have confirmed that such a nationalisation, designed to save the Welsh steel industry, would be within our competence. This would almost certainly be subject to legal challenge by Tata, but at least it would give us the injunctive power to stave off the permanent loss of that blast furnace capacity, and it could trigger a negotiated sale as a going concern, which could help us then save Welsh steel intact over the next crucial 12 months.

I accept these ideas are novel, they're untested, but in unprecedented situations that's precisely what you need. They're not without risk, but neither is doing nothing. So, here's an appeal to the outgoing First Minister: test these ideas with those with expert knowledge to see if they could work, ask Government lawyers, ask Mondragon's co-operatives consultancy, ask the unions' advisers, Syndex. We may not have the power to save Welsh steel alone for the long term, but we do have the power to delay its demise. Let's use it.

I will not repeat what I've said before on this matter in this Siambr. But I thank my neighbour and my friend David Rees for his continued and passionate championing of steel, including in the speech he made today, in which I and others are pleased to join him, as the reach of steel is actually into the whole of Wales, including into Ogmore, with over 500 directly employed from Tata in Bridgend, and many multiples more, not only in the supply chain, but the wider economy, which relies on the wealth generated in our local communities.

But amongst others who have spoken already today, I also want to thank Paul Davies for confirming that the Welsh Conservatives will be backing the substantive motion. And that's really important; it is really important that we have unanimity on this issue from this Siambr. But most of all, I along with others want to thank those steelworkers and the union representatives who've met with me, and with other colleagues, to express their horror at the original proposals, to explain their credible alternative in the multi-union plan, supported by GMB, Unite and Community, and also their support for a UK Government that is willing to support them, support their families, support their communities, support our steel industry.

The motion in front of us, the substantive motion, is very simple, and I think it's something that we should all rally around. It's simple and concise. It says that this Senedd

'Believes there is a viable future for blast furnace steelmaking in Wales as part of a just transition that supports a stronger Welsh economy while protecting a UK sovereign asset.'

Because that is what it is, and we throw that away at our peril. And I think the Conservatives' support recognises that as well. And secondly, it says that the Senedd

'Supports the case for further talks'—

that is what we're asking for; there is a credible alternative on the table—

'that allow for a longer transition that protects jobs for an ambitious, greener future across Tata facilities in Wales.'

And that greener future, yes, will be partly within electric arc and recycled steel—we know that. We need to be exporting less steel abroad and recycling it here, and making that even better as a process. But it's also in primary raw steel making as well. If we have the full support of the Senedd today for that motion—two clear points, unamended—to the heart of the future of primary steel making and jobs, of just transition, then we send a clear, unambiguous and loud message from the heart of democracy in Wales from all of us, the elected representatives of all parties, from Welsh Government too, to say to Tata and the UK Government, 'Pause. Think again. Sit down. Give time for a different future to be built for UK steel.' And it's a future where we do not export jobs and export carbon emissions to other countries, but where we lead the way in green steel, we lead the way, we set the standard not just in electric arc and recycled steel, but primary steel making too.

So, I urge Members, all Members: support the main motion. And if it's passed, I just ask Tata and the UK Government to listen to this Siambr in unanimity, work with us, work with the unions, work with the steelworkers, work with Welsh Government for a better future for steel, not just in Port Talbot, not just in Wales but throughout the UK, and a better future, I have to say, for those workers—many young workers, as we have heard today, not just people who've given decades but young people who've just served their apprenticeships right across Wales, right across all those sectors of the industry that rely on primary steel making—a future for those workers and their families, and for the communities we represent. 

Last Friday I was privileged to be at the screening of Michael Sheen's new television drama The Way at Reel Cinema, Aberavon. The atmosphere was one of anticipation and pride, as you can imagine, with one of Port Talbot's most famous sons bringing to his home patch a long-awaited creative project, inspired by the power and resonance of Welsh social and political history and struggle. But among many guests, especially those who were local, there was an inescapable gloom and desperate sadness. We spoke of what lay ahead for the community we love and serve, and how friends and neighbours will cope with the dark future that is forming. 

Michael dedicated the evening to the steelworkers of Port Talbot. We all applauded loudly, ardently, determinedly and without giving too much away, the dystopian drama that unfolds felt in some respects too close to the bone. It truly felt excruciating at times. 

Nearer to the absolute truth than the historian / Is the dramatist, who is all lies.

The whole evening encapsulated the truth of the trauma that is befalling so many communities that I represent that depend on Port Talbot steelworks. The crushing feeling of powerlessness that Welsh communities have felt so often in the face of forces both economic and political, which remain in spite of devolution. The diminishing of the voice of the unions and of protest. The disbelief in people's eyes that no safety net has been put in place to catch them, though they knew that the cliff edge they now find themselves on was predictable. 

Adam Curtis, the celebrated documentary maker who was co-creator of The Way, has said of it:

'This is a really timely way to examine one of the great puzzles of this moment—why is it so hard to imagine a better, or even just different, kind of future for this country? What is holding us back?'

Its opening line is, 'It started in the steelworks', and this could be a beginning, not an end. This could be the start of a new way ahead for a historic industry and a skilled workforce if we, as the motion states, support a shared belief that there is a viable future for blast furnace steel making in support, if we support the case for a longer transition that protects jobs for an ambitious greener future across Tata facilities in Wales—a beginning, not a tragic bitter end, either to the proud tradition rooted in skill and community or the vision of a fair transition to a green future, because people will rise up. 

They will rightly question how this has been allowed to happen to them. They will ask, 'Where really does power lie?' We as their representatives should be asking the same. So, no option should be off the table, including the creative ideas suggested by Luke Fletcher and Adam Price. The priority has to be the steelworkers and the steelworking community. We must do everything in our power to prevent the mass devastation this will cause to individuals, the surrounding Port Talbot area and the wider Welsh economy. 

The impact of a job loss or redundancy doesn't just affect an individual's financial situation and career, but it will have a huge number of impacts on their well-being and personal life, and of course on community. The risk of suicide, for example, increases significantly when an individual faces negative life effects such as adversity, job loss, relationship breakdown and social isolation. And Samaritans Cymru have raised a number of particular concerns with the unfolding situation in Port Talbot, as there are a number of layer inequalities and risk factors related to increased likelihood of suicide, such as the demographic of the steelworks and deprivation already prevalent in the local community. We can’t afford to ignore this, so the question remains: what’s holding us back? How do we remove the obstacles to achieving that which the workers, their families and their communities need and demand? Because that is our job as their representatives in this Senedd. To neglect that duty is unacceptable. So, what is the Welsh Government doing? How will it act? What answers does it have to that question?

I welcome this debate today and the contributions of Members, Llywydd, because it does demonstrate, I think, once again the cross-party consensus that there is on many of the vital questions and issues that we face. And, of course, we need to keep the campaign going. We need to maintain the focus and that call for the Syndex report, for that proper transition through to green steel to be taken forward rather than the short-sighted current approach of Tata and the UK Government. And it’s really good again to hear that strong voice of David Rees and other colleagues. David Rees, who’s in such a key position here, speaking up for his communities, for the jobs in his constituency, but not only representing his local area, but representing all of us, right across Wales—all of us who are affected and will be affected by the decisions that will be taken.

Because we know, as many Members here have said, and many outside here have said, and as I believe the public very much supports—they know that this is a strategic industry and that we need to keep that primary steel-making capacity. It’s important for manufacturing in general, renewable energy, infrastructure projects, and, of course, defence. Here within UK Government and the Conservative Party at a UK level, the importance of defence, the importance of that steel industry and primary steel making for defence, whether it’s warships that might be needed in the future, that are needed now, or any other aspect of the defence industry—we know what an uncertain, horrible world it is in so many respects, and how important it is for nations like the UK to be able to protect themselves, protect their communities, their people, their industries in that uncertain world that we face.

And we know, Llywydd, that that alternative has been spelled out through the hard work of the multi-unions with that Syndex report. It’s not as if the hard work hasn’t been done in spelling out the alternative that exists.

For me, Llywydd, at Llanwern it’s about recognising as well the particular issues at Llanwern—the young workforce, those apprenticeships funded by Welsh Government and those young families with their mortgages and their hopes for the future. It’s about the quality of the cold mill at Llanwern and what that produces. It’s about the Zodiac plant, and the need for that plant, for the high-quality steel that comes from the blast furnaces at Port Talbot. It’s about hundreds of jobs, it’s about the contractors, the suppliers and the spend in the local economy. And it’s also about the advantages of that Llanwern site—the great transport advantages, the rail links, the motorway, the docks in Newport, the site itself. It has so many advantages and could be such a strong part of that future for green steel, in conjunction with Port Talbot and the other plants right across Wales. We know that the potential for that future green steel project is there within Wales as part of the UK generally, and Llanwern is a very significant part of that.

What it’s about ultimately, Llywydd, isn’t it, is commitment? Is the commitment there to take forward that Syndex alternative for our communities, for our people, for our industry in the UK, in Wales, at Llanwern? We know that the commitment is there from the workforce—the very highly skilled workforce. It's there from the trade unions who are doing such a good job. It's there from political representatives in Wales, in the Senedd. And it's there in the communities and the general public. We know that the UK Labour Party is committed to doing what needs to be done when it gets into Government, as we hope very much that it will.

Later this year.

Hopefully before too long, but, obviously, we have to bridge that gap, Llywydd. We know that Welsh Labour has that commitment, has worked very hard and will work very hard to make it a reality. So, what we need now is for Tata and for the UK Conservative Government to step up to the plate and show their commitment, for all the reasons that we've heard again here today, and that are so obvious to everyone else. They must take it on board, they must move their position, they must do what's necessary now.

In 1947 a group of independent Welsh steel makers saw that their relatively small and fragmented industry could not compete internationally, and so they combined their resources to create the Steel Company of Wales. They developed a plan to create a huge modern integrated steelworks at Margam, Port Talbot, complete with its own port to enable imports of iron ore and linked by rail to a series of tin-plate works at Trostre, which opened in 1951, and Felindre, opening in 1956. And as I have mentioned before, my grandfather worked at Port Talbot steelworks until he retired, as did my uncles and father in his summer holidays, and this is a very common story across my community of Bridgend and Porthcawl, with whole households still working there. I cannot stress enough the worry. When you're out and about in the community at the moment, it is all that anybody talks about. It is actually so difficult to comprehend the impact, because we've already lost Ford Bridgend, which was not as many jobs as this. We just know that it's going to be really bad. I want to thank all the trade unions, Community, Unite and GMB, who are supporting the workforce right now, and also pointing out the short-sighted plans to turn off both of the furnaces this year.

Sadly, as well, we have lost most of our primary steel production, but Port Talbot is still the largest steelworks in Britain. It now has the only operating blast furnaces, carrying out primary steel manufacture, and its strip mills produce over 3.5 million tonnes of high-quality finished steel per year. Smaller independent plants in Newport, in Cardiff, provide specialist products and together the Welsh steel industry has annual revenues of around £4 billion. So, I do support our motion today—I hope you all do. I do believe that there is a viable future for blast steel making in Wales as part of a just transition, and I really want the talks to continue, with a consultation allowing the trade unions to fully participate with Welsh Government.

Because, yes, electric arc furnaces do produce green steel, provided the electricity that operates them is green, but it also has serious challenges, including the job losses that it entails. Alongside a similar deal made by UK Government with British Steel and their Scunthorpe site, the UK is set to have no blast furnaces left. Blast furnaces are currently the only way of producing primary steel. Primary steel is made from iron and is vitally important to UK sectors, such as automotive and the future of our green infrastructure and industry. 

The workforce has always been asking, 'What happens to our current orders?' Tata has confirmed in private meetings that they will fulfil their order book by importing carbon-intensive steel from India. This means the UK Government's plans would make us the first developed country in the world to have no primary steel-making capabilities. This has serious national security concerns, but also means that the primary steel we do use in the UK will likely be imported, meaning that while UK steelworks are decarbonising, we are simply exporting those carbon emissions elsewhere to the world. We're going to be, effectively, exporting our jobs and importing our steel. 

And so when it comes to the amendments that have been suggested for today, that is why I cannot support them. Because the £500 million from UK Government, without that condition that my colleague David Rees mentioned, to keep that blast furnace on while we have the transition, has effectively meant that you are asking me to welcome £500 million to get rid of jobs, and I cannot do that to my constituents. Also, when it comes to the fund, the £100 million transition board fund, I just want to point out that the £80 million the UK Government have put into that, is not them bestowing that money upon us in Wales. That is not some UK Conservative benevolent Government bestowing us with the £80 million here. That is also our money, that is also our residents' and constituents' money, that is Welsh taxpayers' money, as well, that is in that fund. And I would expect the UK Government to step up and do this in any community across the UK if they were ever in desperate need of it, as well.

As for the Welsh Government needing to immediately find the money to support the steelworkers, first of all, please tell me where from. We've just had two hours looking at the draft budget. I do not understand, with the severe cuts that we've had, where exactly that money is meant to come instantly from, like that. So, you know what? I have a better idea: a general election and a UK Labour Government, because that is the only way that we're going to have the just transition that our workforce deserves. Labour has been clear that decarbonisation cannot mean de-industrialisation, and the route to green steel, which brings workers with us, involves a mixture of technologies, as has been laid out by David Rees and Huw Irranca-Davies. We can do this. It is possible. And so, what I am asking and I am calling on everyone to do today is to remember those Welsh steelworkers back in the 1940s getting together, and saying that we can actually protect the jobs, we can have a commitment and a strategy and foresight that will mean that we can have a green future across Tata facilities in all of Wales. And I also call on Tata Steel to please not rush in and make this decision in haste when a UK Labour Government has made a serious commitment, so that we can keep the jobs and the blast furnaces in Wales. Diolch.

I also welcome the Minister tabling this debate and I want to direct my remarks, really, to point 2 of the motion, as proposed by Lesley Griffiths, namely,

'Supports the case for further talks that allow for a longer transition that protects jobs for an ambitious, greener future across Tata facilities in Wales.'

I wish to talk about the key Tata site in Gwent at Llanwern. For the communities of Islwyn and the entire Gwent region of Llanwern, it continues to remain a vital source of employment and pride. Islwyn, and Ty Sign in particular, has the largest social housing estate that was built for Llanwern workers. But the uncertainty, as many have mentioned, that has been caused by this announcement regarding Tata's blast furnace operations at Port Talbot, has caused fear—uncertainty for jobs and supply chains and livelihoods, families, children and mortgages. So, let this Senedd, I hope, send a collective message, loud and clear, of the huge importance of this industry, not just to the people of Gwent or Wales, but across the UK, to not rush this process and to protect primary steel-making capacity for the UK.

Most, if not all, car makers in the UK use steel from Llanwern. Indeed, Tata themselves have stated that the automotive sector is strategic for Tata Steel in the UK. The UK automotive sector is served by the cold rolling and galvanising operation from the Zodiac line at Llanwern. Tata's customers, such as BMW, Mini, Jaguar, Land Rover and Nissan, all benefit from the world-class products created by the women, men and apprentices there—the world-class clean steel that Zodiac needs and uses. Since 2007, there have been significant investments in the Zodiac line, enabling it to increase volume and production and alternative high-corrosion products, like MagiZinc. And the apprenticeships and innovations are at the heart of this, and they are used across solar infrastructure across Wales. 

Indeed, there was a recent article in the South Wales Argus about a young man called Callum Ford, who is a Zodiac worker, and he does speak for a new generation of young steel professionals, with high wages, a younger workforce and highly skilled. And he spoke very well about the fear, the dangers that lie ahead and the collective call, again, not to rush this process, to get it right for that just transition for Wales. And this Senedd really must do all that it can to protect the steel industry for Wales and the United Kingdom. The loss of such good, well-paid jobs will be utterly devastating.

So, I do stand with my colleagues in this Chamber, John Griffiths, Jayne Bryant, Dai Rees and others, in defence of the steelworkers. We know, to conclude, that the UK Tory Government is in its final death spiral, but, with a general election on the horizon, we must all commit that the next UK Government steps in to ensure that the United Kingdom retains its steel industry and refuses to acquiesce to its diminution. Today, the public and the workforce and the communities in Risca and Ty Sign and across Wales will all be listening intently to all that Tata and the UK Government, now and in the near future, have to offer. So, I support the proposals tabled by Lesley Griffiths, and ask for calm progress outside of this place to futureproof the Wales workforce and the primary steel-making capacity of the UK. Thank you, Llywydd.

This devastating announcement by Tata has really reverberated around Wales. In the coming days and weeks, Tata workers across south Wales, including in my constituency of Newport West, will be learning more about where and when job losses are proposed. For anybody, like me and my colleague John Griffiths, who grew up in Newport, the likelihood was that you knew someone who worked in the steelworks. It touched so many families, and it was so important to Newport and the surrounding area, as Rhianon Passmore said, that entire housing estates were built for those workers. Newport has a proud history of steel industry. It's in the DNA of our city and it should have a proud future. The potential loss of well-paid, skilled jobs at Llanwern steelworks is a real bitter blow to the local community.

On a visit to Llanwern with the Minister for Economy and my colleagues John Griffiths, Jessica Morden, Ruth Jones and Councillor Jane Mudd at the end of last month, union reps and workers told us that the average age of the workforce there is just 32—young apprentices, young families. We heard how strongly those who have worked at Llanwern for nearly 30 years feel so devastated for those young people, and they want to do all they can to support them. Now, that says so much for that dedicated workforce and the solidarity that they feel.

These workers know that a greener future for the steel industry in Wales is possible. There is a better way. The First Minister and the Minister for Economy have clearly set out how a longer, fairer transition for the steel industry would benefit the UK and not only Wales. As John said, the work has been done in that Syndex report.

Lessons must also be learned from the closure of the Orb steelworks in Newport. When the Orb closed after 122 years in 2020, it really was down to the failure of the UK Government to grasp the opportunity that there was for a viable alternative. We could have been at the forefront of electrical steel making for electric cars. We can lead the way now. The UK Government have tools at their disposal that could lessen the economic impact of Tata's decision, and there are many questions for Ministers in Westminster to answer, one of which was brought to my attention this morning, and it is whether Tata will be allowed to profit from the sale of carbon credits no longer required if Port Talbot blast furnaces close. I understand that could raise £35 million for Tata at a time when hundreds of workers are made redundant.

Like others, I'd like to put on record my thanks to Community, GMB and Unite for working so hard and working with the workforce at Llanwern and in other places across Wales. Finally, I'd like to highlight the emotional impact of Tata's plans on workers and their families. I'm aware that Samaritans have contacted Tata and the trade unions to publicise their freephone for anyone whose mental health has been affected by recent events, because behind the figures and economic statistics are people, people deeply concerned about what the future might hold. Now, I know that the Minister for Economy and the Deputy Minister for Mental Health and Well-being have been working hard to ensure support is available for those impacted. Once again, I'd like to ask the Minister to continue to support the workforce and to work with unions to press the UK Government on this, and Tata to reconsider and reverse the worst of the cuts. This decision is not inevitable. A credible plan exists, and, as the Minister says, there is a future worth fighting for.

The Minister for Economy to reply to the debate—Vaughan Gething.

Diolch, Llywydd, and thank you to all Members who have contributed in the debate. I won't be able to run through every single comment made, but I do want to draw out some of the points made in the debate to recognise all the people that represent steelworkers across the Chamber, from Huw to Sioned, to Sarah Murphy's family links, to Rhianon Passmore, and, in particular, John and Jayne Bryant, who have lots of workers from Llanwern in their constituencies, but also the point that Jayne Bryant made about the workforce solidarity that was very clear on the visit that we made, and an important point that is often under-thought about in this debate about the future, and a particular point around carbon credits and what that could mean.

I take on board some of the points that Adam Price made, and he acknowledged that his thoughts were untested, but I am interested in what can be done. And that is the point, isn’t it? What can be done to try to make sure that we don’t face the end result of these proposals if they’re implemented? And I should just reiterate, if I haven’t been clear: the First Minister and I have met with the global chief executive, T.V. Narendran, from Mumbai, and he’s made clear that he will meet us again on a regular basis as we’re going through this process. So, Mumbai is coming to Cardiff and to Port Talbot to have the conversation with us.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

I'm just making the point that going to Mumbai makes an even stronger case that we're serious.

And indeed there should be a Welsh Minister in Mumbai in the coming weeks as well. As I said, nothing is ruled out. So, it does not mean that, in the future, a Minister, or even a future First Minister, would not go to Mumbai if there is a way to save jobs and create the future we are discussing in the motion before us.

I can also confirm that I've met Keir Starmer with the First Minister. We've had conversations about the future—about the £3 billion green steel proposal. And I do agree with Adam Price that, if the current UK Government won't change course and we can't persuade them for there to be a different level of investment, then the future would be, 'What could a future UK Labour Government do?' Now, my preference is still to see the current UK Government act. I'd much rather see that progress being made now, with all of the challenges that there are. And I hope that the unity of purpose in the Senedd about the sort of future we think we could have will be helpful in trying to get us there. 

I should address some of Tom Giffard's points. I didn't disagree with everything that Tom Giffard said, but, on the transition board and the money, I don't think it's realistic to think that £100 million will be a bridge to the future for north of 10,000 jobs, if they're lost within the next 18 months. What is really important about the transition board is that partners who sit around the table act and engage in good faith, and we always have to think about the different interventions around that board as well. So, if we think, for example, on employability, on skills, on regeneration, on economic development, on healthcare and more, those are all devolved functions. So, it's really important that we understand what the transition board is proposing to do, where and how, and how that works in tandem with things we are already doing, as well as conversations about the future of employability and skills budgets into the future, alongside things that we jointly fund, like growth deals and free ports. So, there is a point and a purpose to us being engaged, and, of course, I don't think anyone would suggest in this Chamber that the Welsh Government should have to pay for access to the transition board. It would lead to a more incoherent and disjointed approach.

On David Rees's contribution, I agree with him about time for the proposals to be considered fully—that's what the chief executive looked the First Minister and me in the eye and said. I understand that that's a commitment he's given to the trade unions as well. There is a real issue about the capacity to import steel to be rolled, if those proposals go ahead. And I'm pleased that David made the point that contractors, and the wider group of workers affected, could be north of 10,000 jobs affected if these proposals go ahead, and there are other examples of different European economies that are taking a different approach to maintain primary steel making and invest in new electric arc facilities.

I'll turn to Luke Fletcher. The reason why I said that nationalisation is a red herring is because it's not an option before us. There is an option before us now about what is happening that would require further investment. It's a choice about what to invest in. Is there a choice to invest in purchasing or is there a choice to invest in not just purchasing an asset, but in actually what you can do for jobs and the conditions that come with that support, and how we use money that is available to us? As we sit down here now, nationalisation isn't an option. We need to think about what the future might hold. And, as I say, I would much rather that the steel sector has a bright future before a general election, rather than being a rescue job needed after it. But I recognise some of the realities. 

And I particularly want to say 'thank you' to Paul Davies for a thoughtful contribution. I look forward to being in front of him in the committee tomorrow in his role as the Chair. And I should say that electric arc is definitely part of the future. It is a greener form of steel making. I should note that I have an electric steel maker in my constituency. But part of the future will also be about wider UK action as well on proper processing of scrap. We process and export millions of tonnes of scrap at present. Now, that should not be what we continue to do across the UK. That's an asset for our future that I'd like to see the current and any future UK Government do something about. It will make electric arc steel making a better prospect with better quality of metal produced from it. 

I think it's important that—I think he made this point—the proposals at present don't take out global blast furnace capacity. It is still taking place and, indeed, being invested in.

Many people here talked about the future, and I’m grateful to them for the recognition of what Community, GMB and Unite are doing to support their workers.

I want to just briefly finish on the motion itself. In politics, there are always dividing lines. In all parties, we spend time on identifying and promoting them. There are also times to reach for a more unifying approach, a time not to pursue a dividing line. We will, of course, continue to have differences between parties on the future of steel, and we have heard some of them today. However, the Government motion today deliberately seeks unity, not division, across the Chamber. The motion is drafted to allow all parties to vote for it. I hope that we will have unanimity in the final vote on this issue. That will be an important message to decision makers through and beyond this consultation process. It will also be an important message for steelworkers and steel communities. I ask for your support on the Government motion as it stands before us today. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections to amendment 1. And therefore we will defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Items 8 and 9 are next and, in accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, the two motions under items 8 and 9 will be grouped for debate, with votes taken separately. If there are no objections, I will call on the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution to move.

The debate on the general principles of the Bill. Mick Antoniw.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I move the motions. I'm pleased to open this debate on the general principles of the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill and to move the motion on the financial resolution. The Bill represents another important step on our journey to deliver this Government’s commitment to reduce the democratic deficit in Wales and develop an electoral system fit for the twenty-first century.

I would first like to thank the Chairs and members of the Local Government and Housing Committee, the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and the Finance Committee for their thorough scrutiny of this Bill. I appreciate all the hard work that has gone into delivering their comprehensive and helpful reports within a tight timescale.

I have written to the Finance Committee in response to their report. I've also provided the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee with the statements of policy intent they requested for provisions relating to the Welsh elections information platform and services to promote diversity for persons seeking elected office. I will write to respond fully to all recommendations very soon and I look forward to addressing further questions later in this debate.

I’d also like to thank the electoral community, who helped us develop our proposals, and the cast of stakeholders that shared their insights in support of the various committees’ scrutiny. We will continue to draw on their experience as we progress the Bill, develop the secondary legislation and prepare for the implementation of our reforms in time for the next major set of elections in Wales, in 2026 and 2027. Our ambition is to ensure legislative, administrative and digital requirements are in place at least six months before these elections, in accordance with the Gould convention, to give local authorities time to plan and prepare for implementation.

The Bill includes a number of provisions that will require detailed guidance or secondary legislation. Of course, I am committed to maintaining our open, engaging and consultative approach as we progress. Building and improving our democracy is not only for the Government, and I warmly welcome the support expressed by the committee reports for the general principles of the Bill, the provisions it contains and the approach that we are taking. And whilst I’m not able to cover all recommendations in the respective committees' reports today, I will try to respond to what I consider to be the main points.

I'll start by commenting on the issue of automatic registration, because automatic registration and other pilots that may be carried out in the future—. And we agree with the Local Government and Housing Committee on the importance of geographic diversity in our piloting. We will certainly assess expressions of interest in that spirit and, where there are gaps, we'll work with local authorities to recruit additional authorities so that, wherever possible, the pilots take account of a range of demographics.

I take seriously also the need to protect vulnerable voters, and the LGH committee rightly focused on anonymous registration here. We will ensure voters are supported in the best way possible to understand their options if they believe they are entitled to register anonymously.

As part of the pilots, we will review the effectiveness of the 45-day waiting period between the notice of registration and full registration actually taking place. This will give us the chance to understand whether people have enough time to get in touch with local authorities if they wish to register anonymously or not at all.

I have considered carefully the Local Government and Housing Committee's recommendations relating to renewal periods and evidence requirements in support of an anonymous registration application. This is a crucial area to get right so as not to jeopardise safety and confidence in the registration process. The application process currently covers both the UK parliamentary and local government registers, so making changes to the local government register only would require someone also wishing to remain anonymous on the UK parliamentary register to have to make a further application with different requirements. So, I have concluded that the well-intended recommendation of amendments would introduce an unwelcome complexity to the process.

As discussed at the committee, I'm committed to ensuring that pilots take place and that the open local government register is abolished before automatic registration is fully rolled out. So, in response to recommendation 4 from the LJC committee and 11 from the Local Government and Housing Committee, I've asked officials to prepare amendments placing a legal duty to pilot automatic registration before implementation and to make legislative provision for removal of the open register. I can also confirm that a communications campaign would accompany any roll-out of automatic registration.

On the issue of pilots, in response to the concerns about the power to compel local authorities to take part in the pilots, I can clarify that this would only be used as a last resort. To provide further assurance, I agree to bring forward an amendment requiring Ministers, at the time of laying pilot regulations made without a principal council's consent, to lay a statement to explain the decision to proceed without that consent being obtained.

On the issue of accessibility, the Local Government and Housing Committee asks us to put provisions related to accessibility guidance on the face of the Bill. Requiring officers to take account of Electoral Commission guidance and the needs of disabled voters locally would be part of the rules setting out how elections are run. We will consider making the amendments suggested by the committee to incorporate the duty on returning officers in the Senedd conduct Order and local government elections rules.

On the issue of the voter information platform, I'm unable to accept recommendation 11 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee report for an amendment to specify which body will be responsible for maintaining the elections information platform. In my view, the platform should not be tied to the establishment and ongoing existence of the electoral management board, because this may reduce flexibility to respond to future changes.

On the issue of Welsh language, I've also considered carefully the LGH committee's recommendations for an amendment requiring returning officers to be subject to Welsh language standards. As has been discussed, this is an option available to us in secondary legislation and we are seizing the opportunity of remaking the conduct Order as a bilingual consolidated Order to ensure Welsh elections can be delivered through the Welsh language at every stage. Rather than tabling an amendment, we will continue to work with the Welsh Language Commissioner, electoral administrators and other stakeholders to determine the best approach to improving bilingual delivery of Welsh elections.

And again, on the consolidation of electoral law, the comments made by the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee reflect the complexity of electoral law. I've been clear this is an area that is ripe for consolidation and informal discussions on this have already taken place with the Law Commission.

Further to the areas I've already mentioned, I'd like to give some advance notice of our intention to bring forward a small number of further amendments at Stage 2, should Members agree the general principles of the Bill today.

The reforms in this Bill are ambitious and sit alongside reforms made through the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill and modernisation through the detailed rules about the conduct of Senedd elections, which we are reviewing and intend to remake ahead of the 2026 Senedd elections.

The journey will of course continue beyond this Senedd, and we have ambitions that we will look to introduce in a future Senedd. So, I urge Members to agree the general principles and the financial resolution of the Bill. Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd.

I call on the Chair of the Local Government and Housing Committee to contribute first—John Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I am pleased to speak in the debate today as Chair of the Local Government and Housing Committee, which has undertaken Stage 1 scrutiny on this Bill, and I would like to start by thanking all those who contributed to our inquiry, including everyone who provided written evidence, came to give oral evidence and took part in our online survey. I'd also like to thank the Counsel General, of course, for his opening speech here today and the way that he has addressed some of the recommendations from the committee and some of the movement that's taken place with regard to those.

The Bill contains a range of provisions, of course, relating to the administration of local government elections and in relation to the accessibility of Welsh elections. Having considered the evidence presented to us, we concluded that we support the general principles of this Bill. We therefore recommend that the general principles are agreed by the Senedd.

However, while we note the broad support from stakeholders, we also acknowledge that some concerns have been raised in relation to certain aspects. Our report details our consideration of each of the provisions, and our recommendations seek to make improvements where we believe these are needed to strengthen this legislation, and I will outline some of these areas today.

Members will be aware that the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill includes provision to repurpose and rename the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales as the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru. One of the main concerns relating to the accountability of the new body, in light of the new responsibilities it would be granted as a result of the provisions in this Bill, was raised with us. One of these new responsibilities is to co-ordinate the administration of Welsh elections, including establishing a statutory electoral management board, the EMB, for Wales.

Whilst we support establishing the EMB, we are mindful that the independence of such a board is crucial. It will be a Welsh Government sponsored body and, although the commission in its current guise has a proven track record or working independently from Government, we understand how being part of a Welsh Government sponsored body could create at least a perception of the EMB not being truly independent. We therefore believe that it should be accountable to the Senedd, and that a clear route to demonstrate this should be specified in legislation, and that one way to achieve this would be to include a legal requirement for the commission's annual report to be debated by the Senedd. Currently, the commission must submit an annual report to the Welsh Ministers, and the Welsh Ministers must publish the report and lay a copy before the Senedd. There is no requirement for annual reports to be debated by the Senedd or be considered by a designated committee of the Senedd. We are not aware that any of the commission's previous annual reports have been debated in this way. Given the new responsibilities, we do not believe that the current position is sufficient, and we have, therefore, recommended such a change. We also believe there should be a legal requirement for pre-appointment hearings by the Senedd to be included in the recruitment process for the position of chair of the commission. Several high-profile roles are subject to pre-appointment hearings, and we believe this position should be one of those.

This Bill includes important provisions around the registration of voters without application or 'automatic registration', as it's termed. The aim of the provisions is to increase the registration of people eligible to vote by making it easier for them to do so. As a committee, we welcome this intention. The evidence presented to us overwhelmingly supported the principle of introducing automatic registration. These provisions were the focus of our online survey, and, again, those who responded were generally in favour: 58 per cent in support—strongly in support—of automatic registration, while a further 28 per cent were somewhat supportive, 8 per cent somewhat opposed, or strongly opposed the idea, and the remaining 6 per cent neither supported nor opposed.

While we support the principle, we feel strongly that automatic registration should only be implemented if the safety of vulnerable electors is guaranteed. We believe that changes are required to the Bill to provide additional safeguards. We welcome the Welsh Government's commitment to piloting automatic registration and evaluating those pilots prior to rolling it out across Wales. Learning from the experience of pilots will be crucial ahead of implementing such a significant change. It will be necessary to test and evaluate numerous factors as part of the pilots to measure their impact. And the committee believes that areas chosen for pilot should include a mix of urban and rural, affluent and less affluent, and areas where there are high proportions of Welsh speakers and of non-first-language English speakers. 

We welcome the ability for people to register anonymously, and see this as a crucial safeguarding element. We do believe that that process should be as simple and as flexible as possible. We are particularly concerned that people who wish to register anonymously will need to provide evidence to support an application, and will need to renew their application annually. Providing such evidence could be difficult for vulnerable people, as it could be a reminder of traumatic experiences, particularly if they would need to do so again when reapplying in subsequent years. We are concerned that if the process is too onerous, or too traumatic, people may choose not to be registered, which would result in disenfranchisement and go against the objective of the provisions. 

We've therefore recommended that Welsh Government should consider not imposing a requirement to provide evidence in support of an application, and that once a person has been registered anonymously, they should not be required to renew this annually. Instead, anonymous registration should stay in place until a person actively opts to change that arrangement. 

We welcome the commitment from the Welsh Government to removing the open register for Welsh elections. For reasons of public safety, the implementation of automatic registration must be accompanied by the removal of the open register.

So, we very much welcome the indications and the commitments that the Counsel General has given, Dirprwy Lywydd, with regard to so many of these matters, and I'm sure there will be an ongoing debate around other aspects as this legislation proceeds and the debate proceeds. And, in terms of the duty, I very much appreciate what the Counsel General has already said. 

We know that many of these matters are the subject of strong feelings outside of—

You need to conclude now, John.

—the Senedd, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I'm sure, as we say, that what the Counsel General has said earlier will very much be reflected in that ongoing debate.

There are some other matters that I wished to cover, Dirprwy Lywydd, but I will take your advice and conclude at this point. But, obviously, we will have an ongoing debate on these matters, as this legislation proceeds.

You will have an opportunity at Stage 2, definitely, to think about those matters.

Indeed.

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

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the general principles of the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill.

I thank my committee members and the clerks for their diligent scrutiny, as always. We came to two conclusions in our report and made 16 recommendations, some of which the Counsel General has touched on today. Can I just begin by thanking, as well, the Counsel General for attending the committee in November to inform our consideration of the Bill, and also for providing further information to us in correspondence, including today, which I'll turn to later in my remarks?

As the Counsel General has stated, much of the Bill relates to mechanisms for undertaking electoral pilots, so I'll focus my comments on those aspects. The Counsel General has made a commitment to pilot automatic voter registration, provided by section 3, before bringing these provisions into force. However, the Bill as it is does not ensure that this will happen. So, we therefore recommended that the Bill should be amended so that section 3 may only be brought into force following the completion of a pilot. And we note, in the comments from the Counsel General today, that we understand he's confirmed this.

The Bill also enables the Welsh Ministers to compel a principal council to undertake an electoral pilot without their consent. While the Counsel General told us that it is unlikely this power would ever be used, or, as he said today, it would be in a last-resort situation, we did recommend that, if it is used at any point, the Welsh Ministers must lay a statement to explain that decision to the Senedd, which we thought was fair and put transparency into the process. Again, we note that, in the comments today, the Counsel General has, indeed, confirmed that this will happen.

The Counsel General also confirmed to us that the Welsh Ministers could use the powers under section 5 of the Bill to introduce regulations that modify primary legislation, and, unless they meet certain criteria, those regulations would be subject to the negative procedure. Now, it won't be a surprise, as we have previously stated as a committee that regulations that modify primary legislation, the so-called Henry VIII powers, should be subject, we believe, to the affirmative procedure, and this is what we've recommended in respect of the power in section 5. I was trying to take in what the Counsel General was saying. I don't know if he can pick up on that again, at the end, to clarify what his approach is going to be on that.

Let me turn now to section 8 of the Bill. This section gives the Welsh Ministers a regulation-making power to change the power in the Bill attached to making pilot regulations. We saw a similar power in the Welsh Tax Acts etc. (Power to Modify) Bill, and we raised our objection at that point to the inclusion of such a power. We have a firm belief as a committee that it is not constitutionally appropriate for Welsh Ministers to hold a power that can amend powers delegated to them by this Senedd. And so, in relation to section 8 of this Bill, we recommended that it should be removed entirely. And again, if I can just ask the Counsel General to clarify whether that's been rejected, or whether it's under consideration.

To some good news, section 19 of the Bill allows the Welsh Ministers, following the conclusion of a successful pilot, to make those piloted changes on a permanent basis. Now, as a committee, normally we would be of the view that such permanent changes to law should be made by primary legislation. However, actually, on balance, on judgment on this occasion, we found that the framework provided by the Bill in general provides for sufficient scrutiny in this Senedd of that secondary legislation, not least because it will have been informed by evidence gathering that has itself been approved by an independent body tasked with ensuring the integrity of the democratic process in the UK.

We did, however, Counsel General, make some recommendations for this section to be amended in order to place additional restrictions on Welsh Ministers' powers, and this included that regulations made under section 19 may not create, remove or modify any criminal offences, and that regulations made under that section may not either confer, remove or modify power to make subordinate legislation. So, again, just seeking some clarity in your remarks.

We also made a number of other recommendations in our report, which called for more detail to be placed on the face of the Bill in respect of some of its regulation-making powers. These relate to the functions that those regulations may confer on people or organisations. As currently drafted, we believe that some of these provisions are too broad. However, I am grateful to the Counsel General—I mentioned earlier on—for providing some further written information to our committee today on the policy intent of the regulation-making powers in question. We will need, however, to return to this to fully review this, the Counsel General's letter today, at our next meeting. There were a number of other observations and actions, and indeed amendments, made by the Counsel General today, which our committee will have to reflect on.

But, finally, we also made a recommendation in respect of section 27 of the Bill. This requires the Welsh Ministers by regulations to set up a Welsh elections information platform. The Welsh Ministers are yet to decide who will host the platform, although they anticipate it to be the electoral management board. We believe that the independence, and the perceived independence, of the host of this platform is key, so we recommended that the Bill should be amended to specify which body should be responsible for maintaining the platform. But we note, with some explanation, that the Counsel General has declined our invitation to accept that recommendation today.

But, again, my thanks, Dirprwy Lywydd, to my colleagues and to the clerks of the committee.

I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm pleased to be able to contribute to this debate today on the general principles of the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill, and to speak to the five recommendations set out in the Finance Committee's report.

May I also take this opportunity to thank the Minister and his officials for attending our evidence session, and for providing a response to our recommendations before today's debate? I'm pleased that the Minister has accepted all five of the recommendations.

The committee supports the aims of the Bill and is broadly content with the financial implications as set out in the RIA. However, we have made a number of recommendations aimed at improving the quality and clarity of the financial information provided alongside this Bill. A key concern for us was the lack of detail on the costs associated with secondary legislation made under this legislation—a theme that we have commented on previously, and an issue close to our hearts.

Historically, there has been a lack of information provided by the Welsh Government to allow the committee to sufficiently scrutinise the estimates for framework legislation, such as the one before us today. We've heard the Minister refer to the breakdown of estimates relating to these costs as being 'a work in progress' many times during the course of the evidence. We find this disappointing, and we reiterate our recommendation that the Welsh Government commits to providing full and robust regulatory impact assessments to accompany any relevant subordinate legislation made under the Bill.

Turning now to other areas, we acknowledge that there are certain aspects of the Bill that make it difficult to provide specific costings, most notably around piloting automatic voter registration and developing the electoral management system. Given the specialist nature and commercial sensitivity surrounding the work, we also note that the Minister has given a commitment to publish an RIA, including detailed costings, alongside any future regulations relating to this work. However, given that the operation of these systems is central to the aims of the Bill, it's unfortunate that we have not been able to fully examine these financial implications at this stage. We therefore recommend that the Minister provides further information on costs relating to changes to the electoral management system as they become clear, including details of how the cost effectiveness of individual pilots will be assessed.

Recommendations 3 and 4 are on the work being undertaken to increase the accessibility of the Senedd and local government elections. The committee was pleased to hear the Minister reiterate his intentions to put in place services to promote diversity in the protected characteristics and socioeconomic circumstances of people seeking election. We are also encouraged by the improvements proposed in the Bill to provide assistance for disabled voters at elections in Wales. These aims are clearly set out in the Bill, and the Minister explained to the committee that the Government is looking to commission research to capture the important information. However, we are concerned about the lack of consideration given to how the detail will then be used to make targeted interventions. Once again, it's disappointing that this work has not been undertaken at an earlier stage, which would have provided additional clarity to the Senedd on how the Welsh Government intends to tackle this issue in practice.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, I would like to place on record how helpful the committee found the affordability assessment published alongside the RIA in our consideration of this Bill. We have been vocal in the past about the lack of detailed costs produced alongside Welsh Government legislation, and we very much welcome the commitment to include such information when introducing future Bills. This is particularly salient during a period of high inflation, such as the one we're currently experiencing, and provides assurances, as well as additional transparency, that this legislation has been costed correctly. Thank you.

I certainly welcome the opportunity to partake in the debate today, and I'm grateful also for the Counsel General's opening remarks clarifying a few points and possible future amendments as well. To be clear at this stage, we on these benches support the general principles of the Bill. However, there are several issues that we believe need to be addressed through further amendments, for our continued support. I'll go on to explain some of those now, which I'm sure won't be a surprise to the Counsel General.

Firstly, the details regarding the piloting of the electoral registration without application. Of course, one of the rights of democracy is a choice whether to take part or not in our democratic process, and, sadly, in every Senedd election since the start of devolution, a majority of voters have chosen not to partake in that election. That contrasts, of course, to elections in Westminster, Holyrood and Stormont, where they achieve far higher turnouts. Whilst that is certainly a concern for many of us in this place, that is the choice of the electorate.

That choice and right also extends to registering to vote or not. There are many reasons why an individual may choose not to register to vote, and the Counsel General will be aware that, sometimes, these are for very good reasons. An example that Members will be aware of is those who are perhaps domestic abuse victims, who have a real serious reason for not wanting to be on an electoral register. These, of course, are people who've suffered at the hands of an abuser, and their safety should be an absolute priority. In the committee on which I sit, the Local Government and Housing Committee, we heard from the Women's Equality Network Wales, who said, and I quote:

'even when the open register is removed and we only have the closed register, there are still risks...being on a closed register can pose a significant danger to survivors, if their personal information ends up in the wrong hands.'

Whilst I appreciate there's certainly no intent for this to happen from anyone in this place, there is a risk that needs to be handled with the utmost sensitivity, and this needs to be the core of the consideration of this Bill, certainly before I would be assured enough to support the Bill beyond the principles being agreed here today.

Secondly, there's the plan that the Counsel General touched on to compel election pilots. We know this has already been tried, and the results have been pretty underwhelming, to put it mildly. In three of the four local authority areas, the advance turnout was 0.3 per cent or less. In Blaenau Gwent, this equates to a mere 68 voters. In Bridgend, the advance turnout number was a sky-high 1.5 per cent, but that was actually due to the presence of a huge number of advance voting locations, around 20, that were open over several days. The Electoral Commission said that this was extremely challenging for council staff, and made a call for any implementation to be, and I quote,

'realistically deliverable by Returning Officers'.

Stretching the resources of electoral authorities has a knock-on effect in other parts of the electoral system and certainly has the potential to weaken the democratic process overall. In any case, we already have a system for voting in advance: it's called postal voting, which enables people to vote, from anywhere they want, for up to two weeks before an election. You could be on top of the Eiffel Tower casting your vote for an election up to two weeks before that election. It's very flexible and already understood by a huge number of people. I would advocate, certainly, for more people, perhaps, to take up postal voting, rather than spending money on election pilots.

Another concern I know the Counsel General touched on a moment ago is the fundamental right for people to be able to vote independently. We know groups like RNIB Cymru have a number of concerns about this Bill, including the removal of existing legislation that ensures polling stations provide a prescribed device to enable blind and partially sighted people to vote independently and in secret. There is a worry that these changes being proposed in the Bill have the potential to weaken legal protections for blind and partially sighted people by removing that requirement for polling stations to have this prescribed tactile voting device and changing it to the decision of returning officers, who may have different views and priorities on this subject. RNIB Cymru are calling for a legal requirement to have both a tactile and an audio solution at every polling station across Wales, to make sure that every blind and partially sighted person in Wales has their vote respected and the independence of their vote respected and carried out in secret. I certainly fully endorse this call.

There is also the issue of remuneration. I think that there's a missed opportunity within the Bill, which the Counsel General hasn't touched on yet. We know that the Bill is looking to extend coverage regarding remuneration issues for councillors, members of the national park authorities, corporate joint committees and other groups, but not for Senedd Members. The Bill omits any reference to a body charged—

Sam, can you conclude now, please?

—with remuneration for Members of the Senedd, and I think this is a missed opportunity.

I'll briefly touch on a further concern. I don't want to stretch your patience—

No, you haven't got the time. You've gone past your time, Sam.

I have concerns around the information platform—

You have gone past your time, so I think you should conclude now, please.

—as well, which we can continue another time. So, in your response, Counsel General, I'd be grateful—

Sam, I've asked for the microphones to be turned off. I've asked you twice to conclude. You've gone way past your time. You know your time limit. 

Thank you. This Bill is one of a trio of Bills that strengthen our democracy that are before us this year. And it's very timely, of course, because here we are, 25 years since the creation of this Senedd, and in a year also when the highest ever percentage of the population across the globe, 40 per cent of people, will be voting in elections this year—that's 4 billion people. We do have to, of course, be aware that democracy is facing a crisis at a global level—I don't need to tell a man of Ukraine that—at the moment, in different ways.

But this Bill does seek to create a firmer foundation for our democracy for the future. We welcome that in terms of the provisions regarding automatic voter registration—hopefully, that will then enable us to get more people to participate in our democratic processes. The piloting process, having a process of pilot schemes, enables us to continually innovate, to try ideas out—some will succeed and some won't. That's the only way that we can improve our democracy and keep it contemporary for the future.

The provisions relating to promoting diversity within our democratic system, at all levels, is so very important. We can't do our work of representing the people unless all people are represented here. And therefore, the suggestions in the Bill relating to building on the process already in place in terms of funding and supporting disabled people to participate in elections, and to extend that then to other traditionally under-represented groups, are to be welcomed.

We also welcome the strengthening and enhancing of the functioning of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru, as it's called in this Act. That is to be welcomed, and there is a reference in the explanatory memorandum to the broader role of this commission in advising Welsh Ministers on the health of our democracy. So, it's good to see that broader capacity being developed—a body that is rooted in Wales and that is focused on our democracy. The section of the Bill about creating an information platform is also so very important in terms of ensuring that we secure a level of understanding of our democracy amongst our citizens.

So, we do welcome many elements, but we want more, of course, and we will be introducing amendments to that end. We support the RNIB's proposal, which has already been mentioned. I would still want to see our election returning officers being captured by Welsh language standards. We welcome the suggestions made by committees to improve the accountability of the democracy commission. 

We would also want to introduce and explore, Dirprwy Lywydd, some amendments that will look at other elements where we do need to be aware of the challenges to our democracy, such as the epidemic of abuse, particularly the abuse of women, in our democratic system. Can we do more in that area? Disinformation and misinformation, which is also a plague on our democracy—is there more that we can do in that regard? Strengthening and expanding further the function of the commission—we do have some ideas about strengthening the penalties in the Bill in terms of illegal activities, and so on. And expanding the scope for the pilot process that we have.

So, we welcome the general principles and the core framework. We do have some further ideas that we will be discussing at the next legislative stages, and we look forward to that debate when it comes.  

I'd like to begin my contribution by welcoming automatic registration of voters for Welsh elections and referendums. Under the current system introduced in 2014, voters must submit an application in order to exercise their democratic right, and, as a result, in 2022 the Electoral Commission highlighted that nearly 10 per cent of those eligible to vote in England were not registered. 

I'm proud that our Welsh Labour Government is taking a different path to the UK Government, and is making a concerted effort to ensure voting is as easy as possible, rather than putting up barriers in the form of application processes and photo ID requirements. However, some concerns have been raised as to whether the period between notifying an individual of the intention to register and adding them to the register is sufficient, as has been said.

I would also like to support what has been said by the Women's Equality Network Wales, emphasising that there might not be enough time for persons to gather information to support an anonymous application, and I trust this is an issue the Counsel General will take extremely seriously and look to rectify. 

I'm pleased to see section 27 provides for the creation of a Welsh information platform to provide electors with up-to-date information relating to Senedd and council elections, including the publication of candidate statements. As a former postwoman, I had many complaints about the volume of election literature and trees coming through the doors. It had been suggested to me then that an online platform would be more sustainable, which would allow people to have access to reliable fact-checked information on a single platform. We also heard from the RNIB that digital resources would be useful for those who are blind and partially sighted. I understand that the platform will be managed by the electoral management board, but I want to stress that it is vital that information on the platform be up to date, objective and accurate at all times.

I also welcome section 28 to promote diversity in persons seeking elected office, and this includes obligations under the socioeconomic duty. The line of services that may be provided to increase diversity include a range of support, which is really welcome.

And finally, I believe the financial assistance schemes are a really positive step in helping candidates that have specific protected characteristics to overcome barriers to participation. It's vital that the Welsh Government puts steps in place so that all candidates are aware of the financial assistance available, and that support is received in a timely manner. But I would also like to see a financial assistance scheme extended to those who have caring responsibilities. This can be a huge barrier to standing for election and disproportionately impacts on women. As being a carer is not a protected characteristic, the additional challenges facing those with caring responsibilities are often hidden and not included in equalities monitoring. I want to see this change, and I hope the Welsh Government will consider looking into this going forward. Thank you.    

As the Plaid Cymru spokesperson on equality, I would like to ask some specific questions today on how this Bill addresses the diversity of candidates, how it considers their needs and how it supports them. Adam Price has already mentioned the importance of this, and Carolyn Thomas has also touched on some of the elements of this. And I'd like to thank Women's Equality Network Wales for keeping an eagle eye on this legislation that we're creating in this place, in order to ensure that we do give full consideration to diversity and equality.

Section 26 of the Bill removes the requirement to set out the wording and format of the local government candidate survey questions in regulations in order to provide flexibility. The explanatory memorandum notes that future changes to the wording will be guided by a stakeholder group. Although, of course, I do welcome this, this flexibility to reflect evolution in terms of language and changes in requirements, I think that we need to balance that with the need for robust data gathering over time.

The Women's Equality Network Wales has recommended that the survey should also gather data on candidates' experience of harassment and abuse, and, of course, ensuring that the appropriate precautions are in place. That was addressed in the White Paper on electoral administration and reform. And despite the support of almost 70 per cent of respondents, the proposal was not part of the Bill, and I agree with WEN that this is a missed opportunity, perhaps, to establish a much-needed evidence base regarding one of the main barriers to elected office, and to send a message also in terms of the importance and seriousness of considering harassment and abuse of candidates.

WEN has also drawn attention to the fact that, although the White Paper explores a range of measures to mitigate harassment and abuse, the subject is not present at all in the Bill or in the explanatory memorandum. So, Counsel General, how is the Welsh Government trying to support candidates in Welsh elections who experience harassment and abuse?

Section 28 of the Bill creates a general statutory duty on Welsh Ministers to implement services to promote diversity in the Senedd and local government, as we've heard, such as information, training, mentoring and the provision of resources. However, no support is included in this section to tackle two of the main barriers that women in particular face when standing for election, namely harassment and abuse, and, as we heard from Carolyn Thomas, caring responsibilities.

We need clear commitments, together with firm timetables, if we want to see a real change in the diversity of the candidates who will stand in our next election. So, how will the Welsh Government ensure that services to promote diversity within the Senedd are in place before 2026?

Section 29 of the Bill requires Welsh Ministers to provide a financial support scheme to support disabled candidates. This has been piloted under the access to elected office fund for the Senedd elections in 2021 and the local government elections in 2022, and we welcome the fact that this scheme is being put on a statutory footing. However, the limited progress on expanding the scheme to support candidates with other protected characteristics, which was a commitment in the programme for government, is very disappointing.

In its written response to the consultation on the Bill by the Local Government and Housing Committee, WEN Wales set out why the barriers relating to caring responsibilities are similar enough to the current scheme that this expansion can be prioritised. In particular, the remuneration bodies for the Senedd and local government already provide support for expenses related to care, just as they do for expenses related to health conditions or impairments. Given that the decisions of the two remuneration bodies deemed it appropriate to provide financial support in both cases, it surprises me somewhat that the Welsh Government has not come to the same conclusion in terms of the support considered appropriate for candidates standing for elected office.

Their presentation also reviewed the evidence available from the Welsh Government, including the summary of responses to the consultation on the White Paper, research commissioned on the expansion of the scheme, and the review of the pilot fund. And even though each of these contains evidence in favour of extending financial support for candidates with unpaid caring responsibilities, none of these documents contain any significant concerns or objections against doing so. Therefore, in the face of the substantial evidence here in favour of providing—

Sioned, you have to conclude now.

—financial support for candidates with caring responsibilities, why are there no provisions included in the Bill? How is the Welsh Government trying to support candidates with caring responsibilities, such as parents and unpaid carers—a great many of whom are women—in the Welsh elections?

I call on the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Perhaps if I start with some of the points that have been most recently made, and can I just say, right at the beginning, it's impossible for me to answer every single point that's been raised? But I'm very grateful for what is a very constructive set of contributions throughout, and I think that recognises that this is really groundbreaking and very important legislation. Can I just thank the opposition as well for their support for the general principles? And, of course, as we move on to Stage 2, that will focus on some of the areas that have actually been raised.

Can I just say, in the points, a number of Members have raised the issue of diversity? Diversity, I think, is a fundamentally important part of this. Of course, there is provision in respect of the Electoral Commission reporting on steps taken. There is provision within the legislation in respect of support, in respect of disabilities. There is also, within it, I think, another groundbreaking part of this legislation that relates to the introduction of socioeconomic criteria. That was explained at the committee as something that really is work in progress, which we really do need to address, but I think it may well be the factor that enables us to actually look at those examples. The difficulty, of course, is we need that sort of provision in terms of what we can and we can't do. 

In terms of the candidate surveys, well, I think that's really important. The reason we built in the flexibility is not to try and restrict, but it's to open up, because I think all sorts of additional questions may well arise. And I think the point you raised in terms of particularly those vulnerable voters and the concerns they have—they're really important. So, the issue of vulnerable persons and the provisions as to how they would be able to register, register anonymously, or ensure that their safety and their concerns are protected, is very much uppermost in our minds in terms of the pilots. 

Just to say, on the comments on the pilots, well, of course, we can't have the pilots until we've got the power to actually have them. I've given the assurance that the pilot we want to undertake is in respect of auto-registration. And just to say also that auto-registration is not auto-voting—there's no compulsion to vote. It just means you can't actually exercise your choice, unless you're in a position to be able to vote. And this legislation is about actually maximising that. But one of the intentions of the pilots is clearly going to be to actually see how that works. 

Sam, you made comments about the previous pilots we had. Those pilots were never intended and were never going to suddenly deliver this massive upsurge of people voting. What they were about was always to show how you can use technology to do things differently, to do things better. And much of this Bill is about that auto-registration and all the opportunities of having a fairer and more open electoral system, with the digitisation of the sector and with the use of modern technology, and that equally applies in terms of, I think, the diversity issue and those with various disabilities.

In terms of the information platform, well, obviously, that we want to be operated by the electoral management board, but with technology, with changes, the things that might happen in the future, I don't think we want to legislation to say, 'It can only be—'; it may be that there will be proposals that will actually say that it could be done far better in a different way. So, we would not want to have to, then, re-legislate in order to do something that is actually practically and technologically a significant improvement. But those recommendations would only come from the various electoral bodies that are actually engaged in this. 

The issue in terms of financial costings, well, one of the issues around pilots is, of course, to actually give us an indication as to how much things actually do cost and what the challenges will be with that. So, I hope we've given as much information as we can around that.

Can I also say, there were one or two other areas that had been raised? My notes are beginning to look like a general practitioner's prescription. [Laughter.] What I will be doing, of course, is writing to all the committees, setting out a response. And, of course, this is a process of engagement as well. So, as we get towards Stage 2, there will be further engagement on that.

Can I perhaps reflect on the points that Adam raised as well? Ultimately, what this is about is about strengthening our democracy. It's about dragging it in to the twenty-first century, making it open, fairer and more inclusive. And I do look forward to engaging with Members. If I've missed some points now, obviously I will address them in due course. And I give this assurance of continuance of engagement with Members. This is legislation that the Senedd owns and it's something that I think is very important for the future of our democracy. 

Adam raised the issue of the strengthening of our democracy and I think we should see this process, really, as a significant contribution towards that. I think this is groundbreaking legislation and I know the eyes of the other nations of the UK are on this and what we are trying to achieve here. Diolch yn fawr.  

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 8. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Next, the proposal is to agree the motion under item 9. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time. 

The first vote is on the debate on the draft budget 2024-25. And I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, there were 12 abstentions and 28 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed. 

I now call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 30, 12 abstentions and 12 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed. 

The next vote will be on the debate on the steel industry in Wales. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed. 

We'll move now to a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 54, no abstentions and none against. The motion is, therefore, agreed.

That brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.